MyDD :: I Agree With Tom DeLay

I Agree With Tom DeLay

by Chris Bowers, Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 12:28:46 PM EST

The House and Senate broke a lengthy impasse over federal spending Thursday night, narrowly adopting a $2.56 trillion federal budget for 2006 that aims to trim the growth of Medicaid by $10 billion over five years, add $106 billion in tax cuts and clear the way for oil drilling in an Alaskan wildlife refuge.

The back-to-back votes - 214 to 211 in the House and 52 to 47 in the Senate - ran mostly along party lines. As the roll was called in the Senate, shortly before midnight, Vice President Dick Cheney sat in the chamber, ready to cast his vote to break a tie, if necessary.(...)

Earlier in the evening, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the House majority leader, called the spending plan " the best since the historic Balanced Budget Act of 1997."

Shortly before the House began its vote, Mr. DeLay said, "This is the budget the American people voted for when they returned a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican president to the White House last November."

I have to agree with Tom DeLay on this one, especially since the budget is the only major piece of legislation that was unanimously opposed by Democrats in the House during this session of Congress. Huge tax cuts to the rich that will drive up the deficit? Check. Cutting healthcare to the poor and middle class? Check. Destroying pristine wildlife refuges while funneling billions of dollars to large energy corporations? Check. This is indeed the budget the American people voted for when they returned a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President to the White House. You get what you vote for.

Tags: House 2006 (all tags)

Permalink :: 10 Comments :: Post a Comment

Who was it that said: (none / 0)

Be careful what you ask for, you just may get it.

by Jim S on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 01:02:16 PM EST

I want to know (none / 0)

What the Senate offered Sen. Gordon to back these Medicaid cuts. He is responsible for the faction that defeated the billions in cuts in the Senate, but now $10 billion is OK? I have to know what he got for $10 billion. A nice photo-op perhaps?

by otho on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 01:17:40 PM EST

Who Defected (none / 0)

Does anyone have a list of who crossed party lines?

by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 01:51:04 PM EST

Re: Who Defected (none / 0)

House: Boehlert (NY), Castle (DE), Goode (VA), Green (WI), Gutknecht (MN), Johnson (CT), Johnson (IL), Jones (NC), Leach (IA), LoBiondo (NJ), Ramstad (MN), Saxton (NJ), Shays (CT), and Simmons (CT).

Senate: Chafee, DeWine, and Voinovich.

by johnny longtorso on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 02:19:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No Democrats defected (none / 0)

Only Republicans. However, seven house Democrats (enough to change the vote) did not vote at all. But it is possible that if these Democrats did vote, some of the Republican defectors would vote with thier party.

by Geotpf on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 03:44:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cue whining about voting machines (none / 0)

"The general public didn't vote for these guys-Diebold did"

Face it folks-the general public did vote for the Republicans.

by Geotpf on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 03:45:48 PM EST

You can't prove that. (none / 0)

That's why we need new machines.

The fact of fraud is less important than the perception of the possibility, which is why Reeps love to play up the idea of illegal immigrants and felons voting, or people voting three times and the like, when there's zero concrete evidence that such things go on in any significant numbers.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 04:12:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree we need new machines (none / 0)

And more importantly, more transparency and fairness in the entire process.

However, I believe in 99.99999% of the cases where somebody voted, thier vote was counted without fraud, and what fraud did occur was old-school type of dropping the ballots in the trash type of thing, which wouldn't be enough to effect a state-wide race, not even close. I do think there were fucked up rules, mistakes made in crowded urban districts, not enough voting machines, etc., but, while all of that is a problem, none of it is fraud.

Basically, if there was, provable, massive, organized fraud that changed the outcome of the election, we should be violently overthrowing the unelected regime now. We aren't, because this didn't happen, or at least it's nowhere near provable.

by Geotpf on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 09:00:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Though you're probably right, (none / 0)

it doesn't need to have been massive or widespread to have been substantial. The recount in Ohio had enough irregularities to potentially throw the whole frickin' election into question. You had Diebold reps colluding with county officials, to save them the undue hassle of following the process prescribed by law. It really wouldn't have taken that much for one of these companies to send the right people to the right places and shift the results.

There's a chicken and egg problem here: there will be no serious investigation until there's proof of wrongdoing, but we can't prove wrongdoing without an investigation. Independent investigators don't have much of a chance getting the information they're looking for out of government agencies, when the people in charge of those agencies are the ones being investigated.

Holding out for evidence that fraud actually changed the outcome of the last election means putting the next election at risk. I'd rather have people assuming the election was stolen than assuming it wasn't.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 09:43:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hey (none / 0)

Lecturing the American people is always a risky scheme. Luckily they don't read this blog.

by asf6 on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 04:57:17 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.