On one hand you have what’s-his-name, the new White House Press Secretary who, if you’ll allow a rather awkward mixed metaphor, looks like a deer in the headlights who’s wearing his dad’s suit.

On the other hand you have ABC’s Jake Tapper, the most honest reporter covering the White House. He may be a lib, but he generally calls bullshit when he sees it and since he covers the White House he sees a lot of it.

Tapper went after what’s-his-name about NPR funding in light of the latest James O’Keefe video sting. What’s-his-name let it be known that National Public Radio and Corporation for Public Broadcasting are priorities.

“We believe that — or rather we do not support calls to eliminate funding for National Public Radio and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. As is evidenced by — we think they’re — they are worthwhile and important priorities as our budget makes clear,” What’s-his-name said.

We’re pretty sure we’d get the same answer about any budget item.

“Cowboy poetry?”

“Important priority.”

“Thai sex worker research?”

“Important priority.”

“Protecting the Delta smelt?”

“Important priority.”

“Spending us into oblivion as quickly as possible?”

“Ooh, very important priority.”


H/T: Weasel Zippers

- by editor | 17 comments | Share Link

Rep. Rob Woodall, a Georgia Republican, danced around with Tim Geithner and finally couldn’t take it anymore. So he asked the question so clearly and slowly that even a Treasury Secretary could understand it:

“This budget never, ever, ever reduces the debt, is that right?”

We knew the answer. You know the answer. But it’s worth investing 22 seconds of your life to watch Geithner say the words.

- by editor | 22 comments | Share Link

Is this a case of unadulterated gall or sheer stupidity? You watch this clip and tell us if it’s one or the other or if some completely different word come to mind.

Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner testified before the Senate today and got grilled by Jeff Sessions. The Senator pointed out that President Obama’s budget – the budget Geithner signed off on – contains interest payments and other obligations that are “excessively high” and “unsustainable.”

Geithner agreed.

Let us repeat that. The Secretary of the Treasury agreed that spending in the budget he and the President just submitted to Congress is unsustainable.

The inmates are running the asylum.

- by editor | 8 comments | Share Link

Let’s see what was on the Democrat menu last week. Mmmmm, looks like pork, more pork and if we’re not mistaken, still more pork.

Byron York exposes the facts in the pages of The Washington Examiner:


Republicans put a bullet between the eyes of the huge Democrats pork monster

Press coverage of the budget frenzy on Capitol Hill has suggested that pork-barrel earmark spending is still a bipartisan problem, that after months of self-righteous rhetoric about fiscal discipline, Republicans and Democrats remain equal-opportunity earmarkers.

It’s not true. A new analysis by a group of federal-spending watchdogs shows a striking imbalance between the parties when it comes to earmark requests. Democrats remain raging spenders, while Republicans have made enormous strides in cleaning up their act.

In the Senate, the GOP made only one-third as many earmark requests as Democrats for 2011, and in the House, Republicans have nearly given up earmarking altogether — while Democrats roll on.

… In the 2011 House budget, the groups found that House Democrats requested 18,189 earmarks, which would cost the taxpayers a total of $51.7 billion, while House Republicans requested just 241 earmarks, for a total of $1 billion.

So when you hear Democrat apologists utter the words, “They all do it,” rest assured that the “all” refers to Democrats.

Source: Washington Examiner

- by editor | 10 comments | Share Link

We voted for John McCain, but had to hold our noses while we did it. Now McCain is starting to act like someone we might have voted for with a little more enthusiasm.

The Arizona RINO is promising to stop the vote on the Democrat budget by reading the entire document – the entire 1,924-page-page, $1.1 trillion, 6,600earmark-laden document – aloud on the floor of the Senate.

Let us be the first to say it:

McCain 2012.

(Nah, relax. We’re just kidding, but we do appreciate the Senator’s efforts to stop the Democrats from inflicting this abomination on the American people.)

H/T: Moonbattery.com

- by editor | 2 comments | Share Link

CBS News’ Mark Knoller asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs if he really thought members of Congress would read the 1924-page Omnibus Obamabus Spending Bill. The White House Press corps laughed at his ludicrous answer.

Knoller: This 1924-pages. Do you worry that this could gum up the works a bit?
Gibbs: I just think it means a lot of people will be up late reading between now and, say, the 22nd or 23rd.
Knoller: Who is gonna read that?
Gibbs: As I noticed during the healthcare debate, that is a big thing. I assume, I assume many members up on Capitol Hill.
Knoller: Really?
Gibbs: I take ‘em at their word. I take ‘em at their word.

It is impossible – absolutely impossible – to believe that anyone in the White House press corps still takes this guy seriously.

- by editor | 14 comments | Share Link

john kerry

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”.

Source: Rasmussen

- by editor | 24 comments | Share Link


It's only money. CORRECTION: It's only your money.

President Obama’s Deficit Reduction Commission has yet to even sharpen a pencil, but it wants more money. As our logo says, if we didn’t laugh, we’d cry.

This tragicomic report comes from the TaxProf via Michelle Malkin:

Saddled with a tight deadline and great expectations, members of President Obama’s deficit reduction commission say they may not have the resources necessary to meet their task.

The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which the president created through an executive order in February, is charged with developing a plan by December 1 that would stabilize the budget deficit by 2015 and reduce the federal debt over the long term. The group is widely expected to consider a combination of tax reforms and spending cuts.

But despite the weighty demands, the panel has only a fraction of the staff and budget of standing congressional committees. The panel’s own cochairs and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., have criticized the meager resources and called for more support.

Reid on May 28 sent a letter to the White House asking for additional staff resources to aid the commission. In the letter, Reid said the commission’s cochairs, former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan K. Simpson, “expressed concern that the commission could use additional support to help it work more effectively.” Reid said Bowles and Simpson characterized their staff resources as “very limited.” Reid sent the letter following a May 26 meeting with Bowles and Simpson.

Call us crazy, but we think these guys may not comprehend the problem they’re supposed to solve.

Source: Tax Prof

- by editor | 6 comments | Share Link

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.

Alcee Hastings: Impeached. Corrupt. Stupid.

The trifecta.

- by editor | 5 comments | Share Link

Remember when the CBO sucked?

by editor on March 21, 2010

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.

Monty Hall would be proud.

Source: ABC News

– Written by Patrick Michael

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.

H/t: WeaselZippers.net

- by editor | 3 comments | Share Link

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.

Is November here yet?

Source: Bluegrass Pundit

- by editor | 4 comments | Share Link

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

- by editor | 2 comments | Share Link

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.

Two words: Friggin’ moron.

- by editor | 7 comments | Share Link

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.

Congratulations on the promotion.

Source: National Review

- by editor | 2 comments | Share Link

We can think of a couple federal employees who deserve pay cuts.

We can think of a couple federal employees who deserve pay cuts.

Oh, my God! It’s a national emergency! Why didn’t we hear about this on the news last night?

Because it turns out it’s not really an emergency President Obama wants to publicize because his own profligate spending caused it.

The guy who routinely muscles America’s television networks for meaningless primetime press conferences, quietly declared a national emergency in a letter on Monday.

What’s the emergency? Simple. He’s spending too much money and needs to screw federal workers in order to reduce his own deficit.

“Title 5, United States Code,” the letter says, “authorizes me to implement an alternative pay plan if I view the adjustments that would otherwise take effect as inappropriate due to ‘national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare.’ A national emergency, within the meaning of chapter 53 of title 5, has existed since September 11, 2001. Likewise, with unemployment at 9.5 percent in June to cite just one economic indicator, few would disagree that our country is facing serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare.”

Apparently, this national emergency is very narrowly-focused, because it only impacts the salaries of federal workers.

Let’s pause briefly while we laugh our asses off.

How’s that Hope and Change thing working out for all you unionized federal workers who labored so mightily to get this guy elected?

Source: RedState.com

- by editor | 1 comment | Share Link

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.

- by editor | 2 comments | Share Link

25% of California voters are too damn stupid to be allowed to vote

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.

Wake up, you ignorant dunces, wake up.

Source: RasmussenReports.com

- by editor | 4 comments | Share Link

Just say yes, California

by editor on July 23, 2009

California proudly introduces its new state plant marijuana

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.”

Source: Sacramento Bee

- by editor | 3 comments | Share Link

Don’t look now, but Arnold Schwarzenegger has become a conservative Republican again. Quick. Someone check to see which way the wind is blowing.

As as our mothers used to say, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

- by editor | 3 comments | Share Link

Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger personifies the sad decline of the state of California

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.”

Source: LA Times

- by editor | 1 comment | Share Link

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?

- by editor | 5 comments | Share Link

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.

Source: BluegrassPundit.com

- by editor | 5 comments | Share Link

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?

Source: KSBW-TV

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.

- by editor | 7 comments | Share Link