Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own
Quote | Reply
It's pretty disturbing to see that there are republicans who oppose Bush's plan to give substantial federal assistance to the Gulf Coast when you can bet that these same pols signed off on each and every spending bill for the Iraq war without a word of complaint, knowing all along that the war was essentially baseless. They give POTUS a blank check for the war but when it comes to helping our own they suddenly become budget watchdogs. So much for "values." Just pathetic.

September 16, 2005
G.O.P. Split Over Big Plans for Storm Spending
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - The drive to pour tens of billions of federal dollars into rebuilding the hurricane-battered Gulf Coast is widening a fissure among Republicans over fiscal policy, with more of them expressing worry about unbridled spending.

On Thursday, before President Bush's speech about his vision of the post-storm recovery, fiscal conservatives from the House and Senate joined budget watchdog groups in demanding that the administration offer ways to offset the money being provided for the region and be more judicious in asking for taxpayer dollars. In his address from New Orleans, besides laying out a sweeping federal role in the recovery, the president emphasized the importance of private entrepreneurship to create jobs "and help break the cycle of poverty."

One fiscal conservative, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, said Thursday, "I don't believe that everything that should happen in Louisiana should be paid for by the rest of the country. I believe there are certain responsibilities that are due the people of Louisiana."

Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, called for restoring "sanity" to federal participation in the recovery, which is at $62 billion and rising fast. The House and Senate approved tax relief Thursday at an estimated cost of more than $5 billion on top of $3.5 billion in housing vouchers approved by the Senate on Wednesday.

"We know we need to help, but throwing more and more money without accountability at this is not going to solve the problem," Mr. DeMint said.

Their comments were in marked contrast to the administration approach thus far and a call by Senate Republican leaders for a rebuilding effort similar to the Marshall Plan after World War II. Congressional Democrats advocated their own comprehensive recovery program Thursday, promoting a combination of rebuilding programs coupled with housing, health care, agriculture and education initiatives.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said he believed that providing rapid and extensive help overrode the need to cut spending elsewhere. "I think we have to understand that we have a devastation that has to be taken care of," Mr. Reid said. "And I'm not into finding where we can cut yet."

That mindset is troubling to other lawmakers who fear that in addition to a reborn Gulf Coast, something else will rise from the storm: record federal deficits.

"We know this is a huge bill," said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona. "We don't want to lay it on future generations."

Given the fierce political backlash to the stumbling relief effort in the days after the hurricane struck, House Republican leaders have been reluctant to stand in the way of any emergency legislation. But they are increasingly edgy about the White House's push for a potentially open-ended recovery budget, worried that the president - in trying to regroup politically - was making expensive promises they would have to keep.

"We are not sure he knows what he is getting into," said one senior Republican official who requested anonymity because of the potential consequences of publicly criticizing the administration.

The fears about the costs of the storm are building on widespread dissatisfaction among conservatives about spending in recent years by the Republican-controlled Congress. That unrest was already high after Congressional approval of a transportation measure that critics denounced as bloated with marginal home-state projects.

That sore spot was rubbed raw earlier this week when Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, suggested that the Republican Congress had already trimmed much of the fat from the federal budget, making it difficult to find ways to offset hurricane spending.

Mr. Coburn called such a claim ludicrous and other Republicans took exception as well.

"There has never been a time where there is more total spending and more wasteful spending in Washington than we have today," said Pat Toomey, a former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania and the head of the conservative Club for Growth. "There is ample opportunity to find the offsets we need so that this does not have to be a fiscal disaster as well as a natural disaster."

On another front, Republicans and Democrats continued their dispute over how to investigate government failures in the storm response. The House approved a select committee to oversee the inquiry despite Democratic objections that only a special commission outside of Congress could do a credible job.

The House voted 224 to 188 to establish a 20-member panel to work in concert with a similar Senate panel in studying the adequacy of local, state and federal preparations for the storm and why the relief effort was so troubled, stranding thousands in chaotic conditions without sufficient food, water or medical care.

Representative David Dreier, Republican of California and chairman of the Rules Committee, angrily denied Democratic assertions that the plan to place the Republican majority in control of the inquiry was an effort to spare Congress and the Bush administration from blame.

"It is absolutely absurd to believe that any member of this House would not want to get to the truth of exactly what happened in the case of Hurricane Katrina," Mr. Dreier said.

But Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, said the special committee was an effort to "whitewash" the inquiry though she later said she would not stand in the way if Democrats want to sit on the panel.

As for paying for the recovery, Ms. Pelosi said the enormous cost called for creative thinking and she raised the possibility of special 50-year bonds tied to the reconstruction.

The conservative Republicans who are worried about the outlays said the president and Congressional leaders need to ask the public to share in the sacrifice and suggested savings could be easily wrung from federal agencies or in Congress in ways like eliminating pet projects.

"Katrina breaks my heart," said Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana and chairman of a caucus of more than 100 House Republicans who advocate conservative spending policy. "Congress must do everything the American people expect us to do to meet the needs of families and communities affected by Katrina. But we must not let Katrina break the bank for our children and grandchildren."
Last edited by: rundhc: Sep 15, 05 20:54
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [rundhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There is nothing conservative about the Presidents spending. Whether it be on the war or at home.
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [Wolfwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
There is nothing conservative about the Presidents spending. Whether it be on the war or at home.
Agreed. Spending is out of control.
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fine, so spending is out of control. Now which budget do you cut? The one for the baseless war, or the other for the Americans who lost everything in the hurricaine? Somehow I am waiting to be disappointed.
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [rundhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The money's already been allocated and spent for both...so neither is the answer. Guess we'll have to find another one.
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [rundhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How about the budget of huge pork like prescription drug or energy bills? Or how about not increasing the omnibus spending like rabid dogs.
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [rundhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
when you can bet that these same pols signed off on each and every spending bill for the Iraq war without a word of complaint, knowing all along that the war was essentially baseless. They give POTUS a blank check for the war but when it comes to helping our own they suddenly become budget watchdogs. So much for "values." Just pathetic.

So, it basically sounds like your basing this whole post on conjecture and not actual facts. Have you looked into these Senators comments on Iraq spending? Do you have any idea if they actually commented on the Iraq spending bills? It doesn't really sound like it and if you don't then your post is really about nothing except your own opinion that conservatives suck and how much you dislike them.
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [rundhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What I want are hard facts, not political speak. Money is already being spent and no-bid contracts are already being handed out (I understand that the timely nature of getting some of this done precludes a drawn out bidding process).

Who's going to pay for the rebuilding of all these peoples homes? Will it be the insurance companies? If they didn't have insurance, is the federal goverment going to build them a new house? Buy them a new SUV? Etc.
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [rundhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
We can start by getting rid of the Medicare prescription drug plan. From there we can deep six the highway bill and the energy bill. After that we can whack farm subsidies.

The funny thing is, you wouldn't even have to get past the first item on my list. Let's just do them all anyway.
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]We can start by getting rid of the Medicare prescription drug plan. From there we can deep six the highway bill and the energy bill. After that we can whack farm subsidies.

The funny thing is, you wouldn't even have to get past the first item on my list. Let's just do them all anyway.[/reply]

What is the yearly cost of Medicare? (from what I can find out quickly, around 200 billion a year?)
What is the yearly cost of Iraq war? (seems to be about the same price as Medicare)
Last edited by: haris: Sep 16, 05 6:57
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [Tyrius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The record shows that these senators never voted against Iraq spending. I take it that their votes are their opinions.
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [haris] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Maybe you can try to read. I spoke about the recently passed Medicare prescription drug benefit that has yet to go into effect.

Somehow, someway the union has survived some 230 years without free Viagra to our senior citizens. Yet, against all odds, deprived of their God given right to free Viagra, our senior citizens have somehow managed to get richer and live longer and healthier every year for generations.

This plan alone will rapidly head for $100 billion per year. Other items on my list amount to about half as much or more every year.

When it comes to opportunities to cut federal spending, there is just no end.

Other than that, great point.
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [haris] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I really wait for the day that a fiscal conservative in the senate will get up there and say Iraq is a waste of our money and we need to get out. Although I won't agree with him, I will at least admire their intellectual honesty and their consistent approach to making decisions -- something I haven't seen much of in the past 4 years. Until then, I don't have much sympathy for their sudden urge to become fiscally responsible when we have Americans genuinely suffering, and when they have been backing reckless spending policies for the past 4 years.
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Holy shit, I'm agreeing with Art again.

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [mopdahl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Insults like that never stopped me before mopdahl.
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [rundhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I really wait for the day that a fiscal conservative in the senate will get up there and say Iraq is a waste of our money and we need to get out.



And which liberal senator has done this?
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [armytriguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't think many liberals campaign under the guise of fiscal responsibility.
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [rundhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The record shows that these senators never voted against Iraq spending. I take it that their votes are their opinions.

So, how did these Senators vote on the Katrina relief package? I don't think they voted against it, just expressed their concerns that they were spending money they didn't have. Is it to much to ask that you be consistent in your comparisons?

To answer my own question so that I know it is answered factually. The 57.8 billion dollar package passed 97-0 in the Senate so based upon your logic and their votes being their opinions those Senators are for the aid package.
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [Tyrius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How about putting it another way. I know that I never heard republicans bitching and moaning about the cost of the war. That story never made it to the front page of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. (Both papers feature stories today about republican resistance to Bush's plan.) Fiscal prudence never figured into the equation. But suddenly it's important to be a budgetary hawk when we're dealing with a domestic crisis. Says a lot about what the right wing values and what it doesn't.
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [Tyrius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BTW, 11 republicans in the house voted against the aid package. I suspect the number will be higher when Bush comes back to the well. All the brouhaha started after the initial vote.
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [rundhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Guess you didn't try very hard.

"At a time when our soldiers are risking their lives in defense of freedom, members of Congress should have the courage to take political risks to oppose egregious and reckless spending," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

Said in response to Senate Approves Spending Bill $81 Billion to Finance Wars, Baghdad Embassy. see http://www.washingtonpost.com/...A7684-2005Apr21.html

He even submitted amemendments to the Iraq spending bills.

Coburn Amendment No. 471, to reduce appropriations for the Iraqi embassy to reduce outlays expected to occur in fiscal year 2007 or later. (By 54 yeas to 45 nays (Vote No. 104), Senate tabled the amendment.)

Those took me five minutes of searching on just one of the Senators to find. I can't answer for the editors of the Journal or the Times, but if you are solely dependent upon the newspapers for your viewpoints you're going to find yourself ill informed on a lot of subjects.
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [Tyrius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It was my last day of vacation and had to get my last good ride in. I will try harder next time :)
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"our senior citizens have somehow managed to get richer and live longer and healthier every year for generations."

Living longer, yes, but healthier ??? A big percentage of our seniors are not doing so hot, this I know. The hurricane revealed how many are hanging on by a thread ... I don't know enough about Medicare to decide what to cut or not, but I would guess there are more than a few able-bodied people on 'disability' out there, while those that really need the help don't get it.

I definitely do not have a problem upping the age to get SSI to 70, but that wouldn't be too popular (yeah, I know its a totally different system). I'm pretty sure we would get by fine with a smaller military budget, but that wouldn't be so popular either. There are many places to cut, you are right.
Quote Reply
Re: Conservative values: Waging war v. helping your own [armytriguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There are conservatives and liberals in the house who want us out of Iraq (Didn't 100+ vote for that recently?), but senators are weenies.
Quote Reply