Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
  @GlennKesslerWP  |   Facebook  | Contact: factchecker@washpost.com  |  RSS Feeds RSS
Posted at 6:00 AM ET, 03/ 8/2011

Obama and the White House's 'halfway' fixation with the budget

By Glenn Kessler

"My administration has already put forward specific cuts that meet congressional Republicans halfway. And I'm prepared to do more."

-- President Obama, weekly radio address, March 5, 2011

The White House was not happy last week when we gave two Pinocchios to Democrats for persistently saying they have gone "halfway" to GOP proposals on cutting the 2011 fiscal year budget. We also suggested that the "halfway" phrase would be worth more Pinocchios if President Obama began to use it.

He did so in his weekly radio address, but not before the White House gave the Fact Checker a bunch of data and charts trying to make the administration's case for using the phrase. So let's review the issue again, and see how persuasive their argument is.

The Facts

It really comes down to where you draw the line -- the budget baseline. Democrats like to draw the line at the president's proposal for 2011, even though it was never enacted. Under that measure, Republicans would cut about $100 billion and Democrats some $50 billion. That's where the "halfway" comes from.

Republicans -- and much of the news media -- measure the cuts from the 2010 budget, the last one signed into law. Under that scoring, the Republicans have cut $60 billion and the Democrats about $10 billion. The two sides are still $50 billion apart, but under this scenario, the Democrats have barely budged.

White House officials have argued that it makes sense to compare one proposal -- the president's 2011 budget request -- with another proposal, the House 2011 bill. But that argument has gained little traction in official Washington.

The White House has now come up with a third way of drawing the line: the 2010 budget, adjusted for inflation. This is not unreasonable, since inflation means a dollar one year does not buy as much as the next year. (This "inflated baseline" provided by the White House has an additional wrinkle -- an extra $5.5 billion to ensure Pell grants for college remain at a full $4,850 award -- but that is a bit complicated to explain, so we will leave that aside for the moment.)

Under this scenario, the discretionary budget for fiscal 2011 would have been $1.117 trillion, all things being equal.

Here's how the different budget proposals compare when adjusted for this new line:

President's original 2011 proposal: +$12 billion

Latest Democratic proposal: -$39 billion

House Republicans: -$91 billion

These numbers show that the president's proposal certainly would have been an increase over inflation. But they also appear to show that the Democrats have moved even more toward the GOP position, though not quite "halfway."

To some extent, this is all semantics. No matter how you measure it, the two sides are always about $50 billion apart.

However, we are not convinced by the White House presentation. The inflated baseline helps demonstrate that even a "freeze" would mean a cut in some spending, but it still makes more sense to compare the 2011 proposals to the 2010 numbers.

Certainly, cuts along the lines of what the House Republicans have proposed would be substantial. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning group respected for its number-crunching, recently tallied up a list that documents the potential impact on poorer Americans.

We also did some rough calculations to compare the current GOP plan to the $16 billion in budget cuts (known as recissions) made by congressional Republicans in 1995. All things being equal, the current House bill appears to be about three times as large as the bill that President Bill Clinton signed into law (after first vetoing an earlier version). That bill cut the budget by about 3 percent, or 0.2 percent of the gross domestic product; this proposal would reduce the budget about 8 percent, or 0.75 percent of GDP.

But has the White House offered "specific cuts," as the president asserted? That's not quite accurate, especially compared with the detailed cutbacks in the House bill. In fact, that's where the White House's arguments breaks down. The specific trims offered by Democrats amount to just $10.5 billion.

The president made a number of other questionable comments elsewhere in his radio address.

Obama said the 2012 budget "will reduce our deficits by $1 trillion over the next decade." That's only through a number of dubious accounting gimmicks, which we have previously documented. The president's proposals would actually increase the deficit in 2012, the year that counts.

Obama also claims "the cuts I've proposed would bring annual domestic spending to its lowest share of the economy under any president in more than 50 years." Again, that would be at the end of the budget period -- after Obama finishes what he hopes would be a second term. He neglected to mention that in 2010 he brought annual domestic spending to its highest share of the economy -- 4.5 percent -- in three decades. Even you buy the president's claim that he wants to cut discretionary spending, mandatory spending and net interest in 2016 would amount to the highest share of the economy in history.

The Pinocchio Test

The Democrats' posturing that they have met Republicans "halfway" on budget cuts does them no credit. Either they should take a stand and say they won't accept any further cuts, or they should begin a real negotiation that leads to a higher number. Obama signaled he was willing to deal when he said he was "prepared to do more." But the persistent claims of going "halfway" when in fact Democrats have done little to engage Republicans on the issue will only hurt their credibility in the long run.

Three Pinocchios

(About our rating scale).

Follow the Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook.

By Glenn Kessler  | March 8, 2011; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  3 Pinocchios, Barack Obama, Economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Foreign policy braggadocio on Libya and AIDS
Next: Michele Bachmann's 'bombshell' on a 'hidden' $105 billion

Comments

" and I'am prepared to do more," Obama said.

Are we as American citizens " nuts " or what if we are willing to believe what Obama say's??

Obama gives Black farmers 2 Billion dollars.

Obama builds NEW low income housing in Harlem, Atlanta, Roxbury, Mass, etc which is going to cost Millions and Millions of dollars.

Now he wants to send to Libya, a muslim country , 14 million dollars.

Once again are we " nuts " to believe this Obama??

Posted by: yojoe | March 8, 2011 7:29 AM | Report abuse

Seems to me that the "fact checker" is biased in his outlook. He wants to compare the Republicon 2011 measure to 2010 numbers. Sounds to me like he is definitely of Republicon heritage. Lie and decieve and try to make it sound like he is the angel of truth. Once again this author proves the saying "figures don't lie, but liars figure".

Posted by: deminfla1 | March 8, 2011 8:14 AM | Report abuse

A great column. I've never seen the key numbers in the debt debate summarized so well.

When FC's on, he's on.

Posted by: angrydoug1 | March 8, 2011 8:22 AM | Report abuse

Cuts are not spending everything you want.
Spending is not collecting all taxes you want.
Investing is spending, regardless.

Isn't there a book so we can translate the liberal lexicon?

Posted by: kitchendragon50 | March 8, 2011 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Are we as American citizens " nuts " or what if we are willing to believe what Obama say's??

Obama gives Black farmers 2 Billion dollars.

Obama builds NEW low income housing in Harlem, Atlanta, Roxbury, Mass, etc which is going to cost Millions and Millions of dollars.

Now he wants to send to Libya, a muslim country , 14 million dollars.

Once again are we " nuts " to believe this Obama??

Posted by: yojoe
-----------------------------------

yojoe:

The money to black farmers was from a lawsuit...not from Obama.
Low income housing has proved successful in the past...what is your beef with investing in cities.

And Obama is not promising anything to Libya at this time. So get your facts straight.

Posted by: jjj141 | March 8, 2011 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Regardless of Pinocchios, Republicans are irresponsible in the budget cutting during a recession.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/opinion/04krugman.html?ref=paulkrugman

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/turning-a-blind-eye-to-the-obvious/

Posted by: org2 | March 8, 2011 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Our President and the dems now shows us they can only do new math taught to them by their union teachers. This has to be a problem when the WP reports this kind of stuff.

Posted by: tateofpa | March 8, 2011 9:18 AM | Report abuse

It makes no difference if Dems met Repubs halfway, a quarter, all of none.

Repubs have certain things they want to cut: PBS, Planned Parenthood, healthcare, Pell Grants, etc.

Dems put a plan last week to remove oil subsidies at a cost of 40b per year. Repubs rejected that.

Its less about the numbers, but the substance.

Posted by: jjj141 | March 8, 2011 9:20 AM | Report abuse

THE FACT IS HOW DO YOU CUT THE COST OF TWO WARS, bank, insurance bailouts that REPUBLICANS ADDED TO THE DEBT.
NOW WE NEED BOTH PARTY'S TO WORK TOGETHER

YOU CAN'T BE REPUBLICAN AND GO BACK TO 2010
ALL OF THE BUSH BUDGETS NEED TO BE INCLUDED ALSO
FACT FINDERS MUST ALSO NEED TO BE FAIR THESE CUTS NEEDED TO BE MADE UNDER THE REPUBLICANS HAY DAY
YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE THE ALL THE BUSH BUDGETS TOO.
NOW I DON'T WANT TO BLAME REPUBLICANS ,BUT IT A USA PROBLEM ,BOTH PARTY'S AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Posted by: theoldmansays | March 8, 2011 9:45 AM | Report abuse

when did this column go from a "fact checker"
(using those words very loosely)

to a retarded opinion column?

Posted by: newagent99 | March 8, 2011 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Seems to me that the "fact checker" is biased in his outlook. He wants to compare the Republicon 2011 measure to 2010 numbers. Sounds to me like he is definitely of Republicon heritage. Lie and decieve and try to make it sound like he is the angel of truth. Once again this author proves the saying "figures don't lie, but liars figure".

Posted by: deminfla1 | March 8, 2011 8:14 AM
-----------------------------

You are absolutely wrong or disingenuous -- or both -- in your summary. The writer discusses his thought behind comparing the 'proposals' to the 2010 budget. The 2010 budget is the one we are currently living under. It is our baseline. Any of the proposals must compare themselves to it. Otherwise, how can we quantify savings? Ironically, it's the Dems and the Administration that is distorting the figures to make them say what they want them to say. How can you read it any other way?

Perhaps you should spend more time on comprehension and less time on digesting the snarky euphemistic put downs that those of your ilk dispense with impunity whenever you hit these boards.

Posted by: lingering_lead | March 8, 2011 10:35 AM | Report abuse

I am a Dem, but a bit confused about how Obama can be saying he "met them" (i.e., the House) at all. His FY2011 budget came out a full year ago. There was no House bill at the time to react to. The Dems' bill was in response to the House bill, right? So that's more like a counter-offer and one could argue they were meeting the Repubs partway (if not half.)

Personally, I think the House bill is ridiculous and is all about satisfying a group of people who don't seem to understand how little these cuts will do to fix our budget problems. So I am not sure why the argument should be about who's cutting more from this small group of programs. How about a conversation about who is brave enough to touch SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense?

Posted by: skeptic421 | March 8, 2011 10:58 AM | Report abuse

"Halfway" is an idiotic metric. Particularly when one side proposes an outrageously high number. If the Republicans propose to cut 200 billion, then halfway is 100 billion, regardless of whether or not the cuts are particularly wise. Stupid metric.

Posted by: blpeyton | March 8, 2011 11:04 AM | Report abuse

A freshman Democrat plans a speech on the Senate floor today criticizing Obama for a lack of leadership on the budget.

The White House staff is fretting over the lack of interest in high schools inviting Obama to speak at graduation.

Get out your "Hillary in 2012" buttons.

Posted by: Chippewa | March 8, 2011 11:06 AM | Report abuse

"Obama and the White House's 'halfway' fixation with the budget"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0'bammy said the 9/5's of republicans know NOTHING about fractions!!

Posted by: erodrik | March 8, 2011 11:21 AM | Report abuse

The problem that I see is that when the Democrats negotiate, they negotiate with themselves. It would be like the health care bill where they started with what the GOP proposed in the 1990s and what the Republican signed into law in Massachusetts and then from there begged and pleaded with the GOP to accept what they used to support. It would be the same thing with cutting the budget, the Democrats would suggest something reasonable and the GOP would scream 'tax and spend, tax and spend' and the Democrats would keep giving in more and more to the people who want government to fail.
What will be required to bring the budget into balance is to cut expenditures, mostly in entitlements and defence since that's where the money is and to raise taxes in a way that does the least damage to the economy. The Democrats can be bent to this formula, but the GOP will insist that no matter what there needs to be tax cuts. This is the mega Pinocchio that the people behind this column have earned.

Posted by: ThomasFiore | March 8, 2011 11:26 AM | Report abuse

I think both parties need to quit bickering and misleading. Why are they arguing about $50B in cuts when Obama's 2011 budget deficit is $1.65 trillion? Seriously, who gives a crap about $50B?

It's time to touch the third rail, my friends. Get out of your discretionary, non-defense box and get the massive programs that are hemorrhaging money under control.

Posted by: afsljafweljkjlfe | March 8, 2011 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Official WA is a mess. Comparing two proposals is exactly correct.

Posted by: HardyW | March 8, 2011 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Let me help you out with something deminfla1.
You said “Seems to me that the "fact checker" is biased in his outlook. He wants to compare the Republicon 2011 measure to 2010 numbers.”

Well little fella the government is still operating in the 2010 budget, the budget was never taken up in congress before the Republicans took over. So really, what numbers would you like them to work with, THERE ISN’T ANY 2011 NUMBERS!!!

“Lie and decieve and try to make it sound like he is the angel of truth. Once again this author proves the saying "figures don't lie, but liars figure".”

Again little fella that comment of yours definitely stands true for one PERSON…. YOU deminfla1 YOU!!!!

Posted by: vatownsend1 | March 8, 2011 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Let me help you out with something deminfla1.
You said “Seems to me that the "fact checker" is biased in his outlook. He wants to compare the Republicon 2011 measure to 2010 numbers.”

Well little fella the government is still operating in the 2010 budget, the budget was never taken up in congress before the Republicans took over. So really, what numbers would you like them to work with, THERE ISN’T ANY 2011 NUMBERS!!!

“Lie and decieve and try to make it sound like he is the angel of truth. Once again this author proves the saying "figures don't lie, but liars figure".”

Again little fella that comment of yours definitely stands true for one PERSON…. YOU deminfla1 YOU!!!!

Posted by: vatownsend1 | March 8, 2011 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Well Mr, President & members of Congress, how about including some things that seems all of Congress rather not talk about ....... things that you are protecting.

THINK ABOUT THE FOLLOWING, if possible with an open mind!!

Does either political party had the "guts" to considered or do any of the following???:

Eliminate tax deductions given to certain large corporation that have not paid any taxes in years. Like Bank Of America, Price WaterhouseCooper, ITT, Bechtel, Boeing, and GE for example.

Eliminate those Oil Subsidies for these large international oil companies.
These profitable companies pay almost no tax & get help from out tax dollar.

Eliminate all those tax & tariff reductions plus "breaks," that Congress voted large companies that are taking American jobs over seas. Also, just mirror the tariffs & taxes that countries like China, Japan, South Korea and the European Countries are putting on American goods & services.

Rein in the large Banks & Wall Street firms by reenacting The Glass-Steagall Act; it just might bring some order into our financial institutions and markets. Oh yes this worked until it was eliminated under President Clinton.
Of course these financial firms do not want this done.

Plus just so Congress shares in the pain, just eliminate the special health care & retirement plans that Congress voted itself. Social Security can be stabilized if Congress was part of it and stopped raiding it!!

So far all I see is cuts that would hurt the middle class ........ if this continues, there will be no middle class to "put the burden" on. Then what??

Whatever happened to that government by the people for the people?
It seems to have vanished........ guess we would need lobbyists to throw money at these career politicians!!

We now have a Cashrarocy, instead of a Democracy in this country.
The best government that the moneyed can buy!!

A BALANCED BUDGET IS VERY POSSIBLE ........
Oh the uncollected taxes from the above sources are estimated to be about 14 trillion dollars!!
DO YOU REALLY WANT TO BALANCE THE BUDGET????

Posted by: bkarpus | March 8, 2011 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: vatownsend1
Well little fella the government is still operating in the 2010 budget, the budget was never taken up in congress before the Republicans took over. So really, what numbers would you like them to work with, THERE ISN’T ANY 2011 NUMBERS!!!
-------------------------------
So because the 2011 budget was not enacted there are no 2011 numbers? Is that what they taught you in budget school?

The "Fact Checker" is disqualifing the fact that a budget was proposed with significant cuts for FY11. Eventhough that budget was not enacted it still represents the spending levels that administration propsed. Disregarding it is a mistake. The CR that they are negotiating is for FY 011. So therefore the numbers that should be checked are the "proposal" numbers for FY 2011

This fact checker of late is definitely leaning Republican in his arguments.

By the way what's with the "little fella" stuff?

Posted by: justonevoice | March 8, 2011 12:32 PM | Report abuse

If Republicans proposed cutting off everyone's legs, and Obama proposed not cutting off everyones legs, would the press criticize him for not meeting the Republicans "half way" and cutting off everyone's right leg only?

Posted by: g9fool | March 8, 2011 12:46 PM | Report abuse


Maybe that's your measurement for winning the Pinocchio awards Mr. Kessler.

Mine is different!

When Republicans talk of $100 billion cuts, those cuts are to Democratic social programs that effect the lower and middle class.

And because of a fear that the Republicans will jump all over the Democrats for being weak on Defense, they've made $50 billion cuts to social programs that effect the lower and middle class.

In order for you to hand out Pinocchio's, regardless of the cuts, the lower and middle class working American gets screwed.

In the last 10 years, 80% of America's income has gone to that upper 2% of the wealthiest Americans, while the lower and middle class worker's salaries have remained stagnant.

Where's the upper 2% of the wealthiest of our country "Skin" in this game?

And where are their Pinocchio's?


Posted by: helloisanyoneoutthere | March 8, 2011 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Good job, Glenn...as usual.

Posted by: sasquatchbigfoot | March 8, 2011 1:01 PM | Report abuse

There is no way that this deserves three Pinocchios. You didn't dispute any of the facts that the Administration provided. You only dispute the interpretation. There are no "Significant Factual Errors" or "Obvious Contradictions" (your words, from your rating scale).

Furthermore, if you give three Pinocchios on a relatively minor issue like this, you don't have any room left in your rating scale. You have to rate all bigger lies equally. John Ensign and John Edwards lying about their affairs would get the same number of Pinocchios as Gaddafi saying that he's not killing his citizens.

Posted by: trr2 | March 8, 2011 1:13 PM | Report abuse

What Obama lied again,how is this news? There is a world wide shortage of food at this time. So people are staving and yet we still produce ethanol..makes you ashamed to be an American. To fall for this scam of Obama's while people die. As always you can contact me at work http://www­.michigan-­businessre­view.com and yes keep those jokes coming. This is truly class warfare!! Those who care about America, vs the organized crime union some still call the Democratic party. Where is the head of the Flee party and punter in charge hiding? In the pocket of the Rothschild­s, Goldman Sachs,the organized crime union, Morgans,GE­, Warburgs,B­P, Kuhn-Loebs­, Rockefelle­rs and the other owners of the Private FED Central Bank Pyramid Scheme. Global warming? just a scam made by the evil people (Dems) to steal from the stupid people (Dems) Why do you think they call it the green party? They plan to party with your green!!! Wow Dems are to stupid to be considered human! Hey Al tell us all again how you invented the Internet!! You Flee Bagger Dems are not as worthless as most people think....your always good for a laugh! I personally am all for climate change..I just have not made up my mind yet..Do I want warmer or colder? HA HA

Posted by: Loxinabox | March 8, 2011 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Cuts smuts...

They are both wrong...WE NEED TO MAKE HUGE CUTS..IN DEFENSE, IN ENTILEMENTS, ALL AROUND. VERY FEW PROGRAMS SHOULD BE SPARED. IT WILL NOT HELP EMPLOYEMENT BUT WE HAVE No choice.

The cuts they are proposing are way too small...

Posted by: JJH1 | March 8, 2011 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"The president made a number of other questionable comments elsewhere in his radio address."

"Questionable" equates to lying.

Posted by: drowningpuppies | March 8, 2011 3:02 PM | Report abuse

"Three Pinocchios" is an insult to Pinocchio. Call them what they are: "Obamas"

The English language evolves with a new word for "lie," which is "Obama."

Big lie = Big Obama
5 Obamas = pants on fire.

Posted by: ecartr5 | March 8, 2011 3:21 PM | Report abuse

The President's address, when I read it, reminded me of Mark Twain's quote (which he attributed to Disraeli):
"There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics"

Posted by: MadiganT | March 8, 2011 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Sadly it doesn't matter. We're overspending by 1.5 trillion (or, as I prefer, 1500 billion to keep the numbers constant).

Now if you have 1500 billion in overspending, do you cut 10 billion or 60 billion to fix the problem?

If you have 1500 pounds of horse manure on your front lawn, do you want me to remove 1 shovelful, or 1 wheelbarrow full?

Answer: It doesn't make a damn bit of difference; your property is still covered in crap and it'll stink to high heaven regardless which choice you make.

It'd me nice if someone was willing to take on the Herculean task of cleaning the stables; but apparently they're not willing to risk the flood; so we'll remain covered in sh*t.

Posted by: gekkobear1 | March 8, 2011 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Please, I would like to know if the Fact Checker works for the Washington Post.

Posted by: ThelmaMcCoy | March 8, 2011 4:03 PM | Report abuse

The federal government posted its largest monthly deficit in history in February, a $223 billion shortfall that put a sharp point on the current fight on Capitol Hill about how deeply to cut this year’s spending. One month in 2011 equals all of 2007...and says we dont have a spending problem.

Posted by: short1 | March 8, 2011 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Good job, FC. I appreciate it.

Posted by: restons | March 8, 2011 5:36 PM | Report abuse


Arguing over $40 billion... $80 Billion is useless. The single year budget deficit in question is $1.4 to $1.5 Trillion!

We should have cuts of $500 - $900 Billion on teh table!

Posted by: Obama_TRAITOR_in_Chief | March 8, 2011 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Why cut the budget to reduce the deficit? Invest funds in job creating , infrastructure building areas. Putting people to work, as was done under Clinton, where 30,000,000 jobs were created, will reduce the deficit. Remember that Clinton turned a deficit into a surplus.
All this talk about reducing the deficit is sheer nonsense.
Another way to reduce the deficit is to restore the tax rate on higher incomes, restore the estate tax, and make no distinction between earned and unearned income for purposes of taxation.

Posted by: sensible | March 8, 2011 6:47 PM | Report abuse

If you measure each by the percentage cut, or by the percentage deficit reduction, then neither side has made any meaningful change.

Posted by: EvilOverlord | March 8, 2011 6:51 PM | Report abuse

The Obama Plan is the Destruction of America. The Actions show it. His words show it. The results are showing it. The People see it and have REJECTED OBAMA AND HIS POLICY. The People don't want a compromise. The People want the Destructive Policy of this Demonic Obama Administration STOPPED. Obama and his Administration are of a Demonic Nature. Obama is the Anti-Christ. Deny Obama and you will Destroy him. Look and you will understand what he is trying to do to America. To Follow Obama is to Worship him. end is near

Posted by: makom | March 8, 2011 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Let's hope he finally "gets it" before the Chinese declare us bankrupt. I don't think anyone in his party truly understands that we have unsustainable spending and the mentality to keep growing bigger govt and spend, spend, spend has to stop. Not tomorrow, not next year, but NOW.

Posted by: Desertdiva1 | March 8, 2011 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Obama proposes a new separate government department dealing with education. As always, watch what the man DOES not what he says. Biggest serial liar president ever.

Posted by: lavistabb | March 9, 2011 8:24 AM | Report abuse

There is a suimple fix. Pass the following legislation:

CONGRESSIONAL REFORM ACT OF 2011

1. Term Limits - 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2. Congress is paid a salary while in office and receives no pay when their term is complete.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security and Medicare. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own 401K or 403B retirement plan and receive a percent contribution from their employer, just as all Americans do.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves pay increases. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress loses their current health care plan and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All serving in the House and the Senate must be held to the same standards as the American Public. What ever legislation is passed, they must not be allowed to exempt themselves from the legislation.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.


Posted by: Bockscar | March 9, 2011 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Woah.

If even the freaking Washington Post is reporting on the Democrats' lies, then there is something seriously, seriously, apocalyptically wrong with the budget and the Democrats.

Generally, mouthpiece news organizations like Pravda, the NY Times, and the WaPo only report news that supports their ideological biases, so this is a major, major deal.

Posted by: MikeJonze | March 9, 2011 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company