On the heals of Democrats screaming over a move Senator Bunning of Kentucky (R) made, apparently blocking extra money being spent on extending unemployment benefits, I believe its important to make a couple of points.

From my understanding on the issue, Bunning is asking for Senator Reid of Nevada (D) to find the 15 billion or so from other sources of revenue as a pose to deficit spending.

Why is this important?

Well if we go back to the Presidential debates last year, one can remember a then Junior Senator Barack Obama claiming that ear marks didn’t matter, that they were an insignificant amount of the budget.

John McCain argued that the larger point that it was a symptom of wreckless spending. In the end, McCain was dead on regarding Obama’s fiscal policies.

More over, though, what came to my mind was the figure provided in the debate. It as roughly 20 Billion (Factcheck.org says there was roughly 17 Billion in earmarks).

To that end, if Senator Reid and Barack Obama were serious about fiscal constraint they would propose cutting earmarks completely and spending that money on employment benefits.

I some how doubt this will happen.

I couldnt help but repost this after seeing it on National Review Online. There are a lot of good quotes in in a monologue scene out of Dragnet regarding our nation. I cant help but wonder how many people dont know how good we have it and are willing to trade our freedom and liberty for a bureaucrat’s reassurance of security.

This video explains the direction President Obama and Democrats are taking concerning our national debt. It should be noted that this does not include proposals such as providing universal health care or a second stimulus bill.

Democrats apparently are looking at adding a regressive tax to fund a trillion dollar experiment in nationalization of health care.

The tax, traditionally know as a VAT (Value added tax), would be a tax on all goods and services. This is not to be confused with the fair tax which would drop all other form of taxes since VAT is an additional revenue stream.

While this would generate much more money for the government to use, it could cripple many businesses, some of which are services and are doing just fine.

Redstate.com’s Francis Cianfrocca has an excellent analysis of how a VAT will impact us in broad terms - none of which are positive.

Here is the most important item question from my perspective: Why are we looking to add another trillion to our deficit which has quadrupled since Obama took office?

Kinda makes one feel good upon receiving our twelve dollar a week tax break, eh?

10. Timing of the news conference conflicts with family DVD night.

9. Watching paint dry is more interesting. For those who want to be more “environmentally friendly” grass growing is an EPA acceptable alternative (to this point).

8. WWE offers better acting. The entire event including questions and answers are scripted out and posted on JournaLIST. Similar to WWE, the audience gets the finished product of hours of rehearsal. At least there is add libbing with WWE. Right?

7. We already heard from President Obama about his NCAA picks and bowling skills this past week. What else is there to know?

6. Isnt my dentist appointment tonight?

5. Im not in to teaching my kids how to lie and stretch the truth for personal gain of power at the expense of other’s freedoms. Although the press conference could offer a valuable less on learning how to play pretend.

4. I get more truthful information and harder hitting questions from the forth coming Saturday Night Light skit. Count me in for that.

3. Because farming entry level Naxxramas for the 20th time is far more entertaining, especially if you run in and aggro the boss while yelling.. well, you know…

2. My grass needs mowed.

1. Our dear leader, Obama, knows better any ways. Best I leave the tough decisions to government and those in Congress who know better. I know the Constitution doesn’t give them the authority, but how dare such small details get in the way of progressive ideas!

Update: Drudge Report states the following:

SOURCE: Reporters were told in advance if president was going to call on them. Senior Administration Officials notified reporters from Stars & Stripes, Univision and other news outlets that they should have question ready. Several reporters moved up in assigned seats as result…

Can I call it or what?

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.

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.

If reports from the Wall Street Journal and the Hill are correct, then the Obama administration will be making unprecedented grabs of power in depth, breadth and perhaps most concerning the speed at which the expansion of government control will increase.

To start off, Obama is promising unions that the Orwellian named Employee Free Choice Act will pass. The legislation allows unions to bypass a federal requirement that organizations take a secret ballot vote on whether or not to form a union. Instead, union organizers simply could pressure a simple majority into signing a document which would the government would immediately recognize as a union.

The financial impact on businesses nation wide would leave a wake of unprecedented devastation while businesses would be shackled with new government imposed requirements and union contracts.

Of course this wouldnt matter to President Obama or the Democrat party who apparently believe financial institutions like the stock market do not measure the American economy. The highly partisan act would increase union membership in intern funnel millions of dollars into Democrat campaign funds.

To that end, the mission would be accomplished.

If that piece of legislation wasn’t enough to pause for concern, then a not so little matter reported by the Hill today should. Apparently the Obama administration is contemplating pushing government controlled health care and a cap and trade tax system through Congress in a manner which would mean little to no debate and guarantee its passage.

Instead of debating government controlled health care as a separate matter, the legislation may be slipped into a budget bill which only requires fifty votes.

Does anyone else find it a little disturbing that legislation which would take over large sections of our economy would require not even a simple majority with little or no debate? Whats worse, perhaps, is the far reaching implications of such legislation.

With government controlled health care we as individuals will lose a quality health care system as choices are removed from doctors and services are rationed.

Not to be outdone would be a 100% cap and trade system which the Obama administration champions that would tax many farms and businesses out of existence because of their “carbon foot print.”

Each of these proposals removes freedom and liberty from our nation and are proven losers when implemented abroad. Yet there is still no objective analysis in the media few willing to stand in the gap and act as any source of reason or impediment.

I am guessing that as long as Americans give Democrats a pass and ignore what is going on in Congress and what is actually hurting the economy, this will be the case. By then I can only wonder what will be left of our nation.

In the mean time I will offer a glimmer of hope based on a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll which surveyed more Democrats than Republicans by a thirteen percentage point margin.

While self described “moderates” dominated the poll at 38 percent, 34 percent called themselves conservative compared to 23 self identified liberals.

More to the point, on health care, nearly seventy percent of people believe someone else besides the government should be responsible for taking care of health care needs. (question 32d)

Remember during the campaign when Senator Claire McCaskill and Barack Obama visited Springfield, Missouri and announced that he wasn’t a gun grabber?

Similarly, anyone remember when people such as my self warned other wise pointing to Obama’s record when he voted on matters in the Illinois state legislature which proved other wise?

Yesterday guess who proved to be correct? ABC News published a story yesterday which notes that the Obama administration is seeking a new Assault weapons ban.

There were not many details announced by Attorney General Eric Holder other than trying to use a foreign policy problem as means to justify the violation of our second amendment rights.

Perhaps whats worse is the potential models being floated for such a ban would be extensive and essentially make it impossible for the average person to own or posses a fire arm.

How will this play out? When will it happen? I dont know.

What I do know is the media is complicit in refusing to ask this question during the 2008 campaign and continuing to be silent in asking for specifics.

The bigger question at large is how bad will this impact Congressional Democrats in 2010 elections and how power hungry the Obama administration truly is.

I will explain more on this tomorrow when I digest things a bit more, but the bottom line to me is this - Obama claims that he is not for big government, yet what he proposes and what was passed in HR 1 (aka porkulus) proves otherwise. The bill President Obama signed into bill begins a cementing process of transforming this once fiercely independent nation into a quasisocialist state.

Similarly, Obama’s claim to be a deficit hawk should be laughed out of town after refusing to cut off the second half of the abused TARP funding in addition to proposing a second TARP program and again - trying to push through massive new entitlement programs.

Lastly - if you get a check from the government and dont pay taxes in the first place, its called welfare.

Ignorance is strength, right Mr. President?