Austin:
I lost my job last October. I came home told my wife that I had been laid off and then told her that we were going to have to cut back on our expenses. We save regularly and we had enough in the bank to sustain us for 3 months without cutting back at all. But, we decided that if we cut back we could make it 4 or 5 months if I didn't get another job.
All across the United States of America there are families having that very discussion tonight. When they have a shortage of funds they have to stop spending. They can't force anyone to give them money or they would be jailed for robbery. So, they tighten their belts and slow the rate of spending to compensate for the lack of income.
Not so with the Federal Government. They can force us to hand over our money through taxes. I know that we need a military and other necessary services. I gladly pay my tax dollars for those things, but when revenues are down the government decides to increase taxes and just borrow more and more money. The madness needs to stop.
Senator Jim Bunning (R) decided that he has had enough of the spending in Washington and took a stand against breaking the pay-go rules. These rules cause the government to behave just as I did when I lost my job. If I spend on one thing...I can't spend on another. We owe Jim Bunning a big thank you.
I know he hasn't always taken such a stand, but I am grateful that he has finally said, "ENOUGH!" The spending in Washington is out of control. The Federal Reserve chairman himself indicated that the current level of debt is unsustainable. So, Jim Bunning, realizing that he could do something about it stood up.
We should be applauding Jim Bunning for coming to his senses. Regardless of his past votes, he decided to do the right thing for a change. Frankly I wish more senators would finally start listening to the American people when we say, "QUIT SPENDING US INTO OBLIVION!"
Thank you Jim Bunning. I am sorry you are retiring, I wish I could move to Kentucky and vote for you. (Well, actually, I just wish I could vote for you. I don't think I could actually live in Kentucky.)
Email Austin
Follow Austin on Twitter!
David:
I don’t find anything courageous in Senator Bunning’s recent stand against the national debt or his statements attempting to justify it. In the 24 years he had been in Congress, he hadn’t taken any particular notice that President Clinton left the United States with a budget surplus, but President George W. Bush wiped that out and then some -- leaving a debt of nearly $10 trillion when he stepped down. This lovely man has also accused a political opponent of being “limp-wristed” and of “looking like one of Saddam Hussein’s sons”; has told the media “I don’t watch the national news, and I don’t read the paper …. I watch Fox News to get my information”; was dubbed one of America’s Five Worst Senators by Time magazine in 2006; and tried to block the return of public access to the records of past Presidents which Bush removed with Executive Order 13233. Clinton has said that Bunning is so mean-spirited, he repulses even his fellow know-nothings: “I tried to work with him a couple times,” the former President told historian Taylor Branch, “and he just sent shivers up my spine.”
So Bunning has finally awakened and is giving President Obama hell for his fraction of the total debt, which he incurred trying to fight the recession that developed under Bush? Why do you suppose that is? Could it be because Bunning’s not running for office again? He can look principled and unpartisan by blaming both Democrats and Republicans for this mess, but the fact is that he has been so unpopular in his own state that he polled a miserable 28 percent approval rating in April of 2009, and announced in June that he was not going to run for reelection this year because of trouble raising money and getting sufficient support from the Republican Party. Anyone can act courageous when he has nothing to lose; real courage is standing up for your principles when you DO have something to lose.
“Why can't a non-controversial measure in the Senate that would help those in need be paid for?” Bunning asks; but he doesn’t offer any ideas or answers. Gee, we need $10 billion . . . do you think we could spare five weeks’ worth of killing solders, terrorists, and civilians in Iraq to help out struggling Americans? Or is spending $10 billion for death and destruction overseas more in the interests of the United States than spending it to help struggling American families who lost their jobs, retirement income, and even homes due to an economic crisis brought on by the greed of Wall Street investment experts currently being indicted for insider trading, banks that collapsed after extending mortgages to people who shouldn’t have qualified for them, and corporations and lawyers that made millions off Ponzi schemes?
I don’t see that Bunning has made any tough or brave decisions here. It’s just grandstanding as usual.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment