My Storify mini-rant on what happens if Donald Trump wins the nomination.
Do not fall in love with politicians. They will only break your heart.Read More »
My favorite Democratic moonbat- Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)- was recently on Fox News talking about the Ryan budget plan. Incidentally, liberals are now using the proposal by portraying it as a Republican “war on the poor.” Ed Schultz recently dedicated half his show to the idea and found an accepting voice in E.J. Dionne which is illustrative of MSNBC’s fair and balanced approach. It is kind of ironic that besides the alleged “war on women” we now have the “war on the poor.” However, according to Obama and other liberals, we no longer have a “war on terror” against real enemies. They like to retire the “war” talk except when its to their advantage, but of course we wouldn’t want to offend Muslims. But, I digress.
Wasserman Schultz told Brett Baier- when the subject of the budget came up which was her reason to be on the show to bash the Ryan budget plan- that the American public simply did not care about the budget process. Hence, to her and other Democrats they care very little whether the Senate proposes, takes up or even passes a budget. Except she is missing an important point- they are required to do so by law. She does have a valid point about American perceptions. It is a fact that people are turned off by the budget process having seen how ludicrous Congress is in this area. They were turned off in 2009 when Obamacare passed. Why pass a budget when there is always reconciliation to get around the whole thing to cram 3.000 pages, numerous mandates, and expansion of the bureaucracy through the process? And did I mention the $1.6 trillion price tag? Then Democrats and liberals sit back and wonder where this Tea Party thing came from. Why have a budget when there are always backdoor deals to be made? I remember the uproar over Cheney’s energy policy meetings and the railing against that process, but no one has held Obama and the Democrats to task over the closed door meetings and shenanigans with the health care industry? Where exactly was the transparency there?
She then launched into the common Democratic refrain that the Ryan plan would “end Medicare as we know it.” That refrain may have won a special election in New York, but it is drying up real fast because reality is setting in. Here is a news flash for DWS: the “end of Medicare as we know it” will occur Ryan plan or no Ryan plan. The program’s own actuaries stated recently that Medicare will be insolvent in 2024- three short Presidential elections away. Meanwhile, the President dithers away with non-solutions. His “solution” is to cap costs for services for Medicare providers with those decisions made by an unelected group of 15 bureaucrats. Even here, those “decisions” have been kicked down the road- a very familiar strategy of Obama and the Democrats- until after this year’s election. What DWS fails to mention is that the Medicare proposals in Ryan’s plan simply encapsulates the reforms from the Ryan-Wyden (D-OR) bipartisan plan. Lest anyone forget, Ron Wyden is hardly a conservative or moderate Democratic Senator from Oregon. If at least one person from the Left gets it, why don’t the rest?
Moving off Medicare, Wasserman Schultz, when pressed on the budget issue and the Democrat’s opposition to the Ryan one, said that Obama’s own budget plan would be a better starting point for the process. Apparently DWS was too busy in Florida that day, but in case she missed it, that budget was voted down in the House with nary a vote. That’s right- not a single Democrat voted for the Obama budget. She then stated that she cannot speak for the Senate or its Democratic leadership, particularly Harry Reid (D-NV) because she is in the House. Again, DWS needs to get out of the southern Florida sun because obviously its having an effect on her memory. Although she may not be in the Senate, she is Chairwoman of the DNC which supposedly speaks for the Democratic Party. Having been thwarted at every turn with her stock answer talking points, she then resorts to the ace up her sleeve- its those obstructionist Republicans, another line of attack that is growing real old real fast.
DWS said that the Republicans in Congress simply will not work with Obama. There is a solution regarding the budget that she fails to mention or consider. Perhaps the Senate can pass a budget that will naturally look different from something the Republican-controlled House passes. Then after this little legal triviality is taken care of, they can hammer out the differences in conference. That is the way it was done for years, a practice that Congress got away from under the leadership of Pelosi and Reid. If nothing else, at least there would be conversation and negotiation and maybe, just maybe, agreement in some areas. But then again, the White House has already said the Ryan plan is a non-starter because it has no revenue increases (read: tax increases through that stupid Buffett rule).
Another point to be made here is that the Obama Administration and the Democratic controlled Congress were hardly the pictures of cooperation under their leadership. Never one to waste an emergency, where was the bipartisanship the Democrats now decry when the stimulus package was rammed through Congress? Where was the negotiation besides those feigned by Obama with the Republicans when Obamacare was rammed through Congress? The only thing I remember about that was some telecast borefest where Paul Ryan slapped down Obama reducing him to a blubbering fool (he did not have a teleprompter).
What DWS and Obama fail to understand is that hope and change do not translate into a rubber stamp for the Democratic/Obama agenda for America. You have to give some credit to DWS for at least trying to defend the indefensible. But when your defenses are revealed for what they are, you are left with no other tactic than to blame, finger-point and change the subject. At least she did not mention George W. Bush on Fox News that day. As the election draws near, more and more people are seeing through the hope and change veneer of the Democratic Party and they are not liking what they see. As long as we have demagogues like Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid being the faces of the Democratic Party, the GOP can take heart. Let them keep talking their lies and defending solving 21st century and future problems with 20th century solutions, when they even offer solutions. Let them continue their ostrich strategy and stick their heads further in the sand only to poke them out to blame others. It grows old after a while.