Or not. Here we have Sebelius on record admitting that they haven’t the slightest clue as to how much the high risk pools will cost in the real world. So how is it that the CBO got these numbers wrong? Didn’t we (and don’t we still) hear from our leftist friends and politicians that according to the non-partisan, independent (emphasis theirs) Congressional Budget Office, what we have in ObamaCare is a piece of legislation that will cut the deficit by over $100 billion in the first decade and over $1 trillion by the end of the second? How is it that we have already exposed at least one shortfall? Well, as Paul Ryan argued, the CBO simply analyzes what’s put before them. No more, no less. There’s a phrase used in the computer science discipline that aptly applies here: garbage in, garbage out. If the data put before them are garbage, they will likewise produce garbage data. No wonder the administration felt the need to bring in a salesman (or saleslady). The problem is that nobody wants the product.

Chuck warned us about this shortly after ObamaCare passed.  We did everything we could to warn the American people that ObamaCare was not paid for.  Now, here we have the President wanting to consider all options.  This is an outrage, although not surprising in the least.  This administration has made promise breaking part and parcel of their day to day duties.  The president even went as far as saying the following:

I know that there’s been a lot of talk around town lately about the value-added tax. That is something that has worked for some countries. It’s something that would be novel for the United States.

The arrogance; the absolute hubris.  The effrontery of this administration is appalling.  Remember this from the campaign:

Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

And this:

You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.

Yeah, forget about that.  He was only kidding.

America, wake the hell up and vote these bums out of office before it is too late.  If Democrats maintain their majorities after November, especially in the House, we as a nation will be doomed to European style taxes, regulations and government intervention.  Let this be a warning.

All Blue Dogs must go.  I don’t care how many Democrats from here until November the Tea Party endorses.  A vote for a Democrat is a vote for Nancy Pelosi.  Remember, it’s not the Blue Dogs that hold the gavel, it’s the Queen of San Francisco.

This is the type of leadership we need in Washington. Principled Conservatives that are going to stand up to this administration and offer common sense solutions to our most pressing issues. Bill Randall has been out there even before it was popular to criticize this administration.  If he can win the primary he has a good chance of defeating Brad Miller. Click here to visit his website.

From Keith Olbermann at MSNBC to Charles Blow at The New York Times, the left is unhinged, undetered and unabashed in their smear campaign of the Tea Party movement.  While their goal has been to expose the Tea party movement for what they believe it truly is—a modern day Klu Klux Klan or domestic terrorists in the mold of Timothy McVeigh (they can’t seem to make up their mind)—the smear campaign has revealed much more about the detractors than it has about the Tea Party.  I’d like to focus more on the race card, since it seems to be the argumentum ad hominem of choice from the left.  While the race card has always been at the top of the deck for the left, they seem to feel it can be played more effectively now that we have our first Black President.

Let’s get a few facts straight right now.  Yes, there is a small element of individuals in the Tea Party movement that are probably racists and carry racially insensitive signs.  But here’s a news flash.  This isn’t limited to the Tea Party movement.  Not even the Democrat Party is exempt from this.  Case in point: As the Democratic primary was winding down in 2008 and victory for the Obama campaign was inevitable, we had several instances of racially insensitive remarks from the Clinton campaign towards the Obama campaign.  Would it have been fair to broad swipe the Clinton campaign as racist because of a few instances that were certainly not representative of the campaign in general?  Further, in the lead up to the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries, it was a foregone conclusion that Clinton was going to win those states handily.  Part of the reason being that those states were made up of overwhelmingly working class whites.  The implication here was that a majority of these voters weren’t too keen on the idea of a Black president.  If we look at West Virginia in particular, there are some legitimate questions that can be raised.  West Virginia’s two Democratic Senators, Robert Byrd and John Rockefeller, have liberal composite scores of 64.3% and 68.7% respectively.  Considering Obama’s centrist appeal during the campaign, I think it’s safe to say that West Virginia Democratic voters didn’t have a problem with his policies.  So again I ask, would it be fair to broad swipe the entire Democrat Party as a party of racists by drawing on these inferences?  The answer is a resounding no.

So why the incessant obsession with playing the race card from the left-wing media?  The answer lies in another set of facts that we shall consider next.  The President’s fiscal policies have been anything but responsible. With the passage of the stimulus bill, this piece of legislation single-handedly quadrupled the deficit in his first year. By the way, this is a bill that has failed to meet it’s original intended purpose.  Today, we are sitting on a $1.3 trillion deficit, which is the second consecutive year that the deficit surpasses the $1 trillion mark. The President and Congressional Democrats have taken federal spending to new heights: 24.7% of GDP in 2009, 24.1% in 2010, and 24.3% in 2011. In January of this year they voted to increase the debt limit to a record $14.3 trillion. Further, the CBO’s preliminary analysis of the President’s 2011 budget proposal projects that the federal government will add nearly $10 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Economists of every stripe, from left to right, acknowledge that this type of reckless spending is unsustainable. The net result of deficits and national debt at these levels will be higher taxes and stunted economic growth. Needless to say, these aren’t the President’s most popular policies.

To make fiscal matters worse, we were given ObamaCare, the President’s health care “reform” legislation that is as unpopular today as it was when it was first proposed. Let’s consider some of the effects of the long and drawn out debate. First, the Tea Party movement is propelled. Secondly, the President’s approval ratings plummetted from the low to mid 60s early in his presidency to just under 47 in one of the more recent Gallup polls. Third, an unknown state Senator from Massachusetts was propelled to the Senate seat previously held by the liberal lion of the Senate and the most vocal proponent of universal health care. The main issue in that campaign? Ironically enough, Obamacare. Finally, Republicans are doing equal or better than Democrats on the generic ballot, with Democrats at risk of losing control of one or both chambers of Congress.

Let’s consider some of the aspects of the bill that demonstrates the extent to which the administration had to go to get the bill narrowly passed. First, accounting gimmicks that make Bernie Madoff look like he should be considered for sainthood. Second, an abuse of power in the form of Congressional procedural gimmicks and an executive order that is as meaningless as the President’s campaign promises. Finally, hundreds of millions of tax dollars towards the purchasing of votes. In short, this bill represents everything the President campaigned against.  It should be no surprise that this bill is widely unpopular.

This is the essence of the Tea Party’s protests. Reckless spending and unsustainable deficits and national debt that economists across the political spectrum acknowledge are not healthy for the financial stability of this country. So what is the left to do? How will they defend this irresponsibility on the part of their preferred political party? How do they defend the procedural gimmicks used to force ObamaCare on the American people? How do they defend the accounting trickery that the President lambasted on the campaign trail?  How do they defend the runaway spending that the President promised to bring an end to?  The answer is that they simply can’t. It is impossible for the left to construct reasonable arguments to challenge the legitimate concerns (even according to the President himself) of the Tea Party movement over abuse of power, reckless spending, deficits, national debt, and growth of government, all of which happen to be highly unpopular nationally. But they must respond somehow.  They can’t just concede the argument.  So they resort to a logical fallacy in the form of ad hominem attacks on the Tea Party movement itself rather than engagement on issues at hand. To be fair, this is a tool that we are all liable to resort to, both conservatives and liberals. However, this is no justification. It is disingenuous and irresponsible of the left-wing media to vilify a people in the manner that has been done to the Tea Party movement. Racism should not be taken lightly. Yet the very same people who claim to take racial issues to heart are the ones playing this card as if the issue had no meaning. It is shameful and they should be embarrassed.

I will leave you with two videos. The first is a video of a Republican candidate in the 13^th district of North Carolina vying for the nomination to unseat Brad Miller. He explains this issue with a lot more passion than I do (and in less words).

The second is a video from Reason.com at a Tea Party movement interviewing minorities. Their responses to some of the charges against the Tea Party movement are fantastic.