Senator Bunning's Heroic Stance Against Spending

Originally published "State of the Nation" at Desk of Brian:

http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/senatorbunningheroicstanceagainstspending


You will surely hear (if you haven't already) how Senator Jim Bunning and Republicans don't care about the uninsured or the unemployed. Even party loyalists are turning on Bunning as Bunning upset the Senate spending "apple cart" by voting NO to bill spending $10 billion.

Susan Collins of Maine was eager to lead the foolish accusations and comparisons to a filibuster and exaggerate the martyrdom of Americans.

Problem is:this is NOT A FILIBUSTER!

A filibuster is a technical procedure to block a unanimous cloture vote in the Senate. The $10 billion spending was on the floor for "Unanimous consent" and Bunning's objection WILL CREATE DEBATE. Instead of flying right through, they have to discuss the bill and find a way to pay for it.

$10 billion to extend unemployment benefits, COBRA, perpetuating doctor fees for Medicare patients, flood insurance, highway spending -- Bunning supports all of this: if we can find a way to pay for it.

"When 100 senators are for a bill and we can't
find $10 billion to pay for it, there's something the matter, seriously
the matter with this body." Bunning proclaims as he reminds us that the Democratic controlled Senate of the last three years has escalated the debt $5 trillion dollars."



It takes a moment like this to stop the bleeding, stop the endless freight train of abusive spending and that hero is in Kentucky.

Jim DeMint (R-SC) has come to the aid of Bunning: "When we borrow the money to do it we threaten the futures of our
children and grandchildren, diminish their quality of life and likely
cause their unemployment in the future."

Better late than never.

Todd Schnitt, a Conservative talk show host here in Tampa, objective to the decision because it's "political suicide" and bad timing.

Isn't that the core of the problem: being Conservative, following the Constitution ONLY when it's convenient and politically expedient to do so.

So let's throw some gasoline on the fire and mention that the PAYGO BILL - requiring Congress to offset spending to keep a zero balance, was just passed. A year - A YEAR after the $2 trillion deficit of the first year in office, President Obama can pound his chest in victory.

Of course, within a month, Congress wants $10 billion in "emergency spending" -- not from the stimulus, extra spending.

How are we going to pay for it?



"This is a temporary extension. It's over $10 billion. And all Senator
Bunning was saying, quite correctly, is it ought to be paid for.
Congress just passed the so-called pay-go legislation which is supposed
to require that we find offsets or other savings if we're going to spend
money. We exempt this bill from it. ... The question for
the longer term extension is a different issue, because that's well over
$100 billion." - John Kyl (R-AZ)



So let's check the other side of the aisle:

"As American families
are struggling in tough economic times, I am keenly disappointed that
political games are putting a stop to important construction projects
around the country," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.
"This means that construction workers will be sent home from job sites
because federal inspectors must be furloughed."

Is he kidding? Political games...the bill isn't passed and workers are sent home. I've told you how stupid they think we are.

Harry Reid responded by attacking Bunning for raising "no objections to passing the Bush tax cuts and authorizing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without paying for the provisions" -- Reid's point is well taken, but isn't that the whole point to PayGo.

Partisan politics on both sides, spineless wimps for leaders and we're left with the tab. Bunning's move didn't earn any Republicans public opinion points, but if they were more concerned about that DEBT instead of getting re-elected, then they'd see how they could continue the theme to stop the Healthcare Reform freight train.



Jim DeMint defending Bunning:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/84547-demint-comes-to-bunnings-aid-in-unemployment-fight

John Kyl finally joins in the fight: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/01/reid-neutralize-bunnings-objection-unemployment-aid/

Pic: USA Today http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/03/sen-bunnings-one-man-filibuster-is-over/1

Most Corrupt Politicians of 2009

Original Post on Desk of Brian: State of the Nation by Brandon Jones at DeskofBrian.com

No real surprises on this list.

 

The same old names just keep showing up over and over again.

 

#1 - Christopher Dodd, recently retired Senator from Connecticut headlines the list as Dodd continued his shady past with backroom deals with Countrywide, Fannie and Freddie Mac and now, undervalued property in Ireland which is leading to a new investigation.

 

#2 - Republican John Ensign (pictured here) ranks number two as Judicial Watch site a NY Times article which aptly summarizes the Ensign scandal:

 

"The Justice Department and the Senate Ethics Committee are expected to conduct preliminary inquiries into whether Senator John Ensign violated federal law or ethics rules as part of an effort to conceal an affair with the wife of an aide."

 

#3 - Barney Frank: Fannie and Freddie Mac -- nuff said to quote Marvel Comic Books.

 

#4 - Timothy Geithner's tax evasion and ties to the AIG corruption lands the Treasury Secretary in the top five.

 

#5 - Eric Holder, the Attorney General arbitrarily decides what to investigate and what to sweep under the rug.

 

#6 - Jesse Jackson Jr./Roland Burris: How much for the Senate in 2010? Seriously, how much?

 

#7 - President Obama and #8 - Nancy Pelosi - nothing needs to be added here.

 

#9 - Recently deceased John Murtha and the PMA seven, a defense lobbyist group that has finally been shut down. Murtha's family was receiving millions along with the PMA earmarks.

 

#10 - Charles Rangel - has he paid his taxes? That's all I'll say.

 

 

The list is hardly shocking. Previously Republicans graced the Top Ten board proving what little "Change" President Obama actually brought to Washington.

 

What interesting is if you look at the older lists, Judicial Watch did a great job of including stories and corruption that we're still discussing today.

 

Same corruption, just with different letters after their names.

 

 

 

2009 Most Corrupt Politician List

 

2008 Most Corrupt Politician List

 

2007 Most Corrupt Politiican List

 

2006 Most Corrupt Politician List

A Year Later

After receiving 66% of the vote in Massachusetts in the 2008 Presidential election, President Obama just witnessed a Republican win the Senate seat held for over forty years by the late Ted Kennedy.

Martha Coakley, the Democrat candidate had won the office of Attorney General with 73% of the vote. The Massachusetts seat is the latest to fall after Republican victories in Virgina and New Jersey (and a near win in New York) special elections.

So why has the tide shifted so quickly?

The President's policies are much, much further left than populist opinion.

As many, manny have already asserted, I believe that the administration misinterpretted the election of President Obama as a mandate for left-leaning, socialism ideals and it was not.

There was a mandate against the George W. Bush policies, but Obama has perpetuated many of the same problems despite blaming the previous administration.

The President will not be judged by his intentions, but by his results and the results have not been positive.

Another area of frustration for both party members is the continued lack of unity. President Obama thought and campaigned on putting partisan politics aside and yet there have been instances of heightened exclusion. He overestimated his ability to bring the parties together, in part, by using "campaign speak" and accusations of obstruction rather than negotiate.

Some stats:

54 percent of Americans disapprove of his economic policy, an opinion probably influenced by the 62 percent disapproval rating on our skyrocketing budget deficit. (CNN poll)

51 percents of Americans approve of his foreign policy and 53 percent approve of his handling of the Iraq War. (CNN poll)

59 percent of Americans currently disapprove of so-called "Obamacare." (CNN poll)

A recent Gallup poll indicates that Americans are less sure that Obama will be able to accomplish his goals in almost every area


One year later we are facing similar problems with different faces in the White House. As I have proclaimed, the practical differences between the two parties is "political language" NOT executed policy changes.

One year we have a bigger, more instrusive federal government and the only difference is the letter after most of the names.

Why a Brown victory may not be reason to rejoice

If, and I emphasize if and not when, Scott Brown wins the Senate seat in Massachusetts, the Republicans will have a lot to celebrate. Overcoming a snowy, rainy voting day will be coupled with a heavy liberal voting constituency.

Of course Scott Brown will be rejoiced by Conservatives and the talking heads will announce the tide has shifted, but I offer a moment to hesitate.

Brown is NOT a Constitutional Conservative.

He's a pro-choice, proud supporter of "Romney-Care", which is quickly failing and racking up massive debt for the Massachusetts' taxpayers. Brown has a great image, a strong military record and has never run from his risque photo spread to help cover his Boston College law tuition.

I agree that Brown is a decent candidate, but mostly compared to his hollow, thoughtless, dishonest liberal competitor. Attorney General Martha Coakley has proven to be a horrible candidate and President Obama delivered arguably his worse speech to date trying to stump for her.

Having a Republican in a seat occupied by Ted Kennedy for over 45 years does appear to be shocking. This election could eliminate the Democratic supermajority in the Senate and could slow the health care reform bills.

But Brown, like Romney, supports government invention in Massachusetts health care, which proves that the form of "Big Government" and the partisanship matters more than a pure conservative interpretation of the Constitution.

I have to be hesitant of a candidate who feels that we MUST buy health insurance and support big government monitoring, policing and taxing constituents accordingly. Sure, he claims to NOT support the current Obamacare bills, but like Mitt Romney, Brown dodges strong stances and provides only the same rhetoric.

So avoid the ticker tape parade and FOX celebrations if Scott Brown wins. It may be signal of the tide changing, but not worthy of hysterical festivities that Sean Hannity will exalt upon his viewership.

Cram & Ram Healthcare

Move over CAP and Trade, here comes Healthcare Reform. The midnight addition of 300 pages to the Cap and Trade Bill is nothing compared to the Clock & Dagger tactics by the Senate to help push a healthcare bill through.

Committee Chairman Max Baucus "We are now closer than ever before to finally passing reform that will offer security to those who have coverage and affordable insurance to those who don't."

Among the changes to this final draft(see link below):

• Bill would impose a 40 percent excise tax on insurance plans in excess of $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families.


• An amendment approved on a 13-10 party line vote raises those levels for retirees and high-risk professions, such as coal miners, to $9,850 and $26,000 respectively.


• states to negotiate deals with healthcare plans for those on low incomes. This NOT a lift or change to the interstate restrictions that limit insurance companies to certain states.


• set a $500,000 limit on the amount of executive pay that health insurance companies can deduct from taxable income. Cap on executive pay (put in by Blanche Lincoln)
• would bar insurance companies from denying coverage or charging higher premiums on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions


• exempt more lower income people from the requirement to purchase insurance and delay implementation of penalties for failure to purchase insurance.
• bill would have allowed hardship waivers only if the cost of insurance exceeded 10 percent of a person's income. The amendment lowered that threshold to 8 percent.
• bill eventually would impose a maximum tax penalty of $950 for individuals and $1,900 for families that fail to purchase insurance
• allow states to negotiate with insurers to arrange coverage for people with incomes slightly higher than the cutoff for Medicaid, the government healthcare program for the poor
• committee's bill would create nonprofit insurance cooperatives to create competition -- CO-OPS are an important codeword for government run "public options"

The hold ups have been resolved as fees and excise taxes are negotiated to sound less. Don't forget that we WILL ALL get a tax increase next year as the Bush tax cuts will all expire.

They brag about "lowering the penalty" - penalty?

This "penalty" is NOT a tax though. Right?

Remember when this process would take months and the predictions were maybe the end of the year. I've railed over and over again on how the House is ready to go. I truly expected the Nancy Pelosi and the House to push a bill forward and pressure the Senate to follow suit.

Instead, we heard how the Senate Finance Commitee were voting against the public option, killing the healthcare reform - tons of misinformation.

The end game is still the same: one payer system, a government takeover of healthcare. If this were false then why ignore the bankruptcy of Medicaid and Medicare? If this is so urgent, then why is it now effective until 2013 (right after the re-election)

I only provided one link to paste many of these bullet points presented but you can google up all of the comments from these meetings. We don't know if we are getting to review this bill, so I encourage you to call your House Rep and Senators and DEMAND this bill gets posted on the internet.

DEMAND discussion and ask questions. This is NOT over, so we need to stay vigilent.

This only clarifies the fact that they WILL require everyone to have insurance and there will be a fee/penalty (but definitely is NOT a tax) for NOT having insurance.

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-HealthcareReform/idUSTRE58O6C020091002