A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 75% of Likely Voters nationwide want Congress to cut its own pay until the federal budget is balanced.
John Kerry is not one of those blood sucking leeches who live off the American taxpayer. He's a blood sucking gigolo.
Voters want Congress to stop spending money. Especially on itself.
Rasmussen has the tale of the tightening purse strings:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 75% of Likely Voters nationwide want Congress to cut its own pay until the federal budget is balanced.
Only 16% disagree with that approach and nine percent (9%) are not sure.
Not surprisingly, there is a huge gap between Mainstream voters and the Political Class on this topic. Eighty-five percent (85%) of those in the Mainstream want Congress to cut its own pay while 74% of those in the Political Class do not (see more on the Political Class—Mainstream classification.)
Overall, 78% say that any pay raises for Congress should be submitted first to voters before the legislators can receive the extra income.
“Political Class” is an oxymoron. Like “Senate Intelligence Committee”.
he Republicans came up with a clever online poll that lets Americans – anyone, really – vote on which programs they’d like to eliminate from next year’s budget.
The Republicans came up with a clever online poll that lets Americans – anyone, really – vote on which programs they’d like to eliminate from next year’s budget.
That just didn’t sit right with Florida democrat and impeached former federal judge Alcee Hastings. Keep in mind while you watch these rambling, wacky comments that Hastings is the same congressman who said during an ObamaCare meeting of the House Rules Committee, “When the deal goes down, all this talk about rules, we make ‘em up as we go along.”
Hastings has a bit of a point. It’s technically possible that Osama Bin Laden is sitting in a cave somewhere in Pakistan, filling out his eHarmony membership questionaire and voting in Republican polls, but we doubt it.
All of a sudden Democrats are singing the praises of the Congressional Budget Office.
But quick, who were the three biggest critics of the CBO back in July of 2009? If you said Pelosi, Dodd and Obama, you win.
President Obama is now singing the praises of the CBO
All of a sudden Democrats are singing the praises of the Congressional Budget Office.
But quick, who were the three biggest critics of the CBO back in July of 2009? If you said Pelosi, Dodd and Obama, you win.
It seems that back when the CBO was asking if Congress was smoking crack, or words to that effect, Nancy Pelosi and company didn’t think the CBO was so “wonderful” and “precise.”
Back then, the Queen of Congress said, “..it’s always been a source of, yes, I will say frustration, for many of us in Congress that the CBO will always give you the worst case scenario on one initiative and never … any credit for anything that happens if you have early intervention, health care. If you have prevention, if you have wellness … you name any positive investment that we make, that we know reduces cost, brings money to the Treasury in the case of education but never scored positively by the CBO. Yes, it is frustrating.”
Chris Dodd also bitched about how unfair the CBO was saying “One of the things that’s disappointing about CBO — and frustrating — is all the work…done on prevention” that the CBO doesn’t factor in.”
But no one was less in love with the CBO than The Greatest President In History, who said during one of those White-House-Goes-to-a-Townhall episodes “…the CBO, which sort of polices what all various programs cost, they’re not willing to credit us with those savings. They say, ‘That may be nice, that may save a lot of money, but we can’t be certain.’ So we expect that not only are we going to pay for health care reform in a deficit-neutral way, but that’s it also going to achieve big savings across the system — including in the private sector where the Congressional Budget Office never gives us any credit — but if hospitals and doctors are starting to operate in a smarter way, that’s going to help you even if you’re not involved in a government system.”
But now everything is wonderful with the CBO, Congress and, of course, President Obama.
So what changed? Well, it could have been the unprecedented calling of the head of the CBO Douglas Elmendorf to the White House, where he was personally educated by the Greatest Professor In History on numbers, health care and stuff.
As one wit said, think of it as baseball umpires visiting the owner’s box.
Why, lord a’mighty, these Washington, DC folks spend tax dollars like Monopoly money. Good thing we have an aggressive cost cutter like Barack Obama in the White House.
Why, lord a’mighty, these Washington, DC folks spend tax dollars like Monopoly money. Good thing we have an aggressive cost cutter like Barack Obama in the White House.
The House of Representatives voted 233-187 to increase the debt limit by another $1.9 trillion dollars. That’s trillion with a “t.” As soon as the vote total was announced, they stood to applaud themselves.
The House of Representatives voted 233-187 to increase the debt limit by another $1.9 trillion dollars. That’s trillion with a “t.”
Every one of the 217 votes in favor of marching headlong toward national bankruptcy was cast by a Democrat.
As soon as the vote total was announced, they stood to applaud themselves.
FDR had “Happy Days Are Here Again” and Bill Clinton had “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow.” Now Barack Obama has followed in those liberal icons’ footsteps by choosing a brand spankin’ new theme song for his administration.
FDR had “Happy Days Are Here Again” and Bill Clinton had “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow.” Now Barack Obama has followed in those liberal icons’ footsteps by choosing a brand spankin’ new theme song for his administration.
“Hey, Big Spender” was a natural after the President submitted his new budget.
Obama unveils 2011 budget with $3.83T in spending
Source: Associated Press
Taxes on high-income earners would rise by nearly $1 trillion over the next 10 years, under the budget plan put forward by President Barack Obama Monday.
Source: Wall Street Journal
Obama Sends Congress $3.8 Trillion Budget, Soaring Deficits Projected
Source: Fox News
Backdoor taxes to hit middle class
Source: Reuters
Robert Gibbs says, “You can’t spend more than you have. ”This from the man who is the official spokesman for the administration that just introduced a budget that calls for a $1.56 trillion deficit.
This from the man who is the official spokesman for the administration that just introduced a budget that calls for a $1.56 trillion deficit.
Like a common street hustler, President Obama is taking the suckers’ money in a blatant shell game. Unfortunately, you’re one of the suckers.
Like a common street hustler, President Obama is taking the suckers’ money in a blatant shell game. Unfortunately, you’re one of the suckers.
National Review reports the news of the administration’s latest scam:
Last spring, President Obama proposed $11.3 billion worth of discretionary spending cuts. Today’s Washington Times notes that Congress accepted $6.9 billion worth of these cuts, a 61 percent success rate.
In a $3.6 trillion federal budget, that comes to just 0.2 percent of the federal budget.
But there is a larger issue: 100 percent of the savings from these “cuts” were automatically shifted into new spending. Total federal spending was not reduced by one dollar.
Here’s why: By the time President Obama released his proposed cuts, Congress and the White House already agreed on a top-line figure of $1,091 billion in discretionary spending. The only remaining issue was how to divvy up the funds. So Congress merely took $6.9 billion from the targeted programs, and shifted that money to other programs. At the end of the year, total discretionary spending remained at exactly $1,091 billion.
Furthermore, nearly all of the spending cuts proposed by the president and accepted by Congress were in defense. Thus, all they did was shift billions of dollars from defense programs to domestic programs. It’s like an indebted family cutting its grocery budget, but then putting all the savings into entertainment.
No longer content with the title Greatest President In History, Barack Obama is now The Greatest Grifter in History.
Perhaps the problem in Washington, DC is that none of the Democrats in the House or Senate actually understand what the word “trillion” means. So here is a simple, graphic explanation to help the fine Americans serving in the Congress of the United States of America understand exactly how much they’re pounding down a rathole.
Perhaps the problem in Washington, DC is that none of the Democrats in the House or Senate actually understand what the word “trillion” means. It’s just a big, unimaginable number with lots of zeroes, an amorphous concept somewhere between a million and a bazillion.
So here is a simple, graphic explanation to help the fine Americans serving in the Congress of the United States of America understand exactly how much they’re pounding down a rathole.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of California voters shows that just 25% say illegal immigrants are not a major strain on the state budget. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.
25% of California voters are too damn stupid to be allowed to vote
Here’s how a new survey from Rasmussen Reports tells the story:
Nearly two-out-of-three California voters (64%) say illegal immigrants put a significant strain on the state budget as lawmakers struggle to close a $26 billion deficit.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of California voters shows that just 25% say illegal immigrants are not a major strain on the state budget. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.
Here’s a reality check for that 25% who think illegal aliens are not a strain on the budget and for the 11% who aren’t sure:
40% of all workers in L.A. County (L.A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominantly illegal aliens working without a green card.
95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
There are 21 Spanish language radio stations in Los Angeles.
In L.A. County 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak Spanish. (There are 10.2 million people in L.A. County ).
70% of the United States’ annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) is from illegal aliens.
And finally, less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare.
Despite these horrifying stats, 25% of voters think illegal aliens are just fine and dandy. And another 11% don’t have an opinion.
A bill introduced by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-People’s Republic of San Francisco) “would impose not only sales taxes but a $50 per ounce fee on marijuana sales.”
California proudly introduces its new state plant
It’s been suggested by a California Assemblyman that California could tax away its budget problems if only it would legalize marijuana.
The State Board of Equalization’s analysis says California could net $1.4 billion by taxing legal pot.
According to the Sacramento Bee, the bill introduced by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-People’s Republic of San Francisco) “would impose not only sales taxes but a $50 per ounce fee on marijuana sales, which would be licensed by the state much as alcoholic beverages are regulated…”
“We can no longer afford to keep our heads in the sand when it comes to marijuana,” Ammiano said in a statement.
“I’m friggin’ starving,” he reportedly added. “Are you going to finish those pork rinds? How about those cupcakes? And your Fritos look delicious.”
Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger personifies the sad decline of the state of California
California’s sad excuse for a governor has come out in favor of a flat tax. Hah!
As the LA Times reports: “Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said today that he would like to see such ‘radical’ proposals come out of a commission now studying an overhaul of the state’s tax system. The governor told the editorial board of the Sacramento Bee that he hoped the commission would not be afraid to propose something like ‘a 15% straight tax.’”
“That’s the kind of radical, daring kind of a proposal that I want to see on the table so we can look at it and say, ‘Oh, let’s study this, maybe that is the way to go,’ ” Schwarzenegger said.
Don’t get us wrong. In theory, we love the flat tax concept: Everyone pays the same percentage of all income. Minimal or no deductions.
But here’s the problem with the Schwartzenegger’s scam. The current highest tax rate in California is 9.1% on taxable income over $91,000 (after all your deductions are considered), but under this bogus flat tax plan everyone would pay 15% with minimal or no deductions.
It’s going to be interesting to see how Schwartzenegger tries to convince the people of California that paying 15% with no deductions is better than paying 9.1% with deductions.
In the thoughts, if not the words of the Governor, “Keep your eye on the pea while I move these walnut shells around.”
Mitch Daniels isn’t a riveting speaker. He’s short. And he has a bad comb over. But we understand why the people of Indiana have elected him governor twice.
“Despite the terrible national economy, Indiana remains in vastly better shape than most states and any of our neighbors. We have over a billion dollars in reserves and a triple A credit rating. Anywhere else, any reserves are long gone. They’re slashing education by as much as ten to fifteen percent. They’re releasing convicts from prison early. And worst of all, when families are struggling, they’re raising taxes.”
“There’s only one reason we are so different – because we have held government spending down to a level of our income. But if we lose our sense of discipline now, in no time we’ll look just like Michigan or Illinois or, heaven forbid, California.”
He sums it all up by saying, “Add a dollar, cut a dollar. And no tax increases.”
There’s no question which party he belongs to, is there?
Would someone at the L.A. Times, San Francisco Chronicle or Sacramento Bee please explain how it’s possible for San Diego County to run up a $700 million surplus while the state of California is running up a $45 billion deficit?
These esteemed newspapers seem to think the only solution to the state’s legislature-induced suicide is more taxes, higher taxes, and really creative taxes.
Perhaps they should watch as Dianne Jacob, Chairman of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, explains that California has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
As you can see in this video, a group of students has launched a hunger strike to protest Governor Schwartzenegger’s budget cuts. This seems short sighted, considering the fact that UC Santa Cruz has a well-deserved reputation as the marijuana capital of California.
The hunger strike vs the munchies. Which one will win?
Why did California voters overwhelmingly reject all those tax-and-spend ballot measures last week? According to California Speaker of the Assembly Karen Bass, it’s because they’re too confused to comprehend the opportunity that had been presented to them by Arnold Schwartzenegger and the geniuses in the state legislature.
“I would go into a room,” she said, “…and I found the basic fact that voters were very confused about what it is we were asking them to do and why we were asking them to help us solve the budget problem.”
They were confused alright, honey. They were confused by the state’s profligate spending. Confused by its ballooning budget. Confused by the millions spent mollycoddling illegal aliens. Confused by the willful waste of their hard-earned tax dollars. And confused by the labor unions’ stranglehold on state’s future.
We were confused, but we just had a moment of complete clarity. So how about if you shut the hell up, Ms. Bass. Slash the spending. Cut the unions down to size. Pass a responsible budget that stops driving business and people out of the state. End the mollycoddling of illegal aliens.
You lying, hypocritical piece of over-spending excrement.
Conservatives often look at government spending, shake their heads and say, “They wouldn’t spend their own money like that.”
Turns out if you’re Barack Obama, you would. A new financial analysis indicates that he’s always spent far more than he made.
Here’s how The New York Daily News reports it:
In the words of Pink Floyd, "Money, money, money, money...money."
A close examination of their finances shows that the Obamas were living off lines of credit along with other income for several years until 2005, when Obama’s book royalties came through and Michelle received her 260% pay raise at the University of Chicago. This was also the year Obama started serving in the U.S. Senate…
In April 1999, they purchased a Chicago condo and obtained a mortgage for $159,250. In May 1999, they took out a line of credit for $20,750. Then, in 2002, they refinanced the condo with a $210,000 mortgage, which means they took out about $50,000 in equity. Finally, in 2004, they took out another line of credit for $100,000 on top of the mortgage.
Tax returns for 2004 reveal $14,395 in mortgage deductions. If we assume an effective interest rate of 6%, then they owed about $240,000 on a home they purchased for about $159,250.
This means they spent perhaps $80,000 beyond their income from 1999 to 2004.
We have to admit that this information frightens us. Based on his past experience, we fear the President thinks he can pay off the nation’s skyrocketing debt by writing another best selling autobiography and getting Michelle another dubious, but highly-paid job.
The Sub-Prime Fiasco and the Obama Spending Fiasco. Parallel tracks meeting in the distance.
Have you ever noticed the strange parallels between the last year’s sub-prime loan fiasco and this year’s Obama spending fiasco?
In the subprime fiasco, people borrowed money to live far beyond their means. In the Obama spending fiasco, the government’s borrowing money to live far beyond its means.
In the subprime fiasco, everyone in charge knew the borrowers would never be able to repay their debts. In Obama’s spending fiasco, everyone in charge knows the government will never be able to repay its debts.
In the subprime fiasco, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd assured everyone that everything was ok. In Obama’s spending fiasco, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are assuring everyone that everything will be ok.
In the subprime fiasco, anyone who raised an objection was called a racist. In Obama’s deficit spending fiasco, anyone who raises an objection is called a racist.
In the end, there really is only one difference between these two fiascos. This one has a lot more zeroes.
Kent Brockman, apparent role model for most of the empty-headed reporters in America.
Oh, how we wish reporters would just do their jobs and report actual news. We’d much rather blog about surfing or Miss California or something more fun than the mendacious misadventures of Barney Frank.
Why do Americans have to go to other countries to find any serious reporting about the Obama administration?
In this case, it’s an obscure paper in Nova Scotia, Canada that had the gumption to print the 12 thought-provoking points below. Points ignored by the U.S. lamestream media amidst the fawning over Obama’s First 100 Days.
So while CNN blathers on about the First Family’s Portugese Waterdog and the Puffington Host analyzes The One’s table manners, we herewith reprint this “news on the most powerful man on Earth which has been deemed unfit to print” as found in Andrew Smith’s column “The Things You Don’t Read About Barack Obama.
Obama’s first two major bills alone, the “stimulus” and “omnibus,” cost nearly twice as much as was spent on Iraq over six years – $1.2 trillion vs. $650 billion.
Obama abandoned his campaign promise of “a net spending cut,” his first annual deficit – not counting bailouts – being three times the worst deficit under President George W. Bush.
Obama’s objective in his first G20 summit – commitments to spend our way to prosperity with massive stimulus boondoggles across the G20 – was rejected out of hand.
Obama’s objective in his first NATO summit – commitments to combat troops for Afghanistan from “our European allies,” which Obama and his party imagined were ready and willing to fight if only someone “enlightened” like him were running things – was predictably refused, with some more European non-combat contingents offered as a token.
Obama’s Defense Department announced cuts of $1.4 billion to missile defense, the day after North Korea test-fired its long-range, multi-stage ballistic missile.
Obama’s economics were criticized by Warren Buffet, whose endorsement had been candidate Obama’s highest economic credential.
Obama reversed the free trade Bush policy that had allowed about 100 Mexican tractor-trailers into the United States, which the Mexican government immediately used as an excuse to levy tariffs on 90 American goods amounting to $2.4 billion in U.S. exports.
Obama’s “tax cuts for 95 per cent” turned out to mean $13 a week from June to December, to be clawed back to $8 a week in January – as compared with President Bush’s 2008 tax rebates of $600 to $1,200 plus $300 per child, which were notably scoffed at during the election campaign by Michelle Obama.
Obama’s campaign promise of a $3,000-per-employee tax credit for businesses that hired new workers – repeated ad nauseam for weeks before the election – was discreetly retired even before inauguration day.
Obama abandoned his campaign promise that “lobbyists won’t work in my White House,” waiving his no-lobbyist executive order or conveniently re-defining his appointees’ past lobbying work to allow 30 lobbyists into his administration.
Obama abandoned his campaign promise to reform earmarks, signing the omnibus bill which contained 8,816 of them.
Obama took more money from AIG than any other politician in 2008 – over $100,000 – and signed into law the provision guaranteeing the AIG bonuses which later had him in front of the cameras “shaking with outrage” and siccing the pitchfork crowd on law-abiding citizens who had fulfilled their end of a contract and had their payment upheld by Obama’s own legislation.
The Chronicle Herald concludes with this thought: “The people need a Fourth Estate, not yet another adulator of Barack Obama, yet another smearer of Sarah Palin, yet another patrician editor to keep out anything disagreeable to progressive sensibilities, yet another laptop-and-latte journalism-schooler to spit on everything pre-dating 1968. And they wonder why the news business has come on hard times.”
You heard the man, all you ink-stained wretches. Inquiring minds want to know what the President’s really up to. Because what he says is not matching up with what he’s actually doing.
Source: ChronicleHerald.com via BluegrassPundit.com
Former Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen supposedly said, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.” That was obviously decades ago because billions are almost meaningless in today’s Washington, DC.
When President Obama sternly announced that he had ordered his cabinet to trim their budgets by $100,000,000, it sounded impressive. Lots of zeroes.
But in reality, $100,000,000 is truly a drop in the bucket. Here’s a great video demonstrating how truly insignificant Obama’s promise is.
Press secretary Robert Gibbs tried to tap dance around a question yesterday, but in a major surprise, the press didn’t let him get away with it.
AP reporter Jennifer Loven and ABC’s Jake Tapper pressed Gibbs to explain why President Obama bragged about saving $100 million in his proposed budget when he had downplayed $8 billion in earmark spending several weeks ago.
It wasn’t pretty. Gibbs eventually adopted the strategy of talking and talking and talking until everyone forgot what the question was.
Buried deep in the Associated Press’ excellent analysis of the president’s economic “stimulus” program was this little gem that most of the media has chosen to ignore.
Senator Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, challenged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner last week.
“You created a situation where you cannot be wrong,” the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee said.
“If the economy loses 2 million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would’ve lost 5.5 million jobs,” Baucus contined. “If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You’ve given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct.”
The natives are restless. The Indians are jumping the reservation. There’s trouble in River City. And AP analyzed it correctly for once.
