GOP "Bear Trap"

After the historic Nov. 2nd 2010 Election, where the GOP took 60+ seats in the House and 6, maybe 7 seats in the Senate, their was a huge Bear Trap set for the GOP.

According to the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 27-30, 2010. the Question asked was "Which of the following is the most important issue facing the country today:

The economy, jobs 52%
The federal budget deficit 8%
Education 8%
Health care 8%
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 8%
Illegal immigration 8%
Terrorism 4%
Energy and environmental policies 4%

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell laid out the GOP plan for the Country. Repeal Heathcare (8%), that's the Bait for The Bear Trap. Now this trap is not covered with Leaves or brush, it's out in the open. The American people and even people in the GOP are saying work on The economy and jobs (52%) or The Bear Trap (The American people) will slam shut on the GOP in 2012.

Check all the polls, ask your friends, watch your favorite political TV shows. They all say the same, It's The economy and jobs. At this point in time the American people are concerned more about paying for groceries tomorrow and bills at the end of the month then Repeal Heathcare or making Obama a one-term president. Does Mitch McConnell and GOP think that we are going to wait 2 more years? Are you Kidding!

Be warned Washington, you don't run this country, WE THE PEOPLE run this country. If you don't get together, get jobs and improve this economy, their will be another wave hitting Washington with Obama riding on top all the way to the White House.

California GOP candidate blames Obama health care bill for "skyrocketing" health costs

"Taxpayer-funded benefits to illegals" in California are "a skyrocketing cost under Obamacare."
Steve Poizner on Saturday, April 10th, 2010 in a campaign commercial

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, http://politifact.com/ Click here for Full Story.

Steve Poizner is the state insurance commissioner of California and a Republican candidate for governor.

One ad, aired by Poizner beginning in April, argues that "like Schwarzenegger," Whitman "will continue taxpayer-funded benefits to illegals. A skyrocketing cost under Obamacare."

The federal bill expands Medicaid eligibility to all Americans earning up to 133 percent of the poverty line. "This will lead to more illegal immigrants enrolling, because California provides a version of Medicaid to illegal immigrants,"

But it's wrong to assume that illegal immigrants will qualify for full-blown Medicaid in California. In fact, the only entitlement they get from Medicaid is emergency care in hospitals, which is already mandatory under federal law and was not changed by the newly passed health care bill. These limited benefits are available to any illegal immigrant who would otherwise qualify for Medicaid were it not for their immigration status. (Illegal immigrants can also qualify for Medicaid benefits for long-term care, but it's not an entitlement -- coverage is provided only to the extent that legislators and the governor agree to fund the program, and there's no federal match.)

Right now, emergency care for illegal immigrants in California is paid by the state and local government. To the extent that more illegal immigrants will now qualify for California's version of Medicaid (known as Medi-Cal) and use emergency hospital services, the only difference will be a shift of payment responsibility from one state or local account to another. (Whether the federal government will continue to pick up part of the cost for treating illegal immigrants using Medi-Cal -- as the federal government does today -- is unclear, given the new bill's language.)

The new federal law specifically prevents illegal immigrants from benefitting, and most of the additional indirect costs that might be expected from expanding the Medicaid rolls are already being paid in California by different state or local government accounts. For these reasons, the phrase "a skyrocketing cost under Obamacare" is a gross exaggeration.

So Steve Poizner --- Are you Kidding?

Michael Savage says Kagan is a Marxist

Elena Kagan is "a New York City radical, Marxist lawyer through and through."
Michael Savage on Monday, May 10th, 2010 in his website

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, http://politifact.com/ Click here for Full Story.

Michael Savage is a conservative radio commentator, and host of  "The Michael Savage Show," which is syndicated in over 300 U.S. markets. He is also the author of 25 books, including four New York Times bestsellers.

"Now the empty skirts in the media are saying that she doesn't have much of a 'paper trail' that would reveal her views on issues," said conservative radio commentator Michael Savage, "but her senior thesis at Princeton was entitled, 'To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933.' She's a New York City radical, Marxist lawyer through and through."

The question is not whether Kagan wrote the paper. It's available to anyone who's willing to pay the Princeton University Library $54.60 to read it.

The question is whether the thesis reveals Kagan to be "a New York City radical, Marxist lawyer through and through."

Insight into why Kagan selected that topic is in the acknowledgements at the start of the paper, where she wrote, "Finally, I would like to thank my brother Marc, whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas."

The rest of the paper is an examination of why the socialist party never took off. Kagan focused on the socialist party in New York City as a microcosm of the national movement, and sought to answer the central question, "What caused the strange death of socialism in New York City?"

And, she concludes, "The socialists' failure to maintain their momentum grew from their failure ever to achieve internal harmony."

Yet there's nothing in her record that suggests she's a Marxist, as Savage claimed. Yes, she wrote a paper about socialism in college. But she never said in the thesis that she subscribed to the political ideas of socialism. In fact, she mostly adopts the dispassionate tone of a historian. And there's certainly nothing in the public record to suggest she has since become one. Writing a history thesis about socialism doesn't amount to endorsing it.

So once again, we have a political commentator attacking someone as a "Marxist" with absolutely no evidence to back it up. That's not just false, it's irresponsibly.


So Michael Savage --- Are you Kidding?

Schultz claims that Landrieu got $1.8 million in BP PAC and employee contributions

"Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu received almost $1.8 million from BP over the last decade."
Ed Schultz on Wednesday, May 5th, 2010 in a broadcast of the Ed Show

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Ed Schultz is the host of the Ed Show on MSNBC

Here's what Ed Schultz, the liberal host of MSNBC's Ed Show, had to say about her share of the money:

"Americans are getting a real education on what the color of oil is," Schultz said on the May 5, 2010, episode of his show. "It's green. It's real green. It's big money and influence. Just so you know what's coming down, Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu received almost $1.8 million from BP over the last decade."

Checking that figure against data from OpenSecrets.org, a website that tracks campaign contributions. Between 2000 and 2009, BP employees and the company's political action committee contributed $25,200 to Landrieu. And since Landrieu was elected to Congress in 1996, BP employees and the company's political action committee have given her a total of $28,200. (So far, Landrieu hasn't received any money from the company's workers or PAC in 2010, so we excluded that year from our analysis.)

Schultz issued his own correction on May 12.

"In recent days we have been reporting on this program on two different occasions that Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana had taken $1.8 million from BP," he said. "I want to come off the top tonight and correct that number. It is $752,000... I want all of you to know our apologies from me, Ed Schultz, on this. I don‘t like getting my numbers wrong."

But Schultz did get the numbers wrong - again.

Landrieu has received $752,744 from all the oil and gas industry's political action committees and employees -- not just BP -- during her entire career. Schultz initially said that Landrieu had received $1.8 million from BP in the last decade, so his "correction" is wrong.

Schultz repeatedly claimed that Landrieu had made $1.8 million from BP employees and PAC in campaign contributions over the last decade. We found that she's only made $25,200 from them in that period of time. That's a huge difference. Schultz eventually issued a correction, saying that Landrieu's only gotten $752,000. But Landrieu has received about that much during her entire career from the entire oil and gas industry, not just BP's political action committee and employees.

So Ed Schultz --- Are you Kidding?

Landrieu says Louisiana doesn't get "one single penny" from offshore drilling

Louisiana gets "not one single penny" from Gulf Coast offshore oil revenues.
Mary Landrieu on Tuesday, May 11th, 2010 in an interview with MSNBC's Ed Schultz

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Mary Landrieu is a Democratic U.S. Senator from Louisiana.

Landrieu, who has often been an advocate for the energy industry in the Senate, told the liberal talk show host,Ed Schultz, "I can promise you, no one's going to let the industry skid. We're going to make BP pay. And, I might say, and you know because you've heard me say this before, when will America realize that the Gulf Coast states need revenue-sharing? Do you know how much money the federal treasury gets from this industry every year? An average of $5 billion. Do you know how much money Louisiana gets? Not one single penny."

It's a bit complicated, but the truth is the state makes millions. Here's the breakdown:

• For the first 3 miles out from the shoreline, Louisiana -- like other states -- gets to keep 100 percent of any royalties produced by oil and gas drilling. In the most recent year available, 2008, this amounted to $275 million.

• Between 3 and 6 miles from the shoreline -- a federally owned band formally known as the 8(g) area -- the federal government sends 27 percent of the royalties to Louisiana. The reasoning is that federal drilling in this area sucks out some of the oil from deposits that span the 3-mile dividing line between state and federal ownership, so these payments are meant to compensate for the lost revenue to states. In 2009, they totaled $22 million and they're estimated to be $32 million this year.

• Beyond 6 miles from the shoreline is considered federal territory. For new drilling projects, states get a 37.5 percent share directly to their treasuries and an additional 12.5 percent for state land and water conservation fund projects. The 37.5 percent figure alone amounted to $6.3 million for Louisiana's treasury in 2009, with additional estimated amounts of $558,000 in 2010 and $476,000 in 2011.

The grand total that Louisiana receives in a typical year is difficult to compute because of big variations in oil prices and other factors, but it's safe in saying it's in the tens of millions of dollars every year, and depending on how you slice the numbers, possibly hundreds of millions of dollars. Either way, it's not accurate to say that Louisiana received "not one single penny," as Landrieu did.


So Mary Landrieu --- Are you Kidding?

Reid claims O'Connor had no previous judicial experience

On Sandra Day O'Connor: "I think one reason she was a good judge is she had no judicial experience" before she joined the Supreme Court.
Harry Reid on Tuesday, May 11th, 2010 in a speech on the Senate floor

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Harry Reid is the Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate and a Democrat from Nevada

"One of my favorite Supreme Court Justices in recent years has been Sandra Day O’Connor, not because she’s a Republican, but because she was a good judge. I think one reason she was a good judge is she had no judicial experience," Reid said on May 11, 2010.

O'Connor, who retired from the court 2005, also had a variety of jobs, serving as Deputy County Attorney of San Mateo County, California, and as an Arizona state senator.

In 1975, O'Connor was elected a judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court, where she served until 1979, when she was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, according to her biography on the U.S. Supreme Court Web site. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan nominated O'Connor to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court.

So, O'Connor had six years of judicial experience before she was nominated for a seat on the highest court.

So Harry Reid --- Are you Kidding?

Sanders says U.S. doubles every other country in per capita health spending

"We spend twice as much per capita on health care as any other nation on Earth."
Bernie Sanders on Wednesday, August 19th, 2009 in an appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Bernie Sanders is a Senator from Vermont who is an independent but who caucuses with Democrats.

On the Aug. 19, 2009, Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, Sanders responded to a question about corporate interests' role in the health care reform debate by saying, "We spend twice as much per capita on health care as any other nation on Earth. And there is a reason why the insurance companies, year after year, make huge profits and pay their CEOs tens and tens of millions of dollars in compensation salaries. And the reason for that is that these guys exert enormous influence over the political process in Washington."

Using statistics from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group that represents 30 wealthier, industrialized countries, most of them in Europe and North America. In 2007, the OECD said that the United States spent $7,290 per capita on health care, ranking it first among the 30 countries studied. Five other nations spent more than $3,645 per capita, the point at which the United States no longer doubles their spending. The highest is the Netherlands at $4,417. The other four were Austria, Canada, Norway and Switzerland.

Sanders would have been on completely firm ground had he simply said, "We spend more per capita on health care than any other nation on Earth." But instead he said "twice as much."

So Bernie Sanders --- Are you Kidding?