Who's Appropriate For The Appropriations Committee?

by Dick Mac

The House Appropriations Committee is the place where the money is divided up for the different government programs that require funding. Historically, it has been considered a plum position, and appointment was reserved for those who played ball.

In the just-concluded midterm elections, newly-elected Republicans ran their campaign on the promise to cut spending. Nothing is sacred to these determined teabaggers. Their going to take a bite out of the balls of the budget, no matter how much it hurts the bull.

The House leaders of this aggressive movement to get the budget under control, and some of their so-called "conservative" counterparts are people like Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Steve King (R-Iowa), Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). These are people who have promised to "reign in spending"! We'll call them a gang of four.

I have never seen a Republican reign in spending. In fact, Republicans tend to eliminate taxes and increase spending, creating the largest possible deficits. It's really simple math, it's not rocket-science; but then, the education system has failed white America and they don't know how to count, talk, read, think, vote, or behave.

So, this teabagging Gang of Four seems like the best group of people to put on the Appropriations Committee. They have the most to say about spending, so let's get them in a position of power where they can do something about it. You know, a sort of "put your money where your mouth is" scenario.

Surprisingly, although this Gang of Four wants desperately, and has promised vociferously to cut spending, they have all refused the invitation to become a member of the Appropriations Committee!

Do you wonder why?

Well, because they don't want to be the ones to cut anything, because if they cut your state appropriations, and not their own state appropriations, they will be seen as the self-serving bastards they really are. You see, elected teabaggers don't plan to make any cuts that might make them look bad, or might affect the teabaggers who elected them. They want plenty of bridges to nowhere in their state, they just don't want them in your state.

[More after this musical interlude.]



So, instead of having "tax and spend liberals" running Appropriations, we will likely have "don't tax, but still spend" Republicans in those seats, which will lead to even bigger deficits. But since that's what Republicans do best, I think teabaggers are getting exactly what they voted for!

Good job, teabaggers! It's all making sense now, right?!?!? These people you think share your values, only share your values as long as they are getting your tax dollars (and plenty of them) to spend on their pet projects, to benefit people other than YOU! They aren't going to do anything to change Washington, because Washington isn't broken: it's just not collecting enough taxes to run our once-great nation!

Appropriations panel loses its luster

A Silver Lining? Celebrating Some GOP Losses!

by Dick Mac

Yesterday's election is being called a referendum on President Obama's performance so far.

According to that notion, the American people do not share Obama's vision of the future (whatever that vision be), or his methodology for getting there (which seems to include completely ignoring his base).

There have been two Democratic presidents who faced a similar mid-term critique: Harry Truman lost his congressional Democratic majority in 1946 when Americans elected Republican majorities in both houses, in the middle of his first term. The mid-term election during Bill Clinton's first term (1994) also saw the Republicans take control of both houses. In both cases, the sitting Democratic president won re-election to a second term.

Having lost only the House and not the Senate may prove a disadvantage for Obama in 2012!

In better news: many teabaggers were defeated, including Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, Sharron Angle in Nevada, and Carl Paladino in New York. All three ran on such extreme platforms that they simply could not find a majority during a very pro-Republican election cycle.

The biggest teabagger race is for Senator from Alaska, where Republican Lisa Murkowski lost renomination for her own seat to teabagger Joe Miller. Murkowski ran a write-in campaign and at last count was leading Miller! It will be days before one side or the other can fix that election, but a Republican running a write-in campaign against another Republican and leading at any point in vote-counting, especially after the election finishes, is a remarkable story in and of itself. Good luck to Murkowski, because one less teabagger in Washington is one more ray of hope for he United States of America.

My favorite Republican loss is the race for Senator from Connecticut. Linda McMahon spent fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) to get 500,000 votes. That's about a hundred bucks a vote. Wow! A hundred bucks a vote to lose!

[Correction. The original post mistakenly referred to the Connecticut election as a race for Governor. It was a race for Senator.]

Humor - Light Bulb Jokes

How many Republicans does it take to change a light bulb?
Three. One to change the bulb, one to call the media and publicize it, and one to blame the electric bill on the Democrats.

How many Democrats does it take to change a light bulb?
That light bulb's never getting changed.



I guess the humor is in the accuracy. How disappointing is the Democratic majority in Congress? Have you ever seen a party more inept? If there is any group that can screw-up the Democratic majority, it's the Democrats.

On the Roy Pearson front, I was told that the trial was to have started yesterday, but it seems that it did not. If it happens today, I will certainly post an update.



Dick Mac Recommends:

The Best Of Freda Payne
Freda Payne