patrick.net

Since Bunning is a U.S. Senator, my feeling is that he probably possess a clearance entitling him to law enforcement protection. I personally know someone who possess a very high clearance level which entitles that person to secret service protection in the event someone threatens that person. Also they will investigate any legal matter that person is involved in.

So, I'm thinking Bunning probably gets SS protection, although not like the SS protections given to the POTUS or VPOTUS and other high-level office holders.

If you have qualms about Sen. Bunnin's stance on this issue, my suggestion is that you focus your anger on the voters who put him in office. Ballots not bullets.

Lastly, Bunning is probably holding out for some sort of "give" on other bills floating around the Senate and that unemployment funding will resume on schedule. Calm down.

US Senators do not get Secret Service protection. And Bunning is retirig at the end of this year. In the Republican primary to replace him, Rand Paul, Ron Paul's son, is currently leading in the polls.

I congratulate him. He's exactly right when he says that it needs to be pad for first. I'm all for social safety nets but Congress needs to do some actual work and figure out how to balance the budget. I have an idea, bring our troops home and shut down all our overseas bases. Bet there would be some spare budget money then and I would be glad to help unemployed workers.

I always have 6 months of living expenses in the bank at my current standard of living. If I made some changes I could make that last a year. Combined w/ 6 months from State benefits I'd have ~18 months before I would have to dip into retirement and that's also assuming both my wife and I lose our jobs.

While I'm socially liberal I am fiscally conservative. Congress has been giving away money that we don't have to bankers, military contractors, and citizens for too long.

As an aside, one alternative that I would support would be to make these people work for their unemployment checks. Every day the news brings tale of local, state, and national park staff reductions. How about you mow the grass, clean bathrooms, and empty trash cans at a nearby park? At least there would be some benefit to the citizenry from the spending of the citizenry's dollars.

grywlfbg says

I have an idea, bring our troops home and shut down all our overseas bases.

LOL.

MORE unemployed! Proposed solutions are supposed to address the issue, not make them worse!

(j/k: I agree that we're spending 2 or 3X what we should be on our military capability and overseas operations)

Blue Swan says

If Prez Obozo had created enough jobs, this wouldn’t be a problem, would it?

Because the president has a job wand?

The Bush era left government spending at $11T over FY08-09, yet employment fell 5-6% from peak.

I don't blame Bush for the 2001 recession, obviously, but the fiscal situation his administration created 2002-2009 is going to be with us for very long time.

Clinton left Bush with a widening trade imbalance with China and a slightly over-heated economy overinvested in the dotcom mania, but not 10% as bad as the disasters the Bush crew achieved governing the nation's finances -- private, public, and GSE.

Taking a $1T budget surplus and turning it into a $10T deficit -- that's took a great amount of stupidity.

Nice troll, tho.