The WALLY Train to Nowhere hangs around like a skunk spray

Lately when I've been at my parents' house and leave at night, I have to keep my eyes open. On several occasions, I see one of the worst types of varmints around. A skunk. Another time, it sprayed a coyote or something outside, and some of that bad air drifted inside. Those damn things walk around like they own the property. They do. There's not much I can do about it except hope it goes away. I'm not going to chase it. Obvious reasons. I can't shoot it. I may miss or worse....hit it in the wrong spot spraying the entire area. I don't want to have to explain that one to ma and pa.

That smell doesn't go away. Neither seems to be this big government boondoggle called the "WALLY" train, also known as the train to nowhere. I've posted about this Train to Nowhere for four years. It's a waste of tax money. It's still being discussed, and there's still talk about this mess. New Geography does a good job debunking them in general and this one here is close to home.

From the Argus

Signs are emerging that the proposed Washtenaw and Livingston Line commuter train isn't running full-steam ahead — at least for the time being.

The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, which oversees planning for WALLY — proposed to stretch from Howell to Ann Arbor — has delayed spending more money on the project until local support is confirmed, Michael Benham, the authority's rail coordinator, said.

Benham on Nov. 17 is expected to update the authority's Board of Directors on public support for the project at the board's regular meeting.

He said past public surveys and input from local officials suggest most Washtenaw and Livingston residents at least support WALLY in concept......

In concept. A lot of things are good "in concept" until something called reality hits. There's more.

To date, only small amounts of money have been spent by the authority in planning the projected $32 million-plus project, Benham said. He said funding from grants and local contributions, including from Howell, is in place for the design work, however.

He said it's possible for the board to vote to eliminate the project, but not likely: WALLY is included in the authority's 30-year transit master plan.

"I think, long-term, there's no question of our support for that project," Benham said.

Support in Livingston County is less certain.

Hamburg Township officials have expressed interest in investing at least a nominal amount of money in the railway effort. The county government and Genoa Township officials have declined funding, however.

Howell officials continue to support the project, City Manager Shea Charles said. The city also contributed dollars to project planning when it was first being evaluated.

32 million. (forehead slap) Right now, Rick Snyder is pushing for increases in car registrations that doubles the costs of tags. He's also pushing for a gas tax increase. That's supposed for "transportation." Is that transportation going to be roads or trains to nowhere? At least County and my old home of Genoa Twp realizes this is a money pit.

Rich Perlberg had an aptly titled editorial. The Little Engine that Won't go Away. I don't usually agree with Rich, but that's a good editorial about the Train to Nowhere.

Now why do I oppose the train to nowhere? The number one reason is that it won't pay for itself.

I wrote this back in 2007. This is response to an estimated 4.9 million a year budget that was given at the time. I expect that number to be MUCH higher.

4.9 million will cover what? You have salaries, security, normal wear and tear, energy costs, and runs. 2.9 for startup? Between the trains, parking lot construction, training, etc? I'm skeptical. Even using that number, will you get a profit on that. 15,000 people (estimated number of commuters from Livingston to Ann Arbor at $225 a month (rumored price) will get you 3.37 Million a month - that's if EVERY commuter in the county uses it and pays that amount. I'm guessing most of the commuters to Ann Arbor are in Brighton, Hartland, and Hamburg. Hamburg has 20,000 people. I'll guess that 4000 of them commute to Ann Arbor, with 1000 in Howell (city has 10000 people) commuting. That'll give 5000 of the areas covered from the train. 5000 * 225 - 1.125 million a month - if all commute on the train. Anyone familiar with Hamburg knows how spread out it is. Part of it is "Brighton", most of it is "Pinckney", part of it is "Lakeland", and part of it is "Whitmore Lake". I'll be shocked if most of the commuters are going to drive a few miles to wait for the train. This area is spread out. Howell is denser, but has much less population - and it too is spread out a bit in its eastern and northern most areas near 59 - and forget about getting much help from Genoa (even with the Chilson stop - that area is flat out country), Marion, Howell Twp, and Oceola.

In order to cover the estimated operation costs from regular commuters - you need 408,334 a month - 1814 commuters a day (including weekends, so weekend warriors are very important). That leaves 2.9 million in debt from startup costs which can be paid for over a few years with good profit.

Can you get 15-20% of county's Ann Arbor commuters to use the train EVERY DAY - despite cutting out Brighton and Hartland from the route? If you can, then I'll cook up some fried crow.

Remember that this train does not go to Brighton or Hartland. The railroad tracks there a different line (CSX).

This is still a waste of money. If "light rail" is the right thing to use in this area, someone in the private sector would have created it and used it.

Rick Snyder wants a gas tax and registration increase

Just when I was about to ease up on Snyder after he signed the partial birth abortion ban, he goes leftist again. Apparently the new money from the income taxes and pension taxes are not enough for technocrat Rick Michigan.

From the Detroit news

Lansing— Michigan would fundamentally alter the way it raises money to pay for repairs to the state's roads and bridges under a sweeping proposal expected to be unveiled today by Gov. Rick Snyder.

He's expected to suggest getting rid of the 19-cent gas tax motorists pay at the pump in favor of a tax on the wholesale price of fuel — a move expected to bring in more funds to fix roads and bridges as inflation pushes up the price of gasoline and diesel fuel.

First off, we don't have a 19 cent gas tax. If you want to see me get red in the face, keep repeating that lie, damn lie, and statistic. I've covered it before, but here's how it works. Right now, the Michigan Gas Tax in Hamburg Township, Michigan is 37 cents. The final price when I was last at the gas station is $3.45. Of that $3.45 cents, 56 cents in gas taxes goes to the government. 37 cents goes to the State of Michigan. Multiply that by 20 gallons, and the state gets $7.40 cents every time I fill up. When gas prices are at $4.10, the Michigan gas tax is 41 cents.


There's three things wrong with the wholesale taxes.

1. Taxes go up even more when gas prices increase. That encourages higher gas prices to be even higher. We're almost $3.50 a gallon. That's damaging to any supposed recovery.

2. This does not address the 6% sales tax on gasoline - that does not go to roads. This will affect things more with a wholesale tax.

3. It continues the false assumption that the gas tax, and only the gas tax, goes to fix the roads.

4. While the non-sales tax portion of the gas tax goes to transportation, that does not necessarily equal roads.

I've covered this issue more times than Matt Millen has lost games as a GM. This is the worst tax in the country, outside of possibly the self-employment tax.

There's more.

Also as part of his plan, the governor will ask the Legislature to allow counties and regional authorities to levy a vehicle registration fee to raise money for local road projects, sources close to the governor confirmed. The local levy would have to be approved by voters.

More millages. Regional authorities for those that don't know are when a group of municipal governments create a new quasi-governmental body around a governmental function. These can range from parking, fire, library, parks, and other things associated with municipalities.

The two proposals are expected to be part of Snyder's Special Message to the Legislature on Infrastructure at 3 p.m. at Lawrence Technological University in Southfield. The plan will lay out Snyder's vision for improving roads and bridges, regional transit, water and sewer lines and Internet access.

Regional transit. New taxes to pay for this..INSTEAD of the roads?

It gets worse. Today's Detroit News has this. This clown thinks I'm made of money

Southfield— Michigan needs another $1.4 billion for roads annually and Gov. Rick Snyder on Wednesday suggested hiking vehicle registration fees to help come up with the money.

In an address on infrastructure at Lawrence Technological University, the Republican governor said an extra $120 a year — $10 a month — on each registration would raise $1 billion a year. More money could be raised if voters approve allowing counties and regions to assess their own vehicle registration levies of up to $40 annually.

$10 a month. You make it sound like it's not a lot of money, and that pisses me off even more than the push for this. You big government folks are nickle and diming us. Between the pension taxes, this, and Obamacare and debt on the feds, we're getting our asses kicked. I can't afford a $240 annual tags bill - IN ADDITION to all this, and I drive a 10 year old vehicle. Hey, Rick. I don't have the millions you do. That's a lot of money to me.

Among his ideas:

Rapid transit that would connect Detroit with its suburbs, Ann Arbor and Detroit Metropolitan Airport.

I thought the ROADS were a problem. You want to RAISE TAXES for that?

A new fiber optic cable across the Mackinac Bridge to increase Internet access in the Upper Peninsula.

I thought the ROADS were a problem. You want to RAISE TAXES for that?

Competitively bidding out maintenance services, engineering or construction of roads.

I can agree with that.

Accessing federal money for dredging ports around the state.

More federal spending of our tax money we don't have.

Helping communities maintain or improve water quality.

That isn't done already?

Giving counties the option to take over their road commissions, or consolidating local commissions. Snyder noted Michigan has 617 independent road agencies and 79 independent transit agencies.

I agree with this.

Here's another danger, and Jace Bolger and Randy Richardville need to get the pressure on them for this in a BIG way. Snyder knows the taxes are unpopular. Just as the pension tax was unpopular. He also knows there are favorite projects of many reps who will pick that poison over the others. All the reps hated the MBT. Many who otherwise would not vote for the pension tax increase, voted for it because it was the price to get rid of the MBT. Few, like Joe Hune said the price wasn't worth it and thought the MBT should be gone period without a replacement. I agreed with Joe.

Snyder is going to want this to be an all or nothing package. However, Snyder can't do that on his own. Jace Bolger and Randy Richardville deserve just as much blame and scorn as Snyder for that pension tax monstrosity. We can not let them do the same thing again. Snyder is governor. He's not prime minister. Hell, I don't think he's even a republican. Why the Hell are you following this guy? His title? We need to make sure that transportation provisions are sent PIECEMEAL to the governor and not as an all or nothing type of scam as the pension tax was.

Worst of all, government hasn't earned the money. Government has shown it can not spend what it has properly. It wants us to bail them out. Again. It's like Granholm never left office.

No new gas taxes. Get rid of the sales tax on gasoline. No new registration fees. No transportation spending on anything but roads.

Don't blame me. I voted for Mike Cox.

More Big Government leftism by supposed Republican Snyder

From the Detroit News

Lansing— Doctors would be asked to report children's weight information to the state under a broad health strategy to be unveiled by Gov. Rick Snyder this morning in Grand Rapids.

The plan to combat child obesity will be unveiled as part of a special message on health and wellness at the Heart of the City Health Center that will include plans for a health insurance exchange and asking lawmakers to update the state's food laws, Snyder spokeswoman Sara Wurfel said Tuesday.

Doctors would calculate children's body mass index and report it to the Michigan Care Improvement registry, Wurfel said. The child would remain anonymous. The registry run by the Department of Community Health is the same one used to report childhood immunizations.

Wurfel added there isn't a mechanism for the state to collect children's weight information.

"What we're going to be doing is urging them to report it, because it's a step in a very important direction" she said.

For adults, the state will focus on BMI, blood pressure, cholesterol and other factors that contribute to heart disease and other costly health problems, Wurfel said.

This is bad, especially with Obamacare crap going around. Why does big government need that information? Besides that, BMI is a flawed measurement (not to be confused with percentage of bodyfat) that does not account for athletes who weightlift or some genetic builds. According to the BMI measurements, I was considered overweight at 190lbs when I ran an under 6 minute mile which I was able to do four times. I was in the best shape of my life then. People in bad shape can't run a mile under 6 minutes. I last weighed 170 was the first year I was weightlifting at 16 years old. At that time I was gaining weight during track season when we ran 4-6 miles a day. From an effectiveness measurement standpoint, replace BMI with percentage of bodyfat. That will take away the 5'10 200lb athletes off the obese list. I'll concede that I'm out of shape and overweight today, but I won't be confused with Michael Moore and don't have a 40 inch+ waist. It's not a secret who I am, so I don't have to tell you all reading this to take my word for it.

You throw bodybuilders and most of those who played football or hockey - even in high school, into the overweight or obese category, and you're going to add to an already what will be a large list. I'm not just referring to offensive linemen either. Even some defensive backs would be on that list. That will be trouble for all of us because it will create a "crisis." If you want to enact big government legislation, no time is easier than in a manufactured crisis. One year after the government gets the lists, the news reports come out..."70% of this state is obese. We must do SOMETHING." Blue Cross along with the very strong, organized, and underrated public health lobbies (look at the smoking legislation success nationwide) will make some phone calls and flood the offices of our reps. There will be many new restrictions on what we eat, what restaurants serve, etc. Also be prepared for "pop taxes" (Virg Bernero's baby as a state senator), beer tax increases, and other punitive revenue enhancements. Afterall....government supposedly knows best.

Is there a problem with both adult and childhood obesity? Yes. Some of it is genetics. Some of it is diet. Some of it is exercise. Who is the solution? Individuals and parents. What is the solution? Self-Discipline. Government doesn't need to be a nanny. We don't need Rick Snyder or Virg Bernero's nanny state.

Debt Ceiling Agreement - Not Good Enough

There's a debt ceiling agreement. It's yet another half-assed measure. It's not good enough. I don't give a damn about how it was supposedly routine in the past. It should not have been routine, then either.

The only thing acceptable to me is a balanced budget that doesn't raise taxes.

I understand that when you control one house, that you sometimes take what you can get. That was the view of normally strong conservatives Mike Pence and Tim Walberg, who voted for this. It was the view of Paul Ryan and Mike Rogers as well. The reality is this. Nothing significant on the debt will be done as long as the senate and presidency is held by the democrats. In addition, even if republicans control all branches of government, nothing will be done fiscally if Bush types control the purse-strings. ALL of them failed. Bush, Frist, and Hastert set records in 06. Bush, Pelosi, McCain, Obama, and Reid shattered the records in 07-08. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi shattered those records. Now this may possibly be a 1/4 step back to either the 08 levels. The folks that passed that are CELEBRATING this? I can respect a vote for this if it had the truth as a comment. "I voted for this because it sucks less than other options like a default and it is the only thing we could get past Reid and Obama." That's basically what Mike Pence said, calling this a "modest first step".


Walberg's office said this.

Washington, DC - Today, Congressman Tim Walberg released the following statement:

"The President with the support of the previous Congress has spent a trillion dollars on a failed stimulus and trillions on a government takeover of healthcare. In less than a year, this Republican-led House has made significant progress to reverse course. We have passed a budget that cuts more than $38 billion for 2011, the first six spending bills for 2012 that return to pre-bailout, pre-stimulus levels, and the Ryan Budget that will save $5.8 trillion over ten years."

"Unfortunately, the president and majority in the Senate fail to understand the true meaning of fiscal responsibility, but with the pressure of the American people, we have at least brought them to agree to $2.1 trillion in spending cuts, including two-thirds of the discretionary cuts in the Ryan budget, and a vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment. The plan that passed tonight is one more step that Congress has taken to end the culture of government overspending and rapidly mounting debt. But this is not the end, and it's clear a true solution will not occur until America has a fiscally responsible president. I will continue to work to solve our government's debt addiction and encourage job creation so that America can maintain its greatness."

Background Facts:

· At least $2.1 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years. $917 billion immediately and at least an additional $1.2 trillion either through the work of a joint congressional committee or as across the board reductions.
· This legislation achieves two-thirds of the discretionary spending cuts contained in the Paul Ryan Budget.
· No tax increases. The legislation contains zero tax increases and due to budgetary procedures, it will be practically impossible for the joint committee to propose tax increases. The bill is silent on expiring tax cuts.
· Guaranteed vote in the House and Senate on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

I like Tim Walberg, but this isn't good enough.

• 1 Trillion immediately? That's the deficit of less than a year of spending.
• 10 Years is a joke. It's nothing, frankly.
• A promise of a vote on the balanced budget amendment is nothing.
• Tax cuts that expire are a tax increase.

From the Argus

About $900 billion would be cut over 10 years through spending caps. Another $1.5 trillion would be sought this fall by a special committee with unique power to force congressional action. If it fails to reach that goal, spending could be cut by $1.2 trillion automatically, divided equally between defense and domestic programs.

Ten years of chump change (relatively speaking)? What a joke. That'll get trumped by the interest alone.

Justin Amash's office has this to say.

As I have said consistently since before I was a Representative in Congress, I will not consider voting to raise the federal government’s debt ceiling unless the vote is tied to fundamental reform such as a repeal of the President’s onerous healthcare legislation or passage of a well-structured balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

“I am open to a compromise that includes some of the elements of the House and Senate plans, but it must also include structural reforms that actually would pull us back from the government’s looming fiscal crisis.

“The House’s Budget Control Act raises the government’s debt ceiling by $900 billion but requires no structural reforms and only $25 billion in cuts next year. It includes a mere pledge to pass a balanced budget amendment in exchange for authorizing another $1.6 trillion of debt next year. The pledge is not binding. It can be ignored at any time.

“It is wrong to continue to burden our children and grandchildren with trillions upon trillions of dollars of debt. Time is up. Congress cannot wait any longer to act responsibly and begin to address its addiction to reckless spending.”

That I agree with. There shouldn't even be discussion of "2008 levels" like it's a benchmark. The 2008 levels suck. Government needs to live within its means, and that means a balanced budget is required without raising taxes. Anything else is unacceptable.

Tampa area Home Owners Association (HOA) gets one-upped by a hockey fan

I have to admit getting a big smirk reading this. Unlike some, my dream house isn't a big McMansion in the elite subdivision. I prefer 20 acres of land out in the country and an average sized house......with no Home Owners Association, commonly referred to as HOAs. I understand their purpose, to avoid run down homes in neighborhoods affecting property values. They also serve as a quasi-governmental entity with a large amount of power, money, and rules which get into the extreme. Some love it. Some hate it. All who look into buying a house should be prepared for it.

From Yahoo sports - Pictures are on the website

Steven Paul, 28, is a Tampa Bay Lightning season ticket holder who's justifiably excited with his team in the Eastern Conference finals, eight wins away from the Stanley Cup.
.......
Back in April, before the Lightning defeated the Pittsburgh Penguins and Washington Capitals in the Eastern Conference playoffs, Paul decided he wanted to make his neighbors aware of his fervor for the team.

When the Lightning clinched a playoff spot, they gave fans a playoff preparation package that included a T-shirt, stickers and a sign made for display on one's front yard, like a political placard.

Paul placed his white "GO BOLTS" sign on his lawn on a Saturday.

Then the HOA told him to take it down. "No signs except those advertising security companies."

His HOA limits lawn signs to ones that provide free advertising for alert others that the house is protected by some kind of alarm system or security service.

"I was pissed. I was infuriated," recalled Paul, "and then I was like, 'OK, fine. If we can only have security signs, then I'll make it a security sign."

Which he did:

A few days later, his wife was at home when something caught her eye outside the house. It was a woman with a camera, taking a photo of the new sign, ostensibly for more HOA tattling.
......
After transforming his sign into "GO BOLTS SECURITY," he hasn't gotten a second notice — yet. The HOA told Paul they'll discuss the matter further at an upcoming meeting.

Then Paul decided to get really proactive. Inside the bag of Lightning swag was a large blue Tampa Bay flag. He checked the HOA bylaws about hanging flags on houses, and found no restrictions.

So up it went on his garage:

Outside of free speech concerns (especially with the exception for security companies), there's three lessons from what looks to me an otherwise minor issue in the grand scheme of things.

1. Know where you are buying and if it's subject to HOA bylaws. Most planned subdivisions, especially newer developments, have HOA requirements due to covenants created by the developers. Rural areas and non subdivisions often are not HOA.

2. If it is an HOA area, know the rules you'll be subject to, potential penalties, and the limits to their power. It usually includes fines, and sometimes even revoked deeds. READ THE AGREEMENT.

3. Know the procedures for new policies, the reps on the board, and how they are chosen. If they are nasty busybodies, try and toss them out. This is politics just like the city council or township government.

Politics is local, and it starts with your HOA, if you live under one.

Feds need to get the hell out of traffic rules

This is the number one problem with Washington. Big government is once against trying to regulate every aspect of our lives. RINO Ray LaHood, Transportation Secretary and Obama lackey from Illinois (where else), is at it again.

Between this and the new TSA crap (Full body scanners and groping....but no profiling of course...got to be politically correct), I'm about ready to violate Godwin's law. I hate Illinois Nazis.

From the Daily Caller

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said using a cell phone while driving is so dangerous that devices may soon be installed in cars to forcibly stop drivers — and potentially anyone else in the vehicle — from using them.

“There’s a lot of technology out there now that can disable phones and we’re looking at that,” said LaHood on MSNBC. LaHood said the cellphone scramblers were one way, and also stressed the importance of “personal responsibility.”

The hosts of Morning Joe pushed the secretary about the possibility of requiring scrambling technology installed in vehicles.

“I think it will be done,” said LaHood. “I think the technology
is there and I think you’re going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles to disable these cell phones. We need to do a lot more if were going to save lives.”

Grab the pitchforks. Who the Hell's business is this of the FEDERAL government in DC? It's not. If local municipalities or states want to push this crap, that's one thing, but it's none of the fed's business. Period.

We also have laws against careless driving, reckless driving, crossing yellow lines, speeding, tailgating, and just about anything else you can think of. We don't need yet another law, especially one from the Feds. I've never gotten into an accident on my cell when I drive, mostly on rural roads. If LaHood over in Illinois or DC has a problem with that, he can go screw himself.

I've had more than enough of this crap from all branches of government, but especially the feds.

Deficit Reduction Commission is bullshit as I expected

I called this one. Federal and State government created Commissions to look at issues are jokes. They have been in the past, are presently, and will be in the future. They are a joke because they appoint retired politicians and bureaucrats to the commission to give recommendations on issues they don't know anything about or don't have the right perspective to give a correct statement. Politicians appoint commissions because they don't do anything while making it look like they are doing something. The old saying is this. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. Commissions are bullshit. What baffles me is how Washington thinks that a commission is needed to balance the budget. It's been sort of done. Newt Gingrich's congress did it.

Here's how to balance the budget. It's a brilliant plan. It's the best one there is, thanks to my genius intelligence. Do not let expenditures exceed revenues. There. That's it. It doesn't take 27 years like the commission suggests either.

It's not hard. Government needs to live within its means. Don't raise taxes. Don't overspend. We can start with eliminating federal programs and organizations that aren't needed, like the BATFE or the Department of Education. Education is a state issue and local, not federal. No Child Left Behind didn't work.

Obama to focus on deficit? Where was this the last six years?

Leave it to the AP to spew this

WASHINGTON – Preparing for political life after a bruising election, President Barack Obama will put greater emphasis on fiscal discipline, a nod to a nation sick of spending and to a Congress poised to become more Republican, conservative and determined to stop him.

As I said in January, Obama's new awakening on fiscal matters is absolute bullshit. We had a record deficit since then.

Or as I said in 2009, Obama lecturing about Debt is like the Detroit Lions talking about winning.

This emphasis on "fiscal discipline" is from the clown who spend a crapload of money as a senator and as the resident of the white house the last two years. Bush was bad on fiscal matters. I called him out back then and supported the Pence plan as an alternative back in 2006. Obama makes Bush look about as fiscal conservative as Ron Paul. He's shattering the records with his budgets, bailout votes, and stimulus packages. If there's a poster boy for fiscal mismanagement, it is Barack Obama.

The president has signaled that at the start of the new year, he will speak more directly to the country about the financial choices ahead. "If we're going to get serious about the deficit, then we're going to have to look at everything: entitlements, defense spending, revenues. ... And that's going to be a tough conversation," he said.

It's one that will be framed by a bipartisan debt commission, whose ideas this December will give Obama political cover on where to suggest unpopular cuts.

Taxes. Of course. That's what Obama wants. He sure as hell isn't going to cut entitlements or his stimulus spending.

Obama says the most frustrating part of his presidency is that he had to keep spending money and adding to the deficit in his first six months in office "to save the economy." He has from the start called deficit reduction a goal, but one that had to get bumped in favor of sparking the economy.

Bullshit. Keynesian Economics is, was, and always will be a failure. It leads to stagflation, as proven during the Carter years. As for his suggestion on Commissions, they are also a joke. Always was, is, and will be. Federal Commissions are a bunch of politicians and has-been politicians with big egos who get together, run their mouths, and give themselves status to beltway people to get their bad policies passed. Look for tax increases to be proposed, pressure to come to the reps because of the commission being the ones to push this, and no real good solutions from them.

It's not that hard. Don't spend what you don't have. It takes 4th grade math to figure that out. It doesn't take a commission. It doesn't take a summit. It takes representatives to do their jobs and pass a balanced budget without tax increases. It's then the idiot in chief's job to sign that and not be an idiot anymore. It's not that hard. Even a caveman can do it.

Feds give us another 1 trillion deficit. Good job guys.

Mr. Obama is so fiscally leftist, he makes George W Bush look moderate on fiscal matters. It's not just Obama though. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi deserve just as much blame, as do Carl Levin, Stabenow, Gary Peters, Mark Schauer, John Dingell, Sander Levin, Bart Stupak, Dale Kildee, and John Conyers.

From the AP

The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the deficit for the 2010 budget year that ended Sept. 30 will total $1.29 trillion. That's down by $125 billion from the $1.4 trillion in 2009 — the highest deficit on record.

I thought the Jimmy Carter years proved that Keynesian economics don't work. Apparently, not. George W Bush believed in it too, and Obama believes in it on steroids.

There's more.

The Obama administration is projecting that the deficit for the 2011 budget year, which began on Oct. 1, will climb to $1.4 trillion. Over the next decade, it will total $8.47 trillion. Deficits of that size will constrain the administration's agenda over the next two years and will certainly be an issue in the 2012 presidential race.

How the hell is this government going to afford health care? Are we going to have more bailouts? Stimulus bills that didn't do a damn thing?

It's time for less spending, less government and more freedom. What needs to happen is for the GOP to push for a balanced budget without tax increases if they get past the house. There doesn't need to be a "reduction" in growth of the deficit. That's a halfway job which is worthless. Balanced budget or bust.

If Obama vetos it, send it back to him until he signs it or shuts down the government.

Micromanagers in Obama's administration at it again

I shouldn't be surprised by the folks winning to send someone to prison over not having government approved health insurance. This time it's over roads again. These egomaniacs need to be fired.


Obama's RINO transportation secretary, Ray LaHood said this.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says he believes motorists are distracted by any use of mobile phones while driving, including hands-free calls, as his department begins research that may lead him to push for a ban.

LaHood, whose campaign against texting and making calls while driving has led to restrictions in 30 states, says his concerns extend to vehicle information and entertainment systems such as Ford Motor Co.’s Sync and General Motors Co.’s OnStar.

“I don’t want people talking on phones, having them up to their ear or texting while they’re driving,” LaHood said in an interview this week. “We need a lot better research on other distractions,” including Bluetooth-enabled hands-free calls and the in-car systems, he said.

Even without a ban, which would have to be implemented by individual states, LaHood’s escalating campaign may limit the growth of vehicle features such as Sync, being added by automakers to attract younger buyers. His push also may reduce calls made from vehicles and the revenue of mobile-phone companies such as Verizon Wireless and AT&T Inc.

What I do behind the wheel is none of the fed's damn business. Period. I'm 500 miles away from DC. The feds refuse to control the borders properly, are micromanaging health care, trying to put the auto industry out of business with its newest CAFE push, and can't even balance the budget. They aren't intelligent enough, trustworthy enough, or good enough to have more power.

I'm not excusing distracted driving, but there are plenty of laws on that already on the state level where they belong, without bullying by the feds.

This isn't just a democrat thing either when it comes to roads. The GOP was just as guilty with Liddy Dole's micromanagement in the 80's. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. Roads are an issue that need to be on the state or local level. State's need to budget smartly where they don't need to take federal funds or the micromanagement that comes with it (on any issue), and then need to tell LaHood, Dole, Obama, and anyone else to go to hell. How do you deal with a bully like the feds? Punch them in the mouth. It needs to be done more often.

After that, the taxpayers need to demand the funds from that go back to taxpayers and not to dumb and dumber in DC.

Republican Revolts - NY Post

Finally, somebody mentioned it right.

From the NY Post via Instapundit

When given the chance this election season, Republican voters are tossing out hidebound incumbents and ushering in new blood, sending a signal to the GOP establishment that the flip-flopping and rampant spending of the latter Bush years won’t be tolerated.

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who’d boasted of her Appropriations Committee power over pork-barrel spending, learned that lesson last week — conceding defeat to upstart challenger Joe Miller, an Iraq War veteran and Tea Party favorite.

The Post goes through all of the list. Inglis. Bennett. Specter. Crist. I've been pushing for this since 2006. In 2006, Mike Pence and the Republican Study Committee had a contract and a balanced budget proposal that was shot down by DC Establishment. The result was an ass whooping. The message wasn't received in 2008. The result was another ass whooping. Now it's 2010 and the democrats made the same mistake and look like they will get an ass whooping of their own (whether it costs control of the house or senate remains to be seen).

It's not just the taxes or Obamacare. It's the spending, and the tea party roots came in with the bailouts (which destroyed McCain's chances for good) and Stimulus package.

Bottom line is this. Less spending. Less government. More freedom. If you support this, you'll win. If you don't, there's the door. You're fired. Security will escort you out of the building.

Whether the GOP newbies win in November isn’t the point. The turnover shows that Republican voters aren’t just upset about Obama and Democrats. Instead, they’re demanding principled conservative behavior from members of their party as well.

If they don’t get it, they’re voting the bums out.

That's why we have primaries.

I should break my salt shaker on their heads

That's rhetorically speaking of course, but these people really do need to be fired.

From the Post

The Food and Drug Administration is planning an unprecedented effort to gradually reduce the salt consumed each day by Americans, saying that less sodium in everything from soup to nuts would prevent thousands of deaths from hypertension and heart disease. The initiative, to be launched this year, would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in food products.

And this telling remark.

We can't just rely on the individual to do something," said Cheryl Anderson, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who served on the Institute of Medicine committee. "Food manufacturers have to reduce the amount of sodium in foods."

It's none of your damn business, or the federal government's.

This is the number one problem with government health care. Big government statists who want to control every aspect of our lives. These people need to be fired, and then given the one finger salute on their way out. 

Brighton again takes a stand against Big Government

I'm more of a pitchforks and torches kind of guy than I am a tea party guy, but this will have to do.I'd estimate about 750 there.

Once again, count on Brighton to take a stand against Big Government, much as we did last September. With the punk in chief railroading the debtor's prison health care deform billthrough Congress, now is the time to fight.

It was a good turnout for a weekday event that started right after the day shift ended. It wasn't like it was when national tea party express came through Brighton, but it was a good event anyway. Joe Hune spoke there and did a good job as usual. I saw Bill Rogers and Cindy Denby there in the background as well.

I could have done without seeing the Lyndon LaRouche booth and their violation of Godwin's Law, but at any event, there will be a few of those types showing up.

Overall, a message was sent. Less government and more freedom. Those that don't support that need to be fired.

The big government health care reform (deform) bill passes - comply or spend five years in prison

Forget tea parties. I want a torches and pitchforks party. I'll bring the beer. We'll need lots of it with this piece of trash passed. This needs to be repealed immediately after Mr. Obama signs this - unless the courts strike this, or parts of this down. Here's the bill, all 2310 pages of it. It's a long read, nearly 1000 pages longer than War and Peace.

It was a party line vote in Michigan. All the dems voted for this. All the Republicans voted against this. It's no secret all the crap that from this senate bill which was moved to the house. There's still procedural battles and this will probably end up in the courts. Supposedly, Bart Stupak had an agreement with Obama about an executive order on abortion language. I'll believe it when I see it.

How bad is this bill?  I've decided to take another look at this 2310 page monstrosity. First rule of thumb, if a bill is 2310 pages, most reps have not read it, and it's bad news. War and Peace is 1440 pages. Atlas Shrugged is 1200 pages. This bill is nearly twice as big, and on much bigger pages, and the same small print. There's plenty of small print there. Page 119

SEC. 222. PREMIUMS AND FINANCING.

(a) Establishment of Premiums-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option in a manner--

(A) that complies with the premium rules established by the Commissioner under section 113 for Exchange-participating health benefit plans; and

(B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of--

(i) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and

(ii) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.

(2) CONTINGENCY MARGIN- In establishing premium rates under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include an appropriate amount for a contingency margin.

(b) Account-

(1) ESTABLISHMENT- There is established in the Treasury of the United States an Account for the receipts and disbursements attributable to the operation of the public health insurance option, including the start-up funding under paragraph (2). Section 1854(g) of the Social Security Act shall apply to receipts described in the previous sentence in the same manner as such section applies to payments or premiums described in such section.

(2) START-UP FUNDING-

(A) IN GENERAL- In order to provide for the establishment of the public health insurance option there is hereby appropriated to the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $2,000,000,000. In order to provide for initial claims reserves before the collection of premiums, there is hereby appropriated to the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as necessary to cover 90 days worth of claims reserves based on projected enrollment.

(B) AMORTIZATION OF START-UP FUNDING- The Secretary shall provide for the repayment of the startup funding provided under subparagraph (A) to the Treasury in an amortized manner over the 10-year period beginning with Y1.

(C) LIMITATION ON FUNDING- Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing any additional appropriations to the Account, other than such amounts as are otherwise provided with respect to other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.

This is Government here.Administrative costs are quadrupled. This is the home of the  $400 hammer and $600 toilet seat.

And page 126:

SEC. 225. PROVIDER PARTICIPATION.

(a) In General- The Secretary shall establish conditions of participation for health care providers under the public health insurance option.

(b) Licensure or Certification- The Secretary shall not allow a health care provider to participate in the public health insurance option unless such provider is appropriately licensed, certified, or otherwise permitted to practice under State law.

(c) Payment Terms for Providers-

(1) PHYSICIANS- The Secretary shall provide for the annual participation of physicians under the public health insurance option, for which payment may be made for services furnished during the year, in one of 2 classes:

(A) PREFERRED PHYSICIANS- Those physicians who agree to accept the payment rate established under section 223 (without regard to cost-sharing) as the payment in full.

(B) PARTICIPATING, NON-PREFERRED PHYSICIANS- Those physicians who agree not to impose charges (in relation to the payment rate described in section 223 for such physicians) that exceed the ratio permitted under section 1848(g)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act.

(2) OTHER PROVIDERS- The Secretary shall provide for the participation (on an annual or other basis specified by the Secretary) of health care providers (other than physicians) under the public health insurance option under which payment shall only be available if the provider agrees to accept the payment rate established under section 223 (without regard to cost-sharing) as the payment in full.

(d) Exclusion of Certain Providers- The Secretary shall exclude from participation under the public health insurance option a health care provider that is excluded from participation in a Federal health care program (as defined in section 1128B(f) of the Social Security Act).

Conditions to participate. Here's a question. How many doctors are going to say screw this and not participate?


Page 149:

SEC. 312. EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE.

(a) In General- An employer meets the requirements of this section with respect to an employee if the following requirements are met:

(1) OFFERING OF COVERAGE- The employer offers the coverage described in section 311(1) either through an Exchange-participating health benefits plan or other than through such a plan.

(2) EMPLOYER REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION- The employer timely pays to the issuer of such coverage an amount not less than the employer required contribution specified in subsection (b) for such coverage.

(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION- The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.

(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES- The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).

(b) Reduction of Employee Premiums Through Minimum Employer Contribution-

(1) FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES- The minimum employer contribution described in this subsection for coverage of a full-time employee (and, if any, the employee's spouse and qualifying children (as defined in section 152(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) under a qualified health benefits plan (or current employment-based health plan) is equal to--

(A) in case of individual coverage, not less than 72.5 percent of the applicable premium (as defined in section 4980B(f)(4) of such Code, subject to paragraph (2)) of the lowest cost plan offered by the employer that is a qualified health benefits plan (or is such current employment-based health plan); and

(B) in the case of family coverage which includes coverage of such spouse and children, not less 65 percent of such applicable premium of such lowest cost plan.

(2) APPLICABLE PREMIUM FOR EXCHANGE COVERAGE- In this subtitle, the amount of the applicable premium of the lowest cost plan with respect to coverage of an employee under an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is the reference premium amount under section 243(c) for individual coverage (or, if elected, family coverage) for the premium rating area in which the individual or family resides.

(3) MINIMUM EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION FOR EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES- In the case of coverage for an employee who is not a full-time employee, the amount of the minimum employer contribution under this subsection shall be a proportion (as determined in accordance with rules of the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable) of the minimum employer contribution under this subsection with respect to a full-time employee that reflects the proportion of--

(A) the average weekly hours of employment of the employee by the employer, to

(B) the minimum weekly hours specified by the Commissioner for an employee to be a full-time employee.

(4) SALARY REDUCTIONS NOT TREATED AS EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS- For purposes of this section, any contribution on behalf of an employee with respect to which there is a corresponding reduction in the compensation of the employee shall not be treated as an amount paid by the employer.

(c) Automatic Enrollment for Employer Sponsored Health Benefits-

(1) IN GENERAL- The requirement of this subsection with respect to an employer and an employee is that the employer automatically enrolls such employee into the employment-based health benefits plan for individual coverage under the plan option with the lowest applicable employee premium.

(2) OPT-OUT- In no case may an employer automatically enroll an employee in a plan under paragraph (1) if such employee makes an affirmative election to opt out of such plan or to elect coverage under an employment-based health benefits plan offered by such employer. An employer shall provide an employee with a 30-day period to make such an affirmative election before the employer may automatically enroll the employee in such a plan.

(3) NOTICE REQUIREMENTS-

(A) IN GENERAL- Each employer described in paragraph (1) who automatically enrolls an employee into a plan as described in such paragraph shall provide the employees, within a reasonable period before the beginning of each plan year (or, in the case of new employees, within a reasonable period before the end of the enrollment period for such a new employee), written notice of the employees' rights and obligations relating to the automatic enrollment requirement under such paragraph. Such notice must be comprehensive and understood by the average employee to whom the automatic enrollment requirement applies.

(B) INCLUSION OF SPECIFIC INFORMATION- The written notice under subparagraph (A) must explain an employee's right to opt out of being automatically enrolled in a plan and in the case that more than one level of benefits or employee premium level is offered by the employer involved, the notice must explain which level of benefits and employee premium level the employee will be automatically enrolled in the absence of an affirmative election by the employee.

SEC. 313. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE.

(a) In General- A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution--

(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and

(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.

Basically, we have an 8 percent payroll tax.

Page 143...

SEC. 301. INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY.

For an individual's responsibility to obtain acceptable coverage, see section 59B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by section 401 of this division).

And what does section 401 say? Page 167...

SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--

`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

It's a 2.5% of your income that is fined. This is a penalty. This is a penalty fine disguised as a tax and should be challenged. The penalty for not paying the fine/tax is a trip to prison. I wrote about it here in November of 2009. Sections 7201 and 7203. They are already law, part of the Internal Revenue Code.

7201 - Attempt to Evade or Defeat tax. Felony. $100,000 fine. 5 years in prison.

7203 - Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax. Misdemeanor. $25,000 fine. 1 year in prison.

There's also a surcharge. Page 197.

SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

`(a) General Rule- In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to--

`(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,

`(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and

`(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.

I wonder how many sole proprietors, partnerships, and LLC's are going to be out of business with this. Those aren't corporations, but are a large number of businesses.

The Attorney General has more access. Eric Holder I don't want near medical records. I don't want John Ashcroft there either for that matter. Section 1651

SEC. 1651. ACCESS TO INFORMATION NECESSARY TO IDENTIFY FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE.

Section 1128G of the Social Security Act, as added by section 1631 and amended by sections 1632 and 1641, is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection;

`(d) Access to Information Necessary To Identify Fraud, Waste, and Abuse- For purposes of law enforcement activity, and to the extent consistent with applicable disclosure, privacy, and security laws, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the Privacy Act of 1974, and subject to any information systems security requirements enacted by law or otherwise required by the Secretary, the Attorney General shall have access, facilitation by the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, to claims and payment data relating to titles XVIII and XIX, in consultation with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services or the owner of such data.'.

I have to relook at the HIPPA laws, but things are in bills for a reason. My guard's up, and while I don't see a wolf yet, there's a potential one.

Here's a potential wolf.

SEC. 3121. NATIONAL PREVENTION AND WELLNESS STRATEGY.

`(a) In General- The Secretary shall submit to the Congress within one year after the date of the enactment of this section, and at least every 2 years thereafter, a national strategy that is designed to improve the Nation's health through evidence-based clinical and community prevention and wellness activities (in this section referred to as `prevention and wellness activities'), including core public health infrastructure improvement activities.

`(b) Contents- The strategy under subsection (a) shall include each of the following:

`(1) Identification of specific national goals and objectives in prevention and wellness activities that take into account appropriate public health measures and standards, including departmental measures and standards (including Healthy People and National Public Health Performance Standards).

`(2) Establishment of national priorities for prevention and wellness, taking into account unmet prevention and wellness needs.

`(3) Establishment of national priorities for research on prevention and wellness, taking into account unanswered research questions on prevention and wellness.

`(4) Identification of health disparities in prevention and wellness.

`(5) A plan for addressing and implementing paragraphs (1) through (4).

`(c) Consultation- In developing or revising the strategy under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with the following:

`(1) The heads of appropriate health agencies and offices in the Department, including the Office of the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, the Office of Minority Health, and the Office on Women's Health.

`(2) As appropriate, the heads of other Federal departments and agencies whose programs have a significant impact upon health (as determined by the Secretary).

You see, government has a major stake now in health care. Tax money in spades is going towards that. In addition, my experience in Lansing showed me that one of the biggest big government statist lobbies in the business is the public health lobby. It's like out of the movie Demolition Man. Anything that is in their opinion, bad for you, must be outlawed or taxed. We see what's happening with tobacco right now. They pushed to go against firearms in the 1990's with lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. Gubernatorial candidate Virg Bernero pushed for a "pop tax" while in the state senate. (soda's for you on the East Coast, Cokes for you in the South). Granholm had a "meatout" day proclaimed last Saturday. While I'm not to worried about the "meatout" day, since it was just a mouth running, I am concerned about a "meat tax" in the future. The argument will be "50% of our payments are going towards Obesity. Tax carbs and meat to pay for it."

This ain't over with Obama's signature. It's just getting started. I'm not referring to the torches and pitchforks party we need in Washington to repeal this. I'm referring to big government trying to take control of every aspect of our lives.

And howabout this to get Mary Landrieu's vote.

CHAPTER 2--SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, AND ALABAMA

SEC. 321. PURPOSE.

Grants under this chapter shall be for the purpose of modernizing, renovating, repairing, or constructing public school facilities, including, where applicable, early learning facilities, based on the need for such improvements or construction, to ensure that public school facilities are safe, healthy, high-performing, and technologically up-to-date.

What the hell does that even have to do with health care?

There's plenty more that's bad there. All 2300+ pages of this. This isn't Fox News reporting. This isn't Rush Limbaugh reporting. I don't watch TV News or listen to talk radio. All of this is straight from the bill itself. Primary sources.

This needs to be repealed at best, and modified at worst. We can start with stopping the bleeding with getting rid of the democrats, and then firing Obama's sorry ass in 2012.

House just voted to raise debt 1.9 Trillion. Gary Peters was for it before being against it.

A round of Bronx Cheers and boo birds go to the US House today. They voted 217-212 to raise the debt ceiling nearly $2 Trillion more dollars. Obama will sign this, proving that he is no fiscal conservative.

From the AP

The House on Thursday voted to allow the government to go $1.9 trillion deeper in debt — or about $6,000 more for every U.S. resident. The measure, approved 217-212, would raise the cap on federal borrowing to $14.3 trillion. That's enough to keep Congress from having to vote again before the November elections on an issue that is feeding a sense among voters that the government is spending too much and putting future generations under a mountain of debt to do it.
Already, the accumulated debt amounts to roughly $40,000 per person. And the debt is increasingly held by foreign nations such as China.
Passage of the bill would send it to President Barack Obama, who will sign it to avoid a first-ever, market-rattling default on U.S. obligations.
"I can't think of a more reckless or irresponsible act. Defaulting is not an option," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "If the United States defaults, investors will lose confidence that the U.S. will honor its debts in the future.
Democrats barely passed it through the Senate last week over a unanimous "no" vote from GOP members present.

And we have this half-arsed measure.

To help win passage, Democrats are also adopting — in a vote later Thursday afternoon — budget rules designed to curb a spiraling upward annual deficit — projected by Obama to hit a record $1.56 trillion for the budget year ending Sept. 30. The new rules would require future spending increases or tax cuts to be paid for with either cuts to other programs or equivalent tax increases.

Pay as you go, as this is referred to, is overrated. It doesn't do much. We don't need a pay as you go program. We need government to spend less money than it takes in period. 

If the rules are broken, the White House budget office would force automatic cuts to programs like Medicare, farm subsidies and unemployment insurance. Current rules lack such teeth and have commonly been waived over the past few years at a cost of almost $1 trillion.
Most other benefit programs — including Medicaid, Social Security and food stamps — would be exempt from such cuts, and Republicans said that the rules lack teeth.
"In place of real fiscal discipline, it offers a phony pay-as-you-go rule that is more loopholes and exceptions and does nothing to tackle our government's long-term structural deficit," said Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas.
Skeptics say lawmakers also will find ways around the new rules fairly easily. Congress, for example, can declare some spending an "emergency" — a likely scenario for votes later this month to extend jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed.

In other words, the supposed safeguards are smoke and mirrors. It was thrown in because this is unpopular, and those who voted for it can pat themselves on the back and say they are watching the spending. In reality, they are doing jack.

"We don't have a choice," said Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn. "We are on an unsustainable march toward a fiscal Armageddon." Obama's budget projects the government's debt doubling to $26 trillion over the next decade. It offers few solutions for seriously closing the gap other than promising to appoint a bipartisan commission to come up with a plan to address the problem.

Commissions. Another joke. How about passing a budget that spends less money than it takes in. Period. That's it. It's not hard. All it takes is discipline, hard works, and balls. That's something that congress lacks, and that Obama never had.  

Thomas has the roll call vote. 217 yes votes. All democrats. 212 nays. 175 Republican and 37 democrat. 5 didn't vote, 2 democrats and 3 republicans.

Of the Michigan delegation.

District 1 - Stupak - Y
District 2 - Hoekstra - N
District 3 - Ehlers - N
District 4 - Camp - N
District 5 - Kildee - Y
District 6 - Upton - N
District 7 - Schauer - N
District 8 - Rogers - N
District 9 - Peters - N
District 10 - Miller - N
District 11 - McCotter - N
District 12 - Levin - Y
District 13 - Kilpatrick - Y
District 14 - Conyers - Y
District 15 - Dingell - Y

Mark Schauer and Gary Peters voted no. Feeling the heat from the populace? Or are you being chameleons? In reality, the no vote from Gary Peters was crap. Schauer's wasn't, and give credit where it is due. Peters however was for it before he was against it. Here's the procedure vote to consider the resolution in the first place. Peters voted yes to consider this, and then voted no for the final vote to make himself  look good.

If you're for big spending and debt, at least have the "Peter" to be for it both times it is up. At least Dingell is honest about his spending. Gary Peters is just a coward and I hope the voters of the 9th District send him home for his waste of money.

Lansing wants to raise Michigan's 33 cent (not 19) gas tax

If you look at the media and their love of taxes, and not know how it works, you could easily fall for their lie, damn lie, and statistics that the gas tax is 19 cents, and supposedly low. It's not 19cents. That's right. Michigan's gas tax is currently 33 cents.  It's not 19 cents. It's 33, and fluctuates as the price of gas moves. At $2.65 a gallon, which I last saw in Brighton, 33 cents goes to Lansing. That makes the gas tax 33 cents, regardless of any crap that comes from the media.

Lansing and the media always ignores, purposefully in their quest for high taxes and more government, that the gas tax is 33 cents. This is due to bipartisan big government individuals who both have an interested in taking more money from us. The republicans on this side, like Dick Ball and former state senator Ken Sikkema are a major problem and the cause of why we lost our majority in the house. Big government Republicanism is a failure, both on the federal and state level. Nowhere is it worse in Michigan, than on the gas tax.

From the Detroit News

Lansing -- Two state representatives have introduced bills in Lansing that call for an increase of the state tax and both gasoline and diesel fuel.The bills -- sponsored by Rep. Dick Ball, R-Bennington Township, and Pam Byrnes, D-Lyndon Township, call for raising the gas tax incrementally until motorists would eventually be paying 27 cents per gallon for both gasoline and diesel by Jan. 1, 2013. 
Currently, the gas tax is 19 cents per gallon and 15 cents per gallon for diesel.

The gas tax is not 19 cents per gallon. I will repeat that. The gas tax is not 19 cents a gallon. I will say that one more time so the cheap seats can hear it. THE GAS IS NOT 19 CENTS A GALLON! That's only part of the tax, and I will call it out every time I see it.
Final price $2.65.
Minus - 19 cents - $2.46
Other part of Michigan tax - 14 cents in sales tax.
Another 18.5 cents goes to the feds as well.
At $2.65 a gallon, 51.5 cents goes to big government.

The Lansing elite has been trying to push this crap down our throats for years. This is the worst kind of tax. It hits us every time at the pump. It hits us at the grocery story as we pay for more shipping costs. It raises everyone's expenses. Gas prices did tons of damage in 2007 and 2008 to this economy and was part of the straw that broke the camel's back. Here's just a small list:

• Transportation tax passes committee - December 2009
• Ken Sikkema pushes for gas tax - August 2009
• Mike Crane pushes for gas tax - June 2009
• Flint Journal - May 2009
• Peter Luke's one of several articles advocating for the gas tax - April 2009
• November 2008 - Lansing insiders
• Granholm and Gilbert - January 2008
• October 2007

Peter Luke is at it again with his scare tactics yesterday. Same thing that's been said for years.


This is all based on a false premise. The false premise is that only the gas tax can fund roads. Every single so called plan I have seen on that false premise. Every single advocacy for the tax is based on that. It's crap. I'm not going to rehash the arguments. I've done that about six times already and nothing has changed.

Everyone that votes for this tax or advocates for this tax needs to be tossed out of office faster than you can say Martha Coakley. I don't care which party. I don't care if the rep is a friend. Lansing needs to get the message one way or another, and maybe it will have to take some firings to do that.

There's Lansing. There's Bush. There's Obama. There's Matt Millen, and then there's the US Senate

When it comes to fiscal irresponsibility, there several degrees of bad. Lansing is bad. The US House is worse. George W Bush was worse than the current and former US House combined. On spending, Bush sucked. Obama is worse than Bush. He really sucks. Obama isn't the worst though. There's a special kind of bad, the beyond Matt Millen category. Jennifer Granholm is called the Matt Millen of Governors. The United States Senate collectively is the Matt Millen of all of politics, if not worse. If they were managing a football team, it would be 0-16 every year. If they were running a basketball team, they couldn't beat the Washington Generals. If they were running a hockey team, they would go 0-82 even if Wayne Gretzky played for them. They are Matt Millen, John L Smith, and UM's Bill Martin all rolled up into one.

Barack Obama's spending plan sucks, but it sucks less than what is there now, and I would have voted for it as a start. Yes, I would have voted for it. It's not good enough, but it is better than the status quo.

From the AP

WASHINGTON – Just days after President Barack Obama endorsed a partial freeze on domestic spending, his Democratic allies in the Senate have rejected a plan attempting to do pretty much the same thing.
Old-school Democrats were the driving force in killing the bipartisan legislation, sponsored by Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions and Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill. Their plan was slightly modified version of Obama's that would have permitted domestic agencies an increase of just about 1 percent, with slightly higher boosts for the Pentagon.
A 56-strong majority of senators supported the plan but it failed because 60 votes were required. The vote came the morning after Obama threatened to veto spending bills that would exceed a domestic spending freeze.

That doesn't mean I've forgotten Obama's poor handling of spending and record deficits up to this point. I haven't. The Senate also has another present for us. They raised the debt ceiling an addition 1.9 trillion! Great job dumbasses. They took care of that before Scott Brown was seated. I wonder why?  Also from the AP

WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats needed all the 60 votes at their disposal Thursday to muscle through legislation allowing the government to go $1.9 trillion deeper in debt.
Democratic leaders were able to prevail on the politically volatile 60-39 vote only because Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts has yet to be seated. Republicans had insisted on a 60-vote, super-majority threshhold to pass the measure. An earlier test vote succeeded on a 60-40 vote.

Thank you Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow for doing your normal job. I could be stoned a still do a better job than this group of jokers.

It's past time to cut spending, reduce the debt, reduce the interest payments, and get our house in order so we don't lose our sovereignty.

Obama's new awakening on fiscal matters is absolute bullshit

We have had record defects from Mr. Obama. These trillion dollar deficits dwarf anything that Bush delivered. The TARP bailout from the previous administration was also Obama's fault, as well as McCain's for that matter. Obama voted for it. He administers it today. We then had the stimulus bill that was only stimulating for government and did nothing to create jobs. Bush was bad on spending. Obama was worse. Now all of a sudden, he is now running his mouth about fiscal policy? What the hell was he doing the past 18 months? Or his 4 years in the senate? This is bullshit.

From the Hill

President Barack Obama’s proposal to freeze government spending is turning out to be a tough sell on Capitol Hill.

His liberal base warned Tuesday the three-year cap on most non-defense discretionary spending could hamper an economic recovery. Conservatives dismissed it as insufficient and just for show.

Even the bipartisan group of lawmakers who praised Obama’s plan, most of them centrists, questioned whether he has the fortitude to veto plump spending bills that fail to adhere to the limits he has set. They also wonder if he will take further steps to rein in the $12.3 trillion federal debt.

Top Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), offered tepid support for Obama’s plan, saying it wasn’t enough.
“Of course I’m glad, but now there’s got to be spending cuts,” said McCain, who called for a discretionary spending freeze during the 2008 presidential debates. “They’ve added nearly 20 percent in spending in the past year. So a freeze is the right thing to do, but we’ll have to see how it gets implemented.”
.....

GOP senators who have blasted Obama for backing big-ticket items, such as the $787 billion stimulus and the bailouts of banks and the auto industry, said his spending freeze will do little to fix the economy.
“To me it’s totally meaningless,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.). “But it’s obvious why he’s doing it. The idea is smart: He’s going to try to make people think he’s concerned about spending, which he isn’t.”

Inhofe got it right on the nose. This talk about freezes is bull. We don't need freezes. We need spending CUTS. We are spending billions upon billions just in INTEREST on the national debt. That's one of our biggest expenses. It needs to be paid. It should be reduced, heavily.

Next up, we have the horse to go with the bull. I never liked commissions. The 9/11 commission was a joke. All commissions on the federal level are jokes. They are made up of DC elitists and power brokers, and has-beens who want to get back in the spotlight and hear themselves run their mouths. There's not much here that even needs to be talked about. Voinovich though goes crazy. I'm not McConnell's biggest fan, and even less of a fan of Voinovich. Also from The Hill

Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) excoriated Republican colleagues, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Tuesday for having voted against a law to set up a commission to address the nation's long-term fiscal health.

Voinovich, a longtime deficit hawk, teed off against 23 fellow Senate Republicans who jointed with some Democrats to defeat a proposed bipartisan commission to address deficits and the national debt.

"The issue that I'm raising with Republicans is if you are not for this commission, then what are you for?" Voinovich said during a conference call with reporters. "And if the president is forced into creating an executive order and you criticize that executive order, then how are you going to explain what you want to do to deal with this problem?"

What the hell is a commission going to do? It's going to run its mouth and make recommendations. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a commission to figure out the fiscal problems in big government. In fact, it is quite obvious. Government can not spend more funds than it takes in. That's it. All that is needed is enough no votes or something Obama could have used on the stimulus package. It's called a veto. It's quite simple, even a caveman can figure it out. However with the insanity going on in DC, it won't be figured out. We have the batshit thinking on Capitol Hill to with its cousins the horse and bull, and they won't do Jack to solve the problem because they are chicken, driving normal people ape. There. I covered all the animal variations of the term, except the dog.

Until Obama starts using the veto pen and actually reduces the deficit, I don't want to hear anything he says, because we all know it is absolute....................I'll let you fill in the rest.

Democrats want to once again raise debt ceiling - 1.9 TRILLION

From Politico

Upping the ante just a day after losing their 60th Senate seat, Democrats moved Wednesday to seek a $1.9 trillion increase in the federal debt ceiling and give the Treasury adequate borrowing authority past November’s elections and into next year.

Republicans were caught off guard by the scale of the increase which follows a $290 billion short-term debt increase approved prior to Christmas. “That’s just escapism of the worst sort,” Sen. Judd Gregg (R.,N.H.) told POLITICO. But Democrats countered that their only alternative would be to give-in to a Republican strategy of forcing multiple smaller debt ceiling increases, designed to bleed them politically before November.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31759.html#ixzz0dHGEqVZA

How about a "Go to Hell" in response?

Ungovernability?

I caught this on Red State this morning. When you hear talk about America being "ungovernable," buy lots of ammo today, because they are going after the checks and balances of this country.

Erick Erickson of Redstate said:

When the left starts talking about nations becoming ungovernable, stock up on guns and ammo, because that usually means they’ll start forcefully agitating for a more governable country according to their definition of governability.
That is a real and very inconvenient fact of history spread across continents.
And thus it begins here.
Our Community Organizer-in-Chief, Barack Obama, is saying as much.

Let's take a look at his link. New York Daily News

President Obama said today he is “very frustrated” by the repeated use of the filibuster to try to block almost every piece of legislation before the U.S. Senate, warning that the political maneuver is threatening America’s competitiveness.
“As somebody who served in the Senate, who values the traditions of the Senate, who thinks that institution has been the world’s greatest deliberative body, to see the filibuster rule, which imposes a 60-vote supermajority on legislation - to see that invoked on every single piece of legislation, during the course of this year, is unheard of,” Obama said in an interview with the PBS NewsHour.
“So I think that if this pattern continues, you’re going to see an inability on the part of America to deal with big problems in a very competitive world, and other countries are going to start running circles around us. We’re going to have to return to some sense that governance is more important than politics inside the Senate. We’re not there right now,” Obama said.
Obama noted that Republicans have drifted away from how even the father of the modern conservative movement, President Ronald Reagan, did business. Reagan cut many a deal with legendary liberal House Speaker Tip O’Neill, who managed to keep the Democrat-driven social safety net intact during the era of Reaganomics.
“I mean, if you look historically back in the ’50s, the ’60s, the ’70s, the ’80s - even when there was sharp political disagreements, when the Democrats were in control for example and Ronald Reagan was President - you didn’t see even routine items subject to the 60-vote rule,” Obama said.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2009/12/obama-filbuster-making-nation.html#ixzz0d5fBXh4K

Barack Obama's being the bitch that he is because he's having trouble shoving his 1000+ page piece of trash down our throats. The old saying is that good policy is good politics. The inverse is also true. Bad policy is bad politics, and this policy is as bad as John L Smith's tenure at the Spartans.

Reagan cut a deal and got what he could to get something passed. That's politics. Obama's saying, I know everything. You know nothing. Pass my bill, and shut up. This 1000+ page takeover is unacceptable.For one thing, it takes two full days to read it well enough to comprehend it. It took me half of a Saturday just to skim this. Reagan was also working with democrats. Obama's party has total control, and he still can't get the job done.

Republicans had to deal with filibusters too in the senate. It's not new. Bush got things through. The democrats controlled the senate for four years under his presidency.  I didn't like a lot of the things passed, but he got things through. Remember No child left behind? These are checks and balances on the government powers. It is a check on the arrogance of Obama's Chicago machine politics, beltway elitism, and the mentality of politicians saying that they know what is best for you and this is how things are going to be.

Even Massachusetts might be tiring of this. We'll find that out later today.

Erickson also cites the big government neo-con turned big government leftist Andrew Sullivan who wishes he is what Larry Sinclair alleges himself to be.....(don't ask) This wannabe elitist doesn't like his hero getting attacked.

Andrew Sullivan has joined the bandwagon over the potential of a Scott Brown victory.

Yes, I’m gloomy. Not because I was so wedded to this bill, although I think it’s a decent enough start. But because if America cannot grapple with its deep and real problems after electing a new president with two majorities, then America’s problems are too great for Americans to tackle.

If Sullivan doesn't like it, it's probably a good thing. 

That is an absolute pile of Angus sized bullshit. Democrats weren't elected in 06 and 08 because the country moved to the left. Didn't happen. They got elected because the Republicans got too arrogant, corrupt, and tied to big government. The democrats took office and are arrogant, corrupt, and tied to even bigger government. Nothing's getting passed because there isn't anything to work with. The democrats can't even do this on their own despite 60 friggin senators. They don't even NEED a GOP vote. All they need is to unite their party and it is not happening, because people are flooding the offices with calls saying don't pass this piece of trash. The people are speaking. 

Ungovernable? We are in charge. You work for us, son. Don't you ever forget that or your fired. This bill sucks. Start over, with a much less big government plan, and something more moderate that can pass.

Erickson continues.

The left is upset. It has decided the nation is ungovernable¹ because there is no popular support for the total upheaval of the American way of life. They say now it is ungovernable.
What they fail to realize is that over two hundred years ago a group of much wiser men than we now have in this silly age of ease and convenience designed the nation that way. Any student of American history knows the American Revolution was a conservative revolution — a return in the minds of colonists to the rights of 1688 and the Glorious Revolution where the people were firmly put in charge of Britain and guaranteed certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and property.
In other words, what the left is calling the ungovernability of the American Republic is actually a feature, not a flaw.

Well, as a Catholic, I don't have much love for the "Glorious Revolution", and you'll never see me wearing Orange on St Patrick's day. I'd agree with the rest of that. Freedom is a grand concept, and the only times Americans seem to love to give up their freedoms (foolishly) is when things are a "crisis." Obama's fellow Chicago machine politician and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel famously stated "You never let a serious crisis go to waste."

Heads up. No matter who wins tonight, expect another "crisis" more attacks on freedom, and big government. The left's power is shrinking. They believe they have an inherent right to power and it is slipping from their grasp because their ideology is rejected, once again, just like Carter.

If this county is "ungovernable" it is because of the bums in charge. The cure is throwing them out.  That means Reid, Obama, Pelosi, Schauer, Peters, Granholm, Dillon, and the rest of them.