Sen. Gregg: Specter Switch Means ‘No Checks and Balances’
EmailABC News’ Rick Klein reports: On ABCNews.com’s "Top Line" today, Sen. Judd Gregg told us that Sen. Arlen Specter’s decision to switch parties will have huge ramifications for the nation, with Democrats able to “pretty much do whatever they want.” Gregg, R-N.H., nearly joined President Obama’s Cabinet as Commerce secretary. But on the day Congress is approving the president’s budget over the opposition of Republicans, Gregg said he’s concerned that the president’s plans will mean unbridled spending. Of Specter’s decision — which leaves Democrats on the verge of a veto-proof majority of 60 votes — Gregg said: “It means that you basically have a one-party system now, and there’s no checks and balances on this massive expansion of the size of government.” “Yes, the president is very popular,” he added. “He’s a great guy, a nice guy. I like him, and he’s certainly pursuing a lot of programs very aggressively. But you still have to look at the specifics of his programs and what they’re going to bring about.” “Clearly they’re in control, and they now have unilateral control with the movement of Senator Specter over to the Democratic side,” Gregg said. “They have their 60 votes here in the Senate — or will probably have their 60 votes in the Senate — and so they can pretty much do whatever they want, and I’m a little concerned about what they want to do.” The budget, he said, “dramatically increases the debt that our children will have to pay for, and puts us on a path which is not sustainable. It has a trillion-dollar deficit for the next 10 years on average, and that leads to a national debt which is 80 percent of GDP. And to try to put that into perspective, our national debt today is about 40 percent of GDP, and we couldn’t get into the European Union. In other words, Latvia could get in but we couldn’t get in with that type of a debt-to-GDP ratio.” Gregg also said he’s not reconsidering his decision to retire from the Senate at the end of 2010, despite calls from some Republicans for him to seek another term. “We’ve got some really talented people that will want to run, and I’m looking forward to supporting them,” Gregg said. Click HERE to see our interview with Sen. Gregg. Also today, Ana Marie Cox of Air America and The Daily Beast shared her analysis of Specter’s flip — plus what to watch for in tonight’s presidential press conference. The top item on her drinking game for the evening — that is, the one most likely to get repeated again and again: “H1N1 virus.” Click HERE to see our interview with Ana Marie Cox.
Gulf of Mexico to Become Gulf of America? 
Can Mitt Romney Win Conservatives Back?
does Senator Gregg even know what “checks and balances” means? it is a phrase that has to do with the separation of powers: judicial, legislative and executive. it has nothing to do with which political party has more seats than the other. the founding fathers left that for the people, not US senators to decide. my recommendation to Senator Gregg would be to take a freshman political science course at a junior college in New Hampshire and to encourage his party to tone down the radical right’s extremist rhetoric which is why the republican party is in the situation it is today.
Posted by: Paul Wall | April 29, 2009, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm
THE PRESIDENT IS VERY POPULAR HE SAYS
Well Doesnt that Mean His Agenda is Popular as well? and What Obama offered during the Campaign is what A Majority of the people picked?
Posted by: Angie in Pa | April 29, 2009, 3:20 pm 3:20 pm
“It means that you basically have a one-party system now, and there’s no checks and balances on this massive expansion of the size of government.”
Just like the Republicans years under Bush then – a rubber stamp Congress and a massive expansion of government? Pot, meet kettle…
Posted by: jhw539 | April 29, 2009, 3:28 pm 3:28 pm
Senator Gregg is upset that he threw away his chance to be Commerce secretary in order to be a “good Republican” and keep the Democrats from getting 60 seats. In hindsight, this was a dumb move as the Dems get 60 anyway and miss the opportunity to have someone in position to manage the next census. It would be nice if instead of playing games they all would just do their jobs…
Posted by: MIguy | April 29, 2009, 3:33 pm 3:33 pm
The checks are still there…Democrats only have 60 votes….For Republicans to hold sway on issues they will have to debate them intelligently enough to convince two or three Democrats to join them….Right now there is obstructionism as Republicans act like sheep and follow their leader…
Posted by: indy_voter | April 29, 2009, 3:48 pm 3:48 pm
why do people continually misuse “check and balances” a phrase that is synonymous with “separation of power”? this issue of party representation in the congress has absolutely nothing to do with separation of powers: judiciary-legislature-executive. that there are more democrats than republicans in both houses is a result of us, the voters, not “checks and blanaces.”
Posted by: Paul Wall | April 29, 2009, 4:13 pm 4:13 pm
It’s too early to call this congress a rubber stamp.
Its not too early to call the rerushicans a reverse rubber stamp
Posted by: getitstraight | April 29, 2009, 4:16 pm 4:16 pm
We’ve discussed the Senator’s lack of understanding of what “Checks and Balances” mean, as well his naked partisanship, but I’m amused by the incredible whining the Republicans are doing over the fact that the VOTERS made the choice to turn them into such a minority party. It’s their own damned fault and they think we should “play fair” now. It was their party that threatened a “nuclear option” when the Democrats filibustered Bush’s most extreme court appointments.
Also, Mr. Klein has a problem as well. A Senate with 60 votes for one party is NOT “Veto-proof”, but rather “Filibuster-proof”.
Posted by: Patrick | April 29, 2009, 4:18 pm 4:18 pm
All this means is that Republicans now have to actually debate and reason with dems instead of calling them names and saying no automatically to everything proposed. Not exactly one of the repubs strong suits so far since Obama was elected, you know with that making fun of volcano monitoring, taking pandemic funding out of the stimulus, and that budget proposal with no numbers. This is hardly the end for repubs though if they can grow up a little, as there are always a few dems that will not vote party line on something.
Posted by: Ordermonger | April 29, 2009, 4:29 pm 4:29 pm
Good and it is about time…Bye Bye party of hate, and please don’t let the door hit your backside on the way out.
Posted by: jim | April 29, 2009, 5:02 pm 5:02 pm
The Validity of my analysis is open to discussion. As I contend there is a “common thread” among Republican politicians who Moderate-Independent Voters see as “Appealing Politicians.” The “common thread” is Likeability. Likeability; consistency in respect for others, consistency in dealing with ambiguity, a willingness to negotiate fairly, is honest, is credible and is a NICE person. In my personal opinion there were only three (3) Senators that fit that bill; Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Of the remaining Republican Senators, I have difficulty finding any of them to be NICE people. Frankly I see most of them being “people who are quite Mean.” You may have seen a glimmer of “normal nice” in a few, here-and-there but you give them an hour or two, or a different issue … and there they are again, casting dispersions, name calling and expressing venomous anger towards their opponents. (Senator Grassley is the only exception, in the entire group, he’ an intelligent, credible, honorable and a genuinely Nice Man.)
Posted by: bobj72 | April 29, 2009, 6:12 pm 6:12 pm
another crucial aspect to “checks and balances” intended by the Founding Fathers (and written in the Constitution in addition to their own coorespondence) is the “checks and balances” between the Federal, State, Local governments- and the people.
Obama, aka “The One”, like King Bush his predecessor, likes a huge, bureacratic all-powerful Federal government that controls, intervenes, and surveills the citizens. People forget about State power, local power, and people power and that the Feds, even under the spiritual leadership of “The One”, shouldn’t have total complete power.
Posted by: Ed | April 29, 2009, 7:38 pm 7:38 pm
Familiar with the Supreme Court, Senator?
Posted by: Brooklyn Democrat | April 30, 2009, 10:05 am 10:05 am
If the executive and the legislative branches are not balanced by represnting differing cocerns and views, where are the checks? Rarely, if ever has an impasse between the executive and the legislative progressed to the judicial branch.
Gregg had it right. Without veto power, there is no check on the balance of power between the executive and the legislative. Those who criticize Gregg for his “lack” of understanding the concept of checks and balances are lacking in understanding the intent of the process themselves.
Posted by: cr | May 1, 2009, 2:16 pm 2:16 pm