The Associated Press (or the Associated Depressed, as Mark Levin aptly calls it) has an article talking about the fact that with the Republicans taking control of the Senate, Democratic Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey will lose influence while Republican Senator Pat Toomey will gain some. The article provides an interesting comparison and contrast between the two.

Philosophically, Casey and Toomey tend to be starkly different. Casey is a favorite of labor unions and has supported the major elements of President Barack Obama’s agenda. Toomey, a budget hawk who discourages government regulation, is a favorite of free-market purists and business groups who has opposed nearly all of President Barack Obama’s agenda.

A budget hawk? A free market purist? Sounds good to me, even as I automatically disregard the pejorative wording--I have never heard of a Democrat called a "socialist purist" or "tax and spend purist", but never mind. It is, after all, the Associated Press.

Some things they agree on.

They both support legislation to force the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry Canada’s tar sands oil across the United States to refineries along the Gulf of Mexico, and they both support the repeal of the 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices — from pacemakers to tongue depressors, Toomey said — that is helping to fund the expansion of health care under Obama’s signature 2010 law.

Ok, that's fine.  These aren't big issues, neither will change the country in a substantial way, but by themselves each is good to support.

In the meantime, Casey is setting his sights on legislation he thinks will help the middle class. That includes expanding federal funding for early childhood education, increasing the minimum wage, expanding tax breaks for small businesses and pumping more money into infrastructure.

This is about what I expect. Whatever "tax breaks" small businesses get will be more than offset by increased costs of complying with Obamacare, EPA requirements, the NLRB, etc. And pumping more money into infrastructure is simply a code phrase for more government spending. (Never explained is what this "infrastructure" is--parts of a building? A dam? A road? Something else? Obama's $1 trillion stimulus was also for "infrastructure" but ended up being merely supplemental spending for state and federal agencies for ongoing operations.)

Toomey said he will look to advance legislation to protect community banks from a 2010 law that overhauled finance-sector regulations in the wake of the worst disruption of the banking system since the 1930s. He also wants to toughen background checks for teachers to screen out sex predators, get more money to the National Institutes of Health to fight Alzheimer’s disease and ease the health care costs for businesses that hire military veterans.

What? Background checks for sex predators--that's very worthy, but that's a local issue. That has nothing to do with the federal government.  Fighting Alzheimer's and getting veterans hired are both worthy goals, but... that's it? That's Toomey's main agenda? That's the main reason why he wanted to be elected Senator, to get more funds to fight Alzheimers?

What about repealing Obamacare? What about securing the border? What about getting government spending under control? What about stopping the NSA from spying on the emails and phone conversations of every American?

In other words, what about the big issues? Not a single word. ConservativeReview.com gives Toomey a "D" rating of only 66%. For a Republican, that's pretty bad.

What makes this especially galling, however, is that Toomey is not a typical Republican; he is the former President of The Club for Growth, one of the premiere free-market advocacy groups in Washington DC. The Club raises money for candidates who support low tax and limited government policies. And Toomey, their former president for many years, who gets a "D" rating for his tenure, and says nothing about dealing with out of control government spending and regulation.  If we can't get a good voting record from someone like him, who can we get it from?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats create a big spending and super regulating government, and Republicans, when they get into power, maintain 99% of whatever Democrats have built. So, to all you Pennsylvanians out there, enjoy the flip in power from Bob Casey to Pat Toomey. If you notice any difference, let me know.

Pedro Gonzales is editor of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.