Sunday, February 28, 2010

What's Another Name For "Reconciliation"?

The liberals in Congress, trying to push through an exceedingly unpopular health care bill, are considering doing so via the "reconciliation" process.

Do you remember what the "reconciliation" process was called in 2005? Back then it was called the nuclear option--and Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, Reid, et. al., were steadfast against it. What a difference a day makes!

Hear them in their own words.

Update, 3/3/10: Ann Althouse has more of the current president's former words.


Mr. W said...

does this really surprise anyone? I would love to see one news outlet actually run with this story and these clips. I would love to see their reactions when confronted with their own words.

good find!

KauaiMark said...

Interesting, isn't it?

mazenko said...

Well, they were against it for Senate confirmations. They didn't make a fuss when the GOP used reconciliation twice for tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Those same tax cuts that have contributed $3 trillion to the debt.

Darren said...

Here's where we'll disagree. Letting me keep more of my own money didn't put us in debt near as much as wasting it, some of it in a variety of social welfare programs that are useless.

mazenko said...

Well, you are also disagreeing with Gregory Mankiw, who is a Harvard economist and was head of Bush's team of economic advisers.

Clearly, keeping more of your money isn't a problem, unless you know the government spending won't go down. The first was a problem - the one after the "investment" in two wars is just ridiculous.

The Bush tax cuts cost the government $3trillion in revenue - that is indisputable. It did it without any increased spending. Then when the spending did go up, it got even worse.

If you simply dropped down to a three-fifths teaching assignment, and made no changes in spending, you would increase your debt. And you know that.

Thus, the tax cuts have to follow the spending cuts, not precede it.