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

Here’s the video:

You can read the full transcript on Senator Paul’s web site… Here’s an excerpt:

We are discussing and debating two different alternatives, one from the other side of the aisle and one from our side, about what we should do about the budget deficit.

We have projected a $1.65 trillion deficit in the next year.

I think both alternatives are inadequate and do not significantly alter or change our course. On the Democrat side, we have a proposal to cut about $5 billion to $6 billion for the rest of the year. To put that in perspective, we borrow $4 billion a day.

So the other side is offering up cuts equal to one day’s borrowing.

I think it’s insignificant and it will not alter the coming and looming debt crisis that we face.

Now, on our side of the aisle, I think we have done more, the cuts are more significant, but they also pale in comparison to the problem.

If we were to adopt the president’s approach, we would have $1.65 trillion deficit in one year. If we were to adopt our approach, we’re going to have a $1.55 trillion deficit in one year. I think both approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that’s coming.

Now, it’s interesting when we talk about cuts, everybody seems to be giddy around here, saying this is the first time we have talked about cuts.

Well, it is better and it sounds good, but guess what? We’re not even really cutting spending. What we’re talking about is cutting the rate of increase of spending. The base line of spending is going to go up 7.3 % according to the CBO.

We’re talking about reducing that increase to 6.7% increase. We’re talking about cutting the rate of increase of government. The problem is it’s not enough.

Our deficit is growing by leaps and bounds. Our national debt is $14 trillion. Our national debt is now equal to our entire economy. Our gross domestic product equals our national debt.

I disagree with Senator Paul on a few things but he’s spot on here… They’re not serious about making real spending cuts, instead congress is dragging the country through this wrenching kabuki theater while they’re tugging at the fringes of the deficit… They’re tying this country in knots fighting over tens of billion dollars when hundreds of billions in spending cuts are what’s needed.

Democrat Richard Blumenthal now leads Republican Linda McMahon by just five points in Connecticut’s race for the U.S. Senate in a survey conducted two nights after their third and final head-to-head debate.

The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters shows Blumenthal, Connecticut’s longtime attorney general, picking up 51% of the vote. McMahon, the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, earns the vote from 46%. One percent (1%) prefer some other candidate, while three percent (3%) are undecided.

Which one is right? We’ll find out on election day… I tend to put a little more faith in the Rasmussen poll than I do in the Quinnipiac poll just because I’m not convinced Dick Blumenthal has opened up that big of a lead at this point… I suspect this is going be very close race that’s fought down to the wire. Personally, although I’m not fan I’m pulling for Linda McMahon simply because as Ann Coulter notes “If the Bush administration ever treated terrorism suspects the way Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal treats law-abiding citizens and small businesses, even conservatives would have blanched.”

Note: in the spirit of full disclosure I should mention I was one of the 750 likely voters polled by Rasmussen last night.

Previous

• NYT: Blumenthal Lied About Vietnam Service

Related

• The Other Blumenthal Scandal – Wall Street Journal

While 2010 is shaping up as the year of the conviction politician, the election is also throwing up candidates running on little more than their personal sense of entitlement. On that score, Lisa Murkowski is giving Florida’s Charlie Crist a run for his money.

On Friday, Ms. Murkowski let it be known that she would conduct a write-in campaign for the Alaskan Senate seat against Joe Miller, the tea party favorite who toppled her fair and square in the Republican primary last month. Senate incumbents are always hard to beat, especially in a state like Alaska that has long rewarded seniority, and we assume voters understood the choice.

Though Ms. Murkowski heavily outspent the West Point grad, decorated veteran and federal magistrate, she said over the weekend on CNN that Mr. Miller had only prevailed because of “lies and fabrications and mischaracterization.” She then denounced the “pretty radical things” that the Republican nominee supposedly supports, including “You know, we dump Social Security. No more Medicare. Let’s get rid of the Department of Education. Elimination of all earmarks. You know, he is—he has taken an approach that is just, plain and simple, more radical than where the people of the state of Alaska are.”

If Ms. Murkowski isn’t taking orders from Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, it’s hard to tell. The only result of this destructive and false message will be to cut the Republican odds of taking the Senate in November. The best Ms. Murkowski can personally hope for is splitting the GOP vote and throwing the election to Democrat Scott McAdams, the mayor of Sitka.

Ms. Murkowski is current poster child for the out of touch entitlement mentality of the Ruling Class. She is a self-absorbed, self-entitled, petulant politician who cannot accept loss gracefully. Alaska Republicans chose Joe Miller to be their candidate for United States Senate, but rather than except loss graciously Ms. Murkowski  has chosen to thumb her nose at her constituents and the Party by conducting a long shot write-in campaign in and effort to retain “her” seat in the Senate.

The problem is it isn’t her seat, it belongs to the people of Alaska and they opted not nominate her for another term. I don’t know enough about Alaska politics to know how her decision will play with voters there. I suspect at most she’ll split the the Republican vote and ensure that Democrat Scott McAdams becomes the next Senator from Alaska… But maybe that’s her goal — a little revenge on the voters who fired her.

Update: Looks like Ms. Murkowski’s self-serving write-in campaign isn’t playing well with Alaska voters:

Republican Joe Miller attracts 42% of the vote in the first Rasmussen Reports poll of the Alaska Senate race since GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski announced her write-in campaign to try to keep her job.

The telephone survey of Likely Voters in Alaska shows Murkowski picking up 27% of the vote and Democrat Scott McAdams earning 25%. One percent (1%) say they’d prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

I think it’s safe to say voters are more sick and tired of these self-absorbed, self-entitled, career politicians than anyone realizes…. I’m loath to say this out loud, but I suspect Mr. miller will win by an even larger than the polls predict simply because voters are fed up with this kind of garbage and want to send a message that can’t be easily misinterpreted or misunderstood.

Related

• Murkowski likely to be stripped of committee – CNN Political Tracker

Robert Byrd, the 92-year-old West Virginia Democrat who served in the U.S. Senate for 51 years, died Monday.

A family spokesman said Mr. Byrd died peacefully at about 3 a.m. at Inova Hospital in Fairfax, Va. At first Mr. Byrd was believed to be suffering from heat exhaustion and severe dehydration, but other medical conditions developed. He had been in failing health for several years.

A master of Senate procedures and orator whose Stentorian tones aimed to evoke the roots of the republic (if not Rome), Mr. Byrd served longer, voted more frequently, and probably used the arcane Senate rules to more effect than any previous denizen of the nation’s senior legislative house.

Mr. Byrd inhabited numerous roles in a life that took him from a childhood in the coalfields of West Virginia to Senate Majority Leader. In his early years, he was a gas-station attendant, a welder, and self-taught butcher, then a West Virginia state legislator.

After he was elected to the House of Representatives in 1952, his political positions veered widely between the now almost extinct Southern conservative Democrats of mid-century to that of the more conventional liberal of today. But his reputation never rested on ideology, but rather on his persuasiveness, his sheer effort, and occasionally, his willingness to filibuster.

Suffices to say I rarely agreed with Senator Byrd on policy, but that’s irrelevant now… He was a husband, a father and a grandfather our thoughts and prayers belong with his family today.

Following a New York Times report that he exaggerated his military record, Democratic Senate hopeful Richard Blumenthal has lost ground in match-ups against all his potential Republican challengers in Connecticut.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Connecticut finds Blumenthal with just a three-point advantage over Linda McMahon, 48% to 45%. Two weeks ago, he led the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment by 13 percentage points. The New York Times story broke late Monday; the survey was taken Tuesday evening.

When matched against former GOP Congressman Rob Simmons, Blumenthal leads by 11 – 50% to 39%. Two weeks ago, the longtime state attorney general held a 23-point lead over Simmons.

Blumenthal now leads Peter Schiff, a high-profile Wall Street investment banker, 53% to 37%. In the previous survey, he posted a 54% to 29% lead over Schiff.

Still, just 26% of voters say Blumenthal should withdraw from the Senate race. Only nine percent (9%) of Democrats hold that view.

Ouch, this is a good news bad news thing for Blumenthal and Democrats… The bad news is that his lead over McMahon has basically evaporated, the good news is he still has a lead. Normally revelations like this will destroy a political career in hours, but Blumenthal seems to have stopped or at least arrested the bleeding. I still think he’s toast, but to be honest I think the story may have broken to early for it to have any real impact in November. Time and the polls will tell whether he rebounds or continues to weaken.

Realated

• VFW leader rips Blumenthal – Politico
• Blumenthal’s Lesson – The New York Sun
• Breaking: Blumenthal’s Soldier Supporter On Stage Today Is a Phony, Too – Gateway Pundit

At a ceremony honoring veterans and senior citizens who sent presents to soldiers overseas, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut rose and spoke of an earlier time in his life.

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

There was one problem: Mr. Blumenthal, a Democrat now running for the United States Senate, never served in Vietnam. He obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 and took repeated steps that enabled him to avoid going to war, according to records.

The deferments allowed Mr. Blumenthal to complete his studies at Harvard; pursue a graduate fellowship in England; serve as a special assistant to The Washington Post’s publisher, Katharine Graham; and ultimately take a job in the Nixon White House.

In 1970, with his last deferment in jeopardy, he enlisted in the Marine Reserve, landing a coveted spot in a unit in Washington, which virtually guaranteed that he would not be sent to Vietnam. The unit conducted part-time drills and other exercises and focused on local projects, like fixing a campground and organizing a Toys for Tots drive.

Mr. Blumenthal’s campaign manager, Mindy Myers, called the Times article “an outrageous distortion of Dick Blumenthal’s record of service.” She noted his six years of service in the Marine Corps Reserve and said he “received no special treatment from anyone.” Ok, fine he did serve honorably in the Marine Corps Reserve for six years, but what’s this then:

Mr. Blumenthal’s words couldn’t be more clear (emphasis mine):

In fact, we are failing many of our veterans again.  We are failing them just as we did after the Vietnam War, just as we did our World War II and Korean [sic] veterans.  This nation has a way of sending young men and women to war, and then forgetting them when they come home.  And that is unforgivable.  And I know Congressmen like Chris Shays are working hard to change that situation.   We have learned something very important since the days I served in Vietnam, and you exemplify it.  Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it, Afghanistan or Iraq, we owe our military men and women unconditional support.

He didn’t say “Since I served during the Vietnam era” he said “… since the days I served in Vietnam”. I’d be willing to cut Mr. Blumenthal a little slack if this was one off incident that could be dismissed as a slip of the tongue, but as the Times’ story makes clear, Mr. Blumenthal has long used ambiguity and omission to obscure that he served during the Vietnam era not in Vietnam.

Time will tell, but I think it’s safe to say the race to replace Sen. Chris Dodd just got a whole lot more interesting… This was Mr. Blumenthal race to lose, right now he’s attempting to argue that his repeatedly “misstating” that he served in Vietnam is not a big deal,  and for the moment at least every prominent Democrat in the state appears to be agreeing with him… the question is how will voters react and what other shoes are waiting to fall?

Personally, I think he’s toast. Actually in a sane world, where  honor and integrity still mattered, he’d resign as Attorney General and quietly withdraw from public life, even Paul Begala calls his lies “indefensible” and “a catastrophic mistake”… but then this isn’t a sane world and it appears he intends to say in the race.

Update (5:50 p.m.): Former Congressman Chris Shays, friend of Mr. Blumenthal’s interviewed by the New York Times says he “that he had watched with worry as Mr. Blumenthal gradually embellished his military record over the years.”:

Former Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, a Republican who says he is a good friend of Richard Blumenthal’s, said in an interview Tuesday that he had watched with worry as Mr. Blumenthal gradually embellished his military record over the years…

Mr. Shays said the change occurred gradually in statements made over time.

“More and more it kept creeping in,” he said. “And it was very different than when he first described his service. I’m not surprised, because he just kept adding to the story, the more he told it. I think what happens in a case like this, it’s a tiny increment of change, but when you haven’t heard him in years you say, that’s a big difference.”…

Mr. Shays said he grew uncomfortable only last month, when he and Mr. Blumenthal attended a memorial for survivors of a building collapse in Bridgeport in 1987, and Mr. Blumenthal again brought up the Vietnam War. “He didn’t say he was there; he said, ‘when we came home’ and talked about soldiers being spat upon,” Mr. Shays said. “The inference was that he was in Vietnam.”

To be honest I don’t think Mr. Blumenthal set out to consciously deceive anyone about his service, he did serve honorably for six years in the Marine Corps Reserve. Unfortunately, it appears over the years he gradually started to embellish his record, and through ambiguity and omission and left the impression he’d served inVietnam when he hadn’t. That’s not excuse though, Mr. Blumenthal needs to be held accountable for the statements he’s made, regardless of whether they were made inadvertently or not.

Related

• Vietnam service claimed by Conn. Senate hopeful Blumenthal is challenged – The Washington Post
• Blumenthal’s service during Vietnam era under scrutiny – News Times
• To the rescue: Dodd defends Blumenthal’s honor – Ed Morrissey, Hot Air
• Connecticut Democratic Senate Candidate Toast? – Jennifer Rubin, Contentions
• Phony Vietnam Vet In Connecticut Senate Race – This Ain’t Hell

Massachusetts Sen.-elect Scott Brown on Wednesday demanded to be seated immediately, saying that while he is scheduled to be sworn in Feb. 11, “there are a number of votes scheduled prior to that date.”

In a letter from his lawyers to Gov. Deval Patrick and Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, Mr. Brown argues that the results of the special election in Massachusetts on Jan. 19 are not in doubt and he should be able to take the seat right away.

“We represent Senator-elect Scott Brown. We understand that the election returns from Massachusetts cities and towns were transmitted this morning to the State Secretary’s Office and by the State Secretary to the Governor’s Office. While Senator-elect Brown had tentatively planned to be sworn into office February 11, he has been advised that there are a number of votes scheduled prior to that date, For that reason, he wants certification to occur immediately. As he is the duly elected United States Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, he is entitled to be seated now.

I don’t see where there’s any reason for controversy or delay here, Scott Brown is the duly elected Senator from Massachusetts he sworn in as soon as the election results are certified. The only real question is why is Democratic seat warmer Paul Kirk still casting votes in the Senate when it would seem his term ended with Mr. Brown’s election?

I was wrong… Scott Brown not only won the race but he did it by a significant margin:

A little-known Republican upended the balance of power in Washington by winning a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, a result that imperils President Barack Obama’s top legislative priorities and augurs trouble for his party in this year’s elections.

With 75% of the vote counted, Republican Scott Brown was leading his opponent, Massachusetts’ Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley 52.7% to 46.3%, according to the Associated Press, which declared Mr. Brown the winner.

The Brown victory forces the White House and Congressional leaders into a mad scramble to decide how—or whether—to salvage their long-sought health-care overhaul. Rushing the bill after losing Massachusetts carries political risks. So does allowing it to collapse.

House Democrats Tuesday opened the door to passing the Senate version of the legislation, which the president could then sign into law. The White House has floated that idea, but it will be a hard sell. The Senate bill contains abortion, immigration and tax provisions opposed by many House members.

Scott Brown’s decisive victory in one the bluest states in the country should send a cold shiver through the hearts of Democrats…  Yeah, sure, Martha Coakley ran an unfocused gaff prone campaign and I’m sure some politicians and pundits are going to wrongly try and lay the blame for this loss squarely at her feet.

Yes, her gaffs made matters worse, but the simple truth is voters sent a message to the President and Democrats on Capitol Hill today, Mr. Brown made his campaign a referendum on their policies and they lost!

Related

• In epic upset, GOP’s Brown wins Mass. Senate race – The Washington Times
• The fallout: Democrats rethinking health care bill – The Politico
• The Pragmatic Leviathan – David Brooks, The New York Times