Tag: White House

The Latest White House Oops

You may remember the scandal, a few years ago, when Secret Service agents and military personnel in the President’s advance security detail in Colombia hired a few prostitutes. While prostitution is legal in Colombia, it was felt that the agents endangered security by their behavior. They were seeing these women and drinking heavily when they should have been preparing for the President’s arrival; they invited them up to their rooms in a security violation; they tried to cover it up, exposing themselves to potential blackmail*. Worst of all, they refused to pay the women what had been agreed upon. I don’t mind people hiring courtesans; but not when they are supposed to be protecting the President.

(*Using sexual infidelities or behavior as blackmail fodder is not unique to prostitutes and is probably actually less common among professionals. A woman who just wants a few hundred dollars for her time is a lot less likely to blackmail someone than a random stranger they pick up who may not be so random. The infamous 1986 sex-for-secrets scandal involved a Russian civilian, not a prostitute. The big infidelity blackmail scandals — such as Rick Pitino or David Letterman — involved women they’d picked up not women they’d hired. Indeed, this is why a lot of famous people hire women instead of picking them up. The potential danger of US military personnel being blackmailed for hiring a prostitute would be severely lessened if we abandoned the idiotic policy of discharging military personnel who avail themselves of legal sex workers.)

Punishment came down on the men involved but there were rumors that a White House staffer also hired a prostitute and it was covered up or at least punted past the 2012 election.


As nearly two dozen Secret Service agents and members of the military were punished or fired following a 2012 prostitution scandal in Colombia, Obama administration officials repeatedly denied that anyone from the White House was involved.

But new details drawn from government documents and interviews show that senior White House aides were given information at the time suggesting that a prostitute was an overnight guest in the hotel room of a presidential advance-team member — yet that information was never thoroughly investigated or publicly acknowledged.

The information that the Secret Service shared with the White House included hotel records and firsthand accounts — the same types of evidence the agency and military relied on to determine who in their ranks was involved.

Once again: one rule for the masses; one rule for the elites. It’s Elliot Spitzer all over again. You plebs can’t hire a girl to spend the night with you. But we, the rulers, can do whatever the fuck we like and fuck whoever we like.

It gets better:

Whether the White House volunteer, Jonathan Dach, was involved in wrongdoing in Cartagena, Colombia, remains unclear. Dach, then a 25-year-old Yale University law student, declined to be interviewed, but through his attorney he denied hiring a prostitute or bringing anyone to his hotel room. Dach has long made the same denials to White House officials.

Dach this year started working full time in the Obama administration on a federal contract as a policy adviser in the Office on Global Women’s Issues at the State Department.

Dach, incidentally, is the son of Leslie Dach, a huge Obama campaign contributor. But more importantly, he advises the State Department on women’s issues. This is the same State Department that opposes legal sex work, has issued all kinds of idiotic and factually-challenged statements about sex trafficking and has pressured foreign government into adopting Victorian mores on sex and sex work. Again, this guy has a job telling everyone else not to use hookers while he — allegedly — employs them.

I don’t have a problem with clients working in high places. Depending on which study you believe, something like a third of men have used a hooker at least once. What I have problem with is the absolutely putrid hypocrisy on display here. Secret service agents and military personnel are drummed out of the service; our government pressures other governments to outlaw sex work; it runs nationwide “stings” for underage sex workers which nab thousands of consenting adults; it brands anyone who so much as gives a ride to a hooker as a “pimp”; it shuts down websites that help hookers screen out dangerous clients; it promotes garbage stats like the myth that there are 200,000 underage sex slaves in this country. But when one of their own is alleged to have seen a sex worker, they immediately cover it up.

Apparently no one should be able to pay for sex except the rich, the powerful and the connected.

Secret Service Swings and Misses


Secret Service Director Julia Pierson will face questions about how an armed intruder jumped the White House fence and made it as far as the East Room when she testifies before a House committee on Tuesday.

Sources confirmed to Fox News on Monday that 42-year-old Omar Gonzalez overpowered a Secret Service officer in the Sept. 19 incident — this led to a struggle and “wrestling” inside the executive mansion as he darted through. Gonzalez was eventually tackled by a counter-assault agent in the East Room after he reached the doorway to the Green Room, a parlor overlooking the South Lawn.

The revelation that the intruder made it much farther than originally known came on the eve of a scheduled House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing that will address the breach, as well as lawmakers’ “concerns” about the Secret Service’s security protocols.

There’s no word yet on whether Gonzalez had blue skin and the ability to teleport.

To be fair to the Secret Service, they usually tackle these guys on the White House lawn. This is first time in a long time someone has actually gotten inside the building. Nevertheless, they clearly need to make some changes, including abandoning the idea of a “diverse” Secret Service:

Whatever I think of the President, the Secret Service’s job is to protect him from the numerous nuts who want to write themselves into a history book. This was a pretty big failure on their part.

Peaceful Secession Not an Option

That’s probably the most sensational headline I could have gone with, but it does get to the point of those petitions demanding that the White House allow states to secede.

Although the founders established a perpetual union, they also provided for a government that is, as President Lincoln would later describe it, “of the people, by the people, and for the people” — all of the people. Participation in, and engagement with, government is the cornerstone of our democracy. And because every American who wants to participate deserves a government that is accessible and responsive, the Obama Administration has created a host of new tools and channels to connect concerned citizens with White House. In fact, one of the most exciting aspects of the We the People platform is a chance to engage directly with our most outspoken critics.

So in the end, the Administration played it safe and decided on a bland response from an Administration flunky. I won’t go deep into the author’s arguments except to note that he implicitly observed that the President doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to allow any state to secede. Contrast the tone of this response with the snarky and somewhat bitchy one here and you’ll see that the White House decided to tread carefully with the question. Not sure if the recent spike in gun sales has anything to do with it.

I do have one piece of good news for all rebel scum though. The petition to build a Death Star was also denied. Without this superweapon, the Obama Administration will never subjugate the galaxy, much less implement Obamacare.

If evil Boosh was president…

You can bet your ass that the LSM would be screaming about how the government was a bunch of fascists, especially because of revelations like this:

Lawmakers charged with merging the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act decided on Tuesday to drop a provision that would have explicitly barred the military from holding American citizens and permanent residents in indefinite detention without trial as terrorism suspects, according to Congressional staff members familiar with the negotiations.

The White House has threatened to veto the bill over several provisions that the conference committee kept. But it was not clear whether President Obama will do so; in previous years he made similar threats only to sign it anyway, in part because lawmakers can attach identical provisions to spending bills that are difficult to veto.

My bet is the people at the WH are content that this one provision was dropped, and pissed some of the other provisions they don’t like because these provisions interfere wit this WH’s desire to do whatever they want, whenever they want to, were not. One of the provisions that pisses off Obama is about Gitmo:

Among the provisions to which Mr. Obama has objected is the extension, by one year, of prohibitions on the transfer of detainees out of the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Those include a ban on bringing them into the United States and limits on sending them to nations where there are security concerns. Most of the remaining 166 detainees are from troubled places like Yemen.

Looks like the idiot lawyers in the WH still think terrorists should go through regular criminal courts and be housed with common criminals, on US soil. I am not sure what we have to worry about any of that. Holder guaranteed us convictions, after all! The nYT seems to agree with the WH on this, and be quite nonchalant about the fact that they can now hold people indefinitely. This sort of shit is only a problem when the people in charge are not collectivists. We all know collectivists are enlightened and always do the right thing.

Louisiana Considers Secession to Delight of Non-Residents

If you’re not following Victoria Jackson on Facebook (yes, her), you really need to.  She reads WND and believes it so you don’t have to.

Some intrepid people in Louisiana have submitted a petition to the White House to let their state secede from the Union.  Again.   It’s stupid, of course, because if they meet their quota, the White House will just say “no” and the president will no doubt take the opportunity to make a funny joke at the expense of people who dislike him.  And the press corps will laugh along and hoot at how stupid red state people are.  It’s already comical because 90% of the signatures I see on there already are from outside Louisiana and many are in blue states. 

Maybe this would be the good compromise Seattle Outcast was after: Let Louisiana out and let Puerto Rico in so we don’t have to change the flag. 

Up to you if you want to sign or not.  If you do choose to, I’d like to know why you did it.

UPDATE: This post has been getting some search engine attention so I’m going to seriously address the questions I’m seeing.

These petitions mean absolutely nothing.  Even if the White House approves such a thing, your state would still need to hold a referendum or pass an ordinance of secession in its state legislature to finalize it.

None of this is serious.  The position of the federal government is that the United States is indivisible.  I’ll refer you to the Supreme Court case Texas v. White.   Any attempt to secede from the US by any state or group of states would certainly lead to the federal government intervening and arresting every state official responsible.

We had the Civil War because the Confederate states voted to secede and President Lincoln chose to stop them from doing so with military force.  There isn’t any reason to think Obama would do any differently, really.  Peaceful secession is simply out of the question at this time, with or without a petition. 

Save your state some embarrassment and ignore these petitions.  Let’s get a Constitutional Convention going instead.

Election 2012: IV. Why We Should Vote Against Barack Obama

(This is the fourth of five posts I will put up over the weeks of and after the conventions, exploring my thoughts on the Presidential election. Parts one and two were reasons to vote for and against Mitt Romney; Parts three and four will be reasons to vote for and against Barack Obama. Part five will wrap up. Keep in mind, this is my thinking as we went through the conventions. It’s likely that things will change between now and Election Day.)

OK, now that’s all out of the way, here’s the fun part.

Obama’s first term has been littered with disappointments and broken promises, too many to really get into in one post. He has plenty of defenders and I’ll get into their arguments below. But again, this is not about the last four years; it’s about the next four. So why would we not want this guy to have four more years in the White House?

The Economy

You know what? Just for the sake of argument, I’m going to give Barack Obama as much credit as I possibly can for the last three and a half years. And I’m not entirely sure it’s undeserved. When December 2008 rolled around, I thought we were headed for Great Depression II. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month and the economy was declining at an annual rate of 8%. Think about that for a moment. It was the most catastrophic contraction since the Great Depression. I will give him (and Bush) all the credit in the world that we didn’t end up hitting rock bottom. I’ll even punt on the Stimulus and claim that the only reason we didn’t have a depression was because of Obama’s enlightened stewardship. I don’t believe this, mind you. But I’ll posit it for now. All hail Obama, Preventer of Depression II!

But here’s the thing: it’s one thing to prevent a depression, it’s another to get things moving again. The private sector has been recovering, but slowly and it’s not clear that its very sustainable.

Here’s a plot of job growth under this President and his predecessor. And just in case you think I’m being unfair, I got this from ThinkProgress.

You can now see what the Obamaites are on about. Public sector employment has fallen. Private sector employment, after plunging the first year, has slowly recovered basically back to where we were when he took over (although unemployment is still up because of population growth). This contrasts sharply against the Bush’s “recovery” which saw sharp growth in public sector employment and slower growth in the private sector. And that after a much milder bubble bursting.

But … as I keep saying … when you’re comparing yourself to Bush, you are setting the bar awfully low. The point of the Bush era, as the Left never tires of reminding us, was that it was not a great recovery. You compare this to recoveries under Reagan or Clinton and the picture is very different. Obama has had much much slower job growth. And the faster job growth under Clinton and Reagan happened without trillion dollar deficits.

Obama likes to say he’s created 4.5 million new jobs. That’s … not a lot for 42 months. Let’s be generous and only count things from January 2010, six months after the recovery began (a year after the stimulus). That’s still only 155,000 jobs per month. Let’s be even more generous and throw in 600,000 jobs that the public sector lost. Now we’re up to 175,000 a month.

The only way you get up to really robust growth is to toss in another million jobs to represent how the bloated public sector grew under Bush. Now we’re up over 200,000, into good territory. But we had to twist ourselves into a pretzel shape and assume unsustainable Bush-era spending increases to get there. Does that sound like a sound economy to you?

And let me point out: giving Obama every break — starting our counting in January 2010, accounting for public sector shrinkage — we’re still barely at recovery level. Take some time to play with the numbers here and contrast this recovery against those of Reagan and Clinton. With both of them, we were averaging 300,000 jobs per month at this stage. In 1984, we added 300,000 jobs or more in eight months. In 1994, we added 300,000 or more jobs in seven months. You know how many months we’ve added 300,000 jobs under Obama?

One. And that was Census hiring.

Let’s flash up the key figure of the stimulus, which shows how jobs were supposed to recover:

Now I have been as critical as anyone about the use of this figure. The projections Team Obama made were before they knew just how bad the economy was (although they haven’t produced a new figure with accurate economic figures … hmmmm).

But even with that caveat, this is still damning. For one, it tells me that they way underestimated the problem; hardly a vote of confidence in their supposed superstar economic team. For another, underestimating the economy’s freefall might be the reason unemployment peaked much higher than expect. But how do they explain the failure of the red line to drop down? Austerity? Without real spending cuts or tax hikes?

That’s leaving out the elephant in the room: the sharp decline in labor force participation. Labor force participation has been falling for a while as people retire. But that’s not what’s causing the current problem. In fact, young people are leaving the labor force in record numbers while seniors are staying in the labor force. The sharpest decline in labor force participation is among 16-19 year-olds. And less than half of college graduates are finding jobs.

So, OK, I’ll give you the decline in public sector payrolls. But you have to give me the sharp decline in labor force participation. We’ll call it even: unemployment is still over 8%.

Look, I appreciate that the 2008 crisis was unprecedented (although Reagan inherited a bad situation too). I agree that this is not like other recoveries. But I still don’t think the Democrats understand the nature of the problem: massive debt and over-investment in certain sectors. The fact is that the people who authored the crash — the bankers and their cronies in Washington — have never really been held accountable. The fact is that Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank have made our economy less dynamic without decreasing our vulnerability to bank runs. The fact is that we’ve been spending money on green boondoggles and specialized tax breaks and bailouts instead of cutting or eliminating corporate taxes for everyone. The fact is that despite the high hopes when Cass Sunstein was brought on board, Obama has done nothing to streamline regulation and make it easier to do business. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Hell, even when it came to the payroll tax cut, they messed it up. They could have made that cut on the employer side, which would have made it easier to hire people and made it easier for Congress to eventually curtail the cut. Instead, they made it on the employee side, which did precisely dick for hiring and made the cut easy to demagogue. Now we’re stuck with a multi-billion dollar hole in revenues that isn’t helping the economy.

Maybe you could argue that being clueless is a good thing. I certainly think it would help a lot if our government just stopped helping us. We’re in debt and, unless we accept some inflation, that debt is going to keep our economy down for a long time. I said four years ago we might have a lost decade and the only cure for our ills was time and hard work.

But Obama can’t sit around and do nothing. He always has to cock around and try to get things moving. All that’s doing is dragging things out. A Rich pointed out, the Global Competitiveness Index has seen us slip from the #1 economy in 2006-2008 to #7, due to regulation and fiscal uncertainty. Is none of that the President’s fault?

So … again … I appreciate that Obama inherited a gigantic clusterfuck. I appreciate that we have never had a situation like this before. But the policies he has pursued and is promising to continue to pursue are not the policies I think will eventually bring us out of the doldrums.

There is a certain amount of glee in some quarters when bad job numbers come out. It’s a glee I do not share. The continued slow pace of recovery is frustrating and maddening. Millions of good, hard-working people can not find work. That’s far more important than which team of dickheads occupies the Oval Office. If I thought re-electing Barack Obama would turn around the employment picture, I’d vote for him in a heartbeat, Bill Ayers and all. I don’t.

The Budget Deficit

I cited the deficit as a reason to vote for Obama, given that he and Congress have combined to keep spending growth at 1% over the last two years. But constraining the rate of growth is not nearly enough to fix things long term. A major overhaul of Medicare and Social Security are needed.

But I’m not convinced Obama is the guy who can achieve that. Bob Woodward is publishing excerpts from his new book detailing the budget debate of 2011. Now I take Woodward with a heap of salt, generally. But the image he portrays is of a man who simply can not work Congress the way Clinton or Reagan did; who can not be the driving force behind the Grand Bargain needed for long-term fiscal stability. Re-electing Obama is likely to just the kick the can down the road another four years. We’re rapidly running out of road.

Civil Liberties and the War on Drugs

Barack Obama’s record on civil liberties is simply terrible and he has reversed the progress made under Bush in reining in the War on Drugs. There is absolutely no reason to believe this will change in a second Obama term. If anything, it may get worse. Here is that famous Right-Wing rag Mother Jones on how the Democrats dumped almost all civil liberties references from their 2012 platform. MJ is mainly focused on the War on Terror and some of the policies — torture, detention, etc. — are supported by the Right. But … once again … that does not make it right or even neutral. The Democrats are supposed to be the party of civil liberties. Now they seem determined to show just how “tough” they are.

I’ve documented many times how Obama has ramped up the War on Drugs, raiding legal medical marijuana centers, threatening asset forfeiture and tax audits and jailing people for the hideous crime of selling medicine in compliance with state law. It may get even worse. He is now extending civil forfeiture authority to the ATF.

Foreign Policy

In general, I’ve been OK with our foreign policy under Obama. But there have been a number of annoying little mistakes: bumbling around with missile defense, attempting to refer to the “Malvinas”, failing to check the growth of South American socialism, surging in Afghanistan. Almost all of our foreign policy successes, in my opinion, are attributable to Hillary Clinton. She may not be Secretary of State for the entire eight years. And watch out for whoever she is replaced with.

(I never thought I’d praise Hillary in a blog post. Like ever. But I have to give the woman credit for a decent job done.)

Healthcare Reform

If Obama is re-elected, it’s going to be nigh impossible to overhaul or repeal-and-replace Obamacare before it starts really embedding itself in 2014. This is another can we are rapidly running out road to kick down.

Reasons not to not vote for Obama:

Bill Ayers, Obama’s Sr.’s socialism, his college years, his associations, Jeremiah Wright — the whole Obama is crypto-Marxist America-hating Megillah — is irrelevant. Maybe these things were relevant in 2008, when Obama had a scant public record. But we have had four years with him in the White House; we should judge him based on that.

It’s an old cliched joke, but it’s worth repeating: four years ago, they told us that if we voted for McCain, we’d have a sluggish economy, big debts, foreign policy gaffes, useless healthcare reform and even more curtailing of civil liberties. Well, I voted for Barr, actually. But we still have a sluggish economy, big debts, foreign policy gaffes, useless healthcare reform and even more curtailing of civil liberties.

Do we want four more years of this?

Happy Dependent Mother’s Day!

From the White House website:

These people really are shameless.

(And while I’m up … it’s still disgusting how insurance companies charging women more because they use more healthcare is seen as some evil plot needing government intrusion. It shows that the Left really don’t understand what insurance is. Insurance is risk management. I just had a $20,000 surgery, which would have been a devastating cost, but was manageable because it was effectively spread out over the insurance payments I make every month. Seen that way, I should be charged more if I am likely to use more healthcare.

To the Obamaites, health insurance is redistribution. It’s about getting other people to pay for your healthcare. This is why they see charging women more as evil: we’re all supposed to be equal — except the politicians, of course, who are more equal than others.)

If GWB had done…

THIS, you can bet the LSM would be all over the story, pointing out that the speed of this investigation’s conclusion is a sign of not much investigating and just should send up red flags, and the hammering at the fact that the investigators and the perps are one and the same. Instead they tell us all is well and to focus at the parade of bullshit they are passing off as news to help provide cover for this failure of an administration.

An internal White House review has found no evidence of misconduct by members of the advance staff ahead of President Obama’s visit to Cartagena, Colombia, earlier this month, spokesman Jay Carney said today.

“There have been no specific credible allegations of misconduct by anyone on the White House advance team or the White House staff. Nevertheless, out of due diligence, the White House counsel’s office has conducted a review of the White House advance team,” Carney told reporters during the daily briefing.

“And in concluding, that review came to the conclusion that there is no indication that any member of the White House advance team engaged in any improper conduct or behavior,” he said.

Carney said the inquiry was initiated Friday by the counsel’s office in consultation with the White House chief of staff, Jack Lew. It concluded over the weekend.

Let’s count the ways this is wrong. “Internal WH review ” basically means that the people that did the wrong basically are now saying we didn’t do anything wrong. Now, in the age of the Eric Holder DOJ, this isn’t something to get bothered about, because if the DOJ had done the investigating, odds are they would have found the same thing. And that’s not because there wasn’t anything wrong, but because as the last 3 years have shown us, the DOJ is now a totally politicized arm of the DNC and consistently and constantly covers for the criminal behavior of the left. From “Fast & Furious” to the whole “Black Panther voter intimidation” case we have seen political decisions drive legal ones, so the WH clearing itself is no biggie, I guess, because the DOJ was very likely going to do the same for them anyway.

Then you have the “credible allegations” bullshit. They could have had video proving the accusations, and I remain convinced that the WH investigation would have produced the same results we got now. Look at the “Black Panther” or “Fast & Furious” case I mentioned. The only cases that these people find credible evidence exists for are the one like the Trayvon Martin shooting where the LSM manufactured a whole bunch of lies and falsehoods.

And they pulled this investigation off in some 5 days or so? Heh, sure. Maybe what Carney was trying to say was that these guys are above the law and this sort of behavior is only wrong when people other than democrats do it. That kind of double speak makes sense, and would prompt the conclusion nothing wrong happened that the WH looking at its own behavior came to.

Of course, the members of the LSM took the result at face value and want us to do the same. After all, this is an election year, any other conclusion will hurt their soul mates and the people they take their marching orders from, and they want none of that spoiling the narrative. Those of us that know better however, know this investigation and its conclusion are likely to be nothing but a serious lie and deflection. There is plenty of history out there to belie that assumption, even if for now it is only my opinion. But hey, when you constantly engage in immoral behavior, because the ends justify the means, you can pardon those of us that expect it to be the constant from assuming it was the constant, right? Nixon was burned for far less than what these crooks have gotten away with so far.

I knew this was all politics and not about solutions…

In a move that pissed me off, the congressional republicans buckled and offered the democrats $300 million in new taxes, only to have the democrats rebuff the offer, now making it all but obvious that their intent from the beginning was to have the special debt-reduction committee, which has two weeks left, fail for political reasons.

Congressional Republicans have for the first time retreated from their hard-line stance against new taxes, offering to raise federal tax collections by nearly $300 billion over the next decade as part of a plan to tame the national debt.

But Democrats rejected the offer Tuesday — along with the notion that Republicans had made a significant concession that could end the long-standing political impasse — leaving a special debt-reduction committee far from compromise with less than two weeks until its Thanksgiving deadline.

Democrats said the tax increases in the GOP offer would be dwarfed by major new tax cuts for the nation’s wealthiest households, including a reduction in the top income tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent.

“They’re anxious to promote a certain concept with all of you,” Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), one of the negotiators, told reporters. “I’ll be very clear that whatever they put there doesn’t get the job done.”

Oh, sure the democrats, whom have made it very clear that they want to get a minimum of one to one ratio on new taxes, or as the propaganda machine calls it, new revenue, are demanding a dollar in new taxes for each dollar in cuts – that way big government stays big, and they can keep buying votes – and blame the fact republicans will not acquiesce for their thumbs down. But lets be honest here and point out that any kind of deal would be turned down by the democrats, because if they make one Obama loses his most potent weapons – the “Do Nothing Congress” accusations that pretend republicans also control the Senate and not Harry Reid, whom has blocked everything the House has send him – and that’s not gonna happen. The republicans seem to know this.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fired back that Republicans are “working diligently to get a solution” and accused Democrats of trying to block a deal. McConnell said he suspected that “the folks down at the White House are pulling for failure because, you see, if the joint committee succeeds, it steps on the story line that they’ve been peddling, which is that you can’t do anything with the Republicans in Congress.”

Right on Mitch. And the democrats continue to ask for what they know the republicans can and should never give them.

Members of the supercommittee had planned to continue talking Tuesday afternoon, but a bipartisan meeting was abruptly canceled, and neither side appeared optimistic about the prospects for a breakthrough. “I have yet to see a real, credible plan that raises revenue in a significant way to bring us to a fair, balanced proposal,” Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), the Democratic co-chairman of the panel, told reporters.

These request for insane tax hikes, in fact, as far as I am concerned for any tax hikes that isn’t one where the 47% that today doesn’t pay any taxes now have to pay them too, need to be DOA. And that’s because these “cuts” all come in a decade, long after Team Obama is gone, while the taxes happen yesterday. That’s basically a guarantee that the nanny-staters will keep spending like they are doing now, racking up the deficit to grow the collectivist dependant base they depend on for votes, then the cuts never happen. Fuck that. That’s why this:

Late Monday, some GOP supercommittee members finally crossed the anti-tax line that their leaders had drawn in the sand. In a meeting that dragged on nearly to midnight, Sens. Patrick J. Toomey (Pa.) and Rob Portman (Ohio) and Reps. Dave Camp and Fred Upton, both of Michigan, presented a new proposal to Democrats Kerry, Sen. Max Baucus (Mont.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.).

Pisses me off. If they give into them now, the commiecrats will just keep saying no until they either get the ridiculous 1 for 1 option they want, which to put things into perspective means they want $1 trillion in taxes now for the promise of a $1 trillion cut 10 years from now, or they will kill the thing, and give Obama his campaign bumper sticker. The fact that the do nothing congress is courtesy of Harry Reid will never be mentioned by the LSM.

One promise Team Obama plans to keep..

And that is to make us all pay a lot more for our electric utilities in order to push his stupid green agenda, which I remind you all produced such doozies as Solyndra and have cost the tax payers billions of wasted dollars, on an unwilling customer.

Already weary of high gas prices and 9.1 percent unemployment, many Americans are about to get another kick in the wallet thanks to large increases in their electricity bills.

From Alaska to Georgia and Wyoming to Florida, utilities are seeking permission to pass on hundreds of millions of dollars in new charges to customers to help upgrade aging infrastructure and build new or retrofitted power plants that comply with tougher environmental regulations, a Daily Beast review of regulatory filings has found.

The influx of requests, many still pending before state regulators, has left energy experts convinced that electricity prices will be on the rise for the foreseeable future as the industry struggles to modernize its aging infrastructure.

This is not news to those of us that knew this was part of the agenda. The morons that defended these crooks or pretended this wasn’t coming are of course not going to admit they where wrong. They don’t really care if they where after all, they where just hoping to distract and prevent any possible action by pretending they where arguing in good faith. As usual, the left’s agenda has consequences:

The pending rate hikes are bad news for poor and elderly Americans on tight budgets, as Congress and the White House begin making cuts to programs that help people cope with their utility bills. One program in particular, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, was slashed during the budget negotiations earlier this year, and is slated for even deeper reductions this fall.

Party of the little people indeed. The good thing about this is that after the last 3 hard years of this crap, and the pain it will leave us with for the foreseeable future, it will be decades before anyone trusts one of these collectivists to do anything but cause harm to the lower and middle classes. Welcome to painful and higher prices. For your own good, of course.