Maybe I am missing something here. Representatives are supposed to represent the voters of their districts. So if these voters decide to vote for Obama in Nov 2008, they are voting for his policies, and therefore those in his Budget proposal. Yet 17 congressmen feel the need to vote "no". Why? Does it sit well with you that 17 "Democratic" representatives decided to become "Independent" with their votes? Or does it not bother you at all?
Crossposted from "First Read" on MSNBC:
From NBC's Mark Murray
Earlier today, the House passed the conference report on the budget -- once again without a single Republican vote.
The vote was 233-193, with 17 Democrats siding against it. The budget now heads to the Senate for final approval. (This budget blueprint DOESN'T require a signature by the president.)
During the floor debate before the vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the budget "a magnificent blueprint for the future," touting its investments in health care, education, and energy.
But Republicans blasted the size of the budget, as well as all the spending in it. House Minority Leader John Boehner said it was "nothing short of the most audacious move to a big socialist government in Washington DC than anything I could have ever dreamed about."
House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (IN) argued that it was the "most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history." He added, "It is more government, more spending, more debt, and more taxes."
*** UPDATE *** The 17 Democrats who voted against the measure are some of the most conservative and/or vulnerable members of the Dem caucus -- with one exception: Dennis Kucinich. Those 17 are: Barrow (GA), Boren (OK), Bright (AL), Childers (MS), Foster (IL), Griffith (AL), Kratovil (MD), Kucinich (OH), Markey (CO), Marshall (GA), Matheson (UT), McIntyre (NC), Minnick (ID), Mitchell (AZ), Nye (VA), Taylor (MS), Teague (NM).