America’s biggest spenders have chosen a wonderful Christmas gift for themselves: More of our money.

Last week, deficit spending reached a new extreme. This week, Congress gave our federal government an 8% pay (spending) raise. Next week, they plan to borrow almost $2-trillion more to keep their spending spree alive. No payments until after Christmas, of course—and the bills are sent to the next generation.

President Barack Obama led the way in his speech that endorsed “spend[ing] our way out of this recession.”

Sadly, Congress and the Obama Administration are such jolly givers that they may push Santa into the unemployment line. The new borrowing is beyond our ability to pay.

It should have been a warning to slow down when the Treasury Department announced we’d overspent our income by $292-billion—in just the first two months of the new fiscal year. Instead, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and friends pushed through a $447-billion spending package that is 8% higher than last year’s domestic spending and 25% higher since Democrats took over Congress in 2007. With 5,224 earmarks. Senate approval is expected this weekend. President Obama’s campaign pledges to end earmark abuse seem to have joined the Ghost of Christmas Past.

Now, visions of super-sized sugar plums dance through their heads as lawmakers next week plan to expand their own credit line by about $1.9-trillion more.

The plan is to attach the debt ceiling provision to a military spending bill and vote on it next week. The cynical goal is to accuse those who vote “no” of being against the military. It’s likely that more billions in earmarks will be included as sweeteners to attract votes.

Earlier this year, explosive spending forced Americans to grapple with just how much $1-trillion is. That’s still an impossible struggle. But now, Congress is going to approve borrowing twice that amount! It’s beyond comprehension.

Yet it doesn’t stop there. Plans are afoot to spend billions more as soon as the New Year arrives–to “stimulate” our economy, of course. “100 billion, 150 billion, 75 billion — those are all figures that are being talked about,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D, MD) told reporters.

Perhaps there’s a limit to the ruling party’s appetite for more spending. But if so, it hasn’t been spotted yet.

About the author: Ernest Istook is a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma’s 5th District. He is now a Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage Foundation

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – Sen. Tom Coburn and three other senators filed an amendment that would enroll the President, White House staff, members of Congress and all political administrative staff in the government-run public option.

The amendment also would fix language to force leadership and committee staff to also be part of the health program.

“The President, members of Congress and others in our government can demonstrate leadership and confidence in the public option by enrolling themselves in the program. While I oppose the public option, Republicans and Democrats can agree that we should live under the laws we pass," Coburn said.

"I can also think of no better way to ensure that the public option is responsive to our citizens than by having the politicians in charge of the system enrolled in the same program.  If a low-income, single mom has to wait in line for a life saving treatment, so should our national leaders and their families.  Enrolling national leaders in the public option may be the best way to prevent the government from rationing care,” he added. 
Coburn and Sen. Chuck Grassley R-Iowa, joined forces in the floor debate after having won approval of amendments in their respective committees to apply the new health reforms to members of Congress and staff.  Coburn’s amendment in the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee passed with some Democratic support, and Grassley’s amendment in the Finance Committee [each] received unanimous approval.

Grassley learned that staff members of Senate leadership offices and committees are exempted from the requirement that members of Congress and congressional staff get their employer-based health insurance through the same system that would apply to the rest of the country under the Senate majority leader’s health care legislation.  Staff for the majority leader and Democratic committee chairmen wrote the bill behind closed doors.  The carve-out came to light after Grassley asked the non-partisan Congressional Research Service to analyze the bill, and experts confirmed the carve-out.

 The amendment combines the Coburn and Grassley amendments, putting all members of the House and Senate and their staff in the public option in states that have one and in the exchange in states that opt out of the public option.  The amendment fixes the majority leader’s omission of leadership and committee staffs.  It also enrolls the President, the Vice President, White House staff, and all Administration political staff in the public option or exchange (depending on their state).

Coburn and the other original signers of the amendment are asking all senators to sign their proposal and are requesting floor debate.

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK), released the following statement regarding a new report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) that shows that 60 percent of health care spending in the U.S. ($1.35 trillion out of $2.24 trillion) is controlled by state, local and federal government.

“Defenders of the Reid bill say we need ‘reform’ to keep insurance companies honest.  A better question would be: ‘Who’s going to keep the government honest?’  This new report shows that the so-called ‘reform’ effort is based on a false premise.  Government is already the majority-shareholder in our health care system,” Dr. Coburn said.

“Many of the problems we face today in health care, such as cost and lack of choice and access to quality care, are the consequence of government interference.  These problems will only get worse if Congress spends $2.5 trillion on legislation to put the government in charge of more of our health care decisions,” Dr. Coburn said.  
Patients in government run health plans have fewer options and lower quality of care:

     * Medicare denies medical claims at twice the rate of some of the largest private insurers.
    * Nearly one in three (29 percent) Medicare beneficiaries who were looking for a primary care doctor had a problem finding one to treat them, according to a June 2008 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) survey.
    * Forty percent of physicians refuse to accept Medicaid patients.
    * Patients in the Indian Health Services receive fewer options.

 “Patients should not be coerced into government-run, mismanaged health care bureaucracies that ration care, waste money and harm patients,” said Dr. Coburn.  “To protect patients, I will offer an amendment based on the core provision of my reform bill – the Patients’ Choice Act – that will allow patients trapped in a government health insurance monopoly to opt out of the government controlled plan and choose from a selection of private health options, just like members of Congress can do now.”

NORMAN, Okla. — Corralled like protesters in a so-called “First-Amendment zone,” the press covering former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s visit to Norman, as part of her tour for her book Going Rogue, were not even allowed inside the Hastings book and music store prior to the governor’s visit.

When this reporter attempted to pass through the metal fence to go into the store, just as other people were doing, a young woman of about 20, who wouldn’t identify herself, said media was not allowed inside. This young woman was very rude, as was an older man wearing OU gloves who was also pushy.

Agreeing to remain in the corrall, awaiting the arrival of the Palin, the press were shabbily treated by the Palin advance team. And the few times someone working for Palin came up to give the press instructions, the music being played by some guy kicking a soccer ball around was too loud for anyone to hear anything.

While Palin was expected at 6 p.m., her bus did not arrive until well after 7 p.m. and she did not speak as we were told she would. No explanation. She merely exited the bus with her young son Trig in her arms and quickly went inside. The press was then kept outside for another 15 minutes before we were allowed in in shifts, where we could only take still pictures or some video. No questions.

Red Dirt Report, a sister site to Oklahoma Watchdog, did get a story out of the event but the experience was less than optimal. Palin’s publicist and entourage were not particularly helpful and seemed even disdainful of the press. This could be due to recent reports that Palin is being tightly controlled by her handlers and that she is not talking to the press and not allowing fans to ask questions. A report out of Minnesota says that “only English-speaking press” would be allowed to cover her tour, although this was spun as being a simple misunderstanding.

Once inside the Hastings Norman store, and out of the cold, the press was allowed only pictures. Of course her many fans were excited to get her autograph in their copies of Going Rogue.

After a few minutes the press was hustled back outside.

The experience left this watchdog wondering why Palin – who claims to be a folksy, woman-of-the-people – would not be more accessible? Sure, there are elements of the mainstream media that truly despise her, but they’re largely on the coasts and in big urban areas. This reporter, who personally likes Sarah Palin and her stances on many issues, was rather surprised and disappointed by the experience, particularly when reporters were told she would speak and then didn’t say anything.

More of the story here

About the author: Andrew Griffin is the editor of reddirtreport.com and oklahoma.watchdog.org

Following are excerpts from a speech Sen. Tom Coburn gave concering the proposed Reid bill – the Senate version of the proposed health care bill:

What this bill is going to do is going to destroy the best health care system in the world, and it’s going to undermine the security of every senior in this country …
 
What I disagree with is moving $2.5 trillion more under government control which will raise costs ultimately in the health care sector. And if it doesn’t raise costs and we’re truly going to take this money from Medicare, what it’s going to do to our seniors, I have a message for you: you’re going to die sooner.

And they’re going to say that isn’t true.  That isn’t true.  When you restrict the ability of the primary caregivers in this country to do what is best for their senior patients, what you are doing is limiting their life expectancy.  We’re saying that CMS, the Medicare advisory commission and the cost effectiveness comparativeness panel will tell the doctors what they can and cannot do, ignoring the 20% of the people that that is exactly the wrong prescription for.  So, for 20% of our seniors, this bill is going to be a disaster, but it’s going to save money because you’re not going to be around for us to spend any money on you …

 Now, they’ll dispute that.  But the people who are going to be disputing that are lawyers. They’re not doctors.  They’ve never laid a hand on a patient. They’ve never put their hand forward on a Medicare patient knowing the consequences of the whole, total patient, the background, the medical history, the sociologic factors that fit, the family dynamics, the past medical history and the family history, and the present state of mind of that patient.  And even more important, what this bill’s going to do is divide your doctor away from you.

 In the HELP committee, I offered an amendment to change the language so that there would be absolutely a prohibition on rationing care and directing the care from Washington.  It was rejected out of hand.  Rejected out of hand.

 Not one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted to prohibit rationing of health care. Now, why would they do that?  Because the ultimate intention through the cost comparativeness effectiveness panel is to ration care.  It’s to ration the care.  It’s to limit the amount of dollars that we spend and never look at the individual patient.

If we think about the Medicare cuts in this bill, we’re going to take $135 billion out of the hospitals.  Do you think seniors will ever notice that?  I do.  I think when you ring your button and you’re hurting and you need pain medicines or you need to go to the bathroom, the time it takes for somebody to get there won’t be sufficient.  What will happen is you wait. You’ll have a complication.  If you become acutely shortness of breath and you punch your button, the available nurses won’t be there.  There will be a consequence to cutting $135 billion from payments to hospitals in this country.