Posts Tagged ‘earmarks’

Mega-Gigantic Democrat $1.3 Trillion ‘Spend America Into Bankruptcy’ Bill Melts Under Republican Opposition

December 17, 2010

Dear Republicans,

Soon the reinforcements the American people voted to send you will arrive.

Until then, please keep fighting the monsters with the troops you’ve got.

That’s the gist of my letter to the Republican Party.

And thank God for ’em.

From the Associated Press, dated December 16, 2010:

WASHINGTON – Democrats controlling the Senate abandoned on Thursday a huge catchall spending measure combining nearly $1.3 trillion worth of unfinished budget work, including $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Facing a midnight Saturday deadline when a stopgap funding measure expires, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would work with Republican leader Mitch McConnell to produce a bill to keep the federal government running into early next year.

The 1,924-page bill collapsed of its own weight after an outcry from conservatives who complained it was stuffed with more than $8 billion in homestate pet projects known as earmarks.

Reid, D-Nev., gave up on the bill after several Republicans who had been thinking of voting for it pulled back their support. McConnell, R-Ky., threw his weight against the bill in recent days, saying it was “unbelievable” that Democrats would try to muscle through in the days before Christmas legislation that usually takes months to debate.

“Just a few weeks after the voters told us they don’t want us rushing major pieces of complicated, costly, far-reaching legislation through Congress, we get this,” McConnell said. “This is no way to legislate.”

The turn of events was a major victory for earmark opponents like Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who for years have been steamrolled by the old-school members of the powerful Appropriations Committee.

The spending barons saw their power ebb in the wake of midterm elections that delivered major gains for Republicans — with considerable help from anti-spending tea party activists.

“We just saw something extraordinary on the floor of the United States Senate,” a grinning McCain said.

Harry Reid, true to his demagogic form, blamed Republicans for stonewalling even given the fact that he never even TRIED to bring up a budget or numerous appropriations bills that led to this last-minute fiasco.

Because when you are an incompetent disgrace from a party of disgraceful incompetents, you can always blame somebody else no matter how badly you failed to attend to the most basic agenda items.

So spend two years wasting the people’s time passing legislation like ObamaCare that the overwhelming majority of Americans did not want and continued to not want, and then at the last minute throw out a 2,00o page pork bill filled with 6,714 earmarks.  Because your spineless president will pontificate about how he’s opposed to signing bills laden with earmarks, and then sign the Democrat bill loaded up with earmarks.  The last time, Obama signed an omnibus bill loaded up with 9,000 earmarks.  In spite of his crystal-clear promise not to sign such a bill.

That’s been the Democrats’ plan.

No one’s been able to read the bill, (but remember what Nancy Pelosi said, you pass these things first so you can see what’s in them, like buying mystery meat in a neighborhood deli where dogs and cats keep turning up missing).

And it would have worked again, too.  Except the American people handed Democrats the largest “Up Yours!” message to a political party in 72 years, and Republicans have actually developed something approaching a spine.

This Congress has tried to pass the DREAM Act which would let illegal immigrants go to college ahead of American kids, and then reward them for going to college with citizenship.  They’re on their way to passing a bill that would end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell which would force homosexuality onto our military during a time of war when maybe social engineering should take a back door (pun intended).  They’re vowing to push a bill that would nationalize all police and firefighter unions and impose the union agenda no matter how much it isn’t wanted.

Because Democrats are loathsome, vile and utterly contemptible.

This is THE most repudiated Congress in the history of Congress.  But that doesn’t stop them from trying to sneak or ram all kinds of immoral garbage onto the country rather than let the Congress that the people just elected take over the people’s business.

Keep fighting the monsters, Republicans.

P.S.

For Harry Reid, I suggest a crucifix and a silver blade.  For Nancy Pelosi, you’ll need a flamethrower.

 

 

Advertisements

Firing Empress Pelosi As Speaker And Hiring Republican John Boehner Already Saving Americans HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS

November 11, 2010

Nothing but the best for Empress Pelosi when she was Speaker of the House.

And so what?  You were paying for it; and you’re just a pissant peasant proletariat taxpayer.

Reported back in May 2010:

Every time the speaker boards her personal military aircraft it costs the taxpayers approximately $28,000 a flight. The leader of the people’s House should travel just like everyone else.” […]

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, show Pelosi incurred expenses of some $2.1 million for her use of Air Force jets for travel over a recent two-year period. […]

Judicial Watch said the 2,000 pages of documentation it obtained showed Pelosi’s military travel cost the U.S. Air Force $2,100,744.59 over two years – including $101,429.14 for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol.

Incoming House Speaker Rep. John Boehner underscores that Empress Pelosi’s military flights were unnecessary, wasteful and extravagant.  Not to mention incredibly hypocritical – coming from a woman who constantly polluted the atmosphere with her own hot air self-righteously talking about how “green” she and the Democrats were.

Unlike Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner values the taxpayers’ money.  Unlike Pelosi, Boehner doesn’t think he’s entitled to spectacular largess.

“Over the last 20 years, I have flown back and forth to my district on commercial aircraft. And I’m going to continue to do that.”

New Republican House Majority Leader Boehner also said:

“I told my constituents, in a primary in 1990, that if they thought my job was to come to Washington and rob the public treasury on their behalf, they were voting for the wrong guy. I said it, I mean it, that’s who I am, and I’ve never taken [an earmark].”

Versus San Fran Nan, who took a $30 million slice of cheese to save some stupid mouse with stimulus money.  And who asked for another $106 million more in earmarks from next year’s federal budget.  Just for a couple of recent examples among many.

Pretty damn refreshing.

Buh-bye, Nancy.  When you clean your desk out, please take that great big giant sanctimonious gavel out along with your heavily plasticized face.

Obama Calls For Tolerance And Civility While His Rabid Rodents Throw Hate Bombs

February 8, 2010

I hate Obama’s Marxist policies, certainly enough.  But the thing I despise most about Barack Obama is his galling personal hypocrisy.

He is a man who makes a false promise that he never keeps, and then continually congratulates himself about those very same promises.  He promised transparency that he never delivered, but keeps talking it up as though he really DIDN’T have  his meetings on “transparency” closed to the public and the media; and as though he really DID put the health care negotiations on C-SPAN like he promised at least 8 times on video; as though his ObamaCare WEREN’T so secretive that even senior Democrats admitted they were completely in the dark; and as though Obama really WEREN’T denying the media of access far worse than his predecessors had ever done.  He patted himself on the back for getting lobbyists out of Washington as if his administration DIDN’T have at least30 of them on the payroll; and attacked lobbyists at his state of the union as if he DIDN’T have a schmoochy meeting scheduled with them for the very next day.  He promised to end earmarks, then signed a bill that had nearly 9,000 of them – and just instructed Democrats to submit their earmark requests for the upcoming budget even as he told the country that he was “calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform.”  And all I can say when Obama talks about reforming earmarks now is that it is too damn bad we didn’t elect John McCain.

The left is angry at Obama’s failed promises (a failed promise = a lie, by the way) as well.  Obama promised to close Gitmo.  He lied.  Obama promised to have had the troops home from Iraq by now.  He lied.  Obama promised to resolve the conflict in Afghanistan with his own personal magnificence.  And more than TWICE as many American soldiers gave their lives under Obama in Afghanistan in 2009 than during Bush’s last year in office.

Is it any wonder that he is the most polarizing president we have ever seen?

But Obama’s signature lie was his cynical promise from the most radically leftist Senator in Congress to transcend the political divide and bring the parties together.  Democrats, of course, blame Republicans; but it wasn’t the Republicans who promised to do it, was it?  The president who mockingly told Republicans “I won” when they tried to talk to him, and who repeatedly demonized Republicans for their “failed policies of the past,” is now actually upset that Republicans would take anything approaching the same attitude with him that he took with them.

We’re not supposed to be able to talk about HIS failed policies after he attacked us about a hundred million times with the very same claim?

Is it any wonder that his polls are now even LOWER than they were before he gave that deceitful state of the union?

Obama wants conservatives to lay down their arms even as his cockroach minions continue to shrilly attack them.  Apparently he truly thinks people are that stupid.

Here were Obama’s words at the national prayer breakfast (which he ultimately politicized, because the man just can’t help himself):

Obama at “national prayer breakfast”: The President calls for tolerance and civility

At the event of the “national prayer breakfast” in Washington on Thursday, U.S. President Barack Obama has urged his fellow countrymen to adhere to the ‘spirit of civility’, affirming that “civility is not a sign of weakness”.

The event which attracts leading political, religious and business leaders was witness to the famous oratorical power of the US president.

“Too often that spirit (of civility) is missing without the spectacular tragedy,” Mr. Obama said. “We become numb to the day-to-day crises. We become absorbed with our abstract arguments, our ideological disputes, and our contests for power. And in this tower of babble, we lose the sound of God’s voice.”

He remarked that we should be open to differing views and make a concerted effort to abandon the cynicism and skepticism that have done enough harm to American politics already.

Obama has repeatedly dishonestly demonized Republicans as obstructionists and hatemongers – which, for the record, is a very obstructionistic and hatemongering thing for him to do.

In his Q and A session with House Republicans, Obama said:

I mean, the fact of the matter is is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You’ve given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you’ve been telling your constituents is, “This guy’s doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.”

And how are Democrats supposed to embrace Republican ideas in a bipartisan fashion when Democrats just like YOU repeatedly demonize George Bush and demagogue Republicans for “the failed ideas of the past,” Mr. Hussein?

There’s a joke that Obama finally honored George Bush by naming the tectonic region beneath Haiti as “Bush’s Fault.”  It’s not far from the truth.

Does Barry Husein seriously not realize that every single Democrat in the Senate voted for ObamaCare (not withstanding the outright bribes such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Nebraska Purchase)?  Since when is it that every single Democrat voting for a Democrat bill is good, but every single Republican voting against a Democrat bill is bad?  Wouldn’t both Republicans AND Democrats be voting both for and against a bipartisan bill?

Since Democrats love to claim about how “bipartisan” they have been, I would love to see a Democrat offer me a list reciting 100 specific instances in which Obama or Democrats have said, “We’ll do this your way” on significant elements of any and all legislation.

It would be nice if Obama and Democrats paid attention to the giant log in their own eyes.  Just for once in their lives.

Meanwhile, Obama’s supporters are like frothing-mouth rabid vermin:

New York Slimes I mean Times columnist Frank Rich:

New York Times columnist Frank Rich would have rebelled against the notion that opposing President Bush’s policies was unpatriotic. But he can shamelessly declare that opposing Obama’s agenda is unpatriotic – even if you’re John McCain. Rich wrote on Sunday:

If [Harry] Reid can serve as the face of Democratic fecklessness in the Senate, then John McCain epitomizes the unpatriotic opposition. On Wednesday night he could be seen sneering when Obama pointed out that most of the debt vilified by Republicans happened on the watch of a Republican president and Congress that never paid for “two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.”

Rich wasn’t going to find it ridiculous that Obama was blaming Bush for an “expensive” Medicare entitlement that Democrats voted for and/or felt wasn’t expensive enough – just as Obama blames Bush for the deficit effects of TARP, which he voted for.

It should be remembered that John McCain spent something like six years in the hellhole of the Hanoi Hilton in Vietnam and suffered terribly physically as a result.  To accuse him of being “unpatriotic” after what he went through for his country is a disgrace from a disgrace of a newspaper.

Not to be outdone as a moral disgrace, Chris Matthews basically compared the Republican Party to the leftist communist regime that murdered well over a million people:

Chris Matthews: Far Right Republicans Like Cambodian Regime (VIDEO)

Huffington Post   |  Danny Shea First Posted: 02- 1-10 05:36 PM   |   Updated: 02- 1-10 05:59 PM

Chris Matthews compared the far right wing of the Republican Party to the Khmer Rouge, the genocidal Cambodian communist party led by Pol Pot, in MSNBC’s coverage of President Obama’s Q&A with House Republicans Friday night.

“The Republican Party is under assault from its far right,” Matthews said. “I don’t think I can remember either party being under assault by its extremes. I mean, there seems to be a new sort of purity test that unless you’re far right, you’re not a Republican, and this sort of tea party testing they’re doing now.”

Matthews called the party’s pull from the far right “frightening” in comparing it to the Cambodian regime.

“So what’s going on out there in the Republican Party is kind of frightening,” he said, “almost Cambodia reeducation camp going on in that party, where they’re going around to people, sort of switching their minds around saying, ‘If you’re not far right, you’re not right enough.’ And I think that it’s really – there’s going to be a lot of extreme language on the Republican side. And maybe, it will be a circular firing squad when this is all over.”

Just two days prior, Matthews came under fire for saying that he forgot President Obama was black for an hour while watching his State of the Union, a post-racial comment he would later clarify.

So let’s understand, this closet bigoted turd who is continuously aware of Obama’s blackness (light-skinned blackness with no Negro dialect only, mind you!) says that there’s a lot of extreme language coming from the Republican side — but only AFTER comparing those same Republicans to a communist regime that systematically murdered 1.7 million of their own people.

And speaking of bigoted turds….

Rachel Maddog I mean Maddow:

Maddow: Tea Party Conventioneers Are Racists In White Hoods
By Noel Sheppard
Sat, 02/06/2010

Rachel Maddow on Friday referred to attendees of the National Tea Party convention in Nashville, Tennessee, as white-hooded racists.

Continuing MSNBC’s sad tradition, Maddow first attacked one of the convention’s speakers: “The opening speech last night was given by failed presidential candidate, ex-congressman and professional anti-immigrant, Tom Tancredo who started the event off with a bang, a big loud racist bang.”

From there, she went after the audience (video embedded below the fold with transcript).

What a bigoted, vicious, racist thing of you to say, Rachel.  But according to Obama, who only attacks Fox News for being biased, Barry Hussein tacitly approves of every single word.

And we can get back to Barack Obama and pretty much the entire Democrat Party as repeatedly demagoguing the Republican Party as “the party of no” when it is now an openly acknowledged fact that they were never any such thing.

Cited from a recently written article:

For another thing, it isn’t true that Republicans have ever been “the party of no” and offered no ideas:

Despite the “lecture” by the commander-in-chief, as one member described it, Republicans had the opportunity to articulate the proposals they’ve sent to the president over the past year.

And for the first time, Obama acknowledged that House Republicans had crafted measures to stimulate the economy, reduce the budget deficit and reduce health insurance costs.

At a number of times during the rare, televised, question and answer session with members, the president said that he had read many of their proposals.

“I’ve actually read your bills,” the president said to a packed banquet room at Baltimore’s Marriott Renaissance hotel.

In other words, it is now a matter of public record that Democrats have been intentionally lying, misrepresenting, slandering, and demagoguing Republicans all along.  Why on earth should Republicans have cooperated with these vile people?

So Democrats can just shut the hell up with their accusations of Republicans saying or doing ANYTHING until they clean up the thousands of cockroach nests that constitute their political wing, and start being HONEST for once in their lives.

Personally, I am quite willing to cease fire on the rhetoric wars; all I need to see is for Barack Obama to denounce the mainline media for their lies rather than continually attacking Fox News; all I need to see is the Maddows and the Olbermanns and the Mathews of the news to be fired; all I need to see is for the left to quit demonizing and demagoguing.  And I will happily practice all the “tolerance” and “civility” Obama wants.

The problem is that that will never happen, because the left is demagogic and hypocritical to their very cores of their dried-out, shriveled little souls.

And the fact that Barack Obama is out in front of the cameras beseeching for “tolerance” and “civility” while his minions are viciously and hatefully attacking day after day without any rebuke from the president just proves my point.

Obama Refuses To Take Any Responsibility For His Failing Presidency

December 10, 2009

There comes that moment in every great man’s life when he realizes that it’s time to put up or shut up.

Obama hasn’t reached that moment yet.  And I personally don’t believe he ever will.  Or even can.

Obama gave a speech at the Brookings Institute yesterday, December 8.  He said:

One of the central goals of this administration is restoring fiscal responsibility. Even as we have had to spend our way out of this recession in the near term, we have begun to make the hard choices necessary to get our country on a more stable fiscal footing in the long run. Despite what some have claimed, the cost of the Recovery Act is only a very small part of our current budget imbalance. In reality, the deficit had been building dramatically over the previous eight years. Folks passed tax cuts and expensive entitlement programs without paying for any of it – even as health care costs kept rising, year after year. As a result, the deficit had reached $1.3 trillion when we walked into the White House. And I’d note: these budget busting tax cuts and spending programs were approved by many of the same people who are now waxing political about fiscal responsibility while opposing our efforts to reduce deficits by getting health care costs under control. It’s a sight to see.

To begin with, sixty percent of the overall deficit from the last ten years has occurred during the last three year period that the Democrats have been in control of both the House and the Senate.  Any claim that Democrats were the fiscally responsible party is just frankly a complete lie.

And as we look to which party is accumulating debts that have never been seen in the history of the human species, take a look at this graph of reality, to the tune of Joe Wilson’s hit song, “You lie!”

Link

You don’t have to be an economist or financial expert to see that the Marxist red Obama bars utterly dwarf the gray Bush bars.

Let’s take a look at the real numbers:

The Obama Administration Budget released today contains a total $2.867 trillion in red ink, just 38 days after Obama’s inauguration on January 20.

In contrast, the Bush Administration ran up a $2.7519 trillion deficit over an 8-year period that included 7 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan; the economic downturn after 9-11; the addition of a prescription drug benefit to Medicare; a massive increase in federal education spending under No Child Left Behind; and the current recession and 2008 Wall Street bailout.

Bush Surplus/Deficit Fiscal Years 2001-2008 (billions of dollars)
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Statistics
2001    128.2
2002    -157.8
2003    -377.6
2004    -412.7
2005    -318.3
2006    -248.2
2007    -160.7
2008    -454.8
TARP    -750.0
Total  -2751.9

Obama Budget Deficit FY 2009/10*
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Statistics
2010       -1750
2011       -1117
Total      -2867

*The Obama deficit total does NOT include the impact of the $787 billion Stimulus package approved by House Democrats in February.  It also excludes any effect of an Obama contingency request for an additional $750 billion to use for bank rescue.  If the contingency amount is included the total deficit for FY 2009/10 is $3.617 trillion

So what we basically learn is that Obama’s deficits in just two years are greater (which means worse) than Bush’s entire 8 years in office.  And if you factor in the spending that Obama racked up all by his lonesome, he accumulated greater deficits in just ONE year than did Bush in eight.

We need to realize that the $787 billion stimulus – which is not counted under Obama’s deficit that STILL outdoes the deficits racked up during Bush’s entire eight year presidency – was not a “mere” $787 billion.  It was actually $3.27 TRILLION according to the Congressional Budget Office.

As Newsmax reporter David Patton put it:

The gargantuan stimulus bill Congress has rubber-stamped with virtually no Republican support contains tens of billions of the very spending projects that made the legislation a lightning rod for criticism.

And although the bill is generally described as costing $787 billion, the Congressional Budget Office reports the actual figure is now closer to $3.27 trillion.

That stems from the $744 billion it will take to pay for the additional debt the legislation will create, and $2.527 trillion in increased spending from the new and expanded programs the bill will spawn over the next decade.

That put-us-into-the-poorhouse stimulus spending was ALL on Obama.  And while we go from fiscal year to fiscal year (i.e. October 1 to September 30) to “officially” calculate a president’s deficits, it is simply a moral crime to saddle George Bush with Obama’s $3.27 trillion porkulus that no Republicans voted for, and then blame Bush for the most massive spending program in human history that was passed by Obama and for Obama.

Nor do the numbers reflect that President Bush only used HALF of the $750 billion TARP money, and left the rest of it for Obama to spend.  That money all went on Bush’s deficit “tab,” but thanks to George Bush’s efforts, Obama got half of it for himself.  Pretty sweet deal for Obama.  And yet he still bit the hand that fed him:

(CBS/AP) Acting at Barack Obama’s behest, President George W. Bush on Monday asked Congress for the final $350 billion in the financial bailout fund, effectively ceding economic reins to the president-elect in an extraordinary display of transition teamwork.

Obama also sharply criticized Bush’s handling of the money and promised radical changes.

Bush’s move sets the stage for Obama to get swift access to the $350 billion and the opportunity to overhaul the much-criticized rescue package after taking office next Tuesday.

Bush’s classiness was outmatched by Obama’s classlessness.

In any event, no matter how you slice it, we are looking at Obama red ink that so profoundly drowns out the Bush red ink that only a fool would say anything else.

And yet that is precisely what Obama is doing.

Here we are, just today, with Democrats passing another $1.1 trillion in spending in a 1,088 page, earmark-laden pork package, with not one single Republican supporting it.

And they are determined to pass a health care that’s going to cost this country at least $2.5 trillion every ten years.

And take a moment to calculate America’s “share” of the $10 TRILLION dollar tab that Barack Obama and many in the Democrat Party are trying to commit this country to pick up in the guise of saving the planet from “global warming.”

We’re seeing more spending and more deficits and more debt under Barack Obama than any human being who has ever lived has ever seen in human history.  And he blames Bush for it?

What’s wrong with him?

Any real leader worth a dog turd in the back yard doesn’t waste time blaming the leader before him for problems.  Rather, he puts that “the buck stops here” sign on his desk, he takes responsibility for the situation he is facing, and he solves the problem.

If I had a nickle for every time Obama has said that he “inherited” the crises he is now facing, I would be very rich indeed.  As it is, the president who promised that he would put “an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics” has defined himself by doing the precise opposite.  George W. Bush, by contrast, inherited a severe recession following the dot com bubble collapse beginning in December 1999 just as Clinton was leaving office that led to $10 trillion in equity being erased.  And of course he inherited the foreign policy and domestic security failures that led to the 9/11 attack – which damaged the economy even further.

But you didn’t find Bush giving speech after speech (or any speeches at all) blaming his predecessor.  Rather, Bush “manned-up” and took responsibility for the nation as it was.

That may be why Bush has made such a dramatic comeback in public opinion:

Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama’s declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they’d rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that’s somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country’s difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former President.

More and more Americans are getting furious that Obama is spending all his time and energy blaming Bush for what is going on during Obama’s presidency.

The very real question is whether Obama can do anything OTHER than blame Bush.  Thus far, he hasn’t solved much of anything.

No Abortion Funding In Health Care: Yet ANOTHER Liberal Lie Exposed

October 28, 2009

Barack Obama’s Health and Human Services Secretary – just as one of numerous examples – assured the public that there was no public funding for abortion in the Democrats’ health care plan.  From McClatchy:

WASHINGTON — Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius pledged Sunday that President Barack Obama will support barring public funding for abortion in any health care overhaul legislation.

“That’s exactly what the president said and I think that’s what he intends, that the bill he signs will do,” she said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Abortion policy has been an ongoing concern throughout the health care debate. In July, the House Energy and Commerce Committee attempted to compromise on abortion funding as it wrote its version of the health care bill.

An organization that tends to run Democrat that calls itself “Factcheck.org” asked back in August:

Will health care legislation mean “government funding of abortion”?

President Obama said Wednesday that’s “not true” and among several “fabrications” being spread by “people who are bearing false witness.” But abortion foes say it’s the president who’s making a false claim. “President Obama today brazenly misrepresented the abortion-related component” of health care legislation, said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. So which side is right?

An article from The Hill, dated yesterday, exposes “which side is right” for any who has eyes and at least half a brain:

Mich. Democrat: Pelosi ‘not happy with me’
By Bob Cusack – 10/27/09 01:30 PM ET

Rep. Bart Stupak said Speaker Pelosi is not pleased with his effort to change abortion-related provisions in the healthcare bill being crafted by the House.

During an interview on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” show, Stupak (D-Mich.) said he is undeterred in trying to ensure that taxpayer dollars do not pay for abortions. Stupak, who opposes abortion rights, acknowledged that some in his party are upset with his public campaign to change the bill.

“The Speaker is not happy with me,” Stupak said.

The Energy and Commerce subcommittee chairman said he has been working with Democratic leaders on a compromise, but they haven’t been able to strike a deal. Stupak pointed out that he and Democratic leaders have a fundamental disagreement on whether health plans that receive subsidies from the government should be allowed to provide coverage options on abortions.

Stupak wants a vote on the House floor to strike the language, and predicts he would have the votes to pass such an amendment.

“This has been federal law since 1976,” he said, noting that President Barack Obama has vowed not to allow healthcare reform to pay for abortions.

Democrat Stupak points out that “Obama has vowed not to allow healthcare reform to pay for abortions.”  But he sure isn’t telling Nancy Pelosi or Democrats that he won’t sign any bill that contains such language.  And – and this is an IQ test – do you really think that Obama would veto his coveted health care bill if it did not contain provisions to prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortion?  Really?

Keep in mind, Obama is a guy who loudly promised that he wouldn’t sign an Omnibus that contained earmarks, before signing one that contained 9,000 earmarks.  From the AP:

Despite campaign promises to take a machete to lawmakers’ pet projects, President Barack Obama is quietly caving to funding nearly 8,000 of them this year, drawing a stern rebuke Monday from his Republican challenger in last fall’s election.

And, yeah, the actual number turned out to be “nearly 9,000,” rather than 8,000.

And if that wasn’t bad enough, Obama HIMSELF was one of the porkers whose name was on the list of earmarkers:

Funny how items show up in spending bills without any notice — like an earmark for a president who promised not to seek any.

President Obama, who took a no-earmark pledge on the campaign trail, is listed as one of dozens of cosponsors of a $7.7 million set-aside in the fiscal 2009 omnibus spending bill passed by the House on Wednesday.

I think I can rest my case: if the ObamaCare bill has funding for abortion, Obama will break yet another promise and sign it.  Pinocchio, in the longest-nosed day of his life, was more honest than Barack Obama.

And it’s the same with death panels (and see here, and see here, and see here), or with coverage for illegal immigrants, or with the demonizing of private health insurance companies, or with the fact that Democrats will make the middle class pay taxes to finance their health care takeover, or any of the other blatant lies that Democrats keep telling.

Don’t trust them.  They are documented liars.  And they will continue to lie to impose their takeover of one-sixth of the economy.

Democrats In Congress Show Their Contempt For Troops, Steal Their Money

October 16, 2009

Never think you’ve plumbed the depths of how depraved Democrats are:

U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects

By Shaun Waterman THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, “in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year,” said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, called the transfer of funds from Pentagon operations and maintenance “a disgrace.”

Taking operational funds from our soldiers in time of war is vastly more than a “disgrace.”

Fuel?  Ammunition? Bah!  Let the soldiers – who are warmongers by definition – die at the hands of terrorists while trapped weaponless in their foxholes.  Pork for Democrat re-election campaigns, that’s what’s really needed.

What’s Wrong With The Baucus Healthcare Plan?

September 17, 2009

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus unveiled his latest swing at healthcare legislation yesterday.  Let’s take a look at it.

First of all, according to Bloomberg:

In a bid to get Republican support, he’s offering a lower price tag compared with bills approved on party-line votes by the Senate health committee and three House panels, each of which would cost about $1 trillion over 10 years.

Well, that’s a nice goal and all, but his plan still costs $856 billion.  Which is 85.6% of a trillion.  And these estimates are invariably massively low (take Medicare as the closest analogy: it was estimated to cost $12 billion by 1990; it actually cost $107 billion by 1990 — a 791% increase over the projection).  Why on earth would the Democrats new plan now be better estimated than the Democrats old plan?

Thanks, Max, but I’ll keep shopping around, if you don’t mind.

Second, there’s this:

“Without support from a single Senate Republican…”

Now see, I remember this promise from the campaign:

In 2008, candidate Obama … assured us that we would transcend petty partisan bickering that has dominated Washington as long as anyone can remember. “In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people, Obama declared.Let’s resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.”

Didn’t resist that temptation too well, did you, Barry?  No, instead, the most liberal senator in the nation prior to his newfound “post-partisanship” lived up to predicted rather than advertised form.  He rammed through a massive $3.27 trillion partisan stimulus plan that only 2 out of 218 Republicans voted for (counting Arlen Specter as a Democrat).  He sold his porkulus on the lie that he would be able to keep unemployment under 8% if it passed.  In similar form, Obama rammed through his Omnibus bill filled with nearly 9,000 earmarks in blatant violation of his pledge.

He is the most aggressively partisan “post partisan” who ever lived.  And that is a fact.

Did the man who won the White House with 52.9% of the vote win the right to unilaterally fundamentally transform 16% of the entire US economy?  Seriously???

Are Republicans seriously supposed to support a system that was shoved down their throats against their wills?

Third, there’s this:

Baucus dropped a plan to set up a government insurance program — the so-called public option — to compete with private insurers, steering clear of one of the most divisive issues in the debate. Instead, he proposed giving $6 billion in seed money to nonprofit cooperatives that could compete with companies such as Hartford, Connecticut-based Aetna Inc.

Imagine if you were selling widgets at your widget shop and a competitor moved in next door who got his funding from your tax dollars.  That would suck for you.  And, of course, as needed, you could count on your own government to undermine you by writing the laws in a way that benefited your competitor while punishing you, and you could count on selective enforcement of the regulations just to make sure you knew who was wanted and who wasn’t.

Besides being unAmerican, there are a few other things wrong with this plan.

A pro-liberal, pro-single-payer proponent argues the following:

But this is not “change.” Nonprofit organizations have always had an important role in the financing and delivery of health care services in the United States. Nonprofit health care organizations are part of the U.S. economy’s “third sector,” the other two sectors are government and for-profit businesses. In the early 1900s the first health care prepayment/insurance plan was founded as a nonprofit organization—Blue Cross—by a nonprofit hospital in Texas.  Today, nearly 50 percent of people with private health insurance coverage are enrolled in nonprofit health plans.

Unfortunately, the strong and persistent presence of private nonprofit health insurance companies has not prevented any of the structural problems leading to our current health care crisis.

In other words, at the heart of the Baucus plan is the belief that you are simply too ignorant and too damn stupid to know the basic facts.  Non-profits and co-ops are nothing new.  And in fact, according to the Democrats who have repeatedly demonized health insurers, they represent HALF the damn problem.

This is rather like the Democrats whining about the lack of competition when there are actually 1,300 health insurers in the country and the only reason they can’t all compete for your business is because Democrats have prevented them from being able to compete for your business.

Dr. Mary Bufwack writes an article that concludes:

So history tells us that starting up co-ops would be a great challenge, and small state co-ops are likely to fail.  Should they be successful, there is little evidence that they act in ways that are different than private insurance companies.

So this is a bogus boondoggle bound to fail.  And we can know that before it starts, given the government’s ability to screw up nearly everything it touches.

For what it’s worth, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were essentially “co-ops” as well.  And they have been catastrophic boondoggles.

Then there are the individual mandates requiring every American to have a health insurance plan or pay up to $3,800 in penalties.  I wonder how many of the young people who voted for Obama are going to support having to buy health insurance or pay fines?  It’s always easier to require things when it’s someone ELSE’S money that’s getting spent.

When Obama promised you fifty thousand times that no one making less than $250,000 a year would see their taxes go up by one penny, he didn’t point out that the fine print is a bitch.

And while there’s no official employer mandate, businesses with over 50 workers will be hit with a $400 per worker tax penalty if they don’t provide – and keep providing – health insurance.  Sounds like a pretty solid reason for a lot of small business owners who are are already struggling to make ends meet to downsize.  You DO know what they say about the road to hell being paved with good intentions, right?

If you lose your job because of the cost of the health care mandates, and you voted for Obama, just remember that you voted for “change.”

The bill is considerably scaled down from the worst of the infamous House Bill H.R. 3200.  But it’s still bad.  Other than the fact that it is less heinous than previous Democrat-dominated bills, it is still heinous.  There is no reason for Republicans to support it beyond the reasoning of “having one eye gouged out of my head is better than having both eyes gouged out.”

Obama And Biden: The Politicians To Nowhere

September 24, 2008

The “bridge to nowhere” project in Alaska has become the national symbol of waste and out-of-control pork barrel spending – particularly since John McCain named Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.  Joe Biden is out every day spouting various versions of, “I got also a bridge I got to sell you here, and guess what, it’s in Alaska, and it goes nowhere.”  Well guess what.  Joe Biden and Barack Obama voted for that bridge: not once but twice.

And it gets even worse: CNN has the story, titled,”Biden, Obama helped keep ‘Bridge to nowhere’ alive“:

DEWEY BEACH, Delaware (CNN) — Although Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden routinely mocks his Republican counterpart, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, for her onetime support of the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” Biden and his running mate voted to keep the project alive twice.

Both Biden and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama voted to kill a Senate amendment that would have diverted federal funding for the bridge to repair a Louisiana span badly damaged by Hurricane Katrina, Senate records show.

And both voted for the final transportation bill that included the $223 million earmark for the Alaska project.

An amendment offered by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, would have stripped the money appropriated to connect the Alaskan coastal city of Ketchikan to its airport on sparsely populated Gravina Island and diverted the money to Louisiana.

But Biden and Obama and 80 of their colleagues rejected the measure, an amendment to a massive 2005 transportation bill that funded thousands of projects across the country.

“That is probably the most disturbing element of this and the campaigning on the Bridge to Nowhere,” said Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation, a taxpayer watchdog group. “Because, yes, they had a chance to vote specifically against the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska to redirect the money to people, to bridges and infrastructure damaged by Hurricane Katrina going in to New Orleans, and they chose not to.”

So why is Joe Biden running around repeatedly blasting Sarah Palin over the Bridge to nowhere? Because he’s a shameless political whore.  Yes, Biden – along with Barack Obama – personally voted for the Bridge to nowhere.  Twice.  And yes, the second of those votes would have redirected the $223 million earmark for the bridge and spent it on Hurricane Katrina relief.  But neither Biden nor Obama would support that Republican effort.  They wanted that massive and wasteful pork barrel project.

They supported the Bridge to nowhere because they had their OWN pork barrel earmark projects.  The CNN article continues:

“I got also a bridge I got to sell you here, and guess what, it’s in Alaska, and it goes nowhere,” Biden mocked Palin on the campaign trail last week in Maumee, Ohio. And in Canton, Ohio, he tied it to McCain.

“If you look at it John McCain’s answers for the economy, and we’re in such desperate shape, is the ultimate bridge to nowhere. It’s nowhere,” Biden said. “It takes you nowhere.”

But while the applause line appealed to the Democratic faithful, it could come back to bite the Delaware senator.

This year, Delaware has requested 116 congressional earmarks through Biden, its longtime senator, at a cost to taxpayers of $342 million. In an appearance on CNN’s “American Morning” with anchor John Roberts, Biden said that he had been open about those requests and that they all can be justified.

And Barack Obama received $740 million in earmarks for his state; and asked for a total of about $960 million.  John McCain hasn’t asked for any earmarks for his state, and didn’t vote to fund the Bridge to nowhere.

I’ve written a couple of articles about Obama and Biden:

Presidential Pork: Obama-Biden In Hog Heaven; McCain Kosher

In The Earmark Game Obama Beats McCain 740 Million To Nothing

Joe Biden mockingly claims that McCain’s answers on the economy is the ultimate bridge to nowhere.  But John McCain stood up on earmarks, while Joe Biden and Barack Obama have cynically gorged on pork, waste, and downright fraud.

We’re to the point where our politicians and officials are little spending this nation out of existence.  Obama and Biden are and have been part of the problem; John McCain, by stark contrast, has epitomized the solution to out-of-control government spending.

Obama-Biden are the “Politicians to nowhere.”

Democrats Keep Tax Cheat In Charge Of Tax Committee

September 17, 2008

Charles Rangel will be with us for some time to come, because the same Democrats who hounded one Republican after another out of office for nowhere NEAR the same level of corruption don’t seem to mind when their Chairman of their House Ways and Means Committee is a documented tax cheat, or when other members of the powerful tax committee are caught red-handed with $90,000 in their freezers.

Rangel is under fire for using a rent-subsidized apartment as a fundraising office, failing to pay taxes on income from a Dominican Republic villa he owns and using his House stationery to solicit donations to a school at the City University of New York that is to be named in his honor.

Republicans also accused him Tuesday of violating new House rules on earmarks by failing to put his name on funding for a rail connection between Manhattan and Kennedy International Airport.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “Democrats are leading the effort to turn the most closed, corrupt Congress in history into the most open and honest Congress in history.” She liked the ring of her own asinine ideology so much she said it again and again with varying iterations. “The Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.”

To coin a phrase from a speech that Barack Obama plagiarized: It’s “Just words.”  Why do the right thing when it’s easier to say the right thing and then do whatever brings in the bacon?

Today “the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history” has two proven low-life slime balls writing our tax laws.  At this point the shocking revelation would be that there was an honest Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.

To quote the former official “spiritual mentor” of the Democratic Party, this is a case of “the chickens coming home to roost.”  And may they leave their droppings all over Nancy’s favorite pant suit.

The next time some Democrat offers a finger-wagging lecture of how the rich “ought to pay their fair share,” just imagine the face of Charles Rangel, the powerful Democrat who cheats on his own taxes while he writes tax laws for everyone else.  And – to put it into the typical rhetoric of Democrats – just think of all those poor children who will go hungry and neglected because Charles Rangel wanted to keep money he owed in taxes in his own pocket instead of helping them.

In the Earmark Game, Obama Beats McCain, $740 Million To Nothing

September 6, 2008

Can you define “hypocrite”?

According to Merriam-Webster:

1  : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2  : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

With that in mind, let us tune in to Barack Obama’s attack against John McCain today:

“Don’t be fooled,” Obama told the crowd surrounding him in a large barn. “John McCain’s party, with the help of John McCain, has been in charge” for nearly eight years.

“I know the governor of Alaska has been saying she’s change, and that’s great,” Obama said. “She’s a skillful politician. But, you know, when you’ve been taking all these earmarks when it’s convenient, and then suddenly you’re the champion anti-earmark person, that’s not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something, you can’t just make stuff up.”

First of all, if words REALLY mean something, maybe we should consider some of the words that are directly linked to Barack Obama.

But that aside, let us consider Obama’s earmark record.  According to The Hill:

Obama has released all the earmark requests he offered since being elected to the Senate in 2004, which totaled roughly $740 million over three years.

That same article concludes with this wonderful sentence:

Last year, Obama took in $91 million while McCain earned nothing because he did not request any projects, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Here is a list of Obama’s earmarks, in his own “But it was all for worthy causes” words.

I wrote an article about Sarah Palin and earmark spending.  To put it is a single sentence, Sarah Palin is a Governor who reduced her state’s earmarks by 63%, nearly 2/3rds, since taking office.  Earmarks continue to be high in Alaska (for reasons the article describes), but they are only one third as high as they used to be thanks to Gov. Palin.  To portray her “taking all these earmarks” when she has cut earmark spending like no other governor, is beneath the level of cheap.  She has done everything she reasonably could do – and much more than any other governor – to cut a vicious cycle of pork that has characterized Alaska for decades.  She has often found herself on the other side of her own party in the process.  And if she can do it in Alaska, she can do it anywhere.

What’s wrong with earmarks? The very idea of earmarks represents everything that’s wrong with Washington insider politics.  They are requested and awarded purely on the basis of special interests.  They are inherently tainted with fraud, waste, abuse, and quid pro quo political patronage.  They are tacked on to other, legitimate issues without review and are funded entirely by deficit spending.

John McCain has always opposed them; Sarah Palin has a documented history of fighting them tooth and nail in her own state, and has been painstakingly winning the battle.  Meanwhile, the guy who has benefited from $740 million dollars is talking smack while studiously ignoring the log in his own eye.

Barack Obama – the same guy who asked for $740 million dollars as a politician in one office, has asked for zero dollars since announcing his candidacy for another office.  Maybe you see that as a radical conversion; I view it as radical pandering.

In that same campaign appearance described above, Obama said:

“I mean, come on, they must think you’re stupid,” Obama said as the crowd laughed and cheered.

But who really thinks who’s stupid here?