As they sit in the warm sun and listen to the celebrity speakers tell them about their bright future a grim reality will set in once the graduation cakes are cut and consumed.

The reality is that, particularly on Long Island, the job outlook is bleak, affordable housing is out of reach, our elected leaders are clueless and whatever opportunity can be found will be found in other parts of the country.

While some of us fight to cut the government leviathan down to size so that is doesn’t suck up the resources that productive people are better suited to employ, those in office are fighting for their own survival and will stop at nothing to hold onto office.

College Loans

As someone paying for their children’s college education, I don’t like paying any more than I have to, but the focus on holding interest rates constant is misguided. College graduates need jobs, not more debt. President Obama and local representatives like Tim Bishop already have piled up enormous debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay back. Making it more affordable to take on more debt is not a winning strategy. Congressman Bishop used to run a local college, Southampton, that had to be bailed out via a purchase by Stony Brook University. As Einstein said, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

Bishop Touts Highway Bill

On his website Tim Bishop boasts about his support for the two-year transportation bill. While keeping our roads in good repair is important, a closer reading of what Mr. Bishop says is revealing. The highway bill, “would create or sustain 113,300 construction jobs in New York alone: 61,100 in highway construction and 52,200 in mass transit construction, according to the US Department of Transportation.” There it is: “create or sustain.” Well, Congressman, which one is it? How many jobs will be created and how many will be sustained? Any economist, and almost anyone else for that matter, can count a new job. After all, there is a bit of paperwork associated with filling a new job, W-4 forms, I-9 forms, etc. But there isn’t a soul who can count a job sustained.

Created vs. Sustained

Why is that important that we know the difference? Because if you recall with the great stimulus bill, in Tim Bishop’s district, $105 million dollars was spent on school districts to create seven new jobs. In that case the teacher’s union, a big Bishop supporter, got a lot of money and our children and grandchildren got the bill. So how many new jobs will the transportation bill create? We also know that those highway jobs are heavily unionized and the unions back Bishop. Coincidence?

Perhaps another reason Bishop doesn’t want to say how many jobs will be created  is that he could be held accountable. Remember how that pesky promise to keep unemployment below 8% if we gave Obama nearly a trillion dollars blew up in his face?

A Coherent Policy?

On the one hand Bishop is pushing to drive more people into going to college whether they can afford it or not or whether they belong there or not. On the other hand he is pushing spending on construction jobs. How many of our college graduates are going to take those construction jobs? It’s more government spending coming and going. No spending cuts, just more spending, more debt, kick the can down the road.

What we need is less government and more entrepreneurs; less taxes sucking resources out of the economy and more investors putting money where it will generate the most returns; the realization that college isn’t for everyone and we need skilled blue-collar workers who can operate computerized machines in our factories; lower energy costs so that we can afford to actually run factories. We need to unleash the imagination and brainpower of hundreds of millions of Americans in the private sector and not count on bureaucrats picking and choosing winners and losers based on their left-wing ideology.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

President Obama has been on the stump trying to cobble together a coalition that will help keep him in the White House. It matters little what damage his actions might do to America, he has bigger plans and needs more “flexibility” to get them done.

On college campuses he is trying to gin up support by making the interest rate on college loans a campaign issue. The issue is government subsidized Stafford loans. He wants to freeze the current interest rates at 3.4% and he wants the Republicans to fight him on this so that he can create another class warfare wedge issue.

Where have we seen something like this before? Wasn’t the government’s heavy involvement in housing, pushing for everyone to be a homeowner that led to the housing bubble? When that bubble burst, all hell broke loose with it and Obama was able to ride the gush of air into the White House.

Think about the growing debt being accumulated by college students and think about their job prospects in the Obama economy. It is not a pretty picture. What happens if those students upon graduating say, “I can’t find a decent job. I have been duped. I’m not paying back my student loans.” What do you do? Jail them?

Now if interest rates climb, the economic effect will be to curtail borrowing, that is, the old price, supply and demand thing. But if interest rates are kept low, then the demand for more debt will not be curtailed. If the demand for more debt is not curtailed the bubble grows. Four more years of Obama managing the economy will not be a boon to jobs. If we haven’t figured that out yet, we better start studying quickly. There’s a big test coming in November.

I fully appreciate the college financing issue. But the education model is broken. Colleges seem to raise tuition in lock step with increases in government aid, so no progress is made. Colleges also seem to be afraid of not attracting enough students so they fill their course catalogs with nonsense courses that will interest no employer. The amount of debt piling up is frightening, but hey, we have a president to reelect. We’ll fix that later; just like Social Security, Medicare, budget deficits…

The Republicans are right to at least demand cuts in spending elsewhere to pay for this. They know the problem won’t get fixed or even addressed with Obama at the helm. We have to hang on for another six or seven months to cancel Obama’s contract and then prepare to roll up our sleeves and undo the damage he has done.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

It the last few days we have heard President Obama ranting about the Supreme Court. This is not anything new. You may also recall his unprecedented calling out of the Supreme Court as the justices sat in front of him during his State of the Union speech attacking them over the Citizens United v FEC case.

The Great Reconciler has also done this in other venues. After Paul Ryan released his budget last year, President Obama invited him to a speech on the budget and with Ryan sitting there devoted his speech attacking the Ryan plan. Very classy. Is this what we hoped and changed for?

Obama and the Constitution

What is most disturbing to me is what Obama is saying about the Supreme Court’s role with regard to the Constitution. What he is saying is approaching downright ignorance and yet he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. What did he teach his students? Where are these students today? Are they some sort of Manchurian Candidates to be unleashed with their own new-found ignorance upon us as lawyers and judges? Are we watching a bad science fiction movie?

‘I am confident,” announced the president of the United States, “that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” – President Barack Obama, earlier this week.

Unprecedented? What exactly is unprecedented? What is extraordinary? Striking down a law? That capability of the Supreme Court was established by the Marbury v Madison  case in 1803. One hundred fifty-eight acts of Congress have been overturned by the Supreme Court since Marbury. Sounds like a lot of precedent to me.

A strong majority? ObamaCare was passed by a margin of 219 to 212. What would a weak majority be? Actually, since we often hear our liberal friends cry out for bipartisanship, let me point out that there was bipartisan opposition to ObamaCare. Every Republican and thirty-four Democrats voted against it. Only Democrats voted for it.

Passed by a democratically elected Congress? Is there another kind of Congress than a democratically elected one? Also, in order for a review by the Supreme Court, a law by definition has to be passed by Congress. Otherwise it is just a bill and has no effect on anyone. Doesn’t constitutional law professor Barack Obama know any of this? Isn’t he embarrassed to be saying such things? It is clear that most American citizens, sixty-seven percent by some polls, think the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Do they understand the Constitution better than a man who took an oath to preserve, protect and defend it?

I think an effort should be made to find every student who sat in one of Barack Obama’s constitutional law classes. Give them a test on their comprehension of the Constitution. If they fail, force the University of Chicago to refund their tuition for that course and send them to take Hillsdale College’s Constitution 101. It’s a free ten week course and perhaps the students can help out by donating their refunded tuition money to Hillsdale.

We should all be very concerned that this kind of thinking is being taught in our law schools and will one day come back to destroy the Constitution. Some on the left are trying to call any invalidating of ObamaCare as judicial activism on the right. Adhering to the founding principles and the original intent behind the Constitution is not activism, it is the sworn duty of the justices. If you want to know what activism sounds like, go no further than the words of Associate Justice and former chief counsel of the ACLU Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a “salvage job,” not undertake a “wrecking operation.”

It is judicial activism for the court to try to salvage Congress’ work. It violates the separation of powers. It is the job of the judiciary to interpret the law not make the law. If they interpret the law to be unconstitutional it is not their job to fix it. That’s Congress’ responsibility, but Ginsburg knows full well that the Congress that passed this monstrosity isn’t there any more and will not be there again any time soon. There is a new Congress that was swept in, to a large extent based on the outrage over ObamaCare. Ginsburg is afraid that if the Supreme Court doesn’t salvage it, sending it back to Congress would put the final nail in the coffin. RIP.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

When you try to manufacture a campaign issue it requires some deception and in the more extreme cases outright lies. This is because the truth doesn’t have to be manufactured. It stands tall on its own.

As Mark Twain said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” That’s what the left is banking on. So let’s dig a little deeper into the hearings at the center of the controversy.

House Oversight Committee Hearing

Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform, Darrell Issa, scheduled a hearing on religious liberty in the face of the ObamaCare mandate requiring the purchase of contraceptives by all employers regardless of their own religious beliefs. It is customary for the minority party (Democrats at this time) to choose one witness. The Democrats chose Barry Lynn and Sandra Fluke. Byron York of the Examiner provides some detail.

“The Democrats played games with us the day before [the hearing],” says a Republican committee source.  “After days of asking for a witness, they waited until the last-minute, the afternoon before the hearing.  They asked us to invite Rev. Barry Lynn [head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State] and Ms. Fluke.  We said we’ll invite one, per standard procedure.  We formally invited Rev. Lynn, and the Democrats, at 4:30 pm, changed their mind and said they wanted Fluke.  We said too late.  They told Rev. Lynn not to show up the next day.”

Issa explained that Democrats had requested Barry Lynn, that Lynn was invited, and that Democrats then retracted the Lynn request.  As for Fluke, Issa said Republicans had never heard of the Democrats’ last-minute choice.  “I asked our staff what is her background, what has she done,” Issa said at the hearing.  “They did the usual that we do when we’re not provided the three days and the forms to go with it. They did a Google search. They looked and found that she was, in fact, and is a college student who appears to have become energized over this issue and participated in approximately a 45-minute press conference…I cannot and will not arbitrarily take a majority or minority witness if they do not have the appropriate credentials, both for a hearing at the full committee of the U.S. House of Representatives and if we cannot vet them in a timely fashion.”

Barry Lynn is both a lawyer and holds a degree in theology. He is an author, radio host, frequent television commentator, and he has held senior positions at the national level for the United Church and the ACLU. I would probably agree little with Rev. Lynn, but you can’t argue he has credentials. Who is Sandra Fluke? She is a law student, not a lawyer; she was president of a college club that advocated “reproductive justice.” How does that fit in with a hearing on religious liberty. It doesn’t and the Democrats don’t care.

When the hearing began, the Democrats attacked the Republicans. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) asked, “Where are the women?” There were two panels that day, which according to my sources is typical when more than four people testifying. The second panel had two women on it. My source also tells me that the witness list was released a week before the hearing so either Rep. Maloney was deceitful or she doesn’t know what is going on in the committee she is a member of.  I am sure if pressed, Rep. Maloney would say, there were no women on the panel in front of me. But it is all part of the big lie, it was done for the cameras and the sound bite.

Since their plan to put on Sandra Fluke failed, they staged their own show.

Steering and Policy Committee

The Steering and Policy Committee is the committee that actually had Sandra Fluke address them on February 23. The purpose of the Steering and Policy Committee is to assign fellow party members to other House committees, and it also advises party leaders on policy. It is chaired by Nancy Pelosi. What does anything that Sandra Fluke has to say have to do with assigning party members to other committees or advising party leaders on policy. Nancy Pelosi policy on ObamaCare was clear, “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in the bill.” She didn’t do any fact-finding then, and she isn’t interested in facts now. It was all a show, and it was all for what is popularly called the “optics”.

Who Is Sandra Fluke?

Sandra Fluke is an attractive, clean-cut, woman who is poised in this setting. She is thirty years old, and she has been a left-wing advocate, so she provides the right look for the ensuing sound bites. She provides the right optics.

Before going to Georgetown Ms. Fluke researched the University’s health care policies and learned that they did not provide contraceptive coverage. She enrolled anyway and started working to overturn that policy. In her opening remarks she confidently states that President Obama’s policy “adjustment” of paying out of the left pocket instead of the right “addresses any potential conflict.” That’s another lie. It does not address large institutions that are also self insured, but that doesn’t matter, the narrative must go on; the campaign issue must be built. Just steamroll any real concerns of the other side.

While trying to defend ObamaCare her opening exposes the major problem with it when she says contraception can cost $3,000 during law school. President Obama and the woman sitting in front of Ms. Fluke, Nancy Pelosi, told us how ObamaCare was going to control costs. A quick check on the internet reveals that contraception can be purchased for about half of what Fluke says, but if someone else is paying for it, why would you bother to check? It was probably unintentional but she blew a hole in the theory that ObamaCare will save money. It won’t.

She scrupulously avoids talking about her personal behavior but talks about other women and friends. That is the trap Rush Limbaugh fell into by characterizing a behavior to her that she didn’t discuss. It was out-of-bounds for him to do so, and the Democrats, ever anxious to keep the discussion away from the real issues have made this a major focus.

Why didn’t she talk about herself? I don’t care about her activities, but everything she said was hearsay. Who were these other women? She didn’t give their names. How can we verify their stories? Do they really exist? Why didn’t they come and testify themselves? Wouldn’t it be more compelling to have a first hand account. Yes, but consider the optics. What if they were not as polished? What if they felt foolish trying to go in front of Congress to discuss a $10 item?

She talked about the financial burden of buying contraceptives, but said nothing about the financial burden of college tuition which is thirty times more. What do you think is causing these students a financial strain, tuition or contraception?

She talked about clinics being unable to meet the “crushing demand” for contraceptives. Why not set up a charity that progressives can contribute to that would provide more funds? If given a choice if they would underwrite what Ms. Fluke is advocating, would they? Nancy Pelosi is a multi-millionaire. Wouldn’t it help her cause if she wrote a big six figure check to kick it off?

She then brought out the campaign theme that any restrictions on what is decided between a woman and her doctor is “policing her body.” She said that 65% of students were “interrogated” about the need for contraceptives for non-birth control purposes. Maybe it’s time for a brief recap. We are talking about a $10-$15 item. One story she relates is about a woman who finds out at the pharmacy counter that her health plan doesn’t cover her contraceptives and has to turn away. Really? How about not having two cups of Starbucks this week so you have contraceptives for a month? For a $10 item you are going to sit through an interrogation? How about giving up your iPhone for a cheaper model? These are law students she is talking about at a prestigious university and they can’t figure out how to come up with $10? How about asking your boyfriend to help? Why not ask mom and dad? Why raise taxes on some poor guy who is not going to Georgetown law to pay for your $10 contraceptive while he is trying to live from paycheck to paycheck and take care of his own family?

There is no free lunch, Sandra. If you don’t pay someone else has to. You can say Georgetown can afford it! Maybe so, but they have to find a way. What do you suggest? Raise tuition? Lay off a maintenance worker or a receptionist? Cut back on scholarships, so that you don’t have to come up with $10 on your climb to the 1% club once you get out of Georgetown.

Fair and Balanced?

Where are the other women, Leader Pelosi, who don’t agree with Sandra Fluke. Why didn’t you ask fellow Georgetown student Angela Morabito testify? Because lies don’t like sunshine and fresh air.

The lie has been crafted. It’s about policing a woman’s body. It is being packaged. It is being taken on the road at The View, she has been on NBC news three times, and she received a phone call from President Obama. Are you going to be taken by the lie?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

This is what Andrew Breitbart warned us about and fought so courageously against. The lies of the left to advance their agenda. Do we roll over, or do we take up the torch and continue the fight?

The Losing Abortion Attack

Abortion used to be the tried and true social attack point of the left. Being pro-abortion gave them a 10% edge where abortion was important to the voters. Over time as medicine has advanced and people learn more about abortion, it is now a 10% loser. What’s a leftist to do? Simple, shift gears and try to make an issue out of contraception.

It’s a different argument though. The argument with abortion was whether there were two lives involved or one. If it was one life, the woman and a clump of cells, then an abortion is little different from a tonsillectomy. If, however, two lives were involved then an abortion is tantamount to homicide. There is , for the most part, no human life at risk through the use of contraceptives so this tack loses some of it’s potency. While there are those who oppose contraception on moral grounds, there are very few who would seek to outlaw it. It is a case of moral persuasion rather than saving a life.

Fabricating the Contraception Issue

If you watched the Republican presidential debate where George Stephanopoulos asked MItt Romney about states banning contraceptives you probably felt as puzzled as Romney at the question. Huh? Where did that come from? As Romney tried to grasp the question and answer it, he said, George, no state is trying to ban contraceptives that I’m aware of. Stephanopoulos would have no part of it, he came at Romney again, yes, but do you believe states have a right to ban contraceptives? Look at the news coverage on contraceptives from that debate, and you can see the left trying to put the pieces in place to create an issue out of thin air.

The Attack on the Church

To paraphrase Machiavelli, when you sup with the devil, bring a long spoon. The Catholic Bishops were strong supporters of ObamaCare and now they have come to the realization that the devil is in the details. Now there is a pitched battle to oppose the contraception provision of that law. It is a blatant violation of the First Amendment to force the Catholic church to act contrary to its beliefs. Obama and the left know they are on the losing end of that argument, so they had to pivot.

Access to Contraceptives

They way they pivoted was to claim that women were being denied access to contraceptives, which is a lie. Contraceptives are readily available and relatively cheap. Why should the rest of us be paying for someone’s recreational sex? If you can’t pay for your own contraception, try a little abstinence. This entitlement mindset of instant gratification whether they can afford it or not, is about as un-American as it gets.

Enter Sandra Fluke

So who is Sandra Fluke? Does she have an agenda or is she just expressing her own concerns? She says she is a third year law student at Georgetown. Do they not teach the Constitution and the First Amendment at Georgetown Law? She says she is a past president of Georgetown’s Law Students for Reproductive Justice and she’s attending Georgetown on a Public Interest Scholarship. Okay, law student, reproductive justice, public interest; sounds like a trifecta of the liberal left.

Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy. – Washington Post

So Sandra Fluke is a law student, an advocate for reproductive justice, and is on a scholarship tied to a future career in fighting for liberal causes, and she “researches” the health care plan, not just looks it up and reads about it. Her intent was to take on the health care plan and change it, which she did, but lost.

Democrats wanted Fluke to testify before Congress but Congressman Darrell Issa said she wasn’t a qualified witness. The matter before the committee was on religious liberties, not about women and Fluke was neither a lawyer nor a member of the clergy. As fellow Georgetown student Angela Morabito puts it:

Her one claim to fame in the reproductive health care debate is…drumroll, please…being a student club leader! You go, Sandra! Hang those posters girl. Wear out those Sharpies.

Me?  I love me some extracurricular involvement. The difference between Sandra and me is that I don’t think it qualifies me to speak in front of Congress.  ”The Chair calls to the stand  the captains of the intramural ultimate frisbee team!” – Angela Morabito, Georgetown student

Of all the women in America who did meet Chairman Issa’s qualifications, the Democrats picked Sandra Fluke?

So Nancy Pelosi got the cameras together and a room and set the stage to look like a Congressional hearing and gave the floor to Sandra. She said her fellow classmates have suffered financially, medically, and emotionally because, you know, contraceptives can cost $3,000 during law school. I don’t know what kind of contraceptives Sandra is interested in, or if it is going to take her a lot longer to finish law school than most, but according to Planned Parenthood, birth control pills cost $15-$50/month; the birth control injection Depo-Provera costs $35-$75 and lasts three months; and the birth control patch costs $15-$80/ month. It seems that with a little shopping, Sandra could cut her costs in half, but let’s hear from Angela again:

Let’s talk priorities here. It costs over $23,000 for a year at Georgetown Law. Sandra, are you telling us that you can afford that but cannot afford your own contraception? Really? Math was never my strong suit, but something about Sandra’s accounting just doesn’t seem right. – Angela Morabito, Georgetown student

Extreme Cases

Another of the left’s ploys when abortion was a winning strategy for them was pointing to rape and incest, not birth control, as the absolute need for abortions. True to form, Sandra’s mock testimony was not about wild and free recreational sex, it was about non-contraceptive uses for contraceptives. Huh? There are medical conditions for which birth control is sometimes prescribed, not to prevent pregnancy but to alleviate the particular condition. If you look at the totality of use for contraceptives these cases would be quite small. It’s like a magician. They want to keep your focus on this small exceptions, the left hand if you will, so you don’t see what the right hand is doing.

A Simple Solution

We buy our own auto insurance, we buy our own life insurance, we buy our own homeowner’s insurance. We should buy our own health insurance. Kill Obamacare. If individuals owned their own policies, there would be no mandate of what to cover or not, it would be up to the market to decide. You would not have to worry about pre-existing conditions if you maintained your coverage, you would not be afraid of changing jobs for losing your health insurance. The tax breaks that currently go to companies to provide health insurance should be abolished and those tax breaks given to the individual. The amount of money that companies are currently spending to pay for health care for their employees could be given to the employees in the form of a raise. Insurance companies should be allowed to create any kinds of plans they want, this one including contraceptives, that one not.

However, by doing so, the Democrats would lose the campaign issue they are busy trying to fabricate out of thin air. American was conned in 2008. Don’t get conned again.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

We know that Tim Bishop hates outsourcing. He has gone so far as to introduce new legislation to prevent outsourcing of call center jobs. Tim Bishop may be a very big oursourcer himself.

Tim Bishop supported the auto bailout of GM and Chrysler with tax dollars. Chrysler is now owned by Fiat, an Italian automaker. That means that all Chrysler employees who are not employed in Italy, are by Tim Bishop’s definition, outsourced. If he is consistent with his beliefs he should demand that all Chrysler jobs be relocated to Italy, so that this invidious outsourcing is stopped.

GM, the other half of the auto bailout Bishop voted for, although still an American company took taxpayer dollars and then increased the amount of automobile production overseas by 35%. More outsourcing.

So, Tim Bishop is outraged by the amount of outsourcing going on by private companies, but he doesn’t seem to have a problem taking your money through taxes and outsourcing jobs as long as a big union, such as the United Auto Workers, is in favor of it. If a union like the Communications Workers of America complains about call center jobs being outsourced it’s an outrage, and Tim Bishop takes umbrage with that and introduces legislation to stop it. If another union, the United Auto Workers, begs the Obama administration to bail them out even if it means outsourcing more jobs, Tim Bishop blithely goes along.

So, which is it Tim? Is outsourcing good or is outsourcing bad? Or do you just not have a clue? Don’t answer that until you hear from Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, the CWA, the UAW, United Federation of Teachers or whomever else does your economic thinking for you.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

As the Democrats bid a tearful farewell to using abortion as a winning campaign issue, they need to manufacture a replacement. So they have come up with contraceptives and how those mean Republicans want to restrict a women’s access to them. It’s a lie and they know it, but hey, elections are at stake.

Some say it began with George Stephanopoulos’ bizarre questioning of Mitt Romney on a state’s right to ban contraceptives during one of the presidential debates. Some say it goes back further to a Virginia Senate race between Tim Kaine and George Allen. The problem for Democrats is that they used to run on an abortion platform and public opinion gave them a ten point edge on that subject. The polls have shifted and now it is a ten point loser. So what’s a liberal to do? Well, people still favor birth control, so let’s make it look like Republicans are against that! Brilliant!

The trick is how to do it. How about putting a Trojan Horse in the middle of ObamaCare? Have ObamaCare require contraceptives even by the Catholic Church. Conservatives and Republicans will object and voila, we have a campaign issue. But what are we really talking about?

Access to Contraceptives or Free Recreational Sex?

The First Amendment to the Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…

If it is the Catholic Church’s fundamental teaching that artificial birth control is immoral, Congress is forbidden by the Constitution to pass any law that interferes with that. But the main stream media and the left are trying to twist this into the Catholic Church, conservatives, and Republicans trying to deny a woman’s access to birth control. But let’s examine what they are really demanding.

What is the purpose of birth control? It is to allow the enjoyment of sex without the fear of the natural purpose of sex, procreation. Okay, so it is not about marriage, it is not about family, it is about fun. The left wants no restrictions on a woman’s access to recreational sex. As a believer in individual liberty, my personal views aside, that’s fine. But don’t make me pay for it! If a woman and her partner cannot afford the $10 for a month’s worth of recreational sex, don’t pick my pocket for it. Get a second job if you have to (we’re talking about 90 minutes per month at minimum wage). Is ObamaCare going to pay for my wine or my green’s fees so I can drink a glass of red for my heart and play a round of golf for exercise? Both of those activities provide better health benefits than sex, and if the two sex partners don’t know themselves that well it can be down right dangerous for them between disease and violence.

The Wrong Direction

Instead of declaring free recreational sex as a right, perhaps it’s time to look at the incontrovertible evidence. President Obama is obsessed with income inequality and yet he goes against the formula for addressing it.  The evidence shows that the formula to get out of poverty and stay out is:

1. Graduate high school
2. Get a job, any job, and stay employed
3. Get married before you have children.

Yet what is this president’s program?

1. Favor teachers over students. Fight school vouchers, fight Scott Walker in Wisconsin trying to get public sector unions under control including teachers.
2. Add crushing regulations and massive spending on to an economy where the official end of the recession was almost three years ago. It doesn’t feel like it because of all the baggage this administration has loaded on it. At the same time in Reagan’s first term, the economy was growing at over 8% compared to this president’s 1%-2%.
3. He gave one good speech on a father’s responsibility, but his signature program ObamaCare is promoting free recreational sex and he and the rest of the Democrats are campaigning on it.

Obama has a better formula, tax the most productive among us. Ever feel like we are living the Decline of the Roman Empire. We may have one last change to stop the train wreck this November.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Congress passed yet another extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits. The Republicans did it to take the political issue off the table for the election. Tim Bishop and the Democrats passed it because they think it is good governing.

Payroll taxes are for a very specific purpose, to fund Social Security and Medicare, the two entitlement programs that are growing at a dangerous rate. So, hey, what better idea than to take money away from them. Let’s look at it very simply.

Suppose there was no Social Security and instead everyone had individual retirement plans and were contributing the same amount to those plans that they currently pay into Social Security. In tough times, maybe you scale back those contributions, but you fully realize that there will be an impact down the road. Either you will have less money when you retire, or you will have to contribute more when you are back on your feet to catch up. That is living in a responsible world. But Tim Bishop doesn’t live in a responsible world. He lives in an entitlement world which means he hands out goodies to buy votes and when later comes, he won’t be around to answer for it. He will be too busy admiring some post office that got named after him for his dedicated service.

The payroll tax is basically robbing from Social Security. There is no choice involved. If you had your own plan you would have the liberty to decide if you wanted to cut back on contributions to your retirement or not. Some would, some might not. There is nothing being discussed in Congress to increase the payroll tax once the Obama administration stops killing the recovery. Again, if there were private plans, you could decide to pay more into the plans when you are working again. There is nothing being discussed in Congress to decrease future benefits to make up for the shortfall in contributions. Once more, if you had a private plan those would be options you would be at liberty to choose among. Instead we have this from The New York Times:

Democrats could count far more policy victories in the bill: the payroll tax break will not be paid for, large changes that Republicans sought to the unemployment insurance program were not realized, and the program was extended far beyond what the opposing party sought.

Did you get that folks? It is a victory for Democrats that we don’t pay for this so that the Social Security problem that President Obama so scrupulously avoided in his latest budget fantasy just gets kicked down the road. What we really need to do is kick Tim Bishop and the rest of his Democrat colleagues in the House and the do-nothing Democrats in the Senate under Harry Reid out of Congress. Let’s replace them with grown-ups who will make the tough choices to get us back on the same track for the good of the country rather than their personal self-interest.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

President Barack Obama has a new budget. So it’s time to suspend reality and listen and nod your head and pine for four more years.

President Obama promised in 2009 to halve the deficit by the end of his first term. The last fiscal year budget deficit under Bush was $482 billion. In the four years of Obama’s first term it has yet to be less than $1 trillion. As former New York City Mayor Ed Koch used to asks his constituents, “How’m I doing?”

So while Obama’s new budget promises another trillion plus deficit, but don’t worry he will cut $4 trillion in spending over the next ten years. Never mind that even if he is reelected 60% of that timeline is beyond his control. It should also be pointed out that $4 trillion over ten years is only $400 billion a year, which leaves another $600 billion to be added to the national debt each year.

If that is not smoke and mirrors enough, that $4 trillion includes $1.5 trillion in tax increases. Why does this president and his backers insist that we have to take more money from the production of America’s citizens to cover his spending, rather than cutting his spending to fit within the available revenues?

For his first two years in office he worked with a Democrat controlled Congress. He got everything he asked for and everything is worse. We have staggering debt despite his promises to cut the deficit in half, unemployment worse than when he took office despite his promises to that his stimulus would cap unemployment at 8%, we have ObamaCare striking right at the heart of the First Amendment and he basically says, “get over it.”

Enough is enough. The experiment failed. It is time to cut this man loose and start working to repair the enormous damage he has done.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Rick Perry at CPAC 2012

At CPAC this week, Rick Perry visited the Blogger Lounge and while there spoke briefly about the Keystone Pipeline.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOJmJklM_po

While President Obama is planning on raising taxes and spending another trillion dollars more than the government takes in for yet another feeble attempt at a government led job recovery, private industry jobs are ready to go, but he has killed it and China stands to benefit. Sure he will tell us that he is only delaying the decision until after the election to give time to study the issue in greater detail.

Similarly, he is bragging now about opening more acreage to oil drilling after he put a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, waiting until the oil rigs sailed into the sunset in search of more favorable countries, so now he can blame the oil companies for not drilling.

But getting back to the Keystone Pipeline, the argument of the environmentalists is that this pipeline will jeopardize a large drinking water aquifer in the mid-west. But this map proves otherwise.

Ogallala Aquifer Map

If you click on the link to enlarge the map you will see that the Ogallala Aquifer is already criss-crossed with many pipelines today and that the proposed Keystone Pipeline passes over the upper corner of the aquifer but otherwise goes around it.

This is purely Obama desperately trying to hold some kind of coalition together. But as in the recent battle with the Catholic Church over ObamaCare and contraception, he has supporters on both sides of the issue, a no-win situation. In this case it is the environmentalists on one side and union construction workers on the other. He continues to build upon his record and that record is a disaster for America.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.