If you ask conservatives what their number one priority is in the 2012 election, most will agree it is to unseat Barack Obama. Yet unless Rick Santorum can expand his base beyond social conservatives, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney may hand the election to Obama on a silver platter.

When Newt Gingrich is good, he is very, very good, but when he is bad he is awful. Romney has not won the hearts and minds of conservatives because of some of his past positions, his fumbling when he should strongly be defending himself, and his personal tar baby, RomneyCare. In the last debate Santorum almost pleaded for a focus on the national issues, but it only took a moment for Gingrich and Romney to roll back into the mud.

Romney has not been able to break out of the 25% neighborhood, but he hasn’t much fallen below it either. Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich each have a win under their belts, but Romney has either been first or second in each contest, which the others can’t claim.

Gingrich can rightfully claim to have led the Republicans out of the wilderness that they languished in for forty years. He can rightly claim that he worked to reform welfare, balance the budget, cutting the capital gains tax, and has worked hard to strengthen conservative causes. He also has some good ideas on taxes. That is what he should run on.

On the flip side, he resigned from Congress when it was clear to him that his own party was not going to reelect him Speaker of the House. In 1997 there was an attempted “coup” where several Republican leaders told Gingrich to step down or be voted out. Newt stood firm and prevailed, but after the 1999 election it was clear that he would not retain the Speaker’s gavel and he resigned. At the time Gingrich said, “I’m willing to lead but I’m not willing to preside over people who are cannibals.” On the one hand, Newt Gingrich through deft political skill got Bill Clinton to go along with welfare reform, balancing the budget and tax cuts which turned Clinton into a demigod among Democrats. On the other hand, his brinksmanship against Clinton, with the government shutdown and his handling of the impeachment, drove Republican approval ratings into the ground. Clinton was a masterful politician, so is Obama.

The Dark Side

In the nomination battle Gingrich has gone after Romney on some pretty bizarre points for a conservative. He has attacked him on being a free market capitalist. The super PAC that backs Gingrich put out a hit piece that was so full of errors, even Gingrich said it should be corrected or pulled. But is attacking free market capitalism conservative?

He attacked Romney for his investments and for having foreign bank accounts when he knew, or should have known that Romney’s investments were in a blind trust. For those who don’t know what a blind trust is, here’s a definition.

A financial arrangement in which a person, such as a high-ranking elected official, avoids possible conflict of interest by relegating his or her financial affairs to a fiduciary who has sole discretion as to their management. The person choosing the trust also gives up the right to information regarding the status of the assets.

The key point is that Romney “gives up the right to information regarding the status of the assets.” How can Newt attack him on his investments if Romney has no control or knowledge over them? So Newt either knew this and hoped no one would notice, or he didn’t bother to find out. Romney seems be more on top of his game, because in the debate when Newt attacked him on investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Romney shot right back that Newt had similar investments. Oops! Who would you rather have in the Oval Office, the guy who does his homework, or the guy who shoots from the hip?

The latest attack from Gingrich out today concerns Medicare fraud at a company called Damon Corporation. Damon was involved in Medicare fraud to the tune of about $25 million between 1988 and 1993. Bain Capital acquired Damon in 1989, while Romney was running Bain and he sat on the board of Damon. So according to the timeline Damon was already fraudulently filing Medicare claims before Bain bought them.

When tipped off by whistleblowers an investigation was started and Damon ultimately paid a fine of $116 million. Romney was never charged with any wrongdoing. So what is the point of Gingrich’s ad? Why are Democrats and unions running similar ads to Gingrich’s? This is not a new discovery. It was brought up when Romney ran for Governor in 2002 and a Google search finds a similar reference on a Huckabee blog in 2008. Romney said he learned of the issue and took steps to deal with it, prosecutors disagreed. More facts will certainly come out in the next few days, but it seems that Gingrich is writing Obama’s campaign playbook. It’s one thing for the Democrats to raise these petty issues, but it gives them a whiff of credibility if they can show clips of prominent Republicans mouthing the same charges.

The focus for both of them should be the guy in the White House. For Romney it’s about making the case that he is a reformed moderate and he has moved away from those positions and how he has to convince conservatives of that and of Republicans that he can beat Obama.

For Gingrich, he has to prove that he is not a flip-flopper between pro-free market or anti-free market; between government solutions or government being the problem; about creating an environment for success or demonizing success; about being pro-cap and trade or against the global warming hoax; about endorsing liberal Republican candidates because they can win or backing the most conservative, electable candidate.

I took up commenting on the political scene just before the last presidential election. I don’t want to try to survive another four years of Barack Obama. It will be no consolation to say,”Yeah, but do you remember how Gingrich ripped up John King of CNN?” Retiring Obama is job one.

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

As a conservative, I can’t help but admire Newt Gingrich’s performance in the Republican debates and lust for the opportunity to see him debate Barack Obama head to head. But then I have a nagging doubt that if Newt were to become the nominee, which Newt will show up?

On any given Monday, Wednesday, Friday or Sunday, Newt Gingrich will be a rock solid conservative that we can all get behind. However, on any give Tuesday, we will find him getting cozy on the couch with Nancy Pelosi to talk about fighting global warming. On any given Thursday, he will endorse a liberal Republican Congressional candidate like Dede Scozzafava in New York’s 23rd district, against a conservative Doug Hoffman and an even more liberal Democrat. On any given Saturday, he will attack capitalism as being predatory and his supporters will back it up with a half hour documentary that the web site “Fact Checker” gives four Pinocchios.

A number of Republicans who worked with Gingrich when he was Speaker of the House, including Tom Coburn who garners a 95% conservative rating, say they will have a very hard time getting behind a Gingrich candidacy. What do they know that we don’t?

If someone could guarantee that the Newt that is on the debate stage, is the Newt that we will remain through election day, I could see myself supporting him. However, if he were to win the nomination and then have a Tuesday, Thursday, or Saturday moment, we could see Obama coast to a reelection victory and I cannot imagine American surviving another four years of Obama. I want to back the most conservative candidate that can get elected, and that is my dilemma.

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

When last she held the Speaker’s gavel in the 111th Congress, Nancy Pelosi failed to pass a budget at all. This was the first such failure since 1974. But somehow Republicans are obstructionists. When asked in May of this year about the Senate passing a budget, Harry Reid had this to say, “It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage.” Foolish. But somehow Republicans are obstructionists.

When the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in January of this year, they promptly set about working on and passing a budget, which they did. But Republicans are the obstructionists. Harry Reid held a vote on the Republican budget in the Senate and it was defeated. We already know what Reid thought about putting together his own plan. So the Republicans put together a budget and pass it in the House, Reid puts it up for a vote in the Senate and it is voted down, but then says it would be foolish, foolish, to submit his own plan. And the Republicans are the obstructionists.

President Obama put together his own budget and then remarkably pulled it back when it was laughed at. He then submitted another budget plan. The Republicans in the Senate forced a vote on the Obama budget and it went down in flames 97-0, not even a single Democrat voted for it and yet Obama lectures us on Republicans being the obstructionists. Obama wanted a blank check, that is, a clean, no strings attached raising of the debt limit. No spending cuts. Okay, the Republicans said let’s vote on that (those obstructionists!). It failed 318-97 and there are only 242 Republicans in the House so they were joined by about half the Democrats, but remember, the Republicans are the obstructionists.

As the sides dig in for the debt limit battle, the Republicans passed Cut, Cap, and Balance in the House. When the bill went over to the Senate, Harry Reid held a vote to table it, that is, set it aside so that there is no debate or consideration of the bill let alone a vote on it. The Democrats didn’t want it on their record that they voted against Cut, Cap, and Balance when 66% of Americans support it. That measure passed and the bill was successfully obstructed , er, set aside. After all, we all know it is the Republicans who are the obstructionists.

In President Obama’s speech to the nation, he wasted no time saying that when he took office, the deficit was on a “trajectory” to hit a billion. And he did what to stop it? He increased it by half. Since he seems to be the only person left who still believes the “It’s all Bush’s fault,” let’s look at the record of spending under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, since after all the power of the purse lies with Congress.

Reid and Pelosi added $4.8 trillion to the national debt. The Republicans since taking over the House have tried to stop it so in a sense I guess they are obstructing the runaway spending. I kinda like that.

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

Two-faced can be such an overused term, but on the other hand two doesn’t seem to be enough to capture Harry Reid.

“Their unwillingness to compromise is pushing us to the brink of a default on the full faith and credit of the United States,” Mr. Reid said of Mr. Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader who also attended the session. “We have run out of time for politics. Now is the time for cooperation.

That’s how Harry Reid characterizes the Republican position in an article in today’s New York Times. They are stubborn, they won’t compromise, they have left poor President Obama standing at the alter, etc., etc. But just a little further on in the same article we have these gems.

Democrats, who have dug in against anything they see as a short-term extension that would require multiple votes on the debt increase before the end of next year, said they accepted the two-stage plan but wanted the full increase in the debt limit now.

“I will not support any short-term agreement, and neither will President Obama nor Leader Pelosi,” Mr. Reid said in a written statement earlier on Saturday. “We seek an extension of the debt ceiling through at least the end of 2012. We will not send a message of uncertainty to the world.”

“Dug in,” “not support,” sounds somewhat stubborn to me. So Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama “will not send a message of uncertainty to the world.” Really? How certain is not passing a budget for the past two years? How certain is not having any plan of your own other than to shoot down every proposal the Republicans put forth? How certain is not letting Cut, Cap, and Balance, which passed the House and according to a CNN poll is supported by two-thirds of Americans, even come up for a floor vote?

So how is the Republican demand that this is a spending problem best solved by cutting back on the $5 trillion that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid added to the debt since they took control of Congress in 2006, being stubborn, but Harry, Nancy and Obama’s insistent on taxing Americans more and more so that this trio can spend and spend, not unreasonable? The other demand that the debt be raised high enough not to be discussed again before 2013 is pure politics. Reid, Pelosi, and Obama want to bury this until after the next elections.

The Republicans are drawing a line in the sand, because they told the voters that they would get our fiscal house in order. The voters agreed and put Nancy Pelosi out of the Speaker’s chair and cut back on Reid’s power. They are standing up and honoring their campaign promise and in many cases saying they don’t care about the election of 2012. They came to Washington not to get reelected as their number one priority but to fix the problem. How refreshing is that?

But the Republicans have a tough fight as they are outgunned 3:1. The Republicans only hold the House of Representatives, while the recklessly spending Democrats hold the Senate, the White House, and the Main Stream Media who pump out whatever propaganda is fed to them by the White House. Hint: that’s why after months of no press conferences, Obama is holding daily press briefings.

The Republicans showed the courage to tackle the tough issues, put forth a budget, pass Cut, Cap and Balance in the House and are fighting to stop the runaway spending. All the Democrats have to say is No. We want to spend more. What do you say?

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

Mommy! Johnny Boehner didn’t return my phone call! Waaaah! Seriously? Is this what a president says in a press briefing? Good Grief!

Peggy Noonan wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, that captures the character of this president quite nicely.

For the longest time he wouldn’t engage, and now he’s engaged. For the longest time he didn’t care about spending, and now he cares about spending. Good, both in terms of policy and for him. But his decision to become engaged has become a decision to dominate, to have his face in front of the television cameras with his news conferences, pronouncements, and what his communications people are probably calling his “ownership” of any final agreement. He’s trying to come across as the boss, the indispensable man, the leader. And, of course, the reasonable one.

That’s all very nice and part of Political Positioning 101, but at this point it’s not helping. He’s becoming box-office poison. His numbers are falling. The RealClearPolitics composite job approval poll rating has him down six points since June 2, when the debt-ceiling crisis began. That fall, from 52% to 46%, exactly tracks his heightened media presence and his increased attempts to be seen as dominant. Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, said that if he ran for president today he’d lose, that his job-approval numbers are “worse than they appear,” and that he continues to have real trouble with undecided voters.

And if you’ve watched him lately, you know why. When he speaks on the debt negotiations, he is not only extremely boring, with airy and bromidic language—really they are soul-killing, his talking points—but he never seems to be playing it straight. He always seems to be finagling, playing the angles in some higher game that only he gets. In two and a half years he has reached the point that took George W. Bush five years to reach: People aren’t listening anymore.

The other day he announced the Gang of Six agreement with words that enveloped the plan in his poisonous embrace: “I wanted to give folks a quick update on the progress that we’re making.” We’re. He has “continued to urge both Democrats and Republicans to come together.” What would those little devils do without Papa? “The good news is that today a group of senators . . . put forward a proposal that is broadly consistent with the approach that I’ve urged.” I’ve urged. Me, me, me.

The Republicans have put forward plan after plan, the Democrats acting alone, none. Yes there is that gang of six or seven or whatever, but you will notice that the Democrats will not take a step into that minefield without a Republican at their side. But what have the Democrats done by themselves? President Obama puts forth a budget and when that is laughed off the air, he comes back a couple of weeks later with a new one. It’s unheard of for a president to do that, and then his budget is put up for a vote and it goes down 97-0. He couldn’t even find a single Democrat to vote for it? Do the Democrats in the Senate under Harry Reid vote for anything other than to block it?

Let’s recap the plans on the table:

While Obama, who shunned press conferences and briefings for months, now seems to hold one like Grace before meals, is all posturing all the time. He is also trying to paint the Tea Party patriots as unreasonably stubborn. Well, let’s revisit that one.

Do you remember a negotiation a few short months ago, after the 2010 election. The Republicans ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility and were rewarded with the overwhelming support of the American people. So they set about to work cutting $100 billion from the current fiscal year. Through intense negotiations with the president, the $100 billion became $30 billion (it’s okay, because it’s less than a full year). Then when that onion got peeled back there were only about $300 million in real immediate spending cuts. Snookered?

It is a time honored Democrat tradition to negotiate a deal and then welsh on it if they can. Ronald Reagan negotiated with Tip O’Neill to raise $1 in taxes for every $3 in spending cuts. The tax increase was immediate, the spending cuts never came. George H. W. Bush, negotiated spending cuts and the Democrats insisted on tax increases. Bush went along and then the Democrats ran on a platform that Bush broke his “Read my lips…” pledge. Let’s see, you get what you want and then you beat up the other guy for giving it to you?

So does anyone wonder why the Republicans might be digging in their heels. I have a suggestion for Speaker Boehner. Go play golf. Start the August recess early. Send everyone home. When the Democrats and the president find enough of a spine to put their plan on paper and present it to the Republicans to accept or reject, then perhaps we can consider this a negotiation among adults. But for right now it is the Democrats who are blocking every effort to put our fiscal house in order.

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

National Debt Clock A Long Time Ago When the Debt was Only $6 Trillion

Today the House of Representatives voted on a bill HR 2650, called the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill to get the runaway debt and deficit spending under control. The bill passed the house 234-190, will all but 9 Republicans voting for it and all but 5 Democrats voting against it. Tim Bishop voted no.

I had an opportunity to watch some of the floor debate and the Democrats wasted no time in going in to scare and distort mode. Almost every Democrat who rose to speak said the bill was an attack on Medicare and protecting the rich.

Medicare

But what are the facts on Medicare?

• Medicare is in dire need of reform. Medicare is the second largest federal program and is growing at a staggering 7% a year.  Its costing taxpayers nearly $500 billion a year, with long-term liabilities in excess of $38 trillion. Medicare spending is expected to double over the next decade.
• Conservatives have a plan to save Medicare. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) has offered a plan, which passed the House on April 15th, that would save Medicare for current retirees and future generations without rationing or benefit cuts. The Ryan plan would inject choice and competition into the program, and thus save money by making Medicare more efficient. The plan would take effect  in 2021, and would not affect current seniors. Everyone born before 1956 could keep their current Medicare, exactly as it is.
• The Democrats’ Medicare plan is rationing and benefit cuts. Democrats vehemently oppose the Ryan plan. Instead, their plan is to cut $500 billion out of Medicare, in order to fund their massive new ObamaCare entitlement. They created a rationing board of 15 unelected bureaucrats, known as IPAB, to impose these cuts. IPAB will slash what Medicare pays doctors and hospitals to the  bone. As a result, seniors will have trouble finding a doctor who will take them. Mr. Obama’s own Medicare experts predict 15% of hospitals will go out of business.
• The Ryan plan will allow patients to choose their Medicare plan. Starting in 2021, the Ryan plan would enroll new Medicare seniors in the same kind of health care program that Members of Congress enjoy today. Seniors will be able to choose the coverage that best meets their individual needs from a list of competing high-quality health plans. Why do Democrats oppose giving seniors the same good health care Congress enjoys?

Congress gave themselves a handsome $174,000 salary. Does anyone believe they would skimp on their own healthcare? So why is it a bad idea if seniors have the same plan as Congress?

President Obama’s Plan

The Democrats also talked about Obama’s plan. What plan? As several Republican lawmakers said, “If you have a copy of that plan on paper, slide it over, we’d like to see it.” But there is no plan from the Democrats, just like there has been no budget for the last two years. They say Obama is proposing $3 in spending cuts for each $1 increase in taxes. Where have I heard that before? Ah, yes, that was the deal Tip O’Neill negotiated with Ronald Reagan. They got the tax increases, but the spending cuts never happened. Reagan was lied to. So now President Obama is playing Lucy and he wants Speaker Boehner to be Charlie Brown. No thanks. If it’s not on paper, it doesn’t exist.

Even as they tried to demonize the Republican proposal they couldn’t help themselves; they had to keep talking about the need for “investment” which to Democrats is just a code word for spending. They don’t invest anything. Investing is what the evil rich do, the Democrats job is to take it from them and give it to their backers.

The Democrats also attacked the Republicans for wanting to change the Constitution. How it would be hard to spend money in an emergency or in a time of war. Which is just another lie. There are provisions in the bill to exceed the limits with a super majority. But leaving these lifetime politicians, many of whom never held a job in the private sector, to curb their own appetites to spend their way to reelection, reminded me of budgeting in the private sector. When the business was facing tough times the word came down for everyone to cut. Inevitably people would push back and say, “everything in my budget is critical, I can’t cut anything, you’ll have to get it elsewhere.” That response was typically met as follows. “You can cut it, or I will, but it will be cut. If you cut it, you can decide how it will least impact your responsibilities, but being further removed if I cut it you probably won’t like it.” That’s how it works in the private sector and that is how it will work with the Balanced Budget Amendment. Tough choices have to be made.

In 2007 after the Bush tax cuts of 2003, the Treasury took in more tax revenue than at any time in our history. This is not a revenue problem. It is a spending problem. Congress cannot tax their way out of this and trying to do so will kill the already moribund economy. Tim Bishop, are you listening?

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NddO5yMxicw&feature=player_embedded

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

Martin Luther King, Jr. gave a great oration with his “I Have a Dream” speech that moved millions of Americans to action. Howard Dean gave a puzzling oration with his “I Have a Scream” speech that moved millions of Americans to laughter and derision. Tim Bishop flops at oration with an “I Have a Scheme” remarks that will leave hundreds (he’d be hard pressed to reach millions), scratching their heads.

“After losing a district won by John McCain in 2008 and Carl Paladino in 2010, some thought House Republicans would take a step back. But, like a bad riverboat gambler waiting for his luck to change, they have doubled-down,” Bishop wrote to his supporters.

What the hell does that mean? I know that riverboat gamblers are a questionable group, but where does that put Tim Bishop?

• Tim Bishop voted for the massive stimulus bill that left a steaming pile of $3 billion in debt on his constituents doorstep (based on what percentage his district pays of total income taxes x the total stimulus bill), and in return we got what? As of today 28 May 2011, his district received $693 million in stimulus funds which resulted in 428 jobs (Recovery.gov website). According to my calculator that works out to $1,627,113 per job. Who got the bulk of the funding? The school districts, to protect teachers’ union jobs so they can come out and thank Congressman Bishop by voting him back into office.
• Tim Bishop ran for reelection almost exclusively on tarring his opponent for being an entrepreneur who started a company with offices around the world that did back office work for U.S. businesses. Bishop said outsourcing was bad, very bad. Bishop then voted to bail out GM and Chrysler and then Chrysler takes our tax dollars and builds a $570 million engine factory in Mexico. Can you say hypocrite? Personally, I believe we live in a global economy and work should flow to where it can be done most efficiently. The Wall Street Journal reports on a study by Dartmouth that shows that for every one job outsourced overseas, two jobs are created here in the U.S. So not only is he a hypocrite for running for reelection on an anti-outsourcing platform and then uses taxpayer dollars to outsource high paying union manufucturing jobs, he is ignorant of economics to boot. Lose, lose, lose. So, who’s the riverboat gambler doubling down?

Mr. Bishop continues:

“The Republicans insist the problem with their budget isn’t the substance, it’s the messaging. And just today, they put forward a ‘jobs plan’ which is nothing more than a warmed-over massive tax cut for millionaires which will blow an enormous hole in the deficit that their economic policies created.”

Let’s see, Mr. Bishop has been in office since 2002. In 2006, Nancy Pelosi took the Speaker’s gavel and at that time our national debt was $8 trillion going all the way back to George Washington. By the time she turned the gavel over to Mr. Boehner, the national debt stood at $13 trillion. Can Mr. Bishop, who voted with Nancy Pelosi 97% of the time by the way, please explain how anything the Republicans could propose could “blow an enormous hole in the deficit that their economic policies created”? Where was Mr. Bishop when all this alleged chicanery was going on? Scrubbing down the paddle wheels?

Not leaving well enough alone he wraps up with:

He added: “I have no doubt that in 2012, my opponent will look to make the same tired arguments against me. With your help, I will continue to fight for policies that are going to create jobs and boost our economy.”

The same tired arguments? Create jobs? What jobs? Any idiot could create a job with $1.6 million. Boost our economy? It’s two years since the recession officially ended and still the economy is lousy. Bishop spends too much, the unemployment rate in his district remains at 8%; and he and his fellow Democrats have no plan. The Ryan plan was passed by the House but lost in the Senate 57-40. That vote was followed by one on the Obama Budget II with went down in flames 97-0. Not a single Democrat senator wanted to attach their name to the president’s budget. At the same time, the Senate democrats have not put forth a budget of their own with Harry Reid even saying:

“There’s no need to have a Democratic budget, in my opinion,” Reid told the Los Angeles Times last week. “It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage.”

Foolish? The country’s fiscal house is engulfed in flames and Harry says it would be foolish to look for a fire hose.

Tim Bishop’s scheme is to keep a low profile and hope nobody notices what an awful job he is doing, try to make colorful references to characters out of dime store novels, and call actually having a plan a tired argument. Mr. Bishop, I’ll tell you what we are tired of, and it is not about plans to get us out of this mess.

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

The Tea Parties sprang to life after seeing cyincal politicians advance their own agenda that most Americans knew wouldn’t work, but damn the people, the politicians plowed ahead. It was about the time of the great stimulus program that we were told (and didn’t believe) the program would cap unemployment at 8% for the mere cost of nearly $1 trillion. If we didn’t act, the politicians somberly pronounced, we would face the dire situation of 9% unmployment.

New York Congressman Tim Bishop has introduced “The Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act,” which could be said is cynicism on steroids. Let’s start with the title. Does Mr. Bishop really believe that oil companies are receiving welfare? Welfare as most honest people know is where the government gives people money who are not working. It takes little questioning to figure out that is not happening in the case of the oil companies but, hey, lying works. Tim Bishop just ran his entire reelection campaign on personal attacks on his opponent rather than running on his record, so lies and distortion are his specialty. Let’s break it down.

What he wants to do is eliminate a tax break, not a subsidy, that the oil companies receive which equates to 6% of the income they get from domestic oil production. I am all for simplifying the tax code and eliminating all loopholes and at the same time reducing tax rates so on balance it is revenue neutral. But why stop with the five biggest oil companies? What about eliminating subsidies for ethanol? Wind? Solar? Crops? Electric cars? Mortgages? Uh, those wouldn’t be cool with the people Bishop needs to reelect him, but Big Oil, yeah everybody can hate Big Oil!

Bishop goes on to say that the extra revenue from the oil companies by eliminating the tax break will reduce the deficit by $13 billion over ten years or doing the math about $1.3 billion for one year which is 0.08% of the current one year deficit of $1.6 trillion. So, Mr. Bishop is cyinically trying to show he is concerned about the debt, and yet he voted against the Ryan budget proposal that would save $6 trillion; deficit reduction to Tim Bishop has to be symbolic not serious or real.

Lies, Lies and more Lies

Mr. Bishop, on his own website, says the following:

• I’m outraged that at $4 a gallon, Americans are still paying twice for gas: once at the pump and once on tax day,” said Congressman Bishop.  “Borrowing money to pay Exxon-Mobil to drill for oil they have every incentive to drill for already is Exhibit A for wasteful government spending.”
• Repealing the oil industry’s tax subsidies will not impact gas prices for American consumers.
• Bishop unveiled the bill at the Patchogue Village Department of Public Works facility on Waverly Avenue, which houses the gas pumps used by village, school, and fire district vehicles.  He was joined by Village Mayor Paul Pontieri, who described the effect high gas prices have on the Village’s budget.

These three bullets were from the same post on his website! He begins by saying he is outraged by the price of gasoline at $4 a gallon. He then says that his proposal will not affect gas prices. Then he uses the poor Patchogue Village mayor as a prop, to unveil his plan that Bishop  says won’t do a damn thing to solve the mayor’s problems. Do you wonder why Americans hate politicians?

Bishop is right about the gas prices. Exxon makes a profit of about $0.07 per gallon of gasoline. Bishop’s proposal will affect 6% of the profits they make on domestic production. It doesn’t take a mathematician to figure out at 6% of $0.07 is about half a cent per gallon. So why all the hoopla other than to create a false impression that this congressman is actually earning his $176,000 salary. That’s why Americans hate politicians.

Let’s move onto the next lie, paying the oil companies on tax day. With Memorial Day approaching we will be seeing a lot of sales from merchants. If you go to Lowe’s to buy that new grill and they advertise 10% off for Memorial Day, does the cashier reach into the drawer, take out some cash and give it to you? No. Ten percent off means you pay ten percent less. You do not come home with a grill and more money in your pocket than when you left the house. The same applies to taxes. Any tax break means you pay less in taxes, the government doesn’t pay you. The government doesn’t have any money except what it gets from you. That’s how it works. So tax cuts are where you get to keep more of your own property. It is not a payment from the government, it is not a cost to the government, IT’S NOT THE GOVERNMENT’S MONEY, it’s your money.

Okay, gas is expensive, so what do we do about that? Many on the right have said we should increase domestic production. So what does Tim Bishop do? His proposal is to remove a tax incentive on domestic production. That seems counterproductive. He also said he just voted against expediting domestic drilling permits. It would almost seem that Bishop wants to increase our dependency on foreign oil. He then goes on to say in a C-SPAN interview that domestic production is at an all time high, and that the oil companies have plenty of leases and they should just drill on the leases that they have.

The problem is that it takes about sixty leases to get one with a productive discovery of oil. What Mr. Bishop only mentions in passing is the value of the dollar as a contributing factor in the price of gasoline. I suggest that it is a more serious relationship than that and who has been destroying the value of the dollar by printing money and spending it like crazy? It was Tim Bishop who voted for the stimulus that accomplished nothing. Nancy Pelosi ran up the debt $5 trillion during her tenure as Speaker and Tim Bishop voted with her 97% of the time. Now he proposes meaningless legislation just to get some campaign sound bites, because attacking Big Oil is good politics. That’s why Americans hate politicians. They want their elected representatives to do things that work, not things that get the politicians another two years on the government’s payroll.

Here Mr. Bishop let’s his fig leaf slip and reveals his socialist leanings:

He noted that while continuing to enjoy the subsidy, the largest five oil producers have directed the lion’s share of their profits into dividends and stock buy-backs.

Think about the local green grocer. If he has a good year and he makes a profit, maybe he decides to put that profit into the bank. Would Tim Bishop object to that? Okay, who owns the oil companies? The stockholders. Mr. Bishop is basically saying that the people, maybe even a certain green grocer, who invested their hard earned money are not entitled to any of the profits from the oil companies they own in the form of dividends. They are not allowed to sell some of their stock back to the company in the form of a stock buyback so they can invest their money elsewhere. Perhaps some of those oil company owners are retirees who bought the oil company stocks for the dividends and because they believed the oil companies will be around for some time to come. Perhaps they don’t believe that Social Security is such a swell deal; few ponzi schemes are. Mr. Bishop takes exception to them getting a dividend increase now and then. In his twisted understanding of economics or lack thereof, the oil companies should be taxed more, its owners receive no profits, plow all profits back into exploration and development, and sell their product for less money, while he and his cohorts spend every last dollar that this country produces, to keep themselves in office, and have a claim on everything you own, except that which Mr. Bishop decides you can keep. But whatever you do, don’t call them socialists.

And that’s why Americans hate politicians.

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

On a report that his challenger from last fall, Randy Altschuler, may be looking at a rematch, Tim Bishop’s team wasted no time throwing away all pretense of what they preach to get back in the gutter to revel in the politics of personal attack.

What Bishop Says

In a speech on the floor of the House during consideration of a vote to repeal ObamaCare, Congressman Bishop had this to say:

“Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time this Congress does what President Obama called on Americans to do last week: approach our debates and our differences with civility and honesty. We appear to be doing reasonably well with regard to civility, but less so with honesty.”

What Bishop Does

Jon Schneider, Tim Bishop’s spokesman responded to the report of a rematch with juvenile name calling:

“Randy Outsourcer couldn’t win in a once-in-a-generation year for Republicans,” writes Jon Schneider, the spokesman, using the campaign’s negative nickname for Altschuler. “While Tim Bishop will be able to run in 2012 on his record of fighting House Republican efforts to cut 1,000 jobs at Brookhaven National Lab, Randy will remain a fatally flawed outsourcer with a track record of getting rich by shipping American jobs overseas.”

“Randy Outsourcer”? That is hardly civil nor honest. It is the kind of discourse you would expect in a grammar school lunchroom or schoolyard.

The Facts

Congressman Bishop’s main argument for reelecting him was that his opponent created a successful company that provided services to businesses and some of those services were provided from offshore locations. We live in a global economy, but don’t let facts get in the way. Will Mr. Bishop tell Canon, USA, to close their North and South American headquarters in Melville, which employs 1,200 Long Islanders, because everyone knows outsourcing is bad? Let’s send those jobs back to Japan where they belong! How about SRI, a German manufacturing and engineering giant looking at Long Island; or WiseCon and Surikat, two Chilean companies? Let us not forget all the foreign based auto companies that employ tens of thousands of Americans here in America. Go home foreigners!

But don’t look too closely at Bishop’s record. After all, he voted for the bailout with taxpayer money of GM and Chrysler. After getting our money Chrysler announced the construction of a $570 million engine plant in Mexico. GM for their part quickly announced that they were increasing their offshore production by 53%. These are high paying manufacturing jobs. So what does Congressman Bishop have to say about his proclivity to outsource using not his own money and taking risks on his own, but with our money? I’m still waiting on a response to the letter I sent to him nearly two months ago asking that very question.

Perhaps it is just a lack of understanding of economics. A study by Dartmouth’s Amos Tuck school of business found that for every job outsourced overseas, two new jobs were create here. In a global economy it is foolhardy to try pick and choose among products based on their country of origin. In 1989, I bought a Ford Probe GT. It was built by Mazda, in Canada, but Ford owned 25% of Mazda. So what was it? Who cares? Pursuing this line of thinking will take us back to the days of Smoot-Hawley tariffs that plunged us deeper into the Great Depression, but that shouldn’t be surprising. The progressives, like Tim Bishop, are doing everything else to mimic the Great Depression.

Time for a New Strategy

It is interesting that Mr. Schneider picked Tim Bishop’s current efforts to save the jobs of 1000 workers at the Brookhaven National Labs. He doesn’t mention his votes for ObamaCare, the Stimulus, the auto bailouts. While saving 1000 jobs is admirable, what about the rest of the 700,000 citizens in his district. He just wants to hand them the bill. Since government has no money except that which it gets from its citizens through taxes, every big government program has an invoice that has to be paid. Take, for example, the stimulus. His constituents share of that bill is about $3 billion. He “successfully” brought home $679 million according to www.recovery.gov. That would be like getting a $679,000 house for “free” with a $3 million mortgage attached to it. Are there any takers out there for that deal?

Next time around Mr. Bishop may actually have to run on his record, but let’s leave the taunts and childish names behind and have an adult debate on the issues. The people of the district deserve as much.

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

Michelle Bachmann let off the three day CPAC conference with a keynote address that laid out the case against the current administration and the rule of Nancy Pelosi. Most of the focus of her talk was on raising the alarm on our current financial situation and its urgency.

When the Nancy Pelosi took the Speaker’s gavel in January of 2007, the national debt stood a eight trillion dollars, not a meager sum by any means. To illustrate she pointed out that if a dollar was a second of time, a trillion seconds equates to thirty-two thousand years. It took two hundred and thirty years for the America to accumulate that much debt. In the four years that the Democrats controlled Congress and the two years that President Barack Obama occupied the White House, the debt increased by 75% to fourteen trillion dollars. That is truly astounding.

Much of that debt is being funded by foreign countries including China. She mentioned President Hu Jintao of China being perfectly happy with our borrowing binge, prompting her to ask, “Hu’s your daddy?” She asked who in the crowd was of college age and then addressed her next point to them. If we do not get our financial situation under control, she told them, you will be paying about one-third of your income to cover Social Security. If you add to that your federal income tax you may be rates up to 75% of your income in your peak earning years.

She then called on the assembled to complete the task they started with the major electoral victory this past November with a repeat performance in 2012, to take control of the Senate and the White House.