Jim Webb’s Unbelievable Hypocrisy

Exactly how stupid does Jim Webb think we Virginians are? Does he actually believe that we have not followed his voting record and the fact that he has been nothing but a lap dog of the Obama Democrats? Check out the chutzpuh he sent with his latest re-election email. It is an exceept from the RealClearPolitics website on Monday, November 8, 2010:

Jim Webb went to the White House last September. The Virginia senator was meeting with the president to discuss Guantanamo detainees. The conversation soon shifted to healthcare. “I told him this was going to be a disaster,” Webb recalls. “The president believed it was all going to work out.”

And Jim Webb must have believed it too, otherwise he would not have cast a “Yea” vote for cloiture and for passage of the bill. And now, Webb is saying it was a bad thing? Six months too late, Jimmy boy!

And check this out:

“I’ve been warning them,” Webb says, sighing, resting his chin on his hand. “I’ve been having discussions with our leadership ever since I’ve been up here. I decided to run as a Democrat because I happen to strongly believe in Jacksonian democracy. There needs to be one party that very clearly represents the interests of working people … I’m very concerned about the transactional nature of the Democratic Party. Its evolved too strongly into interest groups rather than representing working people, including small business people.”

Uh-huh. This is why Jimmy voted for the bailouts and the failed stimulus package that served to do nothing except reward unions and government workers who voted Democrats into office.

Webb’s comments and his emails are nothing less than insulting. I know what he has been doing over the past four years and it does not at all reflect his comments of late.

I’ll say it point blank: Jim Webb is a liar. He is lying about his record because he knews that in two years, the Commonwealth of Virginia is going to work very hard to toss him back out and put in a new Senator who will actually respresent Virginia rather than be a rubber stamp for a political party. He was very happy to vote the way the Democrats told him to vote (even when it went against the wishes of Vorginia) and now he sees how wrong he was to do so. But instead of admitting his own culpability, he is making an early effort to distance himself from it by telling outright lies to people.

Supporters of Webb and his staff are especially welcome to respond to this post. I’ll be very happy to compare the liar Webb’s current statements with his voting record. He can lie all he wants, but his record will always tell the truth about what he really believes.

Democrats Admit Companies Were Right To Claim Obamacare Would Make Costs Higher Rather Than Lower

Now, before you start thinking this is some sort of right-wing Tea Party claim, look at the source:

Inquiry Says Health Care Charges Were Proper
Robert Pear
New York Times
April 26, 2010

Yes, you read that right. The New York Times. Hardly a bastion of right-wing thought.

Here is what Mr. Pear wrote:

When major companies declared that a provision of the new health care law would hurt earnings, Democrats were skeptical. But after investigating, House Democrats have concluded that the companies were right to tell investors and the government about the expected adverse effects of the law on their financial results.

Within days after President Obama signed the law on March 23, companies filed reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission, saying the tax change would have a material adverse effect on their earnings.

The White House suggested that companies were exaggerating the effects of the tax change. The commerce secretary, Gary F. Locke, said the companies were being “premature and irresponsible” in taking such write-downs.

“Irresonsible?” This from a hard-core leftist administration that is squandering our grandchildren’s and great-grandchildren’s futures as we speak?

Well, it turns out that the companies were right and the Dems were wrong:

In a memorandum summarizing its investigation, the Democratic staff of the committee said, “The companies acted properly and in accordance with accounting standards in submitting filings to the S.E.C. in March and April.”

Moreover, it said, “these one-time charges were required by applicable accounting rules.” The committee staff said this view was confirmed by independent experts at the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the American Academy of Actuaries.

Didn’t the Dems promise that Obamacare would make health care less expensive? This law is only going to make it more expensive and less accessible. Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak (both Democrats) were going to hold hearing on the claims these companies made until the two learned that the claims were well-founded. Those hearings have now been cancelled.

What Democrats Think Of The American People

Bill Kristol sums it up in two words: “Not much.”

Writing for the Weekly Standard and referencing an article from the Politico, Bill notes the following:

A memo from a top aide to Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen late last week counseled other Democratic staffers to tell their bosses not to worry, that “things like reconciliation and what the rules committee does is INSIDE BASEBALL.” Yesterday House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters, “I don’t think any American … is going to make the distinction” between the Slaughter procedure and a straightforward vote on the legislation. “Process is interesting, particularly to all of us around this room. But in the final analysis, what is interesting to the American public is what does this bill do for them and their families.”

Actually, what is interesting to us is what this bill will do to us and our families. We already know thanks to examples like Canada and Great Britain. That is why the majority of us are against socializing our health care. But the Dems seem to be completely oblivious to our position.

More:

Here the Democrats betray their contempt for the supposed simple-mindedness and short-sightedness of the American public. They also convey their vision of the American people living under the big government liberalism: We are to be passive consumers of government action, who accept what is done for us and to us in light of our perceived narrow short-term self-interest. We are not to think of ourselves as self-governing citizens with a stake in the process of constitutional self-government and a concern for the good of the whole.

Yep. That is exactly how the Democrats think. They think they know more about our needs from sitting in their taxpayer-financed luxury offices in Washington D.C. than we know about our needs from living out here in the real world.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

What Democrats Think Of The American People
William Kristol
The Weekly Standard
March 16, 2010

And the Politico article on-line here:

Dems: Time To ‘Rip The Band Aid Off’
Patrick O’Connor
Politico
March 12, 2010

Obama To Break Pledge Of Not Increasing Taxes On Incomes Of Less Than $250,000/yr

Well, it’s good to be back among the ranks of the employed. Now that I have an income again, I can devote just a little more time to helping the world stay informed about key issues we are facing.

Many of us knew that Barack Obama had absolutely no intention of keeping many of his campaign promises. Instead of allowing the health care debate to be made public over C-SPAN, he and his Democrat followers instead chose to hold their own meetings behind closed doors and completely shut out the Republicans. He promised that he would veto any bill that contained earmarks but instead has signed legislation that overall contains over 9,000 earmarks.

So, it should come as no surprise whatsoever that Obama is now poised to break a campaign promise he made on September 8, 2008:

“And I can make a firm pledge: Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase—not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

It is becoming clear that Obama made this grandiose claim in an effort to get votes by painting himself as some sort of anti-tax candidate. Well, now that he got the votes, he’s singing a completely different tune:

According to Terrence Jeffrey at Cybercast News Service:

[T]he new health care plan released in summary form yesterday by the White House specifically calls for increasing the Medicare payroll tax on “households with incomes exceeding $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly.”

Unless President Obama is prepared to say that the only type of “family” that qualifies as a “family” under his tax pledge is one that is formed around a “married couple filing jointly” than his new health care proposal violates his 2008 tax pledge on its face. The Internal Revenue Service, for example, makes clear that the “head of household” tax filing status is for “unmarried” taxpayers. A definition of the term “head of household” on the IRS Web site says: “Generally, you may claim head of household filing status on your tax return only if you are unmarried and pay more than 50% of the costs of keeping up a home for yourself and your dependent(s) or other qualifying individuals.”

That seems to be the mantra of the Democrats: Tax anything that can be taxed in order to pay for the irresponsible spending the Democrats have engaged in over the past year.

It’s true that Republicans went on a spending binge when they were in power, but the Democrats have far outstripped anything that Republicans have done since 1994. The republicans were bad, but the Democrats are infinitely worse.

More:

The White House posted the president’s tax increase proposal as part of the summary of the new health-care reform bill he is proposing.

“Under current law, workers who earn a salary pay a flat tax of 1.45 percent of their wages to support the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund, but those who have substantial unearned income do not, raising issues of fairness,” says the summary of Title IX of the president’s proposal. “The Act will include an additional 0.9 percentage point Hospital Insurance tax for households with incomes exceeding $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly. In addition, it would add a 2.9 percent tax for such high-income households to unearned income including interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents (excluding income from active participation in S corporations).”

There it is. Clear and concise. Obama had no intention of keeping his “no tax increases” on anyone under $250,000/yr pledge.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Breaking His Pledge? Obama Calls For Increasing Payroll Taxes On ‘Households’ Earning Less Than $250,000 Per Year
Terrence Jeffrey
Cybercast News Service
February 23, 2010

Docs 4 Patient Care

Think the American Medical Association is the end-all when it comes to what doctors in the U.S. believe? Think again. The AMA represents less than one-quarter of all doctors in the U.S. Further, the AMA is about politics, not medicine.

That is why there are groups like FACS and Docs 4 Patient Care. These groups make sure that the AMA doesn’t come out and fraudulently claim to speak for all physicians.

In fact, here is what D4PC stands for:

•There is no logical reason to hastily pass this legislation by a predetermined deadline. We have one chance to get this right.

•Bring “all” stakeholders together to help assure a meaningful and sustainable reform by considering many recommendations and proposals.

•Adopt a patient-centered approach to healthcare reform that empowers patients and promotes freedom of choice.

•Use the power of government to assist the uninsured obtain health coverage through modification of the tax code, such as tax credits and vouchers.

•Reduce high insurance premiums by opening up patient risk pools across the entire nation, thereby, diffusing risk.

•Allow the individual/family to be the “owner” of the policy making their health care coverage portable and available if they lose their job or move to a new place of employment. This will eliminate exclusion from the new employer’s plan for a “pre-existing” health issue and also eliminate a waiting period to qualify for enrollment.

•Encourage and expand Health Savings Accounts. Tax-Free savings vehicle for planned and/or unexpected medical expenses.

•Tort Reform. The costs to our healthcare system secondary to the practice of defensive medicine are over $100 billion annually, or $2,000 per family.

•Insurance Reform. Guarantee insurability due to pre-existing illness. Eliminate Insurance company antitrust exemption.

Further, there will be a D4PC rally on September 10, 2009 in Washington D.C. at the Senate Upper Park. (That’s just north of the Capitol Building.)

You can check out their website on-line here:

Docs 4 Patient Care

And their Mission Statement on-line here:

D4PC Mission Statement

Health Care Debate Exposes The True Barack Obama

And it is not the Obama who was elected in November of 2008.

Writing for the New York Daily News, Michael Goodwin notes the following:

Where is the appealing man we elected? Where is that Barack Obama?

Let’s find him quick because the whole nation is paying the price for this impostor’s irrational exuberance. Or hubris.

Americans, more of them every day, are growing disenchanted with the expansion of government and the massive pile of debt. Yet the President, certain he can change their minds if only he talks to them again, keeps trying to sell bigger as better.

The public’s not buying it. And as a measure of the nation’s mood, a recent poll was practically cruel: Nearly half think the President is on television too much. Ouch.

Where is the Barack Obama and the Democrats who promised to be uniters? Why were they replaced by the Barack Obama and Democrats who falsely accuse Town Hall protesters of being “Nazis” or “un-American” or “radical?”

Why are the Dems and Obama ignoring this:

That the novelty is wearing thin is obvious. The danger is that the health care fiasco turns him into an unpopular and ineffective President.

Those who say it can’t happen should study a recent New York Times/CBS poll. Among the lowlights:

* Sixty-nine percent believe Obamacare will hurt the quality of their own health care.

* Seventy-three percent believe they will have less access to tests and treatment.

* Sixty-two percent believe Democrats’ proposals would force them to change doctors.

* Seventy-six percent believe Obama’s changes will mean higher taxes for them.

* Seventy-seven percent expect their health care costs to rise.

It’s crazy what is happening in D.C. and the White House right now.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Health Care Debate Confirms This Is Not The Barack Obama We Elected
Michael Goodwin
New York Daily News
August 19, 2009

Kennedy Health Care Chart

Does anyone here really think that government run health care will be more efficient and help more people than private health care? The horror stories coming out of Canada and Great Britain are ample evidence that socialized medicine is a disaster.

But here, we can see one of the reasons why. Click on the following chart (requires Adobe reader):

Given all the new bureaucrats who will now be involved in your health care decisions, how long do you think it will take before certain treatments are approved? Do you think that if you or someone in your family needs urgent care that you will get it in a timely manner? That has not been the experience of people in Canada and Great Britain. And it won’t be the experience of people here if we move towards this disastrous health care system.

Go to the following website and get the facts about patients’ rights:

Conservatives For Patients’ Rights

Socialized Medicine: Enforcing Your “Duty To Die”

As noted earlier, the Porkulus/Spendulus/Stimulus Package passed by the socialist Democrats in Congress and set for signature by our socialist President Barack Obama, contains language that will begin setting up American Health Care in the style of European Health Care (or more accurately, lack thereof if you happen to be one of the unfortunate ones who fall into certain categories). That language will allow the creation fo a Federal Council that will have the power to over-ride your doctor’s treatment prescriptions if some faceless bureaucrat with little to no medical traiing decides that you are not worth treating.

Writing for Town Hall, Austin Hill has this:

Western Europe’s utopian ambitions to “insure everybody” and make healthcare “free” have by no means been realized. In fact, the nationalizing of healthcare in Europe has led to worsening government deficits, and increased healthcare costs, and efforts to contain those costs have resulted in the denial of treatment to those persons not expected to live much longer – – that is, the elderly and the seriously ill.

This “need” to deny people health care has frequently, in Europe, been cast in terms of one’s “duty to die.” The idea is that, once you have lived “long enough;” after you have consumed your “fair share” of the earth’s resources; and when your combined age and health conditions make it “obvious” that further efforts to prolong your life just simply “aren’t worth it;” you will then have a responsibility to accept these consequences, and to accept that you’ll just have to get along without life-sustaining healthcare.

In other words, once a government employee has determined that spending healthcare resources on you will not produce much of a “return on the investment,” you will then have a “duty to die.”

That is precisely what we are heading for. And, in this world of ironies, the American Association of Retired Persons was lobbying Republicans to pass this beast. In essence, the AARP wanted to pass legislation that would make it legally acceptable for the government to withhold medical treat from AARP members!

Moreover, you are about to lose the privilidge of doctor-patient confidentiality:

Forget the notion that the Doctor-patient relationship is “sacred,” or that you will make “private” decisions about your health care, in consultation with your Doctor. If Democrats continue the trend of “Europeanizing” our American health care, the office of the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology will eventually be overseeing your healthcare, making sure that if your Doctor spends “too much” on you, they will face federal “penalties, ” the likes of which have yet to be fully defined.

For over three decades, the Democratic Party has insisted that it is wrong for government to “interfere” with a woman’s medical decisions with respect to the child in the womb. Now, President Obama and congressional Democrats are insisting that government must be involved in everybody’s medical decisions. Worse yet, their proposals threaten human life on yet another front: not only are unborn children threatened by their policies, but so, also, are the ill and the elderly.

If Americans continue voting for “more government” as a means to “cure” all our societal ills, we will continue to move closer to the point where anonymous government bureaucrats determine when you have lived “long enough,” when you have consumed your “fair share” of resources, and when it is “obvious” that you won’t live much longer.

President Obama and the Democratic Congress are determined to take us to this point.

More double-standards. If that was the “change” you wanted in Washington D.C., I’d say you now have it.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Democrats, Health Care “Reform,” And Your “Duty To Die”
Austin Hill
TownHall.com
February 15, 2009

Taxes? Dems Want To Raise Them But Not Pay Them

If there is anyone out there who still thinks that the Democrats are some sort of paragon for ethics reform, please send me an email. There is a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like you to buy.

First Timothy Geithner and now Tom Daschle. What is it with Dems and their refusal to follow the same rules that Joe and Jane Average American have to follow? Why do the Democrats assume that they are somehow better than the rest of us and therefore don’t have to abide by the same laws we do?

Daschle owed $128,203 dollars in back taxes and was working on avoiding having to pay them.

Writing for Town Hall, Kevin Freking has the following:

Tom Daschle’s former Democratic colleagues were rallying to his defense after he met behind closed doors with the Senate Finance Committee to discuss problems with back taxes and potential conflicts of interest, but lawmakers promised he will face more questions.

The Dems are rallying to his defense, but would they have done the same thing if Daschle were a Republican? No. That would require integrity.

More:

Those questions will focus on tax issues, such as the $128,203 in back taxes and $11,964 in interest that he paid last month, said the aide. Daschle will also be questioned about the potential conflicts of interests he would face because he accepted speaking fees from health care interests, said the aide, who asked not to be identified because the aide was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

Daschle also provided advice to health insurers and hospitals through his work at a law firm.

Daschle began the day apologizing for his failure to fully pay his taxes from 2005 through 2007. He capped it off that way as well after meeting with the committee behind closed doors.

Once again, the Dems have shown us the hypocrisy that dominates thier logic. They have one very low standard for themselves and one very high standard for everyone else. People are beginning to notice.

But it won’t matter. The Dems are not in the habit of listening to the American people. They simply go their own way regardless of how unethical or illegal their actions are.

The parting shot:

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, noted the Geithner nomination in saying she suspected tax problems would not prevent Daschle from becoming the next health secretary.

“If the guy who is overseeing the IRS can get away with a tax problem, how are you going to hold up the health and human services secretary over taxes?” she asked.

The answer is: Geithner never should have been confirmed to begin with.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Daschle Faces More Questions In Nomination Bid
Kevin Freking
TownHall.com
February 3, 2009

tmdsu09020220090202110931

Video: Sarah Palin Addresses The Republican Governor’s

Sarah Palin, despite the insults and personal attacks thrown at her by those who are afflicted with Palin Derangement Syndrome or the insults hurled by those who can’t accept a strong, independent woman in politics, still gives one hell of a speech.

She addressed the Republican Governor’s Association recently and gave her remarks on the current political landscape and where we should go from here.

Regardless of your opinion of her, she is going to be around on the American political scene for a very long time. Here is what she had to say:

According to Town Hall:

Sarah Palin called on fellow Republican governors to keep the new president and his strengthened Democratic majority in check on issues from taxes to health care as she signaled she’ll take a leadership role in a party searching for a new standard-bearer.

Palin noted that Congress is led by the likes of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Rep. Barney Frank, and said it was incumbent upon GOP governors to ensure that the federal government doesn’t take over the health care system. She said if Obama and the new Congress “err on the side of excess taxes, we have to show them the way.”

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Palin Urges GOP Governors To Keep Democrats Honest
Brendan Farrington
TownHall.com
November 13, 2008

Reality Check From CBS: Obama’s Infomercial Didn’t Discuss The True Cost Of His Presidency

First the Associated Press and now CBS is finding fault with Obama’s claims from last night’s 30-minute ad. In a nutshell, Wyatt Andrews shows us that it will not be possible for Obama to keep his campaign promises (just like Bill Clinton was unable to keep his) when it came to budgets, new spending and taxes.

From the article:

Let’s start with his highly suspect, and widely discredited, claim that he can find federal “spending cuts beyond the costs” of his promises. Very few independent economists believe he has identified the savings needed to offset his remarkable list of tax credits, tax cuts and spending pledges.

Fact: Even if you believe Obama intends to fix health care, most independent analysts say the cost is massive – $1.2 trillion over ten years, according to the highly respected Lewin Group. When the new Congress wakes up next year to a $1 trillion deficit, and answers the overwhelming new demands for another stimulus package, will the leadership really bite on a health care reform package that digs the deficit hole so much deeper?

And this:

Fact: The tax cuts he promises, which are mostly refundable tax credits (code for cash back), will cost $60 billion just in year one, according the National Taxpayers Union, though the Obama campaign’s own estimates in July put that figure at $130 billion.

But what a great time to be a worker who owes no taxes! You get a check for not paying taxes at all! Wealth redistribution, here we come!

And this:

Fact: His new promise to give businesses a $3,000 tax credit for each new job created will cost $40 billion. But economists say this credit is far more likely to benefit companies already planning to expand and will likely not be enough to help companies create new jobs or forestall layoffs.

Yep. That wealth redistribution check isn’t going to mean much to the workers who will lose their jobs because their employers are getting over-taxed.

Fact: Obama’s claim he will lower health care premiums by $2,500 is: 1.) guesswork, which is 2.) based on health care savings that might, in a perfect world, happen over 10 years – a fact Obama neatly glosses over.

And we already know what happened in Canada and Great Britain with their versions of socialized medicine.

Most of the time he spends the Iraq savings in the context of the roads he wants to build; sometimes it’s for the teachers he wants to hire. Tonight, he riffed rhetorically on the savings, asking how many scholarships could be funded, or how many schools could be built. In the end though, presuming he really saves $90 billion, he can only spend it once.

Remember he also mentioned rebuilding the military ($7 billion/yr); his education initiative ($18 billion/yr); and his energy initiative ($15 billion/yr). He did not mention the $188 billion that he would spend on the brand new stimulus package he has proposed.

If he closes every loophole as promised, saves every dime from Iraq, raises taxes on the rich and trims the federal budget as he’s promised to do “line by line,” he still doesn’t pay for his list. If he’s elected, the first fact hitting his desk will be the figure projecting how much less of a budget he has to work with – thanks to the recession. He gave us a very compelling vision with his ad buy tonight. What he did not give us was any hint of the cold reality he’s facing or a sense of how he might prioritize his promises if voters trust him with the White House.

Awesome article!

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Reality Check: The Cost Of Obama’s Pledges
Wyatt Andrews
CBS News
October 29, 2008