"We decided to give Republicans exactly what they wanted – an opportunity to reject federal funds. Of course, once we did, the place fell into anarchy."
Utah State Senator Jim Dabakis (who is also the chairman of the Utah Democratic Party) after three Democratic members of the Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environmental Quality Appropriations Subcommittee voted Wednesday in favor of a Republican-backed bill to reject $71 million in federal funds. The committee is made up of both senators and representatives.
"What does that mean?" Representative Roger Barrus (R) asked, after the bill passed.
Senator Kevin Van Tassell (R) said:
“We just shut down DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality), we have probably shut down most of our conservation programs, most of our firefighters. I guess if that is what we want to do, as long as we know that is what we are doing.”
Two Republicans, Representative Mike McKell and Senator Ralph Okerlund, and Democratic Representative Susan Duckworth eventually changed their votes, resulting in the bill’s rejection and the acceptance of federal funds.
Resolved that: The current administration and Democrat majority in the Senate, in conjunction with Progressive socialists from all around the country, especially those from Hollywood and the left leaning news media (Indeed, most of the news media.) have worked in unison to advance an anti-business, an anti-free market, and an anti-capitalist (anti-individual rights and property ownership) agenda. […]
I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country, hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war against business and my country is stopped.
— Conservative activist Melissa Brookstone writes in a letter entitled ‘Call For A Strike of American Small Businesses Against The Movement for Global Socialism' that has been spread by the Tea Party Nation. (via ThinkProgress)
Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There’s just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations.
Skeptics offer two arguments: first, that presidents don’t control the economy; second, that there are too few data points to draw any firm conclusions. Neither argument is convincing. It’s true that presidents don’t control the economy, but they do influence it — as everyone tacitly acknowledges by fighting like crazed banshees over every facet of fiscal policy ever offered up by a president.
The second argument doesn’t hold water either. The dataset that delivers these results now covers more than 50 years, 10 administrations, and half a dozen different measures. That’s a fair amount of data, and the results are awesomely consistent: Democrats do better no matter what you measure, how you measure it, or how you fiddle with the data.
Republicans vs. Democrats On the Economy
(This is an article from 2005, but it still holds true today — and here’s a book published in April 2011 that goes in-depth on the subject: Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age.)