There was an article from May 19 by James Wensits in the South Bend Tribune on the debate between Joe Donnelly and Chris Chocola on the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit plan.
Donnelly’s main critique of the plan was the provision that forbids the federal government from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies to obtain a lower price for the drugs. He is also in favor of eliminating penalties for seniors who did not sign up for the complicated plan by the May 15 deadline. Chocola apparently was unwilling to take a strong stand on whether he was for or against such an extension.
Chocola criticized Donnelly’s criticism, suggesting that Donnelly would have voted against the plan had Donnelly been in Congress at the time. While Donnelly has retorted that he would have worked for a better plan, the suggestion that Donnelly might have voted against the plan may actually endear him to erstwhile conservatives in Chocola’s district.
One of the recurring criticisms I hear about the Republicans in power from my fiscally conservative friends is that the President and the Congress are spending like drunken sailors. The Medicare Part D prescription drug program is Exhibit “A” in their indictment of the fiscally reckless spending policies of the past few years. Hearing from Chocola that Donnelly would have voted against the program would be music to their ears.
I agree. Although I do not have much contact with conservative Republicans on a day to day basis, one of the main gripes I hear when I do talk with them is the rate of spending going on. One long time Republican voter I talked with, whom I may have talked into voting for Donnelly (thank you), said that one of the main reasons he considered himself a Republican was their fiscally conservative stance. Now, he says, the last president to balance the budget was Bill Clinton (a Democrat, gasp!) after “drunken” spending by Reagan and Bush,Sr.
The beautiful part of the Medicare story was a few pages later when the Tribune’s editorial board called for lifting the deadline and lifting the penalty for seniors. Bam! Talk about a one-two punch. First Donnelly and then the newspaper’s editorial board call for lifting the deadline while Chocola parrots the Republican party line. Chocola is out of touch with his community on this one.
One more incentive for conservatives who can’t be persuaded that Democrats actually have managed the budget on the federal level better over the past 25 years — at the very least with a Democratic Congress and a Republican President, there ought to be gridlock preventing the federal government from getting too ambitious.
The best combination at the federal level for budget discipline in the last twenty years was a Democratic president and the Republican controlled Congress that followed the 1994 election. Clinton’s proposals after taking office in 1993 would have pretty expensive, at least by the standards of the time, for example a $15 billion anti-recession package (for a recession had ended by the time he proposed it). Some of the later budgets benefitted from revenue gained from the stock market boom of the late 1990’s. My gut feeling is that more frequent alternation in control of Congress would be the best outcome for control of the budget rather than attributing particular fisccal virtue to one or the other of the major parties.
Still, I have to single out the Republicans in one respect. It has taken them only 12 years to become more sloppy and spendthrift than the Democrats were in 1994, and at that point the Democrats had controlled the House for 40 years. And Clinton’s $15 billion was a drop in the bucket compared to the recent transportation bill. It also failed to pass.
Again with the attacks on Drunken Sailors, Doug.
Have you no shame?
Heh
That last comment was paid for by Inebriated Sailors for Truth.
My apologies for my scurrilous attacks on drunken sailors. They don’t deserve that kind of abuse. Being at sea with a hangover is punishment enough.
Valid points, Paul. At the very least, your comments show the need for both parties to have an equal role in government; one party rule guarantees no checks or balances, which are crucial for ALL of the people to be represented. While I forsee a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President by 2008, I would hope that we do not have too large of an axe to grind.
Also, the influence of lobbyists has grown wild and the effect of pork in our legislation cannot be discounted. The transportation bill you mentioned is a prime example. Let’s work together to fix the system. It will not be easy; both parties are victims of and accessories to the “crime”. It will also take time. All the more reason to start yesterday.