Nancy Pelosi: Bush is to blame for Obama’s VA problems — and perhaps 1932 Bonus Army scandal

Pelosi blame someone else

Okay, you got me. Nancy Pelosi did not indicate that George W. Bush was possibly to blame for the Bonus Army march on Washington, D.C. in 1932, but one gets the feeling after hearing her blame ‘W’ for Obama’s VA problems — problems he knew about years ago and vowed to fix — that on the right day she might do so.

The Washington Examiner reported Friday:

 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., repeatedly put the blame for the Veterans Affairs scandal on former President George W. Bush, while arguing that her party has worked hard for veterans in recent years.

Pelosi took a shot at Bush while saying that the scandal is a high priority for Obama. “He sees the ramifications of some seeds that were sown a long time ago, when you have two wars over a long period of time and many, many more, millions more veterans,” she told reporters during her Thursday press briefing. “And so, I know that he is upset about it.” …

“Maybe when we go into war, we should be thinking about its consequences and its ramifications,” Pelosi said while discussing the scandal. “You would think that would be a given, but maybe it wasn’t. And so, we go in a war in Afghanistan, leave Afghanistan for Iraq with unfinished business in Afghanistan. Ten years later, we have all of these additional veterans. In the past five years, two million more veterans needing benefits from the VA. That’s a huge, huge increase.”

Where do I start? Where would the military be if its members played the blame game like members of Congress? What sort of national security would we have if the entire chain of command spent its limited time and resources coming up with creative way to blame the guy before him? If you ever wanted to know why so many military men downright loathe politicians, Nancy Pelosi’s “blame Bush” speech regarding the VA hospital scandal is a great example. What’s worse is that Bush went to Congress to get approval for both wars. Even a liberal guy like Dennis Kucinich understands the importance behind that historical fact (as inconvenient as it might be for Nancy Pelosi). But I digress.

Perhaps the best way for me to respond is by giving voice to some military guys on one of my favorite sites: Doctrine Man. I love its humor and the moderator’s eye for news, but the comments sections on many stories are often hilarious.

Here are a few responses to Nancy Pelosi’s redirect:

 

Doctrine Man VA

I have to give a hat tip to Matt Martin for the “still Bush’s fault” for the VA problems from the 1970s comment. It made me laugh and inspired the “Bonus Army” headline.

The VA is not perfect and never will be, but when a man like Obama holds himself up as the keeper of the “Sacred Trust,” then it is beyond pathetic for he and his acolytes to shift blame onto a man over five years removed from office.

Major Garret reported for National Journal May 20:

Running for president in May of 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama delivered a stem-winder on mismanagement of veterans care under President George W. Bush, recalling the story of an 89-year-old South Carolina veteran who committed suicide after being repeatedly denied access to health care.

“How can we let this happen?” Obama thundered in front of a podium in Charleston, W.Va., that read, “A Sacred Trust; Support our Veterans.” “How is that acceptable in the United States of America? The answer is, it’s not. It’s an outrage. And it’s a betrayal, a betrayal of the ideals that we ask our troops to risk their lives for.”

Well. Well.

A veteran committed suicide because he couldn’t obtain VA care. In South Carolina. The Democratic front-runner for the White House called it an outrage. And yet, when at least six veterans died due to delayed access to colonoscopies in Columbia, S.C., neither Obama nor his Veterans Affairs Department said a word. The deaths were first reported in April. At a subsequent field hearing in Columbia, one veteran testified he contracted cancer because VA doctors ignored pleas for a colonoscopy and misdiagnosed severe rectal bleeding and pain as hemorrhoids. The response from Veterans Affairs officials and, by extension, Obama? We’ll get back to you. …

“The president has been nowhere to be found,” [The House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Jeff Miller (R-Fla.)] said. “The White House truly thought this would go away over time. But the pressure is mounting. Whistle-blowers are coming forward. They see strength in numbers.”

And with that, I would merely request that you watch Jon Stewart’s intellectual atom bomb explode on the VA scandal if you haven’t already. It’s a must-see.

I look forward to Nancy Pelosi’s future press conference, where she blames George W. Bush for the low moral of General George Washington’s troops in the winter of 1777.

 

 

Telling: Comcast PAC cash accepted by every senator probing Time Warner Cable merger

Chuck Schumer

When you give the federal government more things to do, you give the men and women in charge more things to buy and sell at your expense. If you ever doubted the deleterious effect that growing the government has on the health of civil society, look no further than the Comcast-Time Warner hearings.

Every member of the committee — every one — has taken money from Comcast PAC. I now give you…crony capitalism:

The Senate Judiciary Committee held its first congressional hearing on the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger Thursday, and every single member of the committee has taken money from Comcast PAC — even Democratic senator Al Franken of Minnesota, who is generally considered to be anti-Comcast.

Out of 18 committee members, 10 Democrats and eight Republicans, 17 got money from Comcast’s federal PAC, according to the database at OpenSecrets.org, technology website Ars Technicareported.

Ars Technica then confirmed with Mr. Franken’s spokespeople that he did accept $5,000 in Comcast PAC cash in 2009 for his recount fund, since OpenSecrets.org did not have that donation listed.

Why on earth would Comcast donate money to every single senator unless its top brass thought that it could influence every single senator with cash? Answer: Because that’s precisely what Comcast’s money men thought.

The full list of Senate Judiciary Committee members and the cash they’ve accepted from Comcast PAC donations are:

Comcast PAC donations to Democrats:

• Chuck Schumer, New York: $35,000

• Patrick Leahy, Vermont, Chairman: $32,500

• Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island: $26,500

• Chris Coons, Delaware: $25,000

• Dick Durbin, Illinois: $23,000

• Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota: $22,500

• Dianne Feinstein, California: $18,500

• Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut: $11,500

• Mazie Hirono, Hawaii: $5,000

• Al Franken, Minnesota: $5,000 (2009 recount fund)

Comcast PAC donations to Republicans:

• Orrin Hatch, Utah: $30,000

• Chuck Grassley, Iowa, Ranking Member: $28,500

• John Cornyn, Texas: $21,000

• Lindsey Graham, South Carolina: $13,500

• Jeff Sessions, Alabama: $10,000

• Mike Lee, Utah: $8,500

• Ted Cruz, Texas: $2,500

• Jeff Flake, Arizona: $1,000

The sad thing is that there are people out there who still blindly defend the idiocy of both parties. No matter what “their team” does, they’ll defend it it to the death, which is fitting, since that’s exactly the kind of mentality that is killing the freest nation ever created.

Think of all the issues that senators influence, either through legislation or their close relationships with bureaucrat overlords in Executive agencies manning the administrative state. Now think of all the companies that know that if they just cough up the right amount of cash, that the guy or gal “representing” you in the nation’s capital will bend over backwards to find a way to vote against your best interests while still managing to hold onto a job. Infuriating, isn’t it?

If you want to get the nation back on the right track, find your friends and family members who defend the the most boorish behavior and inflammatory rhetoric displayed by the losers in their favorite political party, and then convince them that they are doing the nation a grave disservice.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to sit and think about how pathetic our state of affairs must be for me to bite the bullet and end a blog post with Calloway’s “I Wanna Be Rich.”

Paul Ryan takes heat from people who have never been in the kitchen

Romney 2012

One of the best things about living in the nation’s capital is that sometimes you get to hear some pretty cool people speak. One multiple occasions I got to hear Rep. Paul Ryan talk — extemporaneously — on public policy, and he blew me away. On top of that he was a nice guy, stopping in to speak to Heritage interns when he could have just whisked out the door without saying a word. Rep. Ryan has managed to work in the D.C. “kitchen” for quite some time now without deviating from his core mission — to increase freedom and individual liberties for all Americans — but yet he now finds himself taking heat from people who have never even entered the restaurant.

I’ve lived in Washington, D.C. for eight years now, and I never heard someone question his honesty and integrity. He’s a principled guy in an unprincipled town. He’s outnumbered and has limited tools to work with, which is why I find it bizarre that “RINO” keeps echoing off the walls of the Internet since the House announced its budget deal with Democrats.

Buzzfeed’s piece, titled ‘How Paul Ryan Saved the Day’ sums up the Congressman well:

Ryan’s recent success stems in large part from his deep roots within the GOP’s conservative wing. Long before becoming a member of the conservative “Jedi Council” that has helped foment conservative outrage against previous spending plans, Ryan was a key figure within fiscal conservative circles in Washington. Over the years Ryan has developed a reputation amongst conservative and moderate Republicans in the House as a trusted voice on not only budget issues, but broader economic policy.

“The thing about him is that everyone knows he’s a straight shooter, he’s not going to play games. And that’s what it takes,” Diaz-Balart said. “Everyone understands what he says is real, whether you agree with Paul Ryan or not everybody understands that his word is truthful. In this process, he’s among the most trusted.”

Republican Policy Committee Chairman Rep. James Lankford, one of the most conservative members of the GOP leadership, agreed. “The level of trust is there because people know what his core is. We’ve all gone through budget negotiations with him, we’ve all seen the budgets he’s put together and the coalitions he’s put together to get that done. So we know he’s going after as much as he can possibly get,” Lankford said.

Have you ever tried to get blood from a stone? Republicans are not in a position to be able to take a chainsaw to government spending at the moment — particularly after the shutdown. They crossed the rubicon on that, and then when the pressure got too hot they wilted. Worse, they weren’t able to articulate the legitimate philosophical concerns that motivated them to go that route in the first place. If it wasn’t for the Obamacare rollout disaster from Hell, where would the polls be at the moment?

Take a look at where some of the loudest criticisms of Congressman Ryan are coming from; they emanate from people who would very much like to take the mantle of pied piper away from President Obama and hold onto it throughout the 2016 presidential election. The tea party is right: America is broke. In fact, it is more broke than any nation has ever been in existence. The way to address the problem is not to cannibalize one of conservatism’s staunchest defenders as he’s trying to convince the American people that Republicans can work with people they have fierce ideological disagreements with.

Note to my Tea Party friends: If there is a Socialist who seems like a really nice guy and an free-market Republican who seems like a jerk, the American people will (at least these days) vote for the Socialist. This carries over to how we talk about social issues. It’s not always what you say, but how you say it — and if you always come across as an angry raving-mad lunatic who would rather engage in scorched earth tactics than work with a political opponent, you will lose. And then America loses.

You don’t win by subtracting and dividing; you win by addition and multiplication. Congressman Ryan understands that if he can only get 30% of what he wants, then it’s better to do that then to throw a temper tantrum and get nothing. If the tea party is smart, then it will hold its fire on one of the few principled politicians in Congress and resume the air campaign on Obamacare.

Related: Barack Obama, Mysterio vs. Paul Ryan, Spider-Man?

Related: Paul Ryan’s wine passes sniff test; Susan Feinberg’s behavior smells like rotting Monkfish à la Soubise

113th Congress deemed ‘least productive ever’ by officials with a perverse love of new laws

How does one measure the productivity of Congress? The official who is weirdly aroused by the thought of passing legislation — even bad legislation — goes with quantity over quality. He doesn’t think about things like the rise of omnibus bills, or even defacto legislation created out of thin air by the administrative state (e.g., the EPA deciding that your property isn’t really yours because you have a water ditch in your back yard). In the mind of a lexiphiliac, bigger is always better. More bureaucracy is “productive,” and less is “unproductive.” And when bills, bills and more bills aren’t passed, they turn to the media to whine about it.

The Washington Post reports:

According to congressional records, there have been fewer than 60 public laws enacted in the first 11 months of this year, so below the previous low in legislative output that officials have already declared this first session of the 113th Congress the least productive ever. In 1995, when the newly empowered GOP congressional majority confronted the Clinton administration, 88 laws were enacted, the record low in the post-World War II era.

Who are these officials? Why aren’t they named? I would love to talk to them. Did the Washington Post interview Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who infamously said of Obamacare that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it”? If there are officials in Washington, D.C. who seem to think their job is to pass laws for the sake of passing laws, they should be outed immediately.

The Congressional Research Service has admitted that there are so many federal regulations that it can’t even tally them up. Its best guess? “Tens of thousands.” And yet, in the minds of the officials who run to the Washington Post to complain about the 113th Congress, it isn’t enough. There are always more people to control, new activity to monitor and behavior to tax. It never ends.

In the mind of the D.C. bureaucrat, there is never a point of diminishing returns when it comes to drafting legislation. Although most (if not all of us) will break multiple federal regulations during the course of the day without even realizing it, the masterminds and busybodies are not satisfied.

Don’t believe me? There are federal regulations on how much milk fat can be in your eggnog.

From the U.S. Food and Drug Administration:

TITLE 21–FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER I–FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
SUBCHAPTER B–FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION

PART 131 — MILK AND CREAM

Subpart B–Requirements for Specific Standardized Milk and Cream

Sec. 131.170 Eggnog.

(a)Description. Eggnog is the food containing one or more of the optional dairy ingredients specified in paragraph (b), one or more of the optional egg yolk-containing ingredients specified in paragraph (c) of this section, and one or more of the optional nutritive carbohydrate sweeteners specified in paragraph (d) of this section. One or more of the optional ingredients specified in paragraph (e) of this section may also be added. All ingredients used are safe and suitable. Eggnog contains not less than 6 percent milkfat and not less than 8.25 percent milk solids not fat. The egg yolk solids content is not less than 1 percent by weight of the finished food. The food shall be pasteurized or ultra-pasteurized and may be homogenized. Flavoring ingredients and color additives may be added after the food is pasteurized or ultra-pasteurized.

Do you think you can get through the holidays without breaking a few laws? I can’t.

The sad thing is, there is someone in the nation’s capital right now who is lobbying Congress for the resources necessary to better enforce Sec. 131.170 of Title 21 this Christmas season. If you doubt that, I will bring everything full circle by citing once more the Washington Post’s ‘113th Congress, going down in history for its inaction, has a critical December to-do list.’ Question: Why are politicians so obsessed with dairy products?

From the confirmation of a new Federal Reserve chairman to the expiration of dairy pricing rules, House and Senate leaders head into the final month of 2013 with a checklist that is short but critical. But even a final burst of activity would do little to change the historic arc of this calendar year under the Capitol dome. …

Congress must at least pass some form of an extension of farm laws by year’s end or face the threat of havoc in the agriculture markets, particularly dairy, which could lead to price shocks on milk.

All hell would apparently break loose if the government didn’t meddle with (i.e., subsidize) the dairy industry. Do you buy it? I don’t. In fact, you might want to ponder why, exactly, the USDA recommends that you drink three cups of low-fat milk per day… Remember, these are the same people who gave us the food pyramid — that encouraged obesity.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I think I’ll make myself some eggnog with 5% milkfat and sell it to a friend (who will be none-the-wiser that he just ran afoul of Johnny Law)…

Rand Paul to Congress: Instead of yelling at Apple, you hypocritical losers should put yourself on trial

Who has done more for the world: The men and women at Apple, or Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY? Who would you trust with your money: the CEO of Apple or Chuck Schumer? That's what I thought. And that's why Rand Paul wins kudos for publicly sticking it to a bunch of hypocritical politicians.
Who has done more to raise the standard of living for the world’s population: The men and women at Apple, or Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.? Who would you trust with your money: the CEO of Apple or Carl Levin? That’s what I thought. And that’s why Rand Paul wins kudos for publicly sticking it to a bunch of hypocritical politicians.

Ron Paul may be a crazy enough to think that China and Russia would swear off espionage if only the CIA closed up shop, but at least he was sane enough to raise his son Rand with a proper understanding of free market economics.

During Tuesday’s Senate subcommittee hearing on Apple’s offshore tax practices, he lit into Congress and demonstrated that he might have been the only politician in the room with his head on straight.

Behold, the awesomeness that was Rand Paul, Tuesday, May 21, 2013:

“Frankly, I’m offended by the tone and tenor of this hearing. I’m offended by a $4 trillion government bullying, berating and badgering one of America’s greatest success stories,” Mr. Paul said.

“Tell me one of these politicians up here who doesn’t minimize their taxes. Tell me a chief financial officer that you would hire if he didn’t try to minimize your taxes legally. Tell me what Apple has done that is illegal.

“I’m offended by a government that uses the IRS to bully tea parties, but I’m offended by a government that convenes a hearing to bully one of America’s greatest success stories. I’m offended by the spectacle of dragging in executives from an American company that is not doing anything illegal,” Mr. Paul continued.

“If anyone should be on trial, it should be Congress. I frankly think the committee should apologize to Apple,” the senator said. “I think the Congress should be on trial here for creating a bizarre and Byzantine tax code that runs into the tens of thousands of pages, for creating a tax code that simply doesn’t compete with the rest of the world.

“This committee will admit that Apple hasn’t broken any laws, yet we are forced to sit, Apple is forced to sit, though a show trial. … I say, instead of Apple executives, we should have brought in a giant mirror. OK? So we can look at the reflection of Congress because this problem is solely and completely created by the awful tax code.”

Steve Jobs may have been a hard ass (to put it nicely), but here’s what I wrote about him when he passed away in 2011 (has it really been that long?):

For the sake of argument lets say that Steve Jobs was a greedy guy. Let’s agree with the liberal premise that the majority of businessmen are in it for some weird Machiavellian desire to exploit “the masses.” Even if that was the case, at least guys like Steve Jobs have raised the standard of living for hundreds of millions (perhaps billions?) of people! As ReasonTV notes, “Sultans and students now have iPhone 4′s.” …

Steve Jobs never set out to end poverty, but through his inventions the definition of poverty changed. The federal government set out to END poverty, and has spent trillions of taxpayer dollars to do so. How’s that working out? Instead of throwing trillions of dollars at an impossible task, the world would be much better if we left that money in the hands of men and women with a knack for inventing products we didn’t know we wanted.

Instead of seriously addressing the problems that face the nation, politicians host show trials, where they drag in businessmen and berate them for being successful. Apple invented quality products that changed the world, and instead of saying “thank you,” a bunch of self-righteous losers, whose only goal in life is to sit in the halls of Congress for as long as possible, read its CEO the riot act. It’s despicable, but at least there are men like Sen. Rand Paul who are willing to put it all in perspective.

Allahpundit over at Hotair wraps the story up and puts a bow on it:

Apple saved $44 billion since 2009 from tricks like this, which, averaged over four years, means the lost tax revenue last year could have paid for a single day of federal spending. But again — all perfectly legal. Even if you think it shouldn’t be, you run into Paul’s [second point], namely, why not just have a Senate debate on tax reform rather than try to shame Apple with hearings for doing what literally anyone else in their position would have done (potentially at the risk of being ousted by shareholders if they didn’t)? (emphasis added)

If Congress doesn’t like what Apple is doing, they can change the law. Fine. Do that. And then watch what happens when it takes its bat and ball and goes to Ireland or China for good. But what you don’t do is essentially drag in an American success story and demonize its leadership for legally trying to keep as much of its money as possible.

Dick Durbin: If you have a tumor, letting it grow is always an option

Dick Durbin Debt Liver Tumor

Recently, Lee Doren of CEI covered the “Wealth Inequality in America” video that went viral. In the feedback section of my blog, a liberal drive-by commenter said that I appeared to be an “elitist” for suggesting that the makers of the video purposefully muddied the waters between “income” and “wealth” because I believe large swathes of the public doesn’t particularly make a distinction between the two.

I rejected that claim because the truth is not elitist. Likewise, politicians know this is the truth, which is why you have Sen. Dick Durbin talking about deficits when he was specifically asked about debt.

Liberals are masters at twisting and contorting language until people throw up their hands in frustration or simply go along with whatever definition they’ve come up with on that day.

Note this exchange on March 17 between Sen. Durbin and Chris Wallace:

Chris Wallace: Sen. Durbin, when candidate Obama said that [$9 trillion in debt was “unpatriotic”], our national debt was $9 trillion. It’s now $16 trillion. So the question is: If it was unpatriotic at $9 trillion, is it sustainable at $16 trillion?

Dick Durbin: “Chris, here’s the good news: We’ve reduced the long term deficit by about 2.4 trillion dollars. That’s included only $6 billion in new revenue [i.e., tax hikes] as part of the fiscal cliff. We still have to do more, but we’ve taken the edge off the crisis, I’ll concede that. What the president is pointing to is this: We need strong economic recovery. We need to put Americans back to work. That’s our first priority. Deficit reduction I would put as the second priority and one that is coupled with economic growth. So I think we can do both. Make sure we have deficit reduction, but don’t cut too much, too fast.

Take for example the sequestration. Seven hundred thousand American jobs will be lost. This is not the thing to do and not the right time to do it. We’ve got to phase this in and sequence it so that we have economic growth and Americans paying taxes.

As I’ve said before, when Washington officials lament “cuts,” what they’re really talking about is going into debt at a slower rate than they would like.

BL-sequestration-size-comparisonThink of the federal government or the national debt like a tumor. It grows and it grows and it grows. At some point, even the operation needed to save the life of the afflicted could end up resulting in death. The tumor gets too close or attached to vital organs. Too much blood loss would occur if it was removed by anyone except the most skilled surgeon. The body has grown too weak to survive attempts to excise the cancer.

That is where the United States finds itself today, and it’s precisely what men like Dick Durbin are counting on. If they can continue to play word games long enough, the tumor will grow. And in this tale Durbin plays a deranged doctor who knows he can keep prescribing the wrong medicine and collecting his patient’s cash because he will be long gone by the time the body goes into cardiac arrest.

Sen. Durbin has talked to all the actuaries. He has seen all the numbers by the CBO, OMB, etc. He knows the interest on the national debt alone will break us at some point in the not-to-distant future. And yet he continues to misinform the American people.

America is sick right now, and millions of citizens don’t realize that they’ve hired the political equivalent of Jack Kevorkian to heal the nation.

Barring some sort of technological breakthrough that changes the country’s fiscal trajectory, this will end badly. And when it does, history must note that men like Sen. Durbin willingly allowed it to happen.

Uncle Sam copy

Hoyer: Congress ‘has a paying-for problem’ (i.e., Hoyer thinks you’re an idiot)

Steny Hoyer

The United States is closing in on being $17 trillion in debt. Do a little research on just how monumentally huge 1 trillion is. Then come back and read Rep. Steny Hoyer’s reaction to a very simple question:

CNBC Analyst: Does the country have a spending problem sir? Does the country have a spending problem?

Hoyer: Does the country have a spending problem? The country has a paying for problem. We haven’t paid for what we bought, we haven’t paid for our tax cuts, we haven’t paid for war.

CNBC Analyst: How about what we promised? Are we promising too much?

Hoyer: Absolutely. If we don’t pay, we shouldn’t buy.

CNBC Analyst: So how is that different than a spending problem?

Hoyer: Well, we spent a lot of money when George Bush was president of the United States in the House and Senate were controlled by Republicans. We spent a lot of money. (CNBC, February 12, 2013)

Now, I’d like you to read an excerpt from The Declaration of Independence:

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

I am a patient man. In fact, I am a very patient man. But, given that we have elected “leaders” who can look at the size of our current debt obligations and unfunded mandates promised to future generations — and still say with a straight face: “we have a paying-for problem,” my patience goes out the window. If I was at a town hall meeting and asked that very same question, and THAT was the answer I received, Mr. Hoyer’s personal security guards might very well have to rip me off the man and haul me to the slammer because I seriously would consider throttling his neck.

These comments come only a day after Nancy Pelosi said that saying the U.S. has a spending problem is a “false argument.”

Let us not get into the fact that a “cut” in Washington is in reality a decision to go deeper into debt at a slower rate than previously agreed upon. Let us not talk about the false logic that the government has to “pay” for tax cuts; it was never the government’s money to begin with. Let us instead focus on the fact that the U.S. is currently run by a bunch of narcissistic clowns who are stealing the wealth of future generations. They are lowering the standard of living for your kids and grandchildren. They are setting the stage for an epic financial meltdown — and they are supposed to be the guardians of future security.

They are not guardians; they are destroyers masquerading as guardians. The lexical b*****it they try to pass off on the American people is breathtaking. And the sad thing is, they’re getting away with it because the “guardians” of our education system and the watchmen in the Fourth Estate decided long ago that it was better to bed the destroyers than to stand up to them in battle.

As I said before: I am a patient man. I am not a violent man. But millions of Americans are not as patient and are not as slow to anger, and if the feelings that bubble up in me when I see Rep. Steny Hoyer make a mockery of the nation’s fiscal insanity are shared by even a small percentage of the population … then there are dark days ahead.

There is a limited amount of time left for elected officials to deal with tsunami of debt coming our way. Its amplitude blocks out the sun. Soon the amplitude on the interest alone will block out the sun. If they don’t get serious — soon — it will break not just on the coastal regions, but on the homes and heads of every single American. And no amount of word games will be able to fend off the riots that take place in its wake.

We are all ‘millionaires and billionaires’ now

Barack Obama

We are all millionaires and billionaires now. You can thank Barack Obama. The refrain by the president that “millionaires and billionaires” should pay their “fair share” is synonymous in the minds of the average citizen with the memory of Dr. Evil from Austin Powers holding the world hostage for “1 million dollars!” Sadly, the inflationary realities that made audiences laugh at Dr. Evil will, in time, have them crying over the fiscal policies enacted by this president.

Congress’ definition of “the rich” is as concrete as the definition of pornography; the most important thing is not generating specificity in the minds of those hearing it, but the idea that something dirty is being discussed. “Millionaires and billionaires” has been defined as hard-working American families earning $900,000, those making over $450,000 and those making over $250,000. And now, the fiscal cliff bill (signed into law by auto pen while Obama body-surfs in Hawaii) officially raises the payroll tax in a way that carpet-bombs all low wage workers. Making $41,000 a year? Congratulations — you are now a millionaire.

Those most pernicious of all the taxes set to take effect in the coming years is the inflation that will occur — and it will happen — as a result of Washington’s unwillingness to address its spending problem. Even with $41 in new taxes for every dollar in spending “cuts” (another word that doesn’t mean what it really means when uttered on Sunday talk shows), the nation’s $16 trillion debt is expected to balloon. And faced with such challenges, men like Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., have seriously latched onto ideas like printing $1 trillion coins.

“I’m being absolutely serious,” the Manhattan and Brooklyn representative told CapitalNewYork.com. “It sounds silly but it’s absolutely legal. And it would normally not be proper to consider such a thing, except when you’re faced with blackmail to destroy the country’s economy, you have to consider things.”

The only people who are blackmailing the country are the politicians who never found a sum of money they couldn’t spend, but Nadler’s comment begs the question: Why not mint $16 trillion coins while we’re at it? They could have Obama’s face on them and they could be mailed to to every man, woman and child in America. We’d all be trillionaires. We’d be Zimbabwe, but we’d be trillionaires.

Nailed on taxes, Harry Reid intellectually drools into live microphone

Want to see Harry Reid’s mind melt before your very eyes? Ask a question that simultaneously corners him into acknowledging the federal debt and his intellectual bankruptcy. You’ll be able to see the record in his mind skip on the needle a few times before he says “Next question.”

When Harry Reid isn’t worrying about the lack of sweatshops in the United States or surrendering to al Qaeda in Iraq, he usually keeps his gaffes minimized to micro-bursts of stupidity behind the podium. It may be rather depressing to read through the writings of statesmen like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and then have to turn on the television and listen to Harry Reid … but alas, he is all we have.

Regardless, today a reporter actually had the nerve to hold his feet to the fiscal fire, asking why Democrats didn’t raise taxes on the “wealthy” when they controlled all three branches of government. Reid’s response: “Next question.”

TWS: Leader Reid, when it comes to the Bush tax cuts…why didn’t Senate Democrats push through this bill back when you controlled the Senate, the House, and the presidency?

REID: The tax cuts weren’t about to expire then. So that’s why we’re doing it now.

TWS: You could have foreseen this issue two years ago.

REPORTER: What are you talking about? They expired at the end of 2010.

REID: And that’s why they were extended one year.

TWS: Why didn’t they vote when you could have pushed this bill through and had it signed into law?

REID: (pause) Next question.

Watch the video and note the pause from Reid as the wheels turn in his head. He knows he’s nailed, but the synapses in his brain are firing so fast he can’t think of something to say (mainly because talking points weren’t given out for that question).

One theory as to why Reid personally wasn’t interested in raising taxes back then was because he was too busy apologizing for referring to President Obama as “light skinned” with “no negro dialect.”

The top Democrat in the U.S. Senate apologized on Saturday for comments he made about Barack Obama’s race during the 2008 presidential bid.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada described then-Sen. Barack Obama as “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect,”…

“I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African-Americans for my improper comments,” Reid said in a statement released after the excerpts were reported on the Web site of The Atlantic.

As I said before, IRS data proves that the “rich” pay more than their “fair” share of the tax burden in the United States. We have a spending problem — not a revenue problem — and liberals don’t want to talk about that because math isn’t as sexy as class warfare.

Federal spending per household

Federal spending is out of control, and our good friends at Heritage have done us a favor by collecting the data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Budget Office before presenting it in a way that is easy to understand. How anyone can look at federal spending per household (adjusted for inflation) and not see that Harry Reid is a dishonest hack of the highest order is beyond me, but it’s up to conservatives to talk about these numbers in ways their friends, family and neighbors understand.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I think I’ll watch Sen. Reid intellectually drool into the microphone five more times just because it gives me the giggles. And then perhaps I’ll cry, because Baby Boomers and jerks like him have stolen the wealth of future generations. It’s a shame too many young people haven’t realized the magnitude of what men like him have done.

Reps. Baca and Wolf need warning labels on their forehead.

Apparently, there is a "growing body of evidence" that video games make us violent, and so we need warning labels to stop the madness. There is also a growing body of evidence that dumb Congressmen are bringing about the death of our nation through crippling debt. Given such findings, I propose that Reps. Joe Baca and Frank Wolf walk around with huge warning labels that have been licked and stamped to their forehead.

The United States is 16 trillion dollars in debt. What’s that mean? If you guessed, “we need someone to tackle video game warning labels,” you move to the head of the class. Yes, that’s right, our brilliant Representatives, Joe Baca (D-CA) and Frank Wolf (R-VA), are on the case, spending vast amounts of time and resources on those pesky Italian plumbers who make kids want to just jump on turtles and smash mushrooms with reckless abandon.

Under the one-page Violence in Video Games Labeling Act, packaging for all video games except those rated “EC” for Early Childhood would be required to prominently display a message reading “WARNING: Exposure to violent video games has been linked to aggressive behavior.” The proposed label would be required even if the video game in question is not violent.

After Ryan Dunn of “Jackass” fame died in a car accident I wrote a piece of satire in which liberal politicians came out in favor of gigantic warning labels for cars. Every few weeks people get to this blog who actually want such things to exist, and so it comes as no surprise to me that morons of a similar mold have worked their way into the halls of Congress. My only regret about writing the Car Warning Label piece was that I gave Republicans too much credit. And so, I will skewer Rep. Wolf to make amends:

“Just as we warn smokers of the health consequences of tobacco, we should warn parents—and children—about the growing scientific evidence demonstrating a relationship between violent video games and violent behavior,” co-sponsor Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA) said. “As a parent and grandparent, I think it is important people know everything they can about the extremely violent nature of some of these games.”

Dear Congressman Wolf,

Great idea with the video game label bill. However, there is a growing body of evidence that elected officials in Washington, D.C. are creating the conditions for societal collapse and violence through unsustainable debt and partisan gridlock. I think it is important people know everything they can about these extremely dangerous politicians, and so I propose that all members of Congress have a label plastered to their forehead that reads: “WARNING: Exposure to my dumb policies will harm you and your family.”

No one has considered this for quite some time, but perhaps the best way to curb video game violence might be…to be a good parent. You know, like the kind who examines the toys they buy for their kids, limits the time spent on videos to a reasonable sitting, and takes time out of their schedule to teach antiquated ideas like “right” and “wrong.”

An amazing thing happened to me when I was a kid: I played all sorts of violent video games, and for some weird reason I grew up to be a law abiding citizen who would only resort to violence in self defense. Weird.

But hey, keep up the good fight Reps. Baca and Wolf. We all know that in the grand scheme of things that Ganondorf is a bigger threat to the nation than, say, unconstitutional health care mandates, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons technology, debt, eminent domain cases, job-killing red tape and unemployment perpetually hovering in the double-digits.

Note to Congressman Wolf: If the dollar bites the dust, video games will be the last thing your grandchildren have to worry about.