(Government) Jobs Bill overcomes filibuster and now has smooth road ahead

Once again Democrats with the help of a few soft minded Republicans have passed a massive spending bill to help keep state and local governments from having to make the tough decisions it will take to balance their budgets.

According to the Associated Press:

The $26 billion measure would help states ease their severe budget problems and - advocates said - stop the layoffs of nearly 300,000 teachers, firefighters, police and other public employees.

Where have we seen this before? Oh yeah… the Stimulus Bill. Remember that massive spending program that was supposed to stimulate the economy and create jobs? But what it mostly did was plug holes in state and local government budgets.

For example, in California stimulus spending was reported to have saved around 100,000 jobs. But a closer analysis found that 90% of those were government jobs; this at a time when the Golden State has actually increased the number of government jobs.

The sad part is that because the funding was for only one year, many of those jobs are on the chopping block this year. Not so fast! Here come the liberals to the rescue.

And what is their solution? Give states more money! This is like giving an alcoholic the keys to the freshly stocked liquor cabinet. They may be content for a while. But as soon as the well runs dry, they’ll be asking for your credit card to go shopping for more.

Any clear thinking individual has got to see that these same jobs are going to be on the line again next year as budget dollars will continue to be in scarce supply. Why keep putting off the cuts you know you are eventually going to have to make? A political payoff is the only explanation.

The current measure is heavily backed by unions for teachers and public employees, key allies of the Democratic Party. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees ran ads Wednesday in four Maine newspapers urging Collins and Snowe to help break the filibuster.

Bailing out those who refuse to make responsible choices is a surefire way to ensure that they never have to. That is until we are no longer able to borrow or simply print the money to do so.

Black Republican Nominated to Congress in South Carolina. Democrats lament, "He's no Alvin Greene!"

In 1854, the GOP is founded in opposition to slavery. In 1964, we elected segregationist Strom Thurmond. Now in 2010, we nominate an African-American to fill Thurmond's old seat. The circle is complete!

Unlike their Democratic counterparts, South Carilina Republicans have nominated an African-American man who is undoubtably qualified and ready serve his constitutents in Washington DC.

The Associated Press reports:

Voters in South Carolina nominated a black Republican lawmaker for an open congressional seat Tuesday, rejecting a renowned political name and potentially changing the face of the national party.

State Rep. Tim Scott defeated Paul Thurmond, an attorney who is son of the onetime segregationist U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond. Scott, who won the runoff with 69 percent of the vote, is poised to become the nation's first black GOP congressman since 2003.

Scott, 44, owns an insurance business and became the first black Republican in the South Carolina Legislature in more than a century when elected in 2008.

He's now the favorite in the coastal First District, which has elected a Republican congressman for three decades. He would become the first black Republican congressman since Oklahoma's J.C. Watts retired in 2003.

I think the fact that Mr. Scott defeated the son of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond is a wonderful bit of irony.

It will be interesting to see how the national establishment reacts to him. Will he be a game changer the way that JC Watts was during his tenure; helping the party develop policy to address issues beyond the usual GOP focus? Or will he be an establishment guy trying to sell the party as it's ambassador to the black community?

I don't know him. So, I cannot say which he will be. But I everything I have heard about him is that he is a conservative, independent thinker. That should bode well for the type of leader he will be in Congress.

The one thing I do know is that he is no Alvin Greene!

Congratulations Mr. Scott!

House Dems Declare, “Budget? We don’t need no stinking budget!”

In 2006 Rep. John Spratt(D) declared of Republicans, “If you can’t budget, you can’t govern.” Well now that he is in charge of the budget, he has changed his tune!

House Democrats have chosen not to even pass a budget this year. Instead, they will pass a “Budget Alternative” which will continue spending at last year’s level. So what’s the big deal?

Well this alternative budget leaves out some very important facts; like a projected annual budget deficit averaging over $1 Trillion a year for the next 10 years!  As reported by The Hill:

House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.) said the alternative would be the “functional equivalent” of a full-fledged budget. But because it won't be a traditional budget resolution, it will be silent on future deficits, which are expected to average nearly $1 trillion for the next decade.

Democrats have expressed concern about voting for a document showing lots of red ink in an election year.

Even those who are fond of comparing the spending during the Bush years to that of our current President are silent. The truth is that the highest deficit under President Bush was $450 billion. Back in 2009 The Heritage Foundation Reported”

It is true that, between 2002 and 2009, the budgets largely shaped by President George Bush will have run cumulative budget deficits of $3.35 trillion. This calculation credits the entire 2009 budget deficit and TARP costs to Bush, even though Obama will have signed most of the discretionary spending bills and overseen much of the TARP spending.

But Obama does not have much high ground. The “stimulus” bill alone will create more debt (approximately $1 trillion including interest costs), than Bush’s first three years of budget deficits combined ($948 billion).

So, if the numbers are already out there, what are Democrats trying to hide? One has to wonder if the projected deficits are even greater that we know. And if President Obama signs this "Budget Alternative", what does that say about his commitment to "Transparency"?

Pelosi & Margaret Sanger agree. Birth control = Economic Stimulus

Maybe it us just me. But I find it outrageous that Birthcontrol would be considered as a part of the economic stimulus package. Regardless of how you feel about birth control, to utilize funds from any economic stimulus proposal to pay for birth control is beyond obsurd.

It harkens back to the time when Planned Parenthood's Founder, Margaret Sanger sought to use birth control as a method of population control. It was her desire to keep certain "undesirable groups" from multiplying. And her primary arguement was that they would be a burden on taxpayers.

Here is a quote from Margaret Sanger:

Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all."

This quote comes from Margaret Sanger's- The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on "The Cruelty of Charity," pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition. And as you can see Pelosi, like Sanger believes that the goverment should be in the business of making sure that "poor folk" don't go having babies.

While I do agree that everyone should be responsible in their reproductive choices. I cannot belive that anyone would go as far as to promote birth control as economic stimulas.