The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal

Many of the mainstream sites are putting their spin on the 2013 Budget released by the House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan.  It is important to have the facts not spin so below you will find the details of the House Budget Plan for FY13 from Cong Paul Ryan (R-WI) and the House Budget Committee:

The Path to Prosperity:
A Blueprint for American Renewal

House Budget Committee - Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution

Read Full Report

Read Facts and Summary

A Contrast in Visions

For years, both political parties have made empty promises to the American people. Unfortunately, the President refuses to take responsibility for avoiding the debt-fueled crisis before us. Instead, his policies have put us on the path to debt and decline.

The President and his party’s leaders refuse to take action in the face of the most predictable economic crisis in our nation’s history. The President’s budget calls for more spending and more debt, while Senate Democrats – for over 1,000 days – have refused to pass a budget. This unserious approach to budgeting has serious consequences for American families, seniors, and the next generation.

We reject the broken politics of the past. The American people deserve real solutions and honest leadership. That’s what we’re delivering with our budget, The Path to Prosperity. House Republicans are advancing a plan of action for American renewal.

Our budget:

• Cuts government spending to protect hardworking taxpayers;
• Tackles the drivers of our debt, so our troops don’t pay the price for Washington’s failure to take action;
• Restores economic freedom and ensures a level playing field for all by putting an end to special-interest favoritism and corporate welfare
• Reverses the President’s policies that drive up gas prices, and instead promotes an all-of the-above strategy for unlocking American energy production to help lower costs, create jobs, and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
• Strengthens health and retirement security by taking power away from government bureaucrats and empowering patients instead with control over their own care;
• Reforms our broken tax code to spur job creation and economic opportunity by lowering rates, closing loopholes, and putting hardworking taxpayers ahead of special interests.

At its core, this plan of action is about putting an end to empty promises from a bankrupt government and restoring the fundamental American promise: ensuring our children have more opportunity and inherit a stronger America than our parents gave us.

READ FULL REPORT

Source:  House Budget Committee

Super PACs Are Super-Fly! ProPublica Rocks an Explanation of Unrestricted Cash with Video

Maybe now some people will understand what a Super PAC is and what they can do.  The lines have been so blurred intentionally that most people just know how annoying all these negative ads have become from the Super PACs.  The idea that candidates try to make voters believe they don't have anything to do with the negative advertising from the Super PACs is ludicrous.  This video is a better explanation of what is happening then what we have been reading:

Super PACs Are Super-Fly! ProPublica Rocks an Explanation of Unrestricted Cash
By Bruce Watson

Posted 5:05PM 03/19/12

Over the past few months, newspapers, magazines and the Internet have been crammed with stories about super PACs. On the bright side, an ever-larger portion of the voting public has become aware of that the political system has a big, fat loophole that allows unlimited, almost-unrestricted campaign funding. In fact, notable PAC superstars like Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friess and Frank L. VanderSloot have become, if not household names, at least well-known for their contributions to the political process. 

Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert -- not to mention much of the news media -- there still seems to be some widespread confusion about how exactly super PACs work, and how they came into being. Recently, investigative journalism website ProPublica and educational music company Explainer Music took the Schoolhouse Rock tack, creating "Oh, Super PACs," a 1970s Super Fly-style video that explains how super PACs are funded. Take a listen:

Way to go McCain/Feingold -- citizens who vote are limited in their donations to a candidate but a corporation/union can now donate unlimited amounts that has subjected us to all the negative advertising. Have seen negative ads before but NOTHING compared to the blitz of millions of dollars of them in primary states for Romney to take out everyone else. No wonder it is hard to get people to run now but believe it is going to get harder if something is not done to bring a halt to these attack PACS. This practice of anonymity of some donors through giving to a 501(c) non-profit or setting up a phony company to give and then shut it down needs to stop if individuals are restricted in what they can give.

Stop the pretense there is no coordination between Super PACs and the candidate because a Super PAC would not go against the wishes of the candidate. Supreme Court should have thrown out all of Campaign Finance Reform when they threw out this part that now allows unlimited donations to Super PACs. Make it so anyone can give unlimited to a candidate but every last dime a candidate receives has to be made public when they file versus today when they only have to report the information of the person giving if they give over the limit in a certain time period. If they don't have the information on who gave, the money goes to charity. Then we will know who is giving across the board.

McCain sees another Solyndra in Navy biofuels spending

Whoever is behind the Navy pushing biofuels needs a reality check.  This is strange to see McCain going after the Secretary of Navy Mabus as he usually has the Air Force in his sites.  His comparison to Solyndra seems a likely scenario even as the Navy Secretary spins.

This statement by Senator Inhofe (R-OK) says it all:

In response to McCain’s comments, Mabus said the Navy would never purchase any kind of alternative fuel at $400 per gallon. 

The Navy would only start buying biofuels en masse if alternative energy firms could provide that fuel at a commercially competitive price, Mabus said. 

But Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) pointed out that even at a competitive price, the Navy’s plan to use a “50/50 blend” of diesel fuel and a biofuel supplement would still cost $15 per gallon. Traditional JP-5 jet fuel used in the Navy’s fighter aircraft runs $4 to $5 per gallon on average, Inhofe said. 

Did the Secretary of the Navy think he could get this past McCain and Inhofe?  Not very smart of the Secretary.  Does the Navy want to pay at least $10 more a gallon for biofuels which is probably a low ball estimate so they can curry favor with Obama?  That is the only answer I can come up with in these times of reduced funds for the DoD.  Why should the other services have to prop up the 'Green' Navy as the Secretary of the Navy wants biofuels costing a lot more dollars?

Very tight dollars in DoD and the Secretary of the Navy is on a boondoggle when you read this story:

McCain sees another Solyndra in Navy biofuels spending
By Carlo Munoz - 03/15/12 02:07 PM ET 

The Navy’s push to develop biofuels to run its fleet of planes and warships could devolve into a “Solyndra situation” for the Pentagon, a top Republican senator said today. 

During Tuesday’s hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, ranking member John McCain (R-Ariz.) compared the now-bankrupt solar energy company, into which the White House sank $535 million in loan guarantees, to Navy-led efforts in alternative energy.

McCain hammered away at Navy Secretary Ray Mabus during the hearing over the Navy’s continued investment in biofuel technology. 

The Navy has spent more than $400 per gallon for roughly 20,000 gallons of algae-based biofuel for testing, McCain said. 

That kind of substantial investment in green fuels, especially during a time of shrinking defense budgets, is simply unacceptable, he said. 

Given the Navy’s recent track record in its alternative fuels program, McCain said, “maybe [this] will be another Solyndra situation.” 

McCain told Mabus and committee members that he plans to introduce amendments to the Pentagon’s fiscal 2013 budget to address the Navy’s alternative energy plans. 

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said he could not comment on what those proposed amendments might include, noting that floor debate on the defense bill for fiscal 2013 is months away. 

In response to McCain’s comments, Mabus said the Navy would never purchase any kind of alternative fuel at $400 per gallon. 

The Navy would only start buying biofuels en masse if alternative energy firms could provide that fuel at a commercially competitive price, Mabus said. 

But Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) pointed out that even at a competitive price, the Navy’s plan to use a “50/50 blend” of diesel fuel and a biofuel supplement would still cost $15 per gallon. Traditional JP-5 jet fuel used in the Navy’s fighter aircraft runs $4 to $5 per gallon on average, Inhofe said. 

This is the second time this year that Republican lawmakers have lambasted the Navy’s alternative energy goals. 

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), a member of the House Armed Services subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, took Mabus to task in February over the service’s plans.
“Shouldn’t we refocus our priorities and make those things our priorities instead of advancing a biofuels market?” Forbes asked at the time. 

Before Mabus could respond, the Virginia Republican took a clear shot at the secretary: “You’re not the secretary of the Energy. You’re the secretary of the Navy.” 

Source:  The Hill

Elected Officials Get An Average 1,452% Salary Increase When They Take A Lobbying Job

This article is interesting in the fact it is not the money that politicians make as members of Congress, but it is the lobbying that they do after they leave Congress which makes them wealthy.  In at least one case, it is called being an historian not a lobbyist.  (sarcasm)  Seriously these numbers make you want to change the rules about lobbying so that members of Congress are banned for five years from lobbying Congress for companies.

We have insider trading, sweetheart deals on mortgages, lobbying after leaving Congress, illegal campaign contributions that they get a slap on the wrist for, and the list goes on which is exactly why Congress has such a low approval rating.

Have to admit these lobbying salaries may take top honors of how far out of touch the inside the beltway crowd are from those of us in flyover country.  When you read what they are making as lobbyist, you want changes made immediately.  These former members of Congress are using their influence peddling to get huge salaries while running up huge deficits for the Country in the last few years.  Words defy me for what I would like to say.  Suffice to say that I find this totally disgusting.

Elected Officials Get An Average 1,452% Salary Increase When They Take A Lobbying Job
from the which-they-probably-negotiated-long-before-leaving-office dept 

byMike MasnickFri, Mar 16th 2012 11:26am 

A few months ago, in writing about a fascinating interview between Jack Abramoff and Larry Lessig, we talked about Abramoff's admission that the best way to "buy" a Congressional staffer was to merely let them know that they had a lobbying job waiting for them "whenever they wanted it." He noted that, after that, those staffers basically worked for Abramoff more than working for their own elected official. He did also note that it was often much more effective to do this with staffers rather than the elected officials themselves, but clearly it happens all the time with elected officials too. 

Republic Report has looked up the details on some former elected officials who became lobbyists and noted that, on average, they got a boost in salaries of 1,452%. Also of note: they can negotiate these deals while still in office and don't have to tell anyone about them or even reveal what their salaries are. That can lead to clear conflicts of interest that are mostly ignored by the public and the press: 

For example, former Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) spent his last year in office fighting reforms to bring greater transparency to the derivatives marketplace. Almost as soon as he left office, he joined the board of a derivatives trading company and became an "advisor" to Goldman Sachs. Risky derivative trading exacerbated the financial crisis of 2008, yet we’re stuck under the laws written in part by Gregg. How much has he made from the deal? Were his actions in office influenced by relationships with his future employers?

There's definitely a lot of fluctuation in how much these former Congressional Reps and Senators make as lobbyists, but it's clearly a lot more than they were making previously. Here are just a few examples (the article has many more), including our old buddy Chris Dodd: 

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin (R-LA) made $19,359,927 as a lobbyist for pharmaceutical companies between 2006 and 2010. Tauzin retired from Congress in 2005, shortly after leading the passage of President Bush’s prescription drug expansion. He was recruited to lead PhRMA, a lobbying association for Pfizer, Bayer, and other top drug companies. During the health reform debate, the former congressman helped his association block a proposal to allow Medicare to negotiate for drug prices, a major concession that extended the policies enacted in Tauzin’s original Medicare drug-purchasing scheme. Tauzin left PhRMA in late 2010. He was paid over $11 million in his last year at the trade group. Comparing Tauzin’s salary during his last year as congressman and his last year as head of PhRMA, his salary went up 7110%.

Former Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) makes approximately $1.5 million a year as the chief lobbyist for the movie industry. Dodd, who retired from the Senate after 2010, was hired by the Motion Picture Association of America, the lobbying association that represents major studios like Warner Bros. and Universal Studios. Although the MPAA would not confirm with Republic Report Dodd’s exact salary, media accounts point to $1.5 million, a slightly higher figure than the previous MPAA head, former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman. Dodd received about a 762% raise after moving from public office to lobbying.

Former Congressman Steve Largent (R-OK) has made at least $8,815,741 over the years as a lobbyist for a coalition of cell phone companies and related wireless industry interests. Republic Report analyzed disclosures from CTIA-The Wireless Association, the trade group Largent leads. CTIA counts wireless companies like AT&T, HTC, and Motorola as members. Largent left Congress in 2002, when his pay was about $150,000 as a public official. His move to the CTIA trade association, where he earns slightly more than $1.5 million a year according to the latest disclosure form, raised his salary by 912%.

And people wonder why the American public feels that Congress is impossibly corrupt.

Source:  Tech Dirt

Why are Florida delegates not proportioned?

When you read the CNN email, it states that Romney has to have a majority of the vote to take all of 20 delegates from Puerto Rico.  Why wasn't that the case in Florida where Romney only got 46.4% of the vote?  Not a math genius but smart enough to know that 46.4% does not equal the majority of votes.  So why didn't the RNC demand that Florida award their delegates proportionately?  You can except a challenge in credentials when Florida shows up with all Romney people and most like the Rules Committee will get involved before this over. I would suspect unless the Romney people in FL back down to see this go to the floor for a decision.

This has all the makings of one nasty Convention thanks to the RNC who refuses to use the same rules for all states.  Why have rules if they don't apply to all states?

CNN Breaking News email, 18 March 2012: 

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will win the Puerto Rico GOP primary, CNN projects. 

Puerto Rico’s 20 delegates will be awarded proportionally. However, if Romney finishes with a majority of the vote, he will take all of the delegates.

Puerto Rico's primary comes two days before the showdown in Illinois, where 54 delegates will be awarded proportionally and polls show a tight race between Romney and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. 

Florida100% reporting

Candidate	Votes	Pct.	Del.
Mitt Romney	775,014	46.4%	50
Newt Gingrich	533,117	31.9%
Rick Santorum	222,799	13.3%
Ron Paul	117,104	7.0%
Others	21,613	1.3%

In Wake of Mitt Romney Call for Obama to Fire ‘Gas Hike Trio,’ Obama Campaign Dings Romney for Raising Gas Taxes

Why did John McCain endorse Romney after this for starters?

But GOP frontrunner Romney and his team must also know that the governor is vulnerable on the issue of gas taxes, given that in 2008, the campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., attacked Romney for the gas fee, which Romney raised from half a cent per gallon to 2.5 cents per gallon, as the governor in 2003 sought ways to pay down the deficit. 

McCain campaign communications director Jill Hazelbaker responded to a Romney attack on McCain over energy issues by saying, “Mitt Romney has proven in this campaign that he will say anything to anyone at any time if he thinks it will help him politically. … As governor, Mitt Romney effectively raised gas taxes on every single motorist in Massachusetts.” 

AAA Southern New England said the Romney fee was “a backdoor tax.”  The fee route reminds me of Huckabee as Governor of Arkansas doing the same thing.  When it comes to politicians trying to disguise a tax hike as a fee, an  Italian saying comes to mind which is also true in the English translation:

'e assomigliate ad un'anatra, camminate come un'anatra e comunicate come un'anatra, dovete essere un'anatra' (English translation:  'And you look like a duck, walks like a duck and reported as a duck, you must be a duck')

First time I heard the saying in Italian, it sounded beautiful because I didn't have a clue what was said but when it was translated I burst out laughing and told the person they described some politicians perfectly.

Why would Romney think he could go after Obama on 'Gas Hikes' and not get blowback.  I used to think Romney had a smart campaign but now I think he is surrounded by 'yes' people because that is the only reason I can think that Romney would continue to make statements that encourage people to go back at him.  Do his people not use the internet to see what is there that could bite Romney?

Mar 18, 2012 12:21pm
In Wake of Mitt Romney Call for Obama to Fire ‘Gas Hike Trio,’ Obama Campaign Dings Romney for Raising Gas Taxes

By Jake Tapper@jaketapper 

Responding to Republican Mitt Romney’s call that President Obama fire his “gas hike trio” – Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar – the Obama campaign took a shot at Romney Sunday for having raised gas taxes on Massachusetts motorists. 

“As a result of the president’s all-of-the-above energy strategy, domestic oil and gas production has increased each year and our dependence on foreign oil is at a 16-year low,” Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt told ABC News, when asked for a response to Romney’s call for the president to fire three members of his cabinet. “In Massachusetts, Gov. Romney raised the gas tax by 400 percent. Now Mitt Romney rolled out a tax plan that continues to charge taxpayers $4 billion a year to subsidize oil and gas companies making record profits and he opposed raising fuel economy standards, which will save consumers an average of $8,000 per vehicle.” 

Just this morning on “Fox News Sunday,” Romney told guest anchor Bret Baier that when Obama “ran for office he said he wanted to see gasoline prices go up. He said that energy prices would skyrocket under his views and he has selected three people to help him implement that program: the secretary of energy, the secretary of the interior and the EPA administrator. And this ‘gas hike trio’ has been doing the job over the last three and a half years and gas prices are up. The right course is they ought to be fired.” 

Romney said that “the president has apparently suffered an election-year conversion” since he has “decided that gasoline prices should come down. Well, the ‘gas hike trio’ has been going in the other direction. Time for them to go, probably hand in their resignations, if he’s really serious about that, and start drilling for energy here.”

LaBolt then got even feistier on this issue on Twitter, writing: “When Romney talks about the gas hike trio is he talking about his advisor who wanted to raise the gas tax to over $2? http://nyti.ms/FPP2Aw” 

His tweet provided a link to a January 2012 column on tax reform by Greg Mankiw, once the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers for President George W. Bush and since 2006 a Romney adviser. Mankiw, a Harvard economics professor, wrote: 

“Consider the tax on gasoline. Driving your car is associated with various adverse side effects, which economists call externalities. These include traffic congestion, accidents, local pollution and global climate change. If the tax on gasoline were higher, people would alter their behavior to drive less. They would be more likely to take public transportation, use car pools or live closer to work. The incentives they face when deciding how much to drive would more closely match the true social costs and benefits.

”Economists who have added up all the externalities associated with driving conclude that a tax exceeding $2 a gallon makes sense. That would provide substantial revenue that could be used to reduce other taxes. By taxing bad things more, we could tax good things less.” 

See ABC News Blog for Video 

LaBolt also asked: “Or does @MittRomney want to fire himself for raising the gas tax by 400% in MA?” 

President Obama and his team seem to be feeling quite vulnerable on the issue of gas prices, fearing that the skyrocketing prices could undermine the fragile economic recovery as well as consumer confidence – and thus the president’s poll numbers. The president has held three energy-related events in as many weeks. LaBolt’s assertion that domestic production is up and dependence is down “as a result” of President Obama’s energy policies is disputed by energy experts, who say the reasons are far more complicated, including steps taken by previous administrations and the recession. 

(snip)

The McCain campaign noted that in a 2007 Boston Globe story by Brian Mooney, the fee hike was described as “clearly excessive,” because the increase would generate $60 million per year for a de-contamination program but produced vast surpluses amounting to tens of millions of dollars. McCain has this year endorsed Romney. 

Then and in 2003, when the fee was raised, Romney and his team disputed that the fee increase was a tax increase. 

That defense was greeted with some skepticism. In an April 11, 2003 Boston Herald story called “Pump it up! Goosing the gas tax with Mitt,” Cosmo Macero, Jr., described the fee hike this way: 

“Gov. Romney’s administration is whacking motorists with the equivalent of a 2-cent-a-gallon gas tax hike, thanks to a little-known fund that pays for cleaning spills and underground leaks at local filling stations. Gas wholesalers pay a fee into the fund for every 10,000 gallons they deliver to retail filling stations in Massachusetts. As of April 1, on the Romney crew’s say-so, the fee went from $ 50 for every 10,000 gallons to … $ 250. That stunning fivefold increase looks particularly onerous when you break it down to the per-gallon cost: from a half-cent per gallon to 2 1/2 cents in one fell swoop. What it means: At least $30 million a year to the cleanup fund for every penny the fee is increased.

“‘It’s a nice little backdoor tax increase,’ is how one former state official explains it. That’s because wholesalers almost always pass the cost directly down to retailers, and they pass it to consumers. ‘Taxes or fees are usually a direct pass-through,’ says Stephen Dodge, who represents the Massachusetts chapter of the American Petroleum Council. ‘It would be disingenuous to say that’s not the case.’”

A spokesman and lobbyist for AAA Southern New England later told Macero that the fee was “a backdoor tax.” 

-Jake Tapper  Source:  ABC News Blog

Note that he went on Fox News to make his statements where it seems he can get on anytime he wants.  I join others in believing that a lot of Fox News people are shilling for Romney.  Very seldom tune into Fox News or any other news channel except I go to CNN for Breaking News which is still the best when a story originally breaks.  Other than that, I prefer to read what is happening -- not as irritating.

Mitt Romney: “I like mandates. The mandates work”

In 2009, Romney called on Obama to use RomneyCare for an example for his ObamaCare mandates -- guess he figured no one would bother to look up the editorial and the video when he ran for President again.  He was wrong on that point because it was discovered and released.  Looks like to us after the Romney debate remarks from 2008 which were featured on the Weekly Standard today that everyone would know he likes mandates on healthcare.  What else does he like mandates on is the real question.  Would he also govern by Executive Order so he didn't have to deal with conservatives in the Congress?

This past January after Romney won Florida, the FL Attorney General Pam Bondi let the cat out of the bag that Romney planned to mandate healthcare in each state as she was going to be a member of the task force that would set up the mandates in every state.  She is nothing like the former FL Attorney General Bill McCollum who was a leader of the AG's around the country fighting ObamaCare.  She is just the opposite.

It appears that Romney will say anything he thinks will get votes at that moment in time even if he has to flip flop hours later hoping that no one will notice the flip flops.

Since Romney supporters are going around the net accusing a lot of us including a post on this site of being bigots because Romney is Mormon, need to get their collective heads out of the sand and quit trying to convince us he is conservative because he is not and RomneyCare mandates are the best example of that we know about.  There are others like Puerto Ricans don't have to speak English to become a state which also floored a lot of us.

Unlike most Mormon elected officials who stand on their principles which is mostly conservative, Romney is all over the place which points to someone who has no core values.  A former state rep of mine who is Mormon had conservative core values.  He didn't pander for votes or put his finger in the wind to see which way it was blowing before voting.  Some people in my district accused him of being too conservative.

That is why labeling anyone against Romney as a bigot is childish when it is not true.  Most of us don't like Romney because he is a Massachusetts liberal playing the role of a conservative and it shows when over 70% of voters in a state are against him.  We ask again "Why is he being pushed so hard to be the nominee?"

One more article to add to the list about RomneyCare mandates and the fact that Romney said in his own words "I like mandates.  The mandates work:"

The Man Who Likes Mandates
Mar 26, 2012, Vol. 17, No. 27 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL

Why is there still so much resistance among Republican primary voters to Mitt Romney, the likely but not inevitable GOP nominee? Perhaps the deepest reason is this: At a moment in history when we need a bold commitment to reform, a fundamental willingness to limit the state and revitalize self-government, Romney’s achievements and qualifications seem out of step with the times.

Gov. Mitt Romney with Sen. Edward Kennedy at the signing ceremony for Romneycare in Boston, April 12, 2006

AP IMAGES / Elise Amendola

Consider a revealing debate moment. It’s not from this year’s campaign but from 2008, when Obamacare did not yet exist. Here’s an exchange from the debate among Republican candidates at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire on January 5 that year:

* * *
Charlie Gibson: Governor Romney’s system has mandates in Massachusetts, although you backed away from mandates on a national basis. 

Mitt Romney: No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work. 

Fred Thompson: I beg your pardon? I didn’t know you were going to admit that. You like mandates. 

Romney: Let me—let me—oh, absolutely. Let me tell you what kind of mandates I like, Fred, which is this. If it weren’t .  .  .  

Thompson: The ones you come up with.
(Laughter) 

Romney: Here’s my view: If somebody—if somebody can afford insurance and decides not to buy it, and then they get sick, they ought to pay their own way, as opposed to expect the government to pay their way. And that’s an American principle. That’s a principle of personal responsibility.  

So, I said this: If you can afford to buy insurance, then buy it. You don’t have to, if you don’t want to buy it, but then you got to put enough money aside that you can pay your own way, because what we’re not going to do is say, as we saw more and more people .  .  . 

Gibson: Governor, you imposed tax penalties in Massachusetts. 

Romney: Yes, we said, look, if people can afford to buy it, either buy the insurance or pay your own way; don’t be free riders and pass on the cost to your health care to everybody else, because right now .  .  .  

Thompson: The government is going to make you buy insurance .  .  .  

Romney: No, the government is going to stop .  .  .

Thompson: and make you pay—I mean, the state—your state plan, which is, of course, different from your national plan, did require people to make that choice, though. The state required them to do that. What was the penalty if they refused? .  .  .  

Romney: If somebody is making, let’s say $100,000 a year, and doesn’t have health insurance, and they show up at the hospital, and they need a $1,000 repair of some kind for something that’s gone wrong. And they say, “Look, I’m not insured, I’m not going to pay.” Do you think they should pay or not? 

Thompson: Did your plan cut people off at $100,000? Was that the level? 

Romney: No, actually .  .  .  

Thompson: Did it only apply to people with $100,000 income and over? 

Romney: It actually applies to people at three-times federal poverty. They pay for their own policy. At less than three-times federal poverty, we help them buy a policy, so everybody is insured, and everybody is able to buy a policy that is affordable for them. The question is this, again, if someone could afford a policy and they choose not to buy it, should they be responsible for paying for their own care? Or should they be able to go to the hospital and say, “You know what? I’m not insured. You ought to pay for it.” What we found was, one-quarter of the uninsured in my state were making $75,000 a year or more. And my view is they should either buy insurance or they should pay their own way with a health savings account or some other savings account. 

Gibson: We have an expression in television: We get in the weeds. We’re in the weeds now on this. .  .  . Yes or no, in your national plan, would you mandate people to get insurance? .  .  . 

Romney: I would not mandate at the federal level that every state do what we do. But what I would say at the federal level is, “We’ll keep giving you these special payments we make if you adopt plans that get everybody insured.” I want to get everybody insured. 

Gibson: Okay. 

Romney: In Governor Schwarzenegger’s state, he’s got a different plan to get people insured. I wouldn’t tell him he has to do it my way. But I’d say each state needs to get busy on the job of getting all our citizens insured. It does not cost more money. 

* * *
Thus spake Mitt Romney, able technocrat and clear-eyed manager. The well-informed technocrat looks at the current health care system and sees an inability to form stable insurance pools because of problems of adverse selection and free riders. Those problems can be solved—or at least addressed—by mandating that everyone buy coverage. Thus, Romney volunteers, “I like mandates. The mandates work.” 

Excerpt:  Read More at the Weekly Standard

Alerts

Hide

Get alerts when there is a new article that might interest you.

Send me alerts for:

Bill Kristol
Fred Barnes
Jay Cost

Your e-mail address:

Confirm e-mail address:

Please sign me up for The Weekly Standard weekly newsletter.

The Weekly Standard reserves the right to use your email for internal use only. Occasionally, we may send you special offers or communications from carefully selected advertisers we believe may be of benefit to our subscribers. Click the box to be included in these third party offers. We respect your privacy and will never rent or sell your email.

Please include me in third party offers.

Romney Spending Millions in Negative Ads to Attack Santorum and Gingrich

Once again Romney 'scorched earth' is happening in Illinois this time against fellow Republicans.  Does Romney and his people think that is the way to gain support for his nomination?  IOTW if he wasn't funded by wealthy people instead having to rely on the small donors, he would have been out of the race a long time ago with no money for attack ads.  He is not very likable and no amount of spin is going to turn him into a Conservative.  The other day on a site one of the posters said that it has gotten to the stage that Romney turns him off like Obama does when he comes on TV.  That is the exact reaction I feel today when I see his picture anywhere -- don't want to see him or Obama as President.

With the Romney 'scorched earth' against fellow Republicans, why should any of us support him because he acts more like a Democrat then a Republican which is probably truer to his roots as an Independent.  Now that his healthcare panel will be given the job of implementing mandatory Romney Care in the states, how is that different from Obama Care?  Attorney Generals around the country are concerned that a Romney victory will make Obama Care a reality as they will have lost their ace in the hole against Obama Care with Romney as the nominee and his mandated healthcare policy.  I hate even typing that.

NJ Governor Christie will not be forgotten for his role in all of this for Romney.  Conservatives have extremely long memories.  Christie now actively campaigning for him in Illinois as the current Vice Chair of the Republican Governor's Conference says all you need to know about Christie as Illinois is a much more moderate state.  Guess he couldn't send him to OK, AL, or MS because we are too conservative for a New Jersey Governor.

Pressure Mounts on Romney for Illinois Victory
Friday, 16 Mar 2012 05:56 PM 

1Pressure is mounting on Republican Mitt Romney to win next Tuesday's presidential primary in Illinois, a state considered friendly territory as he seeks to fend off a growing challenge from conservative rival Rick Santorum. 

Romney and Santorum have added campaign events in Illinois over the next few days to try to get a leg up in the state, where a Chicago Tribune poll last week gave Romney a narrow lead of 35 percent to Santorum's 31 percent. 

The former Massachusetts governor is pouring money into Illinois and sending an ally, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, to campaign for him there on Friday. 

Romney's inability to put Santorum away is causing angst in senior Republican circles and leading to further speculation about the possibility of a contentious convention fight for the presidential nomination when Republicans gather in Tampa, Florida, in late August to formally choose their candidate. .

Romney attempted to tamp down such talk on Thursday. 

"Look, we're not going to go to a brokered convention," Romney told Fox News. "One or the other of us among the three or four that are running is going to get the delegates necessary to become the nominee." 

The 2012 Republican battle has turned into a grinding ground game, with Romney intent on building on his haul of delegates to try to reach the 1,144 needed for the party's presidential nomination as quickly as possible. In Illinois, 69 delegates are at stake. 

The Midwestern state's Republicans are relatively moderate and on paper should give Romney a boost after he lost to Santorum in Alabama and Mississippi this week. 

Illinois is Democratic President Barack Obama's home state and is expected to vote for Obama in the November 6 presidential election over the Republican challenger. 

Romney has 498 delegates nationally, more than double Santorum's 239 and far ahead of Newt Gingrich's 139 and Ron Paul's 69, according to CNN. 

MORE THAN JUST MATH 

But many Republicans believe he needs more than just delegate math and must produce some big wins in the state-by-state campaign to prove he is a worthy front-runner. 

"If Romney wins Illinois, people will say he is sealing the deal as a front-runner candidate," said Republican strategist Ron Bonjean. "If he loses, then they're saying he still has a lot of work to do and he's relying on delegate math and that he may win by the numbers but he also has to win by momentum to generate enthusiasm." 

Forces loyal to Romney are pouring money into Illinois. Romney and his backers are believed to be spending more than $4 million there, while Santorum's outside group announced a $310,000 effort. 

Word on the street was that Romney came under pressure to win Illinois from some of his financial backers during a day of fundraising in New York on Wednesday. 

"The money guys made it clear that you've got to win Illinois," said a veteran Republican strategist, who asked to remain unidentified. 

Romney campaign sources cast doubt on the comment and said they were not aware of any such demand. "I don't think anything big happened or I would've heard about it," said one.
Romney has already had big victories this year when his back was against the wall. He won Florida decisively after losing South Carolina to Gingrich, and turned back Santorum in Michigan and Ohio. 

"I concede we need to win Illinois," said Republican strategist Charlie Black, an outside adviser to the Romney campaign. 

The state on paper is easier to win for Romney than Michigan and Ohio where he scraped out victories against Santorum. 

"Illinois if anything is a little more moderate than Michigan or Ohio, with a bigger percentage of suburban voters," Black said.

Excerpt:  Read more on Newsmax.com: Pressure Mounts on Romney for Illinois Victory

Finally someone stepped out to the plate about Romney and his 'scorched earth' negative ads against fellow Republicans.  Romney saying he doesn't control the Super PAC, Restore our Future, Ads is a joke.  He knows full well if he demanded that they stop the ads that they would in a nano second.  Gingrich is correct:

Gingrich Calls on Romney to Stop Negative Ads
Friday, 16 Mar 2012 09:33 PM

COVINGTON, La. — Newt Gingrich demanded Friday that Mitt Romney stop the barrage of TV attack ads that badly damage him and Rick Santorum each time they seemed poised to make big strides in the GOP presidential race. 

Admitting to Louisiana voters that he can't match Romney and a pro-Romney super PAC in fundraising, Gingrich repeated a plea that thus far the front-running Romney has ignored.\\ 

"I challenge Gov. Romney and his super PAC to pledge to take every negative ad about every Republican off the air, because it dishonors them, it weakens the Republican Party, and it helps Barack Obama," Gingrich told a cheering outdoor crowd of more than 200 in Covington. 

Romney has said he doesn't control the super PAC, Restore Our Future, which has aired most of the hard-hitting ads.

Excerpt:  Read more on Newsmax.com: Gingrich Calls on Romney to Stop Negative Ads

Romney has campaign aides and consultants that go back and forth between the campaign and the Super PAC but with a straight face, he expects us to believe if he said quit running the negative ads that they would not stop?  Give me a break!  Here is the story behind the Romney camp and his Super PAC, Restore America:

New York Times 

When Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign needs advice on direct mail strategies for reaching voters, it looks to TargetPoint Consulting. And when the independent “super PAC” supporting him needs voter research, it, too, goes to TargetPoint. 

Sharing a consultant would seem to be an embodiment of coordination between a candidate and an independent group, something prohibited under federal law. But TargetPoint is just one of a handful of interconnected firms in the same office suite in Alexandria, Va., working for either the Romney campaign or the super PAC Restore Our Future. 

Elsewhere in the same suite is WWP Strategies, whose co-founder is married to TargetPoint’s chief executive and works for the Romney campaign. Across the conference room is the Black Rock Group, whose co-founder — a top Romney campaign official in 2008 — now helps run both Restore Our Future and American Crossroads, another independent group that spoke up in defense of Mr. Romney’s candidacy in January. Finally, there is Crossroads Media, a media placement firm that works for American Crossroads and other Republican groups. 

The overlapping roles and relationships of the consultants in Suite 555 at 66 Canal Center Plaza offer a case study in the fluidity and ineffectual enforcement of rules intended to prevent candidates from coordinating their activities with outside groups. And there has been a rising debate over the ascendancy of super PACs, which operate free of the contribution limits imposed on the candidates but are supposed to remain independent of them. 

In practice, super PACs have become a way for candidates to bypass the limits by steering rich donors to these ostensibly independent groups, which function almost as adjuncts of the campaigns.   

Excerpt:  Read More at The Best Government Money Can Buy

Finally the Rove group, American Crossroads, is actually linked in an article to the Romney campaign even though a lot of us have known the fact for a long time.  Any Rick Perry supporter knew that Rove was the attack dog for Bush 41 and Romney with his underhanded attacks on Perry.  That rock deal was right out of the Rove playbook.

Yet even today the Romney support staff are convinced that Conservative Republicans are just going to jump on board the Romney campaign like we did McCain but surprise, a lot of us did that after Florida in 2008 before the Super Tuesday voting, but not doing it for Romney.  They are misjudging the dislike a lot of us have for Romney.  Not helping that his people are calling us bigots on line because we won't vote for him they say because he is Mormon.  They don't get it that most Conservatives don't like him because he is a Massachusetts liberal who supports mandatory healthcare and has no track record of being conservative except what he spins.  Using his religion to call us bigots is so far over the top that it makes you wonder what they are hiding about how much the Mormon Church is involved in this campaign.

Romney's true liberal ideology came out when Santorum said Puerto Ricans would have to have English as their language not Spanish to become a state and Romney counters that Puerto Ricans can speak Spanish to become a state.  It is either pandering for votes OR his true liberal self came out.  Toss a coin because we have no clue which it is.

Why is Romney willing to destroy fellow Republicans to get the nomination with his Super PAC going way overboard with negative ads?   No one does 'scorched earth' against fellow Republicans to barely win in states that should be cakewalk.  If someone can answer that 'Why?' then we would be well on our way to figuring out why the establishment wants Romney so bad against the 70% of conservatives or maybe more that don't want him for our nominee.

Obama to Visit Cushing, OK, on Thursday for a Photo Op!

When I saw the article in the Oklahoman that Obama was going to visit, I couldn't believe it.  We are the state that went all red, gave him 34% of the vote, and his numbers here are some of the lowest in the Country.  He has not been here since being elected and was hoping he would keep it that way.  He is coming in Wednesday night and will head to Cushing on Thursday morning.  After Oklahoma, he heads to Ohio State University where he will be touting their energy program.  Guess the rift between Obama and President David Boren of the University of Oklahoma is still alive and well since he is not visiting OU just south of Oklahoma which has one of the premier petroleum colleges.

Obama turned down the permit to build the Keystone pipeline from Canada to Port Arthur, Texas, in favor of his environmental voters.  Now he is going to Cushing which is the hub for the southern Keystone pipeline which was negotiated by interested parties not the Obama Administration.  The man has done more to destroy oil and gas in this Country then any other President but now wants a photo op for his campaign on the backs of the people of Oklahoma.

Today in his Saturday morning address before Obama heads for Cushing on Thursday, he calls for ending all tax breaks for oil and gas.  What I would like to say would not be classy so suffice it to say that he is the biggest hypocrite to occupy the White House since he keeps trying to destroy domestic oil production but wants to use Cushing for a photo op.  Now that gas prices are up on speculation, Obama blames domestic oil producers when it is this country's dependence on Obama's friends in the Middle East and South/Central America starting with Chavez who are the root of the problem.  Bet if the Saudi King, Chavez or Castro wanted to build the pipeline instead of Canada, he would have asked what he could do as he immediately signed off on the permit.

Below I have posted a few of the statements from our Congressional delegation who get it that Obama is here for a photo op.  Coming to this oil and gas producing state makes him out of touch with reality when oil has had to lay off people after the Gulf Oil Spill when Obama kept the moratorium on Gulf oil drilling far too long and today wants all tax breaks to end.  He has put all sorts of roadblocks in the way of the Keystone pipeline but now is going to visit the Cushing hub like he is a supporter of oil and gas.  This is nothing but a campaign stop being paid for by the US taxpayers not for Oklahoma voters but for voters in other states because of high gas prices.  He does not have a chance to win Oklahoma so this photo op is all about blue states.  

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa
“When President Obama visits Oklahoma in preparation for a new pipeline from Cushing to the Gulf, we hope that he will learn a thing or two about the benefits of using our own domestic oil and gas resources, especially as gas prices continue to skyrocket. Unfortunately, we know his visit is little more than a campaign stop in an attempt to put a favorable spin on his dismal energy record, because current gas prices threaten his job. America has more domestic recoverable resources of oil, gas and coal than any country in the world, and developing these resources is the best way to revive our economy while bringing down prices at the pump.”

Rep. John Sullivan, R-Tulsa
“During his visit, I want to hear the president explain to Oklahomans why he rejected the Keystone XL pipeline and turned his back on using the oil and gas resources in our own backyard instead of spending $1 billion per day for OPEC oil. Connecting Cushing to oil markets in Canada and the Bakken shale play in North Dakota is vital to our long-term energy needs, not to mention it would create 20,000 private sector jobs here in Oklahoma and across the country.”

Rep. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma City
“Oklahoma is always honored to receive a sitting president, but I am confident Oklahomans and all Americans will not be fooled by any political sleight of hand. The list of obstacles this administration has placed in the way of energy production could fill volumes, from onerous EPA regulations, to filing suit against producers when a bird dies near a drilling platform, to having six agencies ‘studying' fracking, to his extended offshore drilling moratorium and the refusal to approve the Keystone pipeline.”

Who cares if a sitting President visits?  Senator Inhofe is probably near the top of Senators Obama doesn't like because Inhofe is honest about the environment.  Couldn't believe it when I read this article late last night:

President Barack Obama to visit Oklahoma next week 

In the first trip to Oklahoma of his presidency, President Barack Obama is scheduled to spend the night in Oklahoma City on Wednesday and travel to the oil storage hub of Cushing on Thursday to talk energy. 

By Chris Casteel | Published: March 16, 2012  

WASHINGTON— President Barack Obama plans to visit Oklahoma next week, staying overnight in Oklahoma City on Wednesday and traveling the next day to the oil storage hub in Cushing, where he will talk about the administration's record on energy.

• Oklahoma congressional delegation reacts to....

It will be Obama's first trip to Oklahoma during his presidency and comes at a time when he is battling Republicans over high gas prices and his rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline. 

In recent speeches, Obama has been pointing out that he strongly supports the segment of the Keystone XL pipeline connecting Cushing to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast. 

TransCanada has announced that it will proceed with construction of that segment to relieve a bottleneck in Cushing that has been unable to move because of a lack of pipeline capacity.
The president is expected to deliver remarks on Thursday at a storage yard for pipes that will be used for the pipeline. 

(snip) 

A White House official said Friday that the president would talk in Cushing about the administration's “sustained focus on expanding domestic oil production — with oil production currently at an eight-year high.”

Fight over Keystone XL

Oklahoma Republicans said Friday that the president deserved no credit for the increase in oil and gas production since his presidency began. 

Rep. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma City, said, “After single-handedly blocking the Keystone pipeline, it is audacious to now stand in Cushing to take credit for American energy production, as we can assume he will. 

“I hope that Oklahomans can inform the president of the consequences of his previous energy decisions, and he can change his policy direction.” 

Excerpt:  Read more: The Oklahoman 

As the clueless President tours Nevada and New Mexico before arriving in Oklahoma, he goes on the air to demand an end to tax breaks for oil companies.  Guess he figures if he makes the oil companies the boogeyman for the American voter, they will forget that our dependence on foreign oil is the real boogeyman in the room.  Obama has done more to destroy and put up roadblocks for domestic oil exploration and drilling to make us energy independent then any other President including Clinton which I didn't think was possible with his pumping limits.

Obama: End tax breaks for oil companies
By Dave Boyer-
The Washington Times Saturday, March 17, 2012
 

President Obama said Saturday he can’t do much to lower gas prices, and renewed his call for Congress to end tax breaks for oil companies. 

“The truth is, the price of gas depends on a lot of factors that are often beyond our control,” Mr. Obama said in his weekly address. “Unrest in the Middle East can tighten global oil supply. Growing nations like China or India adding cars to the road increases demand.” 

The president didn’t mention one of the few direct actions he could take to try to lower gas prices in the short term — releasing oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

Mr. Obama called for that solution as a candidate in 2008 when gasoline prices neared $4 per gallon, and he reportedly discussed the option earlier this week with British Prime Minister David Cameron. 

Instead, Mr. Obama said his administration is cracking down on oil profits — on traders who “distort the price of oil, and make big profits for themselves at your expense.” And he called on Congress again to eliminate $4 billion in annual tax breaks for oil companies. 

“Your member of Congress should be fighting for you,” Mr. Obama said. “Not for big financial firms. Not for big oil companies.” 

A report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service last year found that eliminating the subsidies would likely result in higher gas prices in the short term.   

Excerpt:  Read More at the Washington Times

My members of Congress are fighting for Oklahomans and all Americans when it comes to oil and gas production making our country energy independent.  Obama and the Democrats on the other hand prefer  making us dependent on foreign sources for oil which leads to speculation and driving up of oil prices. Keystone pipeline with Canada should have been an automatic approval but then it would mean our partner to the north along with the US would make us a lot more energy independent and less dependent on Obama's friends like the King of Saudi Arabia.

Paul Ryan Runs the Best Presidential Campaign Ad of 2012 and He is Not Running!

When a Congressman with a young family decided not to run for President, most of us understood why Cong Ryan wouldn't want to put his family through all of this.  That was until Romney became the front runner and other candidates dropped out leaving us with the four candidates we have today.  Makes you wish we had a different set of candidates starting with Paul Ryan.

Paul Ryan with this ad is a breath of fresh air compared to the ads we have been seeing from this primary in the last few months.

Paul Ryan Runs the Best Presidential Campaign Ad of 2012
Unfortunately, he's not running. 

5:55 PM, Mar 15, 2012 • By MARK HEMINGWAY 

Behold what could have been:

Source: Weekly Standard