Congressman: We'll reinstate the Bush tax cuts, dare Obama to veto

At a town hall meeting in Phenix City, AL, on Monday, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL/3) said that, despite discussions to keep at least some of the Bush tax cuts, there is the possibility that the current Democrat-controlled Congress will allow the cuts to expire. If that happens, and if the GOP wins control of the House in November, the new Republican Congress would reinstate the tax cuts, and "dare the president to veto it".


[Direct link]

My guess is that if November 2nd turns out the way the prognosticators are saying it will, and the House flips over with a heavy number, and the Senate either flips or comes close, I'd be surprised if they just didn't let them all expire. Now, if they do that, I can assure you, January of next year, we're going to pass legislation to put them all back in place and date the president to veto it.

This is why I voted for Rogers in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, and will again this November.

Town Hall with Congressman Mike Rogers

Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican representing Alabama's 3rd district, held a town hall meeting in Phenix City, AL, today. The Congressman touched on several topics in his remarks and with the questions he took from the crowd afterwards.

During the meeting, Rep. Rogers mentioned his support for a proposal to modify the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.


[Direct link]

He took aim at the 111th Congress, criticizing the lack of a budget as "reckless."


[Direct link]

Additionally, Rep. Rogers said that it will be nearly impossible to repeal many of the actions of the 111th Congress before 2013.


[Direct link]

During his Q&A session, Rep. Rogers voiced his support for a flat income tax rate as opposed to the "Fair Tax" national sales tax proposal. He said that the sales tax would unfairly punish the poorest Americans, while a flat income tax rate would allow for those on the lower end of the economic spectrum to be, at least partially, exempt from taxes.

He also criticized the process of non-germane earmarks being attached to bills, adding that he felt the only way to prevent that practice would be a Constitutional amendment.

Taking questions for a Congressman

I told Frank J. at IMAO that Congressman Mike Rogers (R-AL-3) would be in the area on Monday, and that I'd be there. I asked him, SarahK, and Harvey if they had any questions that they'd like me to ask Rep. Rogers.

Then, I asked about opening questions up to IMAO readers. He was cool with that.

So, if you want to see what the readers there want to ask a Congressman, go visit.

And, offer your questions, if you like. We'll even accept serious questions.

Cartoon: Teachable moment

[Source: Steve Kelley/NOLA]

Congressman: Use the elections to "slap reality" into the Obama administration

Today, I asked Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL, 3rd district) if the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) gives Congress the authority to impose an individual insurance mandate. (Question suggested by Harvey of IMAO, Bad Example, and The Fred Thompson Show)

Rep. Rogers' response: "Of course not."


[Direct link]

Transcript:

Of course not. And I think that's one of the things that's going to be cleared up by these state court cases that are being brought.

The problem is, I think, it's going to take a while to filter up because, while the district court case may happen in less than a year, whoever loses is going to appeal to the circuit court level. Whoever loses that will end up petitioning the court for certiorari at the Supreme Court. So you may see several years before that issue is resolved by the Supreme Court.

I don't think people want to wait several years. That's why I think the elections are the best way to slap reality into the administration. And then, still wait for those court cases to be resolved, because it is a question we need answered, because this overreach is not going to be the last overreach, particularly if this is unanswered.

Rep. Rogers was holding a "Congress On Your Corner" meeting in Phenix City, Alabama. Over 40 people, plus media, attended the event. Rogers spoke for about 15 minutes, then took questions for nearly an hour on topics such as the health care bill, taxes, jobs, and immigration.

Cartoon: Principle

[Source: Ken Catalino]

Cartoon: Summit

[Source: Chuck Asay]

Consitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution

Those wacky Illinois politicians. And this one's not even from Chicago.

Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL-17) says he doesn't worry about the Constitution (tip: Allahpundit)


[Direct link]

When he swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," he must have been talking about defending against himself.

You do not have to be stupid to be a liberal ... okay, maybe you do

Hank Johnson, who defeated Cynthia McKinney in 2006 to represent Georgia's 4th District, has a perfect 100% rating from the ACLU. Which makes him the perfect one to ask an Admiral about the impact of U.S. military personnel on Guam:

Johnson's comments came during a House Armed Services Committee meeting as he questioned Adm. Robert Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, about the impact of U.S. troops on the little island.

"My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize," Johnson said, straight-faced and seemingly serious.

The admiral seemed to take the question seriously, too. "We don't anticipate that," he said, proceeding to describe the population on Guam.

Yes, that's real. Not an April Fools' Day joke. Here's the video. The key piece is at 1:15


[Direct link]

Is it any wonder that he rates 100% -- lifetime -- from the ACLU?

The stupider, the better, when it comes to a liberal agenda.

---

More comments at IMAO.

Cartoon: Inside the bill

[Source: Bob Gorrell]

Racist teabaggers yelling racist slurs ... oh, wait

I was going to title this post "Lying bastards lie" but I changed my mind. Anyway...

The big media are reporting that members of the Congressional Black Caucus encountered racist slurs when they walked past protesters.

ABC reported:

Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., said that as he left the Cannon House Office Building with Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a leader of the 1960s civil rights movement, some among the crowd chanted "the N-word, the N-word, 15 times." Both Carson and Lewis are black. Lewis spokeswoman Brenda Jones also said the incident occurred.

"It was like going into the time machine with John Lewis," Carson said.

CBS had this:

Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., told a reporter that as he left the Cannon House Office Building with Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a leader of the civil rights era, some among the crowd chanted "the N-word, the N-word, 15 times." Both Carson and Lewis are black, and Lewis spokeswoman Brenda Jones also said that it occurred.

"It was like going into the time machine with John Lewis," said Carson, a large former police officer who said he wasn't frightened but worried about the 70-year-old Lewis, who is twice his age. "He said it reminded him of another time."

Here's what MSNBC had:

The Tea Party protests got ugly today.

African-American Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), a protege of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who helped organize the March on Washington, went to the House floor today to tell Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) that a Tea Party protester called him a "n-----."

The New York Times:

And while most of the invective was directed at the health care bill itself, several House members said there was an ugly tone to comments made by some demonstrators against three black lawmakers: Representatives André Carson of Indiana, Emanuel Cleaver II of Missouri and John Lewis of Georgia, all Democrats.

An aide to Mr. Lewis, a leader of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, said that as he walked to the Capitol, Mr. Lewis was called racial slurs.

The Washington Post carried this:

Protesters outside the Capitol hurled epithets at Reps. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Andre Carson (D-Ind.) as they left the building after President Obama delivered an 11th-hour speech on behalf of the health care bill. Carson told reporters that protesters yelled "kill the bill," then used a racial epithet to describe Carson and Lewis, who is a revered figure on both sides of the aisle.

They all tell the same story.

And that's the thing: it's just a story. It's not true.

How do I know?

I've seen the video.


[Direct link]

Tip: Midnight Blue < Marooned In Marin

Not a racial epithet to be found.

I'm waiting for the excuses as to why video of the event doesn't match reports of the event.

Perhaps they suffer the same thing Maureen Dowd suffers. She heard "boy" when it wasn't said. The Congressional Black Caucus seems to hear even worse things that aren't said.

I suppose if someone won't make you a victim, you have to make yourself one.

Update:
Sarah In Italy sent word that there are two other videos, neither of which contain evidence of any racial slurs:

[Direct link]


[Direct link]

Deem and Pass dead? It's a trap!

Admiral Ackbar: It's a trap!

House Democrats have scrapped the "deem and pass" (AKA DemonPass) tactic for ramming through the health care takeover bill.

Now, according to the Washington Post, there will be three votes:

1. a resolution that will set the terms of debate
2. a package of amendments to the Senate bill that have been demanded by House members
3. the Senate bill itself

Admiral Ackbar's words were never truer: It's a trap.

I'm just not sure who the target of the trap is.

Is this a stalling tactic, to get the phone calls to stop? The House already voted to "suspend the rules" approve the "Slaughter Solution". That vote essentially assured the passage of Obamacare as Don Surber pointed out.

So, now I'm wondering: If they have the votes, why the sudden change in strategy?

It's a trap!

The strategy of tying the vote to "Deem and Pass" the Senate bill to the Senate bill itself was successful. There is no cover. Have the Dems decided that it's too late, and they might as well vote in the light of day and face (or damn) the consequences?

It appears so.

But this really doesn't make the most sense. To me anyway.

Note that the strategy isn't to modify the bill, but to offer a second package of amendments separately.

The plan, as I understand it, is to "make it clear" the intent of the House. But that's not how it works. If the amendments aren't attached to the Senate bill, then once approved, the Senate bill goes to the president for signature. The Senate can ignore the amendments.

If that's supposed to give House Democrats cover, it's not. What are they going to do, go crying to the voters in November, "We told the Senate we wanted these changes, but mean old Harry Reid and bad old Barack Obama broke their word. It's not my fault!"

They'll sound like a bunch of little tittie babies. Because that's what they are.

If the House Democrats want to spring a trap, it's simple: set a trap for the Senate.

Approve the amendments as part of the Senate bill, and send the modified bill back to the Senate for action. The Senate won't pass it, and the health care takeover will die.

House Democrats win because they'll say, "We passed a good bill and those mean old Republicans in the Senate killed it!" They are whiny little tittle babies, remember?

House Republicans will win because even though they'll be out-voted over the amendments, the bill will eventually die. Plus we'll get a good look at RINOs that vote for the amendments, but against the bill.

The American people will win, because this health care monstrosity will die.

The losers will be the Senate Democrats, who won't be able to pass health care. But really, do we care if Senate Democrats lose?

But, I suspect that's not the trap the House Democrats are planning.

No, they're looking to pass health care, with separate amendments, thinking that the American people like the bill, but don't like the process. They're about to find out that we don't like either.

Arrogant, Ignorant, Incompetent

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA-10) has some harsh words for the Speaker of the House:


[Direct link]

Excerpt:

I have three simple questions for Ms Pelosi: Are you so arrogant that you think you know what's best for the American people? Are you so ignorant that you are oblivious to the wishes of the American people? And are you so incompetent that you are going to ignore the Constitution of the United States, use tricks, deceptions -- bald-face lies -- to try to ram down the throat of the American people something that they do not want, and is going to be absolutely worse for their health care?

We need more Congressmen holding the Democrats' accountable.

Coburn: Democrats selling votes will be held accountable

For some time -- nearly five years -- we've been paying attention to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK). I don't always agree with him -- I don't always agree with myself -- but overall, I like the guy. I'd trade one (one specific, that is) of my Senators to Oklahoma for him. It'd be an upgrade.

Anyway, he didn't hold back, telling other members of Congress that he would hold them responsible for any deals that buy their votes:


[Direct link]

I want to send a couple of messages to my colleagues in the House.

If you voted no and you vote yes, and you lose your election, and you think any nomination to a federal position isn’t going to be held in the Senate, I’ve got news for you. It’s going to be held.

Number two is, if you get a deal, a parochial deal for you or your district, I’ve already instructed my staff and the staff of seven other senators that we will look at every appropriations bill, at every level, at every instance, and we will outline it by district, and we will associate that with the buying of your vote. So, if you think you can cut a deal now, and it not come out until after the election, I want to tell you that isn’t going to happen. And be prepared to defend selling your vote in the House.

Cartoons: Obamacare, lawyers

Dennis Kucinich, lawyers, and Congress' attack caught my eye this eveing.


[Source: Bob Gorrell]


[Source: Chuck Asay]


[Source: Chuck Asay]

Taxation without representation

Remember that phrase? "No taxation without representation!"

The health care bill that the Democrats are attempting to use to Slaughter the Constitution.

I think this is an example of your being taxed without being represented.

Taxation without representation.

How'd that work out last time it was tried?

Not too good...


[Direct link]

How to balance the federal budget without raising taxes

How can Congress possibly balance the federal budget without raising taxes?

It's easy. Make Congress make up for any shortfall in the budget. Take it out of their pay. Cut Congressional pay (House and Senate) for every dollar the budget is in deficit.

What about the president? Well, if he vetoed the deficit budget, he's off the hook. If he signed it, he's liable. Dock his pay, too.

Now, what happens if the deficit is more than the pay of Congress? As is the current situation? Congress is on the hook for the balance. Personally. If Congressman A has twice wealth as Congressman B, he's responsible for twice as much of the deficit.

When that still doesn't cover the deficit, spread the debt around to other members of the government, exempting military pay only.

If Congress tries to get around it by raising taxes, count every tax increase as deficit money, and cut Congressional pay accordingly.

I learned a long time ago, that if someone had the solution to a problem, but had no interest in solving the problem, it was because it didn't personally affect them; it wasn't their problem.

Make it their problem.

Cartoon: Reconciliation

[Source: Lisa Benson]

Job losses

The job numbers for August are out. And they don't look good. Unemployment is now at 9.7% -- the highest it's been since 1983. The "underemployment rate" -- the unemployed rate plus part-time workers who prefer a full-time position plus people who want work but have given up looking for a job -- is at 16.8 percent, a record. What does all this mean? Obviously, nearly 1 in 10 Americans are out of work. But what else does it mean? It means that the wrong people are losing their jobs. We need to fire some elected officials. I'm thinking the entire Obama administration would be a good place to start. But then, I said don't hire those rascals to begin with. But did America listen to me? No. 52% of American voters went and did something stupid. Oh, sure. They were frustrated. They didn't like how things were. But not putting any thought into a solution is a bad solution. So, we have unemployment near 10%. I think we ought to give Congress a 10% unemployment rate. That would mean 10 Senators losing their jobs. And 43 or 44 Representatives being sent packing. Some say to throw them all out. But, as a Representative said yesterday, there are downsides to doing that. Remember, that's basically what happened to put Obama in office: a desire to get rid of who was there. They seemed to forget that Bush wasn't running for a third term. Stupid Obama voters. So, which 10% of Congress should be unemployed? Oh, I have some ideas. Senators who are up for reelection in 2010: Harry Reid (D-NV) Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) Dodd, Christopher J. (D-CT) Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Patty Murray (D-WA) Schumer, Charles E. (D-NY) Specter, Arlen (D-PA) Leahy, Patrick J. (D-VT) Lincoln, Blanche L. (D-AR) Representatives: Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Barney Frank (D-MA) Steve Cohen (D-TN) Corrine Brown (D-FL) Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) Alcee Hastings (D-FL) Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) Maxine Waters (D-CA) Charles Rangel (D-NY) Jim Moran (D-VA) ...Oh heck, I could go on and on with Representatives. But I'd start with this group. If 10% of Congress lost their jobs ... the most useless 10% ... then unemployment might not be a bad thing after all. Imagine this group having to work for a living. Or even trying to find a job.

Rogers town hall meeting report

I visited a town hall meeting that Alabama 3rd District Congressman Mike Rogers held in Phenix City yesterday. Fortunately for me, it was from where I work, across the river in Columbus. [Direct YouTube link]