I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.
Nathan Hale
Learning to Pick One's Battles: The FEMA Funding Showdown
Senator Harry Reid has played the demagogue card before; let reprise the conclusion of last year's unemployment compensation filibuster that made former Senator Jim Bunning the most harassed and vilified politician in the mainstream media:
The unemployment extension, which also included COBRA subsidies, authorization for higher pay for Medicare doctors and funding for federal highway programs, passed 78-19. Under the deal with Bunning, Reid agreed to allow a vote on a measure to offset the bill's $10 billion cost with cuts in other programs. However, the off-set measure is expected to fail, and the unemployment extension bill will not be paid for after all.How many times at the drop of a hat do we hear about ANY cut in spending--in a $3.7T budget, some 40% or so unpaid for--mean less police on the street, fewer teachers in the classroom, or grandma eating cat food? What better targets for Democrats to prove the generosity of their bleeding hearts over those heartless bean-counter Republicans whom would surely deny a hungry Oliver Twist a second helping of gruel: how could these Scrooge's take bread from an unemployed parent's hungry child or balance the budget on the backs of the middle-class homeowner whose only major asset, his home, was flooded out under Hurricane Irene?
We all know how disingenuous Democrats have been--paying lip service during the last session of Congress to the concept of pay-as-you-go which is how you ended up with 24% increases in funding (not including the one-time spending of the massive 2009 stimulus bill). Yet the Senate approved a $6.9B budget. What about the current fiscal year (2011) ending next Friday? "Congress approved $2.7 billion to FEMA for the Disaster Relief Fund in fiscal year 2011 in addition to $2.8 billion in unused funds from the 2010 fiscal year. Another $1.8 billion in funds that were no longer needed from previous years were also made available to the disaster relief fund in fiscal year 2011." The House approved an increase for FY2011 of $1B, plus $2.7B for FY2012, with part of the budget offset by a reduction in a clean-energy program (no doubt motivated by the ongoing Solyndra scandal).
The Senate rejected (under filibuster rules) two amendments, one by Tom Coburn whom was looking to offset the entire budget by cost savings in eliminating duplicate resources and a second from Rand Paul, looking to offset part of the cost by certain foreign program expenditures (which won only about a third of the votes needed to pass cloture).
Now what's particularly noticeable here is Tom Coburn's amendment focusing on hundreds of billions of duplication in government; it passed 54-45 but failed to reach the 60-vote cloture minimum needed. I finally tracked down the roll call vote on Senate Amendment 610 here; a quick scan shows all 45 No's were Democrats, and the few 'yea' Democrat votes seemed to come from Senators standing for reelection (or expiring terms) next year: Webb (VA), Klobuchar (MN), McCaskill (MO), Nelson (NE), and Manchin (WV).
How would I have voted? Briefly: yea on Coburn; nay on Paul; yea on the $6.9B Senate bill; yea on the House bill. To explain: first of all, I look at the nature and fiscal materiality of the expenditure. I think when you're doing budget offsets, you look to spread the offset across the budget. You certainly don't go after key spending priorities by our Nobel Laureate President, such as foreign expenditures and clean energy; that's like teeing up the ball for Obama to veto it, and with a 15% approval rating, the Congress can't afford to play a game of political posturing which will be seen by the Democrats, not to mention the mainstream media as blatant political opposition, not principled opposition. Second, I don't think you risk a polarizing shutdown over a difference of only a few billion dollars in the context of a $3.7T budget. I know you have to start somewhere, and every dollar counts.
But you don't play a game of political chicken over "Mom, apple pie, and Chevrolet" issues. The Democrats, of course, would love nothing better than for certain ideological Republicans to be scapegoated for voting on the back of those affected by acts of God. Keep it simple, stupid! I want to see across-the-board cuts, which will be much more politically risky for Obama to oppose, because it is spread across everyone's pet programs and thus cannot be seen as partisan. Personally, I don't mind there's ANY cut Obama would stomach.
But I agree with fellow fiscal hawks like Senators Rubio, Vitter, and Toomey whom were among the double-digit GOP Senator voters in support of the $6.9B bill. I would argue to my fellow Tea Party supporters that we can't afford to be penny-wise, dollar-foolish (pound-foolish). We can't afford to throw away Senate seats like we did last year in Colorado, Nevada, and Delaware. The big battle is for material, big-dollar budgetary reforms. Have people forgotten how easily Paul Ryan's Medicare plan was disingenuously attacked by a political opportunist Democrat in capturing a GOP House seat earlier this year , vacant because of a resignation over a mild sex scandal. This was just one year after the Democrats made Medicare cuts a key funding source for ObamaCare. I suggest each GOP Congressman and Senator remember the famous Serenity Prayer:
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
- Reinhold Niebuhr
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Fleetwood Mac, "Don't Stop"
