LV Congressman Charlie Dent joined a bipartisan majority yesterday in voting to continue funding federal government operations through April 8, 2011. The final vote was 271 to 158, with 54 Republicans and 85 Democrats voting No.Before yesterday's vote, Dent had been pressured by conservative and extreme elements from within his own party to "stand strong by voting against the Obama Budget by supporting the House conservative alternative." That plan would have defunded Planned Parenthood and the Corporation for Public Bradcasting. Conservative Michelle Bachman claimed that "a vote for the CR [Continuing Resolution] is a vote to not fight against ObamaCare."
“Unfortunately, dysfunction and a lack of urgency in the U.S. Senate has again pushed the nation to the brink of a government shutdown,” Dent said. “To avoid the extremely disruptive impact a shutdown would have on our economy, it was absolutely necessary the House passed an additional short-term Continuing Resolution. This legislation, which advances our efforts to reign in excessive federal spending, will provide ample time for the Senate to complete work on a measure that funds the government through the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011 and reflects the level of savings passed by the House.”
The short-term measure considered by the House today cuts an additional $6 billion in federal spending through funding rescissions and reductions, program terminations, and the elimination of $2.6 billion in earmark funding. This is the same $6 billion included in H.R.1, the long-term Continuing Resolution that passed the House on February 19th.
The measure must now be considered by the U.S. Senate.
one is surprised that Bachman never served time on northampton county council
ReplyDeleteLet me get this straight - the federal government is spending $1.6 TRILLION more than it is taking in THIS YEAR. And they're cutting 6 BILLION.
ReplyDeleteThat means that even if they manage to get $100 BILLION in cuts (which they won't get close to) - and then find another $100 BILLION in cuts every year thereafter - the overspending in the 2011 budget would be paid off in 16 years. Of course each future year brings a new budget and a new deficit.
And that's just talking about the amount ($1.6 TRILLION) that they're OVERSPENDING by. Thank God the federal government can print its own money.
I am just so glad we have a representative that is serious about fiscal responsibility and who doesn't want to see our kids and grandkids saddled with a suffocating debt.
Dysfunction? What is more dysfunctional than continuing to spend money you will never have?
ReplyDeleteThey always need more time and more importantly, MORE MONEY, while they "work" on things.
ReplyDeleteOnly, that work never gets done.
In the end, there will be a compromise, one that affords people like Charlie the opportunity to say they did something, and the net result of even more crushing debt on the for those yet to be conceived.
Wait a minute... It's March, I thought Dent was in the pocket of Big Conservative. I'm sure that's true, Geeting said so.
ReplyDeleteBernie -
ReplyDeleteWhy IS the federal government funding things like Planned Parenthood or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? Can't the supporters or users of those programs pick up the tab for those items? Both seem like easy choices to get rid of when the government is OVERSPENDING by $1.6 TRILLION.
Please don't use the poverty argument. Take a drive along N. 7th Street in Allentown - an area with one of the highest poverty rates in the city - and count the number of satellite dishes at each address.
It would seem that even the "poor" have plenty of choices of what to watch on their (multiple) TV's.
Patrick, I'd agree with slashing public broadcasting. I think those of us who listen to public radio should pay for it. But believe it or not, there are poor people, especially in Allentown. For every person with a satellite dish, there are many more in A-town who are suffering. There are children with no Winter coats or who are hungry. Go to a local food bank, and you'll see the poverty. Talk to a good (and there are some) teacher, and you'll eventually learn that she bought at least one coat for one of his or her students last Winter. Cutting programs designed to help the poor would be very foolish and short-sighted.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with programs for the poor is that there are too many at cross purposes. A recent GSA report revealed 18 anti-poverty programs being administered by eight federal agencies. The result? More poverty than ever. It costs 90 cents to administer each dollar of federal aid. Local non-profits are required to operate on shoestring administrative budgets (4% to 5%) because the state and federal bureaucracies have already had their turn at the administrative trough. Lots of government jobs are provided by the poverty industry. Just like Gracedale, the ultimate goal of helping those who need it takes a back seat to the political payoffs and paybacks.
ReplyDeleteMaybe he can burn the midnight oil and help people get affordable healthcare. Of course he already has a taxpayer plan for life. Oh, make that his entire family has a taxpayer funded plan for life.
ReplyDeletePatrick -- it means they're cutting $6 billion every 3 weeks. Over a whole year that works out to $100 billion in cuts.
ReplyDeleteThat works for me.
Patrick Mcmoron,
ReplyDeleteThey can cut trillions from defense without even noticing , yet the Republicans dont want to assault their friends in the defense industry..or for that matter the health care industry, the oil industry, wall st, big pharma, etc etc etc...Lets just cut programs for the poor and the middle class..yea Mcmoron, that's about right!!
Anon 12:00 AM -
ReplyDeletePardon me, but I don't see the benefit to the poor on programs like public broadcasting. I also don't see the benefit to the "poor" by funding Planned Parenthood (which by the way was founded by a socialist/racist).
As to military spending, I think all government programs can be cut - including the military. I do think that we should be extremely careful in that regard, however, as there are many in the world who are actively working to destroy our country. That said, I'm sure there is still room for selective cuts.
By the way, I'd be happy to continue discussing ideas and issue with you in a grown-up fashion - if you think you're up to it.
Anon 1:01 -
ReplyDeleteYou obviously feel the Dems will agree to a series of cuts totalling $100 Billion, despite the fact that they just rejected a bill that would have done that (and eliminated the need for the continuing resolutions). I don't think that's the case.
In addition, the continuing resolutions continue to include the $105 Billion in advanced appropriations for the unconstitutional ObamaCare. This is despite the fact that all Republicans - including Charlie Dent - are supposedly against ObamaCare.
That's certainly not good enough for me.
Obamacare=Teabagger
ReplyDeleteObamaCare = Unconstitutional
ReplyDeleteObamaCare = Illegal
ObamaCare = Big Waste of Money
There is no bill called "obamacare". i guess it is an urban legend like "teabbager" party.
ReplyDelete3:13 -
ReplyDeleteHow typical - losing the issue, losing the argument, resort to attacking.
And bad spelling.
Bernie -
ReplyDeleteI live in Allentown, so I'm well aware that there are poor people. I just question whether the government is the best - or most efficient - way to help them.
We've spent TRILLIONS on the War on Poverty since the 1960's, and things seem to be getting worse. The advocates always claim MORE money is the answer, but the evidence would seem to prove otherwise.
Worst of all, I see people stuck in an endless cycle of poverty - generation after generation - as a result of all the government spending on poverty.
I have great sympathy for those who need help - especially the kids - and have helped them myself with coats, gloves, umbrella's, etc. However, I have a great problem with condemning those kids to a lifetime of slavery looking for the next government handout.
And I have a hard time condemning everybody's kids and grandkids to a lifetime of slavery to the government to pay for programs that we can't pay for now and that aren't working.