Here's one for the books, democrats who cannot negotigate a better deal in State House sneaking out of State so votes cannot be taken. How's that for taking the game ball and refusing to play nice. What a disgraceful exhibit of adolescence, that's what the democrat party has turned into, it's my way, or I'll hit the highway.
Just imagine someone in the private sector disagreeing
with policy and refusing to come to work, as Trump would say, 'you're fired."
Voters in Wisconsin and Indiana need to take heed of the subversion of public policfy by public officials. Not only is this highly unethical, but it speaks to the types of people in Public Service.
Make no mistake treason isn't far behind.....
theodore miraldi
Wisconsin troopers dispatched to homes of missing Democrats
By JENNIFER FERMINO in Woodstock, Ill., and LEONARD GREENE in NY
Last Updated: 9:04 AM, February 25, 2011
Posted: 1:15 AM, February 25, 2011
Frustrated Wisconsin Republicans pulled out the big guns yesterday, siccing the State Police on AWOL Democrats who, for more than a week, have stymied high-profile efforts to pass an anti-union budget bill.
Actin on tips that some of the wayward pols might have sneaked back across the border and into their own cozy beds, Republican lawmakers dispatched the troopers on early-morning visits to the Democrats' homes only to come up empty.
Wisconsin's 14 Senate Democrats fled to Illinois last week to deny Republicans a quorum and a vote on the bill, which has become a flashpoint in a growing national struggle over labor union power. Under Wisconsin law, the senators can be compelled to vote as long as they remain in the state.
All Republicans need is one present Democrat to break the logjam.
Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said he hoped the Democrats would come to their senses without police intervention. When that didn't happen, Fitzgerald said he had to send a message.
"It's a gesture that shows we're still serious and a call of the house should be honored," Fitzgerald said.
The wayward Democrats have been shuttling between private homes and hotels in Illinois, trying to stay a step ahead of the media and Tea Party loyalists eager to blow their cover.
They have registered under fake names, used cash to avoid credit-card trails, and relied on friends and family for underwear and toothbrushes.
State Sen. Chris Larson said several of his colleagues had been back to Wisconsin since the standoff began but have stayed away since Republicans raised the stakes. He said troopers have not been to his Milwaukee home.
"Some people had gone back to grab a few things, but it's not a regular thing where people are crossing the border," Larson said. "I think the troopers have better things to do than carry out the Republicans' wishes."
Several fugitive Democrats met at a house in Woodstock, Ill., owned by a relative of one of the senators. But they left when the location was reported on the Web site of a local newspaper.
"We're having conversations with our colleagues and with the administration," Sen. Robert Jauch said after leaving the home. "We're going to try to find a solution to get through this thing and end the elimination of collective bargaining in Wisconsin."
Larson said life on the lam has been an adventure.
"All of us are elected senators," Larson said. "We're not very good spies. We're not good at keeping a low profile. We're extroverts."
Voters, meanwhile, are split on the issue. According to a poll, a majority of Wisconsin residents think Gov. Scott Walker's bid to make public-sector union members pay more for benefits is fair but also believe those workers should have collective-bargaining rights.
Walker is pushing the bill to close a budget gap, and said layoffs could start next week if no action is taken.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/cheese_it_the_cops_W9L4PinEGSxWeIEBd4mIhM#ixzz1EzobISK9
Friday, February 25, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Playing the Budget Card.........
A closeer look at Obama's 2012 budget will only make you scratch your head in bewilderment. There are literally no real cuts that would establish saving dollars in real time, most of the administrastions saving are
buried deep and would not take place for years to come. Again Obama has mastered the art of illusion
to say one thing and deliver quite something else. How will the new Republican majority make sense out
of Obama's true intent. His vaulted economic commission's advice was totally unheeded. Does this president
listen to anyone?
theodore miraldi
Not-so-tough choices
Behind Bam's budget punt.
John Podhoretz
NYPost 2/17/2011
Everybody is baffled by President Obama's budget proposal. Even, it seems, President Obama. He said on Tuesday that it was full of "tough choices," even as he was acknowledging that he'd refused to make any choices when it came to the key aspect of the federal budget: the unsustainable growth of health-care entitlements.
"My goal here is to actually solve the problem," he said. But his new "tough choices" budget doesn't even suggest a path to solving it.
The president wants us to believe that the way he is going to fix the most pressing problem facing the nation is -- presto -- to do nothing about it!
Obama: Declined to tackle toughest issues in his latest spending plan.
If this sounds like chutzpah, give Obama a little credit for self-knowledge: He all but admitted it. When it comes to entitlements, he told Chuck Todd of NBC. "This is a matter of everybody having a serious conversation about where we want to go, and then ultimately getting in that boat at the same time so it doesn't tip over."
By his own description, Barack Obama is just one of the passengers on a political rowboat on which he and his fellow passengers, the Republicans, are going to have to balance each other out very carefully.
The ship of state is heading into treacherous waters, and the president of the United States does not wish to serve as its captain.
Hard to blame him. Dealing with the entitlement crisis appears at first glance to be as thankless a responsibility as has ever been put before the political class. It requires a sense of governance that goes against every Obaman idea and impulse.
It's not about a grand new health-care system, or new fast choo-choos, or nationwide 4G access. This is governance that requires constriction, contraction, the establishment of limits.
He knows this is where the budget must go. He said so.
Thus, the budget as drafted suggests that the post-midterm Obama has decided upon a surprisingly cynical path -- one in which he will attempt to claim with a straight face that he has put the nation on a path to deficit and debt reduction in the future, even as he does nothing to address them in the present.
As Yuval Levin writes on National Review Online, "By the administration's own calculations, the effect its own budget would have in 2012 would be to increase the deficit by $11 billion. In other words, the Obama administration says that if we pass the Obama budget, then the deficit for 2012 will be $1.1 trillion, but if we don't pass it then the deficit would be $1.09 trillion."
What of the $2.2 trillion the administration plans to save over the next 10 years? Turns out they're not there. "It claims $315 billion saved from eliminating 'certain tax expenditures' -- but doesn't list which ones," writes Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation. "It takes credit for $321 billion in spending cuts to offset the Medicare 'doc fix' from 2014 through 2021. What are the cuts? To be determined."
All in all, Riedl writes, "$2 trillion of the $2.2 trillion in claimed savings are pure gimmicks and magic asterisks, rather than specific, legitimate, measurable policy proposals."
What's he up to? John Dickerson, an honest liberal reporter, wrote in Slate that "Obama's spending plan is so timid, he must be working on a smarter plan we don't know about."
I think he does have a plan. We'll only know if it was smart on Election Day 2012.
My guess: Obama is staking his political future on a hope -- the hope that the economy will strengthen by degrees as 2012 approaches, and that the sour public mood will lighten as it did for Ronald Reagan in 1984.
He wants to ride another wave of good feeling to reelection.
He doesn't want to be the killjoy who says it's time we ate our spinach (he has literally assigned that job to Michelle). And he may believe the present thirst for blaming the nation's woes on the problem of growing government will be satisfied instead by a growing economy.
In other words, this isn't a budget. It's a stall.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/not_so_tough_choices_5EtN2xpm3SpSKv33RdtXHP#ixzz1EE43XHrD
buried deep and would not take place for years to come. Again Obama has mastered the art of illusion
to say one thing and deliver quite something else. How will the new Republican majority make sense out
of Obama's true intent. His vaulted economic commission's advice was totally unheeded. Does this president
listen to anyone?
theodore miraldi
Not-so-tough choices
Behind Bam's budget punt.
John Podhoretz
NYPost 2/17/2011
Everybody is baffled by President Obama's budget proposal. Even, it seems, President Obama. He said on Tuesday that it was full of "tough choices," even as he was acknowledging that he'd refused to make any choices when it came to the key aspect of the federal budget: the unsustainable growth of health-care entitlements.
"My goal here is to actually solve the problem," he said. But his new "tough choices" budget doesn't even suggest a path to solving it.
The president wants us to believe that the way he is going to fix the most pressing problem facing the nation is -- presto -- to do nothing about it!
Obama: Declined to tackle toughest issues in his latest spending plan.
If this sounds like chutzpah, give Obama a little credit for self-knowledge: He all but admitted it. When it comes to entitlements, he told Chuck Todd of NBC. "This is a matter of everybody having a serious conversation about where we want to go, and then ultimately getting in that boat at the same time so it doesn't tip over."
By his own description, Barack Obama is just one of the passengers on a political rowboat on which he and his fellow passengers, the Republicans, are going to have to balance each other out very carefully.
The ship of state is heading into treacherous waters, and the president of the United States does not wish to serve as its captain.
Hard to blame him. Dealing with the entitlement crisis appears at first glance to be as thankless a responsibility as has ever been put before the political class. It requires a sense of governance that goes against every Obaman idea and impulse.
It's not about a grand new health-care system, or new fast choo-choos, or nationwide 4G access. This is governance that requires constriction, contraction, the establishment of limits.
He knows this is where the budget must go. He said so.
Thus, the budget as drafted suggests that the post-midterm Obama has decided upon a surprisingly cynical path -- one in which he will attempt to claim with a straight face that he has put the nation on a path to deficit and debt reduction in the future, even as he does nothing to address them in the present.
As Yuval Levin writes on National Review Online, "By the administration's own calculations, the effect its own budget would have in 2012 would be to increase the deficit by $11 billion. In other words, the Obama administration says that if we pass the Obama budget, then the deficit for 2012 will be $1.1 trillion, but if we don't pass it then the deficit would be $1.09 trillion."
What of the $2.2 trillion the administration plans to save over the next 10 years? Turns out they're not there. "It claims $315 billion saved from eliminating 'certain tax expenditures' -- but doesn't list which ones," writes Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation. "It takes credit for $321 billion in spending cuts to offset the Medicare 'doc fix' from 2014 through 2021. What are the cuts? To be determined."
All in all, Riedl writes, "$2 trillion of the $2.2 trillion in claimed savings are pure gimmicks and magic asterisks, rather than specific, legitimate, measurable policy proposals."
What's he up to? John Dickerson, an honest liberal reporter, wrote in Slate that "Obama's spending plan is so timid, he must be working on a smarter plan we don't know about."
I think he does have a plan. We'll only know if it was smart on Election Day 2012.
My guess: Obama is staking his political future on a hope -- the hope that the economy will strengthen by degrees as 2012 approaches, and that the sour public mood will lighten as it did for Ronald Reagan in 1984.
He wants to ride another wave of good feeling to reelection.
He doesn't want to be the killjoy who says it's time we ate our spinach (he has literally assigned that job to Michelle). And he may believe the present thirst for blaming the nation's woes on the problem of growing government will be satisfied instead by a growing economy.
In other words, this isn't a budget. It's a stall.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/not_so_tough_choices_5EtN2xpm3SpSKv33RdtXHP#ixzz1EE43XHrD
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Brit PM's wise advice: Lose PC, or lose lives - NYPOST.com
The national obsession with political correctness hit rock bottom with the Fort Hood
massacre, as was shown in a report by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins ("Ft.
Hood's Victims: Sacrificed for PC," PostOpinion, Michael A. Walsh, Feb. 7).
When is taking away the security of our men and women in our armed forces not as
important as this dubious methodology of inclusion of our enemies? This social
experiment-gone-bad should be enough to jolt the armed forces into tightening security
for the men and women who serve.
This Clintonian effort was doomed from the beginning, and the experiment with
political correctness has failed miserably on almost every level. All it accomplishes is
giving the antagonist a place to disrupt our freedoms and ideals. Fort Hood should be its
final page.
Although the idea of "one world order" may be acceptable in some social circles, it's not
acceptable when it costs the lives of others.
Theodore Miraldi
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/letters/brit_pm_wise_advice_lose_pc_or_lose_OQHL8Sh9dEorlor5KLFMtI#ixzz1DZfSbSAj
Brit PM's wise advice: Lose PC, or lose lives - NYPOST.com
massacre, as was shown in a report by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins ("Ft.
Hood's Victims: Sacrificed for PC," PostOpinion, Michael A. Walsh, Feb. 7).
When is taking away the security of our men and women in our armed forces not as
important as this dubious methodology of inclusion of our enemies? This social
experiment-gone-bad should be enough to jolt the armed forces into tightening security
for the men and women who serve.
This Clintonian effort was doomed from the beginning, and the experiment with
political correctness has failed miserably on almost every level. All it accomplishes is
giving the antagonist a place to disrupt our freedoms and ideals. Fort Hood should be its
final page.
Although the idea of "one world order" may be acceptable in some social circles, it's not
acceptable when it costs the lives of others.
Theodore Miraldi
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/letters/brit_pm_wise_advice_lose_pc_or_lose_OQHL8Sh9dEorlor5KLFMtI#ixzz1DZfSbSAj
Brit PM's wise advice: Lose PC, or lose lives - NYPOST.com
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Troubling Diplomacy from Obama....
in light of the situation in Cairo, the Obama administrations circular thoughts leave reason for
concern: Defending Freedom and Democracy is what this nation stands for most of the time.
security interests, economic interests and keeping America strong sometime requires our nation
to its lose sight in the headlights of current events, which appears to be how reactionary this
administration goes about the business of this nation.
Obama's signature on a bill in 2009 cutting aid to Human rights advocates and those fighting for
a Free Democatic rule in Cairo is incongruent to US intersts in the region. it's what happens when
you speak from both sides of the mouth. diminishing our ties to legitimate organizations within
Egypt may have been inspirational to the current street riots. we have literally supported
Mubarak's iron fist policy with Obama's trickery, passed by the House and Senate. what does this
man really stand for? after 2 years i'm still scratching my head. all the talk about unity while he
helps creat instability in the region.
theodore miraldi
concern: Defending Freedom and Democracy is what this nation stands for most of the time.
security interests, economic interests and keeping America strong sometime requires our nation
to its lose sight in the headlights of current events, which appears to be how reactionary this
administration goes about the business of this nation.
Obama's signature on a bill in 2009 cutting aid to Human rights advocates and those fighting for
a Free Democatic rule in Cairo is incongruent to US intersts in the region. it's what happens when
you speak from both sides of the mouth. diminishing our ties to legitimate organizations within
Egypt may have been inspirational to the current street riots. we have literally supported
Mubarak's iron fist policy with Obama's trickery, passed by the House and Senate. what does this
man really stand for? after 2 years i'm still scratching my head. all the talk about unity while he
helps creat instability in the region.
theodore miraldi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)