How I Would Spin Yesterday’s Obamacare Decision if I were a Candidate.

With all the postering that has been going on since the Supreme Court's decision was handed down yesterday regarding Obamacare, I though I would create a list of how I would spin it if I were a candidate.

 

Republican:

·         Largest tax increase in history.

·         Will greatly effect the middle class and small business financially. Some to the point of ruin.

·         Will cause unemployment to sharply rise and the economy to stall.

·         The Democrats misled the nation on multiple occasions by claiming the penalty was not a tax in their attempt to rush the bill through.  Is this the party you want in charge?

·         Obama himself misled the nation about whether it was a penalty or a tax.  Do you want this guy to be your President if he can’t tell the truth?

·         There are at least 21 new taxes that will be levied.  7 of which will be on those who earn less than 250K per year.  Again Obama breaking one of his promises.

·         Republicans need to control both Congress and the Presidency so we can reverse this economic and freedom destroying monstrosity.

·         The Democrats tried to override the 10^th Amendment and other Constitutional provisions by attempting to force states to insure all individuals under the 133% of poverty rate line or risk losing all Medicaid funding.

·         The increase in national debt from Obamacare will be massive and untenable.

·         Cuts by Obamacare to Medicare amounting to $500 billion is completely unacceptable.

·         Do you really want the Federal Government dictating what insurance coverage you have? Or do you want to be able to make the choice of what type of coverage you need?

·         Do you think the Federal Government can really effectively manage such an important issue as your health?  How well are they doing with Social Security, Medicare, the Postal System?

·         Republicans need to control Congress and the Presidency to keep the Democrats from expanding Obamacare and taking away more of Americans’ freedom to make their own choices in life.

·         It is each person’s responsibility to obtain health insurance.  It is not everyone else’s responsibility to pay if they choose not to.

 

Democrat:

·         The “tax” will only apply to those individuals and corporations who don’t want to pay their fair share.

·         The Supreme Court, most of which were appointed by Republicans, engaged in judicial activism by declaring the penalty for not purchasing healthcare as a tax.

·         Democrats needs to control Congress and the Presidency to be able to appoint judges who avoid the same type of judicial activism we saw in this decision and to improve and expand the provisions of the ACA.

·         It is our moral obligation as a nation to see that those who need healthcare coverage get it.

·         Without the ACA, the average person stands the chance of losing everything during a health crisis.

·         Everyone will have affordable healthcare and everyone will pay their fair share to help those who are unable to afford it or whose companies refuse to provide it for them.

·         Do you want greedy for-profit insurance companies or your employer determining your coverage and rates?  Or do you want a fair, cheap, and inclusive system for everyone?

·         Democrats need to control Congress and the Presidency to keep the Republicans from taking away healthcare from those that are the most vulnerable in favor of padding insurance companies bottom line.

 

Ron Paul:

·         Despite what I say about the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation is the ONLY way to go.

·         No federal government and very weak, toothless state governments.

·         If you can’t afford your own healthcare then you should just go home and die.

·         Not really.  Just a little poke at my Ron Paul supporting friends.  Regardless of what I think about some of his positions, his response to the decision yesterday was spot on.

 

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Text of Obamacare Repeal Legislation

Download now or preview on posterous

Obamacare Repeal Bill.pdf (33 KB)

Here is the text of the legislation designed to repeal Obamacare.  An amusing sidenote is that the bill is only 2 pages long whereas the Obamacare bill was over 2,000.  The debate on the bill is scheduled to begin Friday January 7^th and the final floor vote is slated for Wednesday January 12^th.  This should provide some of the best political television aired in the recent past.

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

A Good Introduction to the Congressional Appropriations Process

This is a good introduction to the Congressional Appropriations Process.  If you ever wondered how Congress decides on how much they will spend, this is a good initial way to learn about it.

 

Download now or preview on posterous

Congressional_Appropriations_Process_-_An_Introduction.pdf (687 KB)

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Kick a Dog One Too Many Times and They Will Bite! "Blue Dog" Turn on Nancy Pelosi With a Vengence.

Less than a year ago, Nancy Pelosi still appeared to be untouchable as the top Democratic leader in the House.  Now she has found herself facing stiff opposition to her attempts to retain a position of power in the Democratic caucus.  Many of these "Blue Dogs" are still angry over being forced into unpopular votes over issues such as stimulus spending, healthcare reform, Cap and Trade, and the subsequent pounding their ranks took from voters over these votes.  "Blue Dog" Democrats are now doing all they can to either defeat her efforts to win Minority Leader or severly curtail her power should she win the position. This should be an interesting struggle that will be publicly played out over the next couple of months between Pelosi, her liberal supporters and the remaining "Blue Dogs."  Despite who wins this internal power struggle, it will leave the House Democratic Caucus divided, embittered, and in disarray for at least the next year or two.  The moral of the story here is that if you kick a dog one too many times and they will bite.  Apparently Nancy Pelosi hasn't learned that lesson, yet.

 

Here are just a sampling of articles talking about the stiff resistence that Nancy Pelosi is facing regarding her attempt to become the Minority Leader in the House:

Nancy Pelosi faces new resistance from Democrats  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44969.html

Top Blue Dog calls for Pelosi to quit  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44710.html

Anti-Pelosi lawmakers target DCCC    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3CBA06AE-D646-97A9-49791FB86BA5E0EA

Democrats pressing Pelosi to step aside  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/11/AR2010111105582.html

Term limits for Pelosi's allies?  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/11/AR2010111107834.html

Democrat Not Supporting Pelosi For Minority Leader  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/08/democrat_not_supporting_pelosi_for_minority_leader.html

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

A Simple Way to Start Reforming the Way Congress Works

House Republican lawmakers, as well as many Republican congressional candidates, have made a variety of promises they intend to carry out should they be given control of the U.S. House of Representatives.  Two documents can be considered capstones of these Republican promises. A Pledge to America appeared on the political scene during the election and then Rep. Cantor’s Delivering on Our Commitment coming shortly after the mid-term election was over.  Both of these documents contain excellent proposals and add to the Republican rhetoric about changing the way Congress does business, making government more efficient and accountable, and doing the work the voters sent them there to do.  However, one very simple, yet powerful, reform is missing. 

This simple reform is nothing more than only allowing germane amendments to a piece of legislation or appropriations bill.  This idea is neither novel nor rarely seen.  Many states have this prohibition in place.  In some states (Washington being an excellent example), if a piece of legislation or voter initiative addresses more than one issue it can be, and usually is, ruled unconstitutional by the court system.  So if a legislator wants to create a carbon tax by amending a must pass bill addressing a serious yet unrelated issue it would not be allowed.  By only allowing germane amendments, unpopular ideas and proposals that could not pass on their own accord are prevented from being concealed in popular or must pass pieces of legislation at the state level and would do wonders at the national level. 

If the states see the necessity of a requirement for germane amendments, why doesn’t Congress?  Currently any amendment can be added to any bill regardless of whether the amendment addresses the same issue or not.  This tactic has been a way for unpopular or controversial items to be limped through the legislative process with little to no opposition or debate.  By adding an amendment on an issue opposed by one party’s legislators into a bill relating to an issue those legislators have agreed to support, it creates a catch 22 situation.  If they vote for the bill, they will be beaten up by their constituents for allowing such an issue to get past them.  On the other hand, if they vote against the legislation because of the issue amended in, these legislators will be excoriated for not being willing to support the special interest or its funding they had agreed to support.  For example, language repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is addressed in the military appropriations bill.  What does repealing DADT have to do with military appropriations?  Nothing.  But the military appropriations bill is seen as must pass and an easy way to jam DADT with little resistance due to its inability to be passed as an individual piece of legislation.  This creates a problem for Republicans and some moderate Democrats.  If they don’t support the military appropriations bill then the merciless attacks of being unsupportive of the military will come from the press and others during the next election cycle.  Should they vote for the bill with DADT repeal language securely embedded, they run the risk of angering sections of their base and could find themselves in serious trouble the next election cycle (as well as receiving phone calls from constituents and supporters expressing their frustration and anger over its passage in the meantime). 

So what can Congress do about this backdoor tactic used to pass unpopular and controversial legislative items?  Two options come to mind.  First, create a House rule prohibiting the use of this tactic.  This is the easiest and mostly a temporary remedy.  Under such a rule no amendments would be considered at the committee or floor levels that don’t meet the criteria for a germane amendment.  However, as we have seen over the last two years, rules can be suspended, easily changed, or outright ignored by the majority party when attempting to force through legislation that experiences strong opposition.  A House rule would be a suitable stopgap until either legislation is passed prohibiting the practice or, ideally, getting a Constitutional Amendment ratified creating a permanent ban. 

The second option would be to require some sort of constitutional authority statement on each piece of legislation.  This option has previously garnered support among House Republican during the elections.  Such a statement would include the article, section, and verbatim language from the Constitution stating where Congress derives the authority to enact the legislative mandate addressed in the specific piece of legislation. This statement should not be a multi-page dissertation, but a couple of paragraphs of discussion clearly outlining where Congress’ authority comes from and how the legislation fits into that authority.  The problem with this option is that an amendment may vaguely follow the constitutional authority statement but not the letter or spirit of the original legislation.  Thus it would be much more difficult to keep non-germane amendments, due to the potential for a myriad of grey areas for the amendment language to hide behind, from being amended into a piece of legislation than if the first option was in place.

Ideally, both of these options will be implemented to protect the American people from bad legislative mandates slipping through the system as an amendment rather than being dealt with on their own merits.  Banning the practice of adding non-germane amendments to any and all legislation would go a long way in creating a more open and transparent Congressional process.  After the last two years, the American people need as transparent a Congress as they can get.  Hopefully the Republican leaders heading up the U.S. House of Representatives will catch on to this idea and implement it.  It would go far in showing the American people how serious they are about what they have promised.

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Republican Study Committee Supports Two Point Plan of Spending Reduction and Prevention of 2011 Tax Hikes Outlined by Rep. Boehner Today

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
9.8.2010

Price Renews Call for Immediate Spending Reduction, Prevention of 2011 Tax Hikes
Supports Two-Point Plan Outlined Today by Leader Boehner

Washington, Sep 8 - Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) issued the following statement in strong support of the bipartisan two-point plan to address the economy and spending outlined by House Republican Leader John Boehner earlier today.  The RSC has been at the forefront of efforts to roll back next year’s spending to 2008 levels, save families and businesses from the looming 2011 tax hike, and prevent a Lame Duck Congress from overriding the will of the American public.

“Unrestrained deficit spending is a tsunami that threatens to drown America’s prospects for future prosperity,” said Chairman Price.  “The red ink is so overwhelming that this year Democrats cancelled the budget altogether.  Such recklessness weakens confidence in America’s fiscal health and puts families and businesses on the defensive.  Sanity demands that spending be immediately rolled back to where it was before the bailouts, government takeovers, and stimulus boondoggles.

“The job-killing tax hikes set to take effect next year threaten our economy just as much as the Democrats’ wild spending spree.  If left unchallenged, this tax hike will confiscate forty percent of many small businesses’ income.  That is a huge drag on our economy’s main producers and job creators.  We must act quickly to save families and businesses from the destructive effects of the largest tax increase in American history.

“Most Americans can see the common sense in these proposals, and the Republican Study Committee has long urged their adoption.  Time is running out, however, and any further delay from President Obama will leave our economy struggling for air.  We must not allow a Lame Duck Congress to push through more bloated spending and job-killing tax policies after the November election.”

Note: For the past two years, the RSC has introduced concrete, balanced budget proposals that would prevent the impending 2011 tax hikes and set spending at pre-bailout, pre-stimulus (Fiscal Year 2008) levels.  Additionally, the Lame Duck Resolution authored by RSC Chairman Tom Price forced House members to go on record for or against using a Lame Duck session of Congress to enact job-killing legislation – such as more bloated spending, tax hikes, card check, and a national energy tax – against the will of the American public.

###

Congressman Tom Price is Chairman of the Republican Study Committee (RSC).

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Should the Elite of Republican Party Worry About Tea Party Victories in November as Much as the Democratic Elite? I Would Be.

This is just another example of voter frustration.  One party doesn’t listen to what the voters want and then demean them when they get upset.  And the other makes big claims and then, upon gaining power, loses its nerve when attacked by their opponents and their media lapdogs.  The common view is that these new faces may actually have the fire to do what the voters want regardless of the uproar from the elitists and their allies demanding to go down a road that this country was never intended to be on in the first place.  The liberal democratic leadership will be no longer in control and I suspect that many of the current Republican minority leadership will be in for a fight for control of the caucus and its agenda.  The established elite of both parties are not well liked by voters and may find themselves looking in from the cold come 2011 when the tea party victors arrive in D.C.  This is one of the most interesting election cycles since 1994 when the Republican Revolution and Contract for America propelled Republicans into control of the House of Representatives and cleared the way for more Republican victories to come.  Let’s just hope that this one doesn’t crash and burn like the 1994 group did.

Republican New School Flexes Clout Ahead of November

By Judson Berger

Published September 05, 2010 | FoxNews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/05/republican-new-school-flexes-clout-ahead-november/

Democrats aren't the only incumbents in trouble this November. With a crop of feisty, fresh-faced conservatives making noise in the House and a wave of Tea Party-backed newcomers determined to join them, senior Republicans could have a mutiny on their hands. 

The gap between the old and new schools of the GOP has become apparent as Election Day nears and polls show Republicans increasingly likely to pick up seats -- lots of seats. 

Election guru Larry Sabato, at the University of Virginia, released new projections showing a possible 47-seat GOP pickup in the House. Gallup's latest generic poll showed Republicans with a 10-point lead over Democrats in the fall, the largest gap in 68 years. 

The opportunity for a shakeup is ripe, but so is the opportunity for a makeover of the Republican Party itself. 

"The Republican caucuses in the Senate and the House will change," Democratic strategist Kiki McLean said. "A dangerous place for Republicans to be is establishment leadership." 

Establishment leadership likely were not thrilled to read about the contents this past week of the upcoming book being published by self-proclaimed "Young Guns" Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy -- three ambitious young members of Congress who've been heading up recruitment of other like-minded wunderkinds for the party. 

Their book, "Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders," is due out Sept. 14 -- a blueprint for America in the same vein as the policy book then-Sen. Barack Obama's campaign released in 2008, only with the opposite prescriptions. 

A summary in Politico.com based on an advance copy said House Republican Leader John Boehner is mentioned just three times in the book. House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence, R-Ind., is not mentioned at all, and other heavyweights like Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell are similarly disregarded. 

A promotional video paid for by Cantor's political committee, set to inspiring music, looks like an introduction for the starting lineup of an Olympics dream team. The video bluntly depicts the authors as a different kind of dream team -- the future of the Republican Party. 

"There is a better way and a new team is ready to bring America back," the narrator says. 

Ryan, R-Wis., has attracted considerable attention in the Obama years as the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee. He's considered the policy wonk of the lot and played a big role laying out the economic argument against the health care overhaul at the height of that debate. He's also put out his own economic recovery blueprint, which he calls "A Roadmap for America's Future." 

Both he and McCarthy, R-Calif., were named in a recent list of the top five most powerful House Republicans compiled by GQ magazine. (The list intentionally excluded those in leadership positions.) The list also included Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the oversight committee Republican notorious for pursuing investigations into whatever bothers him -- and more importantly, bothers Democrats. 

The three "Young Guns" lawmakers lead a program of the same name through the Republican National Congressional Committee that identifies and supports select conservative candidates. 

Boehner and Cantor, the House GOP whip, denied friction between them in an interview with Fox News in July following a report that suggested Cantor posed an upstart challenge to Boehner's command. 

"This is nothing but high school gossip kind of reporting," Cantor said at the time. 

"We work very well together," Boehner said, acknowledging differences. 

Cantor also has said publicly that he would support Boehner for speaker if Republicans seize the majority. 

A GOP leadership aide said Boehner is not worried. 

The Republican leader has stayed consistently visible and relevant in recent weeks, driving debate during the congressional recess and challenging the Obama administration. 

When Vice President Biden delivered a speech touting the stimulus last month, Boehner used his address that day to call for President Obama to fire his economic team. Other Republicans have since echoed that demand. 

And before Obama delivered his Oval Office address Tuesday marking the end of combat operations in Iraq, Boehner delivered an Iraq war address before the American Legion convention in Milwaukee. He called for the president to avoid "arbitrary deadlines" for withdrawal in Afghanistan, something other Republicans repeated after Obama delivered his speech. 

But sitting lawmakers aren't the only ones who could be waiting in the wings. 

Some of the most prominent voices in the Republican Party this season are on the campaign trail, several on the Senate side -- Republican Senate nominee Marco Rubio in Florida, Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul in Kentucky and Republican Senate nominee Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania. 

Chip Saltsman, former campaign manager for 2008 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, cited all three conservatives in describing the new face of the GOP. 

"We're seeing a different type of candidate," he said, noting that the resounding theme of their campaigns is fiscal conservatism, government restraint and job creation. "The country's just about had enough and I think that's why you're going to see a new face of Republican politics out there, and it's one of fiscal control." 

He said candidates like Paul and Rubio would "lead that charge" in November. 

Dozens of new Republicans could enter on the House side. McLean said the changing makeup could pose a serious problem for sitting Republican leaders. 

"The most endangered incumbent this year is really John Boehner, the House Republican leaders, because I think as you see a lot more of the Tea Party candidates come into their caucus, when they go to their leadership elections, they're not going to stand with establishment leadership," she said.

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

The Gathering Revolt Against Government Spending (from the Washington Examiner)

By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
May 23, 2010

This month three members of Congress have been beaten in their bids for re-election -- a Republican senator from Utah, a Democratic congressman from West Virginia and a Republican-turned-Democrat senator from Pennsylvania. Their records and their curricula vitae are different. But they all have one thing in common: They are members of an Appropriations Committee.Like most appropriators, they have based much of their careers on bringing money to their states and districts. There is an old saying on Capitol Hill that there are three parties -- Democrats, Republicans and appropriators. One reason that it has been hard to hold down government spending is that appropriators of both parties have an institutional and political interest in spending.

Their defeats are an indication that spending is not popular this year.

House Republican Letter to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Opposing the VAT Tax Option

The last thing America needs right now is more economic recovery killing taxation.  154 Republicans signed the letter sent to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform opposing the VAT Tax. Kudos to these Republican members of the House who signed onto this letter.

"In a depressed economy, the number one priority of government should be to stimulate job growth.  With unemployment at nearly 10 percent, Americans cannot afford the burden of a new job killing tax.  But this is exactly what a VAT will do.  A VAT will increase the cost of goods and services for all Americans, including the lower and middle classes.  It will tax our manufacturers, sending even more jobs overseas.  And, it will decrease consumption, which will deepen the recession and suppress entrepreneurialism.  This is exactly what has happened in Europe where increased government spending and taxation has led to consistently high unemployment and suppressed economic activity."

“Disappointingly, some in Washington still believe that we must grow our government and the tax base to fix the debt crisis.  Recently the President’s own advisors have suggested that a VAT could be good for America.  Not even a 19 percent VAT was able to save Greece from a full-blown crisis.  We should not expect different results in America.”

http://www.house.gov/pitts/documents/PittsLettertoDebtCommission.pdf

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Repealing the 17th Amendment or Imposing Term Limits?

Here in Idaho there has been a recent dustup regarding the 17th Amendment and comments made by two Republican candidates for Congress. (Idaho Press-Tribune article, editorial) This made me realize here was one area of the Constitution that I was not familiar with the original intent of.  So I did some research on the topic and decided that the time had come to seriously look at repealing the 17^th Amendment or, at the very least, constitutionally mandating term limits.

Running on the Promise to Repeal Obamacare is Short Sighted and Dangerous Strategy for Republican Candidates

Before I start getting hate mail/comments or being told I am not a true conservative, hear me out.  I didn’t support Obamacare and would like to see it repealed as much as anyone.  However, it isn’t going to happen anytime soon for two BIG reasons.

H4892/S3081 Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, & Prosecution Act. A Congressional Bill That Should Raise Concerns.

This legislation sets forth the parameters in which suspected unprivileged enemy belligerents can be held and interrogated. The bill allows for both U.S. Citizens and non-citizens to fall under the provisions of this legislation. Attacks or the purposeful and material support of such attacks that occur in either a domestic or foreign location against American interests, or American coalition partners, are covered by this bill. The definitions of a terrorist act, terrorist, and unprivileged enemy belligerent are also laid out.  The legislation is aimed at “high value” detainees but the definition of a “high value” detainee can be construed to cover a large swath of detainees both current and future.  Also included is a provision for the detention without trial or charges until the ceasing of hostilities in which the detainee was involved or materially supported. 

Thus this legislation relates to both domestic and foreign individuals.  If I am reading the bill right, a citizen who is accused of either committing or supporting an act of violence against the United States or its coalition partners can be held indefinitely without charges or trial.  Therefore, there is a potential conflict with current Constitutional protections and due process.  The section about purposefully and materially supporting such actions is not well spelled out and could be potentially construed to be a variety of activities, including political positions, statements, speeches, etc.  Despite this bill being pushed in increase the security of Americans, the provisions within it have the potential to be used to quash political opposition in the name of controlling/fighting domestic terrorists.  I know it sounds conspiratorial, but that possibility remains due to the legislation’s language.

Both House and Senate bills are virtually identical leaving little need for a conference committee, should they pass their respective chambers as is, so the bill has a better chance of sliding straight through with little in the way of resistance or speed bumps. This piece of legislation will be passed in the name of protecting America from terrorists. However, in my opinion, the justifiable actions to invoke the use of this legislation are a bit sketchy and left intentionally vague.  The big question is whether Obama would sign such a piece of legislation into law should it reach his desk.

What Happens When You Back a Donkey With Nothing to Lose Into a Corner?

After the passage of the immensely unpopular healthcare reform bill, much has been said and written about the pounding the Democrats are going to take in November.  Democratic Congress members and Senators are retiring in never before seen numbers rather than face their angry constituents and a tough re-election battle.  Even Democratic strategists and supporters are lamenting the strong potential for the sweeping of Democrats from the majority position in Congress. 

While there is much pleasure being taken regarding this prediction by those who are opposed to the direction the Democrats are taking this country, there is one big question that remains.  What happens when you back a donkey with nothing to lose into a corner?

The Democrats in Congress have shown a propensity for willingly and arrogantly ignoring the will of the people in their push to implement their agenda come hell or high water.  They passed the so-called healthcare reform bill despite the majority of Americans rejecting it in poll after poll.  Their main argument was that Americans would learn to love it once they understood what it entailed and how they would benefit.  If the Democrats were willing to do this before it became clear there could be a major political power shift coming in November, one can only wonder what will happen now.

I have heard a considerable number of conspiracy theories over this very subject, from stolen elections through electoral fraud to the cancellation of elections after a staged terrorist event on American soil to a brown shirt-style suppression of opposition candidates.  I really think these are just wild accusations from really angry, imaginative individuals.  Could it happen?  Possibly.  But, not only would it be highly unlikely for such activities to be successful on a national level, I still have enough faith in the American people that they would not stand for such behavior.  And I honestly don’t think Democratic leaders are dumb enough, powerful enough, or deranged enough to even seriously consider attempting such a wild move.

What does worry me is what they will do with the knowledge they are likely going to lose exclusive power in November.  With many Democrats not willing to face their constituents in a bid for re-election, they have nothing to lose and no one to answer to.  Basically they are nothing more than kids in a candy store looking for the ultimate sugar high.  There is nothing to stop them from passing and implementing some of their more radical policy dreams in their push for greater central government control over the lives of the American people. Their drive to change the cultural, ideological, and philosophical landscape of this great country can proceed at full speed ahead with no speed bumps, traffic cops, or red lights to impede their progress.  Is there a legislative scorched earth strategy being put into place by Democratic leadership in an attempt to get some of their most radical policies put into law before being swept from power? Will they try to ram through Cap and Trade?  Or will it be some other, more draconian, environmental policy?  Will there be an immigration reform bill that gives amnesty, or citizenship, to all those who are currently in this country in violation of established law?  Will there be further attempts to take over the financial sectors?  Will there be a value added tax forced upon the American people in an attempt to pay for the skyrocketing federal spending spree? All of these legislative issues are currently in circulation in various congressional committees with nothing standing in the way of their passage.  Of course, there should be no illusions that if any of these bills be passed President Obama would be more than happy to sign them into law as quickly as they can get to his desk and he can grab a pen.

In the end, what happens when you back a donkey with nothing to lose into a corner?  America pays heavily with its culture, political landscape, and institutions permanently and irreversibly changed.  With the Democrats having nothing to lose and no one to answer to, anything becomes a real possibility.  What remains to be seen is how much damage will have been done once the dust has settled.

Posted via email from conservativedynamics's posterous