Not exactly a profile in courage:
US Representative David G. Reichert’s first mention that he “voted no twice on the stimulus package” earned him a standing ovation that echoed through the Elks Club auditorium. A declaration that “we should be angry” provoked screams of, “We are!”
[…] But in the short term, Reichert acknowledges that the stimulus bill will deliver tangible good news to his constituents. By April, they are to start seeing the bill’s tax cuts reflected in slightly larger paychecks. Within months, there may be job listings for construction projects, perhaps for the high-speed rail corridor – one of 10 nationwide to share in $8 billion in new funding – that runs along Reichert’s district. By the end of the year, local companies in this tech-centric area may be reaching for some of the money to improve the digital infrastructure of the healthcare industry.
“I feel a responsibility at this point to make this still work,” Reichert said.
What absolutely (and absolutely typical) shameless hypocrisy. When the Seattle Times lauds Reichert for his “conscience-driven independence,” I guess they’re really referring to his independence from an actual conscience.
(Oh, and speaking of the Times… why the hell am I reading this article on Reichert in the Boston Globe, instead of the Times, P-I or TNT?)
Interestingly it is starting to look like opposition to stimulus and general appropriations is becoming like the abortion position for the right. They will rail against it and make hay to rally votes among the aggressive anti-spending, anti-tax voter base. But when it comes right down to it they intend to offer no real solutions or meaningful support on the issue. It is just an empty red herring they flag in front of the low information wingnut crowd.
I, like Bill Clinton, believe in fiscal conservatism. Keep our budgetary house in order, pay-go rules, and all that jazz. But the mindless anti-government position of the republican party is useless for governing. If they want to become relevant they need to develop specific and reasoned opposition to specific kinds of spending. And as a liberal I would say that is good for all of us because it keeps the pork and irresponsible spending down. But it has to be rational. Not the mindless sound-bite opposition like Jindal’s call out against “Volcano Monitoring”. And more importantly the military spending needs to come in check. I think McCain’s point about Marine One, is a valid one, and I hope Obama works with him on those kinds of issues. Further cleanup of the Bush bloat.
@1: I couldn’t agree more.
@ 1
A shorter version:
Any argument that uses the failure of Republican governance as evidence that government fails is fundamentally a circular argument.
“why the hell am I reading this article on Reichert in the Boston Globe, instead of the Times”
Because the Times doesn’t do relevant journalism anymore.
Sen. Murray Taps Jenny Durkan For U.S. Attorney
The Seattle Times reports that Sen. Patty Murray has asked President Obama to appoint Jenny Durkan as the U.S. Attorney for western Washington.
Note to Republicans: Next time you want to prosecute the King County elections director because you’re sore about losing an election, write your request here [ ] and mail it here __. The White House isn’t in the business of rigging elections anymore.
Dim Davey is an embarrassment to our state. No principles, no independent thought, no conscience–hmm, that pretty much describes what it takes to represent today’s GOP in Congress. The 8th District deserves better.
@3 Don Joe
Nice and succinct. Well put!
Thanks Pelletizer for leaving the thread@5.
Well, at least Reichert ain’t trashing Wall Street every day like Obama.
Did you notice another drop when Obama trashes Wall Street? Wasn’t that sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet?
Obama? I’m sure it had absolutely nothing to do with the housing report and weakened banks.
NEW YORK, Feb 25 (Reuters) – U.S. stocks fell on Wednesday as more weak housing data reinforced fears about the economy, while banks weakened in late trading after the government launched tests to gauge their ability to withstand a long and deep recession.
um … maybe the local rags are losing readers cuz they do NOT report on anything that would rock the cushy yacht ride of the ruling class, AND
all us peeee-ons don’t really see a point in getting a full roll of charmin worth of paper deliverd everyday, paper that is covered in fascist lie ink, and paper which you can’t even use to wipe your ass with?
good riddance local papers.
rmm.
um … maybe the local rags are losing readers cuz they do NOT report on anything that would rock the cushy yacht ride of the ruling class, AND
all us peeee-ons don’t really see a point in getting a full roll of charmin worth of paper deliverd everyday, paper that is covered in fascist lie ink, and paper which you can’t even use to wipe your ass with?
good riddance local papers.
rmm.
Steve, you sure the next $410 Billion bill with almost 9000 earmarks didn’t help the drop? Just no one will report it?
“We need earmark reform,” Obama said in September during a presidential debate in Oxford, Miss. “And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” – Except when I allow Nancy Pelosi to add the pork.
I was wondering why she was so eager to jump up and applaud. Quid pro quo?
Read the pork here: http://www.rules.house.gov/111.....09_jes.pdf
Steve, I don’t expect the bottom feeder leftists like Rujax!, clueless village idiot, bestillI’mbentover and others to understand it.
Gordon, you wrote Bill Clinton was a fiscal conservative. Huh?
Do you remember his 1993 budget? It cost him the both houses in Congress in 1994.
Well on our way to a no-newspaper town…
Puddybud, fiscal conservatism is not anti-spend, it is responsible spending. Pay go, balanced budgets, etc. I do recall that Republicans when they had control of all three branches of government seemed to through all these principles out the window on the advice of “Dear Leader Bush”. Remind me again how many spending bills did Bush veto? And the DOW is now at 1997 levels.
In hindsight Clinton was a damn fine fiscal conservative. Although, I will admit he did have some help from conservatives in congress.
Gordon, you didn’t answer my question. You danced, shucked and jived. I asked about 1993. He owned Congress. That was the “budget” Clinton was measured by. It caused him to lose Congress. It wasn’t balanced by any means.
When Clinton was forced to live in his means due to a Republican Congress he threw a temper tantrum and shutdown government November 1995 cuz he couldn’t spend the way he wanted. His cost increases were reduced and he pouted.
When he kept spending down, the economy thrived. So I’ll give you another chance…
@16 Puddybud,
I will be honest with you if you will be honest with me.
Government ever since New Deal has not been able to reduce spending. There is no true fiscal conservatism in government as a whole. Both parties. The only thing that truly differentiates the parties is the specific spending priorities, and how we pay for it, ie taxes. Reagan and Bush both pursued massive Military expenditure and deficit spending. A borrow and spend policy if you will. Clinton basically pursued more spending but on different priorities. But the key difference being that he pursued it as a balanced budget, pay go and all the other rules. Meaning that we pay taxes now for our investment, not leaverage our children’s future.
Clinton said it clearly in that speech you linked to:
“Let me be clear — we must balance the budget. I proposed to Congress a balanced budget, but Congress refused to enact it. Congress has even refused to give me the line-item veto to help me achieve further deficit reduction. But we must balance this budget without resorting to their priorities, without their unwise cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, in education and the environment.”
I would read history differently then you. He battled congress over the spending priorities not the amount spent. Sure given a democratic congress I don’t think he would have cut welfare. But he was not about to give away the store to Gingrichs’ ideological contract on america. So the stand off ensued. And ultimately I think it forced both sides to work together. And ultimately achieve surpluses.
In the last 10 years the federal budget has ballooned from 1.6 trillion annually to 3.6 Trillion. Most of those years have been with a republican controlled government.
So I will reiterate, there are no “true” fiscal conservatives in government, only different spending priorities. But as presidents go Clinton was more of a deficit hawk than most in that he took the responsible route and worked hard to avoid increasing the debt. Which meant tax increases.
Gordon, let’s be real.
Regarding Clinton in 1993 he was trying to slam through a 400+ Billion stimulus package with massive TAX INCREASES. He found out later his real cost.
The Republican Congress lost it’s way after Bush became president. But the Republican Congress helped Clinton balance the budget. Starting with the 1993 Clinton budget here are the facts. You can walk through the facts or we will disagree.
Yes the last few years budgets have ballooned the debt. Have you seen the budget this year? $1.75 Trillion deficit!
But Clinton did change his ways and the country prospered.
Unfortunately Ted Stevens just lost his way. When he joined the porkers list in the late 90s it gave all of us conservatives a black eye. When he was put on the Porkers Hall of Shame my conservative arguments lost much of their punch.