Two Face

The Sky is falling and we’re going to make you suffer for the sequester by ratcheting up the pain and the fear.

BUT…we will give millions to a Nation run by Terrorists that we helped create!!!!

Calling it a “good-faith effort” to help the Egyptian people, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry released $250 million in economic aid.

Oh, and after 4 years and 7,000 comments I was banned from The Huffington post for “offensive” and “abusive” ad hominem attacks.

Ever been there? It’s nothing BUT offensive and abusive ad hominem attacks.

Liberals are so two-faced.

Speaking of the Sky is not Falling…

The White House is retreated from its doomsday predictions about the impact of the $85 billion in federal spending cuts as they enter a second week — with Republican leaders appearing at least satisfied about delivering on their promise to limit government spending and hold down taxes.

Gene Sperling, the White House’s top economic adviser, repeatedly said Sunday the cuts will not hurt as much on “Day One” as they will over the long haul.   

“Nobody ever suggested that this … was going to have all its impact in the first few days,” he told “NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “It is a slow grind.”

His remarks are in contrast to weeks of President Obama and his Cabinet warning that the cuts will result in furloughs or pay cuts for middle-class wage-earners such as teachers, Capitol Hill janitors and air traffic controllers, which they said could cause 90-minutes delays at major U.S. airports.

Sperling declined at least twice to directly answer questions about whether the worst-case-scenario rhetoric has hurt the president’s credibility on the issue. He instead stuck to his argument that independent economists forecast the cuts will result in 750,000 fewer jobs and that corporate executives now anticipate slower economic growth.

“These are not the Sky is Falling! Doomsday Predictions you are looking for….” (ala Star Wars at Mos Eisley).
Oh no! it will be slower than the slowest recovery in 80 years!
Martha, bar the door, the Apocalypse is here!

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell told CNN’s “State of the Union” Americans absorbed similar cuts once already this year.

“This modest reduction of 2.4 percent in spending over the next six months is a little more than the average American experienced just two months ago, when their own pay went down when the payroll tax holiday expired,” the Kentucky Republican said.

Congress agreed to the cuts, known as sequester, in 2011 after failing to agree on more measure reductions — to defense and some domestic spending. However, the cuts were intended to be so drastic that Democrats and Republicans would be forced to compromise before they started.

Still, Sperling rejected several Republican-backed plans and said no compromise would be reached unless the party agrees to tax increases.

My way or the Highway!
“This is not a win for Republicans,” Sperling said. “This cuts into military preparedness.”

BUT liberals hate the military and want to slash it to the bone anyhow! This is EXACTLY what they wanted. Which is why it was in e Sequester to make the Republicans blink in the first place.
“Our hope is as more Republicans start to see this pain in their own districts they will choose bipartisan compromise over this absolutist position,” he said.

Aka, we’ll ratchet up the pain and make them do it our way or ELSE you’ll “Regret it”! 🙂
And our absolutist position on the need for more Tax increases is non-negotiable and not bi-partisan nor a compromise!!
So Two Faced…

DON’T DO AS I DO, DO AS I SAY!

But because the next great Crisis to end civilization is coming….

All of this comes ahead of a new, March 27 deadline that could spell a government shutdown and a debt-ceiling clash coming in May.

And, of course it will be the Republicans fault. The Democrats are perfectly reasonable about their absolutist fear mongering.
And Grandma will out in the cold eating dog food.
Republicans will be stealing candy from babies.
You’ll have no cops or firefighters.
They’ll make you wait an extra 90 minutes at the airport.
More Illegals we wanted to release anyways will be released.
We’ll stop pretending we care about the border.
And you’ll get even more horse in your meat.
AND IT WILL BE ALL YOUR FAULT!
So Blame the Republicans!
Blame the Rich!
Blame Corporate America!
But don’t you Ever dare to blame Obama and The Democrats!
You’ll “regret” that if you do, you racist, homophobic, misogynist, Obstructionist TEA BAGGER idiot. You piece of human filth!
And just imagine what it will be like when they are forced to cut spending?
The billions in cuts apply to the remainder of fiscal 2013, which ends Sept. 30. But without a deal they will continue slashing government spending by about $1 trillion more over a 10-year period.

That’s 100 Billion a year. Obama and Democrats blow through that in 20 days.
So what big deal…
All Hail Armageddon! 🙂
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

The Grand Distraction

Wanna know how warped the Left is?

From here…

“As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.”

President Dwight D. Eisenhower (D)
Farewell Address to the Nation; January 17, 1961

To Eternity…

Here are Obama’s thoughts on the debt limit in 2006, when he voted against increasing the ceiling:

    The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

In 2007 and in 2008, when the Senate voted to increase the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion respectively, Obama did not bother to vote. (He did vote for TARP, which increased the debt limit by $700 billion.)

I guess he was running for President by then…funny that…It was all for show. He didn’t mean it then, he was just be a partisan contrarian, and he doesn’t mean it now.

Now you get the latest and most whacked….

Actor Danny Glover (who I respect as an actor only) folks.

“I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” he said. “The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.”

“A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the second amendment is,” he continued.

It isn’t. But it feeds the ideological beast so it must be true.

Alleged Non-Liberal “Journalist” CBS’s Bob Schieffer: The NRA are Nazis.

The Obama era of liberal civility just keeps on getting better. A gun control discussion that should be about policy has once again given way to leftist bloodlust. As usual, everything with them becomes personal. The multi-billionth example comes from CBS correspondent Bob Schieffer. Stressing the urgency to restrict the freedoms of law-abiding citizens, Schieffer lamented that “defeating the Nazis, was a much more formidable task than taking on the gun lobby.”

BOB SCHIEFFER: …Let’s remember: there was considerable opposition when Lyndon Johnson went to the Congress and…presented some of the most comprehensive civil rights legislation in the history of this country. Most people told him he couldn’t get it done, but he figured out a way to do it. And that’s what Barack Obama is going to have to do…what happened in Newtown was probably the worst day in this country’s history since 9/11. We found Osama bin Laden. We tracked him down. We changed the way that we dealt with that problem. Surely, finding Osama bin Laden; surely, passing civil rights legislation, as Lyndon Johnson was able to do; and before that, surely, defeating the Nazis, was a much more formidable task than taking on the gun lobby.

SCHIEFFER: This is a turning point in this country, and the President is going to have to do more than just make a speech about it. This is one of the best speeches I’ve ever heard him deliver, but it’s going to take more than that from the White House. He’s going to have to get his hands dirty. He’s going to have to get in there and – and work this problem until he gets it done. But unless we figure out a way to make sure that something like Newtown never happens again, we’re not the country that we once were. I think we still are. I think there’s hope. I think something’s going to happen here.

So being for the Second Amendment is now Racist and Nazi-esque. Gee, where has this process of mental limitation occurred before on the left?

Every time they want something from their ideological grab-bag.

Fascinating.

So yet again, if you disagree with the LEFT eventually you are are a Racist Nazi in the end. 🙂

IBD: President Obama has settled on a political communications strategy for his final term that begins Sunday:

Talk about admirable aspirations, ignore the nation’s economic and fiscal realities, keep everyone fighting amongst themselves over anything at hand while calmly deploring all the disputes, rancor and chaos that this president has helped to engineer.

“My starting point is not to worry about the politics,” Obama said with a straight face. “My starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works, what should we be doing to make sure that our children are safe and that we’re reducing the incidents of gun violence.”

Everyone faint in awe of HIS GREATNESS, The King.

Such stunning cynicism has actually worked pretty well for the Real Good Talker this past year.

Never mind stratospheric millions of jobless, an amazingly ineffective economic stimulus program, historic highs in poverty rates, a national debt larger than a national economy and nearly 50 million people collecting food stamps tossed out like free candy from a parade float.

Instead, talk about educating every single American child for their own fair shot at some kind of idealized future, delivering better healthcare to millions more people for less money with no additional doctors and protecting ill-defined middle-class Americans from someone doing something to them.

None of it will ever come to pass on his grand rhetorical scale. But the community organizer doesn’t care. By the time enough figure it out, Obama will be back in the Pacific golfing with Choom Gang buddies while another ghostwriter drafts the next autobiography.

Now that he’s got Washington and Republicans fighting over how to address his briefly postponed sequester cuts and a national debt that grows by $2.8 million every single minute of every single day, Obama this morning launches his next divisive distraction: More controls on firearms.

While the media has been full of stories of booming post-election gun sales, less attention has been focused on another fact: As the estimated count of non-military U.S. firearms now exceeds 310 million, the annual number of gun homicides has declined strikingly: From more than 17,000 in 1993 to 9,900 in 2011.

No one believes that anything Washington orders will stop the awful occasional outbreaks by a few twisted souls among the more than 315 million Americans. But it’s admirable to try, isn’t it? It sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? Can you prove it won’t work?

And fortuitously for Obama and his mob from Chicago, the nation’s newest gun homicide capital, a renewed emotional if useless, constitutional debate over bearing arms will keep folks from discussing other issues potentially more embarrassing to this White House.

Like Benghazi. Fast & Furious. Unemployment. Inflation. Foreign Policy. Energy Policy. ObamaCare…

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

 

Over the Cliff

More from “Jar Jar Binks” Boehner:

Under the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio), the 112th House of Representatives has thus far approved legislation that has increased the debt of the federal government by approximately $18,944 for per American household.

The 112th House of Representatives has achieved this in a little more than 20 months time—and it may not be done yet enacting laws to approve new federal borrowing and spending.

On March 1, 2011, Boehner and President Barack Obama cut their first short-term federal spending deal. That deal took effect on March 4, 2011. Since then all new borrowing and spending by the federal government has been approved in laws enacted by Boehner’s House consistent with its constitutional power to control the borrowing and spending by the federal government. (KFYI)

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

AP
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): There’s a lot of talk right now about an impending fiscal cliff. But we already went over a cliff economically in this country a long time ago.The current debate over tax hikes is an empty one built upon a false premise. The debate is whether raising tax rates will address our current crisis. The premise is that it is a lack of taxation that has led to the crisis. Both are hopelessly wrong.President Obama’s proposed tax increases on the top 2% of earners would fund the federal government for about eight days. Even if we taxed Americans earning over $1 million on 100% of their income, we would raise only about $600 billion in revenue.

Taxing citizens at this level is a tyranny even Europe hasn’t reached, and still it would only address about one-third of our deficit.

If one actually does the math, “taxing the rich” turns out to be no real solution at all, only fantasyland rhetoric.

Every dollar the government takes is another dollar used unproductively. Every dollar removed from the private sector and wasted in the hands of bureaucrats is a dollar that will not be used to purchase goods, to pay for services or to meet a payroll.

Every dollar the government ever takes — today, tomorrow and forever — is an attack on jobs and the economy.

Instead of sitting around trying to think of new ways to vote away someone else’s money, Washington leaders should finally begin to address the real crisis that has threatened us long before the current handwringing: spending.

With a $16 trillion national debt and well over $1 trillion annually in deficits, we barreled over the edge of fiscal insolvency long before this month.

Why do we lurch from deadline to deadline with no apparent action on our nation’s problems until the next deadline approaches? I presented Social Security and Medicare reform to the Senate over a year ago. I directly spoke to the president and vice president about my plan. And their response? Absolutely nothing!

Is it any wonder people are fed up with their government? The president announces we have no time for spending reforms, but when the deadline passes I predict not one committee will step into the breach to begin the process of reform.

Why? Because Democratic leadership still insists that Social Security and Medicare are just fine. Meanwhile, Social Security actuaries tell us that Social Security this year will spend $165 billion more than it receives. Medicare will spend $3 for every $1 it collects. Yet, the president says he doesn’t have time for entitlement reform.

The “fiscal cliff” scenario has come and gone. The only question now is: How do we recover?

The only solution is to cut spending. It’s no secret to anyone, except perhaps Washington leaders, that our current levels of spending are not only unsustainable, but the main culprit in our fiscal crisis.

Opponents of spending reductions — whether Democrats who insist on maintaining and expanding current domestic spending, or Republicans who insist on maintaining and expanding current Pentagon spending — make the case that any cuts to their preferred parts of government would be “Draconian” or “devastating.”

Like tax hikes, this too is a false narrative. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nominal spending in 2008 was $2.5 trillion. The outlays for the 2013 budget are an estimated $3.5 trillion.

This means the federal government plans on spending $1 trillion more next year than it did four years ago. By any measure, this is a significant and dramatic growth in spending.

Estimated revenue for 2013 is $2.9 trillion if the Bush tax cuts expire. Our 2012 revenues were $2.4 trillion, which included the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts would only make a difference of $500 billion this year — about one third of our entire deficit — but would also further harm our economy due to the job market decline that always accompanies any rise in taxes. History has proved this point time and again.

But if we spent only at 2008 levels combined with the revenues of 2012, next year we would have a deficit as small as $89 billion. An $89 billion deficit would represent less than 1% of GDP. The 2012 deficit was as high as 7.3% of GDP.

Did anyone think the size of government we had in 2008 was somehow not enough government? This is how drastically spending has increased in just the last four years.

Those who argue we can’t cut spending are basically saying that our federal government was far too small when Barack Obama entered the White House and that now we can survive only if government continues to spend at its current level. I know few if any Americans who honestly believe this, Republican or Democrat.

It’s also hard to imagine reasonable people actually believing that our government spending this obscene amount of money is somehow what makes our economy tick.

A real plan would extend the tax rates we’ve had for 12 years, reform entitlements and examine any and every way to significantly cut spending. Right now, House GOP leadership seems to want Republicans to be the party that raises taxes just a little less than the Democrats. This will not do.

Republicans are supposed to be the party of limited government and low taxes. These are our most core and basic principles. I don’t think it’s time to change who we are or what we stand for. It will not help our economy. It will also defeat the purpose of even having a Republican Party.

And that’s what Sith Lord Obama wants, By the way… “Those are not the Spending Cuts you are looking for…”:)
Sith Apprentice Harry Reid: “Now is the time to show leadership, not kick the can down the road,” Reid said. “Speaker Boehner should focus his energy on forging a large-scale deficit reduction agreement. It would be a shame if Republicans abandoned productive negotiations due to pressure from the tea party, as they have time and again.” (NBC)
But nothing the Democrats propose actually cuts spending or the deficit in anyway that is actually meaningful. But that’s the trick.
Make the stupid people think that it is meaningful and the Republicans are getting in the way so they take the fall for it when it fails miserably.
It’s tactical. not practical.
Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals: Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have.
“The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”
So Boehner Proposes and Obama and Reid Dispose, even if it’s a plan that essentially mimics on their own it still is “protecting the rich” and is not “good enough”.
Simple. 🙂

“He (President Barack Obama) is not willing to accept a deal that doesn’t ask enough of the very wealthiest in taxes and instead shifts the burden to the middle class and seniors,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement. “The president is hopeful that both sides can work out remaining differences and reach a solution so we don’t miss the opportunity in front of us today.”

Boehner’s spokesman said: “The White House’s position defies common sense.”

“After spending months saying we must ask for more from millionaires and billionaires, how can they reject a plan that does exactly that?” spokesman Brendan Buck said. “By once again moving the goal posts, the president is threatening every American family with higher taxes.”

Because that isn’t the goal, Jar Jar. This is Chess not Poker. Simple, really. 🙂
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

The Mindset

Our Government, which art in Washington,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy will be done in Washington,
As it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread (food stamps, welfare, unemployment,entitlements…).
And forgive us our successes without you,
As we Don’t forgive them that disagree with us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil capitalism
For thine is the kingdom,
The power, and the glory,
For ever and ever.

Amen.

(excuse the blasphemy) 🙂

Mr. Thrill Up His Leg MSDNC’s Chris Matthews on Obama (His God):“Everything he’s done is clean as a whistle. He’s never not only broken any law, he’s never done anything wrong. He’s the perfect father, the perfect husband, the perfect American. And all they do is trash the guy.”
We’ll just ignore that  Barack  wrote in his OWN book that he did weed and snorted cocaine and hung pout with radical marxists. 🙂

Now that’s “Journalism” for you…

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Now this is Marketing: https://www.mittromney.com/donate/built-it-shirt

Thomas Sowell: Barack Obama’s great rhetorical gifts include the ability to make the absurd sound not only plausible, but inspiring and profound.

His latest verbal triumph was to say on July 13th, “if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.” As an example, “Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Let’s stop and think, even though the whole purpose of much political rhetoric is to keep us from thinking, and stir our emotions instead.

Even if we were to assume, just for the sake of argument, that 90 percent of what a successful person has achieved was due to the government, what follows from that? That politicians will make better decisions than individual citizens, that politicians will spend the wealth of the country better than those who created it? That doesn’t follow logically — and certainly not empirically.

Does anyone doubt that most people owe a lot to the parents who raised them? But what follows from that? That they should never become adults who make their own decisions?

The whole point of the collectivist mindset is to concentrate power in the hands of the collectivists — which is to say, to take away our freedom. They do this in stages, starting with some group that others envy or resent — Jews in Nazi Germany, capitalists in the Soviet Union, foreign investors in Third World countries that confiscate their investments and call this theft “nationalization.”

Freedom is seldom destroyed all at once. More often it is eroded, bit by bit, until it is gone. This can happen so gradually that there is no sudden change that would alert people to the danger. By the time everybody realizes what has happened, it can be too late, because their freedom is gone.

All the high-flown talk about how people who are successful in business should “give back” to the community that created the things that facilitated their success is, again, something that sounds plausible to people who do not stop and think through what is being said. After years of dumbed-down education, that apparently includes a lot of people.

Take Obama’s example of the business that benefits from being able to ship their products on roads that the government built. How does that create a need to “give back”?

Did the taxpayers, including business taxpayers, not pay for that road when it was built? Why should they have to pay for it twice?

What about the workers that businesses hire, whose education is usually created in government-financed schools? The government doesn’t have any wealth of its own, except what it takes from taxpayers, whether individuals or businesses. They have already paid for that education. It is not a gift that they have to “give back” by letting politicians take more of their money and freedom.

When businesses hire highly educated people, such as chemists or engineers, competition in the labor market forces them to pay higher salaries for people with longer years of valuable education. That education is not a government gift to the employers. It is paid for while it is being created in schools and universities, and it is paid for in higher salaries when highly educated people are hired.

One of the tricks of professional magicians is to distract the audience’s attention from what they are doing while they are creating an illusion of magic. Pious talk about “giving back” distracts our attention from the cold fact that politicians are taking away more and more of our money and our freedom.

Even the envy that politicians stir up against “the rich” is highly focused on those particular high income-earners whose decisions the politicians want to take over. Others in sports or entertainment can make far more money than the highest paid corporate executive, but there is no way that politicians can take over the roles of Roger Federer or Oprah Winfrey, so highly paid sports stars or entertainers are never accused of “greed.”

If we are so easily distracted by self-serving political rhetoric, we are not only going to see our money, but our freedom, increasingly taken away from us by slick-talking politicians, including our current slick-talker-in-chief in the White House.

Cal Thomas: As the Obama campaign attacks Mitt Romney’s business success — and by association all who have succeeded or wish to succeed — Romney should turn the tables and attack seven principles that have made government highly ineffective.

They are:

1. High taxes. High taxes rob the productive and discourage innovation.

2. Too many regulations. Over-regulation inhibits private industry from performing up to its potential.

3. Overspending. When an individual is in debt, he or she aims to spend less until the family budget is in balance. When government spends more than it takes in, it creates an addiction and burdens current and future citizens. Politicians won’t tell anyone “no,” so government keeps spending.

4. Foreign adventures. We cannot afford to go everywhere in hopes of promoting liberty. We should only send troops where our interests are clearly defined and an achievable outcome is likely. Countries receiving military assistance must help pay the bill.

5. Bureaucracy. There are too many people working for government. Many agencies and programs are unnecessary.

6. Health care. Government can’t make you healthy. Obamacare will not only cost more, but will reduce the quality and availability of good health care, as in the UK. A private-sector solution is preferable.

7. Ignoring the Constitution. The best habit the American government could practice is a return to the principles of that great document that set boundaries for government and removed them for its citizens.

Inspiration and perspiration are habits that usually lead to success. Government’s bad habits produce unending debt and stifle private-sector job creation. That’s the counterargument to these bad habits.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

“The most effective way that the Congress could help to support the economy right now,” he said, “would be to work to address the nation’s fiscal challenges in a way that takes into account both the need for long-run sustainability and the fragility of the recovery.”–Fed Chairman Ben Bernacke

Fedspeak translation: Don’t sit there, do something.

Congress has boosted spending from its long-term average of about 20% of GDP to close to 25%, while racking up $5 trillion in debt in just three years.

Instead of cutting spending, rolling back regulations and slashing taxes — historically, the only way out of a recession — Democrats are pushing forward with tax hikes that Ernst & Young estimates will cost 710,000 jobs, slash $200 billion from GDP, lower wages by 1.8% and cause business investment to plunge.

Sen. Patty Murray (D): “If Republicans won’t work with us on a balanced approach, we are not going to get a deal,” said Murray. “Because I feel very strongly that we simply cannot allow middle-class families and the most vulnerable Americans to bear this burden alone.”

“So if we can’t get a good deal, a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share (aka raise taxes), then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013 rather than lock in a long-term deal this year that throws middle-class families under the bus,” (screw everyone unless I get my way) she said. “And I think my party, and the American people, will support that.”

Do it our way or else! That’s BY-Partisanship Democrat style.:)

Shall I repeat myself (not that a Liberal is capable of listening mind you, they aren’t):

The Top 1%  pays nearly 40% of all the Income Taxes.

50% Pay No income Taxes AT ALL.

But the “rich” aren’t paying their fair share according to the Democrats.

Facts never get in the way of a good old fashioned class hate.

“If middle-class families start seeing more money coming out of their paychecks next year — are Republicans really going to stand up and fight for new tax cuts for the rich?”— Sen. Murray

Then there’s our favourite crazed attack dog, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on  the “you didn’t build it” government did:

Radio Host: “Is there a fundamental difference here, where the President believes that all positive things flow from the federal government whereas Mitt Romney and many people believe that good things flow from the private sector and that they should not be demonized and demagogued for creating jobs?”

President Obama was talking about yesterday and Romney and the Republicans well-know it, was that we all need to pull together. We all need to be working together. [No] one person, no one business owner is able to do it all by themselves. We’re all in this together and that’s the approach President Obama takes to governing, so to suggest that he said anything other than that is a distraction.

you know, they obviously have pulled themselves up by their boot straps, have put their own blood, sweat and tears into making that business successful, but that nobody’s success can be credited just to themselves.

Barf Bag, please…

NOVEMBER IS COMING

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

A View to Kill

So how’s that “Hope and Change” working for you?

Can Harry Reid wait out the Tea Party?

The Senate majority leader seems to think so.

Reid blamed everything that ails Washington and the nation on Republicans. He slammed the GOP for its refusal to go along with tax increases as part of this month’s debt-ceiling deal, saying hard-core fiscal conservatives are making it impossible to strike a long-term deal that slows the growth of the national debt.

“(Senate Minority Leader) Mitch McConnell has done a good job bringing the country to a standstill,” Reid said.

The reason Republicans have drawn such a deep line in the sand on tax increases, of course, is the Tea Party movement. The populist uprising that was born from Washington’s bailouts achieved critical mass after Democrats decided to start spending like no government before. The stimulus. The ObamaCare overreach. Budget deficits that made President George W. Bush look like a piker.

Democrats were tossed from office in record numbers last November. That groundswell is shaping the 2012 campaign.

But Reid doesn’t expect it to last.

“The Tea Party was the result of a terrible economy,” he said. “I’ve said that many times, and I believe that.”

“That (the Tea Party) will pass. They will lose a number of seats next year.”

Reid has amassed his considerable power by never underestimating his adversaries. And he has been known to throw out strategic fibs to create misdirection.

However, Reid left the indelible impression Friday that as long as he’s leading the Senate Democrats, the Tea Party agenda is dead on arrival in his chamber.

But don’t worry, it’s the Republicans fault for not “compromising”. 🙂

In exchange for a modicum of reduced growth in federal spending, Reid said someone will have to pay more. There will be no reductions and entitlement reforms without tax increases.

But don’t worry, it’s the Republicans fault for not “compromising”. 🙂

He singled out the rich and oil companies as especially deserving of punishment.

But he’s not engaged in class warfare. 🙂

But budget deficits under Bush were in the $100 billion to $400 billion range, mostly related to the post 9/11 wars. The Obama administration — working with a Democratic House and Senate its first two years — set the course for budget deficits of more than $1 trillion into the distant future. Obama is on course to pile up more debt in three years than Bush did in eight.

But that’s Bush’s fault also, you know…

Echoing the sentiment of other Democrats and devoted Keynesians, Reid said the failed stimulus just wasn’t big enough. “I had $100 billion in infrastructure development in the bill, but I needed three Republican votes. Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins made me get rid of it.”

When in debt, spend even more (“Infrastructure”= Spending), and those damn Republicans screwed that up too! :0

Obama’s poll rating is the lowest yet, so it’s time to go on a campaign trip and say lots of flowery “centrist” things he doesn’t mean and try fake out people again.

And having the biggest campaign warchest in history and a complicit Liberal media to slag your opponents into a radioactive mess doesn’t hurt either.

After all, “Vote for Me , the other guy is an EXTREMIST! Asshole!”

Asked how Iowans view President Barack Obama, Michael Gartner, the President of NBC News from 1988 to 1993, insisted on this weekend’s Bloomberg TV’s Political Capital: “I think people have a fondness for him and I don’t think people blame him for anything that’s wrong in this country,” except, that is, “the far-right of the Republican Party.”

No media bias there.

“I think there’s a lot of time on radio and television and on the Web that actually is conservative points of view. There’s not a lot of time for the left,” long-time CNN executive David Bohrman, the new President of Current TV, the channel co-founded by Al Gore which is Keith Olbermann’s new home, laughably claimed late Sunday morning in a live interview on CNN’s Reliable Sources.“I also think that the left needs to recapture patriotism and not let the right own the flag and own patriotism” and even saw MSNBC’s prime time as too balanced.

NBC’anchor Brian Williams,“By all accounts the big meeting with his fellow Republicans is tense. In no uncertain terms the Speaker tells hardline conservatives, who are in no mood to compromise, to get in line behind his bill.”

Notice the labels. Somehow, Williams never spent a second on his Obama special asking the President how he was going to handle the demands of “hardline liberals” – or any kind of liberal, for that matter. The only hardliners are conservatives who want to stop the spending madness. What this country desperately needs are more “hardline conservatives” to dismay network anchormen. (Brent Bozell)

Remember, the only hardline, uncompromising people are the Tea Party and Conservative Republicans. 🙂

The “unbiased” Media says so it must be true. 🙂

Williams to Pelosi: “A liberal member said to me his fear is the poor are gonna get hurt and the rich are gonna get by without harm in this. Is that your fear?”

Pelosi preposterously proclaimed she had the entire country at heart, while the GOP only cared about the super rich: “My concern is for the great middle class and we want to have a resolution of this that is for 100 percent of the American people. Republicans want to have a resolution that is for the two percent.” (Bozell)

No bias here. 🙂
But just remember the Democrat mantra, “Vote for me, the other guy is an extremist asshole!”

Fell that “hope and change” Yes you can! 🙂

Keep ’em Down

Thomas Sowell: Those who regard government “entitlement” programs as sacrosanct, and regard those who want to cut them back as calloused or cruel, picture a world very different from the world of reality.

To listen to some of the defenders of entitlement programs, which are at the heart of the present financial crisis, you might think that anything the government fails to provide is something that people will be deprived of.

In other words, if you cut spending on school lunches, children will go hungry. If you fail to subsidize housing, people will be homeless. If you fail to subsidize prescription drugs, old people will have to eat dog food in order to be able to afford their meds.

This is the vision promoted by many politicians and much of the media. But, in the world of reality, it is not even true for most people who are living below the official poverty line.

Most Americans living below the official poverty line own a car or truck– and government entitlement programs seldom provide cars and trucks. Most people living below the official poverty line also have air conditioning, color television and a microwave oven–and these too are not usually handed out by government entitlement programs.

Cell phones and other electronic devices are by no means unheard of in low-income neighborhoods, where children would supposedly go hungry if there were no school lunch programs. In reality, low-income people are overweight even more often than other Americans.

As for housing and homelessness, housing prices are higher and homelessness a bigger problem in places where there has been massive government intervention, such as liberal bastions like New York City and San Francisco. As for the elderly, 80 percent are homeowners. whose monthly housing costs are less than $400, including property taxes, utilities, and maintenance.

The desperately poor elderly conjured up in political and media rhetoric are– in the world of reality– the wealthiest segment of the American population. The average wealth of older households is nearly three times the wealth of households headed by people in the 35 to 44-year-old bracket, and more than 15 times the wealth of households headed by someone under 35 years of age.

If the wealthiest segment of the population cannot pay their own medical bills, who can? The country as a whole is not any richer because the government pays our medical bills– with money that it takes from us.

What about the truly poor, in whatever age brackets? First of all, even in low-income and high-crime neighborhoods, people are not stealing bread to feed their children. The fraction of the people in such neighborhoods who commit most of the crimes are far more likely to steal luxury products that they can either use or sell to get money to support their parasitic lifestyle.

As for the rest of the poor, Professor Walter Williams of George Mason University long ago showed that you could give the poor enough money to lift them all above the official poverty line for a fraction of what it costs to support a massive welfare state bureaucracy.

We don’t need to send the country into bankruptcy, in the name of the poor, by spending trillions of dollars on people who are not poor, and who could take care of themselves. The poor have been used as human shields behind which the expanding welfare state can advance.

The goal is not to keep the poor from starving but to create dependency, because dependency translates into votes for politicians who play Santa Claus.

We have all heard the old saying about how giving a man a fish feeds him for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. Independence makes for a healthier society, but dependency is what gets votes for politicians.

For politicians, giving a man a fish every day of his life is the way to keep getting his vote. “Entitlement” is just a fancy word for dependency.

As for the scary stories politicians tell, in order to keep the entitlement programs going, as long as we keep buying it, they will keep selling it.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

But give hima fish every day, maybe he will vote for you to give him more fish!

And after all, that’s what really matters. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok


Tough

Couldn’t have said it better.

Jedidiah Bila: I spend quite a bit of time calling out some on the left. I detest big-government policies that simultaneously snatch our liberty and rob us blind. I find class warfare to be profoundly un-American. I have no patience for leftists who demand civility while spewing hateful rhetoric, or those who insist that feminism, diversity, and compassion are enemies of conservatism. And I don’t like left-wing liars who utilize scare tactics to distort everything from Paul Ryan’s Medicare proposal to Jan Brewer’s effort to enforce an immigration law that the federal government should be enforcing already.

I’ve also had tough words for some in the GOP. I have rejected weak deals that do nothing in the way of seriously addressing this country’s deficit and debt. And I have repeatedly stood firm against business-as-usual Republicans who compromise even when it’s not in the best interest of the country.

I now see two trends developing on the right with respect to 2012 that I’d like to address.

First off, I’ve received many emails from Republicans who feel that GOP contenders shouldn’t boldly criticize each other and that conservatives shouldn’t strongly critique 2012 candidates. I beg to differ.

When it comes to a 2012 primary season, it is imperative that candidates hold each other accountable for their records, for any disparity between their actions and words, for promises made and not kept, and for any and all inconsistencies. I want grassroots conservative bloggers, columnists, television commentators, and talk radio hosts calling it like they see it, putting those records front and center, and having a zero-tolerance policy for phonies and do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do nonsense. That is the only way to try to ensure that the strongest, most capable, most genuinely conservative candidate rises to the top. I want candidates challenging the heck out of each other. And I want us challenging them, too.

Secondly, I’ve had about enough of folks on the right trying to discourage candidates from running by insisting right off the bat that they could never win. Candidates are labeled unelectable, unpresidential, too polarizing, not polished enough, too unconventional, or some other absurd description. And so I ask — what are you folks so afraid of? Why are you so terrified of Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, and others entering the race and showing voters what they’ve got? Whether or not they are able to adeptly articulate their message and/or possess a proven commitment to conservatism will be heard by voters. The American people will make their decision. And I have to question the motives of anyone who wants to silence a candidate before the battle has even begun.

Conservatives, 2012 isn’t a fight we can afford to lose. And it’s not just about defeating Barack Obama. It’s about supporting someone who can be trusted to get this country back on track. You and I both know that plenty of politicians with GOP labels stamped on their foreheads are in no way committed to principled conservatism, and can in no way be counted on to exhibit strong leadership when it comes to fiscal responsibility, entitlement reform, and reawakening the values that built this country. By challenging candidates — and by them challenging each other — American voters will begin to separate the men from the boys, the women from the girls.

And to those who love telling potential GOP candidates to sit down and shut up before they’ve even stepped up to the plate, I remind you that this is America. That’s not what we’re about. I, for one, am ready to hear from everyone gutsy enough to play.

AMEN!

The Left and the Leftist Media are going to hate you no matter what you do or what you say. Period.

You could farther left than Barack Obama (if that’s possible) and they’d still hate you. And so would anyone who would have voted for you.

So have some balls. Stir straight into the Hurricane of Hate.

Case in Point: McDonalds.

Under assault for year by the Food Police.

They attack them, they change their ways. They attack them for something else. They change. They attack them again and again and again.

It’s much like Israel to Hamas and The Palestinians, their very existence pisses them off!

Now that Osama bin Laden is dead, we can turn our attention to another remorseless enemy who for years has sown death and destruction among blameless innocents. I refer, of course, to Ronald McDonald.

The McDonald’s mascot may qualify as one of the more annoying characters on the planet. But to his credit, he doesn’t compound his unappealing personality by bossing you around. In that respect, he is far less objectionable than the people who make a fetish of finding him objectionable.

Last week, they took out ads in several newspapers blaming the clown for childhood obesity and demanding that McDonald’s “stop marketing junk food to kids.” The signers range from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an anti-meat group that the American Medical Association has accused of “perverting medical science,” to alternative-healing huckster Andrew Weil.

The general rule of critics is that McDonald’s can do nothing right. Some years ago, they insisted that the company get rid of the beef tallow in which it cooked French fries. It did so, in favor of a supposedly healthier oil containing trans fats. A few years later, the activists demanded that it abandon trans fats, which it soon did.

How much credit did it get for those changes? Not much. The class of people who detested McDonald’s went right on detesting it.

These ads are part of a larger campaign against everything McDonald’s represents. Were the company to retire Ronald McDonald, its enemies would step up their calls for an end to Happy Meals. Get rid of Happy Meals, and they would demand that McDonald’s thoroughly revamp its menu to incorporate their superior notions of nutrition.

Ultimately, the only way to please the critics is to become something unrecognizable. Or, better yet, disappear from the planet. New York Times food columnist Mark Bittman, who is to sanctimony what Saudi Arabia is to oil, believes “anything that discourages people from eating at McDonald’s could be seen as wonderful.”

Wonderful, that is, to enlightened souls who avoid it at all costs. But it’s clear that McDonald’s comes much closer to what paying consumers actually want than what its detractors prefer. It has 32,000 restaurants, serving 64 million people a day. Last year, it had revenues of $24 billion, more than the gross domestic product of some countries.

The food moralists imagine that McDonald’s marketing magic renders its targets helpless to resist. Ronald McDonald might as well be rounding up kids at gunpoint and forcing them to choke down

But children young enough to be seduced by Ronald McDonald or Happy Meals rarely visit restaurants without parents. These adults are free agents experienced at saying “no” to protect the interests of their sometimes ungrateful offspring.

Parents who dislike McDonald’s sales tactics have a wealth of dining alternatives. And anyone who wants a low-fat, low-calorie meal can easily find it underneath the Golden Arches: Health magazine ranks McDonald’s among the 10 healthiest fast-food restaurants.

It may be argued that many parents are too weak or ignorant to make sound decisions about the food their kids eat. If so, McDonald’s and its unstoppable brainwashing machine could vanish tomorrow without making the slightest difference in obesity or other diet-related ailments.

People don’t like cheap, tasty, high-calorie fare because McDonald’s offers it. McDonald’s offers it because people like it. In McDonald’s absence, patrons would seek it out at other fast-food places, sit-down establishments or grocery stores.

We live in an age of inexpensive, abundant food carefully designed to please the mass palate. Most of us, recalling the scarcity, dietary monotony and starvation that afflicted our ancestors for hundreds of millennia, count that as progress. But those determined to save human beings from their own alleged folly see it as catastrophic.

What is apparent is that the militant enemies of fast food would like it treated as a public health menace along the lines of tobacco. They want broad measures to restrict, discourage and punish the companies that sell it.

Ronald McDonald is merely a convenient symbol. Their true target is a capitalist economy that gives companies far too much latitude in appealing to customers and allows government far too little control over our food choices.

The idea of using government power to dictate what we eat will strike many Americans as a gross intrusion on personal freedom. But McDonald’s enemies? They’re lovin’ it. (Steve Chapman-Chicago Tribune)

Add in Liberal obsession with Oil Companies and you see where this is headed.

Liberals just want to control everything and everybody. They just consider themselves why smarter than you so you must be herded like cattle to do and to think what they want you to think.

So to have GOP Presidential Candidates cow-towing to the Media and the Left, trying to be “reasonable” and “accommodating” and “compromising” just drives me bat-crazy.

Stand Up. Be a Man (or woman) and Say what you believe and don’t Equivocate just to placate the Leftists. They won’t be.

Pure and Simple.

Now Just Do it!

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

To Infinity & Beyond!

Thanks Big Sis

Thanks Big Sis! 🙂

The federal debt increased $54.1 billion in the eight days preceding the deal made by President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio) to cut $38.5 billion in federal spending for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, which runs through September.

The debt was $14.2101 trillion on March 30, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and $14.2642 on April 7.

Since the beginning of the fiscal year on Oct. 1, 2010, the national debt has increase by $653.4 billion.

But don’t worry, if we cut any more there will be Armageddon in the streets according to the Democrats.

At a news conference New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., agreed, “I happen to think some of their cuts are extreme and go overboard. But every week they keep upping the ante and proposing extreme cuts.”

The next battle with consequences begins in a matter of two short weeks when the accumulated U.S. debt will be nearing it’s $14 trillion legal limit.  So Congress will have to vote to raise the ceiling so Uncle Sam can borrow still more money.

The administration has said it will need to be raised between April 15 and May 31 or the U.S. could default and create a new fiscal crisis of unknowable magnitude. Fiscal hawks plan to demand strict, enforceable spending caps, triggers for across the board cuts, and austerity measures in exchange for raising the debt limit.

This short-term agreement was just a beginning. (FOX)

The Real fearmongering, hatred and vile Lies begins now.

Set your demagoguery meter to Infinity and Beyond!

Mark Steyn: Hey, it’s the weekend, and everyone’s singing the same maddeningly catchy refrain! Rebecca Black’s “Friday”? Nah, that was last week’s moronic sing-along. This week’s is even perkier! “Paul Ryan proposes to end Medicare as we know it,” sings former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta.

“It would end Medicare as we know it,” sings Sen. Max Baucus of Montana. “It’s going to end Medicare as we know it,” sings Nadeam Elshami, communications director for Nancy Pelosi. “It does end Medicare as we know it,” sings Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa. “I drove all night to watch Paul Ryan e-e-end Me-edi-ica-a-are as we-e kno-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-w it,” sing all 24 semifinalists on the Celine Dion round of “American Idol.”

Sadly, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, incoming chairman of the Democratic National Committee, lost the sheet music and was forced to improvise. “This plan would literally be a deathtrap for seniors,” she ululated. Close enough!

Ending Medicare as we know it? Say it ain’t so! Medicare, we hardly knew ye!

It’s an open question whether Americans will fall for one more chorus of the same old song from Baucus, Harkin, Podesta and the other members of America’s wrinkliest boy band. But if this is the level on which the feckless patronizing spendaholics of the permanent governing class want to conduct the debate, bring it on:

Paul Ryan’s plan would “end Medicare as we know it.” The Democrats’ “plan” — business as usual — will end America as we know it.

Literally, as Wasserman Schultz would say. One way or another, Medicare as we know it is going to end. So, if you think an unsustainable 1960s welfare program is as permanent a feature as the earth and sky, you’re in for a shock. It’s just a question of whether, after the shock, what’s left looks like Japan or looks like Haiti.

My comrade Jonah Goldberg compares America’s present situation to that of a plane with one engine out belching smoke. But, if anything, he understates the crisis. Air America doesn’t need a busted engine because it’s pre-programmed to crash.

Our biggest problem is Medicare and other “entitlements.” They’re the automatic pilot of Big Government. Whoever’s in the captain’s seat makes no difference. The flight is pre-programmed to hit the iceberg, if you’ll forgive me switching mass-transit metaphors in midstream.

For some reason, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Harkin & Co. don’t seem to mind this. If you recall the smile on the face of the “automatic pilot” in “Airplane!” as he’s being inflated, that’s pretty much the Democrats’ attitude to binge-spending as a permanent fact of life.

For a sense of Democratic insouciance to American decline, let us turn to the president himself.

The other day Barack Obama was in the oddly apt town of Fairless Hills, Pa., at what the White House billed as one of those ersatz “town hall” discussions into which republican government has degenerated. He was asked a question by a citizen of the United States. The cost of a gallon of gas has doubled on Obama’s watch, and this gentleman asked, “Is there a chance of the price being lowered again?”

As the Associated Press reported it, the president responded “laughingly.” “I know some of these big guys, they’re all still driving their big SUVs. You know, they got their big monster trucks and everything . . . If you’re complaining about the price of gas, and you’re only getting eight miles a gallon — (laughter) . . .”

That’s how the official White House transcript reported it: Laughter. Big yuks. “So, like I said, if you’re getting eight miles a gallon, you may want to think about a trade-in. You can get a great deal.”

Hey, thanks! You’ve been a great audience. I’ll be here all year. Don’t forget to tip your Democrat hat-check girl on the way out: At four bucks a gallon, it’s getting harder for volunteers to drive elderly voters from the cemetery to the polling station. Relax, I’m just jerking your crank, buddy! And it’s not four bucks per, it’s only three-ninety-eight. That’s change you can believe in!

Message: It’s your fault.

The same day as the president was doing his moribund-economy shtick, my hairdresser told me that she’d bought her midsize sedan secondhand in 2004. She’d also like to ask the president if there’s a chance of gas prices being lowered again. But he’d have the same answer: Buy a hybrid. Wait till the high-speed rail-link is built between Dead Skunk Junction and Hickburg Falls. Climb into the fishnets and the come-hither smile and hitch.

America, 2011: A man gets driven in a motorcade to sneer at a man who has to drive himself to work. A guy who has never generated a dime of wealth, never had to make payroll, never worked at any job other than his own tireless self-promotion, literally cannot comprehend that out there beyond the far fringes of the motorcade outriders are people who drive a long distance to jobs whose economic viability is greatly diminished when getting there costs twice as much as the buck-eighty-per-gallon it cost back at the dawn of the Hopeychangey Era.

So what? Your fault. Should have gone to Columbia and Harvard and become a community organizer.

Another 10 years of this, and large tracts of America will be Third World. Not Somalia-scale Third World, but certainly the more decrepit parts of Latin America. There will still be men with motorcades, but they’ll have heavier security and the compounds they shuttle between will be more heavily protected.

For them and their cronies, the guys plugged in, the guys who still know who to call to figure out a work-around through the bureaucratic sclerosis, life will be manageable, and they’ll still be wondering why you loser schlubs are forever whining about gas prices and electricity prices and food prices.

What’s about to hit America is not a “shock.” It’s not an earthquake, it’s not a tsunami, it’s what Paul Ryan calls “the most predictable crisis in the history of our country.” It has one cause: spending. The spending of the class that laughs at the class that drives to work to maintain President Obama, Sen. Reid, Sen. Baucus, Sen. Harkin and Minority Leader Pelosi’s “communications director” in their comforts and complacency.

The Democrats’ solution to the problem is to deny there is one. Unsustainable binge-spending is, as the computer wallahs say, not a bug but a feature: We’ll stimulate the economy with a stimulus grant for a Stimulus Grant-Writing Community Outreach Permit Coordinator regulated by the Federal Department of Community-Organizer Grant Applications. What’s to worry about?

I said the Democrats’ plan is to “end America as we know it,” but even that has been outsourced to others. The choice is between letting Paul Ryan end Medicare as we know it, or letting our foreign lenders determine the moment to end America as we know it.

I would not presume to know Chinese or Russian or Saudi or even European inclinations in this respect, though certain shifts in the ratio between short-term and long-term debt holdings suggest foreign governments give more thought to the implications of U.S. government spending than the U.S. government does.

But I do know their interests are not ours, and that there will come a day when Beijing and others, in the words of King Barack to his lowly subject, “may want to think about a trade-in.”

Now there’s a slogan for 2012.

I have a better one: Trade In Obama 2012! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

No Hyperbole Here…

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

The U.S. national debt on January 1st, 1791 was just $75 million dollars. Today, the U.S. national debt rises by that amount about once an hour.

Counting social security and medicare, the U.S. government is committed to future payment in excess of 65 TRILLION dollars.

And that does not even include Unions and their lavish taxpayer funded pensions and benefits. 🙂

But don’t worry, “we aren’t broke” and the Republicans are evil, draconian arseholes who just want to steal food from grandma and give it to the richest 2%!! 😦

More Evidence: Rev Jesse Jackson–

On Thursday’s “Martin Bashir” on MSNBC, Jackson, the founder and president of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, said the budget battle on the Republican side represents an effort to make the federal government “dysfunctional.”

“[T]his really is a Civil War fight,” Jackson said. “This is making the federal government dysfunctional on the 150th anniversary of the Civil War. These guys will support three wars. They’ll support tax dodgers. They’ll support the wealthiest Americans getting tax breaks. They want to cut into education and health care. This is an ideological battle.”

“States’ right are anti-civil rights, anti-workers’ right to bargain, anti-social justice, pro-rich and significantly insensitive to poor people — that was the great divide 150 years ago and it’s the great divide today in the ideological sense.”

So just remember, this battle over piddly Billions (against a $15 TRILLION dollar deficit) is morally equivalent to Gettysburg where 51,000 people DIED.  660,000 people died in the Civil War.

Now that’s equivalent and not hysterical hyperbole. 🙂

And his view of history is truly frightening.

Republicans said the principal hang-up in the negotiations centered on the size of the spending cuts to be included in any deal to fund the government through September, when the current budget year ends. But Democrats said the GOP’s demands on social issues, including denying federal dollars for Planned Parenthood, were at the heart of the deadlock.

“It’s an ideological battle,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “It has nothing to do with the fiscal integrity of this country.”

Democrats said the deadlock was all about a GOP demand to deny federal dollars for Planned Parenthood, which uses the taxpayer money to offer contraception and health care for women. Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest provider of abortion assistance.

Yeah, the ideology of federally funded abortions!  Talk about priorities!!

Really…:(

D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton tells Fox 5 in Washington:

“We are absolutely outraged. This is the functional equivalent of bombing innocent civilians… It’s time that the District of Columbia told the Congress to go straight to hell….

If these Republicans insist that, if they don’t get the whole pie they’ll take the whole country down with them.

But don’t worry, there’s no fearmongering and no hyperbole! 😦

And the Democrats are earnestly trying to come a deal, but those rotten Republicans (who are the only ones to pass bills that have died in the Democrat controlled Senate)  refuse to “compromise”.

Congress is responsible for creating a budget each year. The House of Representatives originates the budget, which then must be passed by the Senate and signed by the President.  This is supposed to happen well in advance of the U. S. government’s fiscal year, which begins on October 1 of the year preceding.

That means that the Democratically controlled Congress should have had a 2011 budget ready by Oct. 1, 2010.  But it didn’t. Why?  Because the House Democrats knew, well before that date, that they would likely lose control of the House in the 2010 mid-term elections. Here is it April, with the fiscal year half over and still no budget is done. Appalling is not a strong enough word.  In business, these people would have been fired long ago.

There was no political advantage for them (or the President) to struggle with the gargantuan 2011 budget right before the mid-term elections. They could just pass a series of “continuing resolutions” that allowed the government to go on spending at elevated levels until the new House came into office in January, and let those new Representatives “take the blame” for cutting programs and even for “shutting down the government.”

By failing to fulfill their responsibility to create the 2011 budget, the Democrats in Congress created the potential government shutdown.

They just put a “time-delay fuse” on it, so they could blame it on the new Republican controlled House. (forbes blog)

TA-DA!

And if you disagree with them, well, you’re just a Civil War bomber of innocent people who wants to wages war on the poor and force seniors to starve to death! 🙂

But there’s no hyperbole and fear. 🙂

And the Liberal Media will be “fair”. 🙂

The media are primed to blame Republicans for an impending shutdown that Democrats are praying will happen. The dirty secret is that government doesn’t shut down during shutdowns.

During the Clinton administration, a budget confrontation with the Republican Congress led to a government shutdown that helped Bill Clinton resuscitate his presidency and win re-election. But it didn’t have to be that way.

An indefinite ceasing of nonessential federal activities can be an enlightening event for the public. As Fox News’ John Stossel pointed out this week, most Americans won’t notice that the departments of labor, commerce and agriculture aren’t there anymore — and, as Stossel quipped, “those who would notice shouldn’t be getting those handouts anyway.”

Let enough time pass without these bloated bureaucracies engaging in their daily waste of the hard-earned money of others and people will start catching on that the country can do without them — do better without them, in fact.

Democrats — ably assisted by their allies in the establishment media — have no intention of letting that be the message beamed out to the public, however. The Democratic-controlled Senate and the White House this week rejected a House Republican stopgap measure that would have kept the government open for another week and funded the military for the remainder of the year.

The excuse given by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was the “riders” within the measure on “women’s health” and “clean air.” But GOP provisions on carbon emissions and Planned Parenthood funding are actually not contained in the stopgap measure, the only riders being a ban on Gitmo detainees going to U.S. soil and a D.C. anti-abortion funding prohibition.

Could it be clearer that Democrats want a shutdown, seeing a Clintonian opportunity to repair their political fortunes?

Be prepared to hear charges that all a shutdown really does is give millions of federal employees an extra paid vacation; idle public employees definitely don’t lose their health benefits, and although there is no guarantee they will get paid for their time away, the administration may do all in its power to see they are paid for nonwork — then blame Republicans.

As Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., noted this week, “three-fourths of the federal workforce would stay in place” during a shutdown — making it not a shutdown but a slowdown. In addition to Social Security, “the military would continue to be paid, and all essential services” would go on, Bachmann told reporters.

The White House on Wednesday said that of the nearly 3 million federal workers, only 800,000 might be furloughed. That makes this “shutdown” largely a show. (IBD)

A politically motivated show.

Can you say set up?

I knew you could.

Remember liberal politicians and apparatchiks have no morals or ethics whatsoever. Win at all costs. No matter what.

As Charlie Sheen would say, “Duh, Winning…” 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

It’s Wafer Thin!

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

We had to pass it to know what was it in when it came to ObamaCare because they had 15 months to read the 2,100 page Obamacare and didn’t, but Sen. Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget outline that was 70 pages ALL the Democrats and the Liberal media have completely digested and analyzed in just hours!

Because they are already on the attack. Like raptors on prey.

And it’s straight of my “excuse list” (See Last Sunday’s blog) 🙂

Anyway, get used to this: Warnings about grandma being forced to eat styrofoam peanuts and Fancy Feast because of heartless Republicans and their insane crusade for solvency will be a staple of Democratic talking points by next November, especially with the White House desperate to win back seniors alienated by ObamaCare.

How does letting the country collapse fiscally, which would prompt truly draconian cuts under an austerity plan to rebalance the books, put more food on seniors’ tables? (Hotair.com)

It doesn’t. But The Democrats only have 1 playbook and it’s the same one they’ve been using for a century.

It’s call Fear.

Intimidation.

Lying.

Hyperbole.

Hysterical “examples”.

And good old time tested CLASS WARFARE!

Liberal political strategist Donna Brazile took to Twitter to assail fiscal conservatives for “taking medicine from seniors” and cutting taxes for “the rich and their corporate donors.”

Do-nothing House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi attacked Republicans for paving a “path to poverty for America’s seniors and children and a road to riches for big oil.”

PELOSI: “When I hear you speak about this issue, of course it’s the Gospel of Matthew: When I was hungry, he gave me to eat and the rest of it goes on. And when I hear Reverend Wallis talk about priorities.

I can’t help but think about the fact that in these same budgets, we are talking about, they give tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to Big Oil to drill when they are making a trillion dollars over 10 years in profits, that we are giving tax breaks to companies to send jobs overseas. We’re doing that as we say to seniors, homebound seniors: “You no longer will have food coming to you in your homes”

The Ryan budget calls for a 5% cut in these programs. 5%!

The left-wing activist group Campaign for America’s Future bemoaned GOP Rep. Paul Ryan’s “corrupt” budget plan for catering to “the wealthiest Americans that finance campaigns, the powerful corporate lobbies that have deep pockets for politicians in and out of office.”

Did you know that entitlements — mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — are the primary drivers of these deficits but that Obama has yet to come to the table with a genuine entitlement reform proposal? Or that congressional Democrats, for the first time since 1974, did not pass a budget and all of the current wrangling over continuing resolutions and government shutdowns is a direct result of their dereliction? (Michelle Malkin)

Obama 2006: The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

But here’s some facts for you:

The U.S. Treasury has released a final statement <https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=w&fname=11033100.pdf> for the month of March that demonstrates that financial madness has gripped the federal government.

During the month, according to the Treasury, the federal government grossed $194 billion in tax revenue and paid out $65.898 billion in tax refunds (including $62.011 to individuals and $3.887 to businesses) thus netting $128.179 billion in tax revenue for March.

At the same time, the Treasury paid out a total of $1.1187 trillion. When the $65.898 billion in tax refunds is deducted from that, the Treasury paid a net of $1.0528 trillion in federal expenses for March.

Let’s put that in normal people’s terms (without the zeroes):
The government took in $194.
paid out $65.90.
=128.17
Then the Credit Card bill came in and it was $1,052.

No Problem. We aren’t broke!! 🙂

And Speaker Boehner’s grovelling for a deal any deal is making me sick!

If he caves to the Democrats on piddle-shit like $61 Billion forget the 6.4 Trillion dollar country saving budget cuts in the Ryan Budget.

It’s toast.

And so are we!

Perhaps you’d like an 88 percent tax increase? Perhaps not.

The Democrats’ plan (and the Liberal Media)  will be to make Paul Ryan the most hated man in America, if not the world. The campaign will be — and already is — personal. It will be personal because the facts are not on their side. Our choices are: 1. raise taxes severely, and pretend that that is not going to have catastrophic economic consequences; 2. court a national fiscal crisis on the Portugal/Greece model but on a significantly larger scale, and pretend that that is not going to have catastrophic economic consequences; 3. cut spending. (NRO)

Now that’s an “adult” moment! 🙂

Choose.

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

The Gauntlet is Thrown Down

The United States will hit the legal limit on its ability to borrow no later than May 16, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Monday, ramping up pressure on Congress to act to avoid a debt default.

But, according to the Democrats “we ain’t broke” 🙂

Previously, the Treasury had forecast that the $14.3 trillion statutory debt limit would be reached between April 15 and May 31. As of Friday, Treasury borrowing stood just $95 billion from the ceiling.

The debt-limit showdown comes as Congress struggles to complete a spending package that would keep the government operating beyond Friday.

Republicans are seeking to use that bill to enact deep spending cuts and lawmakers are focusing on a proposal to trim this year’s budget by $33 billion, a relatively small amount compared with a projected $1.4 trillion deficit.

Some lawmakers have called for legislation to force the Treasury to first pay interest on U.S. bonds before other obligations, such as unemployment benefits and Social Security and Medicare payments, as a way to stave off a debt default. (KFYI)

But don’t worry, you’re “heartless” according to Democrats if you cut $20 billion dollars from this year’s budget! 😦

The Republican budget proposal will eliminate the national debt while still preserving costly entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, Rep. Paul Ryan told CNBC.

Speaking just hours before the spending plan gets its formal introduction before Congress, Ryan, head of the House Budget Committee, said the debt will peak at 74.5 percent of gross domestic product in 2014 and then drop from there.

“We’ve got to show the country that we can get this situation under control and grow the economy, and that’s what we’re doing,” he said. “So whether (Democratic Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid is willing to pass this bill or Barack Obama is ready to sign it, I don’t know the answer to that question.

“What I do know is I can’t look my kids and my constituents in the eyes with my conscience being clear and not know that I didn’t do everything I could to try and fix this problem before it got out of control.”

Among the key tenets in a budget resolution to be presented are fundamental changes to the way Medicare and Medicaid are financed. The resolution forestalls action on Social Security, though Ryan said he expects a bipartisan agreement on that issue later this year.

More broadly, the plan contains provisions that Ryan has said will slash $4 trillion from federal spending over the next decade.

The resolution is necessary as a potential shutdown looms over Washington and Congress must approve raising the national debt limit.

Ryan acknowledged the political obstacles he will face both from Democrats and some members of this own party who may bristle at the aggressive spending cuts involved.

“The problem in Washington is, they take any honest and sincere attempt to fix this problem and use it as a political weapon against you in the next election,” he said. “We can’t let that deter us.”

Budget: Republicans are set to unveil common-sense changes to entitlements that cut spending $4 trillion over the next decade and start to restore our fiscal health. Predictably, do-nothing Democrats call them “extremist.”

But who’s the real extremist here? The one who recognizes that $10 trillion-plus in expected deficits over the next 10 years is a serious problem? Or those who insist there’s no budget problem so bad that more spending and a massive tax hike on all Americans can’t fix it?

Truth is, our long-term fiscal problem is so severe that, absent immediate corrective action, our country’s political and economic future is imperiled.

By the Social Security and Medicare Trustees’ own estimates, we are running headlong into a fiscal tsunami. All told, the government’s entitlement accountants say, we have roughly $107 trillion in unfunded liabilities — $340,836 and change for every American alive today.

Even if you’re generous and reduce that by the amount of assets the government has, the future red ink at the end of the 2010 fiscal year was still about $57 trillion — $7 trillion for federal pensions, $17 trillion for Social Security, $22 trillion for Medicare, and about $11 trillion or so in debt. That’s $481,000 for every U.S. household.

For Democrats to refuse to cut spending in the face of such numbers is the definition of “extremist.”

The fiscal cancer is growing fast. As the chart shows, based on estimates from the Government Accountability Office, spending on entitlements and interest on our debts will soar from just 11% of GDP this year to over half of our economy by 2065.

That means that, in that year, children born today will see 50 cents of every dollar they earn turned over to the government to pay for retirees’ benefits. As intolerable as that is, today’s Democrats have chosen to ignore it, screaming instead about “Wall Street” bailouts and “taxing the rich.”

Unfortunately, the Democrats’ panacea of higher taxes will sink the economy. Just to pay for Social Security and Medicare would require a near tripling of the current tax rate of 15.3% by the middle of the century.

Americans would be slowly bankrupted by such policies — and so would the government.

In that context, House Budget Committee chief Paul Ryan proposes $4 trillion in cuts. Extreme? Even if he cut $6 trillion, our national debt would still rise. Faced with $10 trillion in deficits, $4 trillion is just a modest start. Now we’ll see who the real extremists are. (IBD)

We already know who the Liberal Media and the Democrats will blame: The Tea Party and The Republicans.

What Ryan wanted,Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) declared, is “to protect tax breaks for millionaires, oil companies and other big money special interests, while slashing our investment in education, ending the current health guarantee for seniors on Medicare, and denying health care to tens of millions of Americans.”

The Talking Points are set. Now it’s time for 24/7 Mainstream Ministry of Truth Media’s  constant drumming of them.

Andy Griffith will be dusted off again.

So get ready for EVEN MORE demagoguery of my excuse list (see 2 days ago).

After all, we aren’t broke. And if it ain’t broke the Democrats don’t want to fix it. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

The Tactical Budget

Posted in Heber, AZ

The House of Representatives Speaker warned: ‘Everything is on the table. We’re broke. Let’s be honest with ourselves.’

Republican House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan would not be drawn on whether his party would oppose the proposals.

He said: ‘We’ll see the details of this budget tomorrow, but it looks like to me that it is going to be very small on spending discipline and a lot of new spending so-called investments.

‘Borrowing and spending is not the way to prosperity. Today’s deficits means tomorrow’s tax increases, and that costs jobs.’

Obama budget to cut deficit by $1.1 trillion.

Sounds like a great headline, doesn’t it?

But that’s OVER 10 YEARS!

Meanwhile he will continue “Investing” (aka spending) at a deficit of over 1 Trillion a year.

Do you need an economics degree to understand this is Crap on a Stick!?

Details of the budget proposal provided by the White House before its official release showed the deficit rising to $1.645 trillion in fiscal 2011, then falling sharply to $1.101 trillion in 2012. (Reuters)

Ohhh!!! So his deficits (aka spending more than you have) will drop by a 1/2 trillion by next year but it will still be over a Trillion $$$ more than we have!

And this is “fiscal restraint” to a liberal!!

ARE YOU NUTS!!!

“Even though we might have some differences at the outset, we’re very eager to work with Republicans to cut spending, reduce our deficit,” a senior Obama administration official told reporters.

No they are not! They are eager to make the Republicans look like Scrooge on Steroids and make them look miserly so they can pump up 2012 for Obama. Because, you they don’t want you to vote for the mean old Republicans who will cut grandma’s dog food allowance and gleefully throw her out in the street. And children will be starving and Republicans kick puppies and slap babies, ad nausuem.

It’s all politics. Economics as politics.

The Democrats will stand strong in face of the evil Republicans who want to cut you off from your monetary drugs to save you and your kids! How evil is that!!

Meanwhile, the Debt Mobster breaks everything in sight and comes for you.

Obama didn’t create the crisis, but in two years his spending has added $3 trillion to the national debt. In 2011, the deficit figures to be nearly 10 percent of the gross domestic product. In 2012, the deficit will exceed $1 trillion for the third consecutive year. Obama would cut spending by $1.1 trillion over the coming decade. That figure is smaller than the projected deficit of $1.5 trillion in 2011. Think about that: Obama’s total reductions are less than a single year’s deficit.

A highly publicized item in the 2012 budget is a 5-year (partial) freeze on discretionary spending, a saving of $400 billion. That was swallowed up this year when Congressional Budget Office re-calculated the deficit for 2011 deficit and boosted it from $1.1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, the biggest 1-year deficit ever.

The Obama budget is so unresponsive to the fiscal situation that it prompts this question: it’s merely a tactical budget. He’s now waiting to see what Republicans will propose in their 2012 budget, the outlines of which are to be hammered out by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan in April. Following that, Obama and congressional Republicans will negotiate, ultimately agreeing on a budget.

That’s the most benign interpretation I can think of. A more likely explanation: Obama has set the stage to attack Republicans for proposing spending cuts certain to be deeper than those Obama is advocating.

Democrats tend to believe that while Americans want spending to be reduced dramatically, they’ll feel differently when faced with cuts in specific programs such as education, transportation, research, and assistance to the poor. In other words, the public is philosophically conservative, but operationally liberal, or so many Democrats think.

In recent weeks, Democrats have talked up the possibility of a budget impasse that causes a government shutdown. When this happened in 1995, President Clinton and Democrats blamed congressional Republicans. So did the media. A repeat in 2011 would delight Democrats, assuming that once again Republicans get the blame. Pretty cynical, but Democrats are desperate after the clobbering they took in the election this past November.

By the way, the president’s own debt commission delivered its recommendation in December. It favored $4 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years. That includes cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, mandatory spending programs that Obama doesn’t touch. (Fred Barnes)

But don’t expect the Liberal Media to call him on it. They are too busy trying to get him re-elected in 2012 to notice the smoke being crammed up our collective asses.

They are manning the smoke machines!

The love fest with Obama starts today. The reality of the situation dies today.

Let the spin cycle that causes the earth’s rotation to come to a stop begins.

Spinning us into the poor house and 3rd rate nation status for a our kids is the light at the end of this tunnel.

Congrats, Obama, destroyer of the world.

But at least he cut $110 billion a year and only spent $1 trillion more than we had.

Now that’s fiscal restraint! 🙂

Hurray for Obama and The Democrats! They aren’t the mean, old, snarly miserly Republicans who want to cut off grandma, kill children, kick puppies and steal candy from babies!!!

Hey, is that an Iceberg on the Horizon??

DAMN THE TORPEDOES! FULL SPEED AHEAD!!!

Obama’s Tough Choices…seriously?…

President Obama’s 2012 budget will be roughly $3,800,000 million ($3.8 trillion).

The anticipated 2012 budget deficit will be $1,500,000 million ($1.5 trillion). (for the Third Year in a Row!!) This means we are borrowing that amount from our children to fund all of the Democrats’ Utopian spending programs.

Finally, the president has proposed “tough budget cuts” that total $775 million.

No, that’s not a joke. Unfortunately.

Let’s illustrate the magnitude of Obama’s cuts.

CAN YOU SEE IT?? if you can, you have super vision!

Obama’s cuts aren’t even visible in this chart. Let’s zoom in.

Blowing it up about ten times allows us to see a tiny little sliver: those are the cuts.

See it now, that little tiny sliver? Still need Superman’s vision to see it?
Blowing the chart up a further ten times still barely exposes Obama’s proposed cuts.

…Lew said that the Valentine’s Day budget will proposed cutting in half community service block grants to grassroots groups in poor communities… He said “this cut is not easy for” Obama.

Not easy.

Our country’s going bankrupt and he can’t find anything to cut.

These Democrats are so far off the reservation that there’s really no hope left for them as a political party. This degree of dishonesty and wanton fiscal destruction must be rewarded with political obliteration.

And just to add Insult to Injury

The Left’s favorite garbage-in garbage-out justifiers for ObamaCare, The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) testified to this , this week:

Testifying today before the House Budget Committee, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf confirmed that Obamacare is expected to reduce the number of jobs in the labor market by an estimated 800,000. Here are excerpts from the exchange:

Chairman [Paul] Ryan: “[I]t’s been argued…that the new health care law will create jobs and increase labor force participation. But if I recall from your analysis, it was quite the opposite. Is that not the case?”

Director [Douglas] Elmendorf : “Yes.”…

[…]

Rep. [John] Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we’ll — and Dr. Elmendorf — and we’ll continue this conversation right now. First on health care, before I get to — before I get to broader issues, you just mentioned that you believe — or that in your estimate, that the health care law would reduce the labor used in the economy by about 1/2 of 1 percent, given that, I believe you say, there’s 160 million full-time people working in ’20-’21.  That means that, in your estimation, the health care law would reduce employment by 800,000 in ’20-’21. Is that correct?

Director Elmendorf: Yes. The way I would put it is that we do estimate, as you said, that…employment will be about 160 million by the end of the decade.  Half a percent of that is 800,000.

So anyone for Knives and bear skins? That’s all we’ll have if these idiots continue.

Economics 101:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8k1LeSwtCw&feature=player_embedded

Liberals must be defeated. Period. We can’t afford their idiocy anymore.

And anyone who mentions “tough choices” by the Democrats or the President feel free to laugh openly in their face!

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

I Want Your Money

The Fraternal Order of Police in Camden New Jersey proved without a shadow of a doubt, public union willingness to toss fellow officers to the dogs. In a 300-1 vote, the union rejected an offer that that would have saved 100 jobs. That offer called for three days a month of unpaid furloughs for patrol officers for six months, then one furlough day in each of the following 12 months.

Please consider Camden police union rejects concession deal that could bring back 100 laid-off officers.
Altogether, more than 15 percent of Camden’s municipal workers, including 68 firefighters and about 100 civilians, were laid off as the city tries to fill a huge budget gap brought on by rising costs, decreased tax revenues and diminished aid from the state.
But screw that, we just want the money and even more jobs is not enough for this Union.
CalPERS (the California Public Employee Retirement System) and CalSTRS (the California State Teachers Retirement System).  CalPERS has over 9,000 employees receiving $100k or more in pensions; CalSTRS has over 3,000.
And they can retire at 50. and take ANOTHER JOB!

Lines are being drawn and the fight to reduce overly generous pay and benefits to government employees at the federal, state, and local level is underway. Not too surprisingly, public employee unions are gearing up, rallying government employees, and exerting pressure to maintain the generous pay and benefits that has loaded government with unsustainable debt. Public employee unions are, even now, pressing the Obama Administration for additional benefits and power.

President Obama, either unwilling, or perhaps unable, to bring long-overdue accountability to powerful public employee unions, has instead issued guidance requiring greater Union representation and input into federal agency decision making. Obama’s decision will likely embolden union bosses to think they can escape accountability and an honest review of benefits, salary, and pensions of government employees.

Perhaps it is time to send a different message. President Obama, like many Americans, is probably unaware that the federal government actually subsidizes federal government employee union operations. In fact, the federal government provides unions with free office space, pays for union member time and picks up travel and per diem costs. These “perks” represent a tax that has never been approved by American taxpayers–perks which operate at a level below the radar of Congress and well below the radar of the IRS. These hidden “perks” provided to government employee unions cost American taxpayers millions of dollars annually.

According to official data, federal employees currently spend some 2.9 million official work hours, at government expense, engaging in collective bargaining and union activities, representing a taxpayer cost of approximately $120 million. But the taxpayer costs and subsidizes to public employee unions is much higher than the official report because government does not account for all the expenses related to union activity.

Federal government unions are, in essence, running a business within the federal government. As we begin the debate over the proper role (if any) unions should have in government, one step Americans should all be able to agree upon is that taxpayer money should not be used to subsidize union activities.

Many Americans may be unaware that unions exist in every federal agency. In fact, most agencies have several unions competing for employee participation and funding which means that federal agencies are subsidizing the costs for several unions at the same time!

These federal agency union representatives have a large presence in Washington, DC, the seat of the federal government. But, most federal locations throughout the United States also have a union representative. So, for example, in a city, such as Kansas City, where the federal complex houses multiple government agencies, there will be multiple federal union representatives, from each federal union, within each federal agency, all at the same building location.

Why is this important?

Federal government union representatives are actually federal employees. They hold GS ranks and civil service status, and actually have federal jobs that they were employed to perform. Their union duties are, supposedly, performed over and above the requirements of their regular day job. However, because of the pernicious and growing power of federal unions, oftentimes, union duties often are performed in lieu of their job. Paid time off from regular government duties is allowed, in most federal agencies, for the union representative to solicit federal employees (i.e. market services), to attend union meetings (i.e. work for an entity other than their government employer) or travel to have “face time” with their union bosses in DC. All at taxpayer expense.

In addition, union representatives often request and are provided with office space that is more expansive than is warranted by their GS rank or than their federal job duties require. The cost of this additional square footage is also paid for by the American taxpayer, and is paid for at each federal agency, for each federal union representative, for each federal union. Federal government union representatives total thousands of federal employees, all billing their time, travel and per diem, for non-government related work, to the American taxpayer.

Perhaps an even bigger problem is that the federal government union representatives sometimes seem to operate under the mistaken belief that they were hired by the government to work for the union—and that union work is more important than the federal job they were hired to perform.

Unions seem, at best, indifferent to the performance of government and are exclusively concerned with pay and benefits of union workers. Therein lies another irony for the American taxpayer. Unions are organized to negotiate against employers, but, since the federal government is the employer, and since the American people pay for the federal government, then, technically, federal government employee unions might be construed as organizing against the American people.

It is time to bring some accountability to public employee unions. A good first step would be for Congress to get a grip on the proliferation of benefits for unions in the federal government, whose activities are an additional burden on federal taxpayers. Congress should change federal policies on payment of travel, per diem and office space for federal government union employees.

Better yet, perhaps President Obama should take the lead.

But he won’t. He’s too much of a kool-aid drinking Union guy, plus the Democrats are beholden to them like no other group.

The next closest influence are Trial Lawyers, and guess where they fit in – Health Care.

Gee, what a coincidence!

That memo being (in part):

Federal managers should seek employee input before major decisions are made, not after solutions are developed, according to a memo from Obama administration officials.

In a meeting on Wednesday with federal management and labor representatives, Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry and Office of Management and Budget Deputy Director for Management Jeff Zients reminded agency leaders to improve dialogue with employees by involving them before making final decisions. Managers should engage unions early in decision-making processes, as outlined in President Obama’s December 2009 executive order, said the memo.

Executive Order 13522 creates labor-management partnerships governmentwide and on the agency level. The order also requires the National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations to launch pilot programs that will test bargaining over issues not normally negotiable by law in a small group of agencies and directs management to include pre-decisional involvement “in all workplace matters to the fullest extent practicable.” (Government executive.com)

In other words, Unions should be consulted before management makes any decisions. Making them, in effect, Managers.

Do you get that level of input at your job?

I know I don’t.

But Unions are special. They are the protected class in Liberal ideology.

They fight against the evil Corporations!

And they are killing us all.

“Ultimately, the goal is to allow employees, through their elected labor representatives, to have meaningful input, which results in better quality decision-making, more support for decisions, and timelier implementation,” the memo stated.

If you kiss our butt we won’t go on strike or we won’t work to destroy you. Sounds rather Mafia like doesn’t it?

The union idea of civil discourse is to protest outside opponents’ private homes. Now union supporters are targeting a developer , with fliers showing a bull’s-eye and his home address. Cue the chirping crickets. That will be the soundtrack for mainstream media reaction to the latest example of thuggery perpetrated by Wal-Mart opponents who are not happy that the non-union retailer wants to build a Wal-Mart-anchored development on the site of an abandoned Chevy dealership in Washington, D.C. The development would employ up to 1,200 people in a city with 10.2% unemployment.

A group calling itself Wal-Mart Free DC is organizing a protest, not at one of the proposed sites or at Wal-Mart headquarters, but at the private home of the developer. A flier produced by the group gives his name and home address and invites protesters to assemble on his front lawn. Oh, yes: There’s a smiley face centered on some cross hairs on the flier.

The group claims no formal union affiliation, yet prominently displayed on the group’s website are links to sites such as WalMartWatch funded by Service Employees International Union and United Commercial and Food Workers International Union. Certainly they are employing the thuggish tactics used before by the purple shirts of SEIU.

Last May, a frightened teenager was trapped inside his home as a mob of about 500 bussed in by SEIU demonstrated and chanted on his front lawn in an effort to intimidate his father, a deputy general counsel with Bank of America. Fortune magazine’s Nina Easton was a neighbor and provided the account of a story that might otherwise have received little notice.

As Easton reported, some 14 bus loads of people organized by the SEIU and a Chicago outfit called National Political Action descended on her neighbor’s home, armed with bullhorns, shouting about greedy banks and home foreclosures. After the mob was done, the buses took them to the nearby residence of a J.P. Morgan Chase executive.

Asked by Easton about the rationale behind such protests, SEIU representative Steven Leerner said:

“People in powerful corporations seem to think they can insulate themselves from the damage they are doing.”

So the union feels entitled to target — yes, we said target — them in their private homes.

The group that gathered at the developer’s home Thursday night was smaller and less-organized, but its purpose was equally clear — to intimidate those who would oppose it with the oldest threat in the book: “We know where you live.”

Wal-Mart is America’s largest employer outside of unionized government. (IBD)

And Unions want and need your money and your job to pay for their own, after all.

They are vastly more important that you.

They are warrior for the Cause.

American Federation of Teachers’ President Randi Weingarten has been doing her best to make sure Big Labor has a say in education reform. She wants to drive the train. The National Education Association, on the other hand, is taking the tact of putting dynamite under the tracks. While Weingarten says all the right things and uses all the necessary poll-tested phrases, she really wants to maintain the status quo. No tenure reform. No need to judge teachers by any measure other than seniority.

But in an interview with Newsweek, she made this curious statement, in response to Bill Gates saying, “We need to measure what they do, and then have incentives for the other teachers to learn those things:”

“Football teams do this all the time,” Weingarten responded. “They look at the tape after every game. Sometimes they do it during the game. They’re constantly deconstructing what is working and what isn’t working. And they’re jettisoning what isn’t working and building up on what is working, and doing it in a teamlike approach.”

That’s correct – they do. It’s too bad that public education does not operate more like the NFL.

Here’s an idea. Let’s have the NEA and AFT become the owners of a new NFL franchise. For a lack of a better name, we’ll call the new team the Thugs.

Players on the Thugs’ roster would receive tenure after two years, like they do in New York City Public Schools. They can play on the Thugs as long as they’d like, regardless of their skill level. And players would be judged not for their ability to score touchdowns or sack quarterbacks, but the number of years they’ve been in the NFL.

Over time, the Thugs’ roster would be filled with 50- and 60-year old players, raking in the big bucks while losing game after game.

Does anyone believe that the hypothetical Thugs, with their incredible job security, would be competitive with the teams that compensate players based on their performance and frequently alter their rosters to maintain an edge?

It would be wonderful if public education would operate more like the NFL, where you get paid for results and released for incompetence. Maybe then American K-12 students would receive the instruction they truly deserve.

Do what benefits you the most and proclaim to be doing it “for the children” is the fastest way to the Barf Bag for me folks.

But Unions don’t work that way. They just protect the incompetent and insulate themselves from any accountability for anything.

Oh, and they want ALL your Money. They deserve it. After all, they are special. 🙂

Political Cartoon

Stop Me Before I Lie Again!

A Democrat advocacy group that was essential to the passage of ObamaCare has come out with a new Powerpoint presentation on how to sell ObamaCare, aka sell a 5-gallon jug of water to a drowning man.

And the most interesting revelation: They Lied!

Shocking though that may seem, it seems that in this presentation on the last page of “don’t”s they don’t wanna anyone to talk about the cost savings, deficit reduction, and the lower premiums that was there mantra for 15 months as they crammed it down everyone’s throat in the most partisan vote in memory.

It seems, they might have ‘misspoke’ 🙂

The presentation also concedes that the fiscal and economic arguments that were the White House’s first and most aggressive sales pitch have essentially failed. “Many don’t believe health care reform will help the economy,” says one slide.

When you see this first panel, think Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals, Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

It’s hard to overstate how important the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)—which makes the official judgments on how much bills cost and save—is in Washington. “I consider CBO God around here,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, recently said during the Health Care Debate.(Newsweek– our “islamophobic” fear mongers)

I wonder if he feels the same way after yesterday’s report that showed what the deficit spending has done to the economy? 🙂

“We think the numbers are now pretty well set from CBO,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said. “We think it will post the largest deficit reduction of any bill that we’ve adopted in the Congress since 1993.”

CBO told lawmakers that the health package would cost $940 billion over the next decade, reducing the deficit by $130 billion. It will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion in the second decade of the plan’s implementation, according to those who have seen the score.

“We are absolutely giddy” about the score, Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said during an interview on Fox News on Thursday. About the deficit-reduction figures, he added, “This is great news for the American people.”(The Hill)

So without further adieu…

Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and deficit and instead stressing a promise to “improve it.”

The messaging shift was circulated this afternoon on a conference call and PowerPoint presentation organized by Families USA — one of the central groups in the push for the initial legislation. The call was led by a staffer for the Herndon Alliance, which includes leading labor groups and other health care allies. It was based on polling from three top Democratic pollsters: John Anzalone, Celinda Lake and Stan Greenberg.

The confidential presentation, available in full here and provided to POLITICO by a source on the call, suggests that Democrats are acknowledging the failure of their predictions that the health care legislation would grow more popular after its passage, as its benefits became clear and rhetoric cooled. Instead, the presentation is designed to win over a skeptical public, and to defend the legislation — and in particular the individual mandate — from a push for repeal.

The presentation concedes that groups typically supportive of Democratic causes — people under 40, non-college-educated women and Hispanic voters — have not been won over by the plan. Indeed, it stresses repeatedly that many are unaware that the legislation has passed, an astonishing shortcoming in the White House’s all-out communications effort.

“Straightforward ‘policy’ defenses fail to [move] voters’ opinions about the law,” says one slide.  “Women in particular are concerned that health care law will mean less provider availability — scarcity [is] an issue.”

The presentation also concedes that the fiscal and economic arguments that were the White House’s first and most aggressive sales pitch have essentially failed.

“Many don’t believe health care reform will help the economy,” says one slide.

The presentation’s final page of “Don’ts” counsels against claiming “the law will reduce costs and deficit.”

The presentation advises, instead, sales pitches that play on personal narratives and promises to change the legislation.

“People can be moved from initial skepticism and support for repeal of the law to favorable feelings and resisting repeal,” it says.  “Use personal stories — coupled with clear, simple descriptions of how the law benefits people at the individual level — to convey critical benefits of reform.”

In other words, get ready for more grandma has to use someone else’s dentures stories!  Get out the hankies, it’s America’s Most Outrageous Sob Stories Season 2!.

Appeals to emotions, not logic.

Hmmm, the exact opposite of the Ground Zero Mosque where the supporters are totally devoid and deaf to emotions. Curiouser and Curiouser.. 🙂

Could it be manipulative?  Nahh…. 🙂

The presentation also counsels against the kind of grand claims of change that accompanied the legislation’s passage.

“Keep claims small and credible; don’t overpromise or ‘spin’ what the law delivers,” it says, suggesting supporters say, “The law is not perfect, but it does good things and helps many people. Now we’ll work [to] improve it.”

The “free” Miracle Cure is just snake oil after all. But don’t tell the customer who had it force down their throat that. 🙂

The Herndon Alliance, which presented the research, is a low-profile group that coordinated liberal messaging in favor of the public option in health care. Its “partners” include health care legislation’s heavyweight supporters: AARP, AFL-CIO, SEIU, Health Care for America Now, MoveOn and the National Council of La Raza, among many others.

Let’s see, A Seniors advocacy group that has it’s own Health Insurance arm, Government Unions who have been getting most of the bailouts, Liberal advocacy group funded by a Billionaire Socialist, “The Race” (La Raza) a racist hatemongers group of Latinos who believe in (amongst other things) giving parts of Arizona and New Mexico back to Mexico and are as Open Borders as it gets.

Interesting grouping… 🙂

The presentation cites three private research projects by top Democratic pollsters: eight focus groups by Lake; Anzalone’s 1,000-person national survey; and an online survey of 2,000 people by Greenberg’s firm.

“If we are to preserve the gains made by the law and build on this foundation, the American public must understand what the law means for them,” says Herndon’s website. “We must overcome fear and mistrust, and we must once again use our collective voice to connect with the public on the values we share as Americans.” (Ben Smith-Politico)

Water anyone? 🙂

“We thought the best thing to do now was to remind people why they personally wanted reform in the first place.”–Spokesman for Families USA.

Wanted it? It was running at 66% against when it was passed and that hasn’t improved one  bit since.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% of U.S. Likely Voters favor repeal of the health care bill. That’s down from 59% a week ago, but support for repeal has ranged from 52% to 60%since the law was passed by Congress in March.

I guess follows my new rule that if 60+% of the people are against it, the Democrats are for it and you should be too! 🙂  (Health Care, Ground Zero Mosque, Deficit Spending, Continued Bailouts…et al)

A recent Government Accountability Report (GAO), finding that each job ‘created’ by the stimulus bill costs an average of $194,213.

But, fear not! The Government is here to save you…money! 🙂

Just over 70 days. I can see November from my house… 🙂