President Obama---Stop Playing Political Racist Games With This Nation's Security
You're the President of the United States----start acting like it! The people of this country completely understand that our southern boarders are under siege with violence and corruption; uncontrolled borders smuggling guns and drugs that threatens every citizen.
Meanwhile, you and your liberal democrat party are tearing this nation apart with this pure and vile use of false racism designed for political gain and no other reason. We know for a fact that the recent Arizona legislation is not even stronger than the federal laws now on the books. The fact that a person can not even be questioned without a cause or violation prefaced, makes Arizona's law within Federal standards. Any person can be asked for identification by federal authorities, yet under the Arizona statute there must be a reason in advance of asking.
So, Mr. President, stop with the lies. Stop with the racist accusations. Stop and think about what you have pledged to do to protect this nation and its people. Start acting like a President, and not playing these childlike petty games that are embarrassing your office, your citizens, and your country. Stand up a be a man about our borders and secure them now. Your country demands it.
If you think this healthcare joke will cost your party control, you've seen nothing when you and your pathetic advisers realize 80% of the nation wants border security now.
This has absolutely nothing to do with race.........unless you consider the race to the bottomless pit your party is heading----a race you will surely win.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Is Today’s “Mainstream Media” Out of Touch With Mainstream America?
When the controversial law was passed in Arizona recently, polling across the country produced one obvious outcome---70% of this nation’s citizens felt something had to be done about our southern borders. They also felt the Arizona law was not going to lead to racial profiling. When the law was written, the legislators specifically made sure that that the statutes remained in line with federal law which, if implemented, would pass the litmus test if challenged by the higher courts. Governor Jan Brewer and the legislators even went back and revised critical language that may have allowed an incorrect interpretation of how the law was implemented by law enforcement agencies. Brewer was adamant that racial profiling would not be tolerated in Arizona:
“Taking into consideration questions and concerns that have been expressed about the SB1070 legislation I signed last week, today I signed HB 2162 which defines and clarifies even further the proper implementation and enforcement of the law. These changes specifically answer legal questions raised by some who expressed fears that the original law would somehow allow or lead to racial profiling. These new amendments make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal, and will not be tolerated in Arizona.” link
With Arizona’s southern borders quickly becoming a clear and present danger to all who lived in the border region, Brewer agreed that something had to be done:
"We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels," Brewer said. "We cannot stand idly by as drophouses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life."
Enter----A Mainstream Media with a boatload of bias
As critics of the bill, (from the Mexican government to the ACLU), began to sound off, our ever reliable liberal media began a barrage of negative stories that included outright lies about the substance of the bill and its intent. The network news agencies predictably reported what their “sources reported” and with deliberate intent, failed to report the overwhelming support for the legislation.
This negative slant followed suit in the newsprint media where more distortions and outright fabrications went unchecked and ignored by leading editors and publishers.
The un-official count of Negative stories vs. Positive stories has ran about one in twelve. The favorite line by both the networks and newspapers was the accusation that Arizona had implemented outright racial profiling against all Mexicans whether legal or illegally residing inside our borders.
While the “mainstream media” and the official response from the White House has been nothing but condemnation, nation-wide polling still shows Americans in full support of Arizona’s decision to do what the Federal government has refused to do---stop the violence and secure the borders.
The Political Slant
While the legal wrangling has just begun, the political ramifications are taking place among the liberal democrats who have long coveted the Latino voting block. But no longer is the promise of open doors and all expense paid living quarters---all at the taxpayer’s expense---being used as a ringing endorsement. The voting public that includes millions of independents and moderate democrats are rejecting these policies of open borders at any cost. With unemployment at 10% nation-wide, competition in the job markets has every legal citizen searching for work. Even legal Mexican-Americans are seeing the injustice of coming in “the front door”, paying their dues, and following the laws of the promised land, only to see millions step ahead in line with no respect for the process.
President Obama, the liberal democrats, and the “out of touch” mainstream media are banking on our humility and compassion to keep the status quo on the immigration policies, but what they don’t see is a nation that has said enough is enough. The futile attempt to paint Republicans as mean spirited racial bigots is falling on deaf and defiant ears. Perhaps they’ll see the light in November when they’re no longer in power or considered a voice of the people.
(edited and revised at the authors discretion)
When the controversial law was passed in Arizona recently, polling across the country produced one obvious outcome---70% of this nation’s citizens felt something had to be done about our southern borders. They also felt the Arizona law was not going to lead to racial profiling. When the law was written, the legislators specifically made sure that that the statutes remained in line with federal law which, if implemented, would pass the litmus test if challenged by the higher courts. Governor Jan Brewer and the legislators even went back and revised critical language that may have allowed an incorrect interpretation of how the law was implemented by law enforcement agencies. Brewer was adamant that racial profiling would not be tolerated in Arizona:
“Taking into consideration questions and concerns that have been expressed about the SB1070 legislation I signed last week, today I signed HB 2162 which defines and clarifies even further the proper implementation and enforcement of the law. These changes specifically answer legal questions raised by some who expressed fears that the original law would somehow allow or lead to racial profiling. These new amendments make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal, and will not be tolerated in Arizona.” link
With Arizona’s southern borders quickly becoming a clear and present danger to all who lived in the border region, Brewer agreed that something had to be done:
"We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels," Brewer said. "We cannot stand idly by as drophouses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life."
Enter----A Mainstream Media with a boatload of bias
As critics of the bill, (from the Mexican government to the ACLU), began to sound off, our ever reliable liberal media began a barrage of negative stories that included outright lies about the substance of the bill and its intent. The network news agencies predictably reported what their “sources reported” and with deliberate intent, failed to report the overwhelming support for the legislation.
This negative slant followed suit in the newsprint media where more distortions and outright fabrications went unchecked and ignored by leading editors and publishers.
The un-official count of Negative stories vs. Positive stories has ran about one in twelve. The favorite line by both the networks and newspapers was the accusation that Arizona had implemented outright racial profiling against all Mexicans whether legal or illegally residing inside our borders.
While the “mainstream media” and the official response from the White House has been nothing but condemnation, nation-wide polling still shows Americans in full support of Arizona’s decision to do what the Federal government has refused to do---stop the violence and secure the borders.
The Political Slant
While the legal wrangling has just begun, the political ramifications are taking place among the liberal democrats who have long coveted the Latino voting block. But no longer is the promise of open doors and all expense paid living quarters---all at the taxpayer’s expense---being used as a ringing endorsement. The voting public that includes millions of independents and moderate democrats are rejecting these policies of open borders at any cost. With unemployment at 10% nation-wide, competition in the job markets has every legal citizen searching for work. Even legal Mexican-Americans are seeing the injustice of coming in “the front door”, paying their dues, and following the laws of the promised land, only to see millions step ahead in line with no respect for the process.
President Obama, the liberal democrats, and the “out of touch” mainstream media are banking on our humility and compassion to keep the status quo on the immigration policies, but what they don’t see is a nation that has said enough is enough. The futile attempt to paint Republicans as mean spirited racial bigots is falling on deaf and defiant ears. Perhaps they’ll see the light in November when they’re no longer in power or considered a voice of the people.
(edited and revised at the authors discretion)
Friday, May 07, 2010
Governor Brewer's Response to Obama
H/T---Hot Air
Keep laughing Mr. President. This "joke" will be great theater in 2012.
H/T---Hot Air
Keep laughing Mr. President. This "joke" will be great theater in 2012.
Monday, May 03, 2010
JUST WHAT IS THE DESCRIPTION OF TERRORISM, MR. HOLDER?
In an AP article posted by Breitbart our resident attorney general said today that it was “too early” to designate the Times Square bomb plot as terrorism. I would guess if the perpetrator was just in town for some sight-seeing and forgot to leave home his groundhog eradication apparatus, Mr. Holder could make this “assumption”.
Steve Doocy and Gretchen Carlson, in a Fox New interview with Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano, attempted several times to get Napolitano to at least admit this was an act of terrorism, but there must still remain a strict Obama policy to restrict using the word. (complete video here)
Carlson moves on to questioning Ms. Napolitano about her statements concerning the “much safer southern borders” where there’s also no terrorism taking place at this posting.
A search of the liberal online news outlets only faintly produce the word terrorism in their postings:
In the New York Times:
"While the authorities said they were treating the failed bombing — described as a “one-off” by Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary — as a potential terrorist attack, they said there was no evidence of a continued threat to the city."
From the Washington Post:
"Obviously, it wasn't an accident," Kelly said. "It was somebody who brought this to the location to send a message, to terrorize people in the area......"
"The bomb found in the Pathfinder was "a sober reminder that New York is a target for people who want to come here and do us harm," Kelly said Sunday. He said the device would have sent up a fireball from the center of a popular and bustling tourist landmark known to have symbolic importance for militant groups at war with the United States......."
This would be New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, but no where in the Wapo story do they use the word terrorist or terrorist plot in their own context. The Post did mention at the bottom of page two that our “overseas contingency operations”, (my quote), may have riled up our foreign enemies. A friend has suggested that this may have been a “dry run” to see if they, (THE TERRORIST), could get bomb in the Square---remember the towers did not come down on the first attempt---but who or what ever the plot, let’s keep that dirty word “terrorist” out of the conversation. Sadly, I guess when a building comes down and hundreds or thousands more perish, the media and our “leadership” will get around to calling this what it is---TERRORISM.
(cross-posted in the Green Room---Hot Air)
In an AP article posted by Breitbart our resident attorney general said today that it was “too early” to designate the Times Square bomb plot as terrorism. I would guess if the perpetrator was just in town for some sight-seeing and forgot to leave home his groundhog eradication apparatus, Mr. Holder could make this “assumption”.
"Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday that investigators have some good leads in addition to the videotape of the man. Holder said in remarks to reporters that it is too early to say whether the incident was of foreign or domestic origin or to designate it as terrorism."
Steve Doocy and Gretchen Carlson, in a Fox New interview with Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano, attempted several times to get Napolitano to at least admit this was an act of terrorism, but there must still remain a strict Obama policy to restrict using the word. (complete video here)
Carlson moves on to questioning Ms. Napolitano about her statements concerning the “much safer southern borders” where there’s also no terrorism taking place at this posting.
A search of the liberal online news outlets only faintly produce the word terrorism in their postings:
In the New York Times:
"While the authorities said they were treating the failed bombing — described as a “one-off” by Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary — as a potential terrorist attack, they said there was no evidence of a continued threat to the city."
From the Washington Post:
"Obviously, it wasn't an accident," Kelly said. "It was somebody who brought this to the location to send a message, to terrorize people in the area......"
"The bomb found in the Pathfinder was "a sober reminder that New York is a target for people who want to come here and do us harm," Kelly said Sunday. He said the device would have sent up a fireball from the center of a popular and bustling tourist landmark known to have symbolic importance for militant groups at war with the United States......."
This would be New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, but no where in the Wapo story do they use the word terrorist or terrorist plot in their own context. The Post did mention at the bottom of page two that our “overseas contingency operations”, (my quote), may have riled up our foreign enemies. A friend has suggested that this may have been a “dry run” to see if they, (THE TERRORIST), could get bomb in the Square---remember the towers did not come down on the first attempt---but who or what ever the plot, let’s keep that dirty word “terrorist” out of the conversation. Sadly, I guess when a building comes down and hundreds or thousands more perish, the media and our “leadership” will get around to calling this what it is---TERRORISM.
(cross-posted in the Green Room---Hot Air)
Friday, April 30, 2010
President Makes "Legal" Payoffs to Unions
News you might not read about in the mainstream media...
In what has the appearance of a quid pro quo, President Obama has found a way to subsidize the beleaguered unions by executive order. With the swift stroke of the pen, Obama is directing all non-union employees contracting with public construction projects to "donate" 4-5% of their paychecks into the fledgling union pension funds. In the fifties and sixties, they called this extortion and racketeering. Today, it's apparently called legal payback.
Obama Gives Unions a 'Massive Payback' with Executive Order, Contractors Claim
How only 15% of the construction workforce is currying favor with our President while the other 85% are being asked/directed to subsidize the unions should be a criminal act, but not so in today's business climate. Once again, the private sector gets the shaft.
News you might not read about in the mainstream media...
In what has the appearance of a quid pro quo, President Obama has found a way to subsidize the beleaguered unions by executive order. With the swift stroke of the pen, Obama is directing all non-union employees contracting with public construction projects to "donate" 4-5% of their paychecks into the fledgling union pension funds. In the fifties and sixties, they called this extortion and racketeering. Today, it's apparently called legal payback.
Obama Gives Unions a 'Massive Payback' with Executive Order, Contractors Claim
(CNSNews.com) – The nation’s non-union contractors, who constitute the bulk of the construction industry, say President Obama has given a “massive payback” to unions by implementing an executive order that would help them secure billions of dollars in construction contracts on public projects -- and a House Republican congressman agrees.In an industry where thousands are struggling to find work, this sweetheart deal/payoff from the President to the underfunded union pension funds serves as another blow to private businesses while propping up unions that can not compete in the private sector because their retirement plans are out of line with industry standards. Under Obama's PLA directive, this would be no problem by transferring non-union wages into the funds. Rep. John Kline (R-Minn)agrees:
The executive order, implemented in mid-April, encourages federal agencies to use “project labor agreements” or PLAs on their construction projects, which could require any non-union workers to pay into ailing union pension funds and follow work guidelines set out by a union. link
Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), who joined the news conference, agreed, telling CNSNews.com he believed that the new policy saw unions “scrambling” to make their under-funded pension plans solvent by adding new contributors through PLAs.For the full story on how the PLA's work, (and the union's response) please read the whole article at CNS.
Union pension plans, Kline said, are “grotesquely under-funded.”
“(Unions) are desperate,” Kline said. "(T)he real solution here is for them to seriously look at the benefits and renegotiate the exorbitant benefits that they’re getting -- in other words tightening their belt --and they’ve been unwilling to do that, so they’re scrambling for anything else to make these things solvent.”
Brett McMahon, a vice president at Miller & Long Concrete Construction, explained how union pension plans will benefit under PLAs from his private workers, because workers at competitive companies are essentially giving their wages to union retirees.
“We would have to divert contributions -- 4 or 5 percent of weekly paycheck, literally --into a pension fund where just by the rules of it -- just by the rules of the vesting schedule, which is a 5 year minimum -- there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that a new worker will be vested during the course of a project. How could anyone possibly rationalize taking 4 or 5 or 6 percent of a guy’s literal paycheck, and depositing something that he has absolutely no possibility whatsoever of being on?”
How only 15% of the construction workforce is currying favor with our President while the other 85% are being asked/directed to subsidize the unions should be a criminal act, but not so in today's business climate. Once again, the private sector gets the shaft.
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Liberal Congresswoman Really Thinks You're That Stupid
Rep. Wasserman Schultz Insists Health Care Law Doesn't Require Individuals to Buy Insurance
From Matt Cover at CNSNEWS.COM
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.) is insisting that the new health care law she voted for last month does not mandate that individuals buy health insurance, despite language in the law that plainly says otherwise.
At an April 5 town hall meeting in Fort Lauderdale (see video below), a constituent asked Wasserman Shultz where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance. She responded that the new health care law did not require individuals to buy health insurance.
In a written statement to CNSNews.com on Wednesday, her press secretary, Jonathan Beeton, said it was true that the health care law did not mandate that individuals buy health insurance and that Wasserman Schultz stood by her assertion at the townhall meeting.
“We actually have not required in this law that you carry health insurance,” Wasserman Schultz said at the townhall meeting.
“Yes, this is accurate,” Beeton said in his statement to CNSNews.com. “You have a choice of insuring yourself with affordable coverage, or paying an assessment that will offset the burden you place on other insured Americans and taxpayers by not being insured.”
Not only has the Democrat Party passed a law that a strong majority of this country rejected, this party believes you are stupid enough to think you are not punished when you refuse to participate. I suppose when the IRS denies your tax refund because you failed to purchase this "optional" health insurance, the reminder will be "it was your choice".
Rep. Wasserman Schultz Insists Health Care Law Doesn't Require Individuals to Buy Insurance
From Matt Cover at CNSNEWS.COM
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.) is insisting that the new health care law she voted for last month does not mandate that individuals buy health insurance, despite language in the law that plainly says otherwise.
At an April 5 town hall meeting in Fort Lauderdale (see video below), a constituent asked Wasserman Shultz where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance. She responded that the new health care law did not require individuals to buy health insurance.
In a written statement to CNSNews.com on Wednesday, her press secretary, Jonathan Beeton, said it was true that the health care law did not mandate that individuals buy health insurance and that Wasserman Schultz stood by her assertion at the townhall meeting.
“We actually have not required in this law that you carry health insurance,” Wasserman Schultz said at the townhall meeting.
“Yes, this is accurate,” Beeton said in his statement to CNSNews.com. “You have a choice of insuring yourself with affordable coverage, or paying an assessment that will offset the burden you place on other insured Americans and taxpayers by not being insured.”
Not only has the Democrat Party passed a law that a strong majority of this country rejected, this party believes you are stupid enough to think you are not punished when you refuse to participate. I suppose when the IRS denies your tax refund because you failed to purchase this "optional" health insurance, the reminder will be "it was your choice".
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Judgment Day---Healthcare Bill Goes To House Floor
Damn the torpedoes and icebergs---full steam ahead.
Congressman Joe Barton, (R-TX) said this morning on America's Newsroom, (with Bill Hemmer and Martha McCallum working on Sunday, that the Democrats DO NOT have the 216 votes needed to pass ObamaCare. "Others", (including deputy whip Debbie Wasserman, (D-FL) have said they don't have the "hard numbers". Could Nancy Pelosi actually bring this legislation to the floor not knowing the final results? Pelosi has once before allowed a vote to go to the floor that got defeated back in September of 2008. This failure was the first of many government proposed bailouts to prop up Wall Street. Sources, back then said Pelosi may have been the major reason for its failure, because of a speech she made just days before the vote:
The process for this historical legislation has been just as disruptive and corruptive as the substance. From the Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase, to the "deem and pass" and reconciliation, (that will take place just days after this vote), and the "fake, but accurate" legislation submitted to the CBO, the Democrats have invested their careers to pass this poorly crafted bill. Whether this nation can afford another government entitlement that will pile on billions more in national debt, including taxing an already fiscally strapped public will be decided in just a few short hours.
The Democrats will tell the public that they gave everyone seventy-two hours to decipher and decide the fate of this "new direction" designed to empower an already bloated government, and yet, even in the face of public opposition, they’re in a “damn the torpedoes/icebergs, full steam ahead modus. However the outcome after today, one thing is certain: change is coming---again. And we will all be searching for a lifeboat on this “unsinkable legislation”.
Damn the torpedoes and icebergs---full steam ahead.
Congressman Joe Barton, (R-TX) said this morning on America's Newsroom, (with Bill Hemmer and Martha McCallum working on Sunday, that the Democrats DO NOT have the 216 votes needed to pass ObamaCare. "Others", (including deputy whip Debbie Wasserman, (D-FL) have said they don't have the "hard numbers". Could Nancy Pelosi actually bring this legislation to the floor not knowing the final results? Pelosi has once before allowed a vote to go to the floor that got defeated back in September of 2008. This failure was the first of many government proposed bailouts to prop up Wall Street. Sources, back then said Pelosi may have been the major reason for its failure, because of a speech she made just days before the vote:
"Following the bill's failure, both parties embarked on a round of bitter finger-pointing. Congressional Republicans cited a speech by Ms. Pelosi on the House floor that blamed the economic crisis on years of Republican economic policies, including deregulation. "For too long this government, eight years, has followed a right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation," Rep. Pelosi said. "It has created not jobs, not capital; it has created chaos."Little did Ms. Pelosi know we would be revisiting her profound words today. While it's doubtful Ms. Pelosi will make the same mistake again today prior to this "historic vote", the above bolded quote could easily describe this first year of a Democrat controlled government. One of the best arguments in this healthcare debate has been the cost of another "big government" entitlement in an environment where unemployment hovers at 10% or higher. With national polls for months now showing a majority against the bill, Barack Obama and the Democrats have put all their eggs in this one basket, not only ignoring the will of the people, but having to spend every piece of political capital, (including taxpayer capital to purchase votes with backroom deals), to rein in Democrats within their own party.
The process for this historical legislation has been just as disruptive and corruptive as the substance. From the Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase, to the "deem and pass" and reconciliation, (that will take place just days after this vote), and the "fake, but accurate" legislation submitted to the CBO, the Democrats have invested their careers to pass this poorly crafted bill. Whether this nation can afford another government entitlement that will pile on billions more in national debt, including taxing an already fiscally strapped public will be decided in just a few short hours.
The Democrats will tell the public that they gave everyone seventy-two hours to decipher and decide the fate of this "new direction" designed to empower an already bloated government, and yet, even in the face of public opposition, they’re in a “damn the torpedoes/icebergs, full steam ahead modus. However the outcome after today, one thing is certain: change is coming---again. And we will all be searching for a lifeboat on this “unsinkable legislation”.
Friday, March 19, 2010
The Greatest American Swindle of the 21st Century---(Palin Update Added)
Liberal Democrats Make a Mockery of the Congressional Budget Office
For those of you who thought this story was about Bernie Madoff, think again. Although, there are distinct similarities to Madoff's Ponzi scheme---that bilked billions out of investors---the Democrats sent Douglas Elmendorf at the Congressional Budget Office, (CBO), the most creative and deceptive piece of legislation in U.S. history. In simple terms, the legislation sent to the CBO is frontloaded with projected revenues that includes cutting a half trillion from Medicare, borrowing imaginary funds from Social Security, and (this is the best one), begin collecting billions in new taxes and fines by mandating EVERY citizen in the United States own a health insurance policy. And to top all this off, your Democrat Congress is instructing the Internal Revenue Service, (IRS), to become the enforcement arm of collecting these new "revenues". If you think your accountant bills are out of line with the overhead in your small business, guess what, your accountant and the federal government is about to become your permanent partner.
But let’s return briefly to Mr. Elmendorf and his letter to Nancy Pelosi that “qualified” his scoring of the health care bill the House is about to pass. Elmendorf must have anguished for hours on how to make the CBO’s score not only look ridiculous, but how he might maintain the integrity of a once independent and impartial arm of congress. Here are a few excerpts prefacing the CBO’s score of H.R. 4872, the Reconciliation Act of 2010:
•“The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have completed a preliminary estimate of the direct spending and revenue effects of an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4872, the Reconciliation Act of 2010;”
•“…the [CBO] has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.
•“CBO has not completed an estimate of the potential impact of the legislation
on discretionary spending, which would be subject to future appropriation action.” NOTE: Non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending has risen 85 percent since the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives.
•“CBO has not extrapolated estimates further into the future because the uncertainties surrounding them are magnified even more.”
•“CBO has not yet completed an assessment of the impact for the longer term of enacting the reconciliation proposal by itself.”
Feel better? Mr. Elmendorf should have sent Mz. Pelosi a one sentence response to the information “her House” supplied----“You’ve got to be kidding?” Paul Ryan, ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee and a member of the House Ways and Means Committee explains Elmendorf’s dilemma in his address at the healthcare summit. The six minute video explicitly explains how the “garbage in---garbage out” theory works with this “historical” ponzi scheme:
“Since the Congressional Budget Office can't score your bill, because it doesn't have sufficient detail, but it tracks very similar to the Senate bill, I want to unpack the Senate score a little bit.
And if you take a look at the CBO analysis, analysis from your chief actuary, I think it's very revealing. This bill does not control costs. This bill does not reduce deficits. Instead, this bill adds a new health care entitlement at a time when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have.”……Paul Ryan
The problem is, Doug Elmendorf knows this. He also knows that his “preliminary estimate” released to Nancy Pelosi is chock full of “what ifs” and gimmicks purposely designed to make this bill appear to be affordable. When Ryan said, “The Senate Budget Committee chairman said that this is a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud”, you could hear a pin drop in the room where the President and Democrats completely understand their mission to turn the health care industry over to the Federal Government---by any means necessary---including the disingenuous accounting procedures the CBO received and scurrilously returned to an unsuspecting public. The shameful reality is this new entitlement about to pass has not only permanently disgraced the institution of the Congressional Budget Office, the procedures about to be used by the Democrats “to make history”, (in the face of a majority of Americans who have rejected this bill), will indeed be the most historical decline in how our government preforms their duties as a representative republic or what the framers intended.
From this point on, our dictionaries will describe “swindles and ponzi schemes” with an asterisk----*(see the 111th congress or Bernie Madoff for a simple explanation).
Update: Sarah Palin says: America – Be Heard or Brace for “Transformation”
(editor's note: I reserve the right to revise and extend)
Liberal Democrats Make a Mockery of the Congressional Budget Office
For those of you who thought this story was about Bernie Madoff, think again. Although, there are distinct similarities to Madoff's Ponzi scheme---that bilked billions out of investors---the Democrats sent Douglas Elmendorf at the Congressional Budget Office, (CBO), the most creative and deceptive piece of legislation in U.S. history. In simple terms, the legislation sent to the CBO is frontloaded with projected revenues that includes cutting a half trillion from Medicare, borrowing imaginary funds from Social Security, and (this is the best one), begin collecting billions in new taxes and fines by mandating EVERY citizen in the United States own a health insurance policy. And to top all this off, your Democrat Congress is instructing the Internal Revenue Service, (IRS), to become the enforcement arm of collecting these new "revenues". If you think your accountant bills are out of line with the overhead in your small business, guess what, your accountant and the federal government is about to become your permanent partner.
But let’s return briefly to Mr. Elmendorf and his letter to Nancy Pelosi that “qualified” his scoring of the health care bill the House is about to pass. Elmendorf must have anguished for hours on how to make the CBO’s score not only look ridiculous, but how he might maintain the integrity of a once independent and impartial arm of congress. Here are a few excerpts prefacing the CBO’s score of H.R. 4872, the Reconciliation Act of 2010:
•“The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have completed a preliminary estimate of the direct spending and revenue effects of an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4872, the Reconciliation Act of 2010;”
•“…the [CBO] has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.
•“CBO has not completed an estimate of the potential impact of the legislation
on discretionary spending, which would be subject to future appropriation action.” NOTE: Non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending has risen 85 percent since the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives.
•“CBO has not extrapolated estimates further into the future because the uncertainties surrounding them are magnified even more.”
•“CBO has not yet completed an assessment of the impact for the longer term of enacting the reconciliation proposal by itself.”
Feel better? Mr. Elmendorf should have sent Mz. Pelosi a one sentence response to the information “her House” supplied----“You’ve got to be kidding?” Paul Ryan, ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee and a member of the House Ways and Means Committee explains Elmendorf’s dilemma in his address at the healthcare summit. The six minute video explicitly explains how the “garbage in---garbage out” theory works with this “historical” ponzi scheme:
“Since the Congressional Budget Office can't score your bill, because it doesn't have sufficient detail, but it tracks very similar to the Senate bill, I want to unpack the Senate score a little bit.
And if you take a look at the CBO analysis, analysis from your chief actuary, I think it's very revealing. This bill does not control costs. This bill does not reduce deficits. Instead, this bill adds a new health care entitlement at a time when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have.”……Paul Ryan
The problem is, Doug Elmendorf knows this. He also knows that his “preliminary estimate” released to Nancy Pelosi is chock full of “what ifs” and gimmicks purposely designed to make this bill appear to be affordable. When Ryan said, “The Senate Budget Committee chairman said that this is a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud”, you could hear a pin drop in the room where the President and Democrats completely understand their mission to turn the health care industry over to the Federal Government---by any means necessary---including the disingenuous accounting procedures the CBO received and scurrilously returned to an unsuspecting public. The shameful reality is this new entitlement about to pass has not only permanently disgraced the institution of the Congressional Budget Office, the procedures about to be used by the Democrats “to make history”, (in the face of a majority of Americans who have rejected this bill), will indeed be the most historical decline in how our government preforms their duties as a representative republic or what the framers intended.
From this point on, our dictionaries will describe “swindles and ponzi schemes” with an asterisk----*(see the 111th congress or Bernie Madoff for a simple explanation).
Update: Sarah Palin says: America – Be Heard or Brace for “Transformation”
(editor's note: I reserve the right to revise and extend)
Monday, March 15, 2010
Senate Health Care Reconciliation---'Nuclear Option'---A Democratic Hypocrisy
As you watch this video, try to envision Democrats justifying the use of this procedure under their own objections, and with a majority of the nation firmly against this Health Care legislation.
Now, as to the liberals argument that Republicans have used reconciliation in the past on important legislation, reading the following letter, (written by a conservative friend), sent to Sean Hannity should put an end to these talking points:
Dear Mr. Hannity,
One of the things that annoys me is the apparent inability of conservative pundits, anchors, et.al., to respond appropriately when Democratic/liberal commentators cite an easily rebutted "fact."
Last night, Mr. Beckel, as he often does, cited a fact -- that Republicans had used reconciliation for welfare reform and most importantly, the Bush tax cuts of 2001. You and Cal Thomas simply sat there; there was no response.
And the impression this leaves for many viewers is that, yes, this is something both parties do; so find another argument. Democrats have been using this line on reconciliation for two or three weeks now, and I've yet to hear a conservative pundit respond with anything other than "it's not meant to be used for this." That's not enough; there's more to be said....and YOU should have been prepared to say it.
Now, I don't have a staff of researchers like you and Mr. Thomas; I am not able to devote all my working hours to considering the various arguments, researching facts, developing a position. But...as soon as Mr. Beckel said that the Republicans used reconciliation for the Bush tax cuts, I knew something was wrong. I knew that there was no huge debate about that process in 2001; and I knew that it was decidedly bipartisan.
And guess what, Mr. Hannity? It took me less than 5 minutes on the internet to discover the vote in the Senate was 58-33, with 2 Democrats voting present, 7 not voting, including Sen. Enzi. And famously, John voted against them. This was a decidedly bipartisan vote -- the following Democratic senators voted for the tax cuts:
Breaux, La
Carnahan, Mo
Cleland, Ga
Feinstein, Ca
Johnson, SD
Kohl, Wi
Landrieu, La
Lincoln, Ar
Nelson, Ne
(those last 3 are kind of ironic, aren't they?)
Toricelli, NJ
Zoe Miller, Ga
That's eleven Democrats...again I found that out in a couple of minutes. You should know it....and one other thing...how hard is to say that the public supported the Bush tax cuts, but they overwhelmingly reject this thing before us now? (As for the welfare reform, it was signed by a Democratic president, with large bipartisan majorities...at least one of you, you or Mr. Thomas. should have noted that....) If Obamacare is to be stopped, conservative pundits need to be fully prepared every time liberal spin floats through the air.
If there is even a chance at stopping this government power grab by these liberal "progressives", all of us must be prepared in the crucial days ahead.
As you watch this video, try to envision Democrats justifying the use of this procedure under their own objections, and with a majority of the nation firmly against this Health Care legislation.
Now, as to the liberals argument that Republicans have used reconciliation in the past on important legislation, reading the following letter, (written by a conservative friend), sent to Sean Hannity should put an end to these talking points:
Dear Mr. Hannity,
One of the things that annoys me is the apparent inability of conservative pundits, anchors, et.al., to respond appropriately when Democratic/liberal commentators cite an easily rebutted "fact."
Last night, Mr. Beckel, as he often does, cited a fact -- that Republicans had used reconciliation for welfare reform and most importantly, the Bush tax cuts of 2001. You and Cal Thomas simply sat there; there was no response.
And the impression this leaves for many viewers is that, yes, this is something both parties do; so find another argument. Democrats have been using this line on reconciliation for two or three weeks now, and I've yet to hear a conservative pundit respond with anything other than "it's not meant to be used for this." That's not enough; there's more to be said....and YOU should have been prepared to say it.
Now, I don't have a staff of researchers like you and Mr. Thomas; I am not able to devote all my working hours to considering the various arguments, researching facts, developing a position. But...as soon as Mr. Beckel said that the Republicans used reconciliation for the Bush tax cuts, I knew something was wrong. I knew that there was no huge debate about that process in 2001; and I knew that it was decidedly bipartisan.
And guess what, Mr. Hannity? It took me less than 5 minutes on the internet to discover the vote in the Senate was 58-33, with 2 Democrats voting present, 7 not voting, including Sen. Enzi. And famously, John voted against them. This was a decidedly bipartisan vote -- the following Democratic senators voted for the tax cuts:
Breaux, La
Carnahan, Mo
Cleland, Ga
Feinstein, Ca
Johnson, SD
Kohl, Wi
Landrieu, La
Lincoln, Ar
Nelson, Ne
(those last 3 are kind of ironic, aren't they?)
Toricelli, NJ
Zoe Miller, Ga
That's eleven Democrats...again I found that out in a couple of minutes. You should know it....and one other thing...how hard is to say that the public supported the Bush tax cuts, but they overwhelmingly reject this thing before us now? (As for the welfare reform, it was signed by a Democratic president, with large bipartisan majorities...at least one of you, you or Mr. Thomas. should have noted that....) If Obamacare is to be stopped, conservative pundits need to be fully prepared every time liberal spin floats through the air.
If there is even a chance at stopping this government power grab by these liberal "progressives", all of us must be prepared in the crucial days ahead.
Monday, March 08, 2010
FINALLY! THE ACADEMY AWARDS: A NATION'S LAST GASP OF ESCAPING REALITY
As the national media turned its full attention to Hollywood’s last and best awards ceremony, the Academy Awards, the addiction of grasping onto fantasy and the art of creationalism will finally subside. For almost a quarter of a year, the "producers" have created a built-in barrage of self-adulation, glorification, aggrandizement, and exaltation, all in the name of movie-making. From the Golden Globes, SAGs, Peoples Choice, Oscars, Cannes, and Emmys, America's fascination with the art of movie-making and mounting "the stars" on pedestals has held millions captive in the industry of make believe. From the beginning of the silver screen, to the advent of television, many Americans are addicted to the movies that either touch our lives or reflect the way we would choose to live given a different or alternative choice.
There was a distinct difference between the two frontrunners for last nights "best picture"; one a brutal reality of today's war against terrorism and weapon of choice to spread the fear, the IED. While the other is another love story thrust into the future with 21st century technology, along with the typical anti-capitalist theme of pitting man against the mean and greedy corporations, (publically owned companies). Of course, we all know that 90% of Hollywood is made up of unionized corporations, with Walt Disney/ABC one of the largest in the world. Speaking of corporate shake-downs, Disney/ABC held out to the bitter end before Cablevision agreed to pay the network fees, fifteen minutes into the Oscar ceremonies. In LA county alone, there are some of the largest corporations in the nation---Northrop Grumman, Occidental Petroleum, Edison International to name a few----yet they, (the shareholders), must get a kick out of the movie Avatar pitting the “unfortunate” against a mean evil corporation. But, the producers and directors will remind all of us "it's just a movie", purely fictional entertainment, unlike the docu-drama, “an inconvenient truth” that was based of “factual consensus”. The hypocritical elites in Hollywood wouldn’t dream of exalting a lie to promote an agenda. How could they possibly charge advertisers superbowl rates with out legitimacy? But wouldn't an industry, that survives on "making things up", have a hard time using the word "legitimate" in describing their trade? Maybe if the folks in the New York area that were going to be blacked out might have passed up on the Oscars when they understand the price of their cable is about to go up to pay for a capitalistic greedy move by Disney/ABC. But that’s far too much reality for the folks in Hollywood busy passing out their golden trophies. Even the first woman to ever win a directors award had to exalt her gentlemen peers while accepting her award, calling them “the most powerful”. Did you see how important it was for her to be a part of "the club"?
For a moment there, I forgot she was a woman……as a tingle shot up my leg.
Next up: Withdrawals and Rehabs---a post Oscar Hospital Guide for actors with untaxed Cadillac Plans.
(Editor’s note: this is a draft only----revisions will be expected.)
As the national media turned its full attention to Hollywood’s last and best awards ceremony, the Academy Awards, the addiction of grasping onto fantasy and the art of creationalism will finally subside. For almost a quarter of a year, the "producers" have created a built-in barrage of self-adulation, glorification, aggrandizement, and exaltation, all in the name of movie-making. From the Golden Globes, SAGs, Peoples Choice, Oscars, Cannes, and Emmys, America's fascination with the art of movie-making and mounting "the stars" on pedestals has held millions captive in the industry of make believe. From the beginning of the silver screen, to the advent of television, many Americans are addicted to the movies that either touch our lives or reflect the way we would choose to live given a different or alternative choice.
There was a distinct difference between the two frontrunners for last nights "best picture"; one a brutal reality of today's war against terrorism and weapon of choice to spread the fear, the IED. While the other is another love story thrust into the future with 21st century technology, along with the typical anti-capitalist theme of pitting man against the mean and greedy corporations, (publically owned companies). Of course, we all know that 90% of Hollywood is made up of unionized corporations, with Walt Disney/ABC one of the largest in the world. Speaking of corporate shake-downs, Disney/ABC held out to the bitter end before Cablevision agreed to pay the network fees, fifteen minutes into the Oscar ceremonies. In LA county alone, there are some of the largest corporations in the nation---Northrop Grumman, Occidental Petroleum, Edison International to name a few----yet they, (the shareholders), must get a kick out of the movie Avatar pitting the “unfortunate” against a mean evil corporation. But, the producers and directors will remind all of us "it's just a movie", purely fictional entertainment, unlike the docu-drama, “an inconvenient truth” that was based of “factual consensus”. The hypocritical elites in Hollywood wouldn’t dream of exalting a lie to promote an agenda. How could they possibly charge advertisers superbowl rates with out legitimacy? But wouldn't an industry, that survives on "making things up", have a hard time using the word "legitimate" in describing their trade? Maybe if the folks in the New York area that were going to be blacked out might have passed up on the Oscars when they understand the price of their cable is about to go up to pay for a capitalistic greedy move by Disney/ABC. But that’s far too much reality for the folks in Hollywood busy passing out their golden trophies. Even the first woman to ever win a directors award had to exalt her gentlemen peers while accepting her award, calling them “the most powerful”. Did you see how important it was for her to be a part of "the club"?
For a moment there, I forgot she was a woman……as a tingle shot up my leg.
Next up: Withdrawals and Rehabs---a post Oscar Hospital Guide for actors with untaxed Cadillac Plans.
(Editor’s note: this is a draft only----revisions will be expected.)
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Obama, Democrats: The American Public is Too Stupid to Know What's Good For Them---HealthCare Bill to Pass with Reconciliation
In an outright defiance of public opinion, according to Jake Trapper, President Obama is continuing his plans to force Americans to accept his HealthCare legislation by threatening to use reconciliation, also called the nuclear option. By bypassing the 2/3's majority required for cloture in the Senate, the president will ask the Senate to use a simple majority rule to take control of the largest government entitlement since Social Security. The Social Security program, (that the government raids yearly to fund other programs), is already in serious trouble. Add this in with a record breaking 12.5 trillion national debt, many Americans are asking who really is in charge of this fiscal insanity? The answer is a democrat controlled congress marching lockstep with the president, risking their political futures in defying the will of a public majority. Instead, Trapper says "its full steam ahead":
With so much anti-Washington grassroots rejection of a big government attempting to get bigger, and even moderate Republicans fighting to keep their jobs, what the President and the Democrats plan on doing with this health care legislation---cramming it down the publics throat---many Democrats will certainly be looking for new job in November. It's no wonder the jobs bill is sailing through congress with little resistance. But, according to our President, we're too stupid to understand what's in our best interest.
In an outright defiance of public opinion, according to Jake Trapper, President Obama is continuing his plans to force Americans to accept his HealthCare legislation by threatening to use reconciliation, also called the nuclear option. By bypassing the 2/3's majority required for cloture in the Senate, the president will ask the Senate to use a simple majority rule to take control of the largest government entitlement since Social Security. The Social Security program, (that the government raids yearly to fund other programs), is already in serious trouble. Add this in with a record breaking 12.5 trillion national debt, many Americans are asking who really is in charge of this fiscal insanity? The answer is a democrat controlled congress marching lockstep with the president, risking their political futures in defying the will of a public majority. Instead, Trapper says "its full steam ahead":
"White House officials tell ABC News that in his remarks tomorrow President Obama will indicate a willingness to work with Republicans on some issue to get a health care reform bill passed but will suggest that if it is necessary, Democrats will use the controversial "reconciliation" rules requiring only 51 Senate votes to pass the "fix" to the Senate bill, as opposed to the 60 votes to stop a filibuster and proceed to a vote on a bill." linkWith congressional approval rating at historical lows, and the anti-Washington sentiment growing over the past year with Obama's out of control spending policies, Democrats appear to be putting themselves on the endangered species list. Yesterday's majority victory by Texas governor Rick Perry further signaled the general public’s rejection of Washington's plans for a government controlled health care system, adding another entitlement to the list of broken programs. Perry's campaign victory last night was predicated on the country's rejection of Washington politics, even against "safe" Republicans with moderate conservative voting records:
‘Yes’ for Texas Governor Is ‘No’ to Washington
HOUSTON — Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison had all the advantages a year ago when she laid her plans to run for governor: a high popularity rating, a party shaken by President Obama’s victory, a big bankroll and, most important, the backing of influential Republicans, who felt the incumbent governor, Rick Perry, was too divisive and too conservative.
But by the time Republican voters went to the polls here in a primary on Tuesday, the political ground had shifted under Senator Hutchison, who lost in a three-way race to Mr. Perry.......
........."The Republican primary in Texas reflects the grass-roots rebellion among conservatives against moderate Republicans and Democrats that has shaken up politics across the country, beginning with the defeat of the Democratic candidate for Senate in Massachusetts by Scott Brown, a Republican......
In California, for instance, the longtime Democratic senator, Barbara Boxer, is facing her toughest challenge in years from a field of three Republicans......
In Florida, Gov. Charlie Crist, a centrist Republican, is facing a strong challenge to his bid for the United States Senate from a more conservative candidate, Marco Rubio. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, once considered unbeatable, has a primary challenge from a conservative talk-show host, J. D. Hayworth. And in Kentucky, Rand Paul, son of Representative Ron Paul, the Texas libertarian, is giving the Republican establishment a rough ride." link
With so much anti-Washington grassroots rejection of a big government attempting to get bigger, and even moderate Republicans fighting to keep their jobs, what the President and the Democrats plan on doing with this health care legislation---cramming it down the publics throat---many Democrats will certainly be looking for new job in November. It's no wonder the jobs bill is sailing through congress with little resistance. But, according to our President, we're too stupid to understand what's in our best interest.
Friday, February 26, 2010
The Morning After---A Health Care Summit Hang-over
Analysis
For those of you conservative political junkies that sat through the seven hour drama of President Obama’s Health Care Summit, a big high five. Understanding the stakes involved, (with Obama’s last attempt to re-apply another shade of lipstick), conservatives, strict constitutionalist, independents, and libertarians nervously waited to see whether the Democrats would own the “table of ideas”.
Watching the President’s favored cable news network, (MSNBC), this morning, it seemed there was a consensus that the President and the Democrats did not fair so well in their last attempt to sell the general public on the idea that the government knows best how to make your daily health care choices. Pitting themselves as the champions against the mean and powerful insurance companies, the Democrats appeared to be on the defensive, while Republicans hammered away at the process and contents of the twenty-seven hundred page bill filled with state mandates, unsavory backroom deals, and CBO contradictions.
But the Republicans came far more prepared than they did in the Baltimore “chat” where the President had far more control of the conversation leaving Republicans with little chance to rebut President Obama’s polished rhetoric. Senator Lamar Alexander was given the honor of beginning the opening salvo that set the table for the positions Republicans would carry throughout the day:
But, let us digress for a moment. In the coined words of the folks at Fox New, to be “fair and balanced”, the Democrats also came to the summit prepared to defend their beleaguered legislation that has become like a jetliner waiting to take off in a blizzard with far too much ice on their wings. Let’s put one “debate” to rest here and now: the Democrats are the undisputed champions when it comes to presenting sob stories. From the Speaker of the House, (Nancy Pelosi), and the Senate Majority Leader, (Harry, I can top that one, Reid), almost every Democrat marched out a plethora of sob stories reaching deep into the emotionalism of the signature liberal’s playbook. Straight from the mid-nineties days of the Gingrich Republican takeover, the Democrats would march to the floor with their mantra of “these mean Republicans are taking food from the mouths of babies” as they sold their sob stories to the public of opinion----and won.
But this time, and in this venue, their ploy of presenting the plight of “the downtrodden” seemed to fall on deaf ears. With close to 80% of the public's satisfaction with their current health care needs, and the safety nets already provided by our government to catch those who were uninsured, Republicans presented the classic argument of an overbearing government intruding into the realm of individual choice and the constitutional liberties our founding fathers wrote to restrict the powers of each branch of government.
Dave Camp (R) Michigan, said the Republicans met several times prior to this summit to split up the crucial points that were to be presented. To maximize their valuable time, they covered each others arguments so that nothing was repetitive of another’s presentation. By using this method, the Republicans came prepared, (this time), to sift threw the Democrat’s rhetoric. It was truly a collective and well organized effort. Congressman Paul Ryan, (R) Wisconsin---the guru of fiscal and budget management---was stellar in his presentation attacking the CBO along with the Democrats plan to “double dip” Medicare to provide “real funds” intended to pay for a portion of the bill:
My new friend Neurosculptor, (a commenter here on Hot Air), and I, had a civil debate the other night on whether the Republicans should have even attended this meeting. Neurosculptor presented excellent arguments against the Republican’s attendance emphasizing, (if I may), that this summit would serve the Democrats and Obama with a revival of a program we all thought should be long dead and buried. My point was the argument that if the Republicans did not attend the summit, there would be more damage incurred by our Party with the cameras on the President, Democrats, and half the room filled with empty chairs. I also submitted that IF the Republicans came to the summit FULLY PREPARED, the “damage” could be either manageable or ever better, a “look” for the public to see Republicans have always had ideas and input into the process, putting an end to the Democrat’s rhetoric calling the Pubs, the party of no.
The questions will remain in the weeks ahead what the viewing public saw or perceived. It is my opinion that the public saw the President and the Democrats in a defensive posture with their emotional sob stories, ("I can tell you many stories as I travel the country where I've seen grown men cry."….Nancy Pelosi), and finally President Obama’s ending “threat”:
Analysis
For those of you conservative political junkies that sat through the seven hour drama of President Obama’s Health Care Summit, a big high five. Understanding the stakes involved, (with Obama’s last attempt to re-apply another shade of lipstick), conservatives, strict constitutionalist, independents, and libertarians nervously waited to see whether the Democrats would own the “table of ideas”.
Watching the President’s favored cable news network, (MSNBC), this morning, it seemed there was a consensus that the President and the Democrats did not fair so well in their last attempt to sell the general public on the idea that the government knows best how to make your daily health care choices. Pitting themselves as the champions against the mean and powerful insurance companies, the Democrats appeared to be on the defensive, while Republicans hammered away at the process and contents of the twenty-seven hundred page bill filled with state mandates, unsavory backroom deals, and CBO contradictions.
But the Republicans came far more prepared than they did in the Baltimore “chat” where the President had far more control of the conversation leaving Republicans with little chance to rebut President Obama’s polished rhetoric. Senator Lamar Alexander was given the honor of beginning the opening salvo that set the table for the positions Republicans would carry throughout the day:
“Now, you've presented ideas. There's an 11-page memo on the -- I think it's important for people to understand there's not a presidential bill. There are good suggestions and ideas on the Web. We've made our ideas. But it's said -- it's a lot like the Senate bill. It has more taxes, more subsidies, more spending. So what that means is, that when it's written it will be 2,700 pages, more or less, which means it will probably have a lot of surprises in it. It means it will cut Medicare by about half a trillion dollars, and spend most of that on new programs, not on Medicare and making it stronger, even though it's going broke in 2015. It means there will be about a half trillion dollars of new taxes in it. It means that for millions of Americans premiums will go up because those -- when people pay those new taxes, premiums will go up -- they will also go up because of the government mandates.”Alexander goes on to point out more controversial substances in the bill, and then produces the “challenge” to the President and the Democrats with their intention to pass this legislation using reconciliation, (also called the nuclear option), where only fifty-one votes are required in the Senate to send it on for Obama’s signature:
“Now, in conclusion, I have a suggestion and a request for how to make this a bipartisan and truly productive session. And I hope that those who are here will agree I've got a pretty good record of working across party lines and of supporting the President when I believe he's right, even though other members of my party might not on that occasion. And my request is this, is before we go further today, that the Democratic congressional leaders and you, Mr. President, renounce this idea of going back to the Congress and jamming through on a bipartisan -- I mean, on a partisan vote through a little-used process we call reconciliation, your version of the bill. You can say that this process has been used before, and that would be right, but it's never been used for anything like this. It's not appropriate to use to write the rules for 17 percent of the economy. Senator Byrd, who is the constitutional historian of the Senate, has said that it would be an outrage to run the health care bill through the Senate like a freight train with this process.”By using the last “respected senior democrat”, (after Kennedy’s passing), as an example of what could become a fierce battle by Senators in the weeks ahead, Alexander set the table for what the Democrats may be looking at if they use this procedure.
But, let us digress for a moment. In the coined words of the folks at Fox New, to be “fair and balanced”, the Democrats also came to the summit prepared to defend their beleaguered legislation that has become like a jetliner waiting to take off in a blizzard with far too much ice on their wings. Let’s put one “debate” to rest here and now: the Democrats are the undisputed champions when it comes to presenting sob stories. From the Speaker of the House, (Nancy Pelosi), and the Senate Majority Leader, (Harry, I can top that one, Reid), almost every Democrat marched out a plethora of sob stories reaching deep into the emotionalism of the signature liberal’s playbook. Straight from the mid-nineties days of the Gingrich Republican takeover, the Democrats would march to the floor with their mantra of “these mean Republicans are taking food from the mouths of babies” as they sold their sob stories to the public of opinion----and won.
But this time, and in this venue, their ploy of presenting the plight of “the downtrodden” seemed to fall on deaf ears. With close to 80% of the public's satisfaction with their current health care needs, and the safety nets already provided by our government to catch those who were uninsured, Republicans presented the classic argument of an overbearing government intruding into the realm of individual choice and the constitutional liberties our founding fathers wrote to restrict the powers of each branch of government.
Dave Camp (R) Michigan, said the Republicans met several times prior to this summit to split up the crucial points that were to be presented. To maximize their valuable time, they covered each others arguments so that nothing was repetitive of another’s presentation. By using this method, the Republicans came prepared, (this time), to sift threw the Democrat’s rhetoric. It was truly a collective and well organized effort. Congressman Paul Ryan, (R) Wisconsin---the guru of fiscal and budget management---was stellar in his presentation attacking the CBO along with the Democrats plan to “double dip” Medicare to provide “real funds” intended to pay for a portion of the bill:
“Look, we agree on the problem here. And the problem is health inflation is driving us off of a fiscal cliff.No one in the Democratic Party, (or even the President), really want to take on Ryan, (mano a mano), when arguing budgetary matters or the ponzi game the Democrats are playing with the Medicare figures. It’s a losing proposition and they know it.
Mr. President, you said health care reform is budget reform. You're right. We agree with that. Medicare, right now, has a $38 trillion unfunded liability. That's $38 trillion in empty promises to my parents' generation, our generation, our kids' generation. Medicaid's growing at 21 percent each year. It's suffocating states' budgets. It's adding trillions in obligations that we have no means to pay for it………..
……..Now, when you take a look at what this does, is, according to the chief actuary of Medicare, he's saying as much as 20 percent of Medicare's providers will either go out of business or will have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries. Millions of seniors who are on -- who have chosen Medicare Advantage will lose the coverage that they now enjoy.
You can't say that you're using this money to either extend Medicare solvency, and also offset the cost of this new program. That's double counting.”
My new friend Neurosculptor, (a commenter here on Hot Air), and I, had a civil debate the other night on whether the Republicans should have even attended this meeting. Neurosculptor presented excellent arguments against the Republican’s attendance emphasizing, (if I may), that this summit would serve the Democrats and Obama with a revival of a program we all thought should be long dead and buried. My point was the argument that if the Republicans did not attend the summit, there would be more damage incurred by our Party with the cameras on the President, Democrats, and half the room filled with empty chairs. I also submitted that IF the Republicans came to the summit FULLY PREPARED, the “damage” could be either manageable or ever better, a “look” for the public to see Republicans have always had ideas and input into the process, putting an end to the Democrat’s rhetoric calling the Pubs, the party of no.
The questions will remain in the weeks ahead what the viewing public saw or perceived. It is my opinion that the public saw the President and the Democrats in a defensive posture with their emotional sob stories, ("I can tell you many stories as I travel the country where I've seen grown men cry."….Nancy Pelosi), and finally President Obama’s ending “threat”:
"The question I'm going to ask myself and I ask of all of you, is there enough serious effort that in a month's time or a few week's time or six weeks' time, we could actually resolve something. And if we can't, we've got to go ahead and make some decisions."President Obama’s right about one thing he’s over-looked along with his Party-----most Americans think this legislation belongs in the obituaries of political history. R.I P.
…….“I think most Americans think that a majority vote makes sense.”
Monday, February 22, 2010
No CBO Score On Obama's Plan
New ObamaCare bill: Are you ready for price controls on insurance premiums? Update: CBO can’t score bill this weekposted at 11:45 am on February 22, 2010 by Allahpundit
New ObamaCare bill: Are you ready for price controls on insurance premiums? Update: CBO can’t score bill this weekposted at 11:45 am on February 22, 2010 by Allahpundit
Friday, February 19, 2010
Rush Limbaugh Introduces Ed Morrissey---CPAC Blogger of the Year
(via Townhall.com)
Congratulations to "Captain" Ed Morrissey. Extra special thanks to Michelle and Jesse Malkin who created Hot Air, and brought Ed on board with the omnipresent Allahpundit. Together, this duo took Hot Air to the top of its game---into the top ten conservative websites on the Net.
(via Townhall.com)
Congratulations to "Captain" Ed Morrissey. Extra special thanks to Michelle and Jesse Malkin who created Hot Air, and brought Ed on board with the omnipresent Allahpundit. Together, this duo took Hot Air to the top of its game---into the top ten conservative websites on the Net.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Friday, February 05, 2010
Is Social Security In Trouble?It seems the day has come a little earier than we thought. Our government has played with the account for years now, and the piper's callin' in the note('s).
Social Security tipping over into the red (by Ed Morrissey)
"Last month, we noted that Social Security had delivered its worst performance in decades. Now, Allen Sloan warns investors at Yahoo Finance that the entire program has gone into the red — and will stay there. Get ready, Sloan says, for the mother of all bailouts".....:Now let's all stand and cheer for obstructing the first President since Social Security's inception to attempt to put the the program on a survival course. And they're calling Republicans "the party of no" when they were told "this problem is not going away"...... George W. Bush.
Up next: North Carolina thinks "The Constitution Isn't Needed in High School"
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Punxsutawney Phil Sees New Historical Shadow of Debt---Predicting Three More Years of Democrat Spending
2010 Elections Could Be a Reprieve From Insane Spending Practices
Punxsutawney Phil, the legendary weather predictor, came out and saw a different shadow today. It was a dark shadow of national debt, brought about by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and a Democrat administration hell bent on spending future generations into eternal debt. The President's release of a 3.8 TRILLION DOLLAR BUDGET---yes, with a big T, prompted reprisals from thousands across the political spectrum---conservative democrats, libertarians, independents and leading economist.
Barack Obama is banking on a group of us to reach out to the liberal democrats in a sign of compromise and unity for the greater good of this nation. The plan is simple. Reach into the basket of poisonous fruit, and satisfy the hunger of government dependency---the shackles that binds the soul of every American yearning for liberty and freedom.
But there is another road, less traveled, yet far more dangerous to the liberal agenda. The grassroots wave of fiscal conservatism is flowing across this nation. The evidence has already taken place in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. While the media and the Obama administration deny this is a referendum on the spending policies driving this nation into bankruptcy, citizens from every region in this country understand that real change is coming to rein in this runaway government and the socialist policies of an ideology of elitism and collectivism.
Obama's redistribution of wealth is the mirror of communism, where society pays at the cost of free will and choice. When a representative republic is no longer governed by its electorate, only the ruling class will prevail. This is your status quo leadership running this nation into debt and dependency; Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, et al, who claim they are representing the middle class and the downtrodden, the poor, and the disadvantaged, all under the guise of destroying free market principals that distinguished this nation from all others.
Punxsutawney Phil saw this today as he arose from his stump to foresee the weather. Instead Phil saw a much greater threat than six more weeks of winter. The cold hard truth is that Phil's cage and dependency may become our reality.
2010 Elections Could Be a Reprieve From Insane Spending Practices
Punxsutawney Phil, the legendary weather predictor, came out and saw a different shadow today. It was a dark shadow of national debt, brought about by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and a Democrat administration hell bent on spending future generations into eternal debt. The President's release of a 3.8 TRILLION DOLLAR BUDGET---yes, with a big T, prompted reprisals from thousands across the political spectrum---conservative democrats, libertarians, independents and leading economist.Barack Obama is banking on a group of us to reach out to the liberal democrats in a sign of compromise and unity for the greater good of this nation. The plan is simple. Reach into the basket of poisonous fruit, and satisfy the hunger of government dependency---the shackles that binds the soul of every American yearning for liberty and freedom.
But there is another road, less traveled, yet far more dangerous to the liberal agenda. The grassroots wave of fiscal conservatism is flowing across this nation. The evidence has already taken place in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. While the media and the Obama administration deny this is a referendum on the spending policies driving this nation into bankruptcy, citizens from every region in this country understand that real change is coming to rein in this runaway government and the socialist policies of an ideology of elitism and collectivism.
Obama's redistribution of wealth is the mirror of communism, where society pays at the cost of free will and choice. When a representative republic is no longer governed by its electorate, only the ruling class will prevail. This is your status quo leadership running this nation into debt and dependency; Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, et al, who claim they are representing the middle class and the downtrodden, the poor, and the disadvantaged, all under the guise of destroying free market principals that distinguished this nation from all others.
Punxsutawney Phil saw this today as he arose from his stump to foresee the weather. Instead Phil saw a much greater threat than six more weeks of winter. The cold hard truth is that Phil's cage and dependency may become our reality.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Is it Time to Flush This Healthcare Bill Down the Toilet?
Now that Harry Reid has survived his “Macaca moment”, and will remain the Senate Majority Leader, (until November), the pundits can retire this distraction and return to the fiscal madness of a still unwanted healthcare bill.
Reid had to come out from behind his closed-door meetings with Pelosi and the Democrat caucuses to apologize to his President for describing then candidate Barack Obama as a light-skinned man with a politically correct dialect. With the liberal media describing his gaffe as "un-artful language" and the rest of his party “circling the wagons” around their beleaguered leader, Reid says all is forgiven---boasting "the President has forgiven him and the book is closed". You could say that Harry Reid had “acted stupidly” while deferring his beer summit for a later date. As this classic double standard materialized, Democrats quickly mobilized to limit the potential damage that could have put a damper on the completion of their national health care disaster.
With the latest Rassmussen poll showing 57% of Americans believing this current healthcare legislation will raise costs and only 17% that think it will reduce costs, (and the new threat of losing the Massachusetts senate seat), Reid and Pelosi are working overtime to pass this poorly crafted bill. Harry and Nancy are still trying to get their "ducks lined up"(with further payoffs and "let's make a deal" legislation), to reach the final tally to pass the most unhealthy piece of legislation in U.S. history. To make matters worse, one of the Democrats' largest campaign contributors, the unions, were threatening to pull their support, but now appear to have reached an agreement to defer their Cadillac increases into the future. Sound familiar?
President Obama had indicated he wanted this bill completed in time for his state of the union address to the nation. With his personal approval numbers tanking below 50% along with nearly 60% of the country claiming we are going in the wrong direction, it’s certainly hard to tell if this legislation will be worth touting as a B+ event. Both sides of the political theater are now claiming the bill is nothing short of windfall for insurance companies and pharmaceuticals in exchange for political donations in next years election cycle---all under the deception of reducing health care cost.
Democrats are gambling that the youth vote, (who swallowed the hope and change fantasy), won't turn out to show their disgust of forcing them into purchasing health insurance with the threat of fines and imprisonment. On the other side of the voting spectrum, seniors are set to have their health care plans decimated with massive cuts in Medicare and Medicare Advantage while their backstabbing "advocates” at the AARP see a financial windfall selling policies. Sweetheart deals passed out to selected states to keep party Democrats loyal, (buying votes with taxpayer dollars), has angered voters to the point where they promise to return to the voting booths with a vengeance. Barack Obama has already lost his argument/proclamation that the middle class will not be affected by this debacle. Look for both Obama and the Democrats to begin their rhetorical spin that "this national healthcare crisis" is the single most devastating cost on every American's future as they stake their claim that "this is the best they can do" with no support from Republicans. The Democrats want the public to ignore the fact that millions will be required to buy health insurance, (at a cost between $8-$12 thousand per year), who are either unemployed or barely making their monthly budgets. Home foreclosures are still running rampant as fuel prices are steadily heading back into the $4.00 per gallon range. All this while the liberal media claims we’re on the road to recovery.
Add all this to the soaring national debt and deficit spending the Democrats own by passing the Pelosi Porkulus---the 787 billion dollar stimulus bill that was supposed to keep unemployment under 8%---and a 2010 budget of over 1.1 trillion, it's no wonder that consumers are not looking forward to begin paying for health care expenditures for three years, in advance of receiving any benefits. While Obama claimed the stimulus bill was passed to “save or create” jobs, many are wondering what is the repetitive purpose of Pelosi’s 155 billion jobs bill. This stunt reminds me of the period when California was at the heights of their housing boom and some bureaucrat came up with the bright idea to force contractors to install toilets that allowed a smaller volume of water per flush. The only problem, it took two flushes to send the same excrement down the hole. But double-dipping/flushing appears to be standard procedure for the Democrat’s spending policies.
It’s time to flush this health care bill and send Democrats the message that this nation can not afford these reckless spending policies poorly designed for political gain at the expense of every taxpaying citizen desperately searching for financial relief. The alternative is to expect populism politics as usual from Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and their septic supporters imposing what will be nothing short of a national disaster. Every one of us needs to call/email our representatives and various swing Dems (e.g., Lincoln), and leave the stern message that both their constituents and American citizens are watching this fiscal insanity unfold, and will remember in November. Flush and repeat as necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)