McConnell Forces Dems To Admit Administration Is Not Serious

A little tidbit found in through National Review from The Hill yesterday

In the nearly two-hour-long White House meeting Monday afternoon during which leaders reviewed savings found last month by a group led by Vice President Joseph Biden, McConnell asked only one question, according to a Republican source familiar with the talks.

“How much does the Biden plan actually cut from next year’s discretionary spending budget?” the Kentucky Republican asked the room.

Obama’s Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob Lew told him, “$2 billion.”

A second source close to the original Biden group confirmed this number.

McConnell grew frustrated in the closed-door meeting, complaining that such a sum was too small, given the scale of the savings Members on both sides of the aisle were hoping for. McConnell’s displeasure spilled over to the Senate floor Tuesday morning, when he attacked Obama for presenting Republicans with “gimmicks” instead of solutions.

Don’t get all confused as Ace originally was: that is “billion”, not “trillion”. This highlights just how serious the Obama administration is about reducing federal expenditures. Perhaps all the squishy Republicans who say “hey, maybe we should give in a bit on tax increases (for that other group), because Barry said we’d get $3 in reductions for every $1 revenue increase” should think hard about $2 billion, and realize that if they give in on any tax increases now for reductions later, we’ll never get those reductions.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

2 Responses to “McConnell Forces Dems To Admit Administration Is Not Serious”

  1. Word says:

    IN a nutshell why Obama is not genuine about the debt.. or the debt CRISIS……

    Cloward and Piven wrote that “the ultimate objective of this strategy [would be] to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income…”[2] There would also be side consequences of this strategy, according to Cloward and Piven. These would include: easing the plight of the poor in the short-term (through their participation in the welfare system); shoring up support for the national Democratic Party then-splintered by pluralist interests (through its cultivation of poor and minority constituencies by implementing a national solution to poverty); and relieving local governments of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare (through a national solution to poverty).

    Never let a good crisis go to waste and if there is NO CRISIS……


    and that is my word of the day.

  2. captainfish says:


    People away from DC have known for long time and have known at least since these discussions have started, that the socialists were not even considering reducing the budget and spending. Why should they? Why would they?

    When they believe that the rich who earn over 250,000 don’t pay any taxes, then you know where their focus is.

Pirate's Cove