Category Archives: Federal Budget

An alternate choice?

Posted on by

The primary battle between two GOP candidates for Governor has commenced. Catherine Hanaway has been broadcasting some particularly vile radio ads against Tom Schweich. Yes, those ads are supposedly from a third party but they have the consent and approval of the Hanaway campaign. In some campaigns in past years, my candidate of choice, often took a turn on who used smear tactics. Those were the ones I voted against.

I’ve met both candidates in their previous campaigns for office. Neither, in my view, are choice candidates.

Yes, Schweich has had some questionable campaign donations and has given some questionable donations to other candidates. Am I convinced of the validity of those charges? No, I’m not.

Catherine Hanaway has issues as well. Her voting record in the state legislature has a number of questionable votes. One in particular was her vote against Missouri’s Concealed Carry law. She said, in an interview last year in Joplin that she voted according to the wishes of her district. Hanaway isn’t the White Knight of Missouri politics. Her consistency record is poor.

So who do we support? There may be an alternate choice. The GOP’s state Lincoln Day celebration occurred in Kansas City this last weekend. The state Lincoln Day gathering shifts each year between the St. Louis area, the Kansas City area, and Springfield. This year, it met in the downtown KC Marriott.

Eric Greitens

Eric Greitens

Eric Greitens, from the St. Louis area, had a hospitality suite in the Marriott and met with a number of state GOP activists and politicos. If you look at his bio, he has an impressive record. A friend who spoke with Greitens told me he believes Greitens will run for Governor.

Eli Yokley’s PoliticMO newsletter had this to say about Greitens.

FOR YOUR RADAR — ‘Who is Eric Greitens?,’ asks Missouri Scout: “Bill McMorris writes a piece about Eric Greitens’ impressive resume in the Washington Free Beacon. You’ll get a sense of the dude, but I won’t bury the lede… it’s in the final paragraph: Greitens will begin travelling the state on book tour in two weeks, evangelizing his doctrine of renewal and self-reliance and meeting the constituents he hopes will put him in the governor’s mansion. The primary is August 2016.”

— Greitens, a former U.S. Navy Seal, had a suite tucked away on the 19th floor of the Marriott Downtown in Kansas City over the weekend, where Republicans had gathered for their annual Lincoln Days gathering. Greitens met with activists and Republican consultants in his suite. The word is he is in, but he is staying quiet, letting Tom Schweich and Catherine Hanaway “shoot cruise missiles” while he flies under the radar. — PoliticMO Newsletter, February 24, 2015.

Greitens said he will travel around the state, “evangelizing his doctrine of renewal and self-reliance.” That would certainly be different from the current doctrine of crony-capitalism and voter dependency.

Catherine Hanaway won the straw poll for Governor over Tom Schweich this last weekend. There was a big controversy over the poll when the ballot box disappeared for a time and suddenly reappeared…stuffed with votes for Hanaway. Hmmm.

***

National Public Radio took a look at union membership across the country and its decline. They created a map that shows the transition in membership. Missouri union members were 23% of the workforce at one time, now their membership has declined to 8%. That’s a good thing.

***

This from today’s FOX Newsletter…

DEM REVOLT BEGINS ON OBAMA AMNESTY
After maintaining a weeks-long filibuster of a Republican bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security but roll back president Obama’s executive actions granting amnesty and work permits for millions of illegal immigrants, Senate Democrats are starting to splinter. Unable to break the Democratic logjam, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he would instead offer a standalone bill to block Obama’s amnesty gambit before resuming the funding fight. Appearing on “Fox & Friends,” Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said he would vote to “prevent the president from his executive action” and suggested that there might be the five other Democrats necessary to advance the legislation.

“Well, this bill removes those excuses. It sets up a simple political equation: Either stand in defense of extreme overreach, or stand with constituents in support of shared democratic values.” –Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell in a floor speech today. — FOX Newsletter, February 24, 2015.

The danger here is the McConnell is about to sell us out again. He has already asked the House to revise the DHS funding bill to include funding for Obama’s amnesty program. Initially, Speaker John Boehner has refused, saying the House has done their job, it’s now up to the Senate. I don’t trust Boehner to continue to stand on his statement.

Facebook

The Rime…

Posted on by
Ah! well a-day! what evil looks
Had I from old and young!
Instead of the cross, the Albatross
About my neck was hung.
— The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Part II, Stanza 14.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Obama must be feeling as if he were that Ancient Mariner, who killed the Albatross and was condemned to wear its dead body around his neck. The difference is that Obama’s Albatross is Obamacare.

Some statistics were published today that is another weight, another burden, around Obama’s political agenda. Statistics, such as:

OBAMACARE POLL: THEY’VE TRIED IT AND THEY DON’T LIKE IT
Fifty percent of voters disapprove of ObamaCare, 43 percent strongly so, according to a poll out from the budget hawk group Public Notice. The survey, conducted by Tarrance Group, found that while 40 percent of respondents approved of the health law, a majority of key groups disapprove including women ages 18 to 44 (51 percent), employees of small businesses (57 percent), adults in households with children (56 percent) and voters who’ve tried to shop on ObamaCare Web sites (52 percent). The poll also showed that Members of Congress who voted for the president’s law are getting a negative reaction from voters, with 43 percent saying they less likely to re-elect those who voted for the health law versus 38 percent who are more likely to vote for their member if he or she voted for ObamaCare. — FOX Newsletter, 12-10-2013.

The critical issue is the age groups in the poll above. These groups are the demographic segment that Obama was planning on soaking to pay for his monstrosity. Now, they are opting out, refusing to play Obama’s game, a game he is losing badly.

But that isn’t the only damaging news about Obamacare. As we move closer to the implementation date, more failings of Obamacare are emerging. This time for prescription drugs—the list of covered drugs has been slashed. Many of us, forced onto Medicare, take maintenance drugs. Some are to control cholesterol, some to control blood pressure, plus many others. Now, with the list of covered drugs slashed, Obamacare and Medicare participants must pay for those drugs out of their pockets. Plus, for Obamacare enrollees, those out-of-pocket costs cannot be charged to your deductible.

OBAMACARE PAIN PILL
Dr. Scott Gottlieb, former senior policy adviser to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told Megyn Kelly that many prescriptions may not be covered under ObamaCare. “The list of drugs that the plans cover, in many cases, aren’t very long.  And if the drugs aren’t covered you’re on your own, you basically have to pay for it entirely out of pocket, and the money that you spend on those drugs doesn’t count against your out of pocket limit or against your deductible,” Gottlieb said. “This could cost patients who need special drugs a lot of money, literally tens of thousands of dollars a year.” — FOX Newsletter, 12-10-2013.

***

What a disappointment Paul Ryan has turned out to be. He ran in the last election, as a conservative, a tax conservative and a spending conservative. His current budget plan, with democrat Senator Patty Murray, exposes the lies he spoke during that campaign.

The Big Spenders Return

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  December 10th, 2013 at 04:30 AM

If Paul Ryan were a Peanuts character, he’d be the guy who pulls the football out of the way just as he himself is about to kick it. Over the past number of years, Congressman Ryan has come up with a few reform proposals.

From his roadmap to this, he has made as his starting point for negotiations that which should be his ending point.

Now, with liberal Senator Patty Murray, Congressman Ryan wants to raise spending today on the promise that Congress will restrain itself ten years from now (or whenever the benchmark will be). It’s a return to pre-sequestration Washington — spending increases today in exchange for promises of spending cuts later.

I opposed sequestration at the time the GOP came up with it. I figured they’d do an end run around it. But they did not. Surprisingly, they stuck with it if only because they couldn’t figure out a way to undermine it without rocking the boat with their base.

Now it’s looking like they are prepared to rock that boat.

The Democrats have repeated painted doom and gloom scenarios about sequestration. They said it would undermine economic growth, but the latest economic figures dispute that. They said it would cause increased unemployment, but the latest employment numbers dispute that. They’ve said a great deal, all of which has been nonsensical hyperbole.

Based on what has been reported so far, the Ryan-Murray plan seems like outright capitulation to the big spending, big government agenda of both parties’ lobbyist class. In fact, the op-eds already coming out for it are being written by those who stand to profit from more spending.

Congress should start at sequestration spending levels and reduce spending from there — not raise revenue and not raise spending. After all, like Obamacare, sequestration is the law of the land too.

A sellout in any form, is still a sellout. Actions like this, Ryan’s betrayal of his Tea Party supporters, makes me wonder if there are ANY national politicians, Cruz, Lee and a handful of others excepted, who are not traitors to their constituents?

Here is a link to another report on the Paul Ryan-Patty Murray Tax and Spend bill. It’s very informative.

***

If you watch the news coming out of the Middle-east, you may have come across this article, the possible creation of strange allies, Saudi Arabia and…Israel! Neither country wants a nuclear Iran on their borders.

Saudis to Obama: We Will Not Tolerate a Nuclear Iran

By Karin McQuillan, December 10, 2013

Individuals who have even visited Israel, or who observe Judaism, or who carry a Bible are banned from Saudi Arabia.  Yet Saudi Arabia’s Israel-hating King Abdullah just flew in an Israeli scientist to have dinner with him, to enjoy some royal hospitality, accept a medal and the $200,000 “Arab Nobel Prize.”  It’s a not-so-subtle message to President Obama: the unthinkable can happen, so don’t assume the Saudis won’t join with Israel to bomb Iran.

Obama’s new Iran policy moves the Mid-East closer to war over oil and religion — Sunni Saudis versus Shia Iranians.  There is no more strategic commodity than Gulf oil to the entire world economy.  American national security stakes could not be higher.   Iran’s end game, some say more than an attack on Israel, is to seize the Saudi oil fields.  There is a Shiite majority in the oil province that the Saudi Princes fear could be turned by Iran.  The Saudis no longer see the U.S. as an ally in stabilizing the Middle East.  We have become a force for chaos. The UK Telegraph:

Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review, said the great unknown is how Saudi Arabia will react to a move deemed treachery in Riyadh… The great question is whether they can live with this deal, or whether it is intolerable,” he said.

Mr Skrebowski said the Middle East is a tinder box, in the grip of a Sunni-Shia civil war comparable in ideological ferocity to the clash between Catholics and Protestants in early 17th Century Europe. Saudi Arabia has already shown how far it will go to protect its interests, helping to overthrow Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.

The Saudis are signaling that they will unleash a pre-emptive war in the Middle East in response to Obama’s nuclear capitulation to Iran.  These signals are an effort to change Obama’s decision to prop up the mullahs and green light their nuclear program.  Can the Saudi threats become real?  It’s a wild card our President is willing to play.

The column continues, here, at the American Spectator website.

The Obama administration, acting as if by design, is alienating our friends and allies. If Obama’s plan is to isolate the United States from our friends around the world, he is being extremely successful. That’s is Obama’s only agenda item that is working.

Facebook

Friday Follies for November 30, 2012

Posted on by

Obama’s minions have been in “secret” talks with the GOP congressional leadership on how to divert our approach to the fiscal cliff. What the White House wanted and what they offered in return made McConnell laugh out loud.

Obama wanted more taxes, no commitment to any spending cuts (unless it was to the military), and authority to raise the debt limit at will—no Congressional approval required! Quoting Dave Ramsey, that would be giving a drunk a drink.

White House ‘Cliff’ Offer to Boehner a ‘Break from Reality’

By Billy House, Updated: November 30, 2012 | 8:00 a.m

Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, on Thursday rejected a White House plan to avert the so-called fiscal cliff at year’s end that would generate nearly $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue over the next decade and require Republicans to allow Congress to relinquish its control over the nation’s statutory borrowing limits. 

“A complete break from reality,” is how the plan, delivered to Boehner and other congressional leaders by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at their Capitol offices, was described by a congressional Republican aide familiar with what was proposed. President Obama’s liaison to Congress, Rob Nabors, also was at the meetings.

Yes, your read that first paragraph correctly. Obama wants congress to give him complete authority to spend and borrow without regard to the debt limit—in short, there would be no debt limit other than what our creditors were willing to give us. It would be a fiscal disaster.

We need to keep the pressure on McConnell and Boehner to reject Obama’s offers. Obama will never cut spending regardless of any agreements. He has done that many times before. Obama lies. Democrats lie. They will never honor any agreement except when it is what they want.

The real danger is that McConnell and Boehner will revert to their normal spinelessness and roll over again. We must make the establishment GOP more afraid of us than they are of the dems.

***

Speaking of the fiscal cliff, more and more analysts and pundits are saying, “Do nothing.” According to them, the fiscal cliff is a myth created by the 2011 Budget Control Act. Boehner and McConnell sold the GOP a bill of mythical goods and allowed Obama and the dems to defraud the country. That act was limited to only discretionary spending—35% of the national budget while doing nothing to the big entitlement ticket items.

The GOP establishment is really afraid of being accused of shutting down the government if they don’t cave once again. Get real! The media and the dems will make those accusations anyway! Expect the demagoguery.

The government has been shutdown before and the world didn’t end. A year or so ago a blizzard hit the east coast including Washington. Most of the rank and file government employees were told to stay home. Only the “essential” workers had to report to work. That makes it easy where to cut. Cut those who didn’t have to go in to work, keep those who did have to report for work.

Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel discussed the GOP’s media fears in their column today.

Everyone in Washington fears the fiscal cliff. The White House has no interest in going over. Democrats understand they’ll never have more power than they do now. Delaying a budget deal until after January means getting less of what they want.

Republican leaders, meanwhile, live in fear of another 1995 government shutdown. When two sides fail to reach a deal, the media blame Republicans. That’s the lesson Republicans learned 17 years ago. They shudder imagining the headlines if negotiations were to break down next month: “Norquist-controlled GOP forces America off cliff.” Nothing terrifies them more than that. They’ll do anything to avoid it, as Obama knows well. (Hence his advantage.) — The Daily Caller.

Krauthammer urged the ‘Pubs to stand their ground as well.

Krauthammer urged Republicans to take the short-term hit on the fiscal cliff, and said eventually Obama would be held accountable for the consequences. — The Daily Caller.

Krauthammer declared that Obama’s demands were worse than those given to Lee at Appomattox and Lee had just lost a war.

“It’s not just a bad deal — this is really an insulting deal,” Krauthammer said. “What Geithner offered, what you showed on the screen, Robert E. Lee was offered easier terms at Appomattox, and he lost the Civil War. The Democrats won by three percent of the vote, and they did not hold the House. Republicans won the House. So this is not exactly unconditional surrender, but that is what the administration is asking of the Republicans.”

“This idea — there are not only no cuts in this, there’s an increase in spending with a new stimulus,” Krauthammer continued. “I mean, this is almost unheard of. I mean, what do they expect? They obviously expect the Republicans will cave on everything. I think the Republicans ought to simply walk away. The president is the president. He’s the leader. They are demanding that the Republicans explain all the cuts that they want to make.” — The Daily Caller.

Yes, some business sectors would take a hit. Some government contractors would take a hit. The GOP would be blamed, again, for shutting down the government. But if that is what it takes to get ALL government spending on the cutting table, so be it. It is time to get our governmental house in order and we know the dems won’t do it.

***

Continuing on today’s theme, I’ll leave you with this parting thought from Michael Ramirez.The Fiscal Cliff

Facebook

Caucus Review – Part II and Other Items

Posted on by

Yesterday, I proposed some planning changes for the next caucus whenever that occurs.  The St. Charles caucus was reported in just about every news outlet in the state. Here is a recap of that meeting by an attendee.  I urge you to follow the link and read the entire article.

I was at the St. Charles County caucus held in St. Peters, MO, on Saturday, March 17, 2012, which I now affectionately refer to as “The Raucous Caucus”. I’m not really interested in putting a particular political spin on what occurred. Rather, I’d like to state what occurred as just matters of fact and go over the major points of contention that led to it being brought to a close with no delegates and alternates being designated. So, as much as is possible, I have left out the names of the camps of supporters involved in the events of the Raucous Caucus. Source material and links provided are a different matter: they can and do name names and I didn’t take it upon myself to edit them. Where I do interject my perspective while delineating the points of contention, it’s for the purpose of logically connecting the sequence of events, to provide an explanation for why there appeared to be a conflict on a particular matter or specific event, or to provide a reasonable range of possible objectives or motivations.  –– The Blog Czar, March 20, 2012. 

The article documents the source of some of the confusion and presents more lessons learned to make future caucus planning and operation move more smoothly.

***

Obamacare goes before the US Supreme Court next week.  Oral arguments will be heard, briefs submitted, if they haven’t been already, and in a few weeks, or months, a decision will be rendered.

From some reports, it’s beginning to appear that Obama and his liberal cronies are preparing for a loss.

Obama will avoid healthcare defense during court review

By Amie Parnes – 03/21/12 05:00 AM ET 

President Obama will not mark the two-year anniversary of his signing of the healthcare law — which takes place days before the Supreme Court offers a decision on the constitutionality of his signature legislative achievement.

Senior administration officials said on Tuesday that Obama will not be offering a vigorous public defense of the law, holding events or even making public remarks in the lead-up to the Supreme Court case.

Obama will instead leave arguments to the Justice Department, which begins defending the law on Monday.  Likewise, Obama is not expected to hold an event around the two-year anniversary on Friday, said officials who labeled it a faux milestone and off the radar of most Americans. 

In the mean time, HHS Secretary Sibellius is pushing full steam to implement the worst elements of the bill—violating the 1st Amendment on religion for one.  It makes one speculate whether the Obama left hand is fully communicating with the Obama right hand.

Oh!  Silly me. There are no Right hands in the Obama administration.

***

Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) presented a proposed federal budget and the screams of Washington liberals were heard clear to the left coast. The democrats have refused to submit or pass a budget since Obama took office. They prefer stealth spending that keeps their attempts to transform our country into a “dictatorship of the proletariat” as secret as possible. 

Paul Ryan submitted a budget last year what was blocked by democrats. Once again he is proposing a budget that cuts trillions from the budget over the coming years and impacts heavily welfare spending.

Ryan, Obama budgets offer radically opposed visions of America

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin did something Tuesday that President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Democratic congressional leaders refuse to do — propose a 2013 federal budget that makes the hard choices needed if America is to regain its economic vitality and avoid becoming Greece. At least Obama did propose a 2013 budget earlier this year; Reid and his Democratic colleagues in Congress haven’t done that in three years. Unfortunately, the president’s approach makes all the wrong choices, opting to increase spending, taxes and debt without regard to the consequences. Worse still is the fact that the Obama budget, if adopted, would add immensely to the difficulties facing his successors in the Oval Office, to say nothing of the children and grandchildren of today’s taxpayers.
On spending, for example, the Obama budget increases federal spending every year, for a total of $1.5 trillion over the next decade. Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” decreases federal spending by $3.5 trillion. On the federal deficit, not only does Obama propose the fourth-straight year with a federal deficit of at least $1 trillion, his budget projects oceans of red ink as far as an accountant’s eye can see. The Ryan budget goes in the opposite direction by progressively reducing the deficit by $3 trillion over a decade, compared with the Obama proposal, and puts the government’s ledger on the way to being balanced thereafter. (Go here for the full article.)
The democrats are already spewing horror stories about Ryan throwing Granny out in the street—stories reminiscent of the famous cartoon from last year showing Ryan pushing an elder in a wheelchair off a cliff.
The democrats have no solution except more taxing and spending.  The tax well is now dry. It time to attack the other end, cut spending.  Spending cuts will hurt.  I’m retired, receiving Social Security and this month was forced to sign up for Medicare. (I had to sign up or lose my Social Security payments.)
If we don’t cut spending, the economy and quite likely the nation will collapse.  What emerges from that collapse may be something none of us will like.
We’ve come to a pivotal point in the history of our country.  It’s sink or swim.  I prefer to swim…to a reformation and return to the original concepts of the Constitution.

Home Insurance: Democrat style

Posted on by

I listened to a radio interview this morning (while in the shower) and the discussion was a variation of Obamacare that is floating around Washington and blue-states.  Instead of ruining health care, this time they’re aiming at Home and property insurance.

I have to add a caveat.  I’ve been Googling the web for confirmation of various disaster insurance proposals.  There are many from institutions, the insurance industry, and from members of Congress. I haven’t been able to confirm this specific proposal.  Many of those I did find echo some of the proposals I heard during the interview.

The basic proposal is this:  when disasters strike, insurance companies are hard pressed to pay the claims and to later recover their liquid reserves.  Most often, the insurance companies recover by increasing premiums.

Some areas of the country are always at risk, such as Florida, the Gulf Coast and the eastern seaboard, for hurricanes.  The Midwest is at risk for tornadoes and floods. In California, the western seaboard, and Alaska the risk is for earthquakes.  Tsunami risk includes Hawaii and those states frequented with earthquakes. Finally there is the near-continual volcanic eruption on Hawaii’s big island.

There are few, if any, areas in the country not at disaster risk for something.

All those disasters cost the insurance companies money.  They also makes insurance premiums high in those areas. Some people choose not to have insurance due to the cost. They accept the possibility of loss.

That’s not fair, according to liberal/democrat dogma!  Something must be done!

One proposal is to equalize premium costs across the entire country.  The problem with that is that those states/areas of the country at lesser risk, end up paying higher premiums to subsidize those in high risk states.

Another proposal is to freeze premiums.  That can’t be done because, in short order, insurance companies would soon drop disaster insurance or go out of business.

The last variation is the proposal above and have the Feds (read FEMA) under-write the losses.  Once again, the tax-payers end up subsidizing the cost of insurance for those in high risk areas.

When liberals find an issue, they will always screw it up.

This is another liberal agenda that attempts to make life an ideal that does not exist.  There is no perfect world where risk does not exist.  Life isn’t fair.

If these proposals are allowed to continue, we’ll end up with another boondoggle like Obamacare.  A solution that makes the situation worse for everyone.

It’s time for the feds to leave well enough along.  The insurance business plans work.  If you choose to live in high risk areas (I live in tornado alley), you have to live with the risk and manage that risk as best fits your circumstances.  For some folks, that means doing without insurance.

It may not be pretty, but that, is reality.

Obama’s coming to town…hide your valuables!

Posted on by

Well, not coming to town, coming to Congress. The White House says not to get any high expectations.  WH leaks says that he wants to spend another $300Billion and some “tax cuts.”  

Well, they’re not tax cuts. You’ll pay the same amount.  No, all Obama wants to do is cut the tax withholding rate.  The democrats call it a payroll tax. It isn’t. It’s just a reduction of your pre-payment on your income taxes.

Yes, you’ll see a bit more in your paycheck. Comes tax time, however, you’ll have to furnish the difference between the withholding rate and the actual tax rate out of your pocket.  If you have plans for a tax return, it’ll be gone or reduced.  So, you see, it isn’t a tax cut at all.

 According to people familiar with the White House deliberations, two of the biggest measures in the president’s proposals for 2012 are expected to be a one-year extension of a payroll tax cut for workers and an extension of expiring jobless benefits. Together those two would total about $170 billion.

That’s what democrats call a tax cut—cutting the withholding rate of payroll deductions and expired unemployment.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell predicted Obama’s Thursday night speech to Congress on jobs legislation would include “more of the same failed approach that’s only made things worse over the past few years.” 

The White House has been downplaying expectations.  As soon as a date was agreed upon, the White House has been a sieve of information.  What is Obama’s strategy? More of the same.

The leaks have worked.  A number of congressmen from both Houses are saying they aren’t coming.  Why bother? It a “same old, same old.”

More Republicans skipping Obama’s jobs speech

When President Obama delivers his address on a new job-creation plan to a joint session of Congress on Thursday, he won’t be speaking to a sold-out crowd. Several lawmakers are still determining whether it is worth their time to stay in Washington to hear the president, and some are already planning to skip it.

Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia is the latest to announce that he will not be attending, and will instead watch the speech from his office across the street. During the speech, Broun will post his comments about Obama’s remarks on Twitter, a tradition he keeps during State of the Union addresses.
“Dr. Broun will not be attending President Obama’s joint address, but he looks forward to hearing the president’s proposal for job creation,” Broun spokeswoman Meredith Griffanti told The Ticket. “Dr. Broun will instead watch the speech from his office where he will host a live town hall via Twitter to interact with his constituents.”
Broun remained in his office during Obama’s State of the Union address in January, providing his own commentary on the social networking website throughout the speech.
“Mr. President, you don’t believe in the Constitution. You believe in socialism,” one of Broun’s tweets read. 
Illinois Republican Rep. Joe Walsh was the first to announce his intentional absence last week, saying he didn’t want to act as a “prop” for Obama’s speech.

In the upper chamber, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, a member of the Senate Tea Party Caucus, told Jon Karl of ABC News that he “probably” won’t show up either.

“If he sent a written proposal over first, I would go hear him explain it, but frankly right now I’m so frustrated I don’t think I’m going to go,” DeMint told ABC News. “I can’t imagine too many Americans wanting to hear another speech with no real plan attached.”

My feeling is that more people will be watching the NFL season opener than watching Obama shoot of off his mouth. 

Note:  my editor, Mrs. Crucis, was late reviewing my post.  So I’ll leave my typo above in place.  Usually she finds my misspellings and typing errors before you have a chance to see them.

Doing your homework

Posted on by
It’s a slow day for news, at least so far. Here, for your viewing pleasure, is today’s submission by Glenn McCoy. Enjoy!

According to Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS), it’s been over 800 days since the federal government had a budget. The dems had total control of Congress since 2007. Why has there not been a budget? One isn’t needed when you pass bills with built-in spending authorizations. Can we say TARP? Obamacare? Stimulus packages 1 and 2?

Facebook