I can’t say it any better than Tina Korbe:

No matter what measure you use, government spending has increased since 1965. Total government spending has more than doubled. Federal spending per household has increased from $11,431 in 1965 to $29,401 in 2010, for an increase of nearly 162 percent. That would all be fine if revenues had kept pace — if, in the same time period, the United States hadn’t also acquired more than $15 trillion in debt.

Under the Obama administration, the deficit and debt has only increased — and, to make matters worse, for all three years of Barack Obama’s presidency, the federal government has indulged in high levels of spending without an official budget. What could possibly be the result of such directionless spending other than unprecedented deficits and increased debt?

The Democrat-controlled Senate is directly to blame for the lack of a budget. Even when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, the Congress didn’t bother to pass a plan. Now that Republicans control the House, the House has passed a comprehensive budget plan — but the Senate has still done nothing. The Senate is the true do-nothing chamber, but the president will almost assuredly blame the House as the inactive chamber.

I’m honestly at loss for words here, as Ms. Korbe points out Pres. Obama and Senate Democrats will undoubtedly try blame House Republicans for the lack of a budget, but the reality is they did their job and passed a comprehensive budget plan last April.

It’s Harry Reid, and Senate Democrats who have failed to fulfill one of their most basic responsibilities and it’s they who should be held to account.

As a result they’re lashing out ordinary Americans who have the temerity to demand Washington change its ways and cut spending – drastically. Politicians and pundits alike have dismissed these people as “extremists” or “racists” and referred to them derisively as “Tea baggers” or more recently “Hobbits” and “Terrorists“. These so-called extremists, aren’t really all that extreme most of them have never been politically active, much less protested anything before in their lives. Most of them are well-informed, well-intentioned people who believe in traditional American values… and yes, there are a few cranks and crackpots who give the rest a bad name.

Regardless they’ve all come together for common reason, they’re deeply concerned that this country is headed in the wrong direction and want to see to it put back on the right track. In the words of Ronald Reagan “The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people, too much authority from the states, and too much liberty with the Constitution.”

Let’s be clear about something Washington doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has spending problem… Robin Hood is not going to save from out debt problems. If you look at the numbers, over the last 50 years revenue to the federal government has remained remarkably consistent averaging roughly 18% of GDP. What’s changed is that spending has risen sharply over the last two decades to roughly 21% of GDP under President George W. Bush and now to roughly 25% of GDP under Pres. Obama.

The simple truth is we can’t raise taxes enough to close the current budget deficit much less begin to pay down our $14.2 trillion national debt. We have to cut spending — drastically, that means both sides are going to have to give up some of their sacred cows. Republican are going to have to accept some cuts in defense spending and Democrats are going to have to accept some entitlement reforms. We don’t have a choice in this anymore, our current spending levels are simply unsustainable.

The dirty little secret in this whole debate is that Congress never actually cuts spending, all they ever do is reduce the rate of growth that’s already built into to the government’s baseline budget… and that’s exactly what they’ve done here. There aren’t any real spending cuts in the deal they’ve just agreed to… spending is still going to go up, it’s just going to go up less than would have otherwise. This deal will add roughly $7 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years.

The truth is if a publicly traded company managed its finances the way the federal government does it would a) go bankrupt and b) the management would be indicted for fraud.

Edit: I should also point out that the latest Gallup Poll of political ideology shows roughly twice as many Americans self-identify themselves as conservative than liberal.

Related

• Analysis: Debt mess shows Washington’s awful side – Associated Press
• Sputter to stall: U.S. economy dips into danger zone for recession -  James Pethokoukis, Reuters
• The Obama Recovery – The Wall Street Journal
• The Tea Party, Right About Everything- Randall Hoven, American Thinker
• Obama’s power grows as debt deadline approaches – Byron York, the Washington Examiner
• Open Letter: Why I Oppose the Debt Ceiling Compromise – Senator Rand Paul
• Debt Deal is a Blank Check – Peter Schiff, CNBC
• Debt deal doesn’t dispel downgrade fear – Reuters

It’s official: The Obama administration has now borrowed $3 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.

It took from 1776, when the United States became an independent country, until 1990, the year after the Berlin Wall fell signaling victory in the Cold War, for the federal government to accumulate a total of $3 trillion in debt, according to the Treasury Department. It only took from Jan. 20, 2009, the day President Barack Obama was inaugurated, until Oct. 15, 2010, for the Obama administration to add $3 trillion to the federal debt.

The overall debt of the federal government, according to the Treasury Department, is now $13.666 trillion.

Republicans are far from blameless here; they’ve done more than their fair share of debt accumulation over the years. One things certain though, they’re pikers compared Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the Democrats who currently control Washington… these clowns have done in twenty months what it took previous Democrat and Republican administrations 214 years, from 1776 to 1990, to do.

At this rate Barack Obama is going to drive the car out of the ditch and right off a cliff!

H/T: Doug Powers.

Related

• How the Fed Is Holding Back Recovery – David Malpass, Wall Street Journal (Subscription Required)

Republicans called on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to resign his leadership post over remarks he made in 2008 about then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, adding to the Nevada Democrat’s political troubles.

Mr. Reid, who supported Mr. Obama’s candidacy, said in private remarks during the campaign that the country was ready for a “light-skinned” African-American president with “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” The remarks are recounted in a new book, “Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime.”

A spokesman for Mr. Reid said the senator wouldn’t resign his leadership post. “He has no intention of stepping down,” Jim Manley said. “Unlike others who advocate moving our nation backwards and viewing this moment for political gain, he’s working…to move our country forward.”

The controversy comes at a critical moment for Mr. Reid, who is facing an uphill battle for re-election this year and is trying to shepherd Mr. Obama’s health-care overhaul through the Senate.

I’m not going to waste your time with rants about the blatant double standards of the media, Congressional Democrats or even Al Sharpton… Any sane person instinctively understands that Senator Reid’s remarks were foolish and racially insensitive, if not out right racist.

The sad reality is that, as the Washington Times points out many of the people now trying to excuse or defend Sen Reid are the same people who were calling for the Senate Majority Leader Trett Lott’s resigantion:

But several Democrats — including Mrs. Feinstein — did in fact target Mr. Lott after his remarks. “This statement casts a dark shadow over Sen. Lott’s ability to be a credible party leader,” she said in 2002, according to an Inland Valley Daily Bulletin news story.

“I can tell you if a Democratic leader said such a thing, they would not be allowed to keep their position,” Sen. Mary Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat, said of Mr. Lott in 2002.

Sen. John Kerry also called on Mr. Lott to resign, saying “I simply do not believe the country can today afford to have someone who has made these statements again and again be the leader of the United States Senate,” according to a Boston Globe article.

Bottom line our elected representatives should be held to highest standard of conduct, not the lowest. Harry Reid has shown himself to be a racially insensitive idiot and he should step down… Period.

Don’t worry Jack, we will!

Most open and ethical Congress in history… Heh!

Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a Democratic Party stalwart in the Senate, is set to announce today that he will not seek re-election this year, according to a party strategist familiar with his plans.

Sen. Dodd’s decision was the latest in a string of big-name Democratic retirements revealed Tuesday as the party struggles to contend with a challenging political climate.

Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota said he, too, would retire after this year, unexpectedly saddling his fellow Democrats with a wide-open race that could be tough to win in a Republican-leaning state.

In addition to Dodd and Dorgan at least 5 other Senate Democrats are vulnerable, among them Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.

I wouldn’t breakout the Champagne yet, at least not in Connecticut… We may finally be free of Chris Dodd, but things just got a lot tougher for us, Chris Dodd was weakened and vulnerable and ultimately beatable. Now instead of facing a weakened Sen. Dodd we’re facing Attorney General Richard Blumenthal who has announced plans to run for Dodd’s seat. Say what you want to him, but there’s escaping the fact that he’s well known and well liked in this state… My guess is the Democrats will hang on to the seat.

Of course it won’t hurt to remind voters of Blumenthal’s remarks about Sen Dodd’s sweetheart mortgage deal:

Huh??? What??? Dodd was a victim??? It’s a rarity but I’m speechless!

Related

• Colorado’s Gov. Ritter Ends Bid for Re-Election – Wall Street Journal
• Massachusetts governor race another sign of Democratic weakness – Ed Lasky, American Thinker
• Culture of Corruption casualty: Chris Dodd bows out; CT AG Blumenthal to run – Michelle Malkin
• Dodd retiring – Ed Morrissry, Hot Air
• Will Blumenthal Be Sufficient Change for Connecticut? – Jim Geraghty

In a vote resonating with history, Senate Democrats early Christmas Eve morning passed their version of health care reform, advancing the issue further than ever before in the nation’s history and setting up a bruising stretch-run to get a final bill to President Obama next year.

“It’s about people, it’s about life and death in America. It’s a question of morality, of right and wrong,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat. “It’s about human suffering, and given the change to relieve this suffering, we must take this chance.”

The party-line 60-39 vote is the midway point for the bill. It must now be reconciled with a very different House measure. Major sticking points remain, including how to treat federal payments for abortions, whether to force insurance companies to compete with a government-run public health plan and which taxes to raise to pay for the changes.

The good news is this turkey is still has hurdle or two to clear before becoming law, the bad news is I don’t think it matters… The Democrats have invested far to much time and political capital in jamming their so called reforms through Congress. If liberals in the House have to, they will roll over and vote for the Senate bill in toto. Never mind what the White House is saying Democrats in Congress can not let this, um, debate drag into February, or worse, March… The closer they get to election day the less likely passage becomes.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer will do whatever they have to do to get health care reform through the House as quickly as possible… Even if that means bribing they’re caucus into voting for the Senate bill in toto.

Related

• What Doctors and Patients Have to Lose Under ObamaCare – Dr. Scott Gottlieb, Wall Street Journal
• A Democrat’s view from the House: Senate bill isn’t health reform – Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, CNN.com
• Surprise! Gaming CBO rules masks how healthcare reform may actually make deficit worse – James Pethokoukis, Reuters
• Senate passes Reid bill, 60-39 – Ed Morrissey, Hot Air

My 25 years as a practicing physician have shown me what happens when government attempts to practice medicine: Doctors respond to government coercion instead of patient cues, and patients die prematurely. Even if the public option is eliminated from the bill, these onerous rationing provisions will remain intact.

For instance, the Reid bill (in sections 3403 and 2021) explicitly empowers Medicare to deny treatment based on cost. An Independent Medicare Advisory Board created by the bill—composed of permanent, unelected and, therefore, unaccountable members—will greatly expand the rationing practices that already occur in the program. Medicare, for example, has limited cancer patients’ access to Epogen, a costly but vital drug that stimulates red blood cell production. It has limited the use of virtual, and safer, colonoscopies due to cost concerns. And Medicare refuses medical claims at twice the rate of the largest private insurers.

Section 6301 of the Reid bill creates new comparative effectiveness research (CER) programs. CER panels have been used as rationing commissions in other countries such as the U.K., where 15,000 cancer patients die prematurely every year according to the National Cancer Intelligence Network. CER panels here could effectively dictate coverage options and ration care for plans that participate in the state insurance exchanges created by the bill.

Additionally, the Reid bill depends on the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in no fewer than 14 places. This task force was responsible for advising women under 50 to not undergo annual mammograms. The administration claims the task force recommendations do not carry the force of law, but the Reid bill itself contradicts them in section 2713. The bill explicitly states, on page 17, that health insurance plans “shall provide coverage for” services approved by the task force. This chilling provision represents the government stepping between doctors and patients. When the government asserts the power to provide care, it also asserts the power to deny care.

There’s much more in Dr. Coburn’s column, go read it all and share it with your family and friends.

I’m not sure what I can add, Dr. Coburn is right, most of us probably will be alright under the Reid bill, but some won’t… The practice of medicine is as much an art as it is a science; patients whose lives hang in the balance rely on the care of doctors who understand the art and science of medicine, and who are free to act in the best interests of their patients without government interference.

Related

• ObamaCare and the Liberal Obsession – Daniel Henninger, Wall Street Journal
• The mother of all unfunded mandates – Paul Mirengoff, Power Line

Get on the health overhaul bandwagon, or don’t count on our help in your re-election.

That’s the hardball message liberal groups are hurling at moderate Democratic senators in a battle that is dividing their party. Their demands: Support a bill that offers optional government-run health coverage and oppose Republican attempts to derail the legislation.

The groups are unleashing blunt and personal broadcast ads and e-mails at moderates even as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., tries to shape a health care bill that can attract the 60 votes it needs to pass. Assuming no Republican support, Reid needs backing from all 58 Democrats and both Democratic-leaning independents – including about a half-dozen moderates who have drawn liberals’ ire.

It’s all taking place a year out from elections in which Republicans hope to trim the Democrats’ congressional majorities. The intraparty conflict especially threatens moderates facing tough re-election fights in 2010, like Sens. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., and Reid himself. It could mean less enthusiasm on the part of liberal and labor groups, which supply campaign workers, contributions and votes to Democratic candidates.

Heh, I thought it was the GOP that’s divided and hated moderates???

All I can say is go ahead, make my day… Are you kidding me? I’d love to see MoveOn.org, the SEIU, ACORN,  and anyone else who wants join them mount far left primary challenges against moderate Democrats in swing states… or red better still in red states!

Let’s hope this turns into an all-out shooting war! I’ve got pop-corn.