« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Mitch McConnell Does it Again

There’s got to be some way to create a legislative scorecard on committee votes.

Last month, House Republicans almost unanimously passed the “Ryan” budget resolution for FY 2013.  It established the topline discretionary spending level at $1.028 trillion, just $15 billion below last year’s levels and $19 billion below the cap set in the Budget [Out of] Control Act.  To put that in perspective, the discretionary spending level was as low as $933 billion in 2008 – pre-Obama.  We’re not exactly going back to the last century here.

Yet, even these modest cuts were too much for Obama.  Earlier this week, he threatened to veto any appropriations bill that reflects the spending figures in the Ryan budget as opposed to those working with the $1.047 cap of the BCA.  We would all expect Mitch McConnell to side with the House Republicans and the impregnable Ryan budget over Obama and Reid, right?

Wrong!

Yesterday, the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up an overall spending bill that sets the discretionary caps pursuant to the BCA – just like Obama demanded.  The vote? 27-2!  This from, CQ:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky joined all but two of the GOP appropriators present and all Democrats in setting total discretionary spending for fiscal 2013 at $1.047 trillion, the limit established under the law (PL 112-25).

McConnell, who has kept his seat on the Appropriations Committee, did not attend Thursday’s markup, but he had given his permission for Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the panel’s ranking Republican, to give his aye by proxy on this vote.

Republicans Jerry Moran of Kansas and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin voted against the budgetary caps, which are up slightly from the current fiscal year’s overall $1.043 trillion level. Another GOP appropriator, Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois, is recovering from a stroke and did not attend the markup.

In a few months we will be in the midst of the annual budget battle, but we must not forget that the Democrats in the Senate will only have their superior leverage due to the committee work of McConnell and his fellow travelers.

Let’s not kid ourselves about Republicans winning back the Senate.  If McConnell remains party leader and he is joined by a new batch of big-government types like David Dewhurst, Jon Bruning, Tommy Thompson, and Rick Berg, nothing will change.  They will all talk about balancing the budget, but it is this type of committee work that ensures that the budget will never be balanced.  All the aforementioned candidates will serve as conduits for McConnell and the big appropriators.

We clearly need new leaders who are willing to stack the important committees with conservatives.  To accomplish that, we must elect more conservatives to the Senate.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

COMMENTS

  • AceInTX

    in that, calling someone a “Ho” implys there is a quid pro duo in concert with the one paying having the right to have one’s way with the aptly termed “Ho.”

    There is a much better descriptor in describing the “Relationship” between Ried and McConnell…I used to work in the prison system, and the inmates had their term for those other inmates constantly at the receiving end of the Alpha male’s in the inmate population.

    Those Alphas had there way with these sorry excuses for manhood at any time of their choosing, in any place of their choosing and they had there way in the most humiliating way possible for these pathetic losers…

    The term they used to describe them was…BXXCH…McConnell is Ried’s BXXCH pure and simple…Ried calls Mitch in when he wants something…and Mitch just assumes the position and gives Harry whatever he wants without ever extracting a price for servicing his Alpha.

    This is pathetic…I’d almost feel soory for McConnell if his constant and continuous capitulation wasn’t so loathsome and pathetic.

    How long will we continue to be plagued with this fecklessness and pathetic excuse for manhood in our leadership?

    • audax

      MXXch the BXXCH?

  • clintonformccain

    an appropriations vote that meets the spending caps agreed to last fall and raises the annual federal spending by 2.8%?

    Frankly, as hard as it was to get this cap in place last fall, McConnell would have to be brain dead to re-litigate this one.

    What is to be gained by his now voting against the deal he negotiated, just to make the vote 26-3 instead of 27-2? Sometimes you have to pick your battles.

    • inovrmihd

      Other Republicans would have voted with him and it wouldn’t be 26-3.

  • aesthete

    That’s a phrase that conservatives got used to accepting during the Bush administration — despite the fact that Republicans had control of the Congress and Presidency for most of that time (or close to it).

    With Mitch McConnell in charge, those days will undoubtedly be upon us again if nothing changes — and a Pres Romney will be no help in this regard. That is why we need strong conservative representation in the Congress, and why we should redouble our efforts to elect same in this political season.

    • Common_Cents

      nt

  • rabun1016

    Has anyone – you, anyone you know, any senator – ever been persuaded about anything after hearing Mitch McConnell talk about it? Sadly, he is a huge part of the problem. A lifer, with a wifer who had a top republican job. A classic double dipper making huge money off government and looking forward to two huge government pensions. I took exception to Daschle’s wife cashing in as a lobbyist, but McConnell’s did the same except she actually worked for the govt. Why not someone like John Thune or Coburn who have some element of reasonable persuasion in their public presentations?

  • clintonformccain

    McConnell knows that there are big battles on the horizon, not the least of which is the looming expiration of the tax cuts. There’s just nothing to be gained by re-fighting the last battle.

    They got the spending caps for this year (in a fight that wasn’t great for the Republicans politically). It appears that they have an appropriations bill that meets those caps. It appears that there is nearly unanimous support (at least in commitee) for that appropriations bill.

    What exactly do you want McConnell to do? What will it accomplish?

    • rabun1016

      And you think McConnell will win any of those battles ahead? I don’t.
      His snorts and retorts do not move the public to action, and voter pressure is the only way Senators go against their leadership.

      • clintonformccain

        to be relatively immune to specifically that kind of short term public pressure. That’s why they have six -year terms.

        The Senate leadership role is not really focused on being public spokesman. It’s more of a parliamentary maneuvering job.

        Fortunately, the Republican party now has a Presdential nominee who will assume the leadership position in terms of public messaging.

        • rabun1016

          Fair point, but in the day of the internet, it has all changed. Daschle used the media as a lap dog, and had an audience and a sound bite whenever needed. Daschle and Mitchell got the Repubs to agree to filibusters without the talking. Just file the memo, don’t worry about actually having to talk. By any measure, McConnell has done an awful job and is as bad as Daschle is term of his reaping the spoils, but has been less effective. Isn’t the seniority system great!

          • acat

            The direct election of Senators ensures that they skew more subservient to political needs of getting re-elected and less subservient to the needs of their States.

            Stupid amendment, should be left to each State to decide how to pick Senators… even if a majority of States want to go the direct-elect route it doesn’t mean all States should be forced to go along.

            To put it more pointedly, Sen. Stuart Smalley (erm, Al Franken) would be impossible if he had to work through the Minnesota statehouse.

            Mew

    • AceInTX

      we’ve been told over and over again…don’t worry about this battle…there’s a bigger battle just ahead and we’ll get em next time…

      I call BS….McConnell will never fight…the budget battle forming a super committee to make cuts is the proof in the pudding…McConnell put on the table a lever to get the Democrats to promise to cut spending less spending in a super committee or face gutting out military and they took the dumb ass up on it….he handed them their decades long wet dream as a supposed tool to force them to make budget cuts…they got their budget the way they wanted it…the Super committee refused to come up with the cuts…and now the military is facing crippling budget cuts in 2013 that are already forcing catastrophic cutbacks in the military and out ability to conduct wars to protect our national interest!

      What a Fricking Genius. and I guarantee you…when this election is over…and if the Republicans regain the majority…McClueless will be Senate Majority Leader and will still be on his knees servicing Harry Ried!

      • clintonformccain

        Move on to the next battle. You can’t keep fighting the last battle over and over and over. The public was generally disgusted with the whole thing the last time. Why would McConnell want to pick the scab off?

  • ceili_dancer

    Bear with me for a few minutes, I hope you can agree with me for the reasons I put forth. First, he can balance the ticket geographically. Also Kentucky sent Rand Paul to the Senate last year, they can probably send another conservative like him again. He has been a Senator since 1984, he would know how to help get legislation done. After leading the senate Republicans since 2006 he should be “rewarded” for his hard work.

    Okay, you got me. The real reason I think Mitch would be a great choice for VP is that would take him out of the Senate leadership and into a nothing job where he can’t do any real harm.

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      That’s one way to take care of the problem.

      • red_oakster

        no thanks

        • ceili_dancer

    • ghostship

      still sucks.

      With Boehner as speaker in the House and possibly Romney in the WH this is the election year of low expectations.

      Oh well as a republican I should be used to having low expectations. Having low expectations should probably be a requirement in order to register as a republican.

    • AceInTX

      unless you thing Romney is in line to lose….in which case…I applaud your thinking

      • ceili_dancer

        n/t

    • Stricia

      I know you have got to be kidding me. April Fools was a while back! I doubt he would survive a leadership challenge anyway. And all you can think about is having him one heartbeat away from POTUS!