Thinking more about Democrat National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine’s proclamation today that the Democrat Party is the “Results Party,” I can’t help but wonder. We can agree to disagree about what results the Democrats have produced since taking control of Congress in January 2007 and the whole of government in January 2009. The election in November will answer that question.
What remains to be seen is what Democrats will do in the future if they are allowed to hold on to power. Specifically, what will Democrats do about runaway deficits and a national debt that by all accounts is unsustainable? Will they continue to spend our country into oblivion as they have the past few years with pork-laden stimulus packages, government takeovers like in health care, and more bailouts? Will they simply whitewash the mushrooming debt with yet more debt ceiling increases on the backs of the so-called wealthy with higher taxes? The answer is likely yes.
We know Democrats are not serious about containing debt. Sure, Democrats like to bring up the fact that late in the Clinton Administration our country enjoyed a balanced budget, indeed budget surpluses. But Democrats (and the media) neglect to mention Republicans in Congress controlled the purse strings, not Democrats. Back to the main point, how do we know Democrats are not serious about controlling the debt? Because Democrats failed to make balanced-budgets an annual tradition by opposing a balanced-budget Constitutional Amendment.
Democrats in the House and Senate overwhelmingly opposed a balanced-budget Constitutional Amendment in the 1990’s. In the Senate alone, more than 30 Democrats voted at least four times against Constitutionally mandating that the government have a balanced budget every year.
In 1997, 34 Senate Democrats Voted AGAINST Approving Balanced-Budget Constitutional Amendment:
• 23 of the 34 Senate Democrats who voted against the balanced-budget Constitutional Amendment are still in the Senate. (S J Res 1, CQ Vote #24: Rejected 66-34: D 11-34; R 55-0; I 0-0, 3/4/97, Akaka, Bingaman, Boxer, Byrd, Conrad, Dodd, Dorgan, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Inouye, Johnson, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Murray, Reed, Reid, Rockefeller and Wyden voted Nay)
In 1996, 34 Senate Democrats Voted AGAINST Approving A Constitutional Amendment To Require A Balanced Federal Budget:
• 20 of the 34 Senate Democrats who voted against the balanced-budget Constitutional Amendment are still in the Senate. (H J Res 1, CQ Vote #158: Rejected 64-35: D 12-34; R 52-1; I 0-0, 6/6/96, Akaka, Bingaman, Boxer, Byrd, Conrad, Dodd, Dorgan, Feingold, Feinstein, Inouye, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Murray, Reid, Rockefeller and Wyden voted Nay)
In 1995, 33 Senate Democrats Voted AGAINST Approving A Balanced-Budget Constitutional Amendment:
• 19 of the 33 Senate Democrats who voted against the balanced-budget Constitutional Amendment are still in the Senate. (H J Res 1, CQ Vote #98: Rejected 65-35: D 14-33; R 51-2; I 0-0, 3/2/95, Akaka, Bingaman, Boxer, Byrd, Conrad, Dodd, Dorgan, Feingold, Feinstein, Inouye, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Murray, Reid and Rockefeller voted Nay)
In 1994, 34 Senate Democrats Voted AGAINST Approving Balanced-Budget Constitutional Amendment:
• 19 of the 33 Senate Democrats who voted against the balanced-budget Constitutional Amendment are still in the Senate. (CQ Vote #48: Rejected 63-37: D 22-34; R 41-3; I 0-0, 3/1/94, Akaka, Baucus, Biden, Boxer, Byrd, Conrad, Dodd, Feingold, Harkin, Inouye, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Murray, Reid and Rockefeller voted Nay)
It’s funny, in an odd way. With the exception of Vermont, all the states have some form of Constitutionally or statutorily mandated balanced-budget. The federal government? Nope. Democrats can’t stand the thought of not being able to spend our many with reckless abandon on their liberal causes and social engineering experiments.
ThinkFY's full feed