110TH CONGRESS, FIRST 100 HOURS - THE BEGINNING OF THE DEMOCRAT DECEPTION
I have been following politics for quite some time and there is one fact that I have learned for which my friends on the left will disagree but a fact none the less, Democrats lust for power, despite claiming otherwise embrace liberalism and believe America should be a socialistic society. They can't help it is in their make up and regardless of how they try to position themselves to the voters to try to win an election once they actually get to work in Congress they always follow the three facts that I stated above. Nancy Pelosi and the new Democrat leadership is taking control of the House today as is Harry Reid and the new Democrat leadership in the Senate. Throughout the election of 06 candidates and leaders alike portrayed themselves as either moderates or leaning conservative in order to get the vote. After the election and the great media hype that followed both Pelosi and Reid pledged bipartisan cooperation both with the President and with Republicans in both chambers of Congress. They also pledged a moderate agenda in conjunction with the new crop of , "blue dog, " Democrats that are taking their first Congressional oath. Now the day has finally come for the Democrats to prove that they are truthful and actually wanting to lead in a spirit of bipartisanship and what do we see ? The usual lust for power that has now been satisfied taking control of congress and Pelosi manipulating the agenda and House procedures to block the GOP from even debating their liberal agenda. Let's look at the facts of their deception.Spirit of bipartisanship - Speaker Pelosi, (sends chills up ones spine doesn't it) pledged a spirit of bipartisan cooperation in her new leadership position but now that she has the power in hand what does she do with it ? In order to quickly pass her 100 hour agenda all House bills are being pushed straight through to the House floor for a vote rather than going through committee in order to prevent Republicans from debating, adding provisions and attempting to change the liberal make up of the Democrat agenda. Some spirit of cooperation. Not only is Pelosi using her power as Speaker to bypass House procedures to force the agenda through but she is excluding the opposing party thus creating a one party rule in the House. 100 hours, 100 days, 100 weeks it will not matter, now that Pelosi has the power that she has wanted for so long she will manipulate legislation in this manner or another in order to push her agenda through the House.
Moderate to Conservative legislation - As I mentioned before Democrats portrayed themselves in the election as moderate to conservative candidates in order to win votes for which they obviously were successful. Also promising with that portrayal that they would govern from the middle in order to satisfy the voters who elected them. Now that they are actually legislating what does their agenda look like ?
1. Raising the minimum wage - liberal
2. Increasing funding for embryonic stem-cell research - liberal
3. Ending oil company subsides - liberal
4. Seeking lower drug costs - by regulating the drug industry thus hurting competitiveness in the market - liberal
5. enacting the 9/11 commission's national security recommendations - most of which are already in place except those that call for a change in Congressional authority over intelligence which is what the Dems have stated they will not do which makes this a hollow point since it will do nothing - liberal because it is for show only which libs are famous for
6. Reducing interest rates on student loans - on the surface sounds good but the effects are dangerous. Reduced rates will make dollars easier to acquire which will cause students to borrow more thus creating greater debt. Additionally the cost to tax payers will rise from 6 to 9 billion dollars to subsidize the reduction through government money. A bill designed to create a greater social hold on lower class students - liberal
It has become painfully obvious that as Speaker Nancy Pelosi will do exactly what liberals have done whenever controlling power. She will use that power to manipulate the House in order to control legislation and push a liberal socialistic agenda all the while claiming the they are doing what is best for the American people. The Democrats believe that the 2006 election was a mandate for their agenda and not what it truly was, a backlash against the then Republican Majority. Their belief that they are acting in the best interest and with the blessing of the American people will be their arrogant un - doing!
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 11:23 AM
21 Comments:
By no means am I a Democratic apologist; however, the GOP did a fine job over the last few years of emulating Democrats to the point that voters decided to elect the real thing - not just wannabees. The GOP leaders have a lot of soul searching to do and must return to their Reagan-roots. Without that decided conservative anchor that places faith and tust in the people, the GOP will continue to wander in the wilderness. In the meantime, the Democratic Party continues to move the nation left toward socialism.
GOP take notice - because I and many like me became 'Independent' as of Nov 8, 2006. You want me back? Regain your soul.
Ken, I am curious, are you against all 6 items? The American people are overwhelmingly for all 6 items. You can label them "liberal" but the majority of American people want them. The Dems are doing the people's work.
Assuming they pass through the House, they still have to go to the Senate and then be signed by Bush.
So even if you fear Nancy Pelosi (I am not really sure why), there are checks and balances built into the system.
If Hastert hadn't been too busy covering up for his pervert friend Foley, and he had not only had Congress in session for 2-day work weeks every other week, the Republicans may have actually gotten something done for the American people.
Great post Ken.
God help us all.
Rob it's not fear just an understanding of her agenda and the adverse effects it will have. Also she lied about her bipartisanship why is anyone to believe she will not lie about anything else. The minimum wage hurts employment, business, consumer prices and employees then the economy. Everything else is self expanitory as to why it is not a good agenda.
Old Soldier, I agree the GOP shot themselves in the foot and I think they have seen the light from most indications, but this Dem Congress promises to be damaging if the first 100 hours are any indication of the liberal agenda they plan to push. Granted it still has to pass the Senate and Bushm but he seems to be a compromiser rather than a leader like Reagan was with a Dem Congress. The Senate has enough left leaning GOP to get some of this through.
Thanks Marie!!
Accomplishments of the 109th Congress
Among the legislative accomplishments passed were:
Deficit Reduction Act (S. 1932) - is a historic piece of legislation that is a modest first step in addressing our national debt and curbing federal spending. Through entitlement reforms and other government waste-reducing measures, this legislationwill save taxpayers approximately $40 billion over the next five years. Became Law
Class Action Fairness Act (S. 5) – This common sense plan addresses one of the most serious forms of lawsuit abuse by allowing larger interstate class action cases to be heard in federal court and preventing trial lawyers from harassing local businesses by ‘forum shopping’ in overused state courts. Became Law
Consumer Protection Act (S. 256) - A reform of the Bankruptcy system to ensure the practice is available to those truly in need and not abused by those looking to use bankruptcy to cheat or to defraud their way out of debt. Became Law
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6) – This comprehensive energy policy will help make energy more affordable for consumers, decrease America’s dependence on foreign oil, promote alternative fuel, and eventually help lower gasoline costs. Became Law
Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005 (H.R. 8) – This permanent repeal of the Death Tax ends an unjust and unfair tax that drives millions of small businesses out of business. Passed House
Transportation Equity Act (H.R. 3) – Provides new funding for federal highways to improve infrastructure, increase efficiency and reduce congestion. This bill also contains a new funding formula that will allow Florida to see a higher percentage return on its contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. Became Law
REAL ID (H.R. 418) -To establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, and to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence. Became Law when language was included in(Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief of 2005)
Spending and Budget Update:
For 2006, the House and Senate approved a budget to aggressively reduce the growth of government. Total discretionary spending increases at 2.1% (that is below the inflation rate) and non-homeland security non-defense discretionary spending is decreased. 0.8%. Also included in the budget were instructions for the eight authorizing committees to find $34.7 billion in savings over the next five years.
Each of the Spending bills passed for FY2006 has been passed at the spending levels included in the FY2006 Budget. The spending bills passed so far are:
· Agriculture(Became Law 12/3/05)
· Energy and Water (Became Law 11/9/05)
· Homeland Security (Became Law 10/18/05)
· Interior and Environment (Became Law 8/2/05)
· Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs (Became Law 11/30/05)
· Defense (Became Law 12/30/05)
· Foreign Operations (Became Law 9/30/05)
· Labor, Health and Human Services, Education (Became Law 12/30/05)
· Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce (Became Law 11/22/05)
· Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, The Judiciary, District of Columbia (Became Law 11/30/05)
Fiscal Restraint and the FY2007 President's Budget:
For 2007,the President has proposed a budget where discretionary spending would total $870.7 billion, an increase of $27.4 billion or 3.2% over FY 2006. Defense would total $439.3 billion, an increase of $28.5 billion or 6.9% over FY 2006, while $33.1 billion is provided for homeland security spending, an increase of $1 billion or 3.3% over the prior fiscal year. However, non-security discretionary spending would be reduced by $2.2 billion or 0.5% below FY 2006.
The President's Budget also terminates or reduces 141 programs that are not getting results or not fulfilling essential priorities, for a proposed savings of $14.7 billion.
This is not even including "Amber Alert" "No Child Left Behind", and a bunch of other bills.
So Rob, before you say nothing was done for the American people in the last six years you are wrong!
And if the Dems werent busy Fillibustering, and holding up nomination's (Bolton for instance), there would have been alot more passed.
This whole election and everything about it was by the far left loones that actualy bought into this notion that President Bush was going to be impeached, and the Troops drug out of Iraq yesterday! And you on the left bought this hook, line and sinker!
What will you do when nothing you expected would happen doesnt?
I'm sorry Ken, but the American people want all 6 items. If the Republicans don't want to support the will of the American people that is fine - that is why they were voted out.
Marie - the bottom line on the economic record of the president is that it has been horrible for the American people. He inherited a $243 billion budget surplus that he has turned into a $300 billion plus budget deficit for as far as the eye can see. That is on an annual basis.
When he took office the national debt was at $5.8 trillion. Today it is at $8.6 trillion. He has borrowed more money from foreign governments to pay for his Iraqi venture, his tax cuts, and his oil subsidies than all presidents before him combined. That is the bottom line.
Rob,
You are forgetting a little incident that all of you Dems seem to want to sweep under the rug constantly called 9-11!
And all things considered the economy is booming after it took a long time to crawl out from under the madness that 9-11 caused, the deficit is declining, and no matter how many times you guy's want to pretend YOU won and the American people spoke, it's just plain and simple, the far left of your party want's out of Iraq, that's ALL they said was "I want out of Iraq" without thinking what the consequences would be by electing Democrat's who never had a plan. And that's the bottom line!
Marie, I didn't win anything. The American people spoke and Democrats won.
You can remain in denial about the reasons, but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of the American people want out of Iraq because of the ever increasing human and financial costs, there is no mission, there is no strategy, and there is no reason for American soldiers to die fighting for the current corrupt pro-Iranian Shiite government.
In addition, the American people support the 6 items Ken pointed out. When the votes come up, just watch how many Republicans support them. You will have bi-partisan support for the 6 items because that is what Americans want.
The financial mess Bush and the Republicans have created has very little to do with 9/11. It has almost everything to do with increasing government spending (particularly non-military discretionary domestic spending) by a record amount. Bush's 2007 budget request came in at $2.77 trillion - this does not include the emergency supplementals that he uses to fund the war. The last year under Clinton, the federal government spent under $1.8 trillion. Basically, Bush has allowed the federal government's annual budget to grow by $1 trillion. That is the problem - not 9/11.
Well Rob I wont continue this on Ken's blog, but Cindy Sheehan is deffinate proof of who it was that voted for the Democrats and she is thier problem now!
It didnt have anything to do with economic's and she proves it!
I am trying to figure out the relevance of your comment. Cindy Sheehan is one voter. She is entitled to her opinion the same as you or me, but she has no more authority than anyone else to elect folks (one person, one vote).
Your comment does not address the fact that the overwhelming majority of the American people have soured on Iraq and Bush's handling of Iraq. We want a new direction that will lead us out of Iraq, rather than the same old failing "stay the course" strategy of the president.
Your comment does not address the serious spending problem Bush has that has led to exploding government budgets which run in the red for as far as the eye can see. His economic policies have resulted in more than $1 trillion in additional debt owed to foreign central banks. This is why many moderate, fiscal conservatives have abandoned him.
You cite a few billion in cuts the President proposes, but you clearly have little understanding of how much damage Bush's policies have done w/respect to spending (increased spending by $1 trillion/year over Clinton), the budget deficits (which were record surpluses when Clinton left office), and the national debt (which has risen by nearly $3 trillion under Bush- another dubious record).
Your comment also still does not address the fact that most Americans want the 6 things that Ken identifies as liberal.
Blaming 9/11 or Cindy Sheehan is just ridiculous. The Republicans are out because the American people wanted change - plain and simple.
Rob,
What is it about you on the left that you just dont get it?
Cindy may be one voter, but they add up when you think and vote like she does.
The relevance of my comment I guess is two fold.
On the economic front 9-11 caused such severe damage to our economy it has taken years to crawl out from underneath the aftermath. And we have not only crawled out from the aftermath we have surpassed expectations, (I'm sure Usama isnt pleased about any of this, if he is even still alive) since that was his goal in the first place to hit us where it would hurt the most. We also have a booming economy, and yes we have a deficit but it is also declining. I agree with you on the spending on the war, but what choice do we really have? Most of us dont want to be attacked again and again and again, we have had it. And war's cost money. But when you look at the overall picture fighting a war on two front's and the economy here at home overall not bad.
No one want's war. We didnt start it but we sure as hell will finish it! And President Bush is getting tired of all the attack's going on in Iraq, and he is making major changes as we type. If there is a better plan than bringing Democracy to the middle east so they cant rampage around and plot and plan another 9-11, I would love to hear it!
On the voting front, the way I see it, the left should have picked up at least 50 maybe 60 seat's in the house and at least 10 to 15 in the Senate. But the left just barely cleared what 15 in the house? And just barely cleared the Senate. That is of course if people were all that dissasisfied with the way things are going in this Country. I mean this should have been the left's big moment and it turned into just barely a dribble, just enough to occupy the House and Senate for the next two years. So that tell's me the far left Lunatic anti-war leftover's from the 60's and thier spawn got the vote out more than the Republican's did, that's what I meant by Cindy Sheehan and her "Movement" vote's.
All in all I dont think the platform that the Democrat's ran on like investigation after investigation, impeaching the President for protecting this Country, and pulling the Troops out of any front of the war on terror yesterday is not going to happen.
All in all the left occupies the House and senate for 2 years, no biggy, they have to work with the President not the other way around because the President still has his veto pen. And I dont think the left have enough vote's to override his Veto.
Is that a satisfactory explanation?
One person, one vote. If enough people want change then they vote out incumbents. That is exactly what happened. It is called democracy. You are not suggesting that people should not be able to vote - or that only people who think like you should be able to vote - are you?
You don't seem to understand how much of a landslide the last election was. Not a single Democratic member lost, nor did the Republicans pick up a single open Democratic seat. Picking up 6 Senate seats, 30 House seats (31 if you count Bernie Sanders (I) vacated Vermont seat - but Sanders caucused w/the Dems anyway so it was not really a pickup), as well as 6 governorships is a landslide. Republicans and Democrats who know anything about politics know that to be true, especially with the huge fund-raising advantages of incumbency and the gerrymandered congressional districts.
You don't demonstrate any understanding of the economy, the deficits, or the national debt. I am curious, do you know how much money we now owe the Japanese and Chinese relative to when Bush took office? Do you have any idea how we fund our budget and trade deficits? Let me give you a hint, we don't just print more money.
You have completely mis-stated the Democratic platform. For example, impeachment was never a part of the agenda - in fact, Pelosi has been firm in explicitly saying it won't happen. I would love to know your source for your mistaken comments about the Democratic platform.
Finally, the President most certainly has to work with Congress - they control the funding in the U.S. If you do not understand that basic element of American democracy you may want to read the Constitution.
So, to answer you last question about if your expanation is satisfactory, I'll just say this - You have satisfactorily demonstrated to me that you are misinformed about a great many things. I will chalk it up to being honestly mistaken, but you really should do some better research and/or come up with some better sources for your information.
Rob,
LMAO!
I'm glad you are amused. I'm happy when others are happy. Hope you enjoy your weekend. Seriously.
But, I am also serious when I say you really still should do some better research.
When you figure out how we pay for the deficits Bush has created get back to me and we can discuss the merits of his fiscal policies. Or you could just ask and I will be happy to explain it to you.
You've got a real wacko here, Ken.
Wonderful post, and I agree. I can't wait for the day their undoing becomes a fact.
Rob,
I am very amused, you crack me up.
What good would it do me to provide you more fact's than I already have?
If I said something was black you would swear I had the wrong fact's and it was white!
But you have a great weekend also :-)
Is there anything worse than a fillibustering moonbat?
Yeah, an intellectual coward who scrubs his blog whenever he loses an argument.
All the best in the new year, Mike.
Did Mike just ask for me?
When he took office the national debt was at $5.8 trillion. Today it is at $8.6 trillion.
Rob,
I think just about everyone, including Bush supporters, agree that the spending is out of control. But why the concern over the national debt? The focus should be on creating non-inflationary economic growth. Focusing on the money without seeing what it is that we are getting for our money, I think is the wrong argument. Growth is our friend and debt is hardly our enemy. At least so long as we are making good investments with our money. Strong nations borrow money. As far as I can tell, there will always be a national debt, and that's not a negative to dwell on.
As for the so-called Clinton surplus...do you at least give any credit to the 1994 loss of the House over to a Republican majority that blocked Clinton's runaway spending proposals? Do you give them credit for pushing through welfare reform?
And what is your opinion of this article? Last I recall, you dismissed it as a partisan link, so I wasn't sure if you actually bothered to click on the darn thing (since USA Today is hardly a bastion of conservative thinking). You have a keener understanding than I do, so I want to know your opinion on it.
the overwhelming majority of the American people have soured on Iraq and Bush's handling of Iraq. We want a new direction that will lead us out of Iraq, rather than the same old failing "stay the course" strategy of the president.
"Stay the course" is a double-edged catch-phrase that Dems have exploited. "Staying the course" does not mean that all this time we haven't adapted tactics and strategies to deal with the fluidity of war. It means you show the intestinal fortitude to hang in there and not cave to the quagmirists and political exploiters and paper tigers amongst us. By any stretch of the imagination, Iraq is not a disaster, other than the perception that's been created. What did you ever expect? Overnight democracy? An enemy that also doesn't have a backbone? That would simply lay down their arms and call it quits? We face a tough enemy. We have to be that much tougher. The enemy's casualty figures dwarfs that of ours. Yet somehow we are "losing" this war. Yes, we are losing because America and the West have grown soft. We've lost our will to sustain losses and to win wars. We're a spoiled nation with a short attention span who wants everything over and done with quick and clean. Meanwhile, the enemy is used to hardships and tragedies and instability and isn't phased one iota in sustaining casualties. We think 3,000 is a large number (again, like the national debt, what is not being measured is what those sacrifices might have gained for us); but for our enemies, they are willing to lose that number a thousand times over without having their will to fight on, sapped by a hostile media, telling them that they are losing the struggle; they aren't hampered by political infighting that tells them they need to "cut-and-run".
deception? I thought it was idiocy.
Post a Comment
<< Home