The Senate voted 89 to t0 10 to pass that disgraceful TWO MONTH extension of the payroll tax cut and extended unemploymenbt benefits. The two month PUNT is enough reason, in and of itself, to vote AGAINST each and ever one of those 89 Senators. For years, I have told you that EVERY member of teh U.S. Seante should be defeated--especially thouse elected before 2010--because ALL Senators are "politics as usual" politicians without either principle or intelligence (except in getting elected). They are ALL establishment people at a time twhen the "establishment" has OBVIOUSLY FAILED us all. This disgraceful vote has again PROVEN another of my FORESIGHT positions to be absolutely correct. But why single out Blunt? Because I HEERD Blunt try to "defend" taht vote on CNN, and I heard the DEMOCRAT from West Virginia say why he voted aginst the bill, and teh DEMOCRAT made infinitely more sense (including explaining that the bill--one of the reasons it is bad beyond that ridiculous two month disgrace--treats the FUNDING for Social Security as just another political football. To make it clear: I would vote FOR lthe DEMOCRAT from West Virginia for teh Untied States Senate. hell, I would be tempted to vote fo him for PRESIDENT (although I would have to hear more about him on otehr matters).
Howe dare I call Blunt an Obama clone? Easy, as I lstened to him on CNN, I coiuld have closed my eyes and sworn it was Obama talkhnig ( a feeling I get more and more every time I hear a GOP politician these days, including probable nominee Mitt Romney). No, Blunt does not have that "preacher' sing-song voice of Obama that some find so appealing (I never have), but the SUBSTANCE of what he said was rigaht out of the Obama playbook. He NEVER talked about the deficit and the debt. Indeed, what appears to be his website ANNNOUNCES right now--apparently with pride--taht Blunt voted FOR those 2012 spending bills, including the omnibus spending bill, in which the GOP abandoned all attempts to control spending for 2012. IF you are going to admit voting for those bills at all, youy should at least say you did nso with reluctance. Blunt all but admitted, as does EVERYONE who talks about the payroll tax cut, that it is a middle class BRIBE: one of the most cynical, unprincipled and destructive bills to ever be proposed in the United States Congress (which was true last December as well, with the descriptioin after the coln, of course, being mine and noot Blunt's). But we still have not even gotten to Buunt's major crime, being repeated by GOP politician after GOP politician That was to--I swear, literally every other sentence--describe the BRIBE as "fully paid for".
This should bring backmemories of Obama talking aobut every single one of his disastrous bills. Remember ObamaCare? What did Obama saky, as one of HIS main "arguments for the bill? right. Every onther sentence he said that the bill was "fully paid for. Does Blunt think that spurious LIE ws a reason to vote for ObamaCare (meant,by Obama, to be the same kind of BRIBE as the payroll tax cut, although ObamaCare created a new Federal bureaucracy and Federal takeover of our healh caer system, while the fraudulent "pyyroll tax cut" at least creates no Federal bureaucracy and control in and of itself).
This blog has spendt months and years explaining why "fully paid for' is a LIE--just as much a LIE when GOLP politicians use it as when Obama uses it. What happens if we use every bit of additional revenue and/or "svings" over the next ten years to "pay for" NEW additons to the deficit and debt? It does not take Einsteing, algluth it is too much for politicians and our media, to realize that would mean that our present 1.3 TRILLION dollar yearly deficits will NEVER go down. In a previuos article, I mentioned that our debt will be 20 TRILLION dollars by 2020. That was insanely optimistic. If we continue using Blunt's (and Obama's) reasonsing, our debt will be MORE than 25 TRILLION dollars by 2020. Obama, himself , has said that is insane. Blunt would probably say it is insane That does not stop them from LYING about "fully paid for' How can you "pay for' NEW additiosn to the deficit, when you NEED that money to 'pay for" the deficit we already have? It is beyond insane, andusing the term "fully paid for' is a guarantted way for a GOP politician to enter this blog's Hall of Shame. It is vritually guaranteed to get any GOP politician NAMED as part of this bog's "Defeat the GOP" series.
Notice taht the above even assumes that the measures "fully paying for" new additions to the debt and deficit are REAL. If they are real' savings", we still NEED them to "pay for" the deficit we have. But they are usually PHONY, ficitonal "savings" taht will likely never occur. Blunt, himself, said as much without seeming to realize that the had CONDEMNED hismself out of his own lips. Blunt touted one part of this bill that the Seante passed (similar to the bill the House passed, except with that ridiculous two month time period because the Senate wanted more time to commit FRAUD on the "paying for" lie) would 'fix' Medicare reimbursement for doctors. This is the costantly EXTENDED (what Congress does best, and fo which they should ALL be defeated) provision that would CUT Medicare reimbursemment to doctors back to a level of ten years or so ago. Everyone agrees that this would cause doctors to sTOP treating Medicare patients. This will happen on Jaunuary 1, unless this provision is not "fixed', OR "extended" once again (which would be about the 10th time). WHY was that Medicare reimbursement set this way in the first place? Blunt, himself, told you, in the CNN interview I saw. Blunt accurately said that it was a PHONY "pay for" a previous bill passed by Congerss (way back at the end of the Clinton Administration) .
How do we know that the "savings" Blunt is referencing will actually take place? WE DON'T. Why will not many, or most, of those "savings" DISAPPEAR (as that Medicare reimbursement "saving" is going to disappear)? Odds are that they will. That, alone, makes this "payroll tax cut" gimmick a BAD BILL. But that is only the THIRD best reason that the "fully paid for" is a LIE. As sated, it is absurd to say that we are "fully paying for" AnYTHING, when we are FAILING to pay for the deificits we now have. Then, we are "parying for" a ONE-YEAR increase in the deficit with supposed "savings" over TEN YEARS. That is absurd. It is mortgaging our future. It is only after those two LIES that we get to the thrid LIE: That these "savings' will ever take place. You say that those "Medicare reimbursement" "savings" will still be "paid for" over the NEXT ten years? ........................................................................... Sorry, I was on the floor laughing and crying bitterly, all at the same time. The "paying for' gets extended FOREVER. And we NEVER get around to "living within our means" (that phrase so beloved of comic genius Obama, along with that "fully apid for" LIE).
No, Roy Blunt. You are a wrthy additin to the "Defeat the GOP" series. Message to Missouri voters (Blunt being a Missouri Senator): DEFEAT ROY BLUNT. I fully realize that Blunt will not be up for relelction for awhile. However, it is never too early to strat preparing to DEFEAT HIM. Do it.
I kno. i have set myself a daunting task. So many GOP oliticians to DEFEAT, and so little time, money and influence to do it. But I can only do what I can do. Stay tuned for the next GOP politican to be NAMED to this Hall of Shame.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).