Democrats: Let's Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment

In today's White House press conference, Press Secretary Jay Carney explained the president's opposition to a Balanced Budget Amendment:

The President believes that we do not need to amend the Constitution to cut the deficit. We need to get beyond politics as usual, and find bipartisan common ground.

A balanced budget amendment has, today and has always been, about ducking responsibility rather than taking our challenges head on. This is not -- we don’t need -- I mean, the Constitution should not be used to simply abdicate responsibility. What we need to do here is not complicated. It does not require a constitutional amendment and the ratification by preponderance of states here. It requires people rolling up their sleeves -- the leaders, the representatives of the people in the Congress and the President, the Vice President and others here -- and working out a compromise to achieve a goal that we all share, which is significant deficit reduction, a plan that gets our fiscal house in order that deals with our long-term debt.

It is something we can do. And in some ways, while these are hard issues, it is something we can do easily if people accept the principle that we have to compromise to do it. So, no, we do not support the balanced budget amendments.

Which places the president even further to the left than Harry Reid. This afternoon, the National Republican Senatorial Committee distributed the following quotations from Senate Democrats:

SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D-OH): “Before I ask for your vote, I owe it to you to tell you where I stand. I’m for… a balanced budget amendment.” (Rep. Brown, “Where I Stand,” YouTube, 11/1/06)

· BROWN: “I stood up to a President of my own party . . . In support of the balanced budget amendment, in restoring fiscal sanity to our government.” (Ohio Senate Debate, City Club Of Cleveland, 10/27/06)

SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): “I crossed the line to help balance the budget, as one of the Democrats that broke with my party.” (Michigan Senate Debate, 10/22/00)

SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-AK): “It’s time to stop playing political brinksmanship with the budget and do what every Alaskan is doing - balance the budget.” (Sen. Begich, “Begich Statement On 2011 Budget Vote,” Press Release, 4/15/11)

SEN. BILL NELSON (D-FL): “Over the years, I have supported a balanced budget amendment…” (Sen. Bill Nelson, Congressional Record, S.1920, 3/29/11)

· “Senator Nelson has been a long-time supporter of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, going back to his service in the 1980s, and will continue to reach across the political divide...” (“Support For Balanced Budget Amendment,” Columbia County Observer, 3/8/11)

SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): “[T]he balanced budget amendment's very, very important to me and to every governor, to every state, to every household, especially in West Virginia. And if they can do it, they think we can do it also.” (U.S. Senate, Budget Committee, Hearing, 1/27/11)

SEN. BEN NELSON (D-NE): “I voted yes and support a balanced budget amendment that allows for flexibility in times of war and for natural disasters.” (Sen. Nelson, Press Statement, 3/4/11)

SEN. MARK UDALL (D-CO): “I've long gone by the saying, if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. By restoring healthy and responsible spending through a reasonable Balanced Budget Amendment, we can begin filling in that hole.” (Sen. Udall, “Udall Co-Sponsors Balanced Budget Amendment,” Press Release, 2/1/11)

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): “U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet broke his hesitation on endorsing the balanced-budget amendment last week… pledging support for the idea.” (“Bennet Balancing His Approach To Budget,” Denver Post (CO), 3/6/11)

SEN. CLAIRE McCASKILL (D-MO): “I think they should. …It would be great if that discipline were in place. Clearly it’s a goal we’ve got to work toward…” “…responding to a question of why the federal government can’t have a balanced budget amendment…” SEN. CLAIRE McCASKILL (D-MO): “I think they should. …It would be great if that discipline were in place. Clearly it’s a goal we’ve got to work toward…” (“McCaskill For ‘Responsible’ Balanced Budget Amendment,” PoliticMo, 6/29/11)

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY): “New York families must continuously balance their checkbooks. Forty-nine states, including New York, require a balanced budget. An amendment to the Constitution will finally hold the federal government to the same, common sense standard.” (Rep. Gillibrand, “Nation Deserved A Balanced Budget,” The Time Union, 6/4/07)

SEN. TOM CARPER (D-DE): “As a Member of the House, when I served with Senator Santorum over there, we were great proponents of something called a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution…” (Sen. Carper, Congressional Record, S.8063-4, 7/14/04)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “…I believe we should have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I am willing to go for that.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.1333, 2/12/97)

SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND): “I believe deeply in the need to balance the Federal budget… I would support an amendment to the Constitution.” (Sen. Conrad, Congressional Record, S.1147, 2/10/97)

SEN. HERB KOHL (D-WI): “The balanced budget amendment does, in my opinion, embody a principle simple and vital enough to deserve inclusion in the Constitution.” (Sen. Kohl, Congressional Record, S.1609, 2/26/97)

· KOHL: “…I am committed to the concept of the balanced budget amendment.” (Sen. Kohl, Congressional Record, S.2947, 2/22/95)

SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA): “I took a position to support a Balanced Budget Amendment…” (Sen. Landrieu, Press Conference, 2/25/1997)

· “Landrieu had touted her support for the balanced budget amendment in order to win moderate votes … she would uphold her campaign promise.” (CNN’s Inside Politics, 2/28/97)

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): “The spending trends are what really motivates me, and I hope others, to accept a constitutional balanced budget amendment.” (Sen. Feinstein, Congressional Record, S.1594, 2/26/97)

SEN. TOM HARKIN (D-IA): “Mr. President, I have long supported a balanced budget amendment. I expect to do so again...” (Sen. Harkin, Congressional Record, S.2460, 2/10/95)

SEN. TIM JOHNSON (D-SD): “It is time to get our priorities straight. I've been a strong supporter of a balanced budget amendment…” (Rep. Johnson, Congressional Record, H.11213, 10/26/95)

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “I have always supported a balanced budget. Montanans want a balanced budget. We must listen to the people and give them a balanced budget.” (Sen. Baucus, Congressional Record, S.2469, 2/10/95)

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): “…we need to move toward a Balanced Budget Amendment.” (Rep. Durbin, Congressional Record, H.1310, 1/11/95)

Quote of the Day

"In a poll that should be shocking, but isn't, one out of of five Democrats think the world would be a better place if the U.S. lost the war. This means that four out of five Democrats are not being represented by their party." -- Rush Limbaugh

Quote of the Day

Via Powerline:

"According to [House Majority Whip James] Clyburn, a strongly positive report by Petraeus would be 'a real big problem for us.'"

And Reid Blames Bush for Congress's 14 Percent Approval ...

One week before Election Day, 2006:

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “On taxes, you heard the Vice President, he said Democrats come in to control, taxes are going to go up?”

DNC Chairman Howard Dean: “That’s just Republican National Committee propaganda. Nancy Pelosi has said they’re will not be a middle class increase ... [I] have not heard one person in the leadership, Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, talking about tax increases except unwinding tax breaks that were put in the middle of the night for the oil companies and insurance companies.”

With just six months of leadership under their belt, congressional Democrats have already proposed higher or brand-new taxes on cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco, university endowments, pension funds, people earning $250,000-plus annually, private-equity managers, American workers oversees, American exporters, energy companies ...

Next thing you know, we'll find out they weren't even serious about reining in pork! (Oh wait ...)

It's Hard To Care About America's Image Abroad

When the AFL-CIO pays your bills.

Quote of the Day

"Well, if Democrats want to declare the surge a failure after just a couple of months, we can declare the Democrat Congress a failure. They haven't achieved any of their benchmarks. It's time for a new direction." -- Rush Limbaugh, on his show today

Apparently They've Earned It

After spending last year's congressional campaign battering House Republicans for accepting automatic cost-of-living wage hikes, House Democrats Wednesday voted 244 to 181 to accept a $4,400 raise.

'Ms. Clinton, Thinking Small'

There are a number of lessons Hillary Clinton never learned from her husband's presidency. Chief among them is the value of supporting free and open trade with the world, a surefire method to bring wealth to poor countries, lower the cost of living here at home, all-the-while improving America's image abroad. The Washington Post says Clinton's opposition to a proposed trade agreement with South Korea represents a strategic mistake of the very worst sort:

The United States and South Korea in April concluded 10 months of negotiations to sign what would be, if ratified, the most far-reaching trade agreement since the pact with Mexico and Canada that President Bill Clinton championed in 1993. It's a pact between the world's largest and 11th-largest economies that would benefit workers, farmers and companies on both sides. As a democracy with a strong trade union movement, South Korea doesn't pose the workers' rights challenges that vex unionists in agreements with poorer countries. This deal would open the Korean market to a wide array of U.S. agricultural, industrial and cultural products and services; in fact, the political risks in South Korea are far higher than here. And it would demonstrate U.S. commitment to a vital region at a time when China is steadily gaining ground.

But forget all that; Ms. Clinton objects that South Korean manufacturers sell many more cars here than do American carmakers over there. Never mind that the agreement requires Korea to remove discriminatory tariffs and taxes on U.S. cars; never mind that U.S. tariffs on Korean cars can "snap back" if Korea doesn't keep its word. Not good enough, says Ms. Clinton. What more could she have wanted for Detroit? She won't say.

Will any Democratic presidential candidate take the responsible position on trade? John Edwards, a labor lackey, announced his opposition to the South Korea agreement in April; Barack Obama says he's still thinking it over, according to the Post. When will Democrats learn that Bill Clinton succeeded because he wasn't a conventional leftist?

Quote of the Day

Via yesterday's Best of the Web:

"Wouldn't it be weird if French President-elect Nicolas Sarkozy turns out to be more pro-American than all the Democrats running for U.S. president?"--Jim Seay of Henrico, Va., quoted in the Richmond Times Dispatch's "Your Two Cents" feature

Where's the D.C. Press Corps Now?

“The war is lost,” Senate Leader Harry Reid announced last week. As if to ensure the reality matched the rhetoric, this week congressional Democratic leaders followed up Reid’s statement with votes mandating troop withdrawals from Iraq starting as soon as July.

Reid has not been particularly circumspect in describing his motivations, admitting rather unashamedly the Senate vote is baldly political. “We are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war,” he predicted.

Is this the right strategy? Hard to say — no prominent Democrat has yet to really be challenged on it.

Which raises the question: Where’s that famously ruthless D.C. press corps?

Both Democrats and the media never tire of informing just how grave the stakes in Iraq . People are dying -- American troops, innocent Iraqis. America’s reputation is being ravaged. Iraq’s imploding into civil war.

And this is the Democrats’ cure-all -- a pork-laden war-funding bill pronouncing America ’s impending surrender?

For a press corps that takes itself as seriously as Washington’s, one might hope at least a few basic questions would be put toward Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and every other politician advocating timetables.

Rather obvious, and natural, questions — like:

• Is a timetable for withdrawal intended to hasten a U.S. victory — or defeat?
• If it’s victory, how will a withdrawal help?
• If it's defeat, how does that help U.S. national interests?
• How will abandoning Iraq ’s burgeoning government affect America ’s reputation in the region?
• A Taliban spokesman recently stated Osama bin Laden is coordinating insurgent attacks in Iraq. If true, how is it possible to simultaneously fight the War on Terror but not insurgents in Iraq ?
• What are some possible worst-case scenarios of withdrawing from Iraq ?
• Should such a scenario manifest, what are Democrats’ contingency plans?
• The recently passed war-funding bill mandates the last of the U.S. troops stationed in Iraq leave by September 2008. What’s significant about this date other than being two months prior to the next presidential election?

We don’t get these questions because the answers are obvious: abandoning Iraq will hasten an American defeat; leaving the country halfway broken will leave a permanent scar on America’s regional reputation; it’s impossible to fight the War on Terror but not Iraq’s insurgents; leaving Iraq could beget a full-fledged regional war; Democrats have no plan should such a contingency arise; the final pullout date is arbitrary aside from its intent of removing Iraq from the next election’s political equation.

Reid wouldn’t answer this way, of course. He’d say this is President Bush’s war and that any such negative externalities are in his hands.

Which is precisely the problem. Having expended so much effort using Iraq to bring down Bush, the credibility of Democrats and the major media now hangs in the balance. Diverting even a fraction of energy spent challenging the president over his war plans to do likewise with Democrats threatens not only Democratic leaders, but the D.C. press corps itself.

Herein lies the provenance of a subtle bias, perhaps subconscious, that poses an enormous threat American security.

In keeping their personal interests on high -- thus ignoring possible consequences of Democratic actions -- Democrats and their D.C. press corps brethren invite the very dystopic Iraqi finality they’ve spent so long predicting the Bush administration was inspiring.

And all because reporters are still not doing what they now blame themselves for failing to do in the run-up to the war: asking tough questions.

Politicians Attempt Subversion of Constitution; Cheer Themselves on

From today's Washington Post:

A bill giving the District its first full seat in Congress cleared the House yesterday, marking the city's biggest legislative victory in its quest for voting rights in nearly three decades.

Democrats on the House floor burst into applause, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) grabbed the arms of the District's nonvoting delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, as the 241 to 177 vote was announced.

"There was nothing but joy in the chamber this afternoon, because we knew we had given this bill the kind of send-off that can get it through the Senate," Norton (D) said later. ...

Supporters called the bill's passage their biggest victory since 1978, when Congress approved a constitutional amendment to give the city two senators and a House representative. The amendment died after failing to win passage by enough states. The current legislation would not give the District senators.

A news conference after the vote drew a jubilant group of members of Congress, D.C. leaders and activists. They hugged and shook hands, savoring the moment.

Yay! But, naturally, someone has to fund this affront to the Constitution:

The voting rights bill will cost about $2.5 million, largely because of the costs of the Utah seat. According to the legislation passed yesterday, the money will be raised by requiring people with incomes of at least $5 million a year to pay taxes slightly earlier.

"It will affect only 4,000 multimillionaires," said Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who led the Democrats' debate on the measure.

But Republicans fumed over the legislative engineering and Democratic efforts to keep them from offering amendments. Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) called it "Orwellian democracy."

Hey, at least they're having fun!

Quote of the Day

"I so admire the courage of the new voters we had on this," Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said moments after Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) helped deliver a 50-48 majority on the [decision to announce an American surrender in Iraq] issue.

Interesting, Reid's conception of courage.

Quote of the Day

The Senate March 2008 withdrawal plan "does not incentivize the government of Iraq to make tough decisions on reconciliation -- it sets the stage for the government collapse. The arbitrary deadline informs our enemies when they need no longer fear American military power. It signals to the population that their best bet for security really does rest in the hands of militias, rather than the government. It demonstrates to the government that they cannot rely on us -- after all, we are pulling out regardless of the situation or consequences. And it tells the terrorists that they -- not we -- will prevail."

-- John McCain (via Debra Saunders)

Today's Question

For any senator or congressman who voted for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq:

Without using the words "President Bush," or some variation thereof, please name one good thing a timetable will accomplish.

In the event given responses include the words "policing a civil war" it should be stated for the record that this congressman/senator does not believe in American intervention in Sudan.

Thanks for playing!

Real-Time Hypocrisy

So let me see if I've got this right. In 1993, then-President Bill Clinton fired 93 federal prosecutors. Democrats patiently informed that this way it would be easier to "carry forth the administration's agenda."

In 2005, President Bush fired 13 prosecutors, some of whom, seemingly, for political reasons. House leaders are now threatening to subpoena members of his administration.

Concurrently, Bush's nominee for U.S. ambassador to Belgium, Sam Fox, has been derailed by Democrats because of a $50,000 contribution he made in 2004 to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. His qualifications, meanwhile, have never been questioned. Today Bush rescinded the nomination.

So, according to Democrats, is factoring in politics OK when hiring and firing, or not OK? The principle seems to depend on the politics.

What we're seeing here is hypocrisy -- in real time.

Questions for Democrats

Roll Call reports today that "Senate Democrats emerged Wednesday from a closed-door meeting with details of a new Iraq resolution calling for phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from that country beginning within three months."

This brings to mind a number of questions. Were I a Washington-based journo, here are 10 I'd think to ask:

1) Yes or no: Is victory in Iraq possible?

2) If no, What does it mean that America can conquer the Axis Powers of World War II but not Iraq-based Islamic insurgents?

3) If yes, Is victory an outcome you favor?

4) If it is, How does a phased withdrawal help achieve victory?

5) If it is not, Is failure consistent with upholding America's national security? If so, how?

6) A recent Pentagon statement credits heightened Baghdad patrols for insurgent attacks falling off 80 percent. If, then, the "surge" is working, why demand its end?

7) What's the worst that could happen from a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq?

8) What are Democrats planning should such a contingency arise?

9) If Osama bin Laden says Iraq is the central front in his Jihad versus the West, how does withdrawal advance the War on Terror, or, less specifically, America's general national security?

10) According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plan for withdrawal, the latest possible date American troops could remain in Iraq is September 2008. Is there anything significant about this date, other than the fact that it's two months prior to America's next presidential election?

These questions are fairly basic. I'd like to think any halfway serious journalist would ask at least a couple of them. So why is it we won't hear the answers to any?

'Culture of Corruption'?

Democrats go native.

Democrats' Doublethink

"Doublethink," as defined by In George Orwell's 1984, means holding "simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them ..."

Nancy Pelosi, today: "We owe our troops a course of action in Iraq that is worthy of their sacrifice. Today, we set the state for a New Direction on Iraq by passing a resolution of fewer than 100 words which supports our troops but disapproves of the President's escalation proposal. ... The bipartisan resolution today is nonbinding, but it will send a strong message to the President: we are committed to supporting the troops and we disapprove of the escalation."

Osama in '08?

I just received this email from a Democratic strategist friend of mine. Has anyone heard anything about this? Apparently Democrats are floating the idea of running Osama as a presidential candidate!?:

He has as much star quality and friendly media coverage as Hillary but, unlike Hillary, he opposed Iraq war from the start. That is a huge advantage.

If he runs -- and I believe he will -- he will quickly establish himself as the only viable alternative to Hillary and will easily win over Iowa’s very liberal, very anti-war caucus-goers.

He is smooth, good looking, and has an interesting life story. Unlike Howard Dean, he is not prone to gaffes. His candidacy will energize minorities and liberals more than any since Robert Kennedy’s.

Assuming no skeletons emerge from his closet (gay trysts), he’ll be competitive in New Hampshire and Nevada and will win overwhelmingly in South Carolina (30% crazy) and Delaware (19% anti-American). The race will be over by early February. True, his past career as the leader of al Qaeda and the mastermind behind 9/11 could hurt him in some hard-core red states, but insiders say that challenge won't be insurmountable.

Sounds like they've thought this one through. Hmm. Osama/Obama in 08?