Regardless of how you view the Nov. 2, 2010 election results, we still have the future to worry about; and one of the most worrisome features of Congress is the concept of “earmarks” a/k/a “pork barrel projects.” I suggest that earmarks constitute the most divisive, dishonest and dangerous of procedures threatening the republic. Why do I say that? Continue reading “Time for a non-partisan attack to eliminate earmarks”
The audacity of hope and change: take a policy like Obama-care that 70% of the country rails against, cram it down the throats of Congress and the populace, have FORMER Speaker Polosi state “we have to pass it first and then see what’s in it,” and NOW the President wants bipartisanship! That’s audacious at best. As we used to say on the bridge of the aircraft carrier, “all ahead flank, right full rudder ….” Continue reading “NOW he wants bipartisanship in Congress”
Sen. Everett Dirksen, in the 1950’s on the floor of the U.S. Senate during budget debates, is said to have quipped “a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon it adds up to real money.” It is now well-accepted that he did not actually make that statement so often attributed to him, but he was well capable of saying such, and likely should have. So what would he think about the current spending spree? Who is at fault? It’s Congress (led by the nose by Pres. Obama) and while the following article (which appears to have the facts) faults more the currently Democrat-led Congress, neither party can claim to have been fiscally responsible in recent decades.
A little-known fact is that federal spending rose by only 2.8% during fiscal 2007 under the final budget passed by a Republican Congress. I know, zero percent would have been preferable, and it was way too little and too late for a bunch that had let spending grow way too quickly during the previous five years.
Then came the Democrats. Spending during the fiscal year that ended in September 2008, the first full budget year under the control of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, increased by 9.1% to almost $3 trillion. That percentage increase was greater than any Republican Congress under George W. Bush.
They were just warming up. Fiscal 2009 brought the beginning of the $787 billion (before interest) “economic stimulus plan.” All but those in serious denial acknowledge that it has failed to revive the economy, which economist David Rosenberg described on August 25 as already being in a depression. Despite representations to the contrary, the stimulus plan had 9,000 earmarks, including that $2 billion Illinois energy debacle. More generally, entitlement and other spending went into overdrive. Fiscal 2009 ended with a reported deficit of $1.416 trillion.
via Pajamas Media » It’s the Spending, Stupid. (The above links are mine)
Where does it end? When? What does it take for us (you) to get mad enough to make your voice heard? If the general idea of spending doesn’t get your dander up, focus on the following comment from the above article:
Despite representations to the contrary, the stimulus plan had 9,000 earmarks, including that $2 billion Illinois energy debacle. More generally, entitlement and other spending went into overdrive. Fiscal 2009 ended with a reported deficit of $1.416 trillion.
This is great. Read the whole piece. It’s an adaptation from an article written in the 80’s but still quite relevant. Perhaps even more so, embellished by Jon Stewart.
545 PEOPLE — By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits? Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
TORONTO (Reuters) – Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada’s provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.
Could it be, possibly, that Congress really screwed themselves, themselves, in the health insurance bill? Not to be mean … well, at least not unfairly so … one can only hope. Notice the categories into which I slot this piece.
In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members.
For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available.
The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?
Like lemmings into the sea…. Read it next time!
Excellent WSJ article on (a) increasing corporate analyses of the effects of “ObamaCare” on companies (and ultimately YOUR pocketbook), and (b) Congressional anger at corporate America reporting those effects, as required by SEC regulations.
Commerce Secretary Gary Locke took to the White House blog to write that while ObamaCare is great for business, “In the last few days, though, we have seen a couple of companies imply that reform will raise costs for them.” In a Thursday interview on CNBC, Mr. Locke said “for them to come out, I think is premature and irresponsible.”
Meanwhile, Henry Waxman and House Democrats announced yesterday that they will haul these companies in for an April 21 hearing because their judgment “appears to conflict with independent analyses, which show that the new law will expand coverage and bring down costs.”
In other words, shoot the messenger. Black-letter financial accounting rules require that corporations immediately restate their earnings to reflect the present value of their long-term health liabilities, including a higher tax burden. Should these companies have played chicken with the Securities and Exchange Commission to avoid this politically inconvenient reality? Democrats don’t like what their bill is doing in the real world, so they now want to intimidate CEOs into keeping quiet. (emphasis added)
via The ObamaCare Writedowns – WSJ.com. (Accessed 3/28/2010)
Where have we seen suppression of dissent before?
I do not like it Uncle Sam, I do not like it Sam I am. I do not like these dirty crooks, neither how they cook the books. I do not like when Congress steals, I do not like their secret deals. I do not like this Speaker Nan, I do not like this “YES WE CAN!” I do not like this kind of hope, I do not like it, nope, nope, ……NOPE!
Shamelessly lifted from Marc Bittner’s FB posting who lifted it from someone else, who lifted it from … and so on. But it’s too good not to preserve.
The Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine combined the radicalism of Alinsky, the corruption of Springfield and the machine power politics of Chicago.
Sunday was a pressured, bought, intimidated vote worthy of Hugo Chavez but unworthy of the United States of America.
It is hard to imagine how much pressure they brought to bear on congressman Stupak to get him to accept a cynical, phony clearly illegal and unconstitutional executive order on abortion. The ruthlessness and inhumanity of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine was most clearly on display in their public humiliation of Stupak.
The real principles of the machine were articulated by Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings who was impeached and removed from the bench as a federal judge, before being elected to the House when he said “”There ain’t no rules here, we’re trying to accomplish something. . . .All this talk about rules. . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make ’em up as we go along.”
The comment of (impeached and removed) judge Hastings is the most despicable example of what happened, and why.
OK, pay attention now. This is not a pro-life/pro-choice argument. Both sides of that issue should be concerned about this issue. What is the issue? We’ve just seen Rep. Bart Stupak decide to vote “yes” on health care and he is relying on a letter from Pres. Obama that the Pres. will issue an executive order that federal funding of abortions will not be included in this legislation.
It’s a lie for him to say he’s relying on that and the mere issuance of such an executive order is a lie, or at best a false promise having no effect whatsoever and, in fact, federal funding of abortions is a required part of the law of the land.
Here’s why. The landmark case of Roe v. Wade decriminalized abortions and Medicaid came to cover all abortion services. Eventually, an amendment to the medicaid bill known as the “Hyde amendment” restricted funding and yet later further modifications kept some restrictions which still limit federal funding of abortions in some, but not all, circumstances.
The end result is, we presently have in the law the requirement of federal funding of abortions under some circumstances. And an Executive Order cannot alter that result. ONLY if the current health care bill explicitly banned federal funding of abortion could the present law be altered. The President’s swift pen can’t do it.
Thus, regardless of your position on abortion in general, or on federal funding of abortions, you have to be concerned about the red herring be tossed out giving a false sense of how things will work in this regard. It’s just part of the ongoing problem of the process. The games continue.