Monday, February 22, 2010
Understanding what President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are saying is difficult; for, though the language may seem to be English, in reality, they speak a different language, the language of the Democrats in DC. To understand exactly what they are saying, Americans need an “English –Democratic Party Dictionary. Here is a sampler of some of the most important words and phrases that cause confusion:
INVESTMENT: President Obama and Speaker Pelosi frequently talk about the need for “investments”. For example, ” President Obama recently identified a need to invest in American infrastructure (and education) What Mr. Obama and Nancy Pelosi really seem to mean when they talk about “investments” is that government needs to spend more. Democrats have learned from extensive polling that disguising calls for more government spending, and even greater national debt, are more palatable (to those that have not yet figured out the scam) if, they talk about spending as “investments”. As most Americans know, making an investment implies a return worthy of the risk. Investors always want their money back and a profit to boot. Fat chance of that! According to the Democrat-version, “investments” are just spending by another name. There will never be a return, and taxpayers putting their money are risk will never get their funds back, nor is there any chance of a decent return.
WORKING MAN: A favorite chestnut of Democrats, which really means Union Worker. Lots of Democrats talk about being the Party of “the working man”, but what they are really saying is that we need to support Unions and Organized Labor. Other Americans, that actually work very hard in a thousand different industries, and especially entrepreneurs, and small business owners, are not ever considered to be “working men or women”. Sure they might work 90+ hours a week, to build their business, but that matters not at all. Democrats support, and honor, only the unionized employee as a “working man or woman. All other, hard working, Americans are an afterthought, and none merit much attention beyond how much more their taxes should be raised.
ENTITLEMENTS v. RIGHTS: When Democrats speak of “rights” most people mistakenly assume that they are talking about constitutional rights, that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution, But, that is a big mistake, for Democrats, and Progressives, have so misused and bastardized the “rights” to portray their expansive vision of government ,and the many false promises of something for nothing. For example, “it’s my right to have cheap healthcare.” Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is healthcare identified as a “right“, nor is the concept even discussed. Progressives also point out that, “it’s every American’s right to have a decent standard of living.” Wrong again. What Americans have been promised in our Constitution is an equal opportunity to pursue their own dreams and pursue happiness free of excessive government control . Similarly, it is important to remember that Entitlement programs are not “rights” either.
JOB CREATION: Democrats in government talk a lot about job creation and the urgent need for government to create more jobs. But, government does not create any jobs in the private sector, and the only jobs it does create are government jobs, that can only be funded and supported by additional taxes on those that do create jobs.
SHOVEL READY: Remember this one? “Shovel Ready” projects were supposed to result in the immediate launch of any number of new construction projects, creating jobs across the country. But that was a myth; very few “shovel ready” projects ever existed. Instead, the vast majority of new construction projects were tied up in nightmarish, regulatory processes; scoring rules, prospectuses, approvals, assessments, FONSIs (Finding of No Significant Impact) and Permitting, are just a few of the obstacles that must be overcome before a project is “shovel ready.” Had President Obama really wanted to push infrastructure projects, he could have eliminated or reduced any or all of the many different bureaucratic hurdles that a building project must navigate. Instead, the President merely called for more money to be placed into the maw of a process that grinds too slowly and at great expense to taxpayers. There are all sorts of infrastructure projects that could be made “Shovel Ready”, but that would require dedicated leadership willing, and able, to curtail excessive bureaucratic reviews and focus more on the actual building of new infrastructure, versus a timid, rote adherence to an unsuccessful process that does not serve the nation.
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE: Critical infrastructure should be restricted to a very narrow definition– roads, bridges and buildings essential to continued or increased commerce of the nation. But Dems in Congress have, in the Stimulus, expanded the definition to include water parks and studies of the Harvest Marsh Mouse. According to this view, building new tennis courts, water parks, and stadium parking lots, (especially if they are targeted into their own districts) are all now labeled as “critical infrastructure”. What Dems in Congress cannot, and will not, ever do is to actually prioritize the nation’s needs, and have the courage and leadership to decide which projects would provide the greatest benefit to the nation as a whole. Instead, a “critical infrastructure” is defined as any building project, or any spending plan, that will bring federal funds to their home districts.
SPENDING CUTS / CUT TO THE BONE: Washington is always talking about “cutting to the bone”, but that is a fiction. There is so much blubber in the budget that it’s been many a decade since Americans saw the “bones.” When Dems use the term SPENDING Cuts — as in “we must reduce federal spending”, what is really meant is: let’s cut the amount of the increase to the budget line item. Memo to Congress: cutting an increase is not a budget cut.
NARRATOR: Well, Keith, we see a whole lot more at our events than we see on MSNBC. In fact, we have more diversity on our three-person steering committee than your entire TV network line-up...Something tells me you've never been to a Tea Party. We think it's time you get out of your bubble.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/02/22/dallas-tea-party-takes-keith-olbermann-and-white-msnbc#ixzz0gIxxSSkg
"It’s no news at all if you read the U.S. mainstream media."
How will our health care system improve by giving a $300-million payoff to Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu in Louisiana in exchange for her vote?
Three hundred million was the price tag for Landrieu's "yes" vote on the 3,000-plus-page Obamacare bill. This may improve the health of Senator Landrieu's reelection prospects, but not the health of our nation.
What is positive about exempting Nebraska from having to pay future Medicare costs but making other states foot the bill?
Democratic Senator Ben Nelson was the final Democratic senator holding out support for the bill. After closed-door negotiations, Senator Nelson provided his full support. The reason for Nelson's sudden change of heart? His state was given a special exemption and would not have to pay the projected billions of dollars in additional Medicare costs that Obamacare would create.
Why are labor unions singled out from all other Americans and given an eight-year pass on paying taxes, while non-union workers have to pick up the tab?
In another closed-door negotiation, this time with Big Labor bosses and lobbyists, union members were exempted from paying the dreaded "Cadillac tax" on premium health care plans until 2018. In dollar terms, this would save union workers over $60 billion, while the rest of us have to come up with an additional $90 billion over the same time period.
Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for elective abortions?
After being repeatedly reassured by you, Mr. President, that taxpayer-funded abortions would not be included in your health care bill, why did your Secretary of Health and Human Services brag to the pro-abortion lobby that the Senate version of Obamacare includes taxpayer-funded abortion? How does this improve our health care system?
How does putting the federal government between Americans and their doctors improve anyone's health?
The Senate version of Obamacare would make Americans enroll in a "qualified health care plan" and then dictates that doctors may receive compensation under such plans only if they perform procedures allowed by the federal government.
How does a closed-door legislative process help us understand the complexities of Obamacare?
If health care is a "complex issue" that requires clear explanation to the American people, then how does it help when all of the explaining is being done to lobbyists behind closed doors?
Mr. President, what we don't understand is why a bill that is so good and necessary requires secrecy, bribes, and lies to ensure its passage. Why do you feel the need to hide the bill from us? Why do your biggest supporters need their palms greased before they come on board with your plan? Why do you tell us one thing about the cost of your bill, only for us to find out later that you understated the actual cost by over 300 percent?
In short, Mr. President, why should we believe anything you tell us about health care anymore?
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think that he is a practical president. I think that there's a lot of tension and frustration. I hear it all the time. Why doesn't he just get in there and crack skulls? Why can't he be like LBJ and get Congress in line? Come on, you have the Democratic majorities. He is a consensus builder. This is his core identity. He ceded a lot of the healthcare reform bill to Congress, and perhaps that's why some people view it as a left of center product, because he wasn't in there dictating the terms. But, I mean this is the reason he ran for president. It goes back and we all know the story. He feels that he has some ability to bring people together. And they're very frustrated that he hasn't been able to execute that.
MATTHEWS: Okay, this is a key question. Helene, you're at the White House, too. Last question here: How can you be a man of, a leader of the progressive movement, really do things that enlarge the role of government in the healthcare field for example, and in financial regulation, and still make the country in this Kumbaya, we all get along mood? If you change, it bothers people.
HELENE COOPER, NEW YORK TIMES WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I think that, that is so much at the center of why Obama, President Obama is having so many problems right now. There's he, there's this fundamental belief that he can change, that the power of his personality and the power of his oratory can change people and that just doesn't happen. There's this over-reliance I think at the White House that if the President gives a very big speech, or if he comes out there, that his, that he can persuade people and he can do it. And at the same time you don't have anything changing at the bottom of the way Washington works.
MATTHEWS: He promised change, and yet what he said what the change was...
COOPER: But you can't just do it with the power of your personality.
MATTHEWS: Well, we're learning that.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/02/21/matthews-were-learning-obama-cant-change-things-just-power-his-person#ixzz0gHUVbSAo
"'We fought back only sporadically and pretty ineffectively,' Rendell said, adding that 'right out of the box, we lost the spin war' on the $787 billion economic stimulus bill passed in 2009.
"Several Democratic colleagues agreed, and lamented that voters thought Obama focused too much on overhauling the U.S. health care system. Others fretted that Obama may appear to be out of touch with the concerns of Americans.
"'I think he's got more work to do on that,' said Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, an Obama friend and ally."