Patterico's Pontifications

3/2/2010

Bunning Fights for Pay-Go

Filed under: Government,Politics — DRJ @ 3:55 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Senator Bunning took President Obama at his word after Obama signed pay-go into law just 16 days ago, and look where it got him:

Kentucky Republican Sen. Jim Bunning has been demonized in the media a lot lately.

CNN has been running a crawl that reads, “Thousands hurt by one senator.” Ticket has described him as a goat. He has been blamed for the furlough of 2,000 workers at the Transportation Department. From the podium of the Obama White House, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs denounced him. Even Bunning’s Republican colleagues have pleaded with him to stop objecting to a stop-gap measure that protects the unemployment benefits for millions of out-of-work Americans afloat.”

Here’s another example:

“The bill to extend unemployment benefits and COBRA coverage was blocked by Republican Senator Jim Bunning, an arch-reactionary from Kentucky who took advantage of a Senate rule requiring unanimous consent to bring the legislation to a vote before the weekend.

Bunning, who is not running for reelection, was contemptuous of the suffering that he was helping inflict on more than one million workers, including an estimated 60,000 from his home state. He demanded that Senate Democrats agree to pay for the extended benefits without creating new debt, and declared that his actions were intended “to send a message to the American people.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Majority Whip Richard Durbin repeatedly called the bill up for a vote. Each time it was blocked by Bunning’s voiced objection. But the Democratic Senate leaders declined to declare his action a filibuster and invoke cloture, although the required 60-vote majority would have been easily attainable.

Under Senate rules, cloture would have led to 30 hours of debate on the bill, followed by a vote. This process would have avoided the cutoff of benefits, but would have caused senators to miss their flights home for the weekend.”

Who’s really being selfish — the lone Senator who wants Congress to pay for the benefits it hands out or the Democratic Senators who don’t want to miss their flights home?

— DRJ

71 Responses to “Bunning Fights for Pay-Go”

  1. good for him, and i said as much in an email to his office today.

    they’ve got to start somewhere on controlling spending, and that’s as good a place as any.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  2. DRJ: Bunning is giving in.

    Too bad, b/c the Dems, according to FoxNews, had put together a 21-person team to keep the session going all night. That would have been real theater, and senators would have finally had to earn their keep for once, including Bunning.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  3. If people can look at how Bunning is being savaged and still believe our Congress will, at some point in the future, use their force to keep health care benefit costs down, they are delusional.

    MayBee (0ccdc4)

  4. By the way, one does wonder why Bunning has suddenly got religion on pay-go. CNN does a nice job looking at his past record of “fiscal responsibility.”

    Among other things he voted for both Bush tax cuts and for the Medicare Part D deal — all unfunded. That’s not hypocrisy at all.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  5. Bunning is being savaged

    Bunning is being savaged b/c it looks cruel to cut off unemployment benefits in a nation with 10 to 17 percent unemployment. This is about nothing more than that, for most Americans.

    It was a poorly chosen hill to wage a battle on fiscal responsibility. Especially since his party has already found a poster-child for that very issue in the health care bill.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  6. Well, if we’re going to abandon paygo so quickly, and Vice President Biden is correct that we have to “spend our way” out of the recession, why not just pass a trillion dollar benefits bill?

    Hell, let’s not be pikers. Congress can pass a bill giving every man, woman, and child in the country a trillion dollars. Then we can all retire. Why worry about actually paying for anything?

    (Strange, I am not able to get the government’s technique to work for me at the supermarket. They actually want me to pay for stuff — and before I leave the store!)

    navyvet (e4db05)

  7. Why worry about actually paying for anything?

    Navyvet: Bunning’s right on principle. I don’t think anyone would argue that.

    But wouldn’t it have been nice if he had exercised the principle when the stakes were higher? This is what Forbes.com wrote about the Part D bill, which Bunning supported:

    Just to be clear, the Medicare drug benefit was a pure giveaway with a gross cost greater than either the House or Senate health reform bills how being considered. Together the new bills would cost roughly $900 billion over the next 10 years, while Medicare Part D will cost $1 trillion.

    I guess I’m just not ready to hoist the baseball hall-of-famer onto my shoulders for his stand on this particular emergency measure.

    It would have helped some if he had been apologetic and forthright about his past spending habits.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  8. Among other things he voted for both Bush tax cuts and for the Medicare Part D deal — all unfunded.

    A tax cut is not something that is paid for out of government funds, which Myron knows but blatantly lies about here.

    Medicare Part D, of course, can be added to the list of government programs that are unfunded since Eisenhower last took down the public debt in 1957–which, astonishingly enough, shows that this orgy of spending has been bipartisan.

    Another Chris (35bdd0)

  9. A tax cut is not something that is paid for out of government funds, which Myron knows but blatantly lies about here.

    Another Chris: Get a clue.

    A tax cut is the same as a government expenditure. It still costs money, in that the government is not getting revenue it had previously received. If you cut taxes by a trillion, it’s no different than going out and spending a trillion on say, a couple of health care bills.

    I know this concept is hard for some people to grasp.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  10. astonishingly enough, shows that this orgy of spending has been bipartisan.

    At least you can admit that. And we didn’t even have to get into the war of choice and its eventual $2 trillion tab. (Also a bipartisan choice, I freely admit.)

    Myron (6a93dd)

  11. Navyvet: Bunning’s right on principle. I don’t think anyone would argue that.

    But wouldn’t it have been nice if he had exercised the principle when the stakes were higher?

    Bunning’s doing this because he’s not running again and he doesn’t care how the media portrays him. None of the Republicans that are trying to get him to back down want to get slimed the same way he is right now, not in a mid-term election year.

    Perhaps the lesson here is that politicians will be much more willing to take a stand on massive government spending, if they believe that perpetuating our country’s 50-year “extend and pretend” fiscal policies is a more important issue than their congressional pension.

    Another Chris (35bdd0)

  12. The Hill had one of the better articles on this. In a reasonably balanced piece they pointed out the Dems in Congress also bear much blame in all this with their last minute emergency extensions and temporary fixes.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/84379-must-pass-bills-falter-in-unpopular-congress

    elissa (8cdc33)

  13. How stupid. By that logic not taxing all of us at 100% would have to be “paid for” by finding unlimited funds from some other source. It is saying we are slaves of the state and they can’t afford to set us free.

    Didn’t the Democrats just make a big thing of passing “PAYGO”? Was this the law when Bunning made these earlier votes?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  14. Another Chris:

    Yeah, politicians get real courageous when they don’t have to face re-election. That’s why I’m hoping more Dems in the house announce their retirements ahead of this health care vote.

    An additional factor for Bunning is that he had wanted to run for re-election but Mitch McConnell and the gang were against it and said they wouldn’t support him. And they ran him down a bit in the press.

    So there’s a little payback here, too.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  15. Machinist: That’s your own logic. Not my logic.

    Pay-go does not apply to emergency spending, let the Democrats tell it.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  16. If you cut taxes by a trillion, it’s no different than going out and spending a trillion on say, a couple of health care bills.

    Myron: Get a clue yourself. All it means is that the government either has to 1) cut the program that is costing the trillion, or 2) take out bonds (debt) to pay for the program. A tax cut does NOT equal spending by the government, no matter how hard you want it to be so. It just means that the government has to either find another way to pay for the program or get rid of it altogether.

    I realize you are trying to justify keeping most of our overbloated, inefficient government intact, but it’s telling that you are blatantly arguing that the government owns every penny that we make.

    You could try taking your conclusion to its logical end and propose 100% tax rates on every person (think of the government “revenue”!), but I doubt that would go over too well. After all, that won’t even cover all of our debt + liabilities, once you factor in the MBS’s from Fannie and Freddie that are being held off the public ledger.

    Another Chris (35bdd0)

  17. the Dems in Congress also bear much blame in all this with their last minute emergency extensions and temporary fixes.

    This is very true. But the image that stands out is one of Cruel Man vs. The Unemployed (not to mention doctors who were facing a 21 percent reduction in Medicare reimbursement). It’s just not a good image for the elephants, which is why I was hoping Bunning would hang in there one more day at least, so the split-screen would be of Obama trying to do something on health care and Bunning looking like a tool.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  18. Is Myron really bitching about how Part D was funded? Really?!

    JD (0b20bd)

  19. and then Bunning goes and folds. what was the point of all this, scoring some talking point? at least Nelson and Landrieu came away with something for their acquiescence. If Bunning wasn’t willing to stand firm, why bother in the first place? If it truly was important, he shouldn’t have backed down, and if it was something to back down on, he should never had done it in the first place.

    steve sturm (116925)

  20. It just means that the government has to either find another way to pay

    Another Chris: In your rant, we find the core issue, right there in those words. I’ve distilled it for you.

    The point is that Bunning didn’t care about “finding another way to pay” when it came to GOP initiatives. Now, he cares.

    This is similar to Republicans not caring about reconciliation when it was used to pass those same tax cuts and welfare reform, and now suddenly saying the exact same tactic (which they have used more often) is from the very devil himself.

    It’s all politics.

    I apologize for my “get a clue” remark, by the way. It was needless snark. We just disagree.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  21. Myron – I suspect that Chris was against the Part D expansion, for different reasons than the Dems, who wailed that it did not spend enough. And we are supposed to trust that on healthcare, you are going to get things right this time?

    JD (0b20bd)

  22. Government’s ability to estimate the costs of their healthcare programs is consistently horrific, off by orders of magnitude.

    Given the funding tricks in BarckyCare, Myron’s head should have assploded when he whined about Part D funding.

    Tax cuts “paid for”? How about when they increase revenue?

    JD (0b20bd)

  23. Is there anyone in the MSM noting that the Dems are refusing to follow PayGo, something they enacted less than 3 weeks ago? Why the f*ck bother if they are going to give it the finger as soon as it is passed?

    JD (0b20bd)

  24. Bunning proved his point beyond all doubt: Reid and Obama were entirely insincere about fiscal prudence. The moronic GOP failed to create a pithy slogan/talking point around this and thus forfeited an iron-clad issue/fist with which to further destroy the Dem majorities in congress.

    To quote the good professor…We are in the best of hands. Ugh.

    Ed from SFV (f6a87d)

  25. Well, JD, “emergencies” are excluded from Pay-go, and the Dems managed to create an emergency for themselves by waiting until the last minute to extend unemployment payments. See how nicely that works for them? And how easy it is to circumvent the rules?

    elissa (8cdc33)

  26. Well, since Myron wants the fight the battle over Medicare Plan D, let me throw in my two cents:

    1 cent: I was against the Bush Administration’s Medicare Drug Plan because I think it is a long-term unfunded liability. Despite that, the early reviews on it were mostly positive.

    2 cents: The choice back is 2003 was not the Bush Plan versus doing nothing. The Democrats had a plan that was even more expensive and more unsustainable in the long-term. In this case the choice was between a bad plan and a truly miserable awful plan, and we fortunately went wtih the bad plan.

    JVW (fd30ab)

  27. How about when they increase revenue?

    JD: Is that what happened with the Bush tax cuts? Oh, so that’s why we avoided a Recession. I get it now.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  28. “A tax cut is not something that is paid for out of government funds, which Myron knows but blatantly lies about here.

    Another Chris: Get a clue.

    A tax cut is the same as a government expenditure. It still costs money, in that the government is not getting revenue it had previously received. If you cut taxes by a trillion, it’s no different than going out and spending a trillion on say, a couple of health care bills.

    I know this concept is hard for some people to grasp.

    Comment by Myron — 3/2/2010 @ 4:44 pm”

    Spoken like a tax parasite. Get a clue, the taxpayers money belongs to the taxpayer, not to the government and certainly not to the freeloaders of which you appear to be one.

    cubanbob (409ac2)

  29. Myron, are you implying that tax cuts (which you argue should be “paid for”–don’t taxes already pay for everything, and a tax cut is simply citizens paying less taxes???) didn’t raise revenues, and that the recession is a result of HIGHER SPENDING, not tax cuts???

    reff (176333)

  30. Myron – did tax receipts go up or down after the Bush tax cuts? Are tax revenues related to the ongoing recession?

    JD (a047b4)

  31. Hilarious.
    Mark Knoller of CBS radio tweets about tomorrow’s schedule:

    @markknoller: In the evening, Pres. Obama hosts a reception for members of Congress who voted to restore the Pay-Go law for fed spending.

    MayBee (0ccdc4)

  32. Tell me again, why was it BUNNING VOTED AGAINST pay as you go?
    Church lady knows: How conveeeeeeeeenient.

    Larry Reilly (fadcab)

  33. Mawy continues its trend of perpetually beclowning himself.

    MAYBEE !!!

    JD (07b76c)

  34. Tell me again, why was it BUNNING VOTED AGAINST pay as you go?
    Church lady knows: How conveeeeeeeeenient.

    Exactly. He voted against it because it knows there are always ways to work around it for the party who wants to spend money.
    And sure enough, that’s what happened.
    That’s why PayGo is stupid. But it passed, and it’s the law of the land, and Bunning is obligated to it just as much as if he’d voted for it.

    JD!!!

    MayBee (0ccdc4)

  35. Mawy apparently woke up from another epic bender.

    Dmac (799abd)

  36. Myron – did tax receipts go up or down after the Bush tax cuts? Are tax revenues related to the ongoing recession?

    Myron doesn’t care for questions like that (peruse the last thread) – facts and knowledge are scary things. But don’t despair – he’ll run away now, but will return with more grand prognistications based on numerous asspulls. After all, it’s what he does.

    Dmac (799abd)

  37. Dmac – He does not seem to be willing to engage, to be sure.

    JD (0f9c01)

  38. The idea that a tax cut is “the same” as the equivalent amount of additional spending is pretty indicative of the kind of economic ignorance we have to battle.

    While the amount of deficit is the same, the total amount of money diverted from the private sector to the public sector is rather obviously not.

    Sheesh.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  39. A tax cut is the same as a government expenditure. It still costs money, in that the government is not getting revenue it had previously received. If you cut taxes by a trillion, it’s no different than going out and spending a trillion on say, a couple of health care bills.

    No, actually, it’s way different and I’m really surprised you insult the the intelligence of others because they don’t agree with your premise.

    Ag80 (f67beb)

  40. I have a great idea – let’s enslave our grandchildren to the Chinese and give the money to unemployed folks!

    Amphipolis (b120ce)

  41. He does not seem to be willing to engage, to be sure.

    His MO is always the same – never admit you’re wrong when you can just as easily run away instead. He’s going to be called on this every time he posts here from now on.

    Dmac (799abd)

  42. “Bunning Fights for Pay-Go”

    Let me guess. He voted for Medicare part D, and the Bush tax cuts too?

    imdw (017d51)

  43. #42 – Let me guess – you didn’t read it?

    Corwin (ea9428)

  44. Oh. Add in Iraq war spending too. Can we guess whether Bunning voted for that?

    imdw (2c804b)

  45. Oh. Add in having his mommy tie his shoes too. Can we guess whether Bunning’s mom did that too?

    Corwin (ea9428)

  46. I love how the Leftists do not apply the same standards to BarckyCare that they do to Part D.

    JD (10904f)

  47. What gets me is how few people seem to understand what happened. I have found very few stories on this incident which stated the actual facts in the matter. To speak without knowing what the situation is is not a good idea.

    Senator Bunning’s action was not a filibuster and there was nothing stopping the Senate majority from voting on the issue.

    However, the Democrats wanted “cover” and were asking for the bill to pass by “unanimous consent.” That required every Senator to agree or, at least, not object. If at least one Senator objected, the bill could still be voted on and passed but the voters would know how their Senators had voted and how many of the Senators did not vote for the bill.

    The Democratic Senators, along with their usefull RINO allies, needed Senator Bunning to cave in – he didn’t. They had to vote on this measure – any delay is not the fault of Senator Bunning but is the fault of the Democratic Senate leadership.

    Longwalker (4e0dda)

  48. It’s hilarious having Moron arguing about principles.

    AD - RtR/OS! (b0c091)

  49. “Senator Bunning’s action was not a filibuster and there was nothing stopping the Senate majority from voting on the issue.”

    Except for time.

    “I love how the Leftists do not apply the same standards to BarckyCare that they do to Part D.”

    I’ve stated that we should consider paying for health care reform in the same way we paid for Part D.

    “They had to vote on this measure – any delay is not the fault of Senator Bunning but is the fault of the Democratic Senate leadership.”

    Bunning could have simply consented to have a vote. He wasn’t willing to consent to that. Till the end.

    But now the delay is the fault of everyone but the guy who wants to have it.

    imdw (c80ec1)

  50. What time?
    As soon as Sen Bunning registered his lack of unanimous consent, the Majority Leader could have called for a vote, since he alone controls the floor.
    You, of course, are still a dickwad.

    AD - RtR/OS! (b0c091)

  51. His MO is always the same

    Yes, his MO is to respond to a question by asking a nonsensical non sequitur of his own in response.

    Subotai (e7189d)

  52. “As soon as Sen Bunning registered his lack of unanimous consent, the Majority Leader could have called for a vote, since he alone controls the floor.”

    Calling for a vote requires taking up hours and hours of legislative time for debate. Unless of course, there’s unanimous consent for the vote to happen immediately. Eventually Bunning agreed to the latter. Maybe he had to take a leak.

    imdw (89ba95)

  53. […] It and Obama Doing His Best to Validate His Critics on the Right Patterico’s Pontifications: Bunning Fights for Pay-Go and Taxpayers Host Pay-Go Reception Ace of Spades HQ: Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller: Hey, That […]

    For Cryin’ Out Loud… Democrats in Congress Pass Pay-As-You-Go Law, Then Work Like the Dickens to Work Around & Bypass It « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  54. […] It and Obama Doing His Best to Validate His Critics on the Right Patterico’s Pontifications: Bunning Fights for Pay-Go and Taxpayers Host Pay-Go Reception Ace of Spades HQ: Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller: Hey, That […]

    For Cryin’ Out Loud… Democrats in Congress Pass Pay-As-You-Go Law, Then Work Like the Dickens to Work Around & Bypass It « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  55. […] It and Obama Doing His Best to Validate His Critics on the Right Patterico’s Pontifications: Bunning Fights for Pay-Go and Taxpayers Host Pay-Go Reception Ace of Spades HQ: Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller: Hey, That […]

    For Cryin’ Out Loud… Democrats in Congress Pass Pay-As-You-Go Law, Then Work Like the Dickens to Work Around & Bypass It « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  56. If you cut taxes by a trillion, it’s no different than going out and spending a trillion on say, a couple of health care bills.

    Even by the standards of dopy lefty trolls, that’s a stupid thing to say. The left clearly sees a huge difference – witness the fact that they have a distinct preference for the trillion dollar health-care bill. And the people whose trillion dollars it is (no, its not the governments trillions dollars) can see a difference also.

    Subotai (e7189d)

  57. The left clearly sees a huge difference – witness the fact that they have a distinct preference for the trillion dollar health-care bill. And the people whose trillion dollars it is (no, its not the governments trillions dollars) can see a difference also.

    You’re conflating two different meanings of ‘difference’. 🙂

    One means something like: “if you cut taxes by a trillion dollars, the effect on the budget is no different than if you go out and spend a trillion on a couple of health care bills”.

    The other means something like: “if you cut taxes by a trillion dollars, the effect on those citizens who are less-well off is very different than if you go out and spend a trillion on a couple of health care bills.”

    The fact that the original comment means “the effect on the budget is no different” was, to me, obvious from context.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  58. Except when the tax cut increases overall revenues …

    JD (456093)

  59. “Except when the tax cut increases overall revenues”

    That’s how we’ll pay for health reform…with tax cuts. Why didn’t the GOP propose that?

    imdw (005125)

  60. That’s how we’ll pay for health reform…with tax cuts. Why didn’t the GOP propose that?
    Comment by imdw — 3/3/2010 @ 12:50 pm

    Because what’s proposed isn’t health reform. Also, how to pay for health-insurance reform isn’t the only deal-breaker. I know you understand this. Why pretend you don’t?

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  61. You do know they proposed lots of things which weren’t deal breakers.

    imdw (2c1194)

  62. […] posted here: Bunning Fights for Pay-Go […]

    Bunning Fights for Pay-Go | Liberal Whoppers (d16888)

  63. imdw : The Democratic majority wanted to pass the bill by “unanimous consent” not to cut off debate on the bill.

    The “unanimous consent” of the Senate would pass the bill and that was what they wanted. If they went ahead and brought the bill up for a vote in the regular manner, they had the votes to shut off debate and pass the bill.

    They wanted something more – that the Republicans take equal blame for the results of this inept piece of legislation. Even without “unanimous consent” they ended up with some cover. There were only 17 votes against the bill.

    Longwalker (4e0dda)

  64. “imdw : The Democratic majority wanted to pass the bill by “unanimous consent” not to cut off debate on the bill.”

    Not just the democratic majority. Everybody but Bunning wanted to pass the bill by unanimous consent. But remember — the delay is the fault everyone but the guy who wante dit.

    imdw (22078e)

  65. It’s Bush’s fault. He is the one that created the bi-partisan atmosphere. Democrats are above blame in all things. This has been dictated by imdw. Bow down and declare thineself a racist.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  66. imdw: You may be right. After all a stopped analog clock is “right” twice a day. I agree that some of the Senate Republicans might, like their Democratic counterparts, desire the cover of “unanimous consent.” That is why, I stopped contributing to the Republican Senate Committee in the early 1980’s. On the whole, they are almost as bad as the Democrats.

    Longwalker (996c34)

  67. One means something like: “if you cut taxes by a trillion dollars, the effect on the budget is no different than if you go out and spend a trillion on a couple of health care bills”.

    And that is incorrect. It may be that the effect on the budget deficit is no different, but there is a vast difference on the size of the budget.

    Assume that the current budget is 2.5 trillion. While we’re engaging in hypotheticals, assume that it is currently in balance. Two proposals are offered. One is for a trillion dollars in new spending, one is for a trillion dollars in tax cuts. It can be argued that each results in trillion dollar shortfall, but it cannot be argued that the budget is otherwise unaffected. The first results in a 3.5 trillion dollar budget, the second in one that is only 1.5 trillion dollars. No definition of “different” exists by which these things can be said to be “not different”.

    Subotai (e7189d)

  68. I’m amused by the argument the lefties are making here.

    “The Republicans did things we believe were bad for the budget. Therefore, we Democrats are entitled to do likewise do things which we think are bad for the budget. Since the Republicans passed a new entitlement program which can’t be paid for, we Democrats are going to pass an even bigger entitlement program which can’t be paid for.”

    If you know it’s bad for the budget, you are not supposed to do it. Regardless of your opinions of what the Republicans did. You’re making no effort to defend Obamacare in it’s own right, merely comparing it to things like the Iraq war. (And last I checked, the Democrats voted for the Iraq war.)

    Subotai (e7189d)

  69. Everybody but Bunning wanted to pass the bill by unanimous consent.

    Everybody? I assume you asked all the 99 other members of the Senate for their opinion and this is what they told you.

    Subotai (e7189d)

  70. When the chair calls for passage by unanimous consent (U-C), any member may rise in opposition, and once one has, there is no need for any other member to register his/her opposition to the call for U-C. At that point, under Robert’s Rules, the floor would be open for discussion, since prior to the call for U-C, there would have been a Motion and Second registered.
    If the Maj.Leader did not want to open the floor for discussion of the matter, it could be implied that he knew he didn’t have the votes to close-off debate, and call the issue.
    Robert Byrd is notorious for using the Senate’s Rules to tie it up in proceedural knots, as he has forgotten more of the parlimentary proceedures that the Senate operates under than most Senators ever learn.

    AD - RtR/OS! (b0c091)

  71. “Everybody? I assume you asked all the 99 other members of the Senate for their opinion and this is what they told you.”

    He’s the only one that objected.

    imdw (fab3a5)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1137 secs.