CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Governor Crist announces senate bid

It’s now official. Florida's Republican Governor Charlie Crist is running for the Senate:

Crist's announcement sets up a primary challenge with former state House Speaker Marco Rubio in Republican primary for the Senate seat being vacated by retiring Republican Senator Mel Martinez. The primary will be important in the debate over the future of the Republican Party.

Crist angered many Republicans by supporting President Obama's stimulus boondoggle. A position which caused Tony Fabrizio, the Republican pollster who tabulates CPAC's annual straw poll results, to call Crist "Barack Obama's favorite Republican."

The latest Quinnipiac University polling found Crist leading Rubio 54 percent to 8 percent.

I am shocked that Senator John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, endorsed Governor Crist shortly after the announcement.

Rubio welcomed Crist to the primary battle with the following video:

Let the debate begin. As Rubio told Politico, "if we’re offering the same thing as the Democrats, but with different packaging, what’s the point in having a Republican Party?

Specter's 30 pieces of silver

According to the Associated Press, Specter's decision to switch rather than fight came cheap. All it took was for President Obama to promise to campaign for Specter in next year's Pennsylvania Democratic
primary.

Of course, Gibbs denied any promises were made to get Specter to get him to become a Democrat. But then Gibbs denied President Obama bowed to King Abdullah.

There are unconfirmed rumors about that Specter was promised the chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee.

Specter switching parties

Several sources, including the Associated Press, Poltiico and Washington Post, are now reporting Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania will switch parties.

Specter made the following statement posted on PoliticsPA:

Statement by Senator Arlen Specter

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

Give Specter credit for realizing he would lose the primary fight with former congressman Pat Toomey. Can Specter win as a Democrat?

Obama: still saying one thing while doing the opposite

There President Obama goes yet again -- saying one thing while doing the opposite.

After prodding by the White House, Congressional Democrats near a budget deal so Obama can have his spend too much, tax too much, borrow too much budget in place within his first 100 days.

President Obama's budget includes a $1.75 trillion deficit so he can spend nearly $4 trillion in fiscal year 2010. The Congressional Budget Office predicts will Obama's budget result in deficits of $9.3 trillion over ten years -- $2.3 trillion more than the deficit estimated by the White House. And then, in this week's Obama propaganda video, he has the audacity to call for fiscal discipline. Is he serious?

"We cannot sustain deficits that mortgage our children’s future, nor tolerate wasteful inefficiency."

Too bad Obama doesn't practice what he preaches.

Obama climate change agenda hits Senate speed bumps

From a Senate GOP source:

Yesterday, senators voted on seven motions to instruct conferees on the budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 13). Though the motions are non-binding, two that were approved are worth noting: 

• The Senate agreed to a motion from Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) to instruct conferees include language prohibiting the use of reconciliation for climate change legislation (this is now the second time a majority of the Senate has voted this way).

• The Senate also agreed to a motion from Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) to require that future energy legislation not increase the cost of domestic energy production or increase energy costs for families.

Senate Republicans suggest way for Obama to save $80 million

Republican Senators Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, Lamar Alexander and John Thune have a suggestion for President Obama to help him meet his pathetic goal of cutting a meager $100 million from Obama's and the Democrats' spend too much, tax too much and borrow too much budget:

Keep the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay open, so that American cities don't have to play host to terrorists. That will save the $80 million budgeted for the closure - 80% of Obama's goal.

Once again I ask, where will Obama put the terrorists?

Report on the House Republican budget alternative - read it here

Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican on House Budget Committee, introduced the House Republicans' comprehensive alternative to President Obama's spend too much, tax too much and borrow too much budget.

The Republican budget alternative, "The Path To American Prosperity," works to accomplish four main goals:

1. Fulfill the mission of health and retirement security;
2. Control our nation's debts;
3. Put our economy on a path of growth and leadership in the global economy; and 
4. Preserve the American legacy of leaving the next generation better off.

You can the "The Path To American Prosperity," below.

Click full screen to make it easier to read.

report on_gopbudget - Free Legal Forms

Senate votes to keep automatic pay raises

During the Senate's consideration of the most recent Congressional spending orgy -- the 1,132-page, $410 billion, nearly 9,000 earmark-infested Omnibus spending bill, Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter forced the Senate to vote to keep their automatic annual pay raises:

He tried to amend the measure with a proposal that few lawmakers would dare to oppose in a recession: canceling the automatic increases in lawmaker salaries, now at $174,000. Using a parliamentary tactic, Vitter forced Reid to schedule a vote on his amendment for a vote.

Unfortunately, the Senate voted 52 to 47 to kill Vitter's amendment and keep their automatic pay raises.

As I wrote back in 2003, the Congressional automatic stealth pay raise system is just wrong.

Democrat-controlled Congress gives Obama another huge spending bill

The big spending Democrat-controlled Congress has sent another massive spending bill to President Obama.

The huge 1,132-page, $410 billion Omnibus spending package was six months overdue. The Democrats refused to pass it during President Bush's term because Bush promised to veto the irresponsible spending increases contained in this latest Congressional spending orgy.  

Obama will sign the bill Wednesday, once again breaking his transparency promises. In signing this spending boondoggle into law, Obama yet again does one thing while saying something different. Obama will sign off on thousands of earmarks and announce steps to curb future earmarks. The Democrats' mantra that the earmarks in this legislation are "last year's business" is bovine fecal matter. The increased budget deficit resulting from this bill isn't going to be paid by last year's taxes.

The omnibus contains unbelievable amounts of pork barrel spending. Taxpayers for Common Sense found 8,570 disclosed earmarks in the bill, worth $7.7 billion.

During the presidential campaign, Obama made several promises to reduce earmarks:

• Go "line by line" over earmarks to make sure money being spent wisely

"And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

Source: The first presidential debate, Sept. 26, 2008

• Reduce earmarks to 1994 levels

"Barack Obama is committed to returning earmarks to less than $7.8 billion a year, the level they were at before 1994."

Source: "The Change We Need in Washington"

• Require more disclosure and a waiting period for earmarks

Through the "Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act, will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate."

Source: Obama ethics plan

The debate over the irresponsible pork barrel spending returned the limelight to Senator McCain, who called earmarks evil:

"This evil has grown, and it has grown, and it has grown," said McCain, who called the earmarking process a "gateway drug" to more egregious, and possibly illegal, forms of influence peddling.

Adding more insult to injury Congress even used this bill to provide itself a 10 percent increase in its own budget -- now totaling $4.4 billion.

Obama budget - more spending than anyone can comprehend

With his debt-busting budget which contains a $trillion tax increase, President Obama plans to have the Federal government spend 25 percent of the entire U.S. economy - one out of every four dollars produced in the U.S.

Obama's massive spending plan puts the Democrat-controlled Congress on track to double the national debt by 2010 - to $17.6 trillion, after just four years of controlling the national purse strings.

At FoxNews they tried to put $3.6 trillion in perspective:

• If you spent $1 million an hour, non-stop for 24 hours a day, you wouldn’t run out of money for 411 years.

• If you took 3.6 trillion one-dollar bills, and placed them end-to-end, that line of bills would reach from Capitol Hill to the sun and then back to Capitol Hill and then back to the sun — and then almost all the way back to Capitol Hill again.

The uncontrolled spending binge Obama and the Democrats are on -- the $800 billion so-called stimulus, the $410 billion spending bill under consideration in Congress, the tax and borrow Obama budget spending plan, and a doubled national debt -- is an incomprehensible amount of money.

Think of a trillion in terms of seconds. We all know how long a second is. A million seconds is 13 days. A billion seconds is 31 years. A trillion seconds is 31,688 years. Think of the ongoing spending orgy in terms of seconds and perhaps we can grasp what Obama and Democrats are spending and borrowing:

• 0.410 trillion seconds (Congress' proposed spending bill) is 12,992 years.
• 0.634 trillion seconds (Obama's down payment on health care reform) is 20,090 years.
• 0.787 trillion seconds (Obama's so-called stimulus) is 24,938 years.
• 1.75 trillion seconds (Obama's proposed deficit) is 55,454 years.
• 3.27 trillion seconds (the actual cost of the so-called stimulus)
• 3.6 trillion seconds (Obama's budget) is 114,077 years.
• 8.67 trillion seconds (the national debt the Democrats inherited) is 274,735 years.
• 17.6 trillion seconds (the projected 2010 national debt under Obama's budget) is 557,709 years.

A trillion here, a trillion there; sooner or later you run out of time.