Friday, 22 March 2013

SEQUESTER WATCH: DIM BULB DEBBIE EDITION

Ken Berwitz

It is day 22 of the sequester.  

Do you feel any different?  Do you think anything has changed?  Do you think the country has gone to hell in a handbasket?

No?  Me neither.

But now we have a congressperson telling us that, because of the sequester, her staff no longer is able to get a decent lunch.

Huh?  Wah?

You just have to know this is Debbie Wasserman Schultz - AKA Dim Bulb Debbie - don't you?

Excerpted from Paul Bedard's incredulous blog at washingtonexaminer.com:

Two senior Democrats complained at a House Appropriations Committee hearing Tuesday that the combination of cuts over the past two years has robbed them of nearly 11 percent of their personal budgets, which average $1.3 million.

Now House officials are looking at an additional 8.2 percent cut, or about $100,000. Total cut over three years: nearly 20 percent.

"If it's a $100,000 reduction in your [allowance] you really need to start preparing for a staff change," said Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va. "That's a whole person!"

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., said Congress has had to reduce constituent services because of the sequester. "We're really starting to see the effects of that in our office," she said.

The cuts have also affected the quality of life for congressional aides, said Wasserman Schultz, whose defense of Capitol Hill staffers amid budget cuts has won her unofficial den mother status among many. At the hearing, for example, she said prices of meals in House restaurants are getting so high that aides are being "priced out" of a good meal.

To summarize:  assuming the math is correct (a very big assumption if you're talking about congress), the sequester will reduce the average congressperson's budget from $1,300,000 a year to $1,200,000.

Oh, the horror!!!!!!  Congresspeople will have to scrape by on a $1,200,000 budget.  Holy excrement, that could mean they don't get a lot do...er, never mind.

This, of course, assumes that the sequester remains permanently in effect, without ever being resolved....which we all know is not going to be the case. 

But wait. This crying over the reduction of a big fat personal budget isn't even the good part.  Debbie Wasserman Schultz is also complaining that her staff members - three of whom earn $120,000 - 160,000 a year and five of whom earn $60,000 - 100,000 a year - are no longer able to afford a good meal.

As Mike Flynn of breitbart.com points out:

At the carry-out cafe in the Cannon Office Building, where Wasserman Schultz has her office, you can get an 8oz bowl of Ham and Bean soup for $2. You can buy gourmet sandwiches and wraps for around $5. Both of these are cheaper than I can get at delis down the street from my house. 

Her aides could walk across the street to the Longworth Building, which has a large sit-down cafeteria. Today, it is featuring a roasted stuffed Chicken, with asparagus and mashed potatoes, for around $7. Or, one could opt for a heaping 12oz bowl of Chicken Chili for $3. 

There is also the tried and true method enjoyed by millions of workers around the country: a brown-bag lunch. 

Wasserman Schultz's aides can't afford those prices?  Yeah, sure, that makes lots of sense. 

And this, of course, is before we get to the issue of what sequestration has to do with the price of food in house restaurants.

President Obama and his fellow Democrats desperately need a crisis to "prove" what horrible consequences would come down on us if there were forced cuts in our impossibly bloated deficit spending.  And, by God, they is going to come up with one, even if they have to create the crisis out of thin air - while hoping you are "low information" enough to be convinced it is real. 

And in the absence of any such real crisis, they are now crying over the fact their personal budgets - which are so ridiculous that they have been cut over the past years without the sequester, will come down a little further - as if any normal citizen would give a damn.  And Dim Bulb Debbie adds to the fun, by crying that the sequester is somehow starving her staff member. 

Think of it as a test to see just how dumb, and/or how unconditionally committed to Obama & Co., you are.

Another installment of sequester watch tomorrow.


THE GREEN SCANDAL (CONT.)

Ken Berwitz

Did you know that, under the Obama administration, millions of "green" jobs have been created? 

Neither did I.  But the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS:  feel free to eliminate the L) - also under the Obama administration - is claiming as much.

How is this possible?  Read the following excerpts from an Investors Business Daily expose of what are being counted as "green jobs" and see for yourself:

The second annual Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report on "Employment in Green Goods and Services," released Tuesday, will be the last, allegedly a casualty of the same sequestration that claimed the White House tours and may doom the Easter egg hunt on the White House lawn.

That is probably a good thing, for if it were published as a book, it would deserve a place at the top of the New York Times best-seller fiction list.

Its report claims that such jobs account for 2.6% of all jobs in the economy, for a total just north of 3.4 million jobs.

But buried in Table 3, "Green Goods And Services," we find under "Utilities" and "Electric power generation" a total of just 522 jobs for "solar electric power generation" and 2,724 jobs for "wind electric power generation" for a total of 3,246 jobs.

Under the heading "coal and petroleum products mfg." we find 3,278 jobs. So even in the BLS list of "green" jobs, coal and oil wins.

So what about the "millions" of other "green" jobs claimed? The problem is in that definition.

The bureau includes clothing stores, television and radio broadcasters, and office furniture manufacturers among the country's green industries.

After BLS' first report last year, GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, grilled Bureau of Labor Statistics Acting Commissioner John Galvin on whether jobs were classified as "green" based on their actual characteristics or whether they were so classified "for political purposes" and to make President Obama's green energy program less of a failure.

"Does someone who sweeps the floor at a company that makes solar panels - is that a green job?" Issa asked.

"Yes," replied Galvin, who also acknowledged that a bike-repair shop clerk, a hybrid-bus driver, any school bus driver, used record store employees and "the guy who puts gas in a school bus" were all defined as green jobs.

How dare they lie to us this way.

And how dare the Obama Accomplice Media aid and abet their utter fraud by not calling it out as Investors Business Daily has?

If there has been a more corrupt, dishonest administration in my lifetime, I don't know which one it is.  And don't tell me it is the Nixon administration; Nixon would have blushed at what this bunch is pulling.

But let's assign blame where it is deserved.  Whose fault is it that they are in a position to do this?  Ours, that's who.  We, the people, re-elected Obama & Co. to four more years of exactly what we got during the first four. 

We have no one to blame but ourselves.

Zeke . . . . . . . . "Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS: feel free to eliminate the L) - also under the Obama administration " - - - - - - - The BLS is also the agency that compiles the monthly Unemployment Rate statistics. - - - - - They are proclaimed to be 'Career Civil Service Professionals, devoid of political influence' - - - - - - of course, every month, more people, according to them, drop out of the labor force than find jobs ..... ..... but the Unemployment Rate keeps falling - - - - - The Unemployment Rate would be over 15% if the labor force was equivalent to that of 2000. - - BS for sure . . . . . . (03/23/13)


SEQUESTER WATCH: DIM BULB DEBBIE EDITION

Ken Berwitz

It is day 22 of the sequester.  

Do you feel any different?  Do you think anything has changed?  Do you think the country has gone to hell in a handbasket?

No?  Me neither.

But now we have a congressperson telling us that, because of the sequester, her staff no longer is able to get a decent lunch.

Huh?  Wah?

You just have to know this is Debbie Wasserman Schultz - AKA Dim Bulb Debbie - don't you?

Excerpted from Paul Bedard's incredulous blog at washingtonexaminer.com:

Two senior Democrats complained at a House Appropriations Committee hearing Tuesday that the combination of cuts over the past two years has robbed them of nearly 11 percent of their personal budgets, which average $1.3 million.

Now House officials are looking at an additional 8.2 percent cut, or about $100,000. Total cut over three years: nearly 20 percent.

"If it's a $100,000 reduction in your [allowance] you really need to start preparing for a staff change," said Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va. "That's a whole person!"

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., said Congress has had to reduce constituent services because of the sequester. "We're really starting to see the effects of that in our office," she said.

The cuts have also affected the quality of life for congressional aides, said Wasserman Schultz, whose defense of Capitol Hill staffers amid budget cuts has won her unofficial den mother status among many. At the hearing, for example, she said prices of meals in House restaurants are getting so high that aides are being "priced out" of a good meal.

To summarize:  assuming the math is correct (a very big assumption if you're talking about congress), the sequester will reduce the average congressperson's budget from $1,300,000 a year to $1,200,000.

Oh, the horror!!!!!!  Congresspeople will have to scrape by on a $1,200,000 budget.  Holy excrement, that could mean they don't get a lot do...er, never mind.

This, of course, assumes that the sequester remains permanently in effect, without ever being resolved....which we all know is not going to be the case. 

But wait. This crying over the reduction of a big fat personal budget isn't even the good part.  Debbie Wasserman Schultz is also complaining that her staff members - three of whom earn $120,000 - 160,000 a year and five of whom earn $60,000 - 100,000 a year - are no longer able to afford a good meal.

As Mike Flynn of breitbart.com points out:

At the carry-out cafe in the Cannon Office Building, where Wasserman Schultz has her office, you can get an 8oz bowl of Ham and Bean soup for $2. You can buy gourmet sandwiches and wraps for around $5. Both of these are cheaper than I can get at delis down the street from my house. 

Her aides could walk across the street to the Longworth Building, which has a large sit-down cafeteria. Today, it is featuring a roasted stuffed Chicken, with asparagus and mashed potatoes, for around $7. Or, one could opt for a heaping 12oz bowl of Chicken Chili for $3. 

There is also the tried and true method enjoyed by millions of workers around the country: a brown-bag lunch. 

Wasserman Schultz's aides can't afford those prices?  Yeah, sure, that makes lots of sense. 

And this, of course, is before we get to the issue of what sequestration has to do with the price of food in house restaurants.

President Obama and his fellow Democrats desperately need a crisis to "prove" what horrible consequences would come down on us if there were forced cuts in our impossibly bloated deficit spending.  And, by God, they is going to come up with one, even if they have to create the crisis out of thin air - while hoping you are "low information" enough to be convinced it is real. 

And in the absence of any such real crisis, they are now crying over the fact their personal budgets - which are so ridiculous that they have been cut over the past years without the sequester, will come down a little further - as if any normal citizen would give a damn.  And Dim Bulb Debbie adds to the fun, by crying that the sequester is somehow starving her staff member. 

Think of it as a test to see just how dumb, and/or how unconditionally committed to Obama & Co., you are.

Another installment of sequester watch tomorrow.


MEDIA'S KERMIT GOSNELL PROBLEM

Ken Berwitz

Remember George Tiller?  He was the late term abortion doctor from Wichita, Kansas, who was murdered by an anti-abortion activist in 2009.  The headlines, feature stories and panel discussions about Dr. Tiller and the horrible way he was murdered went on for weeks and weeks, before somewhat (not completely) dying down.

This week we have the start of kermit gosnell's trial.  gosnell is a Philadelphia doctor who made millions of dollars by performing abortions - except, it is alleged, sometimes the babies were born alive and he killed them. 

gosnell also is charged with anesthetizing his patients based on how much they could pay.  The more money, the more anesthesia, the less money the less anesthesia. 

In all, gosnell is charged with 8 counts of murder - one adult and 7 live babies - along with a raft of illegal procedures, including (but not limited to) falsifying how far along pregnant women were so that he could turn illegal abortions into legal ones.

Asking the readers who do not live in the Philadelphia area (though I probably could include them as well):  How much coverage have you seen or heard about this absolute monster's trial from our media?  As much as Tiller's shooting?  Half as much?  A quarter?  A tiny fraction?  Anything at all? 

Have you seen or heard the features?  The panel discussions? 

Have you seen or heard any tying of gosnell's murder of live babies to Barack Obama's one-man stand against BAIPA (the Born Alive Infant Protection Act), which media conveniently buried through two presidential election campaigns?

See, our media have a problem.  The preponderance of media sentiment favors the legality of abortion.  And gosnell performed lots and lots of abortions. 

So the fact that he is charged with ignoring even the most rudimentary procedures in doing so, of lying about the stage of some women's pregnancies, of  doling out anesthesia on a "how much $$$ do you have" basis, and of killing the babies which, inconveniently, managed to be born alive?  Well we better tread softly on this one, guys.  If we are serious about reporting this we risk being attacked by NARAL, NOW, and other organized left-wing ideologues posing as "women's rights" groups.  We'll lose our credibility with them, and we can't have that.  Better to do some nominal reporting on gosnell, and go on to other news.

Like I said, media have a kermit gosnell problem.  Which means we have a media problem.


BELL, CALIFORNIA CONVICTIONS: NAME THAT PARTY

Ken Berwitz

We haven't done an episode of "Name That Party" in quite a while.  So today's the day.

The Associated Press's Greg Risling and John Rogers have written an article about five politicians from Bell, California who, Wednesday, were convicted on 21 counts of misappropriating funds, and, Thursday, had a mistrial declared on a bunch of other charges, which presumably means they will be retried on them.

How deep was the corruption?  Well, Bell is a poverty-stricken suburb of Los Angeles with a population of about 36,000 people - a quarter of them living below the poverty level.  The politicians played the system, legally and illegally, so that the city manager, robert rizzo, was pulling down a salary of $800,000 and a total compensation package of $1.5 MILLION dollars (those are not typos, folks, those numbers are real). 

Among the scams he and his city council pals pulled was the creation of the Bell Solid Waste and Recycling Authority.  From 2006 to 2010, when the whistle blew on this scam, its total activity was a single meeting.  No evidence was presented that it ever collected or recycled anything.

I applaud Mr. Risling and Mr. Rogers for the completeness of their report........except for one teeny weeny little detail.  Somehow, they overlooked any mention of which political party the convicted thieves belonged to.

Can you possibly guess which it was?

What's that?  You guessed that they were Democrats?  Wow, that's right!  Do you have a ouiji board or something?  

And so it goes in our mainstream media.  In Bell, California this week, just like we saw with former Detroit Mayor kwame kilpatrick last week, etc. etc. etc. 

-Republican miscreants (of which there are plenty)?  Usually named as Republicans at the beginning of the article/news report. 

-Democrat miscreants (of which there are plenty)?  Maybe named as Democrats somewhere in the article/news report (usually not at the beginning), but very often, not named as Democrats at all.

And, yes, these are the same "journalists" who squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!