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

The House of Representatives passed Nancy Pelosi’s 1,990 page health care reform bill by a vote of 220 to 215 on Saturday night.

The House of Representatives late Saturday night approved a historic bill to remake the U.S. health-care system, delivering President Barack Obama a key procedural victory on his top domestic priority after a lengthy and sometimes emotional day of debate on the nearly 2,000-page measure.

By a vote of 220-215, lawmakers approved a 10-year, $1.055 trillion bill that aims to put in place near-universal health-care coverage in the United States, would require individuals to buy and most businesses to offer coverage, and expand Medicaid. Poorer Americans would get subsidies to buy insurance under the bill, and insurers would be barred from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

The bill would also establish a government-run health-insurance plan option to compete with private insurers — the controversial “public option” strongly backed by Obama but sharply opposed by Republicans.

Just one Republican, Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana, voted for the White House-backed bill. A substitute bill offered by the GOP failed on a vote of 176-258. The House Democrats’ bill will now need to be melded with a bill awaiting action in the Senate.

Obama said after the vote that the bill “will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality affordable options for those who don’t; and bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses, and the government while strengthening the financial health of Medicare. And it is legislation that is fully paid for and will reduce our long-term federal deficit.”

The president added that he is “absolutely confident” that the Senate will pass its version of the law, “and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year.”

Before the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said it was “an historic moment for our nation and for America’s families.”

House lawmakers began debating late Saturday morning and were immediately caught up in partisan fighting. But House Democratic leaders were upbeat about the bill’s prospects after an early afternoon meeting with Obama, who made a rare Saturday trip to Capitol Hill to press members to pass the measure.

That the bill passed is no surprise, that Republicans helped it pass is… The sad reality here is that if the Republican’s had shown a little political courage and voted present on the Stupak Amendment there’s a good chance the Democrats wouldn’t have been able to find enough votes in their own caucus to pass H.R. 3962, the Health Care Reform bill.

I understand why Republicans essentially had to vote for the Stupak Amendment… Abortion is an important issue to great many voters and if Republicans had voted against the Stupak Amendment they more than likely would have faced a backlash from pro-life voters. Unfortunately, is was a wasted vote, Henry Waxmen and other have pointedly said there’s “no guarantee” the Stupak Amendment will be retained in the final version of the bill.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) even said during the floor debate on the bill Saturday that he doubts the amendment will survive the conference committee.

Regardless the fight now heads to the Senate where the conventional wisdom says it will be a much tougher fight… Don’t believe it, I fully expect the Senate to pass a Health Care reform bill this year, probably without a so called Public Option, but they will pass a bill. A bill that will put us one step closer to the Democrats goal of a socialized single payer system… A system that does things like this.

Related

• ObamaCare legislation in trouble – New York Post
• Health reformers prepare for Senate hurdle – Financial Times
• Government-Run ‘Public Option’ in Pelosi Health Bill Threatens to Kill Hospitals, Says Democrat Who Voted Against the Bill – CNSNews.com
• PelosiCare could be bad news for the dollar – James Pethokoukis, Reuters

“I will continue to say what I’ve said before. You hear in this debate, you hear analogies, you hear references to, you see pictures about and depictions of individuals that are truly stunning, and you hear it all the time. People — imagine five years ago somebody comparing health care reform to 9/11. Imagine just a few years ago had somebody walked around with images of Hitler.

Hopefully we can get back to a discussion about the issues that are important in this country that we can do so without being personally disagreeable and set up comparisons to things that were so insidious in our history that anybody in any profession or walk of life would be well advised to compare nothing to those atrocities.”

Oh hell yeah Robert, I can’t just imagine it… I can remember it!

I’m assuming Mr. Gibbs misspoke, either that or he’s in deep, deep denial about the rhetoric used by the left over much of the last decade. Fortunately, Mary Katherine Ham has pulled together the links necessary bring Mr. Gibbs up to speed.

And for the record I thought fascist/Nazi/Hitler rhetoric was misplaced when left when using it against the Bush Administration and I think it’s just as misplaced today.

H/T: Hot Air.

At a meeting of Washington conservatives this morning, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, expressed pride over GOP success in last night’s election. But questions about NY-23 remain — so I asked him whether there was an effort to get New York Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, the GOP nominee in that race, to endorse Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman.

“There was a huge effort,” he replied.

When asked about rumors that the New York Republican Party picked Scozzafava because of the advice of Washington insiders who felt she would be a more electable candidate, Boehner rolled his eyes. “We told them to hold off on a decision, to work with us, but they went ahead and did it.”

So if she was a rotten egg, why spend money? “All the money spent on that race was anti-Owens money, not pro-Scozzafava money.“

Well that’s bullshit, the NRCC did run web ads attacking Doug Hoffman:

This we’re I differ from Michelle and Dan, I’m willing, for the sake of argument, to take Boehner’s first statement at face value… When you combine Boehner’s remarks with Pete Sessions’ statement on NY-23:

“After two special elections in New York, there is no doubt in my mind that the candidate selection process lacks openness and transparency and should be changed to a primary system so voters can have a say in who their respective parties nominate.”

Sessions hits the nail on the head, we’ve now been through two winnable special elections in New York that the state GOP has fumbled badly… That’s what we need to be focused on here. The state party bosses who hand picked Dede Scozzafava in spite of her rather progressive voting record in the State Assembly effectively turned the general election into a primary battle and it cost us the race.

Bottom line the process by which candidates are chosen needs to be more open and transparent, whether it’s through a primary system or caucuses doesn’t matter as long as the voters have chance to express their opinion on who is chosen to represent them.

H/T: Michelle Malkin.

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) declared a return to “the era of big government” the day after President Obama’s first formal address to Congress.

“From everything I’ve seen, it looks like the era of big government spending is back,” he told reporters at a lunch convened by the Christian Science Monitor. “My question to my Democratic friends is how are you going to pay for it?”

The top Republican leader in the House praised President Obama for making a “compelling” case that the nation can overcome its economic challenges and pledged to work with him when he reaches across the aisle.

He later clarified that Republicans will work with Obama on areas of agreement but would maintain their ideological differences and fight for them. Despite several personal entreaties from Obama to support the stimulus bill, House Republicans illustrated their solid opposition when not one Republican crossed the aisle to support it last week.

Heh, with all due respect to Congressman Boehner the era of big government spending never left… Or are you forgetting all the big government spending you folks did during the Bush years?

You folks presided over one of the largest increases in government spending and regulation in American history during the Bush years. Americans haven’t forgotten that it was Republicans, led by Bush, who created the Dept. of Homeland Security,  the medicare prescription drug benefit and the train wrecks of campaign finance reform and no child left behind.

It’s a sad reality but Republicans have little of no credibility left when it comes to issues of fiscal responsibility or limited government… You lost two straight elections in part because the Republican party abandoned traditional principles of fiscal responsibility and limited government.

I’m not sure how the Republican Party can regain credibility on those issues but they’re going to have to.

Responding to President Obama’s recommendation to Republican congressional leaders last week that they not follow Limbaugh’s lead, the conservative talkmeister said on his show that Obama is “obviously more frightened of me than he is Mitch McConnell. He’s more frightened of me, than he is of, say, John Boehner, which doesn’t say much about our party.”

Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., did not take kindly to this assessment in an interview with Politico Tuesday.

“I think that our leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are taking the right approach,” Gingrey said. “I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party. You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn’t be or wouldn’t be good leaders, they’re not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell.”

Asked to respond to Gingrey, Limbaugh, in an email to Politico, wrote: “I’m sure he is doing his best but it does not appear to be good enough. He may not have noticed that the number of Republican colleagues he has in the House has dwindled. And they will dwindle more if he and his friends don’t show more leadership and effectiveness in battling the most left-wing agenda in modern history. And they won’t continue to lose because of me, but because of their relationship with the grassroots, which is hurting. Conservatives want leadership from those who claim to represent them. And we’ll know it when we see it.”

Rush nails it… There is serious lack of ideas and leadership coming from those who claim to represent us. We’re ready and willing to fight for them but they’re not fighting for the things that matter to us.

Whatever happened to the party that used to stand for fiscal responsibility, limited government, a strong defense and free markets? Where have all the principled conservative leaders gone?

President Barack Obama is coming to the Capitol this afternoon to curry favor with congressional Republicans. But it appears GOP leaders have already made up their minds to oppose his $825 billion stimulus plan.

House Republican Leader John A. Boehner and his No. 2, Whip Eric Cantor, told their rank-and-file members Tuesday morning during a closed-door meeting to oppose the bill when it comes to the floor Wednesday, according to an aide familiar with the discussion. Boehner told members that he’s voting against the stimulus, and Cantor told the assembled Republicans that there wasn’t any reason for them to support the measure, according to another person in the room. Cantor and his whip team are going to urge GOP members to oppose it.

In a nod to the president, Boehner did point out that this is the third time that Obama has met with Republican leaders, compared with the zero meetings they’ve held with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — a now-familiar refrain from Republicans in the House. But Obama’s diplomacy clearly isn’t buying any votes yet.

This pre-meeting bluster should dampen the mood for an early afternoon meeting with the president, who is making the trek to hear Republicans’ input on the legislation before Wednesday’s vote. Once Obama is done with House Republicans, he will cross the Capitol to join the Senate Republican Conference lunch to pitch them on the stimulus.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on NBC’s “Today” show Tuesday morning that Democrats in Congress are “drifting away” from Obama’s preferred stimulus plan, which was supposed to include 40 percent tax cuts and be free of earmarks.

Lets hope they have the courage to follow through and oppose this pig… The truth Democrats don’t need Republicans to pass the bill they have the votes to do it on their own. They need, or I should say want, Republican support for political cover that’s all.

On a related note Michele Malkin has the details on the latest Congressional Budget Office report on the stimulus bill. In short it’ll increase budget deficits and the infrastructure spending will take years to kick in.

Congress reached an agreement in principle on a $700 billion package to bail out the financial industry, leaders from both parties said Thursday. They plan to present the deal to the White House later Thursday, hoping for a vote within days. Lawmakers said there were few hurdles remaining. “There really isn’t much of a deadlock to break,” said Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Republican Sen. Bob Bennett said the plan is one that can “pass the House, pass the Senate (and) be signed by the president.”

Update: Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, cautions that Republicans in the House haven’t signed on to anything yet.

Update (H/T: Hot Air): All but dead? McCain’s campaign is calling the deal “all but dead“. Boehner’s spokesman says the deal is “non-starter“. And it looks like Paulson also thinks the deal may collapse.