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.

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.

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.

“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?”.

For about 5 minutes Sunday afternoon Mr. Obama talked from the lawn about the Iraq elections. He looked down at his podium about half the time and rushed to get through with speed I wish he would demonstrate during the State Of The Union.

Certainly the speech writers did their job. The statement made all the right points about the importance of continuing democracy and their role in our future departure. It was Obama’s marked disinterest in success that was distressing. There are lots of things to be happy about in Iraq: 1) We haven’t wasted innocent American life in a futile war effort, 2) The country stands on its own two feet now (mostly) and 3) The Iraqi government no longer gases its own people, to name a few.

It’s tough not to speculate that the reason Obama wasn’t energetic in his delivery wasn’t partisan. This was a war he opposed. When a surge was proposed, he voted against it, opting instead to cut and run. Since taking office he’s set a deadline for withdrawal on virtually every conflict before he even met with his generals to learn the state of affairs.

No, Obama doesn’t care about success in Iraq, that’s not on his agenda. That’s a shame since lots of American blood was poured on their sand. You can impugn the motives that got us to Iraq, but when our soldiers do a fine job, you’d hope their boss could at least give a convincing “thank you”.

Yesterday’s summit did clarify one thing that sometimes gets forgotten. At the heart of this discussion is fundamental belief by the majority party that a bigger government is always a better government. If you delete all the controversial statements made yesterday, the silly sob stories that prove nothing, and the President’s ego (whose size is surpassed only by our national debt), you see that Democrats don’t see anything wrong with giant government.

To defend the big government platform, Obama simply points to statism that already exists in the country. That shouldn’t sit well with conservatives who want to see the country head toward smaller government and a healthy respect for the 10th amendment. For anyone who thought that Democrats are idiots, or these are simply goof balls who have no clue what they are trying to implement, yesterday proved those people wrong. These liberals know exactly what they are trying to do, and they make no apologies for doing it.

When Eric Cantor (R-Rep) started talking, he had the massive Senate bill in front of him. Obama displayed his arrogance at full blast by ripping Cantor for bringing “props” to the meeting. For conservatives, showing the public the massive size of a government bill is not a prop. You can’t possibly digest what’s in a 2,200 page bill. The liberals know it and that’s why they like it. There is no end to the increased regulation and silly bureaucracies contained in the bill. Eric wants people to know that. Obama chided:

“…health care is very complicated. And we can try to pretend that it’s not, but it is.”

Mr. Obama forgets he isn’t writing medical literature. Yes, health care is amazingly complicated, but a bill whose stated goal is to expand coverage doesn’t need to be.

Bottom line, we have a diabolical, egotistical man in the White House bent on the Federal government controlling almost anything they can get their hands on. You can’t win when you talk with someone like that. I have liberal friends and they are nice enough people, but they simply cannot comprehend the Constitution, and they don’t want to try.

The good news is that support is beginning to erode (albeit slowly) in the House. As we get closer to November that will likely become even more true. Republicans did the right thing to stand against this bill (one of the few things the GOP has gotten exactly right this entire time), and yesterday they did conservatives proud, I think. You cannot talk sense into this bunch of liberals though. You have to simply fight them. It sounds like yesterday’s pompous parade could fire up the GOP to continue to do that. Then in November, we fire the liberals.

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/02/24/ft-hood-attack-publicly-called-terrorism/

The shocking statement says, in part:

“”Violent Islamic terrorism … was part and parcel of the Ft. Hood killings”

See, 4 months wasn’t so long to wait for the truth, was it? I, for one, am glad we didn’t rush to any conclusions.

It is almost as if Obama can read our minds, and has trained himself to say the exact opposite of what we need to hear. Good ideas abound: Cutting marginal tax rates, eliminating capital gains taxes (at least temporarily), a promise not to sign any law that raise taxes on business, to name a few. Obama delivered none of these.

Hiring people is a long term decision. Companies spending a lot of money simply training new hires, and though Obama most likely doesn’t believe it; most companies still don’t want to hire people only to be forced to fire them a couple months later. In light of this, businesses need stability before they will want to hire. They need to know that the regulatory and tax environment is unlikely to change significantly in the near term. For businesses that rely on imports and exports, the value of our dollar is key. We can provide some degree of assurance on this in the form of spending cuts and debt reduction.

Instead, the President misses the mark completely. His new focus on jobs: More handouts for banks (“small” banks this time), “targeted” tax cuts for businesses Obama deems worthy, and more social spending. No wonder his popularity is falling. Americans simply don’t take him seriously anymore.

It’s difficult for anyone to know exactly what Congress is planning to do “for” us. At first blush, it seems like a scheme designed to make Obama play good cop while Congressional Democrats play bad cop. More likely, it’s a slight of hand trick wherein the confidence man (Obama) keeps us focused on him, while his shills in Congress deliver a very nasty belated Christmas present.

The latest scheme goes something like this: House Democrats vote for the senate bill as is, then the Senate can use “reconciliation” (the nuclear bomb option) to hijack the bill with all kinds of extra junk the House wanted (like the “public option”) but which would not get 60 votes in the Senate. This “reconciliation” would only require 51 votes. Also, because reconciliation is designed for budget bills only, the Senate will end up attaching health care to the back of a new budget bill. If it sounds complex and ethically questionable, that’s because it is. What else would you expect from the Pelosi/Reid Congress?

This is yet another reason why the GOP should boycott the Feb 25th meeting with Obama. He has no plans to listen to the GOP. This is a distraction designed to keep Americans focused on Obama’s talks with the GOP while Congress pushes through the most unpopular piece of legislation since TARP. Instead, the GOP ought to spend the time on television revealing the sordid details of what Congress is doing while the President is running his legislative shell game. When it comes to November, nothing could help the GOP more than demonstrating in real-time what the opposition is up to.

Who knows, maybe the GOP will get to use the nuclear option to remove this god-forsaken piece of legislation from the books after November. We can hope.