Here are some key passages from the Wall Street Journal's weekend edition interview. Matthew Kaminski sat down with Fred Siegel, producing the following insights.
Excerpts from the Interview
A former editor of the left-leaning Dissent magazine, Mr. Siegel has written several well-received books on New York, including the 1997 "The Future Once Happened Here." He calls his hometown "the model for cross subsidies" in America. "Wall Street makes money off the bonds that have to be floated to pay the public sector workers in New York."
Born in 1945 and raised in the Bronx, Mr. Siegel got his first political education by listening to feverish debates at home about Bundists and Bolsheviks. His grandfather, a militantly anti-Communist socialist, was vice president of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union and a strong influence on him. In 1972, Mr. Siegel worked on the McGovern campaign—"you shouldn't print that!"—and calls his discussions with the Democratic candidate "enormously consequential" in shifting his world view. "I like to say I was center left before I became center right," he says.
Thanks to union clout, he notes, salaries and benefits for teachers, bus drivers and city secretaries have outgained the private sector during this sluggish economy. "Spending is never ratcheted down. It's unconnected to productivity. That can only be sustained by a boom or these extraordinary subsidies we're getting now from the Federal Reserve. But that's gonna stop at some point. And then what happens?"
And the ground may already be moving. Many American localities are already at the crisis point. Rhode Island's legislature last week sharply cut retirement benefits for current and retired public workers. "A 300% Democratic state!" marvels Mr. Siegel, who was one of the first to sound the warning on the public pensions crisis.
In Mr. Siegel's estimation, only Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has tried the needed fix after last year's elections. "Part of the reason Walker has become such a lightning rod" is that he pushed "straight up, unambiguous structural reform." His move to restrict collective bargaining for state employees isn't as important, says Mr. Siegel, as ending the requirement that state workers pay union dues. On his first day in the governor's mansion in 2005, Indiana's Mitch Daniels also stopped deducting dues automatically; most workers chose not to pay. "The union has a guaranteed flow of income, which they then use to lobby the government," says Mr. Siegel. This reform, he adds, "evens the playing field."
Dues money is the coin of political influence for organized labor. So not surprisingly, it is bankrolling the pushback. Mr. Walker faces a recall campaign. Ohio voters this month overturned Gov. John Kasich's legislation to limit collective bargaining for state workers. Mr. Kasich should have eliminated the dues "check off" instead, according to Mr. Siegel, and worked harder to connect with voters. "Too many Republicans treat workers as if they are their employees," he says. "The virtue of Ronald Reagan is he talked to workers as one of them."
It is often forgotten how many New Deal Democrats were skeptical about public-sector unions. Franklin Delano Roosevelt called the idea of strikes by government workers "unthinkable and intolerable." New York Mayor Fiorello La Guardia said, "I do not want any of the pinochle club atmosphere to take hold among city workers." But union organizers would eventually tap into the language of the civil rights movement to present collective bargaining as another overdue "right."
New York Mayor Robert Wagner extended collective-bargaining rights to government employees in 1958. He saw early that, says Mr. Siegel, "public sector unions are displacing political machines as the turnout mechanism for the Democratic Party. They are the new Tammany Hall." Coming off a nail biter of an election, President John F. Kennedy saw this future as well. In 1962, he signed Executive Order 10988 to give federal workers the right to unionize, though not to collectively bargain. By 1980, half of all delegates to the Democratic convention worked for the government. Government-employee rolls kept growing through the Reagan years. During the presidency of George W. Bush, the number of government workers who belong to a union surpassed the number of unionized private workers.
Mr. Siegel observes that public-sector unions have "become a vanguard movement within liberalism. And the reason for that is it's the public sector that comes closest to the statist ideals of McGovern and post-McGovern liberals. And that is, there's no connection between effort and reward. You're guaranteed your job. You're guaranteed your salary increase. There's a kind of bureaucratic equality."
In turn, he continues, "this vanguard becomes in the eyes of many liberals the model for the middle class. Public-sector unions are what all workers should be like. Their benefits are the kind of benefits everyone should get."
Government workers make up a growing share of the middle class. And perversely, says Mr. Siegel, unions can justifiably claim to defend the interests of the middle-class worker. "That's because the costs that they've imposed have driven out the private-sector middle class. They are the disease of which they proclaim themselves the cure."
I've highlighted in red what I consider to be among the most essential comments by Siegel, among others which are also valuable to understand.
Don't you find it chilling to hear, from a former leftist, the straight scoop on just who did what, when, and to whom in this sordid mess?
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Monday, November 28, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
You Know They're Scared When Democrats Declare GOP Bills DOA
Isn't it funny how something as reciprocal as compromise is taken hostage by one party to use against the/another?
Boehner's debt limit bill hadn't even passed in the House yet yesterday, but Wonderboy, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Chuckie Schumer all pronounced it DOA- Dead On Arrival.
And yet, in doing so, none of those Democrats thought or worried they would look recalcitrant, intractable or unreasonable. All of which they are.
When in a process that will probably require compromise, who is to say whose ideas are unacceptable or DOA?
What if Boehner had come out earlier and declared that anything but his House bill would be DOA when it came back for reconciliation in that chamber? How would Wonderboy and Harry have reacted to that?
What's worse is, all that Boehner and his colleagues have done is reacted to the 2010 election results and the public's disgust with decades of overspending. The House GOP has sensibly paired a debt limit increase with spending cuts and, while questionable, the understandable appeal to write and pass a Constitutional amendment for a balanced budget.
I laughed and turned the channel when I heard Dick Durbin sputtering about how unnatural and unreasonable it was for the House to attach a BBA demand to a debt limit increase.
Here's another perspective on the whole process. One which esteemed conservative pundit and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer echoed on Friday evening on Brett Baier's program, in contrast to a liberal kiss-up, whiny guest on the panel at the program's end.
Essentially, what we are witnessing is a seismic political shift begun by the election of a core of about 87 Tea Party House members and a handful of Tea Party Senators from the GOP last November. They are sufficiently numerous to affect House bills. If 100 Senators had been up for re-election last year, instead of only 32 or 33, it's quite possible that the GOP, with its Tea Party component, would have taken control of that chamber, as well.
But, as it is, a new political wind is blowing through Congress. Dick Durbin's astonishment notwithstanding, the new House members represent the public's awakening to the unwanted actions of its Congresses of the past several decades.
As Krauthahammer intoned, and I heartily agree, screw bipartisanship. You need a good partisan battle over the nation's direction at the federal level at least once every generation. This is that moment, in the post-Reagan era.
It's pretty clear that, based on his last three years of behavior, Wonderboy couldn't be re-elected today if it was a strictly 'yes/no' vote. The Senate will probably go Republican next year.
For Democrats to simply scream that it's outrageous to attach spending cuts to a debt limit increase, and try to curb spending both now and in the future, tells you they are scared. Scared to death that they've finally maxed out the nation's federal credit card and lines, and won't be able to continue with their lavish social programs.
In fact, despite their cries that Republicans want to preserve tax cuts for "the rich" while cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, that's precisely what's going to happen, more or less. With time, tax rates will fall, special deductions and tax preferences will disappear, and overall tax receipts will rise as the economy recovers. But the bases for determining social spending will have to be shifted toward current defined contributions. There's simply no other way for such promised benefits to be sustained into the future.
That Wonderboy and his Senate and House minions are screaming 'DOA' to Boehner and his plan simply telegraphs how truly scared they now are, having seen the inevitable handwriting on the wall.
Boehner's debt limit bill hadn't even passed in the House yet yesterday, but Wonderboy, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Chuckie Schumer all pronounced it DOA- Dead On Arrival.
And yet, in doing so, none of those Democrats thought or worried they would look recalcitrant, intractable or unreasonable. All of which they are.
When in a process that will probably require compromise, who is to say whose ideas are unacceptable or DOA?
What if Boehner had come out earlier and declared that anything but his House bill would be DOA when it came back for reconciliation in that chamber? How would Wonderboy and Harry have reacted to that?
What's worse is, all that Boehner and his colleagues have done is reacted to the 2010 election results and the public's disgust with decades of overspending. The House GOP has sensibly paired a debt limit increase with spending cuts and, while questionable, the understandable appeal to write and pass a Constitutional amendment for a balanced budget.
I laughed and turned the channel when I heard Dick Durbin sputtering about how unnatural and unreasonable it was for the House to attach a BBA demand to a debt limit increase.
Here's another perspective on the whole process. One which esteemed conservative pundit and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer echoed on Friday evening on Brett Baier's program, in contrast to a liberal kiss-up, whiny guest on the panel at the program's end.
Essentially, what we are witnessing is a seismic political shift begun by the election of a core of about 87 Tea Party House members and a handful of Tea Party Senators from the GOP last November. They are sufficiently numerous to affect House bills. If 100 Senators had been up for re-election last year, instead of only 32 or 33, it's quite possible that the GOP, with its Tea Party component, would have taken control of that chamber, as well.
But, as it is, a new political wind is blowing through Congress. Dick Durbin's astonishment notwithstanding, the new House members represent the public's awakening to the unwanted actions of its Congresses of the past several decades.
As Krauthahammer intoned, and I heartily agree, screw bipartisanship. You need a good partisan battle over the nation's direction at the federal level at least once every generation. This is that moment, in the post-Reagan era.
It's pretty clear that, based on his last three years of behavior, Wonderboy couldn't be re-elected today if it was a strictly 'yes/no' vote. The Senate will probably go Republican next year.
For Democrats to simply scream that it's outrageous to attach spending cuts to a debt limit increase, and try to curb spending both now and in the future, tells you they are scared. Scared to death that they've finally maxed out the nation's federal credit card and lines, and won't be able to continue with their lavish social programs.
In fact, despite their cries that Republicans want to preserve tax cuts for "the rich" while cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, that's precisely what's going to happen, more or less. With time, tax rates will fall, special deductions and tax preferences will disappear, and overall tax receipts will rise as the economy recovers. But the bases for determining social spending will have to be shifted toward current defined contributions. There's simply no other way for such promised benefits to be sustained into the future.
That Wonderboy and his Senate and House minions are screaming 'DOA' to Boehner and his plan simply telegraphs how truly scared they now are, having seen the inevitable handwriting on the wall.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Harry Reid's Budget Priorities
It looks like the Senate won't come to a compromise on budget cuts in time to avoid a suspension of some government activities at the end of March or early April, thanks to the Democrats' intransigence on spending cuts.
The House Republicans agreed, I believe, on less than $100B in cuts, but more than $40B, for the continuing resolution to fund the remainder of 2011.
In response, I believe Democrats have agreed to what was recently characterized as the daily rate at which our federal government over-spends its budget- $4B.
Here's Harry Reid explaining his budget priorities.
Precious, isn't it? Cowboy poetry requires federal subsidization. There's no way it could occur without federal aid. All those thousands of people spending money in Nevada won't come if private capital has to be risked.
You truly cannot make this sort of thing up, can you? Reid, the leader of our upper chamber in the federal government- the alleged deliberative body- comes off as an idiot.
The House Republicans agreed, I believe, on less than $100B in cuts, but more than $40B, for the continuing resolution to fund the remainder of 2011.
In response, I believe Democrats have agreed to what was recently characterized as the daily rate at which our federal government over-spends its budget- $4B.
Here's Harry Reid explaining his budget priorities.
Precious, isn't it? Cowboy poetry requires federal subsidization. There's no way it could occur without federal aid. All those thousands of people spending money in Nevada won't come if private capital has to be risked.
You truly cannot make this sort of thing up, can you? Reid, the leader of our upper chamber in the federal government- the alleged deliberative body- comes off as an idiot.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Jim Webb's Retirement from the Senate
I was pleasantly shocked this morning to read of Jim Webb's (D-VA) announcement that he won't run for re-election to the Senate in 2012. I thought I heard it on some news program last night, through a drowsy haze.
Turns out it is true.
I haven't yet seen a reason for Webb's departure, but one wonders why he would have run, won, and then chosen to serve only a single term. Can he really be that concerned about being re-elected amidst a Virginia voter tide running toward the GOP? Or, as a moderate in an increasingly extremely liberal Congressional Democratic tribe, did Webb see a dark, uncomfortable future for himself in the Senate amidst such extremists?
Whatever the reason, pundits are already giving the seat back to George Allen. Citing a probable two-seat pickup for the GOP in the Senate due to Webb's and Kent Conrad's retirements, an LA Times article suggests that the four needed for a GOP majority is easily within reach. That would be insufficient to get to 60 votes, but enough to make Wonderboy's next term, if that occurs, either a pointless liberal nightmare, or force him unwillingly to the center, in order to avoid having nothing positive to show for two terms.
Turns out it is true.
I haven't yet seen a reason for Webb's departure, but one wonders why he would have run, won, and then chosen to serve only a single term. Can he really be that concerned about being re-elected amidst a Virginia voter tide running toward the GOP? Or, as a moderate in an increasingly extremely liberal Congressional Democratic tribe, did Webb see a dark, uncomfortable future for himself in the Senate amidst such extremists?
Whatever the reason, pundits are already giving the seat back to George Allen. Citing a probable two-seat pickup for the GOP in the Senate due to Webb's and Kent Conrad's retirements, an LA Times article suggests that the four needed for a GOP majority is easily within reach. That would be insufficient to get to 60 votes, but enough to make Wonderboy's next term, if that occurs, either a pointless liberal nightmare, or force him unwillingly to the center, in order to avoid having nothing positive to show for two terms.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Unions, Municipalities & The Democratic Party's Future
Last month, the Wall Street Journal ran an interesting editorial by Doug Schoen, Bubba Clinton's former pollster. Schoen, though a Democrat, has become, with Carter's former pollster, Pat Caddell, a more moderate teammate trying to rescue their party from the grip of far-leftists and unionists.
Schoen's editorial, chock full of details concerning union spending and various state crises, contends,
"Unless the party confronts its allies in the public-employee unions, it will continue to lose credibility with voters around the country."
Essentially, Schoen believes that the Democrats' long term strategy of turning to unions, especially the government workers unions, for funding and votes, will now, after 50 years, come back to ruin them by alienating the voters who now realize they are paying the exorbitant tab for this unholy alliance.
Schoen contends,
"A key reason for the Democrats' extraordinary defeat in the mid-terms is that the party lost critical support from independent swing voters. In large part, as polls consistently show, this is because of the party's big-government programs such as health-care reform, the bailouts, and the stimulus packages.
If the Democrats want to be competitive in 2012, they must move decisively back to the center. And unless they're able to break the stranglehold that government-employee unions have on the party on policy, as well as in financial and political support, it will be virtually impossible for Democrats to restore fiscal health to states like New York and California."
Thus, the long run effect of the Democratic party's bedding down with the public sector employee unions it allowed has been to alienate the key swing voters who now realize they are paying for the expensive, unaffordable result.
It's a very insightful, concise argument that makes a lot of sense. Personally, I don't see the Democrats being capable of severing that link, so it's a decent bet that if the GOP can just maintain a focus on spending cuts and entitlement reforms, at all governmental levels, they may enjoy a decade-long run of electoral dominance in America.
Schoen's editorial, chock full of details concerning union spending and various state crises, contends,
"Unless the party confronts its allies in the public-employee unions, it will continue to lose credibility with voters around the country."
Essentially, Schoen believes that the Democrats' long term strategy of turning to unions, especially the government workers unions, for funding and votes, will now, after 50 years, come back to ruin them by alienating the voters who now realize they are paying the exorbitant tab for this unholy alliance.
Schoen contends,
"A key reason for the Democrats' extraordinary defeat in the mid-terms is that the party lost critical support from independent swing voters. In large part, as polls consistently show, this is because of the party's big-government programs such as health-care reform, the bailouts, and the stimulus packages.
If the Democrats want to be competitive in 2012, they must move decisively back to the center. And unless they're able to break the stranglehold that government-employee unions have on the party on policy, as well as in financial and political support, it will be virtually impossible for Democrats to restore fiscal health to states like New York and California."
Thus, the long run effect of the Democratic party's bedding down with the public sector employee unions it allowed has been to alienate the key swing voters who now realize they are paying for the expensive, unaffordable result.
It's a very insightful, concise argument that makes a lot of sense. Personally, I don't see the Democrats being capable of severing that link, so it's a decent bet that if the GOP can just maintain a focus on spending cuts and entitlement reforms, at all governmental levels, they may enjoy a decade-long run of electoral dominance in America.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Democrats' Lies Regarding The Financial Consequences of Repealing Obamacare
It's been very frustrating to see Congressional Democrats and their out-of-office colleagues lying to the public every chance they get regarding the true costs of, and repeal of, Obamacare.
No less a public moment than John Boehner's assumption of the House gavel as Speaker allowed Frisco Nan to give an uncharacteristic major speech upon her demotion, complete with lies involving the cost of the recent health care monstrosity.
Howard Dean has been hectoring every conservative in sight on every cable program on which he can appear with lies involving the alleged $230B 'cost' of the repeal.
But the facts are quite different.
What one needs to understand is that the CBO is directed to assess the economic consequences of the bills it is given, not the reasonability of the bills' assumptions or projections.
In the case of Wonderboy's health care, all sorts of financial deceptions were employed to game an alleged reduction of government spending by imposing public health care and covering millions of new citizens.
Among the deceptions were:
-double counting $398B Medicare and Social Security revenues
-moving the so-called 'doctor fix' into a separate bill, so that the added-back costs of not imposing Medicare program cost controls on doctors' fees was not included in the health care bill.
-adding unrelated income tax hikes on dividends and capital gains, as well as other taxes, so that the bill would appear to be generating government revenues.
-counting 10 years of tax levies in the bill but only 6 years of provided health care services.
-failing to provide for the landslide of dumped, formerly corporate-provided health care consumers into apparently-cheaper government plans, thus overwhelming services and causing losses on the unrealistically-low initial government premiums.
The gross total sums of these financial deceits make any claims of saving taxpayers money ridiculous and simply false.
What's really disappointing is that we have elected officials, and former elected officials, widely spreading these lies as if they were solemn facts. No matter that these Democrats know they are abetting US financial self-destruction. The goal of a universal, public health care entitlement is more important to them than the continued health of the Republic.
No less a public moment than John Boehner's assumption of the House gavel as Speaker allowed Frisco Nan to give an uncharacteristic major speech upon her demotion, complete with lies involving the cost of the recent health care monstrosity.
Howard Dean has been hectoring every conservative in sight on every cable program on which he can appear with lies involving the alleged $230B 'cost' of the repeal.
But the facts are quite different.
What one needs to understand is that the CBO is directed to assess the economic consequences of the bills it is given, not the reasonability of the bills' assumptions or projections.
In the case of Wonderboy's health care, all sorts of financial deceptions were employed to game an alleged reduction of government spending by imposing public health care and covering millions of new citizens.
Among the deceptions were:
-double counting $398B Medicare and Social Security revenues
-moving the so-called 'doctor fix' into a separate bill, so that the added-back costs of not imposing Medicare program cost controls on doctors' fees was not included in the health care bill.
-adding unrelated income tax hikes on dividends and capital gains, as well as other taxes, so that the bill would appear to be generating government revenues.
-counting 10 years of tax levies in the bill but only 6 years of provided health care services.
-failing to provide for the landslide of dumped, formerly corporate-provided health care consumers into apparently-cheaper government plans, thus overwhelming services and causing losses on the unrealistically-low initial government premiums.
The gross total sums of these financial deceits make any claims of saving taxpayers money ridiculous and simply false.
What's really disappointing is that we have elected officials, and former elected officials, widely spreading these lies as if they were solemn facts. No matter that these Democrats know they are abetting US financial self-destruction. The goal of a universal, public health care entitlement is more important to them than the continued health of the Republic.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Congressional Democrats' & Wonderboy's Self-Inflicted Wounds On The Tax Deal
It's truly stunning to watch Congressional Democrats and Wonderboy implode in such a public manner over the tax cut negotiations currently stalled in Washington.
Karl Rove wrote a very good piece in his Wall Street Journal column this week, reinforced by several appearances on various Fox News programs. He points out how inept Wonderboy appears by not being able to control his own party's Congressional majorities, while publicly castigating the GOP as "hostage takers," and lambasting members of his own party, as well.
Rove notes how foolish and powerless the First Rookie thus becomes in the eyes of voters.
Meanwhile, various ultra-liberal House Democrats are making sure that voters remember why they handed the party it's stunning losses in the people's chamber last month.
You truly cannot make this up. Apparently the only Congressional Democrats capable of behaving like adults are those eyeing re-election bids in 2012. Otherwise, the party's members and Wonderboy are throwing caution to the wind, forgetting the voters' rebuke of their tax-and-spend policies, and doubling down.
How else to explain Wonderboy's own 'hostage taking' by tying 13 more months of unemployment benefits to the extension of the 2001 tax rates to all American taxpayers?
If you haven't viewed nor heard the president's address last week in which he bitterly announced the nearly-completed bi-partisan tax deal, it's something to see. His distaste at having to genuinely compromise is undisguised. This guy is no ordinary politician- he's an egomaniacal, spoiled brat.
The spectacle of him, and, in a video, his economic adviser, attempting to paint Republicans as evil for wanting job-creating wealthy taxpayers to share in avoiding a tax rate hike, merely reminds voters how insensitive and clueless Democrats are to how our economy actually works.
I suspect voters are going to remember this entertaining show for many, many months to come. House Democrats behaving petulantly, with Frisco Nan declaring that her minions will reject the tax deal. Wonderboy, as usual, painting anyone who disagrees with him as evil.
Rather than rescue his own re-election bid by being gracious and statesmanlike, the president publicly threw a tantrum and displayed his own impotence.
Conservatives should be rejoicing over this political theatre. The only thing missing is a reasonable requirement by GOP Congressional members that the unemployment benefits extensions be paid for, according to Democratic party promises, with budget cuts elsewhere.
Karl Rove wrote a very good piece in his Wall Street Journal column this week, reinforced by several appearances on various Fox News programs. He points out how inept Wonderboy appears by not being able to control his own party's Congressional majorities, while publicly castigating the GOP as "hostage takers," and lambasting members of his own party, as well.
Rove notes how foolish and powerless the First Rookie thus becomes in the eyes of voters.
Meanwhile, various ultra-liberal House Democrats are making sure that voters remember why they handed the party it's stunning losses in the people's chamber last month.
You truly cannot make this up. Apparently the only Congressional Democrats capable of behaving like adults are those eyeing re-election bids in 2012. Otherwise, the party's members and Wonderboy are throwing caution to the wind, forgetting the voters' rebuke of their tax-and-spend policies, and doubling down.
How else to explain Wonderboy's own 'hostage taking' by tying 13 more months of unemployment benefits to the extension of the 2001 tax rates to all American taxpayers?
If you haven't viewed nor heard the president's address last week in which he bitterly announced the nearly-completed bi-partisan tax deal, it's something to see. His distaste at having to genuinely compromise is undisguised. This guy is no ordinary politician- he's an egomaniacal, spoiled brat.
The spectacle of him, and, in a video, his economic adviser, attempting to paint Republicans as evil for wanting job-creating wealthy taxpayers to share in avoiding a tax rate hike, merely reminds voters how insensitive and clueless Democrats are to how our economy actually works.
I suspect voters are going to remember this entertaining show for many, many months to come. House Democrats behaving petulantly, with Frisco Nan declaring that her minions will reject the tax deal. Wonderboy, as usual, painting anyone who disagrees with him as evil.
Rather than rescue his own re-election bid by being gracious and statesmanlike, the president publicly threw a tantrum and displayed his own impotence.
Conservatives should be rejoicing over this political theatre. The only thing missing is a reasonable requirement by GOP Congressional members that the unemployment benefits extensions be paid for, according to Democratic party promises, with budget cuts elsewhere.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Now They Tell Us! Brian Baird Comes Clean About Pelosi
This past weekend's Wall Street Journal in-depth interview, by John Fund, was with retiring Washington state Democratic Representative Brian Baird. He alleges that he's retiring "because the brutal congressional commute makes it impossible for him to see his twin five-year-old boys grow up." Fair enough. As a 12-year veteran, he's not running out just because he'll be in the minority come January.
I find Baird's comments totally disingenuous. Consider these passages from the interview,
""It's been an authoritarian, closed leadership. That style plus a general groupthink mentality didn't work when Tom DeLay called the shots," Mr. Baird says. "We've made some of the same damn mistakes, and we were supposed to be better. That's the heartbreak."
Mr. Baird, 54, is a loyal Democrat who voted for all of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's legislative priorities, including the stimulus bill, cap and trade and ObamaCare. But he admits all three have serious flaws."
So for all his sanctimony in the interview, remember, Baird was a party-line Pelosi soldier. He is one of those morons who believes that passing bad legislation on which people must rely, and must obey, is okay. Then serially fixing said flawed legislation, creating even more uncertainty- well, that's okay too.
"Democrats also watered down efforts to practice fiscal responsibility. "We initially had numbers a bit more honest than the Republicans—we at least included war costs in the budget," he says. "Now we're authorizing programs for three years instead of five in an attempt to pretend we're saving money."
When President Obama was elected in 2008, Mr. Baird was again optimistic that Democrats could bring real reform. But fierce Republican partisanship and the White House decision not to focus on job creation as its "number one, two and three" priority dashed that hope.
"Obama decided we weren't going to have a highway transportation bill because it might have required a gas tax increase," he recalls. After passing a misdirected stimulus bill, Mr. Obama made the fatal error of pushing forward with other priorities: cap and trade, financial services reform, ObamaCare. Each became compromised quickly.
For some of the shortcomings of financial regulatory reform, Mr. Baird blames the disillusioning battle over ObamaCare. "When the House had to pass the Senate version of health care unchanged, some members asked why should they invest the mental effort in mastering the details" of financial reform. Mr. Baird found parts of the bill mind-numbing.
Although he voted for it, he says he was troubled that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the entities at the heart of the housing meltdown, weren't addressed. They have clearly exercised undue influence on Capitol Hill, he notes. "When I was first elected I was puzzled why they were holding events in my honor as a mere freshman. I asked myself, why is a federal entity so involved in political activity?" "
I find these statements, again, disingenuous. So Baird had all these insights about and issues with various legislative proposals. But where was he on CNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc., complaining about them? Did he do so, and I missed those interviews? The last comment is hilarious, except it indicates how stupid Baird must be. Only "troubled" that Barney Frank's magical bill omitted Freddie and Fannie? C'mon, is anyone really this dense? They started the housing meltdown, led by Frank's directives from Congress. Was, and is, Baird so naive about the GSEs that he really 'asked' why they held an event for a freshman Rep?
"Regarding health care, his specialty, Mr. Baird gave House Democrats real heartburn. He voted against the first version of ObamaCare in November 2009, because the Congressional Budget Office and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services hadn't yet analyzed the bill's impact on insurance premiums and medical costs.
"What the hell were we doing voting on this? I had labor groups come to me and insist the bill was so important we couldn't wait to know what was in it," he recalls. "I asked them if they were handed a new union contract and told it was so important they had to agree to it without reading it, would they go along?" They continued to insist he vote for the bill and threatened him with a primary challenger.
Mr. Baird had developed his own health-care proposal that drew on his 23 years of experience as a licensed clinical psychologist treating patients with cancer and brain injuries. His plan would have provided universal health care but held down costs through vouchers for the poor, medical savings accounts for the middle class, and reform of malpractice insurance.
He admits to being frustrated that ideas like his never got a fair hearing in a Congress dominated by inertia and interest groups. "Our problems are now so grave we can't afford petty partisanship and closed thinking," he tells me."
All well and good, but, again, why was Baird silent? So long as these back-benchers remain silent, the parties will both continue to behave badly. Baird was elected by people in Washington, not Pelosi, Hoyer, Frank, et.al. Whose interests was he really serving with his silence?
"Mr. Baird stands by his vote for ObamaCare, noting that something had to be done for those denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions. But he acknowledges that the bill carried within it the seeds of its unpopularity. These include the nightmare mandate that all companies report to the IRS all of their business-to-business transactions over $600, so the government can capture unreported business income. At a recent forum with small business owners in his district, Mr. Baird was stunned at the complexity of the rules they now must follow.
"I warned my fellow Democrats that the insurance companies they were whacking could increase premiums just before the midterm election and blame them for it," he sighs. "I pointed out that the major benefits wouldn't kick in till 2014, but the costs were up front. I asked them, where was the political win? There was no real answer.""
Again, nice sentiments....now. Where was he nine months ago with this stuff in public? It's great to be brave now. How about when it mattered and might have affected legislative results? Sorry, Brian, you get no credit here for after-action honesty and 'courage.'
"In his new book, "Character, Politics and Responsibility," Mr. Baird argues that in order to afford caring for the needy, liberals will have to challenge "unsustainable entitlements." "I would eliminate the concept of entitlements and move to needs-based social insurance," he says. "The key is to both promote personal responsibility while lowering expenditures by not promising or giving money or other benefits to those who don't need it.""
Nice. Why wasn't this published online as an alternative view, rather than silently voting for Pelosi's bill?
"I ask Mr. Baird what he would tell the incoming class of freshmen Republicans if given the chance to address them before the new Congress convenes. He summarized his bottom line:
"Governing isn't as easy as you think. Many of you have taken pledges that are contradictory—to balance the budget and cut taxes, for example. You must be honest about the numbers, since our annual deficit now exceeds all discretionary spending combined. If you set as your goal to roll back the size of government, you have an obligation to answer the tough questions and show real courage, not just appeal to ideology. Treat the voters like adults." "
Not as easy as you think? I don't know about that. That pledge is feasible. The fact that Baird believes it is not means he is in the camp of believing people work harder as you raise tax rates. What an idiot!
Sure, honesty about numbers is important. So is treating voters as adults. But, as his former colleagues will likely see tomorrow/Wednesday morning, that's probably going to be the rule now, no longer an exception. And it will go for Republican in two more years, as well.
A different kind of tipping point, politically, may now have been reached.
I find Baird's comments totally disingenuous. Consider these passages from the interview,
""It's been an authoritarian, closed leadership. That style plus a general groupthink mentality didn't work when Tom DeLay called the shots," Mr. Baird says. "We've made some of the same damn mistakes, and we were supposed to be better. That's the heartbreak."
Mr. Baird, 54, is a loyal Democrat who voted for all of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's legislative priorities, including the stimulus bill, cap and trade and ObamaCare. But he admits all three have serious flaws."
So for all his sanctimony in the interview, remember, Baird was a party-line Pelosi soldier. He is one of those morons who believes that passing bad legislation on which people must rely, and must obey, is okay. Then serially fixing said flawed legislation, creating even more uncertainty- well, that's okay too.
"Democrats also watered down efforts to practice fiscal responsibility. "We initially had numbers a bit more honest than the Republicans—we at least included war costs in the budget," he says. "Now we're authorizing programs for three years instead of five in an attempt to pretend we're saving money."
When President Obama was elected in 2008, Mr. Baird was again optimistic that Democrats could bring real reform. But fierce Republican partisanship and the White House decision not to focus on job creation as its "number one, two and three" priority dashed that hope.
"Obama decided we weren't going to have a highway transportation bill because it might have required a gas tax increase," he recalls. After passing a misdirected stimulus bill, Mr. Obama made the fatal error of pushing forward with other priorities: cap and trade, financial services reform, ObamaCare. Each became compromised quickly.
For some of the shortcomings of financial regulatory reform, Mr. Baird blames the disillusioning battle over ObamaCare. "When the House had to pass the Senate version of health care unchanged, some members asked why should they invest the mental effort in mastering the details" of financial reform. Mr. Baird found parts of the bill mind-numbing.
Although he voted for it, he says he was troubled that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the entities at the heart of the housing meltdown, weren't addressed. They have clearly exercised undue influence on Capitol Hill, he notes. "When I was first elected I was puzzled why they were holding events in my honor as a mere freshman. I asked myself, why is a federal entity so involved in political activity?" "
I find these statements, again, disingenuous. So Baird had all these insights about and issues with various legislative proposals. But where was he on CNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc., complaining about them? Did he do so, and I missed those interviews? The last comment is hilarious, except it indicates how stupid Baird must be. Only "troubled" that Barney Frank's magical bill omitted Freddie and Fannie? C'mon, is anyone really this dense? They started the housing meltdown, led by Frank's directives from Congress. Was, and is, Baird so naive about the GSEs that he really 'asked' why they held an event for a freshman Rep?
"Regarding health care, his specialty, Mr. Baird gave House Democrats real heartburn. He voted against the first version of ObamaCare in November 2009, because the Congressional Budget Office and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services hadn't yet analyzed the bill's impact on insurance premiums and medical costs.
"What the hell were we doing voting on this? I had labor groups come to me and insist the bill was so important we couldn't wait to know what was in it," he recalls. "I asked them if they were handed a new union contract and told it was so important they had to agree to it without reading it, would they go along?" They continued to insist he vote for the bill and threatened him with a primary challenger.
Mr. Baird had developed his own health-care proposal that drew on his 23 years of experience as a licensed clinical psychologist treating patients with cancer and brain injuries. His plan would have provided universal health care but held down costs through vouchers for the poor, medical savings accounts for the middle class, and reform of malpractice insurance.
He admits to being frustrated that ideas like his never got a fair hearing in a Congress dominated by inertia and interest groups. "Our problems are now so grave we can't afford petty partisanship and closed thinking," he tells me."
All well and good, but, again, why was Baird silent? So long as these back-benchers remain silent, the parties will both continue to behave badly. Baird was elected by people in Washington, not Pelosi, Hoyer, Frank, et.al. Whose interests was he really serving with his silence?
"Mr. Baird stands by his vote for ObamaCare, noting that something had to be done for those denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions. But he acknowledges that the bill carried within it the seeds of its unpopularity. These include the nightmare mandate that all companies report to the IRS all of their business-to-business transactions over $600, so the government can capture unreported business income. At a recent forum with small business owners in his district, Mr. Baird was stunned at the complexity of the rules they now must follow.
"I warned my fellow Democrats that the insurance companies they were whacking could increase premiums just before the midterm election and blame them for it," he sighs. "I pointed out that the major benefits wouldn't kick in till 2014, but the costs were up front. I asked them, where was the political win? There was no real answer.""
Again, nice sentiments....now. Where was he nine months ago with this stuff in public? It's great to be brave now. How about when it mattered and might have affected legislative results? Sorry, Brian, you get no credit here for after-action honesty and 'courage.'
"In his new book, "Character, Politics and Responsibility," Mr. Baird argues that in order to afford caring for the needy, liberals will have to challenge "unsustainable entitlements." "I would eliminate the concept of entitlements and move to needs-based social insurance," he says. "The key is to both promote personal responsibility while lowering expenditures by not promising or giving money or other benefits to those who don't need it.""
Nice. Why wasn't this published online as an alternative view, rather than silently voting for Pelosi's bill?
"I ask Mr. Baird what he would tell the incoming class of freshmen Republicans if given the chance to address them before the new Congress convenes. He summarized his bottom line:
"Governing isn't as easy as you think. Many of you have taken pledges that are contradictory—to balance the budget and cut taxes, for example. You must be honest about the numbers, since our annual deficit now exceeds all discretionary spending combined. If you set as your goal to roll back the size of government, you have an obligation to answer the tough questions and show real courage, not just appeal to ideology. Treat the voters like adults." "
Not as easy as you think? I don't know about that. That pledge is feasible. The fact that Baird believes it is not means he is in the camp of believing people work harder as you raise tax rates. What an idiot!
Sure, honesty about numbers is important. So is treating voters as adults. But, as his former colleagues will likely see tomorrow/Wednesday morning, that's probably going to be the rule now, no longer an exception. And it will go for Republican in two more years, as well.
A different kind of tipping point, politically, may now have been reached.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Ted Kaufman- Instant Senate Mossback
Delaware's appointed Democratic Senator Ted Kaufman was on CNBC again this morning, blowing hot air as hard as usual.
There are several things about Kaufman which astound me. First, he tries to come off as an outsider appointed to fill Biden's last two years. But as his bio reveals, Kaufman has been an aide to Biden for nearly two decades, first working for him as a volunteer in the latter's first Senate campaign.
Recently, though not an attorney, Kaufman has been teaching a course concerning "The Congress" at his undergraduate alma mater, Duke's law school. From this, Kaufman seems to have acquired a patina of academic and non-partisan nature. Neither of which is true.
But Kaufman is not leaving politics after next January. Instead, he's been tapped by the current Democratic Senate leadership to replace financial-scold-in-chief, Elizabeth Warren, as head of the TARP oversight committee. Other than his anti-Wall Street disposition, Kaufman has no particular background whatsoever for this position.
In fact, to the contrary, Kaufman is completely naive and wrong-headed about the sector. He blabbered about how there was no regulation in 2008. That's simply untrue. In prior posts of mine, and elsewhere in business literature. many have noted that we had more than enough regulators and regulations. What we didn't have was effective people doing their jobs when already sufficiently empowered to do so.
So much for enlightened leadership from the new TARP oversight comittee head. He's an idiot who has no understanding of what he's about to oversee.
This is all of interest to me because, in the many appearances Kaufman has made on CNBC's morning program, he is introduced as a novice appointed Senator and academic. Clearly gross misrepresentation. In fact, Kaufman is a Delaware Democratic political hack who has served Biden since his first election to the Senate.
Thus, Kaufman's raging anti-business comments are positioned by the on-air staff as those of moderate near-non-partisan Senator.
This morning, for example, they bemoaned his leaving the Senate, grouping him with Evan Bayh and a few other retiring Democrats as the moderates who would be necessary to forge compromise in the new Senate.
Nevermind that there's been two years of take-no-prisoners, uncompromising legislative stiff-arming by the Democrats.
Kaufman went on to savage Republicans and laugh about how they are leaderless, when asked to handicap the prospects of various potential presidential candidates in the GOP.
For what it's worth, the GOP has a history of nominating candidates from among a large field, who have frequently gone on to the White House. This was certainly true of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Even Nixon, for that matter.
Anyway, I began the post thinking that Kaufman was some outsider from Delaware who became a cynical, hacked-up mossback in just 20+ months. Now, however, I realize he's had nearly two decades of training on Senate staffs and in political election fights.
He did become a Senate mossback instantly. But after reviewing his past, it's understandable, because he is precisely the sort of Senator most Americans no longer want in office, i.e., a man who's been a professional political aide for nearly two decades. Feeding at the public trough while adding nothing of any particular or notable value.
There are several things about Kaufman which astound me. First, he tries to come off as an outsider appointed to fill Biden's last two years. But as his bio reveals, Kaufman has been an aide to Biden for nearly two decades, first working for him as a volunteer in the latter's first Senate campaign.
Recently, though not an attorney, Kaufman has been teaching a course concerning "The Congress" at his undergraduate alma mater, Duke's law school. From this, Kaufman seems to have acquired a patina of academic and non-partisan nature. Neither of which is true.
But Kaufman is not leaving politics after next January. Instead, he's been tapped by the current Democratic Senate leadership to replace financial-scold-in-chief, Elizabeth Warren, as head of the TARP oversight committee. Other than his anti-Wall Street disposition, Kaufman has no particular background whatsoever for this position.
In fact, to the contrary, Kaufman is completely naive and wrong-headed about the sector. He blabbered about how there was no regulation in 2008. That's simply untrue. In prior posts of mine, and elsewhere in business literature. many have noted that we had more than enough regulators and regulations. What we didn't have was effective people doing their jobs when already sufficiently empowered to do so.
So much for enlightened leadership from the new TARP oversight comittee head. He's an idiot who has no understanding of what he's about to oversee.
This is all of interest to me because, in the many appearances Kaufman has made on CNBC's morning program, he is introduced as a novice appointed Senator and academic. Clearly gross misrepresentation. In fact, Kaufman is a Delaware Democratic political hack who has served Biden since his first election to the Senate.
Thus, Kaufman's raging anti-business comments are positioned by the on-air staff as those of moderate near-non-partisan Senator.
This morning, for example, they bemoaned his leaving the Senate, grouping him with Evan Bayh and a few other retiring Democrats as the moderates who would be necessary to forge compromise in the new Senate.
Nevermind that there's been two years of take-no-prisoners, uncompromising legislative stiff-arming by the Democrats.
Kaufman went on to savage Republicans and laugh about how they are leaderless, when asked to handicap the prospects of various potential presidential candidates in the GOP.
For what it's worth, the GOP has a history of nominating candidates from among a large field, who have frequently gone on to the White House. This was certainly true of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Even Nixon, for that matter.
Anyway, I began the post thinking that Kaufman was some outsider from Delaware who became a cynical, hacked-up mossback in just 20+ months. Now, however, I realize he's had nearly two decades of training on Senate staffs and in political election fights.
He did become a Senate mossback instantly. But after reviewing his past, it's understandable, because he is precisely the sort of Senator most Americans no longer want in office, i.e., a man who's been a professional political aide for nearly two decades. Feeding at the public trough while adding nothing of any particular or notable value.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
The Truth About Those Democratic House Blue Dogs
Chris Chocola, president of the Club for Growth, wrote a highly useful and informative editorial in yesterday's Wall Street Journal concerning the deceit being perpetrated on American voters by the Democratic so-called Blue Dog caucus in the House.
Mr. Chocola began by providing some history,
"In the House of Representatives, the 54 members of the Blue Dog Coalition are the self-described fiscal conservatives in the Democratic caucus. Unfortunately, the description doesn't fit.
Organizing into a coalition after the Republican takeover of the House in 1994, the Blue Dogs branded themselves loyal but conservative Democrats. They were, in the words of Rep. Pete Geren of Texas, yellow dogs who had been "choked blue" by the strident economic liberalism of their party leaders.
In their first Congress, the Blue Dogs mostly lived up to the hype (albeit in an economically conservative environment). In 1995, the average Blue Dog's score on the National Taxpayers Union's congressional score card—which measures how well members vote on matters of taxes, spending and debt—was 52%, while the average Democratic score was 28%."
So far, so good, right? It would seem that this group was poised to limit the worst excesses of Frisco Nan's legislative lurch leftward. Instead, as Mr. Chocola relates,
"Afterward, though, the Blue Dogs' performance fell precipitously. Democrats retook the House in 2006, partly because of victories by Blue Dogs such as Brad Ellsworth in Indiana and Heath Shuler in North Carolina. Blue Dogs' average NTU scores since then, during Nancy Pelosi's first three years as House speaker, were 10%, 15% and 18%—hardly distinguishable from the average Democratic scores of 6%, 11% and 8%.
Every year since 2007, the Democratic advantage in the House has been fewer than the number of seats held by Blue Dogs: If they had wanted to, the Blue Dogs could have made themselves masters of the House. They could have held an effective veto over any bill they pleased, insisting that Mrs. Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid and even President Obama himself heed their call for fiscal responsibility.
Instead, the Blue Dogs became Mrs. Pelosi's lap dogs, voting with her 80% of the time on economic issues. Every one of them voted for the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Sixty-three percent voted for the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program; 91% voted for the stimulus package in February 2009; 85% voted for the cash-for-clunkers program; 74% voted for President Obama's debt-tripling 2010 budget; 73% voted for the auto bailout; and 54% voted for the federal takeover of health care.
The evidence is overwhelming: The Blue Dogs are not fiscal conservatives, and only a few can credibly claim even to be fiscal moderates."
Thus, Mr. Chocola removes the Blue Dogs' cloak of importance and moderation. They are, he reveals, all bark, as it were, and no bite.
For example, he notes,
"Consider the Blue Dogs' signature legislative priority: "paygo," the pay-as-you-go rule requiring the House to offset any new spending and tax cuts with spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere in the budget. In 2007, to much Blue Dog fanfare, House Democrats established paygo as a standing rule of the House.
Yet the House has since voted 31 times to grease the skids for new spending by waiving the paygo rule—and Blue Dogs supported the waivers 86% of the time. Five Blue Dogs have voted to waive paygo every single time.
The Blue Dog Coalition isn't a vehicle to help conservative Democrats influence policy. It is a marketing brand to help vulnerable Democrats deceive voters.
If there is one thing voters dislike more than our fiscal crisis, it is the self-serving cynicism of their elected representatives. On both scores, the Blue Dogs are part of the problem, not the solution."
Hopefully, voters will realize this, with the help of Mr. Chocola and others. Perhaps the election coming in less than 40 days will replace these frauds with some truly fiscal conservative legislators.
Mr. Chocola began by providing some history,
"In the House of Representatives, the 54 members of the Blue Dog Coalition are the self-described fiscal conservatives in the Democratic caucus. Unfortunately, the description doesn't fit.
Organizing into a coalition after the Republican takeover of the House in 1994, the Blue Dogs branded themselves loyal but conservative Democrats. They were, in the words of Rep. Pete Geren of Texas, yellow dogs who had been "choked blue" by the strident economic liberalism of their party leaders.
In their first Congress, the Blue Dogs mostly lived up to the hype (albeit in an economically conservative environment). In 1995, the average Blue Dog's score on the National Taxpayers Union's congressional score card—which measures how well members vote on matters of taxes, spending and debt—was 52%, while the average Democratic score was 28%."
So far, so good, right? It would seem that this group was poised to limit the worst excesses of Frisco Nan's legislative lurch leftward. Instead, as Mr. Chocola relates,
"Afterward, though, the Blue Dogs' performance fell precipitously. Democrats retook the House in 2006, partly because of victories by Blue Dogs such as Brad Ellsworth in Indiana and Heath Shuler in North Carolina. Blue Dogs' average NTU scores since then, during Nancy Pelosi's first three years as House speaker, were 10%, 15% and 18%—hardly distinguishable from the average Democratic scores of 6%, 11% and 8%.
Every year since 2007, the Democratic advantage in the House has been fewer than the number of seats held by Blue Dogs: If they had wanted to, the Blue Dogs could have made themselves masters of the House. They could have held an effective veto over any bill they pleased, insisting that Mrs. Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid and even President Obama himself heed their call for fiscal responsibility.
Instead, the Blue Dogs became Mrs. Pelosi's lap dogs, voting with her 80% of the time on economic issues. Every one of them voted for the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Sixty-three percent voted for the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program; 91% voted for the stimulus package in February 2009; 85% voted for the cash-for-clunkers program; 74% voted for President Obama's debt-tripling 2010 budget; 73% voted for the auto bailout; and 54% voted for the federal takeover of health care.
The evidence is overwhelming: The Blue Dogs are not fiscal conservatives, and only a few can credibly claim even to be fiscal moderates."
Thus, Mr. Chocola removes the Blue Dogs' cloak of importance and moderation. They are, he reveals, all bark, as it were, and no bite.
For example, he notes,
"Consider the Blue Dogs' signature legislative priority: "paygo," the pay-as-you-go rule requiring the House to offset any new spending and tax cuts with spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere in the budget. In 2007, to much Blue Dog fanfare, House Democrats established paygo as a standing rule of the House.
Yet the House has since voted 31 times to grease the skids for new spending by waiving the paygo rule—and Blue Dogs supported the waivers 86% of the time. Five Blue Dogs have voted to waive paygo every single time.
The Blue Dog Coalition isn't a vehicle to help conservative Democrats influence policy. It is a marketing brand to help vulnerable Democrats deceive voters.
If there is one thing voters dislike more than our fiscal crisis, it is the self-serving cynicism of their elected representatives. On both scores, the Blue Dogs are part of the problem, not the solution."
Hopefully, voters will realize this, with the help of Mr. Chocola and others. Perhaps the election coming in less than 40 days will replace these frauds with some truly fiscal conservative legislators.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Pat Leahy's Unconstitutional Supreme Court Plans
Leahy wants to certify ex-Supreme Court judges to replace those who recuse themselves, to avoid potential 4-4 splits.
This is a classic example of an unconstitutional 'solution' for a non-existent problem. The nation has functioned since 1789 without the benefit of this enlightened fix.
Why is Leahy so concerned now?
A Wall Street Journal article in yesterday's edition noted that just-seated justice Kagan will likely recuse herself, as former Solicitor General, from dozens of cases. In order to get a liberal tilt to any decision, Leahy wants to use retired justices, all of whom are either liberal, or more liberal than conservative (Sandra Day O'Connor).
It's a very transparent and cynical ploy on Leahy's part. And likely totally unconstitutional, as well.
But when has that ever stopped either party's Congressional Members in the last hundred years?
This is a classic example of an unconstitutional 'solution' for a non-existent problem. The nation has functioned since 1789 without the benefit of this enlightened fix.
Why is Leahy so concerned now?
A Wall Street Journal article in yesterday's edition noted that just-seated justice Kagan will likely recuse herself, as former Solicitor General, from dozens of cases. In order to get a liberal tilt to any decision, Leahy wants to use retired justices, all of whom are either liberal, or more liberal than conservative (Sandra Day O'Connor).
It's a very transparent and cynical ploy on Leahy's part. And likely totally unconstitutional, as well.
But when has that ever stopped either party's Congressional Members in the last hundred years?
Friday, October 1, 2010
Ohio Democratic Congressman Tim Ryan's Bizarre Alternative Universe
This morning's CNBC program, Squawkbox, featured an interview with Democratic Ohio Congressman Tim Ryan. Listening to Ryan made me wonder if he doesn't live in some bizarre, alternative universe.
For example, he defended Wonderboy's healthcare bill, blithely claiming that 'much middle class suffering would have been avoided if we'd passed this years ago.'
Really? It's already resulting in rising premiums and, yesterday, McDonalds Corporation's internal email regarding dropping its employee healthcare plans. More expensive coverage of fewer people before the plan has even hit its stride. Just great.
Then Ryan assailed the Chinese yuan, claiming that they are dumping because, thanks to lower wage rates, some specific good they produce hits US shores at a price that equals the US cost to simply produce the same item.
Ryan then bizarrely launched into a diatribe about green energy, and how its use would make the US competitive in some heavy industry product sectors. Too bad Ryan seems not to understand that wind and solar can't be reliably used for heavy power applications, never mind their higher prices, sans subsidies.
In Ryan's world, real economics don't matter. Only what politicians want to attempt to create with subsidies, transfer payments and other schemes which make King Canute's command of the sea to retreat look reasonable, by comparison.
It evidently doesn't occur to Ryan that we shouldn't want growth in jobs in the US which rely on trade wars or subsidies to make them "competitive" with low-end Chinese jobs. That this is a losing battle.
Ryan happily identified himself with Wonderboy's entire agenda. But, then again, he was named by Frisco Nan to the House Democratic leadership team, so you'd expect nothing less from a true believer.
A true believer in a solidly blue Ohio district, at that.
Still, it's a troubling but revealing portrait of how screwed up and out of touch the ruling liberal Democrats are on important matters of economics, trade and healthcare.
For example, he defended Wonderboy's healthcare bill, blithely claiming that 'much middle class suffering would have been avoided if we'd passed this years ago.'
Really? It's already resulting in rising premiums and, yesterday, McDonalds Corporation's internal email regarding dropping its employee healthcare plans. More expensive coverage of fewer people before the plan has even hit its stride. Just great.
Then Ryan assailed the Chinese yuan, claiming that they are dumping because, thanks to lower wage rates, some specific good they produce hits US shores at a price that equals the US cost to simply produce the same item.
Ryan then bizarrely launched into a diatribe about green energy, and how its use would make the US competitive in some heavy industry product sectors. Too bad Ryan seems not to understand that wind and solar can't be reliably used for heavy power applications, never mind their higher prices, sans subsidies.
In Ryan's world, real economics don't matter. Only what politicians want to attempt to create with subsidies, transfer payments and other schemes which make King Canute's command of the sea to retreat look reasonable, by comparison.
It evidently doesn't occur to Ryan that we shouldn't want growth in jobs in the US which rely on trade wars or subsidies to make them "competitive" with low-end Chinese jobs. That this is a losing battle.
Ryan happily identified himself with Wonderboy's entire agenda. But, then again, he was named by Frisco Nan to the House Democratic leadership team, so you'd expect nothing less from a true believer.
A true believer in a solidly blue Ohio district, at that.
Still, it's a troubling but revealing portrait of how screwed up and out of touch the ruling liberal Democrats are on important matters of economics, trade and healthcare.
How Democrats Characterize Tea Partiers & Their Sympathizers
In its lead staff editorial Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal provided some precious quotes from Wonderboy and John Kerry excoriating voters for their lack of intelligence, ability to be duped, racism, extremism and bigotry.
Specifically, the piece noted,
"Said Mr. Kerry, "We have an electorate that doesn't always pay that much attention to what's going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what's happening."
Ah, this would be the Cass Sunstein school of thought, i.e., identifying voters and consumers as Homer Simpson types- his exact reference- who need to have decisions made for them. Because they are too stupid to exercise their own freedom of choice.
Then it continued,
"This week President Obama chimed in with another uplifting message about the American electorate. Mr. Obama told Rolling Stone that the tea party movement is financed and directed by "powerful, special-interest lobbies." But this doesn't mean that tea party groups are composed entirely of corporate puppets. Mr. Obama graciously implied that a small subset of the movement is simply motivated by bigotry.
The President said "there are probably some aspects of the Tea Party that are a little darker, that have to do with anti-immigrant sentiment or are troubled by what I represent as the President." The tea party is now supported by a third of the country in some polls."
Nice, huh? Anyone who disagrees with Wonderboy is either a powerful, special interest lobby. Like, oh, SEIU or the UAW?
No, no. Those sorts of powerful special interest lobbies are okay. It's the ones that disagree with the First Rookie who are suspect and, well, guilty of being bad.
But if you aren't in that group, then you're probably just a stupid bigot or anti-immigration pitch-fork type. You know, someone who maybe clings to "your guns or religion." Remember that precious campaign remark by Wonderboy?
Of course, the remark about resenting what he 'represents as President' is a thinly-veiled accusation of anti-black racism. You can't disagree with his policies, in his view, because that is simply being bigoted.
You either agree with everything Wonderboy says and does, or you are a racist.
See how easy that is?
Tea Party= disagree with Wonderboy = racists.
The editorial noted that at least Biden wasn't crying about the Tea Partiers, instead sounding this theme,
Vice President Joe Biden recently urged the party's base to "stop whining" and "buck up," a message echoed by Mr. Obama in his Rolling Stone interview. The President demanded that his supporters "shake off this lethargy," warning that it would be "inexcusable" for liberals to stay home on Election Day.
Mr. Obama added that "if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious in the first place." Making the case for left-wing voters to show up in November, Mr. Obama told Rolling Stone that he is presiding over "the most successful administration in a generation in moving progressive agendas forward."
And that calls to mind something I've seen on two cable news programs in the last two days. Democrats, whether party leaders, elected officials, or merely 'strategists,' all claiming two things as "facts,"
1. Recent polls actually show little in the way of Democratic House losses.
2. Anything can happen in five weeks. It's a lifetime in politics. So all these polls are meaningless.
Both sentiments are calculated to do one thing, and one thing only. Lie about reality and inspire Democrats to get out and vote. If Democrats see a lopsided, independents-led landslide for GOP candidates at all levels, they will feel powerless and just stay home on election day.
It's one thing to mobilize your base in a positive sense, as Wonderboy is at least doing. It's quite another to lie to an audience, as Pennsylvania's Democratic governor, Ed Rendell, did on CNBC Wednesday morning, and simply claim that polls are meaningless and the Democrats aren't in trouble at all.
I guess the conclusion you must draw is that, when a political rout is likely, you have to assume the party about to be routed will simply lie about anything in order to try to mislead the public at large and, especially, its own party base.
Specifically, the piece noted,
"Said Mr. Kerry, "We have an electorate that doesn't always pay that much attention to what's going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what's happening."
Ah, this would be the Cass Sunstein school of thought, i.e., identifying voters and consumers as Homer Simpson types- his exact reference- who need to have decisions made for them. Because they are too stupid to exercise their own freedom of choice.
Then it continued,
"This week President Obama chimed in with another uplifting message about the American electorate. Mr. Obama told Rolling Stone that the tea party movement is financed and directed by "powerful, special-interest lobbies." But this doesn't mean that tea party groups are composed entirely of corporate puppets. Mr. Obama graciously implied that a small subset of the movement is simply motivated by bigotry.
The President said "there are probably some aspects of the Tea Party that are a little darker, that have to do with anti-immigrant sentiment or are troubled by what I represent as the President." The tea party is now supported by a third of the country in some polls."
Nice, huh? Anyone who disagrees with Wonderboy is either a powerful, special interest lobby. Like, oh, SEIU or the UAW?
No, no. Those sorts of powerful special interest lobbies are okay. It's the ones that disagree with the First Rookie who are suspect and, well, guilty of being bad.
But if you aren't in that group, then you're probably just a stupid bigot or anti-immigration pitch-fork type. You know, someone who maybe clings to "your guns or religion." Remember that precious campaign remark by Wonderboy?
Of course, the remark about resenting what he 'represents as President' is a thinly-veiled accusation of anti-black racism. You can't disagree with his policies, in his view, because that is simply being bigoted.
You either agree with everything Wonderboy says and does, or you are a racist.
See how easy that is?
Tea Party= disagree with Wonderboy = racists.
The editorial noted that at least Biden wasn't crying about the Tea Partiers, instead sounding this theme,
Vice President Joe Biden recently urged the party's base to "stop whining" and "buck up," a message echoed by Mr. Obama in his Rolling Stone interview. The President demanded that his supporters "shake off this lethargy," warning that it would be "inexcusable" for liberals to stay home on Election Day.
Mr. Obama added that "if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious in the first place." Making the case for left-wing voters to show up in November, Mr. Obama told Rolling Stone that he is presiding over "the most successful administration in a generation in moving progressive agendas forward."
And that calls to mind something I've seen on two cable news programs in the last two days. Democrats, whether party leaders, elected officials, or merely 'strategists,' all claiming two things as "facts,"
1. Recent polls actually show little in the way of Democratic House losses.
2. Anything can happen in five weeks. It's a lifetime in politics. So all these polls are meaningless.
Both sentiments are calculated to do one thing, and one thing only. Lie about reality and inspire Democrats to get out and vote. If Democrats see a lopsided, independents-led landslide for GOP candidates at all levels, they will feel powerless and just stay home on election day.
It's one thing to mobilize your base in a positive sense, as Wonderboy is at least doing. It's quite another to lie to an audience, as Pennsylvania's Democratic governor, Ed Rendell, did on CNBC Wednesday morning, and simply claim that polls are meaningless and the Democrats aren't in trouble at all.
I guess the conclusion you must draw is that, when a political rout is likely, you have to assume the party about to be routed will simply lie about anything in order to try to mislead the public at large and, especially, its own party base.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Want To Be The Next Mayor of Chicago- Tough Luck!
If you wonder why independent voters despair over career politicians treating government jobs as just a way to amass power and wealth, consider the latest moves involving Chicago's mayor's office.
Several weeks ago, current, long-time mayor, also son of a long-serving mayor, Richard Daley, made a surprise announcement that he won't be running for another term as mayor.
The sound waves from Daley's shocking declaration had barely finished reverberating before pundits fingered current White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, as his replacement. Word had it that Rahm wanted to be mayor...and maybe that was why Daley declined to serve another term.
Being Chicago, the Democratic candidate is effectively the mayor once he's won the primary.
Chicago may no longer be America's Second City, but it's still a large one. Whoever becomes its next mayor would, ideally, perhaps even logically, be someone with considerable administrative experience and specific interest in solving whatever the salient problems are in Chicago.
How, then, to interpret the very public talk that White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel will be resigning shortly to seek office as Chicago's next mayor?
I live in a state where a nearly-dead man, Frank Lautenberg, was virtually lifted out of his coffin to run again for a seat he had earlier, simply because the nominated Democratic candidate for the Senate was being indicted for campaign fund chicanery. So I'm resigned to political expediency trumping common sense. As it was, Lautenberg bought his Senate seat after retiring from ADP, the company he successfully founded and built. Following on that model, recently-defeated governor Corzine bought himself a Senate seat, too.
I guess Chicagoans are expected to sit still for whichever powerful Democrat decides s/he wants to be their next mayor. Even if it's a sort of gift to Emanuel for his work electing centrist Democrats to take control of the House, then running Wonderboy's staff for nearly two years.
Does anyone actually imagine Emanuel has the best qualifications to be Chicago's next mayor? Or is this the new form of political reward, rather than handing out ambassadorships? In this case, Emanuel expressing a desire to simply run the city for which he was a Representative between stints on White House staffs?
This sort of noblesse oblige behavior is a major part of what has fueled the Tea Party movement.
And, hey, come to think of it, the movement's titular prophet, Rick Santelli, works down in the Loop!
Wonder how he'll feel if Emanuel simply walks into the mayoral job without serious opposition?
Several weeks ago, current, long-time mayor, also son of a long-serving mayor, Richard Daley, made a surprise announcement that he won't be running for another term as mayor.
The sound waves from Daley's shocking declaration had barely finished reverberating before pundits fingered current White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, as his replacement. Word had it that Rahm wanted to be mayor...and maybe that was why Daley declined to serve another term.
Being Chicago, the Democratic candidate is effectively the mayor once he's won the primary.
Chicago may no longer be America's Second City, but it's still a large one. Whoever becomes its next mayor would, ideally, perhaps even logically, be someone with considerable administrative experience and specific interest in solving whatever the salient problems are in Chicago.
How, then, to interpret the very public talk that White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel will be resigning shortly to seek office as Chicago's next mayor?
I live in a state where a nearly-dead man, Frank Lautenberg, was virtually lifted out of his coffin to run again for a seat he had earlier, simply because the nominated Democratic candidate for the Senate was being indicted for campaign fund chicanery. So I'm resigned to political expediency trumping common sense. As it was, Lautenberg bought his Senate seat after retiring from ADP, the company he successfully founded and built. Following on that model, recently-defeated governor Corzine bought himself a Senate seat, too.
I guess Chicagoans are expected to sit still for whichever powerful Democrat decides s/he wants to be their next mayor. Even if it's a sort of gift to Emanuel for his work electing centrist Democrats to take control of the House, then running Wonderboy's staff for nearly two years.
Does anyone actually imagine Emanuel has the best qualifications to be Chicago's next mayor? Or is this the new form of political reward, rather than handing out ambassadorships? In this case, Emanuel expressing a desire to simply run the city for which he was a Representative between stints on White House staffs?
This sort of noblesse oblige behavior is a major part of what has fueled the Tea Party movement.
And, hey, come to think of it, the movement's titular prophet, Rick Santelli, works down in the Loop!
Wonder how he'll feel if Emanuel simply walks into the mayoral job without serious opposition?
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Welcome To The New Soviet Union: The Socialist Republic of the United States
In response to an email I sent to a colleague recently which included an attachment of Ruth Marcus' Washington Post article concerning Charlie Rangel's and Maxine Waters' ethics charges, he replied,
"There’s no doubt that we have a institutional political class that prominently includes all members of Congress, publicly corrupt or otherwise, which is an elite and self-sustaining parasite not unlike the respective senior Communist party committees that so successfully control the peoples of Russia and China."
I agree, but it's far worse than just that.
In the old Soviet Union, selected groups were given perks and better treatment, e.g., better healthcare, living quarters, more compensation, cars, access to food stores stocked with better selections, and so on.
Now, in America, municipal and certain private-industry unions, such as those for teachers, firemen and policemen, and the UAW, receive special favors and treatment. Sometimes totally in violation of existing law.
For example, lawfully protected GM bondholders were summarily coerced into silenced and forced to surrender their senior position by the federal government, so that the UAW could be given a share of the reorganized firm's assets.
Despite clear language in the Constitution that laws must apply to all citizens, just last week Congress passed, at the administration's insistence, a special stimulus bill to fund teacher salaries in the states, mandating no cuts in state funding, and the requirement that such funding must rise in future years.
Yes, like the Soviet Union of old, it's clear that in Wonderboy's Socialist United States, special union membership gets you perks and claims on the federal Treasury.
But if you educated yourself into a management position, or work as a blue-collar laborer in a right-to-work state, tough luck. You don't get to be one of Wonderboy's favorite classes, and have to pay higher taxes for those who are.
"There’s no doubt that we have a institutional political class that prominently includes all members of Congress, publicly corrupt or otherwise, which is an elite and self-sustaining parasite not unlike the respective senior Communist party committees that so successfully control the peoples of Russia and China."
I agree, but it's far worse than just that.
In the old Soviet Union, selected groups were given perks and better treatment, e.g., better healthcare, living quarters, more compensation, cars, access to food stores stocked with better selections, and so on.
Now, in America, municipal and certain private-industry unions, such as those for teachers, firemen and policemen, and the UAW, receive special favors and treatment. Sometimes totally in violation of existing law.
For example, lawfully protected GM bondholders were summarily coerced into silenced and forced to surrender their senior position by the federal government, so that the UAW could be given a share of the reorganized firm's assets.
Despite clear language in the Constitution that laws must apply to all citizens, just last week Congress passed, at the administration's insistence, a special stimulus bill to fund teacher salaries in the states, mandating no cuts in state funding, and the requirement that such funding must rise in future years.
Yes, like the Soviet Union of old, it's clear that in Wonderboy's Socialist United States, special union membership gets you perks and claims on the federal Treasury.
But if you educated yourself into a management position, or work as a blue-collar laborer in a right-to-work state, tough luck. You don't get to be one of Wonderboy's favorite classes, and have to pay higher taxes for those who are.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Alexi Giannoulias' Senate Race Woes In Illinois
A Wall Street Journal editorial two Fridays ago by Kim Strassel wonderfully detailed the woes of Illinois Democrat Senatorial candidate Alexi Giannoulias.
Alexi is running for Wonderboy's old Senate seat, and the First Rookie is campaigning for the youngster.
Trouble is, the rest of the Illinois Democrats aren't all that happy about this. Because of that bank thing.
You know, the problem with Alexi's family bank being shuttered by the feds. And Alexi being chief loan officer when the family's Broadway Bank,
"loaned millions to Michael "Jaws" Giorango, a convicted bookmaker, as well as other crime figures."
Apparently, loaning money to organized crime figure is okay as post-partisan politics for Wonderboy.
Alexi also mismanaged the state's college savings program as Treasurer.
My favorite aspect of all of this is CNBC's MIA behavior.
You see, for many months, beginning, I believe, back in the fall of '09, Alexi was the darling of CNBC's morning Squawk Box program. He would smile and preen as one of the country's youngest State Treasurers, crow about his innovative moves, and wink about running for the Senate. He was probably given this privilege at least monthly for several months running.
Suddenly, no more Alexi. I'm guessing these toxic revelations about his past, and perhaps the failing college savings program, soured the producers on the up-and-coming Wonderboy acolyte.
But, being good liberal media members, did CNBC turn around and investigate their former favorite State Treasurer?
Of course not! That would be impugning a hopeful Democratic Senate candidate, as well as themselves.
Far better to just go quiet and hope nobody noticed.
According to Strassel, downstate Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk has raised $2.3MM to Alexi's reported $900K.
Maybe they're noticing all this in Illinois, after all.
Alexi is running for Wonderboy's old Senate seat, and the First Rookie is campaigning for the youngster.
Trouble is, the rest of the Illinois Democrats aren't all that happy about this. Because of that bank thing.
You know, the problem with Alexi's family bank being shuttered by the feds. And Alexi being chief loan officer when the family's Broadway Bank,
"loaned millions to Michael "Jaws" Giorango, a convicted bookmaker, as well as other crime figures."
Apparently, loaning money to organized crime figure is okay as post-partisan politics for Wonderboy.
Alexi also mismanaged the state's college savings program as Treasurer.
My favorite aspect of all of this is CNBC's MIA behavior.
You see, for many months, beginning, I believe, back in the fall of '09, Alexi was the darling of CNBC's morning Squawk Box program. He would smile and preen as one of the country's youngest State Treasurers, crow about his innovative moves, and wink about running for the Senate. He was probably given this privilege at least monthly for several months running.
Suddenly, no more Alexi. I'm guessing these toxic revelations about his past, and perhaps the failing college savings program, soured the producers on the up-and-coming Wonderboy acolyte.
But, being good liberal media members, did CNBC turn around and investigate their former favorite State Treasurer?
Of course not! That would be impugning a hopeful Democratic Senate candidate, as well as themselves.
Far better to just go quiet and hope nobody noticed.
According to Strassel, downstate Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk has raised $2.3MM to Alexi's reported $900K.
Maybe they're noticing all this in Illinois, after all.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
New Hope For Dethroning Carolyn Maloney!
I was positively elated to read in yesterday's Wall Street Journal that Carolyn Maloney, a dunce Representative from NY, is being challenged in the primaries by a young Indian Democratic woman.
How refreshing! This mossback has actually been in the seat for 17 years.
Additionally, there are actually several Republicans running in their primary to meet the Democratic winner in November.
Wouldn't it be a treat to see Reshma Saujani take on either Dino LaVerghetta or Ryan Brumberg, the two GOP candidates, in the November elections?
Ms. Saujani is a hedge fund lawyer who was quoted in the Journal piece saying,
"Eighty percent of Congress did not know what a basis point was before the crisis."
She deplores the lack of Congress members with real business experience, and Maloney certainly fits that description. Many years ago, around the time of Atilla the Hun, Maloney was a NYC public school teacher. But she quickly forsook that calling to become a union official, then worked her way up the New York metro area political ladder to Congressional Representative. It's been well over a quarter of a century since Maloney really worked for a living. And even that job was a public sector one.
With any luck, the combined lack of sensitivity on the part of Maloney, Kristin Hillebrand and Chuck Schumer to voter outrage may result in the first being dethroned by someone more aware of the current economic and political climate, with the others to follow.
How refreshing! This mossback has actually been in the seat for 17 years.
Additionally, there are actually several Republicans running in their primary to meet the Democratic winner in November.
Wouldn't it be a treat to see Reshma Saujani take on either Dino LaVerghetta or Ryan Brumberg, the two GOP candidates, in the November elections?
Ms. Saujani is a hedge fund lawyer who was quoted in the Journal piece saying,
"Eighty percent of Congress did not know what a basis point was before the crisis."
She deplores the lack of Congress members with real business experience, and Maloney certainly fits that description. Many years ago, around the time of Atilla the Hun, Maloney was a NYC public school teacher. But she quickly forsook that calling to become a union official, then worked her way up the New York metro area political ladder to Congressional Representative. It's been well over a quarter of a century since Maloney really worked for a living. And even that job was a public sector one.
With any luck, the combined lack of sensitivity on the part of Maloney, Kristin Hillebrand and Chuck Schumer to voter outrage may result in the first being dethroned by someone more aware of the current economic and political climate, with the others to follow.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The List of Bribes for The Health Care Bill
The Wall Street Journal's Kim Strassel wrote an editorial on Monday, entitled Inside the Pelosi Sausage Factory, in which she provided a fairly detailed list of Democratic House members who had secured bribes from either Frisco Nan or Wonderboy for voting 'yes' on the health care bill.
Because it's important to understand how many corrupt House members there are, and who they are, I thought it worth reprinting Strassel's details.
Jim DeCosta (D-CA) extracted a commitment from the administration to increase water allocations to his Central Valley constituents. The announcement occurred last Tuesday. DeCosta claims there was no buying of his vote change from no, to yes.
Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) requested more NASA spending at her district's Kennedy Space Center in her meeting with Wonderboy on the healthcare bill. She, too, switched from a no to a yes.
Bart Gordon (D-TN) extracted more Medicaid funds for his state in exchange for his vote change. Pete DeFazio (D-OR) also secured extra Medicaid funding for his state in exchange for his vote on the bill. In all, according to Strassel, 17 states were given additional Medicaid funds in exchange for their Representatives voting to pass the bill.
Finally, dimwitted Bart Stupak surrendered his alleged pro-life principles to vote yes on the bill, in exchange for an executive order, which can be revoked or challenged in the courts at any time, limiting use of federal funding for abortions.
Strassel went on to details a number of cases in which House Democrats were threatened with primary opposition, cutting of campaign funds and support if they did not vote 'yes' on healthcare.
How can anyone believe such a bill is of any value, if so many of the majority party's own House members had to be bribed to vote for it?
Because it's important to understand how many corrupt House members there are, and who they are, I thought it worth reprinting Strassel's details.
Jim DeCosta (D-CA) extracted a commitment from the administration to increase water allocations to his Central Valley constituents. The announcement occurred last Tuesday. DeCosta claims there was no buying of his vote change from no, to yes.
Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) requested more NASA spending at her district's Kennedy Space Center in her meeting with Wonderboy on the healthcare bill. She, too, switched from a no to a yes.
Bart Gordon (D-TN) extracted more Medicaid funds for his state in exchange for his vote change. Pete DeFazio (D-OR) also secured extra Medicaid funding for his state in exchange for his vote on the bill. In all, according to Strassel, 17 states were given additional Medicaid funds in exchange for their Representatives voting to pass the bill.
Finally, dimwitted Bart Stupak surrendered his alleged pro-life principles to vote yes on the bill, in exchange for an executive order, which can be revoked or challenged in the courts at any time, limiting use of federal funding for abortions.
Strassel went on to details a number of cases in which House Democrats were threatened with primary opposition, cutting of campaign funds and support if they did not vote 'yes' on healthcare.
How can anyone believe such a bill is of any value, if so many of the majority party's own House members had to be bribed to vote for it?
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Stupid Stupak Folds
Faux-pro-life advocate Bart "Stupid" Stupak folded like a house of cards today.
Caving in to pressure from his corrupt House leadership, and the dictatorial blandishments of Wonderboy, Stupak changed his vote to "yes," thus probably assuring passage of the abominable, awful, expensive health care bill.
Does it not seem ironic and, well, sad that a Congressman agrees to yet another Wonderboy 'rule by executive order,' rather than insist on the rule of Congress?
Stupak wasn't going to get his pro-life way outlawing abortion funding in the health care bill. So he agreed that the president will, as usual, rule by dictate, rather than let Congress actually legislate.
Stupak should be ashamed of himself.
When Greta Van Sustern asked him, moments ago, on camera, if he was receiving angry calls and emails, he disingenuously said something to the effect of,
'Some people are always upset at each Congressional vote. It's just the way it is.'
How gutless. He, Greta, you and I all know his constituents were most likely mad as hell with his vote change and told him so.
Michiganders, if you read this, make sure Stupak gets a new career come this November.
Let's vote every 'yes' voter on health care out of Congress!
To come later this evening....pictures from the 40,000 person Capitol Rally a colleague and I attended yesterday.
Caving in to pressure from his corrupt House leadership, and the dictatorial blandishments of Wonderboy, Stupak changed his vote to "yes," thus probably assuring passage of the abominable, awful, expensive health care bill.
Does it not seem ironic and, well, sad that a Congressman agrees to yet another Wonderboy 'rule by executive order,' rather than insist on the rule of Congress?
Stupak wasn't going to get his pro-life way outlawing abortion funding in the health care bill. So he agreed that the president will, as usual, rule by dictate, rather than let Congress actually legislate.
Stupak should be ashamed of himself.
When Greta Van Sustern asked him, moments ago, on camera, if he was receiving angry calls and emails, he disingenuously said something to the effect of,
'Some people are always upset at each Congressional vote. It's just the way it is.'
How gutless. He, Greta, you and I all know his constituents were most likely mad as hell with his vote change and told him so.
Michiganders, if you read this, make sure Stupak gets a new career come this November.
Let's vote every 'yes' voter on health care out of Congress!
To come later this evening....pictures from the 40,000 person Capitol Rally a colleague and I attended yesterday.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Glenn Beck Interviews Eric Massa
Glenn Beck interviewed recently-resigned Representative Eric Massa (D-NY) last night. Here's the lead-in by Beck prior to his nearly hour-long one-on-one with Massa.
During the bulk of Beck's program, he tried to get Massa to deliver on his hints of evil deeds and illegal behaviors by administration aides and House leaders like Hoyer and/or Frisco Nan.
Nothing doing.
Finally, after about 40 minutes of listening to Massa talk about himself, rehash old news, and make vague allegations about shadowy figures, Beck asked him to tell viewers something important, revealing and new.
Massa couldn't deliver on that simple offer. He sputtered about backing your Congressman and demanding an end to Congressional name-calling at voters. Truly laughable stuff.
But nothing really specific about the alleged shower scene with Rahm Emanuel. Or anything really dirty about bribes while in office. Sure, he mentioned the risk of offending campaign donors. What's new about that?
What I believe Beck expected in the interview, something really outrageous involving either administration aides or House leaders, never materialized. About all Massa really did was reveal his cancer recurrence, that he was too tired to go on, had let everyone down by failing to adhere to his own high behavioral standards, then call for God and motherhood sorts of behavior from voters.
Oh, yes. Massa dangled questions about how quickly the apparently pre-packaged smear pieces on him appeared from Politico and Robert Gibbs. But he never made direct, detailed accusations.
Live interviews of public scandal figures is always risky. Beck began by warning that the interview might not happen, might end early, or might be useless.
At the end of the program, Beck apologized to viewers and declared Massa's interview to be the last.
Useless and oversold by the former Congressman.
At least Beck was honest in admitting it had been a wasted hour. But it was still interesting television.
During the bulk of Beck's program, he tried to get Massa to deliver on his hints of evil deeds and illegal behaviors by administration aides and House leaders like Hoyer and/or Frisco Nan.
Nothing doing.
Finally, after about 40 minutes of listening to Massa talk about himself, rehash old news, and make vague allegations about shadowy figures, Beck asked him to tell viewers something important, revealing and new.
Massa couldn't deliver on that simple offer. He sputtered about backing your Congressman and demanding an end to Congressional name-calling at voters. Truly laughable stuff.
But nothing really specific about the alleged shower scene with Rahm Emanuel. Or anything really dirty about bribes while in office. Sure, he mentioned the risk of offending campaign donors. What's new about that?
What I believe Beck expected in the interview, something really outrageous involving either administration aides or House leaders, never materialized. About all Massa really did was reveal his cancer recurrence, that he was too tired to go on, had let everyone down by failing to adhere to his own high behavioral standards, then call for God and motherhood sorts of behavior from voters.
Oh, yes. Massa dangled questions about how quickly the apparently pre-packaged smear pieces on him appeared from Politico and Robert Gibbs. But he never made direct, detailed accusations.
Live interviews of public scandal figures is always risky. Beck began by warning that the interview might not happen, might end early, or might be useless.
At the end of the program, Beck apologized to viewers and declared Massa's interview to be the last.
Useless and oversold by the former Congressman.
At least Beck was honest in admitting it had been a wasted hour. But it was still interesting television.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
