THIS IS SHAMEFUL AND SHOULD NOT BE HAPPENING

Perhaps the Republican Party used to be "the party of the rich", and the Democrats, "the party of the 'little man' (or the poor)", but not today. Keep reading.

I'm still angry at the Republican party for abandoning fiscal responsibility during the George W. Bush years. They became "big government party #2", which is why they were slaughtered in the elections of 2006 (how do you like Pelosi as Speaker and Reid as Senate majority leader?) and 2008. What happened from 2000 - 2008, in the area of government spending, growth, and reach, WAS NOT CONSERVATISM! As bad as the deficits were under Bush (and they were bad), they pale in comparison to Obama, Reid, and Pelosi's.

With that being said, the Republicans, for the most part, seem to have realized the errors of their ways. If you don't believe me, then look up the votes for ObamaCare, Cap and Tax, and the Porkulus plan. True conservatives, like Jim DeMint and Mike Pence, have fought against the Socialists tooth and nail.

Strong conservative candidates (myself included, of course!), with no political experience or background, are stepping up to the plate to restore constitutional principles to government. We are running as Republicans, the party of Lincoln and Reagan, as the party's principles (not always followed by party leaders and certain RHINO's), are clearly the better alternative, and recent elections (Scott Brown, governor's races in NJ and VA) prove that voters are accepting that contention, even if they have to vote for a Republican. In other words, as bad as the Republicans were, they're not anywhere close to being in the Democrat's league.

So what's got me so upset to make me say, "THIS IS SHAMEFUL AND IT SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING"?

It's this from today's Wall Street Journal: Republican primary challengers have raised 37% LESS than Democrat counterparts, and Republican candidates have raised $30 MILLION LESS THAN THE DEMOCRATS, EVEN THOUGH TWICE AS MANY REPUBLICANS ARE RUNNING!

They are still raising more money, even in this environment?

Come on guys, this is a disgrace. We should be ashamed of ourselves. This should not be happening. Campaigns CANNOT be effective without money. It's unfortunate, but it's just the way it is. If the things they're doing in Washington, D.C. don't get you excited, then you are not awake. The very fabric of our country is being ripped to shreds. What can you do?

Get out your checkbook and contribute (or donate online) your hard-earned money now to a TRUE CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVE candidate. Whatever you choose to donate, you'll probably get back in lower taxes and less government intrusion in your life. Get behind a candidate, preferably me, (www.matthewburkeforcongress.com), and do it now. If not me (darn it!), then pick someone. If you can't get involved financially, then volunteer to help out with a campaign. Think how good you'll feel knowing what an amazing impact you've made.

We must take our country back and it starts with you. If not now, when?

Matthew Burke for Congress

P. O. Box 3036

Redmond, WA 98073

For easy access to other recent articles, click on "THE FREEDOM POST" at the very top of the site, then page down.

ECONOMICS AND TAXATION 101, AKA: "BARSTOOL ECONOMICS"

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man.

"I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

You may have already read, "Bar Stool Economics", as I have, since it's been passed around for quite some time. It's one of the simple pieces of timeless wisdom and application that clearly explains the stupidity and greed of the "soak the rich" and class-hatred mindset. It should be revisited and "redistributed" to remind us how of how taxes and economics work in the real world. The "more you make, the higher percentage they take" approach (aka: Karl Marx's "progressive" income tax), punishes success and rewards non-productive behavior as this real world example shows.

The easiest way to test economic "theory" (there's a reason they call it, "theory"), is to test it with real life situations like the one above. If you want to understand economics, use real world examples such as "Bar Stool Economics". Unfortunately, the majority of the people in positions of leadership in government have a lot of education in economic "theory", and zero ability to apply real world common sense.

To give credit, I tried to find out who is the original author of "Bar Stool Economics" (goes by other titles and other variations as well), but it's not quite that simple. Credit has been given to several different authors, but none to my knowledge has been confirmed. "Thank You!" to whoever wrote it. The "intelligentsia" in Washington, D.C. could use an overdose of common sense economics, so please send this to your congressmen and congresswomen.

Never mind, most of them wouldn't "get-it" anyway.

For easy access to other recent articles, click on "THE FREEDOM POST" at the very top of the site, then page down.

JOHN CONYERS: "GOOD AND WELFARE" CLAUSE" JUSTIFIES GOV'T MANDATED HEALTH CARE INSURANCE

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) said the “good and welfare clause” of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to force citizens to buy health care insurance, as required in the recently passed ObamaCare health care reform bill. There's only one little problem. There is no “good and welfare clause” in the U.S. Constitution!

This comes from the man who is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee! Shouldn't he know better? Of course he should. But, this isn't about knowledge. This is an ideology that believes that the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, is a "living and breathing document" that they can shape into whatever they desire. It's funny that only the U.S. Constitution is defined this way. The far-left doesn't define traffic laws as "living and breathing".

Conyers said:

“Under several clauses, the good and welfare clause and a couple others. All the scholars, the constitutional scholars that I know -- I’m chairman of the Judiciary committee, as you know -- they all say that there’s nothing unconstitutional in this bill and if there were, I would have tried to correct it if I thought there were.”

I don't believe for a second that this was some sort of excusable slip-of-the-tongue by Mr. Conyers. And just what were the "couple others" clauses he's referring to? I'll bet you dollars to donuts, if pressed on these, he would not be able to identify them, which he deferred to the mysterious, faceless "scholars", who attended liberal law schools learning crafty ways to annihilate the Constitution in order to achieve whatever they deem as the "greater good". His comments exemplify the lack of credence the political class in Washington, D.C. gives to the U.S. Constitution, and this includes, overwhelmingly, the "scholars" cited by him.

The far-left sees the constitutional mandate of "limited government" as an inconvenient speed bump to using the heavy-handed force of government to attain their twisted view of "social justice", "equality" and "fairness".

The bottom line is that there is no "good and welfare" clause and there is no authority for the federal government to mandate that you buy anything, including an insurance policy.

Either we are a nation that respects the rule of law, or we are one that makes it up as we go along. The Founders designed the Constitution to be amendable, should society decide to change it. Unfortunately, the elite, power-hungry, radical far-left, who have taken over the majority of media, academia, and the courts, would rather feed their God-complexes by worming-in governmental authorities that don't exist.

Matthew Burke

Candidate: U.S. Congress, 1st District, Washington State

www.matthewburkeforcongress.com

SENATOR JIM DEMINT TO INTRODUCE BILL TO REPEAL OBAMACARE

Yesterday, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) announced that he will introduce legislation this week to repeal President Obama's government takeover of health care. House Democrats voted this evening to pass the Senate version of the health care bill and it will likely be signed into law by President Obama later this week.

"This bill is unconstitutional and it cannot be fixed. It must be repealed," said Senator DeMint. "The battle for health care freedom is not over and I will introduce legislation this week to repeal this health care takeover.

"Unless this trillion-dollar assault on our freedoms is repealed, it will force Americans to purchase Washington-approved health plans or face stiff penalties. It will fund abortions, raise taxes and insurance premiums, while reducing health care choices and quality.This arrogant power grab proves that the President and his party care more about government control than the will of the American people. Americans told Washington to keep its hands off their health care in opinion polls, at public protests, and at the ballot box, but their pleas were ignored. If the President and Democrats were serious about true health care reform, there were many free-market solutions we could have easily passed. Americans support commonsense reforms such as purchasing coverage across state lines, stopping frivolous medical lawsuits, and giving the same tax breaks to Americans who don't get their insurance at work. Unfortunately, Democrats refused to listen."

The bill passed in the House yesterday raids $52 billion from Social Security, cuts nearly $500 billion from Medicare, and doesn’t account for the hundreds of billions Congress must pass to pay doctors who treat elderly patients.

TEXT of Senator DeMint’s bill to Repeal ObamaCare:

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the amendments made by that Act, are repealed.

For easy access to other recent articles, click on "THE FREEDOM POST" at the very top of the site, then page down.

OBAMA VIDEO SAYING "SINGLE PAYER", AND ELIMINATING PRIVATE INSURANCE IS GOAL

Just in case it's not obvious why President Obama has shown such extreme vitriol towards private insurance companies, and the citizens who work for them, here's a video, in his own words, that certifies his real end game, which is to completely eliminate them.

For easy access to other recent articles, click on "THE FREEDOM POST" at the very top of the site, then page down.

OBAMACARE IN 90 SECONDS VIDEO

Excellent, short video that succinctly describes the stages of ObamaCare.

For easy access to other recent articles, click on "THE FREEDOM POST" at the very top of the site, then page down.

WALGREENS: NO MORE MEDICAID IN WASHINGTON STATE

Government-run health care entitlement Medicaid is so bad at reimbursements that Walgreen's, the nation's largest drugstore chain, has announced that they will discontinue accepting new Medicaid patient prescription requests in the entire state of Washington, effective April 16.

In a press release, Walgreen's, which operates 121 drugstores in Washington state, said:

“Obviously, we’re disappointed that the alternatives we’ve suggested have failed to achieve a compromise,” said Kermit Crawford, Walgreens executive vice president of pharmacy. “We intend to continue our commitment to serving our existing patients, but we simply can not take on additional losses. As we seek to find a solution, we remain hopeful that our continued work with the State Department of Social and Health Services will ultimately result in maintaining access to quality pharmacy care for those most in need.”

The most recent pharmacy payment reduction results from a Massachusetts court ruling last fall that reduced the industry pricing standard, even though pharmacies’ acquisition costs haven’t changed. While many private insurance providers have adjusted pharmacy reimbursement rates to limit the impact of the court ruling, Washington’s Medicaid program has yet to do so. That’s led to significantly lower payments to pharmacies, severely impacting the economic viability of doing business in Washington

Just remember that government-run health care is by far superior to anything in the private sector (sarc). And ObamaCare is supposed to be an improvement, right?

Today's Seattle Times also covered the story.

For easy access to other recent articles, click on "THE FREEDOM POST" at the very top of the site, then page down.

"GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH", BY PATRICK HENRY, 235 YEARS AGO THIS MONTH

This month marks the 235th anniversary of Patrick Henry's famous, "Give me liberty, or give me death!", speech. Given without notes or teleprompter, Patrick Henry's words showed the depth of his conviction and passion in opposing the tyranny of British rule. A couple of sentences caught my eye: "Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope", reminded me of a recent political campaign (tongue in cheek), and "The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!", reminded me of the modern version of throwing down the gauntlet, or drawing a line in the sand, "Bring it!"

Henry's speech, 235 years ago this month, reminds us of the resolve, courage, spirit, and trueness to liberty our Founding Fathers possessed. They risked everything to establish a country based on individual freedom and self-governance. As we remember the country's first war against "big government", inspired by Henry's powerful words, we must remember to be vigilant in our dedication to freedom. While not a physical war like the first, the Tea Party movement, I believe, would make the Founding Fathers, including Patrick Henry proud.

"Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!"

"No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?

Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation -- the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?

No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.

We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775

For easy access to other recent articles, click on "THE FREEDOM POST" and page down.

FEBRUARY WAS THE LARGEST MONTHLY BUDGET DEFICIT IN U. S. HISTORY

February 2010 produced the largest monthly budget deficit in the United States government's history. The U.S. Treasury announced that February's budget deficit came in at a staggering $220.9 billion. The addition of February's record monthly deficit results in a deficit of $655 billion for the first five months of fiscal 2010. Last year's budget shortfall was $1.42 trillion, and 2010's is projected to come in at $1.56 trillion. Both the 2009 and 2010 deficits are more than triple the prior record, 2008''s $455.8 billion under George W. Bush's administration. To balance last year's budget deficit, income tax rates would have to have nearly tripled.

To put the latest monthly deficit in perspective, before the year 2009, a $220 billion annual deficit would be consider high. Shoot, now we bang that out in a single month!

What's possibly equally disturbing is that tax receipts jumped 23.1% to $107.5 billion from $87.3 billion in February 2009. So why the deficit? Spending increased 16.8% to $328.4 billion, from $281.2 billion in February 2009. Even though taxpayers paid the government 23.1% more to the government in February of this year versus last year, the "intellectuals" in Washington, D. C. spent more than three times the the amount received.

If you were a lender, would you loan money to a company that consistently was spending much more money that it took in, especially if they had no believable plan to reverse course? Of course not! And neither will the Chinese, Japanese, or other investors. Eventually, they'll grow tired of seeing their investments decline in value because of the falling dollar. If demand for our debt declines, interest rates will shoot up, increasing borrowing costs for businesses and individuals.

Homeowners who have ARM's (adjustable-rate mortgages) would see their interest rates and monthly mortgage payments go up, causing further downward pressure on the housing market and the economy as a whole. As the graphic below indicates, there are boatloads of ARMS set to adjust this year and next:

Typically real estate, and in particular housing, along with low interest rates, have been the two key components that have led coming out of a recession. With interest rates near historic lows and housing still in the dumps, those silver bullets will unlikely be positive catalysts.

If the government doesn't get control of their drunken spending binge, I mean literally, the financial consequences will more than likely be devastating to our nation's prosperity.

Unfortunately, I don't think February's monthly deficit record will take very long to be broken. November can't come soon enough!

For easy access to other recent articles, click on "THE FREEDOM POST" at the very top of the site, then page down.

IDAHO GOVERNOR SENDS "LOVE LETTER" TO OREGON AND WASHINGTON BUSINESSES

Things are getting interesting in the state races to see who can chase away businesses (and the "wealthy") the quickest in the Pacific Northwest. Below is an open letter by Idaho's Governor, Butch Otter, mostly addressed to Oregon businesses, who are reeling from the state's recently announced tax hikes, but also a pre-invitation to neighboring Washington's business's, who will almost assuredly be facing higher state imposed costs, that Idaho is throwing out the welcome mat.

Washington's Governor, Christine Gregoire, in true linguistic Clintonianism*, has mastered the art of calling tax increases "new sources of revenue", and also replacing the onerous term "taxes", with the more seemingly justifiable, "fees".

By Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter

It’s true that a rising tide lifts all boats. But how those boats are handled makes a big difference when the tide is out and the waters get rough.

State governments across the country are dealing with the continuing national recession in different ways. In Idaho, our focus is on stability. Predictable tax and regulatory policies are what our employers need in order to maintain their operations through this rough patch, and it’s what employers elsewhere are looking for when they consider expanding or relocating.

Other states, however, have chosen some interesting and in my view counterproductive approaches. Last month, for example, Oregon voters approved their legislature’s decision to raise taxes on the wealthy and on many businesses by $727 million. The immediate result was that my phone started ringing – and so did phones over at our Department of Commerce. It seems that word has spread about our Project 60 initiative, and that we are open for business, including theirs!

The businesses that have called are emotional about this subject, and they have every right to be. Rising costs – especially during a recession – could put some employers out of business, or at least prompt layoffs. More than 2,000 Oregonians joined a Facebook group to protest the tax increase and commiserate about the repercussions. No less an Oregon business icon than Nike’s Phil Knight calls it “Oregon’s Assisted Suicide Law II.”

Legislators in the state of Washington are talking about even bigger tax increases to tackle a budget deficit that figures to be as big as Idaho’s entire State budget. Businesses in both states are like those in Idaho; they are facing the most challenging times in decades, and even incremental cost increases can mean the difference between surviving and closing up.

The problem in Oregon is that folks were convinced that state government was what needed to be shored up rather than the jobs- and revenue-producing private sector for which state government is supposed to work. As a result, they’re chasing some of their cash cows to the border. And I welcome those businesses with open arms.

We now are reaching out to hundreds of Oregon businesses, and will do the same with those in Washington if the legislature there follows Oregon’s lead. We aren’t offering many bells and whistles, but what we can offer is a business-friendly State government, a highly qualified and motivated work force, and communities where people understand that while government cannot be the solution to their problems it can and must be a champion for their own solutions.

Businesses small and large are the backbone of Idaho’s economy. They employ our citizens, who in turn can provide for their families. Businesses and individuals also pay reasonable taxes that enable State and local governments to provide such essential services as public schools and public safety. And make no mistake: Any business that doesn’t pass along its operating costs to consumers – including their tax bills – doesn’t stay in business for long.

Of course, Oregon businesses can choose to accept their higher tax burden, and many will. After all, I understand that the quality of life over there is pretty good. But they have nothing on Idaho in that regard.

For those Oregon businesses facing a decision about whether to lay off employees or close their doors entirely, I have a proposal: Move to Idaho. The Tax Foundation rates our corporate tax burden at 17th in the nation, compared to Oregon’s ranking of 31st. Our individual tax burden is lower, too. Those kinds of numbers can make a real difference to a bottom line.

For Oregonians reading this: Find the best Idaho community for your business by visiting us online at www.gemstateprospector.com. Or call our Department of Commerce toll free at 1-800-842-5858 for details about available land, buildings and incentives.

I’ll continue to share information wherever I can about Project 60 and our business-smart state. Find out what so many folks already know – Idaho is a great place to live, to work, and to create career-path jobs and opportunities.

*As you may recall, Bill Clinton, in 1992 began replacing government "spending" with the more productive and acceptable sounding term, "investments".

For easy access to other recent articles, click on "THE FREEDOM POST" at the very top of the site, then page down.

OBAMA, DEMS AGAINST 'NUCLEAR' RECONCILIATION OPTION BEFORE THEY WERE FOR IT

Above video shows leading Democrats, including then Senator Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and Dianne Feinstein voicing strong opposition and feigned moral outrage over prior usage of the process known as budget reconciliation. To exhibit how this process is being bastardized by President Obama and the Democrats, one need not look any further than the actual rule itself (excerpt):

"Created in a budget resolution in 1974 as part of the congressional budget process, the reconciliation process is utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution. First used in 1980, this process was used at the end of a fiscal year to enact legislation to fine tune revenue and spending levels through legislation that could not be filibustered in the Senate. The policy changes brought about by this part of the budget process have served as constraints on the levels of mandatory spending and federal tax revenues which also has served since 1981 as a vehicle for deficit reduction."

Obviously, "reconciliation" was not intended to be used as a tool to ram through the biggest bill in history, one that would put the government in control of over 16% of the economy. Comparing past use of reconciliation with ramming through the 2,400 page ObamaCare bill, would be the equivalent of saying murders and traffic tickets are similar because they're both crimes.

Passing ObamaCare will be the last straw with the overwhelming majority of Americans who don't want this unconstitutional, unaffordable, and unworkable bill. Politicians who unethically and arrogantly pass it in this sleazy way, will find themselves joining the ranks of the unemployed come November 2nd, 2010.

For easy access to other recent articles, click on "THE FREEDOM POST" at the very top of the site, then page down.

$7 A GALLON GAS A 'SOBERING REALITY' TO MEET OBAMA'S CO2 TARGETS, RESEARCHERS SAY

New York Times: Fuel Taxes Must Rise, Harvard Researchers Say

To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.

To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving must simply increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010.

READ THE REST FROM: THE NEW YORK TIMES

For easy access to other recent articles, click on "THE FREEDOM POST" at the very top of the site, then page down.