Democrat versus Democrat

As we near the end of a President’s reign, especially an unpopular one, the members of the President’s party start to go their own way. This can range from simply talking about new issues that had been de-prioritized by the current administration to actively attacking the lame duck President. The Democrats are in the middle of that at the moment, and it’s going to cause them serious problems. Observe...

Here are some big examples of recent attacks by Democrats on Obama:

(1) Sen. Chuck “Chuckles” Schumer came out and basically blasted the Democratic obsession with Obamacare. He noted that this was not what was concerning the public at the time and he suggested that putting their eggs in this basket made the Democrats seem out of touch. He also suggested other problems with the law and he blamed it for destroying the Democrats in the midterm elections. Chuck seems to be setting himself up as a “prominent critic” of Obamacare... the only possibly positive legacy Obama has.

(2) Sen. “Dingy” Harry Reid is apparently on the verge of cutting a deal with Republicans to put in place $400 billion (over 10 years) in tax breaks. The White House has had no input into this and actually rallied liberals to kill the bill... after a veto threat. Think about that: a veto threat aimed at something Harry Reid is trying to pass!

(3) Sen. Robert “Illegal Fundraiser” Menendez has been working with Republicans to shape a new sanctions bill against Iran, despite Obama trying to play the “carrot only” game with Iran... and despite Obama claiming that GOP fears about Iran are paranoia.

(4) Obama wants to enact trade deals with Europe and the Pacific Rim countries to lower trade barriers. The Democrats are freaking out about this and are attacking the proposals as bad for American workers.

(5) Harry Reid’s aide David Krone has publicly blamed Team Obama for their losses in November... and aides never speak publicly without permission.

(6) Mary Landrieu attacked Obama over the Keystone Pipeline and arranged a vote to try to pass it over his objections. She fell only one vote short in the Senate. After her 12 point loss last week, she and others blamed Obama for failing to support her.

(7) Several Democrats, especially talking heads, have been positively freaking out about Obama’s immigration order. Others on the left are angered that he didn’t go any further. No one is happy and no one is staying silent.

(8) Lots of leftists and black race baiters are attacking Obama for not doing/saying more about Ferguson... or New York.

All of this is typical and means the Democrats are engaged in at least a low grade civil war. That’s rarely good. What makes this even worse though, is that this was isn’t about ideas, it’s about finger pointing, i.e. they all want to blame someone else for the party’s recent failures. At least in ideological battles like the GOP just fought, you have the chance to fix the things that went wrong rather than just whine that it was everyone else’s fault. Here the goal is basically just to pass the blame.

That said, there is an ideological component brewing in this fight and it’s one that is potentially highly destructive....

I wrote about the decimation of their princelings recently and in that discussion I noted that the Democrats seem to be making a mistake embracing those people in the first place. Specifically, by elevating a bunch of women, blacks, Hispanics and gays to the leadership positions to replace the boring looking/sounding white males who currently are “the face of the party,” the Democrats appear to be sacrificing their ability to pretend that they still are the party of mostly-conservative white working class males. Right now, with soft-spoken old white guys like Harry Reid (who claims to be a devoutly religious farmer who loves hunting) as the face of the party, the Democrats are able to sell the idea that they are not as urban, not as ethnic, not as anti-traditional values as they really are. But by swapping urban blacks, women, gays and Hispanics for the likes of Harry Reid, they are losing the carefully staged images they need to push this lie. In my opinion, that will cost them in rural America.

Anyways, adding to this, I am now seeing lots of articles being written by leftists who are arguing that the Democrats can no longer claim to have any real support among “working class whites,” and that they should accept this and openly embrace an agenda that better fits their new core, i.e. feminists, race baiters, gays and minorities.

I cannot tell you how much I hope they buy into this advice and change the image of their party. If they do, they will lose another 10% of the white vote, plus they will struggle with Hispanics and Asians (the fastest growing group of immigrants), who very much want the American dream... not the welfare dependency substitute.

It’s going to be fascinating to see how this plays out, particularly as all the old “moderate” Democrats fade away after being destroyed by Pelosi’s banzai charges and then Obamacare, and the face of the party becoming increasingly urban-ideological. If they also embrace a far-left urban agenda, they could well destroy themselves.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Who Needs Jobs Anyway?

Suppose I told you of an economic plan that would add $600 billion every year to the world economy, $200 billion of which would come directly into the US economy. In 10 year speak, that’s more than $2 trillion into the US economy... about 2.5 times the amount of the Obama stimulus, and this money would grow out of the economy rather than being borrowed so it could be pumped in. Sounds like something anyone would jump on, right? Yeah, good luck with that.

The agreement in question is the “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership,” a sort of free trade agreement with Japan which would open up the service sector of both countries to free trade as well as doing some things for agriculture.

The Japanese want it. America wants it. Even Team Obama want it... probably because they need to start producing jobs unless he wants to be known as The Unemployment President. So why isn’t it happening?

Well, Obama has never made trade agreements a priority. In fact, like all the import parts of his job, they bore him. But now he’s working diligently (or at least his people are), and they’ve come up with several deals or potential deals. Several of these are estimated to be at least as valuable as the TTIP.

BUT there is a problem. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (the new darling of the fringe... think about that for a moment), don’t want any stinkin’ trade agreements. And to keep that from happening, Reid has denied Obama “fast-track” authority to negotiate these deals. The fast-track authority lets the President submit these treaties to the Congress in a yes/no fashion with no amendments. Without that authority, no one will sign on the dotted line with us because they would be making all kinds of politically unpopular compromises only to have us say, “Gee, that’s great, now we need to run this through Congress and see what the retard from Arkansas wants to add.” Only a fool would negotiate with anyone who doesn’t have the authority to stand behind their promises.

So because of Harry Reid, several billion dollars that could be added to the economy are missing. Of course, this is nothing new. The Democrats have always been protectionist because their party is about protecting inefficiency rather than fixing it. Heck, with things like Obamacare they’ve even crossed over into the business of actively promoting inefficiency.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Single-Payer Paranoia Vindicated? Hardly

Well, I know what talk radio will be screaming about today: “HARRY REID ADMITTED THAT OBAMACARE IS A TROJAN HORSE FOR A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM!! DIRTY REPUBLICANS COLLABORATORS!” Of course, that’s not what Reid said, but that's how certain people want to spin it. What he said was pretty interesting though and has some interesting implications. Let's discuss.

Here’s what happened. Reid was interviewed by PBS on Friday about Obamacare. He was asked if his goal was to get America into a single-payer system. His answer was: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

OMG!! I KNEW IT, BOEHNER AND THE RINOS BETRAYED US something something OBAMACARE!

cough cough Sorry, that slipped out.

Anyways, it's never been a secret that progressives want a European-style single-payer system... because that works so well. //rolls eyes. And Reid explained that when they started with Obamacare, they wanted to impose a single-payer system, but they didn’t have the votes. So they instead tried to insert a public option into Obamacare, which would have eventually caused a single-payer system because private insurers can’t compete against a government-run insurer and they would have all been driven out of the system. But again, they didn’t have the votes, particularly after Joe Lieberman opposed it. At that point, they needed to pass something because they had hung their hats on delivering healthcare reform. Reid didn't say this part, but it was obvious: Obamacare would be their only achievement despite having a supermajority, so failing to deliver something would have been suicide. Hence, they abandoned the single-payer idea and they passed the Insurance Company Subsidy Act known as Obamacare.

Reid then described Obamacare as “a step in the right direction,” the phrase you'll hear misinterpreted over and over today with orgasmic delight both on the right: "OMG!! HE CALLED IT A STEP! SEE, IT'S ALL PART OF A FIENDISH PLAN!! FARGLE FARGLE KNEW IT ALL THE TIME, GODD*MN BOEHNER TRAITOR buy my book" and on the left: "Nondenominational Hallelujah! Nondenominational Hallelujah!". Willful idiocy aside however, what this really was is face-saving. Obamacare is not what Reid wanted. To the contrary, it actually makes a single-payer system much less likely. But what was Reid going to say? “Yeah, that thing we passed and told you was great... it sucks donkey balls and boy was it a mistake.” -- Harry Reid. No way. He can't admit that they blew their chance to give his constituents what they want. So he made standard noises about this being a step in the right direction humma humma, but never fear, we know what the ultimate goal is and we'll get there blah blah blah.

Now, this is where it gets interesting. Reid made it clear that his goal remains a single-payer system, and to make that happen, he said they need to find a way to “work our way past” insurance-based systems. Think about that. To get a single-payer, they need to break the public away from insurance. BUT, Obamacare goes the other way and entrenches the current health insurance model even further because it forces employers to provide insurance or face fines and it forces individuals to buy insurance or face fines. In other words, it tries to make everyone get into and become accustomed to the insurance system. That’s a bit like someone whose goal is to stop people from eating meat forcing everyone to buy ten years worth of McDonald's gift certificates. Thus, by passing Obamacare, Reid made it much, much harder for them to ever get a single-payer system. In effect, Obamacare is more like a Trojan condom preventing a single-payer plan than a Trojan horse meant to cause it.

Of course, talk radio has already worked out how this is all part of the master plan to bring about the Boehner/Obama Single Payer System. See, Reid and the Democrats know that Obamacare will fail, they're actually counting on it. Their fiendishly clever plan in passing Obamacare was to make insurance so expensive that no one will be able to afford it. Then those suckers, the American public, will naturally join hands in union and ask Obama/Reid to fix the system they just ruined. It's manical! DAMN YOU RINOS!!

Devious, isn't it? Yeah, it's also retarded. Humans don't go back to the person who broke something through their own incompetence and beg them to double down on their solutions... "Please sir, can we find a bigger cliff." Doesn't happen. Look it up. What actually happens is people turn to their opponents and say, "That other guy is a dipsh*t. You fix it." Seriously, do you really think that the people who will lose their insurance over the next couple years, or those who will find themselves unfairly fined, or those doctors and hospitals who find that even more of their bills go unpaid are going to turn to Obama/Reid to double-down on the thing that just caused their problem? Hardly.

That "theory" also fundamentally misunderstands how Obamacare works. Obamacare is the insurance exchanges... that's it, but more than 71% of the public gets their insurance elsewhere (this could be as high as 87% actually). If the exchanges completely implode or their rates skyrocket, the 71% who get their insurance through work won't be affected at all. Thus, they sure as heck aren't going to go to anyone and beg that Obamacare be fixed by wiping out the private insure they continue to enjoy and overwhelmingly report being happy with. "Please sir, take what has been working for me and toss me into that mess you just created." The 17% who currently buy their own insurance and will probably be forced into the exchanges aren't going to ask for a single-payer system either. They're going to want a return to what they had... before Obama ruined it for them. The 11% currently uninsured are likewise made up of people whose sole concern will probably be to get the fines cancelled. Most of them aren't going to care about universal coverage and they aren't going to be in the best mood if Obama comes calling with a new solution. The insurance companies aren't going to ask to be wiped out either. Doctors aren't going to ask to be made de facto employees of the state. Heck, even unions now see the danger of universal coverage. So where exactly is this wave of Americans who will come begging Obama to rape them even harder this time? That wave starts and stops with around the 7% of the public that is leftist ideological and maybe about 5 million people who are uninsurable... that's it. Everybody else is going to want to go in the other direction.

You know, now might be a good time to start suggesting an alternative path actually... something other than the awful and many-times-rejected "let insurers compete across state lines."

Oh well. Go enjoy the idiocy because I'm sure they'll be in fine form today. Just don't take it internally. Remember that when they tell you that ObamaBoehnerCare is the most fiendishly clever plan Saul Alinsky ever invented, that they are ignoring the fact that both Reid's Plan A and Plan B failed, that Obamacare was all he could get, and that it actually entrenches the system Reid needs to destroy to achieve his goal. That's hardly a master plan, except perhaps in the eyes of a Marxist... a Groucho Marxist.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obamacare Update No. 437

It’s time for another Obamacare update. This thing truly is a gift to bloggers. Today’s theme in the slow motion train wreck of Obamacare is “That’s not fair!”

● The First 49,000: When Obama pimped his plan to destroy our healthcare system, he promised over and over: “If you like your healthcare, you can keep it.” That was a lie, as people are now learning. Aetna announced Saturday that they will stop selling individual insurance in California because of the new regulations imposed under Obamacare (they will still sell business policies). They will cancel around 49,000 policies. No comment from California.

● That’s Not Fair!! I: It turns out that Obamacare has a problem. It’s not affordable for low income people. To make the insurance “affordable,” the amount an employer can pass on to employees is capped at 9.5% of their income. Well, it turns out that this is way too high for most people. Take the case of a restaurant worker who makes $21,000 a year. That 9.5% works out to $1,995 or $166.25 per month – and that’s before the $3,000+ deductible they will need to pay before the insurance kicks in. For someone who most likely lives paycheck to paycheck, that is not something they can afford. Indeed, we are suddenly awash in articles pointing out all the people in the restaurant, retail, hotel and service industries who can’t afford the insurance. The service employee unions are furious.

Even worse, they are now discovering that employers can get around Obamacare by offering expensive plans that require the full 9.5%. This keeps them from being fined because they actually comply with the law by offering the insurance, but they don’t end up paying for it because none of the employees will sign up. (As an aside, no one has recognized this yet, but this will destroy the Obamacare funding mechanism.) Even more hilariously, those employees then cannot get subsidies because their jobs technically offer plans. Ha ha. Nice work donks! Way to punish your supporters.

● That’s Not Fair!! II: Reuters just discovered something dastardly which no one could have seen coming... except Obamacare critics. Employers are finding ways to avoid providing insurance:

● A survey of 52 Wal-Mart stores found that 27 were only hiring temps, 5 weren’t hiring, and 20 were hiring a combination. And it turns out there is a company directive to hire as many people as possible as temps.... because they don’t qualify for insurance. They are also planning to cut back hours on others so they don’t qualify. Liberals are shocked and called this “creepy” (noting specifically that Wal-Mart lobbied for this, so they don’t understand why Wal-Mart would do this), and they claim it will backfire in some non-specific way. This is going on all across the country right now.

● Obamacare requires that insurers cover people’s kids until they turn 26... but it says nothing about spouses. The result is that policies are springing up everywhere that exclude the employee’s spouse – an alternate form allows the spouse on the policy, but only if they are primarily covered by insurance at their own workplace. The idea is to get employees to shift onto their spouse’s policy so the employer doesn’t need to cover them.

● Employers are instituting requirements in policies that allow the employer to force the employee to seek a second opinion before they can do anything expensive. There are actually firms that specialize in “finding savings” by talking employees into less expensive options. Sounds like the mob: “Be a real shame if something happened to your colon...”

● That’s Not Fair!! II: “This is simply not fair,” whined Democrat John Larson (Conn). What was he talking about? Chuck Grassley slipped a provision into Obamacare which requires Congressional staffers to suffer with the rest of us by seeking insurance through an exchange rather than getting the gold-plated government plan they get now. Apparently, this has deeply upset the poor dears and they are headed for the exists. This has led to fears of a “brain drain” on Capitol Hill... which isn’t possible as no one on Capitol Hill has a functioning brain. Trust me, zombies would never attack Congress.

Anyway, the Democrats are demanding a fix. After all, they shouldn’t be forced to endure the things they force upon us! That “is simply not fair!” The initial reports were that Boehner was onboard with fixing this as there is bipartisan upsettedness over this. But Boehner shot that one down. Said his spokesmonkey:

“The speaker would like to see resolution of this problem, along with the other nightmares created by Washington Democrats’ health law, which is why he supports full repeal. In the meantime, it is Democrats’ problem to solve. He will not sneak any language into bills to solve it for them — and the Democratic leadership knows that.”

Excellent Mr. Boehner! In light of this, Harry Reid has grumbled that there will be no legislative fix... “And cancel Christmas!” He is, however, hoping that OPM will rule that the Feds can contribute to these plans on behalf of those staffers – something which isn’t clear yet.

This has been a fascinating discussion to watch because the Democrats are claiming how this is actually anti-reform to force the staffers onto Obamacare because the government program they were in is the better model of reform. Huh? Then why didn’t you make that law instead of Obamacare, you turds? In any event, this truly shows the elitist mentality and why no one would shed any tears if zombies did eat the Congress.

● Setting The Goal High: Most people typically set their goals higher than they can achieve to motivate themselves. Not Obamacare. Gary Cohen, who is involved in implementing the federal exchanges, says “As we move closer to October, my hopes are the range of things that could go wrong gets narrower and narrower.” In other words, he’s expecting problems and hoping they can be fixed as they go. How bad could these problems be? Fellow implementeer Henry Chao, put it this way: “Let’s just make sure it’s not a third-world experience.” Aim high, el Hefe.

● Rate Shock Continues: Finally, rate shock continues. In a private briefing of insurers, the big players conceded that rates are going to shock people. Said Aetna’s CEO:

“In some markets, insurance premiums could increase as high as 100 percent. And we’ve done all that math. We’ve shared it with all the regulators. We’ve shared it with all the people in Washington that need to see it. And I think it’s a big concern.”

UnitedHealth, WellPoint, Humana and Cigna have all said the same thing. They blame (1) the “community rating” which jacks up the costs on the young to pay for the old, (2) forcing higher “minimum actuarial values,” (3) forcing insurers to take anyone who applies, (4) HHS forcing them to include new benefits people wouldn’t normally pay for, and (5) a tax on premium insurance.

In an article this week, Forbes outlined these things and explained how the Republicans could win votes by fixing some of these problems. To put this kindly, that is F**KING WRONG!!! NO!! DO NOT TRY TO FIX THESE THINGS!!!

This is the problem with the Republicans historically. The Democrats pass some disaster of a bill and act all smug about it. The Republicans try to minimize the negative effects of the bill. In the process, they make it tolerable because they redirect the harm it does so that most people don’t get hurt. That takes away the pain. No pain, no learning. No learning, no desire to repeal. Meanwhile, the Democrats smear them for trying to undo the “noble thing” the Democrats passed even as they are thankful the Republicans are saving their butts. This needs to stop. The Democrats created a bill that will mock poor people by offering them insurance they cannot afford and then fining them for not taking it, that will allow big business like Wal-Mart to dump their healthcare, that will turn everyone into part-timers, that will force millions of people off the insurance they currently like, that will eat into the budgets of hundreds of millions of people, and which will eventually bankrupt states and insurers.

LET IT HAPPEN.

Do NOT let the Democrats off the hook. Make them face the wrath of the public for what they have done. Do not alleviate that wrath by sparing the public from the full brunt of the Democrat’s stupidity.

Fortunately, Boehner’s words give me hope that the Republicans are on to this: ”It is Democrats’ problem to solve.” Exactly.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Handling A Scandal

Who knew it was wrong to visit underage hookers in the Dominican Republic while lying about who paid for the trip to get you there? Oh, and did I mention that the person in question is a US Senator? Did you know the donor who paid $58,000 to make these trips happen via private jet is under criminal investigation for Medicare fraud? The Democratic Senator in question is New Jersey's Robert “Come here little girl” Menendez. The reason you haven’t heard much about this is what I want to talk about because this highlights several lessons the Republicans must learn.

● Media “Silence”: This scandal has been a virtual paradigm of how the MSM helps Democrats. Under normal circumstances, when someone is accused of a sex crime, the media can’t get enough. . . because they’re perverts and they love that stuff. Add in a political angle and you’re guaranteed to have “journalists” camping out before homes and chasing down limousines to get you pictures of the perv all the while using the word “alleged” to avoid legal problems. This time, however, there is near total silence.

Why? To put it simply, because the MSM would rather protect a kiddie-phile than be forced to unseat someone of their ideological liking.

But the MSM couldn’t get away with total silence, so what they’ve done is a rather fascinating bit of advocacy. First, the leftist New York Times ran an article saying that Menendez should lose his committee chairmanship in the Senate until this thing blows over. Notice that they didn’t call on him to resign, nor did they demand a witch burning, as they would have done had Menendez been anything other than a sitting Democratic powerbroker. The purpose of this article was two fold. First, it saved the reputation of the NYT in the event Menendez finally goes down because they can claim they were calling for his head from the beginning. . . even though they didn’t. At the same time, the article actually buys the Democrats time by suggesting that a pointless slap on the wrist is the appropriate punishment and it basically advocates referring this issue to committee. . . where all investigations go to be forgotten. In effect, they are telling the public to be placated if Menendez simply maintains a low profile until the thing blows over. But they are keeping their options open to claim they were after him should things turn ugly.

Meanwhile, fellow travelers like The Washington Post are running articles quoting unnamed sources who assure us that there is no truth to these allegations, that the allegations are politically motivated (even if true), and that there is nothing to see here. This is a classic whitewash.

● Harry Scumbag Reid: Harry Reid has handled this perfectly too. First, he has refused to say anything other than to repeat the mantra that this is under investigation and we need to learn the facts first. This does two things. First, it makes him sound like he is taking this serious at the same time he’s telling people that this is not a big deal. Yet, it also leaves the door open for him to jettison Menendez should things go wrong for Menendez. Moreover, by refusing to say anything more, he shifts the focus to the investigation itself, and with the investigators not talking, the story basically dies. . . as there are no journalists doing their own digging.

At the same time, you may notice that not another single Democrats has uttered a word about this. This is a lesson the Republicans really need to learn. Every lawyer knows this. . . when your client is in trouble, you shut up, you tell them to shut up, and you tell their friends to shut up. Why in the world Republicans always think they need to opine on any scandal against one of their own is beyond me, but it’s stupid. Seriously, if you can’t say anything good, then stay away from the microphone until it’s time to put a knife in the guy.

● Republican Silence: There are many lessons here for conservatives. First, follow Reid’s example when one of your own gets into trouble. Don’t volunteer to try the guy in the media. Don’t offer juicy quotes of support or condemnation. . . send it to committee unless you’re sure how it will turn out, and then act decisively with a total defense or a total condemnation.

Secondly, the MSM will never do their job when a Democrat is at risk, so it’s time for conservatives to develop their own journalists. The Democrats couldn’t hide this if there were a dozen real conservative journalists digging into this story and writing story after story about it. That would force them to respond, which will smoke out the Harry Reids and the Menendezes and force their hands before they are ready. Right now, there is no one doing this. . . conservatives just spin AP stories, they don’t investigate.

Third, where are the people screaming from the sidelines? This is perhaps the biggest lesson. If Menendez had been a Republican, every Democrat on Capitol Hill would have attacked this as illegal, disgusting and a breach of Congressional ethics. They would be filing complaints, demanding censure and demanding ouster. Every head of every interest group would be doing the same. Feminists would be screaming about the abuse of women. Child-advocates would be talking about the abuse of children. Immigrant groups would be talking about the abuse of foreigners. Child-sex people (con) would be out there screaming that Menendez is worse than Hitler. Child-sex people (pro) would be calling him a hypocrite. And it wouldn’t matter to these people if this was true or not, they would be screaming away. And if it turned out he wasn’t guilty, so what. . . they move on to the next target with no sense of shame.

So where are the conservative groups? No one on our side is screaming about him, disrupting his office or his press conferences, writing editorials, putting up billboards, whatever. Nada.

I think this is the result of several factors that need to change:

● Conservatives need to learn that politics is bloodsport and they need to learn to attack everything. You can’t kill an idea, but you can kill the messenger, so start aiming for the people. There are no points given for manners or nobility. Honor is for chumps.

● Despite the fact conservatives whine about the MSM, they bizarrely turn to the MSM at moments like this and trust that the MSM will “do it’s job.” This is sheer stupidity. Stop relying on institutions that oppose you. Conservatives need to become journalists and generate their own stories.

● The real issue, however, goes back to conservatives no longer caring about people. Conservatives are happy to talk about budgets and theory, but the moment they need to actually talk about a human being (and especially specific human beings) they clam up. For reasons I do not understand, conservatives just don’t like talking about things that make the blood boil or which are likely to upset people on a personal/emotional level. They dismiss this as a sideshow or as Jerry Springer. The truth is that these are the issues from which public perception is made. To give Menendez a pass is to help the Democrats maintain their image as non-corrupt and decent. It’s time conservatives start realizing that the public, like soylent green, is made from people, not robots, not computers, not economics or theologians. . . people. Reagan campaign guru Lee Atwater once said that he read the National Enquirer ever day because that helped him keep a pulse on what people are thinking. Conservatives need to put down the textbooks and start looking at what really matters to people.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Harry Reid Lies And Smears. . . Again

Harry Reid is a man without morals or shame, a man who will lie so blatantly that he doesn’t even care if people know he’s lying, just so long as he thinks his lies are having some effect. A couple weeks back, Dingy Harry started attacking Mitt Romney. At first this seemed strange since no one really cares what the bastard says. But it soon became clear he had been chosen by Obama to lead the smearing of Romney. Reid was likely chosen because he’s a Mormon and thus cannot be accused of being anti-Mormon.

In this instance, Reid claimed that Romney hasn’t paid taxes in ten years, which would be a felony -- and follows Obama’s allegations that Romney committed a felony by misreporting his management position at Bain. . . yawn. Oh, sorry. Where was I? Oh yes, then Reid suggested that Romney has “money hidden in Bermuda, the Caymans Islands, and a Swiss bank account.” He then attacked Romney through Romney’s father: “His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son.”

Harry’s claim about Romney is a lie. There’s no other way to put it. And Harry knows it’s a lie and that people will see it as a lie. So he doubled down and sent forth his winged monkeys to tell MSM journalists “off the record” that Harry learned this from a source at Bain Capital, a source Harry will not name, but whom Harry really believes. Yeah, right. And my “sources” tell me the following about Harry:

● Harry has sex with underage children who are not his wives.
● Harry keeps a dead hooker in his closet.
● Harry is hooked on blow and meth, and he gives handjobs for crack.
● Harry’s big into gay sex. . . with animals.
● Harry bathes in the blood of poor Mexican children for “health reasons.”
● Harry once killed a man. . . and ate him.
● Harry collects Nancy’s Pelosi’s dead skin and made a coat out of it.
● Harry’s mother was a jackal and is very disappointed in her lying son.

But Harry’s unusual proclivities are not the issue. Nor is the fact that Harry lied to slander Romney, nor that he did it on behalf of Obama. Harry is, after all, a Democrat and knowingly making false, slanderous allegations is about the only thing they are good at.

What the issue is, is the interesting response this false claim has gotten. In the past, the Republicans would have turned the other cheek or maybe even attacked Romney for not surrendering to Harry. This time they’re firing back:

● Romney himself said, “I have paid taxes every year, and a lot of taxes, so Harry is wrong. Harry Reid has to put up or shut up. Harry, who are you sources?”

● Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Reid’s conduct was “beneath the dignity” of the Majority Leader’s office.

● RNC Chair Reince Priebus said, “I’m not going to respond to a dirty liar who hasn’t filed a single page of tax returns himself [and] complains about people with money but lives in the Ritz Carlton. . . . This is just a made-up issue.”

● Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell called the allegations “reckless and slanderous.”

● Sen. Lindsey Graham called Reid a liar and said, “I think he’s making things up.” He further said:

“I just cannot believe that the Majority Leader of the United States Senate would take the floor twice, make accusations that are absolutely unfounded, in my view, and quite frankly, making things up to divert the campaign away from the real issues.”

● George Will said, “This is McCarthyism from the desert.”

But it wasn’t just Republicans blasting Reid either. ABC News’s Jonathan Karl blasted Reid as well:

“It’s one of the most outrageous charges that I’ve ever seen actually made on the Senate floor. When Harry Reid comes to the floor of the Senate and makes this outrageous charge that has absolutely no evidence — I mean, Mitt Romney paid $3.1 million to the IRS in the one tax return that we’ve seen so far. He paid taxes. It’s a completely false charge.”

Even Jon Stewart blasted Harry for this one. He called Reid’s comment about Romney’s father a “bullshit shot” and said, “Harry Reid is a really, really terrible person.”

Frankly, it sounds like this was a mistake by Reid. When even the MSM and Jon Stewart are questioning his veracity and his integrity, all he’s really achieved is damaging his own already-sordid reputation even more.

Interestingly, Harry believes he’s scoring points because he thinks he’s keeping the Romney “tax return issue” alive in the mind of the public. And in accordance with that belief, the Democrats pushed this meme this weekend as well. But the public doesn’t care. This issue will win zero votes and Romney continues to play it well by refusing to play along. In fact, contrary to Reid’s beliefs, the only thing Reid’s attacks have done is to get the Republicans to stop whining about Romney not releasing his taxes. Thanks Harry. . . you bastard.

In any event, Reid has made a huge mistake here. Romney will win this election and I think these are the kinds of abusive moments which will keep Romney from seeing Reid as someone he can work with. And that would make Reid’s comments the perfect example of Democratic policies -- trading long term harm for no short term gain. Sounds like the Obama years.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Democrats Use Supercommittee As Cash Machine

Surprise surprise, the Democrats are unethical and corrupt. . . just like we figured. Not only was it obscene that Harry “the turd” Reid appointed the Honorless Pat Murray to the new Supercommittee, but Nancy Pelosi’s selection, Xavier Becerra immediately set about trying to profit from being selected to the Supercommittee. Wow, Democrats are shameless.



The Supercommittee, as you may recall, will be charged with finding $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. This could include actual cuts or the elimination of special-interest-obtained tax deductions. That means thousands of lobbyists will want to get their paws on these Congresscritters and Senators to buy them off so their plundered spoils will continue to come pouring forth from the Treasury.



Apparently, the Democrats are happy to sell themselves to these lobbyists.



Indeed, when the committee names were first announced, Harry Reid’s selection of Washington State Senator Patty Murray seemed the most cynical. She is the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. That means she is charged with raising money to help Democratic Senators get re-elected in 2012. Giving her a post that will cause lobbyists to fight each other to the death for a place in line to buy her off is so incredibly cynical you wouldn’t think a modern American politician would actually try to get away with doing such a thing -- indeed, this harkens back to the days of the scandals of the 1880s, when politicians were openly bought and sold. But you would be wrong. Reid did it. Nice work Harry, you sh~t. . . oh, and #$%& you Nevada.



But Murray has been a paragon of virtue compared to Pelosi appointee Xavier Becerra (which means “corrupt bastard” in Spanish). Literally within two hours of being appointed, Becerra sent out an invitation to Wall Street lobbyists inviting them to a $1,500 per-ticket event. On the invite, he highlighted his membership on the Supercommittee:

“[Becerra is] not only vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus, but who also has just been named to the new deficit reduction committee. This will be Mr. Becerra’s first event since being named to the commission and may be one of the first for any of the twelve members of the group. This event could give all attendees a glimpse into what will most assuredly be the primary topic of discussion between now and the end of the year.”

In other words, this is your first chance to give me money because I will be deciding the fate of your spoils. This is just shameless. Kenya isn’t this corrupt. Nigeria isn't this corrupt. Chicago isn't this corrupt.



Should we be surprised by this? Hardly. Pelosi is infamous for corruptly giving special treatment to her donors, see e.g. Kaiser Permanente. She is also infamous for trying to pass bills that benefit companies in which she has an ownership stake, like various natural gas bills that would directly help Clean Energy Fuels Corp (CLNE). And of course, she’s not alone in this. Indeed, using their legislative power to corruptly help their donors or enrich themselves is part of being a Democrat. The Congress Black Caucus, for example, has been particular good at illegally giving federal money to their friends and family, see e.g. Sanford Bishop and Eddie Bernice Johnson (scholarships to relatives), Charlie Rangel (tax breaks to donors) and Maxine Waters (money to relatives’ banks), and most Democrats are quite accomplished tools of big business. Chris Dodd was an infamous whore for Countrywide Financial. Obama too has been good at this (GE corruption, giving the treasury to Goldman Sachs, money for GM unions) as was Clinton and just about anyone with a "D" after their names. In fact, they should dump their Donkey mascot and replace it with a backscratcher or a cash machine.



So if you’re a Democrat, it’s time to face reality: your party is the corrupt tool of big business. You stupidly think your party stands for the little guy, but it really only stands on the little guy. You are supporting a party that steals from the poor to give to rich friends. You suck.



[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Super Committee Not So Super

The debt ceiling agreement requires the formation of a “super committee” of twelve Senators and Congressmen, who will be charged with finding $1.2 trillion in additional deficit reduction. To approve anything, the committee needs 7 out of 12 votes. If it fails, or if Congress does not approve its recommendations, automatic cuts will kick in to make up the difference between what the committee approves and $1.2 trillion. So, how is the committee stacking up? It’s not horrible.



The Good

● Tax Pledge: Every Republican member has signed Grover Norquist’s pledge not to raise taxes.



● Leftist Anger: Leftist bloggers like the Daily Kos are furious at Harry Reid’s picks, which they consider unwilling to defend entitlements.



● Defense Sec. Leon Panetta: Democrat Leon Panetta just undermined the Democratic plan by saying that the super committee should not cut anything else from the defense budget. This will make it hard for Democrats to sell further defense cuts.



● Pat Toomey (R) (McConnell appointee): Toomey is the ultimate Tea Party guy. He’s the former head of the conservative Club for Growth and a Tea Party favorite. In fact, he tried to unseat Arlen Specter before there even was a Tea Party. He’s a solid conservative. Interestingly, he says he would be willing to eliminate deductions and subsidies in exchange for lower income tax rates, but will oppose any sort of “big tax increase.” That puts tax reform on the table.



● Jeb Hensarling (R) (Boehner appointee): Hensarling is a former chair of the conservative Republican Study Committee. He is also a member of the Budget Committee and works closely with Paul Ryan, who asked not to be appointed to this commission. His views are fairly similar to the Tea Party Republicans.



● Fred Upton (R) (Boehner appointee): You might recall Upton from the lightbulb debate. At the time, we weren’t sure if he would be willing to cast off his moderate environmentalism and do a good job of shifting the Energy and Commerce Committee to the right. He has. And he should be a good player here. He seems interested in ending energy subsidies, particularly for wind and solar: “Since I am sure that the industry will never give up its free money voluntarily, now is the time for us to slash it on our terms.” This has freaked out environmentalists.



● John Kyl (R) (McConnell appointee): Kyle is retiring at the end of the year, and wants to be Vice President. He has been a reliable conservative during his time in the Senate. He has a long record of pushing tax cuts and he walked out of the Biden talks because he felt the Democrats only wanted “job-killing tax hikes and new spending.” He also has suggested cutting deductions in exchange for lower rates.

The Bad

● Dave Camp (R) (Boehner appointee): Camp is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. I know nothing about him (which is a bad thing) except that he is a member of both the moderate Republican Main Street Partnership and the conservative Republican Study Committee. Being a member of the RSC is a good thing and he describes himself as a conservative on fiscal policy, but he has favored extending unemployment benefits and the auto bailout.



● Rob Portman (R) (McConnell appointee): Portman is a former Bush budget director, which is not a good thing. He’s a freshman Senator from Ohio and I know little about him, except that he’s considered the weak link on the Republican side. He too has signaled a willingness to reduce tax breaks, but says that those cuts should be used to lower rates.

The Ugly

● Max Baucus (D) (Reid appointee): Finance Committee Chairman Baucus is a wild card. He has shown an ability to act in a bipartisan manner when he worked with Chuck Grassley on a jobs bill which the Democratic left flank hated because it included tax cuts. But he also came up with Obamacare. He is likely to fight to protect farm subsidies and Obamacare. Interestingly, former Republican Senate Alan Simpson, who chaired Obama’s deficit reduction committee of which Baucus was a member, call him an awful choice. He described Baucus as being lazy, unhelpful and out of touch.



● John Kerry (D) (Reid appointee): Kerry is a troubling pick. First, he lobbied to get on the committee because he’s looking for a legacy. That’s always a bad sign. Secondly, he has proved to be a standard liberal ass. Third, he just accused the Tea Party of being the cause of the downgrade and he made the Orwellian suggestion that the media should ignore the Tea Party. That said, he was one of the first to attack Obama’s Afghanistan policy, claiming that we should not stick with a policy just because it exists. And Alan Simpson strangely suggests that: “Kerry will do good work, he really will. I know him well.” If he wants a genuine legacy, then he will need to move right, but we'll see.

The Ugliest

● Patty Murray (D) (Reid appointee): Patty Murray is the most cynical choice. She is the chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. This means that her job is to protect the 22 Democratic senators who are up for re-election in 2012. Their current campaign strategy is to scare old people by slandering the GOP by claiming Republicans are trying to destroy Medicare. Of this pick, one Republican official said: “It is shocking that Harry Reid appointed his chief fundraiser to a committee that will be the central focus of every lobbyist in town.”



● Pelosi: Pelosi has yet to appoint her three clowns, but you can pretty much guess they will be total losers.

At this point, Baucus and Kerry are where we will need to look to get a good deal. At the same time, we will need to watch Portman. My guess is that we end up with a little tax reform, the ending of some deductions and subsidies, a reduction in rates, a trimming of entitlement numbers without an actual plan to cause the cuts, and some minor discretionary cuts.



[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

What's the Debt Dealio?

No doubt, some of you will be surprised to hear that Obama spoke to the nation last night. . . at least the part of the nation that still listens to him. No doubt, the MSM is full of articles (all written a couple days ago) that extol the brilliance of Obama’s speech and proclaim that the speech made the public cry tears of joy. . . it was joy, right? Also no doubt, many of you are totally confused about what is going with the debt ceiling negotiations. Here’s where we stand.

1. Why Obama Spoke: Obama went on television because he is losing the public relations war, despite media claims and fake polls to the contrary. Rasmussen reports that the public trusts Republicans over Democrats 45% to 35% on economic issues. Indeed, Republicans win 9 of 10 top issues -- education being the one Democratic “stronghold” (42%-38%). So Obama had no choice but to try to win the public over.

2. Obama’s Speech: Obama’s main line of attack was (1) failure to raise the debt ceiling until after the 2012 election will destroy our economy, (2) the Republicans are trying to cause a default because they are evil, and (3) why can’t we all just get along on my terms? His most effective line was: “If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills -- bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses.”

3. Boehner’s Response: Boehner’s main line of attack was (1) I gave it my all, but Obama wanted a blank check and has never negotiated fairly, and (2) he wants tax hikes that will destroy jobs. His best line was: “The president would not take yes for an answer. Even when we thought we might be close on an agreement, the president’s demands changed.”

4. The Reid/Obama “Plan”: Let’s start with the basics. First, Obama has finally given up on getting tax hikes.

Secondly, this proposal is a crock:

● They are calling it a $2.7 trillion debt “reduction,” but that’s a total lie. First, $1 trillion of that is from “winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” This is essentially an accounting trick, like claiming you will buy a million dollar house next week and then saying you cut your budget by a million dollars by promising not to buy it after all. Even Joe Lieberman has said “I don’t think it’s a real cut. It’s like a bookkeeping cut.”

● The proposal then includes $400 billion in “interest savings,” which appear to be more accounting gimmicks. These are like the magic “everyone will be healthier” savings in ObamaCare.

● Next, it includes $100 billion which have already been negotiated. Those are the only legitimate cuts.

● Finally, the last $1.2 trillion come from a promise that a committee of 12 politicians will agree to find more cuts in the future. That and $18 gets you a Double Sugarmoccacrappe at Starbucks.

So what we have is $100 billion in cuts over ten years (i.e. $10 billion a year.... 0.0003% of the budget), some false accounting and a promise to find more cuts. In exchange for this, Obama gets an immediate $2.4 trillion hike in the debt ceiling.

5. The Latest House Plan: Boehner’s latest plan calls for a two-stage approach. Stage one involves $1.2 trillion in cuts over 10 years combined with an immediate debt ceiling hike of $900 billion. This would be followed by larger cuts to be agreed upon later. The Democrats object to this plan because it would likely result in the need for an additional debt ceiling hike before the next election.

6. Boehner’s Problem: There are 178 House Republicans who seem to be taking the position that they won’t vote for anything, and apparently oppose the new House plan. This is actually fairly stupid. The point where everyone is desperate to get a deal is the time to lay out your demands and get some good cuts. By simply refusing to vote for any plan, these Republicans make themselves irrelevant and will eventually force Boehner to seek Democratic support.

7. Reid’s Problem: Believe it or not, Reid has lost the left because of potential cuts to entitlements and a failure to tax the rich. Thus, he will need a lot of Republican support. . . support he doesn’t have. His ace in the hole is the 178 House Republicans who will force Boehner and McConnell to deal to find Democratic support. That will give him a chance to buy back his left flank.

8. Something You Should Know: Believe it or not, raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with new spending. We need to raise the debt ceiling to cover amounts we already spent. Getting the public to see this as “new spending” has been a Republican PR triumph.

9. Who Loves You Baby?: A couple weeks ago, Boehner said that negotiating with Obama “was like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.” According to certain leftist reporters, Democrats privately say “much worse” about Obama off the record (and no, the reporters haven't shared what has been said).

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Harry Reid's Jobs Bill (yawn)

Scott Brown is a dirty traitor. (Yawn.) He voted for Harry Reid’s (yawn) jobs bill. Oh, I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be rude (yawn), I just find it hard to care about this bill.

Once upon a time, Democrat Max Baucus and Republican Charles Grassley worked together in harmony, hand-in-hand, as lovers, to craft a truly bipartisanship way to throw away $85 billion. Ostensibly, their plan would have created more than one job. . . though I doubt that. Still, they did center justify the text of their bill, and it looked very pretty.

But then Senatorial Rogue Dingy Harry Reid, aka The Dinge, jammed a knife in their backs within about an hour of the unveiling. Indeed, Reid decided that he wasn’t even going to allow that $85 billion dollar bill to come to the Senate floor for consideration because. . . and I kid you not. . . it included things the Republicans liked. So much for focusing on the American people instead of partisan politics.

As a result of Reid’s crapulence, this $85 billion bipartisan bill vanished in a huff of smoke, and Baucus was. . . well, I don’t know if there’s a Senatorial term for what I’m thinking, it’s like “pistol-whipped” only less cool. . . maybe “gavel-slapped”? Yes, that works: This bill vanished in a huff of smoke, and Baucus was gavel-slapped.

In place of the $85 billion bill, Reid produced a “$15 billion” bill. Here is what it does:

• It provides $20 billion to fund highway and transit programs through 2010.

Boy does this sound good, until you realize two things. First, these projects are already underway and have hired all they’re going to hire. So don’t look for new jobs. Secondly, this only spends $20 billion on these projects, which is less than 10% of what the vaunted stimulus bill spent on roads. . . and you know how well that turned out.

• It provides a $1,000 exemption from social security payroll taxes for employers who hire unemployed people.

Now you may recall that I have advocated cutting the payroll tax to provide an incentive for companies to hire new workers. But this ain’t that. First, this is only for one year, meaning there is no incentive to hire anything other than temporary workers. It also appears that you only get the $1,000 credit if the employee stays the entire year, i.e. it’s risky. And it only applies to currently unemployed workers, which means there will be a mismatch between available labor and needed labor. Nice work Harry. Maybe next time, you can limit the tax cut to one-legged men with hunchbacks and an aversion to clowns. Not to mention, if this is a $15 billion bill and it’s already spent $20 billion on roads, that doesn’t really leave much for these tax cuts, does it?

• It extends a tax break for businesses that spend money on capital investments like equipment purchases.

Ah ha! This is the cut in capital gains that I advocated. . . only, it isn’t. This isn’t a cut in the capital gains tax rate. Thus, it doesn’t change business behavior by encouraging businesses to sell their old equipment and replace it with new equipment. This is just a one-time discount on new equipment, which you don’t need if you’re still depreciating the old stuff. And even then, it’s so targeted that even our one-legged man with the hunchback and the aversion to clowns probably won’t qualify.

• It expands the use of Build America Bonds to put states further into debt on capital construction projects.

As I discussed the other day, sometimes infrastructure spending can be a good idea. But this sounds like a gimmick. First, we’re talking about only a couple billion dollars, in an economy that rates in the tens of trillions. Think of it like getting a $20 raise. Woo hoo! No more dog food for you! Secondly, state budgets are so bad at the moment that adding debt is about as wise as telling a junkie where to buy discount crack (Sam's Discount Crack Club. . . on Third and Main).

All in all, these are sort of the right ideas, but done wrong. It's like boiling a steak. Typical Democratic SNAFU. All told, Lawrence Mischel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, thinks this bill will “create no more than a couple hundred thousand jobs.” I think he’s certifiable for even giving it that much credit.

But frankly, at this point, what’s another $15 billion tossed down Harry Reid’s crapper? Thus, I don’t care at all that Scott Brown voted for this. This was hardly an earth shattering vote. Indeed, even Mitch McConnell couldn’t bring himself to care.

But wait, you say, can’t Dingy Harry trumpet this bill as a massive senate success and thereby achieve his re-election? Are you serious? This bill does nothing. It achieves nothing. Moreover, here is what the bill specifically does not do, which the prior version did: it does not help people or states. . . the two groups you’d think it should help.

Indeed, unlike the $154 billion House version, Reid provides no additional funds for state budgets. . . because he hates them. That means that all those state employees who were kept on the job by the stimulus bill will now lose their jobs. It also does not include an extension for unemployment benefits or a subsidy for COBRA health insurance. . . because he hates the unemployed too.

So yeah, let the Dinge trumpet this achievement, if he's stupid enough to try.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Democrats Kill Bipartisanship

Bipartisanship means many things to many people. To some, it means trying to work together. To Obama it means the Republicans should accept the blame for his failures. To Harry Reid, it means killing any bill which the Republicans might like. So much for the new era of bipartisanship. Rest in peace dear friend, two days was too young to die.

When Obama met with the Republicans on Tuesday, his lips moved a lot and the word “bipartisan” kept falling out, but so did a lot of other nasty words. Still, we were supposed to believe that Obama wanted a new era of bipartisanship, and he particularly urged the Republicans to work with the Democrats on a jobs bill. But that was Tuesday and yesterday was Thursday, and two days is a long time in politics.

Thursday morning, Sen. Max Baucus and Sen. Chuck Grassley unveiled their long-awaited bipartisan jobs bill. But within minutes, the Democratic Party’s left flank was up in arms.

“Waaaaaah, this includes tax cuts,” sort of whined Dianne Feinstein. Actually, what she said was:

“It is my belief that tax credits only go to people who are making money, and they generally keep it. That’s the way I feel, I don’t know that anyone else agrees with me.”

Wow, that’s stupid! Note the use of the word “feel” rather than “think,” indicating the disuse of her brain -- and the lack of any research. But then, she may know what she’s talking about. . . considering that she apparently uses her Senate seat to benefit her husband financially:

1. She served on the Senate’s Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, while companies owned by her husband won extensive government contracts (worth more than $1 billion) without competitive bidding -- the same procedure Barack promised to halt until he found out he could reward his own friends using this practice; and

2. She requested $25 billion in extra federal funding for the FDIC, which three days later granted a huge contract to a real estate company on whose board her husband sits to sell foreclosed homes for the FDIC.

But DiFi wasn’t alone. No, where there is one rich socialist howling at the moon, there are more. Enter Tom Harkin, a man who "mistakenly" claimed to fly combat missions over North Vietnam when he was really in Japan. Rich farm boy doesn’t like the bill either, it doesn’t extend unemployment benefits far enough. . . here piggy piggy.

Sen. Byron Dorgan (SBD for short), who did not take campaign contributions from Jack Abramoff while his committee was investigating Abramoff. . . but did take them from Abramoff clients (that’s called a “bag man” in the criminal parlance), worries that “this has morphed into something different than just a jobs bill.” Oh no! You mean it’s become a regular Democratic bill? Liars and spenders and bagman, oh my!

And there are more: Sherrod Brown, who flosses his teeth with his underwear, and Jay Rockefeller, who flosses his tooth with Brown’s underwear, don’t like the bill either.

Thus, confronted with a wave of socialist anger, Dingy Harry Reid killed the bill. But not only did he kill it, he killed it only a couple hours after it was introduced, without even a chance to fix the bill. This was considered a major rebuke to Max Baucus for his misjudgment in trying to work with the Republicans. What were you thinking Max? Don't you know that bipartisanship doesn’t mean actually working with the Republicans!! Don't make me go all Rahm Emanuel on you!

So there you have it. We now know exactly what the Democrats mean when they say “bipartisan.” They mean they would rather do nothing than do anything the Republicans might like. . . funny, that sounds like spite? Oh well. And I guess we also know what Obama’s appeals for bipartisanship mean to his party.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Weekly Bidenism Reidism

Stupidity never sleeps. So with Joe Biden taking the week off, others have stepped up to the task of being the village idiot. Harry Reid has made a particular strong case, echoing racist sentiments formerly expressed by Joe himself. Thus, this week Harry Reid guest stars on a very special The Weekly Bidenism. . .

By now you’ve probably heard about a book coming out Monday called “Game Change.” This book, about the 2008 campaign, contains a series of interesting behind the scenes quotes about Sarah Palin, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and others. One of those “others” turns out to be Harry Reid. Dingy Harry was caught explaining what he liked about Sen. Obama. Basically, he praised Obama privately as being:

"a light-skinned African American with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

This has shades of Joe Biden’s description of Barack as the “first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and nice-looking.” Sounds like they were smitten doesn't it? In any event, just as Joe’s words inform us that he views blacks as dirty, ugly and in articulate, Reid’s words bespeak a man who sees blacks as too dark and incapable of speaking without a “Negro dialect.”

Interestingly, in December of 2009, this same Harry Reid who doesn’t like dark skinned blacks who speak with Negro dialects stoked racial hatred by comparing those who oppose his socialist health care plans to those who opposed the abolition of slavery:

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.’"

Yep, they were called Democrats.

After Reid learned that his words would appear in the book, he raced out Saturday while everyone was busy watching football to issue an apology. Naturally, the MSM covered this story. . . for about three tenths of second before moving on to attack Republicans.

But with Reid trailing each of his three possible challengers by around 10%, and with approval ratings around 35% and disapprovals just creeping over 50%, this may be the nail that seals the coffin on Reid’s crooked political career.

And what a career it’s been. For example, he’s done so much to lower the level of debate in this country. In 2002, Sen. Sauvé said of President Bush:

"President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country."

Three years later, Sen. Civic said this about President Bush to a high school civics class:

"The man’s father is a wonderful human being. I think this guy is a loser."

Of course, that was before Dingy Harry learned the value of civic discourse, something he likes to claim is lacking in his opponents.

But Harry’s despicability goes beyond name calling. In 2007, he traitorously declared the war in Iraq “lost.” He predicted that the surge would not work, and he all but accused Bush of wasting American lives. . . by accusing Johnson of the same thing:

"I believe this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything. . . Johnson did not want a war loss on his watch, so he surged in Vietnam. After the surge was over, we added 34,000 to the 24,000 who died in Vietnam."

Sadly for Harry, we did not lose in Iraq despite his best efforts. Harry also seems to have forgotten his criticism by the time Obama promised to expend as many American lives as necessary to run away from Afghanistan.

Harry, by the way, was one of only a few Democratic Senators to vote against a Senate proposal to condemn Harry’s friends MoveOn.org for their New York Times “General Betray Us” ad.

Harry also. . .

• Complained that tourists smell: "My staff tells me not to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway. In the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol. It may be descriptive but it's true."

• Told the Las Vegas Review-Journal: "I hope you go out of business."

• Caused a mini-stock market panic by declaring: "One of the individuals in the caucus [discussing the bailout] today talked about a major insurance company. A major insurance company -- one with a name that everyone knows that’s on the verge of going bankrupt."

The next day, his spokesman had to explain: “Senator Reid is not personally aware of any particular company being on the verge of bankruptcy. He has no special knowledge about a bankruptcy nor has he talked to any insurance company officials.” So basically, he made up a phony bankruptcy claim to scare investors?

• Admitted that he "[hasn't] read a single one" of Sonia Sotomayor’s opinions despite praising her legal writing.

• Said of Ted Kennedy's death: "I think it’s going to help us."

• And in August, he declared: "We have a problem in America and it’s called the private insurance industry."

Personally, I say the Senate is a bigger problem, as is the racketeering organization known as the Democratic Party and its rotten leaders. But maybe that's just me.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Unrepealable Bill. . .

The latest bit making the rounds of the blogosphere is that Harry Reid inserted language into the health care bill “that makes it impossible to repeal or amended the bill.” There is some truth to this, but it’s not what you think. Nor is such a thing even possible. In any event, Reid's language raises an interesting constitutional issue that may destroy this part of the bill. Let’s talk about what is really going on.

This Language Does Not Affect The Entire Bill

The first, most important thing to grasp is that the language in question does not affect the entire bill -- it relates only to a Board that will be established to recommend changes to Medicare to lower the growth of Medicare costs. Here’s how the Board works.

The Board will not come into existence until 2014. Thereafter, each year that the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services determines that the growth rate in the cost of Medicare services exceeds the expected growth rate, the Board shall put together a list of recommendations to cut total Medicare spending to the targeted growth rate or slightly lower.

BUT, the proposal cannot include (1) recommendations to ration health care, (2) recommendations to raise revenues or Medicare premiums, (3) recommendations to increase cost sharing, i.e. deductibles or co-pays, or (4) recommendations to change eligibility requirements. (Basically, they will have to recommend cuts to reimbursement rates to doctors.)

Each recommendation must include an explanation of the proposal and the reasons for its inclusion and an actuarial opinion by the Chief Actuary that the proposal meets the requirements of this legislation. Interestingly, each proposal must also include “a legislative proposal that implements the recommendations.” (more on this later)

The proposal must then be presented to the Congress. This is where the language in question comes in. Starting around page 1017 of the bill, the bill describes how the Senate and House must handle these proposals. This includes the rather controversially provision that prevents House or Senate members from offering any amendment to the Board’s proposals (or to this part of the bill), unless 3/5th of the Senate votes to waive this requirement.

That sounds bad. But hold on.

This Is Not Unprecedented

This is basically the format used in the 1980s with the base closing commission. When it became apparent that it was impossible to handle base closings with any rationality because every Congressman from every district with a military base would fight to the death and cut any dirty deal they could to keep their base open, the parties agreed to create an independent base closing commission. That commission was charged with coming up with a list of bases to close, based on various non-political factors. The list was then forwarded to Congress for an up or down vote. No one could amend the list. By refusing to allow amendments by individual House members or Senators, Congress managed to close unneeded bases without being stopped by the normal political process. On the surface, this is the same thing.

Further, in 2006, Sen. John Kyl (R- Az) identified at least twenty-six rule-making statutes that limit the ability of Senators to amend legislation. One, the Budget Act, has been in force for more than thirty years.

Thus, this is nothing new. But this is no reason to fret.

This Can’t Actually Bind Future Congresses

Despite the language preventing future Congresses from changing this legislation or these proposals without a supermajority, that language can’t actually control what a future Congress does. One Congress cannot bind a future Congress.

Article I, section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution states that “[e]ach house may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” In 1892, the Supreme Court took a look at this clause in United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892). In that case, the Supreme Court held that this clause grants each Congress the powers to amend their rules whenever a simple majority of the quorum are present. And this power is continuing, meaning it can be exercised at any time by any Congress: “[The] power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to be exercised by [either] house.”

Therefore, one Congress cannot bind a future Congress. Indeed, one Congress cannot even bind itself -- each Congress has the power to change it rules by simple majority vote at any time.

Thus, while Reid’s language looks authoritative, future Congresses can ignore it. . . it will only have effect until a majority of either house of Congress decides to change it.

Consequently, this is not the big deal people are making it out to be.

But there is something else in this language that troubles me.

The Board’s Proposals Can Be Enacted Without Congress?

Throughout this section, Reid allows the Secretary to implement the Board’s proposals even without Congressional approval. This is a troubling issue because this represents an abdication of Congress’s legislative powers to the Executive.

Under the Constitution, the power to enact legislation lies entirely with the Congress. It may not grant this power to the Executive. In the past, this was strictly enforced and the Supreme Court would strike down anything that gave the Executive the power to make law, rather than calling upon the Executive to enforce the law. In particular, this appeared in cases where laws were struck down for being “too vague.” If a law did not clearly define what the Executive was supposed to do, the Supreme Court would strike it down.

But this has been eroded to the point of disappearing. Indeed, the most infamous moment probably came with the Americans With Disabilities Act, where the Congress actually refused to include a meaningful definition of “disability,” instead leaving it up to the Executive and the courts to determine.

Yet, Reid's law may revive this prohibition. Think back to the language I mentioned above. The Board not only recommends changes, but Reid is requiring the Board to include “a legislative proposal that implements the recommendations.” This is fairly strong evidence that the Board’s recommendations do not involve merely filling in the gaps of clear legislation, but instead involve creating law. Indeed, if the Board weren’t creating law, there would be no reason to allow the Congress to weigh in on these proposals -- in fact, it would violate the separation of powers to let the Congress approve an agency action.

Thus, if I were to challenge this statute in court, I would argue that this abdicates the legislative function because it allows the Executive to take actions that the law itself recognizes as needing the approval of Congress, i.e. law making.

Will a court accept this? They should. The legal theory is entirely sound. And if they do, then Reid’s control-freak behavior will have resulted in this entire section of ObamaCare being wiped out by the courts.

Nice work Harry.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Health Care Reform: No Deal??

This one’s interesting. Do you remember the big deal last week to get the Baucus bill through the Senate? Yeah, that one. . . with the liberals “giving up” the public option and the moderates agreeing to destroy Medicare sooner by letting people as young as 55 into Medicare? Well, apparently, that deal may not exist. Curious.

The first clue we had that there was no deal should have been the refusal of the Democrats to release the terms of the deal, while simultaneously crowing about "the deal" to any microphone they could find. And as the week went on, and no details of the deal emerged, people began to ask questions. That’s when the most fascinating thing happened, the admissions started coming out.

First came Sen. Bob Casey, who told the New York Times: “Any big agreement is progress, even if we do not know any of the details.” Read that again. How can there be an agreement with no details?

Maybe Casey is just out of the loop, being from a small, backwater state like Pennsylvania. Let’s listen to Dick Durbin, the Number 2 Democrat in the Senate respond to John McCain’s demand for information about the deal, i.e. the legislation, they’re supposed to be voting on. Surely he knows the details:

“I would say to the senator from Arizona that I’m in the dark almost as much as he is, and I’m in the leadership.”

*scratches head* Really? Hmm. How can this be?

McCain followed up on Durbin's admission with the following:

“Isn’t that a very unusual process? We are discussing one-sixth of the gross national product; the bill before us has been a product of almost a year of sausage-making. Yet here we are at a position on December 12, with a proposal that none of us, except, I understand, one person, the Majority Leader, knows what the final parameters are, much less informing the American people. I don't get it.”

And Durbin, of course, denied this, right? Actually, no. “I think the senator [from Arizona] is correct.” But Durbin did try to shift the blame to the CBO, arguing that the reason no one knew the details was that they awaited the big, bad, secretive CBO’s verdict: “We may find that something that was sent over there doesn’t work at all, doesn’t fly.”

You think? How about these two problems you face. First, the Democrats are counting on $25 billion in phantom savings from “competition created by the public option” to reduce the overall cost of the bill. No public option, no phantom savings. That means they now need to find an additional $25 billion to make their phony numbers appear to balance.

Secondly, nobody likes the plan to expand Medicare. Old people are freaked out that their health insurance is about to go away. Hospitals are freaked out that they cannot afford this (they lose nine cents on each dollar of health care they provide under Medicare already). Governors claim it’s breaking their budgets. Even those socialists at the Business Roundtable are backing off this turkey.

Various senators don’t like the plan either. Said Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida (not to be confused with Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska), this deal is a “non-starter.” That’s a strange thing to say for a man who just made an agreement.

And he’s not alone. Ten more Democrats wrote a letter this week complaining that this compromise would make it harder for seniors to get treatment under Medicare because “provider shortages in states with low reimbursement rates such as ours will make such a program ineffective, or even worsen the problems these states are experiencing.” These ten were: Sens. Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Russ Feingold (Wisc.), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Patrick Leahy (Vermont), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Tom Udall (N.M.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Amy Klobuchar (MN), and Al Franken (SNL).

Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe also criticized the proposal. Lieberman indicated that he was growing “increasingly concerned” with the proposal:

“I am increasingly troubled about the proposal. I am worried about what impact it will have on the Medicare program’s fiscal viability and also what effect it will have on the premiums paid by people benefiting from Medicare now.”

Nelson stated that this could be an intermediate step to a public option “which I do not like.” He further stated, “I wouldn’t be surprised if this thing does not become a viable option. I think it is going to be the lesser of the popular things, but I am keeping an open mind.”

Olympia Snowe was not as optimistic. “I have serious concerns. I just think that is the wrong direction to take.” She further stated that she could not see a way to even tweak the proposal to win her vote. “I can’t see it.”

Maybe there was no deal after all? It’s sure starting to sound that way.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Senator Exposes Himself!

Ever since Reagan swept the land, the Democrats have done their best to hide their agenda. This has included trying to disguise their agenda behind false market economics, trying to create new labels for failed ideas, and sometimes flat out lying about what they believe. One trick of which they are quite fond is a trick that Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska just pulled on his voters. . . the old, “I really am against what I’m supporting” trick.

The backdrop: As you know, the Democrats are struggling to get the Baucus bill out of the Senate. They need sixty votes and they are stuck on two issues: abortion and the public option. The reason these two issues are presenting such a problem is not that the Democrats don’t overwhelmingly agree on both issues, it’s that they need the support of 60 Senators to move the bill forward for a vote. With Republican opposition firm, and Joe Lieberman joining the Republicans in opposing a public option, the Democrats cannot pass the bill if it includes a public option. At the same time, since the Democrats literally cannot afford to lose one vote, the opposition of any Democrat would prove disastrous. That’s where abortion comes in.

Sen. Ben Nelson claims to be an opponent of abortion. Thus, he introduced a bill that would impose the same limits on abortion under the Baucus bill that currently exist under PelosiCare. Basically, he introduced his version of the Stupak Amendment. The Stupak Amendment (or in this case the Nelson Amendment) would prevent insurers from indirectly paying for abortions through the use of accounting fictions whereby money is separated into supposedly separate pools. Said Nelson: “Segregation of funds is an accounting gimmick. The reality is federal funds would help buy coverage that includes abortion.”

This was a make or break issue Sen. Nelson told the people of Nebraska -- though few intelligent people believed him because he’s a Democrat and they will sacrifice their deepest held beliefs without a second thought whenever those beliefs stand in the way of “progress.” The doubters were right.

When he introduced this amendment, Sen. Nelson made it clear on several occasions that he would not support any bill that did not include this language.

“As written, the Senate health care bill allows taxpayer dollars, directly and indirectly, to pay for insurance plans that cover abortion. Most Nebraskans, and Americans, do not favor using public funds to cover abortion and as a result this bill shouldn’t open the door to do so.”

The amendment lost 54-45. So here comes his statement of conscience, his principled stand right? What? Why are you laughing? You think a Democrat can’t take a stand on principle? Well. . . apparently, you’re right. Right after the vote, Nelson (as predicted) did not reaffirm that he would oppose the bill, no. . . he only stated that this “makes it harder” for him to support the bill. He added, “We’ll just have to see what develops.”

Translation: “People of Nebraska, I will never compromise my principles until they are actually put to a vote.”

This, by the way, is after Nelson participated in a huge fraud to begin with. He let the Democrats threaten the insurance industry with the loss of their anti-trust exemption (Nelson is partially owned by the Nebraska-based insurance industry and partially owned by the ethanol lobby). He then graciously accepted a withdrawal of that threat in exchange for his vote on Baucus -- allowing him to sell his “reluctant support” to the people of Nebraska as being in their own interest. Shameless.

But Nelson wasn’t the only one to be exposed. Harry Reid too lies to his constituents. He claims to be anti-abortion, but he said this of this health care bill:

“This is not the right place for this debate. . . No one should use the issue of abortion to rob millions of the opportunity to get good health care.”

Translation: “People of Nevada, I really am anti-abortion, just like I’ve been telling you. . . I just think we should allow public funding of abortion.”

Of course, they aren't the only ones who have exposed themselves. You know about Landrieu accepting a $300 billion pay off for her vote. Blanche Lincoln has made it clear she will act against the overwhelming interests of her constituents, as have many others like fellow Arkansas Sen. David Pryor. The AMA was exposed. It supported this monster, despite two-to-one opposition from doctors. AARP supported this even though the elderly overwhelmingly oppose it -- they were bought off with a promise to eliminate Medicare Advantage, which will lead to nine million more elderly needing AARP-sponsored insurance. In fact, the entire left-wing lobby has been exposed. . . the list goes on and on.

The issue of the public option also took a strange turn yesterday, and may have exposed more senators. Supposedly moderate Democrats like David Pryor agreed to "drop" the public option in exchange for non-profit plans administered by the Office of Personnel Management. Hmm. That sounds a lot like a public option to me. . . and it does to Harry Reid too:

“It is a consensus that includes a public option and will help ensure the American people win in two ways. One, insurance companies will face more competition, and two, the American people will have more choices."

The cries of the little socialists as Huffpo not withstanding, it's clear that the public option still exists. So can you name a senator who swore that he would never support any plan that included a public option or could lead to a public option? That's right, it was Joe Lieberman. Guess what Joe said this morning? Joe indicated this morning that he may be willing to support this new public option: "I am encouraged by the progress toward a consensus."

Why am I not surprised.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...