-
Tebowing and ‘Polarizing’
June 11, 2013 | 7 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
As Joe noted below, the Ryan budget mustered just 40 votes in the Senate and not a single senator of either party voted for Obama’s budget. But the Senate also voted on two alternative Republican budgets. The budget proposed by Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) actually got the most votes, failing 42 to 55. Toomey’s budget picked up two additional Republican votes from Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky (this budget achieves balance faster than Ryan’s) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska (it doesn’t reform Medicare).
Senator Paul’s budget was voted down 7 to 90. Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Mike Lee (R-UT), David Vitter (R-LA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) joined Paul in voting yes. The yes votes by Hatch, who may face a Tea Party challenge next year, and McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, are somewhat surprising. Paul’s office pointed out that only his budget conformed to the balanced budget amendment all 47 Republicans in the Senate say they support.
It has now been 756 days since the Senate Democrats have passed a budget. Not a single Democrat voted for any of the four budgets brought up by the Senate tonight. Perhaps they should heed their fearless leader. “I do think that the Republican Party right now hasn’t sort of figured out what it’s for,” President Obama said in an interview in 2009. “And so as a proxy, they’ve just decided ‘we’re going to be against whatever the other side is for.’ That’s not what’s needed in an economic crisis.”
View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/05/25/the-paul-and-toomey-budgets-do
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Occam's Tool| 5.25.11 @ 8:33PM
I thought the Obama budget went 0-97 against. That guy knows where he's going---to a million dollar a year professorship at the Harvard School of Government, or ditto salary at U of C after he gets tail kicked in 2012.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.26.11 @ 2:54AM
"Toomey's budget picked up two additional Republican votes from Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky (this budget achieves balance faster than Ryan's)"
No, it does not. It only PROMISES to achieve balance. But the Paul budget relies on the unproven, ludicrous assumption that the US economy will somehow miraculously rebound, even absent significant economic reforms (which his budget does NOT call for), to yield additional $1.15 trillion of revenue every year. Remember, his budget calls for a mere $500 bn reduction of annual federal spending, and the FY2011 budget deficit is $1.65 trillion.
His budget cuts only discretionary spending and leaves entitlements alone, allowing them to continue to grow on autopilot. It doesn't reform the tax code, privatize stuff, or open fossil-fuel-rich-areas other than the ANWR to drillers. In other words, it's not a serious proposal, not even at the first glance. The idea that the US can somehow balance the budget and make its economy rebound absent these capitalist reforms would have been laughable if the country hadn't been facing such a grave economic crisis.
The Paul budget is a joke, just like Sen. Paul himself and his father. Like his father, he can only serve as comic relief against a background of serious politics.
As for Sen. Toomey's budget, conservatives should review the Senate voting record and vote against any Senator who has voted against it. Unlike the Paul budget, which was voted down by a record-high margin of 7-90, the Toomey budget has received the votes of 42 out of 100 Senators. Just 9 more votes and it would've passed. So the margin was close. Conservatives should look at the roll call vote record and vote against anyone who voted against the Toomey budget.
Clint| 5.26.11 @ 6:54AM
"Out of the four budget plans the Senate voted on tonight (all of them failed -- the President's failed to garner any votes), only Rand's budget balanced within five years. The next best was Senator Toomey's that balanced in nine years, and of course Rep. Ryan's that only theoretically balances in or around 2040, according to his projections.
The fact that the most serious fiscally conservative plan in the Senate - one that coincides with the requirements of the BBA cosponsored by the entire Republican caucus - only received 7 votes is appalling, and quite telling of the fiscal conservative credentials of the other members in the GOP.
After the votes, Senator Paul released in a statement:
"I am heartily disconcerted by the inability of some of my colleagues to see how dire our nation's current fiscal situation is. In order to defeat our mounting national debt and balance the budget, bold action must be taken to make cuts and rein in spending. We cannot continue down this path and I will do all I can to turn our country around."
Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.26.11 @ 8:13AM
"Out of the four budget plans the Senate voted on tonight (all of them failed -- the President's failed to garner any votes), only Rand's budget balanced within five years."
It doesn't balance the budget at all. It only promises to do so - but its own numbers belie it. Do the math, boy. Paul says his budget would cut spending by only $500 bn per year; the annual budget deficit is $1.65 TRILLION. His numbers don't add up. His budget is a blatant lie. And the idea that the US should defer entitlement reform and tax reform further would have been laughable... if the country wasn't facing such a grave fiscal crisis.
Clint| 5.26.11 @ 9:59AM
Who You Callin' Boy, 23 Year Old Puke Iranian Neo-Chickenhawk Boy.
Clint| 5.26.11 @ 10:10AM
Cato Institute: "Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has released a detailed plan that would balance the federal budget in five years. Paul’s plan would achieve balance by halting and reversing the historic rise in federal spending. Taxes would not be increased, but revenues would steadily increase as the economy recovers."
http://www.downsizinggovernmen.....udget-plan
Sean| 5.26.11 @ 8:05AM
I think I will go with Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Mike Lee (R-UT), over a neocon like yourself.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.26.11 @ 8:10AM
The problem is that I'm not a neocon, so your claim is a blatant lie.
Clint| 5.26.11 @ 10:01AM
You're A Punk Ass Neo-Chickenhawk Iranian.
W. James Antle III | 5.26.11 @ 4:48PM
In the sentence you quote before your diatribe, I am clearly talking about the Toomey budget. As usual, Mazurak cannot read.
Johnny| 5.26.11 @ 5:33AM
Can these people not pass a budget at all??? Bunch of do nothing posers! The dems evidently don't think we need a budget at all.
Clint| 5.26.11 @ 7:31AM
This Is What's In Dr.Rand Paul's Budget That Iranian Neo-Chickenhawk Zbigniew Mazurak Is All PMS'y About, But Didn't Have The Stones To Be Upfront About.
DEFENSE.......................................................$47,500,000,000. (6.5%)
Military Defense Spending and Budgets by Country:
United States of America
$515,400,000,000 2009
France
$61,571,330,000 2008
China
$59,000,000,000 2008
United Kingdom
$53,148,770,000 2008
Germany
$45,930,000,000 2008
Japan
$44,300,000,000 2005
Russia
$43,200,000,000 2008
Italy
$40,050,000,000 2008
India
$32,350,000,000 2006
Saudi Arabia
$31,255,000,000 2006
Turkey
$30,936,000,000 2009
South Korea
$25,500,000,000 2007
Brazil
$24,400,000,000 2008
Australia
$22,000,000,000 2009
Canada
$19,500,000,000 2009
Israel
$18,700,000,000 1999
Iraq
$17,900,000,000 2008
Didn't You Post This Iranian Boy ?
If the POTUS does not order the US military to attack Iran before 1/20/2009, he will break his presidential oath.
Comment Posted By Zbigniew Mazurak On 21.09.2007 @ 07:57
Hmmmmmm,23 year Old Iranian Boy ?
Con Chef (NB) | 5.26.11 @ 7:50AM
I'm so glad we elected Toomey here in PA. And volunteering for his campaign was time well spent.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK SENATOR!!!! WE'RE PULLING FOR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(The Poster Formerly Known as NavyBrat)
Stop NationalDebt | 5.26.11 @ 12:04PM
There won't be change until the public truly gets how bad US finances are. The public yawns when it hears $trillions in debt thinking "big number, but its a big country". since they have no perspective. We need to rephrase the issue:
The federal government will need >$1 million per household to pay its IOUs!
> $116 trillion ="official" debt plus money short for future social security, medicare, etc
Even its "official debt" of $14.2 trillion is $123,754 per household!
Details at StopNationalDebt.com with links to contact congress & complain.
"POLL REVEALS: Americans Are Still In Deep Denial About The Deficit" http://read.bi/h6QDGR If they realized how bad it is politicians would need to act.
Be among the first to join the Facebook "event' "Balance the Budget NOW! Stop National Debt!"
http://tinyurl.com/3hfgsjk since if you don't spread the word, who will? We need to spread the word virally to educate non news-junkies. Its online&ongoing;.