Harry Reid again earns the “Idiot of the Senate” Award

I have mostly never thought much of Harry Reid as a Senator, an organizer, or a leader; but I think Louisiana Senator David Vitter hit the nail on the head when he said, “Sadly, Harry Reid has again revealed himself to be an idiot, this time gravely insulting Gulf Coast residents.”

What did good old Harry DO?

Well here is Harry Reid’s statement: and remember, this is the majority leader of the United States Senate. His comments in support of the aid package for Hurricane Sandy Relief went as follows, “The people of New Orleans and that area, they were hurt, but nothing in comparison to what happened to the people in New York and New Jersey.”

WHAT??

Now before we go too much farther I want to first acknowledge that both of these hurricanes left a path of destruction and grief that can never be defined for those who were and are affected and we should never politicize the suffering of our fellow Americans. So with that said let’s look at how the stats back Harry’s statement.

Just looking at the two stats that are generally considered the watershed numbers for a disaster let’s look at dollars of damage and deaths.

Deaths

125 – Sandy
1833 – Katrina

Damage in Dollars

$62 billion – Sandy
$108 billion – Katrina

I give these figures not in an attempt to trivialize the issue, but to explain how once again Harry Reid has chosen to lie for the sake of making a point and to make someone else seem less caring than he and his precious Democrat partisans. That’s very sad, especially on an issue that needs to be taken care of in a responsible manner and not subjected to traditional party politics or to the addition of trivial pork as was done by many in the Senate – also allowed, and passed, by Harry.

Out of habit Harry later apologized saying he simply misspoke, just like all the rest of the times he has lied, or fudged the truth or in his words misspoke on the floor of the senate in order to make or create a point. Of course then he blamed the Republicans by saying he wouldn’t have felt the pressure to misspeak if he hadn’t had to face GOP opposition.

But let’s give Harry some slack; this is hardly the first time he has misspoken. Think of this, if we listen to Harry, Ford would be out of business without the auto bailout (GM and Chrysler took that money) and Mitt Romney never paid taxes (Um except like the $2+ million he paid in 2011). I guess we should all pay a little more attention to what Harry says and does. After all, thanks to those gamblers in Nevada we have another four years of Harry’s intelligence!!

Ante Up,

Bill

ObamaCare and the SCOTUS!

So this week we got the news that ObamaCare was constitutional because the individual mandate was legal based on it being exactly what President Obama promised us it was not – A TAX!

That’s right, the same thing the president ran around swearing it wasn’t is exactly the only way the Supreme Court said it could possibly be legal. But in reality is this what anyone wanted? NO!

Both Democrats and Republicans are going to claim some sort of victory but in reality NO ONE wins. The Democrats are faced with a law that may turn out to be the single greatest single rise in middle class taxes in history and slaps the very voters Obama said would not be affected; those making less than $250,000.00 a family.

To the Republicans the very fact that the law was left standing is hard to deal with; and not because it was constitutional, but because the constitutionality of it was so hard to find. In Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion he doesn’t even speak to the constitutionality of it until page 52 of his 63 page opinion. That alone shows that this was a result of much digging in the tax code to find something to stand on. And that much digging must have been a strain on the justice, I mean the IRS code is 70,000 plus pages.

But in reality what did the Supreme Court’s ruling actually do? Let’s look at the implementation.

Well, besides the preliminary groundwork for ObamaCare, little else has been done by the states or the federal government to prepare for the execution of ObamaCare. As a matter of fact, it’s doubtful anyone will move on it for a while; at least until November.

That’s because the Supreme Court’s ruling put the proverbial future of ObamaCare ball in our hands. That’s right; the voters are the ones who will make the decision. So regardless of whether you agree with ObamaCare or you are against it, it is up to you and every American to get out and vote this November to help determine the future of ObamaCare; as well as the future of America.

The sad part is that there are good provisions in ObamaCare; however, like all comprehensive bills ObamaCare tries to cover too much and runs all over itself with contradictions and miscalculations in funding and expenses. In short, there has never been a comprehensive bill that has ever accomplished what it was designed to do. ObamaCare is no different than any of those comprehensive bills and anything 2,700 pages can’t be good (unless it’s a Lord of the Rings Book).

Covering those with preexisting conditions and keeping children on their parent’s coverage until their 26 are two of the items the President will tout as positives of ObamaCare – and they are. But in actuality, both of these could have been done with a small five or ten page bill that could have passed a very simply. But these were two planks that the Pelosi/Reid team needed to use to make the entirety of the bill seem palatable.

To repair healthcare in America more needs to be done, but it cannot be done in one comprehensive bill. It must be done in a series of bills that work independently of each other while still working in-line with each other as well to benefit us all. This way there isn’t one large monstrosity that must constantly be amended but a series of laws that could be negated if they fail to work as designed.

Maybe this can be done once the elections are over in November, but until then we shall hear plenty on this subject and regardless of your feelings on this week’s ruling, the choice of whether ObamaCare stands or falls is in the hands of all of us voters in November.

Remember to Register to Vote!!

Bill

Rant for the third week of 2011

Thanks for all the nice emails. I am glad someone out there is reading this as I thought I was writing with no readers. Kind of begs the question; if you write it and no one reads it is it really a blog?

Here we go!!!

1. China’s President Hu has come for a visit this week and has been attacked by President Obama, Hillary and Harry. Be careful my liberal friends, I mean after all, our Chinese friends could have come over here to foreclose on us.

2. About one year ago, 219 house members voted for Obamacare. Today 245 voted to repeal it. And yesterday House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said on MSNBC that the reason there was so much negativity towards Obamacare was because it did not go far enough – HUH? Yeah, that’s it Nancy.

3. Late last week Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that she is stopping the construction of the “Virtual Fence” on the Mexican Border. Two years ago she proclaimed the virtual fence the end all beat all in border security. So what could she have up her sleeve that will trump the virtual fence? Wait for it…….She has a plan that will address the concerns for each region of the border and provide a “new path forward” for border security; however, she had no details, None, Nothing, Nada…..Oh I feel safer already!!!!

4. More new jobs have been created in Texas than in any other state in the union in the last few years. As a matter of fact, more jobs have been created in Texas than in all the other states combined. So rather than being proud of job creation in the Lone Star State, our Democrat friends are only too eager to pounce on the fact that a majority of these are minimum wage jobs. So let me get this straight, Democrats would prefer to have people jobless and on welfare rather than being paid the minimum wage they set at $7.25 an hour.

5. How about the next time there is an opening on the Supreme Court we put an English scholar on the high court. Since everyone seems to have such a difficult time understanding the 230 year-old document, maybe having an expert in English on the court instead of having lawyers on the court would lead to an easier time understanding the true meaning. After all, nothing says a member of the Supreme Court has to be a lawyer.

Well I think that takes care of this week’s Rant. Hope you all enjoyed it and it makes you think a little. Wonder how much a used border security camera is going for on eBay?

Until next time, stay safe!!
Bill