If there’s one thing about Democrats to really get slackjawed about, it’s their patented circular firing squad method of dealing with problems, both internally and externally.
For example, this week there was, believe it or not, a bipartisan jobs bill on the table. Let’s leave aside the notion of whether or not it would have created any jobs. Personally, I don’t want government to create jobs. More government jobs means I’m contributing to the ever-expanding bureaucratic payroll. To me, that’s like paying someone to kick me in the groin.
Rather, it was a small sign that, for once, members of both parties might be able to work and play well with others. Was it a perfect bill? No, those don’t exist. But this wasn’t all that bad. However, much like Barney Fife shooting himself in the foot, Sen. Harry “Negro Dialect” Reid decided at the last minute to pull the bill, chop it down from $85 billion to a skimpy $15 billion, then extend a symbolic middle finger to the GOP.
Usually I’m for chopping down multi-billion dollar pieces of legislation. But, as they say, a deal is a deal. The bill was announced. For once, everyone seemed happy. Everyone got something in there to appease their constituents. Then, defying explanation, Reid yanked the carpet out from under everyone.
So much for bipartisanship, and for the president’s calls for more of it. It seems that a good working definition of bipartisanship these days is being able to smile while getting screwed, and that’s exactly what happened to the GOP in this case, especially given some Democratic comments.
“Our side isn’t sure that the Republicans are real interested in developing good policy and to move forward together,” said Sen. Thomas Carper of Delaware, “Instead, they are more inclined to play rope-a-dope again. My own view is, let’s test them.”
That’s big talk from a guy whose party just lost a supermajority in the Senate, not that they could do anything with it in the first place. That statement pales in comparison with what Reid had to offer.
“Republicans are going to have to make a choice. I don’t know in logic what they could say to oppose this,” Reid said.
Well, you’re right on at least one count Reid, the GOP does have to make a choice, and, thanks to you, that choice just became no choice at all. They’ll fight. They should.
Why should the GOP deal in good faith with a majority that sees fit to squander all of theirs? Majorities don’t automatically confer morality or prove one side right by default. They are just a snapshot of the country’s mood at the time. Another way to put that, as Yogi Berra once said, is “Yesterday’s heroes are tomorrow’s bums.”
By doing this, Reid proved that Democrats are more interested in winning than honestly working with the opposition. If they win this little fight they picked, it will prove to be a pyhrric victory at best. Either Reid might really need GOP support in the Senate one day, or the game of payback will continue when the GOP retakes the majority, which will happen at same point.
Reid said he made the choice to oppose the bill while walking into a Democratic Caucus luncheon, which, incidentally, while the White House was touting the bill at a press briefing. Do these people have meetings, or barring that, phones? This does not bode well for party unity.
Was the bill a field day for lobbyists? Probably. Most bills are in Congress these days. The jobs bill has provisions to extend portions of the Patriot Act, loans to chicken producers, aid to catfish farms, $31 billion in tax breaks for individuals and businesses and higher payments for doctors looking at cuts in Medicare payments. If Reid is really concerned about pork, then why not attack the cause of the problem, rather than the symptom? Is it beyond the realm of consideration to simply pass a rule that required amendments to bills to be germain to its subject? To me, at least, that seems a good way to keep the pork out.
One would think that a party in the majority would be able to pull this off. That’s real reform. It’s needed reform. But, if that were to happen, then both parties would lose a weapon to pummel each other with.
So, now it’s back to business as usual. If you doubt that, then this quote from an unidentified Democratic insider should put any lingering ones to rest.
“Grassley and three to four Republicans would have voted for it, but all the other Republicans would have beaten the living (expletive deleted) out of us during the (2010 midterm elections), claiming the bill was too bloated.”
See, a jobs bill really is being considered by Senate Democrats. The only problem is it would only save 59 jobs, with the hopes of creating one or two more.
|
|
|
If there’s one thing about Democrats to really get slackjawed about, it’s their patented circular firing squad method of dealing with problems, both internally and externally.
For example, this week there was, believe it or not, a bipartisan jobs bill on the table. Let’s leave aside the notion of whether or not it would have created any jobs. Personally, I don’t want government to create jobs. More government jobs means I’m contributing to the ever-expanding bureaucratic payroll. To me, that’s like paying someone to kick me in the groin.
Rather, it was a small sign that, for once, members of both parties might be able to work and play well with others. Was it a perfect bill? No, those don’t exist. But this wasn’t all that bad. However, much like Barney Fife shooting himself in the foot, Sen. Harry “Negro Dialect” Reid decided at the last minute to pull the bill, chop it down from $85 billion to a skimpy $15 billion, then extend a symbolic middle finger to the GOP.
Usually I’m for chopping down multi-billion dollar pieces of legislation. But, as they say, a deal is a deal. The bill was announced. For once, everyone seemed happy. Everyone got something in there to appease their constituents. Then, defying explanation, Reid yanked the carpet out from under everyone.
So much for bipartisanship, and for the president’s calls for more of it. It seems that a good working definition of bipartisanship these days is being able to smile while getting screwed, and that’s exactly what happened to the GOP in this case, especially given some Democratic comments.
“Our side isn’t sure that the Republicans are real interested in developing good policy and to move forward together,” said Sen. Thomas Carper of Delaware, “Instead, they are more inclined to play rope-a-dope again. My own view is, let’s test them.”
That’s big talk from a guy whose party just lost a supermajority in the Senate, not that they could do anything with it in the first place. That statement pales in comparison with what Reid had to offer.
“Republicans are going to have to make a choice. I don’t know in logic what they could say to oppose this,” Reid said.
Well, you’re right on at least one count Reid, the GOP does have to make a choice, and, thanks to you, that choice just became no choice at all. They’ll fight. They should.
Why should the GOP deal in good faith with a majority that sees fit to squander all of theirs? Majorities don’t automatically confer morality or prove one side right by default. They are just a snapshot of the country’s mood at the time. Another way to put that, as Yogi Berra once said, is “Yesterday’s heroes are tomorrow’s bums.”
By doing this, Reid proved that Democrats are more interested in winning than honestly working with the opposition. If they win this little fight they picked, it will prove to be a pyhrric victory at best. Either Reid might really need GOP support in the Senate one day, or the game of payback will continue when the GOP retakes the majority, which will happen at same point.
Reid said he made the choice to oppose the bill while walking into a Democratic Caucus luncheon, which, incidentally, while the White House was touting the bill at a press briefing. Do these people have meetings, or barring that, phones? This does not bode well for party unity.
Was the bill a field day for lobbyists? Probably. Most bills are in Congress these days. The jobs bill has provisions to extend portions of the Patriot Act, loans to chicken producers, aid to catfish farms, $31 billion in tax breaks for individuals and businesses and higher payments for doctors looking at cuts in Medicare payments. If Reid is really concerned about pork, then why not attack the cause of the problem, rather than the symptom? Is it beyond the realm of consideration to simply pass a rule that required amendments to bills to be germain to its subject? To me, at least, that seems a good way to keep the pork out.
One would think that a party in the majority would be able to pull this off. That’s real reform. It’s needed reform. But, if that were to happen, then both parties would lose a weapon to pummel each other with.
So, now it’s back to business as usual. If you doubt that, then this quote from an unidentified Democratic insider should put any lingering ones to rest.
“Grassley and three to four Republicans would have voted for it, but all the other Republicans would have beaten the living (expletive deleted) out of us during the (2010 midterm elections), claiming the bill was too bloated.”
See, a jobs bill really is being considered by Senate Democrats. The only problem is it would only save 59 jobs, with the hopes of creating one or two more.
