Indiana Senator Evan Bayh is a liar! Do you want to know why?
Evan Bayh says he is for smaller government and less taxes. Yet, he voted for the Senate version of health care reform recently, nearly a trillion dollar piece of legislation. 3 days before the healthcare vote, Bayh sent out an email message to his constituents bashing our government spending.
I am no politician, but, seems darn odd he says one thing and votes another. What are you worried about Evan, loosing your J-O-B? If your party is putting that much pressure on you to support something that goes against your convictions, then get out. Mama always said if the kitchen is too hot, get out! Let someone else step in and take the heat.
Here is what the email (sent on December 18th 2009, referring to legislation done during December 12th and 13th of 2009) said:
Over the weekend, the Senate passed a massive $1.1 trillion year-end appropriations bill, a pork-filled excess that will cause indigestion for Hoosier taxpayers.
This legislation will add $34 billion in new spending to the 2010 budget, an increase of more than 8 percent. The bill included nearly $4 billion in special earmarks for projects like a beach park promenade in Mississippi and exhibits at the World Food Prize Hall.
Because the legislation included 5,244 pork-barrel projects and increased spending for a buffet of federal programs at four times the rate of inflation, I voted "no."
While my vote will not win me any popularity contests in the halls of Congress, it was the right thing to do. President Barack Obama should veto this bill.
What is most troubling about the weekend vote is that we went through this exact routine less than a year ago. Earlier this year, the Senate passed a sprawling $410 billion spending bill left over from the previous Congress.
We were told it was "last year's business," even though Americans were being asked to pay with this year's dollars. That bill represented an 8 percent increase over the previous year's spending -- just like the one the Senate passed on Sunday. Then, as now, I opposed the bill and urged a presidential veto.
Many of those who voted for last year's bill did so under the assumption that things would be better the next time around. Yet here we are again.
I hear every day from concerned Hoosiers who tell me about the cuts they have had to make to their family budgets.
They share with me their stories of struggling to provide for their children, pay down their debt, keep up with their health care premiums, and save for their kids' college fund. Families across Indiana are fed up that Washington seems immune to their sacrifices. I share their frustration.
Each American's share of our government's debt now exceeds $39,000. It violates something fundamental in our nation's character when we spend money today knowing our children will be forced to pay the bill. Such fiscal irresponsibility weakens America. Going head over heels into debt to the Chinese is not the path to national greatness.
It is time for Congress to undertake serious reform.
That is why I am pushing hard for new debt-fighting rules that would put all options on the table and compel Congress to take an up-or-down vote on a set of comprehensive recommendations. Under the new process, there would be no amendments. No filibusters. No more denial. Instead, we would force a "yes" or "no" vote on a more responsible path.
There is precedent to create this type of commission with real teeth. President Ronald Reagan created a commission, chaired by Alan Greenspan, to shore up Social Security in the early 1980s. Congress created a special process to take parochial politics out of decisions on military base closures, and it worked.
Support for our debt-fighting commission is growing, and I am actively making the case to the White House and leaders of both parties to seize on the urgency of the moment and insist on a new fiscal path before we pile more spending on our record $12 trillion debt.
There are no guarantees that a debt-fighting commission will succeed in restoring our nation's fiscal health, but it would be deeply irresponsible not to try.