Carol's 90% Solution

Carol Shea Porter (D-Oz) got busted walking in the door at 3AM with stimulus on her breath, and now she's in full duck and cover mode because it's obvious she doesn't read what she votes on.    I know, the Dog ate her copy of the bill so she never got to read it.  The leadership snuck her the answer key so she didn't have to study.  Nancy really said vote no, but the botox was still working and it sounded an awful lot like vote yes.  Whatever the cause, as a lefty-liberal in her  natural habitat, the only appropriate response is to first ignore your complicity--"but look I was told to vote against the TARP bills that didn't approve the bonus"--and just support the next law that comes along that fixes it.  Screw the constitution, this is outrage we're having here.

Washington, D.C.– Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter today voted in favor of legislation (HR.1586) that will hold companies, including American International Group (AIG), accountable for the excessive compensation packages that have been paid to executives on the American taxpayer’s dime. The legislation will tax these bonuses at a rate of 90 percent.

“It is outrageous that failed AIG executives are lining their pockets at the taxpayers’ expense,” said Congresswoman Shea-Porter. “I voted against TARP funding twice because it was clear that there was no oversight or accountability,and this is the result. The Wall Street executives who caused our financial crisis must be held accountable and this legislation will ensure that the bulk of the AIG bonuses are recovered immediately.”

So is she outraged that she voted for the stimulus?  Is she outraged because “it was clear that there was no oversight or accountability”  in the stimulus she voted for? (now that she doesn’t need the no votes as political cover to win an election--note that once elected no became yes.) Is she simply outraged because she was tricked into approving the bonuses when she voted for the stimulus?  Is she outraged because AIG actually took her at her word, that it was OK to give out the bonuses she approved?  Is she outraged that she can't tax any of the bonuses that went to employees in foreign countries?  (Many did) Maybe she’s outraged because she got a nice taxpayer funded bonus at the beginning of the year in the form of a raise and now she looks like a hypocrite.  Maybe she's outraged that her stimulus gave billions of taxpayer dollars to foreign banks through American ones?

Nope.  Just the fake outrage, and a big HB1586 shaped mint to hide the stimulus on her breath.

We get a press release complimenting her 'responsible oversight' when it was her irresponsible obsession with advancing the party agenda over the interests of her constituents that got her to this point in the first place.

We get HR1586 because everyone knows that when you come from a state with no income tax the first thing you do after you get busted handing out a bonus with taxpayer dollars is to tax that income at 90%.  Yeah.  That's the ticket.

How about this Carol.  Read the bills, and start voting for the people of New Hampshire, instead of CA-08.

Obama Motors

Who knows more about losing money than the government?

So this only seems fitting. Can you say union back scratching on the taxpayer dime?  How about 'backed by the US government?  What like the dollars you keep printing?

Will we be paying to build crappy green cars no one wants so we can then pay for incentives so someone will buy them.  Not yet, but how soon till we do?

Of course this pattern continues to grow.  Treasury is also trying to force more TARP money on banks that no longer want it--but they say they are actually starting to turn their own profit  and want to start paying it back. 

Gee, I wonder why?

How much longer can the Obamadministration play at saving companies and jobs while all they are really doing is socializing the country?  Will people tolerate it much longer?

And how long will New Hampshire tolerate elected representatives who just go along for the ride?

What's the verdict.  Will GM get better or worse? And what about forcing TARP money on bankers who no longer want it?

Paul "Mr Middle Class" Hodes

In keeping with the assault on the middle class--in direct contradiction to promises to defend them--Mr. Hodes, of the class of illiterate House members who refuse to read what they vote for--has put another nail in the coffin of freedom.

He (and blind Betty co-hort Carol Shea Porter) approved of regulations that would restrict any agency dispensing federal money from accepting bids from contractors that do not use union certified labor.

No surprise that the much needed, emergency (we have to pass this now) stimulus, which is meant to "help us" rebuild our infrastructure and create much needed jobs will not actually create "much needed" anything, unless you mean stimulating the pockets of union employees and their dues collecting democrat sponsoring bosses.

Turns out that 84% of the contractors in this country don't use union labor unless forced to do so.  That means our ultra-liberal statist Pelosi-twins have not only unleashed 800 billion plus earmarks, plus bloated budgets filled with our tax dollars into the maw of the bureaucratic void, they will have managed to stimulate--with whatever remains--no more than 16% of the workforce and their own campaign coffers.

And if the other 84% want to bid any jobs, they will have to make deals with union bosses.  This will increase the average cost of every project by about 20% according to the Beacon Hill Institute, and guarantee more money for unions to spend on democrats like Hodes.   So now you know what you are stimulating; less competition, more expensive projects, and less freedom, with your money.

Talk about elitist back scratching.

Paul Hode's clearly has no interest in a fair and efficient use of government or taxpayer dollars, which means he doesn't give a damn what you need, just in what keeps his campaign cash flowing, and his backside in Washington.   So keep that in mind the next time he spouts off about New Hampshire values and protecting the middle class.  He's just using you to finance his own campaign whether you like it or not. 

Politics of Personal Misdirection

The Grok started a huff on the left by stating some inconvenient truths about Bud Martin, the Dem running for the State Senate Seat in district 3.

To be honest, the democrat (non) response is probably more damning than the actual facts that elicited the response in the Union Leader.

Rather than stand up for his actions and explain his thinking--which might be seen as a character strength by those folks he'd be representing, Martin let Ray Buckley read directly from the Democrats campaign manual.

"Ignore the facts."

"Blame opponent for negative campaigning."

"Point out something else completely irrelevant to distract voters."

'Blame your opponent for distracting voters."

The follow up to this is of course more obfuscation, more misdirection, and even the vilification of anyone who dares question these tactics of misdirection.  There's also plenty of grade-school blamestorming from the democrats because its always about something other than the question at hand.

"It's politics of destruction."  So you don't deny the statements?

"It's negative campaign tactics."  So you don't deny these facts?

"Bradley has a history of negative campaigning."  Still waiting to hear you comment on the facts...

"Karl Rove used to do this."  What ask a democrat to actually answer for their own actions?

"George Bush did it!"

Ok, I made that last part up, but would anyone be all that surprised?  I mean the Bradley-Bush connection has already come out from the left.  But that's not negative, is it?  What's next, Bradley is just a hack for Rush Limbaugh? 

I grow weary of this.

Can Bud Martin run on his merits or not?

Part of the answer to that question is why he can't answer for things that history has already recorded about him.  The things we sometimes refer to as facts.  If they really are that inconsequential why not set the record straight?

"House" Mothers

The daughters of New Hampshire can now sleep soundly knowing that if they get pregnant, whether by an act of free will or an act against their will, you meddling parents still never have to know.

They don't have to ask your advice.

They don't have to seek your comfort.

They don't need your permission.

They don't have to report a rape or any sexual abuse of any kind.

But they can report for their appointment to have an abortion, no counseling, no lines, no waiting.

And isn't that what you elect your State reps for?  Maybe they are ready to make themselves available for babysitting services as well?

Makes you wonder if the next act of the New Hampshire House will be to get drive thru's installed on abortion clinics, complete with Holiday gift certificates and engraved specula to commemorate the blessed event.

And while we're at it "Would you like fries with that today?"

HB274 Roll Call 

HB531 Roll Call