Friday, May 25th, 2012 and is filed under Blog, Obamacare
Remember late last year when conservative rallied around Ron Johnson in his race against Roy Blunt to be Vice Chair of the Senate Republican Conference? At the time, many Republicans questioned our motives; they wondered why Roy Blunt wasn’t conservative enough for us. Well, take a look at this tidbit from Slate:
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., gave a strong defense yesterday of a portion of the Affordable Care Act that allows children up to 26 years old to remain on their parents’ health insurance plans, breaking a bit from the GOP’s hard-line opposition to Obamacare.
Blunt endorsed Mitt Romney early on and led the campaign’s efforts to recruit Republican lawmakers during the GOP primary. But his comments in an interview on KTRS radio in St. Louis may give Boston some heartburn as it tries to convince conservative voters that Romney, who enacted the predecessor of Obamacare in Massachusetts, will actually repeal the healthcare law.
“It’s one of the things that I think should continue to be the case,” Blunt said of the “dependent coverage” provision, explaining that “it’s a way to get a significant number of the uninsured into an insurance group without much cost,” because young people are generally healthy.
Blunt noted that he even introduced a bill when he was in the House that would do exactly what the provision of the Affordable Care Act does now, saying, “I was for it then, and I’d be for it now.” “You’re breaking some news,” host McGraw Milhaven quipped.
While Blunt said he still favors repealing most of the health law, he would want to preserve a few sections, including the dependent coverage provision and the creation of high-risk pools for patients with preexisting conditions.
Thursday, May 24th, 2012 and is filed under Blog, Debt
Well, we’ve made some progress. At least the President is ashamed of his big spending record and is now attempting to flee from it.
Over the past 24 hours, there has been much hullabaloo over MarketWatch columnist Rex Nutting’s piece claiming that spending during Obama’s tenure actually grew slower than during Bush’s term. In fact, he claims that spending is growing at the slowest pace since the 1950s. Now Obama himself is touting this report. It’s kind of similar to the claim that Ronald Reagan was the biggest tax hiker of the 20th century. It’s hard to debunk such insanity. Anyone who looks at the spending charts for all the major drivers of the deficit (except for defense spending) from 2009 to the present; whether it’s food stamps, Medicaid, entitlements, or non-defense discretionary, the numbers are astronomical.
Yet, there is one central flaw to Nutting’s analysis that has thankfully been addressed by the Heritage Foundation. Nutting is blaming all of the increased spending in 2009 on George Bush. After all, he contends, wasn’t Bush responsible for the FY 2009 budget, which is passed in 2008? Yes, he sure would have been responsible….had the budget been passed in 2008. Nutting might have forgotten that Democrats purposely waited until 2009 to pass a budget for the expressed purpose of having an ally in the White House….to dramatically increase spending – something they couldn’t do with Bush in office. Remember the Stimulus and Omnibus of 2009?
Brian Darling, senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation has the full report:
Thursday, May 24th, 2012 and is filed under Elections, News
Ron Gould, who has been endorsed by the Madison Project and other prominent conservatives, released an internal poll today showing him within 3 points of incumbent Paul Gosar. The poll of 400 likely Republican voters showed Gosar up 35-32%. This is really good news for this stage of the campaign. Gosar voted for the debt ceiling, even though the rest of his delegation opposed it.
Thursday, May 24th, 2012 and is filed under Blog
Things you will need to help Ted Cruz beat David Dewhurst:
1) A phone
2) Or a computer with a headset
3) If using a computer, you will need high speed internet
Whether you are using your own phone or a laptop, to make calls for the Ted Cruz campaign from your home, simply go to www.votergravity.com/cruz.
Once you are there, the easiest way to get going is to login using your Facebook account.
If you do not have a Facebook account, you may contact the Cruz campaign directly: Kris Shafer – Kris@TedCruz.org
Once you log-in to the Gravity system via Facebook, it may take up to 15 minutes for you to be authorized to use the system.
Your first option will be to use your own phone or a Gravity phone (which simply means you are going to call using your desktop or laptop with a headset). Choose which option is more comfortable for you.
Once you have done that, you will see a Voter Profile pop up. It will contain the voter’s name, address and Gravity Score. A “1” means that voter is registered by rarely if ever votes. A “12” means that voter is registered and votes every time the polls are open. Their voter history is listed at the bottom of the column.
At the bottom of the page you will have two options. If you chose the Gravity phone system, click the “Call” button and the system will automatically begin dialing until you are connected with a live voter. If you are not connected, you may click “Voicemail” then “Next Voter.”
If you have chosen the “Own Phone” option, you will see the voter’s number pop up under the Gravity logo. Once you connect with a live voter, just click “Start Survey” and you may begin the call. When done with the voter, click “Next Voter” and continue making calls.
If no one answers, click “Voicemail” and a scripted message will appear for you to leave for the voter. Once you are done, click “Next Voter” and repeat the process.
Thursday, May 24th, 2012 and is filed under Blog, Debt, Taxes
Every once and a while, I find a need to invoke an all-important rule concerning the debate over our national debt. Yes, it is important that we point to the lack of a balanced budget and the trillions in debt. However, we must not focus exclusively on balanced budgets; we need to focus more on closing down government department, agencies, and programs. Perforce, the budget will balance on its own once we restore government back to its core constitutional functions.
The problem when we focus too much on the parlance of budgets and debt is that it opens the door for Democrats to say something like this: “OK, you want a balanced budget? Well, there are two sides of the ledger; revenue and expenditures. We need to raise revenue to achieve a balanced budget.”
As we all understand, the federal government is not like a personal or corporate budget. In the case of the latter, increasing revenue is a good thing. In the case of the federal government, increasing revenue means more money is confiscated from the individual to fund programs that are unconstitutional. However, as we’ve seen on numerous occasions over the past few years, once Republicans begin focusing exclusively on “balancing the budget,” they feel the need to agree with Democrats about some possibility of raising taxes.
The latest example comes from the following remarks made by Congressman Allen West: (via Politico)
Thursday, May 24th, 2012 and is filed under Elections, News
The Pennsylvania Senate race has not been on anyone’s radar yet. Most handicappers don’t view this as a competitive seat in the fall. However, Rasmussen just published a poll showing Senator Casey with an unimpressive 48-41% lead over Tom Smith. Remember that Smith has the ability to self-fund and plans to run an aggressive campaign. At the very least, he will force Democrats to use scarce resources in thei state, during a year when they are already stretched thin with vulnerable incumbents all over the country.
Thursday, May 24th, 2012 and is filed under Elections, News
Ron Barber, the Democrat candidate running to fill Gabby Giffords’s seat, declined to say whether he’d support Obama in the November election. This is yet another example of how disingenuous some Democrats tend to be when running in swing or lean Republican districts. They plan to go to congress and vote for the Obama agenda, yet they are too scared to tell their constituents that they will vote for him behind closed doors.
Thursday, May 24th, 2012 and is filed under Blog, Foreign Policy, Issues
As we’ve chronicled here in great detail over the past year, House Republicans are no pikers when it comes to conservative legislation. This is especially true when examining the records of House appropriators. Yet, even those big government types have [begrudgingly] agreed to abide by the spending and policy decisions of the House-passed budget when considering the 12 appropriations bills during committee markups.
As mediocre as some of the appropriations bills emanating from the House are to most conservatives, they are far superior to the bills going through the Senate Appropriations Committee. Those bills reflect the priorities and policies of Obama and Reid. That is to be expected. What is astounding and appalling is the fact that the Senate Republicans on that panel are exhibiting more solidarity with the Democrats than with their fellow Republicans in the House. In fact, not a single major Democrat proposal has been opposed by the bulk of Republican appropriators during the markups of the spending bills thus far.
It all started in April when the appropriators, led by Mitch McConnell, sided with Obama and Reid over House Republicans in voting for the higher topline spending figures for all the 12 bills. Now they are rubber stamping the individual expenditures and the policies established in each individual appropriations bills. First it was the Transportation-HUD and Commerce-Justice-Science bills that Ron Johnson was the only Republican on the committee to hold the line. On Tuesday, the State-Foreign Operations Subcommittee marked up the draft FY 2013 bill that funds the State Department and foreign aid programs. Here are some of the highlights:
Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 and is filed under Blog, Obamacare
At the risk of becoming the official grim reaper of bad tidings from Capitol Hill, I’m compelled to update you on the latest capitulations taking place courtesy of the pale-pastel Republicans. When Reagan referred to moderate Republicans as purveyors of pale-pastel policies, he meant that those politicians ostensibly agree to the policy premises of the Democrats, albeit with some minor reservations. Sadly, we are seeing that on a daily basis.
There have been copious pages of ink spilt over recent rumors that Republicans plan to keep or reinstate some of the Obamacare mandates on insurance companies. As we noted last week, the fact that many in leadership desire to keep the slacker and pre-existing conditions mandates is nothing new. What is new is this tidbit from pale-pastel politician Steve Stivers (RINO-OH): (Via the WSJ)
Several GOP freshmen say they want to see greater efforts to promote replacement options during this session of Congress. Rep. Steve Stivers of Ohio said he was considering introducing legislation in the next few weeks that would require insurance companies to allow consumers to cover adult children on their plans up to the age of 31, charging an additional premium if necessary.But some congressional Republicans have already expressed their opposition to most kinds of federal mandates on insurers.
Hmm, why not make it 50 for that matter? Why stop at 31? Seriously, these people have no clue how the free market works, and now it appears that some Republicans want to run to the left of Obama on healthcare. This is all a symptom of Republicans focusing too much on universal coverage instead of bending the costs down – costs that are artificially inflated by the very policies now being embraced by Republicans.
Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 and is filed under Uncategorized
I know most of you come to this site to read politics, but this post has nothing to do with politics.
I heard a fascinating sermon on Sunday in church. It was from the Book of Job and the theme of the sermon was faith centered around the questions God asks Job throughout the book, “Where were you when . . . .?” The purpose of the questions was to drive home a point: there is a God. And it’s not you.
As he preached, the our pastor kept coming back to question, “Do we have a faith big enough to believe in God?” and it took me back years ago to a time when we were presented several topics to write on in a college Humanities course. I chose Faith because of its paradoxical nature. I think-no, I know-many have fallen into the trap of Keirkegaard, that faith and reason are two separate “silos” inside each human, that faith is an emotive response while reason is a clinical, rational function of the brain and never the two shall meet.
I, of course, challenged that notion and still do to this day. While faith is a belief in the unseen, it is not a purely emotional response. It is employing the mind given to us for a reason (to think with) to rationally compute historical events and scientific evidence so that as we stand on the precipice of time, big decisions or life challenges and hear the eternal Voice whisper, “Jump and I will catch you,” we know we can jump and that we will be caught.
Reason and faith working hand in glove with each other. That is the paradox of faith.
Can we reason our way to God? In the truest sense, no. But can reason, facts and evidence lead us down the path to God? Yes. It is when we hit that final door that we must open it and leap.
That, friends, is what faith is. A reasoned decision to trust the revealed Unknown.