Redstate

I think we can both agree that fiscal responsibility in government is something to strive for. We may disagree from time to time about the best methods by which to pursue that end. With all due respect, Congressman, you will pardon me if this kind of thing:

House Republicans are committed to fiscal responsibility while the Democrats are convinced that the only solution is to "tax-and-spend" and increase the size of government.

Is difficult to swallow, given that the GOP holds the Presidency and commanding majorities in both houses of Congress. The President submits the budgets, the Republican-controlled Congress passes them, and President Bush holds the power of veto, with which he can signal his commitment to fiscal responsibility by declining to sign legislation which carries the Democratic amendments which you claim add so much to an already-bloated budget.

Not once has the President wielded said veto. The threat of it has come in response to issues which have nothing to do with fiscal responsibility.

The latter figures you cite are hopeful, and I hope they are a harbinger of things to come. I believe that whittling down wasteful spending in our government and striving for a balanced budget are worthy goals for which we should fight. But given the choice between "tax-and-spend" Democrats and "tax-cut-and-spend" Republicans in Congress, my choice is currently clear.

Thank you for your words. I look forward to their translation into deeds in Congress.

I will Hip Hip Hooray the GOP when they can pass an anti pork bill, the likes of Coburn's bill which got only 12 Republican Votes in the Senate.

Write one up in Congress (and pass it) and then I will Poo Poo the Dem's "Spending".

Right on with the Dem's and Taxes though.

BurbankErnie

And right on.

If the issue is which party stands for responsibility, especially fiscal responsibility, there's no contest. There may be debates to be had over spending in the last few years, but there's simply no question which party is the party of tax cuts and responsible spending.

I don't see a lot of Club for Growth candidates with a D in front of their state abbreviation if you know what I mean.

Welcome to Redstate Congressman, your participation is invaluable!

Once my party actually curbs the spending I will be much happier.  The Dem's might be the ones suggesting the spending bills, but our party is ultimately the one who approves them.  I still feel the urge to line their own pockets is too tough for most politicians (either side) to resist.

Congressman,

First and foremost, a sincere thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts with us.

With all due respect however, I find it hard to believe and swallow the calling Democrats out for merely proposing their fiscally reckless proposals on taxes and spending, while a GOP president has not had the political spine on taxes and spending to veto even one of the reckless spending giveaways that he could have vetoed (The Farm Bill, The Energy Bill, the Transportation Bill, Medicare expansion, et al.) and the GOP led Congress can't help itself but increase spending, and stuff spending bills with giveaways for its major donors.  

This is not to say that Democrats would do a better job, but discretionary spending has risen more under this President and the GOP led Congress than any other in decades.  And for the GOP to essentially come out and say, "the Democrats would do it worse" when the GOP record is one in which the first accomplishment you cited above is cutting the deficit to only $319 billion, I'm not sure the GOP has left itself in much position to complain about the other party's spending habits.  

Thank you very much.

Respectfully,

Evan

"House Republicans are committed to fiscal responsibility while the Democrats are convinced that the only solution is to "tax-and-spend" and increase the size of government."

Oh. Republicans seem to be committed to "borrow and spend". Bush has increased the size of the government. We have record deficits.

Actions speak louder than words, after all

You may not see a lot of Club for Growth candidates with a 'R' in front of their state abbreviation, either, if you know what I mean.

General Douglas MacArthur once stated, "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." As General MacArthur warned, forces that threaten our national economic security are alive and thriving within our own borders.

The first insidious force is the assured destruction of our nation's economic infrastructure that will be caused by the oppressive income tax code, the dysfunctional Social Security system and unsustainable levels of federal spending. The second is the unwillingness in Congress to fix these known threats to our economy. The third is a public too apathetic about the political process and too reluctant to demand solutions from our elected officials.

from a link on the Club for Growth homepage. Since the majority in both houses are GOP, I do not think that this referes to the Dems.

As I recall the GOP is in charge, when did they roll over for the Dems?

Respectfully, who cares what the dems have proposed, they aren't in charge.  You are.  How much has spending actually increased the last three years?  How about the last seven?  Why has spending skyrocketed under this party's control?  

-Federal spending has increased by 33% since 2001, from $1,863 billion to $2,470 billion.  

-In 2005, inflation-adjusted federal spending neared $22,000 per household, the highest level since World War  II.

-For 2005, the federal government spent $21,956 per household, overall, taxed $19,147 per household, and ran  a budget deficit of $2,809 per household.

Those are the type of completly irresponsible numbers you expect from the democrats, not from a republican president and congress.  Telling me how much the democrats have proposed means nothing compared to what has actually been spent.  And what's been spent is far from acceptable.

I'm very happy you've managed to lower our taxes.  How about you stop spending so much of our money as well?  Especially if you're going to be borrowing the money to do it.  

Highways to nowhere and that salmon air plane in Alaska.

So Mr. Kingston, did you or did you not vote for the 2005 highway bill, and id you vote for or against the attempt to stop those useless highways in Alaska.

It doesn't appear that the Congressman's initial diary was all that well received.  

If the issue is which party stands for responsibility, especially fiscal responsibility, there's no contest.

The Libertarians!

I think the best the Repubs can claim now is, "At least we're not as fiscally irresponsible as you!"

And I'd call the good Congressman on many more of his points, but you RSers have already done a mighty fine job.

This image needs to be in the black again before I agree with you Congressman.

I'm not surprised with the amount of grassroots disappointment that I have seen regarding inability of our Republican House, Senate and Presidency to at least reasonably control our federal spending.

To make things worse, even though many of us have had our federal taxes cut, it has turned out that our state governments have had to increase property taxes to make up for decreased federal support.

Topping it all off, with only what, 12 Republican Senators supporting the Coburn spending control bill...it's not the greatest time to bring up spending...

The Republican Congress has done a great job with tax cuts.

However your assertion about standing at a cross-road and one party (us?) standing for responsibility and tough choices in difficult times was physically painful to read. What tough choices did we make on the Agriculture bill? The Transportation Bill? The Energy Bill? The Prescription Drug entitlement?

I hope you continue to participate in this sight, but pork spending is clearly out of control. Please do everything you can to rein it in, and please tell Don Young where he can stick his Bridge to Nowhere.

Getting bashed from the left and the right.

But serously, bashing the Dems is not governing, it is a sign that the GOP was so into winning elections that they did not study up on governing.

If the GOP governs well, the Dems do not matter.
If the GOP fails to govern, bashing the Dems will not matter.

That if I couldn't say anything nice, I shouldn't say anything.

And so, regarding this commentary on Republican "Fiscal Responsibility" in the current budgetary session, I'm not going to say anything.

House Republicans are committed to fiscal responsibility

Which Congress are you refering to here, the 89th?

It's not enough for the Republicans to roll out the same old tired "Democrats=Spending" anymore. The spending we've seen on pork since the GOP owned all three houses (WH, Senate, House) suggests that this statement will convince only the willingly uninformed.

Number of Pork Projects in Federal Spending Bills

2005 - 13,997

2004 - 10,656

2003 - 9,362

2002 - 8,341

2001 - 6,333

2000 - 4,326

1999 - 2,838

1998 - 2100

1997 - 1,596

1996 - 958

Please start with why anyone looking at those numbers should believe the House Republicans are committed to Fiscal Responsibility.

Some would say it isn't nice to not offer helpful criticism.

I'm just saying.

Seems like a pretty good candidate for the GOP slogan, doesn't it?  It takes some serious cojones to blame the opposition on spending when you control the agenda as well as every branch of government.  As folks have pointed out, you're in control...or are you?  

Particularly hysterical are your claims about the budget committee....uh...you control that...right?  Vote them down!!!  That's why we elected you!!!  And please, since the President doesn't seem to know where to draw the line on spending, help the poor man.  He's demonstrated that he will sign anything you send him...so for the love of God, let's not send him more bills that fund bridges to nowhere and other ridiculous projects out of step with any reasonable set of fiscal values.  Tax and spend is more responsibile than "don't tax, spend more."      

Don't get me wrong, I love the talk of fiscal responsibility...but so far, its just that...talk.    

I must express my thanks to the R(SC) Senators, Graham and DeMint, for their "yea" votes on the Coburn amendment. No other state, except for the potential recipient of the boon (had the amendment passed), provided two "yea" votes.

if they indicated whom the pork projects actually belonged to. I don't know how that would turn out, but it would be interesting to see.

I thought that name was already taken, by Congressman Jim Clyburn's (D-SC) bridge.

I agree

But it still wouldn't absolve the GOP-controlled Congress or White House from the lion's share of responsibility for those items being passed.

"Fiscal responsibility" when you hold all the cards suggests pork will be weeded out. At least it should. Since the pork is doubling, I think "fiscal responsibility" here is meaningless.

It's silly to draw the conclusion that because Republicans now have the majority, any talk of spending refers to republicans. Is it your position that the Democrats have been opposing taxes and increased spending?

Perhaps it is your position that in the many years when republicans did not have the majority, fiscal responsibility ruled the day?

I don't think so.

Like I said, there's no question which party stands for these things, whether you think the current congress spends to much or not.

.

is that very few in the congress have opposed spending, regardless of party affiliation.

That may be your point of contention, as it is with many others here. But the point of the person I was replying to is the one I question. The one which seems to lay blameless the democrats and name republicans the solely guilty. An interpretation supported on futher reading of the posters other comments.

What I don't know is what Republicans are.

On the major pieces of new spending legislation -- the Medicare prescription drug benefit, for instance -- Democratic plans would have involved lower spending than Republican plans.  Democrats wanted the government to be able to negotiate lower prices on prescription drugs, while Republicans were more willing to give the pharmaceutical industry the higher prices it wanted.  

Really, it's pretty hard to pin this borrow and spend thing on the Democrats.  Here's the surplus/deficit over the last several years.  Surpluses are positive, deficits are negative:

1992  -290

1993  -255

1994  -203

1995  -164

1996  -107

1997  -22

1998  +69

1999  +126

2000  +236

2001  +128

2002  -158

2003  -378

2004  -412

A Democratic president and Congress begin a decline in the deficit, which continues at roughly the same pace as Republicans  take control of Congress.  We end the Clinton years with a surplus.  Then Bush becomes president and all heck breaks loose.  While Robert Rubin put the Clinton White House on a low-deficit path, the current Republican party went off that path pretty dramatically.  

My memory could be wrong, and I can't find a cite for this, and I will be glad to retract this if I'm materially wrong.  Or change it if I'm wrong at all...

Didn't a significant portion of that increase in tax revenue comes from one time sources, such as the "holiday" on MNCs "bringing home" overseas income at a much lower marginal tax rate in returning for only using it for certain purposes?

I'll join you in the tax cut applause line when Congress makes them permanent.

The Republican leadership in Congress deserves credit for increasing the size of government at a record rate, and enjoying the fruits of pork in a manner even Robert Byrd would be embarrassed about.  At least his bridges go somewhere.

And, I might add, Democrats were not elected on a platform of fiscal responsibility.

Mandatory reading aside, one has only to look at the failure of the Coburn ammendment to realize that election platform and legislative results are two, very different things.

I could probably work up a 5000 word rant/screed on it all.

But what would be the point?  We all know what's happening, and anyone who can read can see what he said.

Since I am willing to accept the fact that he really believes that he is espousing "Fiscal Responsibility" in all that, there's no point in saying much more, is there?

"Democrats were not elected on a platform of fiscal responsibility."

Certainly beside the point in the exchange we are referencing.

"election platform and legislative results are two, very different things"

Again, this may be your point, it doesn't make it Vaders point.

And my original comment remains unchanged by this observation. One party stands for tax cuts and decreased spending, one party the opposite.

This is not contradicted in the slightest by the failures of the current congress to limit spending. It may indicate we elected the wrong party leaders, it may indicate something else, and these are all debatable points. But it doesn't change what the party stands for. Certainly not what I stand for. I'm republican, and I believe in low taxes, small government, limited spending. I feel confident the majority of my fellow republicans feel the same. Therefore, it is part of what the party stands for.

Both parties do it.

However, the point is, notwithstanding a future status quo change of leadership, we will reap the same results we have today:  that is, financial policy virtually indistinguishable from the opposing party.

That is why I make my political donations based on recommendations by groups like Club for Growth.

As I said during the fights over she who must not be named, I don't have the slightest doubt that change from within is the proper course. When republican leadership fails, we should elect new republican leadership.

But I wanted to agree with the Congressman on the point of which party stands for what. After all, it's his first post here, and we do want our elected officials posting here. I was afraid he was about to be commented off the site, considering the subject matter. And he is right about democrats.

with whom you are debating.

And if were anyone other than an accountable, elected official, I would agree with you.

We elect representatives to represent, hence it is our duty to make our thoughts known.

but with fiscal comparison to dems, the distance is ever nearer.

You and I and many are not satisfied with the current definition of Republican:  Who other than we to change it?  Any how else to do it but by voicing an opinion?

If I could interject one of my own, it'd be:

"Sheehan me an inch but we'll take a mile"

Or even in his State, it could be noted.  So it doesn't matter what I think, to him.

The National Republican Party apparently does not care much either, from the looks of things.

I'm about this close {insert fingers 1/64" apart icon} to giving up on the whole Party right now.  We've gone from bad to worse in all sorts of areas, and now we're hearing that they are being "Fiscally Responsible", too?

I'm sorry, Barry.  I had an AUH2O sticker on my bike in '64.  But I can't hardly stand any more of this.

I agree with that. My only two points so far have been "this is what we stand for" and "this is not what democrats stand for".

We are those to make the change, and we make it through our editorial or electoral voices.

But let's stop agreeing so much! I wanted to disagree with Vader! Controversy is the spice ... something something.

Despite all the bad news, we can win next year if we spend the next 12 months acting like Republicans again.  Pass reconciliation, pass an across the board cut, freeze spending next year, eliminate some obsolete federal programs.  Off years are a turn out the base year Congressman, let's give them some reasons.

for argument's sake, then have at it.

But I think you would find more profit in directing your argument toward those elected representatives who are not, NOT legislating the platform upon which they were elected.

I agree with the comments upthread and congratulate the Redstaters for pointing out that the Republicans control spending.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-steele102505,1,2470968.
story?coll=bal-home-headlines

and the transcript of his speech...

http://www.michaelsteeleformaryland.com

exciting stuff...

So your claim is that Democrats "stand for" higher taxes and higher spending.  Is that on their charter?  On their website?  Where exactly do they say that?  I agree that republicans stand for lower taxes and spending as their stated goal.  But I think you would be hard pressed to find a democrat who would tell you that he/she believes in taxing and spending.  That is a meme created by the right to describe the left.  There is some truth to it in that I think you will find, in general, that democrats wouldn't object to a tax increase to cover necessary increases in government function.  In general, republicans would probably tend not to.

So if democrats don't claim to stand for taxing and spending, and republicans also don't claim to stand for taxing and spending, then how can we compare the two?  By behavior.  And the only difference I'm seeing in behavior is the tax element.  Both parties are spending.  One party wants to pay for it with money today and the other wants to borrow it.  Not a huge difference.  

Basically, I think the argument that you're going to vote for the party that says it wants to cut taxes and spending is not sound.  The democrats will say that they're for fiscal responsibility, after all.  They just sound a little more realistic about it.  "I will never raise your taxes no matter what" is not a realistic behavior.  In any case, behavior while in office seems to be the key, and neither party has a sparkling record there.

I'd argue that to say you stand for something includes the maintenance of that position, what actions were taken in it's name; the evidence above in various comments is about actions, not words.

Even if you mean that a party is the symbol for something (responsibility in spending), I would say we should only weigh the actions of the party, not the words they produce. This includes the voters if they do nothing to boot out the hypocritical.

You wrote:

there's simply no question which party is the party of tax cuts and responsible spending.

That is true, however they are not the same party.  While the Republicans can certainly lay claim to being the party of tax cuts an examination of spending over the last 15 years or so demonstrates that Democrats have become the party of responsible spending.

(I assume that by responsible spending you mean living within one's means).

Warmed over propoganda like this note from the Congressman should not take up space on Red State. Like Conyers over on Daily Kos, it's exploitive without contributing to the community in any real way; it's a "Look! I'm Blogging! I'm so Hip! Shucks, kids today!" moment more than an attempt to engage.

It's amazing to me how conservitive republicans are so eager to complain about "tax and spend" liberals, yet completely ignore the fiscal crises the Bush administration and neo-conservitaves have put our country into.  These are the people who control the House, the Senate and the Executive, folks.  They are the ones setting the budget.  

I guess it doesn't matter that Bush and Co. have wasted billions in Iraq.  Nor does it matter that a Coalition Provisinal Authority audit has found that 8.8 billion in Iraqi funds are missing and unaccounted for:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5763483/.  

Our country has the largest deficite in history.  When Clinton left office we had a surplus.  I'm sure most of you have a checking account.  You know the difference between saving money, and maxing out your credit cards.

How about the fact that the poverty level has gone up all four years George Bush has been in office?  What about the billions in no-bid contracts given to Halliburton - Cheney's old company in which he was the C.E.O.?  He's still receiving dividend checks from Halliburton, BTW!  Or the simply fact that a gallon of gas is almost $3, while oil companies are posting record profits.  Sure, Bush gave tax cuts to the wealthiest among us, but the wealthiest among us have no problem filling up the car.  For most of us, it's now become a choice - to fill up the car, or buy dinner.  

What about all that?  Can any of you give me a reasonable explanation why none of that seems to matter to you?  

I could go on, but how can you complain about the fiscal irresponsibilty of the party that has no power whatsoever, yet completly ignore what the Rebublicans are doing to our country.  Are you kidding me?  Do you make all your decisions based on faith, or does reality not matter to you anymore?

-Randy

To the contrary, there is evidence why someone like you, who throws rocks from around the corner, shouldn't blog:  your previous non-substantive comment.

I'm not arguing for arguments sake. I'm arguing (sort of) with the original person I argued with, on the grounds that he said something that was wrong. Why you and I must continue our back and forth agreement over what standing for means and how to make so and so stand for this or that I don't know.

Let us reason together on this. I said something which is true about which party stands for what. This was debated by Vader, who falsely proclaims guilt only on the hands of the republicans, and furthermore without even acknowledging that tax/spend is bad. When I argue this incorrect point, you engage me in a multiple reply discussion that flirts with implying that I somehow don't think you should tell elected officials to quit being such spendy mcspendertons.

I agree that they are spending. That this congress is spending too much, taxing too much, expanding too much. It changes not one bit my reply to the Congressman, nor Vader's reply to my reply, nor my reply to Vader's reply to my reply.

Everything after that, it seems, is an almost argument about whether or not people can say that congress or republican leadership isn't doing a good job.

Just like with the "she who must not be named" debate, it's simply assumed that by disagreeing with dissenters, one is being a yes man. I disagree with Vader, not with you, despite both disagreeing with the congressman. I don't know why I'm being forced to belabor it.

Shuffles off to kick the dog...the cat peed on the carpet.

.... was just fine and dandy while the Democrats controlled the House and Senate.  It was even fine after the Republicans won a majority.  But since that time, the GOP has shown a remarkable lack of self-restraint when it comes to spending.

Cutting taxes is wonderful.  Reagan cut taxes.  Then he trimmed entitlements, and cut discretionary spending to pay for at least a portion of his tax cuts.  It should be remembered that Reagan also raised taxes when it became necessary to do so.  It's all about fiscal prudence.  That's one of the bedrock values of the GOP -- responsible spending.  But what we see now from the GOP is reckless and historically unprecedented fiscal imprudence.  It's time for that to change.  

Tarring the Democrats as 'Tax and Spend Liberals' worked great 20 years ago.  It worked just fine 5 years ago.  It's not going to work any more, not until the GOP ends this hypocrisy and practices what it preaches.  It's time for us to actually see that the Republican party truly stands for what is has always claimed to stand for -- it's time for us to actually see the GOP deliver on their promises of lower taxes, smaller government, and fiscal responsibility.  That is your challenge, Congressman.  We don't need you to come up with slogans.  We don't need you to tar the opposition -- they do that just fine all by themselves.  We need you to lead.  We need you to represent us, and to represent the values of your party.

I was a "conservative" before you were born, probably.  And I'm far angrier about the spending issue than anyone who claims to be a liberal could ever be.

You'd do what?  Raise taxes?

Go ahead and mess with the "Moderates" here if you want to.  But don't expect to hear anything like sympathy for that position from this quarter.

You're worse than the Congressman is.  And I can say that as a matter of degree, so it's not descending into personalities.

HEH.

The post that you're disputing never said that the Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility, smaller government or tax cuts.

So stop acting like he(she?) said that.

What he said was that the Republicans aren't being fiscally responsible.

That's not the same thing as saying the Democrats are. It's not like if one party is not fiscally responsible, the other one is.

Also, when you post to an open forum like this - expect anybody - not just the person you're addressing - to comment on your point. If you want to keep it private - email the person.

you are dismissing all previous incarnations of the republican party. This congress, this administration, this crop of leaders are not the sum total of the party, and their record as fiscally bright or not so bright isn't the sum total of the history of the conservatively fiscal republicans who have ever lived.

Republicans represent low taxes, small government, reasonable spending. Democrats represent wealth redistribution, high taxes, and a nanny state. Neither of these things is making it into policy right now. But as I've said above, that doesn't change what the party represents or stands for. Or what the Democrats do not stand for.

I don't know what you are all trying to convince me of, or why you are trying so hard. I'm a republican. Like every republican I've ever known, I support economic growth through lower taxes and smaller, less intrusive government. Like every republican I've ever known, I want my republican representatives to support the same. When they don't, I don't support them. But it doesn't change what the party stands for. It simply doesn't. Until and unless the republican voters, meaning us, don't stand for it, then the party necessarily stands for it as well.

And we make them support it through our votes. I don't see the objection here.

"What he said was that the Republicans aren't being fiscally responsible."

Interestingly, I say the same thing. Over and over and over.

Nevertheless, I've already pointed out in detail the problems with Vader's post. Read up on Vader if you don't believe me. His point was not merely that republicans aren't being responsible. It was that republicans by nature aren't, and that democrats by nature are. You can choose to ignore it if you like.

"Also, when you post to an open forum like this - expect anybody - not just the person you're addressing - to comment on your point. If you want to keep it private - email the person. "

I didn't ask for anything to be private. I merely explained that you cannot extrapolate my dispute with a particular comment to be a dispute with all comments ever made about anything anywhere.

Just like with the Miers issue, as soon as someone disagrees with the dissenters, they are treated like a yes man or someone who wants to silence dissent. It's reactionary and childish.

I'm a hereditary R.  My mother and father, and both sets of grandparents (I don't know beyond that) have been Rs.  I'm only 40, but I've voted in every single election held since I was 18, primaries, school board elections and all.  All that is to say:  I'm not trolling.  But...

I am not completely and entirely opposed to deficits.  They are somewhat akin to a duct tape diet.  It has gradually dawned on me that Congress will spend themselves into oblivion unless the public is so insanely worried about deficits that it causes Congress to worry about their own re-election chances.

However, I am so absolutely and completely appalled that my own party, which has mouthed the words of fiscal responsibility since the days prior to my birth, have abdicated all right to the name.  I may not be able to swing the lever this year.  My habits will probably win, and I will vote.  But I will vote for ANY credible primary opponent to any of my Senators or Reps. - though I would vote for a yellow dog before I would vote for a Democrat.

Now, what about this crazy idea of protecting Fannie and Freddie, while exposing taxpayers to a debt that will so dwarf the S&L scandals, it will make them seem as a pimple on the rear of Shrek?  Have you guys lost your minds????!!!  

I worked at the Fed as the Resolution Trust Corp wrapped up the mess of the S&Ls and have followed this in the WSJ for years, and can't believe my eyes.  You guys mouth great words of respect for Greenspan, but when he presents you with a clear case for impending disaster, you ignore it and try to figure out a way to milk the cow for a few drops for your own porkish products.  Not one of you guys will be left standing when this all comes apart on you.  And future Congresses will eliminate your pensions as your just reward for your slovenly job of representing the public good.  I link you to an article in today's WSJ with a cursory review.  Included in the article is this short synopsis:

The bill's new "affordable housing" fund confiscates potentially billions of dollars of the profits of these nominally private companies to finance the pet projects of Barney Frank and other Democrats. This sort of targeted profits tax is not only a bad idea in its own right but also gives Members of Congress an even greater stake in opposing any reform that might dent that profit stream. That is precisely why it is being promoted by the homebuilder lobby and others who benefit from Fannie subsidies.

We're not averse to profit-making. But Fannie and Freddie's business model relies on borrowing money at taxpayer-subsidized rates and reinvesting that money to buy mortgage-backed securities, mostly of its own creation. This is a lucrative business, but it creates interest-rate and other risk for Fannie and Freddie, which they hedge by engaging in complex and opaque derivatives trading.

In the last few years, both Fannie and Freddie have run into major accounting problems centered around those hedging operations. It turned out that Freddie had made much more money on its derivatives portfolios than it had reported. Fannie appears to have had the opposite problem, but internal and external reviews of Fannie's accounting discrepancies are still under way -- and after a year, we still don't know the full extent of the problem.

In the event of a more serious misstep, Uncle Sam would be on the hook for some or all of the liabilities of these two federal nephews. This implicit taxpayer backing is the reason Fannie and Freddie can borrow at bargain-basement prices in the first place, and it is one of the reasons that Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has argued that Fan and Fred pose a "systemic risk" to financial markets.

More shame is yet to come upon the Grand Old Party.

I would be inclined to cut the respected Congressman some more slack if he stuck around to respond to some of the concerns that have been voiced. I don't expect him to reply to everyone who mouths off, but if he's not going to reply at all, then he's basically just done what so many others have done over at dKos--explot the site as yet another potential medium for transmitting talking points instead of engaging American citizens on the issues about which they're concerned.

I did a little research Congressman, and found you to be barely friendly to the US Taxpayer. On the Citizens against Government Waste website, they have a section on Congressional rankings. You are the 106th person down on the list with a paltry 62%. After looking at the things you voted against it is obvious you are against fiscal discipline. Every time a vote came up involving givebacks, or balancing the budget, there you were along with all of your cohorts on the other side of the aisle.

If we can have Congressmen blogging on RedState, why not true fiscal conservatives like Tom Feeny or Jeff Flake? It is politicians like you Congressman who have driven me out of my party and into Independent status while I look to find a party that gives more than lip service to the conservative principles I hold dear.

You sound like a bombastic 6 year old with your little handful of RNC talking points, and frankly I am sick of it.

I hate to break it to you, but the republicans have had complete control of the House, Senate, WH and some say the SCOTUS.  The dems have had absolutely no power since 2000. What they support and don't support has been of no consequence.  That means that no matter how much you want to point the finger the responsibility for the deficit belongs to you and your fellow party members.  

Oh, and by the way.  Your math is terrible. If one seeks to balance the budget,  A  vote for tax that doesn't pass can't be added to a vote for another tax on another day. The second vote would never have happened if the first one passed.

Quit playing games and pointing fingers.

It certaintly wasn't as respectful and thoughtful as yours, I'll grant you that.

My point was -- and I like to think that there's a certain substance to it -- that press releases are not a contribution to a debate, and posting a press release and not engaging isn't blogging.

what party is currently in power? It certainly isn't the republican party you are speaking of.

You keep repeating over and over that the republican PARTY doesn't believe in big government and spending, then you go on to say despite what the current heads of the party or doing.

The current heads of the party are the elected representatives of republicans, like yourself, unless you voted for Kerry.

Therefore, currently the republican party is no better than the dems when it comes to spending.

And if they continue to spend can they maintain the tax cuts?

Just had to post an attaboy.

Well . . . How about it? Will there be any real dialouge? Or did an Aide write the blogpiece for you?

My understanding is that the Republican party of long ago did not stand for the same ideas as Republican party does today; my thought is: it has changed, and maybe it will go back to the ideals of just a few decades ago if enough of the members push it back in that direction.

A political party can change and aquire new and different things to stand for (good or bad), even if some of the members want to stay with the old ways.

You may always represent the ideals of low taxes, small government, and reasonable spending; however, the Republican party can and will change.

I believe that the Democrats are changing as well, and it is painful for their members too. Such is the ways of things that evolve.