Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Change we Need: Defeat the Democrats in Congress

The Democrats are the incumbent party in Congress. Since liberal Democrat Nancy Pelosi became speaker after 2006 elections, the price of oil rose, the stock market fell 20%, unemployment rose 20%, and the economy has sputtered. The Democrats’ threats of tax increases and their attacks on businesses and markets and energy producers have had a toll on the economy. The Democrats tried and failed to lose the war in Iraq, but they have managed instead to break promises to cut earmarks (they made it worse), and have spent over $1 trillion and counting on bailouts this year alone. They want more - money from the taxpayer to new govt welfare cases, with a slice for their special interests on the side. An example of their special-interest giveaways is the ‘alternative energy bill’ that included $50 billion in new taxes and had a hidden $1 billion gift to trial lawyers.

The Democrats’ earlier support for the creation of CRA (Community Reinvestment Act), sowed the seeds for subprime lending. Barack Obama, did legal work on behalf of ACORN to sue banks to force them to engage in subprime lending. that subprime lending ballooned, and the leaders in it, like Countrywide, gave sponsors like Sen Chris Dodd, sweetheart deals as thank yous; when Republicans warned about Fannie Mae supporting these risky schemes in 2005, the Democrats stopped them. The chicken’s have come home to roost on the flawed idea of giving homes and mortgages to people who cannot really afford them. Democrats instigated this financial crisis as much as anyone else.

But these policy errors and bad actions are just the preview. Here is what the Obama/Democrat majority will deliver:

  • Regulation overdrive that will kill jobs
  • Special interest giveaways to groups like ACORN
  • Government takeover of health-care, shifting as many a 50 million more people into a Government run plan (See below, Obama ultimately wants single payer aka 100% Socialized medicine!)
  • pork barrel-overspending, like the $200 billion farm bill the Pelosi Congress passed, and the $1+ TRILLION in bailouts this year; Pelosi wants another bailout for $300 billion, on top of the $700 billion for wall street, $300 billion housing bailout and $100 billion govt check giveaway - when will it end?
  • Pro-abortion extremism, including taxpayer funded abortions and ‘Freedom of Choice’ Act, which will override state desires to protect unborn life
  • Amnesty for illegal aliens, and drivers licenses for illegal aliens, which Obama supports
  • No drilling in ANWR or offshore, and an anti-energy policy that won’t allow full exploration offshore; it means higher energy prices
  • Trade policies that are the worst since Herbert Hoover (who created a depression out of similar policies)
  • Higher taxes that will kill jobs; Obama in the past year proposed higher payroll taxes, higher income taxes, and raising the capital gains taxes from 15% to 25%. Now in the general election, Obama has flipflopped on it, but he will surely flipflop back in order to make taxpayers pay for his $800 billion in spending promises that he can’t keep without higher taxes.
  • Job-killing ‘cap-and-trade’ CO2 regulations
  • Attacks on free speech, with “fairness doctrine” attacks on talk radio, and political correctness attacks on free speech( Missouri DAs investigating people who say bad things about Obama)
  • Attacks on the ballot box, by ending the secret ballot for union elections, and by opposing voter ID laws
  • Gay marriage: Obama and Biden oppose Cali proposition 8, which protects traditional marriage, in effect signalling that he supports gay marriage, and Obama and the Democrat platform calls for the repeal of DOMA to take gay marriage nationwide; they will enforce ENDA, gay rights in the workplace and a tort lawyers dream and HR dept nightmare, and the result will be attacks on religious organizations and groups that dare to take an opposing moral position; gays openly in the military
  • Appointment of liberal activist Judges, who will be handpicked to overrule the people and legislate liberal social policy from the bench.

Here’s what the WSJournal says is in store with that Obama/Democrat majority:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

- The business climate. “We have some harsh decisions to make,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the “Issues and Legislation” tab on Mr. Waxman’s Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is “card check.” Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The “Employee Free Choice Act” would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union “contract” after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for “the rich,” substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.

- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the “community organizer” left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress — Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar’s ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get “net neutrality” rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.



Obama’s campaign is a $500 million hollywood production, a fiction designed to bamboozle foolish uninformed voters, and the liberal media is complicit in keeping people as uninformed as possible of the real Barack Obama. As part of that fiction, Obama’s left-liberal positions and views have been airbrushed aside, and he’s running on focus-group-tested pablum.

Normally, political realities will restrain Obama's extremist, but the liberal Democrats think they have the kind of majority coming that will reshape things further. Only twice before has a President on the Democrat side won with overwhelming majorities. In the 1930s and 1960s. Both times we got the most signification shifts towards big Government in our history - The New Deal and the Great Society. Our problems will not be solved by more Government - we need LESS Government. Our only chance to stop this radical and dangerous shift is to vote against every Democrat in Congress in the coming election.

If you want to save America ... you have one duty - NOW - and that is to spread the word and warn others: Maybe it is too late to stop the manifestly unqualified and extreme Barack Obama from becoming President. Certainly we can all try to vote McCain/Palin to stop the disaster from happening, but in the event that it wont be enough: The change we need is to defeat the Democrats in Congress. Defeat Nancy Pelosi and her earmark, pork-barrel,
corrupt trial-lawyer leftwing-special interest ACORN-supporting buddies in Congress.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

OBAMA'S GAY COVER-UP

To see something scary before the Halloween goblins come out (the devils are already out), Google "Obama Supports Public Depravity." After recovering from this Fright Wing activity in Pelosi's district (which she and Obama approve of!), Yahoo "God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up." Obama etc. don't want folks to know what's going on in front of little kids at "gay" festivals because news about this extreme child abuse could ignite and unite the Religious Right like nothing else - which explains why nothing was said about "gay" rights at any of the Presidential debates! Eleanor
(Obama and Pelosi did not approve of this message!)

Anonymous said...

First of all, I would like to declare myself a radical centrist. I do not favor one party strongly over the other for any plurality of issues. I instead hate bullsh*t from both sides. This post seems to be filled with it.

I'd like to first address your bulletins:

The Claim - "See below, Obama ultimately wants single payer aka 100% Socialized medicine!"
The Truth - This idea shows an ignorance of what socialized medicine truly is. This is proposing Universal Healthcare, there is a significant difference. Universal Healthcare is a system in which every person has access to some form of Medical Insurance. Socialized medicine, by definition, "A system of health care in which all health personnel and health facilities, including doctors and hospitals, work for the government and draw salaries from the government" from medicinenet.com. There are numerous examples of Universal Healthcare Systems that are not socialized. Brittan and Canada are, while France and Switzerland are not (the government does not control hospitals/doctors wages.) Switzerland, actually, is a prime example of the potential plan to implement in the United States, where private insurance companies cannot deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions/the poor, however, to even the playing field, the government subsidizes companies based on how many of the 'low profit' citizens they accept. All in all, Universal Healthcare is estimated to save any society 50% of total healthcare costs in general, and is therefore in our economic interests. For more information, e-mail me at theorymaker@gmail.com and I'd love to send you a multiple page report (including sources such as the OECD, WHO, Commonwealth Fund and others) further explaining this.

The Claim - "pork barrel-overspending, like the $200 billion farm bill"
The Truth - While it is true that the congress passed a multi-billion dollar farm bill, this isn't some new feat. This bill is going to extend until 2012, meaning, in reality, 50 billion dollars annually. Furthermore, this is a more responsible bill than the previous 5 year plan (which just expired) saving between 5-10 billion dollars per year (20-40 billion in total.) Again, this is to replace another bill which just expired. Furthermore, this had bi-partisan support, getting an overwhelming 82 votes in the senate (35 republicans, 45 democrats, 2 other.)

The Claim - The bailout is entirely the Democratic Congress.
The Truth - Remember John McCain suspending his campaign? That was for support of the original 700 billion dollar bailout bill. It, like the most recent bailouts, was called for by the president himself. It draws a substantial Bi-partisan base (taken from opencongress.org.)

The Claim - "Pro-abortion extremism, including taxpayer funded abortions"
The Truth - This isn't for everyone, this act only qualifies the poor who also qualify for Medicaid. It isn't a blank check (taken from govtrack.us.)

The Claim - "an anti-energy policy that won’t allow full exploration offshore; it means higher energy prices"
The Truth - "Drilling for oil beneath the pristine tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would do little to ease world oil prices, the federal government's energy forecasters said," reported the US News and World Report. The bipartisan commission employed by Alaska Senator Ted Stevens in June of 2008 stated, "While there is a strong incentive to provide much needed relief to American families who are currently struggling with high gasoline prices, analysis of ANWR’s projected contribution to crude oil markets suggests that relief will be neither substantial nor timely in its effect."
Furthermore, Time says "even if tomorrow we opened up every square mile of the outer continental shelf to offshore rigs, even if we drilled the entire state of Alaska and pulled new refineries out of thin air, the impact on gas prices would be minimal and delayed at best," adding "A 2004 study by the government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that drilling in ANWR would trim the price of gas by 3.5 cents a gallon by 2027." Furthermore "it would take several years, at least, for the oil to begin to flow, which is time enough for increased demand from China, India and the rest of the world to outpace those relatively meager savings. "Right now the price of oil is set on the global market," says Kevin Lindemer, executive managing director of the energy markets group for the research firm Global Insight. President Bush's move "would not have an impact."" The AP reported in 2004 "Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department ... if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025. But even at peak production ... the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil..." Lastly, Reuters reported in 2008 "The Energy Information Administration, which is the Energy Department's independent analytical arm, estimated that if Congress had cleared Bush's ANWR drilling plan the oil would have been available to refiners in 2011, but only at a small volume of 40,000 barrels a day -- a drop in the bucket compared with the 20.6 million barrels the U.S. consumes daily.
At peak production, ANWR could have potentially added 780,000 barrels a day to U.S. crude oil output by 2020, according to the EIA.
The extra supplies would have cut dependence on foreign oil, but only slightly. With ANWR crude, imports would have met 60 percent of U.S. oil demand in 2020, down from 62 percent without the refuge's supplies"

The Claim - "Trade policies that are the worst since Herbert Hoover"
The Truth - The Council on Foreign Relations said it best, Obama's Trade Policy "serves the interests not just of multinational corporations but of America's hardworking families." Knowing that you do not even cite a source for your claim (let alone your entire rant) I don't believe it has any validity.

The Claim - "Higher taxes that will kill jobs; Obama in the past year proposed higher payroll taxes, higher income taxes, and raising the capital gains taxes from 15% to 25%."
The Truth - This is excluding a plethora of tax breaks in the other areas of federal taxation, where Barack Obama actually lowers the overall federal Tax burden of the Lower and Middle Classes. True, he raises them for the top bracket however (Which has historically shown no significant 'chilling effect.')

The Claim - "attacks on free speech, with “fairness doctrine” attacks on talk radio, and political correctness attacks on free speech"
The Truth - This is simply not true. The Fairness doctrine was upheld by both Republican and Democratic Supreme courts since the 1940's till the 1980's. Never once was it shown to have a chilling effect. In fact, as the Supreme Court decided in 1969 (Red Lion Broadcasting v FCC) the Fairness doctrine was found to "enhance rather than abridge the freedoms of speech and press protected by the First Amendment." In fact, as it was upheld in 1984 (League of Women Voters of California v FCC) that there was never any "credible proof that the Doctrine ever held such an effect." As for constitutionality, I'm going to go with the Supreme Court, who always upheld not only the constitutionality of the doctrine, but how it helped to "enhance rather than abridge" speech.

The Claim - "Gay marriage: Obama and Biden oppose Cali proposition 8, which protects traditional marriage, in effect signaling that he supports gay marriage"
The Truth - Obama does not support Gay Marriage. He supports civil unions but has always opposed the term marriage directly.

Again, I'm for fair and unbalanced media. There is tons of Liberal Sh*t out there too, and I post corrections to those blogs much like I did here.