Scott Brown Breaks Promise With First Vote

Everyone is in a tizzy about Scott Brown’s vote on Scary Harry Reid’s jobs bill. They have a right to be upset, but not just because he chose to side with Democrats. They should be upset with him for his “business-as-usual” vote which completely contradicts the very reasons he was running for office in the first place.

When he was elected, Mr. Brown said that the voters were tired of “business-as-usual” politics in Washington, D.C., yet that seems to be exactly what he brought with him as he settled into Ted Kennedy’s former office.

While running for his senate seat, Mr. Brown said he was running because…

America is a great country but we also have some challenges that we need to solve if we’re going to remain the world’s superpower. The most important of our challenges is getting the U.S. economy moving again. People are hurting as they struggle to make ends meet. They’re worried about their future, and that of their children and grandchildren. I want to ensure that we leave them an America that is financially stronger and independent: minus a national debt that we can never repay.

He wants to make sure we leave an America that is financially stronger and independent, minus a national debt that we can never repay. Harry Reid’s jobs bill is a pork filled $15 billion monstrosity which just adds more to our national debt. Nice promise there Scott.

Harry Reid did not have the votes for cloture on this bill, so he politically bribed Republican Sen. Voinovich from Ohio with a promise to bring a transportation bill to the floor of the Senate, just to get his vote. If that isn’t business-as-usual, I have no idea what is. I’m sure many of Scott Brown’s constituents are happy with his decision, but the moderates and independents who put him in that chair are sure to remember his “business-as-usual” vote 2012 comes around.

If Scott Brown really wanted to stop “business-as-usual” and change things in Washington he should have made his case while voting against this bill. They say actions speak louder than words and right now his actions make his words sound an awful lot like Barack Obama’s.

— Posted with Stuffr! —

It’s Time To Take Off The Blinders

I’m feeling a bit under the weather today, so I’m relaxing and drinking lots of liquids. Yeah, you needed to know that.

Thought #1

So, you still think President Obama isn’t a hypocrite? He’s had plenty of time to prove otherwise.

Then: “Senator McCain wants to pay for his plan by taxing your health care benefits for the first time in history.”

– Barack Obama, speech in Roanoke, Virginia, October 17, 2008

Now: “This reform will charge insurance plans a fee for their most expensive policies…”

– Barack Obama, address to a joint session of Congress, September 9, 2009

Keep those blinders on man. You’d probably die from shock if you took them off now.

Thought #2

Have you given any thought into how much health care “reform” will cost you?

If your household income is $66,000 a year, slightly above the national average, Obama’s healthcare bill will require you to spend 12 percent of your income — about $8,000 a year or almost $700 a month — to buy health insurance before you get any federal subsidy.

12 percent of your income. In addition to the all the other taxes you pay. And that’s before they apply the real cost of health care. That’s just a projection.

That’s alright though, you have nothing to worry about if you keep those blinders on.

Thought #3

Once upon a time, some Democrats attacked President Bush for the shortage of flu vaccine. Funny how those same critics are silent now that there is a shortage of swine flu vaccine.

Thought #4

What would you do if you went to the hospital for treatment only to find that the “emergency plan” didn’t include you?

In recent years, officials in a host of states and localities, as well as the federal Veterans Health Administration, have been quietly addressing one of medicine’s most troubling questions: Who should get a chance to survive when the number of severely ill people far exceeds the resources needed to treat them all?

Why would officials in a host of states and localities be discussing this at all, “in recent years”? The only way resources would be lacking enough to treat all the severely ill people, is if we allow the federal government to take over health care.

Just wait. Those blinders won’t save you once the actual costs are realized and the government resorts to rationing the care delivered at your community hospital.

The Rebirth Of Restrospective Hypocrisy

This may be old news to some people, but I thought it would be interested to point out something I find quite striking about Nanny State Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her minions running the U.S. House of Representatives.

Here we are, more than three years after Nancy Pelosi took control of the U.S. House of Representatives and she’s accomplished nothing, unless you count the fact that she has proven to the American people that she and the people who support her are nothing more than hypocrites with no intention of doing what’s right for America.

Let’s look at a report titled, Broken Promises: The Death of Deliberative Democracy (PDF).

Despite their vows to open up the rules process and restore deliberative democracy to the House chamber … they used closed and highly restrictive rules to prevent Members from offering amendments that would have provoked real debate and forced Members to go on the record on real issues.

We’ve all seen how Speaker Pelosi runs the House. There is no room for debate, discussions are usually conducted behind closed doors, legislation is voted on before it’s even printed, and Republicans are not allowed to offer amendments.

But wait. This report wasn’t written by House Republicans. It seems that Democrats had issues with Republican House leadership back in 2006, as stated in this “Congressional Report on the Unprecedented Erosion of the Democratic Process in the 108th Congress”.

Back in 2006 the Democrats were upset because they thought Republicans were using closed and restrictive rules to prevent members from offering amendments and participating in real debate. Ironic, isn’t it? Isn’t that one of the very complaints that has been made against Nanny State Nancy since she took control in 2006?

Do you remember November 16, 2006 when then Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi said,

This leadership team will create the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history

I guess it all depends on what your definitions of honest, open, and ethical are, huh?

In that same report, Democrats had some recommendations for Republicans.

  • Open up the process by allowing debate and votes on more serious amendments.
  • Allow more bills to be considered under open rules.
  • Spend more time on major, substantive legislation and less time on suspension bills.
  • Bring back regular order…
  • Give Members three days to read conference reports.

Wow, they wrote the report and they made the recommendations, yet they are 0 for 5 when it comes to carrying out even one of those recommendations since they’ve been in control of the House. It’s been three years, you’d think they might have implemented at least one of their own recommendations before now.

According to their own report,

The purpose of the House Rules is to balance the majority’s right to pass legislation in a timely way with the minority’s right to offer amendments and to otherwise participate in the deliberative process.

But now that they are in control, I guess those silly House Rules really don’t matter to the Democrats do they? The more you read the report, the more hypocritical the Democratic House leaders appears to be. Although I didn’t think they could appear any more hypocritical that they already were.

The most basic measure of how a majority is managing the House is the percentage of special rules it approves for an open debate and amendment process versus the number of times it considers legislation under a closed process.

That one is especially ironic since they are currently negotiating one of the largest and life-changing bills in our nation’s history, yet Republicans are being locked out of that process and many others.

On the other hand, a majority interested in jamming legislation through the process with as little deliberation as possible uses highly restrictive and closed rules to make sure that Members with “conflicting opinions” have little or no opportunity to bring those opinions to the House floor for debate and votes.

After reading through the entire 147 page report I realized something. The report was not a critical report on the leadership under Republicans. It had nothing to do with the way Republicans were treating Democrats in the House, it had nothing to do with “making things right” for anyone.

That’s not how Nanny State Nancy and her minions operate. As long as they can point out one instance where Republicans might have “done it first” (even if it’s not entirely true), they feel their actions are justified and legitimized when their own honesty and ethics are questioned.

You could say that Nancy Pelosi is the national poster child for hypocrisy, but then again, it turns out that report was nothing more than the final draft of the “Democratic Playbook” for running the U.S. House of Representatives and they were just biding their time.