Copenhagen: Travelgate part Deux

So this was the real reason for Copenhagen, at least as far as the liberal/progressives were concerned.  They just wanted to go party on our dime to celebrate their destruction of capitalism, liberty, and the American way of life.  Notice I said liberal/progressive, and not just democrat.  There were a few RINO’s on the trip as well.

If CBS is actually reporting this story, you know it has to be much worse than they are letting on.  They don’t exactly have a strong track record of being unbiased when it comes to reporting on liberals.

We all have to sacrifice, pay penance, do our fair share, and all the other crap the liberals are saying we have to do.  Only they aren’t doing THEIR fair share.  They are more than willing to TAKE OUR fair share for their own benefit.  They view themselves as royalty.  They are just trying on the oligarchy that they are trying to build on for size.

I guess the $5,000 per year pay raise they got this year to add to their already large 6-figure salaries just wasn’t enough to buy their own plane tickets.  Oh, the poor, poor politicians.  Their lives are so hard.

---

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/11/cbsnews_investigates/main6084364.shtml

Copenhagen Summit Turned Junket?

Exclusive: At Least 20 Members of Congress Made the Trip to Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen Last Month

By Sharyl Attkisson

(CBS)

Few would argue with the U.S. having a presence at the Copenhagen Climate Summit. But wait until you hear what we found about how many in Congress got all-expense paid trips to Denmark on your dime.

CBS investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports that cameras spotted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the summit. She called the shots on who got to go. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and embattled Chairman of the Tax Committee Charles Rangel were also there.

They were joined by 17 colleagues: Democrats: Waxman, Miller, Markey, Gordon, Levin, Blumenauer, DeGette, Inslee, Ryan, Butterfield, Cleaver, Giffords, and Republicans: Barton, Upton, Moore Capito, Sullivan, Blackburn and Sensenbrenner.

That’s not the half of it. But finding out more was a bit like trying to get the keys to Ft. Knox. Many referred us to Speaker Pelosi who wouldn’t agree to an interview. Her office said it “will comply with disclosure requirements” but wouldn’t give us cost estimates or even tell us where they all stayed.

Senator Inhofe (R-OK) is one of the few who provided us any detail. He attended the summit on his own for just a few hours, to give an “opposing view.”

“They’re going because it’s the biggest party of the year,” Sen. Inhofe said. “The worst thing that happened there is they ran out of caviar.”

Our investigation found that the congressional delegation was so large, it needed three military jets: two 737’s and a Gulfstream Five — up to 64 passengers — traveling in luxurious comfort.

Add senators and staff, most of whom flew commercial, and we counted at least 101 Congress-related attendees. All for a summit that failed to deliver a global climate deal.

As a perk, some took spouses, since they could snag an open seat on a military jet or share a room at no extra cost to taxpayers. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was there with her husband. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) was also there with her husband. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) took his wife, as did Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI). Congressman Barton — a climate change skeptic — even brought along his daughter.

(CBS)

Until required filings are made in the coming weeks, we can only figure bits and pieces of the cost to you.

Three military jets at $9,900 per hour – $168,000 just in flight time.

Dozens flew commercial at up to $2,000 each.

321 hotel nights booked – the bulk at Copenhagen’s five-star Marriott.

Meals add tens of thousands more.

Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, wasn’t against a U.S. presence. But he said, “Every penny counts. Congress should be shaking the couch cushions looking for change, rather than spending cash for everybody to go to Copenhagen.”

Nobody we asked would defend the super-sized Congressional presence on camera. One Democrat said it showed the world the U.S. is serious about climate change.

And all those attendees who went to the summit rather than hooking up by teleconference? They produced enough climate-stunting carbon dioxide to fill 10,000 Olympic swimming pools.

Which means even if Congress didn’t get a global agreement – they left an indelible footprint all the same.

+
+

---

Dr. Obama, can I take my medicine now?

For  you idiots that elected Uh-bama and his teleprompter, WAKE UP!  The bus that is America couldn’t make the curve that the liberals have thrown it, and it has now burst through the guard rail and is hanging halfway over the cliff.  What’s worse, rather than try to pull it back, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are at the back bumper trying to push it over.

The latest Obamanation is this health care bill which the democrats are trying to ram down our throats this week.  This will result in rationing of health care to all but the extremely rich and politically powerful (that’s what’s happening in Canada and Great Britain).  You will be forced (i.e. you will have no choice NOT to buy) to buy your “insurance” from the government.  All competing plans will be disallowed.  New medicines and procedures will no longer be developed because there will be no financial incentive to develop them.  Quality doctors will leave medical practice and be replaced by less cabable ones because of salary caps and insurance laws.  In Great Britain there are a fixed number of doctors.  To get one of those positions, a doctor must either retire or die.  You have medical interns quitting after a 20-30 year wait without ever practicing medicine because no one died or retired.  A committee will decide who gets procedures and certain kinds of health care based upon how much “utility” the state will get from you after the surgery before you die.  In other words, the older you are, the less likely you are to get needed health care because you’re more likely to die before the state can get its money’s worth (pay back) from you.  Doctors and patients from Canada, Great Britain, and pretty much any other country you can name that has socialized medicine have gone on record imploring us not to go down this road.  Of course you never hear that from the Obamedia because of their biased coverage of the Obamessiah. (See this story and its links for more on that.) WAKE UP and see that we are going down the path to becoming the next version of the Soviet Union.

Contact your representatives and senators, and several of the others, to make them hear our voice.  Once this bill passes, we won’t be able to undo it.  See the files linked below for contact information for all congressmen and senators.

2009_senateinfo

2009_congressinfo_allhousereps

– The Loft – http://www.gopusa.com/theloft –

Dr. Obama, can I take my medicine now?

Posted By Bobby Eberle On April 27, 2009 at 7:50 am

The left-wing steamroller keeps right on rolling, squashing one American institution after another. From banks to energy to the automobile industry, Obama is squeezing the life out of the private sector and injecting government where it doesn’t belong. What’s next you ask? Health care.

Obama and the Democrats are now focusing on a massive health care bill that will put government in more control than ever before. Knowing that passage of such a bill would be a crowning achievement on the way to socialized medicine, the Democrats are now considering bypassing the traditional legislative process so that Republicans would not be able to mount a filibuster. Need an operation? Please take a number and get to the back of the line.

As noted in a FOXNews.com story, Obama and Congressional leaders are considering using a tactic known as “reconciliation” to push forward Obama’s health care plan.

The fast-track process would protect Obama’s ambitious plan to overhaul the U.S. health care system from a potential GOP filibuster and limit the Republicans’ ability to get concessions. It also would give Democrats far more control over the specifics of the health care legislation.

Under typical Senate rules, 60 votes are needed to advance a bill, but reconciliation would enable Democrats to enact the health care plan with just a simple majority and only 20 hours of debate.

In case you missed the 2006 and 2008 elections, Democrats hold majorities in the Senate and the House and, using tactics such as that described above, could pass almost any legislation. Add to that a few weak-kneed Republicans, and the situation becomes even more serious.

In a story on CNSNews.com, the leading Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, said that Obama’s health care plan would not result in “government-mandated health care rationing.” Obama currently says that he will pay for his health care “reform” plan by creating “efficiencies” in the medical system.

“There is no rationing of health care at all,” Baucus told CNSNews.com on Friday. “You choose your own doctor. You choose your own health insurance that you want to have. This is all a choice.

“What we are talking about is squeezing cost out of the system because of an emphasis on quality care, not quantity,” Baucus told CNSNews.com. “Today the emphasis in the reimbursement is quantity whether you are a doctor, or a medical equipment manufacturer, whatever you are. It’s quantity. You get paid for the number of units that you provide.

Baucus went on to say that this plan is a “whole new way of doing business,” but then added that “there may be some cuts.” Oh really!

The news story then quotes the White House’s director of the National Economic Council as saying, “Look at health care, the frequency of different procedures, whether it’s tonsillectomies or hysterectomies in different parts of the country — and what you see is that in some parts of the country procedures are done three times as frequently and there’s no benefit in terms of the health of the population.”

No benefit to the health of the population? What in the world does that even mean? I’m sure the person getting the procedure doesn’t care about the rest of the population.

Of course, the language in Obama’s plan is vague, to say the least, and Republicans are questioning where the “savings” would come from.

“If you’re going to quantify [savings] with certainty, that means you feel you’re going to ration with certainty,” said Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Feb. 26.

“How do they propose to go about doing this?” asked Ryan. “Do they propose to set up a system where the government is in the nucleus of our health care system, where the government is telling providers — physicians — how to practice medicine?”

As he did with the bailout, Obama is appealing to the media by saying that he wants the health care plan to be “bipartisan.” Give me a break. Yes, he wants to work with Republicans just as long as Republicans agree with him. As noted in the FOXNews.com story, “Democrats, including Obama, have said repeatedly that they want the health care debate to be bipartisan and that the filibuster-proof terms would be used only if the GOP obstructs.” Does that sound like a bipartisan environment to you?

“Reconciliation is basically a nuclear weapon to use against the negotiators so what happens is nobody negotiates seriously because they can always go to reconciliation … tilting the playing field unfairly,” said Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, top Republican on the Budget Committee.

The Democrats do deserve credit for one thing… once given control of government (because Republicans turned away from their principles); they have absolutely no problems in pushing forward their agenda. Given the opportunity they are ramming socialism down our throats. Imagine all we could have passed with our missed opportunity.

The more government gets involved in health care, the worse the health care system becomes. That is a simple fact.

Republican Budget: Real Hope to Counter the Audacity of a Dope

Finally, some conservative leadership.  This budget proposal could not do a better job of illustrating the difference between totalitarian left (the two camps which are either devoid of ideas other than taxing and spending to buy votes to stay in power, or their ideas are the destruction of freedom and capitalism which they plan to accomplish by taxing us all into poverty and legislating away our freedoms until they can control us) and the conservative right offering REAL hope.  If you think our nation can survive the poison Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank and others are trying to force us to swallow, you are “stuck on stupid.”  We might be able to survive the bites we’ve already received from these snakes if we’ll just quit letting them bite us any more.  It’s time for the voters in these snake’s districts to have a roundup.

Morning Bell: A Budget We Can Believe In

Posted April 2nd, 2009 at 8.25am in Ongoing Priorities.

There are now two ten-year budget plans being offered in Washington. One budget dumps a staggering $9.6 trillion in new debt onto the American people; the other borrows $3.6 trillion less. One budget creates $63,000 in debt per household; the other creates $23,000 less. One budget raises taxes by $1.4 trillion; the other avoids all tax increases and even simplifies the tax code. One budget does nothing to address the unsustainable costs of Social Security and Medicaid; the other begins to reform these programs. One budget permanently raises federal spending to over 22% of GDP; the other lowers it to pre-recession levels.

When President Barack Obama unveiled his budget he told the American people: “We need to be honest with ourselves about what costs are being racked up, because that’s how we’ll come to grips with the hard choices that lie ahead. And there are some hard choices that lie ahead.” But then his budget went on to avoid all of those hard choices, instead moving to borrow and spend at historic levels. Yesterday, House Budget Committee ranking member Paul Ryan (R-WI) offered a clear alternative that does make hard choices. Heritage analyst Brian Riedl details what Ryan’s budget does:

• Freezes non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending at its current level for five years.
• Reforms entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are currently growing 8 percent annually.
• Takes back stimulus spending that would be spent in 2010 and beyond, when the recession is expected to be over.
• Places a moratorium on earmarks until the system can be cleaned up.

The most ambitious part of Ryan’s budget is the effort to contain the $43 trillion, 75-year unfunded liability in Social Security and Medicare. Specifically, it would slowly transition Medicare into a premium support program for individuals who are currently below age 55. This would provide seniors with a health plan similar to the one that Members of Congress and federal employees currently enjoy—one based on consumer choice and competition. The alternative budget would also allow future adjustments to Social Security benefits for upper-income seniors.

The alternative budget would also go a long way to restoring American competitiveness by making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, and simplifying the tax code by allowing individuals the choice of opting into a system with a 10% marginal tax rate on all incomes below $100,000 and 25% rate on incomes above $100,000. Even with all these changes, the alternative budget would bring in revenues averaging just below 18% of GDP, which is near the historical average.

The contrast the two budgets create could not be starker. President Obama’s plan saddles Americans with historic tax increases, runaway spending, and a doubling of the national debt. Ryan’s alternative reins in spending, simplifies taxes, and lessens the debt burden on American families. Which vision do you believe in?