Big spending era of Congress since Reagan owned by the democrats, but the GOP is in hot pursuit

Who is responsible for all this spending that has created this debt bubble monstrosity? Obama? Bush? The wars? The democrats? The republicans? The President? The answer would technically be both chambers of Congress and the President as they must all sign off on the legislation to authorize the spending, but I’m going to focus on the House of Representatives since that is where all spending bills must originate.

In this post, I wanted to point out the difference in spending by Congress depending on which party controls the House. Here are the tabulations by each session of Congress since Reagan took office as he is recognized as the first truly big government spender. You’ll see the numbered session of Congress along with the party make-up for that session and the total new debt racked up. Remember, this is all debt spending over and above the budget (if they even had one). Of the 15 sessions of Congress examined, 9 were controlled by the democrats (in red) and 6 by the republicans. The beginning and ending date with debt levels along with the accumulated totals are shown. Scroll to the bottom for the totals.

111th Congress  (D)257 (R)158

Jan. 6, 2009                            $10,638,425,746,293.80

Dec. 22, 2010                         $13,858,529,371,601.09

111th debt spending:       $3,220,103,625,307.29

110th Congress  (D)233(R)202

Jan. 4, 2007                             $8,670,596,242,973.04

Jan. 3, 2009                             $10,627,961,295,930.67

110th debt spending:       $1,957,365,052,957.63

109th Congress  (D)202(R)232

Jan. 4, 2005                            $ 7,601,016,892,663.19

Dec. 8, 2006                            $8,655,403,967,590.98

109th debt spending:      $ 1,054,387,074,927.79

108th Congress  (D)205(R)229

Jan. 7, 2003                             $6,387,381,983,103.35

Dec. 9, 2004                           $ 7,546,778,677,941.37

108th debt spending:      $1,159,396,694,838.02

107th Congress  (D)212(R)221

Jan. 3, 2001                             $5,723,237,439,563.59

Nov. 22, 2002                         $6,332,715,758,032.33

107th debt spending:       $609,478,318,468.74

106th Congress  (D)211(R)223

Jan. 6, 1999                            $5,615,428,551,461.33

Dec. 15, 2000                         $5,706,990,981,165.37

106th debt spending:      $91,562,429,704.04

105th Congress  (D)206(R)228

Jan. 7, 1997                            $5,312,781,237,956.91

Dec. 19, 1998                          $5,583,950,306,972.53

105th debt spending:      $271,169,069,015.62

104th Congress  (D)204(R)230

Jan. 4, 1995                             $4,801,793,426,032.89

Oct. 4, 1996                             $5,222,049,625,819.53

104th debt spending:       $420,256,199,786.64

103rd Congress  (D)258(R)176

Jan.5, 1993                              $4,169,232,407,244.75

Dec. 1, 1994                             $4,774,851,353,596.54

103rd debt spending:      $605,618,946,351.79

102nd Congress  (D)267(R)167

Jan. 3, 1991                               $3,364,820,000,000.00

Oct. 9, 1992                               $4,064,621,000,000.00

102nd debt spending:       $699,801,000,000.00

101st Congress  (D)260(R)175

Jan. 3, 1989                                $2,684,392,000,000.00

Oct. 28, 1990                              $3,274,950,000.000.00

101st debt spending:          $590,558,000,000.00

100th Congress  (D)258(R)177

Jan. 6,1987                                  9/30/86 thru 9/30/87  $224,974,274,294.58

Jan. 25,1988                                9/30/87 thru 9/30/88  $252,060,821,088.16

100th debt spending:          $477,035,095,382.74

(Note that Treasury doesn’t publish daily debt totals this far back so annual totals must be utilized)

99th Congress  (D)253(R)182

Jan. 3,1985                                   9/30/84 thru 9/30/85  $250,837,000,000.00

Jan. 21,1986                                 9/30/85 thru 9/30/86  $302,199,616,158.42

99th debt spending:             $553,036,616,658.42

98th Congress  (D)269(R)166

Jan. 3,1983                                   9/30/82 thru 9/30/83  $235,176,000,000.00

Jan. 23,1984                                 9/30/83 thru 9/30/84  $195,056,000,000.00

98th debt spending:             $430,232,000,000.00

97th Congress  (D)242(R)192

Jan. 5,1981                                    9/30/80 thru 9/30/81  $90,154,000,000.00

Jan. 25,1982                                 9/30/81 thru 9/30/82  $144,179,000,000.00

97th debt spending:             $234,333,000,000.00

Total democrat controlled               $8,768,083,336,657.87

Average per session                                   $974,231,481,850.87

Total republican controlled            $3,606,249,786,740.85

Average per session                                   $601,041,631,123.47

Combined total debt spending       $12,374,333,123,398.72

Average per session                                   $824,955,541,559.91

Note that the 112th session of Congress will soon close and the gap will significantly decrease as the GOP has been spending more than twice its average. The first year of House majority leader John Boehner’s rule saw debt spending of $1,214,690,760,756.48. As of this date the current year debt spending is $1,086,541,202,114.09. That would raise the republican total by $2,301,231,962,870.57. That’s a 7 session total of $5,907,481,749,611.42 and an average of $843,925,964,230.20. Just goes to show what happens when you don’t walk the talk, right GOP?

The democrats were spending over 62% more than their republican counterparts in this era of big spending prior to the 112th session of Congress. Assuming the next two years will see deficit spending similar to the last two of close to $2.5 trillion, than the GOP will nearly eclipse the democrat total and will pass them with a higher average.

It means that the national debt exists because of bi-partisanship. Yes, that’s correct. The only way we get to these astronomical numbers is by Congress crossing party lines and coming to an agreement to work for the American people. Isn’t that what they tell us they’re doing? Not bickering and playing partisan politics but compromising and getting something done? Well that getting something done has mortgaged away your children’s future. A whole lot more standing on principle and not compromising just for the sake of passing legislation and giving the appearance of bi-partisanship would have gone a long way toward not allowing the debt problem to get where it is today. Remember that when we get our latest bi-partisan compromise over the fiscal cliff.

There may be stark differences between the parties in claimed ideology, but the results in the bottom line meaning spending of your tax dollars shows they are one and the same. At least they will be by the end of 2014. The numbers don’t lie.


session dates for Congress –

member makeup for Congress –

Treasury historical debt outstanding –

Treasury debt to the penny daily search –

What if Obama were the first President of the World?

What if our Lord and Savior, Barack Obama, were the ruler of the world as Jamie Foxx wishes? Remember, we’re on the right course here in America, he just needs a little more time. What if his policies were extended out on a global scale? So, I figure if Foxx can have a little fun and elevate our POTUS to deity status, I’ll partake in the fun as well. Let’s take a look.

The current population estimate of the U.S. is 314,848,989 and the world population estimate is 7,055,206,288 according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The total current U.S. debt is $16,317,681,766,441.44. That’s a debt per citizen of $51,827.01. If Obama policies were global, we would have a total debt of $365,650,248,297,861.30. Yes, that’s over $365 trillion dollars in debt if Obama were King of the world.

How about the unemployment situation? The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the nation’s official unemployment rate is 7.9% with 12.3 million Americans unemployed. Take that global and we would have 557,361,296 unemployed people. Gee, that’s about the same as tonight’s Powerball jackpot so if you won you could give each of them a buck.

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that we saw 14,944,642 American households received food stamp assistance in 2011. In 2011, 44.7 million recipients took advantage at a cost of nearly $72 billion dollars. Under the King of the world, we would see an astounding 1,001,839,292 people on food stamps at a jaw dropping cost of over $11.3 trillion dollars.

Pretty frightening when you extend the Obama policies out to a global scale since the American voter apparently wasn’t too impressed based upon his re-election. Over half a billion of the world’s population would be unemployed (yes I know the real numbers are much higher). Over a billion people on food stamps. This is on the right course?

Alas, there is some good news with Obama as POTW. No more individual countries means no more illegal aliens. No more China and Japan owning our debt. No more OPEC manipulating the price of gas. Best of all, we wouldn’t have to worry about Twinkie production going to Mexico!

Should the GOP just give Obama whatever he wants?

It’s been interesting to read some of the opinions on what strategy the GOP should pursue in light of the re-election of President Obama. Many have called for a total surrender on the part of the GOP in order to better position the party for the 2016 election by forcing the democrat party to take total ownership of the results of its policies. Let Obama raise taxes, implement Obamacare and be fully responsible for the economy and the jobs situation without having the benefit of blaming Bush any longer. My oh my, has it really come to this?

This is wrong on many levels. Let’s start with our short memories. The democrat party had both chambers of Congress during the first two years of the Obama presidency. We got Obamacare, stimulus, bailouts, etc. In other words, they got what is being suggested now. They difference being it was absent any GOP caving in. The result? The democrats never had to own it and Obama was re-elected. This proposed GOP strategy of surrender would only make it worse because the democrat party could then point to bi-partisan approval of their destructive policies and eliminate any campaign advantage. In short, we’ve already seen it won’t work.

A GOP surrender supporter would likely take exception and say that it’s not the same as Obama was able to exploit the blame Bush narrative in 2012 and won’t have that option any longer in 2016. Really? Is having the option of blaming the entire GOP party for bi-partisan support any better than just blaming Bush?

Let’s move on to what is most important. Having principles. If the GOP attempts such a calculated purely politically motivated strategy, they will illustrate that the ends justify the means. Getting elected is more important than standing for what is right. Exactly the opposite of what the party has attempted to exploit as a major difference between them and the left. Which is what the alternative parties have claimed for years, that there is no difference between the left or right.

I would suggest that the backlash would be much worse than any perceived value in the short-term. The GOP would succeed in forever alienating those who have just been hanging on my a thread anyway. If I were a GOP supporter, which I am not, I would be mad as hell. To think that the party would play games at such a critical time is unforgivable. We know from history that once major government programs are instituted, they never go away. Give Obama carte blanche for 4 more years and one could only imagine what permanent destruction he could implement.

It’s been stated many times that for democrats, the party left them years ago and has been hijacked by the far left. The blue dogs who are fiscally responsible yet more open socially no longer have a voice in the party. Multiculturalism has seen to that. Encompassing all views has become more important than retaining any core values. The same is true for the conservatives hanging on to the idea that aligning with the GOP is still the best option for at least getting the bulk of their views represented by a national party. You’ve been left behind as well. But not because the party was hijacked by the far right. Rather, it has been taken over by the party of no identity. Just blowing in the wind listening to focus groups, polls, election results and their opposition in trying to determine what face to paint on today to look just a bit better than their opponent.

History is replete with examples of how compromising principles doesn’t pay off. Reagan learned that when he signed off on amnesty in 1986. The 1988 election still saw the usual percentage of hispanic voters stick with the democrats. Bush ‘abandoned’ his free market principles in 2008 in order to save the free market system. We’ve seen 4 years of the free market languishing rather than recovering.

All of this speculative strategizing leads one to wonder just who has become more desperate, the GOP or the conservatives. The GOP clearly has no clue as they’re left licking their wounds following what should have been an easy victory over a failed presidency. So we get reckless talk of adopting a policy of no policy. That should answer the question of whether or not the party will be in a position to capitalize upon another 4 years of failure under Obama. The question remains as to whether or not the conservatives still think it’s a good idea to hitch their wagon to the train to nowhere.

President Obama may be forced into becoming a politician yet

President Obama is engaged in forcing a change in the foreign policy agenda of the U.S. with his pivot toward Asia. He is currently in the middle of a historic trip to Southeast Asia this despite the ongoing turmoil back home with his embroiled former CIA Director David Petraeus. Historic due to the first visit to Burma ever by a U.S. President. Controversial because he has yet to visit Israel. This speaks volumes about where the priorities of this President truly lie.

While he may have thought his second term would present an opportunity to double down on enacting his agenda, the events around the globe may quickly derail his plans. The dynamic situation in the Middle East will likely force him to become a politician more than he had planned. Not the type of development one would like when they are focused on legacy building instead.

An unexpected announcement from a top Iraqi diplomat isn’t helping. From FOX News.

“Iraq will invite (Arab) ministers to use the weapon of oil, with the aim of  asserting real pressure on the United States and whoever stands with Israel,”  Qais al-Azzawy told reporters in Cairo on Friday.

The story goes on with these statements.

Iraq is standing with Hamas and Palestinians in the ongoing strife between them  and Israel.

The sharp words from the Iraqi diplomat came just as Iraq released a commander  of the Lebanese terror group Hezbollah, despite assurances to U.S. it would not  do so.

Then there was this statement from the Turkish PM.

“Those who associate Islam with terrorism close their eyes in the face of mass killing of Muslims, turn their heads from the massacre of children in Gaza,” Erdogan said, according to Reuters. “For this reason, I say that Israel is a terrorist state, and its acts are terrorist acts.”

These statements may come as a surprise to the casual observer. After all, it was the U.S. that liberated Iraq from its ruthless dictator Sadaam Hussein. Iraq’s position doesn’t seem to be one of gratitude toward the United States. You also may recall that the first person Obama called after his election in 2008 was the Turkish PM.

As we like to say here in America, ‘elections have consequences’. In the case of Iraq, as well as several other Arab Spring countries, so does our policy of regime change abroad. Iraq is now primarily influenced by the Shiites of Iran. Nobody mentions that in the ‘we liberated Iraq’ brochures. Egypt is now under the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood. Rulers have also been forced from power in Tunisia, where the Arab Spring began, Libya and Yemen. Bashad of Syria is the next to fall. Lebanon and Jordan, which is the last Israeli friendly country in the region, will likely follow suit.

Here is where is gets sticky for President Obama. He has to balance his outward appearance of being a Christian as well as representing the interests of the United States with his true inner beliefs supporting Islam. They are not at all compatible. We’ll soon find out just how good a politician he really is if he can continue to keep both sides at bay.

These are some very inconvenient truths for many Americans. Some will refuse to believe that we can have a sitting President who supports Islam, believes in the destruction of Israel, and portrays himself as a Christian. His actions and policies betray him. You may not have a problem with some of his positions, particularly on social issues domestically. It would be far preferable for him just to own up to his core beliefs and then gauge what level of support Americans have toward him. But he can’t. He must hold the office to futher his beliefs and that requires the deception.

We’ve all heard the occasional soundbites of him professing his Muslim upbringing. He slips up now and then when off-prompter but the media is quick to cover for him. The simple fact is you cannot profess true Christianity with his support of abortion and gay rights. I’ll not even touch on the many conspiratorial angles to his true Islamic beliefs. It simple isn’t necessary. His statements and actions make it so.

It’s no coincidence that he hasn’t visited Israel. It’s no coincidence that he has publicly supported the Arab Spring. It’s no coincidence that he has increased aid to Palestine. It’s no coincidence that he’s pushing his pivot toward Asia policy to reduce our Middle East presence.

One must keep in mind what Obama’s Islamist beliefs allow. Deception in the name of Allah is permitted and encouraged. He cannot be the President of the United States proclaiming his true beliefs. Anti-colonialism doesn’t really sell all that well when you’re the President.

Benghazi further illustrates how far he’ll go. The media focus is all about the cover-up. He couldn’t allow the Al-Qaeda resurgence to derail his re-election campaign. But the true tragedy is what led up to Benghazi.The covert operation to supply arms and fighters to the insurgents. Not just in Syria either. Munitions have also been funneled to Hamas and have ended up being used against Israel. We have 4 dead Americans but there are many thousands dead throughout the Middle East. How many are the direct result of U.S. intervention, we’ll never know.

Do you know what Obama was doing during the Benghazi attack? He was on the phone with Israeli PM Netanyahu. Coincidence? Hardly. Not when our Ambassador was allowed to die after Israel became aware of our arms shipments making their way to Hamas. Israel may have tolerated arms to Syria despite being fully aware the Free Syrian Army is merely the next variation of the Muslim Brotherhood lying in wait to assume control in Syria. But not to Hamas. Why did 4 Americans die? It’s likely that Obama threw Stevens under the bus as having gone rogue on the Hamas connection to appease Israel. When he became aware of the impending attack, he let it happen to gain cover from Israel when it was almost certainly the Obama policy all along to ship arms to Hamas.

As I said previously, the true intentions of Obama are very hard for some to stomach. But his track record exposes him. If you aren’t on board yet, we’ll see how you feel after 4 more years. That’s 8 years too late.

The CIA denies authority to detain militants in Benghazi, turns out they really do have it

Via CBS News

The CIA is denying an assertion made by David Petraeus’ biographer and girlfriend that the agency held militants in Libya before the Sept. 11 attack.

During a talk last month at the University of Denver, author Paula Broadwell said the CIA had detained people at a secret facility in Benghazi, and the attack on the U.S. Consulate there was an effort to free those prisoners.

President Barack Obama issued an executive order in January 2009 stripping the CIA of its authority to take prisoners.

The move means the CIA can no longer operate secret jails across the globe as it had done under the administration of President George W. Bush.

“The CIA has not had detention authority since January 2009… Any suggestion that the Agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless,” CIA spokesman Preston Golson told CBS News.

The CIA spokesman is referring to Executive Order 13491 — Ensuring Lawful Interrogations. It revokes Executive Order 13440 from the Bush era.

Sec. 4.  Prohibition of Certain Detention Facilities, and Red Cross Access to Detained Individuals.

(a)  CIA Detention.  The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.

Seems pretty straight-forward. Unless the CIA was directly disobeying an Executive Order, they had no authority to detain the three Libyans reported by FOX News.

The CIA claims it had no authority since the EO was issued. However, make sure you read the entire Executive Order. Under Sec. 2 Definitions.

(g) The terms “detention facilities” and “detention facility” in section 4(a) of
this order do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term,
transitory basis.

Short-term, transitory basis. As Bill Clinton would say, “it depends on what the meaning of the word is is”.

The CIA may be utilizing some selective editing in its denial of the allegations brought forward by Paula Broadwell. The EO makes it clear that the CIA can’t operate a detention facility long-term, but not that they can’t detain someone short-term.

Or there exists yet another possibility. The CIA annex, or second compound in this photo, was located just a short distance from the U.S. mission (some call it a consulate although it isn’t listed on the State Dept. website). Ambassador Stevens referred to it as a “special mission”.

Perhaps the detainees were held at the “special mission” under the authority of the N.D.A.A. and in conveniently close proximity to the CIA. We’ll see if this information comes out in the Congressional hearings this week. Regardless, the exemption in the Executive Order gives the CIA cover to have legally detained the Libyans and yet still sell the narrative to the press that they no longer had the authority. It always pays to read the fine print.

Who is Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu? Is he the reason for the Benghazi cover-up?

Who is he and why should you care? He is the prime suspect in the Benghazi attack that killed 4 Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens. You should care because we had him locked up in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba until 2007 when he was released into the custody of Libya. He was considered a probable member of Al-Qaeda who represented a “medium to high risk, as he is likely to pose a threat to the U.S., its interests and allies.”

He was captured in Pakistan after 9/11 and with the help of intel from Gaddafi in Libya. Gaddafi released him in 2010 and he subsequently fought to oust Gaddafi as a member of the Darnah Brigade. Incidentally, Darnah is the world’s top recruiting area for suicide bombers.

Ironically, Qumu was considered an asset by the Obama administration. This was part of their narrative supporting the Arab Spring. Infiltration from the outside by Al-Qaeda was labeled the true threat as local Islamist fighters were considered to have a “local agenda” and thus not a threat to the West. Presumably the “local agenda” referred to the ousting of Gaddafi.

Here are some excerpts from his Guantanamo file. If you’re interested, you can see the entire file here –

Prior History: Detainee served as a tank driver in the Libyan armed forces as a private.

The Libyan Govemment states he was addicted to illegal drugs/narcotics and had been

accused of a number of crimes including: murder, physical assault, armed assault, and

distributingn arcotics. He was sentencedto l0 yearsi n prison. In 1993,h e escapedfr om

prison and fled to Egypt. He traveled to Afghanistan (AF) and trained at Usama Bin Laden’s

(UBL) Torkham Camp. After participating in the Soviet jihad, he moved to Sudan (SU).

Detaineew orked as a truck driver for Wadi Al-‘Aqiq, one of UBL’s companiesin Suba,S U.

The Libyan Govemment funher stated detainee joined LIFG and was assigned to the military

committee. Under pressuref rom the Libyan and Sudaneseg ovemments,h e left Sudan

sometime in 1997, using a false Mauritanian passport. He traveled to Pakistan (PK), where

he resided in the area near the Al-Atariyah University/mosque (variants Al Yassir Al

Khayria, Athariya and Atharia) in Peshawar.

A rundown of his training.

Training and Activities: In 1998, he withdrew from the LIFG and joined the Taliban

movement (this is likely a reference to Al-Qaida support to the Taliban). He moved to

Peshawawr here he lived with Abu Zayd Al-Tunisi (assessetdo be US9LY-000721). In

2000,h e lived in the tribal region of PeshawarP, K (This is anareau ndert ribal control,n ot

government control. UBL was known to have spent time in this area). He communicated

with likely extremist elements in Afghanistan via radio during this period, indicating a

position of leadership. Around August to November 2001, detainee worked for Al-Wafa in

Kabul, AF. Detainee fought with the Taliban against the Northem Alliance and was

wounded in the leg. He left Kabul around mid-November 2001. Khalid Mahmound Abdul

Al Wahad, US9JO-000589, stated detainee fled to Peshawar, where he likely assisted the

Qadhafi Foundation in relocating extremists and their families.

It would appear that Qumu had a significant intelligence value and that he may have been released in an effort to track Al-Qaeda activities as well as to help overthrow Gaddafi. Instead, it was Qumu who lived to see Gaddafi dead as well as extracting revenge against America in the form of Benghazi. The focus on the congressional hearings this week will be on the cover-up of Benghazi during and after the attack. We need to be examining why an enemy combatant of high intelligence value considered to be a high risk to American interests was ever released. The Obama Administration has plenty of questions to answer about how it handled the attack and covered it up. More importantly, we need to get to the bottom of why Qumu was released and what was the CIA involvement in supplying weapons to Syria via Turkey. Was Qumu employed as a double agent by the CIA to overthrow Gaddafi? David Petraeus would know.

That appears to be the likely scenario for the whole cover-up affair. Not only did we have an Ambassador conducting a covert operation to supply Libyan arms and fighters to Syria with CIA support, he himself was killed by an Al-Qaeda double agent working for the CIA at one point. Very messy business. Also one that would have had involvement from top brass in the Pentagon, the State Dept., the CIA as well as the White House. The Petraeus exit may just be the tip of the iceberg in the lengths that the Obama Administration will go to keep the lid on this.

UPDATE*** – Since posting this, I forgot about this video from Glenn Beck in which he tries to lay out the Obama-Libya-Turkey-Syria connection. But in the end he leaves you with the question of what the U.S. gain is.

Let me answer that question that Glenn Beck couldn’t. I touched on it in this recent post –

We’ve already seen how Egypt has backfired with the Muslim Brotherhood in charge. Libya will follow suit. The Arab Spring seemed like a good thing for America with the removal of several long-time tyrants throughout the region. Replacing them with Al-Qaeda hardly seems beneficial. Syria and Lebanon will follow. Interesting isn’t it that the list of countries seems to be generally following the model Gen. Wesley Clark laid out back in a 2007 interview.

Ask yourself what common goal would the U.S. have to replace regimes throughout the Middle East that bridges different administrations? It certainly isn’t replacing dictators and tyrants for Al-Qaeda. The answer is strategic. Energy.

Bashad in Syria has a plan to become the distribution capital of the Middle East, not the supplier, but the crossroads of pipelines to deliver energy products. It’s called the Four Seas policy. Of course, they will be paid royalties in doing so. Bashad is trying to shut out Turkey in its endeavors. Turkey is our ally. So who wins? It won’t be Bashad.

The reason the United States is involved in all of these destabilizing efforts throughout the region is merely a strategic one. Eliminating our competitors from establishing monopolies and ensuring that energy products are all on the global market. That’s considered the best way to reduce our exposure to directly influencing the U.S. economy with supply and cost manipulation.

Perhaps Obama has some additional incentive to dictate events in the interest of his Muslim roots as well. But that’s for another post.

GOP gives up on repeal of Obamacare

GOP House Speaker publicly admitted what we already knew. The GOP has no intention of taking on Obamacare now that President Obama has been re-elected. In an interview with ABC News Diane Sawyer, he had this to say.

Asked whether he will make another attempt to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act, Boehner said  “the election changes that” and “Obamacare is the law of the land.”

What he failed to say was that the GOP controls the House and that the House controls federal government spending. Obamacare could still simply not be funded rendering it moot. But he isn’t interested in going there. Instead, he prefers this approach.

Still, there are some parts of the law, he said, that should be on the table as lawmakers work toward a balanced budget

Repealing any part of the law is never going to get through Harry Reid’s Senate so that’s a waste of everyone’s time. The only option is starving it for funding. This is a shining example of just how weak the GOP and its Speaker are. It also is a primary reason why so many people say there is no difference between the parties at all.

Expect full implementation of all facets of Obamcare. The business world recognizes this and you’re already seeing companies large and small take steps to head off the burdensome effects. In the end, it won’t matter.

There is one and only one reason for Obamacare. To eliminate the private healthcare industry and force everyone on to a government-run healthcare program. Even its supporters make no claims of it ever improving healthcare. The only claims are to lower costs and increase coverage. How will it lower costs? Taking money from Medicare, rationing healthcare and decreasing payments to doctors and hospitals. The healthcare industry rejects these claims. Take a look at this survey of 13,000 doctors.

Nearly six in 10 doctors said that they are less positive about the future of health care in America under Obamacare. Almost two-thirds have a negative attitude toward their jobs – nearly twice as many as before the health law was passed in 2010.

As a result, many doctors are cutting back on their workload or shuttering their practices. Worse, their collective frustration is exacerbating our nation’s troubling doctor shortage.

More than three-fifths of doctors say they would retire today if they could, compared with 45 percent before Obamacare. Eighty-four percent say the medical profession is in decline. Fewer doctors say they would enter the profession today if they had it to do over again, and fewer would recommend it to their children.

This decline in doctors’ morale is taking a toll on Americans’ ability to access care. Physicians report working almost 6 percent fewer hours than they did four years ago. That’s about two and a half hours less per week per doctor. Add up all the hours, and it’s the equivalent of losing more than 44,000 full-time physicians.

One would think that the Obama administration would see results such as this and consider changes to the program. No, refer to the reason for Obamacare. This is exactly the results Obama had hoped to see as his program is proceeding according to plan. Replacing the private healthcare industry with a government-run one is power and control at the federal level. It’s also why the GOP has surrendered. They made their ‘safe’ votes to not pass Obamacare knowing full well it would anyway in an effort to gain points with the party base.

The Canadien healthcare system is often referred to as an example of why the U.S. shouldn’t pursue nationalized healthcare. Canada’s national healthcare system got its start in Saskatchewan in 1962. There was a short 3 week strike by doctor’s protesting it, but public support of the strike quickly waned and they settled with the national government. Within just five years, healthcare was completely nationalized.

Survey’s of citizens are misleading. 80% of citizen’s report being happy with the healthcare system. However, those are the generally healthy people who seldom if ever use the system. The other 20% are the one’s unhappy with the tremendous wait times to see specialists, getting diagnostic tests or elective surgeries. Lifesaving drugs and medical procedures are incredibly expensive if they’re even available and are usually denied if the patient’s age is considered a factor.

Quebec even had a law in place to prevent people from purchasing health insurance for procedures covered by the public health plan. Yes, you read that correctly. Even if you had the means financially, by law you could not pay for your own care. The idea being this was a bad precedent and would result in poorer people not having the same access and thus was not fair. Ah, there’s that term Obama loves so much. If fairness means denial of service for some to ensure equal availability for all, so be it.

It took just five years to run the Canadien private healthcare industry out of business. How long will it take America? Likely longer due to its sheer size, but you can be sure the end result will be similar. Coverage for all, but inferior care, long wait times, denial of care, and one more big factor. Development of new drugs. The pharmaceutical industry has to spend millions of dollars to get a drug to market and without a profit potential, they simply won’t invest in developing them.

Obamacare is now here to stay and the only political party with the means to stop it have no interest. If you’re a member of the GOP, they will likely nominate the House Speaker for the next session by next week. I would suggest incessantly deluging your representatives with phone calls, faxes and e-mails to express your voice to not nominate John Boehner again. The GOP taking no action will result in a detrimental effect on your future quality of life.

The day after

Now that the sting has had a chance to wear off a bit from yet another disastrous election for conservative/libertarians, what happens now? No doubt you’ve seen such disgust from bloggers over the election results, many are unsure if they want to continue on. Some have threatened to not vote again. Let’s clear a path through the fog of disappointment.

Bloggers on the right will not stop blogging or voting. They can’t. They have no choice. Why? That’s one of the core differences between a conservative and a liberal. Conservatives stand on principle. Liberals base their thought process on feelings and thus are susceptible to whichever way the global warming winds are blowing. Principle will rise above it all and not allow you to sit back and continue to see your liberty stripped away.

Conservatives haven’t had a dog in the hunt since Reagan (who was only arguably a conservative). Romney was never more than the lesser of two evils. What chance did he have anyway when Obama gets to total up the electoral votes from all 57 states he’s been to? There’s no doubt that it’s discouraging when 60 million Americans actively vote to surrender their liberty. We just faced this not long ago with the Clinton re-election. Electing a socialist is one thing. Watching them re-elected with a track record for voters to see is just devastating.

I’ll give you another reason why true conservative/libertarians must fight on. We owe it to all those that fought to give us our liberty in this country. I saw this sign at a restaurant the other day.

As a veteran myself, I appreciate the thanks. Even more, I accept the responsibility that those of us who stand on principle for what is right in this country must fight on despite any setbacks. Those 4 Americans who died in Benghazi while their Commander-in-Chief did nothing deserve it. The war on terrorism will never end. Neither will the war on liberty. Now is the time to redouble your efforts, not accept the narrative of compromise and altering core beliefs to be politically correct.

Obama wins re-election – who lost? Hint, it wasn’t Romney

Sorry kids! Our generation has decided to screw your generation!

America has made its choice. It will go down the road of Greece and Spain. It prefers big government over liberty. The Founders warned us way back then that faced with a choice, people prefer security over opportunity. However, that comes with a heavy price. The re-election of Barack Obama is not a mandate. It is not a rejection of the Republican party. It is a submission of the American spirit. This may go down in the annals of history as the saddest day in America’s heritage.

Posterity will allow future Americans to reflect back and ask why? Why would we give up without a fight? The answer to that is this has been many years in the making. The creep of collectivism is not instituted over a short time. It’s ingrained through our education system. It’s infiltrated our family values through a decay of morals and ethics. President Obama is the benefactor of being the right candidate at the right time in order to capitalize on a vulnerable society.

He will now spend the next four years completing the fundamental transformation of America into a multi-cultural divide. The middle class will continue its journey into extinction. America will further fall behind the rest of the world in education, in technology, in science. Our business climate will further handicap our global competitiveness. The opportunity we have to remove our reliance upon foreign energy will disappear under the stifling e.p.a. regulations.

Your wages and value of the dollar will continue to decrease. The debt will continue to massively increase under the Obama baseline budgeting designed to continue to grow government at the expense of the private sector.

You have your answer if you wondered if America had the stomach to take on its fiscal problems. It’s a resounding no! No austerity. We won’t even take the first steps in eliminating dependency. I criticized the GOP as well as the Tea Party after their perceived mandate in the 2010 mid-terms in rejecting the big government expansion after they failed to follow through with any substantive action. Turns out the elected officials really are a reflection of the electorate. That’s the lesson from the Obama re-election. America has no interest in saving itself.