The danger in those years [2011/2012] will be that Ben Bernanke will attempt yet again to refloat the U.S. economy through inflation, buying government debt to fund the deficit and forcing short term rates well below the inflation rate. This danger is exacerbated by the Obama administration’s insouciance about deficits. Ben Bernanke on his own (and his predecessor Alan Greenspan) bears a large share of responsibility for the 2008 crash, but the Bernanke/Obama combination is potentially even more dangerous. If expansionary monetary and fiscal policies are pursued regardless of market signals, the U.S. will head towards Weimar-style trillion-percent inflation. That would make the government’s position easier as its mountain of Treasury debt became worthless, but devastate everybody else’s savings and impoverish the American people as Weimar impoverished 1920s Germany.

As I said, a train wreck. Probability of arrival: close to 100%. Time of arrival: around the end of 2010, or possibly a bit earlier. And at this stage, there’s very little anyone can do about it; the definitive rise of gold above $1,000 marked the point of no return.

Add to this a few more things:
Next January, people will pay more in taxes than they have in years-at a time when most are worse off than they have been in years (ie w greater effect)
Unemployment is expected to remain high, and even rise MORE before midterms in 2010
Democrats blew their one chance at real economic stimulus on political payoffs, and will increasingly be held to account (it’s already started) for is failure to stimulate, create, or save jobs
Democrats losing independent voters
Democrats are incumbents controlling Congress in a midterm election where the party in power will normally lose
Democrats have accomplished very very little (might not even pass healthcare)
Democrats have pushed back deficit control efforts to 2010
Democrats have broken EVERY major 2006 campaign promise that got them control of Congress

…and then there’s natsec issues
Obama/Dems promised to end the war in Iraq, but just before midterms will still have 50-70,000 troops in Iraq (though re-named from “combat brigades” to “security, logistics, and training forces”)
There’s no way that Afghanistan is gonna end or end well in the next 11 months
Iran has been a complete failure and will likely end w an Israeli strike+possible regional war in the next 11 months
And let’s not even start to talk about how Dems will can’t look tough on natsec before the midterms w a KSM trial of the millenium on 24/7cable!

So….what is it Dems are gonna use as a campaign crutch in 2010?

After years of historic deficits, this new Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.

And as the Democrats railed against Bush and his deficit they don’t utter a peep about this:

WASHINGTON – What is $1.42 trillion? It’s more than the total national debt for the first 200 years of the Republic, more than the entire economy of India, almost as much as Canada’s, and more than $4,700 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

It’s the federal budget deficit for 2009, more than three times the most red ink ever amassed in a single year.

Nope….now it just ain’t that big a deal

When and ever they do acknowledge it Obama and pals just blame Bush.

Something Obama won’t quit doing until he’s out of office….and may just keep on doing until he’s 90.

Meanwhile Obama and company fight for policies that will drive our economy into a brick wall and raise the unemployment rate skyhigh….even higher then the incredible rates we see now.

But….it’s all Bush’s fault.

How about another quote:

In short, it is a paradoxical truth that rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan has borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.

Which party said that?

I’ll give you a hint….it’s not the new Democrat/Socialist party.

Remember when health-care reform was supposed to make life better for the middle class? That dream began to unravel this past summer when Congress proposed a bill that failed to include any competition-based reforms that would actually bend the curve of health-care costs. It fell apart completely when Democrats began papering over the gaping holes their plan would rip in the federal budget.

As it now stands, the plan proposed by Democrats and the Obama administration would not only fail to reduce the cost burden on middle-class families, it would make that burden significantly worse.

~~~

The bill creates a new health entitlement program that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates will grow over the longer term at a rate of 8% annually, which is much faster than the growth rate of the economy or tax revenues. This is the same growth rate as the House bill that Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) deep-sixed by asking the CBO to tell the truth about its impact on health-care costs.

To avoid the fate of the House bill and achieve a veneer of fiscal sensibility, the Senate did three things: It omitted inconvenient truths, it promised that future Congresses will make tough choices to slow entitlement spending, and it dropped the hammer on the middle class.

One inconvenient truth is the fact that Congress will not allow doctors to suffer a 24% cut in their Medicare reimbursements. Senate Democrats chose to ignore this reality and rely on the promise of a cut to make their bill add up. Taking note of this fact pushes the total cost of the bill well over $1 trillion and destroys any pretense of budget balance.

It is beyond fantastic to promise that future Congresses, for 10 straight years, will allow planned cuts in reimbursements to hospitals, other providers, and Medicare Advantage (thereby reducing the benefits of 25% of seniors in Medicare). The 1997 Balanced Budget Act pursued this strategy and successive Congresses steadily unwound its provisions. The very fact that this Congress is pursuing an expensive new entitlement belies the notion that members would be willing to cut existing ones.

Most astounding of all is what this Congress is willing to do to struggling middle-class families. The bill would impose nearly $400 billion in new taxes and fees. Nearly 90% of that burden will be shouldered by those making $200,000 or less.

It might not appear that way at first, because the dollars are collected via a 40% tax on sales by insurers of “Cadillac” policies, fees on health insurers, drug companies and device manufacturers, and an assortment of odds and ends.

But the economics are clear. These costs will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health-care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums. Consumers will pay the excise tax on high-cost plans. The Joint Committee on Taxation indicates that 87% of the burden would fall on Americans making less than $200,000, and more than half on those earning under $100,000.

It’s just incredible that anyone would believe the garbage coming out of Congress and Obama on this bill. That somehow, someway, the cost of doing business by the health industry will increase by leaps and bounds but those added costs will not be passed on to the consumer. Sure, the subsidies will help the lower income levels, but those subsidies will come from all the extra taxes the industry has to pay who will then tack on those extra costs to the consumer….if not then the government will help pay, and where will that money come from? Taxes? Higher deficit?

And still the gullible fall for “the free stuff”:

As the CBO notes, his bill would cut Medicare payments to doctors by 25 percent in 2011, then hold them at that level perpetually. In other words, given inflation, Baucus proposes endless cuts in what the program pays physicians and others.

Assuming 3 percent annual inflation, by 2014 doctors’ real incomes from Medicare payments would be cut by a third from 2010. By 2025, they’d be cut in half.

If Baucus’ cuts actually go through, physicians’ willingness to see Medicare patients would dwindle alongside their pay. But if the cuts don’t actually get made, Baucus’ plan would explode the federal deficit.

Without the savings from Medicare and related programs, the CBO projects that the bill would raise our deficits by $1.3 trillion over the next 20 years — and rising.

Common sense. ObamaCare will raise taxes immensely and on top of that will lower our standard of health care.

Yippee!…”free” health care!

Sigh…..

Key Findings

• Health reform could have a significant impact on the cost of private health insurance coverage.
• There are four provisions included in the Senate Finance Committee proposal that could increase private health insurance premiums above the levels projected under current law:
  1. A new tax on high-cost health care plans,
  2. Insurance market reforms coupled with a weak coverage requirement,
  3. Cost-shifting as a result of cuts to Medicare
  4. and New taxes on several health care sectors.
• The overall impact of these provisions will be to increase the cost of private insurance coverage for individuals, families, and businesses above what these costs would be in the absence of reform.
• On average, the cost of private health insurance coverage will increase:
  1. 26 percent between 2009 and 2013 under the current system and by 40 percent during this same period if these four provisions are implemented.
  2. 50 percent between 2009 and 2016 under the current system and by 73 percent during this same period if these four provisions are implemented.
  3. 79 percent between 2009 and 2019 under the current system and by 111 percent during this same period if these four provisions are implemented.

America’s Health Insurance Plans asked PricewaterhouseCoopers to check out the impact of four components in the Baucus bill:

• Insurance market reforms and consumer protections that would raise health insurance premiums for individuals and families if the reforms are not coupled with an effective coverage requirement.
• An excise tax on employer-sponsored high value health plans (or “Cadillac plans”) that in a few years could also raise premiums for some moderate value plans.
• Cuts in payment rates in public programs that could increase cost shifting to private sector businesses and consumers. These changes are expected to more than offset the potential reduction in cost shifting resulting from providing coverage to the uninsured.
• New taxes on health sector entities that are likely to be passed through to consumers.

And found the following:

This analysis shows that the cost of the average family coverage is approximately $12,300 today and could be expected to increase to approximately:

• $15,500 in 2013 under current law and to $17,200 if these provisions are implemented.
• $18,400 in 2016 under current law and to $21,300 if these provisions are implemented.
• $21,900 in 2019 under current law and to $25,900 if these provisions are implemented.

This analysis shows that the cost of the average single coverage is $4,600 today and could be expected to increase to:

• $5,800 in 2013 under current law and to $6,400 if these provisions are implemented.
• $6,900 in 2016 under current law and to $7,900 if these provisions are implemented.
• $8,200 in 2019 under current law and to $9,700 if these provisions are implemented.

…by 2019 the cost of single coverage is expected to increase by $1,500 more than it would under the current system and the cost of family coverage is expected to increase by $4,000 more than it would under the current system. This amounts to an additional 18 percent increase in premiums by 2019. The overall 18 percent increase is a composite of increases by market segment as follows:

• 49% increase for the non-group (individual) market;
• 28% increase for small employers (those firms with fewer than 50 employees);
• 11% increase for large employers with insured coverage; and,
• 9% increase for self-insured employers.

The overall impact of these provisions will be to increase the cost of private health insurance coverage for individuals, families, and businesses. The net impact of these increases on households would include the impact of these increases and the new subsidies provided under the bill.

You can check out the whole report here.

Senator Barrasso visited Fox News this morning and discussed the findings:

Liberal sites are crying about the study complaining that the study doesn’t take into consideration the subsidies:

But this accounting leaves out some pretty big things, starting with the subsidies that would help people buy insurance.

~~~

Now, the subsidies are not available to everybody, since they phase out with income and are only available through the insurance exchanges. As a result, people with higher incomes really would face higher premiums.

Ed Morrissey:

…PWC wanted to take a look at the actual cost of premiums, not the impact on subsidies, which is a political rather than economic question. The subsidies will still be in place, but they will apply to policies that cost a lot more than Baucus projected.

How much more? Take a look at this analysis from page 6 of the report:

PwC also examined the impact of the excise tax on the mandated plans expected to be offered under the state health insurance exchanges detailed in the Senate Finance Committee Bill. We estimate that in many metropolitan areas, which tend to have higher than average medical costs, the lowest option plan (Bronze Plan) would be considered a “Cadillac plan” as early as 2016. By 2016 at least one of the mandated plans will be considered a “Cadillac plan” and be subject to the 40 percent excise tax in 17 of 50 states. By 2019 at least one of the mandated plans will be considered a “Cadillac plan” and be subject to the 40 percent excise tax in 24 of 50 states.

Barasso didn’t get fooled by the subsidy red herring, either. He notes that the subsidies don’t start until 2013, but the taxes and fees kick in immediately. That will start the price pressure on premiums next year, not in 2013, and it will actually make the problem of uninsured worse in the short run.

Besides, what was the rationale for the excise tax on Cadillac plans in the first place? It intended to discourage plans that allowed for overuse of the system. By the end of its first decade, the Baucus plan makes most plans subject to that tax, which means that there is no real penalty for offering them or buying them. It transforms quickly into another general industry tax and does nothing to encourage rational use of the system.

They want people to think that these taxes will only affect the rich, but by the time this is all through anyone making 25 grand will be considered rich by the Obama government. But sure, there will be people who benefit from the plan. Those who meet the standards for subsidies or those who get the government plan will see prices reduced at the cost of all the rest of us paying more. And still they estimate that 25 million will remain uninsured by this Baucus plan.

Just fantastic.

And remember, Obama said if we dig the plan we have currently we can keep it…he leaves out a key point tho:

The government would also levy more payroll taxes. Included in a footnote in the CBO report is the revelation that the government expects to raise an extra $83 billion in payroll taxes in the next 10 years thanks to the higher taxable wages they predict employers will offer in place of non-taxable health care benefits.

Wonderful.

Now, how do I know that? Have I seen the speech? Have I spent the 3-day weekend listening to Churchill, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and re-reading the Gettysburg Address? Was I there were Herodocus debated with Namenicus on the floor of the Roman Senate? No, of course not, but the sheer magnitude and audacity of President Obama means that his speech can be nothing shy of a choir of angels. Thankfully, his one of the greatest orators in modern history, and easily the most inspiring teleprompter-reader of the 21st Century.

Think about it. Just two days before the anniversary of the 911 attacks, President Obama will address every American. The war in Afghanistan that the attacks set in motion is in trouble. Commanders in the field want more troops. Democrats, members of Obama’s own party who control Congress, say they will vote against more troops, and instead want an immediate, unilateral withdrawal, as well as an abandonment of our NATO allies and our Afghan allies. Obama’s Admin and the Pentagon have both seen that support for this troubled war is under 50% among the American people, and they worry about increased opposition to the war from….his own party? The Obama Admin and the Pentagon called for Americans to support the war in Afghanistan, and in response his own party demanded a retreat, and anti-war groups have scheduled protests for the G20 Summit in 2wks. Rather than take this moment in history, just 48hrs before the anniversary of the attacks, to try and build political and popular support for a war that is failing, Obama will talk about healthcare instead. Man, that’s bold. He somehow has calculated that the support from his own party, from the American people, and from the world will come because of nothing more than the eloquence of his address on healthcare.

This speech also comes after the worst Labor Day holiday ever. More Americans are unemployed now than at any time before on a Labor Day. The economy is still in the tank despite trillions of dollars in spending. The American people are furious at the out of control spending (as demonstrated by the Town Hall meetings and so-called Tea Parties and-more importantly-as shown in every poll. Independents and moderates from both parties are no longer supporting Obama and the Democrats because of this completely out of control spending; spending that is already 3x more than all the money ever spent by the Federal government COMBINED…..spending that almost 2yrs after the crisis began still has yet to have an effect on the average American. But, President Obama won’t be talking about the Great Recession. He’s calculated that his speech on healthcare will be so good, so full of awe that the independent swing voters and moderates from both parties will ignore the $2trillion accounting error from last week, the 10% of Americans who are unemployed (15-25% in many states), and the huge decline in both gross domestic product and tax revenues. President Obama thinks that his speech will be so inspiring that those Americans who are disheartened will come back, will support he and the Democratic Party even as they add MORE spending with yet another government program: healthcare. He feels he doesn’t need to address Congress and the nation about The Great Recession. That’s confidence. His speech must be fantastic.

Let’s not forget about Iran either. Iran’s been building nuclear bomb factories for the past two decades. No international pressure has ever even deterred them-not even direct talks with the Bush Administration in Baghdad. President Obama offered them an open hand, carrots, and diplomacy, and he set a deadline of September 24th (less than 2wks from now). Over the weekend Iran said that the Obama Admin was lying about nuclear WMD evidence, and that they were willing to have talks, but that the nuclear issue was not to be part of that. Israel has openly said that they’re just waiting for the United States to realize that diplomacy has failed, and then they’re going to bomb Iran. Iran has said if that happens, they’ll retaliate against Israel by shooting missiles over American forces in Iraq and the Persian Gulf, and that Iran’s terrorist allies/proxies will attack the United States. President Obama’s not going to talk about this threat of regional-even world war. Nope. President Obama has decided he doesn’t need to address Congress, the nation, and the world about this threat. His healthcare speech will be so good that the Iranians will stop their belligerence on their own, and they will be inspired towards peace by his healthcare speech in a way that a speech mentioning this very serious threat could never do.

Add to this the healthcare problem itself. Contrary to straw man rhetorical arguments most Americans want healthcare reform. C’mon, everyone has had to fight with an insurance company, rolled their eyes at bills, and we all fear the coverage as much as the disease or injury. However, 2/3’s of the American people do not want a single-payer, government option. The reasons vary, but they don’t want it. The far left extremists of Obama’s party say screw the will of the people, they want a government option, and eventually want a fully socialist healthcare system. 83 House Democrats have said they simply will not vote for any healthcare reform unless it has a government option and can be the first step towards a socialist system. Contrary to that 52 moderate House Democrats will not vote on any healthcare bill that does include a single-payer, government option. Oh, and another 23 House Democrats….yeah, they’re not happy with the healthcare reform bill in any event, so they’re already going to vote against it. Again, Obama’s coolness is astounding as he has somehow envisioned hat his speech tomorrow night will be so good, so moving, so perfect that the Democrats in the House will come together and form a healthcare plan that they can all agree on. (What about Republicans? Who cares-they’re not in power to even oppose let alone support a plan)

I for one can’t wait to see the President’s speech tomorrow night. He’s a great speaker. His task seems impossible, but surely a man doesn’t call a joint session of Congress, ask every major network to cancel their prime time programming to cover his speech, and ask the American people to view it without expecting it to accomplish something. Moreover, there is no something anymore. At this point…it’s all or nothing, and he’s probably not giving the speech for nothing. He’s going for it all.

This should be the greatest speech in the history of mankind.

However, the far left wing of the Democratic Party controls the leadership in Congress. They want their socialized medicine. They want it bad. In the House of Representatives, 83 far left Democrats said they will not pass a healthcare reform bill that doesn’t have the single-payer/government option of socialized medicine. The House is also where Blue Dog Democrats blocked passage of a healthcare bill in August because their constituents didn’t want the single-payer option.

In the Senate, far left Democrats want their socialized medicine bigtime, but they waited too long. When Sen. Ted Kennedy was alive, Democrats had a big enough majority to override a filibuster from Republicans who do not want socialized medicine included in healthcare reform. Now that he’s dead, the Democrats won’t have enough votes to ram through a bill until his seat is filled with a Senator who will tow the party line against the will of the American people.

But even with all that, the real catch 22 is not whether to have or not to have a single-payer, socialized healthcare, government option. No, the real conundrum is how to pay for it. Democrats promised in 2006 to balance the budget, end pork spending by revealing names of Congressmen who put wasteful programs into bills, and to do pay-as-you-go spending. 3 yrs later, they have not. President Obama promised for 2 years that he could do his entire domestic agenda (TRILLIONS of dollars in new spending) just by cutting waste from the Federal Budget, but he’s already spent TRILLIONS while only trimming a few hundred million from the budget (a lot of money to be sure, but literally less than .1% of what is needed).

Democrats tell us that healthcare reform (even with a single-payer, government option) will pay for itself with the reduced costs of such a mammoth program, and by $500million in cuts to the Medicare program which is already underfunded, running out of money, and…they can’t/won’t say why they haven’t made those cuts already. Given all this, and the unprecedented spending that’s already been done by the Obama Administration, many people expect healthcare to be paid for by taxes.

Some have proposed adding the amount of money that a person’s insurance spends on healthcare to be added to their taxable income. This would raise people’s taxes. It would specifically raise taxes on the sickest people who-because they are the sickest-spend the most and need the most healthcare.

Others have proposed adding taxes to unhealthy things. A soda pop tax, more cigarette and tobacco taxes, even taxes on fast food have all been proposed as ways to pay for healthcare while making healthier lifestyles more attractive to Americans (thus reducing the cost of a single-payer, government option/socialized medicine).

And here is the real problem. Democrats usually describe themselves as liberal or progressive. Core to their belief is the idea that people should pay a progressive tax-the wealthiest people who gain the most by what America has to offer should pay the most. Additionally, progressives believe that people who gain the least from the United States, the poorest Americans, shouldn’t pay taxes since they’re not getting as much reward as the wealthy. Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians believe everyone should pay the same in taxes. We’re all equal. We should all be treated equally, and we all have an equal ability to succeed or fail depending on what we do ourselves rather than on what the nation gives us for free or in some sort of aid.

This weekend I was chatting with friends about progressive taxation, the tax ideas that might pay for a government option/socialized medicine, and I realized the hard choice for the Democrats. I suggested (for purposes of rhetorical debate) that every American should get have to get a physical every year, and at that physical their doctor would weigh them, assess their overall health, and sign a tax form. The form would tell the IRS how overweight and unhealthy people are. Then, at tax time, for every pound that a person was overweight, they should have to pay $1000 in taxes for the single-payer, government option/socialized medicine. This “Tummy Tax” idea was rejected by popular consent.

Friends preferred a tax on junk food to pay for healthcare. I called it a “Twinkie Tax.” This Twinkie Tax, however, is unfair by the rules of progressive taxation as it is an even tax for everyone rather than just the people who need it most. Not every Twinkie bought/sold/consumed leads to healthcare costs. Eaten in moderation with self-control, there’s no reason it should be a burden on a society’s health. Instead, the people who need the coverage the most are those who eat so many Twinkies, so much junk food, who smoke the most, etc, those are the people who benefit the most and should be taxed the most under the rules of progressive taxation. Now, some would argue that a small tax on Twinkies eaten in moderation is a moderate tax, but abusers of Twinkies pay more. The cost is not just small tax on a Twinkie. Americans who buy a Twinkie, work hard doing exercise and correct their diet for the Twinkie, those venerable hard workers do not deserve to be punished as much as the people who are gluttonous. They work hard for not just their money, but their health-health that costs.

In the United States we have a progressive tax structure with caveats. Alaskan Inuit-American fisherman get special tax breaks. Married couples and unmarried Americans pay different taxes. Still, for the most part the system is progressive. The top 1% pay almost 30% of the taxes. They are taxed more because (according to progressive Democrats) they benefit more from the nation. By that standard, the American people who are the sickest, who are hurt the worst, who are the fattest, laziest, weakest, these people will benefit the most from government healthcare, and they should pay the most. Anyone who wants to argue otherwise must accept that if we all should pay the SAME share instead of a “FAIR” share then there’s no reason a factory worker should pay less in taxes than the richest man in America, and there’s no reason that a single-parent living in a trailer park or ghetto shouldn’t pay the same amount in taxes as the President of the United States.

If Progressive Democrats want healthcare, they need to decide if they want a progressive tax to pay for it (the sickest, laziest, fattest, weakest, oldest Americans pay the most in taxes), or if they want a flat tax on everyone. It’s a choice between the Twinkie Tax and the Tummy Tax

h/t – Joe Dan Gorman at Political Abacus

Amazing that the DNC believes their ad to be a winning strategy: Let’s characterize and flippantly dismiss concerned Americans on both sides of the political aisle as nothing more than torches-and-pitchforks-style rabble-rousers. Brilliant.

Thanks to skye for use of her photos and apologizes to Dana Loesch for pillaging her photos like the uncouth, ill-mannered mobster, that I am.

The ones who are “scripted” and “astroturfed” are the Democratic leaders out there following their “playbook”. Any “community organizing” on the part of the vast rightwing conspiracy of an honest-to-goodness- grassroots movement should be described more like Miracle-Gro than the manure-fractured outrage which the term “astroturfing” suggests.

How dare they condescend and dismiss the concerns of real ordinary Americans! The reason why some of these “mob” citizens resort to anger and “shouting down” is because they already tried listening and reasoning with their congressional leader, and all they are getting back in return are DNC-talking points and pre-scripted answers. The Dem leaders aren’t engaged in debate and conversation but following their own Pelosified marching orders; they aren’t talking to their constituents, but at them.

Meet the mob.

Someone should make one of those “I’m with stupid ->” style t-shirts, but saying “I’m with the mob” with arrows pointing every which direction. Oh, and bring along some (cardboard/fake) torches and pitchforks.

The arrogant, elitist response of the Congressman to one of his constituents clearly demonstrates his mindset in regard to his office and the people who elected him to serve.

This sort of arrogance and “in your face” attitude is doing nothing to dissuade the opponents of ObamaCare. It only strengthens their resolve and determination.

Upon hearing of the successful attack on Pearl Harbor, Japanese Admiral Yamamoto said:

“I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant, and fill him with a terrible resolve”

I wonder if that is what Congress has done with the health care issue. Have they wakened the sleeping giant? There is only so much the American people will weather without pushing back.

Is the response we have seen to the bailouts, the stimulus, the budget, the out of control spending, and now health care an indication that we have reached that that point?

How much more can the incumbents do before the scales are tipped irrevocably against them?

How quickly will “We the People” forget the insults, the derision, and the invasions and affronts to our Liberty and Freedom?

Congressman Scott has a lot to learn about the American People.

Roll the tape:

“

The strategy of repeatedly pretending that only the wealthy are going to pay for the massive spending increases is quickly getting old and not believable. From the mansions in Beverly Hills to the park benches of Central Park, all residents will be sending more dollars to the government in one way or another. This is not about new tobacco or alcohol consumptions taxes, or even about the massive tax-grab that will come from Cap And Trade, this is about new tax measures, and new taxes on everything that can be squeezed for cash starting with your income. Forget the campaign promises you almost believed about middle-class tax cuts, and forget Sunday meet-the-press equivocations by well-trained emissaries like Geithner and Summers. Your taxes are about to increase dramatically.

The Administration is very demonstrably building a larger government than national revenues can support. With the Nation stuck in a long-term economic quagmire hurting all taxpayers who are already feeling the weight of chronic tax-creeping, the imposition of obvious and visible new income taxes is politically dangerous. The sophistication of the speciousness will find new levels of creativity during the coming weeks.

The White House will no doubt launch a campaign to “talk-up” the economy in the hope that positive proclamations will make them so. Reality is that unemployment, well above the claimed 10%, is somewhere around 16% when you include “marginally attached workers” as well as those employed “part time for economic reasons,” calculated as the “U-6 rate” by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unemployment increasing is neither a turn around, nor a bottom to the recession, and is a far different reality from the “8% or less” predicted by the Administration when it launched its stimulus program. So much for rose-colored forecasting by economists.

Tax receipts are apparently down by 22 percent on individual incomes, and are down 57 percent on the corporate front. When you blend that with a deficit that will surge to almost $2 trillion this year, and a National debt accelerating past $11.6 trillion, your options are limited. We can assume that cutting federal spending is an ideological impossibility, leaving the government with two principal choices, and neither induces positive tingles up your spine. You can be asked to sacrifice and have your income taxes increased massively, or the dollar’s value can be allowed to drop significantly as more of them get printed. The likely path will be a less harmful blend of both of these alternatives. The key will be to allow the dollar’s value to slide gradually so that there are no sudden shocks striking at the heart of national and international markets. International creditors like China will be irritated, but will accede to the gradual process of easing down the dollar. Forget the doomsday scenarios, however, America will take years to work its way out of this recession, then pay off past and current government spending sprees, on its way to growing through the new financial demands on its treasury that will surface over the next decade from baby boomers, social security and healthcare.

To initiate an advance on the lengthy economic turnaround, the joy ride of debt-spending-with-wanton-abandon mindset enjoyed by Bush and continued by Obama must be brought to a close. Deficit growth cannot continue on a path exceeding the rate of economic growth. The Administration should surface out of its decision closet, and become resolutely emphatic on a course of action that will reverse the deficit’s current trend. Obama’s next address to the Nation should be, “I know I promised that if you made under $250,000 per year, you would not see your taxes increased a single dime. Not your income tax. Not your payroll tax. Not your capital gains tax. No tax. I was wrong. I was hasty in forming that covenant with the electorate. We are a government living beyond its means, with currently no end in sight to the discrepancy. Here is my plan for an overhaul of the tax code, and what it will mean to every single one of you. You can expect your income taxes to increase an average of ten percent, for starters. Now, about a national sales tax, …”

“We’re not doctors but we know what is best for you.”

And now those numbers are slipping hard when it comes to his latest Socialist push:

Heading into a critical period in the debate over health-care reform, public approval of President Obama’s stewardship on the issue has dropped below the 50 percent threshold for the first time, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Obama’s approval ratings on other front-burner issues, such as the economy and the federal budget deficit, have also slipped over the summer, as rising concern about spending and continuing worries about the economy combine to challenge his administration. Barely more than half approve of the way he is handling unemployment, which now tops 10 percent in 15 states and the District.

The president’s overall approval rating remains higher than his marks on particular domestic issues, with 59 percent giving him positive reviews and 37 percent disapproving. But this is the first time in his presidency that Obama has fallen under 60 percent in Post-ABC polling, and the rating is six percentage points lower than it was a month ago. …

Since April, approval of Obama’s handling of health care has dropped from 57 percent to 49 percent, with disapproval rising from 29 percent to 44 percent. Obama still maintains a large advantage over congressional Republicans in terms of public trust on the issue, even as the GOP has closed the gap.

The erosion in Obama’s overall rating on health care is particularly notable among political independents: While positive in their assessments of his handling of health-care reform at the 100-day mark of his presidency (53 percent approved and 30 percent disapproved), independents now are divided at 44 percent positive and 49 percent negative.

And this is with a sample that includes 22% Republicans, 33% Democrats, and 41% independents. Just a bit skewed…/sarc

Kind of explains why he will hold another press conference on Wednesday eh? He is desperately trying to shore up support….even if that means delaying the latest bad economic news:

The White House is being forced to acknowledge the wide gap between its once-upbeat predictions about the economy and today’s bleak landscape.

The administration’s annual midsummer budget update is sure to show higher deficits and unemployment and slower growth than projected in President Barack Obama’s budget in February and update in May, and that could complicate his efforts to get his signature health care and global-warming proposals through Congress.

The release of the update — usually scheduled for mid-July — has been put off until the middle of next month, giving rise to speculation the White House is delaying the bad news at least until Congress leaves town on its August 7 summer recess.

The administration is pressing for votes before then on its $1 trillion health care initiative, which lawmakers are arguing over how to finance.

Funny…..you would think our MSM would be shrieking about this. How dare our elected President purposely delay a report on ANOTHER miscalculation on the economy (they calculated growth occurring by Q2). This is the kind of news our lawmakers need to see to make an informed decision on the upcoming Socialist bills, but Obama hides them.

With the poll numbers slipping he understands he has to hide any news that he was wrong, to push a wrong agenda.

And our MSM and Obama faithful won’t say a thing.

For example, could you grasp the full impact of Nemo, Cars, Shrek etal by viewing merely a single cel (short for a single celluid frame of film) of the animation? Could you grasp the enormity of the ethics complaint assault on Palin by only learning about one or two of them?

But of course not. And much is the same with Obama’s cinemascope production to destroy the US economy… all using single cel trailers and razzle dazzling us with fuzzy math. And until those cells are edited together, the plot of this morbid “cartoon” does not become clear.

The O’faithful show you a single cel of his spending… ala the Stimulus/ARRA, the TARP bailout decisions, cap and trade, or health care, etc. By throwing out a number we are becoming far too comfortable hearing – a few trillion here and a few trillion there – Joe and Josephine Q. Public, as well as the partisan Congress members, merely shrug it off, assuming we’ll figure out a way to pay China back.

The problem is, until you start viewing all Obama and Congress’ spending in full wide screen version, you don’t feel the impact of the extremely flawed fuzzy math used to advance these programs in the media.

Case in point… let’s start with health care. Today the ever stellar Jake Tapper gives us the summary of the cost of health care to our individual pocketbooks. It’s easy to boggle the minds of the voter when you package “free” benefits and unprecedented spending in one national bill, then promise all those rich people and small businesses making over $350K (at least today…) will be paying for it. “Not I, said the Little Red Hen”. That couldn’t possibly affect me.

But first, take some time and absorb some personal realities about the tax rates Mr. Tapper lays out. I want you to close your eyes, and picture the this… taxpayers in the top 50% of tax brackets pay 94% of the nation’s tax bill. The top 1% earners pay 33.7 percent alone, and the top 5% pay 53.8%.

When you remove these “evil rich types” from the equation, there is a hefty amount of entrepreneurial small business types – who hire most of the US workers – that shoulder the current US tax bill for that 6% poverty group to which Obama caters.

Do you have that picture firmly in mind? That we’re not talking about the Bill Gates and Warren Buffetts only here? Okay…

The current buzz is that Obama’s “only” trying to take the tax rates up for group of Americans that support Congressional spending to 39%. After health care, that’s bogus, bupkis and a serious political whopper.

A study by the non-partisan Tax Foundation finds that the 5.4% surtax on top wage-earners proposed by House Democrats to help fund health care reform would push top tax rates over 50% in 39 states.

“That means government would be taking more than half of every additional dollar from high-income taxpayers,” said Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge. “The lowest top tax rate would be about 47% –and that’s in the nine states that don’t tax wages.”

~~~

The hardest-hit states in terms of the highest tax bracket would be Oregon (57.5%), Hawaii (57.2%), New Jersey (57.1%), New York (56.9%), California (56.8%), Rhode Island (56.2%), Vermont (55.8%), Maryland (55.6%), Minnesota (54.4%) and Idaho (54.3%).

In case you’ve forgotten what I said above, I’ll repeat it again. Small business owners employ the largest % of the American worker… not evil big business and corporations. And it is these employers who fall into these tax categories.

Now, let’s add another cel to the fantasy animation movie Obama is producing and directing… unemployment realities. Of those “hardest hit” states above, four of them are between 7.2 and 12.4 unemployment as of May 2009, and OR, CA and RI all between 11.5 to 12.4%. None of these are improving and, in fact, progressively worsening month to mone with little end in sight.

Needless to say, I’m quite curious as to how they intend to draw blood from the same turnip field they are eradicating by starving the crops for water.

Which then brings me to the Sarah Palin v John Kerry/MoveOn.org battles over Sarah’s op-ed in WaPo that Mike’s A posted in it’s entirety here a few days back. Aside from the irony that Palin’s perspective is printed in MSM’s WaPo, and Kerry finds himself tilting at enviro wind mills on Huffpo and via his own diary atDaily KOs, Kerry’s rhetoric is perpetuating the Obama “single cel” fuzzy math version of a fantasy animation film.

Note Kerry’s main beefs… that Palin doesn’t care about the health of the planet and doesn’t want “… to tackle global climate change which imperils everything from our economy to our national security”… and then refers to the PERI report from the self-described progressive think tank, Center for American Progress to dispute Palin’s claim about cap and trade being a prescription for job loss and economic disaster.

“Palin’s column ignored the entire problem and didn’t even get right the things it did cover,” he says. “For example, she said, ‘Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.’ ”

“This is wrong,” Kerry scolds. “The pieces of energy reform legislation are job-creation machines. A joint report by PERI Center for American Progress Report calculated that $150 billion in clean-energy investments would create upwards of 1.7 million jobs.

So how does Kerry and PERI come up with 1.7 jobs, and why doesn’t he mention that it’s $150 billion *annually*? They optimistically predict 2.5 million job creation (temporary and a few permanent), and contrast that with the same spending that would only create 800,000 jobs in fossil fuels.

As we see in Table 8, an annual $150 billion clean-energy investment level would generate a total of about 2.5 million jobs. By contrast, spending the same $150 billion within the fossil-fuel industry would produce about 800,000 jobs. This is a difference of roughly 1.7 million jobs. In Appendix 2, we break out these economy-wide estimates for net employment expansion through clean-energy investments on a state-by-state basis.

Of course what they forget to mention is that fossil fuel jobs are created at the cost of the oil and gas companies… not the taxpayers. So we could save that $150 ANNUAL billion (times ten or however many years) from the national debt. oops

Yet without clarifying, Obama and Kerry as his minion depend on a dumbed down, uncurious public to accept his word and the PERI report as God’s truth handed down on stone tablets. If that’s not enough, he then employs the Alinsky tact of putting them on watchdog alert against their fellow citizens.

“I’ll be back throughout the fall with specific things you can do to help, but for now — keep your eyes and ears open. When you see something in your local paper that’s wrong, let them know you notice. When your friends or family members say something that’s wrong, let them know the truth,” implores the Massachusetts Democrat who has made global warming a key issue as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Tell you what, Mr. Kerry… you set your prozac wolf hounds on the rest of the population, and those of us who question authority and have a healthy distrust of government and elected officials will keep biting at your ankles with some facts to combat your rhetoric and threats.

And now… a few ditties from Kerry’s “gospel”… i.e. the PERI report analyzing cap and trade. Because I have to say, I wanted to see just where those 1.7 mil jobs were coming from. So first, let me give you one of the pretty pictures and graphs to peruse. You can find the originals in the PERI report linked above.

The first below is PERI’s breakdown in how much of the $150 billion annually (for four? ten?? years) as it relates to job area creation. Note retrofitting taking up the bulk of the $150 bil annual cost. Pg 19 of the PDF report. Suggest you open the PDF and follow along… pics are small…

You do see where the bulk of the “job creation” lies? With mandated “building retrofitting”. This cap and trade is less legislation than it is regulatory changes and Congressional appropriation to implement those changes. And a huge part is brand new “green” building codes. Why how can that hurt, you say? Because all existing buildings must undergo “retrofitting” to meet current codes.

• The bill would implement new standards based on the International Energy Conservation Code for commercial buildings and the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers standards for residential buildings, with the two standards based on “each model code or standard released after the date of enactment of the Act.”3 The bill also requires the federal government to provide financial support for commercial and residential retrofits in order to achieve compliance with the standards.

~~~

Building retrofits
An average-sized single-family home in the United States would require an investment of as little as $2,500 in energy-efficiency retrofits to produce a cost savings in the range of 30 percent per year.7 This would involve caulking to plug air leaks in the house and adding insulation to attics and basement ceilings. For an additional $2,500, further energy savings are available through replacing windows with air leaks and installing energy effi cient appliances.

[Mata Musing: love to know where *they* shop for windows...]

Despite these potential savings, most homeowners have not retrofitted their homes because they are unaware of the costs savings available to them or they cannot afford the upfront expenses and time commitment involved. But these barriers to retrofit investments will come down through the specific government spending programs that finance retrofits, the building codes that establish higher efficiency standards in buildings, and the more general regulatory environment that raises the costs of burning conventional fossil fuels. As the market becomes more extensive and efficient, this will further encourage new investment in retrofits. In particular, banks, utility companies and various types of nonprofit groups will increasingly organize themselves to supply the upfront financing for these projects. [Mata Musing: In a credit crunch market with declining values? see more on this later...] In addition, construction crews will begin to organize their services to take advantage of the expanding opportunities.

The potential market for building retrofits is huge. There are roughly 110 million occupied housing units in the United States, including 80 million single-family detached homes, as well as smaller numbers of attached units, apartments, and trailers. As a rough approximation, assuming an average investment in retrofits would be around $4,000 per unit, implies an overall potential market of $400 billion. We would then add the corresponding market for non-residential structures. The U.S. Green Building Council surveyed the existing stock of these structures in 2008, including all educational buildings, hospitals, retail outlets, and office buildings of various sorts. They estimated the costs of retrofitting all of these buildings at $358 billion.8

It was, of course, this new regulatory “green” code that fueled the half-true rumors begat with a CNS article that said these mandates *may* require upgrades prior to the ability to sell. Media Matters further muddied the half truth when they labeled a FoxNation article (not to be confused with FOX News) saying this could require homes to be upgraded prior to sale as “distorting”.

Housingwire also chimes in presenting it as akin to harmless “labeling”.

A section in HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which narrowly passed a US House of Representatives vote Friday, falls short of mandating an energy audit on homes, according to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Section 204 of the cap-and-trade bill establishes a building energy performance labeling program for homes and commercial property. The section would provide potential buyers and investors in those properties a label explaining that property’s energy efficiency.

Much like a nutrition label on the back of a candy bar, the performance labeling program is a consumer right-to-know provision in the cap-and-trade bill, but it is not required, according to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Section 202 of the bill develops the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program. If the owner of the building — residential or commercial — seeks financial assistance from REEP, the property must pass the energy audit.

Energy savings for residential properties are determined by the Home Energy Ratings System (HERS) Index, and the final score is selected by an objective third party, according to the bill.

After the audit is conducted, state and local REEP programs may grant funds to owners for retrofit improvements on energy efficiency.

But is it distortion, and how does this affect a future sale of an older home? As the bill states, the regulations create a new code and standard, and “… leaving it up to the states to figure out exactly how to do that.”

Have any of you ever tried to sell a home with outdated wiring and unpermitted improvements to buyers that were obtaining lender financing? The fact is, by creating a new “code” that homes will be required to meet, the government gets to step back and allow either the lender or state regulations to be the bad guy, and force the upgrades prior to transfer of vested ownership. Lenders will be the most likely culprit to assume this as a demand prior to funding. They will want to make sure that any home they pile cash into will not incur additional upgrade costs in the event of foreclosure and default.

And while we’re on that track of “sorta mandated” homeowner upgrades, exactly what will the expense of new appliances and weather proofing add to your homes value in a market where home values are anticipated to decline until 2011? [... told you I'd get to this...]

To sort that out, let’s look at the latest stats from the Cost vs Value annual report for 2008. And the ugly truth is, whether it’s a complete kitchen remodel or new windows, you only recoup a national average of 76%-77% of your cost outlay. Meaning that not only does it make your home NOT worth more to a lender or appraiser, but that you’ve just lost an extra 23-24% of the money you just spent to meet the new government codes.

Well ain’t that a pile of manure?

So let’s look at Kerry’s claim of jobs via the PERI report straight up… the single largest “investment/job creation” is manifested by forcing homeowners to spend money for mandated retrofits that will [in all probability] be required by any lender to bring a home up to current code.

And to pay for, or subsidize, those retrofits, they’re blood-sucking *every* taxpayer – homeowner of new homes, or even renters with no homes – to finance everyone’s mandated upgrade.

I swear I am living in a parallel universe.

Now… burning question… what happens to all those “retro fit” jobs when the 80 million homes are retrofitted?

These are not permanent jobs created. They are temporary jobs. Which brings me to the second of the pretty pictures and graphs in the PERI report. The job descriptions of those 1.7 million supposedly created jobs…. Pg 31 of the PERI report.

The “top three” investment categories that are supposed to translate into “job creation” are the retrofitting, building mass transit, and smart grid creation (which doesn’t include the anticipated lawsuit costs that enviros will be filing to prevent solar and wind grids crossing “protected” lands….)

Now look thru those, and how “permanent” are the other categories after retrofitting. Once the rails are laid, the civil engineers are done designing, the train/bus parts built and ordered, what do we have left but a shadow staff to maintain the (mostly rail) transit? After the smart grids are built, how many employees does it take to man those facilities? The same with wind and solar farms?

In short, we’re talking about spending beaucoup cash on infrastructure that in no way justifies it for permanent job creation… not to mention the larger expense of “clean energy” that puts a huge divot in our earning capacity.

But wait! There’s MORE! All these jobs are supposed to be “created” in an economic repression/depression/downturn… what ever you want to call it. And those jobs are supposed to be created by the very people that Obama is robbing more than 50% of their earnings.

And what are they supposed to use to “create” these jobs? Oh right… more taxpayer money. How silly of me. But why bother if they’re raped for half their earnings?

Since this conundrum of less entrepreneurs and new business creation doesn’t make much sense, PERI decides to spin that one too. They, in fact, say that the high unemployment and desperate economy is more fruitful for the job creation while, speaking off the other tongue’s fork, rely heavily on “self-reinforcing investment momentum”…. which I guess comes from someone who has enough left after creaming more than 50% off the top of their earnings.

Starting on pg 21 of the PERI report, they discuss their methodology used for estimating unemployment and GDP growth. And their first sentence is a disclaimer:

The consequences of public policies on U.S. economic growth and employment growth necessarily happen over time. That’s why we cannot know with certainty what the effects of policy will be. That’s also why we rely on economic models and various forecasting techniques to generate estimates of what future outcomes are likely to be.

If I remember rightly, wasn’t this the group who seriously “misread” the economic indicators right out of the gate? Isn’t this also the group who seems to have major discrepancies with CBO estimates? Pardon me if I’m not too impressed with the rosy “models” of the progressive mindset.

But the progressive think take continue the specifics of their model deductions and projections in the current economic decline on page 28. This is when they launch into the argument, “hey, the worse the economy is, the better chance this has to work” schpiel. Which may, in itself, explain Obama’s headstrong determination to destroy the US economy as fast as possible.

Induced job creation

It is more diffic ult to estimate the size of the induced employment effects—or what is commonly termed the “consumption multiplier” within standard macroeconomic models—than to estimate direct and indirect effects. There are still aspects of the induced effects we can estimate with a high degree of confidence.

In particular, we have a good sense of what is termed the “consumption function,” or what percentage of the additional money people receive from being newly employed will be spent. But it is more difficult to project accurately what the overall employment effects will always be of that extra spending. [Mata Musing: you mean like the employment you *don't* create because living expenses are higher for energy, inflating all end-user products? Or the deflated dollar that means higher costs overal? You mean that "induced effect" of non-employment??]

~~~

First, the magnitude of the induced effect will depend on existing conditions in the economy. If unemployment is high, then this will mean that there are a large number of people able and willing to take jobs if new job opportunities open up. But if unemployment is low, then there will be less room for employment to expand—even if newly employed people have more money to spend.

Similarly, if there is slack in the economy’s physical resources, then the capacity to expand employment will be greater—and the induced effects larger. If the economy is operating at a high level of activity, there is not likely to be a large employment gain beyond what resulted from the initial direct and indirect effects.

Given the rapid deterioration of economic conditions over the past 18 months—including rapidly rising rates of unemployment—the U.S. economy is not likely to bump up against this kind of capacity constraint in the near future. Thus we would expect the induced effects to be significant in the current climate. More generally, the U.S. economy has not come close to approximating a full employment economy since the late 1990s, and even then, the tight labor market conditions were sustained only briefly, until the dot.com… stock market bubble burst. Consequently, it is unlikely that the induced effects of a direct and indirect employment expansion will be diminished by excessively tight labor markets in the future.

What a bunch of hockey pucks… “not come close”. Here’s BLS unemploment stats back to the 40s. You can plainly see where it was between 5.4 to 6.9% in the mid 90s, when the dot.com… bubble came in to play… then burst followed by 911. The unemployment went up to a high of 6.0 before coming back down. “Not close” is a real stretch…

But back to this spin that if the economy is humming along, and unemployment is low, the “self-reinforcing investment” incentive is unlikely. Every bit of that belies market demand. If people demand electric cars, the private market provides electric cars. That just happens to be a very small percentile who only drive blocks at a time, and don’t haul critters, boats and toys for recreation.

What the “progressive” think tank relies upon is the Alinsky model of thought… the more desperate the population for jobs, and the less people that have a profitable business (thanks to highway robbery of taxes), the better chance Obama’s plan has of working.

Okay… can’t argue that.

This is the overview. We now know that Obama must sink the US economy to avail a government rescue of the economy. Cap and trade would do some serious damage on it’s own. But is it capable of tanking the economy single handed?

This is where “the full animated film” comes into play. Add the high tax rates for feel-good health care, add in the national debt from bailout after bailout…. the porkulus… the omnibus spending. Ignore the jobs cuts when you reduce military spending and shrink the national defense inventory. Borrow so much from foreign nations that the dollar is not worth toilet paper.

Welcome to the “cartoon” that is Obama’s economic plan. All cels together translate to the rock and hard place we need to be – desperate – for Obama’s “remaking” of America to be complete.

And like lemmings… we’re been led over the cliff because math is simply a lost art, and we are unable to recognize a single cel frame instead of envisioning the entire feature film.

House of Pain: GOP’s Class of ‘94

The sex scandals that have tarnished Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) and Gov. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) don’t appear to have much in common. Yet there is one thread that binds them together: Both Ensign and Sanford were members of the famed Republican House class of 1994, as well as its latest casualties.

As it turns out, the pressures and demands of political life have inflicted devastating damage not only on the Ensign and Sanford families, but on the families of many of the 71 other freshmen who formed the vanguard of the Republican Revolution.

In the 14 years since that star-crossed class arrived in Washington espousing an agenda that placed family values at its core, no less than a dozen of its members have been caught up in affairs, sex scandals or in messy separations and divorces from their spouses that, in more than a few instances, led to their political downfalls.

Only problem with this is the fact that they came into office with the Contract With America as the core of it’s agenda which reads:

Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.

1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses. (Bill Text) (Description)

2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT: An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, “good faith” exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer’s “crime” bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools. (Bill Text) (Description)

3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility. (Bill Text) (Description)

4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children’s education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society. (Bill Text) (Description)

5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT: A S500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief. (Bill Text) (Description)

6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world. (Bill Text) (Description)

7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT: Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years. (Bill Text) (Description)

8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT: Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages. (Bill Text) (Description)

9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT: “Loser pays” laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation. (Bill Text) (Description)

10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators. (Description)

Further, we will instruct the House Budget Committee to report to the floor and we will work to enact additional budget savings, beyond the budget cuts specifically included in the legislation described above, to ensure that the Federal budget deficit will be less than it would have been without the enactment of these bills.

Sorry, not buying it. They came into office with an agenda all right and that was to bring true conservative principals back to Congress. Why is it that family and being a responsible family member is only a conservative principal to the left and the msm? Shouldn’t it be a important part of everyone’s life?

While I agree some Republicans were hypocrites on issues they were dealt with….and quickly. What gets my goat is the fact that the Democrats shrug their shoulders when one of their own is caught, or worse yet, making excuses for them and doing their best to ensure no punishment comes their way. Check the archives to read about Reid to Pelosi and dozens in between.

Meanwhile this is the kind of stories we get from our MSM. Trashing Republicans instead of focusing on the fact that unemployment is close to 10%, although Obama promised this would change once the one’s plans went into effect. Or the fact that he promised he wouldn’t raise taxes on those making less then 250 grand. Lie after lie and nary a peep from our msm, meanwhile he is spending trillions hand over fist in his best attempt to socialize our country.

But why write reports on that kinda stuff….not as important as running down Republicans to ensure their party keeps power.

No media bias my ass.