Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category
Now that Jim Graves has officially announced that he’s running against Michele Bachmann, people wonder if he can defeat her. John Stossel’s article highlights Graves’ weakness:
Most Americans, even those who are legislators, know very little about the details of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, so-called Obamacare. Next year, when it goes into effect, we will learn the hard way.
Many people lazily assume that the law will do roughly what it promises: give insurance to the uninsured and lower the cost of health care by limiting spending on dubious procedures.
Don’t count on it.
Consider just the complexity: The act itself is more than 906 pages long, and again and again in those 906 pages are the words, “the Secretary shall promulgate regulations …”
“Secretary” refers to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. Her minions have been busy. They’ve already added 20,000 pages of rules. They form a stack 7 feet high, and more are to come.
A couple of weeks after announcing his candidacy last time, Graves made an appearance at a weekly gathering at a St. Cloud bar to visit with conservatives. During that visit, he stopped past my table, at which time I asked him if he supported the PPACA. Though he stopped short of endorsing that specific legislation, he did attempt to sell the ACA as market-driven health insurance reform. More on that later.
The thing is that legislators don’t vote on sweeping principles. Legislators vote on specific legislation. Since there’s no chance that Graves would’ve been one of the legislators shaping the legislation, he would’ve been forced to vote yea or nay on the ACA.
Thanks to Graves’ insistence on not getting pinned down to anything, we don’t know if he would’ve voted for the PPACA. What we know, though, is that he’s attempting to not talk about the ACA. His issues page includes this line:
But today, too many Minnesotan families are struggling under the weight of rising home mortgage payments, skyrocketing health care costs and increasing college tuition.
The only other reference to health care on Jim Graves’ issues page is about the Medicare Part D doughnut hole. I don’t blame Graves for evading the issue. If I were a Democrat, I’d want to evade talking about health care. Stossel’s article provides the reason why the PPACA is a touchy subject for Democrats:
Government likes to think regulations can account for every possibility. Injured at a chicken coop? The code for that will be Y9272. Fall at an art gallery? That means you are a Y92250. There are three different codes for walking into a lamppost — depending on how often you’ve walked into lampposts. This is supposed to give government a more precise way to reimburse doctors for treating people and alert us to surges in injuries that might inspire further regulation.
On Government-Planned World, this makes sense. But it will be no more successful than Soviet central planning.
Compare all that to a tiny part of American medicine that is still free-market: Lasik eye surgery.
Its quality has improved, while costs dropped 25 percent. Lasik (and cosmetic surgery) are specialties that provide a better consumer experience because they are a market. Patients pay directly, so doctors innovate constantly to please them. Lasik doctors even give patients their cellphone numbers.
Mr. Graves isn’t foolish. He knows what constitutes a free market. He knows that the ACA is the opposite of a free market solution.
Michele Bachmann has been right about this issue from the outset. She submitted the first bill to repeal the ACA and replace it with a specific plan. Michele’s plan included eliminating the preferential tax treatment for corporations buying health insurance by giving individuals the same tax treatment that multinational corporations get. As a result of that provision, Michele’s plan made health care portable, which is a huge liberating force for employees.
While we don’t know what Graves’ solution to health care is, we know with certainty that Michele got it right with health insurance reform the first time. When Democrats are in the minority, talk immediately focuses on compromise. Minnesotans in the Sixth District have the choice of voting for an evasive man or voting for someone who got health care reform right the first time.
With health insurance premiums skyrocketing since enacting the PPACA, why would Minnesotans vote for someone who dodges the issue? Why wouldn’t they vote for the candidate who got it right the first time?
Alexis Simendinger’s article about President Obama’s mishandling of sequestration highlights something that shouldn’t be overlooked. Here’s part of what Ms. Simendinger wrote:
Amid a terrorism investigation, plus assertions that the federal government should have inspected a fertilizer plant in West, Texas, before it caught fire and exploded, the president becomes the government’s go-to manager.
When the Veterans Administration became mired in a backlog of disability claims, the public unease migrated to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. When the Department of Health and Human Services missed deadlines to implement provisions of the Affordable Care Act, the president was held to account by supporters and detractors of the law.
And this week, misgivings about the FBI’s 2011 investigation (at Russia’s request) into the suspected radical leanings of deceased Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev earned a second look on Capitol Hill. Concerns that the FBI had stumbled over what might have been important terrorism information prompted private briefings for lawmakers and a written statement of support for the FBI from the president.
President Obama thought that his allies in the media would help him criticize Republicans for the difficulties that sequestration would cause. Thus far, Republicans have done a fantastic job highlighting the cuts that could get made that President Obama won’t agree to.
Things like conventions costing $750,000 or more and tens of billions of dollars of duplicative programs (per year) have hurt President Obama in the public’s eyes. Another thing that’s happened as a result of the Republicans’ messaging is that more people than ever are familiar with ‘the Washington Monument Strategy’. That’s where a president closes a high-profile destination, whether it’s the Washington Monument, major national parks or, in this instance, White House tours. In this instance, that also includes furloughed air traffic controllers.
They’re included because the furloughed air traffic controllers are causing flight delays. People, especially business travellers, can’t stand long delays. They’re criticizing President Obama for the delays, not House Republicans.
As a direct result of sequestration, with a special nod to his constant campaigning rather than governing, people are questioning President Obama’s ability to govern. That’s what started President Bush’s steep decline in the polls after Katrina.
Thanks to President Obama’s campaigning-rather-than-governing M.O., President Obama has opened himself up to be disinterested in governing. When unemployment is high,wages are stagnant and government isn’t functioning, presidents can’t afford to look disinterested in governing.
A number of years back, I heard a joke, part of which I can’t remember. Still, I can remember enough of it to make a point. Historic military figures were looking at the Soviet Union’s military hardware. When the tanks rolled through Red Square, Alexander the Great replied, “If I had had these chariots, I would’ve ruled the entire world.” On his left stood Napoleon Bonaparte. After Napoleon read the current copy of Pravda, he replied “If I had this as the official newspaper, nobody would’ve heard of Waterloo.”
The point of the joke isn’t to get people laughing. It’s to make the point that there’s a more insidious type of Pravda operating inside the United States. For the last 5+ years, I’ve called that operation the Agenda Media. The Agenda Media doesn’t think it’s their responsibility to get people important facts. In their minds, their responsibility is to push their politicial agenda. If that means omitting important facts, that’s what they’re willing to do. This video is a perfect illustration of the Agenda Media’s selective editing:
Thankfully, citizen journalists with cell phones are recording things as they happened. Thankfully, citizen journalists with video cameras are informing people by filming protests like this, then posting the video to Youtube, then reposting the videos to their Facebook page, then posting the links to their videos to Twitter.
There’s a more important point to this. OFA isn’t just about protesting against constitutional conservatives. They’re identifying people in communities who might vote for progressives. Conservatives will show up to counterprotest against OFA. The big question is whether they’ll get into the neighborhoods and identify people that might appreciate the conservative/capitalist message.
Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Tom Coburn, Ron Johnson, Paul Ryan and Rand Paul should be the blueprint for Republicans for 2014. They’re picking fights with President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, which is essential to winning elections. They’re framing debates. For instance, Sen. Coburn is highlighting tens of billions of dollars of duplicative spending that should be eliminated in this budget. Sen. Johnson is highlighting how government is used as a weapon against the citizenry. Paul Ryan is fighting for a pro-growth budget that will eventually balance within a decade.
It’s despicable that the Agenda Media would distort what happened at a protest. As despicable as that is, that’s only part of this story. OFA is already identifying potential Democrat voters. Republicans need to start this week at identifying potential conservative voters.
Tags: Organizing for Action, Gun Control, Protests, Agenda Media, Censorship, Voter ID, Democrats, Tom Coburn, Sequester This, Ron Johnson, Victims of Government Project, Mike Lee, Cut This, Not That, Ted Cruz, Second Amendment, Paul Ryan, Balanced Budget, Rand Paul, TEA Party Conservatives, Election 2014
When former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe announced that he was running to succeed Bob McDonnell as governor, he brought tons of political baggage with him:
Turn over any green-energy rock, and wiggling underneath will be the usual creepy mix of political favoritism and taxpayer-funded handouts. Add to this the Clintons, Mississippi and a murky visa program, and you’ve got a particularly ripe political embarrassment for Terry McAuliffe.
That’s just the tip of McAuliffe’s political difficulties. This information will hurt McAuliffe:
Among the first questions he was asked was why, as a proud “Virginia” businessman, he’d located his business in Mississippi. Scrambling, Mr. McAuliffe stated that he had wanted to bring his jobs home but the Virginia Economic Development Partnership “didn’t want to bid on” GreenTech—whereas Mississippi had offered incentives. He went so far as to criticize the state for not going after manufacturing jobs like his, suggesting he’d change that.
After an investigation, media outlets discovered that Virginia never received enough information from GreenTech to proceed. The Associated Press reported that the state agency worried that “GreenTech lacked brand recognition; had not demonstrated vehicle performance; had no federal safety and fuel-economy certification; no emissions approval…no distribution network” and (ouch) “no demonstrated automotive industry experience within the executive management team.” Rather than respond to these concerns, GreenTech moved on with Mississippi (which perhaps wasn’t asking annoying questions).
As disturbing as that information is, that still isn’t the worst news for McAuliffe. This is:
Virginia was particularly alarmed by GreenTech’s use of an opaque visa program, called EB-5, to fund itself. Part of a 1990 immigration law, EB-5 lets foreigners who invest at least $500,000 in a U.S. company receive green cards. A federal immigration agency approves “regional centers” that administer the program.
While these centers can be run by local government, GreenTech proposed running a Virginia center itself. One official at the Virginia development agency wrote to colleagues that she couldn’t view Greentech’s EB-5 program as “anything other than a visa-for-sale scheme with potential national security implications.”
Touting GreenTech as proof of McAuliffe’s capitalist roots wasn’t smart. Having it exposed that he might be exploiting an immigration statute makes his uphill climb a stiffer challenge than first thought. Explaining away why this “Virginia businessman” opened his business in Mississippi is like loading another sack of bricks onto McAuliffe’s back. Last but not least, finding out that McAuliffe’s company isn’t manufacturing cars or creating jobs is a dagger through McAuliffe’s political campaign.
Get out the butter, folks, because McAuliffe’s campaign is toast.
When the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that the school voucher program signed by then-Gov. Mitch Daniels was constitutional, it marked another victory in the school choice movement. The implications of their ruling is sure to be felt for generations:
A limited choice program is not the same thing as a healthy, responsive educational market. “A rule-laden, risk-averse sector,” argues Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, “dominated by entrenched bureaucracies, industrial-style collective-bargaining agreements and hoary colleges of education will not casually remake itself just because students have the right to switch schools.”
But even restricted choice programs have shown promising results, not revolutionary, but promising. Last year, a group of nine educational researchers summarized the evidence: “Among voucher programs, random-assignment studies generally find modest improvements in reading or math scores, or both. Achievement gains are typically small in each year, but cumulative over time. Graduation rates have been studied less often, but the available evidence indicates a substantial positive impact. … Other research questions regarding voucher program participants have included student safety, parent satisfaction, racial integration, services for students with disabilities, and outcomes related to civic participation and values. Results from these studies are consistently positive.”
Unions are fighting a losing fight. It isn’t a matter of whether they’ll lose this fight over accountability and competition. It’s just a matter of when they’ll lose the final battle in this fight. The results aren’t stunning if viewed from a single snapshot in history. However, they’re quite dramatic if viewed through a series of snapshots over a period of 5 years.
The beauty of the voucher movement going into the future is that it doesn’t require the elimination of public education. For instance, suburban, exurban and rural schools often perform well. Where the performance is solid, there’s no need to scrap what’s working.
This paragraph explains why this fight will eventually be won by parents and studentss, not the unions, politicians and bureaucrats:
Yet it is probably not the moral arguments that will prevail. The opponents of educational choice are attempting to defend the monopoly of the neighborhood school in a nation where most monopolies and oligopolies (see the phone company, the post office or newspapers) have come under pressure. Parents, including suburban parents, increasingly expect educational options such as charters, home schooling, magnet programs and career academies. Customized, online learning will accelerate the trend.
It’s a matter of when, not if. Competition will improve product quality while driving down costs. That’s what happens whenever competition is the rule, not the exception. Politically speaking, there’s great incentive for Republicans to jump onto this movement. It’s a way for them to prove to minority communities that they want to help these communities achieve American prosperity.
Once the gates to prosperity open to these communities, the paradigm shifts. That’s when a lasting victory will have happened.
Tags: School Choice, Mitch Daniels, Indiana Supreme Court, SCOTUS, Bobby Jindal, Competition, Accountability, Magnet Schools, Charter Schools, Free Markets, Milton Friedman, Conservatism, Unions, Bureaucrats, Democrats
While watching Vice President Biden talk on the substantive issues of the day, I often get the impression that the color of the sun in his world is different than the sun that this earth orbits. This interview is one for the ages:
Block: Let’s start with the assault weapons ban that does appear to be dying in the Senate. Is the White House still pushing to have that passed? Do you assume that it’s now not going to happen?
Biden: I am still pushing that it pass. We are still pushing that it pass. The same thing was told to me when the first assault weapons ban in 1994 was attached to the Biden Crime bill; that it couldn’t possibly pass. It was declared dead several times. I believe that the vast majority of the American people agree with us. The vast majority of gun owners agree with us. That military-style assault weapons are – these are weapons of war. They don’t belong in the street, and the recent decision declaring the right of someone to own a weapon in their home for self-protection, Justice [Antonin] Scalia acknowledged that you can constitutionally banned certain type of weapons. And, so, I haven’t given up on this.
Block: You are going to push for it. The Majority Leader Harry Reid says he doesn’t even have 40 votes for the assault weapons ban.
Biden: Look, last time we passed it we only had seven Republican votes in 1994.
Block: But he doesn’t have the Democrats.
Biden: Well, again. I have never found that it makes any sense to support something and declare that there is no possibility of it passing. There is a lot happening. Attitudes are changing, and I think the president and I are going to continue to push and we haven’t given up on it.
Having only 7 Republicans vote for the 1994 assault weapons ban is one thing. Having all 45 Republicans and 15 or more Democrats voting against Sen. Feinstein’s bill is quite another. Apparently, Vice President Biden hasn’t figured that out.
As foolish as that is, the part that’s more telling is when he says that “attitudes are changing” about assault weapons. If he’s thinking that attitudes are changing in the administration’s direction, he needs to hop in his spaceship and return to this solar system.
Then again, perhaps we’re better off with him off in that distant galaxy.
This video shows how in the tank and/or stupid MSNBC is about the Constitution:
Here’s what Andrea Mitchell said about the shootout at the I’m not a sixth grader corral:
I brought my handy pocket Constitution with me today just to make the point that this (the fight between Sen. Cruz and Sen. Feinstein) was not a fair fight because Ted Cruz thought that, somehow, he was going to take on Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who began her career in politics facing the bloodshed in San Francisco when she was elevated to become the mayor after the assassinations there.
Ms. Mitchell is a blowhard and a political hack. Notice that she didn’t address the arguments Sen. Cruz made in belittling Sen. Feinstein in the Judiciary Committee. Here’s that video:
Here’s what Sen. Cruz said that ripped Sen. Feinstein’s arguments to shreds:
My fourth and final point is that the Constitution should be the touchstone of everything we do. Some have suggested in this hearing that the role of Congress is to pass laws and it’s up to the courts to determine constitutionality. I would point out that every one of us takes an oath to defend the Constitution and that is a fundamental obligation of every member of this body.
There has been a suggestion that Heller would allow this regulation. I would point out that I am not unfamiliar with the Heller case. Indeed, I represented 31 states before the Supreme Court in the Heller case. So I have an intimate familiarity with that case, having been an active part in litigating and winning it 5-4 before the Supreme Court. And what the Supreme Court said in Heller — it did say there are some restrictions on the Second Amendment that are permissable. For example, it specifically identified the current ban on fully automatic machine guns. But it also said that weapons that are in common use, such as, in that case handguns were the principle issue being discussed, and the same arguments that are being suggested about why assault weapons could be banned were made by the District of Columbia in Heller why handguns could be banned.
The Supreme Court said “No, if they’re in common use for self defense, they cannot be banned consistent with the Second Amendment.” We have heard testimony that there are some 4,000,000 weapons that would be covered by this legislation. I would suggest that, by any measure, 4,000,000 weapons qualifies as common use. So, under the terms in Heller, they can not be constitutionally prohibited.
Mitchell’s argument is based totally on the logic that Sen. Feinstein has been in DC a long time. She’s the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Therefore, she wins the fight. Sen. Cruz’s argument is based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller, which dealt with Washington, DC’s ban on handguns.
In that case, the Supreme Court ruled DC’s handgun ban unconstitutional because it infringes on people’s right to defend themselves and their families. That’s consistent with the plain language of the Second Amendment.
If Ms. Mitchell wants to argue against SCOTUS’ ruling in Heller, she has to argue against the plain language of the Second Amendment. That’s an uphill fight at best.
Sen. Feinstein’s argument, if it can even be classified as such, isn’t based on the Constitution. It’s based on the time-tested liberal axiom of “Surely, we must do something.” That axiom isn’t rooted in thinking things through. It’s based on emotion, which is basing policy on the shakiest of grounds.
Ms. Mitchell is right in the sense that this wasn’t a fair fight. Sen. Feinstein was overmatched by the freshman Republican who knew substantially more about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights than the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
It’s pretty embarrassing when a freshman schools a committee chair on the chair’s supposed area of expertise. That’s what happened, though. That’s because Sen. Feinstein didn’t think about the rights protected by the Constitution. Conversely, Sen. Cruz had an intimate and thorough understanding of the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court’s Heller ruling.
What’s most delightful is that the best is yet to come. Sen. Feinstein’s bill doesn’t stand a fighting chance in the Senate. I’d bet that Republicans won’t filibuster Sen. Feinstein’s bill because they’ll want vulnerable Democrats to vote on Sen. Feinstein’s bill.
CNN is reporting that President Obama wants White House tours to start ASAP. He just hasn’t figured out a way to make it happen yet:
Full public tours of the White House don’t appear to be coming back any time soon, but President Obama says he wants to figure out a way certain school groups can still gain access to the famous address.
In an interview with ABC, Obama said the unpopular move to suspend the tours in the wake of automatic spending cuts “was not- a decision that went up to the White House.” Still, Obama said he wants to find a way partial tours can resume.
“What I’m asking them is are there ways, for example, for us to accommodate school groups- you know, who may have traveled here with some bake sales,” Obama said in the interview that aired Wednesday. “Can we make sure that- kids, potentially, can still come to tour?”
In the spirit of bipartisanship, one thing the First Family can do to get the tours going again is take fewer lavish vacations. The First Family has spent an average of $20,000,000 a year on vacations. For instance, when President Obama played golf with Tiger Woods, First Lady Michelle Obama vacationed in Colorado.
Where’s the shared sacrifice, Mr. President? With people still struggling, President Obama should be setting an example by living a less lavish lifestyle. Americans don’t begrudge him taking a vacation once a year. They’ve just got a problem with him and the First Family frequently taking lavish vacations.
If the First Family didn’t set the record for taking the most vacations in this nation’s history, there’d be tons of money in the Secret Service’s budget to pay for a year’s worth of White House tours.
Instead, the First Family has taken the attitude that they should be treated like royalty, that they should be able to frequently take lavish vacations to Aspen, Spain, Martha’s Vineyard, Hawaii and the Orient. That’s just a partial list of the First Family’s frequent vacations.
The other thing that’s bugging people, including some in the media, is how President Obama, the Leader of the Free World, portrays himself as an innocent bystander in this calamity:
Obama, speaking with ABC News, tried to distance himself from the decision, pinning it on the Secret Service, though other accounts have indicated both the Secret Service and White House had a role in the move.
That isn’t presidential leadership. That’s what political gamesmanship looks like. The Leader of the Free World wants us to think that he can change the course of human history but he can’t influence the day-to-day goings on inside the West Wing? Does anyone think that the man with a reputation of being a control freak can’t control his family’s travels? Does anyone think he can’t make decisions that would save enough money to have kept the White House tours going?
Families across the United States make budget decisions like this every day. The Leader of the Free World wants us to believe he isn’t capable of doing what families routinely do?
Shame on President Obama for acting like he’s impotent on this matter.
Here’s the reality. President Obama is acting like he doesn’t have a say in these matters because he’s taking a major hit with John and Jane Q. Public. He’s acted irresponsibly. He didn’t put in place a plan to protect these tours, possibly because he thought he could do these things, then get the media to help him in blaming Republicans for his deliberate decisions.
Mr. President, it’s time you stopped living like you were royalty. It’s time you started doing the things that get government back running like it’s supposed to run. It’s pretty pathetic that you chose to live a lavish lifestyle rather than keep the People’s House open for tours.
Lost in this conversation about sequestration is the thing that should be the most important point. In fact, it should be the only point in the conversation. President Obama has consistently insisted on raising taxes more. Reporters have called him on his scare tactics but they haven’t questioned him on why he hasn’t submitted a bill that acts on the duplicative programs throughout the federal budget.
This weekend, I wrote this article about federal spending on autopilot and this article about how the federal government doesn’t require federal programs to determine whether they’re doing their jobs or if they’re even attempting to measure outcomes.
Tom Coburn did a fantastic job of laying out all the ridiculous spending at the federal level. He explained how many duplicative programs exist within the federal government and how each of those programs comes with their separate administrations and separate sets of overhead, all of which wastes taxpayers’ money.
Why aren’t reporters questioning President Obama about why they aren’t even looking at those expenditures? If President Obama isn’t available to answer those questions, they should ask Jay Carney. If Mr. Carney doesn’t have the answer at his press briefing, these reporters should insist that he find the answers for the next day’s briefing.
From the start of his administration, President Obama has refused to accept responsibility for his policies. He’s refused to be transparent. This past Friday, President Obama tried to make it sound like people outside his administration were predicting the Apocalypse. Here’s what he said:
“This is not going to be an apocalypse, I think, as some people have said,” Obama declared (not mentioning that his administration had been behind most of the apocalypse talk). “It’s just dumb. And it’s going to hurt.”
Ray Lahood, President Obama’s Transportation Secretary, talked about furloughing air traffic controllers. Arne Duncan, President Obama’s Education Secretary talked about how teachers were already getting pink slips for next fall as a result of sequestration. President Obama himself said that the White House janitorial staff was getting forced into accepting a pay cut as a result of sequestration.
But I digress.
I suspect that President Obama isn’t serious about cutting spending because his central focus isn’t on implementing great policies. It’s about winning political battles. It’s time the White House press corps insisted that Jay Carney answer why this administration won’t cut the foolish spending Sen. Coburn has highlighted.
If this administration won’t implement those spending cuts, then we’ll have confirmation this administration isn’t serious about cutting the deficit, much less balancing the budget.
The first part of this series dealt with Sen. Coburn’s criticism of the money being wasted on housing programs. Sen. Coburn’s criticism focused on the duplicative and overlapping programs, the overlapping jurisdictions between agencies and the overhead involved in administering these programs.
This part deals with the grant programs from the DoJ:
Here’s the transcript from Sen. Coburn’s presentation on the DoJ grant programs:
SEN. COBURN: Department of Justice grants. Now the Department of Justice is the only agency in the federal government that, if they don’t spend all their money, they get to keep that it. Most people don’t know that. They have 253 different grant programs and, outside of the Department of Justice, there are 9 other agencies involved in that. Most of them, these programs, these grant programs, don’t have any metrix, any measurement to say whether they’re accomplishing the things that the Congress established for them to accomplsish in the first place. So if, in fact, a prudent person were to say ‘We have these grant programs. What are they doing, what are they supposed to be doing and how are they measuring up?’, we don’t know because we don’t require the federal government to measure how effectiveness of their programs.
President Obama, Sen. Reid and Minority Leader Pelosi continue to pretend that there isn’t a penny’s worth of wasteful spending left in the federal budget. Technically, they’re right. They’re right in the sense that there’s tens of billions of dollars of wasteful spending left in the federal budget.
That leads to these important questions:
- If there are tens of billions of dollars of wasteful spending left in the federal budget, who are President Obama, Sen. Reid and Minority Leader Pelosi protecting?
- If there are tens of billions of dollars of wasteful spending left in the federal budget, why do President Obama, Sen. Reid and Minority Leader Pelosi insist that the only solution to this crisis is another tax increase?
There’s no justification for increasing taxes for a fourth time this year. Thus far, Americans have gotten hit with a tax increase when the payroll tax holiday expired on New Year’s Eve. The next morning, the tax increases from the Affordable Care Act kicked in. A day later, Congress passed a $600 billion tax increase on “the rich.”
After all thos hundreds of billions of dollars of tax increases, President Obama, Sen. Reid and Minority Leader Pelosi insist that the solution to their spending addiction is…another tax increase? Seriously?
President Obama, Sen. Reid and Minority Leader Pelosi insist on another tax increase to feed their spending addiction. That’s the only explanation that makes sense. They certainly haven’t shown any interest in making sure the taxpayers’ money is spent wisely. They certainly haven’t shown an interest in getting the deficits under control. There’s no denying the fact that President Obama and his administration have tried painting the most horrific picture imaginable.
Remember Arne Duncan insisting that teachers were already getting pink slips as a result of sequestration? Or Ray Lahood inisisting that waiting lines at airport check-ins would be longer? Better yet, remember President Obama telling the White House press corps that janitors in the White House would have their pay cut if sequestration went into effect?
There’s no reason to trust anything that trio of politicians say about taxes or spending. They’re proven themselve to be totally dishonest.
The most disgusting thing in the GAO report is the fact that, in instance after instance, there isn’t a metrix to measure whether the programs are doing what they’re supposed to be doing or whether they’re spending money efficiently.