H/T to iOwnTheWorld
Archive for February 28th, 2011
One TEA Party member surrounded by pro-union thugs trying to shut down his rights of free speech…
This is typical of progressives. They refuse to debate with facts and when they lose a debate the next step is to silence their opposition with foul language and threats of violence. Notice who was civil and what group was uncivil?
Anything Obama endorses, or touches, seems to fail. Obama pimped Government Motors’ hybrid Chevy Volt and it has been exposed as a dud. Go figure.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – General Motors Co’s (NYSE:GM – News) mostly electric Chevy Volt turned in a lackluster performance for efficiency in its first series of road tests by product raters at Consumer Reports.
“We would have really liked to have loved it,” David Champion, director of Consumer Reports auto test center told Reuters on Monday after announcing the organization’s top picks for 2011.
“It was fun to drive and the ride quality was pretty good. But when you look at the finances, for us it doesn’t make any sense,” Champion said.
He said consumers seeking value and top fuel efficiency would be better off buying a top-performing gasoline/electric hybrid like the Toyota Motor Corp (NYSE:TM – News; Tokyo:7203.T – News) Prius or a Fusion by Ford Motor Corp. (NYSE:F – News)
Go with Ford, since they refused to be bailed out by the Obama regime.
Champion’s group rates ownership costs, reliability and performance in assessing value.
Consumer reports found that GM’s first generation plug-in hybrid, which is the resurgent automaker’s signature entry in the industry’s drive for greater fuel efficiency, fell well short of its maximum range potential under battery power.
Champion said the Volt that Consumer Reports bought and tested ran for 26 miles before the vehicle’s gasoline engine kicked in.
After promoting a 40-mile electric-only range for most of the Volt’s development, GM last year introduced a sliding scale of between 25 and 50 miles.
Just like the government’s ‘saved or created’ numbers.
The Toyota Prius, by contrast, gets 51 miles per gallon and the Ford Fusion gets 41 mpg.
Someone please tell Pelosi to STFU. She failed to pass a budget in 2010 and now she wants to stop negotiations to keep the government running. Most Americans want a government shutdown because this will stop the spending sprees from continuing. It looks like Nancy is the real obstructionist.
The Hill reports:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is showing no enthusiasm for the new proposal from Republicans to avoid a government shutdown, putting her at odds with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
Pelosi said in a statement that the GOP’s plan for a two-week spending bill cuts funding for critical programs.
“Republicans want to cut an additional $4 billion, which includes stripping support for some pressing educational challenges without redirecting these critical resources to meet the educational needs of our children,” Pelosi said in a statement. “This is not a good place to start.”
Pelosi’s comments came a day after Reid’s office released a statement cautiously applauding the latest continuing resolution proposal by House Republicans.
“The plan Republicans are floating today sounds like a modified version of what Democrats were talking about,” Reid spokesman Jon Summers said in the statement. “We’re glad they think it’s a good idea, but we should keep our focus on what we need to do to cut spending and keep our economy growing in the long-term. If we need a little more time to agree on a responsible path forward, we should pass a short-term CR for no longer than the next month.”
On Friday, the House Appropriations Committee released a two-week federal spending bill that would avoid a government shutdown when the current continuing resolution expires after March 4.
It’s a pay-to-play scheme. Unions, through their members, give Democrats huge amounts of cash and in return, Democrats give taxpayer dollars to their workers through higher salaries, health care benefits and generous pension plans.
The 14 Wisconsin Democratic senators who fled to Illinois share more than just political sympathy with the public employees and unions targeted by Gov. Scott Walker’s budget-repair bill.
The Senate Democrats count on those in the public sector as a key funding source for their campaigns.
In fact, one out of every five dollars raised by those Democratic senators in the past two election cycles came from public employees, such as teachers and firefighters, and their unions, a Journal Sentinel analysis of campaign records shows.
“It’s very simple,” said Richard Abelson, executive director of District Council 48 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. “We have interests and because of that we attempt to support candidates who support our interests. It’s pretty hard to find Republicans who support our interests these days.”
Critics of Walker’s budget-repair bill say it would mean less union money for Democrats. That’s because the legislation would end automatic payroll deductions for dues and would allow public employees to opt out of belonging to a union.
According to records compiled by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, the 14 Senate Democrats have raised a total of $1.9 million in campaign dollars since the start of 2007. Out of that sum, public employee unions and individual government workers contributed at least $344,000.
In truth, the figure may be even higher, but candidates don’t have to identify the occupations of those giving $100 or less.
Posted in Political Issues, tagged collective bargaining, federal employee, health insurance, pension plans, President Obama, unions, Wisconsin, Wisconson Governor Scott Walker on February 28, 2011 | 4 Comments »
Informing a big mouth President, who tends to speak before knowing the facts, about what is actually happening in Wisconsin = PRICELESS!
Gov. Scott Walker on Monday afternoon responded to comments President Barack Obama made earlier in the day about the protests in Madison:
Walker’s office issued this statement:
“I’m sure the President knows that most federal employees do not have collective bargaining for wages and benefits while our plan allows it for base pay. And I’m sure the President knows that the average federal worker pays twice as much for health insurance as what we are asking for in Wisconsin. At least I would hope he knows these facts.
“Furthermore, I’m sure the President knows that we have repeatedly praised the more than 300,000 government workers who come to work every day in Wisconsin.
“I’m sure that President Obama simply misunderstands the issues in Wisconsin, and isn’t acting like the union bosses in saying one thing and doing another.”
Typical Obama. He often speaks out without knowing the facts. Obama came out and said“I don’t think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified or their rights are infringed upon.” Obama quickly responds to defend his union goons but still hasn’t made a statement about the 4 Americans killed by Muslim Somali pirates.
I don’t think its a ‘right’ for union members to demand the taxpayers to foot the bill for their health care benefits and pension plans that allow them to retire at the age of 50. Wonder why nobody is pointing out the fact that Obama froze federal worker’s salaries??
H/T to DrudgeReport
This guy is totally clueless and a deliberate liar. Only two states in the union have a balanced budget. The other 48 face deficits of millions and billions of dollars. How exactly did his failed $812 billion stimulus help states ‘manage’ their budgets? It just pushed the can down the road for two years.
Obamanomics is a proven failure.
I detest smoking but these numbers are shocking.
Caroline May reports, via The Daily Caller:
In Fiscal Year 2010, the federal excise tax on cigarettes (currently $1.01 per pack) brought in $15.5 billion in revenue. That money went to fund an expansion of the federal State Children’s Health Insurance (SCHIP) program, which provides funding to states for health insurance for families that do not qualify for Medicare, but are still considered of modest means.
Point this out to Obama, and his defenders, the next time one of them makes the claim that he hasn’t raised taxes. Yes, Obama made this claim during his interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. His first week in office, Obama signed a ‘sin-tax’ bill that raised taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, firearms and ammo.
Cigarette sales are a boon to states as well. The tax imposed on cigarette packs varies by state, with Missouri having the lowest tax at 17¢ per pack and New York having the highest tax at $4.35 tax per pack.In 2009, states raked in more than $24 billion by taxing cigarettes and $8.8 billion in settlement payments from tobacco companies (under the 1998 tobacco Master Settlement Agreement).
Hans Bader, counsel for special projects at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, cited a number of studies pointing out, in an admittedly macabre fashion, that smokers also save taxpayers money by dying sooner and more quickly than the rest of the population.
“Smokers actually save the government money, both by dying earlier and thus reduce social security payments, and, to a lesser extent, by dying of relatively cheap ailments like lung cancer, a fairly quick killer, rather than more expensive, lingering ailments,” Bader told The Daily Caller.
I’m surprised Democrats don’t push smoking more since they tend to take a pro-population control stance.
This is the reason for Obama’s flip-flop. Just today, Obama came out in support of allowing states to opt-out of his health care mandate. When you have left-leaning judges ruling that Obama’s health care law is a penalty and not a tax, you know things are going bad in Obamaland.
The Hill’sHealth Care Blog reports:
Federal judges who have ruled on the constitutionality of healthcare reform have split along but party lines, but they all agree on one thing: The law’s fine for failing to obtain health coverage is a penalty, not a tax.
The three federal judges who have upheld the law so far are all President Clinton appointees, while the two judges who struck it down are Republican picks, so the fact that there is common agreement on the point could be significant.
Outside legal circles, the distinction may seem like a semantic argument, but the distinction between a penalty and a tax became a sticking point during the reform law debate.
The Constitution grants the federal government wide latitude to impose taxes — but not penalties — for the population’s general welfare.
The Supreme Court is expected to take up the healthcare law in the near future, and the question of whether the so-called individual mandate to buy coverage is constitutional will loom large. If the court finds that the mandate is not within the power of the legislative branch, they could strike it down, potentially crippling the entire law.
Beginning in 2014, the healthcare law requires individuals to have coverage or pay a fine. The starting fine for an individual without health insurance will be as little as $95, but by 2016, the penalty jumps to $695, or 2.5 percent of taxable income, whichever is greater.
In September 2009, when the law was still being crafted, President Obama vigorously denied that the mandate to buy insurance — and its corresponding penalties — constituted a tax increase. That would have violated his campaign pledge not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year.
“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” Obama told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos during a contentious exchange.