Saturday, December 26, 2009

Senator Hatch: Deficit Spending OK in 2003, not now


The inconsistency _ or hypocrisy, as some call it _ has irked Democrats, who claim that their plan will pay for itself with higher taxes and spending cuts and cite the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for support.

By contrast, when Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House in 2003, they overcame Democratic opposition to add a deficit-financed prescription drug benefit to Medicare. The program will cost a half-trillion dollars over 10 years, or more by some estimates.

With no new taxes or spending offsets accompanying the Medicare drug program, the cost has been added to the federal debt.

All current GOP senators, including the 24 who voted for the 2003 Medicare expansion, oppose the health care bill that's backed by President Barack Obama and most congressional Democrats. Some Republicans say they don't believe the CBO's projections that the health care overhaul will pay for itself. As for their newfound worries about big government health expansions, they essentially say: That was then, this is now.

Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "We were concerned about it, because it certainly added to the deficit, no question." His 2003 vote has been vindicated, Hatch said, because the prescription drug benefit "has done a lot of good."

Can you say hypocrisy, Senator?


Tom said...

Hypocrisy? No - that's when the other guy does it.

As a conservative, when I read your blog, there are many times when I just wince or shake my head. I think that you have taken many things out of context.

However, on this issue, you are absolutely correct. Our elected representatives (remember that - they are NOT officials) are too short sighted - and have been for years.

They promise more and more until they are trying to please everyone with everything. So what we have is a boatload of redundant government services that don't do what is needed, much less what people want. How many federal programs are there that are supposed to help the poor? Over 60 as I understand it. President George W. Bush was able to reduce one of these programs, but that was it. It's like our politicians only celebrate the laying of the foundation of a building and then walk away, believing that something magical will happen and the rest will be built.

I ramble :)

The only reason why something was ok at one time, and isn't ok just 6 years later, is because something catastrophic happened. Airport security from before 9/11 compared to after 9/11 is a perfect example (not that it is effective).

Mr. Senator - it isn't ok now, and it wasn't ok then, and barring an alien invasion, it won't be ok tomorrow.

So you and your ilk cut it out. I am tired of politicians selling out my children just to buy some votes today.

好文 said...