My 200th Blog. Who'da thunk it?
The hype surrounding the vote on the so-called “Health Care Reform” bill is approaching that usually associated with the Super Bowl. Tomorrow promises more smoke, mirrors and glitz than a half-time extravaganza.
Based on the glowing CBO figures received based on Harry and Nancy’s “assumptions (which CBO is required to accept) the bill will cost a minimum of $940 billion over the next 10 years (although only the taxes, penalties and fees kick in immediately—the $940 billion will be spent in 6 years starting in 2014). We are assured by the Dems that it will “save” $138 billion in deficit reductions. In other words, they plan for the federal government to spend less money we don’t have than they would otherwise spend. Huh?
It’s like the old joke about the guy who buys something on sale although his bank balance is zero because he can use the “savings.”
But it gets better. Although CBO usually doesn’t project out beyond 10 years (for obvious reasons to be mentioned below), Nancy and Harry needed some big numbers to counter that nearly $1 trillion (1 followed by 12 zeros)cost, so CBO promises that in the decade starting in 2020 and ending in 2029, we’ll “save” another $1.2 trillion.
And if you believe that, contact me. I have some prime Nevada ocean front property that Harry is selling me that I can pass on to you.
The CBO does not project out that far because to do so accurately is nearly impossible.
Think about it. If the CBO is that good, why, back in 1988 did the CBO not warn us about the last two years?
Update
The Dems have retreated from Demon Pass ("Deem and pass"), the procedure thay had planned to use so that they could lie to their constituents saying "Oh, I didn't vote for the Senate Bill. I voted for a rule."
I suppose someone said to them, "Look, if we are so ashamed of what we are doing that we don't want to admit it, we should either better listen to the voters or just stand up and vote for the damned thing and take our whuppin' in November like adults."
We ought to sell tickets to the Fall campaigns--we coulkd retire the debt.
Showing posts with label Liberal Hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal Hypocrisy. Show all posts
20 March 2010
11 November 2009
LIBERAL HYPOCRISY AT ITS WORST
Recently, the Congress passed and the President signed into law, a statute that funds the Department of Defense for the coming fiscal year. Glad to hear it—providing for the common defense is one of the six purposes of the Constitution set forth in its preamble. But the joy with which liberals greeted the bill had nothing to do with the common defense or any other legitimate federal purpose.
They had attached a rider to the bill, making it a separate “hate crime” to commit an offense against a gay person. Now, I happen to think that it is despicable for one person to commit any crime against another. So do the States and the Federal government. They have outlawed literally thousands of illegal acts—ranging from murder and assault to running a red light.
But that was not enough for the liberals. They want to create a new constitutional right without resort to that messy amendment process established in the Constitution. And what is that right, you ask?
They want to enshrine in statute a “right” to be liked. And to do that, they attached an irrelevant rider to a necessary and legitimately constitutional bill. Now, that is nothing new. Riders are nearly as old as the republic. The Constitution of the Confederate States of America (1861) actually prohibited riders.
But what caught my attention was Senator Harry Reid’s subsequent outburst about the attempts by Republicans to attach riders to the so-called health-care bills. You see, in a liberal’s mind, they have a right to act in any way they want, but the other side may not. Hypocrisy!!!
The “hate crime” bill is necessary, we are told, because murdering someone who you do not like is even more terrible than simply murdering the victim. (I doubt that the victim much cares why he was killed.) We have to make thought and passion a crime, and when we do that, it is but a short step to outlawing mere thought.
And that is what the “hate crimes” bills do—they make a person’s thoughts criminal. That requires the jury to get into the killer’s heads. Nancy Pelosi is overjoyed that we can now punish a killer, not for the act of murder, but for the thoughts that led to the crime. But only if the thoughts are directed toward the liberals’ friends.
Yesterday, I heard liberal commentators repeatedly argue that Maj. Malik Nadal Hasan could not be charged with a hate crime, “because we have no way of determining why he did such a thing.” So, a guy who is a Muslim, who has written adopting the hateful precepts of radical Islam, and who shouted “Allah Akbar” as he blazed away, cannot be charged with a hate crime, but someone who guns down a black kid on the street can? Seems to me that Major Hasan made it clear that he did not like the soldiers he killed and wounded.
Don’t all victims have the same right to be liked? Obviously not!
The good news is that in each instance, the murderer can be charged with, tried for, and if convicted, punished for his conduct. And that ought be enough to satisfy anyone.
They had attached a rider to the bill, making it a separate “hate crime” to commit an offense against a gay person. Now, I happen to think that it is despicable for one person to commit any crime against another. So do the States and the Federal government. They have outlawed literally thousands of illegal acts—ranging from murder and assault to running a red light.
But that was not enough for the liberals. They want to create a new constitutional right without resort to that messy amendment process established in the Constitution. And what is that right, you ask?
They want to enshrine in statute a “right” to be liked. And to do that, they attached an irrelevant rider to a necessary and legitimately constitutional bill. Now, that is nothing new. Riders are nearly as old as the republic. The Constitution of the Confederate States of America (1861) actually prohibited riders.
But what caught my attention was Senator Harry Reid’s subsequent outburst about the attempts by Republicans to attach riders to the so-called health-care bills. You see, in a liberal’s mind, they have a right to act in any way they want, but the other side may not. Hypocrisy!!!
The “hate crime” bill is necessary, we are told, because murdering someone who you do not like is even more terrible than simply murdering the victim. (I doubt that the victim much cares why he was killed.) We have to make thought and passion a crime, and when we do that, it is but a short step to outlawing mere thought.
And that is what the “hate crimes” bills do—they make a person’s thoughts criminal. That requires the jury to get into the killer’s heads. Nancy Pelosi is overjoyed that we can now punish a killer, not for the act of murder, but for the thoughts that led to the crime. But only if the thoughts are directed toward the liberals’ friends.
Yesterday, I heard liberal commentators repeatedly argue that Maj. Malik Nadal Hasan could not be charged with a hate crime, “because we have no way of determining why he did such a thing.” So, a guy who is a Muslim, who has written adopting the hateful precepts of radical Islam, and who shouted “Allah Akbar” as he blazed away, cannot be charged with a hate crime, but someone who guns down a black kid on the street can? Seems to me that Major Hasan made it clear that he did not like the soldiers he killed and wounded.
Don’t all victims have the same right to be liked? Obviously not!
The good news is that in each instance, the murderer can be charged with, tried for, and if convicted, punished for his conduct. And that ought be enough to satisfy anyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)