Buy-bye Queen Nancy.
Hello, Speaker Boehner!
Barney says he’s too good, er, too busy to debate.
(FOX 25 / MyFoxBoston.com) – We invited incumbent Barney Frank (D) to debate Sean Bielat (R). Sean Bielat was live in our Dedham studio. Barney Frank, who has held the seat since 1981, was unable to join us.
Frank’s office told us, The congressman is busy in Washington being a congressman. He welcomes debates, but due to scheduling conflicts he couldn’t make it tonight.
Next thing you know, he’ll be scoffing at the idea of shaking hands with the masses outside of Fenway Park and calling Curt Schilling a Yankees fan.
This is the third poll in less than two weeks which continues to show Obama’s numbers tanking. His approval rating – at just 43% – is at an all-time low in this poll.
UPDATE: This just-released CBS poll shows even more dismal numbers for Obama with just 40% having confidence in him as a leader.
Public confidence in President Obama has hit a new low, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. Four months before midterm elections that will define the second half of his term, nearly six in 10 voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country, and a clear majority once again disapproves of how he is dealing with the economy.
Regard for Obama is still higher than it is for members of Congress, but the gap has narrowed. About seven in 10 registered voters say they lack confidence in Democratic lawmakers and a similar proportion say so of Republican lawmakers.
Overall, more than a third of voters polled — 36 percent — say they have no confidence or only some confidence in the president, congressional Democrats and congressional Republicans. Among independents, this disillusionment is higher still. About two-thirds of all voters say they are dissatisfied with or angry about the way the federal government is working.
But you keep on golfing and flying around the country to ‘help’ Democrats running for reelection, Barry.
I’m shocked that nobody picked up on this when the bill was being scrutinized line by line.
Congress may be fined tens of millions of dollars a year under its own health-care law, in part because the bill dumps members of Congress and their staffs from their current health-care plans.
But no one really knows for sure what the bill does, not even the experts. For instance, exactly who qualifies as an “employer” — and therefore is subject to fines up to $3,000 per employee — is undefined in the bill.
If Congress were subject to a $3,000 fine for each of its employees, it would need to shell out approximately $50 million each year to Uncle Sam. Congress’s research arm, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), informally confirmed the possibility to Republican aides.
Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama’s top health-care cabinet official, will be responsible for establishing most of the details of how the law is implemented. Many Republicans who have raised the issue of Congress’s fining itself believe Sebelius likely will exempt Congress with a regulation narrowly defining “employer,” for instance.
Still, the possibility of the fines, and the uncertainty surrounding them, are drawing heckles from the health-care law’s critics.
“That’s the irony — here we may be the first major employer in the country to be fined for not providing proper health insurance for our employees,” Rep. Dan Lungren, California Republican, told The Daily Caller while laughing. “Isn’t that contrary to the very premise of the bill?”
I say the fine should be paid by each member of Congress who voted for ObamaCare.
Along with their poll numbers…
President Obama’s job approval rating fell to 47% for the week ending April 11, the lowest of his administration so far by one percentage point.
Obama’s weekly job approval average has fluctuated within the narrow four-point range of 47% to 51% since January of this year. The current weekly average more than anything else represents a continuation of the president’s generally lower approval ratings this year compared to the higher ratings he enjoyed in his first year in office.
On a short-term basis, Obama’s latest three-day average (Friday through Sunday) is at 45%, with disapproval at 48% — both of which are the worst three-day averages since Obama took office.
In the immediate days after the bill’s passage, Gallup showed a slight bump upward in Obama’s approval ratings, which Democrats hailed as the big comeback they’d predicted. But the overall direction of Obama’s approval numbers during the health-care debate has been plain to see. He started off with a 66% approval rating in May, as Nancy Pelosi readied the bill for consideration, and 59% in June when it was unveiled. He has lost a third of his support since its introduction, and Gallup reports that even among their sampling of the general adult population rather than registered or likely voters (a sample type that is traditionally more sympathetic to Democrats), ObamaCare remains unpopular.
Get ready for the Democrats and MSM to blame the mean voice mail messages he received for his retirement.
Nine-term Democratic congressman Bart Stupak, D-Michigan, will reveal Friday he is retiring from Congress, several Democratic sources close to Stupak tell CNN.
Good riddants, but the damage is done.
James P. Gannon of The American Spectator brilliantly sums up what is driving the anger across America and points out that the majority of those who are fed up are seething in silence.
It is the fury of the voiceless, the powerless, the ordinary nobodies of Flyover Country who are ridiculed, preached to, satirized and insulted by the Celebrity Loudmouths of the two Left Coasts, the Jon Stewarts and Keith Olbermanns, the Paul Krugmans and their ilk.
It is the salted wound of the millions who see that ruling Democrats in Congress are not listening to them but are willfully ignoring public opinion and the verdict of recent elections in passing a huge new health care entitlement when the existing entitlements of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are already going broke.
It is the frustrating helplessness of citizens who revere the Founding Fathers and the genius of the Constitution that they wrote, who actually believe the words of the Constitution mean what they say, not more and not less. They who watch politicians and the courts stretch and bend that Constitution — finding “rights” not enumerated, powers never granted, meanings unimagined — believe that their country is being redefined without their consent.
Most of the angry are not out marching in the streets, waving signs or shouting into bullhorns. And they are not smashing windows or phoning death threats to politicians. They are simply waking up angry in the morning, and going to bed angry at night. And their resentment is multiplied by the media’s efforts to portray them all as dangerous, crazy people, and by the effort of certain Democrats to tar them with brush of violent intent.
Read it all and be prepared for spontaneous fist waving.
If you read nothing else today, read the Heritage Foundation’s Morning Bell post, “Repeal.”
A small sampling:
In December of 1773, to protest unjust taxation, a group of American colonists dumped tea in Boston Harbor. The punishment for that first Tea Party was a series of intrusive laws passed by Parliament that were so oppressive that they could only be described as the “Intolerable Acts.”
Obamacare is today’s Intolerable Act. And just as the colonists banded together to enact change after those acts were passed, so should America respond to Obamacare. This law must be repealed.
Much of the fight against this bill will be led by the individual states, a process we encourage. All told, 33 states have already taken steps to challenge various aspects of Obamacare, including its unprecedented mandate that every American purchase health insurance or face a steep penalty for noncompliance. Four additional States will have this question on the ballot in November.
On Capitol Hill, the initial battle over Obamacare will occur when Congress considers whether to fund the tens of thousands of new federal bureaucrats necessary to implement the new law. In the tradition of the Hyde amendment, which prevented federal funding for abortions through annual limitations appended to appropriations bills, conservatives should look to the appropriations process as our first line of defense. Straightforward funding limitations would prevent any Administration official or any bureaucrat from implementing the law.
Our health care system requires reform, and we have long advocated measures to improve our system. We can and should strengthen the ability of American families to choose the coverage they want, rather than giving that power to Congress and its agency bureaucrats. We can also spur competition and choice to bring efficiency and lower costs to the health system, in place of the bill’s deadening regulation and damaging price controls. And, above all, we should foster state innovation rather than Washington-based central planning.
But such reforms can only be considered once this tragedy of arrogance has been fully and completely repealed.
Maybe he took a look at his poll numbers and saw a steep uphill climb. Maybe he didn’t think Scott Brown’s election was such a joke after all. Or maybe, just maybe, he never really wanted to hold public office but was never given a choice by his father. Whatever the reason, unless a Kennedy cousin throws their rat in the ring, 2011 will mark the first time that not a single Kennedy will be serving in Congress.
Bringing down the curtain – at least for now – on Camelot and one of the most storied political dynasties in the nation’s history, U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy, son of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, says he is not running for re-election.
In a taped message intended for broadcast Sunday night and obtained by the Herald, the R.I. Democrat, looking haggard and speaking directly into the camera, said it was time to leave Congress after 16 years.
Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty we are free at last!
Update 02/12/10: Endangered in Mass pointed out my typo in the first paragraph, but since rat is a good description of many Kennedys, I’m letting it stand.
Scroll for updates
The decision only applies to contracts that were signed prior to Congress’ vote to ban government funding for the group. Its author focuses on the phrase “provided to” as his basis for the decision.
Mr. Barron said he had based his conclusion on the statute’s phrase “provided to.” This phrase, he said, has no clearly defined meaning in the realm of government spending — unlike such words as “obligate” and “expend.”
Citing dictionary and thesaurus entries, he said “provided to” could be interpreted as meaning only instances in which an official was making “discretionary choices” about whether to give the group money, rather than instances in which the transfer of funds to Acorn was required to satisfy existing contractual obligations.
Since there are two possible ways to construe the term “provided to,” Mr. Barron wrote, it makes sense to pick the interpretation that allows the government to avoid breaching contracts.
Naturally. Who knows how many existing contracts are in place or when they expire, but until they do ACORN will continue to receive taxpayer funds for nefarious activities such as providing guidance in obtaining loans for child sex rings and money laundering.
Update: Darrell Issa blasts Justice Department’s decision
But Representative Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said “the bipartisan intent of Congress was clear — no more federal dollars should flow to ACORN.”
“It is telling that this administration continues to look for every excuse possible to circumvent the intent of Congress,” Issa said in a statement. “Taxpayers should not have to continue subsidizing a criminal enterprise that helped Barack Obama get elected president. The politicization of the Justice Department to payback one of the president’s political allies is shameful and amounts to nothing more than old-fashioned cronyism.”