TOWN HALL MEETING NOTICE

Do you live in Florida’s 24th Congressional District?

Do you believe that your voice is ignored by Rep. Suzanne Kosmas?

In fact, since her election, Suzanne Kosmas has not held a single town hall meeting providing any accountability to the people of the 24^th District.

Ok, what has she done since she was elected?

•  She has failed us miserably by voting for huge deficit spending that adds to our already   overwhelming National Debt, payable by us and our children.
•  She has failed us miserably by voting to increase the power and size of an already over-burdensome and non-accountable Federal Government.
•  She has failed us miserably by voting in favor of a failed and pork-filled stimulus scheme & a bloated, pork-filled budget.
•  She has failed us miserably by voting in favor of a “cap & trade” tax scheme that would increase cost of all produced goods, utilities and gasoline for everyone.
• She again failed us miserably by voting “yea” on a job killing, budget busting, liberty robbing, government growing, health care scheme opposed by the majority.
• Were all that not enough, unemployment in the state of Florida has risen 50% from an level in January 09 to over 12.2% in February 2010, all on her watch.

It’s time to hold her accountable for her votes, and since she

refuses to meet WITH us, we will be sure that she hears FROM us!

Come to the 24^th Congressional District Town Hall and be heard. Make comments and ask questions as you would in any typical town hall setting. We will feature an empty podium with Rep. Kosmas nameplate on it as a symbol of how she has turned a deaf ear to our district and our will. We will have the entire meeting recorded on video to share with Rep Kosmas and to post on “youtube” (and other sites). We believe it’s important to document how we feel about her  non-representation of us, and to share that with media outlets and the voters in our district between now and Election Day.

 WHEN:

Friday, April 9^th 2010 – 7PM to 9:15

WHERE:

Oviedo Memorial Building (Next to the Firehouse – Downtown Oviedo) 38 S. Central Avenue Oviedo, FL 32765

Share on Facebook

The release of the mid-year budget review from the White House has been delayed.  It really comes as no surprise anymore that the Obama team meant “transparency for thee but not for me.”

As a democrat, it’s ok to harp about Republicans, scream, and whine when you feel as though they aren’t being transparent enough.  Then campaign on empty slogans of hope and change, but once in office do nothing of the sort.  As they say to the victor goes the spoils and in this scenario, the spoils include hypocrisy and a lack of information disseminated to the American public. 

The White House said Monday it was delaying the release of the annual midsummer US budget update, but refuted suggestions it was trying to put distance between its own optimistic predictions and the sour state of today’s economy.

“Because of the unique circumstances of a transition year, we are — like President George W. Bush in 2001 — releasing the Mid-Session Review a few weeks later than as is usual in non-transition years,” said Kenneth Baer, communications director for the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

When all else fails, as this administration has demonstrated, play the victim and take no responsibility for your actions.  The greatest leadership characteristic is finger pointing…/sarc.

Funny, I thought that Obama was going to stop using old Bush policies and was going to create “change we could believe in?”  Seems like those old Bush policies are convenient when he needs to get away with something, such as bad budget numbers/forecasts from his office.

The White House has run so far over budget in only the first half of the year, that they would prefer this report was covered up and never released.

The report is traditionally published in mid-July. This year’s version is expected to include massive deficit projections as the administration of President Barack Obama stewards a costly overhaul of the US healthcare system.

The CBO is projecting a $1.9T budget deficit, but that’s not exactly accurate.  The accurate approximation is a $4T deficit – which is unprecedented in this nation’s history.

Share on Facebook

The latest bill set to pass through congress, the health care bill, is stacked with pork products, and not the type you eat at baseball games. 

Congress is trying to stuff the bill full of projects that have absolutely nothing to do with health care.  I will provide some examples:

1.  Walking Paths:  walking paths drastically increase health because it is almost impossible to walk and exercise on streets, grass, gyms, your home, or school race tracks.

2.  Streetlights:  Although not directly associated with vitamin D – it could serve as a great replacement for the sun some time in the future… or wait…

3.  Jungle Gyms:  I am hoping that those who need health care the most, i.e. senior citizens, get some new ‘sneaks’ and hit the playground.  I’m sure their hips and joints will love climbing up and down.  Is it just me or aren’t jungle gyms and things related to parks and recreation considered city works? – eh… who am I kidding – it’s not like Congress follows the rules; the Constitution.

4.  Farmer’s Markets:  After cap and tax and the new Food bill on the table – why worry about additional Farmer’s markets?  Our grocery stores will become just that… Plus, given the economic downturn I may just be forced to grow my own food or steal some from Michelle Obama’s garden!

I am hoping that those of you reading this are beginning to see the insanity if you haven’t already.  This is unbelievable, and the sad part; most Democrats think it all makes sense:

Advocates, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, defend the proposed spending as a necessary way to promote healthier lives and, in the long run, cut medical costs. “These are not public works grants; they are community transformation grants,’’ said Anthony Coley, a spokesman for Kennedy, chairman of the Senate health committee whose healthcare bill includes the projects.

Let’s compare public works to community transformation, because the way in which politicians mask the truth is through words and labels:  Community = Society at large; a commonwealth or state; a body politic; the public, or people in general. Transformation = to perform a specified action or activity; work; operate

“If improving the lighting in a playground or clearing a walking path or a bike path or restoring a park are determined as needed by a community to create more opportunities for physical activity, we should not prohibit this from happening,’’ Coley said in a statement.

Teddy’s idea of exercise comes in the form of running from a murder scene…

But wait!  That’s not all… A recent report came out that proved what many of us already knew:  

Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration’s $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows. That money includes aid to repair military bases, improve public housing and help students pay for college.

$17 Billion in aid has gone to Obama backers from his stimulus bill.  This is a captain obvious moment, but it should be disconcerting that when the country’s future is at stake, the good of the citizens takes a backseat to the pay-to-play political games of politicians – including Mr. Hope and Change himself.

Share on Facebook

No wonder why California has massive amounts of debt – This has to be the biggest bunch of nit-wits I have seen yet!

Too bad it wasn’t these cow tales – mmmmm….

Share on Facebook

Listening to CSPAN on my way into work this morning, I had to push my eyes back into place, because the lack of common sense from Americans who took this poll disturbed me.

The head of the polling institute at Quinnipiac was explaining the results this morning and taking questions at the National Press Club.  He discussed that nearly 69% wanted a government health care system competing with private health care.  However, 26% opposed a government-run program.  Therefore, it seems to me that people don’t understand that the government, when it competes with anything, wins.  My jaw dropped in that instant.  How can you be skeptical of a government run (universal) program, but want the government to compete with private industry? 

On top of the 26% who agreed with a universal program (no private industry) only 53% said they would want to use a government option should one exist.  Many want to keep their own private insurance!  Yet again, there is no logic in how people are answering this poll.  I am utterly dumb-founded!  85% of those who responded and already had private insurance, said they were satisfied with what they already had…

There was also a lot of confusion regarding the responses to pay for health care.  Many were willing to have the rich and corporations pay more for their health care and only 49% said they would be willing to pay more for insurance to cover costs for others. 72% of those who said they would pay a little more, would only pay up to $500 more.  That’s about the cost of a slice of pizza/week – how will that pay for a program that will cost upwards of over $1 trillion?  The answer: It Won’t!

The breakout of demographics who wanted government health care and who would pay more comes as no surprise.  Democrats overwhelmingly would pay more, but as discussed above were only willing to pay out of their own pocket; up to $500 extra, but were more than willing to have others cover for them.  Over 70% of blacks want a government-run health care program, approx. 53% of Hispanics want one and White voters were against the program.  Young individuals, 18-34, were also more willing to pay higher taxes for a govt. run program… I know that most in this age bracket, especially until they begin having families, do not realize the true consequences of high taxes or government control. 

This poll also looked at 3 classes of voters; Republicans, Independents, and Democrats.  Republicans and Democrats left no surprises.  Independents did show that depending on how health care goes, Obama could lose a lot of his independent support, which helped him over that 50% hurdle last election.

63% of Americans disagree with taxing health care benefits, which the White House is considering.  Health care benefits do not get taxed currently.

I would have enjoyed seeing a little more information as to the respondents of this poll.  I would especially like to see the tax brackets that each respondent falls into and the range of taxes they pay annually, for example.  I find that these polls leave out important variables that could really put the entire sentiment of the country into a better perspective.

I’m still waiting to get polled… tick tock.

Share on Facebook

Cash for clunkers sounds like a great idea.  It seems so simplistic:  I get money for turning in my old car.  However, there is much more to this than meets the eye.

Cash for clunkers is another brilliant liberal idea, and by brilliant, I mean brain dead.

Liberals say that if you trade in your old used car, you will receive $4.5K for a new one.  It can’t be the basic if it comes out of D.C., so why isn’t the media challenging this piece of legislation?  We all know the answer to that one…ask ABC.

There are numerous downsides to this bill:

- If dealers anticipate a rebate for a trade in, they will only increase their base price for the car to make up for it.

-People drive old cars because they cannot afford new ones so how will $4.5K actually help?  The down payments that many banks are asking for are much higher due to risk and tighter lending practices.  The monthly payments are also tough to meet if you are of low income status.  I just bought a new Mini Cooper and have a great credit/beacon score… but because I couldn’t put down $15K on the spot, I couldn’t get a bank loan.  I had to settle for the higher rate at the BMW dealership.

-This will also increase the cost of used cars.  If more people are trying to purchase new cars, then used car dealerships will suffer and will be forced to raise their prices to make a profit, rather than make a profit from volume of sales.  In essence, this will hurt the lower middle class and the poor – the very people he professes to help.

-Charities will be negatively affected by this law.  There are over 350K charities that are used car donors.  These charities will see a direct decrease in donations if people believe they are getting a kick-back.  These charities will have to cut staff and operations, causing more unemployment and fewer used cars for those who really need them.

-The proposed cost of this law would be $4B.  This is another “government pays” bill.  Therefore, one would think that maybe this is another bill that is circular… The Government will tax you to help pay for your car… why not just pay for it yourself then?  All estimates that come out of the government are conservative at best; therefore, you can and should always take on another 50% to the original value.

-Other industries may suffer if there are consumer shifts.  Priorities of consumers will shift based on whether they think they are getting a better deal.  If cars go up something else will inevitably go down.

-The fact that the Democrats are global warming alarmists happens to be another excuse they will use.  They will exclaim that used cars cause more pollution… I don’t believe that in the slightest, so I won’t even touch on it.  There is still plenty we do not know about hybrids and whether or not they truly are as effective as people would like to believe.  I also do not believe in the hoax or the hype – ’nuff said.  Personally, my Mini Cooper’s gas mileage goes up as it gets older…just sayin’

-This is another pay-to-play scheme to pay off the $400M campaign donations given to Democrats and Obama by the UAW.  If old cars are scrapped, new cars will have to be manufactured and purchased and more money into the pockets of the UAW.

This type of legislation has been tried before, in another country no less:

Germany has used a similar program for a few months, and of course it has actually cost at least three times more than government “estimates.” More than this, studies of the German experience have shown it has largely led to a mere shift of spending priorities. Consumer electronics sales fell in ratio to automobile spending meaning there has been no net gain for Germany’s economy.

It is so interesting and disturbing how Obama and the Democrats have gone after charities and small business.  Charities have been attacked on both the stimulus front, the taxable deductions front, and now this idea for clunkers.  A study showed that conservatives give more to charity than any other ideological group, because they do so through their churches.  These churches are involved in many charities across the nation and it’s quite disheartening to see the Liberals be so antipathetic towards religious movements.

Obama and the Democrats are hell-bent on making people so dependent on the government, and only the government, that they will soon need to get their diapers changed by them too.  This is insanity!

Share on Facebook

Obama and the Democrats continue to spend taxpayer money and rack up our debt.  The House panel, last night, passed the supplemental war bill worth more than $106 billion.  The supplemental bill includes funds not just for the two wars we are currently fighting, but also for foreign aid, car rebates, and the Flu.  The bill passed by a very narrow margin 226 – 202, with an almost united opposition from Republicans.  If foreign aid caught your eye, then you were paying attention.  Obama and the Democrats were sneaky and stuck several billion dollars worth of IMF funds to bailout foreign banks; as if AIG wasn’t enough.  Republicans were strongly opposed to another bailout, especially in a war supplemental.

I guess we are supposed to feel sympathetic to Obama’s lack of sleep due to the deficit?  Pardon me for saying so, but I couldn’t care less.  He continues to sign these bills and propose legislation/policies which all require massive amounts of government funding.  My sympathies are also few and far between because I too have not been sleeping.  I’m actually up every night researching and writing to attempt to stay on top of the latest news items and stay abreast of all the crazy things this administration is doing.  If possible I’d like to record every time Obama tramples on the constitution… Needless to say, that’s a lot of sleepless nights.

One of Obama’s agenda items is his health-care plan which is a deceitful little gem…passed off as a competitive option to private industry, when intelligent individuals who have contracted with the government already know, anything that competes with the government loses.

His health-care plan is therefore a farce and it will require individuals who work for a living and pay taxes, to pay for those who do not.  It’s another entitlement program that will raise taxes and put a massive burden on all Americans.

Senate sources say the latest cost estimates for health care legislation are around $1.6 trillion over 10 years. Two Senate staffers, one Democratic and one Republican, said Congressional Budget Office estimates put the cost of the Finance Committee version of the bill at around $1.6 trillion.

Even with all the spending, Obama truly believes we will have economic growth:

President Barack Obama said he is “confident” that he won’t have to raise taxes on most Americans to close the budget deficit as long as the economy picks up steam.

“One of the biggest variables in this whole thing is economic growth,” the president said in an interview with Bloomberg News at the White House. “If we are growing at a robust rate, then we can pay for the government that we need without having to raise taxes.”

Obama has repeatedly said he would keep his campaign pledge to cut taxes for 95 percent of working Americans while rolling back tax breaks for households making more than $250,000 a year.

“I’m confident that we don’t have to raise taxes on ordinary working families,” he said.

But he already has.  He raised taxes on cigarettes, a product that most lower income households consume.  Food products, and other goods have also had taxes tacked onto them.  Obama’s plan may not be to outright raise taxes, but they are already hiding them in miscellaneous goods. Obama’s health-care plan also paints an entirely different story, requiring $600 billion in new taxes to fund
the program. I’m not sure if Obama is completely deluded, a great liar, or both.

The fact that Obama believes that we will have incredible amounts of economic growth, when Forbes and others have already compiled a list and conducted studies on future GDP growth for those countries with a moderate to larger sized economies – proving that the United States and the United Kingdom would be two of the most repressed/stagnant, is just ludicrous.  Obama recently told Bloomberg that he expected the unemployment rate to go to 10%, and although it is a lagging economic indicator, you cannot expect an unemployment rate to go back down to below 4% in 6 months when it took almost 18 to get there.  Roubini also doesn’t believe that the unemployment rate will stop at 10% but rather upwards to 11% by year end.  Roubini also predicts that we could see another recession in the future if the proper actions are taken by the government and the Federal Reserve.  I have absolutely no confidence in either entity and Roubini fears that if the correct actions are taken now, we could wind up in an inflationary crisis over the next couple of years – of which I believe to be inevitable.

How’s that Hope and Change working out for ya?

Share on Facebook

I would probably be there protesting her taxpayer funded Botox, or her addiction to lying.

Share on Facebook

So let me get this straight, Pres. Obama wants to introduce a government-run health insurance program that would compete with private insurers? Is this because the government did such a great job competing with private mortgage lenders? Are we not in this economic debacle because of Fannie and Freddie?

Obama thinks we spend too much on health insurance and get little in return. How is throwing more government involvement in the private sector going to help? How exactly does he plan on paying for this? Ok he’d like to cut federal payments to hospitals ($200 billion) take another $313 billion from the government run health programs Medicare and Medicaid. Good idea, take from the elderly and spread it around (sarc).

According to Fox News:

“The president has said, ‘These are the kinds of goals I’m after: lowering costs, covering all Americans, higher-quality care.’ And around those goals, there are lots of ways to get there.”

Lowering costs, this is insane! To make up for lowering costs and the cost of the government-run insurance plan itself, he’s going to have to find a way to further tax the American people. How is this saving the people money? Guess what, it will not save us any money and it will cost us royally in the end.

According to Rasmussen today:

“Just 32% of Americans believe that the addition of a public sector insurance option would reduce the cost of health care. Forty percent (40%) say it would not. Sixty-three percent (63%) say it’s likely that a government insurance company would lose money and require taxpayer subsidies. Just 20% say that’s not likely. Forty-nine percent (49%) of Americans believe private insurance companies will provide better service and more choice than the government option. Thirty-four percent (34%) hold the opposite view.”

But let’s not forget, Vice President Biden says it all here, “it’s up to Congress to pin down the details on how to pay for them. They’re either going to have to agree with us, come up with an alternative, or we’re not going to have health care,” Biden said on NBC television. “And we’re going to get health care.” Game over according to Biden despite what “The People” have to say about it!

NOTE: For more information and to take action against the health care plan go to: http://www.saveourcountrynow.net/forums/viewforum.php?f=89

Share on Facebook

As Michele Bachmann points out the devil is in the details:

What the Administration would like for you to think is that by enacting this policy, Washington wouldn’t be able to spend a dollar unless they save a dollar and the national debt would cease to swell as it has these past several months.

However, this is really a charade – and the details tell the story. First of all, this PAYGO has no impact whatsoever on entitlement spending — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which make up a very sizable portion of the budget.  They’d continue to grow on autopilot.  In fact, even if this PAYGO were fully enforced, entitlement spending would continue to grow 6% a year without offsets.

Second, this PAYGO includes an enormous $3.5 trillion loophole.  The President’s proposal specifically exempts a wide array of expensive policies.  Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget remarked that, “This is like quitting drinking, but making an exception for beer and hard liquor.” And, Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee has criticized the plan, adding, “I’m not for waiving PAYGO for $3.5 trillion of items, much of which I think ought to be paid for.”

And more from the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Obama must think the press and public are dumb enough to buy it, because there he was Tuesday re-selling the same “paygo” promises that Democrats roll out every election. Paygo is “very simple,” the President claimed. “Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere.”

WSJ, Obama and the politburo have no respect for middle America, of course they think we are stupid!

That’s what Democrats also promised in 2006, with Nancy Pelosi vowing that “the first thing” House Democrats would do if they took Congress was reimpose paygo rules that “Republicans had let lapse.” By 2008, Speaker Pelosi had let those rules lapse no fewer than 12 times, to make way for $400 billion in deficit spending. Mr. Obama repeated the paygo pledge during his 2008 campaign, and instead we have witnessed the greatest peacetime spending binge in U.S. history. As a share of GDP, spending will hit an astonishing 28.5% in fiscal 2009, with the deficit hitting 13% and projected to stay at 4% to 5% for years to come.

Nancy Pelosi strikes me as the fiscally responsible type, the type that really cares what happens with taxpayer money.  Well, I guess she does care, but that’s only when it’s used to pay for her botox injections and her flights back and forth to San Fran. in military aircraft.

The truth is that paygo is the kind of budget gimmick that gives gimmickry a bad name. As Mr. Obama knows but won’t tell voters, paygo only applies to new or expanded entitlement programs, not to existing programs such as Medicare, this year growing at a 9.2% annual rate. Nor does paygo apply to discretionary spending, set to hit $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2010, or 40% of the budget.

Does this not provide incentive to the government to create more entitlements to try and prove that PayGo was put to good use?  New entitlements on top of too many old entitlements…

This loophole matters, because on the very day Mr. Obama was hailing paygo the House Appropriations Committee was gleefully approving a 12% increase in 2010 nondefense discretionary spending, the third year running that Democrats have proposed double-digit increases. Or consider that the 2010 budget resolution included a $2 billion increase for low-income heating assistance as an entitlement change that should be subject to paygo. But Congressional Democrats simply classified it as discretionary spending, thereby avoiding the need for $2 billion in cuts elsewhere. C’est-la-paygo.

Mr. Obama’s new proposal includes even more loopholes. There’s an exception for Congress’s annual alternative-minimum tax “patch,” which is worth at least $576 billion over 10 years; for any of the Bush tax cuts that Mr. Obama decides he wants to extend past 2010; and to protect against planned cuts in Medicare doctor payments. These carve-outs alone spare Democrats from having to come up with some $2.5 trillion in spending cuts or new taxes. To add insult to profligacy, the rules also allow the Administration to run huge early deficits for its looming health-care bonanza, and only pay for it later — say, after 2012.

The President also revived the myth that paygo was somehow responsible for eliminating budget deficits during the Clinton years. In fact, that brief era of balanced budgets was due to: mid-decade spending reductions by a GOP Congress elected on a balanced-budget pledge; an excessive cut in defense spending to 3% from 5% of GOP across the decade; and an unsustainable revenue boom due to the dot-com bubble. But harking back to the 1990s lets Mr. Obama avoid having to defend his own spending record.

The real game here is that the President is trying to give Democrats in Congress political cover for the health-care blowout and tax-increase votes that he knows are coming. The polls are showing that Mr. Obama’s spending plans are far less popular than the President himself, and Democrats in swing districts are getting nervous. The paygo ruse gives Blue Dog Democrats cover to say they voted for “fiscal discipline,” even as they vote to pass the greatest entitlement expansion in modern history. The Blue Dogs always play this double game.

Ahhh yes, more Kabuki theater, as Michelle Malkin so succinctly puts it.

The other goal of this new paygo campaign is to make it easier to raise taxes in 2011, and impossible to cut taxes for years after that. In the near term, paygo gives Mr. Obama another excuse to let the Bush tax cuts he dislikes expire after 2010, while exempting those (for lower-income voters) that he likes. In the longer term, if a GOP Congress or President ever want to cut taxes, paygo applies a straitjacket that pits those tax cuts against, say, spending cuts in Medicare. The Reagan tax reductions would never have happened under paygo.

We are so Scr—d!  It’s like a game of chess they are playing – no concern for the country, just for their own political interests.  If Obama is ousted in 2012 it makes it that much harder for the incoming administration to resolve the mess he created.

Share on Facebook