When you ask liberals if they believe in corporate welfare, they will overwhelmingly say 'no'. They are outraged over corporate welfare !!! I'm down with that…but then ask those same liberals if Uncle Sam should subsidize renewable energy initiatives, and the answer magically changes to 'yes'. Therefore, liberals are against corporate welfare, except when they are for it.

The country's head liberal, President Obama, is one of those who rails against corporate welfare while he pushes corporate welfare at the same time. As the Prez has told us countless times, he thinks green jobs are the future. That may be true, but Obama omits the part about American green jobs not being so much the NOW. Obama is all about subsidizing green companies at taxpayer risk. As we have seen from the collapse of Obama's favorite green-tech company, Solyndra, along with the collapse of other green companies that were funded by Obama's Stimulus plan, the President's wishes don't make things so. Obama can engage in all the hope and change dreams he wants, but somewhere along the line, reality must be taken into account.

Here was the reality of Solyndra:

An Associated Press review of regulatory filings shows that Solyndra was hemorrhaging hundreds of millions of dollars for years before the Obama administration signed off on the original $535 million loan guarantee in September 2009. The company eventually got $528 million.

Sounds like a great investment, eh ? But I want to be fair. Startup up companies sometimes do lose money initially. It's the profit potential that motivates investors. What were Solyndra's future prospects ?:

"We have incurred significant net losses since our inception, including a net loss of $114.1 million in 2007, $232.1 million in 2008 and $119.8 million in the first nine months of fiscal 2009, and we had an accumulated deficit of $505 million at Oct. 3, 2009," the company said in a December 2009 filing to the SEC. "We expect to continue to incur significant operating and net losses and negative cash flow from operations for the foreseeable future."

Hmmm. So, when the Obama administration looked at Solyndra, a company that had lost hundreds of millions of dollars from day one, a company that expected to lose hundreds of millions of dollars more in the "foreseeable future", a company that lost money on every single product it sold,…Obama decided to lend THAT company $535 million in taxpayer-guaranteed money and make it the highlight company for his green jobs agenda. That sounds more like a pipedream than hope to me. And then when Solyndra, as predicted, burned through it's cash like a Texas wildfire, the Obama administration restructured the loan so the private investors would be repaid ahead of the taxpayers….and one of those private investors just so happened to be a big-time Obama campaign contributor !!!:

Under terms of the February loan restructuring, two private investors — Argonaut Ventures I LLC and Madrone Partners LP — stand to be repaid before the U.S. government if the solar company is liquidated. The two firms gave the company a total of $69 million in emergency loans. The loans are the only portion of their investments that have repayment priority above the U.S. government.

Argonaut is an investment vehicle of the George Kaiser Family Foundation of Tulsa, Okla. The foundation is headed by billionaire George Kaiser, a major Obama campaign contributor and a frequent visitor to the White House. Kaiser raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama's 2008 campaign, federal election records show. Kaiser has made at least 16 visits to the president's aides since 2009, according to White House visitor logs.

Ka-ching !!! That must be the 'Change' part of Hope And Change. Cronies get paid first.

This all sounds pretty bad. Why would the government do this ? Let's turn to the DOE for an explanation:

Energy Department spokesman Damien LaVera said Friday that the company's financial losses were not uncommon for a high-tech startup and were a major reason Solyndra applied for the federal loan. The loan program is intended to help promising companies that cannot receive financing through private banks because of high risk.

Okay, now it all makes perfect sense. You see, when the government runs across a company so risky and shaky that the banks won't lend it money, THAT'S when the taxpayers should be put on the hook for the dough…when it's likely the company will, you know, collapse. Sigh. This stuff is getting so outrageous that I can't even be outraged anymore. I'm getting numb to it. When did this country enter the Twilight Zone, and how do we get out ? Now we have the federal government gambling taxpayer dollars like it's playing roulette in Vegas. Only the "high risk" companies merit taxpayer investment ??? WTF ?!?!?!

I can't stand it anymore. Over and out.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. …
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure." – Thomas Jefferson

Yesterday, I mentioned how the more power we cede to the government, the more corrupt that government becomes.

Today, I have a prime example of it with one of the latest government power grabs, known colloquially as ObamaCare. Contained in ObamaCare is a $5 billion slush fund (thanks, taxpayers !) known as the Early Retirement Reissuance Program (EERP), which is supposed to help companies pay the costs of health care for their early retirees. The Obama administration has already spent $1.7 billion of the money, and the recipients read like a list of Obama's biggest supporters and top campaign donors, with labor unions and deep-pocketed favored companies like General Electric and General Motors getting the money. The money isn't going to companies with a financial need, it's going to cronies. In other words, it's another giant taxpayer ripoff, coming to you courtesy of the Democrats. Six of the top ten recipients were labor unions.

Recipients of ERRP funding include the United Auto Workers union, which secured $206,798,086 in taxpayer money, AT&T, which took in $140,022,949, and General Electric (GE), which raked in $36,607,818. GE has made headlines recently for not paying any U.S. taxes last year. IBM got $12,989,690 in taxpayer money.

Verizon pulled $91,702,538 in taxpayer cash, too, and General Motors received $19,002,669. More than $6 million went to different Teamsters groups nationwide, and millions more went to the United Mine Workers, United Food and Commercial Workers, the AFL-CIO and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

Let's look a little closer at some of these ObamaCare ERRP recipients.

The most money, nearly $207 million, went to the United Auto Workers, who already got a $3.4 billion sweetheart deal from Obama's General Motors bailout. GM itself, which was previously bailed out by the taxpayers to the tune of $50 billion, just got $19 million more from the taxpayers via ERRP. GM recently announced a 2010 profit of $4.7 billion, but somehow they still needed the taxpayers to cover that $19 million for ERRP. Thanks, Obama. In related news, the sales of Obama's favorite car, the GM Chevy Volt, stink (what a shocker), and GM is looking for yet another government handout to assist with that in addition to the government handout they already got for the Volt, a $7,500 tax credit per vehicle.

That struggling small business startup company known as AT&T was the second biggest ERRP recipient, raking in a little over $140 million for it's $15.4 million in lobbying efforts in 2010. I'm sure AT&T needed that money from the taxpayers, seeing as how AT&T only made a little over $19.8 billion in net profits in 2010, and only around $55.5 billion over the last four years. You may not know it, but AT&T is the biggest political campaign donor since 1990. They work hard for their taxpayer cash.

President Obama's buddies at General Electric got over $36 million in ERRP funding from the taxpayers. As I mentioned yesterday, GE made $14 billion in profit in 2010 and paid no income taxes on that money. GE was a top Obama campaign donor during the 2008 election, coughing up nearly $500 million in campaign cash for our ethical President with the change you can believe in. Clearly, that was money well spent by GE. You may remember that the government (that's the taxpayers again) guaranteed $340 billion of the debt of GE's financial services arm a couple years ago.

Verizon was the third largest ERRP recipient, getting a little over $91 million in taxpayer cash. Verizon spent $16.75 million lobbying our politicians in Washington D.C. in 2010. Verizon clearly needed it's $91 million in taxpayer ERRP cash, because Verizon's $106.6 billion in 2010 revenues only generated net cash just north of $33 billion.

See how this works ? Government takes over a segment of our society, in this case health care, and then government gives preferential treatment to it's friends at taxpayer expense. That's how it's supposed to work, right ? The government is supposed to be for sale to the highest bidder, right ? Isn't that how every banana republic operates ? The government is supposed to treat the taxpayers like it's personal ATM, and hand out taxpayer cash like candy to it's rich cronies, right ? And we're supposed to bend over and take it up the tailpipe every time we turn around, right ? We're even supposed to listen to one political party tell us that the resultant $14 trillion in debt and $1.6 trillion in annual deficit is no big deal, as they keep right on bending us over and extracting more cash from us and our children, because it will help the bottom line of Obama's jobs advisor Jeff Immelt, who heads up GE.

No, I don't think so. This is so sick and twisted, and it has to stop, by any…means…necessary. The government's corruption is right out in the open for all to see. Thomas Jefferson is starting to make a whole lot of sense to me right now.

Oh, and guess what else. That $5 billion slush fund that Obama and company are handing out like candy to their rich friends was supposed to last until 2014, but at the current rate of expenditures, it will run out in 2012. Then the Obamas will no doubt come back for more. Bend over, America ! Here it comes again ! Feel the CHANGE !!! That didn't hurt too awful much, did it ? Quit cryin', ya baby ! Who's your daddy now ??? Let me hear you say it…O-bam-a, O-bam-a, O-bam-a….

If you want to know why it's so difficult to reign in government spending, look no further than Wisconsin. That state faces a $3.6 billion budget deficit over two years, and to help balance the budget, Wisconsin's Republican Governor Scott Walker is trying to pass legislation that asks public employees to contribute a small portion to their own pensions and health care insurance. Here are some of the key points of the legislation, according to the Daily Caller:

– Public sector employees would still be allowed to collectively bargain on wages, but not on health-care or pension plans.
- Raises would be tied to the inflation rate, unless the state’s voters deemed the employees worthy of larger raises.
- Public sector employees would have to pay slightly higher rates for their health care and other benefits, but those rates would remain lower than those of the average private sector employee.
- Public sector employees would be required to pay 12.6 percent of their health-care premiums; they currently pay about 6 percent.
- Public sector employees would have to contribute 5.8 percent of their salaries to their pensions under Walker’s plans; currently some pay nothing. From 2000 to 2009, public sector employees paid $55.4 million into a pension system that cost $12.6 billion.
- Police, firefighters and other public safety workers would be exempt from the new collective bargaining restrictions.

This legislation doesn't sound so radical to me, but the unions have gone batshit over the prospect of losing some of their collective bargaining rights. Yesterday, I wrote about Wisconsin Democrats hijacking democracy, but now the unions have mobilized nationally with the assistance of their government apparatchiks (aka, the Democratic National Committee, Obama's Organizing For America). President Apparatchik himself weighed in on the matter, calling Governor Walker's legislation "an assault on unions". An assault. Way to keep that rhetoric non-inflammatory, Mr. Obama. Wouldn't want to encourage any violence with, you know, violent language or imagery. That was last month's left-wing talking point anyway.

Now in Wisconsin, we've had: 1) three days of illegal wildcat teacher strikes, causing the public schools to shut down (because it's all about the children). 2) Democrat state senators going into hiding in another state to keep from doing their jobs and voting on the budget repair legislation, and 3) pro-union protesters storming the statehouse, causing the state assembly to adjourn because their safety could no longer be guaranteed. We also have the usual protest references….Gov. Walker being compared to Hitler, Sic Semper Tyrannis signs (Latin for "thus always to tyrants", spoken by John Wilkes Booth before he shot President Lincoln), signs with bullseyes on them, etc. Given the left's hysterical reaction to the Tea Party protesters, I eagerly await their similar characterizations of their own protesters as extremists advocating violence. I won't hold my breath.

But let's talk about collective bargaining between public employee unions and the government. First, allow me to describe how this process should work ideally, according to Democrats. Here it is in a nutshell – the unions contribute large amounts of money to the campaign coffers of Democrats to get them elected to office. Then, hopefully, Democrats gain majority status in the government. After that comes the payoff, when Democrats give the unions exactly what they paid for via "collective bargaining" with the government, all at the expense of the taxpayers, of course.

Here's my question. Who represents the victims, er, I mean, the taxpayers in this scenario ??? The answer is: nobody. The taxpayer is the forgotten man to the Democratic party. The taxpayers are the marks. They are nothing more than endless sources of cash to be thrown around in order to gain political favor. Do you think any of those union protesters in Wisconsin gives a damn about the taxpayers they are raping, even when the vast majority of those taxpayers who are paying for those lavish teacher benefits don't have it nearly so good as the teachers do ? I guarantee you they do not. If we're going to have collective bargaining between the government and the unions, I want some seats reserved at that table for a coalition representing the taxpayers. If not, it's nothing more than a sacrificial feast for the special interests.

The unions are a faction within Wisconsin and the entire country, and they deserve to be heard. But they are only ONE faction. There are many others who deserve to be heard also. If we're going to have collective bargaining between the unions and the government, let's make it truly collective and include everyone. If we don't, it's not really collective at all, is it ? Alternately, we can let our elected representatives settle the issue. The voice of the unions will still be heard via those representatives, and so will other voices. We call that democracy.

I heard reports yesterday that the average Wisconsin teacher's salary plus benefits comes to about $89,000. That's for nine months work. I read this morning that the average in Milwaukee is now over $100,000. In light of this, why are we still pretending this is about teachers being underpaid, or about the basic human rights of workers ? It isn't. This is about a budget crisis that is playing out locally, statewide, and nationally. It's about recognizing fiscal reality. These teachers unions have almost nothing in common with the real labor movement in America. We're not talking about West Virginia coalminers in 1917 who worked under horrendous conditions, lived on company land, bought their food from the company store, and ended up giving their wages right back to the company. Ending that de facto slavery through unionization accomplished good things, no doubt. But we're not talking about that here…so why do we keep pretending we are ? This isn't about worker's rights, it's about unions holding on to power.

I have the feeling we're going to see lots of these battles in the future, as big government must be cut. Nobody likes to cut spending, especially those who are having something taken away by the cuts. There will be lots of howling, but the alternatives are either national bankruptcy or prohibitive levels of taxation (another de facto slavery).

P.S. – How about they fire those teachers and impeach those state senators who aren't showing up for work in Wisconsin ? Isn't that what would happen if YOU didn't show up for work ?

Liberals, after 8 years of complaining about President Bush running up the federal debt (as did I), and after 20+ years of complaining about President Reagan running up a relatively minor amount of debt (Obama ran up nearly as much debt in his first year as Reagan did in two full terms), now wholly embrace Democrats running up the debt at a pace unmatched in American history. Obama makes Bush look like an amateur debt runner-upper by comparison, but I see no outcry from liberals over this. Liberals have completely switched course, completely switched arguments. Now, they demonize Republicans for insisting additional federal spending be paid for (as demanded by the Democrats own PAYGO legislation, which liberals trumpet. Go figure). Somebody will have to explain this to me, because I can't make any sense of it whatsoever.

Liberals babble on about tax cuts for the rich or something, but that doesn't make much sense either. If the Bush tax cuts for the rich were reversed, it would only add around $50 billion per year in federal revenue (the amount is arguable. Could be less. Could be more). Reversing the Bush tax cuts would barely make a dent in our yearly trillion+ dollar deficits. Reversing the Bush tax cuts wouldn't even offset the additional federal spending and borrowing announced in the last week, not to mention that nearly all economists agree raising taxes during a recession is a really bad idea. History agrees, though Obama and his Democratic Superfriends do not. I call them Suprefriends because they have superhuman powers that normal people do not possess. For example, they can turn borrowing $1.5 trillion per year into a GOOD thing. Bush could NEVER have gotten away with that, being a mere mortal and (ick) Republican. The Superfriends can also pass PAYGO and then completely ignore it without generating so much as a peep of protest from the mainstream media. The Superfriends can even praise themselves for passing PAYGO months AFTER completely ignoring it, and the peepless media still doesn't peep. Instead, the media continues peeping about whether there might be a racist among the millions of Tea Party members. They've been peeping for, let's see, about 17 months over that one, because, you know, President Obama is black (well, half-black. Close enough, I guess). Maybe the Tea Partiers should come out with a statement saying they are only protesting Obama's white half. Maybe that would please the race-based liberal media's sensibilities.

But I digress. This post is supposed to be about spending money we don't have, which has become the preferred way of life for Obama and his Superfriends (Shazzam ! Responsibility gone !). Here are a couple weekly updates on the Superfriends Spend-a-Palooza Spectacular:

1) After decades of Congress ripping off the Social Security Trust Fund, Social Security finds itself in the red this year (I'm sure there's no connection there, lol. The Superfriends tell me there isn't, but still, I'm suspicious. I don't have superpowers, but I can add and subtract). Congress says it is going to dip into the $2.54 trillion SS Trust Fund to make up for a $41 billion SS payout shortage this year. Here's Allan Sloan of the Washington Post to explain how it will work:

This year's cash deficit, the first since the early 1980s and the biggest ever, means the government will have to borrow money to redeem some of the Treasury securities in the trust fund. Even at a time when Uncle Sam is borrowing $1.5 trillion a year to keep his checks from bouncing, $41 billion is real money.

Question: Golly gee, Mr. WaPo reporter, why would we have to borrow money to get the SS funds when there's $2.54 trillion in the Trust Fund ?

Answer: Because there isn't anything in the Trust Fund. Congress spent those funds long, long ago, you rubes. You've been swindled by your own government. Still want to hand your health care over to them ?

Thus, $41 billion is added to the deficit to coverup the SS scam.

(Note – Everyone should read and understand the information in the previous link about SS, especially those liberal folks who've been foolishly arguing with me about SS for years.)

2). A few weeks after Obama and his Superfriends passed a financial regulation reform bill that they laughably claimed would prevent future bailouts, they passed….more bailouts. This time it is $26.1 billion to bail out state workers and Medicaid. Obama said the bill will save the jobs of 300,000 teachers and other government workers, such as police officers. Unlike previous Dem bills, this bill is actually paid for (golf clap), because the Democrats didn't have enough votes in the Senate to pass it without paying for it, as they desired. Their Shazzam ! Responsibility gone ! magic didn't work this time. They needed a couple Republican votes. Thus, the Dems paid for the funding by closing tax loopholes on multinational corporations (raising taxes) and….cutting funding for food stamps ??? I have to admit, this took me by surprise. I can think of a hundred ways to cut government spending, but cutting the food stamp program never occurred to me. The Dems are taking from the poor to give to the middle class. Specifically, they are giving to the unions.

I always wonder why, instead of bailing out the public employees unions, we can't cut some of their pay and/or benefits to avoid the layoffs. After all, they work for us, the taxpayers, and public employees already earn twice as much as private sector employees. Why should we bail them out ? The entire setup is nothing more than the poorer private sector folks bailing out the wealthier public sector folks, the same as with cutting food stamps. It's perverse.

But instead of cutting public employee pay back a little to keep teachers on the job, the government plays the same old tune. They scare the hell out of the public by threatening to lay off a bunch of teachers and police officers, and then the "benevolent" government pretends they are coming to the rescue, usually by raising taxes. What they are really doing is catering to the Democratic base, the public employees unions, at the expense of other (usually poorer) taxpayers. This partially explains why American education costs are skyrocketing, without a corresponding improvement in the quality of that education. One way or another, the government still works it's Shazzam ! Responsibility gone ! magic on us…and we sit back and take it like the marks we are.

If there's any bright side…november isn't that far away.

During wednesday's State Of The Union address, President Obama made the following statement about the recent Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United v. FEC case:

"[it] open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

Obama made this statement with the entire Supreme Court in attendance. Justice Samuel Alito appeared to respond "that's simply not true" following Obama's statement.

Alito probably said Obama's words were not true because…..

Obama's words were not true.

Here's an explanation from Bradley Smith, law professor at Capital University:

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

The President Of The United States owes the Supreme Court an apology. I won't hold my breath.

As for the Citizens United v. FEC ruling allowing special interests to gain a disproportionate foothold in American politics………….you gotta be kidding me. We just got done bailing out Goldman Sachs, AIG, Citigroup, Bank Of America, many other banks and Wall Street firms, foreign banks, General Motors, Chrysler, GE, etc. We subsidize every special interest from Agriculture to Zoology. In Obama's health care reform, the unions got an exemption from the Cadillac tax unavailable to non-union workers. Two senators were bribed with special deals to get their votes. Lobbying on Capital Hill is a booming business. Health care reform is favored by every big health care interest – the insurance companies, big pharma, AARP, etc. They all see it as a great boon to THEIR special interests. You also didn't see tort reform in Obama's health care plan, because the trial lawyers are a huge special interest who contribute to the Democrats.

The facts are – special interests already run the USA, because they run the government. The people who get stuck with the bill are the little guys, the taxpayers. When Obama says he doesn't "think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests," I respond with a different observation – I don't think America's most powerful interests should be bankrolled by the American taxpaying public. And Obama is public enemy #1 in that regard, because he's spending more of our money than ever. And let's not forget the single largest special interest in the country – the federal government itself. Whether it's run by Democrats or Republicans, it's serving the special interests of Democrats or Republicans. And it's robbing us blind, putting the country on the road to economic ruin. Until that changes, the state of the union will never be good, and the presidential State Of The Union message will be a partisan, spin-filled crock.

Republican Scott Brown's improbable Senate victory in the bluest of all blue states, Massachusetts, has sent the Democrats reeling. Their reflective navel-gazing has begun. I look at this as a wakeup call for the Democratic party. Will they now "get" it, or will they remain in denial ? Will they continue pushing policies the American people do not want ? If so, they will continue to isolate themselves, and they will continue to lose, as they have in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia this year.

It's too soon to make that call, but early indications are not promising. This morning I heard Robert Gibbs, Obama's press secretary, say the Dems just need to "retool their message." Wrong. That's not it. The people understand the message of the Democrats all too well. That's not the problem. The problem is, the people don't agree with the Democrats message. I heard MS-NBC's Norah O'Donnell blame the loss on Coakley not taking the campaign seriously enough. That's waaay wrong. Nobody takes a Senate seat lightly, and Martha Coakley certainly didn't. O'Donnell then said Coakley lost due to anti-incumbent sentiment. That's a pretty bizarre statement, considering Coakley wasn't the incumbent.

The excuses will continue, but Coakley lost because the American people are turning against all the divisiveness, the catering to special interests, the corruption, the partisan business as usual, and the wasteful big government arrogance of Washington D.C. Scott Brown tapped into America's dissatisfaction, and the silent majority (independents) went with him, overcoming the Democrats 3-1 voter advantage over Republicans in Massachusetts. Nowhere is the dissatisfaction of the American people more evident than in the Tea Party protest movement (which the Democratic party has arrogantly denigrated to the nth degree), and Scott Brown got that support, by saying things like this, from his victory speech:

Most of all, I will remember that while the honor is mine, this Senate seat belongs to no one person and no political party – and as I have said before, and you said loud and clear today, it is the people’s seat…When I first started running, I asked for a lot of help, because I knew it was going to be me against the machine. I was wrong, it was all of us against the machine… I go to Washington as the representative of no faction or interest, answering only to my conscience and to the people.

I certainly hope Scott Brown means it when he says he will represent no faction or interest, but rather the American people. We shall see. He's certainly right that it is all of us against the machine. This government is, after all, supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's not supposed to be for Goldman Sachs, the health insurance companies, the lawyers, the unions, or any other particular special interest. We are all in this together. We should pursue policies that are responsible for the nation as a whole. That means, first – national security. Second – fiscal responsibility.

Brown also tapped into the disagreement the American people have with some of the policies of the Democrats, and to this, the Democrats SHOULD take heed (and the Republicans too, for that matter):

In every corner of our state, I met with people, looked them in the eye, shook their hand, and asked them for their vote. I didn’t worry about their party affiliation, and they didn’t worry about mine. It was simply shared conviction that brought us all together.

One thing is clear, voters do not want the trillion-dollar health care bill that is being forced on the American people.

This bill is not being debated openly and fairly. It will raise taxes, hurt Medicare, destroy jobs, and run our nation deeper into debt. It is not in the interest of our state or country – we can do better.

When in Washington, I will work in the Senate with Democrats and Republicans to reform health care in an open and honest way. No more closed-door meetings or back room deals by an out of touch party leadership. No more hiding costs, concealing taxes, collaborating with special interests, and leaving more trillions in debt for our children to pay.

In health care, we need to start fresh, work together, and do the job right. Once again, we can do better.

I will work in the Senate to put government back on the side of people who create jobs, and the millions of people who need jobs – and as President John F. Kennedy taught us, that starts with an across the board tax cut for individuals and businesses that will create jobs and stimulate the economy. It's that simple!

I will work in the Senate to defend our nation’s interests and to keep our military second to none. As a lieutenant colonel and 30-year member of the Army National Guard, I will keep faith with all who serve, and get our veterans all the benefits they deserve.

And let me say this, with respect to those who wish to harm us, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation – they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.

Raising taxes, taking over our health care, and giving new rights to terrorists is the wrong agenda for our country. What I've heard again and again on the campaign trail, is that our political leaders have grown aloof from the people, impatient with dissent, and comfortable in the back room making deals. And we can do better.

They thought you were on board with all of their ambitions. They thought they owned your vote. They thought they couldn’t lose. But tonight, you and you and you have set them straight.

Dissent is the lifeblood of any democracy, which the Democrats should pause to consider before they viciously and falsely attack the Tea Party movement, and last night in Massachusetts, dissent won. Big time.

This morning on the Blog Of Mass Destruction, my friend the Reverend, a liberal by anyone's standard, reminded me that Thomas Jefferson was the founder of the Democratic party……..as if the current Democratic party bears any resemblance whatsoever to the one Jefferson represented. It certainly does not, and I'll leave you with the following Jefferson quote to explain exactly why not:

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government." – Thomas Jefferson

Does that sound like any current Democrat you know ? Not by a country mile. The current Democrats see almost no bounds for the government (except maybe in granting terrorists the full civil rights of American citizenship). They want the government to intrude on everything and everyone. THAT is the problem, and that is the Massachusetts and Tea Party message.

We hope the Democrats are listening.

Democrats have been telling us that Harry Reid's comments about President Barack Obama were NOT racist. Reid said Obama could become President because he was "light skinned" and had "no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one." Dems also tell us that Bill Clinton's remarks about Barack Obama were NOT racist. Clinton told Ted Kennedy that "a few years ago, this guy [Obama] would have been getting us coffee." Dems also tell us that VP Joe Biden's comments about Obama were NOT racist. Biden said Obama was "clean" and "articulate." In trying to make sense of these new standards for non-racism the Democrats have created, it suddenly hit me…..I am light skinned with no Negro dialect unless I want to have one (aka, white). I'm also clean, articulate enough, and I know how to make coffee……………..OMG ! I'm qualified to be President Of The United States ! Plus, I have a few qualities our current Prez does not have. I have worked extensively in the private sector and have run a successful business. Holy cats ! Maybe I'm OVER-qualified.
===
For anyone who did not see John Stossel's program about crony capitalism on the Fox Business Network last night, you really missed something. The program will air again on friday. Don't miss it, even though the depravity of our federal government, exposed by Stossel, might make you ill. You will see how big government works hand-in-hand with big business to distort the free market, discourage innovation, beat down the little guy, and rape the taxpayers in the process. You will see how the government picks winners and losers in business. Some of the winners are – big tobacco, big pharma, big health insurance, one window company over all the others, big toy companies. See how big business writes the government regulations that benefit themselves. It is absolutely perverse, and as always, the ONLY solution is to limit government power over our lives.
===
Related to Stossel's story about crony capitalism, some people might want to rethink labeling President Obama as a socialist, or at least amend it. In light of how Obama and company are either taking over or micromanaging business and the market, consider the following definition (which doesn't apply only to Obama and the Democrats, not by a long shot. That party called the Republicans does it too).

Fascism – a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology.

Sound familiar ?
===
After the government bailed out every big business in sight over the last 16 months or so (see – fascism and crony capitalism), President Demagogue Obama gave a speech last night where he pretended to be a friend to the people (lol) by calling for a new tax on the banks. Here's President Demagogue Obama:

"We want our money bank and we are going to get it," [Obama] said, surrounded by members of his economic team.

Obama said his commitment is to "recover every single dime the American people are owed. And my determination to achieve this goal is only heightened when I see reports of massive profits and obscene bonuses at some of the very firms who owe their continued existence to the American people."

Sounds good, right ? After all, we're only punishing those mean old bankers. How can that not be good ?

Here's how. First, most of the large banks have already paid back those TARP funds with interest, resulting in a net profit for the taxpayers, yet they will still be hit with Obama's new tax. Second, don't forget that many banks were forced to accept TARP funds from the government, even when they didn't want them. They will be hit with Obama's new tax too. Third, the ones who will really pay the bank tax are THE CUSTOMERS OF THE BANKS, in other words, the taxpayers themselves. Obama will be getting our money back by TAXING US more. Fourth, it wasn't only banks that received bailout funds. There's GM, GE, Fannie Mae, etc. Where is their tax ? Thanks, President Demagogue, but no thanks.

Obama continued:

"Our country has endured the deepest recession we've faced in generations, and much of the turmoil was caused by irresponsibility on the part of banks and financial institutions,"

Yes, much of the turmoil was caused by irresponsible lending on the part of banks and financial institutions…………….but why can't anyone on Capitol Hill ever fess up to the fact that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WANTED AND ENCOURAGED THEM TO DO IT ? The entire financial house of cards surrounding the housing market and the credit crisis was legislated into existence by the freaking Congress of the United States, starting all the way back in the Carter administration and never stopping. Prior to Congress manipulating the market, we had usury laws. We didn't have subprime mortgages. We didn't have Fannie Mae securitizing, bundling, and selling half the loans in the country. We didn't have commercial banks in the mortgage market. We didn't have Congress fining banks and denying mergers for not making enough loans to poor people. When is a presidential administration or a Congress going to admit that they brought the whole recession into existence with their boneheaded policies to "help" people ? Damn, they must think we're stupid.

Btw, President Demagogue. The country is $12 trillion in debt, and you are on target to add another $9-10 trillion to that number. WE WANT OUR MONEY BACK. So do our children, whose futures you are mortgaging. You can start by not spending all our money in the first place, you phony populist mouthbreather.
===
Maybe we need a dark-skinned black person for President. One with a Negro dialect who can add two plus two and come up with four. That would be a great improvement.

When times get tough, as in the current recession, businesses are forced to cut back. They halt expansion plans, reign in expenses, and lay off workers. We've seen a lot of that in the last couple years, as over 7 million people have lost their jobs. Individuals also cut back on expenses.

However, there is one group of people who have done quite well during the "worst economic downturn since the Great Depression," as President Obama would say. That group of people is the government itself. Far from cutting back, the government has been expanding and handing out big raises during these harsh times. The rich government bureaucrats are getting richer. As USA Today reports:

The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.
Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession’s first 18 months — and that’s before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.
Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.

In 18 months, the number of federal employees making over $100K has increased 46%. The number making over $150K has more than doubled. There ain't no recession in the federal government, baby. Just caviar wishes and champagne dreams. While private sector employment dropped by 6.3% during the recession, employment in the federal government increased by 9.8%, and federal government employees saw their overall salaries increased by 6.6%.

That's because the government is looking out for YOU, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer. Big Brother loves you (or at least Big Brother loves your money). No wonder over 90% of President Obama's cabinet appointments have no private sector business experience. Who needs it ? They are doing just fine living off the forced largesse of the rest of us. They are the elites, you see. We are nothing but the great unwashed masses living in flyover country.

Here's a little ditty from the USA Today story about one particular government bureaucracy, the Transportation Department:

When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.

How about that for profiting from the recession ?

At least one grumpy Republican has a problem with federal workers living high off the hog with our money while we struggle to make ends meet. Go figure. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said, “There’s no way to justify this to the American people. It’s ridiculous.” C'mon now, Jason, don't be such a buzzkill. Besides, you represent "the failed policies of the past." Haven't you ever heard of Marie Antoinette ? Let them eat cake. Our fearless government leaders know, as Mel Brooks would say, 'it's good to be the King,' and it's pretty good to be All The King's Men too (hmmm. That phrase sounds familiar).

And as P.T. Barnum would say, 'there's a sucker born every minute.' That's you, America. You're the marks. BOHICA, and God bless. Just keep telling yourself it's Change You Can Believe In. That's the ticket.

One of the most useful strategies known to politicians is some variation on the CHANGE theme, one of the keywords in President Obama's 2008 campaign. The electorate almost always desires CHANGE, because politicians almost always foul things up, making CHANGE almost always sound great. I'm hard-pressed to think of a politician who ran on an "I'll keep things exactly the same" platform. If there ever was one, he/she probably lost the election. Here are a few of the CHANGE-based campaign slogans used by politicians through the years:

- Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Years Ago ? – Ronald Reagan, 1984, (CHANGE from Jimmy Carter).
- A Chicken In Every Pot. A Car In Every Garage - Herbert Hoover, 1928, (CHANGE that will get you more stuff).
- Back To Normalcy - Warren G. Harding, 1920 (CHANGE from WWI).
- A Time For Greatness - John F. Kennedy, 1960 (CHANGE for the better).
- It's Time To CHANGE America - Bill Clinton, 1992 (general CHANGE)
- To Begin Anew - Eugene McCarthy, 1968 (start the CHANGE all over again)
- CHANGE We Can Believe In - Barack Obama, 2008 (CHANGE, and this time we mean it !)

The CHANGE theme isn't unique to the USA. In 1957, Nikiti Kruschev's CHANGE vision for the Soviet economy was called Catch Up And Overtake America (take heed, leftists. If Marxism was so great, the Soviets wouldn't have needed to "catch up." They never did, btw. They collapsed instead).

CHANGE works with the voters, and obviously, it worked for Obama. He was more CHANGE-believable than John McCain (one of McCain's campaign slogans was also CHANGED-based – Reform. Prosperity. Peace). McCain was a Republican following a Republican administration, and there was also that awkward photo of McCain hugging President George W. Bush. McCain didn't seem as CHANGE-ey as Obama, plus Obama is half-black, giving him many CHANGE bonus points. Clearly, the CHANGE guy who would "fundamentally transform America" and "CHANGE the way Washington D.C does business" was Obama. Our new prez was going to get rid of the lobbyists and special interests, and all that.

But something funny happens after the elections are over. The new President actually has to run things, and CHANGE becomes nothing more than a word. That is illustrated quite well by the way President Obama has conducted health care reform. Listen to this description of how Obama handled the health care discussions, and then tell me how CHANGE-ey it sounds to you. From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's top aides met frequently with lobbyists and health care industry heavyweights as his administration pieced together a national health care overhaul, according to White House visitor records obtained by The Associated Press.

The records, obtained Wednesday, disclose visits by a broad cross-section of the people most involved in the health care debate, weighted heavily toward those who want to overhaul the system.

The list includes George Halvorson, chairman and CEO of Kaiser Health Plans; Scott Serota, president and CEO of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association; Kenneth Kies, a Washington lobbyist who represents Blue Cross/Blue Shield, among other clients; Billy Tauzin, head of PhRMA, the drug industry lobby; Richard Umbdenstock, chief of the American Hospital Association, and numerous lobbyists.

The AP in early August asked the White House to produce records identifying communications that top Obama aides…The records list the kinds of people usually involved in Washington policymaking: business, union and trade association executives, lobbyists and political strategists. Wednesday's disclosure was significant because of Obama's campaign promise to change business as usual in Washington, and because he voluntarily released records showing the access of special interests as the administration crafted national health care policy.

Earlier this year, the White House announced agreements under which hospitals and the drug industry promised cost savings in return for the overhaul's expected expansion in the number of insured patients. The arrangements were hammered out in private meetings, drawing comparisons to Vice President Dick Cheney's secret talks with the energy industry as he helped President George W. Bush draft a national energy policy.

White House officials met repeatedly with the American Medical Association, which has pushed hard — over the objections of some physicians — for the health overhaul and a corresponding pay hike for doctors.

It pretty much sounds like the same old, same old to me. The Obama administration gets a couple points for releasing the records of these private meetings (Bush fought against such releases during energy policy discussions), but remember that Obama promised to hold the health care hearings on C-SPAN, which he did not do. Another broken promise.

This special interest catering is why we have health care bills that raise costs instead of lowering them, that mandate coverage for Americans to vastly increase the business of the insurance companies, that don't allow the negotiation of significantly lower drug prices, that guts Medicare Advantage in order to increase AARP's Medi-Gap insurance sales, that allows Medicaid prices to be negotiated with the AMA, and that don't include tort reform (to benefit trial lawyers).

Congressional health care votes are even being bought outright, as in the $100 million bribe to get the vote of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA). Conservative talker Glenn Beck drew some heat for calling Landrieu a prostitute following that little bit of D.C. quid pro quo. I agree with Beck's criticizers. Why did Beck single out Landrieu ? There are a slew of whores operating inside the D.C. Beltway. Landrieu is but one of many. That's how they do business in D.C. They rob the johns taxpayers blind in order to please the special interests. That's standard operating procedure. The part that gets me steamed is when they call that CHANGE.

Also, I've mentioned this before, but the whores in Washington, D.C. are lying their dishonest fannies off about how much health care reform is really going to cost.

I favor health care reform, but I cannot favor this. Back to the drawing board. It's time for a CHANGE. As usual.