Republicans, Please Tell Us Again How You’re The Fiscally Conservative Party…

boehnercantor1111This is not an article about the abortion debate per se. More specifically, it’s not an article about the merits or fallacies of the arguments of pro-life or pro-choice camps. It’s also not an article about whether Obamacare is good or bad policy, or even whether it is cost effective. If you are looking for that type of article, or to have those kind of debates, this isn’t an article that is going to address either of those topics. What this article is about, however, is the exorbitant amount of money that the Republicans in Congress have been spending in their attempts to pass frivolous legislation, and by frivolous I mean legislation that either the President will never sign or legislation whose state analogs have already been held to be unconstitutional.

For a party that calls itself “fiscally conservative,” the term couldn’t be further from the truth. Rather than spending time (and taxpayer money) working on legislation that has an iota of passing, House Republicans would rather waste your money passing abortion legislation and attempting to repeal Obamacare an astonishing 37 times; legislation that will never, at least under the current Administration, become law.

Regardless of whether you believe abortion should or should not be legal, or is or isn’t moral; the fact still remains that every time the GOP controlled House of Representative spends their time on abortion legislation (HR 1797 their current little project) – that the President will never sign/they will never have enough votes to override a veto on – they are wasting your taxpayer money and getting paid to BS on your time. First off, that is not being fiscally conservative and second off, most of us would get fired if we kept working on something over and over again that we knew our boss would never sign off on.

In addition to the amount of time and money wasted on legislation that will never become law – because the President has been very clear he will not sign a 20 week abortion ban and that he “strongly opposes” said piece of legislation – the same exact type of state legislation (a 20 week ban on abortion with relatively no exceptions) has also just been ruled unconstitutional in Arizona. So, not only will the bill not become law, if it ever did become law in the future, there is a good chance it would be struck down. In essence, for the purposes of sheer symbolism, the Republicans in the House are perfectly OK with taking a few million dollars and lighting it on fire. How about those spending cuts? House Republicans claim they are fiscally conservative? Pffff… malarkey!

Or how about Obamacare? Rather than looking to amend it and to fix the parts that may not be so great, in order to get to something better, House Republicans would rather drop a whopping $55 million of your money to repeal it. Fiscally conservative? I think not. Naturally, this is in addition to the average $174 thousand that Congresspeople get paid annually.

To summarize, the fact remains that:

1) The majority is not for a 20 week abortion ban so House Republicans are representing a very small minority position and at an exorbitant cost.

2) I repeat, the president will never sign the legislation, so it’s a frivolous waste of time and tax money. It’s the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting different results.

3) On top of being a frivolous waste of money (because it will never pass and because 2 courts have already struck down analogous state legislation as being unconstitutional), it further distances the GOP from women who see this as an attack on their privacy, freedom, and liberty. Therefore, it hurts their chances of winning elections in 2014, which isn’t good for the country in the long run. Why is that not good for the country, you ask? The fact remains that we need two viable and legitimate parties to come to the table and discuss actual issues like taxes, jobs, deficit reduction, etc… in order for us to get to the most viable bipartisan solutions. One party rule across the board, while ideal in theory to many, is usually not ideal for the country as a whole to be successful.

In closing, the GOP can choose to be the anti-choice, anti-Obamacare party that not only holds those policy positions but also looks to pass legislation on those two issues, or they can choose to be the fiscally conservative party. But so long as they continue to spend our tax money frivolously, they can’t be both.

Ilyssa Fuchs

Ilyssa Fuchs is an attorney, freelance writer, and activist from New York City, who holds both a juris doctor and a political science degree. She is the founder of the popular Facebook page Politically Preposterous and a blog of the same name. Follow Ilyssa on Twitter @IlyssaFuchs, and be sure to check out her archives on Forward Progressives as well!


Facebook comments

  • Kenken530

    Quote from another post

    “one thing tho each time these reprobates do this it cost 88,000 dollars to do so and that times 37 equals 3,256,000 bucks that we all pay for even tho it is GOP (a)zzwipes doing it, bonehead is in a 10 grand suit while doing it, why are this group of knuckleheads so oblivious to the criminal wastte of funds and time when the govt is in such bad shape?”

    • dsdjkhjb

      wow really… what planet did you fall off of… talking about wasting money.. look at your beloved irs.. lets get a good list of all the pork money passed out by the obama admin.. really.. shall we first look at how much the obamas are costing you for all of these lavish vacations..

      • Paisley Blackburn

        Will you please just get off that horse about the vacations? As if Republicans don’t take vacations? You are getting your facts from right-wing media like Fox News…the SAME station that lied about the Benghazi cover-up.

    • dsdjkhjb

      100 Percent FED Up



      Four years ago, when Cheryl Mills was appointed chief of staff to
      then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, I warned: “Mills is not fit to
      serve in any official capacity in the government, but most especially as
      chief of staff at the Department of State.” Now, as evidence
      emerges that she attempted to silence the congressional testimony of
      State Department whistleblower Gregory Hicks in the Benghazi-gate
      scandal, that warning has proven to be tragically prophetic.

      For more than a decade, Mills has been a Clinton cover-up expert,
      specializing in subverting investigations of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
      Whether in the Bill Clinton White House or the Hillary Clinton State
      Department, Mills has served as something of a “double agent” — working
      on the taxpayers’ tab while seeming to spend all her time defending the
      personal fortunes of the Clintons.

      Judicial Watch first
      encountered Mills’ double agent status in 2000, when, as Bill Clinton’s
      deputy White House counsel, she helped orchestrate the cover-up of a
      major scandal, often referred to as “Email-gate.” During the course of
      litigation against the Clinton White House — which pilfered the private
      FBI files of former Reagan and Bush staffers — Judicial Watch uncovered
      more than 1.8 million email communications the Clinton administration
      had withheld from our attorneys, federal investigators, and members of

      When White House computer contractor (and
      Judicial Watch client) Betty Lambuth discovered the email
      communications, high-level White House officials instructed her to keep
      her mouth shut about the hidden emails or face dismissal. Sound
      familiar? Well, it gets even more familiar when you realize the role
      Cheryl Mills played in the cover-up.

      When Mills testified on
      the matter, she admitted that she was aware of the missing White House
      emails, and that she just “assumed” someone else was handling the
      matter. But, in 2008, when Email-gate was finally brought before Judge
      Royce C. Lamberth, he termed Mills’ participation in the cover-up
      “loathsome.” And he further stated that she was responsible for “the
      most critical error made in this entire fiasco — Mills’ actions were
      totally inadequate to address the problem.”

      But, even then,
      Mills was not new to scandals involving White House communications
      records. In the early 1990s, she was also one of three Clinton White
      House lawyers who recommended Bill Clinton release the private
      government records of Kathleen Willey, who had accused Clinton of
      sexually assaulting her in the White House. The release of the
      information, which included presidential records of communications from
      Willey to Clinton, were an attempt to discredit the Clinton accuser and
      help cover up Clinton’s egregious behavior. Mills was also referred to
      the Clinton Department of Justice for criminal prosecution for her
      alleged obstruction and perjury in yet another congressional
      investigation — this one into an illegal taxpayer-funded White House
      database of Clinton donors. Rather than be prosecuted, Mills gained
      headlines defending the indefensible as Bill Clinton’s impeachment
      defense lawyer.

      Now, Mills is at it again. According to Gregory
      Hicks’ testimony before a congressional committee, it was Mills,
      Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, who instructed him to try to derail
      the congressional investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attack by
      refusing to speak to Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). Here’s a partial
      transcript of the testimony:

      Hicks: I was instructed not to
      allow the RSO [Regional Security Officer], the acting deputy chief of
      mission, and myself to be personally interviewed by Congressman

      Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): So the people at State told you, “Don’t talk to the guy who is coming to investigate”?

      Hicks: Yes, sir.

      Let’s be clear here. Rep. Chaffetz was officially acting on behalf of
      the United States Congress. He was attempting to get to the bottom of a
      major terrorist attack that left four Americans dead, including the
      Ambassador to Libya. And Mills, clearly in her full cover-up mode for
      Hillary Clinton, ordered her subordinates to stonewall Congress.

      If the rule of law meant anything in this morally debauched city, such
      conduct would immediately result in a criminal investigation. And, who
      knows, it still may. If so, it will be a clear-cut case of justice
      delayed — because Cheryl Mills, cover-up expert extraordinaire, has a
      long track record of using her official government positions to obstruct
      lawful investigations into Bill and Hillary’s nefarious activities.

      With Benghazi, we face the extraordinary convergence — in the person of Cheryl Mills — of Obama and Clinton corruption.

  • Charles Vincent

    How about frivolusly pursuiting gun control legislation the democrats seem to love that. And obama care has only been up for full repeal three times and had it not been rammed through post haste the 37 votes to repeal, defund or amend parts of it, would have been done in committee and probably wouldn’t cost so much. History is repleat with examples of both parties spending obscene amounts of money on frivolous pursuits and shitty legislation so look in the mirror. Before you pen scathing critiques of the other party. I find the unmitigated gaul of this article quite disturbing.

    • Ilyssa

      1) The problem with your argument is that Democrats don’t run around claiming to be the fiscally conservative party, the GOP does.
      2) I’ve written articles calling the Democrats out in the past as well so step down from your high horse about “unmitigated gaul”
      3) This is a clearly progressive blog with liberal oriented op-ed pieces not a objective news organization. If you want objective news, watch BBC.

      • Charles Vincent

        I am well aware of what this site is about and. I am not the one doing the finger pointing that would be th people on the left or right the fact is its dumb crap like this that’s what prevents solutions from happening.
        If you can post an article on the internet I can sure post my opinion and disagree with any part of what you write about.
        The fact if I think both sides have good ideas about things but they let their ego or pride get in the way when they are wrong and then they bash even the good ideas from accross the isle. This solves nothing and it makes cooperation nearly impossible.
        How can you ever dream of people making correct decisions when the stuff you write for them has little to no merrit to it factually speaking?

      • Ilyssa

        I wholeheartedly agree with people voicing opposing opinions. If you’ve ever visited my site, that’s exactly what we are pushing, the exchange of ideas. You are fully entitled to your opinion that bashing the other side is counterproductive and to a certain extent I agree. However, while this is clearly an opinion piece and an opinion site, there is nothing counter-factual about the article. The GOP calls themselves fiscally conservative yet they spend ungodly amounts of money on frivolous legislation; that is a fact and that’s not being fiscally conservative. As for people reading opinion pieces and thinking they are fact, I can’t control what other people think of my opinion or my writing. It seems to me you are recommending that no-one should ever write political editorials, which is unrealistic and unacceptable. I work a full time job, I write about politics as a hobby because I enjoy voicing my opinion by doing so. Nothing more, nothing less.

      • Charles Vincent

        repeal Obamacare an astonishing 37 times;
        This is where your “opinion” became something different. And turned into you spreading disinformation as it isn’t the whole truth of the matter.
        House Republicans would rather drop a whopping $55 million of your money to repeal it.
        How much money did the Democratic Party spend trying to ram through useless legislation on gun control? And before you say universal background checks aren’t useless you should see what the DOJ told Obama about it. They told Obama that universal background checks would only work if there was a national gun registry, and the said registry has been federally prohibited since 1986.
        Please do not take this as a personal attack I do not mean it that way I am simply trying to put forward what I see wrong with this article by showing how you framed your article presented half truths in addition to your opinion. The fact is I have read some of your, and other people’s articles on this site that I agree with you can look at my post history and see for yourself. I have also called others on things as well.

      • Charles Vincent

        Another example of half truths is the article on Texas gov Rick Perry vetoing buy American bill, it’s true he vetoed it but what the articles author didn’t say was the reason he vetoed it as he went on to issue a “scathing” diatribe on how horrible the governor was. perry vetoed the legislation because Texas already had laws on the books that accomplished the same thing the bill he vetoed would have done and it was therefore redundant and unnecessary.

      • Charles Vincent

        “saltcay Matthew Doc Brashear • 2 days ago −
        When the TEAPUBLICANS stop voting down EVERYTHING that the Democrats try to solve. Such as passing a jobs bill, veterans benefits, human rights acts, etc. The only thing the TEA Partiers can do is vote 37 times to repeal Obamacare”

        This is a prime example of people taking the information you put in your op eds and then regurgitating it as fact. That post came directly from this site off an Allan Clifton article about the tea party.

    • Spinnaker

      Perhaps you can explain to the people of Sandy Hook why gun control legislation is ‘frivolous.’

      • Charles Vincent

        Because it wouldn’t have prevented it, none of the proposed legislation would have. I genuinely feel sorrow for their loss, but passing legislation that would have no real effect on what happened if ill advised. Look we already have laws that he broke its called murder, assault with a weapon, intent and I am sure the list goes on.
        Why do I take this stance you ask?
        Well lets look at the columbine shootings. They happened during the previous weapons ban and yet it did not stop them from using firearms none of which were on the banned weapons list they consisted of a sawed off double barrel shotgun(illegally modified to be to short) a Ruger mini 14 style semi auto rifle, and a semiautomatic pistol and some home made explosive devices. So you see banning things doesn’t prevent a criminal from acquiring the things he needs to perpetrate an event like sandy hook or columbine or aurora or Virginia tech.
        Instead of relieving those people who do horrific things on the implements they choose, let’s instead place it squarely on the people who perpetrate those heinous acts.

        Now if you want to talk about the use of weapons in a crime being a modifier that’s something that can do more in my opinion. But we are never going to legislate evil or stupidity out of people and thinking you can is asinine.

        I hope that answered your question.

      • Spinnaker

        So, Charles, perhaps you can give us an example of legislation that would be effective, and that the NRA would allow to pass. I agree that the proposed bill fell far short of where we need to be, but we’re all painfully aware that we need to take baby steps so as not to upset too many of the Lunatic Fringe.

        We have laws requiring the use of seat belts. We have laws against speeding. These laws are imperfect in that they are too often disregarded and not completely enforceable. But they have made a difference. We can and should start to pass and enforce more restrictive gun laws.

        As I said, baby steps …

      • Charles Vincent

        Well the seat belt law is something I would put in tha category of/with the helmet law if your over 18 it’s your choice to either wear one or not, but if you choose not to maybe your benefits from insurance should be reduce a small amount, that seems a better way to encourage people to wear them as apposed to fining them for it, as it makes them bear the consequence of their choice while still letting them make it for themselves.

        I think making use of a weapon during a crime a modifier to the base crime. For example say a guy robs a convenience store with a gun(armed robbery) but instead of running out with the money he shoots and kills the cashier and a customer. Instead of 15 years he gets the death penalty and perhaps making people spend the whole amount of time they were sentenced to instead of getting only 3 years on a 10 year sentence. Maybe we could also look at enforcing laws already in place as well.
        We need to stop punishing those that didn’t do anything because a few people did that is what the laws they had would be doing.

      • Spinnaker

        That might work for the convenience store robberies, but it’s not nearly good enough for the Sandy Hook scenario. But of course, you already know that.

        I’m not sure why you want to continue to enable these kinds of massacres.

      • Charles Vincent

        I simply elaborated my idea like you asked and no law is one size fits all. But for the sake of the conversation lets try making soft targets like schools less soft. Perhaps allowing teachers who want to concealed carry do so and train them to use and perform under conditions created by an active shooter in the building. First you need to understand that placing a sign on a building proclaiming it it to be a gun free zone is basically a neon sign to criminals like Adam Lanza saying hey this is a soft target for you to impose your will with no danger to you for the effective police response time.
        Would you put a sign in your front yard proclaiming your house to be a gun free zone? If your answer is yes there is nothing I can say and no proposal I can offer short of a total gun ban that would satisfy you.
        If on the other hand your answer is no you on some level realize that that sign effectively pants a target on you and your family.
        That being said I think that firearms education and safety should be taught to everyone whether they choose to own one or not.

      • Spinnaker

        1. Teachers are already underpaid. How do you propose to pay for their training (not to mention the liability insurance they’ll need) to carry a gun in school?

        2. If a sign in front of a house proclaiming it to be a gun-free zone is bad, then pointing out those homes where guns are stored should be a good thing, right? So then, why do NRA activists object when other people point out that there are guns in the activist’s houses?

        3. Placing loaded weapons in public schools: what could possibly go wrong?

        Keep it up, Charles. You’re a riot!

      • Charles Vincent

        1.) Wyoming, Texas, and I believe Utah are already putting teachers in classes to carry and the teachers didn’t pay a dime to do the training.
        2.) You missed the point I was making. Which was advertising the fact either was is a bad idea. We currently advertise schools as gun free zones. Does that clear it up for you?
        3.) There are plenty of concealed carry people around you everyday and they don’t seem to have any problems or anything going wrong.
        4.) You seem to be letting your bias cloud your ability to think critically about the issue, sort of like what I was talking about in an earlier post to the author of this article.

      • Spinnaker

        Teachers paying for firearms training? That’s not what I said at all. I was asking about where the money will come from to pay teachers extra for these massive new responsibilities that you want them to undertake. Do you think teachers should do this extra work for free?

        But you’re right about one thing, Charles. I guess I do have a bias against people who think that laws that enable the massacre of our children are okay.

      • Charles Vincent

        There where trainers that donated the time and resources to train the teachers that wanted to be trained an I think that there were requirement to get into the training to start with.
        They wouldn’t be doing extra work and every teacher I have talked to wouldn’t mind the extra safety that it would provide for their students and fellow coworkers. In essence they consider it to be a worthy endeavor.
        I don’t think that’s all your bias covers. It seems to me that anything that doesn’t fit you idea of a perfect remedy is wrong or that doesn’t come from the left is morally corrupt or deficient in some way. I suppose you know best how to manage the lives of the other 313 million people in this country better than they do.

      • Guest

        Charles, do you really think arming teachers is the answer? So then what happens when one of those armed teachers snaps? How is that a safety precaution? Do you think there aren’t teachers that are capable of committing crimes? I’ve gone to school…..I’ve seen some teachers, and I’ll tell you for certain, there are some I would be afraid to give a gun to!

      • Charles Vincent

        You missed the part about them having to complete a series of tests. Research how some of the states that have done this are going about it. And exactly how is a teacher with concealed carry snapping any different from an Adam Lanza or any of the other mass shooters in recent history. And those lovely officers they already have at schools you know the resource officers they are armed and they could snap and start shooting too. They’ve been in schools for like ten years and they haven’t shot any innocent school kids or teachers.

        “Employees also must undergo training in crisis intervention and hostage situations. And they must use bullets that minimize the risk of ricochet, similar to those carried by air marshals on planes.”
        That quote is an example of how some schools that allow concealed carry are handling it and I am sure you could find more if you bothered to research the topic a bit.

  • dsdjkhjb

    your a bunch of crap.. what is it that you want.. the repubs to bow down and do only those things bestowed on them by the demo.. do you really want a one party country.. sit with that idea for a sec… no matter how good the lib think they are.. no matter how good the conserv think they are.. we do not want a one party country.. that is the sad part about what obama has done for this country.. split it … prior to his admin at least the repubs and demos could work together.. lib talking point number 3… look at the repubs waisting money.. predictable of you..

    • Charles Vincent

      There was only one “party” at the outset of this country and if my history serves me correctly it was about three presidents before we really had two parties. The two party system grew out of a rivalry between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson being a democratic-republican and Adams being a federalist. George Washington was the only president to not have a party affiliation.

    • Paisley Blackburn

      The formal education of you Republicans never ceases to amaze me. Your emotional outbursts always seem to get the better of you when you hastily post your replies. You might want to consider going back to school to get your GED so that you can post replies that the rest of us can understand.

      • Charles Vincent

        I understood his points, maybe you should work on reading comprehension. See what I did there?

  • HonestDebate1

    There can be no recovery as long as Obamacare is in place, nothing frivolous about that.