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.

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.

That's not good enough

Congressmen Dave Camp, Jerry Lewis, and Paul Ryan put out their plan. It's not good enough.

Washington, D.C., Sep 13 - House Ways and Means Ranking Member Dave Camp (R-MI) along with House Appropriations Ranking Member Jerry Lewis (R-CA) and House Budget Ranking Member Paul Ryan (R-WI) today sent a letter to their respective Committee Chairmen requesting bipartisan action to help our nation’s economy create jobs.

House Republicans have proposed that Congress work in a bipartisan way to cut most non-security spending back to 2008 levels and to provide relief for our nation’s job creators by preventing the scheduled $3.8 trillion tax hike that will raise taxes on the vast majority of small businesses.

2008 is still a deficit. It needs to be cut back to at least 2000 to get a START. I prefer further than that and to start attacking the principle of the national debt.

We can't go to halfway measures like "cutting the growth" of government or smaller deficits. We need to balance the budget, period, end of story.

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.

Reality to Mr. Obama - Talk is cheap.

This comes from the "You got to be kidding files." Money talks, BS walks.

From the AP

RACINE, Wis. – Sensitive to election-year resentment over big government, President Barack Obama declared Wednesday he intends to get "our debt and our deficits under control." With fears alive of a double-dip recession, Obama warned that he won't slash spending at the expense of the economic rebound.

"We got it moving again," Obama said of the economy to his town hall audience in this Midwestern city, where unemployment tops 14 percent. "We now have to, in a gradual way, reduce spending ... but do so in a way that doesn't hurt people. And that is a challenge."

The debt is hurting people. It weakens our dollar, increases inflation, increases costs, weakens our country's economic leverage, and wastes taxpayers money in interest.

As far as reducing spending, Obama hasn't done jackshit except do what he does best. Run his gigantic mouth. This is the Joker who just ram-rodded a takeover of healthcare, a trillion dollar stimulus bill that benefits government, not people, and as a senator with McCain and Bush, pushed for a bailout of big banks helping his buddies at Goldman Sachs. This is in addition to the regular budget which double's Bush's record deficits. Bush absolutely sucked on this issue, and Obama makes him look almost like Mike Pence, who actually is good on this issue. That's not an easy thing to do.

"How do we get government spending under control? That's a legitimate question," Obama said. "And whether you're a Democrat, an independent, or a Republican, all of us should be worried about the fact that we have been running the credit card ... Somebody's going to have to pay that back."

It's an easy answer. Stop spending all the damn money you don't have, dumbass.

He promised that the matter would be a priority for him over the next couple of years, with help from a commission studying how to reduce costly safety-net programs. Still, the president defended as essential both the unprecedented stimulus spending and the massive aid given to big banks and auto companies.

Commissions? We don't need any commissions on this. Commissions are a joke. They are a bunch of has been politicians who call themselves "statesmen", who push for the same old crap to give cover to our elected polls when they follow the recommendation.

This does sound familiar. Obama ran his mouth on this awhile back too. Let's go back to January, when I wrote on this then.

1-26-2010 - Obama's new awakening on fiscal matters is absolute bullshit

Bluntly titled, and true. His awakening on fiscal matters is absolute bullshit. He talked about commissions then too. This was also before the health care fiasco.

Balancing the budget isn't hard. Paying off the debt with stimulus is harder, but doable with something that Washington does not have. Discipline. Put me in charge, and I'll balance the budget in the first year. I'll pay off the damn debt in 10 years.

If I can do it, the so called experts should be able to do it. Don't count on it. They aren't as smart as me and you.

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.

Waste of Money by the executive branch

I'm sure you all have seen the ads from Census 2010. It's well known that every 10 years, we have the census. Soon the forms will be coming to be filled out. I thought it came in today. Nope.

Instead, I got a $0.44 first class mail telling me the census form will be in approximately one week from today. Thanks a lot. This is a major waste of my tax money. Anybody that is familiar with the costs of political campaigns knows how much mailings cost. This one is no different except that it is at our expense. There are about 110,000,000 households in the US. This .44 mailing adds up. About $48 million in postage alone. That doesn't include about 110,000,000 envelopes, sheets of paper, laser printer depreciation, toners, and labor for that gigantic mailing.

I'll give it one credit. It was quick. It was addressed from Phoenix yesterday, and I got it today.

Other than that, this was a gigantic waste. They should have saved the $50 million plus and just sent the actual census form instead of the one week warning.

This is just one more example why people don't trust Washington DC with their money. $50 million here, $50 million there. Pretty soon, it's up to 13 trillion.

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.

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?

Congress votes to raise debt ceiling

In a big showing of fiscal mismanagement, Congress votes to raise the debt ceiling. From The Hill.

In an end-of-session nail-biter vote, the House passed a short-term increase of the debt limit Wednesday, setting the stage for a February showdown on deficit spending.

It was not a popular measure with centrist and vulnerable lawmakers, who don’t want to be portrayed as allowing the nation to go deeper into debt. The $290 billion increase would set the debt ceiling at $12.394 trillion.


The vote was 218-214, but Democratic leaders had to sweat it out. As the voting clock ticked down to zero, the bill was losing, 203-208.Thirty-nine Democrats rejected the measure and not one Republican voted for it. Three members, Reps. George Radanovich (R-Calif.), Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) and Bill Young Most of the Democrats who voted against the debt increase are expected to face challenging reelection races.

Three of the four Democrats running for the Senate, Reps. Paul Hodes (N.H.), Kendrick Meek (Fla.) and Charlie Melancon (La.), voted no. Rep. Joe Sestak (Pa.), who is running against Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) in the Democratic primary, voted yes.

You can't have congress without the word "con," and this is a conjob of the highest order. 13 Trillion in debt. Sell this country out further to the Chinese government. Pay more money in interest - There's a waste of money.

I know the left is going to bring up Bush. Obama (who voted for much of Bush's spending as a senator) is making Bush look moderate on spending, and Bush was very liberal on government spending issues. He was wrong, as was Congress from 2002 to 2006 under Hastert and Frist. That was bad on fiscal issues. 2006 onward was even worse under Reid and Pelosi.

Bush spent too much. That was unacceptable. I said so then. Obama spends even more. That's even worse. The only good thing about this vote is that every single republican voted against it.

Obama lecturing about debt is like the Detroit Lions talking about winning

Who the hell is Mr. Obama to say anything about debt? He makes Bush look like a moderate spender. From Reuters

BEIJING, Nov 18 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama gave his sternest warning yet about the need to contain rising U.S. deficits, saying on Wednesday that if government debt were to pile up too much, it could lead to a double-dip recession.

With the U.S. unemployment rate at 10.2 percent, Obama told Fox News his administration faces a delicate balance of trying to boost the economy and spur job creation while putting the economy on a path toward long-term deficit reduction.

This is from the guy who voted for the bank bailouts and Bush's bad spending as a senator. He was even worse as the punk-in-chief, as he bankrupted GM and Chrysler after bailing them out, pushed through nearly a trillion in the stimulus failure, and he just got his trillion dollar plus healthcare takeover through the house. That's all in addition to the regular record deficit budget.

Son, when you correct those problems, then you can say something about the debt. Until then, you can sit down and shut your mouth.

Washington Establishment gets right hook

Politico has a great article today that leads to this long editorial.

I've said for almost four years that the Republican Party is at a crossroads, mainly due to fiscal issues. It can follow the lead of the Republican Study Committee, Mike Pence, Jim DeMint, and Jeb Hensarling in its opposition to deficit spending, or it can follow the lead of Ted Stevens, George W Bush, and Charlie Crist in their support for big spending policies. The choice made here, will determine whether the GOP can take the house back in 2010, and the senate back in 2012 or 2014. It will also determine if Obama will be a one-termer. The bailout in 2008 turned the election from a close race to an ass kicking. The fiscal policies in 2006 caused an ass kicking. Democrat-lite policies from the GOP do not work. Why vote for democrat-lite when the real thing is always available.

While I understand that what works in one community does not always work in another, basic principles should always apply, and that they should be less government and more freedom.

Many in the GOP are starting to get that message again with Obama's radical leftism, Mike Pence having a more visible role, Ted Stevens being defeated, and George W Bush being gone. Starting being the operative word. There's still a lot of trust that needs to be earned, and nobody trusts the government right now. That's why we have the tea parties. That's why the calls are flooding the offices. That's why people are involved in politics who have not been involved.

Speaking of fiscal conservatism and tea parties, they aren't GOP. They are conservative. There's a difference, and people are getting right hooked by it. Florida Governor and senate candidate Charlie Crist is a big example. He was at the Mackinac Conference and probably wants to run for president someday. I was real tempted to get a big banner up there that said "Marco Rubio for Senate." Marco Rubio is Charlie Crist's opponent in the primary. Rubio has one of my favorite quotes. “If you are unhappy with the Republican establishment, then let’s get a new establishment.” Right now, we're in the process there in Washington. The DC insiders don't support Rubio, but that's changing. Rubio called out Crist and rightly so in the magazine Human Events.

The only enduring legacy of this stimulus will be the deficit it’s left us with,” Rubio said. “I don’t care how much money he raises — he will never convince Florida Republicans that the stimulus package and his embrace of it, and his campaigning in favor of it — hand in hand with the president — was a good thing for Florida, a good thing for their children, or a good thing for our country”

Rubio is frank in his assessment of why Crist went along with the stimulus at the time: Obama was popular.

“I think he supported the stimulus package because Barack Obama was popular at the time, and I think he supported it because he didn’t want to have a budget session in Tallahassee where he had to make difficult decisions — which, quite frankly, is reflective of everything that’s wrong in American politics today,” Rubio said. “We have too many people that just want to be popular.”

Right on the nose. That is also a big reason why I NEVER donate to the NRSC or NRCC. Those two groups pick and choose establishment candidates and fund them, even in primaries.

In 2005, the NRSC ran negative ads against Steve Laffey who ran against RINO Lincoln Chafee. Chafee got the establishment GOP support and won the primary. He still lost in the general in 2006. The NRSC spent money meant to support republicans, not fight them.

In 2009, the NRSC endorsed big spending Arlen Specter for re-election. Specter is now a democrat because the grassroots republicans had enough of him. Pat Toomey for senate. Toomey is an electable (won three times in a district that went for Gore and Kerry) conservative who can win a tough state like Pennsylvania.

Also this year, the NRSC said they would stay out of the Florida open primary, changed their mind, and supported Charlie Crist. My response? Rubio for senate.

The NRCC isn't much better. In Arizona, they flodded a district with money in an open primary for a candidate that lost. Wasted money.

Those are reasons why I don't give money to the establishment committees. If you plan on donating, the best way to go is to individual candidates, like Rubio, Toomey, Pence, DeMint, etc. Cut out the middleman.

That leads to the Politico article today which was very interesting. Tea partiers turn on GOP leadership. I wouldn't say, "turned" on GOP leadership. Most of the tea partiers I know and talked to never liked the GOP leadership anyway. This is grass roots. These aren't followers, but they chose their own paths. If you give them a big spending republican, they will get opposed just like an Obama democrat.

“It’s an outgrowth of the frustration people have had with the Republican Party,” said Andrew Moylan, director of governmental affairs for the National Taxpayers Union, another group that has played a large role in organizing the tea party movement. “I think a lot of people have been angry at Republicans for betraying our trust.”

“I think the GOP establishment has ignored their constituents and the feelings of their constituents for years,” added Meckler.

It’s an unusual predicament for the Republican Party, since the conservative-oriented issues that animate Tea Party activists once seemed destined to make the movement a valuable auxiliary to the Republican Party.

While there’s little evidence of tea party activist support for Democratic candidates, the specific notion of electing a GOP majority hasn’t ranked high on their agenda either.

Trust has to be re-earned. This was the major damage done to the GOP after Gingrich and Armey left, and after the arrival of President Bush.

One of those activists, Canyon Clowdus, an Army veteran who is taking on third term conservative Rep. Michael Conaway (R-Texas), has blasted the incumbent for making “a horrible mistake” in voting for Troubled Asset Relief Program.

“He has put a financial burden on my four children that will amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars each,” Clowdus says of Conaway on his campaign website.

“I think it was a bad, bad political decision,” Armey said of the 34 Senate Republicans and 91 House Republicans who voted for the TARP bailout, “and if you talk to grassroots activists, it has become a political test for them.”

Moylan agreed that TARP is “really kind of the flash point that started all of this.”

The bailout, supported and OWNED by Obama, Bush, and McCain. The stimulus package. Cap and trade. One after another. ALL of it is bad. Pete Hoekstra has mostly a good record, but he voted for the bailout the second time it was in the house. I can't get past that, and it cost him a chance at my primary vote (I'm supporting Mike Cox) for governor. Hoekstra's a good guy, but on fiscal issues that are tough decisions, I now have big doubts about his ability to handle pressure.

More:

For some, supporting insurgent campaigns or waging primary bids just isn’t a strong enough signal to send to a Republican Party that has abandoned core conservative policies.

Erick Erickson, founder and editor of the influential conservative blog RedState, has urged Tea Party activists to “put down the protest signs” and stage takeovers of local Republican parties.

“Grassroots activists need to start infiltrating the party,” said Erickson. “The only way to start getting [the establishment] back is to start pounding them with every fist we have.”

While I'm more judicious with the fists and pound them when I must, I don't believe in fighting blind. Know the rules of the game and use them to your advantage. I agree with the general premise, which goes to Rubio's comment about getting a new establishment.

In Michigan, our GOP committees are elected. It starts with precinct delegates. There are also usually more openings than spots filled for this position. That is an elected position in the August primary election. I've run for the position, and won every single time without even running a campaign. The primary job of the precinct delegates is to seat people at the state convention and elect people to the county executive committee. It's relatively easy, at least here, to seat people at state convention. I've been a state delegate every time I wanted to be. State delegates vote on district committee (where I currently serve), state committee, state chair/vice chairs, RNC committeeman, and candidates for some offices on the November ballot, including Attorney General, Supreme Court, and Secretary of State. It's a big deal. Those are the rules of the game, and also remember this. Washington establishment is the big problem. Many, many, mid and low level establishment figures in the GOP away from Washington are good friends of fiscal conservatism. Not everyone in the party is a RINO.

I don't know how it works in states besides Michigan, but if people really want to make a change on spending issues, it starts with getting involved long term. If you are a conservative and an old style 1994 Republican, get involved. It's your party as much as it is mine. Work hard, but most importantly, work smart. That's how to get a new establishment, and how to LAND a right hook against the Washington establishment instead of a swing and a miss.

More on the tax votes

While the source is left of center, Ed Brayton and Michigan Messenger has more information than has been reported from the AP wires so far.

On the tax bills:

Among the bills passed were:

HB 5352, which freezes the the yearly inflation adjustment on the personal income tax exemption. This bill passed by a 58-51 margin early in the evening.

HB 5384, a “shell” bill that will likely reduce some exemptions under the Michigan Business Tax. This bill passed 57-52.

HB 5386, which places a 3 percent tax on doctors in order to fund a Quality Assurance Assessment Program for doctors in the state. By establishing those assessments, this bill would also qualify the state for an additional $822 million in federal matching funds for Medicaid reimbursement.

The Doctor's tax was the most controversial.

The voting on this bill began just before 7:15 pm and within a few minutes it became obvious that the bill was going to fail. There were 56 votes against the bill on the board by 7:25. But the voting remained open for nearly another hour, during which time presumably some members were pressed to change their votes.

At 8:21, the chair suddenly ordered the clerk to tally the vote, which was 56-52 in favor of the bill. Four legislators had been convinced to change their votes: Rep. Jimmy Womack (D-Detroit), Lee Gonzales (D-Flint), Dan Scripps (D-Leelanau), and Marc Corriveau (D-Plymouth).

I'd like to see which democrats or republicans defected from the party line. Scripps and Corriveau should be targeted in a big way for their votes.

Jim DeMint, one of the few good Senators in the US, speaking at AFP

Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal was one of the introducers of DeMint and gave a speech. He said that Obama said the stimulus package was supposed to keep the unemployment number below 8%. It's 9.8%.

Biden said the bill worked beyond his wildest dreams.

Cap and Trade worse than the health care bill. Regardless of global warming beliefs, this will do nothing to prevent global warming. It's the China and India full employment act. It will send jobs to those countries.

Debt concern - What happens if China and the Arabs stop paying our debts?

Jim DeMint was the Washington award winner.
-------------

DeMint said that it is freedom that works in America and not central control and command. When Washington is afraid of the people more than special interests, freedom will win. What is key is the elections. He also mentioned primaries.

DeMint isn't afraid to buck the establishment. He's backing Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey, as well as incumbent maverick Tom Coburn. He mentioned those three by name. Rubio is the challenger to Obama Stimulus package loving Florida governor Charlie Crist.

Jim DeMint's speech is notable for that reason. Some of the establishment isn't happy about Charlie Crist's challenge. Tough luck to them. Rubio and Toomey need to win their primary and general elections. We do not need more big government "conservatives" like Crist. That killed us in 06 and 08. More Mike Pence, less Ted Stevens.

AFP: Opening Speaker - Newt Gingrich

Our first speaker is Newt Gingrich. Remember when we had a balanced budget? Thanks, Newt.

Gingrich made the point. With Obama's election, this was "their moment." "Their moment" was Henry Waxman (elected in 1972) and Nancy Pelosi. The dems are moving heavily to the left. The Stimulus is the 1st warning. It had to be passed immediately so that we would not read it. Socialism - the left - has been defeated - in Europe. Italy, Germany, and even France. The socialist wing of the party will lead the dems to defeat.

In 1977, real change as happened. Carter was wildly popular, more than Obama. Then inflation, unemployment, gas shortgage created by government, Soviet invasion of Afghanastan.

An example of the poor policy was the gas shortage was the rule on who could fill up the gas tank based on license plate. A father gave his 13 year old son a screwdriver to swap license plates to the car that needs to be filled up. A conservative would repeal the program. The liberal would hire license plate police.

Newt has a few points.

1. Have to have candidates every level to new solutions and apply principles. All elections. From city to president. Recruit someone new. In the end, real power comes from ballot box. Non partisan. Primary and general.

2. Learn to campaign effective. Better than left in organizing. Don't write off neighborhood. Don't write off people. 365 days a year. Not last 60 days.

3. Win the argument. Thatcher - win argument and then vote. 1993 and 1997 - President make argument so starkly that people say that's wrong. Obama needs to be on all talk shows....to help us.

Newt says that good advertising kills bad products faster. Great orator with wrong philosophy teaches faster that the policy is wrong. (Increase energy costs? with 9.8% unemployment) The Feds can't organize flu vaccine but want to take over health care?

Newt on Obama in Copenhagen - Danger of admin. "I remember when Atlanta got olympics. Andy Young worked for months. Atlanta team worked for years. If Obama had steady consistant plan, Chicago might have won. You can't lead by spur of the moment. Smiling and oratory not substitute for work and preperation." Eisenhower first to go to summitt. Firm rule. Months of preperation. Reagan prepped for months. Dangerous to provide leadership out of hip pocket. Serious challenge.

When 9.8% and part timers and lookers. The real number combinging them may be 20% in California. There needs to be economic plan that works and is not a burden like stimulus. Real stimulus - Premise - in world market competing with China and India.

Newt's bold ideas and real solution.

1. 2 year - 50% in FICA including employer match.
2. Compete with China. Match capital gains tax of China. Zero.
3. American companies compete in market. No taking away secret ballot or stregthening trial lawyers. Irish tax rate 12 1/2%
4. Abolish death tax.

In addition to taxes, there needs to be an American energy policy using American energy. Bowing to Saudi King not energy policy. If we had 300 billion in energy in US - revenue and economic results would be a step to most economic and prosperous country.

Newt said that we can balance the budget. As speaker for 4 years, the budget was balanced, with a liberal democrat in WH. During those four years, smallest federal growth since Coolidge.

Overall, these are good ideas, and should all be considered.

Live from Arlington, it's the Americans for Prosperity Conference

We're here from "Defending the American Dream" in Arlington, VA. This is from the Americans for Prosperity conference. This conference is a group of fiscal conservatives coming together to bring back (or just bring) fiscal conservatism back to Washington.

We'll be posting updates tonight and especially tomorrow when the conference meetings take place.

Business Leaders for Michigan plan - Some of it good, some of it horrible

The group that used to be Detroit Renaissance is now "Business Leaders for Michigan." Some hype came out about the business plan it endorsed. The Detroit News has its proposal out.

From the Detroit News

A newly formed coalition of Michigan CEOs announced Thursday it would support extending the sales tax to most services if it is lowered. Business Leaders for Michigan, an expansion of Detroit Renaissance that includes 25 corporate captains from across the state, would cut the 6-percent sales tax rate to make the change initially revenue neutral. But the plan would raise additional revenue in the future as the state continues its shift away from a goods economy and toward a service economy. David Brandon, chairman of the group and CEO of Domino's Pizza, said a "sales tax on services has to be part of the equation" as the state modernizes a tax code built for the 1950s.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm proposed a 2 percent tax on services two years ago but the plan died in the Legislature. Lawmakers passed a tax on some services late in 2007 but the levy was scrapped.

"The governor welcomes all ideas," said Liz Boyd, spokeswoman for Granholm. "But it is ironic that the business community is now calling for a sales tax on services when two years ago they're the very ones who killed it when the governor proposed it."

Past studies have indicated the state could reduce its sales tax rate to about 5 percent, if it were extended to services, and generate revenue that the 6 percent sales tax on products raises today.

The Matt Millen of governors Granholm's got a point. That's because this services tax plan is a Matt Millenesque idea from this group. NO NEW TAXES. I don't care which side it is from. This will factor heavily in my voting plan if David Brandon ever does decide to run for office. No vote here.

There are the rest of the idea.

The group also proposes:

• Cutting the state government workforce 5 percent to 10 percent and lowering compensation, including benefits, to reflect the national average. - I agree to a point, but I think we need to take a longer look at government in general, not just salaries and workforce.

• Eliminating the state tax on business equipment once the economy starts growing again.- Agreed.

• Scuttling the 22 percent surcharge on the Michigan Business Tax and reducing the corporate levy by 60 percent overall. - Agreed.

• Enacting prison management and sentencing reforms to save $400 million. - Agreed if the plan is what I think it is. Good luck selling it.

• Eliminating binding arbitration for local police and firefighters. - Undecided. Will the alternative cost more or less?

• Ending optional state services, such as programs for Medicaid recipients not required by the federal government. - Agreed.

• Consolidating administration of the state's 500-plus school districts by cutting per-student funding to districts that don't share services. - Agreed to an extent, but this will be real tough to sell.

• Reducing the number of colleges and universities "to a number the state can afford."- Is this state schools only?

• Adopting a funding formula for roads and bridges and supporting mass transit services in urban areas.- Agreed with the first, the latter only if it pays for itself. No more people movers or Wally trains with government money that does not get used.

Business Leaders for Michigan has its own website. They will likely be, for good, bad, and in between, a significant power in Lansing with the new budget issues.