Crossposted from www.CapInsider.com
During one of the long floor sessions last week in the California State Senate, Republicans became angered when a Democratic lawmaker – Sen. Mark Leno – referred to them as the “Party of No.” Republican Sen. Bob Huff and several other Republicans spoke up, decrying this breech of comity and demanding an apology.
The exchange came as Democrats were voting for cuts that they abhor, only because they are faced with no other options aside from a complete standstill of government.
So is it really beyond the pale to slap that label (Party of No) on the GOP? In an article in the Sacramento Bee Sunday, columnist Dan Morain noted that Senate Republicans criticized cuts of $32 million and $10 million, for county fairs and off-road vehicle trails respectively, in the Democrats’ budget proposal.
Perhaps even more surprising, was this:
Take, for example, legislation proposed by Brown to trim $1.1 billion in welfare spending. It would be a cut in government spending Republicans normally would embrace, but not in the topsy-turvy world of the California Legislature.
Among its many provisions, the legislation would reduce by a year the time a person can remain on welfare, saving the state $156 million, and cut welfare checks by 8 percent, down to $638 a month from the current $694 a month, saving $304 million a year.
So Republicans want to cut spending... but they don't want to cut programs. Huh?
Let’s be honest – I can respect the conservative philosophy of limited government (even if I don’t agree with it) and I think the GOP may have some relevant points to make in this budget situation. But how in the world can they keep a straight face while they talk about shrinking government out of one side of their mouth while complaining about the consequences of those cuts out of the other side?
This exchange, also from Dan Morain’s article, is telling. He describes what happened when he asked Assemblymember Linda Halderman to explain her vote against the welfare cuts (and other cuts):
I asked what I thought was a simple question. What was her thinking? She answered: "When I see a budget bill that is balanced and doesn't hurt people in my district, I would be happy to support it." Then she turned on her heels and walked away. I guess it was a hard question.
Essentially, she said “No” and walked away.
Maybe if the Republicans had an alternative budget proposal to put up and compare side-by-side with the Democratic one then we could talk seriously about their ideas. But as long as this two-headed beast of an argument (demanding cuts and then complaining about the consequences) constitutes their position on the budget, I think it’s safe to use the phrase “Party of No.”
If the shoe fits…