http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-spend18_nov18,0,5092370.story?coll=la-home-politics

"Cuts" in student loans, medicaid and food stamps.

But as Jack Kingston (R-GA) said on the house floor last night: "only in Washington D.C., only in this fantasy land, can a 7% increase in spending be considered a cut."

In case you are wondering how your representative voted, you can view the yeas and noes here.

Current house breakdown is 231 republicans, 202 democrats, 1 independent, and 1 vacant seat that is going to be held come December 6th by either republican John Campbell or American independent and minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist.  The seat is in Orange county, California, which is a very conservative district.

217 yes votes came from 217 republicans.
215 no votes came from 200 democrats, 14 republicans and 1 independent.
2 representatives, both democrats, did not vote.

Here are the 14 "republicans" who voted against this:

Gerlach
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Leach
McHugh
Ney
Paul
Ramstad
Shays
Simmons
Smith (NJ)
Sweeney
Wilson (NM)

Wonder why Ron Paul is on that list?

Too Little Too Late
By: Ron Paul (R-TX)
November 14,  2005

Congress is poised to consider a budget bill this week in a vote both parties consider critical, but in reality the bill is nothing more than a political exercise by congressional leaders designed to convince voters that something is being done about runaway federal spending.  Having spent the last five years out-pandering the Democrats by spending money to buy off various voting constituencies, congressional Republicans now find themselves forced to appeal to their unhappy conservative base by applying window dressing to the bloated 2006 federal budget.

Ignore the talk about Congress "slashing" vital government programs in this budget bill, which is just nonsense. This Congress couldn't slash spending if the members' lives depended on it. 

Remember, this is a Congress that has increased spending by 33% since President Bush took office in 2001.  And we're not talking about national defense or anti-terrorism spending.  We're talking about a one-third increase in garden variety domestic spending.  This is also a Congress that passed the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the single largest increase in entitlement spending since the Great Society programs of the 1960s.  So there's not much credibility to be found on Capitol Hill when it comes to reducing the federal budget.

The proposed bill calls for such tiny reductions in spending that frankly it's shameful for Republicans to claim it represents a victory for fiscal conservatism.  And it's equally prespammersite for Democrats to claim it represents some great threat to precious entitlements.  The dollar amounts contained in the bill are so insignificant that both parties are guilty of meaningless grandstanding. 

The budget reconciliation bill reduces spending by a mere $5.6 billion in a 2006 budget of nearly $2.5 trillion.  This represents just a fraction of one percent, a laughable amount.  Does anyone seriously believe the federal budget cannot be trimmed more than this?  Consider that the federal budget was only about $1 trillion in 1990, a mere 15 years ago- and government was far too large and too intrusive then.  After all the talk about deficit spending, this is the best a Republican congress and Republican president can come up with?  What a farce.

Projections of big savings beyond 2006 because of this bill are pure fiction.  Congress has no authority to pass budgets or appropriate money beyond the next fiscal year.  Future Congresses will not pay one whit of attention to this bill, and its hopeful predictions will be forgotten. 

Furthermore, we need to get our budget cutting priorities in order.  Why are we cutting domestic programs while we continue to spend billions on infrastructure in Iraq?  In just the past two weeks Congress approved a $21 billion foreign aid bill and a $130 million scheme to provide water for developing nations.  Why in the world aren't these boondoggles cut first?

The spending culture in Washington creates an attitude that government can solve every problem both at home and abroad simply by funding another program.  But we've reached a tipping point, with $8 trillion in debt and looming Social Security and Medicare crises.  Government spending has become a national security issue, because unless Congress stops the bleeding the resulting economic downturn will cause us more harm than any terrorist group could ever hope to cause.  And we're doing it to ourselves, from within.

Congress is running out of options in its game of buy now, pay later.  Foreign central banks are less interested in loaning us money.  Treasury printing presses are worn out from the unprecedented increase in dollars ordered by the Federal Reserve Bank over the past 15 years.  Taxpayers are tapped out.  Where will the money for Big Government conservatism come from?

Congressional Republicans and Democrats can posture until doomsday, but the needed course of action is clear.  Declare an across-the-board ten percent cut for the federal 2006 budget, and focus spending on domestic priorities.  If congressional leaders cannot take this simple step toward balancing the 2006 budget, they should at least not attempt to delude the American people that serious spending cuts are being made.

Link: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst111405.htm

The 1 independant was Vermont's Bernie Sanders - go Bernie!

The Senate, obviously with bi-partisan support, rejected this bill, which impacts poor and working class people.  Lets see what the confrence committee comes up with before you tight fisted "compassionate conservatives" gloat.

The Senate, obviously with bi-partisan support, rejectethis bill,


http://www.todayonline.com/articles/82304.asp

The senate passed a bill with less "cuts," but "cuts" nonetheless.

I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.  I'll betcha they're gonna try to cut taxes for the rich by another 70 billion!
Robbing Peter to...rob Peter again!
:D