In recent days, Barack Obama gathered with House and Senate Democrats in the Cabinet Room of the White House to “negotiate” health care. They no doubt grew alarmed as Scott Brown surged in the polls, but they seemed strangely unaware that their very actions — meeting behind closed doors in a rump legislative conference from which Republicans were excluded — were fueling the outrage that would make possible a Brown victory.
Even worse, when asked the impact on health care by a Brown victory, they sketched out various scenarios, from not immediately seating Brown to passing the bill under reconciliation, requiring only 51 Senate votes. The unceasing message to Massachusetts voters was that their vote did not count.
A June 12, 2008 press release from Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley ballyhoos the fact that she earned an “A+” from ACORN. Ironically, this perfect grade was awarded for “responding to the foreclosure crisis.” No single non-governmental entity is more responsible for the real estate meltdown than ACORN.
Coakley’s press release goes on to detail various prosecutions of shady subprime operators but, of course, there is not a word about any investigation or prosecution of ACORN.
Barack Obama's plan to tax banks to get “our money back” seems to be little more than a political response to the public outrage over his bailout of undeserving banks, hedge funds, automakers, and homebuilders.
For the record, Obama voted for TARP as a Senator. As President, he has implemented other giveaway programs to banks, including near 0% interest rates, taxpayer guarantees of bank deposits and money market funds, the Term Asset Securities Loan Facility, and worst of all, the so-called Public Private Partnership Investment Program. Obama has defended all these actions as necessary to preventing a collapse of the financial system. Now he wants to tax and vilify the same institutions he has been propping up?
In 2002, Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) claims he got a $14,000 loan to “buy” stock in an Israeli company called Xenonics from the company’s biggest shareholder, a man named Selig Zises. In 2005 and 2006, he says he “sold” the stock for more than $100,000 after Xenonics went public. He then paid back the loan and even threw in 6% interest.
The windfall was first reported Sunday by New York Daily News reporters Benjamin Lesser and Greg B. Smith.
Who would have thought that a member of Congress could be such a savvy investor? After all, holding office involves long hours and little chance of real wealth. Isn’t it nice to see an underpaid public servant find a way to make ends meet?
Sen. Max Baucus' office Monday denounced a widely viewed Internet video that suggested Baucus was drunk on the Senate floor last week, calling it an "untrue, personal smear" designed to attack Democrats’ health-care reform legislation.
"This is beyond the pale, and this type of gutter politics has no place in the public sphere," said Baucus spokesman Ty Matsdorf.
How can unedited CSPAN footage of Senate proceedings posted on YouTube comprise a “smear?” Any reasonable person viewing the clip would conclude that Baucus was drunk or had something else wrong with him. Baucus' office did not assert that he was experiencing some other problem, like fatigue or a medical condition.
We have already complained about the media double standard in the coverage of Senator Max Baucus' (D-MT) recent ethical problems. Now comes the clearest evidence yet in the form of this video. It already has 176,000 views on YouTube but it has so far been ignored by the major TV networks and newspapers. Let's remember that Baucus is the architect of the Senate-passed health care plan.
Without sixty votes in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) would not be able to invoke cloture, or cut off debate. Anything short of sixty would allow a filibuster and doom Obama’s health care plan. The present 60-vote majority is artificial, the result of undemocratic means. Consider how three of these votes came to be:
Roland Burris- Appointed by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich just prior to his removal, Democratic leaders including Harry Reid pledged that he would never be seated. Barack Obama, along with other Democratic officials in Illinois, called for a special election to fill the seat. When it became apparent that a Republican could win, Obama and the others backed off from their request. Obama, Reid and the rest of the Democratic establishment eventually acquiesced to Burris’ appointment. The media was strangely uncritical of the sleaziest political deal of the decade.
We have criticized the American Cancer Society (ACS) for wading into the political fight over health care through its “advocacy affiliate,” the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACSCAN). In the clearest evidence yet that politics has replaced ACS’s core mission of fighting cancer, ACSCAN took part in a press conference this week to support “upcoming cloture votes on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” In other words, ACSCAN wants the Reid bill backed by Barack Obama.
Of all the factors behind the collapse of America's financial institutions during the second half of 2008, few have been as trumpeted - or misunderstood - as the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). This Carter-era legislation, intended to boost residential mortgage lending in lower-income urban neighborhoods, increasingly has served as a blank check for community groups to shake down depository institutions into lowering their credit standards to reach marginally qualified borrowers. In extracting such concessions, these groups have contributed to the ongoing explosion in loan defaults and foreclosures. Undaunted, House Democrats, led by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Tex., are proposing to make the CRA even more aggressive in rooting out "redlining," the practice by which mortgage lenders allegedly refuse to extend credit to low-income and often nonwhite minority neighborhoods.
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) claimed last week that he pulled his recommendation of girlfriend Melodee Hanes for a U.S. Attorney post because the “relationship intensified,” as the New York Times put it. But now Jodi Rave, a former reporter for Lee Newspapers, writes on her blog:
As a reporter who covered the story here in Montana…I have a different perspective about why Hanes and Baucus jointly agreed to withdraw her name. I talked to Hanes and to Baucus spokesman about the relationship…I called the senator’s spokesman and told him we were going to finally print the story…Within what seemed like minutes, K Barrett Kaiser sent an email to the newsroom and said that Hanes “was NOT” a candidate.