The Bunning Effect or Bunning Tantrum’s Results…

In his 1 man filibuster Senator Jim Bunning, KY, is giving the finger not only to reporters, but to America.  In a further example of Republican nonsense in the Senate, Bunning single-handedly stopped extended unemployment benefits for 1.2 million people, impacted COBRA health insurance co-payments, slashed physician Medicare payments 21% and generated furloughs of 2,000 highway workers. McClatchy has a nice chart that shows the impact of his intransigence on a state-by-state basis.

Somehow the GOP hasn’t learned that the American people are watching and are sick and tired of these types of shenanigans.   Given the lockstep nature of the GOP’s political gamesmanship, this type of action should give pause to anyone considering supporting a GOP-candidate in the 2010 elections.

Update – Democratic Senators Respond to Opportunistic, Heartless, Un-principled, Unconscionable  Bunning Filibuster


Related Articles

17 thoughts on “The Bunning Effect or Bunning Tantrum’s Results…

  1. I support Bunning on this one.
    He is a little late to the ‘fiscal responsiblity party’ but he seems to have arrived ahead of others in the Senate.

  2. Aside from the fact that he’s actually holding Democrats to the fire on President Obama’s promise one of the amusing this about this is that Bunning apparently doesn’t have the support of the GOP leadership.

    For a more objective take on this: SF Gate Article

    A few quotes I found amusing:

    In January, the Senate joined the House in passing “pay-as-you-go” rules to require Congress to pay for new discretionary spending. On Feb. 12, President Obama signed the bill. “Now Congress will have to pay for what it spends, just like everybody else,” Obama crowed.

    and this one:

    It’s a heartbreaking scenario – but it can be avoided if Capitol Hill leaders either find the $10 billion in a government that spends $3.8 trillion annually or the 60 votes needed to bring the bill to the Senate floor.

    So the Senate passed a rule that requires it provide funding for what it spends. A month later, they try to break their own rule and the guy who says, “hold on here” is vilified as Satan?

  3. Bunning is correct. Obama and the progressives passed PAYGO apparently for political show only. If republicans don’t support him then they need to get a backbone. Obama should cut from other parts of the budget to pay for unemployment if he wants this.

  4. I don’t agree with most of your comments. If you were one of the unemployed workers who is now losing unemployment benefits or COBRA health care coverage you’d be furious at this total lack of compassion from the GOP as represented by Jim Bunning. This has nothing to do with balancing a budget, a budget that is in such a treacherous position due to the irresponsible actions of the GOP controlled congress under Bush. If you remember, Democratic President Clinton left the country with a surplus that has been squandered by the Iraq War and tax cuts for the wealthy.

    1. Blah blah blah, Bush’s fault.

      What you either don’t seem to grasp or just won’t, is that the benefits can be extended. The argument that it can’t be done unless Bunning gives in just not true. He’s making it harder, but if it is important to the Senators, they can sit their @sses down, go through the budget & find a way to pay for it.

      Question for you. Why aren’t you blaming Harry Reid just as much?

      Reid had previously asked Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucaus (D-MO) to put together a bi-partisan jobs bill.  The bill Senators Grassley and Baucaus crafted included extensions of unemployment benefits and federal COBRA subsidies.  Reid crafted the current $15 billion jobs bill and removed the unemployment and COBRA extensions. 

      1. Exactly, it’s not a matter of doing it, it’s the point of doing it the RIGHT WAY — a concept that is lost on many in Washington.


    Congress holds the purse strings my friend and when Clinton was president he went along with the Republican congress on budget cuts, welfare reform…. So it was a Republican congress not a democratic president that created the budget surplus.

    Need I remind you that Obama has already spent more money in one year than Bush did in 8, added more money to the federal debt than any president and quadrupled the budget deficit. Now Obama and the progressive congress passed PAYGO which is a good idea but they are not playing by their own rules.

    Funny you say that unemployment benefits have nothing to do the with budget deficit. Apparently in progressive land money just appears for any bleeding heart to spend!

    1. Of course it was a “republican” congress that created the budget surplus. RIGHT. The president is just a figure head that is a rubber stamp. Oh wait, the was bush. So you want to take credit for the budget surplus in the 90’s, but what about ALL the spending in the 00’s? I thought there was a republican majority during that time too?

      It was both a republican congress AND democratic president who created the budget surplus.

      It was also a republican congress AND republican president who created the budget disaster.

  6. See you just don’t understand your government and that is a big problem. I agree with you that Bush spent way too much money on wars we didn’t need to fight. He spent too much money on Medicare part D. You progressives try to corner conservatives with this nonsense and we just agree with you about spending. That said, Obama is spending at least 4x what Bush spent and that is on the rise.

    I can’t wait till midterms… especially if the senate uses reconciliation. If that happens Feingold will be gone!

  7. Please tell me who is going to beat Feingold. I will try to subdue my laughter.

    1. Because of name recognition, Thompson could beat Feingold if the backlash against the Dems is severe enough. There were plenty of Republicans of similar caliber to Feingold who lost their jobs in 2006. There were decent politicians (among a sea of indecent ones) – especially locally who got booted simply because of the letter after their name on the ballots because the anti-Bush & Republican sentiment was so high. I don’t think it will be that bad – but as of now, it looks like there will be some degree of that in November, and if it weren’t a possibility I wouldn’t be seeing so much stuff about Feingold’s possible opponents.

      1. I would be singularly amazed if anyone could run against Feingold and win. He has an impressive portfolio of integrity that he can show. In this age when Congress is regularly scandalized and shown to be hypocritical, why would anyone vote for an ordinary crafty manueuvering politician like Thompson?

        1. In this age when Congress is regularly scandalized and shown to be hypocritical, why would anyone vote for an ordinary crafty manueuvering politician like Thompson?

          I think that question answers itself. Voters have shown time and time again that they don’t seem particularly bothered by those sorts of politicians. Sure scandals occasional get people’s dander up enough to vote somebody out. But that’s more the exception than the norm. How the hell did the electorate continue to bring back guys like Charlie Rangel & Dodd over and over and over.

          At best – the majority of voters just check the box next to the letter they always have. The next big chunk sway in the breeze – one election they’re Rublicans = Bad, next time Democrats = Bad. It’s a small fraction that know and vote on the issues or the integrity of the candidate.

          I’m still not convinced Thompson would run because I don’t think he’d want to risk the sting of losing. And if he does, I don’t think he will be at Feingold – but I wouldn’t be surprised at all.

          1. When Marion Barry (Mayor, DC)was re-elected after his scandal I knew that many Americans were sleeping at the switch.
            And far too many vote a party line ticket.

            1. There you go – there’s the quintessential example.

              Personally I’d love to see all references to party removed from ballots. If you don’t even know which party a candidate belongs to, too bad.

              Better yet, let’s just have fill-in-the-blank voting.

              1. “Personally I’d love to see all references to party removed from ballots. If you don’t even know which party a candidate belongs to, too bad.”

                We are on the same page there.

Comments are closed.