Steny Hoyer claims that an expiration of the Bush tax cuts will be a Republican tax increase on the middle class
Last week Steny Hoyer claimed that when the Bush tax cuts expired at the end of this year that it would amount to a “Republican tax increase on working Americans.” He meant to say working class– or middle class– Americans.
He continued:
We have no intention of allowing the Republican tax increase — that their policies would lead to — to go into effect for working Americans. Period,” he said. “We’re going to act and make sure that the Republican phase out and increase in taxes does not end as they provided for in the laws they passed
This is some of the most convoluted logic that I have ever heard. Because the Democrats refused to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, the fact that these taxes are about to sunset means the Republicans will be responsible for raising taxes on working class Americans when the tax cuts expire at the end of this year according to Steny Hoyer. Good luck with that one.
President Bush and the Republicans tried for years to get the Democrats to agree with the idea of making the tax cuts permanent but were unable to get Democrat support– they opposed this effort at every turn– but now that those tax cuts are on the verge of ending these very same Democrats are trying to blame the impending tax increases on the Republican party?!
The gall that this man is showing is unbelievable, but still he went on to say something that I found very interesting when you consider the position of the Democrats over the last seven years or so:
If we left the Republican policies in place, their [working Americans] taxes would be increased next year. We’re not going to let that happen
I thought the Bush tax cuts were only given to the wealthy Americans, isn’t that what Democrats have been claiming all these years? With Steny Hoyer’s assertion that working class Americans would face a tax increase if the Bush tax cuts are not made permanent he is finally admitting that the Bush tax cuts were not just for the richest Americans after all.
After years of fighting against making the Bush tax cuts permanent– and after years of denying that working class Americans saw any decrease in taxes all of these years– suddenly the Democrats are going to fight to keep the working class tax cuts in place; the same tax cuts that they denied even existed all of these years?
These people are shameless.
During the campaign to fill the senate seat of retiring New Hampshire Republican Judd Gregg, Paul Hodes– the lone Democrat in the race and a proponent of extending unemployment benefits– has been taking shots at the Republicans in the race for not supporting the unemployment benefits extension.
Paul Hodes called those who opposed the measure “extremist, obstructionist, lying hypocrites who think you don’t have to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest but are holding up help for the neediest.”
As you can tell, Paul Hodes has some strong feelings about helping out those who have been out of work for an extended period of time. While his words about his opponents are damning, Paul Hodes actions– or more accurately, inactions– are even more damning (to himself) as they show he doesn’t quite live up to the hype.
Paul Hodes just couldn’t find the time to actually vote on this extension because he was too busy meeting with liberal bloggers to show up for the vote. While his vote did not mean anything because the vote passed anyway, it seems that if you are going to prod your opponents for having a differing opinion than yourself the least you could do would be to show up and cast your vote in favor of the legislation. His non-vote was the same as a no vote. He is no better than those whom he was condemning. In fact he is worse than his opponents; his opponents in the New Hampshire Senate race did not have a vote but he did, and he chose not to exercise it.
Paul Hodes is the “lying hypocrite” who could not be bothered to show up to vote on an issue he claimed to care so much about. He placed playing politics at a liberal bloggers convention about the issue of voting on extending the unemployment benefits to millions of Americans, and he is calling his opponents the “extremists?”
Maxine Waters to face trial for ethics violations
Maxine “we’ll nationalize the oil companies” Waters is the latest Democrat to face a trial by the House Ethics Committee– joining Charlie Rangel on the “swamp” list.
Yesterday a House Ethics sub-committee was set to unveil the charges against her, but she chose to move towards a trial instead of cutting a deal so the release of the charges has been delayed. The charges will probably be announced at some point next week.
Maxine Waters is a member of the Financial Services Committee– how she was able to hold onto her position on the committee while the investigation was underway is beyond me– and she has been accused of using her position on the committee to help a small bank, in which her husband is a shareholder, in an attempt to get federal aid by arranging a meeting between federal regulators and the bank, without ever disclosing that her husband was a shareholder and former board member.
The Congressional Black Caucus– of which both Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangel are members– has come out swinging against the Office of Congressional Ethics (this office decides which ethics complaints to bring to the Ethics Committee and which to drop), claiming that the office is ” unfairly and disproportionately” targeting them and has too much power; they have begun to work on legislation which would cut down their influence.
Isn’t that a typical response? Instead of bringing to justice the people who have wronged the American people, the Congressional Black Caucus yells racism and decides the answer to cutting down on ethics violations is to look into fewer allegations.
Janet Napolitano looks at granting amnesty to illegals without immigration reform legislation
Just over a month ago, I wrote a post about a rumor that Barack Obama was planning to sign an executive order that would grant illegal immigrants amnesty if he was unable to get the 60 votes needed to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill using conventional– and constitutional– means.
It now looks as if I was wrong; Barack Obama is not planning to grant illegal aliens amnesty by using an executive order to bypass the constitution after all. BUT! Janet Napolitano is looking at ways to implement new immigration policy through Homeland Security that would grant illegal aliens amnesty without legislation ever being passed by the Congress and signed by the president.
According to a memo that National Review Online found, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is looking at ways to use deferred action in order to grant groups of people amnesty. We all know what this means– amnesty will be granted to whoever the Obama regime sees fit.
This news is as unwelcome as it is insidious!
America does not need a government that rules by decree or proclamation. We do not need a government which is unwilling to listen to the will of the people. The Obama regime needs to learn that they work for us!
The constitution sets up a clear procedure for passing laws. This regime either doesn’t understand that procedure or they do not care about it. The constitution was designed to ensure that power wasn’t concentrated in one branch of government– most notably the executive branch, but if this news is true, it is becoming obvious that the Obama regime is unwilling to live within the framework of the constitution.
This regime is hell bent on passing amnesty for illegal aliens and they seem willing to do it without the Congress– and by proxy, the American people– having a true open and honest debate on the issue. And the reason for this is clear; when George W Bush tried to pass amnesty for illegal aliens the American people rose up and stopped the bill from becoming law, and they know that if we are allowed to voice our opinions we will stop this bill once again. The Obama regime can not have this, so instead of debating this issue, they are readying an attempt to declare amnesty for illegals by proclamation.
The only thing that could possibly be worse than Congress passing comprehensive immigration reform against the will of the American people would be Barack Obama’s regime dictating to the American people amnesty policy without allowing the Congress to vote on it.
We can not allow this to happen; if the Obama regime is allowed to get away with this, what the next proclamation be? If the Obama regime is allowed to get away with this then it doesn’t matter what happens in November because the Obama regime will just bypass all constitutional procedures in order to decree its will on the American people by dictate. OUR VOTE WILL MEAN NOTHING!
So much for the “consent of the governed.”
Charlie Rangel indicted for 13 ethics violations
While trying to follow the Charlie Rangel saga on my Blackberry during breaks at work I have to admit that it was an up and down day for those of us who consider the ethics of a member of the Congress of the utmost import.
First came word that Charlie Rangel had reached an agreement with the Ethics Committee and would avoid indictment and a public trial. This news was unwelcome to say the least. But then, a couple of hours later, I learned that this agreement was just a tentative agreement and that until the Ethics committee actually voted to accept it the process was going to move forward. This news gave me hope that justice still had a chance in this case, but I was still anxious about the possibility that the Ethics Committee would cave in and help Charlie Rangel save face. This was soon followed by the news that the Ethics Committee had read off 13 ethics violations that Charlie Rangel was alleged to have committed.
Still, Charlie Rangel hoped that if he admitted to some of these violations that some type of deal could be reached. That was not to be; in the end the four Republicans held firm and refused to agree to the terms of Charlie Rangel’s agreement and he has been formally indicted on all 13 ethics violations.
While the fact that a member of the House could have been involved in numerous violations of ethics is never good news, it is certainly good news that the Ethics Committee did not cave in at the last hour to wipe out two years worth of investigations just to let Charlie Rangel save a little face.
Charlie Rangel now has two choices; he can either resign, if he resigns the Ethics Committee will not be able to pursue charges against him: or he can stand and fight these charges.
Considering that Charlie Rangel was willing to admit to some of these violations in order to avoid trial we are left with the impression that he is probably guilty of some of the violations. Why would he be willing to accept some blame if he was truly blameless? This isn’t just one or two ethics violations which could possibly be chalked up to sloppiness, the fact that there are thirteen violations makes it seem inevitable that he will be found guilty of at least some of the charges.
Taking this into account, it seems that the only viable option that Charlie Rangel has is to resign from the Congress. And we can bet that many vulnerable Democrats– and party leadership– will be pressuring Charlie Rangel to resign so that a protracted trial will not hamper the Democrats chances to maintain control of the Congress. The last thing that Democrats want– or need– is an ethics trial during the campaigns for the November elections.
It is going to be interesting to see which Democrats come to his defense and which Democrats– Nancy Pelosi in particular– call for his resignation. Nancy Pelosi promised to “drain the swamp” of corruption, but up until this point she has stood behind Charlie Rangel.
Can she still stand behind him now? We know for certain that if Charlie Rangel were a Republican she would already have tried to “drain the swamp” of this corrupt politician before he ever made it to trial.
As of right now, Charlie Rangel insists that he will not resign and states that he will run for re-election. While I believe that he should resign, part of me hopes that his stubbornness will not permit him to step down. Let this be an issue heading into the November midterm election, and let Democrats take a stand as being either for an indicted member of their own party, or being for ending corruption in Washington– even if the offender is one of their own.
Last weekend Harry Reid assured liberal voters that a public option would eventually be part of the healthcare reform law, and it didn’t take long for Democrats to begin working on an amendment to the healthcare reform law which will add a public option to the law.
In the post that I wrote about Harry Reid’s comment, I went into some depth about how the healthcare reform law was designed to ensure that a public option would eventually have to be added to the law, I am not going to repeat myself in this post because I want to focus on the fact that my congressman– Carol Shea-Porter– is actually a co-sponsor of the bill to add a public option to the healthcare reform law. You can read my previous post about Harry Reid’s comment here.
I can’t even begin to put into words how upset I am that my congressman not only supports H.B. 5808, but is actually a sponsor of the bill. Democrats were forced to give up the idea of a public option in order to pass healthcare legislation, but now it is back on the table. And I have to look no further than my own backyard to see who is to blame for bringing back the most contentious and controversial part of the original healthcare legislation.
Liberals never give up even when they lose, and they lost on the issue of including a public option in the healthcare reform legislation, but true to form the liberals have circled the wagons and are now ready to amend a bill that hasn’t even been fully enacted yet.
Carol Shea-Porter’s poll numbers are tanking and it looks like a very good bet that she could lose her House seat and in the midst of fighting for her political life she decides that she wants to take on this battle right before the election? I say, bring it on! This could be the final nail in her political coffin.
She has been dodging the voters by holding telephone town hall meetings (when she has even bothered to meet the voters at all) ever since the Summer of discontent that started the Tea Party movement, and she is still hiding from us. She knows that the public option is as unpopular as the healthcare reform bill that she supported– if not more so– yet she is sponsoring this legislation because this is what Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi want her to do. This is why she and her counterpart, Paul Hodes, have been dubbed the Pelosi twins by the New Hampshire Union Leader.
Carol Shea-Porter went to Washington and promised to represent the voters of New Hampshire, but by voting with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid over 95% of the time she has shown that she represents Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid– not the voters of New Hampshire. It is time to vote this woman out of office, if you had any doubts about how out of touch with the voters of New Hampshire Carol Shea-Porter is, this should be all that you need to know about her to realize it is time for us to fire her!
Financial Regulation Law exempts the SEC
When FOX Business Network filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), they inadvertently stumbled upon a little jewel that was hidden in the recently passed Wall Street Reform bill– the SEC has been exempted in the reform, and is not required to release any documents to the public, even under a FOIA request.
When Barack Obama was touting this legislation he claimed that this bill would bring transparency to the financial world:
Indeed, in touting the new law, Obama specifically said it would “increase transparency in financial dealings.”
Barack Obama is a master at saying one thing even as he is doing the exact opposite (one needs to look no further then his signing a bill with thousands of earmarks in it while claiming that we needed earmark reform– and that is just one example) and this is just the latest example of that.
Needless to say, many people are not happy with this new revelation:
Steven Mintz, founding partner of law firm Mintz & Gold LLC in New York, lamented what he described as “the backroom deal that was cut between Congress and the SEC to keep the SEC’s failures secret. The only losers here are the American public.”
The SEC will still be allowed to operate in secrecy, despite the new regulations designed for transparency and it looks as if there was a backroom deal made in order to get this exemption.
Backroom deals were enough to derail the DISCLOSE Act once it became known that the NRA, AARP, and most unions had cut backroom deals in exchange for their support for the legislation, but unfortunately this deal was missed and it was able to sneak through. We are left to wonder once again if congress voted on the bill without reading it, or did they read it and agree with the SEC exemption? Which is worse? I am not sure.
The American people are getting sick and tired of reading about all of these backroom deals. Barack Obama promised two things; he promised to bring transparency to Washington and he promised to change the way Washington did business. He has failed on both accounts, and he needs to be held accountable in November.
Judge blocks Arizona’s immigration law
Today Judge Susan Bolton has put a stop to most of the controversial aspects of Arizona’s new immigration law which was due to go into effect tonight at midnight. This decision is not surprising but it is disappointing nonetheless. There was no way in hell that a federal judge was going to allow this legislation to be implemented while the federal government was challenging its constitutionality.
Here is a list of the portions of the Arizona immigration law that have been blocked:
• Forbidding police from releasing anyone they have arrested until that person’s immigration status is determined;
• Making it a violation of Arizona law for anyone not a citizen to fail to carry documentation;
• Creating a new state crime for trying to secure work while not a legal resident;
• Allowing police to make warrantless arrests if there is a belief the person has committed an offense that allows them to be removed from the United States.
Let’s look at these issues one at a time.
First: the law would allow the Arizona police to hold a person until their immigration status is confirmed. If a person is arrested and does not have the proper identification there is no reason that the police should not be allowed to verify the person’s immigration status, yet now the police will not be able to hold this person. If an American citizen is stopped for a vehicular violation that person is REQUIRED to show identification– IE a drivers license– if that person does not show the proper drivers licence they are punished. Yet a perspective illegal alien– under this ruling– is not subjected to the same laws that an American citizen is held to. They will be allowed to walk away while an American citizen will be subjected to additional charges. This is not fair no matter how you look at it.
This leads us directly into issue two: a immigrant who is in this country either legally or illegally is not going to have to carry their immigration papers with them. As I stated above, American citizens are required to carry their identification with them at all times that they may be driving, yet aliens will not be held to the same standards as Americans citizens.
Third: Arizona is not allowed to make it a state crime for an illegal alien to seek work, yet it is still a crime for an American citizen to hire an illegal alien. So under this ruling if an illegal alien seeks work and is hired by an American citizen, the illegal alien has done nothing wrong yet the American citizen can be prosecuted for hiring an illegal alien. How does this make any sense whatsoever? This ruling is backwards. How can an American citizen be prosecuted for a crime when the person that the citizen has hired is allowed to walk free? This is not a defense of a person or company who hires illegal aliens– I believe they should be punished, but so should the person who was here illegally looking for that same job that the American citizen provided.
Fourth: Arizona will not be able to arrest a suspected illegal alien without a warrant. Honestly, this is the one aspect of the bill that I do not favor. If a person is suspected–but his or her status is not known– of being here illegally there is no need in my opinion to deny this person his or her constitutional right under the fourth amendment before their immigration status is known. Once it is determined that the person is here illegally they should lose all constitutional rights, but until that point they must be considered to have constitutional rights. We cannot begin to usurp the constitution for no reason or it will just lead to more constitutional infringements on the American people.
So as this legislation makes its way through the courts our borders will remain open and Jan Brewer’s efforts to protect the citizens of her state are for naught. Barack Obama and Eric Holder are suing the state of Arizona over jurisdiction– claiming that it is the federal government’s job to enforce immigration policy; and they will probably win for even though the constitution does not directly mention immigration there is already case law on this subject in their favor. The Supreme Court has already ruled in the case of Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong that because the constitution grants congress the power to regulate the naturalization process in Article 1 Section 8, that this naturally extends to the federal government the authority to create and enforce immigration law.
Jan Brewer has vowed to fight on and I admire her for that, but this is a losing effort– the Obama regime is going to win this battle. But this does highlight exactly where Barack Obama stands on this issue. The federal government has the authority to enforce immigration law but they are unwilling to do so. And they are unwilling to do so because Barack Obama favors the people who are in this country illegally more than he does in protecting the American people from the violence of the drug cartels at the American border.
Jan Brewer was trying to protect her residents because the Obama regime does not care to do so, but because she was going against the wishes of the Obama regime by enforcing federal immigration law she has run afoul of the regime. Who enforces the law when the federal government refuses to do so? Nobody, according to the Obama regime and this justice department. Arizona passed this law as one last desperate plea to the federal government for help securing the border and protecting American citizens, hoping that this would show Barack Obama how desperate the situation has become. But what does Barack Obama do? He uses this for the sole purpose of trying to gain support for giving amnesty to illegal aliens while ignoring the plea of a beleaguered governor and her people.
If this case does nothing more than prove to the American people that Barack Obama does not have the protection of the citizens as his first priority while favoring the rights of people who broke the law to get here instead, perhaps some good will come of this fiasco. At least this case will shine a light on the inadequacies of the federal government and its failure to secure the borders while Americans are being killed by the drug cartels.
It is just a shame, who knows how many Americans will be murdered or robbed, and who knows how many Americans will have their property vandalized by people who have come over the border illegally after this decision was rendered who could have been stopped and deported.
Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Susan Bolton will have blood on their hands for every illegal alien that commits a violent crime which could have been prevented if it wasn’t for this ruling.
DISCLOSE Act defeated in the Senate
After the Supreme Court ruled PARTS of the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform law unconstitutional Democrats began to craft legislation to counter the Supreme Court’s decision; this new legislation was called the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act (DISCLOSE Act.)
But a funny thing happened on the way to limiting the biggest corporations and unions from disclosing the money spent on campaigns– they were exempted. The most publicized exemption was gained by the NRA, but the AARP was also exempted, and it turns out that language in the bill exempted many of the biggest labor unions as well because according to this article:
Aggregate contributions of $600 or more would be disclosed. Why start at $600? Why not $200 or, say, $500? Because most union members’ dues aggregate less than $600 in a calendar year and thus members’ contributions to labor’s campaign-related spending wouldn’t need to be disclosed . . . even to the union members whose dues are spent for political purposes.
Democrats were so desperate to pass the DISCLOSE Act before the November mid-terms that they granted exemptions to the biggest campaign contributors to both parties, rendering this legislation useless. This was a political stunt designed at shoring up the party base, there was no real reform here– the bill had no teeth.
Today the Senate voted for cloture on the DISCLOSE Act and it failed 57-41. Harry Reid is still vowing to bring this bill to the floor for a vote in time to affect the mid-term elections, but I find it highly unlikely that anything will get done in time.
Democrats will now try to use this vote as a way to paint the Republicans as being in bed with big businesses– again playing to their base. But anyone that is paying attention has to be asking themselves what kind of reform this was in the first place if some of the biggest campaign donors were exempted from this legislation.
By a vote of 28-9, the Massachusetts senate passed a bill that would circumvent the electoral college and allot all of Massachusetts electoral votes to the candidate that won the popular vote, even if that person did not win the popular vote in the state of Massachusetts. The bill is now headed to Deval Patrick’s desk for his signature and it appears likely that he will sign the bill, as he has already stated his support for it.
As I stated in this article when I first wrote about the possibility of the Massachusetts senate passing this bill, I don’t really have a problem with Massachusetts changing the manner in which it assigns its electoral votes because the Constitution in Article 2 Section 1 states that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector,” but is says nothing about HOW each state is supposed to appoint their electors. Massachusetts has the state right to determine how their electors are chosen, if they decide to chose their electors by the results of the national popular vote, that is their right.
But where I do have a problem with this movement is in the fact that it appears to be a nationally organized movement to circumvent the electoral college that the Constitution calls for by organizing this movement is several states at the same time in an attempt to nullify this clause in the constitution. This is not simply one state decided that it was time to change their method of chosing electors.
Supporters of this movement have already organized on a national level and with Massachusetts about to join the movement, have six states that have agreed to use the national popular vote to determine how their electors vote. The other five states being Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington. Once enough states have adopted this language the Constitution will be changed and we will have not even gone through the amendment process to change it.
If this was simply states acting on their own behalf I would not have a problem with this at all, but the fact is that this is an effort that is being undertaken on a national level with the end result being a circumvention of the Constitution.
Massachusetts House Minority Leader Richard Tisei summed it up best:
The thing about this that bothers me the most is it’s so sneaky. This is the way that liberals do things a lot of times, very sneaky,” he said. “This is sort of an end run around the Constitution.
As a national movement, the National Popular Vote campaign should be using the proper constitutional amendment procedure as stated in Article 5 of the Constitution: ‘The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” But that is not what they are doing here, they are using a national movement to gather support in enough states to circumvent the Constitution instead of trying to gain enough support to amend the Constitution.
Richard Tisei is right, this is sneaky. And they are on the verge of pulling it off. As we have been told time and time again America is a land of laws, but if we cannot trust liberal groups to use the laws as laid out in the Constitution to amend the Constitution, how can we trust them to obey any laws?
There is a widespread belief among the American people– I don’t know how popular it is, but it seems to be growing– that the presidential election should be decided by the popular vote, and while I do not believe that the popular vote is the way to go I could accept the result it if is was achieved by using the Constitutionally mandated procedure. What I cannot accept is the way this organization is going about changing the Constitution without amending it.
America's Watchtower 