I think he's doing the right thing.

200,000 people is a lot, and $10,000,000,000 is not really a lot of money for the government, but if we just keep extending the benefits indefinitely, it will eventually become a regular thing.

3/2/2010 7:11:49 PM

Quote :

"Under increasing pressure from Democrats and members of his own party, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) Tuesday night abandoned his one-man filibuster of a one-month extension to unemployment benefits and other programs. In the end Bunning agreed to a deal allowing him one vote on an amendment to pay for the bill’s $10 billion cost. That proposal was offered by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) last Thursday at the start of his filibuster, but Bunning rejected it because he feared his amendment would not pass. Reid has also agreed to give Bunning two votes on amendments to a larger, one-year extension bill that is currently under consideration in the Senate"

http://www.rollcall.com/news/43750-1.html

As of about an hour ago.

3/2/2010 7:36:22 PM

Two votes? He can do that crap?

3/2/2010 7:41:30 PM

he's saying that he'll put up two amendments to a bill for a vote.

3/2/2010 7:42:22 PM

One vote for the amendment, one vote for the bill. At least according to Durbin in the article.

[Edited on March 2, 2010 at 7:43 PM. Reason : .]

3/2/2010 7:42:52 PM

I think its pretty cool the Dems passed paygo and now they are ignoring it already.

I applaud Bunning, just wish he wouldn't have caved.

3/2/2010 8:36:51 PM

Hah. Reading comprehension fail.

3/2/2010 8:45:30 PM

It wasn't a good way to write the sentence, and if you didn't click the link there's no way you would have seen the details.

Hell, even if you did click the link you'd be fully justified in skimming any paragraph you see Durbin's name mentioned.

3/2/2010 8:53:23 PM

Bunning is an idiot. Seriously. He's screwing thousands of his own constituents. Hey, I'm all for balancing the budget, but save your grandstanding for a bill that doesn't immediately impact the ability of thousands to pay their bills due to lay-offs. Asshole.

3/2/2010 9:32:45 PM

There’s no bill that any rep. can stall on that’s not going to hurt some of their constituents.

When we have massive debt and deficits, there are some people that are going to be disappointed.

3/2/2010 9:46:13 PM

Whether or not delaying unemployment benefits and cobra extension is right or wrong, or causing furloughs, or accepting a deal he could have accepted last week is right or wrong, or voting against pay as you go rules/voting for unpaid legislation in the past but then selectively caring about it here and blaming the democrats as he did it is right or wrong... he has made it clear that the GOP are willing to use procedural methods to affect legislation in Congress which makes it that much easier for Dems to make the case on the reconciliation procedure. Not that the massive number of filibuster threats forcing cloture bloats didn't already do that, but this one was so much more public both because of the issue he picked but also I think in part because he flipped off the media and snapped at ABC & CNN news people.

[Edited on March 2, 2010 at 10:26 PM. Reason : .]

3/2/2010 10:24:35 PM

The Republicans have already distanced themselves from Bunning. He is a big enough douche that the party made sure he wouldn't have funding for another campaign. So he is "retiring", and doing whatever the hell he wants in the mean time.

3/2/2010 10:31:21 PM

Those thousands of constituents he's "screwing" have had unemployment benefits given to them for months longer than they were promised, paid for with money that wasn't congress' to give to begin with.

3/3/2010 11:24:20 AM

I get that he's taking a stand.

But I'm having a hard time thinking of a worse issue on which to take a stand.

3/3/2010 11:30:30 AM

Where else would a stand go noticed?

3/3/2010 11:32:12 AM

I disagree. I think many Americans will recognize that he is taking a stand for the American way of life. Although some will realize everyone is Congress agrees they must end, the only disagreement is over when.

3/3/2010 11:33:37 AM

^ "the american way of life"?

lol

when did you become such a hack?

3/3/2010 12:57:25 PM

I don't think hack would be an appropriate term. Though it's freely tossed around at people in TSB, Bunning is not seeking reelection and is not getting support from the GOP.

3/3/2010 1:05:56 PM

moron, I agree with you.

3/3/2010 1:06:51 PM

This is funny. A politician, not running for re-election, does the right thing, since he's no longer buying votes. Then he gets crucified by the left for trying to introduce a little fiscal discipline. This concept that we can keep creating debt to pay the bills is like a religion. Totally irrational and without merit, yet people stubbornly believe in its truth. And, just like religion, no one has a problem seeing why mounting debt is a problem in other countries. People on the left and right talk about sovereign debt crises all around the world. Everyone knows, and would freely admit, that Greece and the UK are running into debt problems. Yet, to suggest that we need to cut back and run a balanced budget here is to be an "obstructionist" in the current political climate. Of course, our sovereign debt crisis is going to put the other ones to shame.

3/3/2010 2:55:15 PM

I wonder how many people supporting Bunning here would still do so if he'd taken a slightly different tack. That is, instead of "We can't keep spending money!" he said "We need to raise taxes to pay for all this spending!"

The "fiscal responsibility" argument gets a little tougher to swallow when people the people using it only see the "cut spending" half of the occasion.

---

I like the stand he's making, just not the subject he's making it on. Surely there is some other expenditure that doesn't have the direct potential to throw people out of their homes or into hunger or into cold.

3/3/2010 5:39:25 PM

Quote :

"That is, instead of "We can't keep spending money!" he said "We need to raise taxes to pay for all this spending!""

But those are two different questions. You can raise taxes and not increase spending both at the same time. I would be against the tax increase, since it is unnecessary: there is plenty of spending that can be cut!

3/3/2010 6:20:33 PM

!

3/3/2010 6:34:37 PM

The best part was that he died on a hill for nothing considering his amendment got voted down. He blathered on about paying as you go yet voted against "Pay-Go" when he had the chance a few years ago! What a clown. How can you people on the right defend this as a "principled practice"?

3/3/2010 6:43:16 PM

Quote :

" Then he gets crucified by the left for trying to introduce a little fiscal discipline."

This is technically but I don’t think it’s a fair criticism because he’s only doing it because he doesn’t have to worry about reelection. And there are plenty of Republicans that are against him too. This is a principled move only in the slightest sense. If he (or any politicians) had any principles, he’d make the hard choices all the time, not just when an election isn’t on the line.

Quote :

"I wonder how many people supporting Bunning here would still do so if he'd taken a slightly different tack. That is, instead of "We can't keep spending money!" he said "We need to raise taxes to pay for all this spending!” "

I personally would, but not many of the Tea Party or eyedrb types would. We could cut the federal budget in half, and it’d still take more than 10 years to pay off the debt. There’s no way it can be done without raising taxes.

^ if we waited for politicians to stop being hypocrites to fix the debt and deficit issues, it’d never get done.

[Edited on March 3, 2010 at 7:17 PM. Reason : ]

3/3/2010 7:17:26 PM

That republicans are only willing to vote their principles when they are no longer up for re-election says more about voters than republicans.

All that remains to say is that democrats are no better.

3/4/2010 12:03:21 AM

Quote :

"I would be against the tax increase, since it is unnecessary: there is plenty of spending that can be cut!"

There is fat to be cut. For those of us that don't live in libertarian la-la land and who realize that a fairly substantial chunk of spending is never going to go down, I think a combination of higher taxes and reduced spending is probably the way to go.

Or, at the very least, a combination until we get most of the debt paid down and the deficit in order. After that it's time to go about the politically long and brutal work of really lowering spending, and after that we can lower taxes commensurately.

Quote :

"I personally would, but not many of the Tea Party or eyedrb types would."

Yep. In a policy class today it was discussed that a very modest tax increase (1%, maybe 2%) on the middle class would go an enormous distance to resolving our budget issues. But nobody ever got elected by promising to tax the middle class.

Does anyone else find it odd that "conservatives," to whatever extent that is a group, tends to favor a certain level of taxation as acceptable, but they always feel that level is below the status quo? Could we have taxes so low that even conservatives wanted to raise them? Because if their ultimate goal is 0% taxes, that makes them sound a bit thick.

3/4/2010 12:16:39 AM

^ i thought you graduated... are you going back for a graduate degree?

3/4/2010 12:22:31 AM

It turns out that a BA in political science from an engineering school does not make doors fly open, especially when you performed with a certain level of...how can I put this delicately...drunken mediocrity. Certainly not in the miserable economy we've had the last couple of years.

So yes, I went back for grad school. And yes, I went to NC State. Partly because I like it here and am familiar with the campus. Also because, by the time I found out it was considered a bad idea to go to grad school at the same place you got your bachelors, it was too late to apply anywhere else.

Poor decisions all around.

3/4/2010 12:26:51 AM

Quote :

"That republicans are only willing to vote their principles when they are no longer up for re-election says more about voters than republicans. All that remains to say is that democrats are no better."

If he was voting in line with his principles, that would be one thing, and it would be commendable. I have no problem with dude voting no, but let issues come up for a vote. Let's stop with all the filibustering shenanigans, because that's nothing but a dick move except in some circumstances which don't apply here. Take a stand by voting with your principle and with the representation of your district in mind instead of the party line, but don't take a stand by bringing the entire legislative process to a standstill.

3/4/2010 12:59:11 AM

Quote :

"After that it's time to go about the politically long and brutal work of really lowering spending"

If you walk into the process believing it will be long and brutal, you often find a way to make yourself right.

It is difficult to launch legal challenges again the repeal of laws or closure of agencies. As such, just as Andrew Jackson and his followers managed to cut the federal government in half in one term, so could such a movement today. That no such movement currently exists does not mean their work would be long and brutal. If the people of the Congress and President genuinely ignore public outcry over spending cuts, then spending gets cut and that is that.

I guess what you really mean is that you don't believe the vast majority of spending should be reduced. I disagree, both SS and Medicare/Medicade need to be drastically reduced through means-testing. Easy as pie. Want to join the movement?

^ He did not make the rules. The powers that be wanted to pass this bill as an emergency measure, there-by exempting it from various checks and balances. Those checks and balances are in place for a reason and the statute allows for a single vote objection because of those reasons. If the powers-that-be wanted to pass this bill in accordance with the rules, they could have. But chose, for political reasons, to wait until it was too late to pass the bill as anything but emergency legislation, as if they had not known for a year that these benefits were going to run out at this time.

[Edited on March 4, 2010 at 1:09 AM. Reason : .,.]

3/4/2010 1:03:34 AM

Quote :

"If you walk into the process believing it will be long and brutal, you often find a way to make yourself right. "

Maybe. And maybe if you walk into the process thinking it will be easy you get decades of libertarian-minded people being pushed to the fringes of the political process.

Quote :

"It is difficult to launch legal challenges again the repeal of laws or closure of agencies. As such, just as Andrew Jackson and his followers managed to cut the federal government in half in one term, so could such a movement today."

It was remarkably easy to launch legal challenges against the actions of such presidents as Andrew Jackson. I believe he responded with lines like, "The Supreme Court has made its decision, now let them enforce it."

That aside, I'm not concerned about legal challenges. I'm thinking about constituencies. Special interests wield considerable power over legislators, and few of those special interests are in favor of cutting spending. I can see the logic against career politicians. What I can't see is how you expect anybody to get elected on a platform of cutting spending programs that a lot of their constituents wholeheartedly support, if only because said programs benefit them personally.

And, last I checked, it was guys on your side of the fence who applauded giving certain interest groups (businesses and unions) even greater sway over elections.

Quote :

"I guess what you really mean is that you don't believe the vast majority of spending should be reduced. I disagree, both SS and Medicare/Medicade need to be drastically reduced through means-testing. "

I don't know about "vast majority" -- if nothing else, it's a vague term. And while I don't disagree with means testing, I have the suspicion that we disagree substantially on what means are appropriate.

3/4/2010 2:53:55 AM

^ Note Andrew Jackson was passing new never before seen legislation that led to that Supreme Court challenge. I used him as an example of someone slashing spending in a quick way.

Quote :

"Special interests wield considerable power over legislators, and few of those special interests are in favor of cutting spending."

They do. And it is not a given that special interests as a whole always lobby for more spending. It is perfectly conceivable (since it happened before) for everyone to arrive in washington, and the only thing everyone can agree upon is to lay off everyone they see. Andrew Jackson too had constituencies, and he was serving them to the best of his ability by firing government employees and dispossessing the Indians.

Quote :

"And, last I checked, it was guys on your side of the fence who applauded giving certain interest groups (businesses and unions) even greater sway over elections."

Yes, I will always applaud the restoration of human rights to assembly and speech, regardless of the outcome. That said, the outcome is most likely to be beneficial for my beliefs, as any political movement to shrink government is going to come from outside of Washington, so any change that dissipates power away from established large institutions (corporations, incumbents, lobbyists) should be beneficial.

3/4/2010 9:48:34 AM

Quote :

"so any change that dissipates power away from established large institutions (corporations, incumbents, lobbyists) should be beneficial."

What?

3/4/2010 12:27:59 PM

this man has contributed so much humor to my life, i'm loving it

3/4/2010 3:02:08 PM

^^ It has never been a burden upon large institutions requiring them to set up political action committees and launder their money through the various loopholes. The only entities that have ever been prosecuted under the laws struck down by the supreme court were small potatoes. As such, eliminating the laws will cause more speech from small entities which will tend to crowd speech from the big entities. The argument is this: the more people talking, the less influence an individual speaker has. Well, now, there will be more entities talking that just the big corporations which were never hampered by the law because they were exempted from it.

3/5/2010 9:47:18 AM

Ron Paul: Bunning has the right idea but is initially going after the wrong spending....

http://libertymaven.com/2010/03/03/ron-paul-talks-bunning-and-economy-on-fox-business/9183/

3/5/2010 10:16:27 AM