When did the Democrat party become the fiscal conservative party? There is currently a battle over an amendment to the Senate budget called paygo. Which stands for Pay As You Go. Sounds good right? The amendment would mandate that legislation to raise spending or cut taxes would need the support of 60 of the 100 senators unless it was accompanied by enough spending cuts or tax increases to offset its effect on the deficit. Well this makes sense to me. But guess who is fighting it? The Republicans! Guess who is pushing it? The Democrats! The world is not right anymore. Nothing makes sense to me any longer.
The Senate Budget Committee rejected the Paygo amendment last week by a party-line vote of 12 Republicans opposed and 10 Democrats in favor. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio). Dianne Feinstein? I always disagree with this women! How do I find my self on her side? There must be something I am missing that makes this Bill wrong. There just has to be a reason!
Nussle and his counterpart on the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), have said they object to paygo because it would come down harder on tax cuts than on spending increases. The strictures of paygo would be brought to bear against all tax-cut legislation, but programs that guarantee benefits to qualified individuals, such as Social Security, have automatic increases built in so no legislation is needed to authorize the larger spending. And because there is no legislation for those increases, their argument goes, paygo would not apply.
Aha! I knew it! I knew there had to be a catch! My world is now right again. Whew, that was a close one.