Open It Up

From the Washington Examiner:

Even though isolated barricades with "closed" signs remained on the National Mall on Tuesday, the setup for the immigration reform rally said otherwise. 

A giant stage with lights and an "Immigration Reform Now" banner was set up in the center of the mall, along with three large portable screens. 

On one side of the mall, more than 100 porta potties were set up for protesters who will attend the rally today. 

As several groups of musicians performed sound checks, a lone National Park Service employee arrived to survey the scene, but referred me to the Park Service communications office and left when I asked her why she was called into work today. 

As the Washington Examiner reported Monday, rally organizers said that they would be allowed by the NPS to carry out their protest under their First Amendment rights.

I say let them protest. Since when do you need permission from the government to protest the government?

That said, I think that the barring of public places - especially national parks and open-air monuments - during the government "shutdown" is government stupidity beyond belief and typical of the kind of thinking that creates wasteful government spending in the first place.

If it doesn't usually cost any money to run something - and now suddenly barring access to that thing DOES cost money - how is that doing anyone any good?

Thoughts on the Government Shutdown

I had some windshield time yesterday, which meant plenty of time to listen to the radio and all the moaning about the government shutting down.  Here are some thoughts I had as I was driving:

If the morons in Congress wouldn't rely on continuing resolutions to fund our country to begin with we wouldn't be in this mess it all. If they would just passed a yearly budget as it is constitutionally mandated then none of this would be happening.

Running the country by brinkmanship is what brought us to this point.

We need to remember that it is not right for the national parks to be open.

Wait. So you need to tell me that 40% of government employees are nonessential to the running of government? That just sounds wasteful to me, especially since Congress (Nancy Pelosi, in particular) tells us that "the cupboard  is bare" and that there are no more cuts that can be made.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Obamacare is actually a tax. So basically this government shutdown is the House of Representatives trying to give the American public tax cut. And the president and the senate are resisting such a tax cut.

Harry Reid saying that "Obamacare is the law of the land" and that the Republicans should just accept that and give up the fight is completely hypocritical. And since when can laws not be amended, stricken down or defunded?

Vacation Days

From USNews:

At a time when many more cash-strapped Americans are stuck at home instead of vacationing at the beach, President Obama next week will lead an entourage of several dozens to exclusive Martha's Vineyard island at a cost of millions to taxpayers.

While technically he is paying for his estimated $50,000 a week rental of the 28-acre beachfront Blue Heron Farm in woodsy Chilmark, the dozens of U.S. Secret Service agents, communications officials, top aides, drivers, and U.S. Coast Guard personnel with him will be covered by taxpayers as with every other presidential vacation.

And he dismissed the criticism of vacationing presidents. "I think all this 'Why is he taking a vacation?' stuff is ginned up by the media," he said. "I don't think any American will fault him for getting away, especially if he comes back with some fresh ideas on how to create jobs."

Sure - every president needs to take some time off now and then, but how much time?

According to FactCheck.org:

A four-day holiday weekend in Chicago in February where the president played some basketball and treated First Lady Michelle Obama to a Valentine’s Day dinner date.

An eight-day stay with his family at a rented house on Martha’s Vineyard in August.

A trip out west to the U.S. states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and Arizona that combined both business and pleasure. The president held town hall meetings on health care during the trip. And he went fly fishing and took trips to Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Canyon with his wife and two daughters.

An 11-day stay in Hawaii where the president and his family celebrated Christmas and New Year’s Eve.

Some of the president’s recent predecessors, however, have spent more days — either entirely or partially — away from the White House "on vacation" during their first year in office.

President Reagan, in 1981, spent all or part of 42 days away from the White House "on vacation" at his home in Santa Barbara, Calif, according to Knoller. President Reagan and his wife, Nancy, also spent three or four days around New Year’s Day each year in Palm Springs, Calif., at the home of philanthropist Walter Annenberg. (In 1993 the late Mr. Annenberg founded the nonpartisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, which is FactCheck.org’s parent organization.)

President George W. Bush spent even more time away from the presidential mansion in the nation’s capital than Reagan. Of the 77 total "vacation" trips the former president made to his Texas ranch while in office, nine of them — all or part of 69 days — came during his first year as president in 2001, according to Knoller.

Ah, yes. But there's a major difference: both Reagan and Bush "vacationed" at their homes on property they owned. They didn't spend millions of taxpayer dollars renting properties at which to vacation. And don't forget that trip to India that Obama turned into a "working" family vacation - where he rented out an entire 600+ room luxury hotel. Or the vacations that Michelle Obama has taken, say, to Spain... or to Oregon... or to Vail... South Africa... You get the idea. Luckily, I'm not the only one who's talking about it.

Oh, yeah... I wonder if all those rounds of golf - 75 rounds to date - Obama's been playing lately count as vacation days? Probably not. Those were on weekends, after all.

I guess what's most frustrating is that all this comes in the middle of a recession and economic hardship for the rest of the country. It's also a time when the president is lecturing us about cutting back and doing without things like, oh, vacations. It's his job to not only follow his own advice, but also to set the tone and example for the country. But just like everything else, he'sa master at saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. In fact, just a few months ago, he said ""If you’re a family trying to cut back, you might skip going out to dinner, you might put off a vacation." But this is the same guy who said in the exact same speech that the government, like ordinary Americans, has to live within its means." And any rational-thinking American can see what utter bullcrap that turned out to be during the debt ceiling debate.

So in the past three years he and his family have managed to waste tens of millions of dollars on vacations. But when you compare that to how much money was wasted on "stimulus spending," I guess that's a drop in the bucket.

Why Am I A Terrorist?

Why am I unreasonable - nay, a terrorist - for wanting my government to live within its means? And by "live within its means," I mean don't spend more than it takes in?

This entire debt limit debate is ridiculous. It treats the symptom with a procedural gimmicks but completely ignores the cause - out of control government spending. The government has an obligation and a duty to be diligent with and respectful of the taxpayer money that we send, unwillingly, to Washington. They spend like drunken sailors and then only want more and more and more.

And for all you liberals out there whose favorite refrain in all this is that Congress approved X number of debt limit increases under Bush, let me tell you this: there was a lot of outcry about Bush's spending from conservatives during his term, as well. This isn't a new issue.

We have a problem in that Congress treats all money that comes in as its own and falls all over themselves to spend it, many times multiple times over through accounting gimmicks. What we need is to force Congress to do something they obviously won't do themselves: have some discipline. We need an amendment to the Constitution that requires Congress to balance the budget every year. And we need representatives (and Presidents) who aren't afraid to tell people no. Why must budgets increase every year? Our household budgets certainly haven't, especially in the past few years. So why do government agencies feel entitled to more money than they got the year before and then bitch and moan if they are limited to only a three percent increase?

We need to put a hard stop to all unnecessary government spending, and we need a very narrow definition of what is necessary. The National Parks Service paying to cut down trees in Yosemite isn't necessary - it's a luxury. New post office buildings aren't a necessity - they are a luxury, especially for an agency that is bleeding money. We need to shelve any and all plans on building Biden's bullet train. People are getting around just fine now without it. And we need to put a hard stop on all legislation that will force massive government-imposed overhauls of appliances and light bulbs and fuel economy regulations and such until we as a country can afford to do so. Those kind of projects are not for rainy days, they're for when we're doing well and have expendable incomes in the first place. We must stop government extravagance (read: waste) at every level.

I think it would be good for everyone - difficult, but good - if every single government agency had to trim its budget by 15 percent. Make do without. Sacrifice. Maybe don't get new computers this year or send its members to a conference. Or maybe they make do in that 15-year old building for a few more years before they build a new one. After all, we're in a recession. Why not recede the government budgets, also? When the country is down, it's not the time for new spending - it's time for belt tightening and doing without. The majority of Americans are doing it in their personal budgets, and its time that the government - especially Congress and the White House - do it, too. The example needs to flow from the top down. And by the top, I mean Congress and the President, Vice President, etc. Democrat and Republican.

And while we're at it, let's get a reign on foreign aid while we're struggling. I have no problem with it resuming when we're back on our feet, but now, when we have no money, is not the time to be handing out money. If we were any other country, it would be the other way around - we'd have our collective hand out. But to my knowledge, we haven't done that yet.

If we don't take some hard actions, we're doomed as a country. We need responsibility, accountability and discipline. And we need it now, not in accounting gimmicks and reductions in spending over 10 years.

Who's Paying For All This Luxury?

From Slate:

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, allegedly sexually assaulted a maid in a $3,000-a-night Midtown Manhattan hotel suite this weekend. Then, police arrested him in the first-class cabin of a Paris-bound flight. How can a socialist public servant afford such a luxurious life?

DSK's compensation and expenses are in line with his peers, the small handful of central bankers and finance ministers at the helm of the global economy. The president of the World Bank, for instance, makes almost exactly same amount. As per the bank's most recent annual report, Director Robert Zoellick earns $441,980 in salary, plus $79,120 for living expenses.

Nevertheless, DSK's finances became a major issue in his home country of France even before his arrest. This spring, he faced accusations of being a "champagne socialist" after a photograph of him climbing into a $100,000 Porsche* got play in the papers. (The car was not his.) And France Soir published a viral hit-job-slash-investigation, reporting he wears suits made by Barack Obama's tailor that cost up to $35,000. (DSK denies the allegation.)

Wait. Did I just read that Barack Obama's tailor charges $35,000 for a suit?!?!? Who do you think is paying for that? And just why do Socialists need such expensive clothes?

The Deficit Explained, Simply

This is why I enjoy Dave Ramsey:

The federal government will take in $2.173 trillion in 2011. That’s their income, and it sounds pretty good. Until, that is, you factor in that the federal government will spend $3.818 trillion during the year. So, just like many families, the government’s outgo exceeds their income—to the tune of $1.645 trillion in overspending. That’s called the deficit. Altogether, the government has $14.2 trillion in debt.

What would happen if John Q. Public and his wife called my show with these kinds of numbers? Here’s how their financial situation would stack up:

If their household income was $55,000 per year, they’d actually be spending $96,500—$41,500 more than they made! That means they’re spending 175% of their annual income! So, in 2011 they’d add $41,500 of debt to their current credit card debt of $366,000!

Brother, Can You Spare $80?

I put $15 of gas in my tank a couple of nights ago and it wasn't even anywhere near a quarter of a tank. Here we are, on the edge of summer - when gas prices usually go up anyway - and we're paying almost $4.00 per gallon of gas. It's costing me $80 to fill up my truck. And I know people with larger vehicles who are paying a lot more every week.

And yet, where's the outrage?

By watching the news or reading the news sites on the internet, you'd never know that gas prices are about to set an all-time record. And it makes me sick. There's not a single issue that affects every American like gas prices. It affects the cost of food and goods. It affects the service industry. It affects almost literally everything.

And what is our government doing about it? Are they building more refining capacity? No. Are they authorizing more drilling on U.S. soil (and waters)? No - just the opposite, actually. They're doing nothing.

When gas prices rose to record levels in 2005 following hurricanes Katrina and Rita our problem was apparent. We simply don't drill enough of our own oil and we don't have the refining capacity to meet demand. Back then the government should have allowed more drilling and should have worked with the oil companies to find a way to increase refining capacity and build new refineries. Those refineries would be just about ready to go online right about now and relieve some of the stress on our economy.

Our economy is trying to recover from a bad and lengthy recession, and it needs all the help it can get. Families - especially those out of work - can't afford to be paying $60 - $100 to fill up the gas tank on just one vehicle. That takes away income that we should be spending in other areas of the economy.

So why isn't the Congress and the Obama administration doing something about the price of gas?

I think it's because it's because they've got us right where they want us.


chart from gasbuddy.com

Separation of What?

Remember this the next time someone on the left starts screaming about "Separation of Church and State" or "Favoring one religion over another" or about how "we need to do more" or when they try to remove Jewish or Christian religious symbols from public places because "taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing religion."

Outrageous. I'm so sick of these blatant double standards.



If you're seeing this on Facebook, click the post title to view this video.

Alfred W. Evans For President

This was taken from the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco, TX, 18 Nov. 2010


Put me in charge...

Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star Cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for
50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese, and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak
And frozen pizza...get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. We’ll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings.
If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get Tats and piercings...get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good
State of repair. Your “home” will be subject to inspections anytime, and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a
Plasma TV or Xbox 360...get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, Whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good.”

Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self esteem,” consider that it wasn’t that long ago when taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was Demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should At least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.


Alfred W. Evans, Gatesville, Texas

Damn straight. I'd love to shake this guy's hand.

Thanks to my Grandma for sending this.

What's Next: Government Investigates Doping in Professional Backgammon

From the NY Daily News:

Former pro cyclist Floyd Landis, who has accused his sport's biggest hero, Lance Armstrong, of doping, helped the federal government collect potentially incriminating audio and video recordings for its sprawling investigation into doping conspiracies in professional cycling, according to sources close to the case.

Last spring, at the behest of federal agents, Landis wore a hidden wire and carried a small portable video camera during an encounter with fashion designer and cycling team owner Michael Ball, according to one source who said the video footage captured images of what appears to be human growth hormone and other doping products in the refrigerator of Ball's luxury apartment in Marina Del Rey, Calif.

Damn, the government sure spends a lot of money trying to catch just one guy who may or may not be using something that isn't illegal - just banned in his sport - a sport the vast majority of Americans couldn't give a rat's ass about.

Who really cares? And is it worth all the time and government resources we're spending trying to prove that Lance Armstrong is on the juice? I think not.

I want my taxes credited for the amount of this crap investigation.

I finally agree with John McCain

From the Drudge Report:

U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) delivered the following statement today on the floor of the U.S. Senate:

“In the short time I’ve had to review this massive piece of legislation – I’ve identified approximately 6,488 earmarks totaling nearly $8.3 billion. Here is a small sample:

$277,000 for potato pest management in Wisconsin
$246,000 for bovine tuberculosis in Michigan and Minnesota
$522,000 for cranberry and blueberry disease and breeding in New Jersey
$500,000 for oyster safety in Florida
$349,000 for swine waste management in North Carolina
$413,000 for peanut research in Alabama
$247,000 for virus free wine grapes in Washington
$208,000 beaver management in North Carolina
$94,000 for blackbird management in Louisiana
$165,000 for maple syrup research in Vermont
$235,000 for noxious weed management in Nevada
$100,000 for the Edgar Allen Poe Cottage Visitor’s Center in New York
$300,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii
$400,000 for solar parking canopies and plug-in electric stations in Kansas

“Additionally, the bill earmarks $727,000 to compensate ranchers in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan whenever endangered wolves eat their cattle. As my colleagues know, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Gray Wolf program is under intense scrutiny for wasting millions of taxpayer dollars every year to ‘recover’ endangered wolves that are now overpopulating the West and Midwest. My State of Arizona has a similar wolf program but ranchers in my state aren’t getting $727,000 in this bill.

“It is December 14th – we are 22 days away from the beginning of a new Congress and nearly three full months into fiscal year 2011 – and yet we have not debated a single spending bill or considered any amendments to cut costs or get our debt under control. Furthermore, the majority decided that they just didn’t feel like doing a budget this year. How is that responsible leadership?

“This is the ninth omnibus appropriations bill we have considered in this body since 2000. That is shameful and we should be embarrassed by the fact that we care so little about doing the people’s business that we continuously put off fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities until the very last minute.

“One thing is abundantly clear to me – that the majority has not learned the lessons of last month’s election. The American people could not have been more clear. They are tired of wasteful spending. They are tired of big government. They are tired of sweetheart deals for special interests. They are tired of business as usual in Washington. And they are tired of massive bills – just like this one - put together behind closed doors, and rammed through the Congress at the last moment so that no one has the opportunity to read them and no one really knows what kind of waste is in them. "

WTF of the Day

From NDTV:

Communications set-up and nuclear button and majority of the White House staff will be in India accompanying the President on this three-day visit that will cover Mumbai and Delhi.

He will also be protected by a fleet of 34 warships, including an aircraft carrier, which will patrol the sea lanes off the Mumbai coast during his two-day stay there beginning Saturday. The measure has been taken as Mumbai attack in 2008 took place from the sea.

THIRTY-FOUR WARSHIPS????????? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Are we declaring war on India or something?

Following the news that THREE THOUSAND people will be traveling to India for this trip at a cost of $200 million per day, it's starting to sound as if Obama and his staff and friends might be seeking exile. Somebody want to tell this guy that our country is broke, please?

Geez.

US to spend $200 Million a Day on Obama's Mumbai Visit

From NDTV:

The US would be spending a whopping $200 million per day on President Barack Obama's visit to the city.

"The huge amount of around $200 million would be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit," a top official of the Maharashtra Government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit said.

About 3,000 people including Secret Service agents, US government officials and journalists would accompany the President.

Holy crap. Wait. Did they say 3,000 people would be going on the trip?

What the hell is this trip for, anyway? And how soon can we have another election?

Poor, Poor Nancy.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Nowhere will Nancy Pelosi's loss of the House speakership be felt more acutely than here in the Bay Area, where her power - and the power of fellow local Democrats in Washington - has been used to help steer hundreds of millions of dollars into infrastructure projects.

"Just look around," said Jim Lazarus of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. "The $400 million for the Transbay Terminal project, the Doyle Drive rebuild, the Hunters Point Shipyard cleanup. If she wasn't there, I'm not sure we would have gotten the funding, and we certainly wouldn't have gotten it as fast as we did."

And there are projects still on the table, such as the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles high-speed rail project that is just getting off the ground and looking for big federal money.

This is exactly the kind of spending that the rest of the country is in revolt about. Why the hell should all of us pay for local projects in your city. If it's such a necessity, then find a way to pay for it locally. But stop digging into my pocket because you feel like you need a new ferry terminal or need to clean up a damn shipyard.

Ugh.

"Quit Telling People The Truth."

From Medical News Today:

Kathleen Sebelius, US Department of Health and Human Service Secretary, has told AHIP (America's Health Insurance Plans) members to stop using scare tactics and half truths to place the blame for 2011 premium increases on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act. Sebelius stressed that the Affordable Care Act should have a minimal impact on premiums for the majority of Americans.

In a letter to AHIP, the national association of health insurers, Sebelius accuses several health insurance carriers of sending letters to enrollees falsely blaming 2011 premium hikes on the new legislation.

There will be "zero tolerance" for this type of misinformation and unjustified increases in premium rates, Sebelius warned.

Sebelius reminds AHIP that the provisions included in the Affordable Care Act were fully supported by AHIP and its member companies.

In other words, "you knew what you were signing on to."

Does it strike anyone else as odd that the government takeover of health care is actually causing premiums to increase, which is the exact opposite of what we were all promised. It's no wonder that a bureaucrat like Sebelius is getting a little defensive about it.

And the fact that "the Affordable Care Act should have a minimal impact on premiums for the majority of Americans" is just plain ludicrous, given the amount of money spent on the takeover and the control that it wrested from the private sector.

It's going to get worse, folks...

Lazy People Prefer Something for Nothing

From the Detroit News:

In a state with the nation's highest jobless rate, landscaping companies are finding some job applicants are rejecting work offers so they can continue collecting unemployment benefits.

It is unclear whether this trend is affecting other seasonal industries. But the fact that some seasonal landscaping workers choose to stay home and collect a check from the state, rather than work outside for a full week and spend money for gas, taxes and other expenses, raises questions about whether extended unemployment benefits give the jobless an incentive to avoid work.

Members of the Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association "have told me that they have a lot of people applying but that when they actually talk to them, it turns out that they're on unemployment and not looking for work," said Amy Frankmann, the group's executive director. "It is starting to make things difficult."

The average landscape worker earns about $12 per hour, according to the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth. A full-time landscaping employee would make $225 more a week working than from an unemployment check of $255.

But after federal and state taxes are deducted, a full-time landscaper would earn $350 a week, or $95 more than a jobless check. The gap could narrow further for those who worked at other higher-paying seasonal jobs, such as construction or roofing, which would result in a larger benefits check.

The jobless in Michigan are collecting for a longer time -- an average of 19.4 weeks last year, up from 15 weeks in 2008. State benefits last for up to 26 weeks. The unemployed can then apply for extended federal benefits that increase the total time on the public dole up to a maximum of 99 weeks.

The federal jobless benefits extension "is the most generous safety net we've ever offered nationally," said David Littmann, senior economist of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market-oriented research group in Midland. The extra protection reduces the incentive to find work, he said.

What they should do is follow the Navy's lead and start handing out medals for doing nothing.

This obviously doesn't apply to everyone who is unemployed, though. I happen to know a few people who are unemployed and it's not for a lack of trying to find suitable work in their field. But the difference is that they're actually trying. But at some point I think I'd take anything that pays temporarily. Something coming in is better than nothing - or government cheese - any day in my book.

Thanks to Matt for sending this and pushing me one step closer to my head exploding.

Tea Parties and Americans: The Left Just Doesn't Get It

From a NYTimes New Alert:

The fierce animosity that Tea Party supporters harbor toward Washington and President Obama in particular is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Bull crap.

The media just doesn't get it. I can't speak for everyone, but let me tell you why I (and the people I spoke to there) went to the tea party last year: government intrusion and reckless, unaccountable spending. That's it. We're simply tired of the government looking at us as cattle - as a food source. They see us not as people, but as a power base and, as a whole, they've stopped listening to us. Congress and the president has decided that they know better than we do how to run our daily lives and how our money should be spent. The concept of individual liberty is completely lost to them.

They have no problem with lying to us about how badly we need a stimulus package RIGHT NOW or else the entire economy will collapse. Then we find out that all kinds of other crap has been included into the bill that was supposedly all about the economy and that the trillions of dollars that were spent - that we didn't have - went to wasteful projects and people and places that didn't even exist. And then came the health care bill, which is fraught with all the same kinds of nastiness.

But is it about so-called class? Not at all. Why must everything be about class or race to liberals? Why must everything be a damn game? It's simply about standing up for individual liberty and accountability in government! How much more simple can I put it? I want liberty for people of all races and of all backgrounds and of all so-called "classes," not just the middle class or the rich. That's ludicrous. The left and the media think that because the people who are most likely to attend a tea party are middle class and skew toward upper middle class that we only are there to help the people who are there.

What utter nonsense.

The reason they see it that way is because that's how they view politics: help those who support you or are like-minded and step on everyone else. But that's not how conservatives (or even most Republicans) view things. Because we have a message of personal accountability and hard work, not government hand-outs and state-run coddling programs people (and by people, I mean people on the left) think that we're these cold, heartless animals who are only out for ourselves and who don't care about the poor or people who are down on their luck. Again, that's simply not true. We just have a vastly different view of how things should be fixed. Instead of taxing everyone so that the government can dole out checks and food like some sort of giant teet, we think that charity should come from charities and churches and private foundations and from the goodness of people's hearts. There are times when people are down and just need some assistance. Cool. Fine. I understand that. Then that's where a government safety net should come in, but it should only provide just enough so that people don't starve while they're out there trying to get back on their feet. It should be a limited time assistance, not a perpetual system of dependence as it is now. People should not make their living by sitting at home waiting on a welfare check to come, but there are millions that do. And somehow, the liberals have removed the shame in that - in accepting something for nothing and relying on someone else to take care of you.

There's an old saying: "give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime." That pretty much sums up the conservative philosophy.

What strikes me is how different the news alert at the top is from the news story that it links to:

Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.

I sincerely doubt that only 18 percent of Americans are tea party supporters. Perhaps it was in the phrasing of the poll question. Had the question asked something like "do you identify with the concepts of government accountability, lower taxes and more individual liberty?" instead of something like "are you a Tea Party supporter?" the results would have been a whole lot higher. I don't identify myself as a Tea Party supporter. I'm a conservative who attended a tea party to show my support for conservative philosophy and to protest my government's willful and deliberate ignoring of my liberties. The whole "Tea Party" thing has taken on the tone of a third party, and I don't support that. What I support is making the Republican party conservative again and holding the Republicans to the standard we elected them on.

They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as “very conservative” and President Obama as “very liberal.”

And while most Republicans say they are “dissatisfied” with Washington, Tea Party supporters are more likely to classify themselves as “angry.”

Not angry as in unruly mob "angry," but angry as in "I've finally had all I can swallow, so I'm going to take a little time off of work to make my voice heard" angry.

Their responses are like the general public’s in many ways. Most describe the amount they paid in taxes this year as “fair.”

Uh, no. Flat out wrong. A huge part of the catalyst behind some in the tea party movement was unfair and extraordinarily high taxes.

Most send their children to public schools.

True. So? Is the New York Times arguing that because we support smaller government that we don't support education or that we shouldn't be sending our kids to public schools?

A plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president,

I'm one of those who thinks that Sarah Palin is a fad and shouldn't be held up as some kind of savior of the Republican party. What Sarah Palin is - and represents - is a refreshingly unabashed conservative voice on the national scene that we haven't heard in a long time. But she's not the best candidate for president, no. I'm not going to go so far as to ay she's not qualified.

and, despite their push for smaller government, they think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers.

Horse crap. Only people who don't pay attention think that, and the story already established that those who attend tea parties are far more likely to pay attention to politics.

They actually are just as likely as Americans as a whole to have returned their census forms, though some conservative leaders have urged a boycott.

What the crap does the census have to do with anything? I've never heard any "conservative leader" say to not return your census form. What I've heard is that people shouldn't have to fill out all the crazy demographic and personal information that the government asks for on them because such information is only used to gerrymander congressional districts and attempt to justify social spending programs. What they've urged is to say "there are four people living in my house and our household income is X." And that's it. The government doesn't need to know what race I am in order to serve me. If we're to truly live in a "colorblind society," then race shouldn't matter at all.

They are more likely than the general public, and Republicans, to say that too much has been made of the problems facing black people.

See my previous comments. Race shouldn't matter. If people are having problems, it shouldn't matter what race they are - that's extraneous to the situation- just find a way to solve the problem, not how to capitalize on it.

And some other nuggets from way, way down in the story:

They are far more pessimistic than Americans in general about the economy. More than 90 percent of Tea Party supporters think the country is headed in the wrong direction, compared with about 60 percent of the general public.

Nearly 9 in 10 disapprove of the job Mr. Obama is doing over all, and about the same percentage fault his handling of major issues: health care, the economy and the federal budget deficit. Ninety-two percent believe Mr. Obama is moving the country toward socialism, an opinion shared by more than half of the general public.

And nearly three-quarters of those who favor smaller government said they would prefer it even if it meant spending on domestic programs would be cut.

And finally:

Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.

Others could not explain the contradiction.

What contradiction? We expect to get what we paid for. Now, I don't expect to get a dime of Social Security benefits, but there was an entire generation or two before mine that were promised benefits and were sold on the concept of Social Security as their retirement income. That's what the government promised them. So I don't begrudge those people for expecting the money back that they paid into the system. What I think is ludicrous is anyone who still expects that after seeing Social Security not pay off and seeing people not able to get by on their Social Security benefits. I think Social Security should be overhauled drastically or done away with completely (with the aforementioned previous generation in mind). But, that's a post for another day.

Some Nuggets from Obamacare

From the AP:

When fully phased in, 94 percent of eligible non-elderly Americans will have coverage, compared with 83 percent now.

What? Not 100 percent like we were all led to believe?

$938 billion over 10 years for the coverage expansion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Does this sound to anyone else like seeing something for sale for $9.49? It's a pricing gimmick, made to make you think it's less expensive than it is. Most people won't round it up to the $1 trillion that it is or realize that the CBO is never, ever correct in their estimates. They always estimate way, way under what the actual cost of things end up being.

Almost everyone will be required to be insured or else pay a fine, which takes effect in 2014. There is an exemption for low-income people.

There always is, isn't there? I thought this whole thing was about them and those who couldn't afford health care. Why not offer a cheap government program just for these people and leave the rest of us alone to live our lives? Boom. One page health care bill. It's because this has never been about health care.

Starting this year, insurers will be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions, and from canceling policies because someone gets sick. Parents will be able to keep children on their coverage up to age 26. A new high-risk pool will offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems until 2014, when the coverage expansion goes into high gear. Major consumer safeguards will also take effect in 2014. Insurers will be prohibited from denying coverage to people with medical problems or charging them more. Insurers will not be able to charge women more.

So health insurance companies are now prohibited from dropping people who are a bad risk or are losing them money. They will be required to cover people who are bad risks and can't even charge more to people on whom they will be spending more money? The economic consequences of this are obvious - it's going to run private insurance companies out of business, forcing everyone eventually onto government-run health insurance (which doesn't have to make a profit).

If the Senate approves a package of changes this week, a special deal that would have given Nebraska 100 percent federal financing for newly eligible Medicaid recipients in perpetuity would be eliminated. A different, one-time deal negotiated by Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu for her state, Louisiana, worth as much as $300 million, would remain.

Shameful.

The bill applies an increased Medicare payroll tax to investment income and wages of individuals making more than $200,000 a year, or married couples above $250,000.

Wait. Hold on. That's a new tax. I invest, and I hope that my investment income goes up and up and up. I also hope someday to make more than $250,000. But the Washington Post assured me that nothing for me would change and that my taxes wouldn't be going up.

The tax on investment income would be 3.8 percent if the Senate acts on a package of changes this week — higher than originally proposed. If the Senate follows through, the legislation also would impose a 40 percent tax on high-cost insurance plans worth more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. The tax would go into effect in 2018.

Emphasis mine. Three days after the thing was passed and they're already busting the numbers and breaking promises? Also, doesn't it seem odd that there's a tax in here that doesn't even go into effect for EIGHT YEARS!??! Why in the world would they do that? Could it be that they were trying to hide it? Eight years from now you'll be hit with a sucker-punch tax out of nowhere and the people who passed it will be long gone and completely unaccountable. Shameful and abusive.

Employers are hit with a fee if the government subsidizes their workers' coverage. Contingent on approval by the Senate this week, the $2,000-per-employee fee would be assessed on the company's entire work force, minus an allowance. Companies with 50 or fewer workers are exempt from the requirement.

Translation: the government is now requiring businesses to offer health insurance whether they can afford it or not. But if they can't afford it and have to have the government subsidize their employee's coverage that they're required by law to offer, then they will be penalized $2000 per person for every employee in the company. Is it just me, or is this kinda like a bank charging huge overdraft fees to a person who doesn't have enough money in their checking account to cover what they already owe, especially if the fees are as a result of the bank previously charging overdraft fees? If a company can't afford to offer health insurance before, how are they going to be able to afford mandated health coverage (even if partially subsidized) and $2000 per employee? This is going to run countless mom and pop businesses out of businesses.

Businesses with 25 or fewer employees that offer health coverage to their work force will get tax credits. The credits will start this year and rise in 2014 to a maximum of 50 percent of the cost of premiums offered by the smallest businesses, those with 10 or fewer workers.

Odd that this number is 25 and not 49. Why is there such a gap?

Small businesses, the self-employed and the uninsured could pick a plan offered through new state-based purchasing pools called exchanges, opening for business in 2014. The exchanges will offer the same kind of purchasing power that employees of big companies benefit from. People working for medium-to-large firms will not see major changes. But if they lose their jobs or strike out on their own, they may be eligible for subsidized coverage through the exchange, and insurers could not deny them coverage.

Buh-huh? There are already private co-ops like this. Why the need for the government to interfere? Oh, wait. It's all about control. And that last sentence - there's the government forcing insurance companies to take on bad risk again. Hmmm. This is sure starting to sound to health care like what the government did to the housing market when it required lenders to give low-interest loans to people who couldn't afford to pay for what they were getting. But that's okay- nothing bad happened with that, right?

The legislation cuts about $455 billion over 10 years from projected payment increases to hospitals, insurance companies and others under Medicare and other government health programs. Revenue increases over 10 years include: $210 billion from increasing the Medicare payroll tax; $107 billion from fees on insurance companies, drug makers and medical device manufacturers; $32 billion from the excise tax on high-value insurance plans; and $2.7 billion from a tax on indoor tanning services.

They're increasing demand for doctors' services and cutting funding for the services they are mandating. And would you look at all the new taxes they're imposing... Anyone who thinks that either companies who are being taxed in such a way won't pass the cost on to consumers or go out of business if they're not allowed to is stupid, or a Democrat... or both.

And I wonder why indoor tanning places are such a scourge on society tat they are not only specifically targeted but were made the first, immediate tax increase? What about ice cream shops, or convenience stores or fast food restaurants or ... oh, just wait. It's coming.

And why not a tax credit for people who belong to gyms? If you're going to punish unhealthy behavior, why not reward those who engage in activities that make them healthier? Because it's not about health care. It's about control.

No government-run insurance plan. People purchasing coverage through the new insurance exchanges will have the option of signing up for national plans overseen by the federal office that manages the health plans available to members of Congress. Those plans will be private, but one would have to be nonprofit.

Bullcrap. What part of any of this isn't being mandated and gerrymandered by the government? And what is Medicaid, if not a government-run health care plan? Exchange plans may, indeed, be private, but by being "overseen by the federal office that manages the health plans available to members of Congress," that pretty much makes them government-run, doesn't it?

Waiter! There's a Democrat in My Soup!

Some quotes from the debt story I linked to earlier. Ridiculous. And these clowns wonder why the American people are in damn near revolt. Morons.

Congress has never failed to increase the borrowing limit.

"We have gone to the restaurant. We have eaten the meal. Now the only question is whether we will pay the check," said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. "We simply must do so."

A White House policy statement said the increase "is critically important to make sure that financing of federal government operations can continue without interruption and that the creditworthiness of the United States is not called into question."

Less than a decade ago, $1.9 trillion would have been enough to finance the operations and programs of the federal government for an entire year. Now, it's only enough to make sure Democrats can avoid another vote before Election Day.

Democrats Give the Finger to the Country

From Philly.com:

The Democratic-controlled Senate yesterday cleared away a Republican filibuster of a huge end-of-year spending bill that rewards most federal agencies with generous budget boosts.

So let me get this straight... we're in the middle of a recession where people are losing their jobs in the tens of thousands every month, people are protesting in the streets because of government over-spending, the president is telling all of us in his speeches that we must learn to do more with less and the economy has been bad enough in the past year to where we had to spend trillions of dollars to stop the bleeding for fear of a complete collapse of our entire economic system?

And yet the Democrats can't stop spending money and are, in fact, giving "generous budget boosts" to federal agencies???

Eff you too, Democrats.