1,000 DAYS
Tomorrow night, President Obama will be giving his State of the Union address. In it, he will doubtless take the opportunity to throw some barbs at the Do Nothing Congress™ he has become so fond of demonizing. He will push his "We Can't Wait™" schtick, trying to sell the idea that Congress or that pesky Constitution are holding him back from the fundamental change he so desperately wants, in a vain attempt to justify his unconstitutional power grab.
Interestingly enough, tomorrow is also another major milestone for America. It marks the one thousandth day since the democrat-led Senate last passed a budget.
So who is more do-nothing - the House republicans who have passed nearly thirty jobs bills since they took power a year ago, or the Senate democrats who refuse to bring a single one of them to the floor for a vote in an effort to carry water for President Obama's Do Nothing Congress™ campaign push?
When the president talks about the obstructionist Congress, he's not just whistling Dixie. But in true democratic fashion, he is projecting the inactivity for which his own party is responsible onto House Republicans, while his lapdog press happily echo it for all it's worth. He has to run against a Do Nothing Congress™, because the other option is to run on his record, and we all know that's a non-starter. And if you don't have a Do Nothing Congress™, why, good ol' Harry Reid is there to make sure you do!
It will be interesting to see how his 'free markets are evil' meme goes over, considering polls like this. According to that, it certainly doesn't seem like pushing a top-down, government managed economy is going to be a big seller in November. But when you live in a bubble and refuse to give credence to such polls, the most unexpected things happen.
There's another benefit to Senate dems refusing to pass a budget. One can't help but come to the conclusion that passing a budget that calls for, say, $1.6 trillion in deficit spending would raise a hue and cry and put the excessive federal spending of this administration in the spotlight, as happened with President Obama's (I use the term loosely) "budget". Passing contentious continuing resolutions instead keeps the spending blurred and harder to keep track of - and offers the additional bonus of a handy bludgeon to go after republicans to make them seem stingy and mean for saying no to the out-of-control spending. Think about it. When are you more responsible with your money - when you are trying to keep to a budget or when you just spend as the need (or desire) arises? It's a no brainer. Well, except in Washington.
Delusional lefties whine that republicans have kept them from passing a budget with filibusters and other dirty tricks since Obama took office. Well, as far as the past year goes, that's a stretch considering the House actually passed a budget, the Ryan Plan, which the Senate refused to even acknowledge and a second, President Obama's, that the Senate voted down unanimously - but at least it got a vote. But what about the other two years of the Obama administration - one of which featured a democratic House majority and Senate super majority, and the other with just plain old democratic majorities in both houses? How is it that they were able to pass Obamacare - arguably the most unpopular piece of legislation to be signed into law in recent memory - but they couldn't pass a budget?
One thousand days of irresponsibility at the hands of Democrats in Washington. Here's hoping we only have 287 more to go before REAL change comes to town.
