Lame Duck? Not So Far
George Bush has turned out to be the master of misunderestimation. Following the 2006 election, Democrats crowed over President Bush's lame-duck status, insisting that they now controlled the agenda on all fronts and that Bush should commence capitulation as quickly as possible to avoid the pain of humiliation. Almost a year later, the Democrats have lost on almost every major issue, and on the one agenda item they won -- a minimum-wage increase -- they won it by attaching to their biggest loss of all, the supplemental for Iraq War spending.
Now it looks like they face another fight with Bush, and this time he will likely have the nation on his side:
The White House and Congress are heading for what President Bush predicts will be a "fiscal showdown" at a time when the nation's financial health has actually improved for the moment.After years of record-high deficits, both parties are now projecting that the budget can be balanced by 2012. But as each side seeks to outmaneuver the other politically heading into next year's elections, the rhetorical battle between Bush and lawmakers over spending has never been more heated.
Bush used an appearance here Monday to chastise Democratic leaders for failing to send him even one of the 12 annual spending bills more than two weeks into the new fiscal year, and he eagerly vowed to veto what he deems excessive spending. Democrats fired back by highlighting the one veto Bush has exercised: the rejection of a dramatic expansion of a popular children's health insurance program.
The backdrop for this confrontation belies its intensity. Just last week, the Office of Management and Budget reported that the deficit in the 2007 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, fell to $163 billion, barely half of what it was two years ago and the lowest in five years. While still a hefty chunk of money, the deficit now represents just 1.2 percent of the overall economy, lower than the average rate over the past four decades.
The appropriations bills had a deadline of September 30th. Last year at this time, the Democrats had castigated the Republicans for failing to deliver all of the appropriations on time; this year, all of the bills have yet to get a floor vote. The government has continued operating on supplementals, which freeze spending at the prior year's levels. That might help with the deficits, but it doesn't help Congress get its pet spending projects into place, and the frustration will no doubt erupt shortly.
The White House has the winning hand in this debate. There are few people in America who thinks the government doesn't spend enough money, and vast multitudes who think they spend far too much, regardless of priorities. Democrats hoped to embarrass Bush on S-CHIP, but as a USA Today poll discovered, people also don't want the federal government to subsidize middle-class health care.
The Democrats misunderstood the message of 2006. Voters wanted an end to spending and corruption, not an amplification of either or both. Republicans lost in Congress because they acted like Democrats, spending like drunken sailors. Now they want to attack Bush by spending even more wildly than the Republicans and expect him to retreat, but Bush has finally found a hill on which he can fight successfully. The S-CHIP debate showed that, and the budget-busting proposals from the Democrats will return the GOP to the side of fiscal responsibility in 2008.
Of course, that assumes that the Democrats actually generate the spending bills at all before the next recess. So far, they seem very reluctant to reveal their spending plans. Perhaps they learned something after all...
Posted by Ed Morrissey on October 16, 2007 8:38 AM | Comments (46) | TrackBacks (2)
Comments (46)
Posted by dave rywall | October 16, 2007 9:11 AM
1. The Dems sure have shown themselves to be big talkers but pussy walkers. They have been truly awful and ineffective.
2. Bush's quaint little town hall meetings with friendly fawning audiences are really offensive. They're a complete waste of everybody's time.
Posted by Jeff from Mpls | October 16, 2007 9:19 AM
The righteousness of upright men delivers them, but transgressors are caught in their own destruction.
Proverbs 11:6
Posted by FedUp | October 16, 2007 9:31 AM
I'm sure that congress had many more important issues to consider than the budget... like naming post offices... going on witch hunts... castigating Rush Limbaugh... burying 'secret' earmarks...
Congress should be held accountable... like, no paycheck or bennies until the bills are sent to the President. It's not like the budget is a surprise, it happens EVERY YEAR! Morons!
Posted by johnnycab23513 | October 16, 2007 9:41 AM
Maybe we are better off with supplemental after supplemental. It seems to be the only way to keep these high rollers from sneaking useless pork around the system.
Posted by swabjockey05 | October 16, 2007 9:52 AM
Skipper,
Why do you keep bad-mouthing your swabbie shipmates? What do you mean by "...they acted like Democrats, spending like drunken sailors."
I've seen drunken sailors. The Dhimmis are no drunken sailors.
When us inebriated swabbies hit the foreign Liberty Ports…and begin “contributing to the local economy” ... at least we are spending OUR OWN MONEY!!!
Posted by CoRev | October 16, 2007 10:13 AM
The budget should balance in 2009. so the next president will get credit. Spending has NOT been out of control. spending has actually been restrained. The deficit has been going down since 2004 due largely to reduced spending relative to the increased economy. (Ergo controlled spending.)
Those who watch the budget and deficit know that a large part of the increase is due to the increase in the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF). We have been taking in much more FICA than going out. The SS Law, passed in 1937, mandated that those surpluses go to the "General Fund" and a non-transferable bond be placed in the treasury. Twenty three years of surpluses and now the INTEREST on those surpluses are becoming significant. I think the SSTF is now over $2T of the $9T fed debt.
Some myths to keep in mind: 1) Bush is not stealing from the SSTF. All presidents since 1937 have treated it the same way. 2) The deficit is NOT federal debt. They are related, but definitely not the same thing. 3) General Fund deficits, the difference in expenditures not covered by the the SSTF, are not possible to cut without paying down US Treasuries which are used primarily for pensions. Pay them down significantly and your Granny, or in my case, myself, need to search for some other pension vehicle that will be less safe.
Posted by BurfordHolly | October 16, 2007 10:23 AM
This "deficit is 1.2% of GNP" is like a 500 lb man saying they "only gained 30 pounds last year."
The DEBT is close to 10 Trillion and the GNP is about 14 Trillion, which means we are close to being completely bankrupt. This is causing the value of the dollar to collapse and oil is heading for $100 a barrel - but only for America.
The other thing is that interest payments are something like 20% of the budget. This is money that Bush has promised to repay to China and Dubai. China will build its army and universities, while Dubai will simply buy our infrastructure out from under us. Want to ratchet that up to 50% of the budget? Why not just mail your paycheck straight to China?
Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 16, 2007 10:27 AM
Of course, there's always the fact that the country detests the president and the Republican party in Congress. Your message is much less effective when delivered by people who the country doesn't trust on economic issues at all.
Posted by Angry Dumbo | October 16, 2007 10:38 AM
The S-CHIP debate showed that, and the budget-busting proposals from the Democrats will return the GOP to the side of fiscal responsibility in 2008.
I love the sentiment, but I'm still waiting for Senator Stevens to retire. One more retirement, please (maybe two, if you count the retired/unretired/may retire Senator Wide Stance).
Time to clear the dead wood.
Posted by patrick neid | October 16, 2007 10:55 AM
Better late than never.
That said Bush and the repubs, from 2000-06 blew an opportunity of historic proportion with their "bridge to nowhere". As a consequence a lot of Bush's rhetoric at these town halls seems hypocritical. Discussing budgets in percents of GNP falls on deaf ears. Never vetoing a spending bill proposed by out of control repubs and their earmarks is what resonates--even if it is an inaccurate sketch.
Posted by docjim505 | October 16, 2007 11:09 AM
Ditto patrick reid: Better late than never, but it's hard to believe that Bush or the GOP will actually try to hold the line on spending. After all, they haven't for these past several years when they COULD have done a lot to get the budget balanced and perhaps even start trying to pay down the debt.
Time will tell, but I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by Jon | October 16, 2007 12:13 PM
First off I’m no expert in economics but having stated that up front there are some things about the whole blame the ‘govment’ debt/deficit debate that bother me. I do think our government deserves its share of blame in running up our national debt by spending beyond the revenues it collects but so in essence do we as consumers.
We have a trade deficit that sucks dollars out of our economy year after year both from buying cheaper foreign products and labor. Where do those dollars come from? If I have a hundred dollars and I pay my neighbors $10 a week but they only pay me $5 I’m going to have a problem after a while. Pretty soon I’m either going to have to start printing money or start writing IOUs. That’s the position our government finds it’s self in. Fortunately for us so far the rest of the world believes that currency and debt instruments that have the backing of the United States have value.
As a side note, when the government spends money where do you think it goes? For the most part it supports American corporations and businesses, that’s dollars being pumped back into our economy.
Posted by John | October 16, 2007 1:29 PM
Good headline, Captain. How many MSM "Bush, lame duck" stories appeared in the 7-10 days after Rove announced his retirement? Funny how scattering about 16 hand grenades over the political landscape can make those stories fade away.
I speculate that those "lame duck" stories were a classic case of projection. Bush's critics were (and are) congenitally incapable of giving him any credit for anything, so all credit for everything went to the machinations of "Bush's brain."
If you're reasoning on these assumptions, when Rove leaves, the Bush administration is over. Hence all the lame-duck stories. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!
Never misunderestimate a president who has no future political ambitions.
Posted by mw | October 16, 2007 2:06 PM
Divided government really does work best.
Its the only way to vote.
Posted by NoDonkey | October 16, 2007 2:27 PM
So instead of a lame-duck President, what we have is a really, really lame Congress?
Agree.
Or to be even more precise, a lame donkey Congress.
And what do we do with lame donkeys?
Just sayin'.
Posted by Rick LaBonte | October 16, 2007 2:28 PM
Republicrats or Demmicans?
Hooray for the Demmicans! Give taxpayers a break - let's never vote on another federal spending bill. It won't affect me in the least - I'm a european american male - the government does nothing for me anyway. Best news I've seen all day - keep up the good work - shut down the government! YAYYYYYYY!
Vote for the Republicrat/Demmican More Government Waste Party - For The Chilluns!
Posted by Count to 10 | October 16, 2007 2:35 PM
Keep in mind that, by holding our debt, other countries are placing trust in us. Should China go to war with the US, it can count on all of those treasury bonds it holds as assets vanishing into thin air. The trade "deficit" should properly be seen as an investment surplus.
And last I remember, I thought national debt was something like 20% of GDP. Is it really up to 80%? Something seems fishy about that. Maybe I'm just mis-remembering.
Posted by Jan | October 16, 2007 3:25 PM
Bush may or may not be a "lame duck." I don't really know how to come to a conclusion one way or another, even though you are already willing to claim a "win" by him in the budget battles.
What I *WILL* bet on is that, because of Bush, the Republican Party will be out of power for at least a generation.
Anyone here thinking the Republicans will be taking back the Senate in 2008?
No?
Thank Bush.
Posted by Steve Slatten | October 16, 2007 3:33 PM
Wow, the level of Republican self-delusion on this board is even higher than on other sites. Anyway, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Junior is the lamest of ducks. So he managed to prevent some school kids from getting health care with a veto. Not exactly a milestone in presidential politics. First, there's a decent chance that congress will over-ride that veto, due to the defection of some REPUBLICAN House members. Second, let Junior just try to change policy on the war (other than bringing the troops hom, of course.) Congress will squish him like a bug. Anyway, it's always cute when Republicans try to pretend that everything's okay with their dud of a president. I really wish I could live in RepublicanLand, where the war's going great and the economy's booming. But the truth is that the GOP is sinking quickly. Dems have out-raised y'all by 3-to-1. Your congressmen are either being indicted for taking bribes or getting arrested for lewd behavior in public bathrooms. So, you folks can write all the "positive" self-help articles you want, but I hate to tell ya: It's over.
Posted by ned terry | October 16, 2007 3:53 PM
Since the republican party is in such good shape, someone should tell all of the retiring represenatives and senators that good times are just around the corner.
Or maybe the republicans who actually have to run for reelection again are able to see the grim reality of november 2008.
Posted by Rockyspoon | October 16, 2007 5:00 PM
A 500 lb man gaining 1.2% is only a 6 lb increase, something he'd probably do at Thanksgiving. So use your math wisely or you end up looking foolish.
Posted by mnjam | October 16, 2007 5:07 PM
Most citizens want to see the government solve or mitigate major problems -- something in which the Republican Party proudly proclaims that it has zero interest:
(1) They are concerned about our crumbling, increasingly inferior infrastructure. Most fail to see how using the Social Security Surplus to fund tax cuts for the rich resolves this.
(2) They are concerned about a health care system which is twice as expensive as those of other developed countries but which delivers inferior care. Most do not see how more government subsidies (tax deductions and credits) for private health carriers will somehow make our system more efficient, since the thing that most distinguishes our extraordinarly inefficient system from others in the developed world is reliance on government subsidized for profit middlemen.
(3) They are concerned about an educational system that is deteriorating at all levels. They fail to see how meaningless testing will solve the core problems -- the lack of any meaningful cirriculum and financing schools by local property taxes in a society which is increasingly aged AND increasingly residentially segregated by wealth.
The Republicans are not even discussing these and other problems, much less offering solutions. The Republican position -- that the sole government function is to maintain a military, subsidize business interests and criminalize abortion -- is intellectually and morally bankrupt.
Posted by Elais | October 16, 2007 5:26 PM
Bush used to claim he was a 'uniter and not a divider'. He also claims he was a compassionate conservative. What a liar he was.
Bush and many republicans would prefer to bomb children in Iraq than save kids lives in America.
Republicans have forgotten the American people, kicked them to the curb, told them to shut up or you're an anti-American traitor commie.
Posted by jagcap | October 16, 2007 5:47 PM
S-CHIP is Bush's Sister Souljah on fiscal responsibility... just in time and well played!
Posted by Bryan | October 16, 2007 5:52 PM
First, there's a decent chance that congress will over-ride that veto, due to the defection of some REPUBLICAN House members.
Not as likely as you may think, given the majority of voters who don't want anything to do with it. They're learning that the increased spending won't go toward "school kids" but toward upper-middle class adults. No sale.
Second, let Junior just try to change policy on the war (other than bringing the troops hom, [sic] of course.) Congress will squish him like a bug.
Actually, I believe it's CONGRESS who want a policy change in Iraq, and Bush has repeatedly squashed them. The last Iraq policy change that Bush wanted (The Surge), he got.
I really wish I could live in RepublicanLand, where the war's going great
Umm, read the news much? Although it may not be "going great", there has been significant improvement. Enough, in fact, for many to be convinced that victory is now a possiblity.
(I especially enjoy "going great". Perhaps you need a quick refresher on elementary school grammar? Things are going well, Steve. Going WELL.)
and the economy's booming.
You're right. The economy IS in the tank. The longest (ever!) consecutive streak of months with job gains, the skyrocketing revenue despite lower taxes, the stock market hitting all-time highs. I don't know how the American people live with it.
Posted by BB | October 16, 2007 6:00 PM
Bryan: Thanks for engaging the trolls! Why, I was starting to get a little woozy from the thrashing we were taking...
Anyway, more proof that truth beats tinfoil.
Posted by docjim505 | October 16, 2007 6:03 PM
Elais: Bush and many republicans would prefer to bomb children in Iraq than save kids lives in America.
I'm afraid that you are misinformed. We would prefer to NAPALM kids in Iraq. And Iran. And Afghanistan. (Actually, my personal preference is to drop daisy cutters on handicapped orphans; that REALLY gets my rocks off) We DO want to save kids in America, though, because we need more poor people made desperate enough by The Worst Economy Since The Great Depression(TM) to join the Army to go fight wars for Halliburton.
/sarcasm
Posted by NoDonkey | October 16, 2007 6:11 PM
"told them to shut up or you're an anti-American traitor commie."
Yes, it's so painfully evident that the left has been silenced.
When is the last time we've even heard from a dissenter? 2001?
Better barricade your door Elias. No doubt the stormtroopers will be there soon with the battering ram.
I'm with you in spirit, guy. Courage.
Posted by Fight4TheRight | October 16, 2007 6:21 PM
Steve Slatten wrote:
So, you folks can write all the "positive" self-help articles you want, but I hate to tell ya: It's over.
You know Steve, you just might be right. And if there is any justice in this world, when it does happen, instead of a smirk of "I told you so" on your face, there will be a shocked look....as your elected comrades come confiscate your car and give it to the neighbor down the lane who has been out of work for the past 28 months. And there will be a bit of surprise in your eyes when your appointment for a hernia operation got moved back six months due to some "unexpected complications" in the new National Healthcare System. And perhaps even some head-shaking done by you when that $400 you put away each month into an auto deposit mutual fund now goes to pay a college education bond for somebody's kid 3500 miles away.
But don't fret...there will be 2012 and we would certainly be big enough on this side to welcome you with open arms. We won't even say, "we told you so."
Posted by Bryan | October 16, 2007 6:46 PM
We have a trade deficit that sucks dollars out of our economy
I believe you've confused a trade deficit with a trade VACUUM.
If I have a hundred dollars and I pay my neighbors $10 a week but they only pay me $5 I’m going to have a problem after a while. Pretty soon I’m either going to have to start printing money or start writing IOUs.
Wow. I don't even know quite where to begin. If your critical analysis of trade policy begins with the assumption that we're giving money to other countries without receiving goods or services in return, you may well have been a Child Left Behind.
Good thing we have a new program in place to stop that kind of thing.
As a side note, when the government spends money where do you think it goes? For the most part it supports American corporations and businesses, that’s dollars being pumped back into our economy.
Good, but where do you think the government GOT the money? From American taxpayers. So the government takes money out of the economy in order to pump it back in.
I’m no expert in economics
Correct.
Posted by Bryan | October 16, 2007 6:50 PM
Congress should be held accountable... like, no paycheck or bennies until the bills are sent to the President.
Amen, brother. In fact, I'm willing to go one step further -- Congress should get paid a fraction of their salary equal to their approval rating. Unfortunately, that would mean that current Congresspeople would be making less than the federal minimum wage.
Posted by Jan | October 16, 2007 7:13 PM
Wow, Bush sounds like he's just... just... just, like, the greatest President EVER.
So, I ask again:
Anyone posting this Loyal Bushie propanganda crap think the Republicans are taking back the Senate in 2008?
Posted by Fight4TheRight | October 16, 2007 7:49 PM
Jan,
I've almost come to the conclusion that the Republicans don't need to take the Senate back. As long as you kids keep Harry Reid running that Keystone Kops majority, I'm cool with even losing a few seats. : )
Posted by Jan | October 16, 2007 8:11 PM
re: " I'm cool with even losing a few seats. : )"
Excellent! Finally, we agree on something!
Posted by Steve Slatten | October 16, 2007 8:21 PM
Bryan. Bryan, Bryan, Bryan... Wow, what to say? You know, you've really changed my mind here. Bush is actually the greatest president of all time and I've suddenly turned Republican. I'm going to immediately start whining about taxes in public and minorities in private. Let's see, what else... I don't think I'm quite condescening enough to be Repulican yet. I'll also start criticizing people's spelling and grammar on chat boards, particularly because my favorite President, George W. Bush, hasn't given me much to brag about. Oh, you funny little Republicans. What's so humorous to me is that you still actually think Junior is a good president. I honestly respect your loyalty to the guy. It's almost like you're collectively married to him. Personally, I think it's an abusive relationship and you're probably tired of having to wear sunglasses to hide a black eye and repeatedly tell people that you fell. Face it: Bush is a clown. The current crop of Republicans are mean-spirited, angry little white men. That would be fine if they didn't preach to the rest of us about everything under the sun and whine ceaselessly. Now, please, Bryan, if there are any spelling or gramatical errors in here, let me know. I'd hate to think I went to graduate school for nothing. Dick.
Posted by Chris | October 16, 2007 8:50 PM
Steve, ever wonder what effect your emotional way of thinking has on your politics? Pretty touchy.
Also, you seem to be focused on racial issues. Do you think of people as people, or as "minorities" and "angry white men?"
I don't believe anyone here has posted under the name Richard. Who here is angry, and why?
Posted by dr kill | October 16, 2007 9:51 PM
Dear Bryan,
I read all your posts, but I can't discover where you say that G. W. is the greatest president of all time. Like me, you are probably more than a little disappointed in him and the rest of Republican Washington D.C.
Bush is at the bottom of my list of successful presidents. He was certainly only elected because his opponents were worse choices.
I also didn't find the entry where you whined about taxes. And because you only do your complaining about minorities in private I couldn't reference that, either.
Fortunately, I can take Steve's word for it. I don't know how he understands your relationship with the president so completely based on the three comments you made here concerning political and economic realities.
Steve's ability to project is uncanny. I'm sure he already knows that I am in favor of abortion, that I think invading Iraq was a mistake, and that I am an atheist.
Bryan, I don't know Steve's graduate school course of study, or if he graduated or merely attended, but I do know he spelled condescening incorrectly.
So this is my question for you.
Do you think this means I'm a Republican, or that Steve attended grad school for nothing?
Please advise.
Posted by Chicago 1234 | October 16, 2007 10:28 PM
Funny you read some of the comments and you would think Congress spends all the money. The fact is the president submitts the budgit. It is also fact that anything that comes out of Congress has to be signed by the president to become law. Over rides of presidential veto is very rare.
All that being said consider the following
Since 1776 the combined debt of the U.S government now stands at 9 trillion dollars. 70% of this debt was incurred by 3 republiCON presidents Reagan, Bush 1 and liar bush. Of the 19 budgets submitted only 2 were balanced.
So it seems only fair to me to call it a republiCON deficit.
Posted by Captain Ed | October 16, 2007 10:38 PM
Chi,
Go back to civics class. The Congress generates the budget. The President has some negotiating power through the threat of the veto, but that's it.
Posted by Fight4TheRight | October 16, 2007 11:13 PM
Steve Slatten said:
I'd hate to think I went to graduate school for nothing. Dick.
I tell ya, these guys that go to the University of Anger Management/Berkeley are such snobs!
Posted by Andrew P | October 16, 2007 11:43 PM
Lame duck, lame congress. It doesn't matter. Next year will be a huge democratic year, and with a recession all but certain for next year and 22 GOP seats up, the dems will easily clear 60 senate seats. It is even highly plausible that the dems will reach the magic 2/3 mark (67 seats), in which case it won't even matter all that much if a republican wins the presidency. I think old Dingy Harry is playing his cards just right. His eyes are on the real prize, a veto-proof democratic majority in 2009. He is not going to stick his neck out and take any real risks - like taking responsibility for the war or making any hard decisions. Dingy will let Bush have his victories now, and he will be able to smile with the knowledge that each little Bush victory makes Bush's GOP more unpopular, and each one will cost the GOP another senate seat.
Posted by Judith | October 17, 2007 12:06 AM
I think after about a year of Shrillery and Lover Boy, some people will have an awakening. They will only admit it in their bathrooms in the dark of the night, but it will be there. Maybe ignorant America needs mandatory classes in the results of socialism and the nanny state before they are allowed to vote...oh, but that would be hard for the libs because it would be difficult to get all those people in prison, in the cemetaries, and to round up all those illegals to take a reading course. First premise: All liberals are Morons. Second premise: none needed. MBA
Posted by Jon | October 17, 2007 8:03 AM
Bryan,
My comments before about our national deficits and debts were an attempt to show that everything that happens in this country is not just the responsibility of our government but also falls to us as consumers. This is why in my second sentence I did not absolve government of it’s duty to be fiscally conscientious but added that, in the case of our growing debt, our individual consumption choices have effect. I admit to some confusion as to whether my point was acceptable to you or not since you chose to critique my other statements but failed to address this issue.
-We have a trade deficit that sucks dollars out of our economy
-“I believe you've confused a trade deficit with a trade VACUUM.”
While I will give the benifit of the doubt and call this comment witty it adds nothing of substantive value.
-If I have a hundred dollars and I pay my neighbors $10 a week but they only pay me $5 I’m going to have a problem after a while. Pretty soon I’m either going to have to start printing money or start writing IOUs.
-“Wow. I don't even know quite where to begin. If your critical analysis of trade policy begins with the assumption that we're giving money to other countries without receiving goods or services in return, you may well have been a Child Left Behind.”
-“Good thing we have a new program in place to stop that kind of thing.”
Apparently I was to simplistic in my example here or perhaps my understanding of language is at fault, I apologize. I had thought that by using the word ‘pay’ that a transaction was taking place would be implied. However, you seem to have missed the point which is that a discrepancy in the flow of capital/goods/services will in time require issuing debt or creating new funds.
Your remarks about ‘new programs’ and ‘Child Left Behind’ introduce issues about government that are not germane to the current discussion about national debt.
-As a side note, when the government spends money where do you think it goes? For the most part it supports American corporations and businesses, that’s dollars being pumped back into our economy.
-“Good, but where do you think the government GOT the money? From American taxpayers. So the government takes money out of the economy in order to pump it back in.”
Very good, but now I must be the one to point out that goods and services are being exchanged, further, I can argue that the reason that we taxpayers have those dollars we are so fond of is because the government prints them, distributes them and backs their value.
-I’m no expert in economics
-“Correct.”
Once again this comment adds nothing to the discussion.
Overall, your less than stellar attempts at sarcasm provide nothing but misdirection from my point. I simply stated that we all play a small part when it comes to our nation’s debt. From other posts that you have made I would have thought that you where a person advocating the acceptance of personal responsibility, apparently not.
Posted by Steve Slatten | October 17, 2007 10:00 AM
Well, time for me to leave this little sewing circle. This is definitely one of the oddest blogs I've been to in awhile. Anyway, you ladies enjoy your tea and gossip about the evil Democrats. I'll be blogging elsewhere. Have a nice day!
Posted by William Teach | October 17, 2007 12:03 PM
Let's not forget that 140 House Dems and 10 Senate Dems, including Pelosi, Kerry, and Kennedy voted against that Bill, so they voted against the Min Wage increase. Yet, the lefty pinheads crow about raising the min wage. Go figure
Posted by William Hallowell | October 19, 2007 12:26 AM
S-CHIP is a complicated, budgetary issue. As you know, the U.S. budget needs some serious help! You should definitely check out Facing Up to the Nation’s Finances, a nonpartisan project that addresses the long-term challenges of the federal budget. Read our blog (http://facingup.org/blog), check out valuable resources and information and contribute. We'd love to have you contribute to our blog carnival! Feel free to contact me for more info.