Friday, July 23, 2010

A reader disagrees about Feingold

A reader disagrees.

We need Sen. Feingold to be more frugal
After reading Mark Peterson’s column Saturday, July 17, I have come to the conclusion that Mark was employing sarcasm to make a point on Sen. Russ Feingold actually being a big-spending, big-government loving liberal.

Mark’s comment that “Feingold is already a champion of Wisconsin’s tradition of fiscal responsibility” caused me to almost choke. I continued reading the article, expecting to read at any time that Mark was just joshing us about Feingold, and that even the liberal professor from the taxpayer-funded state university system knows that we taxpayers can't afford another six years of Feingold and his Democrat cronies in Washington.

I’m sure that Mark is aware that the Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006, and have had complete control since 2008. This also happens to be precisely during the largest and fastest increase in the national debt that has occurred since the founding of this country.

Russ Feingold’s voting record is far from frugal. In addition to his votes for the failed stimulus bill, which cost well over $1 trillion with interest, and the flawed health care bill, which Obama admitted this past week is actually a mandatory tax on all U.S. citizens, Feingold voted to adopt the $3.5 trillion 2010 budget resolution that created as much government debt as every other president combined – from George Washington To George W. Bush.

Here are some additional Feingold votes on spending, which clearly shows that we can't afford to keep him in Washington:

Voted YES on $192 billion additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (July 2009)

Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (February 2009)

Voted YES on $60 billion stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure and energy. (September 2008)

Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs’ effectiveness. (March 2007)

Voted NO on $40 billion in reduced federal overall spending. (December 2005)

Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (April 2000)

Voted NO on balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (March 1997)

Voted NO on establishing reserve funds and pre-funding for Social Security. (March 2007)

Voted NO on Social Security Lockbox and limiting national debt. (April 1999)

Voted NO on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees. (May 1998)

Feingold has spent 28 years as an elected official, and both Wisconsin and the United States are nearly insolvent. If Feingold is considered a frugal politician and a wise steward of our money, then this country is in serious financial trouble.

It’s time to clean out the nest of big-spending rats in Washington and Madison. If this country is ever going to get our financial house in order, then Russ Feingold needs to be removed from office now.

(Bob Gannon is of the town of Polk.)




I guess the point remains that if Russ Feingold were such a clear monster, Ron Johnson would be running against *him* rather than against Washington by using the essential features of Feingold's record.

But then Mr. Gannon wouldn't have had the opportunity to parrot the cherry picking that Republican Party Talking points have made up about Russ.

5 comments:

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Republicans "made up about Russ"?

Feingold's voting record is "made up"?

Your "fairy tale" about Russ being a hard nosed fiscal conservative is the fantasy.

Sure, Russ has made a few good votes in favor of fiscal responsibility, but his fiscal irresponsibility has far outweighed the good votes.

Good job Mr. Gannon

Mpeterson said...

Of course, Kevin, you also believe that the ACORN nonsense was not manufactured by Fox News and that Barry Goldwater wasn't a real conservative.

Like Mr. Gannon, you believe that the only relevant issue is *whether* government spends our taxes. Like Senator Feingold, I believe that what matters is whether the government spends it *wisely*.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Spend it "wisely"?

Is that possible in Washington D.C?

Mpeterson said...

That's what a representative government struggles with. More wisely maybe than a 4 year old buying ice cream.

But here's another one of the latest conservative belief scams, along with the idea that Feingold isn't prudent with our money: http://mediamatters.org/research/201007160038

ProfUgo said...

"The Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006, and have had complete control since 2008. This also happens to be precisely during the largest and fastest increase in the national debt that has occurred since the founding of this country."

This is not true. The largest and fastest increase in national debt since the founding of the country occurred during the second term of the administration of W 43, specifically from 2005-09. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms