I've been saying for some time it must be the Democrats who reign in Barack Obama who is showing all the restraint and maturity of a college freshman turned loose with daddy's credit card on a distant campus.
As it turns out a good number of Democrats have become quite alarmed at Obama's largess and are ready to cancel the credit card. POLITCO reports this morning: Moderates uneasy with Obama plan
| Moderate and conservative Democrats in the Senate are starting to choke over the massive spending and tax increases in President Barack Obama’s budget plans and have begun plotting to increase their influence over the agenda of a president who is turning out to be much more liberal than they are. A group of 14 Senate Democrats and one independent huddled behind closed doors on Tuesday, discussing how centrists in that chamber can assert more leverage on the major policy debates that will dominate this Congress. Afterward, some in attendance made plain that they are getting jitters over the cost and expansive reach of Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget proposal. Asked when he’d reach his breaking point, Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate, said: “Right now. I’m concerned about the amount that’s being offered in [Obama’s] budget.” Another attendee, Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.), said she expected the newly formed caucus to shape Obama’s budget proposal as it moves through Congress. Sen. Evan Bayh, the Indiana Democrat who assembled Tuesday’s skull session, added that he was “very concerned” about Washington’s level of spending, especially in a $410 billion “omnibus” spending bill to fund the government until the start of a new fiscal year in October. As for the tax increases on high-income earners called for in Obama’s plan, Bayh said, “I do think that before we raise revenue, we first should look to see if there are ways we can cut back on spending.” “The American people and businesses are tightening their belts,” Bayh added. “I think we need to show that the government can economize as well.” If the moderate Democrats in the Senate are willing to work with moderate Republicans — as Bayh said they are eager to do — they will negate the White House’s ability to portray opposition to Obama’s spending as partisan obstructionism. |
This is genuine bipartisanship at work. A welcome development.
6 comments:
Being "uneasy" and bucking the boss are two different schools of thought. Everyone is uneasy when it comes to the application of new and risky ideas, but I can warrant this is not a battle that will be won by the old ideas of the old Republicans. Barack Obama is the leader of the Democratic party and the Democrats will do what they are told.
To me it sounds prejudiced to dismiss someones ideas for ANY reason then merit. Old ideas or not, if they are proven to have worked they are good ideas. It is foolish to dismiss them because they are old.
The Democrats are more likely uneasy because there is nothing new and too much risk with Obama's plans.
As for Democrats not representing their constituents, that can only have one result down the road. As for them being subservient I would point you at the following:
Allan Boyd (D-FL)
Bobby Bright (D-AL)
Jim Cooper (D-TN)
Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
Parker Griffith (D-AL)
Paul Kanjorski (D-PA)
Frank Kratovil (D-MD)
Walt Minnick (D-ID)
Collin Peterson (D-MN)
Heath Shuler (D-NC)
Gene Taylor (D-MS)
Lee the "Republicant" ideas did not work, old notwithstanding. The economy is where it is because of their ideas. Why should we listen to them now when all they preach are the same tired old cut taxes theories. These ideas were instituted and they almost bankrupted the country. Obama's plan is brand new. It is bold and aggressive and no one has ever seen anything like it. He readily acknowledges the risk and affirms that is a risk he must take, reminding the American people of their power in 2012 should he fail.
Obama's plans are not brand new. They are exactly the same lame things liberals have been promoting, well, practically forever. It is exactly the same strategy that FDR promoted that effectively kept the country in depression. These sorts of government stimulus have been tried repeatedly by many governments, and they have ever worked before.
Lest you forget, Bush also inherited a recession when he came into office. He cut taxes, tax revenue increased, and we came out of the depression. It wasn't tax cuts that caused deficits, it was out of control spending. For that, Bush and the Republicans richly deserve blame. The conservatives in the party have long been complaining about exactly that.
You cannot possibly have any credibility if you complain about Bush bankrupting the country but support a guy who will, in his first year, will cause a bigger deficit than Bush did in all 8 of his years.
Shoo your "facts" are about as far removed from "accurate" as you can get.
Okay Madmike, how are obama's massive spending any different then the new deal?
How do you figure the recession that was in play when GW Bush took office was not inherited? How do you explain that tax cut pulling us out of recession?
How do you figure the deficits was not caused by Bush and congress spending like mad (although mad has a new definition now). How do you figure the Republicans do not deserve the blame?
In other words, Put up more then plugging your ears and humming.
Post a Comment