House unexpectedly defeats spending bill


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The House unexpectedly defeated a spending bill today.

The bill would have funded the government at an annual rate of $1.043 trillion, in line with a bipartisan agreement reached in August. Many conservatives want to stick with the lower figure of $1.019 trillion that the House approved in April. The measure failed by a vote of 195 to 230, with 48 of the chamber’s most conservative Republicans joining Democrats in opposition. The vote demonstrated the continued reluctance of Tea Party conservatives to compromise on spending issues, even as the public grows weary of repeated confrontation on Capitol Hill. [emphasis mine]

I have highlighted the last line of the quote above to illustrate an example of Reuters inserting its own political agenda into a story, based not on facts but on fantasy and leftwing wishful thinking. Not only is there no indication that the public is “weary of repeated confrontation,” polls and recent special elections suggest that the public is instead quite weary of politicians unwilling to cut the federal budget. It is for this reason these conservative Republicans feel so emboldened. They know the political winds are at their backs.

2 comments

  • The Emigrant

    I’m sure, by Reuter’s viewpoint, that in 2010 the public somehow wasn’t weary of confrontation when the Democrats repeatedly charged up the hill time and time again to get their healthcare fantasy passed.

    The reason we have repeated confrontation is because 30-40% the country strongly believes and wants one type of action/programs to be done by the government, and another 30-40% wants another type of things to be done, and these desires are somewhat mutually exclusive. And since neither side has the strength to make the other go away, we are going to have this “confrontation” out until facts on the ground–in the form of means actually tried and historical results thereby obtained–make it clear who is right and who is wrong. I thus suggest Reuter’s get over it. I also suggest that the Democrats will fail if efficacy is actually taken into account, because honestly, I don’t believe most of anything they ever propose these days would be something the classical “benevolent despot”, able to do as he needs to do for the best of the commonweal, would undertake.

  • The Emigrant

    Reuters, not Reuter’s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *