Democrat Budget-Busters?

by Sal on December 12, 2006

in Politics

The Dems are proposing what the Republicans should have done in the 12 years that they controlled Congress by cancelling all pork-barrel projects for this fiscal year’s budget.  While it is only a one-year item, it is a brilliant political move because they may use this to try to shed their reputation as “tax-and-spend” liberals.  Some fiscal Conservatives have given them kudos for this move, but I have my doubts. 

First, I have my doubts that they can pull it off.  The caucus system of the Democrats in the House makes it very difficult for the Dems to get anything through that is without earmarks.  Also, I am skeptical that Robert “KKK” “I’ve never met a pork barrel project that I didn’t like” Byrd will be able to contain himself. 

Second, the Democrats will not be doing anything productive with the money.  If they were smart, they’d use it for some kind of tax cuts, or use it to offset the budget deficit and/or pay down the debt.  Instead, they are planning to use it to fund other “priorities” that they feel are under funded. 

So the verdict is, that while this is a brilliant political move by the Democrats, it remains to be seen whether or not they can pull it off, and even if they do, they are basically shifting money around rather than actually cutting spending. 

{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }

Anonymous December 13, 2006 at 4:46 am

Cutting the pork is nice, but what they should really cut is the 1 TRILLION dollars that this war has cost us (PLUS THE INTEREST). I guess those tax and spend liberals are at it again eh…. Well at least they tax me not my children’s future.


Sal December 13, 2006 at 7:03 am

The liberals are taxing your children’s future. It’s called Social Security.

Oh, and your number is way off. The war has cost around $350 billion, no where close to a trillion. Consider that the annual budget of the U.S. Government hovers around 2.7 trillion. Since the war in Iraq has gone on for almost five years, 350 billion out of 13.5 trillion represents about 2.5% of the federal budget over the last five years.


Anonymous December 13, 2006 at 8:55 pm

Oops looks like those big liberals in the Iraq Study Group are contradicting that 350 number.

Liberal biased bloomberg news covering the cost of the war and mentioning the trillion number


Mike December 13, 2006 at 9:25 pm

I think it would be a good idea to actually read that article this time. First you stated that “this war has cost us” $1 trillion. (I assume it was you but I could be wrong since you didn’t even post your name). However, your bombshell Bloomberg article states the war’s costs “may rise to $1 trillion.” It then goes on to say that such a projection is unlikely. Nice try, but Sal was right. Your figure is way off. Try reading the entire article next time.


Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: