11/3/2006
The Most Corrupt Man in Montana
by Shane Mason on 6:35 am.
Scandals, bribery and greed follow Burns like dust followed Pigpen on Peanuts. It’s all over him like a cheap suit (or white on rice). This isn’t really new, but it is rearing its head again. I have never seen his Washington office, but I am pretty sure that Burns has a sign outside his office that says:
FEDERAL JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS
$5000
I wonder if he issues coupons or has bluelight specials? It constantly amazes me how cheap that dude will sell us all out for. A new report called Money Trails to the Federal Bench details how American justice is up for sale to the highest bidder. It details how Burns took the maximum donation from a judge candidate just one day before recommending him for a federal appointment.
Burns is crooked and it stinks to high heaven. Read the full report here [PDF Document].
| Comments (23) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, dickhead, elections, political |
11/1/2006
Max Does the Right Thing. Thanks.
by Shane Mason on 11:14 pm.
I pointed out how sleazy it is that Burns has been trying to piggy back on Max Baucus’s popularity. He has been pulling a page from the Rehberg playbook and campaigning as a democrat, using Baucus’s record and hiding his own. Following the radio ad that ran in the Butte area disputing Burns’s claims, Tester is now running a television ad where Max sets the record straight. Matt McKenna says the ad will be running statewide and
you would have to be under a large rock in a deep hole not to see this ad over the next week
In truth, I think that the ad is very powerful. See for yourself.
| Comments (7) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, dickhead, elections, montana, political |
Burns is Embarrassing Us Again…
by Shane Mason on 10:15 am.
Burns once again made the state of Montana look stupid in the national spotlight. This time it was the Daily Show. They showed clips from the Helena debate where Tester claimed there was no plan in Iraq and Burns responded that there was a plan, only it was a secret plan. Stewart looked completely bemused and thanked Burns for protecting Bush’s super secret plan that was so secret he was not even telling the Army about it…
Stewart notes that a vote for Jon Tester is a vote for blowing Bush’s elaborate super secret plan…
Video of the debate
See the whole episode at Comedy Central.
UPDATE: Touchstone let us know in the comments that the video is up at Crooks and Liars.
| Comments (7) | Permanent Link | Categories: Conrad Burns, dickhead, montana, political |
They Are The Dividers…
by Shane Mason on 12:00 am.
President Bush will be here later this week to stump for Conrad Burns. Is he coming here as the decider? The uniter? No, he coming as the divider. Here is a preview from speeches he has made this week:
“When it comes to listening to the terrorists, what’s the Democrats’ answer? It’s just say no. When it come to detaining terrorists, what is the Democrats’ answer Just say no. When it comes to questioning terrorists, what’s the Democrats’ answer? Just say no. When it comes to trying terrorists, what’s the Democrats’ answer. Just say no.â€
He is not saying ‘the Republican plan to keep America safe is better than the Democrats’. What he is saying here is that we want the terroris to succeed. We want to see American lives lost. This isn’t how we work together, this is how we marginalize 50% of the American population.
“The Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win, and America loses.â€
I could point out that with over 100 Americans killed in Iraq this month, his approach to Iraq is working out really poorly. I am not saying that he wants us to fail. I am simply pointing out that he is incapable of a coherent strategy. There is a difference here. I am not questioning his motivation as he questions all democrats.
You can say that my ideas are wrong and I will have an active and spirited debate with you on that. However, if you question my motivations or patriotism then the debate is off the table and a fight is on the table. Too often that is what it comes down to from both sides and it is simply not OK. We have heard it time and again from this president and Conrad Burns. I hear it echoed here from thoughtless commenters “The democrats want us to fail in Iraq“. No, we don’t want to see people die. We don’t want to hear the death tolls everyday. If that was our goal we would not be trying to force a strategy, we would let Bush’s ’secret’ plan continue. Failure is where that secret plan is headed.
We want America to succeed with its values intact: the values of acceptance, equality and all the right granted us in the constitution. We want us to be the nation that works together to solve it’s problems. We don’t want to be a country that marginalizes 50% of it’s population. We want to be a country called The United States of America. We are done with dividers, we want uniters. We are taking our country back and we are starting on Tuesday.
| Comments (17) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, dickhead, elections, ideologues, montana, political, republicans |
10/30/2006
Never Never Never. Well, sometimes.
by Shane Mason on 12:34 am.
OK, a lot then.
Oh yeah. This is very real folks. Get the fact sheet here. Conrad, you got pwnd!
| Comments (6) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, dickhead, elections, political |
10/29/2006
Really Really dirty little man
by Shane Mason on 1:25 am.
OK, I have not seen this article, but I heard a radio ad for Tester where Baucus talks about it. Then tonight I saw one of the Burns commercial that started it all. I will summarize it here:
Burns and Baucus. Baucus and Burns. Burns and Baucus. Baucus and Burns. Baucus Baucus Baucus, so vote Burns.
Heh, you’ld think they were best friends. Not so, it seems:
HELENA - Democratic Sen. Max Baucus cried foul Friday over Republican Sen. Conrad Burns and the national GOP using his name in advertisements and fliers that suggest he backs Burns over Jon Tester for the Senate.
“I don’t like it,†Baucus said in a phone interview. “It misleads Montana voters and it implies that I don’t support Jon Tester. I strongly support Jon Tester. I think he’s the better man.â€
Baucus said Burns has ignored a letter from his chief of staff and a phone call from Baucus asking him to refrain from using his name in the radio ads, which have now expanded to television.
Talk about a sniveling little man trying to piggyback on another’s record! The central message is: “Baucus is a senator and you like him. I am a senator too, so you must like me.”
“It’s very misleading,†Baucus said. “I’ve raised a lot of money for him (Tester). I think he’s going to be by far the better senator. He’s honest, he’s hard-working, he’s smart.â€
That’s all Burns has left folks. “You like Max because he is a good guy, so vote for me. I think that Tester should take Maxes radio message to the TV:
“You might have heard ads from Conrad Burns using my name. Well, let me be very clear: I support Jon Tester. I believe in Jon because he is a straight shooter, a real Montanan and just a good guy.â€
| Comments (14) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, democrats, dickhead, elections, montana, political |
10/27/2006
Burns: D for Veterans, A for the Military-Industrial Complex
by Matt Singer on 2:16 pm.
This says something about his priorities.
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Fund, an organization (clearly) for veterans of those two wars says Burns gets a D+ for his efforts for vets. In 2005, he earned a 29% from Disabled Veterans of America.
On the other hand, the Contract Services of America, a trade association for military contractors like Kellog Brown and Root and Wackenhut, gives our Senator an A.
I suppose that makes sense, though. Montana doesn’t have many veterans and we’ve got a lot of military contractors.
Oh, wait. I guess our Senator just doesn’t actually represent this state very well.
(Hat tip to regular commenter ‘jed’ for the heads up on the Vets’ stuff.)
| Comments (1) | Permanent Link | Categories: Conrad Burns, Front Page |
10/26/2006
DSCC Has Tester Up 6
by Matt Singer on 4:09 pm.
48-42 with Burns at 39% approval.
| Comments (39) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, Front Page, democrats, elections |
Can We Just Cut the Crap on this Whole We Need the Seniority Thing?
by Matt Singer on 10:00 am.
Honestly, I feel like we’re having a discussion where people are taking some sort of supposed “long view” and weighing the pros and cons of having a crook who can bring back money, but aren’t really thinking any more into the future than one or two plays.
Here’s the reality of Montana’s seniority status after this election and for the next decade or so:
- Burns Gets Reelected, Gets Indicted, Resigns: In this scenario, we’re in the absolute worst case we could be. Whoever gets appointed to finish Burns’ term doesn’t go in tied with his or her fellow newly elected Senators for seniority, they’re always a step behind. That will matter. And there’s no promise from caucus leadership for a seat on approps, so kiss that committee behind, if it’s truly a big deal to you.
- Burns Gets Reelected, Serves One More Term, Finally Leaves D.C.: In this scenario, it makes a bit more sense to keep Burns, for the short-term. Both Burns and Baucus have about one more term in each of them. So we can send them both back (and if pork is what you want, it appears Max is your man more than Conrad is), lose Burns in six, Baucus in eight, and start from complete scratch. Again, if seniority is what you’re after, that just strikes me as a silly way to handle this situation.
- Elect Tester, Get a Seat on Approps, and Start Building Some Seniority: Start building seniority with a new Senator now, so that when Max leaves, we’re not left with no seniority and no seats on powerful committees, but rather have a man who is by all accounts an able and honest legislator well into his second-term on Approps.
Here’s the final thing. Pork isn’t really my bag. If it was, I might at one point have been mildly conflicted in this race. But the seniority question is really one of short-term v. long-term thinking. We can horde seniority for about six more years or we can be smart and shift some new leadership in who can stay a while.
Personally, I think Jon is honest enough to end up in D.C. for three terms and not lose his mind. I could be proven wrong in 18 years. If I am, I like to think I’ll be calling for his ouster no matter how much pork he’s bringing home.
But if seniority is your bag, the smart move is to vote for Tester. We won’t have more seniority next year. But in 2014, it will mean we won’t have two folks with a combined two years in the Senate.
Yeah, and these are talking points for those water cooler conversations with your co-workers hemming and hawing about pork. Ask ‘em where Montana will get its share in a decade if we have no seniority at all.
| Comments (5) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, Front Page, elections |
10/25/2006
Conrad Burns: Kicked Back, With His Mind on His Money and His Money and His Mind
by Matt Singer on 9:39 am.
This morning’s Missoulian:
A new accounting review shows, among other things, the organization’s chief executive received three different salaries at the same time. And one of the company’s former employees said in a Missoulian interview that staff members were expected to contribute to Burns’ re-election campaign.
Multiple salaries? Expectations to send money back to Burns?
Why that all sounds corrupt as Hell to me. This whole expectation of feudal loyalty smacks of Resodyn buying debate seats and guaranteeing them for Burns’ supporters.
Can we rename Burns’ office Tamany Hall?
As another note, I have no real idea whether there was ever an explicit agreement between George Bailey and Burns or Burns’ staff to kickback these federal appropriations to Burns’ reelection campaign. I do know that a man, who when discussing federal appropriations would howl, “That’s my money. My outpatient clinics,” is a man who has so thoroughly lost touch with reality and all sense of decency that demanding favors in exchange for how he uses his power to earmark our money certainly isn’t outside the realm of possibility.
It’s his money after all. It belongs in his campaign coffers.
Also worth noting, Lee Newspapers is doing an analysis of whether Burns really is bringing major money into the state (notably, all of the Lee papers are running this Burns story, only the Missoulian appears to be reporting on the INSA corruption developments). They singled out Burns’ Butte claims and found that he does bring money to the state. They also found that some of the money Burns claims he brought to Montana went elsewhere, that former staffers of his turned lobbyists had a hand in much of it (can we all say “revolving door” together?), and 80% of the money Burns is claiming he secured was also requested by Baucus, so it’s tough to give exclusive credit.
Notably, Burns is doing these things when these companies hire his former staff as lobbyists. I’ve written it before, but it appears I’ll have to write it again. I’m not really sure how much Burns is a part of this, but it appears some Republicans long ago figured out a game: find a dumb man on the appropriations committee, work for him for several years and line up approps for his former staffers turned lobbyists, when you leave to start your lobbying career just find a replacement who will do the same for you. Make it easier the Senator’s new staff by mostly finding your clients in the Senator’s home state. Then, charge Montanans high prices for access to their own Senator. That’s a damn good way to make a living.
In fact, it’d be about $20 million they’ve made via our Senator, their former boss.
Tamany Hall
| Comments (8) | Permanent Link | Categories: Conrad Burns, Front Page, corrupt, dickhead |
10/24/2006
They have had 6 years
by Shane Mason on 10:07 pm.
I have a question. The republicans have had almost complete control for the last 6 years. What have they done for us? I don’t want to know what they haven’t done or what they have done poorly. I don’t want to hear about the bad things. There are plenty of conservatives lurking around here, I want to know why you support Burns and the Bush administration. What have they done to prove themselves worthy of your vote? This is your open microphone, say what you will.
| Comments (21) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, elections, montana, political |
10/23/2006
Burns: Part of the Ministry of Truth?
by Shane Mason on 6:33 pm.
Enough Said? Maybe not.
Need some insight?
| Comments (18) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, dickhead, elections, political |
GOP Writing Burns Off?
by Shane Mason on 1:55 am.
First, I ask the question cautiously, because I want you to get out there and work for it. Burns is a damn good closer, else Schweitzer would be our senator right now. Tester needs your help now more than ever. Montana needs your help more than ever. Deliver literature, man the phones, convince your friends. Whatever you can do, please do it. Now is NOT the time to rest and celebrate. Please Please Please volunteer. Matt has made it easy for you, just fill out the form at the top-right part of the page and you will get an email letting you know how you can help.
With that said, has anyone seen any nationaly sponsored Burns ads on TV lately? Some analyst are already writing this race off, though I wouldn’t be so sure with the recent tightening poll numbers. I have seen plenty of advertisements for Tester from the DSCC, but nothing from the national party for Burns in a few weeks. With GOP races going to hell all over the map, have they lost confidence in Burns’s ability to pull this one off and refocusing their money on more winnable races?
Anything? Remember, Burns has a big war chest. Big enough to blitz the airwaves from now to November 8th. Nothing would make the old man and the crooked lobbyist friends snicker more than to pull off this victory. We need to shut him down on November 7th. Tester has done what he can, and he has done it well. It is in our hands now. Let’s do this!
| Comments (1) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, democrats, elections, political |
10/22/2006
Did Burns reveal the secret plan?
by Shane Mason on 2:00 pm.
As I mentioned earlier, in the recent Billings debate between Jon Tester and Conrad Burns, Burns claimed that Bush has a secret plan for victory in Iraq. While this is amusing on one hand, it is disturbing because thousands of American troops have died in Mr Bush’s war. Past that, an estimated 650,000 Iraqi’s have died at the hands of a ’secret plan’ that Bush isn’t going to share with us.
(It occurred to me that everyone might not know about the ‘Secret Plan Declaration’, see it over at the Ravings of An Insane Fisherman)
Is it possible that Mr Burns gave the real secret plan away? While defending the strategy of ‘win at all costs’ at the Helena debate, Burns said this
It is the best interests of the United States, it’s the best interests of the Middle East. After all, this is the first time that we can change the economic culture of the Middle East, and do it in a country that has the wherewithal to get it done.
So, it’s all about money? There was no mention of what was best interest for the Iraqi people (democracy?), only the economic interest. Is that what it is all about Conrad? Were you supposed to tell us that, or did you blow the secret plan? Just so you remember what is at stake here, look at the headlines:
35 die in new Iraq violence
Bombings, shootings kill 32 in Iraq
Military Families Cope With Increase Of Iraq Violence
Iraq’s violence heading toward two-year high
Bush admits Iraq violence echoes Vietnam during Tet
Limbaugh: Recent Iraq violence shows “terrorists have voted Democrat”
| Comments (8) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, elections, foreign, ideologues, iraq, political, republicans |
10/17/2006
Why Not Censor Both Sides?
by Shane Mason on 2:12 pm.
According to a Helena IR article brought up by a commenter, local station across Montana are pulling a commercial produced by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee because of inaccuracies in the ad. The article did not mind letting Eric Iverson spout his vitriolic sentiments:
“It’s like Jon Tester and his liberal thug friends have been lying about Conrad and his family for over a year now,” Erik Iverson, senior adviser to the Burns’ campaign. “This is a desperate ad that was designed to help a desperate, faltering candidate. Montana TV stations realized the ad for what it is - a lie.”
If the ad contains lies, it should be changed. However, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Of course, no one is pulling any of Burns’s out and out lying ads. Look at the infamous patriot act ad. Full of lies and half truths about both Jon Testers position and the act itself.
While the Tester campaign can not comment on third party ads, Phil Singer, the spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, does point out why the ad might be accurate:
“Senator Burns can hire as many D.C. lawyers as he likes to gloss over his record but he can’t change the basic fact that he voted for this legislation which cut Byrne grants and other programs that help fight meth,” Singer said. “Instead of hiding behind his lawyers and playing politics, Senator Burns should stop standing in the way of law enforcement’s efforts to combat the spread of this drug.”
| Comments (11) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, democrats, dickhead, elections, montana, overreach, political, republicans |
10/14/2006
A Really Dangerous Man
by Shane Mason on 11:48 pm.
A commenter yesterday reminded me of a man who, were he not marginalized, would be one of the most dangerous men in the state. Rick Jore is running for House District 12 again under the Constitution Party. He once held this position as a republican, before he decided they were not extreme enough for him. I wont spend a lot of time telling you about what makes him such a bad man, I’ll let him do that for me.
From his website
I will oppose all federal funds appropriated for education.
Just as I opposed CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) in the 1999 legislature, I will continue to oppose similar programs.
I will not support legislation to fund any scheme that is labeled “economic development.” I opposed all of the “jobs and income” proposals in the last session and I will continue to do so.
Yes, you read it right. Rick Jore opposes federal funding for education, health insurance for underprivileged children and economic development programs for Montana. So, let’s look at this in more detail by examining his answers to the Project Vote Smart questionnaire:
- Rick Jore would greatly decrease funding for higher education
- Rick Jore would greatly decrease funding for high schools
- Rick Jore would greatly decrease funding for elementary schools
- Rick Jore would greatly decrease funding for the environment
- Rick Jore would decrease funding for law enforcement
- Rick Jore would decrease funding for highways
- Rick Jore would eliminate funding for health care
- Rick Jore would eliminate funding for welfare
- Rick Jore does not support any type of campaign finance controls
- Rick Jore does not support programs to provide prison inmates with vocational and job-related skills
- Rick Jore does increasing state funding for community centers and other social agencies in areas with at-risk youth
- Rick Jore does not support increasing state funding for state and local emergency agencies to prevent or respond to terrorism
- Rick Jore does not support increasing state funding for state and local emergency agencies to prevent or respond to terrorism
- Rick Jore does not support the restriction of the sale of products used to make methamphetamine
- Rick Jore does not support the Montana Meth Project and similar initiatives
- Rick Jore does not promote increased use of alternative fuel technology
Seriously, this stuff goes on and on. What can you do to help? Support Jeanne Windham in her bid for reelection to HD 12. Donate to the Montana Legislative Campaign Committee through the Act Blue link above. Contact the state democratic party of Jeanne Windham to see what you can do to help.
| Comments (31) | Permanent Link | Categories: '08, ballot initiatives, democrats, dickhead, ideologues, punitive |
10/13/2006
Rasmussen Still Has Tester Up By 7
by Matt Singer on 12:21 pm.
Rasmussen’s latest has it as a 7-point race: 49-42 (last poll was 50-43) with Tester up. When leaners are included, it goes to 50-44. 91% of Tester voters say their vote won’t change. Only 81% of Burns’ supporters say the same. Meanwhile, Rasmussen has Tester pulling 96% of self-identified Democrats and Burns only pulling 82% of self-identified Republicans. Tester leads 2-1 among independent voters.
These numbers have been holding steady for months now. It’s still up in the air as we wait to see how things break in the closing weeks as voters’ attention really returns to the race.
| Comments (16) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, Front Page, democrats, elections |
I was there
by Shane Mason on 1:45 am.
Hello all. I was indeed at the Helena debate tonight. However, the airport’s wireless did not seem to work on my laptop, so you get second run stuff here. First off, read Moorcat’s take on the Bozeman debate earlier in the week. It is rather good, but I am a biased fan of Moorecat’s writing and views. Partly because the disenfranchised republican is one of the great thing we have going for us this year. Now, let’s look at tonight debate. I will not read Pogies coverage of it before I give you my own, mainly because Don and Jason are so insightful that I might lose my own opinion in there. My beautiful wife and I attended the debate with Craig, who came as an independent viewer.
First off: why the airport? It was hot and crowded and flat. Debates should be held in slanted floor theaters like the Hamilton debate was. The civic center would have been a much better forum.
Second: though all the debates were lopsided with Tester supporters, this was even more so. I would claim 5 to 1. My beautiful wife says higher. There was a sea of yellow tee-shirts thanks to the Fire-Burns people. My beautiful wife asked me what I thought Burns saw when he looked out into the audience. I said the wild-eyed liberals that Bush portrayed in his 2004 commercials. She said that he saw the sames yellow shirts at every debate so he had no idea that he was looking at Montana. These yellow shirts are the face of a state that is pissed and he doesn’t even get it.
Third: man these were tough questions. Whereas all other debates the questions seemed as though they were set up by the campaigns, these seemed like each were set up by the opposing campaign. Much better than lobbing soft balls, these tough questions really caused the debaters to pull out the truth.
Fourth: man oh man, Burns is a shameless liar. Over and over again I heard it. Embryonic stem cell research has led to no results? Neither has ‘the cure for cancer’, should we stop trying to find one? The simple fact is that you have to build a foundation of knowledge first. That foundation leads to results. Burying your head in the sand only leads to ears full of sand.
Fifth: Burns wants to start a nuclear war. Seriously, this sort of logic is crazy. Burns said that we could stand North Korea and Iran down because we still have nuclear warhead buried in the ground. No! He really said that! What’s more, he said that we should threaten sanctions on China if they did no deal with North Korea for us. Tester, on the other hand, claimed that WE SHOULD BE THE LEADERS. We should work with China and our allies to come terms with North Korea. Seriously, sanction China if they don’t deal with Korea? Does he have sand in his ears or did he put earplugs in before he stuck his head down there?
Sixth: Explain the rules maybe? How come Jon Tester had not heard about the ‘ask your opponent a question’ but Burns read his from an index card? Perhaps this was a ‘prepping issue’ or perhaps the fact that the moderator is a clear republican plays in?
Seventh: What a nice question: Can you say something nice about your opponent? Tester points out that Burns has made a sacrifice to serve 18 years for his state and country. Burns? Lies again and takes the opportunity to again use the word ‘liberal’ as a dirty word. This is not the way a Montanan is supposed to act. First, he can’t remember Paul Wellstone’s name, he calls him ‘John’ Wellstone. The audience has to remind him that it is indeed Paul Wellstone. Then he claims to have been great friends with him, but uses the question to paint Tester as an ‘extreme’ liberal. Is that Montanan’s style or is that how they work in DC?
You know, Tester won this debate. I don’t care if Coobs comes on here and says it was a toss up or not. You had Burns on one side stuttering and tripping over himself. On the other side, you had Tester sure of his words and with the support of the audience. Only November will tell for sure, but I will say that had I NEVER heard of neither, I would still have given this one to Tester, BIG TIME!
Now, I will read Intelligent Discontent’s coverage and comment there. Please go over there and read it, you always should. Looks like they have two parts. It is always the best debate coverage in Montana. Look into Moorecat’s future coverage of tonights debate as well, his take is ALWAYS worth hearing.
I will note, before I go, that I attended a fundraiser afterwords. I have nothing new to add that I did not say here. John Tester is a real person and he cares about what he is doing: working for us.
| Comments (48) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, dickhead, elections, montana, political |
10/11/2006
Jon Tester Misleads the Public on Conrad Burns’ Sales Tax
by Matt Singer on 11:45 am.
You’ve probably seen the stories with Jon Tester calling out Conrad Burns because Burns has indicated he would support a National Sales Tax. I have to tell you — the attack is misleading. Tester says that Burns’ proposal would raise the price of goods by 23%. That’s not true.
The actual tax would be roughly 30% higher than the number provided by Tester (note: this statistic is almost as dishonest as the 23% figure, I’ll explain why below). (more…)
| Comments (21) | Permanent Link | Categories: Conrad Burns, Front Page, policy, taxes |
10/8/2006
Entitlements and the Budget OR Why Burns is Full of Hooey (Part 8,863 of an Ongoing Series)
by Matt Singer on 2:06 pm.
(This is a post not just about why Burns is full of hooey, but about one the “big lies” of the modern rightwing. An understanding of it involves quite a bit of explanation of how Social Security, taxes, and the federal budget works. The long story short, unsurprisingly, is that the rightwing is pushing economic policies that ultimately hurt most Americans for the benefit of a relatively small economic elite.)
Shane Mason pulled this quote out in the comments below, but it’s something that has been bothering me, so I thought we should take another look at it. When discussing the deficit, Burns likes to put the blame on something other than his own reckless spending and tax cutting. One of his favorite means of doing so is blaming “entitlements.”
“Our percentage of discretionary spending has gone down two years in a row. What is really hurting us is the entitlements. Of course, reform is going to be needed there pretty quick, both in Social Security and Medicare.”
This isn’t a bad argument if we’re talking truly about the long-term, say anticipating problems a generation or two down the line, except that we’re not. We’re talking about the current deficit. And anyone who has taken a look at these numbers more often than never knows that it is not entitlements that are “really hurting us.”
| Comments (13) | Permanent Link | Categories: Conrad Burns, Front Page, policy |
