Your Democratic Congress at work, folks. Today Dems delayed a vote on a pork moratorium bill, making sure they and their buddies don’t have to go on record on the wasteful spending issue.

Senate Republicans complained Thursday that a high-profile vote on a temporary earmark ban would be pushed back until late in the night, limiting press coverage and possibly preventing presidential candidates from voting on the measure.

According to the office of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Republicans asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to schedule the vote earlier in the day so that their presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), could cast a vote before returning to the campaign trail. But Reid declined, saying the vote wouldn’t occur until around midnight Thursday, if not later, according to DeMint aides.

“The porkers are throwing the kitchen sink at the earmark ban, using every trick to stop it,” said Wesley Denton, a spokesman for DeMint. “The white-knuckled grip on their pork would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. Americans won’t be fooled.”

Why is Reid scared of taking a stance on pork? Well, for one, promising no pork for his special interests could hurt his next reelection. Secondly, the man actually thinks the Founding Fathers would want Congress to quietly waste tax payer dollars on buddies and donors.

Meanwhile, Dems continue to deny the success of the Bush tax cuts, rejecting an attempt to make them permanent. What exactly qualifies as “wealthy” today?

The Senate on Thursday gave a sweeping endorsement to some of President Bush’s tax cuts but rejected renewing others as all three major presidential candidates interrupted their campaigns to cast key votes on the budget.

The chamber voted 52-47 to reject a move by Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., to extend Bush’s tax cuts for middle- and higher-income taxpayers, investors and people inheriting businesses and big estates. …

Obama and Clinton both promise to reverse Bush’s tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they’ll be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more.

So if their concern is lowering taxes for the middle class, why are they making tax increases for those making $31,850? Does $32,000 qualify as “the rich” now?

As Ed Morrissey writes:

Tax the wealthy — as defined by 1908 levels?

Leave a Reply