Where do you get this idea? This is the man who couldn't come up with even ONE mistake he'd made in his presidency. He's as far from "the buck stops here" as you can get.

I will definitely and proudly be voting for Bush.

He delivered on his promise to give us a tax cut, and I fear that John Kerry would roll it back, just as Clinton took away much of the Reagan tax cuts.

He has also been a strong leader for America in international affairs -- which is precisely why he is so despised in Europe and elsewhere. He puts America's interests first, and doesn't hesitate to use America's might as the world's only superpower. A sharp contrast to Jimmy Carter allowing an Iranian student mob to take our hostages, and Clinton shooting a few missiles in Bin Laden's direction and then abandoning the job, leaving him free to plan and execute 9/11.

As for gay marriage -- I disagree with Bush's position on that, but I suspect most Democrats would find one issue or another where they disagree with John Kerry. At any rate, it's a gross exaggeration to claim that Bush is proposing to "write discrimination into the Constitution" or "make gays second class citizens." What he wants to do is to preserve the status quo whereby in 49 of the states, there has never been a right to gay marriage. Again, I disagree with him on that one issue, but if we want to make progress on it, we need to change public opinion, not blame a politician who is reflecting the will of his constituents.

I remember one thing from my childhood, putting myself first and thinking of just myself wasn't always the best idea. And it still holds true to me today.

Ah, but the hostages taken on a regular basis in Iraq and beheadings of these hostages are not Bush's fault as you say the Iranian hostages were Carter's fault. By the way, apparently a U.S. Marine was taken hostage today in Iraq.

And I almost had forgotten that 9/11 was Clinton's fault! Since everyone was urging to attack Bin Laden and Afghanistan through the 90s......

I don't think the black community waited for public opinion to change before pushing for civil rights, did they?

[ June 27, 2004, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: illini n milwaukee ]

Whatever you're smoking, I want some of it.

I reject this notion. The integration of the military, the voting rights act and Brown vs The Board of Education were put in place by politicians (judges are politicians too) who were flying in the face of public opinion. Social change and progress requires bold and courageous action by those in the political mainstream to shape the opinions and policies of our nation. True, there are grass roots efforts that must be made to compliment this leadership. No one's opinions were changed by the Brown decision or the integration of the military. Their opinions were changed by being forced to learn and work with people different from them, forced into a position where they could not hate from afar, but had to hate people with faces, names and feelings sitting next to them in classes and sleeping next to them in barracks. Not everyone ceased hating. Many people still cannot see people of color as equal and deserving of respect. But without those civil rights changes forced down the public's throat, attitudes would not have changed. So to here, we must have decisive, bold leadership which will show America the way, or we will continue to be lost in the wilderness of hate and repression.

(sorry about the gratuitous Exodus reference, got a little carried away)

I think it's funny that liberals made fun of Bush's daughters for doing volunteer work for the poor, then they want to ignore the Billionaire Kerry and his wife having money, cuz he represents the poor. Actions speak louder someone on here said ? No-one becomes a billionaire without getting it from the sweat of the poor, so keep dreaming he's going to help the poor.

When can the Bush supporters start making up nicknames for Kerry like everyone does here for Bush ? How about Keri-lotion or 'kerry-very-useless. How about "Mr. Ignore Iraq it will just go away".

osufan, you are out of touch with what Kerry proposes to do about Iraq, the quagmire that your President got us into. Kerry has been saying for a very long time now, we need to internationalize the effort. Its funny, but isn't that exactly what Shrub is trying to do now as he hip hops around the world in a desperate effort to get anyone to help us out with? You also need to watch some Sunday Talk Shows where most of the subject is Iraq and the in their words "diasterous occupation" that we have had on going there. I don't propose to change your mind or any of Shrub's supporters, just point out the facts when you are wrong.

The thing that doesn't bother me about the money issue with the Kerrys is that John has never really been involved in a corporate setting. He was a prosecuter and had a private law practice as a defender for a bit before going into politics.

His wife has been the head of the Heinz Foundation, which has quite a bit of respect around the world. She has also made a point to stay away from the corporate side.

So although very wealthy, both have pretty much stayed away from getting tangled in corporations and corporate money. Sure, she's the 'heir' to the finances, but she has expressed that she has no interest in getting involved in the business.

Are you JOKING? Don't you realize that Reagan himself RAISED taxes twice, in 1982 and 1983, the first to help end a deficit, and together these were the largest TAX INCREASES IN HISTORY. Then, are you unaware that George H. W. Bush ALSO RAISED TAXES? I mean, remember H.W.'s "no new taxes" pledge, and how he broke it? What alternative universe are you living in? Both Republicans had ALREADY raised taxes well before Clinton assumed office!

I thought Right Wingers were calling Kerry "Poodle," rather idiotically of course, since he'd be the first president we've had in a while who's directly descended from the British Mayflower Puritans. But then facts never stopped the Right.

Second, yes, Theresa Heinz Kerry is a billionaire. That article you or someone else linked to demonstrates persuasively that her wealth actually helps to CREATE wealth AND jobs by investing Heinz funds in a range of successful businesses, like Anheuser-Busch, the largest brewery and bread company in the world. As a conservative, you should be pro-business AND pro-investment, right? AND pro-rich--or are you a closet Marxist in right-wing clothing?

Both Bush and Kerry are very rich. Kerry married wealth, while W got his from friends of his father's, Texas taxpayers, Salem bin Laden, and others. The fact remains that under our last president, a Democrat, the vast majority of Americans, rich and poor, benefited from his economic policies, while only a small cadre have over the last 3 years. It's time for W to go. He's botched up way too much.

No one needs that great of a learning curve. Carter didn't get it, HW didn't get, and W, the most inept of the three, really doesn't get it.

Anaheuser-Bush and Heinz: great to be a large company but Haliburton you're against, they don't supply jobs I guess. Also I guess all of the first listed company's dealings were all on the up and up. You researched that.

My company made money this year, in August we are getting profit sharing checks for the first time in a decade (overlaps with Democrat presidency). And no, I'm not rich. Also my taxes have gone down every year for the last four.

How many times will I read broad generalizations like Bush screwed up the last four years.

Here's a broad generalization:
All liberals care about is what's in it for me, what benefits will I get next. With no plans on how to get it. Is Clinton stil working on free medical care for me ? I believe you work for what you want, noone hands me anything.

Put me down as another Bush voter. NO question, NO contest. For many reasons, not the least of which is that it will aggravate so many people I know. And don't know.

A married gigolo.

There is plenty of documentation of the Bush record. It's not broad generalization.

No osufan, Clinton is not working on free medical care as you put it. What he tried to do along with Hillary's help in 1993 was to overhaul and deal with the on life support health care crisis in this country. But guess what? The Repugs. didn't desire any change then, and it was voted down and killed.Then this year because the Repugs. and the Dems. know its an election year they shoved through Congress a so called Medicare reform bill, that is a total mess. I know personally, because I am on Medicare. Shrub underestimated the cost of this bill by about oh say, $200 Billion dollars or so. So of course who would be better in dealing with the health care crisis in America will be a central theme for voters to decide this November. Personally I don't think its even close who would do a better job. JFK!

safer after his right wing buddies make criminals out of all of us and start marching us off to the camps

misses the point? gee, that's the understatement of the year

So let me try and understand it, from a non-American point of view.

Kerry married into his wealth, signed a pre-nup, and because he is wealthy because of it, he's bad for the US, and for humanity.

Bush, inherited his money from his grandfather, who founded his fortune trading with Nazi-Germany, even while US soldiers were dying in Europe, and the far east fighting the Axis powers.
And the fortune was made bigger during the "oil crisis" of the 1970's. And this is the kind of person who is good, wholesome, and the kind that people should emulate?


I do not hate Americans. Please understand that. Part of my family is American, and I have yet to meet an American that was truly an ass**** (okay, 1 guy in the Atlanta airport last Oct who called me a f**king traitor and spit on me because I had on my Roots Canada Olympic jacket).

BUT, the present view the United States gives the world, through it's unilateral arrogance ofeverything must be done the "US way", the reaction towards dissenters being generally "you're either with us or with the enemy", has actually caused the United States as a COUNTRY to be hated.

Here at home, any government that proposes anything other than a mutually polite relationship with the states is generally laughed at.

But then we don't have to worry. Chances are that Shrub doesn't even know that our oil and gas keeps over 30% of your population warm during the winter.

And to you Republicans out there. My partner and I were married last week after 24 years together.

We have been told that because of it, we can now be denied entry into the United States should we admit to being married. Their reason for denying us entry would be as undesireable aliens. And once we are denied entry, this would be permanent.

And you guys want to re-elect this gang?

Um. Does Heinz bid on lucrative government contracts? I'd be very surprised if Kerry leveraged his presidential power to destroy national assets to grow tomatoes. Actually, I'd be outraged; just as we should be outraged with the current administration's bias toward oil interests and personally-connected private companies.

So uh, no. No vote from Bush over here.

BTW osufan... gay marriage does exist. I have the document to prove it.

Watch out, they might take control of the White House ketchup! wink

I don't know if Heinz does or not, but you can bet zillions of times with Heinz and the many other companies under Ms. Kerry's rule, contracts were given to companies that were FRIENDS, or who DONATED to Mr. Kerry's campaign, or whoever donated a wing to some hospital, etc. etc. etc. The bleeding hearts were so upset about Chaney's company and it only happens every single day in the business world...rub this hand i'll pay you with this hand, that's how business works, were you guys born yesterday ?

And to the guy with the made up story of Bush making his money with Nazi's, didn't the Kennedy's (Democrat supreme) get all their money from Old Joe bootlegging liquor years ago, great contribution to society

osufan -

you say "Is Clinton still working on free medical care for me ? I believe you work for what you want, noone hands me anything."

As a non-American Ive never understood the distinction American right-wingers seem to make here.

Some public services like policing and public high schools are OK to be funded through taxation (and are available to whoever needs them regardless of income) whilst other important services like healthcare apparently cant be funded in the same way.

Where/how do you draw the line between the two methods of provision?

Neither Heinz nor Anheuser-Busch has gotten rich pimping our tax dollars the way KBR/Halliburton has. Nor are these companies under \"her rule,\" but under the control of their shareholders of which her trusts constitute one of many. A basic principle of market capitalism, which Republicans rightly profess to champion.

As a conservative shouldn't you be for LIMITED government, not government that is readily dumping borrowed funds into the coffers of private companies run by ex-government cronies and hangers-on? As far as I've seen, Heinz has NOT benefitted directly from Mr. Kerry's contacts; it probably DID benefit from people who were connected with Mrs. Heinz Kerry's first husband, the REPUBLICAN (I didn't leave it out, gmg) H. John Heinz, Jr., since he was the company heir and a very powerful, well connected moderate REPUBLICAN. But that would still be different from no-bid contracts by a company that has repeatedly been cited for violations of the law, and which is under investigation for again bilking taxpayers. Or does it just not count because its former head is now the REPUBLICAN Vice President?

Uh, the US doesn't launch \"preemptive wars\" every single day that primarily benefit only a few industries and only a few companies...does it? Don't you see the difference?

Nazis. Second, are you comparing the Nazi regime, which launched a series of wars that killed millions of people, and which exterminated millions more in its death camps, to BOOTLEGGERS? Yikes! You could easily have made the argument that Joseph P. Kennedy, the father of President John F. Kennedy, supported the Nazi regime at first while he was Ambassador to Great Britain, which as you know went to war with Germany. At least then you are talking about some realistic moral equivalency. Very scary....

Also, W's money comes not only from Prescott Bush's work with Harriman and the Nazis (this is not a "made up" story but well documented, particularly because Prescott Bush was charged with several violations of the TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT--it's all online now), but also from Texas taxpayers (who bailed him out with the Rangers, because of the lawsuit filed by the Curtis Mathis family over violations of eminent domain, and the stadium in Arlington, which was publicly financed); Harvard University's Management Company (which in part bailed out Harken); Salem bin Laden (who bailed out Arbusto); many friends of his father, including wealthy Saudis and oilmen; and of course the taxpayers of Texas and the United States.

At least in these last two he's on par with Kerry.

[ June 28, 2004, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

I have been voting consistently since the early 1980's and have never been as passionate about wanting a president out of office. I despise Bush and everything he has done in his first term. I pray he isn't re-elected--he's a disgrace.

On my local news tonight KXLY-4 ABC they had a story about a guy in Iowa who runs a car wash. And he was talking about all the political mud slinging that goes on in politics and in this year especially, so he put the name of Bush over one car wash bay and he put the name of Kerry over another bay so people could "vote" and wash their car for who they wanted to win. He said Kerry holds about a 2% lead. Yeah!

Osufan - grammar, syntax, and spelling. Check into those concepts.

Interesting tidbit on NPR on my morning drive, touching on an errosion in Bush's rural vote margin. He carried the rural vote with landslide numbers last time. But the latest polls indicate significant slide, with the common reason being lost jobs and the disproportionate number of military call-ups impacting the rural communities.

Hmmmmm. My first thought on heaing the piece was, "If Kerry selects John Edwards, that smarmy populist rural bent JE posits will cement the deal." I think Edwards' primary campaign would resonate with the very group that is now looking "at risk" for Dubya. For Dubya to win, he has to carry the rural vote with the same margins he did in 2000.

Note - Gephardt would not carry as much weight in this area. The rural vote is less inclined to unionization, and Dick is a pro-union Dem.

If Kerry doesn't select Edwards, he would blow his best opportunity.

But it may not matter anyway. I fully expect some terrorist incident in this country weeks before the election. The American electorate will not crawl under a couch like, well, Spaniards. People will be pissed off, and they'll expect retaliation. Fear and Anger will cast their votes for Bush.

[ June 28, 2004, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: AU Tiger in ATL ]

Not only that, but old Joe as the Ambassador to the Court of St. George was a Hitler supporter who did everything he could to keep America out of the war. And once in the war, was a constant foil on efforts to halt or even slow the Holocaust, obstructing fleeing refugees and keeping information from the President and the rest of the nation.

That has little to do with John Kerry's bid for the presidency. I don't trust Teddy any farther than I can throw him. He's not the best face of the Democratic party. Certainly there are some Republicans whom you'd rather kept their mouths shut?

Kerry's also considering Tom Vilsack of Iowa, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Bill Richardson of New Mexico. Nelson, from what I've seen of him on C-SPAN, is pretty folksy. Vilsack is like a hefty midwestern jock and not especially well spoken. Richardson loves to party (shades of WJC?). All three would appeal to rural voters, though Nelson might help Kerry in the South and border states, and in Florida (which would put it away), Vilsack in the midwest (though Kerry needs only to retain the states Gore won there), and Richardson in Arizona and Nevada (though would he not help with eastern states).

Overall, Edwards would be a great choice, while the eyebrow-less, whiny Gephardt should bide his time and wait for either a judgeship or an ambassadorial post.

As to your other comment, I SINCERELY hope we do NOT suffer another terrorist attack. Your comments unnerve as they appear to assume that we will experience one and that this will help boost Bush. Is this the price you're willing to pay to keep this man in office? I hope not.

[ June 29, 2004, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Put me down as a W voter as well. Any one that marries for money not once but twice obviously has something more on his mind than the welfare of the poor. I disagree with Bush on lots of things, but the thought of four years of Kerry is almost as bad as the thought of four years Rodham-Clinton. Now there would be pure hell...

I wonder what will happen if Kerry wins, and we do suffer another Terrorist attack. Since democrats are soooo against war. Probably the terrorists are waiting with baited breath for Bush to leave. And they love the fact that there's so many Americans against their leader - they're laughing at us.

I'd rather have a leader like Bush that has a reputation of not taking any crap from anyone. I can see the libs crying now if we get attacked, then they'll expect the military to protect them while they run and hide and complain some more about Bush.

Four more years of Bush baby !

if you haven't noticed, our troops are under attack every day in Iraq--doesn't look like those people are too terribly afraid of Bushie

Back of the bus, Rosa.

I don't really recall Democratic opposition to the war in Afghanistan after 9/11. I remember there being one person that did not vote for it, because she was strictly anti-war.

Don't even try to say that because there was anti-war sentiment and still is among Democrats for the Iraq war, that Democrats aren't interested in defending the country. Maybe you and Dick Chaney can get together and ponder why a bi-partisan commission of Senators found absolutely no link.

OSU no disrespect but your post is way off in my view. How does Bush scare the terrorists off at all, he fell into their trap by invading Iraq which is now such a mess not sure when or how we will get out of there. He's pissed off most of the countries in the world, we can't get any support from anyone. If I was a terrorist I would be hoping Bush wins.
We screwed up the hunt for Bin Laden, now Iraq is one big terrorist attack every day, still no allies in helping us with Iraq.

Think what you will about Kerry (who I will be voting for) but being in the military and being an American I will feel a hell of a lot safer and secure with him as President than Bush.

back on topic... no, no vote for Bush from me. I am voting for Kerry.

Most likely, Gephardt can safely be tucked away in a low-profile cabinet post. An ideal place for him would be as Secretary of Labour.

At the moment, yes I am. The tax cuts worked, I appreciate the extra money in my pocket, and the economy is roaring like a lion now. Has there been another terrorist attack in the US? No, there hasn't been. Given that, I don't see how you can say Bush has not done an effective job fighting terrorism within our borders.

The War in Iraq is a resounding success. Yes, we suffered casualities, and we will continue to do so, but it's kind of hard to fight an effective war without any. Bush has established a Democracy in Iraq. That is the terrorists worst nightmare. It sets an example for the rest of the nations in the Middle East. It's no wonder they are fighting so hard to keep the people of Iraq in chains.

By the way. For all you Kerry supporters I offer this: What do you honestly think will be the reaction of the terrorists if Kerry is elected President? You all know the terrorists will be dancing in the streets. They know they will pursued much less vigorously by a Liberal Democrat. I for one do not want to give them the pleasure. Bush has already put a stop to terrorism in America, now it's time to finsih the job and eliminate these people from the rest of the world.

That hasn't been proven yet (it takes more than passing letters in secret meetings to \"establish\" Democracy). There have been no elections. The Puppet Government has a ways to go, don't ya think?


I disagree, but that is certainly the message the Bush administration wants us all to believe.

Now if you mean "pursued much less vigorously" as in NOT declaring a mid-term election war on a country based on lies and false pretenses, you might be right. I have faith in Kerry to maintain and aggressively continue the fight against terrorism and it's nothing but demagoguery (sp?) to suggest otherwise.

I (honestly) think the terrorist want Bush's mug in front of their new and soon to be recruits and have NO problem with him winning the election. He's the self-labeled "Crusader" and face of America they despise. They weren't afraid to attack on 9/11 with Bush in office, so I'm not so sure they have any fear of our current President.

I'm not worried about a Vietnam Vet gutting our military either. Kerry is a chance to gain our foreign friends and allies back on our side. They do watch our backs every now and then. Say what you will about France, but I don't want to alienate ANY country in the fight on terrorism.

No More Bush! No More Dick!

[ June 29, 2004, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: HornFan ]

I know I'm not going to change your mind, but you seem like a decent guy, Timber, so I'll say, what about this: instead of considering how the terrorists might respond if Kerry were elected, think about how they ARE responding now that W is in office. As the report that W's own State Department had to reissue (after "errors" involving the numbers), terrorism across the globe has gone UP since W took office, not down. Even W's alarmist attorney general, his ex-CIA chief, and the head of homeland security say there's no guarantee they can protect us here, AND at the 9/11 panel's testimony in New York, CIA and FBI officials testified (admitted) that Al Qaeda probably was in the US but they weren't even sure of what they were up to! But okay, since nothing has happened (yet), you feel secure, so let's leave it at that.

Now, let's talk about tax dollars. Congress appropriated $18.4 billion for Iraq. Contractors over there have blown through half of that amount--$ 9 billion--which I'm sure we both agree could have been used for pressing needs here in the USA--and what has been the result? Here's a graphic to show you:



To me, this is representative of how the W Ltd. administration operates, how incompetent they are. Were they Democrats, I'd say the same thing. I'm not sure if you remember Bush 41, but seriously, W 43 is starting to make his father's tenure--which was a failure--look good.

[ June 30, 2004, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

At the moment, yes I am. The tax cuts worked, I appreciate the extra money in my pocket, and the economy is roaring like a lion now.

A million+ plus jobs lost under Bush and the biggest deficits in history, thats quite a roar.

What do you honestly think will be the reaction of the terrorists if Kerry is elected President? You all know the terrorists will be dancing in the streets.

Will they be dancing in the streets the same way the Iraqi people were when we "liberated" them, will they be throwing flowers? Passing out chocolates?

My vote is not for sale.
wink

W is OBL's wet dream. The neo-cons in a 2nd Bush administration will continue to push a hawkish strategy in dealing with the Middle East, the number of martyrs seeking to strike at the great Satan will rise, and the US will only continue to be isolated from our traditional allies whose help and cooperation we *do* need if we are to fully engage this war on terror and defeat the likes of OBL.

Let me ask you this: if there is another terror attack on US soil, will you still be voting for the man whose homeland security plans failed to stop it?

Except for the millions who aren't even trying to find jobs because the jobs they do have been outsourced to other countries, and the new "jobs" being created are barely more than minimum wage, and have no health benefits...but hey, you got your $300 so why should you care?

And if you think we're so secure why haven't the anthrax attacks been solved? Whoever was behind those attacks can easily do it again and get away with it again.

[ June 30, 2004, 07:04 AM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

Joe, right on as usual. I am going to save my energy trying to inform the righties about how "rosy" everything is under Shrub. They will never change their mind, and hey thats fine. They don't get it and never will.

It's about time the economy shows some signs of life. Here we are with extremely low interest rates and everything....and it still took so long to get anything going. However, unemployment/jobless claims is still a big issue because as stated above, you can only receive unemployment benefits for so long......then you're not even counted as unemployed.

And sorry, I don't think an extra 100 bucks really jumpstarted the economy. Keep in mind that local taxes have continued to rise in this period, so a lot of that 'taxbreak' probably just went to paying other raised taxes.

Bush supporters don't think everything is rosy, but libs think everything will be rosy if Kerry gets in. But then again, libs have a scapegoat for the next four years, just keep blaming Bush.

Doesn't sound like much to look forward to, does it.

I'm glad you got your money, Timber. I didn't get anything at all, so I guess my $45,000 a year didn't quite reach the "rich" level needed to get the money. And my partner hasn't found a job in over 4 years, so the "improved" economy doesn't mean much in my household.

osu said libs have a scapegoat for the next 4 years, just keep blaming Bush well why shouldn't we?? When Clinton lied, no one died. wink

[ June 30, 2004, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

That bumper sticker is appearing on more and more vehicles here in the DC area, puckman....another one I recently saw that is FAR too accurate said If you're not appalled, you're not paying attention -- Vote Democratic 2004.

I see Kerry stickers on a regular basis and I'm in fricking Milwaukee, not exactly Liberal-land.


Speaking of money matters, the GOP is fighting
amongst themselves over the budget.

amonA deep rift in the Republican Party has left Congress unable to pass a budget this year, raising the probability that, for the third time in three decades, lawmakers will not agree on a detailed blueprint for government spending and tax policy.


The budget meltdown was triggered by a feud between conservative Republicans who favor continuing to cut taxes in the face of record budget deficits and GOP moderates who are pushing for curbs on tax cuts and are reluctant to slash spending. Even a face-saving effort in the House to impose federal spending curbs blew up just after midnight Friday when 72 Republicans joined a united Democratic Party to torpedo the leadership-backed bill.


The collapse of budget negotiations is more of a political embarrassment than a practical problem for GOP leaders, who only two years ago sharply criticized Democrats for failing to pass a budget when they controlled the Senate. But some Republicans fear that this year's impasse reflects an irreconcilable division within their party that will imperil the government's ability to set tax policy and address ever-widening deficits as the baby boomers begin to retire.


"For a majority of Republicans in Congress, tax cuts are now more important then budget constraints, and they've gotten themselves between a rock and a hard place because you can't have both," lamented former senator Warren B. Rudman (R-N.H.), a prominent advocate of fiscal restraint.


Both conservative and moderate Republicans say the fight is over the future of their party. Neither side has given an inch. So, two months after the House and Senate passed budget blueprints for the fiscal year that begins in October, Republican negotiators have hit a brick wall in trying to reconcile the two plans. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles (R-Okla.), who will retire at the end of the year, refused to declare the budget dead. "I assured everybody I will give up trying to pass a budget six months from now, no matter what happens," he joked.


But moderate Senate Republicans, who hold the key to a compromise, say there have been no budget discussions for nearly a month, nor are any planned. Unable to wait for guidance on spending levels that a budget is supposed to provide, the appropriations committees have begun drafting their 13 annual spending bills.


"Right now, it's fair to say things have moved on," said G. William Hoagland, a senior budget aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).


The budget resolution is a nonbinding measure that is supposed to guide Congress in setting tax and spending policy for the upcoming fiscal year. Despite the failure to agree on a resolution, both the House and the Senate are following the guidelines of their respective budgets, which offer similar limits on spending.


Without a budget, the Senate will lack parliamentary language that would allow senators to extend three expiring tax cuts with a simple majority vote in the 100-member body. Instead, Senate leaders will have to gather at least 60 votes to ensure that taxes do not rise at the end of the year.


House Republican leaders had also hoped to use the budget to quietly raise the $7.4 trillion federal debt limit, which the government could hit before the end of the summer. Without a budget, that limit may have to be raised by a separate vote on the House floor, which is political castor oil for Republicans in an election year.


But the main impact of Republican failure on the budget is symbolic, fiscal experts said.


"It's a sad story and a real blow that goes all the way back to the 1974 [budget reforms]," said Rudolph G. Penner, a Republican and former Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) director. "Back then, Nixon effectively accused Congress of having no rational budget process, no one actually tabulating the numbers. Now we're back to that."


At issue is the future of tax cutting in the face of budget deficits that will swell well above $400 billion this year. Senate Democrats, joined by Republicans John McCain (Ariz.), Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), Susan Collins (Maine) and Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.), secured an amendment to the Senate budget that would force any future tax cuts to be offset by equivalent spending cuts or tax increases. House Republicans, pushed hard by the White House, refused to go along, demanding instead that such rules apply only to spending increases for Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlements.


If it continues, the fight could eventually have significant practical implications. Since President Bush (news - web sites) came to office, Congress has passed tax cuts worth $1.7 trillion over 10 years, but all will expire by 2011, many before then. If the Senate's "pay-as-you-go" -- or "paygo" -- budget rules are in place then, lawmakers will be faced with allowing tax levels to abruptly return to the higher levels of Bill Clinton (news - web sites)'s presidency or cutting federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars a year to preserve the Bush tax cuts.


"The reason we're going to the mat is, with all these expiring tax cuts, if you have paygo in place, you're going to virtually guarantee these tax cuts will go back up," said Rep. Paul Ryan (news, bio, voting record) (R-Wis.).


Ryan and other House Republicans argued that the budget must be brought into balance by reining in the size of government. "The deficit is a symptom; spending is the disease," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.). "And we have to do something about the disease."


There are limits to the effectiveness of spending cuts. Even if Congress had eliminated every penny of the $438 billion in domestic discretionary spending this year, every education and health program, every homeland security effort, national park, interstate highway and federal prison, the government would still find itself in the red.




"When it comes to budgetary matters, we can't operate on ideological whims," Snowe said. "Numbers tell the truth."

Moreover, when the House was offered the opportunity to cut spending, the vote last week was not even close. A bill drafted by Hensarling to give the annual budget the force of law, clamp down on "emergency" spending bills, and require a "supermajority" in the House and Senate to exceed strict spending caps was crushed at 11:30 Thursday night, 326 to 88. A less sweeping measure establishing two years of strict spending caps and requiring entitlement spending increases to be offset by entitlement cuts lost 268 to 146.

"Tonight can aptly be called 'Republican Budget Failure Redux,' " House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said after the votes. "Republicans have followed their total lack of leadership on the most basic legislative duty -- to adopt a budget for the nation -- with a total lack of leadership on real budget enforcement legislation."

House Budget Committee spokesman Sean Spicer accused the Republican moderates of grandstanding as budget hawks, even as they continue to vote for bigger government.

"They are hardly deficit hawks," Spicer said. "If you see their name in press, nine times out of 10, they are wanting more spending."

I wish I had CNN. I understand Michael Berg, father of Nicholas Berg who unfortunately was beheaded in Iraq will be speaking to Wolf Blitzer this afternoon, on why he thinks the war in Iraq is a sham.