What did my previous article show you? It showed you that "The Emperor Has No Clothes". As the article showed, it is an absolute fact that Republicans can FORCE a "balanced budge"--force the government to spend only what it receives in money--which makes it absurd for Republicans to talk as if they don't have that POWER. Nop. It does not matter if Democrats control the Senate and the Presidency. The government cannot spend any money not authorized by the REPUBLICAN House.
Doubt me that the "Balanced Budget Amendment" is only cynical politics as usual? Don't!!! I actually saw one of those "panel discussions" of "journalists" (in their dreams) discussing why Republicans are RETHINKING the idea of forcing a vote (maybe as part f a CAVE on real spending cuts) in the Senate on a balanced budget amendment. Read my previous article. The SOLE purpose of Republicans, in pushing the idea of a balanced budget amendment in the first place (which they KNOW will fail to pass) is to put DEMOCRATS "on record" as being against a balanced budget. Forget it that REPUBILCANS are "on record" as opposing a blanced budget when they pass deficit spending bills. Remember, the REPUBLICAN House has to approve EVERY spending bill, or the bill cannot become law. Yep. Pepublicans have a VETO over spending at the present time. They don't HAVE to pass any budgett, or any spending bill, that they don't want to pass. This is all about FANTASY, and not reality. The Republican idea is to POSTURE in a FANTASY vote that they know will lose. But this panel suggested, and I agree with them on this, that Democrats may be more than willing to have a "balanced budget amendment" vote in the Senate. It takes only 34 votes to defeat a proposed Constitutional Amendment. There are something like 53 Democratic Senators. Even with no Republicans voting against, some 19 Democratic Senators cn vote for the "balanced budget amendment" and still have it FAIL. What the panel did not say--cynical, but not cynical enough, although I think they implied this--is that many REPUBLICANS would vote for the balanced budget amendment for the very same reason most of those 19 Democrats might: TO GET REELECTED. Thus, while Republicans might plnan to aid Republican candidates in "red states" with souch a vote, it might well BACKFIRE. Taht is because it gives Democrats in redd states an opportunity to say they voted FOR a "balanced budget amendment" in a MEANINGLESS vote.. The whole point of theis Republican Fantasy Weekend series of articles (which mayextend beyond the weekend), is that these political games are NOT ACCEPTABLE. You, as voterrs, should HURT (by means of your vote, or withholding it) politicians who play these games--whether Michelle Bachmann, Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. I mention Michelle Bachmann because she is one of the LEAST LIKELY to play games, and yet I often get the feeling she is. Before the 2010 election, I told you that the ONLY Republican in the United States Senate (taking into account I don't know a few of themm that well) who I would not THROW OUT is Jim Demint (and I was not too sure about him). Rand Paul, Mike Leigh, Marco Rubio, and maybe another one or two were added in 2010. But Republican politicians are primarily game players, and it is no longer acceptable (if it ever was).
But what about the Democrats? Ah, as far as fantasy politics this is like going from Class A (Republicans) to the major leagues (Democrats). Democrats have not even passed a budget in mor than TWO YEARS. What does a "balanced budget amendment" have to say when Congress, or one branch of Congress (Democratic Senate right now), simply does not pass a budget? Yes, this is basically ILLEGAL. But ther is NO TEETH in budget procedural requirements and all of the rest. Democrats, even while controling BOTH houses of Congress (first two years of the Obama Administration), simply refuse to pass a budget if they feel it will POLITICALLY hurt them. That, alone, is reason enough to vote against EVERY sintgle Democrat in Congress.
But you have heard from the Democrats how they have "inherited" this mmess from President Bush, and how Bush "started" all of thesee big deficits. Now we graduate from tantasy to the Orwellian Big Lie. DEMOCRATS controlled BOTH HOUSES of Cnngress as of January of 2007. Indeed, you can argue that the ONLY thing that was DIFFERENT when our economy collapsed, in 2008m8, was DEMOCRATIC CONTROL of Congress. Now that may be taking the argument further than it can really supportt, but it is absolutely true that dEMOCRATS controlled every single spending bill that passed Congress after January of 2007. In fact, Democrats controlled almost all of the domestic agenda. You could not even get a VOTE in the Senate unless Harry Reid approved it. It boggles my mind that Republicans don't make a big point of this, except that establishment Republicans are too afraid it will amount to a criticism of President Bush (who collaborated with Democrats in too mcuh of this, including the Wall Street bailouts).
But what about Pressident Obama.? He has said that he was surprised by how Washington worked, and he ran as an OUTSIDER, as if he were coming to Washington as a completely new experience. That is the BIGGEST LIE of all. President Obama has NOT failed for just 2 and one half years. He has FAILED for FOUR and one half years. That is how long Barack Bobam has been either part of the MAJORITY party in control of Congress, or President of the Untied Staes. For four years, Obama was part oft he party with COMPETE CONTROL of Congress. If Obama had PROPOSED something, it had a good chance of going through. I Obama OPPOSED something (vocally), it had almost no chance of going trhough. After all, after the middle of 2007, Obama was not only a senator but a MAJOR candidate for leader of the Democratic Party . It is one of the GREAT LIES of history that Barack Obama was an "outsider". Of course, Obama was in the Senate--on of the "insiders" that got us into this mess--as of January of 2005. To say The Emperor Has No Clothes with regard to Barack Obama is an understatement. Like Ben Bernanke (failure as head of the Federal Reserve), Barack Obama has been an integral part of the DISASTER that has stricken this country since 2006. You wnat to say that Obama was not really a "leader" before he became President? Do you really want to make it that obvious that Obama has NEVER been a leader, and is not a leader now? That just makes it how obvious it is that Obama was just as repsonsible, if not more responsible, than President Bush for the economic mess we endeup up in. Oaama AND the Democratic Party.
Yes, this is the beef that so many conservatives have with REPUBLICANS. They not only take positions where it is obvious that they have no clothes, but they refuse to point out when the OPPOSITION has no clothes (often in apparent terror of the now toothless mainstream media, unless you cooperate in giving them false teeth).
Republican Fantasy Weekend will continue, with "New York and Gay Rights: Why Christians Cannot Trust Republicans", and "Republicans and Capital Gains: Mixing Religioin and Public Policy". No, it is doubtful both articles will be finished this weekend, and s9--like the momosexual marriage bill in New York--it is likely that this series will be extended beyond the official end date by popular demand (perhaps indefinitely).
Hacker Boy: "What popular demand? I don't see any popular demand. I don't see any comments at all.."
Skip: "Hey, Hacker Boy, if Democrats and Republicans (Politician kind) can play the deceptive games that they play, I can invent "popular demand". I feel psitively CLEAN in comarison with the slimy politician that we keep voting into office. And the way I feel about my honesty, in comparison with the mainstream media, is beyond description. I have thought abut it. The best way I can put it is that I PREVIOUSLY thought it would not be so bad if Hell exists--not certain for an agnostic like me--because I would meet all of those people (mainstream media people) there. Now I am beginning to have hope. What if the mainstream media people, and politicians--not to mention leftists--are SO BAD that I look GOOD by comparison? Might I not get into Heaven (if it exists) after all, sort of by default? Why esle would I have been given that Sodom and Gomorrah assignment to futilely look for an honest, competent Associated Press reporter?
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad yeesight). One rason I am so redundant is that if you can't figure out a sentence, because of the outrageous typos, then you don't need to worry. I repeat the sentence again for you. All you have to do is move on. And if you believe this one, I have hthis bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you. I can even take you on a guided tour of my bridge in Brooklyn, as I plan to be visting my daughter in NYC at the end of July (alnog with my daughter in Boston). Yes, I will again be entering the land of the ENEMY, with my life at risk. And by "enemy", I do not just mean my feminist daughters.