Tag Archives: Democratic Party (United States)

We Elected These People…

Posted on by

This is not a joke. This story appeared in the Washington Times on Tuesday. I thought I had heard everything when Hank Johnson said to Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, “My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize“, to which Admiral Willard replied, “We don’t anticipate that.” The discussion was part of a House of Representatives hearing on increasing troop strength on Guam. The Admiral’s composure when asked the question was amazing. I would like to point out that Representative Johnson has been re-elected twice since that 2010 comment and still serves in the U. S. House of Representatives.

On Tuesday the Washington Times reported:

Rep. Barbara Lee, California Democrat, said in The Hill that “food insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy and poor reproductive health.”

Moreover, climate change could turn entire populations into refugees — again, affecting women the most, the resolution suggested, as Newser reported.

So climate change (which isn’t really established as man-made) could result in increased prostitution. I would also like to note that if famine sweeps the world, everyone suffers–not just women.
We are responsible for electing our Representatives. We have only ourselves to blame.
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Temper Tantrum In The Rose Garden

Posted on by

Sometimes it is more difficult than others to be kind to people when they act like spoiled brats. President Obama lined up all the people he could find to use as props as he blamed the gun lobby for the fact that Congress upheld the Second Amendment. Thank God for the gun lobby. At some point, the President and all his allies in this need to realize that the problem is not guns–it’s the people who illegally use them. There was not one thing in the legislation that was proposed that would have prevented what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Unfortunately, criminals and mentally disturbed people do not tend to obey gun laws.

The Wall Street Journal posted an article yesterday reminding us where the anti-gun legislation failed–in the Democrat Senate–not the Republican House of Representatives.  The article also mentions the four Democrat Senators who voted against expanded background checks–Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.).

The article concludes:

The rout also vindicates Republicans who wanted the Senate to vote on the gun bill as opposed to the Rand Paul-Ted Cruz faction who sought a filibuster. For once Democrats had to declare themselves in public and couldn’t hide behind shouts of “Republican obstructionism.”

So much for the first big liberal hope of Mr. Obama’s second term. Maybe he should consider a centrist strategy from now on.

Don’t hold your breath.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Obamacare Will Bring

Posted on by

Yesterday Breitbart.com posted a story entitled, “Top Ten ObamaCare Horror Stories the Media Are Covering Up.” That seemed a little drastic to me until I read the article. There wasn’t anything in it that we are not already seeing happen.

Here is the list. Please follow the link above to the article to read the details:

1. Millions are and will lose the insurance Obama promised they could keep.

2. The cost of healthcare premiums is about to further skyrocket.

3. Lost jobs. Lost jobs.

4. Potential doctor shortages that will mean rationing.

5. Somewhere around $800 billion in tax increases will hit America’s middle class.

6. Inflation, the cruelest tax on the poor.

7. Added bureaucracy.

8. To cut costs or to avoid having to provide insurance, workers on the economic margins are already losing hours, which means a lower paycheck.

9. ObamaCare is projected to add $6.2 TRILLION to a deficit the GAO has already declared “unsustainable.”

10. More taxes than currently estimated are likely to hit because of situations like this one.

There is actually a small glimmer of hope that this monstrosity of a law may be repealed. If Republicans are smart (and lately that is a big “if”), they will keep demanding votes on the repeal of Obamacare. As Obamacare is implemented and people see the problems in it, fewer Democrats will be willing to vote to keep it because many of them will have to run for election in 2014. That is the small hope we have that this miserable law will go away.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sometimes There Really Is A Cost To Ignoring The Constitution

Posted on by

The Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” do many of our current lawmakers not understand?

I know you can twist the words in ninety directions to attempt to change what they say, but the words are pretty straightforward. Anyway, a state is about to pay a price for choosing to ignore those words.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday about a new gun law about to be signed by Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado. The bill limits magazine capacities. The executives at Colorado-based Magpul, a company that manufactures high-capacity magazines, has announced that if the Governor signs the bill they will leave Colorado for friendlier venues and take hundreds of jobs with them. Two legislators from the State of Pennsylvania have already put out the welcome mat for the company.

The article reports:

A Colorado-based magazine manufacturer said it would leave the state if the new restrictions were passed, taking hundreds of jobs with it. Democrats tried to ease the concerns from Magpul Industries, saying the company can still manufacture higher-capacity magazines if they were sold out of state.

Waller blasted Democrats on that amendment, saying it was hypocritical because they are telling the company “you can sell (magazines) at any other place where any of these tragic shootings have happened.”

Waller called the exemption “a monumental inconsistency in their thought process.”

What was the message here? Colorado won’t allow people to purchase high-capacity magazines because that will supposedly decrease violence, but they’re happy to export them to other states? One can’t blame Magpul for failing to trust Democrats to leave that loophole open for very long, not after their demonstration of hostility to Magpul’s industry.

I will admit that I don’t know why anyone needs a high-capacity magazine, but when the government starts limiting something it never seems to know where to stop. From what I have heard from people who know, high-capacity magazines jam easily and are actually not as deadly as lower-capacity magazines in many cases. At any rate, this law is an infringement–something the Second Amendment says is not allowed.

We need more Americans like the executives of Magpul who are willing to stand up for what they believe.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Senate Has Finally Produced A Budget

Posted on by

The Senate has finally produced a budget. John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article today explaining what was in that budget.

The article states:

The process has proved revealing: the Democrats’ budget never balances, increases spending by 62% over ten years, and adds $7 trillion to the national debt despite raising taxes by $1.5 trillion. So Senate Democrats must agree with President Obama that the nation does not face a debt crisis.

The article quotes a statement President Obama made yesterday on ABC:

[W]e don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. In fact, for the next ten years, it’s gonna be in a sustainable place….

There’s not–-in any way–-an immediate crisis with respect to our finances. …

Heritage.org posted an article yesterday explaining some of the details.

The article at Heritage.org states:

…Murray’s budget includes a massive tax increase. She raises taxes by almost $1 trillion ($975 billion to be exact) over the next 10 years by “closing loopholes.” Closing loopholes is Washington-speak for eliminating deductions, exemptions, and credits.

Which loopholes to close Murray leaves up to the Senate Finance Committee. But she is pursuing this tax increase unnecessarily. The Congressional Budget Office says that revenues will be 19 percent of GDP at the end of the current 10-year budget window. That is uncomfortably above the 18.5 percent of GDP that tax revenues have averaged in times of economic growth since the end of World War II. Murray’s budget would push revenues close to 20 percent of GDP by 2023, well above average—yet still not enough to catch up with her budget’s excessive spending.

Until Congress limits spending to 18 percent of the GDP (which is what we generally collect in tax revenue) we can expect deficits to grow. It is time to cut the spending in order to prevent the growth of deficits. Otherwise, we are simply creating a debt our children and grandchildren will never be able to repay.Enhanced by Zemanta

Misplaced Priorities

Posted on by

As spring break approaches and class trips are planned to Washington, D. C., the White House has announced that tours of the White House will be cancelled until further notice due to the budget cuts in the sequester. Meanwhile, The Weekly Standard reported today that the three White House calligraphers, with annual salaries of $96,725, $85,953 and $94,372 (for a yearly total of $277,050) are not in danger of being laid off.

It really is unfortunate that budget cuts seems to bring out the worst in our President. He is trying to do things to anger the public so that he can increase spending and taxes.Please remember that this is all about the 2014 elections. If the Democrats can win the House of Representatives, government spending and government growth can continue unchecked. That is the reason the President is attempting to use the sequester to turn public opinion against budget cuts and against the Republican party. It is important that voters stay informed and not fall for this plan.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Mr. Mayor, You Will Be Missed

Posted on by

Today’s New York Times is reporting that Edward Koch, the former mayor of New York City died this morning. Ed Koch was 88 years old.

The article highlights his career:

Most important, he is credited with leading the city government back from near bankruptcy in the 1970s to prosperity in the 1980s. He also began one of the city’s most ambitious housing programs, which continued after he left office and eventually built or rehabilitated more than 200,000 housing units, revitalizing once-forlorn neighborhoods.

Politically, Mr. Koch’s move to the right of center was seen as a betrayal by some old liberal friends, but it gained him the middle class and three terms in City Hall. He was also the harbinger of a transformation in the way mayors are elected in New York, with candidates relying less on the old coalition of labor unions, minority leaders and Democratic clubhouses and more on heavy campaign spending and television to make direct appeals to a more independent-minded electorate.

Mayor Koch had a flamboyancy that made it seem as if he were designed for the job of Mayor of New York City. He spoke his mind whether he agreed with his political party or not. He fit the classic definition of a liberal, but yet trimmed the budget of New York City during his term.

Mayor Koch was always a man who was a joy to watch, whether you agreed with him or not. He will be sorely missed. He was a man who voiced his opinion whether it was politically correct or not.Enhanced by Zemanta

Chutzpah On Parade

Posted on by

There is currently a debate in Congress on how to prevent mass murders. When you consider that mass murders are as old as civilization and have involved everything from knives to guns, that is quite a quest. The focus seems to be on gun control–regardless of the fact that the Second Amendment does not allow for the infringement of the right to bear arms. Anyway, Senator Chuck Schumer has added a new level of chutzpah to the debate.

Gateway Pundit reported yesterday:

Schumer on Sunday released a letter he sent to major retailers asking for a voluntary moratorium.

The New York Democrat says consumer demand for guns has gone up in the weeks since the December mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.

Schumer says Congress is debating the issue, and if measures get passed that limit these type of weapons, it won’t help if more of them have recently been sold.

Has it occurred to the Senator that the reason people are stocking up on these weapons is that they fear the weapons will be unavailable in the future?

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Interesting Take On The Fiscal Cliff

Posted on by

Erick Erickson posted an interesting article at Red State yesterday about the current wrangling regarding the fiscal cliff. Mr. Erickson pointed out that in his opinion, John Boehner should not raise tax rates–it would be better to go off the fiscal cliff.

The article explains what is really going on here:

Why would every other issue move quickly if the Republicans would just agree to raise rates? Because of two issues.

The White House knows that if they cannot get the GOP to vote to increase rates, they will get crushed on the tax issue in the midterms. Their red state Democrats need political cover before they can vote to increase taxes. That cover is a Republican cave.

The White House also knows that if they can get the GOP to vote to increase taxes once, it will be far easier to get them to do it again.

Barack Obama needs the Republicans to raise rates. If they do not get it before January 1, all of the Bush tax cuts will expire and the GOP will not permit any reduction without it being an across the board reduction. Moderate Democrats in the Senate and the few remaining blue dogs in the House will be in a very difficult position.

Raising tax rates, rather than simply eliminating some loopholes, would cause a serious split in the Republican party. It would result in a serious power struggle within the party during the elections of 2014, probably giving the Democrats additional seats in both the House and the Senate. What would happen after that would be a nightmare for America–there would be no control at all on Barack Obama’s spending plans. If John Boehner has any loyalty to the country and to the Republican party, he needs to resist the pressure to increase tax rates.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Schizophrenic American Voter

Posted on by

Yesterday Mary Katharine Ham at Hot Air posted an article detailing some of the opinions of the American voters and contrasting those opinions with the way they voted.

The article reports:

A survey of 800 Obama voters, conducted last month by Benenson Strategy Group for the moderate Democratic think tank Third Way and shared first with POLITICO, finds that 96 percent believe the federal deficit is a problem and that 85 percent support increasing taxes on the wealthy.

Yet 41 percent who supported the Democratic incumbent want to get control of the deficit mostly by cutting spending, with only some tax increases, while another 41 percent want to solve it mostly with tax increases and only some spending cuts.

Just 5 percent of Obama supporters favor tax increases alone to solve the deficit, half the number who back an approach that relies entirely on spending cuts.

Their opinions put them much more in line with Mitt Romney than Barack Obama!

The article continues:

Meanwhile, according to polling by CNN, registered voters oppose Obamacare by a margin of 10 points — 52 to 42 percent. Independents like Obamacare even less, opposing it by a margin of 22 points — 57 to 35 percent. Clearly, voters didn’t think they were ratifying Obamacare when they pulled the lever for Obama.

…One thing that has not changed is that Americans still widely prefer a system based on private insurance to one run by the government. Currently, 57% prefer a private system and 36% a government-run system, essentially the same as in 2010 and 2011. Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the percentage of Americans in favor of a government-run system ranged from 32% to 41%.

Obviously, I have no explanation for this. Either voters were not paying attention or they voted for a candidate who opposed what they actually believed.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Exactly What Is Fair ?

Posted on by

On Thursday the Washington Examiner posted an editorial with the title, “If top 5% paid 40% of taxes, what is their ‘fair’ share?”. That is a very reasonable question.

The current Democrat talking points are stated in the editorial:

Obama said in his postelection news conference earlier this month, “want to make sure that middle-class folks aren’t bearing the entire burden and sacrifice when it comes to some of these big challenges. They expect that folks at the top are doing their fair share as well.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., echoed this point in a fundraising pitch sent out on Monday: “Voters sent a clear message to Republicans in the election: we must stand up for the middle class and ensure the wealthy pay their fair share.”

What does the amount of taxes the wealthy pay have to do with standing up for the middle class?

The editorial reminds us:

As matters stand, the top 1 percent of American households paid 39 percent of income taxes in 2009, according to the most recent data compiled by the Congressional Budget Office, and the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid 64 percent.

But income taxes, taken in isolation, do not tell the whole story, because lower-income Americans do pay payroll taxes. But even taking into account all forms of taxation, the top 1 percent still paid 22 percent of federal taxes while earning just 13.4 percent of household income. The top 5 percent paid 40 percent of all federal taxes, despite earning only 26 percent of all income. No matter how you slice the numbers, it’s hard to understand why anyone would think the wealthy aren’t already shouldering a burden commensurate with their blessings.

It seems to me as if the wealthy are already paying more than their fair share. And if raising taxes on anyone is going to slow down an already struggling economy, why in the world would you want to raise taxes on anyone?

In March of this year I posted the following (rightwinggranny.com):

Fox News has a video posted showing President Obama stating in April of 2008 that, despite evidence it doesn’t increase revenue, he’d raise the capital gains tax on America’s richest Americans. Then-candidate Obama used one of his favorite words by saying it would be the “fair” thing to do! So it’s not really about revenue–it’s about redistributing wealth–taking money away from people who have earned it and giving it to people who have not earned it. How does that make our society better?

The purpose of being President (or House Minority Leader) is not to carry out your own personal vendetta upon those you resent because they are successful. It’s time to grow up and get past the idea that it is up to you as President or Congressmen to punish those who are successful.

We will all be seeing tax increases in January due to Obamacare. The question is how much additional taxation will we stand for. I personally feel taxed enough already–I think it’s time for the Tea Party to get back to their roots and begin to make noise again.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

What I Learned On The Radio This Morning

Posted on by

First of all, I would like to thank DaTechGuy for inviting me on his radio show. He blogs at DaTechGuyBlog.com and has been one of the few people who has been investigating the numbers behind the numbers in the Presidential polls.

Second of all, I would like to apologize for my Emily Latella moment (if you don’t understand that, google the name and you will find numerous video clips). I asked a candidate running for the U. S. House of Representatives about a state issue. Just for the record, the issue was forced unionization of family run daycare centers. This was on my mind because I had blogged about it earlier in the week (rightwinggranny.com).

Now to my point. One of the guests on DaTechGuyOnDaRadio this morning (if you missed the show, it will be up on DaTechGuy’s blog sometime this week) was Doctor Andrew Smith. Dr. Smith is the Director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, which specializes in election polling. Dr. Smith has been involved in polling since the mid 1980′s.

Dr. Smith pointed out that a poll is simply a specialized conversation. His organization randomly selects the people that they poll. There are two main aspects to taking a poll. First, will people talk to you? This can depend on the political situation at the time. If the candidate a person supports is not doing well, that person may be reluctant to talk to a pollster. Second, is the person you are polling being completely honest? Are they simply giving the pollster answers in order to make themselves look good? In many cases if a person is asked if they are likely to vote, they will answer yes because voting is considered a good thing–not because they actually intend to vote.

In polling the public, a pollster needs to ask questions people might actually have the answers to. If a pollster is asking very specific questions about a piece of legislation, the person answering may simply give an answer in order to avoid appearing ignorant.

The key to a successful poll is a random sample and interviewers that exactly follow the script they are given. The wording of questions and the order of questions can determine the answers that will be given.

When evaluating a poll, find out who is doing it and why. It is probably not a good idea to take polls conducted by candidates too seriously.

Most of the time a random sample will be accurate. One reason polls get more accurate as the election nears is that people begin to pay attention. In some cases, voters are not focused on the election until the week before and will give an answer to a pollster a month before that may change when the voter starts paying attention.

Dr. Smith described polling as an art with a scientific method behind it. I think that is a very accurate description.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Behind The Numbers In The Ohio Poll

Posted on by

Ohio is a swing state that Governor Romney needs to win in order to defeat President Obama in November. A group called Public Policy Polling predicts a win by President Obama in Ohio by 5 points, but when you look closely at the poll, the numbers don’t add up.

This article is based on two sources–a post at Hot Air by Ed Morrissey and a post at DaTechGuyBlog by Pete DaTechGuy.

Pete reminds us that women are more likely to vote for President Obama. The poll sampled 54% women and 46% men. The poll also sampled 41% Democrats, 37% Republicans, and 22% Independents. Ed Morrissey points out that the 37% Republicans matches the Republican 2010 turnout, but that the Democrat turnout in the 2010 midterm election was 36%–not 41%.

Pete also posted the following numbers:

http://www.rightwinggranny.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/crosstab-4-results.png

Pete describes the problem with these numbers:

Now that’s kind of odd isn’t it? this crosstab suggest that you have a 42% of the people in the poll self identifying themselves as conservative in a poll that is 37% Republican, yet only 28% call themselves liberal? Are we to believe that ALL of republicans are Conservatives with some spill over to the middle or is it more likely that our liberal friends, like their fellows in the media don’t see their own biases and believe themselves moderate?

The bottom line here is simple. Anyone can lie with statistics (or polls). All you have to do is carefully choose the people you poll. The only poll that really matters is the one on election day when voters vote. Until then, we need to ignore a lot of what the media tells us is true. The important thing is that everyone get out and vote ONCE on election day. I believe that Governor Romney will win an honest election.

Enhanced by Zemanta

When Fact Checkers Don’t Fact Check

Posted on by

Red State posted an article today on some of the ‘fact checking’ done on the speeches at the Republican Convention. I will post some of the details, but the bottom line is simple–Don’t believe anything you hear until you have a chance to look into the facts for yourself.

The article at Red State cites a few examples:

Democrats are energetically attempting to create the perception that Republicans — specifically, Paul Ryan — are running around Tampa making stuff up about Barack Obama (as if that’s necessary). And when I say Democrats, as regrettably cliché as it may sound, I also mean the mainstream media.

The following assertions, for instance, are true:

  • Obama did cut over $700 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare.
  • The stimulus was a case of political patronage, corporate welfare and cronyism.
  • The Janesville, General Motors plant was closed down under Obama (though Ryan made a more nuanced assertion that we’ll cover below)
  • Obama did blow off the bipartisan debt commission.
  • Obama’s waivers do allow for the relaxing of work requirements in welfare reform.

Unfortunately, if you read the fact checkers, you wouldn’t know that those things are true. It is really sad that in a republic where the citizens are asked to vote for their leaders, the press cannot be trusted to provide the information the voters need.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Voter Fraud ?

Posted on by

Yesterday the Providence (RI) Journal posted a story and video clip concerning a press conference held by Congressional candidate Anthony Gemma, charging voter fraud in past Rhode Island elections.

This is the video of the press conference:

Mr. Gemma explained that he had hired TRP Associates, a detective agency run by three retired state troopers, to investigate voter fraud in recent Rhode Island elections.

The article reports:

Gemma contends an investigation he initiated by retired state troopers found evidence of people being paid to vote for certain candidates, people voting multiple times at different voting places and people who impersonated other voters.

Speaking at an outdoor press conference near his headquarters, Gemma called Cicilline the “common denominator” through most of the evidence, some of which dates to 2002.

The findings, Gemma said, are not “run-of-the-mill dirty politics” or “gossip, but evidence of conduct that compromises the very core of our electoral process.”

…Gemma says he has met with the head of the state police Col. Steven G. O’Donnell to discuss the evidence. Gemma said he also turned over information to the FBI.

There are a few things to remember here. These charges are being made in the heat of a Democrat Party primary election campaign. That means that the charges should be examined carefully, but it doesn’t mean that they should be dismissed out of hand. Rhode Island is a one-party state–Democrat. The Democrats in Rhode Island have a very strong political machine, and it is hard for a non-sanctioned-by-the-machine candidate to get past a primary with a machine candidate.

This is a story that needs to be watched to see what evidence actually is made public and how important that evidence is.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Truth About Medicare

Posted on by

Paul Ryan is not going to end Medicare. His plan leaves it intact for those of us over age 55 and changes it for younger people to insure that it will be there for them. Of course, if you watch Democrat campaign ads or see the fund raising emails, you wouldn’t know that.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article today on the Democrats ad campaign regarding Medicare. He mentions the much-overlooked fact that President Obama cut $716 billion from Medicare to finance Obamacare.

The Republicans are learning–the have produced the following ad:

Facts are such inconvenient things.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Happens If ObamaCare Is Overturned ?

Posted on by

Last week Investor’s Business Daily asked the question, “What happens if ObamaCare is overturned?” That is a very good question.

It would not be good for Congressional Democrat campaigns–the Democrats spent a year on this bill–were they wasting their time? But what impact would it have on the Presidential campaign? Are there parts of the bill that the public approves of that could be written into law between now and November? Is Congress capable of writing anything into law between now and November?

The article reports:

The KFF survey found that letting 26-year-olds stay on their parents’ policy polled well, with 71% viewing it either very or somewhat favorably. Also polling favorably was prohibiting insurers from denying coverage based on a person’s medical history, 60%, and limiting what insurers can charge older people vs. the young, 52%.

The article then reminds us that these provisions could collapse the insurance market. The thing we need to remember here is that insurance companies are in business to make money. There is nothing immoral about that. If they are allowed to make money, they provide jobs and insurance for people. That’s a good thing. There does need to be some sort of allowance made for a high-risk pool similar to what is done with car insurance, and I would also support something that protects someone from being dropped because they have gotten sick and actually need their health insurance.

What is needed is a fresh start. Such things as insurance portability across state lines, tort reform, and tax breaks for consumers buying individual insurance would be a good beginning. I suspect, however, that any beginning will have to wait until after the November election.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Are The Odds That There Will Be A New Democrat Senate Candidate In Massachusetts Before November ?

Posted on by

Breitbart.com posted an article today about some recipes submitted by Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren to the POW WOW CHOW cookbook. Howie Carr, a Boston talk-radio host, has uncovered some information that seems to show that the recipes were plagiarized. The information is posted on Howie Carr’s website. You can compare the recipes for yourself.

Ms. Warren has had a rough couple of weeks. There are a lot of unanswered questions about her supposed Indian heritage (which was very valuable in advancing her career) and now the POW WOW CHOW recipes look less than authentic. Ms. Warren has been raising money to run against Scott Brown for quite some time and has amassed a substantial war chest. Is that a guarantee that she will get the Democrat nomination? The Democrats pulled a switch in a New Jersey Senate election a few years ago (google “Jon Corzine”–it may take you a while to get the whole story!), but I don’t think they will do that is Massachusetts.

DaTechGuy, a Massachusetts blogger, recently had a few thoughts on the subject–he pointed out that Marsia DeFranco (the other Democrat running in the Primary) is not setting the world on fire:

Marsia DeFranco has been a candidate for the US Senate since last year and has been campaigning since then. Her fundraising has been so successful that her campaign couldn’t loan me the money to replace my furnace even if it wanted to.

But money isn’t everything what about press. Lets look at how much coverage she has generated:

I did an exact search for the Name “Marisa DeFranco” in Google news over the last year (5/16/11 – 5/16/12) sorted by date, I got 208 results shown via 6 pages.

This is going to be an interesting November.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The January 2013 Surprise

Posted on by

Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted an article on the fiscal fiasco that is waiting for America on January 1, 2013.

The article reminds us what is coming:

‘The way to deal with sequestration is put revenues on the table.” That is third-ranking Senate Democrat Charles Schumer of New York’s coded way of telling congressional Republicans that if you want to prevent the budgetary devastation of the U.S. military, you’ll have to break your promises to voters and agree to major tax hikes.

After the presidential and congressional elections this November, a lame-duck Congress will address an impending fiscal calamity.

The first thing you have to remember here is that in the mind of the average Democrat, Washington will NEVER have enough money to spend!

So what happens between election day and January 2013? First of all, you have a lame duck Congress. If the Democrats lose the Senate, they will do everything they can to make sure everyone pays highers taxes.

Even if the Democrats don’t get away with raising taxes, this is what happens on January 1st:

Heritage Foundation senior fellow and former Treasury Department tax economist J.D. Foster recently warned that on New Year’s Day, “some $494 billion in tax hikes will crash down on America’s taxpayers and economy” — not just the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that gave us a boom and cut unemployment to under 5%, but “a jump in the payroll tax rate,” “the return of the death tax,” ” a bigger, badder” Alternative Minimum Tax, and the tax hikes for ObamaCare.

The ObamaCare 3.8% surcharge goes into effect in 2013, “not just on wage and salary income, but all income, thus breaking the historical link between Medicare and labor earnings,” Foster recently noted.

If we are to avoid fiscal catastrophe in the coming year, we need to make sure the Republicans control both the House and the Senate after the November election. That way as soon as Congress is sworn in in January, they can quickly deal with any mischief done in the lame-duck session.

Intentionally or otherwise, the Democrat party is in the process of taking a wrecking ball to the economic well-being of our country. They need to be stopped.

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

What The Violence Against Women Debate Is Really About

Posted on by

Prepare to hear that Republicans are continuing the ‘war against women’ by refusing to support the Violence Against Women Act. If you have any common sense, you want to know what is really going on. Yesterday’s Washington Examiner posted the story behind the coming headline.

The House of Representatives this week will take up the Violence against Women Act.

The Washington Examiner reports:

House Democrats want a bill similar to the one passed by the Democratically controlled Senate. That bill would provide special protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals. It would also expand the authority of Native American authorities to prosecute non-Indians who commit violence against a Native American on tribal lands.

The Republican bill excludes all of those special protections.

The Democratic version of the bill approved by the Senate also would raise the number of special U.S. visas issued to prevent the deportation of illegal immigrants who claim to be victims of domestic violence. House Republicans want to maintain the current cap on such visas and tighten the rules for who would qualify for such protections, including requiring anyone who received such a visa to aid the prosecution of the alleged abusers.

This bill is one example of why things are not getting done in Washington at this time. A simple bill dealing with the issue of domestic violence would easily pass both houses of Congress. There is a serious question in my mind whether or not the Democrats are negotiating in good faith. No Democrat wants to run for re-election this year on jobs, the national debt, spending or the economy. It is much easier to run around shouting that the Republicans have declared war on women. This may be another bill that will not get passed until after the election.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why The Senate Is Not Planning To Pass A Budget

Posted on by

Going on the record in an election year is not always a fun process. An article in today’s Washington Free Beacon points out some of the hazards to the Democrats that bringing a budget to the floor of the Senate would bring.

The article points out:

Pursuing a budget resolution would trigger an open amendment process—often called a “vote-a-rama”—comprising 50 hours of debate and dozens of votes on individual amendments offered by Senators.

That would allow Republicans to force simple majority votes, not subject to the standard 60-vote requirement, on individual aspects of the health care law as well as a measure to partially defund the new federal apparatus it created.

That would put Obamacare in serious jeopardy. The House of Representatives has already repealed the unpopular bill, and the Supreme Court may do the same to Obamacare’s key components.

“With the Supreme Court decision at hand, Obamacare is back in the news again, and it’s still unpopular,” one GOP Senate aide told the Free Beacon. “How many Democrats in swing states want to run, essentially, on voting multiple times to support it?”

If the current members of the Senate (in either party) do not have the courage of their convictions, it is time to elect members of the Senate who do. This is ridiculous.

There have already been provisions of Obamacare that Congress has repealed–the House has already repealed the entire bill, but the Senate has not. One of the tax provisions in Obamacare has been repealed by both Houses of Congress, Community Living Assistance Services and Support Program (CLASS Act) has been repealed by the House, and the repeal of IPAB (appointed death panels) has also won support in both parties.

Legally, the Senate is required to pass a budget, but I’m not holding my breath.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Yesterday’s House Of Representatives Vote On President Obama’s Budget

Posted on by

Yesterday the Washington Times reported that President Obama’s proposed budget was voted on in the House of Representatives. The vote was 414 to 0. Even the Democrats in the House did not support the proposal.

The article reports:

The vote came as the House worked its way through its own fiscal year 2013 budget proposal, written by Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan. Republicans wrote an amendment that contained Mr. Obama’s budget and offered it on the floor, daring Democrats to back the plan, which calls for major tax increases and yet still adds trillions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade.

Why is it that no Democrat was willing to go on the record in support of the President’s budget proposal?

The Senate has already stated that they will not bring a budget proposal to the floor this year–despite the fact that they are required by law to pass a budget. It is truly sad that the Democrats in Congress do not have the backbone to stand up for their convictions. If they believe that higher taxes and increased spending will help the economy, why are they unwilling to vote as they believe? I happen to disagree with that idea, but if the Democrats in Congress believe it, why don’t they act on their belief?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Is Anyone In Congress Reading The Constitution ?

Posted on by
 

Yesterday The Hill reported that six House Democrats, including Dennis Kucinich, have proposed a “Reasonable Profits Board” to control gas profits. When are they going to propose a “Reasonable Profits Board” to control movie industry profits, sports organization profits, college profits, etc.? Why are they only picking on the oil industry? Because they have an ulterior motive. When you read down the article a bit, you find it.

The article reports:

According to the bill, a windfall tax of 50 percent would be applied when the sale of oil or gas leads to a profit of between 100 percent and 102 percent of a reasonable profit. The windfall tax would jump to 75 percent when the profit is between 102 and 105 percent of a reasonable profit, and above that, the windfall tax would be 100 percent. The bill also specifies that the oil-and-gas companies, as the seller, would have to pay this tax.

Kucinich said these tax revenues would be used to fund alternative transportation programs when oil-and-gas prices spike.

What is going on here? It’s simple. This is using class warfare to channel the anger that will occur when oil and gas prices go up because of America’s energy policies. Why am I blaming America’s energy policies? The Obama Administration just ended the Keystone Pipeline project, which would have helped with America’s energy independence and helped keep gas and oil prices stable. Please note that the federal tax on gasoline is 18 cents per gallon. The government does nothing to earn that tax money–no exploration, no scientific research, etc., yet they collect money every time an American fills up his gas tank.

The government does not have the right to judge whether any corporation’s profits are reasonable or not. Blaming the oil companies for the Administration’s failure to encourage domestic energy production is simply wrong. At some point the American people will wake up and see what is going on if they haven’t already. The people proposing this should be voted out of the House of Representatives this year!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Are The Democrats Really The Champion Of The Middle Class ?

Posted on by

The Canada Free Press posted an article today detailing the impact on Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama have had on the Middle Class since 2006, when the Democrats took over Congress.

The article cites a number of areas where life in the Middle Class has become much more expensive and less secure. Unemployment in 2006 was under 6 percent; now it is almost 9 percent (and higher if you count those who have stopped looking). Grocery prices are up due to the declining value of the dollar. In late 2008 gasoline in Florida was $1.50 a gallon; for the past year gasoline has been over $3 a gallon. Heath insurance rates have gone up since the passage of Obamacare. College tuition rates are also climbing rapidly. Real estate values are about the only thing that has gone down!

The article concludes:

In January, 2007, the federal debt stood at approximately nine trillion dollars. When President Obama was inaugurated in 2009, it was just under twelve trillion. In mid-November, it surpassed fifteen trillion and is already nearly twenty percent of the way to SIXTEEN. Per citizen, this amounts to nearly $50,000 ($48,542, to be exact). This is the amount owed by EVERY man, woman, and child in America today. Look at it another way: Every child born in the United States enters this world with a $50,000 liability. And this is before he or she has soiled his or her first diaper. When the Democrats came to power in 2007, this figure stood at around $30,000 which was, by anyone’s measure, an obscene number. But your “warriors for the middle class” have increased this by two-thirds all the while portraying themselves as your friends.

With friends like this, you do NOT need enemies!

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Kind Of Logic Makes My Head Hurt

Posted on by

CNS News reported yesterday that former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has stated that extending unemployment benefits would add “600,000 jobs to our economy.”

Now let me get this straight. Extending unemployment beneifts (which have already been extended to almost two years) would add jobs to our economy.

The article further reports:

Although Senate Democrats indicated they would support dropping the millionaire surtax to pay for extending a payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits after a White House meeting on Wednesday, they adamantly oppose several provisions of the Republican bill, such as forcing a quick administration response on the Keystone XL oil pipeline, and reforms to long-term benefits for the jobless.

It is going to be interesting to see what the payroll tax extension bill looks like by the time it is passed.

Enhanced by Zemanta