December 2, 2010
Sickening Pathetic Saps
These inserts were originally added to the bottom of this
post. They have to do with Obama and the Democrats' weakness, capitulation and run to the right. Since I went off topic in that post and didn't want to go even further - and because this was very important - I thought it deserved its own post.Oct. 30 insert:
If someone got kicked in the shins and then got kicked in the head when they fell to the ground, would they be angry at their attacker and fight back, or would they get up, extend a hand to their attacker and expect him to be nice and someone they can work with? If this person reached out expecting kindness but got kicked in the shins again, and got kicked in the head again, would he then finally realize he's in a fight and fight back, or extend his hand again?
Since we're talking about Democrats, unfortunately, (and predictably) it's the latter because Republicans have been pummeling Democrats like that for years and Democrats never
It's like Lucy, Charlie Brown and the football. Only worse. And the Democrats foolishly keep falling for it.
Check out this segment from the Rachel Maddow Show. It shows Obama and Harry Reid reaching out to their attackers before the elections, but getting nothing but a clenched fist in return. Here's a sampling:
Harry Reid: "I've spoken to Mitch McConnell before we left (on recess) and I think there will be an effort to work more closely together..."
Mitch McConnell: "The most important thing we want to achieve is for Obama to be a one-term President."
Harry Reid: "Legislation is the art of compromise."
I got news for you, Harry. These days "compromise" is Democrats capitulating and caving to whatever Republicans want. That said...
John Boehner: "This is not a time for compromise."
Mike Pence: "If I haven't been clear enough yet, let me say it again - no compromise."
You see, the way this works is that Democrats are supposed to "compromise" by capitulating to Republicans (such as no stimulus and no health care legislation at all). But Republicans won't bend an inch to the slightest Democratic request. Ever. And incredibly, that's how Democrats see it and allow it to be (it's like judicial nominees. Republican Presidents are
But that's not all.
President Obama: "I hope my that friends on the other side of the aisle..."
Friends? My God Mr. President, your "friends" have compared you to Hitler, hung Democrats in effigy and applauded it, said the health care legislation had death panels, called you a liar during a speech to Congress and, despite being the minority Party in Congress, blocked
During the Bush Administration, Democrats blocked...well, nothing. For some reason, "needing 60 votes" for, well, everything wasn't necessary.
President Obama: "...are going to change their minds going forward..."
Change their minds? Going forward? Ah, Mr. President, in case you haven't noticed, you're dealing with extremely ignorant and stubborn Republicans who are intent on taking the country backwards to the 18th century!
President Obama: "...(we have) big national challenges. And we've all got a stake in solving them."
Not Republicans!
Democrats are like a child that is constantly beaten by his father. To avoid these beatings, the child not only tries to appease his father to keep him from blowing his stack, but runs up to him for affection, as if that too will prevent the beatings.
And that's what Democrats do. After getting beaten over and over again, they keep appeasing Republicans and keep running to Republicans with open arms only to get kicked in the shins and the head...again, again and again. And Lucy said she'd hold the football every time too.
Why do Democrats allow Republicans to use them as doormats and punching bags? How can Democrats possibly believe Republicans would ever "work together"? How stupid and naive can they be? My God, do they have any self-respect?
I suggest watching the Maddow Show clip because it clearly shows 1) this is a one-sided street fight, 2) the Democrats are so stupid they don't even realize they're in a street fight, 3) just how bullied and intimated Democrats are, which has kept them 4) all rolled up in the fetal position, too afraid of Republicans to show their faces, and 5) grovel at the feet of wicked, nasty Republicans, appeasing them and looking for "affection" so they won't pummel them anymore. But they do anyway.
In an episode of the West Wing, Ron Silver, who was playing a Democratic campaign consultant, couldn't have summed up the Democrats any better. I strongly, strongly recommend watching it.
They truly are a pathetic bunch of saps. And that's being kind.
November insert: This Daily Kos post not only sums up the pathetic Democrats very well, but also shows how they've capitulated and allowed bi-partisanship to become a one-way street (fight).
November insert: Obama thinks he wasn't bipartisan enough, while the GOP treats him with the back of their hand. Not only does the White House let them get away with it (naturally) but press secretary Robert Gibbs turns it into an act of "bipartisanship." Good grief. These guys are disrespected and insulted and don't even realize it (gee, where have I heard something like that before?). Either that or they're so damn frightened of Republicans that they don't want to realize it and are trying to get "affection" from their "abusive father". Either way, it's sickening to watch.
November insert:
When it comes to national security, Republicans go overboard trying to show how tough they are. So they probably go too far. And when it came to Russia's nuclear weapons, "trust but verify" became a GOP repetitive talking point. So when the recent nuclear weapons treaty was about to expire, it was very important to negotiate and ratify a new one, not only so on site inspections of their nuclear arsenal can continue, but to ensure that "loose nukes" don't end up in the hands of terrorists. Even Republican Senator John Kyl was on board with this...at least until Obama negotiated a new treaty with Russian President Medvedev last spring. Kyl and the Republicans have held up a vote to ratify the treaty all year.
In response, the White House chased after Kyl with "29 phone calls, letters (and) briefings" that gave him "everything he wanted." But he's still blocking it (he wants to wait until next year when there will be more Republicans in the Senate and therefore, that much harder to pass; which is Republican logic for ya since they wanted this all along).
Rachel Maddow explains all this, here.
Wait a second. Last I checked the Democrats have a 59-41 majority in the Senate. The Democrats control the chamber. Who died and made John Kyl King? Why is the White House - the White House! - kissing Republican John Kyl's feet? Why is the White House - the White House! - bending over backwards, appeasing John Kyl? Because they're pathetic saps, that's why!
Lot a good all that appeasing did, huh?
Where the hell is the leadership? Heck, where the hell is the anger? My god, can you imagine if a Republican President negotiated this treaty and 41 Democratic Senators were blocking its ratification? No, I can't. Can you imagine a Republican President kissing a Democrat's feet to get it through? Hell no.
If the minority Democrats did block it, the GOP and Fox "News" would be asking, "Why do Democrats hate America?"
So why do John Kyl and the GOP hate America? I guess IOKIYAR.
Kyl and the GOP are blocking this because they have to oppose everything that Obama does - even if they agree with it, even if it damages our credibility and even if it compromises our national security - because God forbid Obama get a victory; a "victory" no one would even notice.
And Obama and the Democrats, all curled up in their fetal position, allow them to get away with it. Even when it comes to nuclear weapons and national security.
Sickening, pathetic saps. And they wonder why they got trounced on Election Day.
December 2 insert: Obama says "he failed to reach across party lines" and "promises to do a better job of bipartisan outreach in the days ahead."
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Barack Obama the President? Do we even have a President? I have to ask because Obama doesn't even realize it's him.
More sickening capitulation, caving and appeasement is here, here, here and here; which leads to Republican demands like this, proving that Obama and the Democrats are sickening, pathetic saps like this.
Since the elections, all we've heard is "bi-partisanhip," "coming together," "common ground" and "both parties should work together for the good of the country." We never hear the word "leadership". Why is that? Why isn't there any? Well, there's lots of reasons...the "dumbing down" of a cynical electorate...the, um, "quality" (and lack thereof) of those running for public office...and by electing George Bush, twice. I'd say the bar couldn't get any lower, but with Sarah Palin's popularity (she shouldn't have any) and Christine O'Donnell getting 40% of the vote in Delaware's Senate election, it always does.
But most of all, it's because the country hasn't had real leadership since JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman and FDR (and of course Theodore Roosevelt). So the country doesn't even know what smart, bold leadership is and what it can accomplish. Therefore, they don't even know they should want it, let alone ask for it or even demand it. Instead, they want both sides - half of whom are corrupt, incompetent saps, while the other are corrupt, incompetent, ignorant bullies who are determined to destroy the country so they can blame the other half - to join hands and "come together for the good of the country". What the hell are they watching?
By winning the Presidential election by seven points, Democrats increasing their Congressional majorities and the country in total disarray, there was absolutely no reason for Obama and the Democrats to sprint to the right (which got us into this mess). None of this "'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the possible' so we better
Obama could have been the adult in the room and given us the change he called for during his campaign. It's called fucking leadership.
December 3 insert:
Paul Krugman of the New York Times:
Mr. Obama’s pay ploy might, just might, have been justified if he had used the announcement of a (federal workers ) freeze as an occasion to take a strong stand against Republican demands...
But he didn’t. Instead, he apparently (used) the pay freeze announcement as a peace gesture to Republicans the day before a bipartisan summit. At that meeting, Mr. Obama, who has faced two years of complete scorched-earth opposition, declared that he had failed to reach out sufficiently to his implacable enemies. He did not, as far as anyone knows, wear a sign on his back saying “Kick me,” although he might as well have...
It would be much easier, of course, for Democrats to draw a line if Mr. Obama would do his part. But all indications are that the party will have to look elsewhere for the leadership it needs.
I purposely didn't add more of column because I want you to read it, or at least this post by Gaius Publius of Americablog who comments on it.
Like me, Laurence Lewis of Daily Kos proves what Republicans are trying to accomplish, here. It's also worth reading, just for the way it ends.
December 4 insert:
As I said in the October 23 post (and this one), after what they've done and become, there shouldn't even be a Republican Party anymore and the Democrats taking full advantage.
And yet, today, it's the Democratic Party that for all intents and purposes doesn't exist and the GOP reaping the rewards. Go figure. Leave it to Democrats to pull that off.
December 7 insert:
In his press conference today about caving to GOP demands and agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts, Obama got a bit testy when it came to the backlash from liberals. Glenn Greenwald tweeted: "The most intense passion Obama exhibits is when he gets to explain why the Left is so misguided..." And Americablog's John Aravosis tweeted : "Once again, the only moment Obama gets animated is when he's going after the left. None of that anger/passion against GOP."
So let me see if have this straight: when liberals go after a "Democrat" President because he's implementing a Republican agenda that failed miserably in the past, Obama gets angry at liberals. But when the right accuses Obama of being a Nazi and brings nothing but obstacles, anger, lies and spitballs to the legislative process, there's not a word out of him.
This is an e-mail I sent to my "Democratic" Senators and Representative about this deal with the GOP capitulation and sell out:
When I voted for Barack Obama I didn't realize that I was voting for Ronald Reagan. I was so disgusted at this sprint to the Republican right - who hasn't just been wrong on every issue, but couldn't have been more wrong - and the afraid-of-their-own-shadow Democrats that I voted for Green Party candidates last month. Not you.
This week, watching our "Democratic" President cave and capitulate even more to the GOP was sickening to watch. Extending the tax cuts are bad enough, but to cut the Social Security payroll tax for a year...what the hell are you guys thinking? The GOP wants this so next year they'll say "we can't go back to the old rate because that would be a tax increase." And the following year, when less money is coming in, they'll say we have "no choice but we have to cut Social Security." Same thing with Bush's tax cuts - less money will come in which would "force" cuts to "big government" which is exactly what the GOP wants. If I can see this why can't you? Either A) you're a Republican too or B) it's like taking candy away from a baby because Democrats ARE the baby.
Please don't bother responding with a patronizing form letter telling me how wonderful you are because unlike you and the rest of the Democrats in Congress, I'm smart enough to know when I'm being patronized.
December 10 insert:
The "temporary" one-year payroll "tax holiday" would result in a corresponding loss of revenue to the Social Security Trust Fund. But Obama is saying "Trust us, we'll replace the money from general government revenues". We're supposed to trust him on that? Who does he think we are, mindless and conservatives?
You just know, this time next year, Obama will cut another "deal" cave again. Why should we think otherwise?
So that money will never be paid back to the trust fund; Republicans will make sure of it so they can force cuts to Social Security.
Hunter over at Daily Kos couldn't illustrate this any better, here.
December 10 insert:
I don't want to hear from Obama apologists saying that he "had to cut this deal to secure the unemployment extension and the middle class tax cuts."
The fact that the unemployment extension and the tax cuts - no-brainers the country was solidly behind - were tied up for so long, held "hostage" and had to be put into this "deal" speaks volumes about Obama's cowardice and lack of leadership. Also, can you imagine a Republican president who had 58 Senate seats and over 250 House seats acquiescing to Democratic demands - after they spent two years trying to destroy him, and the country - raising taxes $900 billion?
Neither can I.
How about 25 cents?
Neither can I.
Democrats crack me up. For 10 years they blasted Bush's tax cuts because they overwhelmingly "benefited the wealthy", which was true. They've also said that tax cuts don't do much to stimulate the economy, which is also true. So what do Democrats do? They agree to cut taxes $900 billion and said it will "stimulate" the economy, and also agree to keep the Bush tax cuts in place, the same ones they blasted for 10 years, so the middle class can keep receiving the crumbs.
Only Democrats would agree to things they disagree with.
But who cuts taxes, and keeps cutting taxes, in wartime? Where the hell is the call for sacrifice? Oh, that would take leadership, never mind.
So by all means, let's keep listening to Republicans, agreeing with Republicans and capitulating to Republicans.
Lost in all this is that since Social Security recipients haven't had a COLA increase in two years, liberal Democrats tried to pass a one-time $250 payment. But Senate Republicans naturally blocked it. Needing a two-thirds majority in the House, Republicans naturally voted it down.
So after adding $900 billion to the deficit in the form of (irresponsible) tax cuts (another case of politicians doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons), with the highest wage earners gaining more then their fair share, $14 billion for senior citizens and disabled veterans was something the country couldn't afford.
Hell of a deal, Obama. Hell of a deal.
When you look back at the health care bill, the Wall St. legislation, the START treaty, the unemployment extension and the middle class tax cuts, what do they all have in common...besides Obama caving to Republicans...and besides the fact that they all stunk (besides START)? The Republicans - the deep minority Republicans - were allowed to drag them out for months and months and months. And that goes for the 9/11 responder's health care package too which seems to have been dragging on for years.
The longer Republicans drag these things out, the more they're able to "rally the troops" (aka their brainwashed base) and build opposition. Somehow, health care, FinReg, the START treaty, unemployment benefits, middle class tax cuts, health care for 9/11 responders and $250 payments to seniors and veterans all became bad, evil things (yea, by all means, let's keep listening to Republicans).
While Obama and the Democrats rolled over and allowed invited all that to happen, you have to give Republicans credit for turning good popular things into bad unpopular things and reaping the political rewards on Election Day (Mar. 20, 2011 insert: Republicans are attacking the new pro-consumer financial protection agency). And even more credit for adding $900 billion to the deficit and turning it into a political winner after being on an anti-deficit crusade (how can you scream about deficits and demand spending cuts but then gladly add $900 billion to the deficit? Answer: you have to be a cult!).
Um, wait a second. How can I give credit to Republicans - men and women ostensibly elected to fix and prevent problems, not make them worse - who deliberately impeded, blocked and watered-down legislation the country desperately needed? That's not how the legislative process is supposed to work. It would be like an assistant coach deliberately hurting one of his own starting players so the back-up would be forced to play.
Why do Republicans hate America?
(For those conservatives who believe the proper analogy would be a coach hurting an opposing player, well, that just goes to show what they think legislating and governing is supposed to be about, not me. This isn't a game where you deliberately try and stop the "other side" from "winning". There is no "other side" in civics and governance. There's just one side, America's side. And if I have to explain that to conservatives, well then the Republican Party deserves them. That said, we wonder why the system is FUBAR. But that's exactly how the GOP wants needs it because A) they can't argue the truth and the facts, B) the GOP has zero intention of governing responsibly, ever, so C) it sets up a one nasty confrontation after another, which D) is used to keep their base in a perpetual state of rage at Democrats, liberals or whoever Fox "News" declares the enemy of the hour to be.)
But this is what happens when you fail to provide leadership and capitulate every step of the way run away, find a corner and roll up into the fetal position: thugs and bullies fill the void. Sort of like drug dealers, gun runners and gangs moving in and taking control of a neglected, deteriorating neighborhood.
Note: I don't care if Democrats change this deal and remove some of the tax cuts. Too little too late.
If Obama was a Democrat who took on Republicans instead of Democrats; if Congressional Democrats stood up to the Republicans the last couple of years; if Nancy Pelosi impeached George Bush in 2007 (as opposed to unequivocally taking impeachment "off the table"); if Democrats didn't allow "liberal" to become a dirty word; if Democrats explained what "less government" and "lower taxes" have done to the country (been there, done that, and it failed every single time. And that's why the country's in the shape it's in. But by all means, let's keep cutting government and cutting taxes); and if Democrats called out Republicans and their disastrous record, we wouldn't even be in this position because nobody would be listening to Republicans anymore! there wouldn't even be a Republican Party anymore!
And you can be sure that whatever "victory" Democrats are able to attain over the next week (as small as it will be) will only be undone when they allow Republicans, who take control of the House next month, to drastically cut state aid, college loans, transportation, infrastructure and everything else worthwhile. (December 11 insert: I was wrong about Republicans cutting state aid. I was too kind. They'd rather have states declare bankruptcy. So I wasn't kidding in the original part of this post when I said Republicans should just torch the country and be done with it.)
So no, I will not be giving Democrats any credit for whatever they're going to "get back" in this "deal."
December 10 insert:
I think I know what's going on here. The Republicans know that their 2012 primary will be a competition to see who can run the furthest right. And they also know that such an extreme nominee would probably lose to Obama, head-to-head. So their strategy is to drag Obama and the foolish Democrats so far to the right, that it forces either a primary challenge to Obama from the left, or the left putting up an independent candidate in the general election.
Either one would result in President (gulp) Palin.
December 18 insert:
Republican Senators Cornyn and Thune blasted the omnibus spending bill both parties have been working on for months because it's loaded with wasteful earmarks. Of course it does, because Cornyn and Thune have tens of millions of dollars of their own earmarks in there.
So let me see if I have this straight. Republicans vehemently oppose a spending bill because of all the pork they're partly responsible for is in it. I see.
Because of the all that "wasteful spending," Cornyn and Thune blocked/will vote against the bill so they can take a firm stand against wasteful spending at the same time they're "bringing home the bacon."
More GOP hypocrisy on earmarkes is here. Paul Krugman points out GOP hypocrisy and revisionist history on the Wall St. collapse and tax cuts here and here. And it doesn't end there.
Had Democrats allowed any of Bush's tax cuts to expire, that's a "tax increase." But when all House Republicans and all but three GOP Senators (one now a Democrat) voted against Obama's 2009 stimulus, 35% of which was made up of tax cuts, that's not considered "voting for a tax increase." I see.
It also wasn't considered a "tax increase" when the GOP opposed and tried to block health care reform which included tax credits for small business.
Republicans are always playing these hypocritical semantic games. Earlier this week Republicans blocked a Democratic attempt to repeal a provision in the health care legislation that will increase taxes $19 billion on businesses. Yes, you heard that right. Republicans, who want to repeal "Obamacare," prevented Democrats from removing a portion from that "Socialist" legislation that increases taxes $19 billion. Republicans are raising taxes!
Oh wait, it's not considered a "tax increase" when Republicans do it. Silly me.
Republicans blocked this repeal because they want Obama and the Democrats to get the political blame for this tax increase that Democrats admit was a mistake.
This is what the Republican "Party" is. This is what they do. But this is what happens when Democrats curl up into their fetal position and allow Republicans to get away with it every single time.
December 18 insert:
I gave the Democrats too much credit. The didn't make any changes to the $900 billion tax cut "deal" capitulation. Typical.
It's incredible that Democrats allowed deficit hawk Republicans to get away with tax cuts that will add $900 billion to the deficit, while Democrats have to acquiesce to Republican demands and identify spending cuts (or close a tax loophole) to pay for new spending that they want so it doesn't add to the deficit (but Bush's tax cuts were never paid for, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't paid for, and neither was the Medicare Senior drug prescription plan. So Republicans don't have to pay for, well, anything. See how this works?).
This is what "compromise" and "bipartisanship" are these days. But that's what happens when you allow the bullies to rule the playground.
One final note on the "deal" capitulation: To make up for the loss of private spending in a recession, the federal government should be spending more, not less. I know it's contrary to the deficit hawk/"we must cut spending now" mantra (except when they want to add $900 billion to the deficit in unfunded tax cuts). But deficits only matter when a Democrat's in the White House (so Republicans can starve the beast and shrink government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub").
All of Bush's tax cuts should have been allowed to expire (we can't afford them) and gas taxes should be increased. And to really stimulate the economy, state aid, infrastructure, mass transit and green technology should all be getting more funding. A lot more.
But instead, all we're "debating" (if you want to call it that) are spending cuts (not to defense, of course), tax cuts, tax cuts and more tax cuts. Not only are the arguments for spending cuts and tax cut wrong, but they're the wrong arguments to have! It would be like a heart patient needing a bypass and calling in a half dozen plumbers to fix a leak in the kitchen sink...who wind up flooding the place.
By all means Democrats, keep listening and capitulating to Republicans.
December 20 insert: Paul Krugman :
How, after runaway banks brought the economy to its knees, did we end up with Ron Paul, who says “I don’t think we need regulators,” about to take over a key House panel overseeing the Fed? How, after the experiences of the Clinton and Bush administrations — the first raised taxes and presided over spectacular job growth; the second cut taxes and presided over anemic growth even before the crisis — did we end up with bipartisan agreement on even more tax cuts?
Um, Paul, you're not familiar with the Democratic Party are you?
The answer from the right is that the economic failures of the Obama administration show that big-government policies don’t work. But the response should be, what big-government policies?
Exactly. Now if only we can get Democrats to respond to Republicans like that.
It’s also worth pointing out that everything the right said about why Obamanomics would fail was wrong. For two years we’ve been warned that government borrowing would send interest rates sky-high; in fact, rates have fluctuated with optimism or pessimism about recovery, but stayed consistently low by historical standards. For two years we’ve been warned that inflation, even hyperinflation, was just around the corner; instead, disinflation has continued, with core inflation — which excludes volatile food and energy prices — now at a half-century low.
The free-market fundamentalists have been as wrong about events abroad as they have about events in America — and suffered equally few consequences.
Gee, I wonder why.
December 22 insert:
Since Republicans blocked the omnibus spending bill, Congress was able to pass a stop-gap measure that keeps the government running until early March.
But Ezra Klein explains:
The Senate voted to defund the implementation of both health-care reform and financial-regulation reform.
...The bad news is that the law does it by extending 2010's funding resolution -- and that resolution didn't include provisions for implementing the bills that were passed as the year went on.
Republicans had been talking about attacking the health-reform law by defunding it, but few thought they'd succeed without a fight. The assumption was that Democrats would shut down the government before they let Republicans take that money. But as it happened, there was no fight at all.
Apparently, Ezra isn't all that familiar with Democrats either.
...the continuing resolution compromise was reached within a few days. Most senators probably don't even know the implications their vote had for the implementation of bills passed over the past year.
In the meantime, the various agencies charged with implementing 2010's legislative achievements will have to do more with less -- which probably means they'll have to do less, and what they do get done will get done less well.
...so rather than simply going forward, they (health care and FinReg) limp forward.
What he's saying is that without this funding, the government will either be slow in setting up these health care "exchanges" or set them up wrong (or both). This feeds right into the conservative propaganda that "big government is bad, incompetent and doesn't work." So when this comes out all screwed up, Republicans will have a field day. Of course they won't mention the fact that they're the reason why it's so screwed up (as the late, great Molly Ivins said: "It has always seemed odd to me that we would put someone in charge of government who didn't want to run it better but wanted to dismantle it.").
Not only that, but in the coming months the GOP can will hold the funding hostage, and use it to get something they want.
Democrats gave away the store and got taken again.
Final comments on this lame duck session of Congress train wreck.
First, Republicans keep bitching and moaning about how Democrats tried to "ram" though all these pieces of legislation "at the last minute."
Well, of course everything's stacked up "at the last minute"...because Republicans have been deliberately blocking these bills for months, years!
If that's not enough, Republican Sen. Coburn accused Democrats of trying to pass the 9/11 health care package "without a hearing." He lied. There were hearings. In fact, it was Coburn's committee that heard them. He just didn't attend.
Democrats should be besides themselves. They should be incredulous, show some anger and call out the Republicans with some choice words here. I mean it.
Oh wait, they're Democrats. Never mind.
Second, I don't want to hear about "Obama's victories" because he got so much done (DADT, the START treaty, health care for 9/11 responders etc.). None of this should have taken this long, been this hard, and Democrats shouldn't have had to suck up, roll over and capitulate to Republicans. And for the left to act as if this is a tremendous win for the President who deserves a pat on the back on a job well done, well, no wonder Democrats are sickening pathetic saps.
December 23 insert:
You know that no-brainer 9/11 responders health care package that's been languishing around Congress for years that finally passed yesterday and Democrats are patting themselves on the back for? Well, it was originally supposed to be an $8 billion package. But to get it through, it was cut to $6.2 billion, and then cut again to $4.3 billion.
That's what Democrats call "a victory."
+/- show/hide this post
