Well one political party had the cajones to provide some spending cuts. Methinks however (as previously posted) they will get little political benefit from them. Neither from the supposed dems(as evidenced by the vote totals) who want less spending OR their own constituents. They will however be able to point to these votes when the dems hypocritically call spending into question. That's a national plus, but individual politicians won't get much benefit.
From polipundit
Quote:
Less Federal Spending
The U.S. Senate on Wednesday passed a bill that reduces federal spending on various programs, including Medi-care and Medi-caid.
In the aggregate the bill reduces federal outlays by $40 billion over the next five years. And it marks the first time since 1997 and only the third time in the four-decade histories of those “health care entitlement” programs that real cuts to their respective growth rates have been implemented.
The vote was:
Zero = Democrats for less spending (0%).
50/55 = Republicans for less spending (91%).
45/45 = Democrats opposed to less spending (100%).
5/55 = Republicans opposed to less spending (9%).
Go figure.
Totals: 51-50, in favor of less federal spending.
Vice President Dick Cheney cast the deciding vote.
The measure now has to go back to the House for one final symbolic vote. But having already cleared that chamber – in which 96% of Republicans voted in favor of less spending and 100% of Democrats voted “no” {go figure} – it’s literally just a matter of time before the bill moves on to the Prez’s desk, at which point it’ll be signed into law.
I blame the GOP.
|
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
|