Tag Archives: Nancy Pelosi

Do The Bishops Speak For The Catholic Church ?

Posted on by

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted a story today about a recent statement by former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

The article reports:

…CNSNews.com asked Pelosi, who is Catholic, whether she supported her church in the lawsuits it has filed, which argue that the administration’s regulation violates the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.

“What about the 43 Catholic institutions [that] have now sued the administration over the regulation that requires them to provide contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacients in their health care plans?” CNSNews.com asked. “They say that violates their religious freedom.  Do you support the Catholic Church in their lawsuits against the administration?”

“Well, I don’t think that’s the entire Catholic Church,” Pelosi responded. “Those people have a right to sue, but I don’t think they’re speaking ex cathedra for the Catholic Church.  And there are people in the Catholic Church, including some of the bishops, who have suggested that some of this may be premature,” Pelosi said.

The Bishops represent the leadership of the Catholic Church. Part of their responsibility is to guide the Church and provide direction.That is what the Bishops are doing, and doing it very well. The problem is that what they are doing interferes with Ms. Pelosi’s politics. Is Ms. Pelosi concerned that the religious freedom of her church is under attack? Obviously not.

The article reminds us:

As most Catholics outside of Capitol Hill know and understand, the bishops speak for the Catholic Church, quite literally within their own dioceses, and in every other way when united as a group.  They do not need an ex cathedra declaration to make decisions on public policy (and as I noted above, most of them would go a lifetime without seeing one anyway).   Furthermore, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops unanimously oppose the HHS mandate and have called for opposition to it.  That is speaking with as much unanimity as one is likely to find within the Catholic Church, and while that doesn’t mean that every Catholic has to agree with it, it does mean that every Catholic should at least recognize that the bishops are indeed speaking for the Church in this matter.

I don’t know if Obamacare will be overturned, but any law that can be used to limit religious freedom in this way needs to be overturned.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

When The Stories Just Don’t Agree

Posted on by

On April 30th, Marc Thiessen posted an article in the Washington Post about some statements in former CIA counterterrorism chief Jose Rodriguez’s new book. Mr. Rodriguez is doing the talk show circuit to publicize his book about his days at the CIA. In the book Mr. Rodriguez recounts events showing that then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi lied when she stated that she was not aware that waterboarding was used on captured terrorists.

The artice states:

In his new book, “Hard Measures,” Rodriguez reveals that he led a CIA briefing of Pelosi, where the techniques being used in the interrogation of senior al-Qaeda facilitator Abu Zubaida were described in detail. Her claim that she was not told about waterboarding at that briefing, he writes, “is untrue.”

“We explained that as a result of the techniques, Abu Zubaydah was compliant and providing good intelligence. We made crystal clear that authorized techniques, including waterboarding, had by then been used on Zubaydah.” Rodriguez writes that he told Pelosi everything, adding, “We held back nothing.”

Why is this important? A few years ago David Limbaugh wrote a book called, BANKRUPT, The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today’s Democratic Party. The book details the recent history of the Democrat Party playing politics with important matters of national security. I strongly recommend it, although it did make me very angry.

Because the reports of the briefing of Speaker Pelosi including the information in question remain classified, there is no way of confirming either Ms. Pelosi’s or Mr. Rodriguez’s story. It would help all Americans if those documents were de-classified.

 

Some Background Information On The Student Loan Interest Debate

Posted on by

To listen to the President now, you would think that all students are going to be bankrupted in two months and it will be the Republicans’ fault. Well, I don’t know how many students will be bankrupted, but the history doesn’t line up with the current story line.

On March 8, 2010, the Wall Street Journal posted an article entitled, “The Other Government Takeover.” The article explained that the Higher Education Act was an add-on to the Obamacare bill.

The article reports some of the details of the Higher Education Act:

…(The act would) ban private companies from offering federally guaranteed student loans as of this July. Congress has already passed laws in recent years discouraging private lenders from making loans without a federal guarantee. But most college financial-aid departments still want private companies to originate and service the guaranteed loans. That’s because the alternative—a public option run by the Department of Education—has been distinguished by its Soviet-style customer service.

Unfortunately, the Higher Education Act passed, along with Obamacare.

An article posted at Heritage.org provides some background on the current flap about the interest on these loans:

After gaining control of Congress in 2007, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. George Miller (D-CA) championed H.R. 2669, legislation that only temporarily phased down interest rates for subsidized Stafford Loans made to undergraduate students over four academic years, at which point the rate would revert back to 6.8 percent.… [E]xtending the 3.4% interest rate on subsidized Stafford Loans made to undergraduate students for one year would cost roughly $6 billion.

This current ‘crisis’ was set up!

Heritage further reports:

Debate over interest rate hikes are part of a larger problem with federal involvement and ever-increasing subsidies for higher education. The cost of attending college has increased 439 percent since 1982 (after adjusting for inflation). Continuing to increase federal subsidies hasn’t helped reduce college costs and has likely exacerbated the problem over the decades.

Maybe we should consider the fact that as student loan money has increased, the cost of college has increased. The fact that there has been a 439 percent increase in the cost of attending college in thirty-years (even after adjusting for inflation) should tell us something.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

He Who Pays The Piper Calls The Tune

Posted on by

As Nancy Pelosi stated, “We need to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.” Well, there is another ‘what’s in it’ that is more than a little troubling. Power LIne posted an article yesterday about a provision in the Obamacare bill that provides prenatal testing. Sounds good, unless you take a closer look.

A website called The Public Discourse posted an article last year on the impact of prenatal testing for Down Syndrome.

The article pointed out:

Discussions of HHS’s new regulation have focused on the required availability of free contraceptive services under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The regulation is the result of HHS’s adopting, in its entirety, the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) report on Clinical Preventive Services for Women. Buried in the IOM report is the recommendation for no-cost well-woman visits; these visits include prenatal care—and thus prenatal testing for “genetic or developmental conditions.” The regulation was issued as part of the PPACA’s coverage of preventive services. This prompts the question, how does prenatal testing prevent Down syndrome?

The IOM report defines preventive services “to be measures . . . shown to improve wellbeing, and/or decrease the likelihood or delay the onset of targeted disease or condition.” Down syndrome occurs at conception. Prenatal testing simply identifies whether a pregnancy is positive for Down syndrome—a prenatal diagnosis after which most women choose to terminate their pregnancy. A prenatal test does not decrease the likelihood of Down syndrome in a person; it does allow for a decreased likelihood of a person with Down syndrome surviving beyond the womb. If this is how HHS is justifying prenatal testing for Down syndrome as preventive care, then HHS has ushered in a program meant to target future children like Juliet.

If you are shaking your head and saying it won’t be a problem, keep reading.

The targeted elimination of people with Down syndrome is, in fact, the goal of other countries that have adopted nationwide prenatal testing programs—a goal some other countries are now realizing. Indeed, according to the Copenhagen Post, Denmark “could be a country without a single citizen with Down’s syndrome in the not too distant future,” due to its nationwide prenatal screening program, in place since 2004.

This is not where we want to be as a nation. Remember that since the government is paying the bill, they will recommend the treatment.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Backlash From The Catholic Church

Posted on by

The Catholic Church has come out strongly in protest of the recent ruling announced by Heath and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on January 20.

As I previously reported (rightwinggranny.com):

The Health and Human Services Department recently announced it will require all employers (with few exceptions) to provide health insurance to their employees which includes subsidized contraception, sterilization and coverage for abortion-inducing drugs.

This meant that religious institutions, like Catholic colleges and hospitals, or other Christian institutions would  be compelled to violate their conscience by cooperating with that which they believe to be wrong. Currently many of these institutions purchase health-insurance plans which do not provide free coverage of these services. 

This ruling matters to you even if you are not Catholic–everyone’s freedom to practice (or not practice) the religion of their choice is now under attack.

CNS News reported today that Representative Nancy Pelosi has stated:

Pelosi: “First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it.”

The Catholic Church has released a statement stating:

“In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing do). The Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

“We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law.”

Nothing this political happens by accident. I can’t help but wonder what the motive of the Obama Administration is in starting this fight at this time. I know that many Catholics do not agree with their Church on the subject of birth control, but many Catholics share the Church’s believe on abortion. This needs to be watched–there may be more coming that will impact other people of faith.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Another Inconvenient Truth

Posted on by
English: Nancy Pelosi photo portrait as Speake...

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday Real Clear Politics posted an article containing a quote from Nancy Pelosi regarding Newt Gingrich:

“There is something I know. The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him that’s their prerogative. I don’t even think that’s going to happen.”

Aside from the blackmail and veiled threat aspect of this statement, there are a few other aspects that need to be examined.

Newt has responded to Ms. Pelosi before:

“First of all, I want to thank Speaker Pelosi for what I regard as an early Christmas gift,” he said at a press conference in New York.

“Well, if she suggested that she’s going to use material that she developed when she was on the ethics committee, that is a fundamental violation of the rules of the House and I would hope that members would immediately file charges against her the second she does it,” he continued. “I think it shows you how capriciously political that committee was when she was on it.”

Byron York posted an article at the Washington Examiner yesterday detailing what happened in the House investigation of Newt Gingrich in the 1990’s. Please follow the link to the article and read the details. The bottom line is that this was a political witch hunt driven by a man who had lost an election to Newt Gingrich (Ben Jones) and had a bone to pick. I also think that part of the problem was that Newt was a threat to both the Republican and Democrat establishment and neither one liked the changes he was making. I have not yet made up my mind who I am supporting in the Republican Primaries, but the fact that Newt is a threat to the Washington establishment works for him rather than against him in my book.

This is a quote from the Byron York article that describes the events that led to the end of Newt’s term as Speaker of the House:

Two days before Election Day 1994, with defeat in sight, Jones hand-delivered a complaint to the House ethics committee (the complaint was printed on “Ben Jones for Congress” stationery). Jones asked the committee to investigate the college course, alleging that Gingrich “fabricated a ‘college course’ intended, in fact, to meet certain political, not educational, objectives.” Three weeks later, Jones sent the committee 450 pages of supporting documents obtained through the Georgia Open Records Act.

That was the beginning of the investigation. Stunned by their loss of control of the House — a loss engineered by Gingrich — House Democrats began pushing a variety of ethics complaints against the new Speaker. Jones’ complaint was just what they were looking for.

At some point Americans have to grow up and do their own research. To accept blindly the charges being leveled at Newt Gingrich is naive at best and dangerous to the electoral process at worst. In recent years, the media has been working in concert with the Democrat Party on the politics of personal destruction. They have been very successful. If we the public continue to allow that to happen, a lot of good candidates will decide not to run for office. We need to remember that when President Obama won his election for the Senator from Illinois he did it by exposing highly personal irrelevant information on his major opponents in order to drive them out of the race. That has been his strategy in the past, we need to prevent him from using that strategy in the future. It is our job as voters to be careful what we believe and to refuse to accept blindly what we are told is the truth.,

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

Keeping It All In Perspective

Posted on by
The Hawaii State Capitol.Picture taken from at...

Image via Wikipedia

On Saturday, the Hawaii Reporter reported that while President Obama and his family are enjoying an estimated $4,113,038 vacation in Hawaii at taxpayer expense, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is also visiting Hawaii. Ms. Pelosi is spending her Christmas at the exotic Four Seasons Resort Hualalai at Historic Ka’upulehu in Kona on the island of Hawaii, at a cost of $10,000 a night. There has been a bit of a ruckus on some internet sites about this, but I am here to offer a different perspective.

Ms. Pelosi is married to a very successful businessman. Admittedly, there may have been some interesting aspects of Congress throwing business his way or insider trading, but the fact remains that he is a successful businessman. In my mind, he (and his wife) have earned the right to stay in a $10,000 a night hotel room. Good for them. Her visit has cost the local taxpayers in Hawaii $34,000 for police escorts, but again, as a Congresswoman, she is entitled to security.

When President Bush left Washington on vacation, most of the time he went to his ranch in Texas or his father’s house in Maine. The expense to the taxpayer was minimal. President Obama is a very expensive President. At a time when many taxpayers can’t even afford to go out to dinner and the government is in serious deficit, it seems a little excessive for the President to spend more than $4 million dollars on a vacation.

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

The Most Dangerous Position For An American Right Now Is To Be The Frontrunner In The Republican Race For The Presidency

Posted on by
 

Yesterday The Hill posted a story about a recent statement by former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Ms. Pelosi told Talking Points Memo:

“One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich. When the time is right. … I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.”

Well, Newt responded quickly:

Gingrich reacted to Pelosi’s comments by thanking her for an “early Christmas gift.” 

He also said Pelosi would be violating House rules and abusing the ethics process if she disclosed anything from the ethics investigation.

“That is a fundamental violation of the rules of the House,” Gingrich said in New York following a meeting with Donald Trump. “She’s now prepared to totally abuse the ethics process.”

Releasing the material would show the “tainted ethics process the House was engaged in,” Gingrich said.

Ms. Pelosi then had to backtrack–her spokesman stated:

Responding to Gingrich’s comments, a spokesman for Pelosi said the former Speaker was “clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware.” 

A spokesman for the House Ethics Committee declined to comment on “current rules in the context of allegations concerning past conduct, or hypothetical future conduct governed by past rules.”

I don’t have a favorite among the current top three in the Republican primaries, but this incident indicates how much we need a candidate who not only knows and understands the law, but it willing to respond strongly when smeared. We all know that Newt has baggage. We also know that he was cleared on all but one of the charges brought against him. We also know that the whole ethics controversy was about politics-not eithics.

The other candidates need to take notes on how Newt handled this attack–they may need those notes for future reference.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Should Religion Influence Our Society ?

Posted on by

CNS News is reporting today on former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s recent comments about CatholicBishops:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) on Thursday described America’s Roman Catholic bishops as “lobbyists in Washington, D.C.” in their efforts to persuade the Department of Health and Human Service to rescind a proposed regulation under the new health-care law that would require all health care plans to cover sterilizations and all-FDA approved contraceptives, including abortifacients.

This statement shows a total lack of understanding of the role the clergy has played in American history and the role of the church as a positive influence on the culture and on the government. The American church was a major force in the ending of slavery. The church in America has a history of voicing its opinion on social and more issues.

The article reports that Obamacare would not continue the current religious exemption granted to Catholic hospitals and Catholic charities regarding birth control and abortion–the hospitals and charities would have to provide both. That means that these organizations would have to either drop health insurance for their workers or provide services that are against their faith.

The article reports:

At an Oct. 4 fundraiser in St. Louis, Obama bragged about the new regulation that will require all health plans to cover contraceptives without any co-pay.

“No longer can insurance companies discriminate against women just because you guys are the ones who have to give birth,” Obama said.

An audience member than called out: “Darn right!”

Obama answered in turn: “Darin tooting,” he said.  “They have to cover things like mammograms and contraception as preventive care, no more out-of-pocket costs.”

Unless the administration rescinds the proposed regulation, it will go into affect on Aug. 1, 2012.

Catholic Bishops are not lobbyists–they are religious leaders concerned about the moral condition of the culture. They need to be respected and listened to when they speak about laws that go against their religious beliefs.

Enhanced by Zemanta

“Throw Them All Out”

Posted on by
Seal of the Speaker of the United States House...

Image via Wikipedia

“Throw Them All Out” is the name of a recent book by Peter Schweizer. It deals with insider trading and crony capitalism in our government. There are multiple stories on the internet about this book and its information, my sources are CBN News and Big Government.

CBN cites the following examples:

When California Democrat Nancy Pelosi was House speaker in 2008, she got preferred treatment to invest in a credit card company at the same time Congress was considering credit card legislation.

Another former House speaker, Republican Dennis Hastert, returned to his home state of Illinois after making millions on a land deal that involved a congressional earmark.

Big Government reports:

Media Matters has offered up a ridiculous post that tries to distort the fundamental facts about Barack Obama’s green energy program. I hesitated whether to even comment on it because they fail in the basic tenets of honest journalism. George Soros is a large contributor to Media Matters.

The article at Big Government lists the approved loans to green energy companies that included major fund raisers for the Obama campaign. All of these loans did not go through for various reasons, but all were approved.

I’m not really supporting the idea of throwing them all out. There were some Congressmen elected in 2010 that are not involved in this sort of thing. There are also some Congressmen that have been there for a while who have not used their offices for personal gain. We need to make sure we differentiate between those who have been dishonest and those who have not. I am, however, willing to throw anyone out who has profited because of insider knowledge or has used their office for personal gain. We just need to make sure we do our homework before we throw anyone out of office!

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Is Simply Disturbing

Posted on by
Boeing 747-400 displaying the post-1997 Speedm...

Image via Wikipedia

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted a story yesterday about comments Representative Nancy Pelosi made about the Boeing plant that is attempting to open in South Carolina.

The article reports:

In an interview late last week, House Minority Leaeder Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told CNBC that Boeing should either unionize its production facilities in South Carolina, or shut them down entirely.

“Do you think it’s right that Boeing has to close down that plant in South Carolina because it’s non union?” asked host Maria Bartiromo. Pelosi’s reply: “Yes.”

The minority leader quickly added that she would rather it simply unionize and stay open. But barring unionization, by Pelosi’s reasoning, it should simply shut down.

Mr. Morrissey also points out:

Pelosi may or may not know that workers at the South Carolina plant in question voted resoundingly (199-68) to decertify their union two years ago. Government policies that would close the plant for being a non-union shop would simply be punishing those workers for exercising their right to determine union representation for themselves.

As long as the Democrat leadership is in the pockets of the unions, it will be very hard to shrink the size of government and turn the economy around. The workers in South Carolina voted not to unionize. That should have been the end of the story. It is unfortunate that the union-bought Obama Administration chose to get involved through the National Labor Relations Board. We need to understand that even if the plant in South Carolina eventually opens, the amount of time and money spent on the legal battle to open the plant will be a lesson to other companies seeking to open plants in right-to-work states. Again, we need to take a good look at where political money is coming from and vote out anyone being heavily funded by unions.

Enhanced by Zemanta

About That ‘Civility’ Thing

Posted on by

Hot Air posted an article today about the attempt by Republicans in the House of Representative to make sure that there is no federal funding of abortion under Obamacare (assuming Obamacare is not overturned in the courts or repealed by a new Congress or President).

The article reports:

On the House floor today, in disgustingly disingenuous fashion, Nancy Pelosi smeared the intent behind the Protect Life Act, which aims to ensure that no funds authorized or appropriated by Obamacare may be used to pay for abortion or abortion coverage and also reinstates conscience protections for pro-life medical workers.

The exact quote in question:

“For a moment, I want to get back to what was asked about the issue on the floor today that Mr. Hoyer addressed. He made a point and I want to emphasize it. Under this bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene if this bill is passed. It’s just appalling.”

Just for the record, that is not what the bill is about. The conscience protections for pro-life medical workers have been undermined by the Obama administration. The Protect Life Act seeks to bring these protections back to where they were before the Obama administration changed them.

A website called “Freedom2Care” reports:

October 13, 2011

News reports are highlighting the fact that suddenly “…the federal government is mandating that all private health insurance plans cover contraceptives and sterilization services [including the “morning after pill–Plan B” or the “ella” drug that can end the life of a developing human being]  free of charge. “Organizations that provide insurance to their employees will be forced to cover such services, even if they object. The effect is that the cost of these ‘free’ services will be shifted to plan participants through higher premiums both to employees in employer sponsored plans, and to individuals in the individual insurance market.”

If we are to be a truly free society, then the rights of those people with religious beliefs have to be respected as well as the rights of those people who do not share those beliefs. This mandate on private health insurance plans does not respect the rights of those people with religious convictions. I have no problem with having healthcare providers providing whatever medical services are requested. I do have a problem with the idea that the wishes of those with religious convictions are being ignored and overridden.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Defunding The Cats So The Mice Can Play

Posted on by
US-GeneralAccountingOffice-Seal

Image via Wikipedia

At the end of September, the Washington Examiner posted an article about attempts by the Democrats in the Senate to defund the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The GAO is a non-partisan group that looks for government waste.

The article reports:

Seven months ago, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a landmark report identifying at least $200 billion in wasteful, duplicative, and fraudulent government programs.

This is simply downright inconvenient. The article reports the Democrat response to this information:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, said the report, “shows all kinds of redundancies and overlapping.  Those are places we can cut money.  Let’s do it.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, agreed.: “Again, we all agree we have to get rid of waste, fraud, abuse, duplication, obsolescence, and the rest. The GAO has given us a blueprint for that, and we subscribe to that.  We all agree that we must reduce the deficit, and the fiscal commission has given us a road map for that.  We can agree or disagree with some of it; but the fact is it gives us a blueprint for how to go forward, and we should take heed of that.”

Yet, in the last seven months, Congress has failed to send a single cut identified by GAO to the president’s desk.  Even worse, instead of cutting the spending identified by GAO, the Senate Appropriations Committee is now proposing to slash funding for GAO itself.

Somehow that is not surprising. Congress has not passed a budget in more than two years, despite being required by law to do so. Please follow the link to the Washington Examiner to see the games the Democrats in the Senate are playing with the GAO in an attempt to avoid being held accountable for their runaway spending.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Government Does Not Create Jobs

Posted on by
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States Hou...

Image via Wikipedia

The government does not create jobs. If the government is working well, it creates an environment where the private sector can create jobs.

However, some of the rhetoric coming out of Congress right now is amazing. Howie Carr at the Boston Herald posted an article today on some recent statements by Representative Nancy Pelosi on the economy. The article reports some of her statements:

Late last month, at a fund-raiser in her hometown of San Francisco, she discussed those wonderful days of 2007, when the Democrats retook control of the House and raised the minimum wage. It hadn’t been increased for a decade.

“It was kept down for the purpose that people would not be able to live on that. They’d have to borrow against home-equity loans, against their mortgages.”

“They’d have to live on credit cards, and what are they doing when they’re doing that? They’re paying fees to the banks.”

“You wonder, do their children breathe? Do they drink water? Why do they not care? But they don’t. But they don’t.”

“Imagine that they are protecting the tax cuts for top 2 percent, it’s really more higher than that, lower than that, I mean a higher number — percentage of people excluded for who they’re looking out for.”

“And it’s a stunning thing because it’s a few people amassing money that doesn’t really make a difference in their quality of life.”

“What more do they want? They have enough homes, the yacht, ya-da-da-da, the tall masts, the whole thing, they have museum-quality art.”

“They want immortality. They want so much money . . . for prestige they could never get any other way.”

Ms. Pelosi made additional comments today on why the unemployment numbers are low. The Hill reports:

“We cannot afford another 241 days of Republican refusal to pass jobs legislation,” Pelosi said in a statement. “The only plans offered by Republicans have not only failed to create jobs — they actually have destroyed them.” 

I don’t like to confuse things with facts, but the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate up until January of this year. The Democrats still control the Senate and the Republicans do not have the numbers to block any legislation. The Republicans in the House have passed budget and plans for the deficit. The only budget suggested by the Democrats was suggested by the President an voted down unanimously.


 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta