There Are Those Who Still Believe....In Obamacare

Facts can be pretty stubborn things. Someone finally took a look at the facts and it wasn't pretty.


Paul Ryan: Actually, Obamacare Will Increase Budget Deficit by $700 Billion Over 10 Years
1:02 PM, JAN 6, 2011 • BY JOHN MCCORMACK

Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said this afternoon that contrary to claims that Obamacare will reduce the deficit, it will actually increase the deficit by roughly $700 billion.


Ryan said this afternoon at the National Press Club that the only reason a Congressional Budget Office letter claims the national health care law will reduce the deficit--i.e. bring in more revenue through tax hikes and Medicare cuts than it spends on Obamacare--is because "the books have been severely cooked"--not by the CBO but by the Democrats who wrote the bill.

"CBO has to score what you put in front of them," Ryan explained. "And if you put a bill in front of them that ignores the discretionary cost of the $115 billion you need to spend to run this new Obamacare program, that double counts the Medicare savings, that double counts the CLASS Act revenue, that double counts the Social Security revenue, that does not count the "Doc Fix"--you add all that stuff up, net it out, we're talking about a $701 billion hole--deficit."

"So if you actually do real accounting, get away the smoke-and-mirrors, get away the budget gimmicks, this thing is a huge deficit-increaser. And so we're not interested in enshrining, and endorsing, and accepting all the budget gimmicks the Democrats used to cram this thing through [Congress]," Ryan continued. "Mark my words: this thing will not reduce the deficit. I am very confident in saying that. They have a piece of paper from CBO that they contorted to suggest that it does. But that's not reality."

Liberals vs. the Constitution

If you swear to uphold the constitution, shouldn't you know what you are promising to do? It seems reasonable to any thinking person for one to read and understand it. I guess if you don't read it you somehow think you aren't responsible for your mistakes? Perhaps we need to add an amendment to the constitution that requires not only reading but test based knowledge of the document to which you are about to swear to uphold.

Liberals vs. the Constitution
By Robert Bluey

For the first time in the 221-year history of Congress, members of the U.S. House today read aloud the U.S. Constitution. It served as an important reminder for lawmakers to reflect on the limits of their authority and the powers delegated to them.

But the mere utterance of “We the people” has set liberals, especially in the news media, into a tizzy. The Washington Post begrudgingly called it the “tea party-ization of Congress.”
In a rant on his MSNBC show last night, Keith Olbermann questioned whether Republicans would even understand what they were reading:

“The reading embraced by new Speaker Boehner but originated by Tea Party original intent, Founding Father worshippers, who think that tomorrow’s reading will somehow part the seas for their vision of the country to emerge. They might be in for a shock tomorrow. That is, if they even understand the words they will read.”

You would think the Constitution was written in Greek, based on Olbermann’s description. In reality, it’s a concise document -- seven articles and 27 amendments -- written in plain English. You can carry it in your pocket.

Vanity Fair suggested the reading alone would cost $1,071,872.87, an absurd estimate based on House salaries and expenses among other things. No word yet from Vanity Fair how much the previous Democrat-controlled House spent on commemorative legislation recognizing "National Pi Day” or honoring golf legend Juan Antonio “Chi Chi” Rodriguez.

Republicans rightfully banned such acts as part of their rules for the 112th Congress. The new rules require lawmakers to cite constitutional authority when they introduce legislation. After today’s reading, expect that to become the Left’s next target.

Rather than celebrate this return to first principles, The New York Times condemned the GOP -- even suggesting the Constitution’s reading was a racist maneuver.

Read The Rest.

Congress discovers the Constitution

I don't know how many of you caught this article but it is well worth the read.

Congress discovers the Constitution

WASHINGTON — January 5, 2011 – The Majority Leadership of the 112th Congress is “going where no Congress has gone before” by reading the actual Constitution and all of its Amendments into the Congressional Record. It obviously has taken a page from my book, The National Platform of Common Sense (page 61 to be exact). You see, if you serve in Congress, you have taken the following oath:

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

The ACLU need not be concerned as I’m sure that devout atheists will be allowed to “affirm” to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” rather than being forced to “swear” to God or invoke His help. Of course, that will all occur after Congress is brought to session with its opening prayer. I guess you can say “Amen” for that tradition.


House Speaker-designate John Boehner of Ohio walks to the floor of the House on Capitol Hill in Washington Wednesday, Jan. 5, 2011. (Photo: Associated Press)

Common sense tells us that if our Congressmen are going to swear (or affirm) to uphold the Constitution, they should at least be familiar with it. In The National Platform of Common Sense, I call for them to be tested on it. Can you imagine what a political catastrophe that would be?

Yet, many political pundits are assailing the reading of the Constitution as political grandstanding. Ezra Klein, a staff writer for The Washington Post and an MSNBC Contributor, recently portrayed the reading as “a gimmick” and stated, “The issue with the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending upon what they want to get done.”

Perhaps, Mr. Klein and the other naysayers are correct. They are, after all, objective journalists.

The Constitution is actually over 223 years old, so the issue of archaic language may present even a greater obstacle than Mr. Klein suggests. Let’s see: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Hmmmm … other than the spelling of “defence,” the language appears to be reasonably clear.

Go Read The Rest.