“This should be the last stopgap bill. At a time we’re engaged in two wars, with a fragile economy, Washington needs to promote continuity and stability,” said Senator Nelson. “Instead, Washington continues to kick the can down the road in this irresponsible way only because it refuses to set aside partisan politics.”
Harry Reid and the rest of Ben’s fellow Democrats need to set aside their irresponsible, hyper-partisan, obstructionist agenda, and get serious about cutting the budget.
Do I really need to state the obvious?
From Ben Nelson’s website:
Sounds impressive, doesn’t it?
Impressive, but ultimately meaningless.
Ben’s amendment is a “Sense of the Senate” amendment. It is a non-binding amendment. It does nothing but give Ben, and the 98 other senators that voted for it, another opportunity to demonstrate their “seriousness” about budget cuts without having to actually cut anything.
Who do you think cast the lone vote against Nelson’s meaningless amendment?
Yesterday, Ben Nelson voted against both the Republican and Democrat spending plans, claiming “neither one is serious.”
If Nelson really wants to get serious about “runaway government spending,” why doesn’t he support Rand Paul’s plan to cut $500 billion? That’s $500 billion in one year.
Republican freshman Sen. Rand Paul introduced legislation Tuesday that seeks to cut $500 billion from government spending in one year alone, wiping out three cabinet departments and the entire foreign aid budget while sparing neither the Pentagon nor 2011 war-related funding for overseas military operations.
Sounds good to me. At least it’s a serious start.
Come on, Ben. Grow a pair. Sen. Paul could use the support.
The Democrats are, in effect, now arguing that Walker is being unreasonable by being reasonable. By calling their bluff, Walker has exposed their line about his “inflexibility” as a pure hot air. Their current stance amounts to “we’re against anything that might make Scott Walker look good.” [my emphasis]
Hah! I’m pretty sure that’s been the Dems approach in general. Oppose whatever Republicans support.
But it’s not about the money…
While protesters roared that their objection to Walker’s plan wasn’t “about the money,” their bargaining units were working furiously behind the scenes to grab as much cash as possible before Walker dropped the guillotine.
* * * *
A single case pending before the National Labor Relations Board has the potential to match or even exceed the significance of the events transpiring in Ohio and Wisconsin. Yet the case has flown under the radar screens of mainstream media, most employers, and the general public.
* * * * *
But it’s not all bad news. In Michigan, an attempt to force private day care providers in that state to become members of a public sector union failed. Michelle Malkin followed the story as it unfolded back in 2009.
Union conspirators were UAW and AFSCM, with an assist from the Michigan Employment Relations Committee (i.e., a state agency).
* * * * *
Finally, Daniel DiSalvo on Why the Unions Fight (from The Weekly Standard):
So we come to where the rubber meets the road: the money unions spend on politicking. This money originates with taxpayers, who pay public employees’ salaries, a portion of which is deducted in the form of union dues and then used by the unions to support, almost exclusively, the Democratic party. The public, in effect, subsidizes a powerful demand for bigger government and higher taxes.