« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Nancy Pelosi’s irrelevant budget objection.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  March 1st, 2011 at 12:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

It’s looking increasingly likely that Senate Democrats are unwilling to die on the hill of opposition to 4 billion dollars’ worth of cuts in the short-term emergency funding bill to supplement the continuing resolution that the Republicans had to pass in lieu of a proper budget that the Democrats refused to even offer last year – yes, that’s a bit of a run-on sentence.  It’s not my fault. – anyway, Reid doesn’t particularly want to play chicken on this one, particularly since the cuts are to things that the President pretended to be in favor of cutting anyway*.

However, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi seems to have not gotten the memo, because she’s criticizing the cuts… and, by association, the President for suggesting them in the first place.  Such a criticism requires only the highest, most logical rebuttal:

Sit down, Nancy.
Shut up, Nancy.
When we want your opinion we’ll ask you, Nancy.

There is something almost unholy in the glee that comes from being able to casually dismiss the whines of the House Minority Leader on this, or any other, issue.  Particularly since Nancy Pelosi was and is infamous for ignoring the opposition during her four-year quest to wreck the Democratic party’s pseudo-moderate wing for the next generation.  House Democrats are spectators in this fight – which is going to continue past this emergency bill, and which will include entitlement reform – and they’re spectators largely because of Nancy Pelosi’s structural inability to plan beyond the immediate goal.

Put another way: in this case, karma is not only what’s for dinner.  It’s what’s for dinner, dessert, breakfast, and second breakfast.

(H/T Red Dog Report)

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*I say ‘pretend’ because, well, President Obama is off playing King Log again.  Which is arguably the best thing for him to do, given his particular skill set, but it’s at times like this that I wish that the American political system had a formal way to separate out head of state from head of government.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • bk

    Then that should frame the debate for the next round. If the same cuts are not in place for the rest of the fiscal year – $2B/week times 6-1/2 months or whatever it works out to – then the GOP should be screaming that the Dems are trying to add $60B in spending above the current baseline.

    It is funny to look at how the Dems blew their chance. In the last session they could have passed any budget they wanted. Instead they spent a year on Obamacare, then went into re-election mode, then went into panic lame duck mode. Now they’re stuck and are reduced to doing what they do best – whine.

  • Common_Cents

    The lefties including Schumer the slime got the Bernank to say not raising the debt ceiling would be “chaos”. CNBS immediately broadcast the sound byte. They also got the Bernank to say that any significant cut in spending would slow GDP, inferring that anyone messing with growing government will blow things up. He is implying that government is the most efficient use of our newly borrowed money. Sad. Sad.

    They got their sound bytes. Watch out below because it will now be broadcast in the lame stream media that it is bad for America to deny any government spending, maybe even unpatriotic as some will stoop so low to say. Of course there is no effort to say that there is any significant government waste either. The left will tell you govt is efficient and every dollar is justified.

    Notice they never ask “at what cost?” Nor does the Bernank address it on his own. The Bernank is complicit with Geithner in running up the credit card on the taxpayer, while funneling money into the big banks by lending to big banks at very low rates and then buying back treasuries bought often times a couple weeks later after issuance via POMO.

    Here is the problem. The Bernank can say the money supply isn’t that much inflationary, and the reason he won’t say is because none of this money supply is getting to Americans and lending banks in the traditional sense. It is being horded and recycled by a few elite bankers.

    I pray for America.

  • jaybo

    How else can you explain the fact that they refused to pass a budget in 2010? They actually thought that not doing it would reduce their losses in the last election.

    Again, they put their party’s interests above the interests of the country.

    Why am I not surprised.

  • MF

    Instead of, “If we want your opinion, we’ll ask you,” Obama would have said, “If we want your opinion, we’ll tell you what it is.”

  • congressworksforus

    Dear Nancy – we won, you lost. Suck on it.

  • http://spendenforcer.com/ vortigernpendragon

    Just think, if they can somehow find a way to reach an agreement on this, then they can get to work on this year’s budget. Chalk up another $3.75 trillion.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vkTQErQWko