Today, a giant piece of spending legislation is due to pass the Senate and get quickly sent to the President for signing. It allots $1.4 Trillion both for continued operation of the country and for extensive new purchases and projects.
It has already passed the House, having been voted through two days ago – providing a concrete demonstration that yes, the Democrat-led House was performing government work independent of impeachment, in direct contrast to what the Republicans were claiming.
As Justin Amash explained at the time, Democrats and Republicans both split the spending bill into parts so as to give the President cover when he signed it. By being multiple bills presented simultaneously, it’s no longer an “omnibus” bill, which he had pledged to veto. Their efforts further demonstrate that yes, the Democrats are willing to work with Republicans and the President when it gets them what they want; and yes, Republicans and the President are willing to work with the Democrats when it results in their desires.
In this case, the desire for everyone in Congress is more money. Some of that money is to be taxed immediately; some is to be printed or borrowed, both of which will result in later taxation. The wealth to run the government must eventually be confiscated.
Some Republicans have stood firmly against the out-of-control spending. Here’s Representative Chip Roy on the subject:
Here’s a familiar voice from the other side of the Capitol on the subject:
It’s stances like this that I want to see from my Congressmen. So, let’s see how they stand on defending the Constitution…
This is why Mr. Cruz and Mr. Roy have lost credibility. It does not mean they cannot or will not speak the truth… they obviously retain that ability to some degree. It means simply that they will not consistently speak the truth, particularly when it comes to defending our fundamental rights and the continued security of our nation.
This is a dangerous standard to hold. It makes me wonder if these people would still vote against the spending if they were the key vote, as opposed to voting and speaking against it only when they know the bills will pass.
Maybe they would. Perhaps they’ve been sounding the warning bells about it for months, attempting to gather support… but if so, many of their cries have been drowned amidst their praise and defense of Trump. Or maybe they wouldn’t, and they’re just now raising the issue to try to grant themselves a measure of cover with constituents who recall what deficit fighters they claim to be.
Either way, the stand against rampant spending is near and dear to my heart. We need to “starve the beast”… not of everything, but at least of continued growth and spending on projects long-since completed or rendered unnecessary. That much, most people could agree upon, as it would simply kill some slush funds paid for by taxpayers.
The stand against excess spending is like a giant bowl of punch at a party. I enjoy it, most people enjoy it, we want more. The attack against the Constitution and the law in defense of a criminal is something else entirely… something known to be connected to that punch bowl in a very common, and in this case appropriate, metaphor.
