Video: Sessions To Obama Budget Chief: Will You Resign If Your Statement Is Proven False? (UPDATED)

Via: BudgetGOP

WASHINGTON, February 14—At a Budget Committee hearing today, OMB Acting Director Jeffrey Zients refused, under direct questioning from Sen. Sessions, to answer whether the president’s budget would increase spending over current-law levels. The White House has repeatedly claimed that their budget contains $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. In truth, the budget plan submitted by the president would increase spending by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years relative to current projections. Over that time, the federal government will spend a total of $47 trillion, up from $45.5 trillion projected under the already enacted Budget Control Act—producing by the president’s own projections an additional $11.2 trillion in gross debt.

NOTE: To view a detailed breakdown of proposed spending increases using numbers from President Obama’s own budget, please click here: http://1.usa.gov/yRREwf.

Take in the smarmy sleaze as Zients tries to tell Sessions that Obama’s profligate tax and spend budget somehow cuts spending.

Someone call the Truth Squad on the traitor, Sessions!

UPDATE:

Sessions appeared on Mark Levin’s radio show, yesterday, to discuss the budget, and the Obama administration’s shady, irresponsible, and downright shocking manner they’ve been treating the American economy. Levin and Sessions agree that if some of the nefarious  things they’re saying and doing were done in the private sector, they would be held legally accountable.

Somehow, the President of the United States is destroying the US economy, blaming it all on his opponents, and no one can do a damn thing about it.

SEE ALSO:

Monty Pelerin, The American Thinker: Impeach Them All:

The US Government continues actions that will result in its own demise. That might seem fitting, except that its failure will seriously harm the citizenry.

Government decisions and actions have assured an economic collapse that will result in another depression. Federal debts and promises are too large to be honored, a conclusion based not on economics but on simple arithmetic.

The government collapse will likely trigger the economic collapse, although the order could be reversed. Arguably, we are already in a depression which has been disguised by juicing GDP via excessive government spending. This spending has been  funded increased government debt in magnitudes never seen before. To put matters into perspective, by the end of President Obama’s first four years, he will have added more to the federal debt than all 43 Presidents who preceded him.

The economic collapse, as a result of this borrowing and stimulus, will be terrifying and worse than it needed be. Whether it is preceded by hyperinflation or goes directly into a deflationary collapse is moot and immaterial regarding an ultimate depression. Resulting conditions will be worse than those experienced during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

As frightening as the economic event will be, it will be superseded by the political damage. Given the state of our economy and the state of our government, there is a high probability that we lose our form of government. The confluence of the horrific economic events coupled with what H. L. Mencken foresaw long ago brings the very survival of freedom and liberty into question:

As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be occupied by a downright moron.

Mencken’s “great and glorious day” is upon us. We have found our “moron,” not that he is the first or only one. His intent “to transform America” suggests that his actions will not be limited to methods considered appropriate by his predecessors.

Hat tip: Breitbart TV

Dick Morris on Obama’s Real Motivation For Imposing the Contraception Mandate on the Catholic Church.

Dick Morris has an interesting theory about Obama’s true motivation for the contraception mandate in his latest Lunch Alert!. Obama always has an ulterior motive, he notes – you have to read it to know how to defeat the guy. Morris says that for Obama, the issue is not about infringing upon religious liberty – he thinks Obama’s trying to replace abortion with contraception in the left/right social divide because they’re losing the abortion debate. He wants to polarize the nation to profit his reelection chances over the issue of contraception.  Watch the video, here.

It was no coincidence, Professor Jacobson noted just yesterday, that George Stephanopoulos harped on the subject of contraception at the New Hampshire Republican debate on January 7.

Everyone, at least on our side of the aisle, shook their heads in disbelief as to why Stephanopoulos was bringing up the issue.  There was no active controversy over contraception, it wasn’t in the news, and there were far more pressing political issues, yet what seemed like an eternity of debate time was devoted to the subject at the insistence of Stephanopoulos.

Morris cites that debate as the primary reason he came to the conclusion that Obama was engaging in this “sneaky move”.

The problem with Morris’ theory, though, is that Obama hasn’t backed off on his contraception requirement. His “compromise” is no compromise at all.

So allow me to apply this to the current situation: You (Obama) told Catholic institutions that they must provide for free contraceptives and sterilizations in their insurance plans. They said, and I quote, “No.”

To accommodate them you said the “insurance company — not the hospital, not the charity — will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge.”

Obama, who — precisely — is buying the insurance companies’ free-contraceptive coverage? Who but the Catholic institutions, the institutions morally opposed to providing contraception to their employees? All you’ve done is forced morally opposed institutions to pay for other institutions that will provide contraception. Yes, this is akin to forcing those morally opposed to murder to hire hitmen. Not only is it immoral, unconstitutional and arrogant, it’s also painfully unintellectual.

Thank you, Bad Catholic - (totally adding him to my blogroll.)

Just because 98% of the American people support contraception, doesn’t mean that they support the government forcing religious institutions into paying for it.

Today, Rasmussen has a poll out that shows Obama job disapproval 59% among Catholics. In 2008, he won the Catholic vote by nine points.

This is no “win” for the Obama administration no matter how you slice it.

SEE ALSO:

Video at Legal Insurrection:

Dick Morris appeared on Hannity  last night  (h/t @TheAnchoress) and made a connection between the January New Hampshire debate and Obama rolling out the contraception issue.

CFP: Barack’s Smug Assault on Freedom of Religion Isn’t Just Anti-American—It’s Unforgivable

Potluck Bloggers: A World Without Catholic Charities

Just to be clear:

I agree with Morris and Jacobson that there is a connection between the ABC debate focus on contraception and  Obama’s contraception mandate that came later. I’m just not sure that Obama’s new focus on contraception is for the reason Morris cited.  Obama and his media toadies may simply have been trying to get a pro-contraception narrative going ahead of the decision on the contraception mandate.

If it is some kind of an attempt to shift the left/right social divide from abortion to contraception, Obama has badly misjudged how American people view the relationship between Church and State.

UPDATE:

I believe Paul A. Rahe over at Ricochet has nailed it – I dared not think this, myself – but it fits so well with how he has governed:  More Than a Touch of Malice:

…there can be only one reason why Sebelius, Pelosi, and Obama decided to proceed. They wanted to show the bishops and the Catholic laity who is boss. They wanted to make those who think contraception wrong and abortion a species of murder complicit in both.  They wanted to rub the noses of their opponents in it. They wanted to marginalize them. Humiliation was, in fact, their only aim, and malice, their motive.Last week, when, in response to the fierce resistance he had deliberately stirred up, the President offered the bishops what he called “an accommodation,” what he proffered was nothing more than a fig leaf. His maneuver was, in fact, a gesture of contempt, and I believe that it was Barack Obama’s final offer. From his perspective and from that of Sebelius and Pelosi, the genuine Catholics still within the Democratic coalition are no more than what Vladimir Lenin called “useful idiots,” and, now that the progressive project is near completion, they are expendable – for there is no longer any need to curry their favor.

In his piece in The Washington Examiner, which I link above, Michael Barone mentioned Obama’s decree with regard to contraception and abortifacients in tandem with a brief discussion of the President’s decision to reject the construction of the Keystone Pipeline. He was, I think, right to do so – for there is no good reason that any student of public policy can cite for doing what the President did. Cancelling the pipeline will not delay or stop the extraction of oil from the tar sands in Alberta, and the pipeline itself would pose no environmental threat. If the President’s decision had any purpose, it was symbolic – an indication to all that he cared not one whit about the plight of the white working class and that he was capable of punishing those whom he does not like and more than willing to do so.

Linked by Signs and Wonders, and Doug Ross, thanks!

Oversight and Reform: Faces of Forced Union Political Contributions (Videos)

Last week, the Committee on Government Oversight and Reform turned its attention to the injustice of forced union membership, focusing on the appalling union practice of forcing American workers to give money to partisan political activity they oppose.

Via an Oversight and Reform press release:

On February 8^th, three of these workers testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about how forced political contributions violate their freedom and rights.  But Terry Bowman, Claire Waites and Sally Coomer are not alone: many workers are not even informed of their right to control their own hard-earned money, facing threats and intimidation when they are brave enough to speak out against this unfair loss of workplace freedom and fairness.  These are the faces of forced contributions to the union special interest agenda.

SALLY COOMER: Denied the Right to Choose by SEIU Leaders:

 “We were required at the end of 2009 to quit our agency employment and transfer over to a system that is unionized by the SEIU, called the Individual Provider System.  Caring for my daughter is not a job that requires union intervention…The thing that is very discouraging for me is every month, you know, I’m seeing close to $95 a month being taken out of the check for union dues, going to causes I do not support.  For me, that $95 a month would provide an additional 9 to 10 hours of care for Becky directly…. I feel very strongly that any type of union that a person belongs to that if the union is going to take out union dues that that employee should be well-aware of what those dues are being spent for. And that, if they are using it for political purposes that they should be aware of that and they should be able to make a choice as to whether or not that that is what they want their union dues to be spent on.”

 

Terry Bowman, United Auto Workers (UAW) Member from Ypsilanti, Mich:

“You know, the United States government has given labor unions the ability to trump an individual’s First Amendment right and force the seizure of an individual’s personal property – their wages – for simply exercising their pursuit of happiness by applying for a job.  I really would like my first amendment right of freedom of association back. I do not have the ability to exercise that right in a forced union state. Unfortunately the union dues that I am forced to pay, much of that goes to political reasons that I disagree with.  To the people who are actually pulling my dues out, you do not have to right to use my money as you so choose to use it. The fact that my plant chairman, at a union meeting, will stand up there and point to all of us and say you all better be voting for democrats is not what a union was created to do and is not what it was meant to do.  So unions have lost their way. They realized that compulsion was not the way to go, but when they smelled the potential hundreds of millions of dollars from forced unionism, they had to go that route. I think it’s quite unfortunate.”

Claire Waites, National Education Association (NEA) Member from Daphne, Ala:

“I am in the Baldwin County Teacher’s Association, the Alabama Education Association, and the National Education Association because there are no other carriers for liability insurance for teachers in the state of Alabama.  The NEA Fund for Children, you’d think it’s a fund for children and it’ll go to actually classroom expenses or classroom projects or teacher grants or actually go to underprivileged children. In reality, the NEA Fund for Children goes to political action groups that they choose. We have no voice. They choose who they would like the money to go to… Right now in the economy, classroom teachers need money. This is the third year that I’ve bought my own classroom supplies. For the $180 that I gave to the Children’s Fund, that’s three classroom labs in my room.  My message to NEA is that if you’re going to have a children’s fund have a children’s fund. If you’re going to have a PAC fund, have a PAC fund. Don’t trick me to give to your PAC fund by making it named a children’s fund.”

   REPORT: “Workplace Freedom and Fairness: Are Workers Forced to Fund Political Causes They Oppose?”

  COMPLETE HEARING VIDEO

Sic Obama’s “Truth Teams” on Team Obama

Charles Krauthammer didn’t mince words this evening on Special Report in his assessment of the latest offering from the Obama administration, a budget he says is “worthy of Greece”, and “truly scandalous”:

Video via Gateway Pundit

One hopes that the Republican candidates heed his warning and shift the narrative away from Obama’s class warfare schtick to the cuts in spending most Americans want to see.

Today, it was widely reported that the Obama camp is launching “truth teams”,  a new effort “to enlist and educate at least 2 million supporters for a “grassroots communications team” – an extension, it would seem, of Attaaaaack Watch. It’s as Orwellian a concept as Obama’s  hyperpartisan disinformation outfit,  Media Matters’ claims to be a  counter to “Misinformation on the right”. When the organized left says “truth” they always mean disinformation.

If they were really interested in the truth, they would be pointing to Obama’s Chief of Staff,  Jack Lew’s misleading claim about the Senate’s failure to pass a budget resolution. He keeps telling people that it takes 60, not 50, votes to pass the budget.

Lew is completely wrong when he claims that 60 votes are needed to “pass a budget in the Senate.” As he well knows, a budget resolution is one of the few things that are not subject to a filibuster. In fact, that is one reason why a bill based on reconciliation instructions cannot be filibustered.

You don’t even need 50 votes, just a simple majority. Here are a few of the recent close votes for the budget resolution, as listed by CRS: 48-45 (2009 budget); 51-49 (2006); 51-50 (2004); 50-48 (2001). Senate Democrats may have reasons for failing to pass a budget plan—such as wanting to avoid casting politically inconvenient votes—but a GOP filibuster is not one of them.

Or they would point to Obama’s acting OMB Director’s  bizarre and laughable claim that Barack Obama had introduced a “balanced budget.”

Unfortunately for Jeffery Zients and the liberal cable network, it is hard to hide the fact that the President’s proposal actually projects a budget deficit of $1.33 trillion for the fiscal year 2013, according to the Wall Street Journal.

When asked what he thought about the Republican Senate renaming the proposal ‘Debt on Arrival,’ Zients stated, “I think the President has put forward today a balanced budget.” For the country to have a balanced budget, its spending must match its revenue, and the country has not came close to that feat in some time now. Obama’s proposal would mark the fourth straight year of budget deficits exceeding a trillion dollars.

Or they could point to hapless Rachel Maddow, who’s doing her best to defend her boss’s abhorrent contraception mandate by claiming that 28 states already have a similar mandate, triggering  the b.s. meter of fellow traveler Scary Larry O’Donnell, who is at least honest enough to admit he’s a commie, and is apparently not playing by team Soros’ rules.

We need “truth teams” all right. But they need to be focusing 95% of their attention on the miscreants in the Obama administration, and their media toadies. Instead, they’ll focus on the the people who are pointing out the lies. ATTAAAAACK WAAAAATCH!

UPDATE:

LOL.

Michelle Malkin kinda beat me to this deal by about 12 hours. So have probably about 500,000 people on Twitter.

Will Jack Lew please report to the Obama “Truth Team” desk now?; Update: Obama Budget Fail

Heritage Foundation’s Rory Cooper sums up the audacity: “Same White House that deliberately said it takes 60 votes to pass budget yesterday launches #TruthTeam today. Unbelievable.”

Who do they think they’re kidding with this crapola?