"Sen. Tom Harkin, the chairman of the Senate Health Committee, said negotiators from the White House, Senate and House reached a final deal on healthcare reform days before Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts.
Labor leaders had announced an agreement with White House and congressional representatives over an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans on the Thursday before the special election.
[snip]
Harkin said “we had an agreement, with the House, the White House and the Senate. We sent it to [the Congressional Budget Office] to get scored and then Tuesday happened and we didn’t get it back.” He said negotiators had an agreement in hand on Friday, Jan. 15"
We should all be very proud of what we accomplished against great odds. Knowing how close they came to realizing their dream of nationalizing health care helps explain their denial that the special election result had anything to do with Obamacare. This fight is far from over, as President Obama said in his SOTU "we don't quit". Neither can we.
On to November.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Obama's Freezing For A Reason
Make no mistake, President Obama is not now and will never be, a fiscal hawk. Announcing this phony freeze on a minuscule portion of discretionary spending during his SOTU is his feeble attempt to win back the support of independent voters. These are the folks that jumped off his bandwagon in Virginia and New Jersey last fall and overturned it in Massachusetts last Tuesday.
After these electoral defeats, the president's radical agenda is in deep trouble. So, he's going to pull out the same rhetoric that got him elected in the first place. President Obama and his advisers are forgetting one thing, the American people are not stupid. They may have bought his act during the campaign, that he was going to cut spending, reduce the deficit etc.. Fool me once(not this voter) shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. President Obama's first year in office has made a mockery of those promises. The last time I checked, freezing spending after you have already increased it by 25%, isn't the same thing as going line by line through the budget and cutting all the waste(he made that promise in 2 debates with McCain).
The president is trumpeting that this "freeze" will save $15 billion dollars next year. While that's not chump change, it's dwarfed by the $75 billion increase in the cost of the stimulus bill that refuses to stimulate. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just released the new figure for the stimulus bill of $862 billion, up from $787 billion because of costs for unemployment for Americans who can't find work. That's right, President Obama's promised jobs engine and solution to the recession has proven to be an abject failure, but it like most every other government program, won't be subject to his "freeze".
Here's CBO's summary and Heritage's true analysis of our country's fiscal health:
"Under current law, the federal fiscal outlook beyond this year is daunting ... accumulating deficits will push federal debt held by the public to significantly higher levels. At the end of 2009, debt held by the public was $7.5 trillion, or 54% of GDP; by the end of 2020, debt is projected to climb to $15 trillion, or 67% of GDP." But as bad as those numbers are, our fiscal health is actually worse. The CBO is forced by Congress to make a number of unrealistic assumptions about future revenue and spending changes. But their report makes up for this by including alternative projections that make more realistic assumptions. Heritage fellow Brian Riedl crunched those numbers and found:
The public debt -- $7.5 trillion at the end of 2009 -- is projected to triple to $22.1 trillion by 2020.
Over what would be President Obama's eight years in office if re-elected, baseline budget deficits are projected to total $9.7 trillion -- nearly triple the $3.3 trillion in deficits accumulated by President George W. Bush.
By 2020, the budget forecasts a $1.9 trillion annual budget deficit, a public debt of 98 percent of GDP and annual net interest spending surpassing $1 trillion."
Where is the government spending all this money?
"In 2009, federal spending reached 24.7 percent of GDP -- the highest level in American history outside of World War II. Non-defense spending reached an all-time record of 20.1 percent of GDP."
So, after Obama/Pelosi/Reid have gone on a spending binge the likes this country has never seen before, they'll accept a freeze on some spending. How very kind of them. For the record, here's what the "freeze" will actually apply to:
"Obama's spending "freeze" will only last three years, will not start until 2011, will only apply to a $447 billion slice of the federal government's $3.5 trillion budget, and will not apply to any of the unspent $862 billion stimulus plan, his health care plan or the House of Representatives' additional $156 billion stimulus plan."
If government were run like a family, it's the equivalent of borrowing money you can never repay to buy a Malibu dream house that's about to fall off a cliff and claiming you're being fiscally responsible because you bought the beach chairs at WalMart.
After these electoral defeats, the president's radical agenda is in deep trouble. So, he's going to pull out the same rhetoric that got him elected in the first place. President Obama and his advisers are forgetting one thing, the American people are not stupid. They may have bought his act during the campaign, that he was going to cut spending, reduce the deficit etc.. Fool me once(not this voter) shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. President Obama's first year in office has made a mockery of those promises. The last time I checked, freezing spending after you have already increased it by 25%, isn't the same thing as going line by line through the budget and cutting all the waste(he made that promise in 2 debates with McCain).
The president is trumpeting that this "freeze" will save $15 billion dollars next year. While that's not chump change, it's dwarfed by the $75 billion increase in the cost of the stimulus bill that refuses to stimulate. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just released the new figure for the stimulus bill of $862 billion, up from $787 billion because of costs for unemployment for Americans who can't find work. That's right, President Obama's promised jobs engine and solution to the recession has proven to be an abject failure, but it like most every other government program, won't be subject to his "freeze".
Here's CBO's summary and Heritage's true analysis of our country's fiscal health:
"Under current law, the federal fiscal outlook beyond this year is daunting ... accumulating deficits will push federal debt held by the public to significantly higher levels. At the end of 2009, debt held by the public was $7.5 trillion, or 54% of GDP; by the end of 2020, debt is projected to climb to $15 trillion, or 67% of GDP." But as bad as those numbers are, our fiscal health is actually worse. The CBO is forced by Congress to make a number of unrealistic assumptions about future revenue and spending changes. But their report makes up for this by including alternative projections that make more realistic assumptions. Heritage fellow Brian Riedl crunched those numbers and found:
The public debt -- $7.5 trillion at the end of 2009 -- is projected to triple to $22.1 trillion by 2020.
Over what would be President Obama's eight years in office if re-elected, baseline budget deficits are projected to total $9.7 trillion -- nearly triple the $3.3 trillion in deficits accumulated by President George W. Bush.
By 2020, the budget forecasts a $1.9 trillion annual budget deficit, a public debt of 98 percent of GDP and annual net interest spending surpassing $1 trillion."
Where is the government spending all this money?
"In 2009, federal spending reached 24.7 percent of GDP -- the highest level in American history outside of World War II. Non-defense spending reached an all-time record of 20.1 percent of GDP."
So, after Obama/Pelosi/Reid have gone on a spending binge the likes this country has never seen before, they'll accept a freeze on some spending. How very kind of them. For the record, here's what the "freeze" will actually apply to:
"Obama's spending "freeze" will only last three years, will not start until 2011, will only apply to a $447 billion slice of the federal government's $3.5 trillion budget, and will not apply to any of the unspent $862 billion stimulus plan, his health care plan or the House of Representatives' additional $156 billion stimulus plan."
If government were run like a family, it's the equivalent of borrowing money you can never repay to buy a Malibu dream house that's about to fall off a cliff and claiming you're being fiscally responsible because you bought the beach chairs at WalMart.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Tone Deaf Populism
Attempting to get his mojo back after Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts, President Obama is testing his populist chops:
“We want our money back,” Barack Obama has told US banks, announcing a levy on large financial institutions to help repay the notorious bailout he imposed last year."
Some backround:
"The Treasury estimated net losses on its $700 billion bailout program at $68.5 billion for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009."
How much of this loss is from banks?
"A senior Treasury official said the bank investments will ultimately produce a positive return for taxpayers."
So, the president is taxing banks to recoup losses incurred by other TARP recipients. To make matters worse, those taxes will be passed on to average Americans in the form of higher bank fees. Nice job Mr. President, you aim for fatcats and hit the middle and working classes. As populism goes this is pretty close to being termed an epic fail. Fear not though, the American public is angry and wants its money back. You just have to pick a better target for their ire. As it happens, I have a few suggestions to get you started.
First up, Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner:
"The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, while led by Geithner, pressured AIG not to disclose payments it made to such banks as Goldman Sachs Group and Deutsche Bank, to settle swap contracts at the height of the financial crisis, according to a Bloomberg report this morning."
"Emails between Geithner’s Fed and AIG lawyers show that the embattled insurer originally included the information about the swaps in a draft securities filing. But under review by the Fed, AIG was told to cross out references to the swap payments, which were made at 100 cents on the dollar.
The Fed and AIG have taken heat for months about the secrecy surrounding the swap payments, which totaled $62 billion and have been criticized as a “back door bail out” of banks. When asked about the lack of disclosure during a congressional hearing last year, a New York Fed official said that releasing such information at the height of the financial crisis would have hurt AIG’s ability to operate."
There you go Mr. President. Here's a guy who made sure that Wall St. and European fatcats took the American taxpayers for a cool $62 billion. Can't you just feel the populist juices flowing? The best part is that he works for your administration, so firing him will be a snap. You have the added bonus that he's a tax cheat and Americans can't stand the idea that taxes are only something the little people have to pay. With Timmy you get a populist two-fer, but I understand he's your buddy and you'd hate to fire him in the current job market.
Next up, the architects of that $787 billion taxpayer swindle of a "stimulus" bill.
You had three administration officials give three different numbers for jobs "saved or created" this past weekend. The only number that really matters though, is that unemployment is at 10% nationally. You claimed that without the stimulus unemployment would reach 8%. It's time to kill this boondoggle before it wastes even more money.
"Absolutely amazing poll results from CNN today about the $787 stimulus package: nearly three out of four Americans think the money has been wasted."
On second thought, I see that you brought David Plouffe back to right the ship and he intends to campaign this fall on the stimulus being the signature achievement of year One of Obama.
Okay, so far I'm 0-2, but this last one's gold. Go after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their former head honcho, Jim Johnson. Now that your administration has decided to remove the previous $2oo billion (each) caps for these two entities the American taxpayer is now liable for their $5 trillion of sub-prime mortgage holdings.
"New research by Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer for Fannie Mae and a housing expert, has found that from the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime or Alt-A. [Emphasis added] "
You can explain how community activist groups like ACORN pushed for the Community Re-Investment Act (CRA) that required banks to make risky loans in the name of fairness. You can then explain how noted fixers and prominent Democrats Jim Johnson and Frank Raines made tens of millions while defrauding banks into thinking they were making safe investments, the infamous credit default swaps. Don't forget to mention how Bernake kept interest rates nice and low, allowing a great big housing bubble to form and why you think this qualifies him to another term. Then, BOOM the housing bubble bursts, wiping out jobs and 401K's in one fell swoop.
The American public would cheer as you had Johnson frog-marched out of whatever corporate boardroom he's currently ensconced in. Every media market would cover you as their local ACORN offices were padlocked.
On second thought Mr. President, populism may not be for you after all. The thing of it is, the American people are angry at policies your administration enacted or you supported personally. Your best bet may be to try humility. You see, the American people just don't cling to their guns and their faith. The American people are pretty partial to Freedom and don't look kindly on those who want to take it away. Believe it or not sir, a huge majority of Americans are proud of their country and don't believe our elected leader should be apologizing to every two-bit dictator with a grudge.
“We want our money back,” Barack Obama has told US banks, announcing a levy on large financial institutions to help repay the notorious bailout he imposed last year."
Some backround:
"The Treasury estimated net losses on its $700 billion bailout program at $68.5 billion for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009."
How much of this loss is from banks?
"A senior Treasury official said the bank investments will ultimately produce a positive return for taxpayers."
So, the president is taxing banks to recoup losses incurred by other TARP recipients. To make matters worse, those taxes will be passed on to average Americans in the form of higher bank fees. Nice job Mr. President, you aim for fatcats and hit the middle and working classes. As populism goes this is pretty close to being termed an epic fail. Fear not though, the American public is angry and wants its money back. You just have to pick a better target for their ire. As it happens, I have a few suggestions to get you started.
First up, Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner:
"The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, while led by Geithner, pressured AIG not to disclose payments it made to such banks as Goldman Sachs Group and Deutsche Bank, to settle swap contracts at the height of the financial crisis, according to a Bloomberg report this morning."
"Emails between Geithner’s Fed and AIG lawyers show that the embattled insurer originally included the information about the swaps in a draft securities filing. But under review by the Fed, AIG was told to cross out references to the swap payments, which were made at 100 cents on the dollar.
The Fed and AIG have taken heat for months about the secrecy surrounding the swap payments, which totaled $62 billion and have been criticized as a “back door bail out” of banks. When asked about the lack of disclosure during a congressional hearing last year, a New York Fed official said that releasing such information at the height of the financial crisis would have hurt AIG’s ability to operate."
There you go Mr. President. Here's a guy who made sure that Wall St. and European fatcats took the American taxpayers for a cool $62 billion. Can't you just feel the populist juices flowing? The best part is that he works for your administration, so firing him will be a snap. You have the added bonus that he's a tax cheat and Americans can't stand the idea that taxes are only something the little people have to pay. With Timmy you get a populist two-fer, but I understand he's your buddy and you'd hate to fire him in the current job market.
Next up, the architects of that $787 billion taxpayer swindle of a "stimulus" bill.
You had three administration officials give three different numbers for jobs "saved or created" this past weekend. The only number that really matters though, is that unemployment is at 10% nationally. You claimed that without the stimulus unemployment would reach 8%. It's time to kill this boondoggle before it wastes even more money.
"Absolutely amazing poll results from CNN today about the $787 stimulus package: nearly three out of four Americans think the money has been wasted."
On second thought, I see that you brought David Plouffe back to right the ship and he intends to campaign this fall on the stimulus being the signature achievement of year One of Obama.
Okay, so far I'm 0-2, but this last one's gold. Go after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their former head honcho, Jim Johnson. Now that your administration has decided to remove the previous $2oo billion (each) caps for these two entities the American taxpayer is now liable for their $5 trillion of sub-prime mortgage holdings.
"New research by Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer for Fannie Mae and a housing expert, has found that from the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime or Alt-A. [Emphasis added] "
You can explain how community activist groups like ACORN pushed for the Community Re-Investment Act (CRA) that required banks to make risky loans in the name of fairness. You can then explain how noted fixers and prominent Democrats Jim Johnson and Frank Raines made tens of millions while defrauding banks into thinking they were making safe investments, the infamous credit default swaps. Don't forget to mention how Bernake kept interest rates nice and low, allowing a great big housing bubble to form and why you think this qualifies him to another term. Then, BOOM the housing bubble bursts, wiping out jobs and 401K's in one fell swoop.
The American public would cheer as you had Johnson frog-marched out of whatever corporate boardroom he's currently ensconced in. Every media market would cover you as their local ACORN offices were padlocked.
On second thought Mr. President, populism may not be for you after all. The thing of it is, the American people are angry at policies your administration enacted or you supported personally. Your best bet may be to try humility. You see, the American people just don't cling to their guns and their faith. The American people are pretty partial to Freedom and don't look kindly on those who want to take it away. Believe it or not sir, a huge majority of Americans are proud of their country and don't believe our elected leader should be apologizing to every two-bit dictator with a grudge.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
They Call This Science?
The global warming alarmists have been caught lying again, unfortunately, if one wants to find out about "glaciergate" it is necessary to go to British papers. The American press is treating this story just like "climategate", as far as they are concerned there is nothing to see here. Unlike with climategate, the IPCC is implicated directly in this fraud. They shared the Nobel Peace Prize with noted alarmist Al Gore:
"The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."
That political pressure has worked as planned. The EPA, relying on the fraudulent reports of the IPCC has decided it must regulate CO2. In regulating emissions of CO2 the EPA is essentially regulating the entire American economy. A bill is being introduced in Congress attempting to keep this economy killing regulation from taking effect:
"Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is leading the charge to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gasses, and today she got some support from across the aisle: Three Democratic senators signed onto Murkowski resolution to bar such regulation.
The Democrats, the Associated Press reports, are Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Murkowski’s resolution says a rule submitted by the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses “shall have no force or effect.” '
Every Senator in New England needs to support this bill. In these tough economic times we shouldn't be forced to pay more money to heat our homes when the "science" the EPA decision was based on fraudulent data. In fact, they admit the 2035 date for the disappearance of glaciers was simply made up.
Also, from Britain:
"A period of humility and even silence would be particularly welcome from the Met Office, our leading institutional advocate of the perils of man-made global warming, which had promised a “barbecue summer” in 2009 and one of the “warmest winters on record”. In fact, the Met still asserts we are in the midst of an unusually warm winter — as one of its staffers sniffily protested in an internet posting to a newspaper last week: “This will be the warmest winter in living memory, the data has already been recorded. For your information, we take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average. As November was a very seasonally warm month, then all the data will come from those readings.” '
Unbelievable, the Brits are enduring the coldest, snowiest winter in decades, but it will be deemed the warmest to further the global warmists agenda. The model they are using wouldn't pass muster at a 7th grade science fair.
"The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."
That political pressure has worked as planned. The EPA, relying on the fraudulent reports of the IPCC has decided it must regulate CO2. In regulating emissions of CO2 the EPA is essentially regulating the entire American economy. A bill is being introduced in Congress attempting to keep this economy killing regulation from taking effect:
"Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is leading the charge to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gasses, and today she got some support from across the aisle: Three Democratic senators signed onto Murkowski resolution to bar such regulation.
The Democrats, the Associated Press reports, are Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Murkowski’s resolution says a rule submitted by the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses “shall have no force or effect.” '
Every Senator in New England needs to support this bill. In these tough economic times we shouldn't be forced to pay more money to heat our homes when the "science" the EPA decision was based on fraudulent data. In fact, they admit the 2035 date for the disappearance of glaciers was simply made up.
Also, from Britain:
"A period of humility and even silence would be particularly welcome from the Met Office, our leading institutional advocate of the perils of man-made global warming, which had promised a “barbecue summer” in 2009 and one of the “warmest winters on record”. In fact, the Met still asserts we are in the midst of an unusually warm winter — as one of its staffers sniffily protested in an internet posting to a newspaper last week: “This will be the warmest winter in living memory, the data has already been recorded. For your information, we take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average. As November was a very seasonally warm month, then all the data will come from those readings.” '
Unbelievable, the Brits are enduring the coldest, snowiest winter in decades, but it will be deemed the warmest to further the global warmists agenda. The model they are using wouldn't pass muster at a 7th grade science fair.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Reagan Democrats Still Exist
Rumored to be extinct since 1994, the almost mythical Reagan Democrat reappeared in Massachusetts of all places. Scott Brown's victory should be sobering news for any Democrat facing voters this November.The AFL-CIO found that:
"A poll conducted on behalf of the AFL-CIO found that 49% of Massachusetts union households supported Mr. Brown in Tuesday's voting, while 46% supported Democrat Martha Coakley."
and
"Karen Ackerman, the AFL-CIO's political action director, said the results of the Massachusetts poll indicate "what we call a working-class revolt" in which voters were responding to the fact that no one was addressing their needs or interests. "
What makes it a "working class revolt"?
"The poll showed Ms. Coakley drew more support among voters with a college education, by a five-point margin, while she lost by a 20-point margin among voters without a college degree."
So, Ms. Coakley was able to narrowly hold on to union members that are employed by the government: teachers, state, federal and municipal employees who depend on taxpayers for their livelihoods. While those that work in the private sector and depend on a growing economy for their income gave a resounding no confidence vote to Coakley and the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda.
Democrats ignore this at their peril. Depending on the electoral combination of: public union employees, progressives and minorities resulted in a historic 5 point defeat for the Democrat in Deep Blue Massachusetts.
If this turnout model is repeated this fall, Michael Barone finds that there are only 103 safe seats for Democrats. Which means if you take the political advice of Rachel Maddow and follow Nancy Pelosi in pushing a nationalization of health care through Congress against the will of the people, 155 of you will be looking for new employment after November.
President Obama refuses to see that his hard left agenda is not popular with the American people. Even after independents voted for Republicans by 2-1 margins in the gubernatorial elections in VA and NJ, he refused to change course. In the face of a 3-1 advantage for Scott Brown among independents our idealogue in chief refuses to see he's the problem.
“The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office,” said Obama. “People are angry and they’re frustrated, not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years but what’s happened over the last eight years.”
For the good of our country I hope that Congressional Democrats don't buy into President Obama's delusions. The American people have had enough of the "never let a crisis go to waste" hyper-liberal legislative agenda. The American people expect you to focus on getting the economy growing again so that it actually starts to create jobs, not lose them at a slower pace.
It's time to walk away from the progressive dream of universal health care supplied by the government and focus on the people's business. Never forget that the 435 seats in the House and 100 in the Senate belong to the people of the United States, not to any party or special interest. If you continue to ignore their wishes, they will take them back, as the good people of Massachusetts just did.
Tuesday's election proved that this nation still embraces Ronald Reagan's concept of limiting the power of government: "We don't pass it to our children in the bloodstream; we have to fight for it and protect it and then hand it to them so that they shall do the same, or we're going to find ourselves spending our sunset years telling our children and our children's children about a time in America back in the day when men and women were free."
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Massachusetts Miracle
The Democrats will not give up easily. You know the stakes. What are you doing in the next three days to ensure a Scott Brown victory?
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Coakley Treatment
Our Attorney General and wannabe senator showing her common touch. Ms. Coakley, may I be so bold to suggest that the next time one of your campaign thugs decks someone, offer the guy a hand up.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Commonwealth of Burma
Everyone is familiar, or should be, by the recent statement of our appointed Senator, Paul Kirk:
"Absolutely," Kirk said, according to the State House News Service, when asked if he'd vote for the bill even if Brown captures the seat. "It would be my responsibility as United States senator, representing the people and understanding Sen. Kennedy's agenda and the rest of it."
Now that the initial outrage has passed, along with the temptation to light out for Utah. It occurs to me that this should be a teachable moment in our history. This election is now no longer just about Scott Brown vs Martha Coakley; it's about whether or not the will of the people expressed in a free election will be respected.
Simply put, have we become like Burma, where elections that go against the desires of the ruling junta are simply ignored?
Governor Patrick installed Paul Kirk because he is a party hack that could be depended on to follow orders. In his mindless obedience to the Democratic machine, Kirk is simply doing what he believes is expected of him. Every dog trainer worth their salt will tell you not to blame the dog, blame the owner, in this case, Governor Patrick.
So Governor Patrick, you have eight days to train Kirk to respect the Democratic process. That should be ample time to teach him to recuse himself from voting for a health care bill that the voters of the Commonwealth don't support. Make no mistake about it, if the voters of Massachusetts elect Scott Brown to the US Senate next Tuesday it will be because he OPPOSES what the Democrats are trying to do. The voters screaming NO at the top of their lungs must be respected, even by a Senator who owes his seat to a dubious appointment. This Senate seat belongs to the people of Massachusetts, not to Ted Kennedy and certainly not to the Democratic party. The results of this election must be respected, whoever the people of this state decide will serve their interests best.
"Absolutely," Kirk said, according to the State House News Service, when asked if he'd vote for the bill even if Brown captures the seat. "It would be my responsibility as United States senator, representing the people and understanding Sen. Kennedy's agenda and the rest of it."
Now that the initial outrage has passed, along with the temptation to light out for Utah. It occurs to me that this should be a teachable moment in our history. This election is now no longer just about Scott Brown vs Martha Coakley; it's about whether or not the will of the people expressed in a free election will be respected.
Simply put, have we become like Burma, where elections that go against the desires of the ruling junta are simply ignored?
Governor Patrick installed Paul Kirk because he is a party hack that could be depended on to follow orders. In his mindless obedience to the Democratic machine, Kirk is simply doing what he believes is expected of him. Every dog trainer worth their salt will tell you not to blame the dog, blame the owner, in this case, Governor Patrick.
So Governor Patrick, you have eight days to train Kirk to respect the Democratic process. That should be ample time to teach him to recuse himself from voting for a health care bill that the voters of the Commonwealth don't support. Make no mistake about it, if the voters of Massachusetts elect Scott Brown to the US Senate next Tuesday it will be because he OPPOSES what the Democrats are trying to do. The voters screaming NO at the top of their lungs must be respected, even by a Senator who owes his seat to a dubious appointment. This Senate seat belongs to the people of Massachusetts, not to Ted Kennedy and certainly not to the Democratic party. The results of this election must be respected, whoever the people of this state decide will serve their interests best.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Coakley's Soft Spot: Cap and Trade
We've all seen Rasmussen's numbers, Brown's winning independents 65-21 and still down to Coakley by 9. Which means that Rasmussen doesn't see many independents turning out to vote on the 19th. If you've made calls for Scott, I can guarantee you the folks who've responded " I haven't thought about it" when asked if they'll be supporting Scott are independents. So how do we energize(no pun intended)independents to get out and vote in numbers big enough to carry Scott to victory? My suggestion, Martha Coakley's support of cap and trade legislation.
We need the voters' of MA to know that Martha Coakley wants them to pay more to heat and light their homes, watch the Pats,C's,B's and Sox on the big screen and fill their gas tanks.
A sample ad: I'm sure the folks who get paid to do this kind of thing can come up with something much better.
A shot of a furnace as it comes rumbling to life. A sound all too familiar to Baystaters' this winter. Announcer, "Martha Coakley wants you to pay more to heat your home".
A shot of a lightbulb going on. Announcer, "Martha Coakley wants you to pay more for electricity".
A shot of someone pumping gas(it could even be Scott filling up his truck). Announcer, "Martha Coakley wants you to pay more for gas". Remember, then candidate Obama claimed to be fine with $4 gas. His only complaint is that it happened too quickly.
Then some quick numbers on the screen of the economic impacts of cap and trade(I recommend using those from Heritage).
End with Scott saying something along the lines of " Until the scientists' are 100% positive that it will do any good, I don't think Baystaters' should pay one penny more than they have too to keep warm this winter".
I believe that if we get independents' thinking voting for Coakley is going to cost them money every time the furnace kicks on, they'll show up at the polls and vote for Scott. Call it a benefit of having the election in the middle of winter.
We need the voters' of MA to know that Martha Coakley wants them to pay more to heat and light their homes, watch the Pats,C's,B's and Sox on the big screen and fill their gas tanks.
A sample ad: I'm sure the folks who get paid to do this kind of thing can come up with something much better.
A shot of a furnace as it comes rumbling to life. A sound all too familiar to Baystaters' this winter. Announcer, "Martha Coakley wants you to pay more to heat your home".
A shot of a lightbulb going on. Announcer, "Martha Coakley wants you to pay more for electricity".
A shot of someone pumping gas(it could even be Scott filling up his truck). Announcer, "Martha Coakley wants you to pay more for gas". Remember, then candidate Obama claimed to be fine with $4 gas. His only complaint is that it happened too quickly.
Then some quick numbers on the screen of the economic impacts of cap and trade(I recommend using those from Heritage).
End with Scott saying something along the lines of " Until the scientists' are 100% positive that it will do any good, I don't think Baystaters' should pay one penny more than they have too to keep warm this winter".
I believe that if we get independents' thinking voting for Coakley is going to cost them money every time the furnace kicks on, they'll show up at the polls and vote for Scott. Call it a benefit of having the election in the middle of winter.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Vote For Balance
There is an old adage that making legislation is like making sausage. Meaning the squeamish best look away if they want to enjoy the end product. However, there are and must be limits in both processes. What Majority leader Reid (D-NV) did to the process of legislating to get the health bill through the US Senate would turn even a strong-stomached butcher green at the gills.
Gone were the promises of open debate on C-Span. Instead we had a rushed debate against an arbitrary Christmas deadline. Why the rush? Because this bill is a monstrosity unworthy of the term reform.
For the first time in our history, Americans will be mandated to purchase health care or pay a fine to the federal government, the House version even has provisions to send people to jail. Once the government assumes the power to mandate behavior we are on a very slippery slope. Today they will mandate we purchase healthcare, tomorrow it could be mandates to buy a hybrid vehicle or fines for eating fast food.
This bill also engages in accounting that would make the folks at Enron blush. From the Congressional Budget Office(CBO):
"To describe the full amount of hospital insurance trust fund savings as both improving the government's ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government's fiscal position." That's called cooking the books. When you combine it with the 21% cut in payments to doctors' to the tune of $210 billion that they will then "fix" in seperate legislation, instead of modestly cutting the deficit in its first 10 years it actually adds over $300 billion. And the real kick in the pants, again from the CBO, this legislation will cause insurance premiums to increase faster than they would if Congress does nothing at all.
The aspect of this process that has justifiably received the most attention is Harry Reid's outright buying of votes with taxpayer money. Sen. Mary Landrieu received $300million for her vote, not bad considering Thomas Jefferson only paid the French $15 million (in 1803 dollars) for the original Louisiana purchase. In what has been called the "cornhusker kickback" Sen. Nelson (D-NE) has ensured that Nebraska will have its Medicaid tab picked up by the Feds forever while the other 49 states are facing a financial tsunami. Last but not least, ethically challenged Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) was allowed to sneak in a provision at the last minute for a mere $100 million for a little homestate pork to aid his flagging re-election chances.
None of this would be possible if Harry Reid didn't have a super-majority of 60 votes in the US Senate. The voters of MA have an opportunity to restore a bit of balance to our government by electing Scott Brown to the Senate and denying Harry Reid his super-majority. Keeping Harry Reid shy of 60 votes means that he will have to negotiate in good faith with Republicans(he calls us "evil-mongers") and the resulting legislation will be more palatable to the American public.
You can bet that if Reid keeps his super-majority he will use the same formula: hyper-partisanship, shady accounting and corrupt bargains in coming legislative battles. Cap and Trade, which represents a massive tax on energy consumption and comprehensive immigration reform ie. amnesty are already in the legislative pipeline. How's your stomach?
Gone were the promises of open debate on C-Span. Instead we had a rushed debate against an arbitrary Christmas deadline. Why the rush? Because this bill is a monstrosity unworthy of the term reform.
For the first time in our history, Americans will be mandated to purchase health care or pay a fine to the federal government, the House version even has provisions to send people to jail. Once the government assumes the power to mandate behavior we are on a very slippery slope. Today they will mandate we purchase healthcare, tomorrow it could be mandates to buy a hybrid vehicle or fines for eating fast food.
This bill also engages in accounting that would make the folks at Enron blush. From the Congressional Budget Office(CBO):
"To describe the full amount of hospital insurance trust fund savings as both improving the government's ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government's fiscal position." That's called cooking the books. When you combine it with the 21% cut in payments to doctors' to the tune of $210 billion that they will then "fix" in seperate legislation, instead of modestly cutting the deficit in its first 10 years it actually adds over $300 billion. And the real kick in the pants, again from the CBO, this legislation will cause insurance premiums to increase faster than they would if Congress does nothing at all.
The aspect of this process that has justifiably received the most attention is Harry Reid's outright buying of votes with taxpayer money. Sen. Mary Landrieu received $300million for her vote, not bad considering Thomas Jefferson only paid the French $15 million (in 1803 dollars) for the original Louisiana purchase. In what has been called the "cornhusker kickback" Sen. Nelson (D-NE) has ensured that Nebraska will have its Medicaid tab picked up by the Feds forever while the other 49 states are facing a financial tsunami. Last but not least, ethically challenged Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) was allowed to sneak in a provision at the last minute for a mere $100 million for a little homestate pork to aid his flagging re-election chances.
None of this would be possible if Harry Reid didn't have a super-majority of 60 votes in the US Senate. The voters of MA have an opportunity to restore a bit of balance to our government by electing Scott Brown to the Senate and denying Harry Reid his super-majority. Keeping Harry Reid shy of 60 votes means that he will have to negotiate in good faith with Republicans(he calls us "evil-mongers") and the resulting legislation will be more palatable to the American public.
You can bet that if Reid keeps his super-majority he will use the same formula: hyper-partisanship, shady accounting and corrupt bargains in coming legislative battles. Cap and Trade, which represents a massive tax on energy consumption and comprehensive immigration reform ie. amnesty are already in the legislative pipeline. How's your stomach?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
