Logo Oddities

Barack Obama promised to shut down missile defense, and he has largely carried through. While he's dismantling one of the most critical components of American national security, he's also giving it a facelift:

The Missile Defense Agency has unveiled a new logo this year, replacing their existing one:

This is the new one:


If that looks familiar, it should — because it appears to be based at least in part on Barack Obama’s campaign logo:

The irony here is that while the Obama administration clumsily attempts to politicize the MDA through logo homages, Obama has busily cut funds to the agency’s appropriations and spent most of the primary campaign pledging to kill missile-defense systems altogether. Obama felt there were better use of federal money. Apparently, though, copycat logo design was one of them.

This is, at best, a curious waste of taxpayer dollars. On the other hand, it makes me think he's adding his own signature to the destruction of this particularly potent and useful piece of American military superiority, just as a victorious flourish.

Another curious note...Gateway Pundit points out that this new logo looks strangely reminiscent of the Islamic star and crescent logo:


Hmmm...

Riddle me that one, Batman.

There's my two cents.

Stand By, Nuclear Option...

The time is at hand. There are a ton of great links explaining what's going on with DemCare now, but the short version is that Barack Obama gave yet another speech urging Congress to commit political suicide so he could have a goodie bag. Here's a good summary of the speech's main points, and how reality disagrees:

Flanked, again, by doctors in lab coats, President Barack Obama gave yet another speech this afternoon urging Congress to pass his health care reform plan.

The President again claimed his plan lowers health care costs. It doesn’t.

The President again claimed his plan would not give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care. It does.

The President again claimed that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” That simply is not true.

The President again said his plan gives the American people the same health care as Members of Congress. It doesn’t.

The President again claimed his plan is paid for. It is not.

The only “new” wrinkle in this speech was President Obama much telegraphed call for “an up or down vote” on health care reform. Again the White House is completely out of touch with reality. The Senate has already passed Obamacare. It is currently sitting ready for a vote in the House of Representatives. The House could pass Obamacare into law by an up-or-down/simple-majority vote tomorrow if they so desired.

But the simple reality is that they don’t have the votes. The House may be controlled by an overwhelming Democratic super majority, but the Obama administration simply does not have the 50% plus one votes they need to turn their top domestic priority into law.

Now the President is claiming he has some new plan that he all of a sudden wants a brand new vote on in the Senate. But that is not going to happen any time soon. President Obama says he is open to four specific conservative ideas, but the White House has produced no details or even legislative language for this new plan. And even if the White House ever does produce such language, it would then have to go to the Congressional Budget Office for scoring.

More importantly, simply adding so-called conservative ideas to the bill does not change the fundamental direction of the proposal. The bills before Congress, including the President’s new additions, would still result in a massive shift of power over health care financing and delivery of care to Washington politicians and bureaucrats. The public has spoken, and it does not want a federal take over of health care.

Conservatives should continue to press the Administration and leaders in Congress for bipartisan solutions that are based on elements of common ground, including letting states take the lead on health reform, tackling the tax treatment of health insurance, sensible insurance market reforms, and an honest commitment to fixing existing health care programs that the government already controls.

Yeah, he really paid a lot of respect to those Republican ideas in the summit:

So, here are the nuts and bolts of how the legislation will have to move forward:

The linchpin is the House, where Nancy Pelosi needs 216 votes to pass the Senate bill. She says she'll have them. The AP talked to 10 Democrats who (anonymously) say they "have not ruled out switching their 'no' votes to 'yes'" this time around. What's unknown is how many Yes votes will switch to No votes because of the Senate's expansive abortion language, among other things. In Pelosi's February 28 interview with ABC's Elizabeth Vargas, the speaker seemed cautious, probably because the final legislative deal is still being worked out behind closed doors.

If the House is able to pass the December 24 Senate bill unchanged, then the Senate's job will be to pass a series of "fixes" through reconciliation, which requires only a majority vote. So Harry Reid can afford to lose nine members of his caucus, because Joe Biden will break any tie. And nine votes seems like enough of a cushion for Reid to pass the bill.

Interestingly, rumors are leaking out that Nancy Pelosi is losing votes in the House, and with the margins she's go to work with, every vote is a potential back-breaker. In fact, it appears that Obama has resorted to outright bribery again:

Chicago-style politics once again coming home to roost. The Weekly Standard is reporting that Obama is now selling judgeships for health care votes:

Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he’s obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson’s brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

“Scott Matheson is a distinguished candidate for the Tenth Circuit court,” President Obama said. “Both his legal and academic credentials are impressive and his commitment to judicial integrity is unwavering. I am honored to nominate this lifelong Utahn to the federal bench.”

Huh. How convenient. ... Perhaps they learned from the bribes of Senators “you don’t even have to get us drunk first” Landrieu and Nelson that outright cash money bribery back-fires a bit and are trying different tactics for Congressman. Scratch my back and I’ll scratch — your brother’s!

For anyone other than a delusional egomaniac, the fact that you have a super majority yet still cannot pass legislation — because no one wants it — would be enough to tell you, hey, maybe this isn’t a very good idea. Not Obama! Raised up politically in Chicago, he resorts to what he knows; strong arm tactics and outright bribery.

What's really interesting is that Obama himself excoriated the 50+1 method of passing legislation...back when he was a lowly Senator, and it wasn't his own precious agenda at stake:

Here's all you need to know about DemCare:

Bingo. And the American people be damned...!

It is likely they'll try to cram it down the American people's throat under the cover of a holiday again:

Republicans expect a final vote on healthcare around the easter holiday this year, the Senate’s second-ranking Republican said Monday night.

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said he expected Democratic leaders to arrange their final votes on health reform to but up against lawmakers’ recess for the Easter and Passover holidays.

“This thing is losing support every day,” Kyl said during an interview on Fox News. “And I think what they’ll try to do is move it up against the Easter recess so that the members won’t have time to go home and have a full recess period before they take the vote.”

Just more evidence that they know full well how unwanted this abomination is.

Matthew Continetti encapsulates it this way:

What's certain is the Democrats are making one of the biggest political gambles in American history. They're betting that overhauling one-sixth of the American economy against the public's wishes and by a partisan vote is going to pay off in the end. They have doubled down, and are hoping the house busts.

So, what can we do to continue fighting this?

Rep. Tom Price says it's time to go 'once more into the breach':

So these are the stakes: We’re in the final throws of the battle for the future of American health care. Democrats have recognized they must get this done before they are forced to face their constituents again over the April recess. That means we have less than four weeks to engage once more in this fight. Let it be known what a terrible decision Members of Congress would be making by voting for a government takeover of health care. Let them know that you are still in this fight.

As Shakespeare wrote, “Once more into the breach, dear friends, once more.” The future of our health care, indeed the future of our country, will be decided in the next few weeks. Don’t let a day go by without making your voice heard.

RedState offers the following prescription:

Ending this health care nightmare comes down to one thing, and one thing only: expend all remaining to defeat the Senate bill in the House.

The Speaker cannot pass the Senate bill now. She does not have the votes. She has never had the votes — ever, to pass the Senate bill. (The AP list of 9 Dems who voted No who may vote yes is a fantasyland list — as in, if you think they will switch to Yes, you are living in Fantasyland. If a member who did vote No, now, when the politics are so clearly against it, switches to a yes, they might as well just resign. Which some might. But, really, it is good-bye for No votes that switch to Yes.)

While No votes switching to Yes is not credible, here is something that is credible. Yes votes that switch to No.

...

Now, in order to attempt reconciliation in the Senate, the Speaker must pass the Senate bill first, without a single change to the bill, on the House floor. (The House Leadership is attempting to pass the changes to the Senate bill in reconciliation first, then vote on the Senate bill, but you cannot reconcile a bill not yet passed.)

Once more, the Speaker is making her Members walk the plank. This time the plank consists of the Senate bill that funds abortion, taxes health insurance premiums and cuts Medicare.

So defeating the Senate bill in the House:

1) Ends ObamaCare;
2) Stops reconciliation in the Senate;
3) Saves the country from months of health care blah, blah blah blah, blah blah; and
4) reboots the entire legislative process to Start Over, in Committee.

The Dem No votes from the fall of 2009 will hold, and Stupak’s pro-life Dems will vote against the bill. Therefore, it cannot pass.

Until the vote, however, House Dems are going to be subject to daily ObamaCare press stories, arm-twisting and generally annoying their voters with more politically toxic ObamaCare.

The Dem No votes and the pro-life votes must be told to vote against the Senate bill, from now until the House votes. Constant pressure will lock in the current No vote count.

That's where you and I come in. Get on the phones and call your Reps, especially if they voted No last time. In case you don't remember, the previous vote is here.

Remember, this is the crown jewel of Obama's attempt to re-make America into a pseudo-European socialist state where the government controls everything. If we can't stop this, America as we know it is done and gone.

There's my two cents.


Related Reading:
Yes, everyone with a brain understands that our current path is unsustainable
Yes, using budget reconciliation to make vast and sweeping policy changes is unprecedented
Keith Hennessey dissects the problem with the two bills here
No votes until the people speak
Obama: we owe the American public an up-or-down vote on this bill they hate
Prediction: Obama will sign the Senate bill if reconciliation fails
Abortion and illegal immigration won't be fixed in new bill
Alternate ending: the destruction of the Democrat party
Another hidden cost of DemCare

Speculation On Repeal Of DemCare

Not that it's passed into law yet, but what if it happens?  Can the GOP repeal it if they win big in November?  Hot Air takes a look at a Washington Times article exploring the question:

More and more, activists have called for Republican candidates in the midterms to take a stand on ObamaCare by announcing whether they will support a repeal effort in 2011.  The Washington Examiner amplifies these calls in its lead editorial today.  But can Republicans actually repeal ObamaCare if it passes in 2010?

Among the most perplexing aspects of the Obamacare debate has been the apparent determination of Democrats to approve the proposal no matter what the consequences might be for their party come November and regardless of the growing public opposition to it. Were there not something radically wrong in the contemporary political system, President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would realize the time had come to back off, heed the clearly documented public will and adopt a more moderate position. Instead, they plunge forward, vowing to "go it alone" with only Democrat votes to pass Obamacare if necessary.

The problem here is the far Left controls the Democratic Party at the national level, and its radical ideology trumps political prudence. For these ideologues, winning at any cost is the bottom line. But they aren't entirely blinded by ideology: They have calculated that now is their prime chance to turn what remains of the private health care system over to federal bureaucrats, thus finally achieving a dream of 19th-century progressive theorists and 20th-century welfare state liberal politicians. If that costs Democrats their congressional majorities in November, so be it because they are confident Republicans won't have the political courage to repeal Obamacare. …

The only way to change that calculation is for the GOP to make crystal clear now that its first order of business come January 2011 will be repeal if it is returned to congressional majorities and Obamacare is on the books. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader John Boehner have magnificently held their troops in line to date against Obamacare while saying nothing about repeal for fear of appearing to concede defeat. That changed Sunday as Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said, "People are saying, 'We don't want it.' The Democrats are saying, 'We don't care, we're doing it anyway.' The Democrats will try to jam this through, and the rest of the year we're going to be involved in a campaign to repeal it."

The issue isn't so much political courage as it is political strength.  Once a bill passes into law, it takes another law to repeal it.  That means that it either requires the signature of the President, or enough votes in both chambers of Congress to override his veto.  In 2011, it's doubtful that Republicans will control two-thirds of the House, and just getting to a majority in the Senate will be an almost-miraculous accomplishment.  Since the Democrats that might go along with a repeal movement are the ones most likely to lose to Republicans in the upcoming midterms, they will have few allies across the aisle with which to carry a veto override, even assuming they can pass a repeal.

That doesn't mean that the Republicans won't have some tools with which to fight ObamaCare in 2011, assuming they gain control of Congress.  The bureaucracies formed by the bill have to get funded starting in 2012 and 2013, budgets which Republicans would control in Congress.  They can also pass other legislation, such as allowing interstate sales of health-insurance policies, to counteract the ObamaCare effort and attempt to rationally deal with pricing issues.

Unfortunately, a full repeal would require a new President in 2013, which is when the ObamaCare services are slated to begin.  The best way to derail ObamaCare is to keep it from passing now — but if it does, Republicans have to limit the damage until they control the White House and can dismantle the bill entirely.  Demanding a repeal effort in 2011 is laudable for its focus on the issue, but highly unrealistic in setting expectations for Republicans while Obama remains in office.

I always get nervous when it becomes a matter of political will on the part of Republicans.  Yeah, I know they've done a terrific job in the past few months...but they gacked it up horribly for the decade previously.  I suppose it's better late than never, but it doesn't exactly provide warm fuzzies for knowing they'll be on top of things.

Still, all this is just speculation at this point.  The best thing would be to prevent DemCare from becoming law in the first place.  Repealing it is definitely a plan B, but it may come to that.  I just hope the GOP is up for it.

There's my two cents.

Another Consequence Of The 2008 Election

Massive hikes in fuel prices:

To meet the Obama administration's targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.

To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving must simply increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency's budget for fiscal 2010.

Remember, the EPA has the authority to do this without Congressional approval.  The only question is whether or not they think they can get away with it without getting lynched.  And, for Obama, to see if he can get away with it without being painted as responsible for it.

The basic idea here is not a new one: raise taxes on carbon products.  This is, of course, laughable.  Carbon is a naturally occurring substance, and it is a completely ridiculous object of taxation.  Regardless, raising taxes on gas is going to cause all kinds of havoc.  We saw in 2008 just how high it goes before people start getting angry: $4 per gallon.  Just imagine how $7/gal. is going to feel on your pocketbook!

But this isn't just a theoretical exercise:

If you think it's out of the question, it's not. Members of Congress are working with oil companies now to levy a carbon fee on the transportation sector: "Key senators are weighing a request from Big Oil to levy a carbon fee on the industry rather than wrap it into a sweeping cap-and-trade system that covers most of the U.S. economy. If accepted, the approach — supported by ConocoPhillips, BP America and Exxon Mobil Corp. — could rearrange the politics of the Senate climate debate and potentially open up votes that may not be there otherwise."

Such an approach would do nothing but cause more economic pain for American households. Higher gas prices lower employment, income, and spending, and Americans will have to dip into their savings to pay for higher gas prices. Heritage economist Karen Campbell details these effects in her paper, "How Rising Gas Prices Hurt American Households."

Furthermore, a carbon fee would do very little to reduce CO2 emissions. As Senior Policy Analyst Ben Lieberman points out, gasoline prices have already reached these levels in Western Europe where nations have made commitments to cut CO2, yet we are outperforming them in terms of emissions reductions.

One problem with America right now is that too few people consider the long-range ramifications of these issues.  For example:

Higher fuel prices adversely affect just about every aspect of the economy. Food prices, for instance, will increase as it costs more to harvest, manufacture and transport food. And as the price of airline tickets rise, people will travel less. It may be easier to support these policies when public transportation is readily available – although the cost of public transportation will rise as well. However, many parts of the country do not have access to public transportation and have to drive a significant distance just to get to a grocery store.

Indeed, the rural, poorer areas will be hit hardest by a spike in gasoline prices as residents in these areas spend a larger percentage of their income on fuel.

If this kind of plan moves forward, it will be lower income and rural Americans that get slammed hardest.  Is that you?

Moe Lane over at RedState offers this commentary which makes me chuckle:

Ace of Spades Headlines has already used the 'tar, feathers, and pitchforks' joke, so let me go to my backup response: if the 111th Congress raises the average price of gas to seven bucks a gallon, the major result will be that the 2010 Election Night map will give the impression that the entire country was dipped in raspberry jam.

Fortunately, I think this kind of taxation is something that can be rolled back easily and quickly.  It'll be painful while it lasts, but when the raspberry jam flows, the taxation goes.  Just don't forget who took the serious bite out of your budget first.

There's my two cents.

Political Cartoons By Ramirez

He just keeps cranking out the goodness:

Republican Solutions In The Real World

It's one thing for Republicans to win numerous special elections over the past few months...it's another to actually achieve results after winning those elections. So, how are they doing?

Pretty well, actually.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

If you are sick of the fecklessness and fiscal responsibility fakers in Washington, here is something to lift your spirits.

Read ... NJ Gov. Chris Christie’s austerity speech and action plan outlined at a meeting of the Garden State’s League of Municipalities here. I’ve been longing for a public official with the courage and audacity to say “suck it up”, take responsibility, stand up to the unions and the permanent Nanny State, and make the tough choices that other politicians keep pretending they don’t have to make or keep kicking down the road.

Chris Christie is the real deal. Partial transcript thanks to Mish. Read the whole thing:

In the time we got here, of the approximately $29 billion budget there was only $14 billion left. Of the $14 billion, $8 billion could not be touched because of contracts with public worker unions, because of bond covenants, because of commitments we made accepting stimulus money. So we had to find a way to save $2.3 billion in a $6 billion pool of money.

When I went into the treasurer’s off in the first two weeks of my term, there was no happy meetings. They presented me with 378 possible freezes and lapses to be able to balance the budget. I accepted 375 of them.

There is a great deal of discussion about me doing that by executive action. Every day that went by was a day where money was going out the door such that the $6 billion pool was getting less and less. So something needed to be done.

People did not send me here to talk, the people sent me here to do. So we took the executive action we did to stop the bleeding.

As we move forward, and we evaluate what we need to do three weeks from now in our fiscal year 2011 budget address, you all need to understand the context from which we operate.

Our citizens are already the most overtaxed in America. US mayors hear it all the time. You know that the public appetite for ever increasing taxes has reached an end.

So when we freeze $475 million in school aid, I am hearing the reverberations from school boards saying now you are just going to force us to raise taxes.

Well there is a 4% cap in place as you all know, yet school boards continue to give out raises which exceed that cap, just on salary. Not to mention the fact that most of them get no contribution towards the spiraling increase in health care benefits.

Now, we are going to reduce spending at the state level. And we are going to continue to reduce it because we have no choice but to do so. Our obligation to you is twofold. One, is to let you know that. So I’m’ letting you know that.

Second to work with the legislature to give you the tools helping you to reduce spending at the municipal level. Now the pension and benefit reform package that was passed unanimously in the senate this week begins to give you some of those tools.

But it is only a beginning.

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell

This is great news, both in practice and symbolically. The new governor of Virginia aimed to save $40,000 from his transition budget, but managed to save the taxpayers $80,000 through a system of scrimping that taxpayers will no doubt appreciate during these tough times:

The grungy office space, used supplies and limited freshening of the official gubernatorial quarters paid off...

That $80,000 -- enough to cover the average salary of two entry-level teachers -- will revert to the general fund if not used by June 30. That's the same general fund that lawmakers are trying to plug through $4 billion in cuts.

"We tried to be creative, cut out what we didn't need, and looked for new ways of doing things and covering costs," McDonnell said. "It added up to some saved dollars, and I appreciate what our team was able to do."

McDonnell has also cut salaries in his Cabinet, and taken a pay cut, himself. Both his Republican Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling and Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinnelli saved a nice chunk of their transition budgets as well.

This is how to create a winning environment for the GOP - not only do the American people reject what the Dems are peddling, but the GOP has alternative plans that are working. Republicans can't be just the 'party of no', but rather must have a robust platform of real solutions that will work in the real world. Just think what could happen if Governors, state legislators, and Congress were all successfully transitioned into Republican seats with real solutions that work in the real world.

Add to that some other Republicans who are not new but are still succeeding at generating real economic recovery, like Mitch Daniels and Nebraska state Treasurer Shane Osborn, and we could actually experience a real recovery.

Fancy that!

There's my two cents.

Daily Must-Reads

Is the game just about over for unions?

No more Earmarxists!

Anti-Americanism in Russia is reaching Cold War levels, with plenty of encouragement from the government.  Obama's strategy of weakness and stern finger-shaking is going to become more and more dangerous as Russia's power and influence rises.

The smartest guys in the room?  "Watching the left grapple with the awful truth that conservatives were right about Obama can be amusing."

Corruptocrat Rangel finally resigns his leadership position.  Then again, maybe not.  At least not without being kicked out.

Too Much Dependence, Too Much Government

The Washington Times reports on the bad news:

The so-called "Great Recession" has left Americans depending on the government dole like never before.

Without record levels of welfare, unemployment and other government benefits as well as tax cuts last year, the income of U.S. households would have plunged by an astonishing $723 billion — more than four times the record $167 billion drop reported last month by the Commerce Department.

Moreover, for the first time since the Great Depression, Americans took more aid from the government than they paid in taxes.

The figures show the devastating results of the massive job losses last year and indicate that the economic recovery that began last summer is tenuous and has a long way to go before many Americans resume life as normal, analysts said.

Economic growth typically depends on consumer spending, which is fed by wages, rents, interest and other forms of income. But the tentative revival of consumer spending in the second half of last year appears to have been fed largely by an extraordinary flood of government spending, as growth in other kinds of income has disappeared.

The numbers are ugly:

While wages and other job-related income fell by a record $206 billion last year to $7.84 trillion, transfer payments from the government such as unemployment checks and Social Security burgeoned by $231 billion to $2.1 trillion. Meanwhile, the amount of taxes that individual Americans paid plummeted by $325 billion to $2.1 trillion as a result of middle-class tax cuts and because nearly 6 million people were thrown out of work and are no longer paying payroll taxes.

And yet, we still have Congress, happily doling out billions of dollars to whomever they favor at the moment without a thought toward how they're going to actually pay for that spending.  Oh wait, maybe there is some consideration there, but you won't like that, either:

Democrats are at risk of losing their House majority over their profligate spending, their health care overreach and a general disdain for the way they do business and Steny Hoyer thinks the solution is raising taxes in an election year? Has Rove the Magnificent cultivated a mole in the House Democratic leadership?

"No one likes raising revenue, and understandably so," Hoyer said in an address at the Brookings Institution. "But if you're going to buy, you need to pay.

"If need be, I am hopeful that both parties will agree to look at revenues as part of the solution — not as a gateway to higher spending, but as part of a compromise that cuts spending and balances the budget," he added.

Hoyer, a voice for centrists in the House leadership, said reining in record debt requires a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.

Of course, we know that our illustrious federal government never actually cuts spending, so tax increases aren't going to work.  DrewM at AoS gives us a lot of great analysis on that, including:

The economics of deficit reduction isn't hard...cut spending and pursue economic policies that will spur growth. We've done the latter before so we know it's possible. The challenge is the politics of the former. Sure voters say they want to control spending but that's in theory not reality. "Cutting spending" is like "health care reform", it's real popular as an amorphic phrase, not so popular when you get around to doing it.

Even if we could control discretionary spending, and that includes defense spending which I'm betting a lot of you don't want to see cut, we still aren't anywhere near enough money. No, we too need to be Willie Sutton and go where the money is...entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Here again the economics are simple...when Social Security was enacted in the '30's* the life expectancy was 60-63 years, it's now almost 78. In that same time the retirement age has gone from 65 all the way up to...67. We simply can't afford to subsidize people for this long. Add in Medicare costs and the fact that the Baby Boomers are a huge population and...we are screwed.

Tax increases are not only the wrong medicine for what we are suffering from, they will only make things worse. Yet, this is exactly what the Democrats are suggesting and likely will push through. Did I mention we are screwed?

Looking at all of these factors combined, our country is careening toward the tax tipping point, where the majority of the nation is dependent upon government and continues voting itself more and more goodies which are paid for solely by the shrinking majority.  That works for a while...until the minority either leaves the country or is taxed into oblivion itself.  When that happens, and when there are too few productive people working to fund the slacking of the majority, where will the money come from?

Nowhere.  The country closes up shop, and the spoils are picked over by the vultures hanging around just over the borders.

The tax tipping point is getting closer and closer -- we're around 47% right now -- and, under Barack Obama and the radical Leftist Democrat leadership, we've got the pedal floored straight for the magic 51%.  Unfortunately, that will be the death of America for all 100% of us.

There's my two cents.

Only One Senator Apparently Thinks Congress Should Fund Its Own Spending

This is exactly the kind of thing that has driven Congress' approval rate down to historical levels:

Liberals are up in arms because Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) is blocking a bill that would extend unemployment benefits, extend health insurance subsidies (COBRA), extend highway funding, increase Medicare reimbursement rates for physicians (Doc Fix), extend a temporary "flood insurance" program and continue aid for small business programs.

Gateway Pundit shows the headline:

Bunning's stand has infuriated the democratic-media complex.
Here is today's Yahoo homepage:

But, back to the original article.  As usual, you can't just look at the media's headlines and expect to understand what's really going on.  Heritage explains (my emphasis):

The bill, H.R. 4691, was introduced and passed the House on February 25th by a voice vote. When the bill came up in the Senate, Sen. Bunning objected and requested a vote to offset the estimated $10 billion cost of this bill over the next month. With the two words "I object" Sen. Bunning may save taxpayers $10 billion and Sen. Bunning has provided America a stark example of how Members of Congress refuse to pay for new spending initiatives.

Bunning said of the bill "if we can't find $10 billion to pay for it, we're not going to pay for anything." A month ago, Congress passed something called pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting when they increased the the statutory limit of allowable national debt to $14.29 trillion, a $1.9 trillion increase. The current PAYGO rules are loaded with exceptions and loopholes, yet many saw the new PAYGO rules as a step in the right direction to restrain some out of control spending. The problem is that Congress seems to waive the PAYGO rule rather than offset one cent of new spending.

The history of PAYGO is one of complete irresponsibility, as Heritage analysts detail at the link - since these new rules were enacted, unfunded spending has actually accelerated.  In the case of Bunning's objection, here's what it comes down to:

Senator Bunning has proposed an offset of spending to pay for the one month extension of benefits consisting of "the unobligated amounts appropriated or made available under divisions A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 115). $10,267,000,000 is rescinded on a pro rata basis." Sen. Bunning is asking that the Obama Administration cut $10 billion of unspent Stimulus monies out of a $787 billion dollar proposal to continue to pay benefits to unemployed Americans.

Liberals would have you believe that Sen.  Bunning is causing Americans to be furloughed from jobs and to have empty unemployment extension checks. Maybe they should look in the mirror and find ways to pay for this new spending. America is carrying over $12 trillion in debt and Americans should be thanking the one Senator who is educating this nation as to the out of control new spending coming from the federal government at a time when this same Congress refuses pay for it.

Bunning is simply asking Congress to fund this $10 billion out of the unspent 'stimulus' money, and the Left is flipping out and accusing him of throwing American workers off the payrolls himself!  It's ridiculous and dishonest.

Regardless, it is somewhat disheartening that only one Senator apparently feels it's important to actually outline how Congress is going to pay for their spending.  Where is the rest of the GOP??  Hello??  You idiots should be fighting each other to jump on this bandwagon first!  This is the kind of thing that Americans want to see, and is likely to be the primary issue in the next couple elections!  Bunning has received bomb threats for his actions; he should be getting 40 other Senators standing right there next to him.

It might be time for a few strategic phone calls to some other Republicans in the Senate to kick them in the proverbial pants about this issue.

There's my two cents.

You're Too Stupid To Live Your Own Life

The left's assault on a vast array of our lives continues.

Want affordable energy? Too bad:

By presidential proclamation [Bill Clinton] set nearly 1,700 square miles of Bureau of Land Management lands in Utah off limits with his surprise designation of the Grand Staircase – Escalante National Monument and, with it, access to over 11 billion tons of recoverable, low sulfur, high btu (energy) coal. Several more such designations followed in what many felt was a War on the West.

A recently revealed Department of Interior “internal working document” has set off similar fire alarms across the West. It identifies BLM lands as potential sites for designation as new national monuments, as possibly meriting “special conservation” status or as targets of “land rationalization”. Unlike a national park or national wildlife refuge, these actions are carried out by the Executive Branch without any need for Congressional approval.

The Department of Interior document in question ­- reportedly drafted at the behest of Obama’s Interior Secretary Ken Salazar – identifies more than six times the land area locked up in the Grand Staircase designation and, like it, has the potential to thwart access to a wealth of natural resources including oil, gas, gold and timber. The document’s brief descriptions of the potential national monuments in AZ, CA, CO, MT, NM, OR, UT and WA does not include acreage figures for all of the14 BLM sites. The total for where figures are given is 13,535,000 acres, an area larger than Maryland and Delaware combined. In counties with land bases predominately held by the BLM, eliminating access to natural resources on these lands can be near mortal economic wounds.

Keep in mind how the government is doing its best to destroy Toyota via Congressional hearings over recalls as you read this next one:

Will the democrats parade these executives before the cameras, too?
Government Motors today recalled 1.3 million cars in North America.
Freep.com reported:

General Motors said tonight it will recall 1.3 million cars in North America to replace a power steering motor that could fail, following a federal probe launched in January.

GM said the recall would cover 2005-2010 Chevrolet Cobalts, 2007-10 Pontiac G5s and similar models sold in Canada and Mexico.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Agency in January had opened a probe of 905,000 Cobalts from the 2005 through 2009 model year following 1,132 complaints of power steering failures that could make the cars hard to control. The complaints included reports of 14 crashes and one injury.

“After our in-depth investigation, we found that this is a condition that takes time to develop. It tends to occur in older models out of warranty,” said Jamie Hresko, GM vice president of quality, in a statement. “Recalling these vehicles is the right thing to do for our customers’ peace of mind.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict these execs won’t get the same treatment from the mind-numbed, know-nothing, bloated Congressional bigots as the Toyota executives did.

Well, we all know how much integrity there is in Washington...

It's interesting to see how some of the most Lefty papers try to give Obama some helpful suggestions. One is now suggesting that he try to pack the Supreme Court:

This may come as a surprise to some people, but the U.S. Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court…

So if nine justices is not writ in stone, the embattled President Obama should deal with this hostile conservative/reactionary court by adding three members.

The court’s recent controversial decision equating corporations with individuals turned an already overly money-influenced campaign system into a veritable free-for-all of propaganda for corporate and vested interests. It was met with criticism by most legal scholars, praised only by corporate mouthpieces…

Had Roosevelt needed his court-packing plan, he would have had to do a better job of winning over the public. Secrecy undermined the proposal, including the president’s failure to bring Democratic leaders into his confidence before a news conference announcing the plan. Kentucky Sen. Alben Barkley complained that Roosevelt was a “poor quarterback” on the court plan.

That’s an easy enough mistake for Obama to avoid. He can easily be a quarterback for change on a court that will give the president continued grief as he tries to implement his agenda.

This is a serious action that we discussed before Obama even took office, but it's nevertheless somewhat laughable to think he can just wave a magic wand and make it happen. Fortunately for us, Obama's radical Leftist agenda has sapped his popularity and political capital far too much for that. But, this sort of thing also indicates what the Left thinks of such petty concepts as democracy, too.

Global (still) warning causes everything, and provides excuses, too:

White House economic adviser Larry Summers said on Monday winter blizzards were likely to distort U.S. February jobless figures, which are due to be released on Friday.

“The blizzards that affected much of the country during the last month are likely to distort the statistics. So it’s going to be very important … to look past whatever the next figures are to gauge the underlying trends,” Summers said in an interview with CNBC, according to a transcript.

Construction activity was hit particularly hard by the storms, but many restaurants and stores also had to close, putting the brakes on hiring plans and temporarily throwing some employees out of work.

Cause remember, snowstorms are caused by global warming. What an amazingly handy tool, that global warming! It can even bail a President out of some lousy unemployment numbers.

You're too stupid to live:

In addition to trying to cut the deficit, reform health care, stop global warming, and fix Washington's broken political culture, President Barack Obama has taken on an even weightier task: Getting rid of killer hot dogs. It seems that around a dozen kids choke to death every year eating hot dogs.

The threat--of more government meddling--is real. Reports the Washington Times:

Believe it or not, the government is about to regulate the shape of hot dogs. Bureaucrats at the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Agriculture and the Consumer Product Safety Commission are studying how to change the shape of hot dogs to prevent youngsters from choking. As a result, recent headlines have warned about "killer hot dogs" and "Doctors urging for a safer, choke-free hot dog."

Undoubtedly the administration will next turn to killer chicken, killer gum, and former President Jimmy Carter's nemesis, killer rabbits (one of which attempted to bite him while alive rather than choke him after being cooked).

The money the government is likely to spend on this effort would probably save several lives if spent on better health care for needy people. There's a larger issue at stake, however. Observes the Times:

Any child's death is tragic, but the government cannot regulate everything and create a risk-free kindergarten utopia. Perhaps bureaucrats will go after bathtubs next. More than 90 children younger than 5 died from drowning in bathtubs in 2006. Forty-three children younger than 10 died riding bicycles. Even in extremely regulated areas, there are many more deaths. In that age group, more than 1,100 died as a result of motor-vehicle accidents that year.

Life involves some risks. If government agencies don't have anything better to do than regulate hot dogs, their budgets should be cut to help them focus on essential duties.

Every now and then we get one of these stories that illustrates just how much competence the liberal Left thinks normal Americans have. They're seriously going to regulate such inanities as hot dogs? Tragic accidents happen, but you simply cannot legislate everything under the sun, nor protection from everything under the sun...that's why they're called accidents.

With a liberal Leftist government in power, there is nothing they won't attempt to control in the name of what's good for you, because you're too stupid to live your own life, you see. Hot dogs and all.

There's my two cents.

Daily Must-Reads

This update includes some stories from the end of last week.

While we were all paying attention to the DemCare dog-and-pony show, the Democrats attacked the CIA, introducing a bill that would create a new criminal class that could only be filled by CIA agents.  Fortunately, the GOP shamed them into pulling the provision out.

John Stossel: We don't need the FDA.

Even Dems are calling for Rangel's resignation.  Can we say 1994, anyone...?

Could this be the next President...?

Irony: Britain holds its first Tea Party.  Cool!  Welcome to the ideological club, friends!

Obama kills 23,000 Florida jobs by killing space travel.

Ah, that explains it: Obama endorses the U.S. Olympic hockey team, thus dooming them to failure.  The good news: Obama to travel to Missouri to campaign for Claire McCaskill.  (No, really, just ask Harry Reid how an Obama visit works out...)

Pelosi unconcerned with corruption in the 'most ethical Congress' in history.

Guess who's running for New York Governor?  The Manhattan Madam of Eliot Spitzer fame.  Lots of humor in this one, but my favorite quote of the story has to be:  "At least she has a business background. That will be important since the state is bankrupt."  I love it!!!

Yeah, They're Committing Political Suicide...The Question Is WHY

Andy McCarthy cuts to the motivation of the radical Leftist Democrats currently running the American government (h/t Melekiop, emphasis mine):

Today's Democrats are controlled by the radical Left, and it is more important to them to execute the permanent transformation of American society than it is to win the upcoming election cycles. They have already factored in losing in November — even losing big. For them, winning big now outweighs that. I think they're right. 

I hear Republicans getting giddy over the fact that "reconciliation," if it comes to that, is a huge political loser. That's the wrong way to look at it. The Democratic leadership has already internalized the inevitability of taking its political lumps. That makes reconciliation truly scary. Since the Dems know they will have to ram this monstrosity through, they figure it might as well be as monstrous as they can get wavering Democrats to go along with. Clipping the leadership's statist ambitions in order to peel off a few Republicans is not going to work. I'm glad Republicans have held firm, but let's not be under any illusions about what that means. In the Democrat leadership, we are not dealing with conventional politicians for whom the goal of being reelected is paramount and will rein in their radicalism. They want socialized medicine and all it entails about government control even more than they want to win elections. After all, if the party of government transforms the relationship between the citizen and the state, its power over our lives will be vast even in those cycles when it is not in the majority. This is about power, and there is more to power than winning elections, especially if you've calculated that your opposition does not have the gumption to dismantle your ballooning welfare state.

Consequently, the next six weeks, like the next ten months, are going to be worse than we think. We're wired to think that everyone plays by the usual rules of politics — i.e., if the tide starts to change, the side against whom it has turned modifies its positions in order to stay viable in the next election. But what will happen here will be the opposite. You have a party with the numbers to do anything it puts its mind to, led by movement Leftists who see their window of opportunity is closing. We seem to expect them to moderate because that's what everybody in their position does. But they won't. They will put their heads down and go for as much transformation as they can get, figuring that once they get it, it will never be rolled back. The only question is whether there are enough Democrats who are conventional politicians and who care about being reelected, such that they will deny the leadership the numbers it needs. But I don't think we should take much heart in this possibility. Those Democrats may well come to think they are going to lose anyway — that's why so many of them are abandoning ship now. If that's the case, their incentive will be to vote with the leadership.

This idea that they've already accepted massive electoral losses and are pushing forward anyway is the real danger, and it is not insignificant.  Basically, this would be like a pilot with a terminal disease flying into battle with no ammunition because he doesn't need any - he's on a suicide mission.  Can you beat back that sort of attack?  Yes, but the struggle is horrific.  It is far better to prevent such a circumstance from ever becoming reality than to have to beat it back.  Case in point:

For Republicans, it won't be enough to fight this thing, then deride it if Democrats pull it off, and finally coast to a very likely electoral victory in November. The question is: What are you going to do to roll this back? What is your plan to undo this?

This post from Irwin Stelzer at The Standard caught my eye this morning (my italics):

Americans overwhelmingly say that their main concern is jobs, and that they are satisfied with their current health care arrangements. In response, an allegedly chastened President Obama "pivoted," and says his primary concern from now on will be job creation, which will take priority over his controversial plan to radically change the nation's health care system. Yet, last week he backed a $15 billion job-creation bill, which passed the Senate, and a $1 trillion health care bill. Since the federal balance sheet is already under huge pressure, this set of priorities tells us that the Obama administration intends to concentrate available resources on transforming the economy — a long-term, permanent restructuring of the health care and energy sectors that was planned long before the failure of Lehman Brothers triggered the financial mess Obama inherited.

Yup.

This ideological drive is true on the push for DemCare reconciliation, but it's also true on the push on cap-n-tax, the dismantling of our national defense, and the direct attacks on the moral and traditional foundation of this nation.  This was the danger that the conservative Right was warning about way back before the 2008 election.  Too bad more people didn't listen.  Elections have consequences, and this nation is just now starting to wake up to one of the biggest electoral mistakes in its history, as those elected to power in 2008 had a goal of not just winning, but in fundamentally changing (i.e. destroying) America as it has existed for 230+ years.  They are doing that now, and too much of the Right doesn't seem to understand what's at stake.

Let's hope we can install enough people who understand the end goal of Obama and his radical Leftist Dems, and are willing to boldly stand up and not only fight these measures, but to aggressively lay plans for rolling back anything and everything they've accomplished since taking office.  It's the only chance we have of restoring this nation to one of freedom, prosperity, and opportunity.

There's my two cents.

Ethi-what? Transparen-what?

Remember, this is the most ethical Congress in history.

No, really, they actually promised that. They didn't mean it:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) insisted on Friday that she is running the most ethical and honest Congress in history. At the same time, however, she indicated she will not ask House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D.-N.Y.) to resign his chairmanship—at least for now. Democrook Charlie Rangel was found guilty of ethics violations yesterday. But, at least he wasn’t caught stashing $90,000 of cold hard cash in his freezer like crooked democrat William Jefferson who was recently sent to the slammer for 13 years.

Amazingly, she's still saying it:

And hey, how about this for transparency:

Things that are transparent: Saran Wrap, glass, water. Things that aren’t transparent: brick walls, mountains, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).

Or so it would seem, if you take a look at the CEQ’s response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request issued by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in which the Chamber asked for the release of documents relating to agency records on global warming.

As the Chamber notes, “CEQ had identified 87 documents totaling 759 pages that were responsive to our request. HOWEVER, they could not release most of the documents because they ‘originated’ with another agency.”

So what did CEQ produce? An entirely blacked-out, redacted, Sharpie-markered e-mail, pictured above. (You can also take a look at a PDF of the document, courtesy of the Chamber.)

The Chamber says the response to their FOIA is astonishing, given President Barack Obama’s call for transparency beginning with day one in office:

On his very first full day in office, President Obama sent a memorandum to his executive agencies extolling the virtues of transparency and open government and directing them to facilitate public access to information. To further that directive, Obama issued a second memorandum encouraging agencies to “adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure” when responding to public requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA):

“The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.

Here's the form itself:

The latest in a long, long line of examples of how transparent the Obama administration truly is.

There's my two cents.

Reconciliation Immolation Is On The Way

The push is on. Friday I got this e-mail from the Obama campaign administration:

The millions of Americans suffering in a health care system that costs too much, and denies too many care, cannot afford another year-long debate.

President Obama made that clear at yesterday's bipartisan meeting on reform: While he is listening to good ideas from both sides of the aisle and hopes to move forward in a bipartisan fashion, the American people cannot afford an incremental approach.

Yesterday, the President extended a hand to the Republicans and showed he's open to any idea that will help cover the uninsured, cut costs, and give Americans control over their own health care.

But he made clear that the millions of Americans who cannot afford insurance can't wait on political games in Washington. After this meeting, all ideas are on the table. Now, Congress must move swiftly to complete and pass a final bill.

It was a conversation focused on substance, not process, and it showed. Both sides found areas of agreement.

But there was a fundamental divide on establishing common sense rules to protect families from the worst insurance company practices, and making sure that every American -- rich or poor, old or young -- has access to care.

The President does not believe we can address a problem this big incrementally -- or after another year of rising costs and loss of coverage.

This is a pack of lies, of course, as you know if you checked out the summary post from last week. However, it does pretty much guarantee that Obama is going to push for reconciliation even though he knows that with only about 30% approval, the Dems are going to be slaughtered in November because of it.

Nancy Pelosi confirms it:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), appearing on ABC's This Week on Sunday, sent a thinly-veiled message to wavering members of her caucus: passing Obamacare trumps keeping your seat in November.

Pelosi also said of the bill that despite sizable public opposition, "the American people need it," and "We're here to do the job for the American people."

VARGAS: What do you say to your members, when it does come to the House to vote on this, who are in real fear of losing their seats in November if they support you now?

PELOSI: Well first of all our members — every one of them — wants health care. I think everybody wants affordable health care for all Americans. They know that this will take courage. It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare. And many of the same forces that were at work decades ago are at work again against this bill.

But the American people need it, why are we here? We're not here just to self perpetuate our service in Congress. We're here to do the job for the American people. To get them results that gives them not only health security, but economic security, because the health issue is an economic issue for — for America's families.

But it'll still be the responsibility of Republicans, you know:

The Hill reported:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Sunday that Republicans have left their mark on the healthcare bill and should accept that the bill will go forward.

“They’ve had plenty of opportunity to make their voices heard,” she said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning. “Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint.”

No, no, no, Nancy, actually it cannot, and they have not. It's really interesting to see how desperate you are to evade responsibility for this, though.

What's Obama's latest justification for shoving DemCare down our throats? It's Olympic spirit. No joke. It's pathetic.

Of course, there's just one problem with all of this reconciliation talk...Senate Dems aren't committing to it yet:

“…reconciliation cannot be used to pass comprehensive health care reform. It won’t work. It won’t work because it was never designed for that kind of significant legislation. It was designed for deficit reduction… The major package of health care reform cannot move through the reconciliation process. It will not work… It will not work because of the Byrd rule which says anything that doesn’t score for budget purposes has to be eliminated. That would eliminate all the delivery system reform, all the insurance market reform, all of those things the experts tell us are really the most important parts of this bill. The only possible role that I can see for reconciliation would be make modest changes in the major package to improve affordability, to deal with what share of Medicaid expansion the federal government pays, those kinds of issues, which is the traditional role for reconciliation in health care.”

That's the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad, by the way.

This should get really interesting. Get ready to dial the phones.

There's my two cents.



Related Reading:
The four minute guide to the seven hour summit