Or at least that’s what David Broder said Sunday: That the House Budget Committee chairman from Rock Hill is doing a good job of holding fellow Democrats on a leash on spending.
That reminded me of our interview with him before the last election, when he promised to be a force for injecting some discipline into the budgeting process if his party got the power.
I caught some of those comments on video, and here I present two versions of it. Let me know which one you like. As I learn the best way to use multimedia on the blog, I’m always torn between two approaches. On the one hand, I figure that a main purpose of the blog is to give you as much additional information as I can, which is what this four-minute, 20-second video does:
Then I think, but that’s just going to bore people to the point that they’ll stay away from the blog, or just not watch my videos, which would be a shame given the time that they take.
So sometimes I cut them way down, as in this two-minute, 13-second version:
And of course, I could have cut it all the way down to a mere sound bite, but that would take it to an extreme that I find distasteful.
Anyway, if you can stand to watch them both, give me some feedback to help me with this dilemma.
Related Posts
So, are u arguing that the dems are doing anything other than spending in a reckless and shortsighted fashion? Have u looked at what they have done since taking over congress?
I am a rep…and ashamed at what my party did for the last decade…but man…get a grip! The dem’s can’t spend it fast enough!
This isn’t about the Democrats. It’s about Spratt. We were talking to John Spratt.
And here’s what I said: I said John Spratt promised to be a moderating influence on his party. Knowing him, I was sure he’d try, but had my doubts as to how successful he would be. David Broder, who is in Washington while I am not, says that Spratt is doing what he’d said he’d do. Since we published the Broder piece, I thought you might like to like to see the video.
That’s pretty much it.
I sincerely doubt that, as a party, Democrats are spending responsibly. I also know they’ll have to try really, really hard to do worse than the Republicans did.
Parties are pathetic. And politicians, to the extent they act in ways that express the essence of parties, are appalling. The only way a person in this system is worthy of note is in the ways he distinquishes himself from a run-of-the-mill partisan. John Spratt qualifies in that regard.
That’s about all I can tell you.
Chris, while the Democrats controlled the White House and the GOP controlled congress the budget process worked fairly well with spending held in check. Perhaps now with the reverse situation spending will again be under control. The big problem with spending now is with the military. Bring that under control and we’ll be in pretty good shape. Until we bring the Iraq conflict to a conclusion this will be impossible to accomplish.
Brad, I know congressional budget work is important but wouldn’t this be a good time to discuss the tragedy at Virginia Tech. Maybe something about gun control, the violence of modern culture or the vulnerability of young people in todays world. After all many nations experience this type of carnage on a near-daily basis. We’re fortunate that this is an extremely rare event in the U.S.
I like the longer version. I especially liked hearing names and Spratt’s opinion of the folks behind the names at the end. But I wouldn’t go too much longer… I find listening to almost any politician tedious and suspect that most other people do, also
Leave it to Bud to trot out the gun control canard at a time like this…what a self serving, cheap and reprehensible way to attempt to advance ones’ arguement: Wait until a lunatic grabs something like a gun which you don’t happen to like and uses it to destroy innocent life, and then rush in with specious logic and non sequitors to try to ban guns. Hey Bud…lunatics used airplanes on 9/11…using your silly logic why don’t we ban airplanes? People drive cars into other people on purpose and to intentionally harm them…why not ban cars? For crying out loud, you shameless opportunist, people are grieving for lost loved ones…could you at least have the decency to wait a week before yoy try to erase the second amendment? Oh by the way, if some of those students had been packing, there might be several still alive today. Law abiding gun owners reduce crime…it’s a fact. You could look it up. Ed
Ease up, ed… bud’s post struck me as something written by by someone horrified by yesterday’s events, not a campaign against the 2nd admendment.
Maybe so Claudia. Bud may not have meant evil here, but he stumbled into a method that is SO typical of opportunists of any stripe: Wait until something terrible happens that seems to support whatever position you’ve taken, and then exploit it shamelessly. It is despicable, cheap and it needs to be called whenever someone tries it. Whether this particular instance was a case of it or not. Ed
As an example, I give you the global warming nuts. We get a relatively warm December (never mind that there have been DOZENS of winters in the last 100 years that were warmer than the one we just had) and immediately the opportunists and the intellectually vacant sieze upon one lone statistic and attempt to make their whole case on it. Again, it is despicable, cheap, flimsy and won’t stand up to any real critique. And yet we get this kind of garbage every day from these people. So…yes I am very sensitive to it. And yes, I may have jumped at Bud too quickly, but I flew hot when I saw his suggestion that we take up gun control as a topic based upon the V Tech horror. Ed
Wow, leave it to ed to ignore the carnage caused by a maniac armed with weapons designed solely to injure people and attack bud for mentioning the obvious.
“Bud may not have meant evil here?” Wow, in the face of numerous massacres of students by people wielding– not cars, not airplanes, not axes but– mechanisms designed solely for mayhem; ed somehow finds bud’s statements offensive and possibly “evil!”
What’s evil is ignoring the inevitable result of continuing to allow any loon off the street access to weapons with no significant purpose other than murder or bodily harm inflicted with the ease of crooking one’s finger. (Please spare us the target shooting justification.)
“Law abiding gun owners reduce crime…it’s a fact. You could look it up.”
Yeah, and you’d find that John Lott’s theory and “evidence” has a lot of holes in it.
I hesitated to bring up this subject because I knew that some gun advocate would suggest that re-enacting the gunfight at the OK Corral (with multiple armed students returning fire) would actually have reduced the carnage!
Yeah, right.
Ed, I don’t understand your point about using a tragedy to make a political point. Bud’s sincerely held view is that tighter gun control would have had a good chance of having kept the Virginia Tech tragedy from happening, and that it might prevent more such tragedies in the future. You may agree with this, or you may disagree with it, but why isn’t Bud entitled to advocate his viewpoint?
I mean, look at what you say here:
“Oh by the way, if some of those students had been packing, there might be several still alive today.”
Now this seems to be political advocacy on your part, opposing gun control and advocating the carrying of weapons. In evaluating this point of view, I would point out that about half ot more of the male population of Blacksburg own guns, and many of the students undoubtedly own guns, and that students attending high schools in Blacksburg routinely ignore restrictions on carrying firearms on campus, coming to school with firearms in their car trunks so that they can go hunting after school, and that it is therefore likely that many of the Virginia Tech students would have ignored the restriction on carrying firearms on campus if they had felt the need. but they didn’t, because the typical student attending a college doesn’t carry a piece to class.
Having said all that, I would say that it undercuts your argument, but I do not deny you the right to make your argument, and I do not accuse you of capitalizing on a tragedy. You have your view of what would prevent a tragedy, and Bud has his view. You both should make what arguments you can for the positions you hold.
But you don’t appear to be doing that. Instead, you appear to be saying that you are entitled to use a tragedy to support your political viewpoint, but those with contrary views are not.
Similarly, you shouldn’t say that those who believe in mainstream science aren’t entitled to advocate in favor of their position. You should allow them to marshal the facts that they believe support their position, and you in turn should marshal the facts that you believe support your position.
On that note, please tell me more about your view of “peak oil”. If your viewpoint is true, it will revolutionize physics. As I understand it, the concept, until now believed to be well understood, that if you keep taking liquid out of a bucket, the bucket will eventually become empty, is invalid! On the contrary, although human beings are taking oil out of the ground, the oil is being replaced by some unknown agency, such as oil fairies!
Tell us more about the oil fairies! Are they ever seen above ground? Are they visible to anyone, or only to the enlightened? Do tell us more, it’s absolutely fascinating!
“Parties are pathetic. And politicians, to the extent they act in ways that express the essence of parties, are appalling. The only way a person in this system is worthy of note is in the ways he distinquishes himself from a run-of-the-mill partisan. John Spratt qualifies in that regard.”
I’m not exactly sure what this is supposed to mean. The Democratic agenda is supported by a substantial majority of the American people. The Congress is much more popular than President Bush, and Nancy Pelosi enjoys the support of a majority of the American people. The reason that the support for Congress and the Speaker isn’t even higher than it is, is that many Democrats and liberals are tepid in their support for the Congress and the Speaker because they feel that the Congress should be resisting Bush more strongly than it is, and promoting Democratic values more strongly than it is. The American people elected the Democratic Congress in order to achieve a number of objectives that were set out in plain terms before the election. The Democratic Congress is working to carry out its agenda, and is enjoying the support of the American people in carrying out that agenda.
Are you saying that the Democratic Congress should ignore its agenda, clearly articulated and supported by the American people, and adopt Republian goals that were repudiated by the American people?
Why?
The purpose of political parties is to promote and enact a set of goals that they feel will be good for the country. What is wrong with that?
The Democrats are carrying out the wishes of the American people.
Whose wishes should they be carrying out?
Yours and David Broder’s?
I think not.
RTH, I haven’t ignored anything…obviously I am as upset and disturbed by the senseless killing of over 30 people as you are. However, I have made the point strongly that I don’t believe what we need is a curtailment of the right to keep and bear arms. If anything we need MORE freedom, not less. And I made the point even more strongly that opportunists, bottom feeders and low-hanging-fruit types that sieze upon these horrors to attempt to advance their agenda are not to be allowed to get away with it. It’s that simple. If that looks cold in your eyes, then so be it. Being absolutely right about something sometimes makes one look cold and uncaring. Ed
Carol, people are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. In your case however, it’s pretty clear you aren’t interested in facts that may not support what you already believe. Consequently, there’s no point in my wasting our time trying to exlain what I’ve already said repeatedly to someone else. If you want to believe the peak oil myth, good for you. Have a great day! Ed
A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.
House Bill 1572 didn’t get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.
The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill’s defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated.
” I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.”
“In your case however, it’s pretty clear you aren’t interested in facts that may not support what you already believe”
Ed, you could not POSSIBLY be more wrong! I would be absolutely fascinated to learn facts supporting your viewpoint. It would be a revolution in science, and would turn scientific knowledge on its head. It would be much more interesting than the boring, mundane science that currently prevails.
I would LOVE for there to be oil fairies, or oil leprechauns, or some other unknown agent, toiling away beneath the surface of the earth, making oil for us. I will read any evidence you can present supporting the existence of such creature with rapt interest.
The ONLY way Peak Oil is a myth is if oil is a renewable resource over a short period of time. Otherwise Peak Oil is an absolute mathematical certainty. Even the super optimists acknowledge oil supplies will peak sometime in the 22nd century. The garden variety optimists accept peaking at around 2040. The conventional middle of the road experts suggest 2015-2020. Pessimists suggest 2010. And super pessimists say it has already occurred. But no one who has any expertise in oil suggests peak oil is a “myth”. It’s all just a matter of when.
Why does John Spratt receive most of his campaign donations from out-of-state defense contractors and commercial banks?
I don’t see any of them calling for a reduction in deficit spending.