Archive for the 'Claire McCaskill' Category

Claire McCaskill politicizes Joplin, Missouri disaster.

Friday, May 27th, 2011

Senator McCaskill ended speculation whether or not she was behind in polls for her re-election Wednesday after chiding Majority Whip Eric Cantor from the floor of the United States Senate and using the disaster in Joplin, Missouri as a political football.

In a statement, Senator McCaskill chided Majority Whip Eric Cantor’s call to ensure there would be offsets for disaster spending.

To make such an outrageous statement on the floor of the United States Senate may indicate Claire running significantly behind both Republicans Sarah Steelman and Todd Akin.

If you were to hear Senator McCaskill’s side only you would undoubtedly buy into what may be her only campaign strategy for the upcoming election: paint Republicans as heartless greedy individuals without care in the world for the average citizen.

Being a media built darling, of course, allows her freedom to make such claims without many facts. Such is the case here.

Truth is House Republicans consider FEMA funding a high priority and passed the necessary funding increases and cuts they day before Senator McCaskill made her statement.

According to Cantor spokes person federal funding for disaster relief is a top priority and FEMA funding will run out by years end and programs were already terminated in an effort to add over 1 Billion in additional funding.

What were the specifics off sets? Unused money from the DOE vehicle loan program.

In a press release dated May 24th, 2011 House Appropriates Committee Chairman Hal Rogers explained expanded FEMA funding in an effort to allow for recent natural disasters, which passed with bipartisan support out of committee on Tuesday :

As part of the Homeland Security bill, the Committee passed an amendment - offered by Subcommittee Chairman Robert Aderholt - to add $1 billion in funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) disaster relief fund, offset by funding reductions from the under-performing Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program at the Department of Energy. The additional FEMA funds are necessary to continue to respond to devastating natural disasters - including the recent tornados and flooding in the Midwest and South. In contrast, the vehicle loan program at DOE currently has $4.2 billion in unspent funding that has been available since 2008 - including at least $2 billion more than the program applicants have applied for.

So, contrary to Senator McCaskill’s claims, a funding shell game is not being played. Money is being directed to help Americans who are in the most dire need, as it should be.

In fact, legislation passed out of committee the day before by cutting unspent money, something Senator McCaskill should be proud of if she was a real fiscal conservative. However, as most Missourians know, she is not.

The truth is, FEMA funding will pass unless Democrats in the Senate try to kill any such legislation by demanding the unspent DOE money be restored. After all, there is a need to continue the narrative that Republicans are all heartless meanies, right?

National Debt hits 11 trillion

Wednesday, March 18th, 2009

For those who believe President Obama and Democrats in Congress are some sort of God send and fiscally responsible, the Congressional Budget Office has some news for you - the United States is 11 trillion dollars in debt.

While presidents past (including George W. Bush) added to this deficit, none have accelerated it to the levels we now face - a whopping 13% of our Gross Domestic Product.

President Obama does not share this blame alone, however. Democrats who took control of Congress in 2006 and are current operate with nearly no checks in place to balance them are perhaps even more responsible.

Democrat sponsored legislation including the original TARP bill (which included almost two hundred billion more in spending in addition to a 20% kick back to organizations like ACORN), Stimulus/Porkulus (nearly a trillion) bill and the current budget over all budget (a proposed 3.4 trillion) all accelerated the slope we are currently hurdling down.

Whats worse, perhaps, are the various discussions we’ve heard regarding additional resources being spent because there isnt enough being done.

Is it no wonder its been recently reported that many countries are refusing the path of massive deficit spending which we are on?

Not to be left out is Republican opposition to particular provisions of the AIG bailout which were inserted by Senator Chris Dodd which allowed executives to pay themselves fat bonuses for a failing company.

Nor is the coming carbon based tax hike for everyone which Democrats in Congress are trying to rubber stamp with, save for eight “moderates”, with little or no debate.

Perhaps most perplexing to me is how these same Democrats who vote for these bills, such as Missouri Senate Claire McCaskill, to call them selves fiscal conservatives to which the media seemingly acts as nothing more than an echo chamber for.

But wait, one of the chief economist of Citi (yeah, the company who is begging for nationalization) is going to work for the Obama administration.

Who do they think they are kidding? My guess is that they and the media pat themselves on the back with a high rate of frequency, facts be damned.

RE: Bond, McCaskill votes on budget.

Thursday, March 12th, 2009

With some of the comments swimming around the media over the last few days over the recently passed budget, I would like to air a couple concerns of mine.

First, I believe that Bond could have made a larger impact by voting against the budget as proposed.

The budget as released by the Obama administration was a full eight percent increase over last year’s pork packed spending allotment. This, combined with nine thousand earmarks, is simply irresponsible.

Let me be clear, Bond did nothing unethical and was certainly within his rights to do so.

I can argue that the money received from earmarks here in southwest Missouri and across the state are going to appropriate places. However, because of eight Republican senators, including Bond, the political opportunity to regain the mantle of fiscal conservatism passed with a whimper.

Whats worse, moreover, is the claim by Missouri junior Senator Claire McCaskill that she is some sort of fiscal conservative because she voted against the measure.

Mind you her complaint was not the eight percent increase in federal spending, nor was it TARP 1 or the stimulus bill (aka porkulus) which she voted for. The supposed problem? Earmarks.

In other words, its a okay to spend in excess of two trillion dollars over the past four months but not okay to attach a few thousand earmarks worth a couple billion. Does this seem silly to anyone else?

Apparently not to swooning McCaskillite journalist here in Missouri.

Enough with earmark demagoguery.

Saturday, March 7th, 2009

Any reasonable observer of our political system will tell you that the earmark process needs honest reform. From the notorious bridge to no where to money spent on various home district pet projects.

Still, while proven reformers like Representative Jeff Flake and Senator John McCain from Arizona lead the way, others try to mimic their actions for personal gain. There were two such instances here in Missouri this week.

Junior Senator Claire McCaskill started the process this week by making a call for “tougher pork barrel spending reform.”

The former “porker of the month“, voter for “porkulus” and TARP 1 legislation offered the following proposal with co-sponsor Senator Udall from Colorado.

  • Include all earmarks in the text of the bill. Congress has attempted in the past to crack down on adding earmarks to bill text during closed-door conference negotiations between the House of Representatives and the Senate, but in practice members continued to add earmarks by including them in the “statement of managers” (a document attached to the bill that is not technically part of the text and therefore not subject to the rules). McCaskill’s bill would close this loophole by requiring that all earmarks appear in the bill’s actual language, rather than in a statement of managers.
  • All authorization bills must comply with the same earmark requirements as appropriations bills. Both appropriations bills and authorization bills frequently include earmarks, but currently only appropriations bills are subject to the most stringent earmark rules. McCaskill’s legislation would ensure that authorization bills are subject to the same rules as appropriation bills.
  • All earmark requests must be made public on the internet within 48 hours. Under the McCaskill bill, senators must post on their website all their earmark requests - not just those that actually make it into appropriations and authorization bills - within 48 hours of submitting them to committees. Committees must also post these requests within 48 hours.
  • All appropriation and authorization conference reports must be electronically searchable. Although bills are required to be electronically searchable before they reach the Senate floor, there is a loophole that allows bills emerging from House-Senate conference negotiations to forego this step. McCaskill’s legislation would fix this loophole by explicitly requiring that all appropriations and authorization conference reports be electronically searchable at least 48 hours before they are considered by the full Senate.
  • Eliminate earmarks for private companies and non-profit organizations. Private companies currently receive billions of dollars in earmarks, bypassing the competitive bidding process. Congressional offices simply do not have the capacity to conduct objective, cost-benefit and merit-based analyses of the private companies and non-profit organizations requesting earmarks each year.

These points sound good until one digs into what happens in Washington, then its a completely different story in which find the proposal either duplicates existing policies or does more harm than good.

Democrats proved with the passage of the stimulus bill (aka porkulus) such rules simply do not matter as unrelated projects are tucked skillfully into places which most of our legislators or their staff never got the chance to read.

Similarly, the blanket exclusion of earmarks for private and not for profit organizations in the name of “competitive bidding” could cripple local or state organizations and or one time projects which can be vital to a community while entrenching established bureaucracies.

In the end the only true advantage of the proposal is to give Democrats political cover and perpetuate an on going media generated myth regarding their budget record in Congress.

Not to be out done, former Missouri Treasurer Sarah Steelman decided to chide Congressman Roy Blunt and Republicans for praising Senator Bond for fighting for Missouri in Congress while labeling the process and most Republicans in the process as “corrupt.”

Steelman, who seemingly is more interested in getting even with Roy Blunt and other Republicans who endorsed her primary opponent last year, lashed out against a series of questions posed toward Democrat Senate candidate Robin Carnahan.

The implication filters down to the Republican State Committee not supporting wasteful spending and earmarks being evil - and by extension those who are currently in office (with a focus on the Roy Blut, Kitt Bond) being corrupt.

Steelman is correct that Missourians do not support inefficient and wasteful spending. However, she could not be more wrong regarding the lack of accountability or what her apparent targets do in Congress.

To be sure, Blunt and Bond are not perfect.

I would mark 2002 as a low point for Roy Blunt specifically with his insertion of tabacco interests into legislation and massive spending votes. This was wrong, as was the increased levels of pork which as whip he helped pass. This is not an accurate picture of where Roy Blunt is or his entire legislative list of accomplishments, though.

Since then Roy Blunt recanted and rebuked past budget votes and committed him self to earmark transparency and budget reform. In fact he championed many “clean” defense and various budget bills which never allowed a vote because of rules put in place by Speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi.

Of those earmarks Roy did submit, all are listed in plain speaking on his Congressional website.

Outside of defense spending earmarks which certainly are debatable, the list is filled with financial requests for first responders, schools, much needed highway maintenance and the White River Basin project.

For fiscal year 2008 the list includes money for local reading programs, law enforcement, schools and “Crisis Nursery of the Ozarks” - a battered women’s shelter.

My question would be to both Steelman and McCaskill which of these earmarks are unethical? Which represents irresponsible government spending?

Niether McCaskill or Steelman offer real reform. Neither one offer any real reform beyond lip service and media wagging rhetoric.

America needs real earmark reform which serves our needs but takes as much political preference out as possible.

It is apparent to this political observer that both are unaware of the earmarks being requested and simply want to gain positive media experiences to further their own careers.

Such demagoguery must stop.

It is still Marxism, madame Senator.

Wednesday, February 4th, 2009

I wonder if Senator Claire McCaskill is feeling some heat or understands how truly sinister her plan to regulate executive pay is?

If there wasnt some sort of back lash or remorse, then why claim some sort of populist mandate while introducing a measure which President Obama apparently approves of?

To be sure I can agree with those who believe that executive pay appears excessive, especially to companies which fail.

Still, it is not the government’s responsibility to be a nanny and tell the businesses how they should run themselves unless there is a compelling public harm which is necessary to prevent.

I can understand the need for accountability when it comes to spending tax payer dollars. This is common sense.

What I do not understand, though, is the absolute arrogance of those on Capital Hill who offer no real accountability for the thousands of government programs in exsistance or new ones created in the forth coming “stimulus” package.

Either way, the measure is still a core tennet of Marxism and goes against the very principles which our nation were founded on.

For businesses to be successful, as in the past, the chains of government need to be at a minimum. Regulations which are in place should be built toward protecting people, not trying to shape social values or accomplish through the back door what Leon Trotsky and Karl Marx sought nearly a century ago.

Then again, I guess we shouldnt be so suprised at the legislative  move given Claire’s lack of knowledge how a free market system works.

Claire McCaskill channels Karl Marx.

Friday, January 30th, 2009

We all knew back in 2006 during the debate at KY3 it was apparent Claire McCaskill didnt understand much about how the fundamentals of a market based economy work. Today, though, she gave America a full dose of that ignorance by channeling Karl Marx and demanding that companies who accept federal money not pay their executives any more than the President of the United States.

While acting as an echo chamber for President Barack Obama’s earlier comments, Claire displayed a core belief which can only be described as radical.

In our rich American government was always limited by laws into their reach of our lives and how we do our day to day businesses. In seeking to demand companies to accept guidelines which do  nothing more than control core elements such as maximum salary dispursal we see a direct link to Marxism.

A business should be in control of its own interests, not beheld to law makers which know nothing about an industry or could care whether or not it survives.

Indeed, the same law makers seek to leach every ounce of life from business in an effort to fund a lasting majority cemented by a constituent base hooked on welfare.

There was once a time such a policy would mean a removal from office during the next election. I am not so sure about that nowadays with the media plainly in bed with Democrats.

US Monthly death toll lowest in Iraq since 2003 invasion. (Updated)

Thursday, July 31st, 2008

There were a total of 11 deaths for U.S. forces in Iraq this month, reportedly the lowest since the 2003 invasion began. This leaves our total losses to date at about 4,100.

The drop in violence started after the surge was implemented mid last year and with the exception of two spikes during military offensives to quel shiite militias.

Contrary to what Senator Obama and our own Junior Senator Claire McCaskill are pedaling, it was the surge its self which convinced many Sunnis to join “the awakening.”

In fact, if one research esand understands what the strategy behind the surge is, the core is working from the bottom (local) up - not just throwing troops at the situation.

Why is this distinction important? Because in his plans to address Afghanistan Senator Obama is planning to simply throw troops at the problem and emulate the surge, but not truly copy the over all strategy like McCain is.

Update: looks like things are successful to the point where President Bush decided to reduce tours from fifteen to twelve months. Good stuff.

Links worthy of note for July 3, 2008.

Thursday, July 3rd, 2008

Here are a few links and news stories worthy of noting today, before we get to burn our money in a specticle of patriotic fireworks displays from sea to shining sea.

First Principles. This is the first post by Fred Thompson in a while on Redstate and it is an outstanding piece of work. It reminds us, as with most works by Fred, of what made this nation great (heres a hint, it wasnt government) and what type of change is truly needed. After reading it I wanted to stand up, salute the flag and then maybe sulk over why he isnt the Republican nomiee. This is a must read.

Glenn Beck on putting downward pressure on the oil markets through drilling and other methods. Excellent read. The More I read Glenn Beck’s stuff on, the more I like the guy.

Obama campaign adopts Claire McCaskill’s stance on Iraq. Remember when Senator Obama said that he would demand the troops would be withdrawn from day one? Well, as with many things, he changed his stance. In this particular instance Obama seems to be taking a play out of Junior Senator Claire McCaskill’s book and trying to sell the public in the belief that he will “listen to the generals.”

If this were true, he wouldnt be tucking tail and surrendering on day one if he were elected. In the end, however, this apparent change in policy should be viewed as no different that Obama friend and advisor McCaskill who pulled the same stunt during the 2006 election versus Jim Talent. In the end Claire refused to listen to what the Generals were saying. Of course thats not what matters - its all about perception.

Gas prices break $144.00 due to speculation and strain from usage in China. Just what we need, more upward pressure from countries abroad. The article notes, however, that the last $10.00 move in the market is guess work concerning a conflict between Isreal and Iran. If so, that would mean that there is a minimum of $25.00 a barrell in pure fear premium which involves nothing concerning supply and demand. busts Obama campaign for stretching truth in second ad. As if we couldnt see this one coming. There are lots of inaccuracies and outright policy flip-flops being spread by the Obama campaign on a variety of fronts. Curiously, I dont see the media rushing to point out the truth on these matters. Nor will I expect it. After all, he is the Obamassiah

More on Obama and freedom from faith. Kinda feathers into my post a couple days ago. Good read.

Senator Obama to meet with terrorist sponsor Hugo Chavez? Pherhaps. His donors already have. Why is this important? Other that Chavez being a brutal dictator and being a sponsor of terrorism? Uh nothing.

Anyone else find it interesting that Senator Obama has no problems talking with these types of people unconditionally but refuses to do 10 town hall style debates with Senator McCain?

KY3 harrasses Hulshof. Not that the Candidate should answer questions - they should. But a self admitted “one note” interview which plays off of an accusation made by an opponent? Hm. I dont remember any Democrats interviewed by the KY3 Notebook getting hammered like this?

My guess is that the upcoming debate being hosted by KY3 wil reflect much of the same bias on display during the debate between Claire McCaskill and Jim Talent. Instead of addressing questions Republicans want to know - it will be a mixture of questions and campaign talking points raised by Nixon and Steeleman. Just a guess.

Senator McCaskill’s amazing display of ignorance on Iraq.

Tuesday, April 8th, 2008

Watching her during the 2006 election I knew Claire McCaskill didnt know a darned thing about foriegn policy and even less about defense issues, but I didnt know how bad until today.

While watching the Petraeus hearings today Senator McCaskill tried to push media talking points by ignoring the successes of our forces over the past few months and decided to focus on actions taken by Iraqi Prime Minister Malki. She suggested that some how Al Sadr, who is hiding in Iran, got a leg up after recent actions in Basra.

Ambassador Crocker was nice enough to try and politely explain the situation to her and the complexities of the situation and how Maliki is now in a stronger situation because of his crack down on extremist militias.

Still, it amazes me to which Senator McCaskill is showing her ignorance on the matter. Has she bothered to research regarding the culture and the impact of the actions?

Does she understand that it was Al Sadr who called for the cease-fire after his and militia group with the aide of Iranian forces were routed in Basra?

Does she know that Maliki broke that cease-fire and continued to break the backs of Al Sadr’s extremist militias until they bent to Maliki’s decree to disarm?

Does she understand the necessity of Maliki breaking the backs of the malitias in order to stop Iran’s influence and the degree to which Al Sadr is concerned about losing political power?

Doesnt sound like it to me.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

More about McCaskill and Hsu.

Wednesday, October 17th, 2007

File this under more news that wont be published unless the politician was a Republican. is reporting that Hsu was an active fundraiser for Junior Senator Claire McCaskill. Hmm.

Hsu “suggested that a candidate needs support [in] a tough fight against Republicans,” he said of the pitch on behalf of McCaskill. Her office didn’t return a request for comment.

All was fair when Democrats cried about convict Abramoff, right? So where is the continuing coverage over Hsu? Maybe we will not hear a lot about it because he is connected to Democrats?

The whole point in my posting about this matter isnt so much about the troubling fundraising aspect, but about the blatant Missouri media bias.

hat tip: Missouri Pulse.