IS GM REALLY ALIVE?

The Democrats, and espceially VP Joe Biden, made the claim that "...and GM is Alive". Is that true?

Well it depends on what alive means. Consider this article, The Democrats' GM Fiction, as published in the NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE. George W Bush started the TARP bailout, but...

President Obama’s unique contribution was effectively to nationalize the company, seeing to it that the federal government violated normal bankruptcy processes and legal precedent to protect the defective element at the heart of GM’s troubles: the financial interests of the UAW. It did this by strong-arming GM’s bondholders into taking haircuts in order to sweeten the pot for the UAW. The Obama administration also creatively construed tax law to relieve GM of tens of billions of dollars in obligations — at the same time that Barack Obama & Co. were caterwauling about the supposed lack of patriotism of firms that used legal means rather than political favoritism to reduce their tax bills.

This amounts to Corporate Welfare. It creates a dependency on our Government by using taxpayers money.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney proposed this.

Mitt Romney’s proposal for a structured bankruptcy would have necessitated considerable federal involvement, too, but with a key difference: The UAW contracts would have been renegotiated, and GM’s executive suites would have been cleaned out, placing the company on a path toward innovation and self-sufficiency rather than permanent life support. Which is to say, Obama did for GM what he is doing by un-reforming welfare: creating a dependent constituency.

President Obama's bailout of GM has had other consequences.

The Democrats cling to the ridiculous claim that the bailout of GM and its now-Italian competitor, Chrysler, saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs. This preposterous figure is based on the assumption that if GM and Chrysler had gone into normal bankruptcy proceedings, the entire enterprise of automobile manufacturing in the United States would have collapsed — not only at GM and Chrysler but at Ford and foreign transplants such as Toyota and Honda. Not only that, the Democrats’ argument goes, but practically every parts maker, supplier, warehousing agency, and services firm dedicated to the car industry would have collapsed, too. In fact, it is unlikely that even GM or Chrysler would have stopped production during bankruptcy: The assembly lines would have continued rolling, interest and debt payments would have been cut, and — here’s the problem — union contracts would have been renegotiated. Far from having saved 1.5 million jobs, it is not clear that the GM bailout saved any — only that it preserved the UAW’s unsustainable arrangement.

In fact many analysts are prediction that GM will probably go bankrupt shortly after the November Election.

Bill Clinton bizarrely tried to claim that the bailout has been responsible for the addition of 250,000 jobs to the automobile industry since the nadir of the financial crisis. Auto manufacturers and dealerships have indeed added about 236,000 jobs since then, but almost none are at GM, which has added only about 4,500 workers, a number not even close to offsetting the 63,000 workers that its dealerships had to let go when the terms of the bailout unilaterally shut them down.

MORE PROOF WE NEED NATIONAL VOTERS IDS?

One of the most sacred values of the United States of America is the concept of "One Man, One Vote". Voter fraud in any form is not tolerable, but when anyone votes 2 or more times, it disenfranchises all the legitimate voters.

We have seen instances of dead voters, felon voters, non-citizen and non-existant voters still on the voters rolls. In some cases these illegal non-legimate voters have actually voted. Every time this happens it diminishes all the legimate voters.

Consider the latest instance of  voter fraud from the State of Maryland, as reported by the The Baltimore Sun newspaper.

Wendy Rosen, the Democratic challenger to Republican Rep. Andy Harris in the 1st Congressional District, withdrew from the race Monday amid allegations that she voted in elections in both Maryland and Florida in 2006 and 2008.

The article claims:

State Democratic Chairwoman Yvette Lewis said an examination of voting records in Maryland and Florida showed that Rosen participated in the 2006 general election and the 2008 primaries in both states.

Not only is she accused of voting twice, once in each state, but she admitted this fact.

Rosen, 57, a Cockeysville businesswoman and Maryland voter, told The Baltimore Sun that she registered to vote in Florida several years ago in order to support a "very close friend" running for the St. Petersburg City Council and to vote on local issues there.

Is this the reason Democrats are so opposed to Voter Photo ID laws?

MICHELL OBAMA NOT QUITE FACTUAL

Fact Check: First Lady's False Fairy Tale of Struggle shows Michell Obama gave a very good speech, but bent the truth somewhat.

Both Michelle Robinson and Barack Obama began their adult lives with a leg up on the rest of America. They attended elite schools: Michelle went to Whitney Young, the public magnet school for Chicago’s upper class, while Barack attended Punahou, the private prep school for the top stratum of Hawaiian society. They were accepted to Ivy League schools despite undistinguished credentials, and both attended Harvard Law School.
 

It may be true as Michell claimed that "... our combined monthly student loan bills were actually higher than our mortgage...” but also consider this. The had very good paying jobs and...

They had expensive tastes, reflected in the $277,500 two-bedroom condo they bought in 1993--a high price even by today’s standards. Several years later, they moved into their $1.65 million mansion in Hyde Park--with the help of fraudster Tony Rezko. Barack often told a story of hardship on the campaign trail in 2008 about having his credit card declined--once. The fact that he thought this counted as real hardship speaks volumes.
 

In fact their combined income increased when Barack Obama was elected to the US Senate.

As her husband moved onto the national political stage, Michelle Obama began to enjoy a lavish lifestyle at taxpayer expense, directly and indirectly. When Barack Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, he obtained a $1 million earmark for the University of Chicago Hospital--and his wife’s salary as Vice President for Community Affairs jumped from $121,910 to $316,962. Her job: pushing poor, uninsured patients to other hospitals.
 

The Obama's, Liberals and Democrats have claimed that Mitt Romney is a Rich Guy, But so are the Obama's.

If, as the Democrats eagerly pointing out, Mitt Romney enjoyed the privilege of private wealth, the Obamas have enjoyed privilege funded by public money and public life. And until entering the national spotlight, they gave little to charity, contributing instead to a church that preached racial grievance. “[T]ruth matters,” Michelle Obama told the nation last night. That, too, is a lie--because so far, she has evaded it without consequence.
 

I don't believe there is anything wrong with being Wealthy and Living Comfortably. It is after all the American Dream to become Suscessful. Just be honest about your past, present and future.

ROMNEY'S TAX RATE

According to the Internal Revenue Service, Mitt Romney paid a higher tax rate than 90% of rest of of us. The IRS has released its data on the 2010 tax year. That report is over 300 pages of information as compiled by the IRS. If you don't want to take the time to read all of this, I suggest you read this article. Mitt Romney Pays a Higher Percent in Taxes than 90% of all Americans

...in 2010, somewhere between 90 and 95 percent of Americans had a lower effective income tax rate than Romney’s 13.9 percent. In 2011, somewhere between 95 and 97 percent of Americans had a lower effective income tax rate than Romney’s 15.4 percent, at least according to the latest IRS data from 2010.

Based on this data, it would appear to me that the RICHEST of American Tax Payers are already paying their fair share.

HOW GOOD IS OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE?

Could we be attacked or invaded easily by Foreign Nations? Actually we have been. Illegal entry into the USA is rampant. It is not just the Illegal Aliens, although they represent a real threat. It is also Russia in the form of Nuclear Attack Subs able to spend a month undetected in the Gulf of Mexico. This startling admission comes from this article "Silent Running" published in The Washington Free Beacon.

A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine armed with long-range cruise missiles operated undetected in the Gulf of Mexico for several weeks and its travel in strategic U.S. waters was only confirmed after it left the region...

Based on that article, I'd say our National Defense is not great. So I ask the question - Why does the Obama Government feel now is the time to cut Defense Spending?

The Obama administration’s defense budget proposal in February cut $1.3 billion from Navy shipbuilding projects, which will result in scrapping plans to build 16 new warships through 2017. The budget also called for cutting plans to buy 10 advanced P-8 anti-submarine warfare jets needed for submarine detection.

This rather unsettling fact was also revealed in this article.

Under the terms of the 2010 New START arms accord, such exercises require 14-day advanced notice of strategic bomber drills, and notification after the drills end. No such notification was given.

I believe a strong National Defense requires a strong Economy. We are currently borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend because of our National Debt. We cannot have a strong National Defense without a strong Economy. Have any of the Democrats put forth a Budget Proposal? Yes. President Obama did, BUT it was rejected by a vote of 96-0. President Obama did not get even 1 vote from his own party. Have the Republicans put forth a Budget Proposal? Yes. Paul Ryan's which passed the House, but Harry Read the Democratic Leader of the Senate will not allow it to go through the Senate.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING TO CREATE JOBS

UPDATE Joe Biden's Cincinnati Comments of today at end of this Post

Many on the Left (most Democrats) insist that the stimulus program did not spend enough money to create enough jobs to turn the economy around. President Obama, appears ready this week to ask Congress to approve more GOVERNMENT spending to "jump start" the economy and create jobs. Now Rep. Maxine Waters Calls For A Trillion-Dollar Jobs Program. Based on her past history, I assume this means another stimulus program. One which will follow the 1st failed stimulus program.

"I’m talking about a jobs program of a trillion dollars or more. We’ve got to put Americans to work. That’s the only way to revitalize this economy. When people work they earn money, they spend that money, and that’s what gets the economy up and going."

Do we do this by giving companies government stimulus money/tax credits to hire the workers? In a similar fashion to what the 1st Stimulus did for GM and Chrysler?. Isn't this essentially putting the employees (whose jobs are created by the Government Stimulus Payment) on the Government's Payroll?

Besides GM and Chrysler, haven't we already done this years ago with Amtrak and the United States Postal System? How did that work out? For another clue read this. Postal Service Is Nearing Default as Losses Mount What's the cause of the Postal System excessive losses?

...decades of contractual promises made to unionized workers, including no-layoff clauses, are increasing the post office’s costs. Labor represents 80 percent of the agency’s expenses, compared with 53 percent at United Parcel Service and 32 percent at FedEx, its two biggest private competitors. Postal workers also receive more generous health benefits than most other federal employees.

Amtrak is mostly due to lousy service and lack of public ridership (due in large part to lousy service). As for GM and Chrysler, it was the unions who benefited most from the 1st bailout.

Jimmy Hoffa, Jr is telling his Union Workers this.

"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war," Jimmy Hoffa Jr. said to a heavily union crowd.

That's what he told the crowd as a warm-up to President Obama's address in Detroit today. Hoffa Threatens GOP At Obama Event: "Take These Son Of Bitches Out"

"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," Hoffa added. Obama addressed the crowd shortly after Hoffa.

After he took the stage, President Obama has this to say about Jimmy Hoffa Jr's remarks.Obama Says He Is "Proud" Of Hoffa After Union Leader's Remarks President Obama also made this Faux Pas during his address.
[Emphasis Mine]

"I think putting money back in the pockets of working families is the best way to get demand rising because that then means business is hiring. That means the government -- that means that the economy is growing."

Did he start to say what he really believes? That Government should pay the wages of the working families? If this would really work, why doesn't the Government pay everyone, instead of your employer paying their employees? Along that line of reasoning, if everyone worked for the Government, the economy would be back on track. The Government (oops the Taxpayers) could own everything. Then all employers would be like Government Motors (GM).

But wait, hasn't that already been done in other parts of the world? Like Russia, China, Cuba and Venezuela? Is this what is really good for America? Is this what we really want? I Don't!!

UPDATE: Vice President Joe Biden made these remarks at a Cincinnati AFL-CIO gathering today. (Video)

"You Are The Only Folks Keeping The Barbarians From the Gates"

Sounds to me that the Democrats do not want to run on accomplishments or their abysmal record. They want to turn politics into Class Warfare

DEBT CRISIS DEFAULT - BUT NOT EXACTLY

Remember a couple of weeks ago when the Democrats said the Republicans were reckless by not passing President Obama's plan? A plan, by the way, that only existed in the mind of our President, because NOTHING was ever put on paper. Well it is time to go to the "Way Back" machine for this from March 3, 2009 when President Obama said this:

"Let me say this as plainly as I can. If you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired just like always," Obama said in a speech. "Your warranty will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it has ever been. Because starting today, the United States will stand behind your warranty."

That does not sound like President Obama was only talking in terms of from this day forward and yet consider the latest development at Government General Motors.

General Motors Co (GM.N) is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit over a suspension problem on more than 400,000 Chevrolet Impalas from the 2007 and 2008 model years, saying it should not be responsible for repairs because the flaw predated its bankruptcy.

So let us recap. The Democrats denounce Republicans for being reckless over not approving what they demanded, but were unwilling to put specifically on paper. While the Republican House presented 3 different plans, (2 of which passed the House) and a resolution by Michele Bachmann which would have reaquired payment of all legal debts. But the Democrats are not reckless when promises made to all General Motors purchasers that their warantee claims would be paid are not going to be honored. How does that add up?

BIBLICAL SUBMISSION IS...

Kirsten Powers has it right as she explaines Biblical Submission in Stop Attacking Evangelicals!

Since Rep. Michele Bachmann was asked in a debate whether she would be submissive to her husband as president, the punditry has morphed into a morass of armchair theologians pushing flawed interpretations of what submission means in a biblical context.

To the vast majority of Bible reading Christians, the word submission is interpreted to mean respect and love for one another. It applies to more than just Husband and Wife. The original language of this part of the New Testament Bible was translated from the Greek. In this context Submission does not mean to obey. Further the word submission is applied to all Christians in their relationships with each other and the world in general. The meaning is clear to anyone who will take the time to do a little thinking.

It’s also not what any evangelical I’ve spoken to believes is even implied in the doctrine of submission. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who as an ordained Southern Baptist minister knows a few things about the Bible, explained it to me this way: “This is not about a woman being a doormat. It’s about mutual, reciprocal, selfless, sacrificial love.”

Notice the words "mutual, reciprocal, selfless and sacrificial in the last sentence of Mike Huckabee's quote! It does not apply to just wives, as Michele Bachman clearly explained. It is a respect for each other as partners in a marrage.

Kathy Keller, the wife of pastor Tim Keller of the evangelical Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, speaks regularly on the Bible and gender issues. A graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, she knows of what she speaks. She told me: “Women and men who understand the Bible’s actual teaching on headship and submission will see instantly that this issue is being defined by those on the extreme left and the extreme right, who both caricature what the Bible teaches.”

As Kristin correctly points out it is the fringe Left and Right who have perverted the true meaning understood by the vast majority of Christianity.

She [Kathy Keller] said: “A man’s headship in a marriage consists of imitating the way Jesus has died for … the church. In no Christian marriages that I know of does a husband presume to tell his wife how to do her job, whether that is homemaking or heart surgeon or commander in chief. For a woman, being submissive in your marriage means bringing all your giftedness into the marriage in support of both your husband and your marriage. If this isn’t an issue for married men, who if they are professing Christians should be willing to die for their wives, then it shouldn’t be made into an issue for a woman.”

Kristin ends her article with this paragraph.

Furthermore, look at the two highest-profile evangelical women in American politics—Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann—and tell me with a straight face that they aren’t treated with respect by their husbands. If you doubt that, I can assure you that five minutes with either lady will set you straight.

WHY DIDN'T THE STIMULUS WORK?

Terry Keenan has the answer in a piece she wrote for the New York Post Why feds' spending has failed In this article Terry points out this interesting fact.

...if the Obama-era spending increases had just been cut in half to, say, $1.1 trillion extra, the president wouldn't have had to even face a debt-ceiling debate until a second term.

Why is President Obama unwilling to accept a short-term solution to the Debt Crisis? It is clear that he is playing politics because he does not wish to go through another Debt Limit vote before he is re-elected in 2012. Politics.

Government does not create jobs. There is no tax increase that will create a job either. What does create jobs is in the final paragraph of Terry's article. She quotes Lacy Hunt, who is an excellent economic forecaster.

"In the broadest sense, monetary and fiscal policies have failed because government financial transactions are not the key to prosperity. Instead, the economic well-being of a country is determined by the creativity, inventiveness and hard work of its households and individuals." [Emphasis mine]

Lacy also points out the astonishing numbers when she compares the 3years of the Obama administration to the last 3 of the Bush Administration.

"In the three years 2009, 2010, 2011, US federal spending was an astounding $2.2 trillion more than in the three years ending 2008."

The deficit in the first three years of the Barack Obama administration will total 28.3 percent of GDP, versus 6.3 percent the last three years President Bush was in the White House.

If government created jobs, that should have done it, and I think we can all see why? If you don't understand yet refer back to the 1st Lacy Hunt quote.

REPUBLICANS 2 DEMOCRATS 0

We are facing a default condition on August 2nd according to the Department of the Treasury. That's less than 2 weeks from today. Both the Senate and the House are gone for the weekend.

But at least the House, under Republican leadership, has acted responsibly by proposing 2 solutions to solve our Debt Limit crisis. Representative Paul Ryan, a Republican, has proposed a plan and the House has passed the Cut, Cap and Balance legislation. That's 2 different proposals to solve the crisis.

On the other hand the Democrats have done nothing except make grand speeches about possible ideas to be considered. There is nothing specific from either President Obama or the Democrat controlled Senate. In fact, the Senate has not passed a budget for 2 years, and the House under Democrat Nancy Pelosi also failed to pass a budget.

Where is the leadership the American people deserve from the Democrats? It is one thing to disagree with a proposal, but how can anything be solved if all the Democrats are willing to do is say the Republican proposals are not acceptable. Where is the Democrat Plan? If you are going to say something is unacceptable, then at the very least you should be willing to propose something, anything. Nothing is not acceptable.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) says it this way:

Senator Rubio: “I have watched the President give press conferences, I have watched the President give speeches, but I have yet to see a plan from the President. And with all due respect to my colleagues in the other party here in the Senate, I haven't seen a plan from them either. They are the majority party. They control this chamber. They control the Senate. And I haven't seen a plan from them.

The Senator goes on to say this:

“A moment ago we heard this talk about – well we have to compromise. Well it's really hard to compromise when the other side doesn't have a plan. What do you compromise on? Where is your plan? You can't compromise if only one person is offering plans. There is only one plan that has been voted on by any House to deal with this issue, and it's the one we're on right now, Cut, Cap and Balance. I would submit that if you don't like Cut, Cap and Balance, if you don't think we need to cut spending, cap spending and balance our budget, then show us your alternative. [Emphasis mine]

As a final thought. When the Democrats controlled the House under Nancy Pelosi, the Senate under Harry Reid and the Presidency under Barack Obama, they could not get a tax increase through. Therefore, what would allow a tax increase to pass now?

POVERTY IN AMERICA

In America when we hear the word poverty we form a mental picture. A picture of a dismal, bleak existence. But says the Census Bureau that's not the real picture of Poverty in America.

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE lays-out what Poverty In America really looks   like.

"When the Census Bureau defines “poverty,” though, it winds up painting more than 40 million Americans — one in seven — as “poor"

That is a lot of people. But are most of them really poor by the standards we think of a Poverty Level? Here is what the Cencus Bureau says is typical of a Poverty Level household.

"Americans might well be surprised to learn from other government data that the overwhelming majority of those defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau were well-housed and adequately fed even in the recession year 2009. About 4 percent of them did temporarily become homeless."

Well-Housed and Adquately Fed. From other Government Agencies these items are found in the Poverty Level Home.

Data from the Department of Energy and other agencies show that the average poor family, as defined by Census officials:

● Lives in a home that is in good repair, not crowded, and equipped with air conditioning, clothes washer and dryer, and cable or satellite TV service.

● Prepares meals in a kitchen with a refrigerator, coffee maker and microwave as well as oven and stove.

● Enjoys two color TVs, a DVD player, VCR and — if children are there — an Xbox, PlayStation, or other video game system.

● Had enough money in the past year to meet essential needs, including adequate food and medical care.

Makes one wonder.

HISTORY LESSON - CUT TAXES - INCREASE REVENUE

To many cutting Taxes sounds like Revenue would also be cut. But History says otherwise. Who says tax cuts kill jobs? Our history sure doesn’t

"When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the top tax rate in America was 70 percent. Reagan cut that to 50 percent in 1982, then to 38.5 percent in 1987, and finally to 28 percent in 1998. What happened? Unemployment dropped from 9.2 percent (exactly what it is today) to 5.3 percent and inflation plummeted from 13.5 percent to 4 percent. At the same time, real income for Americans grew by an average $4,000."

That's one example. Here is another.

"John F. Kennedy — a Democrat! — had the right idea. He slashed the capital gains tax in 1962 and dropped the top tax rate to 70 percent. Federal tax revenues went up 50 percent, from less than $100 billion in 1961 to more than $150 billion in by 1968"

And yet another example.

"Reducing taxes, historically, has driven up federal revenue. In the 1920s, Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge dropped the top tax rate from 70 percent to 25 percent; revenue rose from just more than $700 million in 1921 to $1.1 billion by the end of the 1920s."

One other lesson from history.

"One of the real problems is the tax-paying base. A whopping 43 percent (some say nearly 50 percent) of Americans — 66 million “lucky duckies” out of 151 million taxpayers — don’t pay a cent, according to the Tax Policy Center. That’s a far cry from the past: From 1950 to 1990, that number averaged 21 percent, dropping to 18 percent in 1986, according to the Tax Foundation."

So when President Obama says "Fair Share" he means the Richest among us, but he should be talking about the bottom of the Heap. 43-50% pay nothing. Does this sound like paying a "Fair Share"?

BALANCED APPROACH TO DEBT LIMITS

Much is heard from the Liberals in Congress and especially from President Obama that we need a "Balanced Approach" to control our Budget. As part of the "Balanced Approach" the tax rate on the highest earners needs to be raised so they pay their "Fair Share". Highest earners are those making over $250,000 for a Married Couple and $200,000 for a single earner.

So what is the "Fair Share" for these people? According to the IRS, for 2008 (the latest year available) the top 1% paid more than 38% of all Income Taxes while the top 5% paid almost 59% of all Income Taxes. (source The Tax Foundation) To be in the top 1% you have to have at least $380,354 Adjusted Gross Income while $159,619 and above is the top 5%. It might be noted that the bottom 50% pays less than 3% of all Income Taxes. These represent Adjusted Gross Income of less than $33,048. (Nice to know that if your Adjusted Gross Income is more than $33,048 you are in the top half of all Income Tax Payers and you are part of the group that pays better than 97% of all income taxes.

To me a "Balanced Approach" would mean more Income Taxes on the 50% who pay less than 3% not higher Income Taxes on the 50% who pay over 97%. There may be a growing difference between the richest and the poorest in America, but the emphasis should not be on limiting the top, but rather raising the bottom. If this happened, we would have a better distribution of the "Fair Share" for Income Taxes paid.

We need to eliminate the Loopholes in the Tax Code which carve out special individuals and groups to receive unfair Income Tax Benefits. We do not need to limit the top earners who are the job creators. We need to make more opportunity for the rest of us to reach the top earning levels by letting everyone retain more of their earnings through a more fair and lower Tax Rate.

Increasing the Tax Rate for the Richest Taxpayers will have the same effect as cutting the top off most plants. Growth Stops because (except for the Grasses) the top is where all the growth happens.

STATE OF THE UNION - REALITY CHECK

President Obama gave his State of the Union speech to Congress last night. For an analysis, go here ("FACT CHECK: Obama and his imbalanced ledger")

This was one of the "What did he just Say Moments"!

OBAMA: Vowed to veto any bills sent to him that include "earmarks," pet spending provisions pushed by individual lawmakers. "Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it."

Wasn't this one of the first Campaign Promises he broke?

CHILDREN AND G-CHILDREN WILL PAY UNLESS

The interest is the fastest growing part of our budget.

The Cost of the Debt Explosion

GOVERNMENT MADE FIGURES UP

According to this Bloomberg Article (Jobless Claims in U.S. Decreased 27,000 to 451,000 Last Week)Unemployment figures had to be estimated for nine (9) states.

For the latest reporting week, nine states didn’t file claims data to the Labor Department in Washington because of the federal holiday earlier this week, a Labor Department official told reporters. As a result, California and Virginia estimated their figures and the U.S. government estimated the other seven, the official said.

Hopefully the estimators are better than the ones who said ObomaCare would reduce the Deficit!

Why didn't they just postpone the announcement of the figures until the actual figures could be made available?

WHO'S RACIST????

Mary Frances Berry is former chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Currently the Geraldine R. Segal Professor of American Social Thought and History at the University of Pennsylvania said this about the Democrats use of the label "Racist" in reference to the Tea Party Movement.

Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness. [Emphasis Mine]

YOUR TAX BILL IS GOING UP...UNLESS

120 Days to Go Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History describes the Federal Tax Increases unless Congress enacts new legislation by December 31, 2010.

In addition, the states have designs on your income through their own Tax Measures. New Report Outlines Significant State Tax Changes in 2010

What can you do about it? Exercise your right to vote. When voting, consider your choices carefully.

UPDATE: Here is a table of how the Bush Tax Cuts impacts each State and Congressional district. Effect of Expiration of Bush-Era Tax Cuts on Average Middle-Income Family, by State and Congressional District

WAKE-UP CALL ON IMMIGRATION

The latest proof that the United States of America is being invaded by the Mexican Drug Cartels is in this article. Mexican Drug Cartel Allegedly Puts a Price on Arizona Sheriff's Head. It is time to secure the border. What to do with those who came here illegally is a secondary consideration.

We cannot have foreign Nationals threatening our people. It is time to send in the troops and secure the border.

DEMOCRATS NEED TO SHOW RESPONSIBILITY

According to at least one Democrat in the House, it is Republicans who are holding immigration reform back. That's rather silly considering the Democrats hold a 255 to 178 majority in the House. They could pass anything WITHOUT a single Republican Vote. Gutierrez: Despite Democrats’ 255 Seats in House, GOP’s Lack of ‘Bipartisanship’ Is Why Immigration Reform Hasn’t Passed makes Congressman Gutierrez look a little foolish.