Bunning's Non-filibuster: Accountability For Another $10 Billion To Be Spent

To begin with, patching roads is not an answer to America's problems right now. And Congress has already spent so much, so fast since 2008, they seem to not even care about being accountable for it any more. Democrats have ignored smart reform to help get the economy going again, in favor of government spending. And much of what Bunning is questioning, not filibustering, is simply more entitlement spending. When is enough enough with these people? We don't even have the money to spend in the first place!

As I noted in a previous post, and as is increasingly well known to those who actually are capable of comprehension, Senator Jim Bunning - for the simple reason he wishes it to be paid for - is objecting to a repeated unanimous consent request by Senate Democrats to call up and pass a bill that would temporarily extend unemployment benefits, transportation funding, medicare reimbursement, COBRA subsidies and other expenditures to the tune of another $10 billion or so. Again, Democrats are requesting that each U.S. Senator agree - that is, effectively vote “yes” - to said extension without full consideration or debate on the Senate floor.

Comments

[sam]

For all intents and purposes it is effectively a filibuster, call it whatever name you want.

[Jimbo]

Good for him. Didnt congress and Obama just get thru preening themselves about paygo?

Bunning needs to force the issue, and let the media and the Democrats get out there thinking they can get a bounce out of it. It wont work this time, the deficit is too damn high, and no one cares out here on main street if a few govt workers are furloughed.

When they get their first poll back showing and even split in support of what Bunning is doing, they are going to look real foolish trying to back pedal. The harping and iron lung whining for the poor government workers will not fly.

[Anon]

I very much doubt that most Americans have any idea how incredibly GENEROUS Obama's new round of unemployment benefits are or how long they last, I somehow don't think most people would agree that the unemployed should be getting two years of paid compensation on the taxpayers dime.

[mark l.]

"I very much doubt that most Americans have any idea how incredibly GENEROUS Obama's new round of unemployment benefits are or how long they last..."

almost two years. compared to other more socialist countries, it is twice as long.

heard a good clip on limbaugh...
we have incentivised unemployment.

free money, or)
or a chance to take a 40 hour a week job, that pays just a tiny more than the unemployment check?

since the function of unemployment is finanical income insurance, there should be an adjustment of rates-when employee returns to workforce, modestly increase their employment tax, adjust their ssi accordingly, and make some attempt to dis-incentivise the length of unemployment.

bunning, dare I say it, on this issue, is a LEADER.

[mark l.]

"Didnt congress and Obama just get thru preening themselves about paygo?"

actually, they increased the size of govt by 16%, or 600 billion, and then came up with paygo.

this is like the robbin williams skit with the 'shifting' line in the sand, made popular in gwI.

[Anon]

This is why I have no faith in the GOP and fear they will either squander this opportunity, or worse, fail to learn any long term lessons from it.

Instead of trying to shut Burning up they should be telling everyone who will listen that the country cannot afford 2 years worth of unemployment benefits.

I cant' be the only person who remembers all the wailing about how children would be starving and families going homeless if welfare reform was passed, what a catastrophe it would be....but, amazingly, instead of starving, millions of people got jobs once their welfare was cut off. Sound familiar?

[North Dallas Thirty]

This whole thing illustrates the utter stupidity of the liberal left.

Unemployment benefits are funded by a tax on employers. That tax is set based on the amount of money that is needed to fund existing and projected benefits. By extending benefits indefinitely, the Obama Party is increasing the amount of money needed, which means the tax burden on employers has to be increased, The higher the tax burden, the less money the employer has to hire people, and the less incentive it has to do so, because it is taxed an additional amount for each worker added.

[Xiaoding]

Unemployment is peanuts, really nothing. Bunning should let this one pass, pick on all the others.

Two years of unemployment is good, should be three, if needed. This is not Germany, we don't have the safety net they do. But God forbid, the government should ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE! These are working folks, not welfare cheats.

The GOP is right to remain silent, Bunning is on his own. clueless, he will not be re-elected. Count another seat for the Democrats!

[Anon]

Why should anyone get 2 or 3 years of unemployment benefits? That's crazy. Where does it end? How is it going to be paid for?

We have a pretty lavish safety net as far as I can tell and it would be even more lavish if the government didn't waste so much money on fruitless programs for the poor that don't ever get results.

[J.R.]

Xiadong, you're right, Bunning will not be re-elected, that's becuase he is retiring at the end of his term!!

And come on, what are you talking about, 3 years of unemployment benefits??? that's nuts, where'e the incentive to go to back to work in the first 2 years? That's not a safety net, that's a hand-out and we already have too many of those. 1 year should be enough, maybe 18 months.