"Scorpions for Breakfast" Sees Record Sales After Obama Diss

Last week, after the State of the Union address, President Obama went on a five state - all swing states - taxpayer funded campaign tour to work on his re-election. We are told it wasn't a campaign tour but we are presumed to be as gullible and ignorant as in 2008.

One state in which President Obama landed was Arizona. Governor Jan Brewer met him on the tarmac when Air Force One landed, as is customary, and this is where the story gets a bit fuzzy. According to Brewer, Obama confronted her on her characterization of their White House meeting over illegal immigration and border safety in her book, "Scorpions for Breakfast".

According to the news reports, President Obama - known to be a thin-skinned politician with an inflated ego - was disturbed that Governor Brewer wrote of his lecturing her on the subject of border security. She felt he was condescending of her opinions.

On the tarmac, it is reported that President Obama chose to confront her on the words in her book instead of traditional tarmac pleasantries. She claims she was there to welcome him to Arizona and to invite him to tour the border with her, since he has never been there to see with his own eyes the situation for which he claims to have the answer. Actually, the closest he has been to the border of any southern state was in El Paso and that was only one visit without a trip to the border, as he held a campaign rally for the photo op.

Turns out, in a regular Friday afternoon document dump, there was a copy of the handwritten letter that Brewer presented to Obama. Doesn't look ugly to me. You be the judge.

“You’ve arrived in a state at the forefront of America’s recovery — and her future. We both love this great country, but we fundamentally disagree on how to best make America grow and prosper once again. I’d love an opportunity to share with you how we’ve been able to turn Arizona around with hard choices that turned out to be the right ones. And, of course, my offer to visit the border — and buy lunch — still stands.”

The governor offered a visit to the border, a conversation and lunch, too. What more could she have done?

The up side to this story is that the sales of Governor Brewer's book were lagging until this story broke. It went to the top of the Amazon list on sales figures overnight.

Heh.

For the record, Governor Bobby Jindal told a very similar story in his book of a visit by President Obama after the Deepwater Horizon tragedy. He demanded that Jindal not bad-mouth him or his administration, as well as chastised him for a run of the mill letter sent to the Agriculture secretary.

GOP Primary Troubling to Voters

Am I the only one so completely turned off by this GOP primary that I am ready to bury my nose in a book and wait until the convention to come around? How in the world does the current atmosphere of personal attacks and petty ego stroking speeches translate into a win over President Obama in November? The short answer is that it doesn't.

If anyone is so delusional to think that President Obama's re-election is all but assured then I have some choice property to talk to you about. The power of the incumbency is a hard advantage to overcome and this president is a part of the Chicago political machine. The re-election team has been planning this since January 2009, make no mistake about that. Barack Obama never stopped campaigning and neither did his team.

Team Obama assumes that Mitt Romney will be our nominee. This is likely to come to bear. The question then is whether or not the conservative voters and Independents will rally around him after the convention. Or, will they allow themselves to be played and stay home to insure another Obama victory?

None of us gets the candidate of our dreams a majority of the time. That is just the reality of politics. What we have to do, though, is to apply the Buckley rule: nominate the most conservative electable candidate.

Am I a Romney supporter? No. But if he is my party's nominee, I will be. Am I a Gingrich supporter? No. But if he is my party's nominee, I will be. This is the first time I can ever remember where I truly do not feel I have a dog in this hunt. I simply don't care at this point, I'll vote for the one with an R after his name. Any of our nominees are better than the current president. Though, if push comes to shove, I do think that Romney will give Obama a real fight for victory.

That said, our bench this time around was shallow. Whether it was that those who would have truly given Barack Obama a tough run were too uncertain to enter the race - believing the president would be re-elected in the end anyway - or that it is a failure of the national party to cultivate leaders coming forward, probably both are true. Also in today's gutter politics, putting one's family and loved ones through the mud slinging is a tough decision to make.

Look at what this race has devolved into - today we are told by Newt that Mitt is a liberal. We are told by Mitt that Newt is mentally unstable. The back and forth was so bad between those two in the last debate that Rick Santorum had to ask that they move on to substance. It was disgraceful.

Romney is up in the polls in Florida, as we wait for Tuesday's primary votes to be tallied. Romney has out-spent Gingrich. Gingrich is whining that the Romney ads have unfairly hampered his polling numbers. What, then, would he do in the general election against Obama where it will, assuredly, be tougher? He expect whining from Obama. I expect better from a Republican nominee.

Polls show that in swing states that Romney ties Obama while Gingrich trails by almost double digits. A Republican must win the Florida primary to be the party's nominee and to become president, too.

The ugly name calling - Gingrich has ramped up his description of Romney from a moderate to a liberal Republican - is playing into Team Obama's dreams. The waiting for Gingrich to implode - as he always does - is tedious. Let's hope that by 2016 the Republicans can have the backing of conservatives who understand there is no perfect human being and that even includes those running for president.

House Natural Resources Republicans Working for Jobs and Energy

The House Natural Resources Republicans are working hard to facilitate legislation to get Americans back to work for our nation's energy independence.

Through 115 hearings, Republicans on the Committee conducted rigorous oversight of Obama Administration policies and regulations that will cost jobs and hurt our economy and advanced numerous pieces of legislation that will put Americans back to work. Watch the Committee's work in action during the first session of the 112th Congress to create jobs and expand access to our own energy and natural resources.



Think of what could be accomplished if the Democratically controlled Senate were a willing partner in jobs creation and energy independence.

State of the Union Address Was Recycled Pablum

Did some of the State of the Union speech sound familiar to you? Turns out a lot of it was just recycled parts of previous speeches. No wonder it was so boring and uninspiring. We've heard it all before.



And, though President Obama claims to have single-handedly rescued the American auto industry, that is a stretch, charitably speaking.

GM’s recent profits speak only to the fact that politicians committed more than $50 billion to the task of rescuing those companies and the United Auto Workers. With debts expunged, cash infused, inefficiencies severed, ownership reconstituted, sales rebates underwritten and political obstacles steamrolled — all in the midst of a recovery in U.S. auto demand — only the most incompetent operations could fail to make profits.

But taxpayers are still short at least $10 billion to $20 billion (depending on the price that the government’s 500 million shares of GM will fetch), and there is still significant overcapacity in the auto industry.

Obama enjoys the use of straw men in his speeches and in this case, he likes to say that "some" didn't want to allow the auto industry to survive. In fact, conservatives wanted the companies in the industry to be allowed to declare bankruptcy and begin again. Ford Motor Company, it should be noted, stayed on its own and reaped the benefits of grateful taxpayers in increased sales.

And, the president's blather on instructing the Senate to do away with the 60 vote rule?

For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days.

Isn't President Obama touted as a Constitutional scholar? What about the separation of powers?

Setting aside the offensive nature of a President suggesting changes in the Senate rules (ever hear of the separation of powers?) the fact is that his proposal wouldn’t have mattered in the case of his recent “recess” nominations. First, Cordray was given a vote, with a required 60 for moving to consideration. He didn’t get 60. There’s nothing in the Constitution that defines Senate “consent” as a simple majority. Obama’s unconstitutional NRLB nominations weren’t even in the Senate for 90 days (his apparent standard).

Our founding fathers purposely created a system that made it hard, not easy, to legislate. The very existence of both a House and Senate is evidence they rejected simple majority rules for legislating. One of the many things I learned from working in the Senate, and having spent more time on the Senate floor than Obama, is that dealing in good faith can almost always get you to an broad agreement. If Obama feels his legislative agenda has come to a halt, he has himself to blame, not the Senate rules.

Isn't this the man who was said to be able to bring people together to fix a broken system?

GOP Debate in Jacksonville

Thursday night's GOP primary debate in Jacksonville, Florida was hosted by CNN, the Florida GOP, and the Hispanic Leadership Network. Wolf Blitzer was the moderator, so that was a definite step up from the previous one with John King.

It was a different kind of debate, leading off with a question from the audience about illegal immigration - well, it was Florida. That led into a tit for tat between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney about the attack ads each are running against the other. It went on for what felt like forever. At times like that, Blitzer looked like a weak moderator. Or, maybe he was taking a quick nap. Either way, those two went on and on without bringing any real substance to the discussion.

Word is that Mitt Romney has a new debate coach. It showed. He was strong and self-assured in his back and forths with Newt. It took Rick Santorum to finally say that the petty bickering between the two front runners was out of control and that the debate should move to real substance. The audience loved that. I did, too.

Rick Santorum had a good night. He mostly avoided his biggest downfall - that part of his personality that tends to be mean-spirited and whiny. He provided strong answers on his thoughts about religion and governing, and on why his wife would be a good First Lady - though I hated that trivial question. He was strong on foreign policy, as well, and brought up the travesty that was the Obama blunder in Honduras early on in this administration.

Newt Gingrich did himself no favors tonight. He was angry and defensive. His usual self-confidence was lagging and the audience didn't give him much of a boost. The audience seemed to favor Romney.

Ron Paul had a good night. There was not much discussion on foreign policy so he was strong on domestic conservatism. Wolf Blitzer asked about his health, considering his age, and he ended up challenging Blitzer to a 25 mile bike ride in Texas. He said he would be happy to produce his medical records, as the others did. He also reminded Blitzer that there are laws about discrimination due to age. That was amusing.

By Santorum and Paul having good nights, the nod goes to Romney. He won it by rising above Newt's attacks while strongly defending himself. The other three men on the stage just gelled together in contrast.

The Florida primary is Tuesday, January 31, 2012. Romney is a little bit ahead of Gingrich, if the polls are to be believed. Nothing happened during this debate to change that.

About Warren Buffett's Secretary

One of the token throwaway lines from President Obama's campaign style speeches on reforming the tax code - by reforming, I mean increases taxes - towards the most successful in our country is one in which he declares that Warren Buffett's secretary pays her income taxes at a higher rate than Buffett himself does. Clever, right?

Clever. Yes. First of all, there is the characterization of Debbie Bosanek as Buffett's "secretary". Today, the term commonly used for women like her is "executive assistant". The term secretary conjures up visions of cheap metal desks in cubicles, including PBX machines. I know. I was there, back in another life. Now, however, the upscale version of that old job is a bit more respectful for those performing it. Better title, more perks, flexibility, etc. Not for all, don't get me wrong, but for many. I'm assuming that Ms. Bosanek is quite comfortable in her position. So, it's just another quiver in the Obama class warfare pack to use the term.

According to Forbes Magazine,it is likely that Ms. Bosanek makes a minimum of $200,000 and maybe up to $500,000 per year. How did the magazine's writer come up with this assumption?

Insofar as Buffett (like Mitt Romney) earns income primarily from capital gains, which are taxed at 15 percent (and according to Obama need to be raised for reasons of fairness), we need to determine how much income a taxpayer like Bosanek must earn in order to pay an average tax rate above fifteen percent. This is easy to do.

The IRS publishes detailed tax tables by income level. The latest results are for 2009. They show that taxpayers earning an adjusted gross income between $100,000 and $200,000 pay an average rate of twelve percent. This is below Buffett’s rate; so she must earn more than that. Taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, pay an average tax rate of nineteen percent. Therefore Buffett must pay Debbie Bosanke a salary above two hundred thousand.

I don't know about my sister former secretaries but I never came anywhere close to making $200,000 per year. I didn't know of anyone else making that, either.

Maybe it is just another case of poor vetting by Team Obama. They have become known as fumblers in that department - it never fails that after President Obama uses an audience member as a prop for a point he is making in a speech to be discovered the next day that the story line is a fraud. Perhaps that is the case here, too. If not, then it is another case of Obama class warfare in an election year, with the twist of using a one percenter against the ninety-nine percent.

See, Warren Buffett is mega wealthy and his income is like Mitt Romney's - they live off investments made many years ago. The current tax code taxes that capital gains income at 15%. Plus, Buffett chose to donate a big ole chunk of his vast wealth to the Gates Foundation. So, there is some more tax break goodness for him. He is not a stupid man. Nor is he honest in his cry that the mega wealthy should pay more in taxes. Were he an honest broker in that plea, he would just voluntarily write a check to the national treasury and be done with it. Maybe, say, the amount he donated to Bill and Melinda Gates' foundation.

Just a thought.

And, if Ms. Bosanke makes that kind of money, more power to her. Her boss can well afford to compensate her handsomely. And the perk of attending the State of the Union address, sitting in the First Lady's box? Priceless.

Giffords Resigns from Congress

The resignation letter tendered by Rep. Gabby Giffords to Speaker of the House Boehner Wednesday morning is HERE.

She deserves the respect and attention she is receiving on Capitol Hill as she leaves office. A former Republican, she represents Arizona as a Democrat who reaches across the aisle to work with others not in her own party. That is something sorely needed in Washington, D.C. today. She is a happy warrior.

Giffords is leaving to pursue full time physical rehabilitation, her daily routine since the tragic shooting that took place January 8, 2011. She promised to be back and to serve again. Her ability to walk and the inability to use her right arm hinders her ability to walk on her own. She performs just fine with assistance.

Rep Jeff Flake, a conservative Republican representing Arizona, too, helped Giffords during the State of the Union address as he escorted her into the speech and he helped her stand when she wished to show support for what the president was saying. He was usually the only Republican standing during these times. Wednesday, he held her hand as Rep Debbie Wasserman-Schultz read her resignation letter aloud.

It is safe to say that there was not a dry eye in the House. Her husband, former astronaut Mark Kelly was in the gallery to watch.

Godspeed to Gabby Giffords as she continues to rehabilitate in Houston.

Culberson Responds to the State of the Union Address

I live in the district represented by John Culberson in the U.S House of Representatives. This is his response to the president's State of the Union address:

Congressman John Culberson (TX-07) issued the following response to President Obama’s State of the Union address:

"I am pleased that President Obama’s State of the Union speech spent less time than usual attacking Republicans. Unfortunately, his speech was filled with statements that will play well on the campaign trail, but it contained little substantive policy. The proposals we did hear confirm that he will continue to try to transform the America we know and love into a European style social welfare state where a majority of Americans are dependent on the federal government for a paycheck or a handout.

"In light of the President's policies and his recent rejection of the Keystone Pipeline, it is not believable for him to tell us he is committed to “[a] future where we're in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren't so tied to unstable parts of the world [and] an economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.” For the last three years, the President has made it more difficult for America to produce our own energy, and he is determined to raise taxes on Americans who work hard and are the most successful.

"Like so many Americans who want to see the size of the federal government reduced, I also found it absurd to hear this president claim he believes in Lincoln’s motto that “government should only do for the people what they cannot do for themselves, and no more.” It is the height of hubris for him to promote tax cuts and deficit reduction, and to claim that he is committed to eliminating government waste and cutting regulations. President Obama has created more debt and bigger deficits than any president in history, and he has aggressively grown the government, expanded its power, extended regulations into virtually every corner of our lives, and driven federal spending to the highest level since World War II.

"Despite the praise he properly bestowed on our men and women in uniform, Obama and his party followers are aggressively working to dismantle and dramatically weaken the greatest military the world has ever known. At the same time, their policies embolden our enemies and strengthen Israel’s enemies yet they undermine Israel's national security as well as our own. He has also abruptly abandoned all our sacrifices in Iraq and left that fragile democracy alone to face their fanatical enemies in Iran.

"Around the world, America’s enemies, especially communist China, Iran and other radical states in the Middle East, are growing stronger and becoming bolder, while President Obama dismantles our military and apologizes to the world for our strength and our pre-eminence. It is appalling that he even tried to apologize to the Japanese for President Harry Truman’s necessary decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even the Japanese government understood that apology would have been a disaster and stopped it.

"His speech last night was utterly unconnected to the reality of everything he has done and is trying to do. His State of the Union was pure political theatre designed to trick us into thinking that he shares the values and goals of most Americans. He and his party followers hope they can fool us just long enough to win this next election.

"I prefer to follow Thomas Jefferson's advice, "Follow the core principles of the Constitution and the knot will always untie itself." We can balance the budget and restore our liberty and prosperity by unleashing American ingenuity and hard work with massive tax cuts matched by spending cuts but above all by restoring the Constitution's limits on the federal government, especially the 10th Amendment's guarantee of State sovereignty and individual liberty."

Governor Daniels Delivers GOP Response to State of the Union Address

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels delivered the GOP response to the State of the Union address Tuesday night from the Indiana War Memorial building in Indianapolis. "Greetings from the home of Super Bowl 46", the hugely popular governor opened with for his remarks.

Daniels delivered a strong rebuttal to the Obama speech. He congratulated the President on killing those who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11/01, for reforming public education, and for strong family values by example with his own family. Governor Daniels is a class act.

He said, however, that the president cannot claim that the last three years have been anything but a failure, that he made things worse. Mostly he blamed an explosion of sending with borrowed money. Remember, Daniels is an expert in economics and the former Budget Director under the George W. Bush administration who resigned when he felt that that administration was not serious about financial restraint.

He criticized Obama for his "grand experiment in trickle down government" and a big, bossy government balanced on the backs of the middle class.

He said the young generation is the first in memory to face a future with less success than that of their parents. He said, however, that he doesn't accept the idea that we are a nation of haves and have nots, as promoted by Obama. He said we are a nation of haves and soon to haves.

Daniels said that 2012 is the year for true opposition to restore hope and greater equality with a message of that will earn the way back to a majority and leadership in Washington. He said the loyal GOP opposition accepts the duty gratefully and will continue to offer solutions. He said the President disparages people in business, yet acknowledges the success of Steve Jobs. Jobs, however, was a critic of the president and his expansion of regulations harmful to small business and innovation development.

Daniels said the president's energy failings are a pro-poverty policy. He said a dramatically simpler tax code would maximize new energy technology.

He challenged politicians to unite and save Medicare and Medicaid and reform Social Security to fashion new and affordable safety nets for those in need.

He said it is unfair for the president to paint Republicans as obstructionists when the House Republicans have passed legislation only to have it sit on the desk of Harry Reid, the Democrat leader in the Democratically controlled Senate. He said it is up to the GOP to inform the country of this problem.

Daniels said there is nothing sadder than the president's constant efforts to divide us.

He said the loyal opposition, the Republicans, will speak the language of unity and encourage anyone who will join us as an ally and friend.

He pointed to the fallacy of benevolent protection - it is not up to the government to pick our mortgages, our health care, our schools. It is up to the individual. He spoke of allowing ourselves to be pitted against each other with these policies. The GOP will tell America of "dignity and the capacity of the individual citizen". We are still a people born to liberty. We will renew the American dream.

The speech was calmly delivered with a common sense approach to government. Conservative writer and pundit Charles Krauthammer said, "I could hear sighs all across the country over what might have been" had Daniels entered the presidential race. His strong and decisive leadership - with the ability to compromise - is sorely needed to get our country back on track.

Watch:

State of the Union Address 2012

It was a surprisingly boring State of the Union address delivered by President Obama Tuesday night. Sixty-five minutes and interrupted eighty-five times for applause, always by the loyal of his own party, the speech that the White House tried mightily to proclaim as not a campaign speech was, in fact, just that.

It was to be expected, this campaign speech. All presidents do it. This White House just wants to use the smoke and mirrors efforts of trying to describe Barack Obama as a different politician. He has proven to be anything but different. I would argue that he is so much more of a run of the mill politician and not so skilled at it, at that. Consider how divided the parties are and remember that leadership comes from the top and sets the tone.

The "Date Night" nonsense continued as about one hundred members of Congress sat with those from the other side of the aisle. It is silly, to be sure, and did nothing last year to promote goodwill between the two parties. This White House is all about the theatrics. No doubt there are those in Congress who are up for re-election themselves and don't truly understand that voters are just not buying it.

Rep Gabby Giffords was there, as her last act as a sitting Congress member. Wednesday she will resign from office to continue on with her physical recovery in Houston. She rightfully received a standing ovation from her colleagues and the president made quite a show of going to her and hugging her as he entered the House floor. Giffords, by the way, was sitting next to her Arizona colleague, Rep Jeff Flake, a Republican. Her husband, Mark Kelly, was seated with the First Lady. He is rumored to be considering his own political run.

Though Speaker Boehner continues to say he has a cordial relationship with the president, he also noted that the two have not spoken for more than a month. Both he and Vice President Biden, sitting behind the president, were sedate and rarely applauded the speech. Several times I noticed that Biden looked as though he was fighting off a nap.

The theme was clearly one of inequality. The president tried to paint himself as the defender of the 99%, as the protector of the middle class. Same old, same old.

Obama opened with references to the military and the service of our nation's heroes. He spoke of the last troops in Iraq coming home and troops beginning to leave Afghanistan. He spoke of the death of Osama bin Laden, while being careful not to boast. That is important to his re-election efforts because he was one of the Democrats who enjoyed criticizing George W. Bush as running on re-election on the back of the war in Iraq and 9/11/01.

"Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example", he said of the unselfish devotion to country that the members of the military exhibit.

A catch phrase used was "built to last". He said that America is built to last and must re-build our manufacturing base for employment recovery. "What's at stake is not Democratic values or Republican values. It's American values." That line once worked for the man but rings hollow now. He has proven to be a president incapable to put his own politics aside and work with Republicans.

"The State of the Union is getting stronger." Weak tea coming from the man who was trying to instill a sense of optimism from the audience. His approval numbers remain low and consumer confidence numbers plunged to all time lows under his guidance. It will take more than some nice words, it will take real courage and leadership, to get us back on track. There are no illusions that this will happen in an election year.

He challenged business owners to "ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country". It will take tax reforms and a business friendly atmosphere that has been destroyed under his leadership, though. Business leaders cannot do it alone.

The usual favorite enemy of Barack Obama - Big Oil - surfaced a couple of times. Though he claimed to want to promote American energy - thus far failing to do so in his White House reign - he boasted that he has opened more land to drilling than ever before. That is a shady claim, as most oil is drilled on private lands and they have suffered from increased regulations. He said American oil production is at the highest level in eight years - a zing to President Bush, of course, yet that is due to shale oil production which is not regulated as offshore and land drilling is. He conveniently didn't mention that fact. He claims to want an "all of the above" approach to American energy though his policies continue to attempt to destroy oil and natural gas exploration in our waters offshore. There was no Keystone Pipeline reference. He said "I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy". Who asked him to do that? Those in the energy sector all want an "all of the above approach".

Obama, king of the straw men.

He claimed to want to reduce regulations for small business yet his administration brought about the increased regulations to begin with, especially those that will burden business under Obamacare.

He wants to encourage businesses with incentives to upgrade their buildings, to save energy and create jobs doing the renovations. It's a small ball approach to a federal jobs program. His signature stimulus spending bills are still hugely unpopular and have mostly failed. Unemployment was promised to not exceed 8% when the public was expected to go along with his first stimulus package. How'd that work out?

He promoted a huge new federal program to allow homeowners who are current on their mortgage payments to be allowed to re-finance their mortgages at new low rates, with a $3,000 tax deduction to boot.

He claims he has signed less new regulations into effect than former President Bush though he didn't mention that his regulations are wider sweeping and destructive to business development while Bush saw consistent economic growth until the collapse of the economy brought on mostly by the housing bubble - which began in the Carter administration and bad public policy encouraging cheap mortgages to people who couldn't afford them.

He put colleges on notice that if tuition cost continue to go up, federal assistance will go down. He wants those students here illegally due to decisions made by their parents to have a chance to become citizens. He wants more foreign students here on visas to remain in country and not return home to use their education elsewhere.

He wants to establish a Financial Crimes unit to make harsh penalties sick to those who commit fraud. No one believes this will be done but it was a talking point he wanted to make.

He still speaks of tax hikes for "millionaires and billionaires" and used the secretary to Warren Buffett, who sat next the the First Lady as a prop, to bolster his "Buffet Rule" - those making over $1 million per year should pay 30% in taxes with no tax subsidies or deductions.

He wants a bill to ban insider trading in Congress. He wants campaign donation bundlers to be banned from lobbying Congress. Ah, election year conversions.

He wants all nominees to receive a straight up or down vote within 90 days of the nomination. He would also like to end the super majority rules in Congress which require 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation. He wants a bill to consolidate federal bureaucracies. This, from the guy who exploded the rate of federal expansion and has a record number of "czars" in his administration.

He ended as he began - referencing the military. "I will take no options off the table" in reference to Iran and the development of nuclear weapons. He tried to emphasize this "iron clad commitment to Israel" by repeating the claim. He said that America is held in higher esteem overseas than in recent years. Another jab at George W. Bush. He wants to continue to increase benefits to veterans. He promotes tax credits to businesses who hire veterans.

It was a rather boring speech. It was less partisan than recent speeches with no sweeping generalities, only tweaks here and there. It was small ball as a heavy nod to the fact that he would like another term as president. There was no real vision expressed other than calls for unity in general.

No Budget in 1000 Days Yet Spending Increases Continue

The irony of a completely dysfunctional Congress now at the 1000 day mark of not passing a budget - as required by federal law - is not lost on many of those tuning into the president's State of the Union address Tuesday night. Despite the fact that a budget has not been passed during this president's term in office, the spending continues on in a brisk clip.

The federal government still managed to pile nearly $4 trillion onto the national debt as the Senate dithered during those 1,000 days. The Senate forced the federal government to function piecemeal for three years through a series of haphazardly stitched-together omnibus bills and continuing resolutions. These bring together in one massive document trillions in spending and borrowing that can then be jammed through Congress with one convenient up-or-down vote, with only token debate and few if any amendments allowed. It's Washington's nice and tidy way of handing voters a take-it-or-leave-it approach to federal spending.

Growing numbers of Washington politicians apparently would rather not be bothered with doing budgets. After all, budgeting is hard work, especially if, as it is for American families, there is a hard ceiling on how much can be spent. It requires politicians to make tough decisions about which programs get more funding, which get less and which, if any, are shown the door. Doing that means compromise, which in turn often prevents promises to constituents from being fulfilled. And worst of all, it means politicians can then be held accountable for their decisions by voters, who may not return them to office.

When the Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress during Obama's first two years in office, the Senate and the House were equally guilty. After the Republicans regained the House, however, they passed a proposed 2012 federal budget last year, thanks to the leadership of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. The Senate promptly rejected it, but didn't bother during the rest of 2011 to do its own version.

As is pointed out HERE, a lack of a budget has indeed increased spending.

A published budget would be an election-year death warrant for Senate Democrats, because Republican Senate candidates would stuff its highlights into every mailbox they could.

As Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., points out, going budget-less for so long has devastated our economy as Democrats have spent "$9.4 trillion and added $4.1 trillion to the national debt," plus over $1 trillion in deficits.

President Obama himself used to understand that a budget was a requirement of good government. But, that was then and this is now.

A budget, according to the president 1,000 days ago, is necessary "to lay a new foundation for growth." He praised Reid's 2009 budget for its massive new spending, like "new investments in renewable energy that will create millions of jobs and new industries, new investments in health care that will cut costs for families and businesses, and new savings that will bring down our deficit."

How's all that renewable energy investment working out?

The White House continues its personal war on American energy production. Health care costs are continuing to rise and there is no way that Obamacare is paid for, despite the nonsense spouted by the president's supporters. Unemployment is still way too high at 8.5% and consumer prices have risen. Whether it is filling up the car's gas tank or purchasing the week's groceries, consumers continue to feel the hit in the pocketbook.

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) speaks about the lack of a budget for 1000 days on the Senate floor:




Are you better off now than you were $4 trillion ago?

Prelude to State of the Union Address: 1000 Days Without a Budget

Speaker of the House Boehner's office released this video as a prelude to the President's State of the Union address to be delivered Tuesday night before a joint session of Congress:



The trailer begins by reminding Americans of the downgrade to AA+ on President Obama's watch, and of the threat of future downgrades if serious action isn't taken to address our spending-driven debt crisis and protect our entitlement programs from going bankrupt.

Far from strengthening our economy, President Obama's policies - more spending, higher taxes, more regulations - are making our economy worse. Since President Obama took office, 1.7 million fewer people have jobs, gas prices have doubled, and the health care law is making it harder for small businesses to hire and provide health insurance to their employees.

President Obama says "we can't wait" for action on jobs -- even though that's exactly what his rejection of job-creating projects like Keystone XL has out-of-work Americans doing: waiting.

The 'stimulus' spending bill failed to keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent as the administration predicted. Instead, it's been higher than 8 percent for nearly three years.

The House has passed nearly 30 bipartisan jobs bills that have been blocked by the Democratic-controlled Senate -- common-sense bills to remove government barriers to job growth, stop Washington from spending money we don't have, and get government out of the way of small businesses. You can see the full list here and learn more at jobs.GOP.gov.

Instead of passing a budget of their own, Democrats attacked the House-passed budget which would cut spending, preserve and strengthen our entitlement programs, and help create new jobs. Their attacks earned them "four Pinocchios" from the Washington Post -- a dubious distinction reserved for outright "whoppers."

Here is the link for all things State of the Union address: http://gop.gov/SOTU

GOP Debate in Tampa, Florida

Conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer, commenting on the thirty point swing for Newt Gingrich in the Florida polls in recent weeks, said if "you get that in a patient, you pull out the Lithium". Yes, Republican voters have become quite emotionally motivated in their voting pattern this election cycle.

For those who proclaim that debates mean little in a political race, this primary has proved that reasoning to be quite false. Were it not for Newt Gingrich's stellar take down of CNN's John King in the last debate in Charleston, S.C. just two days before their primary, Mitt Romney would have likely maintained his lead and won that race. Gingrich piggybacked that debate win with the one a few days earlier in that week, the one held in Myrtle Beach, S.C., and he scored big points with voters there with his remark about jobs training and being a paycheck president, not a food stamps president. The crowds in both debates responded with standing ovations for Gingrich - a move rarely seen in these debates.

Monday night's debate in Tampa, Florida was preceded with the news that Gingrich has released his 2006 contract with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac that the Romney camp was calling for while Gingrich continued to hammer Romney over unreleased tax returns. Gingrich is still the only one to release his tax return and at that, has only released last year's return online during the last debate. Romney said he will release his tax return Tuesday. Frankly, I don't think it will be to anyone's surprise that Romney is a very wealthy man and that he tithes generously to his church.

The debate was moderated by NBC's Brian Williams and questions were also asked by a reporter from The Tampa Bay Times and National Journal, both co-sponsors of the event.

It was two hours we will never get back. To say it was a lackluster event is an understatement. By default, Mitt Romney is the winner. He did nothing to hurt himself and he can claim victory. He mentioned that he learned some lessons in South Carolina and would not be so strong about positive campaigning. He certainly didn't go lightly on Newt Gingrich Monday night.

Newt Gingrich was quite subdued. The audience was quiet with only one real applause line taken. He seemed to have the strategy to leave angry Newt at home and not be indignant against the media, either. He did continue his attacks against Mitt Romney. Gingrich found favorable things to say about Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, no doubt a nod to his desire for their supporters to eventually go with him.

Rick Santorum has a couple of decent answers - especially about Iran and about mortgages underwater - but he is just an unlikeable man. He comes off angry and defensive, whether he is feeling that or not.

Ron Paul said nothing new or memorable.

The debate was a snooze fest and should go down as an embarrassment to NBC News but it won't. There were little in the way of substantive questions. It was 33 minutes into the debate before a real question was asked. Up until then it was all about Brian Williams baiting Gingrich and Romney against each other on personal attacks. It was ridiculous and a huge waste of time.

Again, no questions on Fast and Furious, the violence on the Mexican/Texas border, school choice, education reform, energy policy or other pertinent matters facing our country.