Rand Paul Makes Official Announcement

Mike Bryant, a Breathitt County software consultant who is also Breathitt County Republican Chairman and who has contributed to Grayson’s campaign, operates a web site, “Too Kooky for Kentucky,” and he was on hand Wednesday outside the Secretary of State’s office to talk to reporters.

Bryant contends Paul isn’t a true Republican but a libertarian and he said Paul should file to run as a libertarian. He said Paul “evidently got scared and ran off somewhere else and let his campaign manager file for him.” Paul was in the capitol building but left for RPK while Adams filed the actual paperwork.

Bryant’s sentiment wasn’t in evidence in the RPK room where Paul made his formal announcement before about 50 enthusiastic supporters who chanted Paul’s name.

Paul told them the country had broken away from the “constitutional chains” which restrict government and “pork barrel politicians are spending our country into oblivion.”

He promised to vote against any unbalanced budget whether proposed by Republicans or Democrats though he qualified that afterward by saying there could be exceptions during times of “declared war.” Paul pointed out the country hasn’t declared war since World War II and the country should debate the advisability of going to war and formally declare war before doing so. He also conceded the national debt is large enough it probably isn’t practical to pay it off entirely but it must be reduced.

There's a funny saying that originated somewhere: "Heaven doesn't want me, and hell's afraid I'll take over."

I suggest Paul's slogan should be "Democrats don't want me, and Republicans are afraid I'll take over!"

Rand Paul for Senate

The Most Corrupt Senators

Judicial Watch put out a list of the ten most corrupt politicians. The two most prominent Senators on the list are:

1. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT): This marks two years in a row for Senator Dodd, who made the 2008 “Ten Most Corrupt” list for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and for accepting preferential treatment and loan terms from Countrywide Financial, a scandal which still dogs him. In 2009, the scandals kept coming for the Connecticut Democrat. In 2009, Judicial Watch filed a Senate ethics complaint against Dodd for undervaluing a property he owns in Ireland on his Senate Financial Disclosure forms. Judicial Watch’s complaint forced Dodd to amend the forms. However, press reports suggest the property to this day remains undervalued. Judicial Watch also alleges in the complaint that Dodd obtained a sweetheart deal for the property in exchange for his assistance in obtaining a presidential pardon (during the Clinton administration) and other favors for a long-time friend and business associate. The false financial disclosure forms were part of the cover-up. Dodd remains the head the Senate Banking Committee.

2. Senator John Ensign (R-NV): A number of scandals popped up in 2009 involving public officials who conducted illicit affairs, and then attempted to cover them up with hush payments and favors, an obvious abuse of power. The year’s worst offender might just be Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign. Ensign admitted in June to an extramarital affair with the wife of one of his staff members, who then allegedly obtained special favors from the Nevada Republican in exchange for his silence. According to The New York Times: “The Justice Department and the Senate Ethics Committee are expected to conduct preliminary inquiries into whether Senator John Ensign violated federal law or ethics rules as part of an effort to conceal an affair with the wife of an aide…” The former staffer, Douglas Hampton, began to lobby Mr. Ensign’s office immediately upon leaving his congressional job, despite the fact that he was subject to a one-year lobbying ban. Ensign seems to have ignored the law and allowed Hampton lobbying access to his office as a payment for his silence about the affair. (These are potentially criminal offenses.) It looks as if Ensign misused his public office (and taxpayer resources) to cover up his sexual shenanigans.

And that's just the stuff that we know.

Hat tip: Hot Air

The Decade in Review

It's been a busy week for me, so I just wanted to highlight a couple of thoughts on the last ten years. Here's Reason TV:



And here's Gene Healy saying, "Oh, it wasn't that bad..."

As P.J. O'Rourke once put it, if you think there was some golden age in the past you'd rather live in, "let me say one word: 'dentistry.' "

The fact is, a lot of good things happened in the 2000s, and, typically, the bounties of the era were provided by private enterprise, not the machinations of government do-gooders. The Internet put the means of production in the hands of the workers, leading to a dynamic do-it-yourself culture in which bloggers compete with established columnists, bands without a record contract can hit it big, and anyone with a digital camera can get his 15 minutes on YouTube.

History comes in cycles. The Aughties resemble a milder version of the '60s, a decade that began with high trust in government (as happened after 9/11) and ended with Americans relearning the old lessons about federal incompetence and the limits to American power.

The last ten years have been a heck of a ride. And this weekend, we get to start a whole new decade! I hope we manage to do more with it than we did with the last one, but I'm not waiting for everyone else to do it. I'm going to make the most of the next ten years.

The time for waiting is over. The time for action is now.

Drunk with Power

Senator Baucus (MT-D) delivers a drunken, rambling monologue on the Senate floor:



The entire Senate is drunk with power because they've discovered that the system protects them from the people they're supposed to serve. We need to repeal the 17th Amendment so that these people can again be held accountable instead of letting the party protect them from their outrageous conduct and unconstitutional legislation.

Peter Schiff on Education

Hat tip: Kristee Kelley and Independence Caucaus

Peter Schiff for Senator of Connecticut

Dilbert on Politics

Ha!

Clarence Thomas: How to Read the Constitution

As important as our Constitution is, there is no one accepted way of interpreting it. Indeed, for some commentators, it seems that if they like or prefer a particular policy or conduct, then it must be constitutional; while the policies that they do not prefer or like are unconstitutional. Obviously, this approach cannot be right. But, it certainly is at the center of the process of selecting judges. It goes something like this. If a judge does not think that abortion is best as a matter of policy or personal opinion, then the thought is that he or she will find it unconstitutional; while the judge who thinks it is good policy will find it constitutional. Those who think this way often seem to believe that since this is the way they themselves think, everyone must be doing the same thing. In this sense, legal realism morphs into legal cynicism. Certainly this is no way to run a railroad, not to mention interpret the Constitution. . . .

Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores. To be sure, even the most conscientious effort to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add, impartial.

It's sad that we're so far away from debating what the original intent was; we're just debating on whether it's even relevant.

The "Public Option" Lie

Interestingly enough, Hugo Chavez just created a "public option" chain of stores that would sell everything from clothes to food to cars. These socialists call their subsidized option by a friendly name in order to disguise the fact that their subsidies allow them to undercut free market competition. It's all about creating dependence on the government.

Unprecedented Pork Bought Senate Votes

With the bill hanging in the balance, Nelson won a provision exempting his state from paying the usual share of costs for new Medicaid patients. The deal critics have dubbed the Cornhusker Kickback is expected to cost the federal government $100 million over 10 years.

Before a close vote last month, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) won an even larger break for her state — an estimated $300 million in extra federal spending, in a move opponents derided as the Louisiana Purchase.

Some critics branded the special deals as functionally equivalent to the kind of earmarks Obama crusaded against as a senator — and a quantum leap from eleventh-hour deals Obama’s predecessors have cut.

After Nelson and Landrieu, what will key congressional swing votes want from future White Houses?

“It’s a much bigger deal, a much larger piece of legislation than half-a-million dollars for a peanut museum in North Carolina,” said Thomas Schatz of Citizens Against Government Waste. “We’re now talking about programs worth hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. ... Sooner or later, other members are going to be saying: Why didn’t I think of this?”

“Once people see a leader willing to take these kinds of deals, people have a tendency to withhold their votes until they get a similar deal. ... If you hold out, you, too, can be Ben Nelson, perhaps,” said Diana Evans, a Trinity College political science professor who studies the greasing done to pass legislation.

The Senate will pass the bill on Christmas Eve, and from there it will go into conference to craft a single bill from the House and Senate bills.

Christmas ham, anyone?

Hat tip: Hot Air

Reason TV: Mission Creep

Hat tip: Reason TV

Milton Friedman: Socialism versus Capitalism

Maybe not really Senate-related, but I thought you'd be interested.

I love the line "Where are you going to find these angels to organize society for us?" The federal government was originally designed so that it could be run by devils and still be constrained to do what only what it was supposed to do. Unfortunately, the 17th Amendment fundamentally altered the structure of the federal government and freed it to begin centralizing all power into itself.

I guess it is kind of Senate-related, then.

Interview with Rand Paul

By Judge Napolitano:



I love that he's beating both the Democrat candidate and the Republican Senate Committee's candidate in the polls already.

Rand Paul for Senate

Chuck Baldwin: Anger Is Not Enough

That Americans are angry with the federal government is nothing new. As a general rule, Americans STAY angry with the federal government. So what? Nothing changes, anger and discontentment notwithstanding.

...

If conservatives/constitutionalists/libertarians would spend as much time and energy influencing elections and policies at the State and local levels as they attempt to do at the national level, we could turn this floundering ship of state around. If he had the support and backing of his State's legislature and sheriffs, imagine what ONE constitutionalist governor could do. I get goose bumps thinking about it!

...

In the US Constitution, our Founding Fathers sagaciously reserved to State governments their independence and sovereignty, knowing that they had the awesome responsibility of being the last (and greatest) vanguard of liberty for the American people. They never intended or imagined that the states would ever become a doormat for the central government (which is what most of them have become).

In this regard, the states that are proposing State sovereignty resolutions should immediately band together to overturn the 17th Amendment, because this amendment strips the states of their constitutional powers by turning US senators into Washington insiders, who are more beholden to Washington interests than the interests and well-being of the states that they are supposed to represent.

If the 71% of voters who are angry with the federal government would channel their energies into electing constitutionalist governors and State legislators, their anger might actually produce real and lasting change. As it is, efforts to "reform" Washington, D.C., are like trying to teach a hog to take a bath. Instead, let the hog wallow in the mud, but make sure the mudhole stays small; don't let it spread to your back yard.

If you want to do something about the problem, this is how to do it.

Senate Moves to Finalize Health Care Takeover

Just got word via Michelle Malkin that the Senate will clear the defense authorization bill tonight and make way for the health care bill.

The Senate needs 60 votes for cloture. Which Republican will take Senator Nelson's place? Snowe? Collins? Maybe both?

The Republicans will give up as many votes as needed to pass this and still try to take credit for opposing it.

Get rid of all of them. Repeal the 17th Amendment.

Houses Passes Yet Another Stimulus

$155 Billion (yes, Billion)!

The Senate will debate on this next year, along with the nationalization of health care and every other insane, lunatic idea the government has nowadays. This reminds me of the quote that "Democracy can only exist until the people learn that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury." This country was not created to be a democracy, but a republic, a nation of laws. Unfortunately, the 17th Amendment removed the structural protection put in place by the Constitution. The only way to restore the republic is to repeal the 17th Amendment. It's just going to keep getting worse, no matter who wins the next election.

Blaming the Senate

In recent months, a narrative has emerged on the Left regarding the cause of the health care debacle: It's all the fault of the United States Senate, a perverse, bizarre and dysfunctional body, which ought to be phased out or killed.

To E.J. Dionne, it's an absurd institution, the "least democratic ... body" in any democracy, that has tied up the country in gut-grinding gridlock to the public's unending dismay. "Normal human beings ... real Americans -- cannot understand why, 10 months after Obama took office, Congress is still tied down in a procedural torture chamber trying to pass the health care bill Obama promised in his campaign."

Alec MacGillis called it "the chamber designed to thwart popular will," the saucer in which the coffee not only is cooled (in the words of George Washington) but often turns bitter and cold. Hendrik Hertzberg calls it the place where the hopes and dreams of "Obama mania" go to die at the hands of a small band of soreheads who have the power to stifle the will of the people. "If it weren't for the Senate," he says, more in sorrow, "you'd have a whole lot of accomplishments on the domestic front."

The Senate's role was indeed to thwart the will of the people... when it comes to centralizing power in Washington. If people want ridiculous laws such as government-distributed health care, they can impose such a horrid plan on their own state. Allowing states to implement bad ideas helps remind others why those ideas are bad.

The Senate has a lot of problems, but that's because of the 17th Amendment. Repeal it, and let the Constitution work.

It's the Spending, Stupid! Part II

Hat tip: Center for Freedom and Prosperity

That $1.1 Trillion Spending Bill the Senate Passed Sunday

The federal government is out of control:



Frederic Bastiat: "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

The federal government has grown out of control ever since the 17th Amendment removed the Constitutional structural protection against centralized power. This is more evidence that the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed.

Senate Approves Abortion Subsidies for D.C.

The Senate approved an omnibus spending bill on Sunday that would lift the 13-year-long ban on directly paying for abortions in the nation’s capital. The legislation, which President Barack Obama is expected to sign, also contains funding for Planned Parenthood and the UNFPA.

This is just ridiculous. Politicians have a simple philosophy: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.

Most Americans don't want abortion completely banned or subsidized. There's absolutely nothing in the Constitution granting the federal government any say in the matter. But once the 17th Amendment was passed, the federal government had no more structural safeguards to prevent it from centralizing power and encroaching on every aspect of every individual's life.

Restoring American Federalism

Judge Napolitano talks with Kevin Gutzman and Thomas Woods on what can be done to restore Constitutional rule:

Obama Admits That Single-Payer Has Been His Plan All Along

Just like Bill Clinton. It's times like this that I wish Obama were a Muslim. Unfortunately, he's just a typical liberal politician.

Cavuto Shreds Rep. Schock

Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) tries to defend his pork after campaigning on a platform of fiscal responsibility, but Cavuto isn't standing for any of that:



Gee, if only there were a body in Washington that had an incentive to prevent power from becoming centralized, maybe something like the Senate before the 17th Amendment. The growth in the scope and power of the federal government after the 17th Amendment demonstrates just how bad the idea was.

In Connecticut, Biden Stumps for Dodd

In Connecticut, Biden Stumps for Dodd; The New York Times

Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, who is facing the prospect of a tough re-election battle next year, got a boost on Friday when Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. swept into the state to help the Democratic senator raise money for his race.

Senate Democrats seek compromise on drug imports

Senate Democrats seek compromise on drug imports; Reuters

Democrats scrambled on Friday to resolve a stalemate over whether to permit imports of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and elsewhere as part of a larger effort to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system. ...

Importing prescription drugs, also known as "reimportation," has been an issue for years as U.S. consumers look for cheaper alternatives for prescription medications that can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars a year, especially for those without health insurance.

Despite days of debate over the measure, Democrats remained divided over the issue in large part over safety concerns.

Some critics charged the real split was over the $80 billion, 10-year deal under which drug companies promised the White House and certain senators they would charge the government less for some medications and pay higher taxes.

Federal Government Moves to Nationalize Banks

The Obama administration won a victory for its vision of financial reform on Friday, heading off a rebellion by conservative Democrats in the House of Representatives to pass a landmark regulation bill.

The legislation included a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, an innovation fiercely opposed by banks and some Democrats.

In the final vote, 27 Democrats – and every Republican present – opposed the bill, which gives the government the power to seize and wind down a failing financial institution, to push more derivatives through clearing houses and to give investors a non-binding vote on directors’ pay.

I'm speechless.

Abortion Lobby Gives Six Times As Much $$ to Senate As Antiabortion Lobby

Follow the money:

As the U.S. Senate weighs contentious changes to federal abortion policy, the Center for Responsive Politics has also found that pro-choice interests have given sitting senators roughly six times as much as pro-life interests have contributed to them.

Overall, individuals and political action committees classified by the Center as part of the abortion rights lobby have contributed about $3.4 million to current senators since 1989. By contrast, individuals and PACs classified by the Center as part of the anti-abortion lobby have contributed just $559,000 to current senators during the same period. (See methodology note below.)

This is just a really bad way to make decisions. Laws should not be based on who gives the most money to Congress. But there's so much power in D.C. that the rich give them all this money because they know there's going to be a return on their investment. Quite frankly, the federal government has no Constitutional authority to regulate abortion.

Repeal the 17th Amendment so that states can reclaim their power, and the federal government will become less corrupt because it will have less power to corrupt it.

Canadian Health Care

Hat tip: ReasonTV

Dems mull limits to Christie powers

Dems mull limits to Christie powers: Politico

Two months after Massachusetts lawmakers came under criticism for altering the state’s succession laws for partisan purposes, New Jersey Democrats have launched a similar effort designed to limit Republican Gov.-elect Chris Christie’s appointment powers in the event of a Senate vacancy.

Amid concerns about 85-year-old Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s ability to serve out his full term, which expires in 2015, a Democratic state legislative leader last week introduced a bill that would require the governor to appoint a lawmaker from the same party as the departing officeholder within 30 days of the vacancy.

Repeal The 17Th Amendment Who has the balls ?

Repeal The 17Th Amendment, Who has the balls?

From the commenter ScottSolo:

Nearing election time again, we are reminded that the there are no checks and balances available to the states over federal power or over Congress itself in any area. However, in the history of our country, it was not always this way. In the original design by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, there was an effective check on Congress through the state legislatures’ power to appoint (and remove) United States Senators.

As such, the core of the problem with state’s rights issues lies in the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, which abrogated the state legislatures’ right to appoint United States Senators in favor of popular election of those officials. This amendment created a fundamental structural problem which, irrespective of the political party in office, or the laws in effect at any one time, will result, over time, in expanding federal control in every area.

The 17th Amendment caused a failure in the federalist structure, federal deficit spending, inappropriate federal mandates, and federal control over a number of state institutions.

The amendment has also caused a fundamental breakdown in campaign finance issues with respect to United States Senators. As to United States Senators, campaign finance reform, a hot topic in Congress now, can be best achieved by repealing the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It should be readily apparent that United States Senators, once appointed by the state legislature, would have no need for campaign financing whatsoever.

Comment: Keep the discussion going folks concerning the 17th in the liberty forums. The more folks learn about the truth, the sooner we can over turn this grievous assault.

Comments on the 17th on Big Government

The States Will Be the Next Battlefield in the Fight Over ObamaCare: Big Government

From the commenter Dave_C_64 concerning the 17th Amendment:

State rights have been slipping away to the Federal government for many decades, some states faster than others. Looking at it, the decline in state rights started with the passage of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution when US Senators stopped being appointed by the state they represent and elected by popular vote.

Prior to the 17th Amendment, it wasn't a bed of roses either in politics but the Senators fought for their state as if they didn't, their state legislature would replace them. Today we have the popular vote which is really turning into a disaster with life long incumbency based on many idiot voters who vote strictly on name recognition.

Prior to the 17th Amendment, if a state couldn't decide on a Senator because of partisan bickering, then that state wasn't represented at the Federal level. I could live with that as it is better than getting stuck with someone like Murtha who keeps getting votes mostly on name recognition these days.

The 17th And the 10th

Matthew Hurtt:

After much debate and discussion, the Founders agreed that the upper house of the bicameral legislature should be selected by the state legislatures. According to the History of the U.S. Senate, this provision encouraged states to ratify the Constitution. This established – by its very nature – a more deliberative body, sheltered from the whims of a fickle populace. Senators went to Washington to advocate on behalf of the States (individually, of course), not its people. The membership of the House of Representatives goes to Washington to represent the people.

Fast forward nearly a century and our states are now dramatically overburdened by federal mandates. Legislation like No Child Left Behind and the Real ID Act require states to spend countless millions of dollars complying with federal regulations with absolutely no federal support. Why are states subjected to these federal mandates? Because there is no one representing the States in Washington.

As Washington expands its role into “the powers not delegated” to it by the U.S. Constitution under the 10th Amendment, more Americans must realize that the 17th Amendment directly interferes with the representation of the States.

The Senate originally played the role that conservatives want the Supreme Court to play now. But that's not the answer. Restoring the Constitution is still the best way to protect individual rights, and that means repealing the 17th Amendment.

Senate Unlikely to Enact PASS ID Prior to REAL ID Deadline

Senate Unlikely to Enact PASS ID Prior to REAL ID Deadline; AAMVA.com

The Senate is not likely to enact PASS ID before Dec. 31, 2009 according to statements made when Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Napolitano testified at a recent hearing. Yesterday, Congressional Quarterly reported that DHS said it could grant a REAL ID extension beyond the December 31st material compliance deadline if absolutely necessary.

“Should Congress not act before it adjourns this year, DHS has planned for contingencies related to Real ID implementation, including extending the deadline as a last resort,” the statement said. “This is a temporary approach that does not advance our security interests over the long term, and DHS continues to urge Congress to enact a permanent solution to fulfill this key 9/11 Commission recommendation.”

Comment: PASS ID is just as bad as REAL ID and will infringe upon what is state domain.

S.1789 - Fair Sentencing Act of 2009

S.1789 - Fair Sentencing Act of 2009; Senator Richard Durbin D-IL

Amends the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act to:

(1) increase the amount of a controlled substance or mixture containing a cocaine base (i.e., crack cocaine) required for the imposition of mandatory minimum prison terms for crack cocaine trafficking to eliminate the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine;

(2) increase monetary penalties for drug trafficking and for the importation and exportation of controlled substances. Eliminates the five-year mandatory minimum prison term for first-time possession of crack cocaine. Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review and amend, if appropriate, its sentencing guidelines for trafficking in a controlled substance to reflect the use of a dangerous weapon or violence in such crime and the culpability and the role of the defendant in such crime, taking into account certain aggravating and mitigating factors. Directs the Comptroller General to report on the effectiveness of drug court programs funded by the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Justice Programs.

S.2052 - Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2009

S.2052 - Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2009; Senator Mark Udall D-CO

A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require the Secretary of Energy to carry out a research and development and demonstration program to reduce manufacturing and construction costs relating to nuclear reactors, and for other purposes.

S.2812 - Nuclear Power 2021 Act

S.2812 - Nuclear Power 2021 Act; Senator Jeff Bingaman D-NM

A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require the Secretary of Energy to carry out programs to develop and demonstrate 2 small modular nuclear reactor designs, and for other purposes.

Senate Adds Online Consumer Reviews to Their Health Care Bill

Senate Adds Online Consumer Reviews to Their Health Care Bill; Open Congress.org

The Senate on Monday unanimously approved an elegant, two-page amendment to the health care bill that Sen. Mark Pryor [D, AR], the amendment’s sponsor, says will “both simplify a consumer’s search for the right health care company and make health insurance companies more responsive to patient needs.”

Under the Senate health care bill, by 2014 states would have to set up new health insurance marketplaces known in the bill as “American Health Benefit Exchanges.” These exchanges would have some regulatory qualities — they would only let in plans that meet certain minimum standards — but, essentially, they would be websites where people buying insurance on the individual market could comparison shop between different plans. The details of all the plans on the exchanges would be presented in a standardized manner so consumers could easily compare plans on things like price, deductibles and covered services.

Pryor’s amendment would add customer satisfaction information to the Exchanges. Ezra Klein says it would make shopping for health care more like looking for a good book on Amazon.com. It’s a helpful analogy, but unlike Amazon’s system that allows anyone to describe a product in their own words, Pryor’s amendment would create an enrollee satisfaction survey to be administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services using a numerical rating system.

It’s modeled after the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program, which provides health care to members of Congress. The program lets enrollees rate different aspects of their plans on a scale of 1-100 and then makes the aggregate data available to federal employees to help guide their future health care purchasing decisions. The system lets you compare the ratings of plans on things like “how well doctors communicate” and “claims processing,” but it doesn’t let you read in detail about a nightmare experience that someone may have had with customer service.

Comment: This is going to be akin to emailing your Congressman...can you say, "hit the delete key."

Market comparison? Why hell is the US Government getting involved in the market in the first place.

With little or no consideration given to majority of the citizens' opinion about any medical health care governmental involvement, these blockheads are moving full steam ahead with the program. Let's pray the states begin the nullification process the day this debacle is passed.

Rand Paul Meets with DownsizeDC

Rand Paul is running for Senate in Kentucky.

Gerald Celente: Bernanke is destroying the US economy

Half of America's Voters Pay No Federal Taxes

60 million. 130 million people voted in 2008. And of course those who don't have to pay for it think that the federal government should do more. This creates an obvious problem because those 60 million people demand to be given "free" stuff, which is paid for by hard workers who don't get free stuff.

Originally, the Senate provided a check against this kind of populism by keeping power decentralized. Things are going to continue to get worse until that constitutional check is restored.

Senator Moves to Hold Up Bernanke Confirmation

Senator Moves to Hold Up Bernanke Confirmation; The New York Times

Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont said on Wednesday that he would try to block the Senate from confirming Ben S. Bernanke to a second term as chairman of the Federal

The move is unlikely to derail Mr. Bernanke’s reappointment, but it could slow the confirmation process and give the Fed’s critics additional opportunity to press their case. As a practical matter, it means Senate Democratic leaders will have to line up 60 votes in favor of Mr. Bernanke rather than a simple majority at a time when the Federal Reserve is under increasing populist attacks from lawmakers on both the right and the left.

Mr. Sanders, an independent, is not a member of the Senate banking committee, but he has frequently accused the Federal Reserve of bailing out Wall Street firms and the banking industry at the expense of ordinary citizens. ...

The Fed chairman was appointed by President George W. Bush and took over the central bank in February 2006. Despite his Republican ties, Mr. Bernanke forged a close working relationship with President Obama and his top economic advisers during the financial crisis.

Mr. Sanders, one of the Senate’s most left-leaning lawmakers, had already said he would vote against Mr. Bernanke’s appointment. He has also sponsored a bill that would allow Congress to “audit” all of the Federal Reserve’s activities, including its core mission of steering the economy by setting interest rates.

Mr. Sanders’s bill is identical to one championed by Representative Ron Paul, Republican of Texas, which Mr. Bernanke and other top Fed officials have adamantly opposed on the grounds that it would undermine the central bank’s independence.

But in a surprising setback to the Fed, the House Financial Services Committee voted last month to approve Mr. Paul’s bill as an amendment to a broader bill on financial regulation.

Comment: Senator Sanders might be the most left leaning in the US Senate but like Ron Paul he isn't beholden to special interest and he's smart enough to smell a rat.

‘Medicare Advantage’ at Issue in Senate

‘Medicare Advantage’ at Issue in Senate; The New York Times

As Senate debate over the major health care legislation resumes, the focus Friday will be on proposed reductions to Medicare Advantage, the privately administered plans that provide enhanced benefits but now typically cost the federal government more than traditional Medicare. ...

Republicans have called the long-term care proposal, known as the CLASS Act, a Ponzi scheme because it raises money in the short term but could face huge future liabilities. Even some Democrats agree with that assertion.

Comment: "Ponzi scheme" could be applied to much of what the US Government has been engaged in the last few years (hell for much of the 20th and 21st centuries); cap and trade, universal medical care, the endless war, welfare, foreign aid, and the banking bailout, to name just a few, all of which makes us poorer and the special interest richer.

Kerry Unveils Foreign Relations' Contribution to Senate Climate Bill

Kerry Unveils Foreign Relations' Contribution to Senate Climate Bill: The New York Times

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) introduced global warming legislation yesterday that he said will serve as the "foundation" of the U.S. financial package headed into U.N.-sponsored negotiations next week in Copenhagen.

The 81-page bill (pdf) would authorize programs associated with the U.S. contribution to a new global climate change agreement, including adaptation, deployment of clean energy technologies and reducing deforestation and forest degradation.

The bill represents the Foreign Relations Committee's entry to the broader climate proposal being crafted by Kerry and Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). Five other committees are also expected to contribute ideas to the overall package, including Agriculture, Commerce, Energy and Natural Resources, Environment and Public Works, and Finance.

Kerry's bill steers funding and technical assistance to help developing countries keep their forests standing and participate in global carbon markets. Through the forestry programs, the bill sets a goal for reducing emissions by at least 720 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2020 -- with a cumulative target of 6 billion tons by 2025. ...

U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer earlier this week said he is looking to the world's wealthy nations in Copenhagen to pledge about $10 billion in aid over the next three years for developing nations to help them deploy clean energy technologies and curb emissions from deforestation, and for adaptation. Obama administration officials have said they are likely to commit about $1.3 billion this year toward that pot, reflective of the annual budget and appropriations process.

Over the long term, de Boer said developed countries should expect to contribute about $100 billion annually, though he said the meeting in Copenhagen did not need to reach consensus on those figures. Both the House-passed climate bill (H.R. 2454 (pdf)) and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (S. 1733 (pdf)) include emission allocations worth several hundred billion dollars over the four-decade lifetime of the program, though it is still far from clear if the legislation will make it to President Obama's desk and become law.

Several groups off the Hill released statements praising the Kerry-led proposal, including the U.N. Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, OxFam America, the Nature Conservancy, Business Council for Sustainable Energy, Center for Clean Air Policy, Union of Concerned Scientists, World Wildlife Fund and CARE USA.

Click here (pdf) to read the bill.

Comment: It doesn’t matter about the evidence, Kerry is going to plow through with the globalist’s plan to sink the United States and further ruin our economy, while hacking away at our sovereignty, even though the evidence is pouring in as a result of the Climategate scandal that everything he and his breed has declared and furthered is a lie.

Kerry isn’t representative from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; he’s a representative of special interests, clear and simple. Folks this traitorous act being committed by Kerry and his fellow travelers needs to be blocked and then destroyed.

We must repeal the 17th Amendment before it is too late; and know, too late is right around the corner.

Stossel Next Thursday!

Because I gotta!

My new Fox Business Network TV show begins next Thursday night, 8pm!

I want to do the first show on Atlas Shrugged...

Rand's understanding of free markets and individual liberty was, and still is, rare among novelists. In an era of bailouts, stimulus plans, and trillion-dollar deficits, her new-found popularity should be a cause for celebration.

Hat tip: Minnesota Chris

U.S. senator: reform cost for pharma may be higher

U.S. senator: reform cost for pharma may be higher; Reuters

Finance chairman says $80 bln deal not definite

The price tag for drugmakers to help pay for healthcare reform efforts may be higher than the $80 billion deal the industry originally made with Democratic senators and the White House, the head of the Senate's finance panel said on Tuesday.

"That's still in discussion. It's not definite," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus told reporters. "It could be more, but that has yet to be determined."

Representatives for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), meanwhile, said the bill's costs to the industry were "still in the same ballpark."

Drugmakers, who back Democrats' reform efforts, in late June said they had worked out an $80 billion deal with Baucus' committee and the Obama administration to help fund lawmakers' bid to expand health insurance access. The industry offered to give the government higher rebates, among other concessions.

Senate staffers earlier said there were no changes to that deal when Majority Leader Harry Reid last month released the full Senate's measure that merged Baucus' bill with another from the health committee.

But some Wall Street analysts have said that the most recent Senate bill released earlier this month would cost the pharmaceutical sector another $20 billion.

Analysts at Oppenheimer Equity research in late November said Reid's bill expands "the scope of the drug discount program to $100 billion in drug industry cuts," echoing sentiments from some other industry watchers.

Some experts have said pharmaceutical makers could benefit over time as more people in the United States gain access to health insurance to pay for various therapies. Critics argue that $80 billion is a fraction of what the multi-billion industry could afford.

PhRMA, the drugmaker's lobby group, said while official congressional estimates have put the industry's costs at $80 billion, various market implications could alter the bill's so-called "street score."

Comment: There is no doubt in my mind that the pharmaceutical industry will benefit from this; why would any business get involved unless there was gain to be made. And in the case of the federal government, gain is always guaranteed.

Bernanke Has Support of Majority on Senate Banking Panel

Bernanke Has Support of Majority on Banking Panel; Bloomberg

Ben S. Bernanke has the backing of a majority of U.S. senators on the Banking Committee for a second term as Federal Reserve chairman.

Eight Democrats and four Republicans, among the 23 lawmakers on the panel overseeing the central bank, made their views known in interviews, comments to reporters or written statements. Some said they will support Bernanke, while others said they’re leaning in his favor.

Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, said yesterday that Bernanke has “done a pretty good job,” and that anger in Congress over the Fed’s role in the financial crisis is “misplaced.” Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, said Nov. 20 he will “absolutely” vote for Bernanke.

Criticism of the central bank has mounted in Congress since President Barack Obama nominated Bernanke in August, with many lawmakers blaming the Fed for lax supervision of banks and for taking part in taxpayer-funded bailouts of companies including Citigroup Inc. Some senators said those concerns won’t stop them from backing the former Princeton University economist.

“He’s been far from perfect,” Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, said in an interview yesterday. “He was not quick enough responding last year to many of these issues that we care about, particularly in housing. I want him to focus on jobs. But I think he’s generally done a decent job.” ...

Jim Bunning, the Kentucky Republican who was the only senator to oppose Bernanke’s first nomination in 2005, hasn’t changed his views.

“His job rating would be zero minus F,” Bunning said in an interview yesterday. “He has catered to the big banks, to the Wall Street elitists, to every major money concern in the country and in the world.”

Senator Bernard Sanders, a Vermont independent who isn’t on the banking committee, said today that he placed a procedural hold on Bernanke’s nomination, which requires 60 votes to break. “Mr. Bernanke has failed,” Sanders said in an e-mailed statement. “It’s time for him to go.”

The other Democrats on the banking panel expressing support for Bernanke include South Dakota’s Tim Johnson, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, New York’s Charles Schumer, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Hawaii’s Daniel Akaka and Virginia’s Mark Warner. ...

US senator floats 'war bonds' idea for Afghanistan

US senator floats 'war bonds' idea for Afghanistan; AP

A special tax? War bonds like those that fueled the US military in World War II? A spending freeze? US lawmakers wondered aloud Tuesday how to pay for a new "surge" in Afghanistan.

"There isn't any miraculous way to pay for it, but some have suggested -- and I think it's worth considering -- whether or not you have war bonds," said Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

"I don't know whether you can raise enough money, I don't know what capital is out there to be able to do that, but I start off thinking that we'd be better off to borrow from ourselves than to borrow from China," he added.

US lawmakers have increasingly worried about the national debt, which soared 4.9 trillion dollars under president George W. Bush and has climbed 1.6 trillion since Barack Obama took office in January and now tops 12 trillion dollars. ...

"Maverick" Lindsey Graham

"Maverick" Lindsey Graham; The Southern Avenger

Despite popular liberal opinion, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is no "maverick" but the quintessential establishment politician.

John Stossel on ClimateGate

I'm not an O'Reilly fan, but Stossel makes a lot of sense here. There's no point in spending trillions and trillions on a ghost of a chance when there are tens of millions dying of malaria, poverty, and malnourishment.

The global warming cult is killing people. This is just a call for a more powerful, centralized government.

And the really bad thing is that, by their discrediting science and crying "wolf" all the time, people become deaf to real problems that kill real people.

Next stop for Nader: US Senate from Connecticut?

Next stop for Nader: US Senate from Connecticut? AP

Ralph Nader says he wants to gauge the level of grass-roots support before deciding whether to make a bid to represent Connecticut in the Senate.

The 75-year-old consumer advocate and Connecticut native said Friday that he is "absorbing" feedback about a possible bid. He was appearing at a book signing at the Noah Webster Library in West Hartford.

The Connecticut Green Party is trying to persuade Nader to challenge Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd in the hotly contested 2010 Senate race. Nader was previously a Green Party presidential nominee.

State Green Party spokesman Tim McKee says he's getting positive responses to the idea of Nader for Senate. He says social networking Web pages are springing up that are urging him to run.

Comment: I have to say that I have nothing against Ralph Nader. While I disagree with him on a great many policy issues, I do in fact agree with him on a few, especially his position to break the monopoly of the Demopublican Party (the one major party in Washington).

However, does he represent the ideals and norms of the citizens of Connecticut? And more importantly has he spent his political career to date, at least a good part of it, focused on the state of Connecticut. Well the answer is pretty much no.

I firmly believe that if you have not served any time in the respective state legislative body you have no business running for the office of US Senator. Why; because the founders intended for the states to be represented in the US Senate! You can’t represent your state if you haven’t served it.

Time to repeal the 17th Amendment folks, other wise we will continue to see the US Senate becoming the place of power of those in the media.

Update: And it goes for this guy too.