Monday, November 21, 2011

Sensenbrenner says Ryan 'burying head in sand' or 'trying to score political points' on balanced budget amendment

Big Jim Sensenbrenner (pictured), the Congressman from Wisconsin's reddest district, had this to say in a recent column on Brookfield Patch:
The House considered a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which requires a two-thirds vote in each chamber of Congress to pass. With opposition from the tax-and-spend left, the amendment did not pass.
This Balanced Budget Amendment closely mirrors the same one that passed the House in 1995 — with broad bipartisan support — and failed by only one vote in the Senate. Since then, our debt has nearly quadrupled.

My colleagues ... who voted against this amendment are either burying their heads in the sand or trying to misrepresent this effort to score political points. But ignoring our debt crisis won’t make it go away.
The ellipsis replaced the words "across the aisle," since Sensenbrenner was using the column to attack Democrats.

Thing is -- and this has got to be somewhat embarrassing for Big Jim -- one of the "no" votes was from his side of the aisle. A guy from Wisconsin. A buddy of his. A guy named Paul Ryan.

Three other Republicans also voted no.

On the other hand, Rep. Ron Kind, a Wisconsin Democrat, voted yes. Go figure.

1 comment:

  1. With a bought-and-paid-for congress, the last thing in the world I'd like them to vote on is spending money on the public or the special interests that give political bribes. So Mr. Sensenbrenner, no thank you.

    If your politician’s choice is to “balance the budget” by either (a) cutting entitlement or social spending, or (b) cutting spending on pork barrel projects or no-bid contracts for the corporate interests that fund his elections, which way do you think the vote will go?

    If your politician’s choice is to raise taxes on the top 3% of wage earners, or not, would you expect him to do that if those top 3% are the funders of his campaign? Even if raising those taxes are necessary to the vital interests of the state or nation? Or would he instead cut entitlements to protect his funders?

    Jack Lohman