What if there were a job that paid decent, was almost impossible to get fired from, required no tangible performance targets, and had contractually guaranteed raises? Would you still complain about how much you make? Would you be willing to put in a few extra hours when you’re failing at your job? The teachers unions wouldn’t. John Stossel recently wrote:

“Gallo also asked teachers to do a few things for no additional pay, like spending an extra 25 minutes in school. I’d think dedicated teachers in struggling schools would be willing to spend a little more time with their students. But these teachers are in a union. Their reaction?

Union officials said they wanted to be paid for more of the duties and wanted to receive a higher pay rate –– $90 per hour.”

That kind of attitude is irritating but it isn’t limited to unions. Given the chance to have merit-less raises, most of us would probably welcome the opportunity. What is unique to the unions, is that they may be the only place where you can actually get a raise for poor performance and none of your peers will bat an eye. In Chicago, even Mayor Daley says unions need to get with the “real world” and accept an end to automatic yearly pay increases. The Chicago Sun-Times writes:

“Noting that he is personally taking 29 days off without pay this year to help solve the city’s budget crisis, Daley said, “Government has to diet. … When people are suffering, you can’t live in the abstract. You can’t say, ‘Everything is great. It’s like 20 years ago.’ It’s not gonna be that way. People are suffering. You have to be able to cut back and start sharing the loss that people have.”

Does that include the Chicago Teachers Union’s attempts to hold the Board of Education to a contract that calls for four percent annual pay raises?

“That includes everyone,” Daley said. “I don’t want to take 29 days without pay. But, you have to be able to be able to lead by example.””

Outside of public sector employment wages are down. Those that have jobs are working more hours, doing more jobs to pick up the slack of laid off workers, and they do it for the same pay they received years ago.

Some might complain about the lack of raises in recent times but there hasn’t been much inflation, either. In fact, this year is on track to have the lowest inflation we’ve had since 2003, except for 2009. Just 2.3% inflation is expected in 2010. Four percent pay hikes just don’t hardly make sense given recent economic conditions. Unions will point out that they have a contract, but contracts were made to be re-negotiated. That’s what the State is trying to do, re-negotiate a contract they can’t possibly ever pay for. Do unions think they’d fare better in bankruptcy court?

Our rocky economic times have had one (and perhaps only one) advantage in that costs for most products have remained relatively stable. That doesn’t stop those who live off taxpayers dollars from asking for more, though. Stossel, in another peice on public sector abuses writes:

“That federal bureaucrats enrich themselves during an economic downturn with pay raises — 2.4 percent this year, 4.8 percent last year, 4.5 percent the year before — is bad enough. Now comes word that Uncle Sam is dishing out “recruitment, relocation and retention incentives” to the tune of $285 million in 2008 (the latest year available) to bring workers onto the payroll or persuade them to stay.”

As long as public sector workers feel they are entitled to the same (or better) pay as the private sector, we can look for steady increases in our deficits. In the private sector greed is seldom tolerated past one’s ability to improve business. In the public sector greed is just a way of life.

The goal of any poll is to get a general idea of where a respondent stands on issues, not to drill down to minutia. For that reason, polls usually ask broad questions with multiple choice answers that may or may not accurately describe an individual’s exact position. Here’s one example:

This question is designed to draw the reader’s eye toward the fourth answer. Note that each answer provides some commentary (that’s generally a no-no in polling), and that the wording of every other option uses pejoratives. Also, notice the other options invoke a labyrinth of if/then type statements, or strong absolutes designed to direct respondents to other answers.

The goal of this article isn’t to beat up on the Nolan Chart Survey, however. Instead, this article asks you to question your own beliefs. Were it not for a political party constantly yammering on about national security, might you feel differently about foreign policy? If no one identified “green energy” with Democrats would you have a different take on it?

Americans do themselves a huge disservice when they vote a party instead of a person. Here in primary season voters have a critical chance to decide the next crop of Republican leadership in Congress. Instead of listening to candidates blather on about who is more conservative, voters need to decide for themselves which issues really matter, given our current state. That means ignoring issues that simply are not as essential to focus on right now.

The two-party system has been extremely effective at putting voters into two groups and then getting them to declare outright war on each other. So, in effect, we’re taught that anyone who doesn’t vote for a given Democrat is a conservative right-winger. If you voted for Doug Hoffman in NY23, you’re a right-winger. Martha Coakley declared that MA had elected a hard right winger, in Scott Brown.

When the labels are peeled off, and voters are asked where they stand on issues, that’s where we get real answers. The brand name of a political party is simply too powerful for most to resist. Like the 1980′s soft drink taste tests, many are surprised to learn the candidate they would support if they had to vote strictly on issues.

Sadly, we are a two party nation, and that means there is a political reality that conservatives need to get behind less than ideal candidates if they want to keep the “greater evil” from winning in November. That doesn’t mean we need to have mediocre options in November. This season’s primaries could set the stage for a true conservative landslide in November…but only if voters pay close attention.

Entitlement programs in America have a troubled past. Once a ponzi scheme is born, it is nearly impossible to get rid of it, no matter how costly it becomes. However, despite the fact that we’ve shown weakness in removing social spending programs when they threaten to bankrupt us; we have a good history of penalizing leaders that take us in the wrong direction. Obama’s dangerous legacy will be well remembered at the polls.

No one can see the future. It’s possible that Obama will get himself involved in some mess near 2012 that tricks the electorate into giving him another four years. However, the history is clear: Democrats will not get another turn after Obama. If he’d turned out to be the moderate he advertised himself as, this would potentially be avoidable. As it stands, however, the country will happily abandon Democrats. We won’t need to wait for 2012 to see it happen either.

Mid-term elections are usually brutal for the President’s party during the first term. Republicans and Democrats agree that many Democrat seats will be lost in November. What Democrats will deny is the growing tide of resentment at liberals and progressives who simply can’t cut up the country’s credit cards. In a way, it would actually be better for Democrats if Obama gets the boot in 2012, because it might stop the bleeding for their reputations.

Similar to how George Bush became more careless toward the end of his second term, ultimately costing the party a win in 2008, Obama could destroy his party’s image (more than he already has) near the end of his Presidency. March 21st, we witnessed the damage party ideologues can impose on the country with a party-line vote. Now the fate of the country rests in voters’ hands who can no longer assume that voting a party line will lead to predictable results. Republicans rebel against moderates John McCain, Charlie Christ and others. Independent voters who were swayed for Obama in 2008 will think twice before pulling the lever for the “D” again. These voters tend to favor fiscal responsibility over social policy and they gave Obama a chance because Republicans’ spending was out of control. When you take out all the groups Obama has alienated and angered, he’s hardly got any voters left.

Obama has certainly changed the political landscape, but not because he’s an outsider who doesn’t play Washington games. Precisely the opposite is true; Obama is the ultimate Washington insider and he and his party have proven that they won’t stop trying to foist their socialist policies onto America. Indeed, there is no country for Obama.

Recess appointments were once a necessity. Back when we had a part-time Congress, the time between sessions could last as long as 9 months. It was felt that during this time important positions may be left unfilled because the Senate would not be in session to confirm nominees. As time as progressed, Congress is in session longer and longer, however. Now, the time between sessions is hardly justification for recess appointments. Now they are simply a tool to push through a nominee the Senate has problems with.

Since World War II, the recess appointment has been increasingly used to overcome Senate opposition to controversial figures up for confirmation. The process is still relatively benign, however, since the appointment would normally expire at the end of the next session of the Senate, unless confirmed. In some cases, pay can even be withheld until confirmation. Much of the detail is tied into exactly when the position becomes vacant versus when the Senate went into recess.

It’s almost inevitable that recess appointments will happen in a Senate which is not heavily imbalanced in favor of the current President. While today’s usage is a gimmick, there is a legitimate purpose for them and for that reason will probably be around forever. The Congressional Reference Service has put together a PDF that describes the origins of the recess appointment, and some notable instances of its usage. You can read the report here.

Right now there is a slow boil happening. A large scale, immediate reduction in our rights would never pass muster here. Citizen uprisings would have overwhelmed law enforcement, and the politicians who attempted it would have been hauled off in cuffs, or worse. The more realistic, credible threat is what we’ve seen since the beginning of the 20th century: Incremental, gradual, and “justifiable” cuts in our liberties. Most of these are disguised as “common sense” tweaks to our laws. Health care reform seems outrageous now, and it is, but our government has spent the last 100 or so years robbing us of business liberties, personal liberties, and perhaps most noticeably, the right to keep the money we earn.

Liberals will tell us that it’s just necessary to have some business licensing to keep things in order. Cities have taken it and run with it, though. John Stossel discusses it.

“Our most outrageous example of licensing madness is the plight of David Price, a man who learned the hard way that no good deed goes unpunished, especially when messing with lawyers. Price made the mistake of helping Eldon Ray, a fellow Kansan who was fined for practicing architecture without a license. Price didn’t represent Ray in court; he just helped Ray by writing a letter to respond to the fine. In states like Kansas, that practically makes Price Perry Mason. A judge (a lawyer with a robe) threw Price into jail on contempt charges, not to be released until he promised to never give legal advice again – ever.”

So we’ve lost our freedom to conduct business without State approval, which may come at a high cost, or it may not come at all. Well, it’s not that bad yet. Do you trust that it won’t get that bad?

If you’re not planning on starting a business, perhaps you’d be more concerned about government’s interest in your diet. Again, liberals find justification for their increasing restrictions. You’re too fat, they say. You could get sick if you eat too much of one thing or another and only government can help keep us on track. So there are limits on salt, increasingly gaudy food labels, bans on trans fats, and probably a dozen more senseless rules coming in future years if these food tyrants aren’t stopped.

Want to build on your property? Better check with City Hall. They’ll probably help you out, unless they deem you aren’t building a safe enough structure. After all, if they don’t help you make safe buildings, who will? Once you get done putting up that new structure, they’ll ask for a small token of your appreication in the form of higher taxes into perpetuity.

If we don’t stop the constant senseless erosion of freedoms, we are doomed to live as Soviets once lived. At some point, conservative defenders of the Constitution will need to simply stand up to “common sense regulation” and tell the progressive liberals “no more”. Sadly, it’s proven impossible to do that so far.

There are emotional segments of a society that just can’t bring themselves to turn down a new rule. Especially, if a slick looking politician brings out some fancy graphs and statistics to justify the new rule. Cautious mothers want those life saving seat belts, air bags, and other expensive automobile safety features. Established businesses actually root for competition killing barriers to entry. It’s a shame that we’ve become so short sighted that we root for the very laws which will someday enslave us. It is nearly impossible to roll back nanny state laws. Once these progressives get their hands on your freedoms they will use every hyper-emotional trick in the book to con you into keeping them.

Eventually the tyranny became too great for our Founders and they left. They knew it would be tough to keep our freedoms in this country since politicians have a way of tricking us into giving them up. Can we prove them wrong?

Originally meant to guarantee you the right to practice religion in any manner you see fit, the clause now offers the “right to not be offended”. It turns out the latter is far more potent. The recent failure of the Supreme Court to hear the Ave Maria case is simply indicative of where we are in the national discourse. It was one thing to remove prayer and references to religion in State sponsored curriculum, it’s quite another to ban students from using their talents to make such references. A “right” not to be offended is a dangerous presumption to make. Yet, this is the exact basis for removal of Christmas decorations from public property. It harms no one, and represents the vast majority of the community, but it also offends…maybe. If you’re Atheist, the mere idea that someone else worships God cuts deeply. The courts have taken it upon themselves to keep that from happening.

The ban on an establishment of religion has, ironically, done just the opposite: Established a national religion…atheism. Liberals love it. Disaffected hippies from the flower power era rejoice at the idea of finally slinging mud in the face of their parents. Rebellions teens appreciate the defiance against authority. Socialist leaders need it, since real religion interferes with State worship.

The new national religion is on display everywhere. You can find it in the public school system, in the courthouse, in town halls, and especially in Congress. If you are atheist, the State is on your side, and will decide in your favor the vast majority of the time. Your right to believe there is no God trumps the right of anyone else to believe there is one. It also trumps anyone else’s First Amendment rights. Worse, even if everyone else believes there is a God, you still can’t talk about it. That’s what the Ave Maria case is all about; We could offend someone. Better safe than sorry.

When it comes to government coverage, C-SPAN is one of the best places to go. We have the images of sleepy House debates replete with boring parliamentary procedure blazed into our brains from the network’s infancy. It’s true that watching “sausage being made” can be boring, but we are lucky to have the resource available to us. So which government program provides for the funding of C-SPAN? None of them do. C-SPAN is an example of a corporation (really a group of them) providing a public service at no direct cost to consumers.

Available in every cable tier and on all satellite packages, C-SPAN receives no government finding for its operations and airs no commercial content. Cable and satellite operators fund C-SPAN in its entirety. So what do they give us?

C-SPAN covers every Senate and House session in their entirety without interruption. They cover various special events like the recent health care summit at the Blair House. There is virtually no analysis, commentary or opinion on the networks except for the occasional call in period (usually during the votes). Even at that, the network ensures that callers of opposing persuasion are presented in alternating fashion.

The feed is still offered in standard definition only. How many viewers want to see Nancy Pelosi’s face with greater resolution than standard definition can provide, anyway? In fact, the presentation is dull and non-glamorous by design. From their mission statement:

“To employ production values that accurately convey the business of government rather than distract from it;“

Over the years, the politicians have become increasingly aware of the cameras and the number of people watching. This makes the more sensational pieces of legislation turn into a circus. Sunday we saw Nancy Pelosi declaring the civil rights victory of health care reform, and John Boehner screaming about the fact that no one had read the bill. These theatrics aside, the majority of the coverage is simply instructive. Watching how Congress works is painfully dry. Part of that is by design and part of it just hearkens back to a simpler time when the institution was created.

Whether or not it’s fascinating to watch, it’s a valuable service. Government simply isn’t interested in offering a direct, unfiltered view of what politicians are doing with your money. C-SPAN is, and that’s a good thing. Now, you don’t even need to own a TV to watch C-SPAN; up to the minute archives are online at C-SPAN’s website.

While the administration pays lip service to playing peace broker in the middle east, Biden’s comments may legitimately call into question whether or not Israel can rely on America.

“The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now…We must build an atmosphere to support negotiations, not complicate them.”

The Associated Press was giddy to jump on the story:

“Joe Biden condemned an Israeli plan to build hundreds of homes in disputed east Jerusalem today, casting a cloud over a high-profile visit that had been aimed at repairing ties with the Jewish state and kickstarting Mideast peace talks.”

Left-wing pro-palestinian sentiment aside, Israel is America’s biggest hope for representative Democracy in the middle east. In a part of the world where the tie that binds is deep-seated hatred of all things American, Israel is the near sole voice of support for the United States. That doesn’t mean we need to condone Israel’s every action but a public chide looks more like a nod of support to Israel’s enemies than a word of advise to our friends.

The real danger posed by Obama is that by destabilizing our ties with Israel, we may loose influence into Israel’s reaction to the Iranian arms race. If Israel loses confidence that we will support them, they may cease to seek our guidance and alliance on issues of Israeli national defense. There is no doubt that Iran has been building nuclear weapons for years, and after “extending our hand” failed, Obama appears content to accept a nuclear Iran. Israel will not be so complacent.

We shouldn’t allow the White House to chalk up such missteps to a communication gap. No one has a better command of media portrayal nor has more friends in the liberal media than Obama. After all, he managed to keep the health care debate focused for a year and have virtually no negative press in the mainstream media. He needs to keep a tight watch on his VP’s words, however, or he may land us in some very hot water. Long after Obama’s gone, some other President will have to pick up the pieces of the Israeli relationship Obama handled so carelessly.

Readers might also remember that shortly after that legislation passed, the credit card companies abruptly raised interest rates on consumers of all stripes. While this was much less reported in the media, it affected far more people than the legislation was designed to help. People who don’t pay their bills are a minority. People that do pay are, of course, the overwhelming majority. Yet, Congress’ law said that credit card companies have to offer someone the same interest rate for the life of the purchase. That meant that even consumers who do not pay their bills are insulated from the consequences of their actions. So where did those costs get shifted to? The responsible payers, of course.

Legislators are free to try and impose their personal wills on companies, but they can’t really control the revenues companies need to survive. Laws can say who a company can and cannot raise rates on, but the effect is always like the chest of drawers in a Three Stooges Episode; as soon as you push one drawer in another one pops out.

Utility companies are more or less government controlled organizations, yet we’ve seen energy costs go up tremendously over the past 15 years. Weren’t oversight and price controls designed to make price hikes a thing of the past? While it’s true that utilities need to go to various regional advisory boards to seek permission to raise rates, but they always get that permission. At the end of the day, these regional board succumb to the pressure to keep utilities from having to ration service, and they opt to let the companies raise rates. Yet, because utilities aren’t free to work in the open market we’ve seen breathtaking lack of innovation. Ten years after everyone on the planet accepted credit cards, many utilities still don’t. As every bank worth doing business at offers online banking, many utilities don’t have online facilities for managing and paying your account. With all that oversight, there simply isn’t enough money to innovate.

March 21st marked a solemn occasion in America. With sweeping health insurance regulation, we have again expanded our reach into the inner workings of private industry. When government pretends it knows business better than businesses do, we can expect the stories above to play out again and again. Some liberal voters might get a warm and fuzzy feeling when companies are “cut down to size”, but inevitably those same voters complain again later when rates continue to climb. It’s easy to wonder how high prices need to go before consumers realize government is the problem, not the answer.

How many months has it been since you came home and politics didn’t get discussed? I’ll hazard a guess of about 14. Since the day our infallible leader was placed upon his throne we have had constant chaos. Each day is a new disaster, that our fearless President is diligently working on. Sometimes he’s working on problems we didn’t even think were problems, like trying our military and old Bush administration officials for crimes. Whether or not you agree with him, Obama’s on TV each and every day letting you know what you need to be thinking about. That’s the problem, right there.

You have your own life. You’ve got a job that’s probably a lot more ridiculous than it needs to be, but you have to keep it because Obama’s long-term normal is 10% unemployment. Probably, you’d enjoy going for walks, playing a sport, talking to neighbors about any old thing, being involved with church and the like. Obama has different plans. He’s got lots of help too. With a Congress America can’t trust, we’ve got to keep a very close eye on Ms. Nancy Pelosi, her partner in crime Mr. Harry Reid, and about 532 other crooks on Capitol Hill.

So while you’d prefer to be doing a plethora of other activities, the liberals have you glued to the TV to find out what they’re about to do to you next. You never know when you’re going to need to show up a protest, get in a letter writing or phone calling campaign, or keep an eye on your paycheck. That’s just beautiful for the tyrant-in-chief. Obama knows he has your 100% undivided attention. Because of this, Obama is always setting your agenda, not you.

In November, when Patriotic Americans across this beautiful land kick these clowns out of office, you’ll probably have a lot more free time. You can just spend a couple hours each weekend watching how Congress whipped up on our misguided, ineffective leader. Until then, buckle up, grab some popcorn, get a drink and stay put. It’s going to be a long eight months.

In the past, even Democrats didn’t think that way. Of the post-WWII tax cutting Presidents, three tax cutters stand out above the rest: JFK, Reagan, and Bush. The Tax Foundation has posted hard analysis of all three. The report shows that JFK’s cuts were the biggest of the three:

“Contrasting the size of the tax cuts with national income shows that the Kennedy tax cut, representing 1.9 percent of income, was the single largest first-year tax-cut of the post-WW II era. The Reagan tax cuts represented 1.4 percent of income while none of the Bush tax cut even breaks 1 percent of income. The Kennedy tax cuts would only have been surpassed in size by combining all three Bush tax cuts into a single package.”

It’s interesting to note that while Democrats relentlessly cry about the Bush tax cuts, you would have to combine all of them into one package to beat JFK’s tax cuts. He understood something about the markets and the economy that today’s politicians mostly miss. The economy will thrive when it’s workers are free to keep as much of their money as possible. Don’t be confused, Kennedy was liberal. He argued for all the typical liberal spending preferences (education, medical care, and so forth), but he didn’t let his liberal social agenda confuse him into thinking the government could actually prosper at the expense of its citizens.

Reagan’s cuts come in at a respectable second place. They had a similar effect of relieving the nation of its recession and actually served to boost government revenues from $244B to 446B by 1989. Bush’s cuts, while small by comparison, did have a stimulative effect as well. However, the effect of these cuts was blunted by the fact that the cuts were split into three rounds. One can speculate that if they had been combined the effect might have been greater.

Today’s leaders have much to learn. Rather than punishing upper income earners and making them into objects of ridicule and hatred, our Tax Cut Professionals let them keep more of their money and our economy has always benefited from it.

It’s basic stuff we’ve been taught since grade school. We know that you need 50% majority in the House to win and 60% to win the Seante. Evidently, statist corrupt politicans don’t have access to this most basic level of education. If you want the bill badly enough, apparently, you just “deem” bills into law. What is most sickening about this process isn’t even the Constitutionality of the process, it’s the intention behind it.

The intentions are something like this: Democrats have an unpopular government intervention into the private sector (not the first such intervention, but definitely the biggest), they can’t use normal means to pass the bill. Instead of reforming their bill to be able to catch votes, they simply invent new rules. It has gone beyond arm twisting, beyond cutting backroom deals, beyond a majority punishing citizens who votes for the opposition party. It’s entered an era of simply rewriting the fundamental laws governing how new bills are created.

It’s extremely difficult to stomach this. The Democrats have come up with a bill so radical and so left wing that they have essentially created two parties within the Democrat party. The left wing, and the ultra left wing. In the final hours before “deemage” of the bill, we watch the Ultra Left Party twist the arms of the Left Party. Faced with loosing their own jobs, they stand defiant. They aren’t defiant because they know it’s right for the country, they are defiant because they know they will get Americans hooked on the crack rock of socialism. Once you start to depend on the government you cannot get off the sauce. It is simply impossible.

Look at Greece. Workers on the government dole cannot tolerate any cuts in government spending. Willing to bring Greece to a halt public officials leave their posts to participate in riotous protests against the government. Even as they know the government has no choice but to cut spending because it’s own creditors are cutting it off, protesters are unsatisfied. America will become Greece. We’re already as bad as most of Europe. In some cases European leaders have even chided us for being too quick to spend on unnecessary programs. That’s a really bad sign.

We know Meidcare is a broken entitlement doomed to run up deficits and the national debt into perpetuity. We know the social security program is no different. No one can do anything about it, though, because we’re all hopelessly addicted to the drug. We can’t get off it, and no one even wants to bother to try. If they do try, they are accused of trying to take away your entitlements and demonized by the establishment.

If this bill passes it will be impossible to repeal it practically speaking until Obama’s gone in 2012. Democrats bet that by then public pressure will be to keep the program since two years of taxes will already be paid into it. We can’t take that chance. It really is time to get every boot on the ground making noise to oppose this horrible abuse of power.

If you have a friend that doesn’t watch the news or doesn’t know what is going on…educate them. If you know someone who opposes this bill but isn’t the type to speak up, now is the time for them to do it. Our final hours will mark what we were willing to do to stop this. If we fail to bring hell on our opponents in Washington, they will certainly bring hell on us.

To justify tax hikes in a time period where there has been virtually no inflation, lawmakers are trotting out tired fear tactics. They claim if we don’t hike taxes, we’ll have to cut schools. So what if we do have to cut schools? Teachers’ unions have negotiated for themselves pay hike after pay hike, while test grades have stagnated.

It seems like massive cuts to education would just be the harsh economic realities of bad job performance coming home to roost. Unions collude to make sure we can’t fire bad teachers and that they all get generous pay raises. The downside is that since we can’t fire the under-performing teachers, we’ll have to fire lots of undeserving educators along with the derelicts. That’s the downside of being a union shop, and taxpayers shouldn’t feel guilty about the cuts.

Obama’s plans for No Child Left Behind involve removing many of the measurable goals schools need to achieve. That’s typical since liberals prefer intangible education goals like “learning climate”. That effectively makes sure schools will never be held accountable for poor performance, at least not with to Federal funding. That’s a shame because there’s a lot of poor performance in the schools and all tax payers are helping to fund it. Once again, liberal ideology defies common sense the rest of us live by.

Instead of discussing how social spending could be cut or how tough negotiations could happen between unions and the State, we’re told to accept inevitable tax hikes required to keep the kids in school. After all, isn’t America’s future important enough that we can buck up a few extra dollars? Or try this one on for size: “We can’t make our State’s dedicated teachers and future generations of children pay the price for our inaction”. It gets old.

When politicians had the chance to negotiate pensions that were responsible they failed. When they had a chance to say no to raise after raise, they failed. When they knew about all the waste in State budgets and did nothing for fear of losing a vote or two from special interests, they failed. Now career politicians would like to turn on the very people who put them in office and blame them for schools failing if they don’t accept one more tax hike.

“Obama has asked Reid to strike provisions requested by senators from at least five other states, in an unusual move that accentuates the culture clash between the president’s rhetoric on changing the ways of Washington and the Senate leader’s needs to exercise the old-fashioned tools of Congress to pass laws.”

Well you’d have to be Helen Keller to not know better. Obama fits right in with the Washington crew. This is the same President who succumbed to his friend Andy Stern at SEIU and gave Unions a pass on Cadillac taxes on health plans until 2018. To say that side deals aren’t compatible with President Obama is an error of omission at a minimum.

The article continues:

“The president rankled Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi by criticizing them for doing what generations of their predecessors have done: cut deals.”

Admittedly, the statement is true on its face, but it doesn’t do justice to Obama’s real motive. He wants this bill passed, period. There is no doubt in any reasonable mind that if the Christmas Eve Senate bill had made it to Obama’s desk, it would be law by now.

Where was Obama’s outrage when these provisions for NE, LA, MA, and other states were put in? When your signature bill is in serious jeopardy and your approval is plummeting its easy to criticize Reid and Pelosi for allowing all the typical Washington horse trading. It would have been a lot more convincing if he had been that upset when the deals were initially written.

The Politico completely missed any mention of special interest influence into the Administration that even liberals don’t deny, as this article from US News discusses:

“I thought Obama’s sweeping condemnation of lobbyists was better campaign rhetoric than policy. The reality is that some lobbyists are as nefarious as advertised and some are not. Some want to turn their public service into big bucks and some turn around and help what we liberals would call good causes. And oh yeah: Many have experience that could be helpful for a new administration trying to enact its agenda.”

It isn’t really fair to talk about Obama’s “strict” stand on special deals without discussing his own clumsy failure to live up to his campaign promises on “special deals”.

After endless debate over a 2 trillion dollar health reform bill and passage of countless other multi-trillion dollar packages; the real question is: why do we only have a measly 15 billion for “jobs”? It seems like Obama would want to create the appearance of caring about job creation. He is free to continue to fail on the economy but we’d assume he wants to look like he cares. No such luck.

Instead, on a jobs package that actually has a small amount of bipartisan support, we give it the Congressional equivalent of a spare nickel. For what we spent on the auto bailout alone we could have had several jobs bills. Don’t get me wrong. Any jobs bill will have only marginal impact, but one that focuses on sustained broad tax cuts would definitely do more than the State bailout package (a.k.a. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act).

We put every progressive spending bill above the economy. We continue the same monetary printing press mentality that has indirectly or directly led to every boom and bust cycle we’ve had – The same boom and bust cycle Obama repeatedly condemns on the 2012 campaign trail. Even if Obama’s sick fascination with environmentally friendly stimulus programs were to succeed, only the smallest fraction of workers could benefit. Even then, a recent look at Spain’s green jobs efforts shows what the true costs of these programs are to the workforce as a whole.

Since Obama’s in campaign mode he might want to worry less about building monuments to himself and come to the realization that his throne will be up for re-election in about 2.5 years. A health care bill we’re paying for and getting nothing from and unemployment that’s still twice what it was under Bush will simply open the door for a Reagan/Carter moment at the debates: “Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?”.

Not long ago there were few Federal regulations. It’s tough to imagine a time when you could build a mattress without having to put a government mandated tag on it. You could make a household cleaner without a label full of disclaimers on it. You could work and keep the vast majority of your earnings. People expect less now, and that’s a tragedy for the country we have been given.

Years of a slowly but steadily growing government have shifted our definition of “normal”. The presence of a government that has an opinion on everything is heavy on us. Our government advertises to us, showing us the right way to live. They remind us of their many laws they have enacted for or against us. The growing government has latched on to a “divide and conquer” mission to set apart citizens who have not fallen on hard times from those who have and to create villains on either side. Our leaders sit in arrogance if we complain and tell us that we are not smart enough to understand their loving plans for us. If we rise up against them, our motives are impugned.

What can a free people do? A free people can work, knowing the government is there to protect them from foreign and domestic threats. A free people can live, knowing the fruits of their hands, and the creativity of their brains will earn them a living…a living they are free to keep for themselves and/or their families. The free people know that while immoral values will always be frowned upon, government will not take sides except in the case of danger. They worship because they know they are not a celestial accident. They refuse to live off others because they have pride.

The free people earn, and earn well. They build up property, technology, and savings for tougher days. They give. Unencumbered by regulation and excessive tax, people give from what they have. Not everyone gives, and no one forces anyone to give. The free and moral people hate suffering, they hate inequality, they hate injustice, they hate when someone else is robbed of the chance to experience the same hard work and payoff they experienced. So they give.

The free people know their country was paid for with a kid’s life. Because other countries will despise them, they have built a competent, powerful and strong military that works for the people. Those individuals that chose to serve their country know they are not in danger of being prosecuted by their own people for doing their jobs. They know that extreme circumstances will require tough decisions, and they know their country will not harm them for making those decisions.

Government of the free people understands that when times are good, revenues go up. They know that tax hikes would only beget more tax hikes. They craft their laws carefully to be based on sound, general principles of responsible business and society. They do not target a single company or industry. That same government knows its officers will not be around for long. The lure of productivity in private business will cause them to return to their families and careers. They don’t desire to condescend to their people or treat certain parts of society harshly. They work in society, they run businesses, they have a family. They treat the people who elect them like they want to be treated. Most of all, they do it, because those same people would remove them from office in the blink of an eye if they don’t.

The United States is that place. We are that free people, we can remove derelicts from office. We do earn, we do live, and we do give. We go to the polls. We vote our gut, but we also vote our brains. We make running government our job. We do not sit back and wait for leaders to make decisions. We talk to elected leaders. We follow up on them, and we police them. That’s our job, because we get to enjoy this country we call the United States of America.

Here’s a funny tweak they did on the ACORN pimp and prostitute scandal from last summer. Eric Boehlert (who is far more intelligent than you or I) rushes to ACORN’s defense. Evidently, you can defend ACORN and call the entire investigation a hoax because James’ O’Keefe failed to actually wear his pimp coat when visiting ACORN offices.

The author goes so far as to imply the entire story is a fake, because of statements made about O’Keefe’s coat. Liberals are so good at missing the point. Several paragraphs in (12 to be exact), and well below the sensational headline the author chose, is this admission:

“Last week, when highlighting how the pimp story was a fake, I stressed two things. First, that fact does not change what happened on the Candid Camera tapes, and it certainly doesn’t excuse the behavior of the low-level ACORN staffers who seemed shockingly eager to help people skirt the law.”

That’s nice to know. So if Mr. Boehlert concerened about doing what’s right, it seems counterproductive to start the article with the headline:

Will Breitbart, O’Keefe, and Giles come clean

about the ACORN pimp hoax?

It appears in a bigger font than we use on this site. It must be a more important message Media Matters is delivering. The purpose of media analysis is to try and site spin where it exists, and to possibly provide another relevant viewpoint. Eric’s article does neither.

“Men when they’re out of work tend to become abusive …I met with some people while I was home dealing with domestic abuse. It has gotten out of hand. Why? Men don’t have jobs. Women don’t have jobs either, but women aren’t abusive, most of the time. Men, when they’re out of work, tend to become abusive. Our domestic crisis shelters in Nevada are jammed.”

No, that’s a real person, the actual Harry Reid. The sad thing is, I think the majority leader is being serious. I actually think he meant to say it. Sure, the speech was rambling and incoherent, but that’s just Harry Reid. The content is authentically his.

I guess women across America really do have something to be afraid of now: Obama has no plan to create (or save) jobs. That means a lot more black eyes are on the way, if you ask Harry.

And Democrats wonder why Reid’s poll numbers are in the gutter…

Glenn fell into the trap laid by the liberal media. The trap was designed by putting Stack squarely in the Tea Party. Of course, he isn’t a Tea Party supporter and his manifesto laid blame pretty equally to all sides. But right on cue, Beck stepped on the landmine by spending his show today righting the score going line by line through the manifesto.

Glenn then says this guy is “insane”, and so he isn’t really right or left. He proceeds to criticise any blog that said Stack had a point. Well, this blog said that, and I stand by it. Just because a guy does something attrocious doesn’t mean nothing he says is right.

In particular, Glenn sounded hypocritical calling Stack insane after reading a portion of the manifesto in which Stack decries our complex laws that even scholars don’t understand. I appreciate Glenn’s repuduiation of Stack’s actions and I concur with him. However, hearing Beck read Stack you’d think it was just Beck talking for certain portions of it.

Why not admit the guy did have some valid criticisms of our country and still condemn his actions? Can bad people make good points? Of course they can, and Stack’s points on legal complexities are actually right on the nail.

It doesn’t make you any less moral to understand a point made by a person who did something very wrong.

This incident is a reminder that America is deeply divided on key issues. From Congressional behavior to broader concerns over the direction of social policy, Americans are seething with rage. While leftist types will try to create similarities between Stack and the Tea Party groups, you would need to ignore Stack’s leftist, Marxist statements to do so.

However, over the last 50 or so years, new groups have been formed (such as this one, this one, and these) to vocally, and in some cases violently, show their displeasure with America. While few Americans will identify with the outer most extremes of these groups,we shouldn’t dismiss them entirely as “nutjobs”. They do represent an emotional undercurrent found in some very reasonable, non-violent Americans. You don’t need to be a killer to think we have serious structural problems in our tax code.

There isn’t much middle ground between groups bound and determined to implement European socialism here, and groups that want to keep America grounded in its founding principles. Some Americans voted for President Obama because he promised a “‘post-partisan era”. We have united in the past and it isn’t ridiculous to think it could happen again. Sadly, most of the time we unite is behind tragedy. Even then, it’s short lived. The opposite has happened. The election of President Obama has only increased the hatred between groups. Constant bashing of bankers and anyone else who runs a business is hateful, dangerous speech (not to mention its unpresidential). Obama plays fast and loose with generalizations about the same people who give us jobs. If anyone wonders why a class war is brewing, our President is a big part of it.

The world is teaching America a lesson on socialism. As public policy it’s popular when implemented, but like any intoxicant it’s never enough. In Greece, union workers clash with the government over any cuts needed to make the system sustainable. People get mad when their handouts get reduced, or even when they don’t get increased. That’s the sad fact of socialism, when you give something away free it has no value. As economic policy, socialism has been an abject failure. There isn’t a major State where socialism works. In socialist countries the economy suffers, or human rights suffer, or both.

It’s human nature to want more. In America that used to mean there was a longing to accomplish more and prosper. Now it just means “wanting more”.

“USAID’s latest no-bid contract, worth close to $100,000, was awarded on Jan. 18 to the GlobalOptions Group for work in earthquake-stricken Haiti, where Clinton is the U.N. special envoy and is helping to lead private fundraising efforts.”

Evidently, crony capitalism is only a problem when the cronies are on the right of the political spectrum. This is the second time Obama has awarded a no-bid contract to a friend:

“The first, awarded on Jan. 4 and worth nearly $25 million, was steered to a firm owned by a donor to the Obama presidential campaign, for legal work in Afghanistan. The cancellation of that contract was announced by the State Department shortly after Fox News reported its existence on Jan. 25.”

While it is reassuring that daylight seems to make the insider deals go away, it sure would be refreshing to have a President who did the right thing without having to be told to.

Well taught, Mr. Obama, he’s learned well.

The first amendment guarantees a right to free exercise of speech. That means I can speak my mind, and I can also pay money to have someone else speak my mind…lots of money, if I so choose. I can also speak it to anyone who will listen, including Congress. After all, what is a “special interest” anyway? That’s just a DC term to refer to any group who supports ideas your party doesn’t like. We’re all “special”, like my teachers used to tell me.

Clearly Obama didn’t run his idea past Congress, however. They have no intention of stopping special interests, and one in particular from virtually running the country: Lawyers.

Ever wish McDonald’s would fail to remind you that coffee is hot, and you could make millions? Ever broke into someones house and hurt your leg? There’s a firm for that. And let’s not forget the grand-daddy of injustice, one that happens in or around a hospital.

If you’ve ever wondered why we allow lawyers to get away with so much malfeasance, it’s instructive to look at their campaign contributions. A report by the Manhattan institute had this to say:

“While some of these campaign donations come from defense lawyers (who also profit from the litigation status quo) giving by plaintiffs attorneys is far higher per lawyer (16 to 120 times greater, depending on the firm, according to Manhattan Institute estimates), and more tightly focused. Over the current six-year senatorial election cycle, four of the top seven donors to the campaign committee and leadership PAC of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) were plaintiffs firms. Plaintiffs firms were the top two donors to Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D., Ill.).”

It’s no surprise then, that Democrats are so reluctant to give malpractice reform even a passing glance in the health care debate. We can’t expect that politicians to turn away from the cash offered by special interests, as long as it’s legal. Since the Constitution protects their right to free speech (and mine), this will certainly never change.

So next time we hear Obama going on and on about special interests you can rest assured he won’t take away your Mesothelioma court winnings, even though you smoke 3 packs a day. It sure sounds nice when he talks about it on TV though.

“And yet, that same public will almost undoubtedly return about 90 percent of incumbents running for reelection to office.”

“Americans are pretty terrible at throwing the bums out, no matter what we tell pollsters.”

Sadly, it’s true. We whine and complain and some of us even write heated mails, but who will dare go to the polls armed with actual research and vote what’s right, not who’s name looks more familiar on the ballot.

Indeed, the statistics show we rarely ever do what’s right in the voting booth. In particular, you could be surprised to learn that the best year for kicking bums out of office was 1980 when only 55% of the Senate got re-elected. That’s still pathetic. In a completely dysfunctional government, 45% of those responsible get to keep their jobs. That’s not acting like responsible voters.

Everyone likes to talk about 1994 when the GOP took over. Well, it wasn’t such a banner year statistically because we re-elected 90% of the House and 92% of the Senate that year. It was barely a blip on the radar.

If you wonder why Pelosi, Reid, Nelson, Shumer, and others act with such reckless disregard for their constituents, it’s because you’ll keep letting them.

Our border control is “so strict”, and the officers are mean, and we don’t even have socialized medicine (actually we do, it’s called Medicare and it’s half of our medical spending). We’re such lousy people, so stuck in the past, we just can’t get up to speed with the more modern European countries. No one likes us, all we do is steal money from poor people in other countries, plus we’re fat.

My simple question is: Why do we have people coming here to tell us that? If Canada is so great, stay there or emigrate there. If you don’t like America, rather than trying to rot it from the inside out, just stay in your home country where things are so much better. We’ll happily stay out of Canada, fair enough?