Democrats’ Demagoguery On Effort To Control Debt, Spending Shows How Far Left McCaskill Has Gone
As a candidate for the Senate in 2006, Claire McCaskill (D-MO) frequently preached the importance of fiscal responsibility and touted her support for a federal balanced budget. How times have changed.
Since coming to the Senate, McCaskill has voted in lockstep with the liberal wing of her party, supporting the failed $787 billion stimulus and the massive health care spending bill, driving the national debt past $14 trillion.
Meanwhile, today brings yet another clear example of who Claire McCaskill stands with in Washington. As House Republican Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduces a budget to put our country back on the path to prosperity and which New York Times columnist David Brooks called the “most courageous budget reform proposal any of us have seen in our lifetimes,” McCaskill and her fellow liberal Democrats are trying to demagogue the issue and score cheap political points.
As PBS, for example, reports:
• Watch carefully Tuesday how the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee will immediately hammer away at Republicans pressuring them to embrace or reject Rep. Ryan’s plan. And unless President Obama declares that kind of politicizing out of bounds, it’ll likely continue from now through November 2012.
“A simple, but important, question before Missouri voters next year is – what happened to Claire McCaskill since she got to Washington?” National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Chris Bond said today. “Instead of standing on the side of fiscal responsibility, Senator McCaskill has consistently stood on the side of more spending, more taxes, and more government.
“Candidate Claire McCaskill might have been someone who would have supported a proposal to reduce spending and control the debt, but now she and the liberal party operatives running her campaign want to demagogue it. It’s unfortunate, but whether it’s ObamaCare, the failed stimulus or the Democrats’ budget proposal to keep driving up the debt, Senator Claire McCaskill has consistently stood with her liberal party leaders in Washington, and not with Missouri,” Bond concluded
BACKGROUND:
In 2011, McCaskill Said She Voted For “Big Things” When The Economy Was In A “Crisis,” But She Claimed To “Make Sure That We Get To The Serious Work Of Cutting Our Spending And Looking Long Term At Our Entitlements.” WALLACE: “Senator McCaskill, and we’re beginning to run out of time so I’m going to ask you both to try to keep your answers short. You’ve become something of a deficit hawk, but Republicans note that you voted for the stimulus plan. You voted for the Obama health care plan. Are you now willing to cut entitlements, including Social Security, which some of your top Democratic leaders say off the table? Are you willing to cut those and is it, as the GOP claims, because you face a tough reelection fight in 2012?” MCCASKILL: “Well, I decided that earmarking was not for this former auditor on the day I got there, Chris. I started working on trying to rein in government contracting the day I got there. And Tom Coburn and I have worked together on that for every day I’ve been in the United States Senate. So, yes, I voted for big things when our economy was in a crisis, but I’ve always had an eye on the pivot to make sure that we get to the serious work of cutting our spending and looking long term at our entitlements.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 2/20/11)
2006: “McCaskill, Beaming As She Introduced Her Children, Mother, Sister And Husband, Said She Could ‘Smell Change’ In Her Travels Around Missouri, Which She Believes Wants To Return To A Time Of Balanced Budgets, National Security, Health Care And Prosperity For The Masses . . . .” (Cheryl Wittenauer, “Former President Clinton Stumps In For McCaskill In St. Louis,” The Associated Press, 9/9/06)
During Her 2006 Campaign For U.S. Senate, McCaskill Said “This Is All About Change . . . Let’s Bring Some Common Sense Back To The Equation,” And Noted The Budget Had Not Been Balanced. “‘This is all about change,’ McCaskill said to raucous applause in Joplin on Wednesday, where more than 100 supporters crammed into the tiny Democratic Party headquarters. ‘Let’s bring some common sense back to the equation,’ McCaskill told about 45 voters Friday in Milan standing outside the county courthouse. ‘They’re not balancing the budget. They’ve got us in a mess in Iraq. They’ve done nothing to solve the immigration problem,’ she said of the GOP.” (Deirdre Shesgreen, “Down To The Wire Claire McCaskill Has Scoured Rural And Urban Missouri To Energize Democrats,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 11/5/06)
McCaskill: “Well, You Know, I Think, To The Extent That I’ve Had To Multitask As A Single Mom With Three Kids And Do More With Less, I Think I Can Help Balance The Budget, Because I’ve Had To Do That In My Life.” (MSNBC, 11/8/06)
TODAY’S REPUBLICAN PLAN
Reduce Spending. . .
• “Government spending would plummet by nearly $6 trillion over the coming decade under a Republican plan due to be unveiled on Tuesday, in a sharp contrast to President Barack Obama’s fiscal plan.” (Andy Sullivan, “Republican Budget Plan Envisions Sharp Cuts,” Reuters, 4/5/11)
• “His plan would slash $6.2 trillion in spending over the next 10 years from president’s budget. That’s $2 trillion more than the plan proposed by the president’s debt commission. It also reduces deficits by $4.4 trillion and, as Ryan writes in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed this morning, ‘puts the nation on a path to actually pay off our national debt.’” (Michael Falcone And Amy Walter, “Paul Ryan’s GOP Budget Proposal: Go Big Or Go Home,” ABC News’ “The Note” Blog, 4/5/11)
Reduces The National Debt By $4.4 Trillion By 2021 . . .
• “The budget — with the exception of interest payments on the debt — would be brought into balance by 2015. The debt would be cut by $4.4 trillion over the next 10 years and the federal government would have a surplus by 2040, according to calculations from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.” (Dana Bash, Alan Silverleib, and Deirdre Walsh, “GOP Budget Chief Calls For $6.2 Trillion Spending Cut,” CNN, 4/5/11)
VERSUS
THE OBAMA BUDGET
More Spending . . .
• Obama Has Proposed A $3.71 Trillion Budget, Which Will Result In $46 Trillion In Spending Over Ten Years. (“Preliminary Analysis of the President’s Budget for 2012,”Congressional Budget Office, 3/18/11)
Increases The National Debt To $26.3 Trillion By 2021 . . .
• “Mr. Obama’s Budget Projects That 2011 Will See The Biggest One-Year Debt Jump In History, Or Nearly $2 Trillion, To Reach $15.476 Trillion By Sept. 30, The End Of The Fiscal Year. That Would Be 102.6 Percent Of GDP — The First Time Since World War II That Dubious Figure Has Been Reached.” (Stephen Dinan, “Debt Now Equals Total U.S. Economy,” The Washington Times,2/14/11)
• “Just as President Obama signed and sent his annual Economic Report to Congress, the Treasury Department posted numbers that show the national debt has increased $3.5 trillion so far on Mr. Obama’s watch.” (Mark Knoller, “Debt Has Grown $3.5 Trillion On Obama’s Watch,” CBS News, 2/23/11)
• In 2021, Gross Debt Will Total $26.3 Trillion, Equaling 107 Percent Of GDP. (Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Of The U.S. Government” Office Of Management And Budget, 2/14/11)
