Download audio here

Thanks again to both Gov. Haley, and the great folks at FTRRadio.com!

Ending Spending’s ad shows how sad the fight over the debt limit really is.  It is almost as if the two parties swapped talking points from 2006 to today. During the Bush Administration, many of the politicians who complained about increasing the debt ceiling then are the same politicians today who want to raise it by over $2 trillion.

In 2006, when a different president was in office, then-Senator Obama and then-Minority Leader Harry Reid opposed raising the debt limit.  They want to raise the debt limit even though the debt has almost doubled since 2006. Clearly this is a bipartisan problem. Of course, it goes without saying, that had Republicans fought for rules like “Cut, Cap and Balance” back then, we might not have a deficit exceeding $1.5 trillion this year, but I digress.

This ad is also significant because, as Rob Bluey wrote over at the Daily Caller last fall, Ending Spending and its political action affiliate ran ads against politicians in both parties convincing them to ban earmarks – or leave office.  The group may well have a similar impact on the debt limit fight today.

The bottom line: if you agree with Senators Barack Obama and Harry Reid (circa 2006), then you should check out the web site for Ending Spending and add your name to the list of people who want to end the out of control spending in Washington, D.C.

The bill, H.R. 1249, would move the U.S. closer to the “first-to-file” patent system used by most of the rest of the developed world, but not all the way there. Congress has worked for years to harmonize its patent system with that of other countries that award patents to those who file for them earliest. In contrast, the U.S. system relies on a determination of who invented the new good or process, and awards patents to those inventors. The U.S. system can lead to expensive disputes over who invented a good or process first.

Most expect this legislation to end up in a conference committee to work out the differences between the House and Senate version of the legislation.

One emerging objection to the House version of the bill is Section 18 of the bill that creates a special procedures exclusive to big banks, Wall Street firms and financial services firms that give them undue power to invalidate legitimate patents. This provision was inserted by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York) and will reward his buddies who have already benefited from TARP on Wall Street. Tea Party champion and freshman Representative from Florida Allen West is leading the effort to remove Section 18 from the bill.

Some call Section 18 an unconstitutional give away to the wealthy corporate interests and big banks represented by the fat cat lobbyists on K Street.  The average inventor may be harmed by this provision.  Patent Reform has proven to be a target for banks and other interests to load up this bill with special interest provisions. 

Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) objects to another provision in the bill that moves the Patent and Trademark office spending off-budget.  The Patent and Trademark Office will ignore members of Congress if they are allowed to raise revenues on their own to fund programs.  Look no further than the Federal Reserve to find another government organization that ignores the will of Congress because they don’t have to rely on Congress for discretionary funding.

Some in the House Republican Leaderhsip want this bill moved before Independence Day.  Tea party activists need to step up to the plate and fight to preserve the independence won by those who dumped tea in the Boston Harbor two hundred plus years ago.  Patent reform should not be an opportunity for corporate interests to game the system against the little guy.

Politically this deal is very attractive for incumbents of both parties. A $2.4 trillion debt limit increase would negate the need for a further increase in the debt limit until after the next Congressional and Presidential election. This level of a debt limit increase would protect House and Senate incumbent Republicans and Democrats from any further politically difficult votes before they have to face the voters in November of 2012.

Furthermore, the deal may include cuts over a time period that will exceed the 10-year budget window of the Congressional Budget Office making these cuts unenforceable. If an agreement is reached on a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt limit for $2.4 trillion in cuts over 10, 20 or 25 years, politicians would get the double benefit of not having to vote on increasing debt over the next year and a half and they can claim they cut spending by $2.4 trillion. This deal may make for a good talking point for politicians of both parties, but it would turn out to be bad deal for the American people.

Vice President Biden is leading bipartisan and bicameral negotiations on a comprehensive deal to increase the debt limit. These negotiations include Vice President Joe Biden, Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Max Baucus (D-MT), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), and Representatives Eric Cantor (R-VA), Jim Clyburn (D-SC) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD). Another meeting is scheduled for later this week.

The AP reports that Democrats are pushing for tax increases as part of the deal.

The Biden group is slated to have its sixth meeting Thursday at the Capitol. Kyl said the topics will include revenue increases sought by Democrats and a proposal to cap spending at a fixed percentage of the economy, say 20 percent. Republicans have promised to block any revenue increases, however, and the administration opposes the spending cap. If tax increases are not included in any deal, conservatives should not be all that happy, because this may be the bone that the negotiators throw to conservatives to buy a massive increase in the debt ceiling.

According to CQ and the AP, a deal is close.

CQ Reports today that Senate Republicans are working out a deal for $2.4 trillion in cuts that will be punted way into the future.

Senate Republicans are backing House GOP demands that a debt limit increase be paired with an equal amount of spending cuts, a formulation that suggests any bargain that would settle the issue through 2012 will require at least $2.4 trillion in budget reductions over the next decade or longer.

Some simple math is in order to understand this potential “deal.” If the deal were to cut $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years, then the cuts would be $2.4 in Fiscal Years 2012-24 equaling $240 billion a year. If the deal were to cut $2.4 trillion over 20 years, then the cuts would be $2.4 trillion in Fiscal Years 2012-2034 equaling $120 billion a year in cuts. Any window longer than 20 years is laughable and would amount to an empty promise by politicians today. It will be difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to enforce these promised cuts on a future Congress.

It is important to understand how Congress defines “cuts” to spending. If negotiators use an artificially high budget baseline to calculate spending over the next 10 years, then these promised cuts may not be cuts at all. For example, President Obama’s $3.7 trillion budget plan for Fiscal Year 2012 would have created $8.7 trillion in new spending, $1.6 trillion in new taxes and add $13 trillion in new debt over the next 10 years. It is easy to “cut” spending if Congress uses a bloated baseline to measure these promised future cuts.

It seems immoral to ask of future generations to shoulder the burden of $2.4 trillion in debt over the next two years in consideration for cuts to government spending over the next 10, 20 or 25 years. This is classic generational theft. A mortgage may be taken out by politicians in Washington today that the American people will have to pay off over the next few decades.

What options would make the Tea Party movement and conservatives happy? Well there are many ideas on the table.  The most promising idea is Cut, Cap, and Balance. The House Republican Study Committee has deployed a Cut, Cap, and Balance plan including three elements.

1. Cut – We must make discretionary and mandatory spending reductions that would cut the deficit in half next year.
2. Cap – We need statutory, enforceable caps to align federal spending with average revenues at 18% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with automatic spending reductions if the caps are breached.
3. Balance – We must send to the states a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) with strong protections against federal tax increases and a Spending Limitation Amendment (SLA) that aligns spending with average revenues as described above.

The Senate is expected to take up this call and to push for a Cut, Cap, and Balance Pledge.  Expect conservative Senators to push over the next few weeks for a coordinated effort to force Congress to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment, an 18% cap on spending and cut programs today.  This may be the landing place for conservative Members of Congress.

There will be members who don’t support any increase in the debt limit if Congress can’t pass dramatic and significant reforms.  They believe the debt limit is a de facto balanced budget measure and is a great alternative to Cut, Cap, and Balance. These conservatives believe that not increasing the debt limit would force the federal government to live with the constraints of what revenues can be raised through selling of government assets and incoming tax revenues.

The bottom line is that any deal that spreads the cuts over a long period of time would be tough to enforce and may turn out to be an empty promise. Conservatives want budget reform, entitlement reform and specific cuts to spending if a debt limit increase idea is allowed to move forward.

The Third Annual RedState Gathering is coming up very soon — and we’d like to invite you to attend.

With the race for the GOP presidential nomination shifting into high gear, this much-anticipated annual gathering promises to be the best one yet.

It will be held on August 12-14 at the Francis Marion Hotel in Charleston, South Carolina — and will feature as its keynote speaker South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.

Governor Haley, as I’m sure you know, is one of the most principled, outspoken, articulate and magnetic conservative leaders of our time — a future vice-presidential and even presidential contender to be sure. An uncompromising foe of big government and federal intrusion on states’ rights and individual liberties, she recently took on President Obama over the attempts by one of his appointed thugs, National Labor Relations Board Chief Craig Becker, to prevent Boeing from opening a non-union factory there.

But Governor Haley is not the only conservative “star” you’ll have a chance to hear (and maybe chat with!) in person at this year’s RedState Gathering. Other confirmed speakers include:

	Adam Hasner, former member of the Florida House of Representatives (2002-2010) and current candidate for U.S. Senator from Florida. Best known for serving as Marco Rubio’s hand-picked Majority Leader, Adam is a life long Republican who believes in limited government, free markets, and a strong national defense. At just 41-years of age, Human Events, National Review, Newsmax, The St. Petersburg Times and the Washington Post have all called Hasner Florida’s next conservative rising star.
	Ted Cruz, candidate for the 2012 Republican Party nomination for the United States Senate. What makes Ted a truly remarkable speaker and candidate are, first, his deeply held belief in America and our need to stand up to defend her against the Obama agenda and the Washington establishment; and second, his extraordinary substantive record exhibited throughout his life, highlighted by his repeated fight for the Constitution and conservative principles as Solicitor General of Texas.
	Michael Williams, another candidate for U.S. Senator from Texas, considered the “anti-Obama” for his refusal to toe the liberal line expected of most African-American politicians. “We need conservatives willing to engage the Democrats on the field of ideas… willing to speak of a 21st Century conservatism… willing to stand and fight on principle. We need leaders like Michael Williams.”

Speaking invitations have also been extended to conservative headliners including Jim DeMint,Mike Pence, Tim Pawlenty, and Herman Cain.

With an “all-star” conservative lineup like this, the 3rd Annual RedState Gathering will be the must-attend event of the year — and I promise you’ll have a ball.

REGISTERED MEMBERS OF REDSTATE, USE THE DISCOUNT CODE SENT TO YOU BY EMAIL ON JUNE 3 FOR FRIEND OF REDSTATE DISCOUNT!

Upon registering, details on how to obtain our discount group hotel rate will be sent to you via email.

Click here to register and learn more.

During the heated budget debate, Members of Congress decried the lack of “quick fix” budget cuts that would reduce spending in the immediate term. Yet many programs exist in government that would provide immediate return to the taxpayers without any harm.

As an example, the broadband loan subsidy program run through the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service program is currently wasting taxpayer dollars in a failed effort to expand broadband service. Tasked with incentivizing broadband deployment in rural areas, RUS has repeatedly failed at that mission.

The Inspector General for the Department of Agriculture, in testimony before Congress in February summed up the failings of RUS’ broadband subsidy programs:

Prior investigations have shown that RUS’ broadband subsidy programs were not cost effective, and often funded duplicative coverage in areas already served by existing providers. … The evidence indicates that RUS’ history of funding duplicative service has continued under BIP, and that the current program is not a cost-effective means of achieving universal broadband availability.

Under the broadband stimulus program, RUS and NTIA (an agency within the Department of Commerce) were given the task of doling out $7.2 billion in broadband grants and loans to serve unserved areas.

When the resulting application/award process at RUS failed to identify programs that would reach the truly unserved, mission creep set in – as it often does in government – and the program instead focused many of its awards on companies that sought to bring broadband to communities that already had it. A recent study in fact indicated that at least $231 million in RUS awards were issued in areas that were already largely served.

Now, with all broadband stimulus awards handed out, RUS is proposing to award even more money to areas that are already served by existing broadband providers. In March 2011, RUS began soliciting applications for government-subsidized loans to deploy broadband. The problem is that the rules allow RUS to issue government-subsidized loans to areas that already have multiple providers who risked their private capital to invest in rural America.

Under the RUS program, a company can apply for a government loan even if there are up to two broadband providers already serving the project area. And even worse, if an existing RUS borrower wants to upgrade its plant, it doesn’t matter how many other competing private providers are already serving the area, or whether the project will reach even one unserved household.

In other words, the government is potentially spending millions of our dollars to fund companies to compete against other companies.

Now you can say what you want about whether every community deserves to have multiple broadband offerings. I happen to believe every community does. .

However, it is not the government’s role to choose winners and losers, and taxpayer dollars should not be used to pit one company against another. If there is a role for multiple broadband providers, the market, not the government, should drive that competition.

Government should focus on getting broadband to areas with no access at all and on finding ways to drive adoption in areas where there already is broadband access.

If insanity is doing the same thing again and again but expecting a different result, it is folly to continue throwing hundreds of millions of dollars, at a failed program. As the Agriculture Department’s own auditors have told Congress, RUS is not a cost-effective way to spur broadband deployment.

Republicans in Congress should zero out the millions of dollars that the RUS still plans to hand out through the RUS broadband program and eliminate funding for future years. This cut is a no-brainer.

“This is the epitome of hypocrisy being exhibited by the Obama Administration as it hides facts and figures on abortion while claiming to want more transparency in government. This is a pattern that has become all too common with the Obama Administration, ranging from its distortion of the facts on taxpayer funding of abortions under ObamaCare to manipulated information to support repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. It is time for the Obama White House to put a stop to its disregard for openness in government and to end its practice of distorting data for blatantly political purposes.”

RedState has also obtained a copy of a letter written by Senator Tom Coburn, which you can download here (warning, .pdf). In it, Coburn demands a response from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius as to the CDC’s future plans regarding the report, and any internal documents touching on the decision to stop producing the report. In the letter, Senator Coburn notes:

Most Americans – regardless of their view on abortion – share the goal of reducing abortions. These statistics play an important role in determining whether our public and private efforts are effective. As long as abortion is legal in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should continue to provide doctors, health care providers, policymakers, and individuals with standard public health information. It is my sincere hope that the CDC does not intend to abdicate this most basic public health role.

I would respectfully request a response to this letter detailing your agency’s future plans regarding the Abortion Surveillance System. If your agency does not intend to collect or publish this data now and in the future, I would also request a detailed explanation as to why the agency has reversed its position on the public health benefits of abortion surveillance and all internal documents discussing this topic, including emails and memoranda.

Additionally, RedState has heard from Congressman Pete Olson (R-TX), who issued a statement saying,

“It strikes me as convenient for the Obama Administration that states are not required to provide data to the federal government on the number of abortions performed each year. It makes it easier to hide the amount of federal funds that go to abortion providers and robs taxpayers of a genuine accounting of the number of abortions performed annually, some by groups that receive federal tax dollars.

“In a GAO report that I requested – one that was completed after years of ignoring other Congressional requests – GAO determined that during a period of 7 years, almost one billion U.S. tax dollars were spent by groups that promote or perform abortions. I urge the President to stand behind his commitment to ensuring scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and instruct the CDC to complete the report.”

Clearly, Congress does not intend to let this important public health report die quietly. Stay tuned to see how the CDC responds to this barrage.

Looking purely at recent national and local political news relevant to folks in just one state – Georgia – it now seems the answer to the first question is “yes” and the answer to the second might just be “no.”

Yesterday, House GOP leadership elevated Hal Rogers, infamous porker and earmark fan, to the post of Appropriations Committee Chairman, where he will be free to lard it up while Republicans seek to reclaim the mantle of fiscal conservatism—rhetorically, we must assume. In taking that step, the House GOP leadership passed over Georgia Rep. Jack Kingston, an infinitely better choice had they actually wanted to govern in a fiscally conservative manner, rather than preach spending restraint while enabling waste we can’t afford.

And in Kingston’s home state of Georgia, currently, a Tax Council has been reviewing the tax code and is widely expected to recommend in the very near future a number of actual or de facto tax hikes. These are rumored to include the “sunsetting” or enforced expiration of certain tax exemptions (so taxes will go up), as well as a hike in the state’s cigarette tax.

At least one Republican state representative, and rumor has it, outgoing Gov. Sonny Perdue, is fully on board with the idea of pursuing one or more tax hikes being weighed by the Council. This is despite the fact that it was reported last month that for five months straight, state revenue has been higher than during the same period last year. No doubt this kind of scene is being played out in states across the nation, where Republicans elected to cut spending, and oppose any and all tax hikes, are suddenly being tempted by tax increases as short-term fixes to budget woes. No doubt many Republicans in Congress now responsible for “governing” are easing into greater comfort with the idea of big spending, like we have seen with the debate about extending unemployment benefits again.

The message of the election was crystal clear to those of us who watched the defeat of people like Georgia Democratic Rep. Jim Marshall this November, but it looks like it is being forgotten already by some Republicans who we entrusted with power. It’s our job to make sure they remember

Message received, right?

Apparently not.

Now, in an astounding act of political and economic deafness, FCC Chairman Genachowski has apparently “touted net-neutrality regulations as one of the most important policies the country can adopt to improve its broadband deployment efforts”, and The Politico reports that they are “putting together a net neutrality proposal” which would apply net neutrality rules to wireless. And they may may try to jam it through in December.

Why now? “Lawmakers will already be gone for the Thanksgiving holiday, giving the FCC a small window to release a controversial order without immediate harsh reactions from Capitol Hill Republicans.”

I’m not sure why the administration thinks Congressional Republicans will let this happen. There may not be an Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman yet, but there isn’t much daylight between the candidates on this issue. If the FCC goes too far on this issue, they can expect a Congressional examination that would make the TSA blush.

Regulations that decrease investment and will lead to a loss of investment are no laughing matter in this bad economy. Americans will look to Congress to ask some tough questions on why the FCC and White House didn’t get the message after the midterms.

The question now is whether it was the FCC or the White House itself that didn’t get the message in the midterms. If they want to jam through these regulations, there is plenty more where the mid-terms came from.

This week it was leaked to Politico that the FCC is considering even more regulations – this time, to oversee “data roaming” agreements that give wireless companies access to each other’s networks. The FCC is now apparently moving to create regulations that would abandon today’s market-based negotiations, have the government step in, and tell certain small wireless companies that it is ok to “stop building out new facilities to serve customers, instead you can go ahead and piggy-back off of somebody else’s network.” What this means is that even in parts of the country where companies own spectrum and have FCC licenses to serve wireless customers, they won’t have to invest or spend a dime to build out networks because they can just hoard their own spectrum and free ride off of a larger company’s network through forced government access policies. To add insult to injury, we understand that the FCC is also considering new regulations that would involve government oversight into the rates larger wireless companies charge to use their own data networks.

This is a really strange thing to do, considering how often the FCC has talked about the “spectrum crunch” and how “demand for spectrum would outpace supply”. Chairman Genachowski has said the “two pillars” of the National Broadband Plan were “making more spectrum available” and “using the market and technology to ensure more efficient and effective use of our spectrum. We are moving aggressively on both fronts.”

How is it efficient to have government forced access that allows free riders not to invest and develop scarce spectrum resources that could be used to provide more wireless services?

If the FCC is “moving aggressively”, they are moving backwards. We desperately need to develop unused spectrum and build new infrastructure (jobs!), but the FCC would rather go with price controls and “sharing”?

This is the “from each according to his investment, to each according to his lobbying” theory of economic growth.

The voters spoke loud and clear, but the FCC isn’t listening.

In October, the PCCC (“Progressive Change Campaign Committee”) launched a “Net Neutrality Protectors” pledge, signed by 95 Democratic candidates. How did it work out for PCCC and the 95 Democrats who supported regulation of the Internet?

0 for 95.

PCCC’s Adam Green spins:

What’s left to say after this wipeout? – Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, says this: “Democrats lost because party leaders never truly fought for popular progressive reforms like the public option and breaking up the big banks, leaving voters uninspired to come to the polls and vote Democratic…. Progressives will be stepping up and insisting that the Democratic Party be bolder, not weaker. We will demand boldness, reward bold leaders, reject ‘leaders’ in name only, and hold Democratic politicians accountable when they don’t fight for popular, progressive change. In short, these next two years, progressives will push Democrats to fight strongly for popular progressive reforms — and save the Democratic Party from its own incredible weakness that savaged Democratic candidates in 2010.”

Notice what he didn’t mention? Net neutrality. That’s no surprise, considering how every single Democrat who signed on just learned their “reward” for taking PCCC’s “popular progressive reform” pledge was unanimous defeat.

Maybe Democrats are finally learning that it doesn’t pay to chase an unpopular distraction manufactured by Moveon.org.

Incidentally, do you know who ran the Moveon.org net neutrality campaign? Adam Green.

Let us begin with what should be obvious and unnecessary to discuss: don’t stomp on anyone’s head. There are no mitigating circumstances to be presented in this article or video. You don’t stomp on a person’s head. Tim Profitt was wrong and should not have resorted to violence. If a police officer subduing a suspect were caught on video doing exactly what Profitt did, that officer would be in hot water. Because you don’t stomp on a person’s head. Head-stomping is not what this article is about.

The question we are addressing here today is the story that Lauren Valle is telling, and which is being retold as “conservatives are violent crazy teabaggers” grist on liberal blogs and in the MSM. The official story is that Valle merely attempted to show Rand Paul a sign, and that his supporters simply attacked her for not being a supporter. Watch this interview from Countdown for the tale:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Well just before the tape I was identified by the Rand Paul campaign because they’ve seen me around town at these events. And they realized they know me because of my work and they don’t support it. So they actually formed a blockade around me once they realized that I was there. And as Rand’s car pulls up they step in front of me and start to block me so I stepped off the curb to try and get around them and at that point they pursued me around the car, chased me around the car, and what you see in the video is when I’m in the front of the car and that’s when I’m pulled down and then my head is stomped on.

Sounds pretty bad. But is this really how it went down?

Not exactly.

This video was sent to RedState by an anonymous witness at the event. It shows what Valle was doing when the Paul supporters grabbed her. No one chased her around the car. She was never in front of the car. As you can see in the video, Valle reached in the candidate’s window with her “RepubliCorp” sign and shoved it in his face. Several supporters in Paul shirts have her surrounded at that point, and a man in a suit is the first person to actually intervene physically. It’s hard to tell from the video, but it could be that the man in the suit was with Paul’s security staff.

Toward the end of the video, you see several Paul supporters asking a police officer to come intervene. It was Paul supporters who told Profitt to back off. It was Paul supporters who brought the police. Contrary to the growing narrative on the left, this video clearly shows that Valle was not the victim of a conspiracy to “take her out.”

A CBS article this morning has more from Valle:

“I think [Paul supporters] knew who I was from the past two weeks, me being in town. And they didn’t like my message, what I was there to say. And I was simply there to hold a sign,” Valle said. “But, that wasn’t – wasn’t okay with them.”

Again, as the video clearly demonstrates, Valle was there to do more than simply “hold a sign,” and Paul supporters were not reacting to a mere dislike of her message.

As we noted at the beginning of the article, none of that is any excuse, nor even mitigating circumstances, when it comes to Profitt stomping on Valle’s head.

However, what it does demonstrate is that the idea that Valle was the victim of an angry mob who simply “didn’t like her message” is demonstrably false. The idea that Rand Paul’s supporters are a rabid single-minded, conspiratorial crew is also demonstrably false.

So please, condemn head-stomping. Condemn violence. But don’t let the media and the left create a fiction of violent mobs of right-wingers. They’ve been pitching that line since the health care town hall meetings last summer. It has yet to be true.

Update: Mediaite points out that later in the video (:54) you do see Valle in front of the vehicle. To conclude, however, that her version of events gibes with the video is quite a stretch indeed. She claims to have been an innocent bystander. She clearly was not. She was blatantly not the victim of a conspiracy. Indeed, as the later portion shows, she is still incorrect. She was not taken down in front of the vehicle. She actually RETURNED to the vehicle window, right next to Rand Paul as he is exiting, practically running right at him.

As the video demonstrates, she rushed the vehicle and shoved her sign in Rand Paul’s face. That is obviously vastly different from her repeated account.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have extended the deadline to book your room for the RedState Gathering at the special discounted rate. You have until September 2nd to reserve your room at the group rate. After that the rooms are priced per the hotel’s normal fees. The RedState rate is a steal, with breakfast included with your room, internet access for free throughout your stay, and a deep discount over the regular rate.

As you know, reserving your room now locks in your rate, but you will not, of course, be charged until the END of your stay. And naturally, you can cancel at any time up to 24 hours before your reservation.

Events will begin the afternoon of Friday the 17th, with the bulk of the program taking place during the day Saturday. If you haven’t registered for the RedState Gathering you can do so here. The Gathering brings together activists and politicians in a small, intimate setting. It is a chance for you, the RedState readers and bloggers, to mix with politicians and pundits and get YOUR questions answered.

RedState has contracted with the Sheraton Austin for a low cost special room rate of only $125/night, single. That INCLUDES free breakfast and free wireless internet. Combined with our schedule of events, the free breakfast means your meals are covered from opening events on Friday to close of the Gathering at breakfast on Sunday. We have also arranged to have free wireless internet available in all meeting spaces and meal events for all attendees.

BOOK YOUR ROOM NOW
If you want to take advantage of the special low rate, you can book additional days before and after, from the 16th through the 20th!

Welcome to the Sheraton Austin Hotel at the Capitol! After undergoing a multi-million dollar overhaul, our hotel offers newly designed guest rooms with HDTVs, updated lobby and meeting spaces, and an Link@Sheraton experienced with Microsoft, an inviting spot in which to reconnect with old friends or meet new ones. Featuring distinctively modern architecture and majestic views of downtown Austin, we combine the warm, friendly service with a prime location. A landmark situated in the cultural heart of Austin, Texas, we are next door to the famed Capitol and just steps from the University of Texas, the allure of the Sixth Street/Warehouse District, and Austin’s burgeoning business district. Coming to town for a meeting? We offer over 17,000 square feet of flexible space as well as High Speed Internet Access for a great, memorable experience. Enjoy the comfort of the Sheraton Austin Hotel at the Capitol and connect with our friendly team, turning our familiar location into your future destination.

BOOK YOUR ROOM NOW!

Thanks for being a part of the RedState Gathering for 2010. We look forward to meeting you in person.

She’s also a close friend and political ally of ethically-challenged Congresswoman Maxine Waters, as RedState has previously noted. Yes: Boxer and Waters can “look at each other and roll our eyes” when stuff liberals like them don’t like happens in Congress, like, for example, their colleagues voting for troop funding or against using taxpayer money to fund abortions.

So maybe it should be no surprise that when asked about the ethics charges facing her good friend Maxine and whether they could hurt her re-election campaign, Senate Ethics Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer should say things like this:

“No, because Republicans have so many ethics charges pending against their people.”

Get that? The Chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee, who is buddy-buddy with Maxine Waters and has aided and abetted a much-criticized political favor-selling racket that involves Waters’ family making money off of their mother’s position as a U.S. Representative, and who thinks Chris Dodd’s behavior is just swell, thinks voters don’t care about ethics.

The Chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee should know better.

The dirty little secret of the 2006 election– you know, the one where Republicans took a thumpin’– is that more voters cited corruption and ethics as a factor in determining their vote than any other issue, including the Iraq War.

And Boxer’s dirty little secret is that no matter how much she may want to shove off concerns about ethics on Republicans, separate to her ties to Waters and her Committee’s maneuver to give Dodd a pass for his ethical lapses, she has her own ethical problems that she won’t be able to run away from.

For example, Boxer recently attended a “rally for job creation” event in Los Angeles with union bosses, including Richard Trumka. As The Hill noted, Trumka’s prepared (and delivered) remarks focused heavily on trashing Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, both of whom happen to be Republican candidates for statewide office in the state, and the latter of whom just so happens to be Boxer’s opponent, making this an overtly political event, and one where the rhetoric was obviously designed to benefit her candidacy.

Boxer also just so happens to have promoted this political event via a press release issued by her official Senate office (copy of said release pasted below), which itself also appears to have been involved in the organization of it.

So, one can only conclude that Barbara Boxer thinks the Senate ethics manual’s prohibitions on using taxpayer resources for political purposes– such as those contained on pages 151 and 153 thereof– do not apply to her. Just like Maxine Waters thinks she’s done nothing wrong. And just like Boxer doesn’t think her friendship and political relationship with Waters, which has included paying $25,000 to a Waters family political operation that has been blasted by none other than Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), matters.

As usual, Barbara Boxer is wrong.

Ladies and Gentlemen, You have only 3 days left to book your room for the RedState Gathering at the special discounted rate. After that the rooms are priced per the hotel’s normal fees. That means you have only 3 days left to get breakfast included with your room. Only 3 days to get your internet access for free throughout your stay. As you know, reserving your room now locks in your rate, but you will not, of course, be charged until the end of your stay. And naturally, you can cancel at any time up to 24 hours before your reservation.

Events will begin the evening of Friday the 17th, with the bulk of the program taking place during the day Saturday. If you haven’t registered for the RedState Gathering you can do so here. The Gathering brings together activists and politicians in a small, intimate setting. It is a chance for you, the RedState readers and bloggers, to mix with politicians and pundits and get YOUR questions answered.

RedState has contracted with the Sheraton Austin for a low cost special room rate of only $125/night, single. That INCLUDES free breakfast and free wireless internet. Combined with our schedule of events, the free breakfast means your meals are covered from opening events on Friday to close of the Gathering at breakfast on Sunday. We have also arranged to have free wireless internet available in all meeting spaces and meal events for all attendees.

BOOK YOUR ROOM NOW
If you want to take advantage of the special low rate, you can book additional days before and after, from the 16th through the 20th! See below for more information about the hotel.

Welcome to the Sheraton Austin Hotel at the Capitol! After undergoing a multi-million dollar overhaul, our hotel offers newly designed guest rooms with HDTVs, updated lobby and meeting spaces, and an Link@Sheraton experienced with Microsoft, an inviting spot in which to reconnect with old friends or meet new ones. Featuring distinctively modern architecture and majestic views of downtown Austin, we combine the warm, friendly service with a prime location. A landmark situated in the cultural heart of Austin, Texas, we are next door to the famed Capitol and just steps from the University of Texas, the allure of the Sixth Street/Warehouse District, and Austin’s burgeoning business district. Coming to town for a meeting? We offer over 17,000 square feet of flexible space as well as High Speed Internet Access for a great, memorable experience. Enjoy the comfort of the Sheraton Austin Hotel at the Capitol and connect with our friendly team, turning our familiar location into your future destination.

BOOK YOUR ROOM NOW!

Thanks for being a part of the RedState Gathering for 2010. We look forward to meeting you in person.

Losing her first baby was devastating enough but having to do it in a crowded waiting room is what angered Christine Handrahan the most.

The 29-year-old Peakes woman was nine weeks pregnant when on July 12 she started bleeding.

Fearing the worst, Handrahan and her husband, Michael, headed to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital’s new emergency room.

There she waited more than three hours, blood seeping out of her jeans, tears rolling down her face as she feared she was losing her baby — or that she might be bleeding to death.

And now, the people who run our healthcare system:

“It’s emotional. It’s such an emotional time for anybody. We tried for a couple of years to conceive a child and then to lose it. It was horrifying.”

Handrahan says nobody at the hospital showed her any compassion.

“They could have given me a room to go in. Not necessarily a room with a bed. Even if it had been their TV room, or their lunchroom, or their closet. That waiting room was jam packed full of people.”

–snip–

“The sort of things we’re looking at is, was she triaged appropriately?” said Henderson.

“And whether or not she was seen in a reasonable time frame and there are certain guidelines . . . and I won’t pussy foot around it we do have trouble meeting those guidelines at times.”

Waters, however, has a lengthy history of engaging in unethical conduct beyond that which seems to have attracted focus this particular time. She has repeatedly been cited by, among others, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, for various ethical breaches that, like this one, involve her apparently using her station to benefit members of her family.

Waters’ kids have worked as paid consultants for politicians and causes backed by their mother.

Her son and husband just happened to win a lease worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to run a golf course where a “key decision-maker” regarding the grant of the lease was a politician whose electoral victory Waters helped deliver.

Waters’ husband has made money off of consulting for a bond underwriting firm where his main responsibilities seem to include making introductions between the company and politicians backed by his wife. This is despite him having had no prior professional experience in anything bond-related prior to assuming this role.

Her daughter, meanwhile, has made hundreds of thousands of dollars off of what looks a lot like selling spots on her mother’s sample ballots, distributed by an organization called LA Vote to residents in South Los Angeles. Charges for such placements have reportedly ranged from $250 to $171,000—so not peanuts.

This last item deserves some attention because while it is the bank matter that will grab attention in the next few days and weeks, it is the paying-off-Waters-relatives-for-promotion-to-voters scandal that could well bog down other Democrats in Waters’ ethical swamp. Ultimately, if we accept that paying-off-Waters-relatives-for-promotion-to-voters stinks of corruption, then we must wonder who has been aiding and abetting this particular brand of corruption. And then our attention turns to, among others, another embattled California Democrat up for re-election this year: Sen. Barbara Boxer.

For most of us, “Boxer” is a name synonymous with liberalism and perhaps a certain daftness, as opposed to corruption. Yet it turns out that Boxer, who has benefited from significant support from Waters in previous elections like, say, that of 2004, has been quite happy to pony up the cash to Waters’ daughter in order to snatch a spot on the LA Vote sample ballot. Per Art Levine, writing for the American Prospect in 2005:

In last November’s election, Waters’ congressional campaign committee handled the slate-mailer operation under tighter fund-raising restrictions. Yet most candidates and initiative campaigns still paid more than $ 85,000 to get on it, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records. Senator Barbara Boxer’s campaign was the most generous, paying $25,000 to the Waters committee.

$25,000 would strike a lot of people in the current economy as quite a lot of money. But what’s $25,000 between friends and political backscratchers, right?

After Boxer’s most recent flap involving the military, most folks are aware that she sees Waters as one of her best buddies in Congress. After all, she and Waters can “look at each other and roll our eyes” when things happen on the Hill that they’re not so keen on. Those who have tracked Boxer’s meager legislative record will also be aware that she frequently partners with Waters on initiatives like trashing the Stupak amendment to Obamacare.

But it’s nice to know that Boxer’s “friendship” and “collaboration” has extended to helping line Waters’ daughter’s pockets and facilitating Waters’ ethically dubious dealings, too.

One wonders what, if anything, Boxer will have to say about the mess in which Waters currently finds herself, given that that $25,000 payment would suggest she’s been aware of Waters’ ethically-challenged ways for about six years now.

On July 28th, Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana) raised drug rationing concerns, because of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pending decision to take the cancer drug Avastin off the list of approved drugs for breast cancer.   This example of rationing by the FDA of a drug to aid those with cancer is exactly what we should expect under an ObamaCare drug rationing regime.  

According to Ben Evans, an AP reporter, in a ”news article” that is supposed to be an unbiased news source:

Reviving allegations of government death panels, Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana said Wednesday that an FDA advisory panel’s negative recommendation on a contested breast cancer drug amounts to rationing health care.  “I shudder at the thought of a government panel assigning a value to a day of a person’s life,” Vitter said in a press release about the drug Avastin. “It is sickening to think that care would be withheld from a patient simply because their life is not deemed valuable enough.”

Conservatives are seeing a trend by the left to play the “Death Panel” card as a means to disparage reasonable argument about rationing.  The idea that ObamaCare may lead to rationing is close to reality and the Avastin example shows how ObamaCare cost-benefit analysis will hurt the sick.  Senator Vitter never said the words “Death Panel,” yet the AP chose to, in essence, put those words in the mouth of Vitter to make the article more interesting and inflammatory.  The Senator made an excellent point and many will use this example to push for repeal ObamaCare.

Senator Vitter wrote in a letter to Dr. Richard Pazdur, head of the FDA’s Office of Oncology Drug Product, that “based on a review of the FDA Advisory Committee’s report on Avastin no new safety concerns were raised with the drug.  Rather the Committee’s concerns appear to have been based on cost effectiveness.”  The FDA has a criteria to only approve “clinically meaningful” drugs.  Senator Vitter’s concern is that cost is a factor in this ambiguous and vague standard.  Adopting a de facto government run healthcare system will empower federal bureaucrats to make these types of arbitrary decisions on a mass basis for all Americans.  Rationing is a fatal flaw with the intellectual underpinning of ObamaCare.

Vitter further argued:

The decision on whether a patient should use a possible life-extending drug is a decision that should be made solely between a doctor and patient, not a government panel.  I find it outrageous that a government panel would put a price on those precious months for the families that are living through the trauma of a losing a mother, wife, sister, daughter, or aunt.  Taking Avastin off-label for breast cancer treatment is essentially government rationing.

This is a reasonable argument, yet Vitter was hit by the AP for arguing that the Avastin example is evidence of “Death Panels.”  Call it what you will, but either way people will be harmed by government bureaucrats making rationing decisions as individuals or on panels. 

The FDA’s purpose is to protect people from food and drugs that are inherently unsafe or not effective.  The idea that cost can be a factor in an FDA decision is outside of the FDA mission.  Using cost as a means to ration care and drugs is the exact fear that many conservatives raised concerning the means that the government will use to cut corners and save money under ObamaCare.  Avastin should be listed and approved if it lengthens the lives of cancer patients regardless of the drug’s cost.

Rationing is happening in Europe.  Access to life extending drugs under the government run system in the United Kingdom is difficult.  Reports that thousands of cancer patients face an early death because the National for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) rejected or only partially endorsed 15 new drugs has caused an uproar in the UK.  Conservatives don’t want to see that flawed system imposed in the United States. 

According to the Daily Mail:

The watchdog totally blocked a quarter of the cancer drugs made available since 2008 and heavily restricted others – despite Government promises to make more treatments available. Medicines rejected include bowel cancer drug Avastin and Nexavar- the only treatment offering any chance of survival for patients with advanced liver cancer.

David Cameron promised to reverse this rationing decisions because of the controversy.  People suffering from cancer in the United States are similarly angered by the pending decision of the FDA about the same drug.  Americans need to study the UK example so we don’t copy a flawed system that bars many lifesaving treatments and drugs for those who are ill because of cost.  At least the Brits reversed a bad decision.  Too bad the FDA has not indicated that they are having second thoughts about the drug.  The Avastin example is of deep concern to those who want cancer patients to get what they need regardless of the cost. 

According to Big Government:

In September, the Food and Drug Administration will try to take the anti-cancer drug Avastin “off-label.”  Avastin is a Stage 4 drug used to battle breast cancer.  Avastin is not a cure but has been shown to stop the growth of cancer for an average of five months — meaning some late stage breast cancer victims live beyond five months.  But late stage breast cancer patients do not fit into the cost-benefit analysis of the Obama Administration.  We told America rationing would happen if the healthcaretakeover bill passed and in September, women with breast cancer will be its first victims.

The FDA concedes that this drug will extend the lives of many who are afflicted with cancer, yet many are concerned that price may the deciding factor in the FDA’s pending decision to de-list the drug.  If it is de-listed, then Medicare and private insurance companies will not cover the cost of these drugs.  The worry is that this evidence of rationing with regard to those in the most need of these costly drugs.

Americans should be having a dispassionate debate on whether ObamaCare will lead to the mass rationing of care and drugs.  The left loves to raise the term “Death Panels” because it distracts from the real issues with ObamaCare.  Senator Vitter raised an important issue and the Avastin example is evidence of our future under the ObamaCare regime.  A future of arbitrary decisions by federal bureaucrats and health care decisions based on cost.