Some HRs the Dems currently have in the bin....

[NCB]

Gas Stamp Act (McDermott, D-WA)—H.R. 3712. Creates billions of dollars in gas stamps each year for people to get free gas, to be distributed to those already eligible for food stamps.

Ex-Offenders Voting Rights Act (Rangel, D-NY)—H.R. 663. Allows those convicts who are just out of prison to vote.

National Health Insurance Act (Dingell, D-MI)—H.R. 15. Institutes a new 5% value-added tax on property and services and creates a board to oversee payment to any individual for medical services not covered by Medicare.

End the War in Iraq Act (McGovern, D-MA)—H.R. 4232. Defunds the War in Iraq, forcing immediate troop withdrawal.

A Living Wage, Jobs for All Act (Lee, D-CA)—H.R. 1050. Builds on and strengthens FDR’s “Economic Bill of Rights,” creating rights to “decent” jobs, income for individuals unable to work, a “decent” living for farmers, freedom from monopolies, “decent” housing, “adequate” health care, Social Security, education, work training, collective bargaining, a safe working environment, information on trends in pollution sources and products and processes that affect the well-being of workers throughout the world, voting, and personal security. The bill also requires the Attorney General to create a registry of all corporations convicted of violating state or federal law.

Social Security Forever Act (Wexler, D-FL)—H.R. 2472. Imposes a new income tax on workers, employers, and self-employed businessmen to fund Social Security.

Universal National Service Act (Rangel, D-NY)—H.R. 4752. Makes it an obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the U.S., between the ages of 18 and 42, to perform a two-year period of national service, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense.

Which, if any do you agree with? One part of me likes the last one, for we would be a stronger country if we each felt a stronger sense of community, and one way to do that is through national serivce

[shakran]

all of them except the social security act - - -social security will be fine if certain presidents will quit robbing it in order to make the debt/deficit picture look better.

the national service act I agree with not for your reasons, but because maybe it would finally make the idiots in Washington think twice about galavanting off to war if their sons and friends were the ones fighting it.

[Ustwo]

All amazingly stupid ideas, except the last one, which I don't think is needed but at least isn't amazingly stupid.

[dc_dux]

I agree it is a list of stupid ideas that the Repub Conservative Caucus culled from all bills introduced by Dems in the last session(s). None of these have any level of sponsorship that will even get them a hearing in a committee.

The Dems have identified priorities if they take the House:

- a serious discussion of options in Iraq to be based on the recommendations of the Baker Iraq Study Group report to be released after the election,

- homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission regarding port security, rail/truck, nuclear facilities, first responder capacity, particularly to respond to biological/chemical attack

- reform of the medicare prescription bill to allow the federal government to negotiate lower prescription drug prices

- minimum wage legislation

I think a discussion of these issues would be far more productive than a discussion of the Repub "fantasy list" of the worst Dem sponsored bills.

The Dems do have a national service concept that does have broader support than the Universal National Service Act described above, although I still dont think it is high on their "wish list" if they assume control of the House.

It is described as Universal Citizen Service and would require those between the ages of 18 and 25 to go through three months of basic civil defense training and community service. I would need to see more details, but it is an intriguing concept.

[Rekna]

yeah this list is pretty miss leading. I bet you could create a list like this with republicans too. Let's see it might start off something like this:

Naturalized Citizen Presidential Act: This bill would allow anyone who is a naturalized citizen to become president, including ex-communists.

Just a Damn Piece of Paper Act: This bill would make the constitution just a damn piece of paper and would no longer hinder the governments ability to prosecute people they don't like.

[filtherton]

Not to mention the whole "President can put anyone in jail he wants as long as he decides that they've somehow vaguely become some sort of enemy combatant act of 2006"

[Ustwo]

Come on now lets all be honnest.

The only thing you will see out of a democratic house are feel good socialistic bills that they know should not be passed but that Bush will veto if it gets past the senate and endless special prosecuters which won't find anything.

The only plus side is that the Republicans might recall what 'fiscal conservative' means again.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Come on now lets all be honnest.

The only thing you will see out of a democratic house are feel good socialistic bills that they know should not be passed but that Bush will veto if it gets past the senate and endless special prosecuters which won't find anything.

The only plus side is that the Republicans might recall what 'fiscal conservative' means again.

Ustwo.....You would make a great negative campaign ad spokesperson.

Lets hope that after the election, and if the House changes, that both sides show more restraint and common sense than is indicated by your post and focus on those issues where with, reasonable negotiation, agreements can be reached - Iraq, homeland security among the top of the list.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ustwo.....You would make a great negative campaign ad spokesperson.

Lets hope that after the election, and if the House changes, that both sides show more restraint and common sense than is indicated by your post and focus on those issues where with, reasonable negotiation, agreements can be reached - Iraq, homeland security among the top of the list.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein

[dc_dux]

I'm confident one change that will be made is the end of the "Hastert rule", which required that a bill have the support of the "majority of the majority" before it could even be considered on the floor of the House.

One only need to look at the 04 Medicare drug bill that the Repub majority forced down the throat of Congress, when a much more reasonable and less costly bill had bi-partisan support and would have easily passed if a vote had been allowed.

No such restrictive "rule"ever exisited under any previous Speaker and any potential bi-partisanship was handcuffed by Hastert even before it got a chance.

There will certainly be partisanship with Pelosi as Speaker, but she has pledged to end such restrictive rules, in the tradition of past Dem Speakers.

[Ustwo]

The democrats haven't changed in the last 30 years.

The republicans have changed in the last 10 in that they are spending more like democrats. Its the heart of why they will lose in November, but won't get much of a blink from the press, much like the press wanted to claim that 2004 was about 'morals' instead of security.

When the democrats had control of the house for 40 years, do you think that MAYBE there were restrictive rules in place? Hmmmmm?

To assume things will be different if the dems take over again is insanity. They have shown no signs they want to work with anyone, its going to be about making the republicans look worse for 2008. In fact the ONLY real attempt was Bush in 2000-2001 when he tried to work with the democrats Texas style but that was just called naive and perhaps it was. He just got stabbed in the back repeatedly until September 11.

The democrats are not running on issues, they are running on not being republicans and that had not worked for them in 12 years. It may work for them now, but even that was slipping until the Foley October surprise.

Any democrat who even attempts to work with Republicans is demonized, of course one of them has a good shot of being an independent senator.

[dc_dux]

I think what is clear is that hardliners on the right like yourself dont want compromise, consensus-building or bi-partisanship any more than the hardliners on the left.

Hopefull, saner, more rational minds will prevail, because above all else, Americans have expressed their discontent with "politics as usual". But I am an optimist and still believe that there are political leaders in both parties who can be partisan, yet can still put country above party.

[Bill O'Rights]

I would support H.R. 15 , National Health Insurance Act, only with the passing of H.R. 4752, Universal National Service Act. And...vice versa.

[jorgelito]

Originally Posted by Rekna

yeah this list is pretty miss leading. I bet you could create a list like this with republicans too. Let's see it might start off something like this:

Naturalized Citizen Presidential Act: This bill would allow anyone who is a naturalized citizen to become president, including ex-communists.

Just a Damn Piece of Paper Act: This bill would make the constitution just a damn piece of paper and would no longer hinder the governments ability to prosecute people they don't like.

Can you provide a source for these bills? I don't care what party does it, these types of bills are pretty ridiculous (in my opinion - don't want to offend anyone here). I don't really worry about an ex-communist coming to power, seem rather unlikely, but rather, I see the naturalized citizens act as being geared towards allowing Arnold (Arnold Schwarzeneggar, an "actor" and governor of California) to have a run at the presidency *shudder*

[ratbastid]

Wow. This whole thread is one big attack ad. TALK about politics as usual!

[dksuddeth]

not to mention that every single one of these bills will have a gun grab/ban amendment added to it.

Like Ustwo said, insanity....and dems haven't changed in 30 years.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Wow. This whole thread is one big attack ad. TALK about politics as usual!

Pointing out actual bills currently in the House bin now constitutes "one big attack ad"? Interesting standard

[djtestudo]

Personally, the more I think about it I would be in favor of a Democratic majority in at least one of the houses, as long as the Republicans keep the other.

That way, no matter who is president, there is enough potantial gridlock to prevent anything really bad from happening.

(As of right now, I'm still voting Republican SPT, though )

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

....
When the democrats had control of the house for 40 years, do you think that MAYBE there were restrictive rules in place? Hmmmmm?

To assume things will be different if the dems take over again is insanity. They have shown no signs they want to work with anyone, its going to be about making the republicans look worse for 2008....
.

I think what you have demonstrated is how little you know or are willing to acknowledge about the Repub "rules" in the House since they have been the majority, which have been far more draconian and anti-democratic than anything in the last 40 years of Dem control (show me otherwise, googlemaster)....and that doesnt even consider such actions in the more collegial Senate where the Repubs blocked, for over two years, the release of the Intel Committee report on the use of intelligence by Bush.

Originally Posted by NCB

Pointing out actual bills currently in the House bin now constitutes "one big attack ad"? Interesting standard

If any one of those bills you listed appears on ANY democratic list as being among their priorities...or even on their radar....you might have an argument that the posting had any relevance to what might happen if the Dems take control of the House and not just a negative attack.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

If any one of those bills you listed appears on ANY democratic list as being among their priorities...or even on their radar....you might have an argument that the posting had any relevance to what might happen if the Dems take control of the House and not just a negative attack.

Hey, those are democrat values: anti war, "living wage", higher taxes for social security, ect... I understand why they dont publicize them: they'll get run out of town if did. But to sit here and deny that these items are not on their radar is either naive or poorly informed and frankly, no liberal on this board is either

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Personally, the more I think about it I would be in favor of a Democratic majority in at least one of the houses, as long as the Republicans keep the other.

That way, no matter who is president, there is enough potantial gridlock to prevent anything really bad from happening.

Divided government has generally been fairly productive in recent years....Reagan and the Dem Congress reformed Social Security (for the medium term) and agreed on reasonable tax reform, Clinton and the Repub Congress came together on comprehensive welfare reform, trade policy, and spending limits.

And the checks and balances provide for much greater oversight of the Pres, which is a good thing no matter which party has the White House.

Originally Posted by NCB

Hey, those are democrat values: anti war, "living wage", higher taxes for social security, ect... I understand why they dont publicize them: they'll get run out of town if did. But to sit here and deny that these items are not on their radar is either naive or poorly informed and frankly, no liberal on this board is either

I know it plays well with the Repub base...but more and more Americans dont buy it any more than they buy the Repub "values" (check the polls on who the people trust more on domestic issues - economy, health care, Soc. Security, etc) and to deny that is either naive or poorly informed....and still, you will not see these exteme examples from your list on any Dem agenda.

[Rekna]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Can you provide a source for these bills? I don't care what party does it, these types of bills are pretty ridiculous (in my opinion - don't want to offend anyone here). I don't really worry about an ex-communist coming to power, seem rather unlikely, but rather, I see the naturalized citizens act as being geared towards allowing Arnold (Arnold Schwarzeneggar, an "actor" and governor of California) to have a run at the presidency *shudder*

Sure thing, lets start with the Arnold Bill...


http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595096558,00.html

Hatch is pushing Arnold bill
By Jerry Spangler
Deseret Morning News
WASHINGTON — Officially, a hearing this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee was titled "Maximizing Voter Choice: Opening the Presidency to Naturalized Americans."
A constitutional amendment, proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is called the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment.
Unofficially, it is the Arnold bill. Or more correctly, the "Awnald" bill, as in Arnold Schwarzenegger, the box office terminator and reigning governor of California.
"Please don't call it the Arnold bill. It's not the Arnold bill," pleaded Margarita Tapia, spokeswoman for the Senate Judiciary Committee.
But to insiders and out, the bill is about Arnold, whose charisma electrified GOP conventiongoers in New York City this summer but who is ineligible to run for president because he was born in Austria. And he personified a quirk in the U.S. Constitution that he is eligible to aspire to any office in the land — except president.
"Citizenship, whether by birth or naturalization, is the cornerstone of this nation's values and ideal," said Hatch, chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Supporters of the amendment are quick to point out that the amendment is about much, much more than Schwarzenegger. Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm was born in Canada and is therefore ineligible to become president.
Nor can former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Madeline Albright, nor current Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, nor former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Mel Martinez, who is now running for the U.S. Senate.
"This is also true for the more than 700 immigrant recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor, our nation's highest decoration for valor, who risked their lives defending the freedoms and liberties of this great nation," Hatch said. "But no matter how great their sacrifice, leadership or love for this country, they remain ineligible to be a candidate for president."
Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution sets the criteria for who can be president. It specifically requires a president to have been born in the United States.
And under that clause, none of the 20 million Americans who became naturalized since 1907 is eligible, no matter their qualifications or patriotism.
"That does not seem fair or right to me," Hatch said.
Several constitutional experts agreed, testifying that the "natural born" requirement is an anachronism carried over from old English law, but never fully embraced by the Founding Fathers who penned the Constitution. Seven of the 39 signers of the U.S. Constitution were born in other countries.
And the Constitution "repudiated this tradition across the board, opening the House, Senate, Cabinet and federal judiciary to naturalized and native alike," explained Akhil Reed Amar, a law and political science professor at Yale University.
It was only added to calm fears during the earliest days of the nation that certain European noblemen were to be invited to become a constitutional monarch.
"Modern Americans can best honor the Founders' generally egalitarian vision by repealing the specific natural-born rule that has outlived its original purpose," Amar added.
Under the terms of Hatch's amendment, a naturalized citizen would be eligible to run for president after 20 years of citizenship.
And Schwarzenegger, who became a naturalized citizen in 1983, would be eligible to run in the next presidential election.
"Some people have argued for or against an amendment because of their feelings about one of these governors (Schwarzenegger and Granholm). In my view, this amendment is about principle, not politics," said John Yinger of Syracuse University.
"The principle of equal rights for all American citizens should not have an exception based on nativity or on any other indelible characteristic," he said. "And these two governors should be allowed to run for president if they choose to do so."

As for the "Just a damned piece of paper" it has been widely reported that Bush said just that. A simple google search provides many links http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...piece+of+paper

While it hasn't been proven he said it his track record certiantly supports that he did. He has done many things that are potentially unconstitutional and definatly done things that are against international treaties (and therefore unconstitutional).

[jorgelito]

Thanks for the info. The Arnold bill sounds familiar now. I think it came up a couple of years ago (first mention).

[dc_dux]

The concept of "bills in the bin" (or hopper) as in the title of the OP is really laughable and nothing more than demagogic BS.

Thousands of bills are put in the "hopper" every session, most never get to a Committee hearing and of the very small number that do, somewhere around 5% (I may be wrong on the percentage) will ever come to a vote in either house and even fewer considered and passed by both houses.

FOr a bit of history.....the original "bill hopper" is in the Smithsonian:



Notice how the space between shelves diminishes as the bills move upward with fewer and fewer making their way through the legislative process.

The other fact that the OP failed to mention is any bill that is not passed during a session of Congress dies a quiet death at the end of the session.

edit: Just for the record, equally laughable and dangerously demagogic is the quote attributed to Bush that the Constitution is "Just a damned piece of paper." The sole source is a conspiracy nut at Capital Hill Blue.

I think his use of executive power under his interpretation of the Constitution is extemist and dangerous and very possibly unlawful, just as many Repubs incorrectly (IMO) characterize Democratic policies as government handouts, tax and spend, weak on defense, and sympathetic to terrorists.

Dems arent socialists (except for Bernie Sanders in VT) and I dont believe Bush has such low regard for the Constitution. Resorting to extemist characterizations does little to contribute to a reasonable and rational discussion of the range of political opinions and perspectives of the American public, most of whom are sick of the BS that examples like the OP and the alleged Bush quote perpetuate.

[ASU2003]

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

I would support H.R. 15 , National Health Insurance Act, only with the passing of H.R. 4752, Universal National Service Act. And...vice versa.

I like the national service act. Even though it might sound like a crazy idea, a lot of good could come from it (and I think there should be a second one for people 43 to 80). You would have had millions of people volunteering to help the hurricane victims rebuild their homes and get them (or whoever is next) back on their feet.

You would have large groups of people to help the homeless (and they would even have to serve). You could have large amounts of people cleaning up cities and doing busywork and paperwork for the police, fire and EMS workers.

It would even the playing field between the rich kids and the poor kids if everyone had to work. And the military recruitment numbers would probably go up if you have to serve, might as well get paid for it.

And then if they start college at age 20, they might appreciate it more than just 4-5 more years of school without the parents around.

[ratbastid]

NCB: What's your source on the OP?

[dc_dux]

I dont know NCB's source..its all over the right wing blogs and news sites now, bu the orignial source is the Republican Study group.... a "group of over 100 House Republicans organized for the purpose of advancing a conservative social and economic agenda in the House of Representatives. ... The Republican Study Committee is an independent research arm for Republicans.

http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/ - see the "Democratic Agenda" which is a bullshit description in itself.

[ASU2003]

I would like to hear the Republicans arguments against the 2 year civil service bill. It sounds like something they would be for. Maybe it is just because they didn't think of it first, and there is no way they will pass anything from a Democrat.

It would be like a two year church camp for the religious members. It would provide incentive for the military to whip in to shape more 'fat and lazy' Americans. It would help bring back the local community. It could be handled through the public schools (for local projects), churches (for service projects that help less fortunate church members), military (boot camp, paper work, gate guards, basic stuff that gov contractors get paid to do because there aren't enough enlisted servicemen/women), Peace Corp (for helping third world countries), Park Service (for improving the parks), and so on.

They could get back at all the draft dodgers once and for all (if they raised the age like in my previous suggestion). The soldgers that went to Korea and Vietnam would be excempt from the civil service because they served in the military.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by ASU2003

I would like to hear the Republicans arguments against the 2 year civil service bill. It sounds like something they would be for. Maybe it is just because they didn't think of it first, and there is no way they will pass anything from a Democrat.

First, part of the reason was that it was put forth not as an honest bill but as a way to lesson support for the war. You need to know WHO put it out first and his motivation.

Secondly is it really needed? Must service be REQUIRED of all? Would not most people serve without due cause? I'd much before a Robert Heinlein method where you have no obligation to serve but you can't vote unless you do.

[djtestudo]

I am against the service bill because I don't believe one should be compelled to serve your nation unless in times of extreme emergancy.

I believe there should be ways, such as Americorps, etc., for those who do wish to serve, as well as incentives for doing so, but that forcing someone to do that type of thing is not needed.

Edited to add...Personally, of those "bills" the only one I might agree with is the gas stamps, but even then I would have to think about it.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by ratbastid

NCB: What's your source on the OP?

The Library of Congress

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by NCB

The Library of Congress

That's not exactly citing a source... Got a URL? Or any way at all that I could go look it up for myself?

[dc_dux]

I'm pretty confident that the Library of Congress/Thomas would use the official short descrption of the bills as opposed to misleading partisan descriptions that appears in the OP:

Gas Stamp Act (McDermott, D-WA)—H.R. 3712. Creates billions of dollars in gas stamps each year for people to get free gas, to be distributed to those already eligible for food stamps.
LOC/Thomas: To establish a program for gas stamps and to impose a windfall profits tax on crude oil, natural gas, and products thereof.


Ex-Offenders Voting Rights Act (Rangel, D-NY)—H.R. 663. Allows those convicts who are just out of prison to vote.
LOC/Thomas: To secure the Federal voting rights of certain qualified ex-offenders who have served their sentences

[ratbastid]

Yeah, I'm actually interested in the source of those particular words used to describe the legislation in question. I very strongly doubt it was the Library of Congress. I also doubt very much that we're looking at an original NCB work, here.

This has the stench of a republican smear talking point, and I'd just like to know where it's coming from. I mean, he posted inside a quote block. What are you quoting, NCB? Where'd you copy and paste that from?

[pan6467]

Funny.

I keep hearing the GOP say that the Dems are just running and hoping to win on hatred of Bush campaigns and fear. Yet, the GOP does the same thing....

fear of what having weak dems will do to the War on Terror

fear of Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker

fear of what the Dems may do to taxes

and on and on and on.

In fact it's been so bad the GOP has been busted numerous times to pull ads off because they were outright lies.... like DeWine's ad that said Brown hadn't paid taxes in 12 years and missed 270+ votes. (Dewine admitted those were not true, but since they were from that little group "Fair Ohio" or whatever and not from him, HE didn't approve of those ads.)

So when I see scare tactics like the OP it shows me how desparate the GOP truly is. They can't run on issues, they are mired in scandals, they can't truly act as "the moral party" they say they are (seeings how they flat ass lie and say whatever they want in ads), and they accuse the Dems. of not running on the issues, but they themselves do more attacking and skirting of the issues then the Dems do.....

[flstf]

If/when the Democrats win in November, I don't see many of these bills surviving a veto. One bill that will probably pass, and I think it is unfortunate, is the Senate bill giving amnesty to illegals and companies that hire them. As I understand it, only the house Republicans are keeping it from going forward in opposition to their own President.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Yeah, I'm actually interested in the source of those particular words used to describe the legislation in question. I very strongly doubt it was the Library of Congress. I also doubt very much that we're looking at an original NCB work, here.

This has the stench of a republican smear talking point, and I'd just like to know where it's coming from. I mean, he posted inside a quote block. What are you quoting, NCB? Where'd you copy and paste that from?

So quoting an accurate description of the bill is now "a republican smear"? Interesting.

As for the quote block, I make it a habit to quote initial posts, kind of what host does. Funny you dont question his quote blocking and labeling it "a liberal smear".

[Bill O'Rights]

Ok...I don't see why this is such an issue, NCB.
You were asked to cite the source of your quote. That is not an unreasonable request. In fact, it is policy to do so. Kind of like this...
POLICY AND GUIDELINES

I. When posting articles and bits from other websites, it's imperative that you do all of the following:

1. Link the passage in your post.

2. Directly quote the passage in your post using the vBcode quote tag. Just linking the passage is very bad form.

3. Include your opinion along with the quote.

Therefore, I must insist that you provide a direct link to the quote that you offered in the OP.

[hiredgun]

I tracked it down by chasing the blog trail back to the original document. Here it is: http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/102306_demagenda.doc

It's from the Republican Study Committee, led by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN).

NCB, for reference, there's nothing at all wrong with quoting material; ratbastid was just pointing out that it is standard practice here to cite whatever you quote, so people can look at it for themselves too.


Edit: Wow, Kucinich proposed the creation of a US Department of Peace and Nonviolence... hahahaha. I need to clean my monitor now.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by NCB

So quoting an accurate description of the bill is now "a republican smear"? Interesting.

As for the quote block, I make it a habit to quote initial posts, kind of what host does. Funny you dont question his quote blocking and labeling it "a liberal smear".

If you took the time to read the bills, you would find that your descriptions (from the source you still wont identify, although its clearly from the Repub Conservative Caucus) are incomplete and/or inaccurate.

One example:

Gas Stamp Act (McDermott, D-WA)—H.R. 3712. Creates billions of dollars in gas stamps each year for people to get free gas, to be distributed to those already eligible for food stamps.

Language from the bill:
The Secretary of Energy shall establish a program for the equitable allocation among the States of gas stamps for distribution to individuals eligible to receive food stamps who can demonstrate a need for gasoline. (why didnt the OP description include this caveat) The Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall, to the extent practicable, provide for the distribution of gas stamps under this section in conjunction with the distribution of food stamps. The program established under this section shall provide for the national distribution of not to exceed $330,000,000 in each of the first 3 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

Termination- No tax shall be imposed under this section with respect to any sales after the date on which the Secretary certifies that $990,000,000 has been received under this section.' ($billions?)

Why is it so hard for some Repubs to admit it when they perpetuate their party propaganda? Isnt personal responsibility a Repub value?