Obama to Boehner: No Deal on Debt Limit, Defunding Obamacare

Bailey Comment: Like we didn't see this coming! President Barack Obama called House Speaker John Boehner late Friday and reiterated that he would not negotiate with Congress on raising the debt limit, a Boehner representative told Newsmax.

"The president called the speaker this evening to tell him he wouldn't negotiate with him on the debt limit," the spokesman said in a statement. "Given the long history of using debt limit increases to achieve bipartisan deficit reduction and economic reforms, the speaker was disappointed, but told the president that the two chambers of Congress will chart the path ahead.

"It was a brief call," the Boehner spokesman said.

The president also called House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the White House said.

"The president telephoned Speaker Boehner and told him again that the full faith and credit of the United States should not and will not be subject to negotiation," an administration official told Politico in a statement. "The president reiterated that it is the constitutional responsibility of the U.S. Congress to pass the nation's budget and pay the nation’s bills."

Editor's Note: Should ObamaCare Be Defunded? Vote in Urgent National Poll

Obama's calls came as the House of Representatives voted to temporarily finance the federal government while defunding Obamacare. The 230-189 vote set up a showdown with the Senate and the White House.

House Republicans said on Wednesday they were preparing legislation to raise the government's $16.7 trillion debt limit.

Leaders have said that they were considering including such options as blocking Obama administration plans to curb coal ash pollution; forcing civil servants to contribute more to their retirement plans; requiring Congress to approve many major regulations; and defunding Obamacare for a year.

Obama has said he wants Congress to send him legislation that simply extends the debt limit and has said that he will not negotiate the matter.

The government is expected to exhaust its borrowing authority by late October. That would threaten a first-ever federal default, which many analysts believe would deal a severe blow to the economy.

Meanwhile, Republican leaders have said they do not want a federal default and have noted that past presidents, including Obama in 2011, have negotiated over earlier bills to extend the debt limit.

In a video released on Thursday, Boehner questioned Obama's willingness to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin over the chemical weapons issue in Syria but not with Republicans.

"Why is the Obama administration willing to negotiate with Putin on Syria ... But not with Congress to address Washington's spending problem?" the text from the ad asks.

The United States and Russia reached a deal last week in which Syrian President Bashar Assad would give up his nuclear arsenal to be destroyed via international standards. The threat of a U.S. military strike against Syria was staved off by the agreement.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-boehner-debt-obamacare/2013/09/20/id/526969?ns_mail_uid=5689450&ns_mail_job=1538488_09212013&promo_code=14F46-1#ixzz2fYEWxGL8
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Another far left nut coming out.

These are the people educating our young?

Kansas professor placed on leave after tweet about Navy Yard killings

A journalism professor at the University of Kansas was placed on administrative leave Friday after posting a comment on Twitter regarding Monday's shooting at the Washington Navy Yard that killed 12 people.
David Guth, an associate professor at the school, went after the National Rifle Association in a Twitter message that read: "#NavyYardShooting The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you."
Guth, who said he was writing as a private citizen simply looking to start a debate, has stood by his message.
"I dont apologize for it because I'm not saying in the tweet that I want anybody harmed, and I expanded on it in my blog," Guth told Fox4KC.com. "I defend the NRA's rights first and second amendments and I hope they respect mine."
The Kansas State Rifle Association, however, has called for Guth's immediate dismissal.
"The KSRA will do everything possible to see to the removal of this man," said Kansas State Rifle Association President Patricia Stoneking.
The school's chancellor, Bernadette Gray-Little, made the announcement in a statement Friday about about his "indefinite administrative leave pending a review of the entire situation."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/20/kansas-professor-placed-on-leave-after-tweet-about-navy-yard-killings/?intcmp=latestnews#ixzz2fW9fVEVs

The real solution for liberal academia

It happens almost like clockwork. 

Every couple of weeks, some far left wing professor pops off on Twitter.  These left wing professors do not simply express an opinion.  They say something so outrageous and beyond the pale that it makes news. 

Then they get placed on administrative leave for the semester, they are forgotten about and they return to their jobs.  It’s a great racket for left wing professors.  It is a simple way to earn a paid vacation.

Kansas University professor David Guth has been placed on administrative leave after tweeting that he wished death and damnation on NRA members and their children. 

Guth is now a hero to his left wing colleagues.  He will no doubt be fêted with lunches in his honor and he will be invited to speak at liberal gatherings.  Meanwhile odds are an overwhelming majority of the taxpayers of Kansas who help pay his salary are not too happy with him as a state employee.

It’s not just Twitter where these far left wing professors spout their garbage.  William Penn teaches creative writing at Michigan State University.  He went on a political rant the first day of class, saying, “If you go to the Republican convention in Florida, you see all of the old Republicans with the dead skin cells washing off them. They are cheap. They don’t want to pay taxes because they have already raped this country and gotten everything out of it they possibly could.”

Most of those students thought they had signed up for a creative writing course.

Michigan State put William Penn on paid leave for the semester.  He gets a full vacation.  Most people who did something that stupid would get fired.

In Florida, a professor Dr. Deandre Poole, told students to make a sign with the name “Jesus” on it then stomp it.  One student refused and was suspended.  Eventually the University apologized to the student and instead suspended Poole.  Another paid leave.



Here is an idea for the people of Florida, Kansas and Michigan who are tired of left wing professors who are using their classrooms to indoctrinate students and otherwise insult the people who pay their salaries.

Most of these professors cannot be fired because of tenure.  But there is nothing that says the state legislature cannot defund their position and the positions of the Deans above them. 

There is a lesson liberals don’t get.  When you work for someone, that means you represent them.  That means you don’t get to say anything and everything you want to and you don’t get to insult the people who pay your salary.

The left has hijacked academia and no one remembers why we have colleges anymore.  It isn’t a four-year party and contrary to what the left thinks, it is not the full employment office for unemployed radicals. 

Parents send their children to college to get an education so they can get a job after they graduate.  It is time for state legislatures to do their duty and start reminding taxpayer funded colleges and universities of that truth.

They can start by getting rid of some of these radical leftists.

• Posted by Judson Phillips on September 20, 2013 at 3:46pm in Tea Party Nation Forum

Dumb Quixote

President Obama’s FERC Nominee Ron Binz Derailed by Truthiness

President Obama’s Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) nominee Ron Binz was caught in a tangle of contradictions during his confirmation hearing Tuesday before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
For starters, Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) suggested that Binz misled her during a previous face to face meeting. As reported by Politico’s Darius Dixon,

Murkowski suggested early in the hearing that Binz may have misled her last week when they discussed whom he has worked with to guide his confirmation.
“You’ve effectively got a team — a shadow team* — of lobbyists and PR experts that have been helping throughout,” she told Binz. She added, “But what I can’t reconcile is your statement to me that said the only ones that you were working were the FERC external team.” (full article here)

So that’s one instance of Binz seeming to bend the truth before the U.S. Senate.
Later, during the same hearing, Binz told another apparent whopper. According to our friend Todd Shepherd at Complete Colorado,

Mr. Binz attempted to defend his record on coal by telling Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Va.), “I approved the largest coal plant that was ever built in Colorado.”* Mr. Binz is referring to the Comanche-3 power plant. Only the Colorado Public Utilities Commission would have the authority to approve new coal plants.
The problem is the fact the decision by Colorado’s PUC to build the largest coal plant in the state’s history came in 2004, according to Xcel Energy’s website. Mr. Binz did not become a member of the PUC board until 2007.

Alas, there’s more.
Regarding a 2010 fuel switching plan that Binz implemented as Chair of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, the FERC nominee told the junior Senator from West Virginia, “The legislation told us to approve a plan to comply with future EPA regulations.”
Binz clearly was intimating to Sen. Manchin, who represents a pro-coal state, that it was Colorado lawmakers (rather than Ron Binz) who were responsible for the plan that required fuel switching from coal to gas for almost 1,000 megawatts of power generation. But that’s not the whole story. As I explain in this report on Binz’s Colorado history, Binz helped write the fuel switching law! Here’s the relevant excerpt from the report (citations omitted):

Binz’s operating thesis is that “today’s regulation may not be up to the task” of “making over” the utility industry. Thus, Binz sought to expand his regulatory role at the Colorado PUC, in order to facilitate clean energy investment and energy efficiency. To this end, he actually participated in the drafting of legislation that mandated fuel switching from coal to gas for almost 1,000 megawatts of power generation. From a separation of powers perspective, it is unsettling that Binz helped write legislation whose implementation he oversaw. Due to this appearance of impropriety, seven Colorado state senators sent former Colorado governor Bill Ritter a letter demanding that Binz recuse himself from implementing the fuel switching law.

Binz’s seeming difficulty telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, was not without consequence. At the hearing, Sen. Murkowski announced her intention to oppose his nomination. And yesterday, Sen. Manchin announced his opposition, citing Binz’s Colorado history.
Assuming that no Republican breaks ranks with Ranking Member Sen. Murkowski and all the Committee Democrats (other than Sen. Manchin) vote for Binz, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee vote is 11 -11. This puts confirmation in doubt. According to National Journal, “since 1987 only five nominations that got a neutral reporting from a committee were brought to the floor, and only one was approved.”
A neutral committee report would be an extraordinary development coming from the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which is known for harmony. However, Binz is an extraordinary case. As I explain in the aforementioned study on his history in Colorado, Binz has a troubling record of pushing the boundaries of regulatory power in order to discriminate against fossil fuels and promote green energy.
*N.B. The existence of Binz’s “shadow team” was revealed earlier this week by the Washington Times’s Stephen Dinan. His report, in turn, was based on emails obtained by my colleague Chris Horner on behalf the Independence Institute and the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic.

Ohio clinic touted by Obama slashes budget due to ObamaCare

The grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence.
An Ohio clinic that was touted by Obama while he was speaking on health care reform is now blaming ObamaCare after it was forced to cut $330 million from its budget.
Fox 8 reports the Cleveland Clinic, which is the largest employer in Northeast Ohio with about 39,000 workers in the region, announced the cuts to its 2014 budget at a meeting Wednesday.
A spokeswoman for the clinic tells Fox News the clinic is being forced to cut back to prepare for increased costs and decreased revenue under the health care reform law.
These changes will include offering early retirement to approximately 3,000 employees, reducing operational costs, and then layoffs as needed.
The clinic says its main priority is to continue to provide a high quality of care during the transition, an attribute that led Obama to tout it in 2009 as an example of what hospitals could be under ObamaCare.
In a press conference in July of that year, Obama said the Cleveland Clinic is an example of health care that works “well.”
“And part of the reason it works well is because they've set up a system where patient care is the number-one concern, not bureaucracy, what forms have to be filled out, what do we get reimbursed for,” Obama said. “Those are changes that I think the American people want to see.”
Now four years later, employees at the clinic say they are worried they won’t be able to provide patients care at all anymore if they are laid off.
“It absolutely concerns me,” employee Joanne Lyons told Fox 8. “Everybody wants to keep their job and we want to do the best that we can do, but it’s a new era and we don’t know what to expect. But I believe the administration is just trying to prepare for whatever could happen and make sure that we’re strong.”
Clinic officials tell Fox 8 their situation is not unique, as hospitals nationwide are being forced to cut back due to ObamaCare.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney did not comment when asked about the budget cuts to the Cleveland Clinic at a press briefing

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/19/ohio-clinic-touted-by-obama-in-health-care-reform-speech-slashes-budget-due-to/#ixzz2fQJbFXxR

House Republicans accuse Senate colleagues of caving on push to de-fund ObamaCare

House Republicans, in an unusually caustic intra-party squabble, are ripping their conservative colleagues in the Senate for what they see as an abrupt cave-in on the push to de-fund ObamaCare.
“They're waving the white flag already,"one House GOP lawmaker said Wednesday.
The squabble started after House Speaker John Boehner earlier in the day announced he would agree to the demands of Tea Party-aligned lawmakers to tie a vote on de-funding the health care law to a vote on a must-pass budget bill.
The move would effectively condition the approval of the spending bill on ObamaCare being de-funded, or else risk a government shutdown when funding runs out at the end of the month.
But Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, one of the most vocal supporters of the “de-fund ObamaCare” push, startled his House colleagues when he released a written statement Wednesday afternoon that appeared to acknowledge the bill will probably fail in the Senate.
“Today's announcement that the House will vote to defund ObamaCare is terrific news,” Cruz said, in a press release from him, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.
“Harry Reid will no doubt try to strip the defund language from the continuing resolution, and right now he likely has the votes to do so. At that point, House Republicans must stand firm, hold their ground, and continue to listen to the American people.”
House Republicans are concerned that this kind of approach effectively pins the entire effort on the House.
"We expect them to stand and filibuster like Rand Paul," fumed one senior House GOP aide.
"It's time to put on the big boy pants," said one House Republican who didn't want to be identified. "Maybe this will wean us of the bed-wetters."
A senior GOP leadership aide said they don't expect this dissension to blow up the bill in the House on Friday. But they are concerned about where things are going now if the GOP senators don't defend their turf.
Effectively, in announcing the new bill, Boehner and his deputies backed off a compromise approach they earlier tried to sell to rank-and-file conservatives. Under that plan, the House would have sent two bills to the Senate -- one to de-fund ObamaCare, the other to fund the government. The Senate, then, would have been able to easily bypass the ObamaCare bill and send the spending measure straight to the White House, in turn averting a government shutdown.
But House conservatives revolted, and Boehner now is tying the two votes together.
But the plan is undoubtedly risky.
Both Obama and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid have suggested Republicans will bear the brunt of the blame if the gambit results in a government shutdown.
Obama blasted Republicans during an interview Tuesday with Telemundo.
"We're hearing that a certain faction of Republicans, in the House of Representatives in particular are arguing for government shutdown or even a default for the United States of America ... if they don't get 100 percent of what they want," Obama said.
Current funding for the government is set to expire at the end of the month, and lawmakers must approve the stopgap bill in order to keep Washington open.
The GOP measure would fund the government through Dec. 15, at current funding levels. Republicans also plan to push a measure dealing with the debt ceiling, with a mid-October deadline looming for when the government can no longer honor its obligations.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/19/house-republicans-accuse-senate-colleagues-caving-in-on-push-to-de-fund/#ixzz2fKSBrkrX

The Hard Working American vs. The Government Parasite

Which lifestyle choice produces better results - being a hard working American or being a government parasite?  Actually, when you look at the cold, hard numbers they may just surprise you.  In America today, we deeply penalize hard work and we greatly reward government dependence.  If you live in a very liberal area of the country and you know how to game the system, it is entirely possible to live a comfortable existence without ever working too much at all.  In fact, there are some Americans that have been living off of "government benefits" for decades.  Many of these people actually plan their lives around doing exactly what they need to do to qualify for as many benefits as possible.  America is rapidly turning into a European-style socialist welfare state and it is destroying our nation socially and financially.  Ever since the "war on poverty" began our debt has absolutely exploded and yet now there are more poor people in this country than ever before.  Obviously something is not working.
Now don't get me wrong.  I deeply believe in having compassion for those that are going through tough times and having a safety net for those that cannot take care of themselves.  We should not have a single person in this nation going without food or sleeping in the streets.
But in America today it is absolutely ridiculous how many people are climbing aboard the "safety net".  At this point, an astounding 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that receives some form of government benefits.
So who pays for all of this?
The people that drag themselves out of bed and go to work each day pay for it all.
For a few moments, let's examine how the lifestyle of a typical hard working American compares to the lifestyle of a government parasite.
In America today, the median yearly household income is somewhere around $50,000.  About half of all American households make more than that and about half of all American households make less than that.  When you break it down, it comes to about $4000 a month.
So how far does $4000 go in America today?
Unfortunately, it doesn't go very far at all.
First of all, a hard working American family will need some place to live.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of the decent jobs are near the big cities, and it is more expensive to live near the big cities.  Let's assume that an average family of four will spend about $1000 a month on rent or on a mortgage payment.
The government parasite, on the other hand, has a whole host of federal, state and local housing programs to take advantage of.  During the recent economic downturn, more Americans than ever have been turning to the government for help with housing costs.  For example, federal housing assistance outlays increased by a whopping 42 percent between 2006 and 2010.
Once you have a place to live, you have to provide power and heat for it.  For the average hard working American, this is going to probably average about $300 a month, although this can vary greatly depending on where you live.
For the government parasite, there are once again a whole host of government programs to help with this.  For example, LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program) assists low income households in paying their home heating bills.
Most average hard working Americans are also going to need phone and Internet service.  Let's assume that the hard working family of four in our example is extremely thrifty and only spends $100 a month for these services.
For the government parasite, cell phone service is not a problem.  As I have written about previously, those that "qualify" can receive a free cell phone and free cell phone minutes every single month from the federal government.  In addition, in some areas of the nation low income families can qualify for deeply subsidized home Internet service.
In order to earn money, our hard working family is going to need to get to work.  In most households, both parents have decided to work these days so both of them will need cars.  Let's assume that the family is very thrifty and that both cars were purchased used and that the car payments only total about $400 a month.
The hard working family will also need auto insurance for the two vehicles.  Let's assume that both parents have a great driving record and that they only pay a total of about $100 a month for car insurance.
The cars will also need to be filled up with gasoline.  The average U. S. household spent $4155 on gasoline during 2011, but let's assume that our family is very, very careful and that they only spend about $300 on gas each month.
So what about the government parasite?  Well, the government parasite does not need to go to work, so this expense can potentially be eliminated entirely.  But since most other things are paid for by the government or are deeply subsidized, in many instances government parasites are actually able to afford very nice vehicles.
In addition, a new bill (The Low-Income Gasoline Assistance Program Act) has been introduced in Congress that would give "qualifying" households money to help pay for gasoline....

Low-Income Gasoline Assistance Program Act - Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to states to establish emergency assistance programs to pay eligible households for the purchase of gasoline.

A hard working American family is also going to need health insurance.  Well, we all know how expensive health insurance has become.  In fact, health insurance costs have risen by 23 percent since Barack Obama became president.  But let's assume that our hard working family has somehow been able to find an amazing deal where they only pay $500 a month for health insurance for a family of four.
For the government parasite, health insurance is not needed.  If there is an emergency, the government parasite can just go get free medical care at any emergency room.
And of course there is always Medicaid.  Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid.  Today, one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid, and things are about to get a whole lot worse.  It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.
So what about food?
Everyone has to eat, right?
Well, the hard working family in our example is faced with an environment where food prices are constantly rising but paychecks are not keeping up.  Let's assume that the hard working family in our example clips coupons and cuts corners any way that it can and only spends about $50 for each member of the family on food and supplies each week.  That comes to a total of $800 a month for the entire family.
So what about the government parasite?
Government parasites need to eat too.
Well, that is where food stamps come in.  Right now, there are more than 46 million Americans on food stamps.  Since Barack Obama became president, the number of Americans on food stamps has increased by 14 million.  Food stamps have become so popular that rappers are even making rap videos about using food stamp cards.
Okay, so after all of this where do we stand?
Well, the average hard working family so far has spent $3500 out of the $4000 that they have to spend for the month.
We still need to find money for clothing, for paying off credit card debt, for paying off student loan debt, for dining out, for entertainment, for medications, for pets, for hobbies, for life insurance, for vacations, for car repairs and maintenance, for child care, for gifts and for retirement savings.
But wait.
There is actually no money left at all because we have forgotten one of the biggest expenses of all.
Taxes.
When you total up all federal, state and property taxes, our average hard working family is going to pay at least $1000 a month in taxes.
So that puts our average hard working family in the hole every single month.
Meanwhile, the government parasite does not pay any taxes because he or she does not earn enough money to be taxed.
Are you starting to get the picture?
In many ways, life can be so much easier when you are constantly taking from the government instead of constantly giving to the government.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie recently put it this way....

"We'll have a bunch of people sitting on a couch waiting for their next government check"

Once again, I am not dumping on those that have been through all kinds of nightmares because of this economy.  As I have written about so frequently, the U.S. economy is simply not producing enough jobs for everyone anymore, and this is creating major problems.
Just about everyone needs a helping hand at some point, and we should always be compassionate to those that are in need.
However, there is also a growing number of Americans that are content to simply give up and live off of the government, and that is fundamentally wrong.
It is not the job of the U.S. government to take care of you from the cradle to the grave.  What the U.S. government is supposed to do is to make sure that we have a well functioning economy that operates in an environment where hard working individuals and small businesses can thrive, and sadly the U.S. government has failed miserably in that regard.
We desperately need the U.S. economy to be fixed, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
As economic conditions get even worse in this country, millions more Americans are going to turn to the government for assistance and at some point the safety net is going to break.
What is our country going to look like when that happens?