Occupy Wall Street is the brainchild of Adbusters an anti-corporate outfit funded by billionaire leftist sugar-daddy and convicted insider trader George Soros. In their words “We felt there was a real rage building up in America, and we thought that we would like to create a spark..” After a month of marinating in Marx, Pol Pot and patchouli that rage is being unleashed. In the Obamavilles that have sprouted across our country one will find: calls for violent revolution(LA), anti-semitism(LA,NY), the occupier anthem “F**k the USA”(Portland), sexual assaults(Portland, Cleveland, Seattle, Oakland) and an assault on a member of our armed forces(Boston). Is this the work of a few “bad apples”? Clinton pollster Doug Schoen went to OWS and spoke to the protesters and found that 98 percent support civil disobedience and 31 percent support violence to advance their agenda. What exactly is their agenda? Here’s a sampling of their demands:

Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Free college education.

Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now!

This anti-capitalist rhetoric has won the endorsements of the communist and nazi parties for the occupy movement, but what about the American people? Gallup finds Americans by 64 percent to 30 percent blame the government, not Wall Street for our current economic problems. These kids need to understand that cronyism, not capitalism is what is wrong with America. That class warfare calls to “eat the rich” won’t solve their problems.

They must also understand that the Pied Piper who sold them hope and delivered hopelessness has changed his tune to envy and hate which can only lead to their ruin. Only President Obama would have the audacity to demonize an industry that donated $15.8 million to his campaign in 2008 and $7.2 million so far this cycle. That money bought Goldman Sachs “too big too fail” status in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street “reform” law. Remember, this is a man that would raise taxes on 48 percent of small businesses under the guise of sticking it to “millionaires and billionaires” while his administration guaranteed billionaire campaign bundler George Kaiser(who declared zero taxable income for five years) will be repaid before taxpayers see a dime of the $527 million we sunk into Solyndra.

Simple. He’s attempting to show his voters that he has their backs while designing such a partisan plan to pay for it that he knows it will never pass. In fact, the NY Times has found many Democrats wary of the president’s plan: “Many Congressional Democrats, smarting from the fallout over the 2009 stimulus bill, say there is little chance they will be able to support the bill as a single entity, citing an array of elements they cannot abide.” Yet, this opposition from his own party hasn’t prevented him from barnstorming the country blaming republicans for his failure to fix the ecomomy. Former Democratic Rep Martin Frost admitted “The most likely explanation is that his jobs program was a campaign document — not a real plan for putting people back to work”. Let’s take a look at the members of the president’s base set to benefit should republicans fold and his plan pass.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumpka was demanding the creation of an “infrastructure bank” before the ink was even dry on Stimulus I. Needing their votes and millions in dues money for his campaign the president ponied up billions to satisfy big labor’s wish. In what would be the third bailout for teachers in his young administration Obama wants more money to “put teachers in the classroom”. Since 1970 staffing has increased 83 percent while the number of students in public schools has grown by only 7 percent. The College Board just announced the lowest SAT reading scores in history so it doesn’t appear we’re getting good value for the money being spent now. Finally,we come to Solyndra and our bright “green’ future. Solyndra went bankrupt last week taking $535 million of taxpayer money with it, reminding MA residents’ of the millions lost on our “investment” in Evergreen Solar. Instead of being chastened by this waste, Stimulus II promises billions more. From the Hill: “the administration is arguing that the Solyndra incident underscores the need for the United States to double down on investments in clean energy.”

How does President Obama propose to pay for this? From the AP: “The bulk of the payment comes from nearly $400 billion from limiting the deductions on charitable contributions and other items that wealthy people can take.” So, with 46.2 million living in poverty(US Census)the highest level since 1993, President Obama wants to kill charities that help the poor? John Hinderaker of Powerline stated “The essential effect of Obama’s proposal, with its tax increases, is to transfer wealth from upper-income taxpayers to construction workers, teachers and other public employees–that is, from people who earn $200,000+ to people who earn $60,000+ (or more, if their families have two incomes).” To that I would add taking food and shelter currently provided by nonprofits from the poor. For the 14 million unemployed the president’s proposal is deeply cynical, callous and cruel. America deserves better.

It would appear that at least one, like Col. Qaddafi has American blood on his hands. John Rosenthal of Pajamasmedia covers the story of Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi whose troops U.S. forces are aiding in Libya:

Shortly after unrest broke out in eastern Libya in mid-February, reports emerged that an “Islamic Emirate” had been declared in the eastern Libyan town of Darnah and that, furthermore, the alleged head of that Emirate, Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi, was a former detainee at the American prison camp in Guantánamo. The reports, which originated from Libyan government sources, were largely ignored or dismissed in the Western media.

Now, however, al-Hasadi has admitted in an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore that he fought against American forces in Afghanistan. (Hat-tip: Thomas Joscelyn at the Weekly Standard.) Al-Hasadi says that he is the person responsible for the defense of Darnah — not the town’s “Emir.” In a previous interview with Canada’s Globe and Mail, he claimed to have a force of about 1,000 men and to have commanded rebel units in battles around the town of Bin Jawad.

Did his efforts against America end when he was captured in Pakistan? Actually, he was just getting started:

In his more recent remarks to Il Sole 24 Ore, al-Hasadi admits not only to fighting against U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but also to recruiting Libyans to fight against American forces in Iraq. As noted in my earlier PJM report here, captured al-Qaeda personnel records show that al-Hasadi’s hometown of Darnah sent more foreign fighters to fight with al-Qaeda in Iraq than any other foreign city or town and “far and away the largest per capita number of fighters.” Al-Hasadi told Il Sole 24 Ore that he personally recruited “around 25” Libyans to fight in Iraq. “Some have come back and today are on the front at Ajdabiya,” al-Hasadi explained, “They are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists.” “The members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader,” al-Hasadi added.

The report also includes the tidbit that British intelligence believes al-Hasadi was released as part of a deal that Qaddafi struck with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group(LIGF), which is affiliated with al-Qaeda. So, if the Brits know who this guy is and what he’s done, shouldn’t the White House?

What evidence is there that U.S. forces are aiding him at all? Here’s some more from Rosenthal:

Reporting from the outskirts of Ajdabiya on Wednesday, Antoine Estève of the French news channel i-Télé noted that just “minutes” after rebel positions had been hit by artillery fire from Libyan government forces, the Libyan government positions were then bombarded by coalition aircraft. (Estève’s report can be viewed here.) In a March 19 dispatch from Benghazi for the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, correspondent Lorenzo Cremonesi cites rebel leaders as saying that they were given the opportunity to provide NATO with a map indicating enemy targets that they wanted bombed.

From the Wall St Journal:

The allies also seemed intent on helping the opposition win back the eastern town of Ajdabiya, the site of back-and-forth fighting between the government and rebels in recent weeks.

and

“In Ajdabiya to Misrata, our targeting priorities are mechanized forces, artillery…[and] mobile surface-to-air missile sites,” Rear Adm. Gerard Hueber, chief of staff for the U.S. task force in the Mediterranean Sea, told reporters by teleconference from the USS Mount Whitney.

I’ll finish with this quote from the NY Times:

Admiral Hueber also said that the coalition was communicating with rebel forces. But later, when he was pressed on whether the United States was telling rebels not to go down certain roads because there would be airstrikes there, he said he had misspoken. American military officials have said there are no “official communications” with the rebels, which remains a delicate issue. Contact with the rebels would reflect a direct American military intervention in the civil war of another country.

The Obama administration, as usual is not playing it straight with the American people. We deserve to know who we’re supporting and towards what end. President Obama can start by explaining why we are giving succor to someone like al-Hasadi, who rightly should be targeted by our forces as an enemy, not treated as an ally.

From T-Paw’s Washington Post Op-ed:

But the Obama administration is offering a false choice between more debt and default. The chaos that unfolded when Greece risked default last summer can and should be avoided here without raising the debt limit this spring. There is a better option available.

Contrary to what many people are saying, when the national debt approaches the limit set by Congress, as it could by March, it will not mean that the federal government suddenly won’t be able to pay its bills. In fact, the government has enough projected cash flow and other resources to pay its outside debt obligations on time and in full for much longer – at least several more months – than the administration has been letting on.

Default on such debt need not occur if Congress passes and the president signs a law directing the Treasury to sequence our spending and prioritize the payment of interest and principal on the debt, as well as other critical budget items such as the military

After exposing the Obama administration’s rhetoric of “catasrophic” consequences if we don’t raise the debt limit above $14.3 trillion, $3.4 trillion of which occured on Obama’s watch as false, he then provides a realistic plan to work within our current debt limit. How can we know it’s realistic? Because in his eight years as governor, he did just that:

When I was elected governor in 2002, Minnesota faced a historic budget deficit. Recognizing that taxes were too high already, we used priority budgeting to cut spending. From 1960 to 2002, state spending in Minnesota had increased by an average of 21 percent every two years. During my two terms in office, we lowered the growth of spending to about 1.5 percent per year.

It wasn’t easy. We had government shutdowns, special legislative sessions, numerous lawsuits and one of the longest transit strikes in American history. It was a battle, but we changed the state’s spending pattern dramatically.

This is the choice America faces: more record spending and debt or finally taking the painful steps to get our economic house in order. According to a poll by CBS News the American public supports Pawlenty’s position:

Most Americans believe the massive federal budget deficit is a very serious problem that will create hardships for future generations, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll.

Sixty-four percent say they are very concerned the deficit will create hardship in the future, and another 26 percent are somewhat concerned. Just eight percent say they are not concerned.

Fifty-six percent say the deficit needs immediate action, while 38 percent say efforts to address the deficit can wait until the economy has improved. Republicans and independents were more likely to push to deal with the deficit now, while Democrats were more likely to say it can wait.

Americans strongly prefer cutting spending to raising taxes to reduce the federal deficit. While 77 percent prefer to cut spending, just nine percent call for raising taxes. Another nine percent want to do both. …The most popular ideas for reducing the deficit are to reduce Social Security benefits for the wealthy, reduce the money allocated to projects in their own community, reduce farm subsidies and reduce defense spending. More than 50 percent supported reductions in each of those programs. …Forty-seven percent say it will be necessary to cut programs that benefit people like them to reduce the deficit.

Sadly, the Wall St. Journal reports that President Obama still isn’t listening to the American people:

President Barack Obama will call for new government spending on infrastructure, education and research in his State of the Union address Tuesday, sharpening his response to Republicans in Congress who are demanding deep budget cuts, people familiar with the speech said.

Mr. Obama will argue that the U.S., even while trying to reduce its budget deficit, must make targeted investments to foster job growth and boost U.S. competitiveness in the world economy. The new spending could include initiatives aimed at building the renewable-energy sector—which received billions of dollars in stimulus funding—and rebuilding roads to improve transportation, people familiar with the matter said. Money to restructure the No Child Left Behind law’s testing mandates and institute more competitive grants also could be included.

He’s still following the marching orders of his union allies that donated millions to his campaign. From the Hill:

Working Americans are waiting on President Obama to lay out a bold plan for investing in jobs and infrastructure, a top labor leader will warn Wednesday.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka is set to lay down a marker for the Obama administration ahead of next week’s State of the Union address by urging the president to lean on expansive spending initiatives to fuel the economic recovery.

The AFL-CIO leader’s been a consistent voice for more spending, a request that had been frustrated over the past two years by Republican opposition in Congress. Now that the GOP controls the House, getting approval for more spending will become even more difficult.

Republicans shouldn’t cave to the demands of a president and party that continue to protect their cronie’s interests at American taxpayers expense. I give the final word to likely presidential candidate Pawlenty:

Last year’s midterm elections demonstrated that the public is eager to cut the deficit. But every program has an interest group that will fight hard to defend it. We can succeed only if lawmakers are given no other choice. That’s why it is so important that we use the debt limit debate to force hard choices now.

Never let a tragedy go to waste seems to be the Democrats’ new mantra. With lightning and sickening speed Democratic politicians and their message machine have tried to pin Saturday’s assassination attempt of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) on the tea party and Sarah Palin. If politicians like Rep. Tierney and their media allies are to be believed, our country is in the midst of an age of vituperation and hatred like no other in our history. Our good congressman took to the pages of this paper (1/10) to state : “Part of that blame goes to talk radio, shock radio and television talk shows that spew “venom” into the political debate,”. Now, it’s possible that Mr. Tierney is just forgetful instead of following the playbook of the  “veteran Democratic operative”  who told Politico that that he/she believes that President Obama should “deftly pin [the Arizona shooting] on the tea partiers.”.If that’s the case, I would like to remind him of a time when passions were every bit as heated as todays.

During the Bush(43) administration Democratic activists and politicians used rhetoric and imagery that would put to shame anything the tea party has been accused of employing. Here’s a small sampling of signs that were proudly displayed at anti-war rallies in New York, Chicago and San Francisco: “Save Mother Earth, Kill Bush”, “Hang Bush For War Crimes”, “Bush is the Disease, Death is the Cure”, “I’m here to Kill Bush (Shoot Me)”. Or how about the guillotine that some Obamabot created for some Halloween fun and dubbed the “Bush Whacker” and brought to a campaign rally in Denver(10/26/08) so others could enjoy in the merriment of seeing our president’s severed head? Sadly, this bloodlust for a president wasn’t confined to the nutroots. Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee for president in 2004 fantasized of assassinating President Bush on the Bill Maher show (10/06). The transcript:

Maher: You could have went to NH and killed two birds with one stone.

Kerry: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.

I can’t recall Rep. Tierney accusing his fellow delegation member of using hateful or dangerous language that could wind up with Kerry having the president’s blood on his hands.

Perhaps Mr. Tierney also forgot that his own Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) put bullseyes on the districts of “targeted” Republicans when he blamed Sarah Palin for inciting violence by using similar imagery?

By Rep. Tierney’s logic President Obama was responsible for nightstick wielding thugs from the New Black Panther party intimidating voters in Philadelphia because he said “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl” at a campaign event. And I suppose Obama’s Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina was equally responsible for the savage beating of Kenneth Gladney at a town hall event by SEIU goons because he promised “If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard”? In fact, if the left were held to the same absurd standard they are trying to impose on the right then our president would be complicit in every violent act committed by a hispanic because he implored them to go out and “punish their enemies”.

The left telegraphed their strategy when veteran democratic pollster Mark Penn opined “what President Obama needed to reconnect with the American people was another Oklahoma City bombing” and journalist Mark Halperin of Time postulated “No one wants the country to suffer another catastrophe. But when a struggling Bill Clinton was faced with the Oklahoma City bombing and a floundering George W. Bush was confronted by 9/11, they found their voices and a route to political revival.”.By trying to gain political advantage from tragedy Rep. Tierney is reaching into the depths of depravity. The would-be assassin has been described by former friends as a “left-wing pothead” who enjoyed reading the Communist Manifesto. That sounds more like the profile of someone who submerged himself into the bile of the Democratic Underground or the Dailykos where none other than Markos Moulitsas “targeted” Giffords, on his descent into madness . Democrats like Rep. Tierney should remember the old adage about how those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

As the AP reported:

The top uniformed officers of the Army and the Marines told a Senate panel Friday that letting gays serve openly in the military at a time of war would be divisive and difficult, sharply challenging a new Pentagon study that calculates the risk as low.

“If the law is changed, successfully implementing repeal and assimilating openly homosexual Marines into the tightly woven fabric of our combat units has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level, as it will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat,” the Marine commandant, Gen. James Amos, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

changing the law now would “add another level of stress to any already stretched force” and be more difficult on the Army, particularly its combat units, than the recent Pentagon study suggests.Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey.

But most of the troops with concerns were serving in combat roles. Nearly 60 percent of troops in the Marine Corps and in Army combat units, such as infantry and special operations, said they thought allowing gays to be open about their sexual orientation would hurt their units’ ability to fight on the battlefield.

“I cannot reconcile, nor turn my back, on the negative perceptions held by our Marines who are most engaged in the hard work of day-to-day operations in Afghanistan,” Amos said.

The chief of naval operations, Adm. Gary Roughead, said it was likely that some highly trained combat sailors, including Navy SEALs, might refuse to re-enlist in protest of the personnel change.

The notoriously homophobic NY Times followed up with:

Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, the chief of staff of the Air Force, recommended delaying repeal until 2012 because of the strain the military is bearing now. “I do not agree with the study assessment that the short-term risk to military effectiveness is low,” he said. “It is an inescapable fact that our officer and non-commissioned officer leaders in Afghanistan, in particular, are carrying a heavy load.”

General Schwartz concluded that “it is difficult for me, as a member of the Joint Chiefs, to recommend placing any additional discretionary demands on our leadership cadres at this particularly challenging time.”

Let’s take another look at the results of the survey that’s being heralded by the advocates for repeal.

58% of Marines in combat units believe repealing DADT will negatively impact their military readiness.

40% of the Army units in combat responded the same.

It’s the same result for special ops, the most highly skilled, hence hardest to replace warriors we have. Just in case any senator has been locked away somewhere for the last nine years they are playing an irreplaceable role in our war against the jihadits all over the world.

Furthermore, 32% of Marines answered that outright repeal would cause them to leave the service earlier than they had planned.

How can any reasonable person regard this as constituting a “low” risk to morale and the effectiveness of our troops fighting two wars? The sad truth is that our national security is an afterthought in this decision.

One should also ask why a survey with such a low response rate 115,000 of the 400,000 sent out is being treated as if it were Holy Writ. A Marine officer wrote to the publishers of Powerline to give them and us a little insight to how the survey was conducted and why the response rate was so low:

I have to say that as an active duty Marine officer, I have been pretty heartened by the willingness of our leadership to stand up and say what a bad idea repeal of DADT would be. I think you have done a good job of sniffing out the phoniness of the DADT survey the Department of Defense sent around and the results that Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are running around trumpeting.

For the time that DoD was compiling the survey, I received 6 snail-mail letters and a dozen emails to my work email and my personal email address, telling me to access the survey with a special code, then input another special code as my password before I answered a bunch of questions about DADT. Of course, according to the emails and letters, my input would be completely anonymous. Riiiiiiiiiiight. Anonymous input requires 15 digit log ins.

I think that anyone who has been in the military more than a couple of years recognized what was going on. The decision to seek repeal has already been made and this survey is just part of the show trial. The results from the junior enlisted would be dismissed as ill-informed and contrary to “evidence,” just as you suggested. The results from officers and senior enlisted foolish enough to actually provide negative answers will be used later to “remediate” those whose answers showed that they were not with the program.

Even with the clear disincentives to provide negative feedback, the Marines still weighed in overwhelmingly against the political correctness. God bless them. Once again, for yet another reason, I am proud to be a Marine.

Semper fi, and thanks for all you do.

Is it possible that the results of this survey could represent the same political correctness run amok that caused several officers to look the other way with Maj. Nidal Hassan, of Ft. Hood massacre infamy and hope for the best?

The advocates of repealing DADT appear more than happy to cashier the men and women currently fighting for our freedom if they’re uncomfortable serving with openly gay members:

Military members who have a problem with a change in policy to allow gays to serve openly may find themselves looking for a new job, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned Thursday.

and

The top enlisted adviser for U.S. forces in Afghanistan said on Friday that he believes the troops are ready for a repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ and that those who oppose ending the policy should leave the military.

Instead of telling the servicemen and women to “go to hell” and not to let the door hit them in the back as it seems Admiral Mullen is inclined to do, is there a better solution? Currently, women are prohibited from serving in combat units even in countries that have gays serving openly. From Wickipedia with a hat-tip to Hotair.com:

In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948 (in 2001, subsequent to publication, women began serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis). The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression…

Melody Kemp mentions that the Australian soldiers have voiced similar concern saying these soldiers “are reluctant to take women on reconnaissance or special operations, as they fear that in the case of combat or discovery, their priority will be to save the women and not to complete the mission. Thus while men might be able to be programmed to kill, it’s is not as easy to program men to neglect women.”

If the US military feels it’s necessary to prevent women from serving in combat units because it will negatively impact those units fighting ability, why not use the same policy for open homosexuals? By closing certain specialties to women the military is saying that national security trumps equal treatment of the sexes. Considering that it’s the combat troops that are most resistant to serving with open gays it only makes sense to preserve DADT for those units and let them serve openly in support roles, the risk isn’t worth the reward of equal career opportunities. The French used the term esprit de corps to desribe the intangible element that holds troops in combat together and makes them an effective force, even when facing long odds. The US Senate messes with this at our peril, unlike the French, the US still fights.

Close to home we have Mayor Holaday, who is demanding that we pay more in taxes and the princely sum of $50 for the privilege of parking downtown while she receives a hefty raise. In the case of Governor Patrick we have someone who has raised taxes eight times and promises to raise them again if he’s re-elected. We are represented in Congress by Rep. Tierney, who has repeatedly voted to bailout his union allies(both public and private), while voting for cap and trade and Obamacare which will cost the average household thousands of dollars more a year. Cap and trade alone is expected to decrease economic activity by $9.4 trillion between 2012-2035, that’s a lot of jobs that won’t be created in a country already suffering 9.6% unemployment. Last but not least we have Sen. Kerry(Captain My Captain to the crew of the Isabel) who attempted to skate on $500,000 in taxes by docking his $7 million yacht in R.I..

While they occupy different offices, their solution is always the same, raise taxes. My question, borrowed from the movie “Wall St.” for our progressive leaders is how much is enough? If they’re in an honest mood they’ll tell you that taxes will have to increase until the ever changing goal of “social justice” is achieved. Meaning, that government will of necessity get ever bigger, requiring ever more bureaucrats and ever more of our money. We know the path they are leading us on is unsustainable, the Congressional Budget office (CBO) has said so and now progressive hero Fidel and his equally tyrannical brother Raul have admitted as much. The statement from the Cuban government read in part “Our state can’t keep maintaining…bloated payrolls,” . Neither can we.

This Fall our choice is clear. We can meekly follow our progressive leaders as they attempt to transform our city, state and nation into another Greece or Cuba or we can vote for candidates who embrace the concepts of economic freedom, individual liberty and individual responsibility. Our forefather’s risked everything to give us a Republic, it’s up to us to ensure that it doesn’t become an oligarchy. Once we go down that road it’s almost impossible to come back. Just ask the Castro’s, they wanted to lay off a million bureaucrats, but settled for half that after they saw their Greek counterparts firebombing banks.

The president has also fallen into recycling the same jokes — one about his favorite Republican, Abraham Lincoln (see full text below), and another, lifted from the rhetorical repertoire of Iowa Democrat Chet Culver, about American drivers knowing that to go forward they put their car in D and to go backwards they put the vehicle in R. (Groans.)

Before his next vacation, Obama is on a three-day, five-state tour of fundraisers — Wisconsin to California to Washington to Florida to Ohio. Next to the size of the administration’s deficits, of course, the millions in donations are minuscule. But they will help the ad wars in battleground districts. More importantly, all of Obama’s travels cost him nothing, except a 747′s massive transcontinental carbon footprint.

The simple truth is that President Obama is attempting to drive our country not into a “ditch”, but over a cliff and he wants Americans to play Louise to his Thelma(or is it the other way around?) and clasp his hand as he punches the gas.

A primer on the President’s plans for our country:

A $1.47 trillion 2010 budget deficit. The President’s budget calls for doubling the national debt to $18 trillion by 2020, which will mean paying $2.5 billion a day on interest alone.

The President promised his $862 billion “stimulus” bill would keep unemployment below 8%. After reaching a high of 10.2%, it has settled at 9.5%. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics(BLS) there are 14.6 million Americans that want to work but can’t find a job. To put that number in perspective, 14.6 million exceeds the combined populations of the six New England states (ME,NH,VT,MA,CT,RI) by 170,280. Adding insult to injury, the stimulus which amounted to little more than a bailout for government employees and pork projects couldn’t even provide full employment for the public sector. Congress needed to pass another $26.1 billion bailout to keep their union supporters fat and happy.

The President’s own Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) estimates that Obamacare will run a $311 billion dollar deficit in its first 10 years, not the surplus the president promised. Also:

14 million Americans will lose their current employer provided health insurance.

18 million Americans will pay $33 billion in penalties due to the “individual mandate” and still lack health insurance.

Businesses will pay $87 billion in penalties, which is money they could be using to hire workers.

7.4 million seniors will lose their Medicare Advantage coverage.

The drastic cuts to Medicare in Obamacare will make 15% of Medicare providers unprofitable “jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries”.

Letting the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire will mean one of the largest tax increases in American history, including onerous tax increases on small business which typically creates 2 out of 3 jobs in a recovery.

By supporting the Ground Zero Mosque President Obama is handing Al Qaeda its biggest propoganda victory since 9/11. To radical jihadists the 13 story, $100 million Cordoba House will be seen as a victory for Islam and a great recruiting tool in Al Qaeda’s war against the West. The Islamists don’t care about American rights to freedom of religion or private property, to them it will be a mosque going up on the site of their greatest victory.

Finally, for the second month in a row China has been a net seller of T-Bills. The Chinese know that the fiscal path President Obama has us on is “unsustainable” and they aren’t as willing to lend us the money to continue spending beyond our means. The Federal Reserve gobbling up all the extra T-Bills is the only thing keeping interest rates from going up. How long do you think the Fed can keep it up?

Mr. President, cars come with reverse(R) for a reason. The voters need to slam the brakes on your agenda and back away from the cliff on November 2, 2010. America is too great a country to end as a pile of burning wreckage.

First we have the city of Bell, CA. From the Sacramento Bee:

The Times reported that Bell’s city manager, Robert Rizzo, was earning nearly $800,000 in annual pay, making him the highest-paid government manager in the nation. Police Chief Randy Adams was paid $457,000 a year, and Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia made $376,288.

Under pressure from residents, all three have resigned. At a City Council meeting Monday night, Bell residents are expected to push for the resignations of four of the five council members; each of the four makes $100,000 a year for a part-time job.

Next up on the hit parade is San Jose. From the Mercury News:

Amid nationwide outrage about public employee salaries, a divided San Jose City Council on Tuesday took aim at the city’s soaring compensation costs. As a result, voters this fall will decide whether to rework the city’s pension system and clamp down on costs for police and firefighters.

The council voted 7-4 to put a measure on the ballot that would change a three-decade-old policy giving outside arbitrators the final say in contract disputes with public safety workers. Mayor Chuck Reed says the policy has helped hike police and firefighter costs 99 percent since 2000, contributing to 10 consecutive years of deficits. Just last week, the city laid off 50 firefighters to help plug a $118.5 million shortfall.

How did the unions take the news?

Union members were stunned by the upset. For hours, they had pleaded with the council to delay putting the arbitration and pension measures on the ballot until the council, unions and community could study the issues further.

“This was an object lesson in how to make bad law,” said Jody Meacham, spokesman for the South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council. The measures, he said following the meeting, “have been cooked up in a hurry and will be presented to voters as some sort of solution to the city’s budget problems. Nobody knows if they are solutions or if they create more problems.”

Meaning if the unions lose the vote, they’ll sue. The mindset of public employees in this country seems to be “I don’t care if city, town or state X goes broke, I better get mine”.

Finally from the City of Angels. From the LA Times:

The cost of retirement benefits for Los Angeles city employees will grow by $800 million over the next five years, dramatically eroding the amount of money available for public services to taxpayers, according to a report issued Tuesday.
By 2015, nearly 20% of the city’s general fund budget is expected to go toward the retirement costs of police officers and firefighters, who now have an average retirement age of 51. The figure was 8% last year.

Once civilian employees are factored in, nearly a third of the city’s general fund could be consumed by retirement costs by 2015, Santana said.

“For every dollar you’re paying into your pension systems, you’re not paying into libraries, parks and various other city services,” Santana told the council.

Shortly after Santana’s presentation, the council voted to study the possibility of using employee-managed 401(k) investment plans — long favored by private industry — to provide a portion of the city’s retirement benefits.

Representatives of the city’s public safety unions warned officials not to rush to judgment on fixes to the pension problem.

“I highly recommend that we go very slow on this issue,” said Peter Repovich, director of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents rank-and-file officers. “It seems there’s a lot of group-think going on across the state and the nation” on the issue.

The taxpayers across this nation simply can’t afford the outsized paychecks and pensions that public unions have negotiated with elected officials that they largely helped put in office in the first place. For good and for ill, California sets trends for the rest of our nation. Here’s hoping that the days of public union employees being untouchable end and that the latest $26 billion bailout for states to ensure full employment for public sector unions is the last.

The days of politicians and unions playing “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” at the expense of the taxpayer are going to come to an end; it’s just a question of how and when because the current path is “unsustainable”.

1)Unemployment is 9.5%, under-employment tops 20%- “It could be worse”

2)The budget deficit is $1.47 trillion- “It could be worse”

3)4 out of 5 jobs “created or saved” by the $862 billion stimulus were government jobs, leaving a private sector jobs deficit of 7 million- “It could be worse”

4)The $862 billion borrowed to pay for the stimulus that didn’t stimulate won’t be paid back until the year 2130- “It could be worse”

5)Our national debt will top $18.5 trillion by 2020- “It could be worse”

6)Taxpayer funded bailouts reach $3.7 trillion- “It could be worse”

7)Small businesses are about to get hammered by massive tax increases- “It could be worse”

8)Over half of Americans will lose their current health insurance due to “health care reform”- “It could be worse”

Etc.etc..

Forget the concept of the “teflon presidency”, we are witnessing the dawn of the “I’m rubber and you’re glue presidency”. Republicans need to run focus groups of pre-K tots immediately to find a way to counter this brilliance, or risk seeing their dreams of electoral success turn into the nightmare of epic defeat this November.