George Allen Update
Sen. George Allen has a very busy schedule this coming week. To read more please read this article from Tyler Whitley of the Richmond Times Dispatch.
This past weekend Allen was in Iowa speaking about how the Federal Government doesn't have a revenue problem but a spending problem. No kidding? The last I heard the war in Iraq was costing us $150 million a day.
FYI...Allen voted Thursday to raise the federal debt ceiling to $9 trillion. He really had no choice. If the ceiling hadn't been raised the government would have gone into default.
In order to control spending Allen believes that Congress needs to have constitutional amendments requiring a balanced budget and giving the president a line-item veto. I agree with the first, not so sure about the line-item veto. Wasn't the line-item veto ruled unconstitutional?
Allen spoke about domestic security and controlling illegal immigrants while in Iowa. Apparently he favors the idea of a security fence to keep illegal immigrants out of the country and he does not support amnesty for illegal immigrants who have worked here for several years.
To my surprise Allen does not favor a new South Dakota law that would ban all abortions. Like most folks, Allen believes abortions should be legal only if the life of the mother is at stake or if the mother was a victim of rape or incest.
2 Comments:
On the South Dakota abortion law- I think Allen has said several times in statements and interviews that he believes states should have the right to restrict or legalize abortions according to what that states contstituents want.
If that's zero abortions like may be the case in most of the south and midwest, or the right to kill any child unborn and up until they turn the age of 18 like in California or the Northeast, then he's all for it, IF that's the will of those people that reside and thus vote there.
Good ole 'States Rights'.
Suomynona:
You are correct. He made the statement about states rights and how they should be applied to abortions last Sunday on Meet The Press.
The reason his position on the South Dakota law was a bit of a surprise to me was because it is going against his base. Or, at least what I think his base is. Anyway, it's a moderate common sense position.
States rights…..ahhh those were the days.
Post a Comment
<< Home