Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) compared House conservatives to a flea Friday as rhetoric in the spending fight intensified.
Schumer, who has been criticizing Republicans all day, said in a floor speech Friday that conservatives were the flea controlling the dog, which he said in this case is a federal government that could shut down at midnight.
“What we have here is a flea, wagging a tail, wagging a dog,” said Schumer, chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee.
“The flea are the minority of House Republicans who are hard right, the tail is the House Republican caucus, and the dog is the government,” Schumer explained. “That flea is influencing what the dog does ... and it is sad.”
Schumer for more than a week has been arguing that Tea Party conservatives will be to blame if there is a shutdown.
“When either party goes to the extreme they don’t do the right thing,” said Schumer. “My experience is they lose politically, but much more importantly they do what is wrong for the country substantively."
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said he doesn't regret reporters overhearing him telling Democratic colleagues that Republican budget cuts should be painted as "extreme."
Schumer and Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., sparred on just where the Tea Party political movement stood in relationship to the American people, in an exclusive political debate on "This Week."
Schumer stood by the remarks he made when he was apparently unaware his microphone was open to reporters.
"I have no problem with reporters hearing that," Schumer told anchor Christiane Amanpour. "I said a few hours before [the call] on the floor of the Senate. I've said it on this show. The Tea Party is the group standing in the way. They are extreme," he insisted.
Schumer and the Dems are a joke.
I think when they trash conservatives it only serves to energize them.
REP. THADDEUS McCOTTER: I'd like to start, Mr. Speaker, by thanking my Democratic colleagues this morning for disabusing me of an affliction.
When I woke up, I found that I had a hankering to listen to Led Zeppelin, and I couldn't figure out why. This has happened before, usually when I leave the TV on at night and they run one of them Rolling Stones, '70s, 'buy it now before it's more expensive or in the dustbin' ads.
So, I was walking over here and I'm like, 'Wow, is it because there's been a communication breakdown between the parties?'
It's possible. It's possible.
I said, 'Is it because one of the nice senators is wearing a cashmere sweater?'
It's possible.
But no, it was sitting here today that I realized why I wanted to listen to the melodious strains of Page and Plant, Jones and John Bonham. It's because for the Democratic Party the song remains the same.
Once again, seniors and children wake to the hysterical, frightening visage of specters of gloom and doom - Democrats.
Once again, we are regaled with the Democrats' entitlement reform plan. It is called 'Do nothing, spend everything, go bankrupt, benefits - bye-bye.'
We continue to see a party that does not understand you cannot lift an economy when it is crushed beneath the weight of big government.
We continue to see a party ideologically zealous in spending your tax dollars on Planned Parenthood to the point where they would shutdown the federal government to do it.
And we continue to hear the fundamental crux of the issue of a potential government shutdown:
The Democratic Party will shut down the government so they can spend more of your money. The Republican Party is committed to keeping the government open and spending less of your money.
In fairness, it is not just Led Zeppelin they remind me of, because the reason we stand here today on the precipice of a government shutdown is because they did not do their work when they had total control of the United States Congress last year. They could not even pass a budget, let alone finish these appropriations which we are still dealing with well into April, let alone lay out a coherent strategy to do so when the parties changed power in this House.
No, the song remains the same, but the American people recognize the song and dance. They will not be fooled. They know that the major change that we see before us today in the fight over government spending is a very simple one, and a very simple choice.
It is the difference between bankruptcy and solvency. And the Republican Party stands for solvency and for liberty.
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said today that the new Republicans elected to the House of Representatives last November came to Congress "to kill women." She also likened Republican efforts to prohibit federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is endangered to actions taken by Nazis.
“This is probably one of the worst times we’ve seen because the numbers of people elected to Congress. I went through this as co-chair of the arts caucus," Slaughter said. "In ’94 people were elected simply to come here to kill the National Endowment for the Arts. Now they’re here to kill women.”
...She made the remarks Wednesday on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., at a “Stand Up for Women’s Health” rally sponsored by the National Organization for Women, NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
Slaughter took aim at H.R. 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” a bill that would make permanent the Hyde Amendment restrictions on federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape or incest or a threat to the life of the mother, and that would also prohibit people from taking tax deductions for payments made for abortions except in those circumstances.
Although the text of the bill makes no reference to people needing a "receipt" to prove their abortion was for one of the excepted categories if they try to deduct the abortion fee they paid from their federal taxes, Slaughter suggested that under the bill, if enacted, people would need receipts for their abortions in such circumstances.
She then equated that perceived need to the sort of requirement that would be imposed by Nazis.
“You are allowed to have an abortion if you have been raped or it’s a matter of incest,” said Slaughter. “However, you have to keep a receipt. Did you know that? It’s sort of like an old German Nazi movie. Show me your papers!”
David Prosser gained 7,582 votes in Waukesha County, after a major counting error of Brookfield results was detected, County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus announced in a stunning development this afternoon.
Nickolaus says the reason for the big change is that data transmitted from the City of Brookfield was imported but that she failed to save those results to the database. Brookfield cast 14,315 votes on April 5 -- 10,859 of those votes went to Prosser and 3,456 went to JoAnne Kloppenburg.
"The purpose of the canvass is to catch these kind of mistakes," Nickolaus said. She called it human error that is "common in this process." "I apologize," Nickolaus said.
What can you say about Nickolaus' mistake?
It was an error that was caught and corrected. That's the purpose of the canvassing process.
It's important to note that Ramona Kitzinger, the Democrat observer and Democrat vice chair of Waukesha county, had no objections whatsoever.
Ramona Kitzinger, the Democratic member of the county board of canvass, defended the process. She agreed with Nickolaus that the board "went over everything and made sure that all the numbers jived up, and they did."
"I'm the Democratic vice chair of Waukesha County, so I'm not going to stand here and tell you something that's not true," Kitzinger said.
Kudos to Kitzinger for doing the right thing and being honest rather than playing politics. __________________
BREAKING: Computer Error Could Give Prosser 7,381 More Votes, Victory
After Tuesday night’s Wisconsin Supreme Court election, a computer error in heavily Republican Waukesha County failed to send election results for the entire City of Brookfield to the Associated Press. The error, revealed today, would give incumbent Supreme Court Justice David Prosser a net 7,381 votes against his challenger, attorney Joanne Kloppenburg. On Wednesday, Kloppenburg declared victory after the AP reported she finished the election with a 204-vote lead, out of nearly 1.5 million votes cast.
On election night, AP results showed a turnout of 110,000 voters in Waukesha County — well short of the 180,000 voters that turned out last November, and 42 percent of the county’s total turnout. By comparison, nearly 90 percent of Dane County voters who cast a ballot in November turned out to vote for Kloppenburg.
Prior to the election, Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus was heavily criticized for her decision to keep the county results on an antiquated personal computer, rather than upgrade to a new data system being utilized statewide. Nickolaus cited security concerns for keeping the data herself — yet when she reported the data, it did not include the City of Brookfield, whose residents cast nearly 14,000 votes.
...“Waukesha County officials have announced a press conference for 5:30 CST.”
So when do we hear that a bag with 10,000+ ballots for Kloppenburg was found in a Dane County poll worker's garage?
In a political bombshell, the clerk in a Republican stronghold is set to release new vote totals giving 7,500 votes in the state Supreme Court race back toward Justice David Prosser, swinging the race significantly in his favor.
The Waukesha County clerk's office has told state elections officials that they will be adjusting the vote totals to give incumbent David Prosser more than 7,000 new votes, said Mike Haas, staff attorney for the state Government Accountability Board.
"Waukesha will be adjusting their vote totals by 14,000," Haas said the Accountability Board was told.
The numbers will add some 11,000 votes for Prosser and some 3,000 for Kloppenburg, he said.
The new numbers may provide some clarity to a race that had appeared to be headed toward the first statewide recount in two decades and provided a new surprise for a state that had already faced two months of chaotic politics.
It’s alarming that a bill that funds our troops and could likely pass both the House and the Senate has been termed as a “distraction” by the White House. No one wants to see the government shut down, but Republicans are committed to ensuring that our men and women in uniform serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world will be paid if that happens. The White House is directly jeopardizing that.
It's obscene that Democrats would be willing to play politics with our troops serving around the world, fighting and dying.
Obama vows to veto H.R. 1363 – Department of Defense and Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011.
The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1363, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes. As the President stated on April 5, 2011, if negotiations are making significant progress, the Administration would support a short-term, clean Continuing Resolution to allow for enactment of a final bill.
For the past several weeks, the Administration has worked diligently and in good faith to find common ground on the shared goal of cutting spending. After giving the Congress more time by signing short-term extensions into law, the President believes that we need to put politics aside and work out our differences for a bill that covers the rest of the fiscal year. This bill is a distraction from the real work that would bring us closer to a reasonable compromise for funding the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011 and avert a disruptive Federal Government shutdown that would put the Nation’s economic recovery in jeopardy.
...It is critical that the Congress send a final bill to the President’s desk that provides certainty to our men and women in military uniform, their families, small businesses, homeowners, taxpayers, and all Americans. H.R. 1363 simply delays that critical final outcome.
If presented with this bill, the President will veto it.
It's ridiculous for Obama to talk about "distractions" when he failed to pass a budget last year.
What "distracted" him and his Dem comrades then?
Obama and the Dems need to take responsibility for their failure instead of engaging in fearmongering and silly whining.
Forget all this talk about giant “spending cuts” of $6.2 trillion in Congressman Ryan’s budget plan. That’s music to my ears, but it’s also based on Washington’s bizarre budget math – i.e., the screwy system where politicians can increase spending but say they’re cutting spending because the budget could have grown even faster.
What really matters is how much money government is spending this year compared to how much money will be spent in subsequent years. Using this common-sense benchmark, let’s look at two competing proposals.
According to the new numbers released today, Congressman Ryan’s budget plan will result in government growing, on average, by almost 2.8 percent annually over the next 10 years.
President Obama’s budget plan, by contrast, would increase the burden of government spending by an average of nearly 4.7 percent each year.
This chart compares the two budget plans. Because Chairman Ryan does not let spending grow as rapidly, cumulative spending over that period will be $6.2 billion less than it would be based on the President’s plan. That’s an impressive amount of money that taxpayers will save if Ryan is successful, but it’s not a spending cut.
I'd like those Leftists insisting that Ryan's plan contains "spending cuts" that are harsh and extreme to explain what's so harsh and extreme about a plan that allows the "budget to grow faster than inflation, which is projected to average less than 2.1 percent annually over the 10-year period."
Being responsible should not be labeled "extreme."
Congress is currently embroiled in a funding fight over how much to spend on less than one-fifth of the federal budget for the next six months. Whether we cut $33 billion or $61 billion—that is, whether we shave 2% or 4% off of this year's deficit—is important. It's a sign that the election did in fact change the debate in Washington from how much we should spend to how much spending we should cut.
But this morning the new House Republican majority will introduce a budget that moves the debate from billions in spending cuts to trillions. America is facing a defining moment. The threat posed by our monumental debt will damage our country in profound ways, unless we act.
No one person or party is responsible for the looming crisis. Yet the facts are clear: Since President Obama took office, our problems have gotten worse. Major spending increases have failed to deliver promised jobs. The safety net for the poor is coming apart at the seams. Government health and retirement programs are growing at unsustainable rates. The new health-care law is a fiscal train wreck. And a complex, inefficient tax code is holding back American families and businesses.
The president's recent budget proposal would accelerate America's descent into a debt crisis. It doubles debt held by the public by the end of his first term and triples it by 2021. It imposes $1.5 trillion in new taxes, with spending that never falls below 23% of the economy. His budget permanently enlarges the size of government. It offers no reforms to save government health and retirement programs, and no leadership.
Our budget, which we call The Path to Prosperity, is very different. For starters, it cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president's budget over the next 10 years, reduces the debt as a percentage of the economy, and puts the nation on a path to actually pay off our national debt. Our proposal brings federal spending to below 20% of gross domestic product (GDP), consistent with the postwar average, and reduces deficits by $4.4 trillion.
...Here are its major components:
• Reducing spending: This budget proposes to bring spending on domestic government agencies to below 2008 levels, and it freezes this category of spending for five years. The savings proposals are numerous, and include reforming agricultural subsidies, shrinking the federal work force through a sensible attrition policy, and accepting Defense Secretary Robert Gates's plan to target inefficiencies at the Pentagon.
• Welfare reform: This budget will build upon the historic welfare reforms of the late 1990s by converting the federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant that lets states create a range of options and gives Medicaid patients access to better care. It proposes similar reforms to the food-stamp program, ending the flawed incentive structure that rewards states for adding to the rolls. Finally, this budget recognizes that the best welfare program is one that ends with a job—it consolidates dozens of duplicative job-training programs into more accessible, accountable career scholarships that will better serve people looking for work.
As we strengthen and improve welfare programs for those who need them, we eliminate welfare for those who don't. Our budget targets corporate welfare, starting by ending the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that is costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. It gets rid of the permanent Wall Street bailout authority that Congress created last year. And it rolls back expensive handouts for uncompetitive sources of energy, calling instead for a free and open marketplace for energy development, innovation and exploration.
• Health and retirement security: This budget's reforms will protect health and retirement security. This starts with saving Medicare. The open-ended, blank-check nature of the Medicare subsidy threatens the solvency of this critical program and creates inexcusable levels of waste. This budget takes action where others have ducked. But because government should not force people to reorganize their lives, its reforms will not affect those in or near retirement in any way.
Starting in 2022, new Medicare beneficiaries will be enrolled in the same kind of health-care program that members of Congress enjoy. Future Medicare recipients will be able to choose a plan that works best for them from a list of guaranteed coverage options. This is not a voucher program but rather a premium-support model. A Medicare premium-support payment would be paid, by Medicare, to the plan chosen by the beneficiary, subsidizing its cost.
In addition, Medicare will provide increased assistance for lower- income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks. Reform that empowers individuals—with more help for the poor and the sick—will guarantee that Medicare can fulfill the promise of health security for America's seniors.
We must also reform Social Security to prevent severe cuts to future benefits. This budget forces policy makers to work together to enact common-sense reforms. The goal of this proposal is to save Social Security for current retirees and strengthen it for future generations by building upon ideas offered by the president's bipartisan fiscal commission.
• Budget enforcement: This budget recognizes that it is not enough to change how much government spends. We must also change how government spends. It proposes budget-process reforms—including real, enforceable caps on spending—to make sure government spends and taxes only as much as it needs to fulfill its constitutionally prescribed roles.
• Tax reform: This budget would focus on growth by reforming the nation's outdated tax code, consolidating brackets, lowering tax rates, and assuming top individual and corporate rates of 25%. It maintains a revenue-neutral approach by clearing out a burdensome tangle of deductions and loopholes that distort economic activity and leave some corporations paying no income taxes at all.
Anyone who thinks there isn't a significant difference between the Republicans and the Democrats isn't paying attention.
Ryan concludes on a very positive, hopeful note. In that sense, he reminds me of Ronald Reagan.
This is America's moment to advance a plan for prosperity. Our budget offers the nation a model of government that is guided by the timeless principles of the American idea: free-market democracy, open competition, a robust private sector bound by rules of honesty and fairness, a secure safety net, and equal opportunity for all under a limited constitutional government of popular consent.
We can reform government so that people don't have to reorient their lives for less. We can grow our economy, promote opportunity, and encourage upward mobility. This budget is the new House majority's answer to history's call. It is now up to all of us to keep America exceptional.
The difference between Ryan's words and Obama's "Are you in?" couldn't be more dramatic.
Here's a real plan for real change to provide real hope for America's future.
Jay Leno continues to bombard his audience with political drivel from Leftists.
The latest Leftist to appear on the Tonight Show was Fareed Zakaria.
Naturally, Zakaria carried water for Obama. He kept yapping about Libya and the "smart diplomacy" of the Obama administration.
Yes, it's been absolutely brilliant.
Right.
As usual, Leno didn't challenge the Leftist Zakaria at all.
Leno really has changed. Since his prime time fiasco, he doesn't hesitate to reveal his personal political leanings.
He rarely books conservatives on the show, so any political discussion is incredibly slanted and annoying. There's no balance. Leno rarely plays devil's advocate. It's a liberal echo chamber.
Here's video, followed by some interview transcript:
FAREED ZAKARIA: I think Obama's weakness is he's a very smart guy but he's very cool, which is good. You're calm, you're collected, but there's almost too much cool. There's an unsentimental...
LENO: Unemotional.
ZAKARIA: Yeah, you think about the problem of Americans who are unemployed. You talk about 20 million, maybe 25 million Americans -- I think if there was some way that he could connect with them. I think they understand he can't wave a magic wand and do something about it, but he needs to in some way give voice to their feeling of hopelessness and frustration. He's not as good at that as he is at the pure analysis.
Oh, good grief.
That's all Zakaria could up with when it comes to Obama's weakness?
Obama's weakness is a lesser strength?
What a hack!
When Leno brought up the 2012 election and the Republican nominee, Zakaria stressed the Tea Party's influence, suggesting extremism. That's right out of the Dems' talking points and Chuck Schumer's big mouth.
ZAKARIA: The party has changed a lot. This is not Ronald Reagan's party. This is not Richard Nixon's party. This is a party animated by the Tea Party, by populism, by all these new forces. And so I think it's much less going to play by the old rules. And so when people look at a Sarah Palin and say, 'Well, she can't get it,' she energizes that base like nobody else does.
Then Leno set up Zakaria to take some shots at Glenn Beck.
LENO: Let me ask you something just to have some fun here. Glenn Beck -- what did he call you? An 'America-basher' and a 'useful idiot.'
ZAKARIA: Yeah, because I corrected his math. He went on a show with his chalkboard and, you know, explained how 10 percent of Muslims are all, are terrorists.
LENO: 9.8. Ten percent!
ZAKARIA: Ten percent, you know. And I just pointed out if you do the math that means there are 157 million terrorists around in the world, and by the State Department's counts there have been only, what, 10,000... you know, 1000 terrorist events. If you assume 100 people involved in planning, it's just the math doesn't make any sense.
So I just think, look, it's the easiest thing to call somebody when you disagree with them an America-basher. I'm an immigrant. I'm not an American by accident of birth as Glenn Beck is. I'm an American by choice. I came to this country.
LENO: (Laughs, applauds)
I can understand why Zakaria would want to respond to Beck's name-calling, and defend himself. That's fair.
However, Zakaria's remarks do serve to diminish those of us blessed to be born in America, as if he has some greater authority because he chose to be an American.
I don't like that argument.
I don't think of myself as "American by accident of birth." I'm just a proud citizen, grateful to be an American. My pride and gratitude are no accident.
Also, Zakaria derides Beck for calling him an "America-basher."
Will Zakaria condemn the protesters in Wisconsin and their comrades around the country for calling Governor Scott Walker Hitler and other hideous names?
Next topic: The Birther controversy.
LENO: You know I like Donald Trump. He's a friend of mine. He's been here. Why... You can't be president if you weren't born here. If it didn't come out before the election, what is this nonsense? Why does this keep going on?
ZAKARIA: Look, I think that some of this -- maybe there are people who feel genuinely worried about this -- I think some of it is being used by politicans as a coded way to talk about race and the fact that he's different from us, whatever that means. I think it's a great shame because first of all, it's unbecoming, it's un-American. Secondly, you know, look at this last census. What does it mean to be different for us? You've got 15 million Hispanic Americans. You've got a country that is increasingly a mixture of minorities. You know, look at us. We all have funny last names. Right? I mean, join the club.
And there's the race card.
I think Trump just wants publicity. He's shrewd. He's knows how to get it. Call Rosie O'Donnell a fat pig and question Obama's birth certificate, whatever it takes to get attention. It's about self-promotion. But that's not the issue. Zakaria is especially offensive when he calls Americans racists and bigots.
This code crap is silly. It's insulting to the majority of Americans who have policy disagreements with Obama and don't approve of the job he's doing as president.
While I'm sure there are some people against Obama because he's half black, most of us against Obama are critical of his policies and values, not his skin color.
This is the 21st century.
Another Leftist hijacks Leno's show. I blame Leno for handing over the controls.
Judge Maryann Sumi, mother of foul-mouthed, union hack Jake Sinderbrand, has ordered that the budget repair law is not in effect.
She issued the order this morning even though on Tuesday she said that would be a move she would not make. Sumi said, "I hesitate to do that at this point because testimony is not closed and argument is not closed."
Although no testimony whatsoever has taken place since she said that, Sumi issued the order anyway.
Why did Sumi no longer "hesitate"?
What changed?
Did her husband, Carl Sinderbrand, and son, Jake Sinderbrand, convince her to quit "hesitating"?
Did she receive promises of support from union bosses?
That would be a corruption of our legal system.
Something is rotten in Dane County.
A state law to sharply curb union bargaining by public employees is not in effect, a Dane County judge ruled Thursday, continuing the turmoil over a measure that sparked massive protests and prompted Democrats to boycott the Senate for three weeks.
Gov. Scott Walker's administration said it would comply and discontinue the implementation of the law.
"Based on the briefs of counsel, the uncontroverted testimony, and the evidence received at the March 29, 2011, evidentiary hearing, it is hereby DECLARED that 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 has not been published within the meaning of (state statutes), and is therefore not in effect," Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi ruled in a two-paragraph order.
...In response to the order, Walker's administration said it was halting action on putting the law in force.
"While I believe the budget-repair bill was legally published and is indeed law, given the most recent court action we will suspend the implementation of it at this time," said a statement from Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch.
"I am pleased that now we have a clear statement that the law is not in effect and that we have to straighten this out," said La Follette, a Democrat.
Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) said the order was needed because he said Walker's administration had ignored past warnings from the judge.
"This morning with her added order she has taken away their last excuse," his statement said.
Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) called the order "judicial activism at its worst."
"Once again, one Dane County judge is doing everything she can to stand in the way of our efforts to improve the economy and create jobs," said a statement he issued.
...Sumi's latest order is in sharp contrast to what she said two days earlier in court. Then, Ozanne asked her to issue an order declaring the law was not in effect, but Sumi declined to do so.
"That is yet to be determined," she said then. "I hesitate to do that at this point because testimony is not closed and argument is not closed."
No testimony has been taken since Sumi said that.
Clearly, Sumi is doing the bidding of the unions.
She pulled this latest order out of thin air, something she said she would not do.
