Talk about being out of touch with the American public.

“Dave Loebsack is changing his story faster than he’s spending our money in Washington. It’s clear that he’s getting pressure from working families across eastern Iowa who are sick and tired of the new spending, massive debt and looming tax increases that he voted for, in lock-step with Nancy Pelosi,” said Miller-Meeks, Republican candidate for Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District.

In a little over a year, Loebsack has voted in favor of big-spending policies in Washington, a few of which are listed below, and now wants Iowa taxpayers to believe he is on their side:

· Wall Street Bank Bailout $700,000,000,000.00 Yes

· Raise the National Debt $1,900,000,000,000.00 Yes

· Government-Run Health Care $1,200,000,000,000.00 Yes

· 2010 Budget that Raises Spending by Over 40% $3,600,000,000,000.00 Yes

· Auto Company Bailout $14,000,000,000.00 Yes

· Dec. 2009 Omnibus $447,000,000,000.00 Yes

· Pork-Filled Feb. 2009 Omnibus $400,000,000,000.00 Yes

Miller-Meeks said, “We need a fresh new voice in Congress who will stand up for taxpayers and put an end to the big-government agenda going on now in Washington. I want to be that common-sense voice and put my decades of experience as a small business owner, medical professional, Army veteran and community volunteer, to work for us in Congress.”

Tipping Point

“I believe our country has reached a tipping point. It is time for a national reckoning. Are we the country of our founders? Do we believe in unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Are we the country that guarantees my right to fail, without which there would be no opportunity to succeed? Or, are we a country that looks to Washington DC to solve all of our basic problems? Are we a country that will continue down its long path of unsustainable spending?”

“We need to decide that now This is why I am running. We won’t permanently solve our substantial problems until this fundamental question is answered.”

Intentions vs. Results

“I believe Dave Loebsack entered public service with the best of intentions; however his results are more representative of Nancy Pelosi’s agenda and don’t reflect the values and interests of hard-working Iowans in the 2nd district. Voting to support the stimulus package, cap and trade, raising the debt ceiling and supporting a hostile takeover of the health care industry by our federal government is contrary to the people’s best interests.”

Rob Gettemy has a history of entrepreneurial successes. Rob served as Vice President of Direct Sales and Service for Parsons Technology before starting three successful businesses. Rob and his family currently own and operate a startup Christian apparel company, www.1M4JC.com.

In addition to his entrepreneurial ventures, Rob is an instructor of entrepreneurship at the John Pappajohn Entrepreneurial Center at the University of Iowa. Each semester, Rob teaches as many as 200 students the skills to succeed as entrepreneurs.

Rob is an active member of Antioch Christian Church in Marion and the Cedar Rapids Daybreak Rotary. Rob and his wife Tracy live in Marion with their two sons, who attend Linn-Mar High School.

Rob received his B.A. in Economics from the University of Northern Iowa in 1987 and his MBA from Drake University in 1989.

I Prayed For Courage

What an incredible experience last night.  I became a part of a three man team, consisting of an LPN nurse who is an angel to his patients, a funeral director, and a dentist, whose responsibility was for the primary care of patients in the Port du Prince largest hospital’s Critical Care Unit.  A 50-bed ward that was nightmarish to say the best.  If you can imagine operating a critical care unit in a building that has suffered significant earthquake damage, has no electricity, running water, bathroom facilities, and most importantly lacks the basic and advanced medical equipment and supplies needed for the CCU.

We were working at General Hospital which was hard hit by the earthquake.  Many of the medical staff fear being in the various bldgs of the hospital. Thus they do not always show up. Unlike hospital stays in the US it is traditional here for a family member to sleep on the floor next to the bed, and be responsible for obtaining the food, and cleaning the bed and the patient, I am told it is not unusual here for all the nurses and doctors to go home at 9pm and then return around 9 a.m., leaving the patients to fend for themselves.  The bldg we were in has lots of structural damage.  We treated the patients by flashlight.  There was no air movement, the air reeked of the smells beyond what you can imagine, and the families of patients slept on the floor.

The first couple of hours were really tough for me as I withered under the oppressive heat.  I finally ripped the sleeves off my shirt in an attempt to cool down.  As we worked in the dark we listened to cries of pain, begs for care, and adults crying for their mothers. I found my self several times trying to control my emotions when providing care.  The small children were reminding me of my own grandchildren.

We were caring individuals ranging from newborn twins to several very elderly patients in life crisis.  I never imagined I would be giving primary patient care since I have no medical training as a provider.  We did not have the basic needs such as a thermometer, gauze, pain medications, chucks, sheets for the beds, bed pans, and antibiotics.  I went to pick up morphine and IV bags for more than 25 patients.  I was informed they would give me four IV bags.  Decisions had to be made who would be hydrated and who would not be.  I cared for one very elderly woman who will probably die.  She is extremely dehydrated and I found her laying in a large pool of blood from a head wound nobody even tried to suture.

This morning I had to convince a 23 year old man and his family that they needed to authorize us to send him to the medical ship Comfort. If he stays on the ward he will most certainly loose his leg and possibly die.  If he transfers to the Comfort we may be able to save both.  Going to the Comfort meant he would be alone because family members are not allowed on board the hospital ship.  I stayed with them until he was on his way to the Comfort.  It was tough for all involved.

Around 6 a.m., the three care takers sat outside for a few minutes in an attempt to cool off and laugh about the fact that a nurse, a funeral director, and a dentist were doing primary care on a Critical Care Unit.  The break didn’t last long.  A family member of one of our patients came running out of the ward and informed me their father had become extremely ill.  The nurse, funeral director, and dentist raced into the ward to find a patient with a severe gastro intestinal bleeding.  The night was not over yet.  I needed more courage.

Peter Teahen

photos by Peter Teahen

Forty Seven years Ted Kennedy held his senate seat.  Forty Seven years… Isn’t changing that something to respect?  Well dems if you have trouble sleeping tonight at least for now you technically have private health care to depend on in case your sleeplessness grows into illness.

Before I even read all the prolific punditry, armchair quarterback liberal whining and Republican revolution remarks I am going to soak in this one thought…

This is inspiring! “This is the people’s seat,”  says Scott Brown.  What can Brown do for you?  Inspire you, that’s what!

Brown delivers.  Enjoy this clip of Brown’s acceptance speech.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Battlefield doctors earned the nickname of “Doctor Sawbones.” The result was indelible for a generation: over 30,000 Union soldiers alone had major limbs amputated.

Another reason so many amputations occurred was due to incessant pressure by Generals for both North and South to keep the armies moving, keep pressing the battle, and dispense with the wounded as quickly as possible. Winning at any cost was more important that the carnage being inflicted.

I see frightening similarities in the mindset of those in Washington regarding the health care “reform” debate. Like a battlefield in 1864, we are witnessing what it looks like when leaders adopt a “win at any cost” mentality.

Senator Ben Nelson bartered his critical 60th vote on President Obama’s health care bill in return for a tawdry deal. The rest of the country, i.e., 49 states, would pay for the increased Medicaire costs to his home state of Nebraska. It’s been labeled as the “Cornhusker Kickback”, and most Nebraskans are embarrassed by the deal.

This wasn’t the only “carve out” designed by Senator Harry Reid to obtain passage. Senator Chris Dodd managed to work in a $100 million dollar hospital for his home state of Connecticut. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) got a deal so sweet it has been called the “Louisiana Purchase.”

The reaction to these deals has been rather swift. Senator Dodd announced his retirement last week, citing his poor “electoral health” due in part to his support of the health care bill as well as the AIG bailouts. The news this week of the record bonuses paid by Wall Street will only add fuel to his burning funeral pyre.

Senator Landrieu’s support has cratered, and it should come as no surprise to a Senator that represents Louisiana. Residents there still remember other hollow promises from the federal government after the destruction of Hurricane Katrina. Distrust of the federal government is probably higher in that state than any other in the Union.

Senator Nelson’s support is in a freefall, causing him to air campaign ads years before he’s back on the ballot. In addition, in an interview last week with the Fremont Tribune in Nebraska, Senator Nelson indicates now that President Obama should have “waited” to tackle health care, and instead focused his efforts on restarting the economy. This was a rather shocking admission from the man who gave the legislation its 60th critical vote.

Adding to all this drama has been the debacle of Senator Harry Reid’s comments regarding President Obama. Comments, that had they been made by anyone other than one integral to pushing this legislation through at any cost, would have set off calls for an immediate resignation. However, due to his present position as the man pulling the levers of power, criticism has been muted and swept under the rug.

And now, this morning, it is reported that the heads of the major labor unions in the country met yesterday in a private meeting with President Obama to voice their concerns over the surtax on so-called “Cadillac health care plans.” This surcharge would apply to benefit plans worth more than $8,500 a year, and is projected to raise $149billion for the health care regime. Unions detest this proposal, as by their estimate over 25% of their members will be socked with this surcharge…because they have some of the most lucrative, lavish health plans on the planet. So they too now are seeking some sort of “carve-out” from the legislation.

The health care bill…or bills…as we presently see them, resemble nothing of the original goals stated in the campaign of 2008.

Win at any cost, and win just for the sake of winning…regardless of the outcome or consequences. That’s the manta of those in Washington, DC.

In the present case, what is being amputated will be our freedoms, the best health care delivery system in the world, and the financial security of 17% of our economy.

And the indelible mark of these amputations will be left on the generation of our children, and the generations yet to come.

Carl Rove wrote in a recent story, “In 2010, Mr. Obama should work on his habit of leaving a room of people with deeply divided opinions thinking he agrees with all of them. That leads to disagreements over essential issues, like the meaning of his pledge to begin withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2011 and the nature of the new military mission there.

Finally, Mr. Obama should work on meaning what he says. He didn’t last year with all those health-care deadlines and tough talk supporting the public option. Now Mr. Obama will pivot to jobs and deficit reduction. As he tries to do that, voters will wonder if it’s just a ruse to save Democrats.”

I think America should resolve to not let Obama dismantle the constitution.

I think Pelosi should switch to decaffeinated coffee. When congressmen shout out, “Liar” in a national address she looks too perky and appalled.

I could go on about political resolutions, but all my remarks would be reworks of material already in my free ebook, “You May Be A TEApublican.”  Instead let me share where my thoughts have drifted to this week concerning personal resolutions.

Below are 20 of my favorite personal creeds called ‘Rhymeos” from my first book published way back in 1995 entitled “If I Could Live My Life Again, I’d Begin Today And Then…”

I’d do my dream
to the extreme.

I wouldn’t devote your soul
to the remote control.

I’d honor the band
on my left hand.

I’d follow the golden rule
not the folly of a fool.

I’d make it essential
to pursue potential.

I’d make more headlines
and meet more deadlines.

I’d plant more flowers
and work less hours.

I’d live by a budget
and try not to fudge it.

I’d pray for peace
and for wars to cease.

I’d take out less loans
and buy more sno-cones.

More cookies I’d dunk
in milk… kerplunk.

I’d pray for an answer
in the cure for cancer.

I’d over every flaw
of my mother-in-law.

I’d find a way to say
“I love you” everyday.

I wouldn’t gamble or bet
any valuable asset.

I’d swing my pelvis
just like Elvis.

I’d learn just how
to milk a cow.

I’d give more
to the poor.

I’d endeavor
to be clever.

I’d chase butterflies
under blue skies.

These “Rhymeos” were written under a combined pen name of Cyrano De Words-u-lac I share with my brother Dan. Here is our twitter link Rhymeo.com.  Happy New Year!

Huh, well then let’s say the liberal media claims this odd whipping activity is really a life preserver (but it isn’t) and they tell the world the villain is really a hero for trying to save a drowning victim.  And the world believes it! OMG!

When Dorothy woke up from her dream and recognized the scarecrow and tin man as friendly neighbors that turned out fine, but in this story it is way scarier.  You, the American people are the victims here.  The good ole federal reserve system (no more federal than FedEx) and the congress that empowers it unconstitutionally is the evil empire.  Are you catching on?

The mountain, yeah that is the national debt.  The river, our current wave of Obama led crap rolling through our lives.  The rope is the all the clunker-stimulus-healthcare-debacle-packages.  And the villain… Hmmm.

Is Ben Bernake A Hailed Hero Or Ruthless Villain?

Time Magazine picking Ben Bernake to be the person of the year is like picking a villain who kicks you down a mountain while killing you.  Ben who you ask?  Not Ben Nelson, Ben Ten or Uncle Ben, but Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve.

Rex Murphy puts it this way, “He gets the accolade for presiding over a “weak economy” that could have been “much, much weaker.” Pretty feeble. I can’t imagine someone being named Athlete of the Year because while he “lost a few games” he could have lost “many, many more.”

It’s a puzzling choice, even for a magazine that has previously hailed “you” as its Person of the Year. (No offense – I think “you” are pretty good, just not prince of the planet.) Some of the runners-up were pretty odd too: The Chinese Worker and Nancy Pelosi.

I suspect Time knew just as well as everybody else that the real person of the year, whether you worshiped him or were a critic, was – how could it be anyone else? – Barack Obama. Was not Barack Obama sworn in as President in 2009? Was he not – the descriptors are now bonded to his name – “the first black man to occupy the White House?” Was this not a “historic milestone?” Did he not, almost immediately, also win the Nobel Peace Prize? Was he not the predominant politico-celebrity figure of the entire world this year?

Well you see even Time magazine knew that too much poop in the brownie cannot be tolerated by their munchers.  So what do they do, they introduce another flavor twice as worst as the first.  Let the numbing continue.

This year take a new year’s resolution TEApublican style.  Learn the truth! Don’t drink the cool aid when it comes to digesting lies about our country and men like Ben Bernake.

If you want to learn more about the real Ben Bernake start at sites like CampaignForLiberty.com and RonPaul.com or just be the hero and google it.  Its like Neo in the Matrix movie.  If you want the truth (in this example the truth in a fiction story) the truth will find you if you seek it out.  The stakes are higher though as we live in non-fiction.

vil⋅lain

he⋅ro

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Grassley asked for unanimous consent to allow his amendment to be offered. A Democratic senator objected on behalf of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Grassley also filed an amendment to make this change earlier this month, but the amendment was never allowed by the Majority Leader during the Senate debate, and the change was not included in Reid’s most recent proposal, which was unveiled last weekend.

In September, a Grassley amendment unanimously adopted by the Senate Finance Committee established the requirement for all congressional staff, along with members of Congress. However, the initial Reid amendment brought to the floor modified the Grassley language in a way that carves out the staff of congressional leaders and committees.

The Finance Committee bill on page 81, based on the Grassley amendment, applied the requirement to “an employee whose pay is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of Representatives.” The Reid bill on page 157, applies the requirement to “employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, D.C., or outside of Washington D.C.”

“Careful examination by the Congressional Research Service of the bill that Senator Reid brought to the floor revealed that one of the things that happened behind closed doors was that leadership and committee staff ended up being carved out from having to live under the new health care exchanges that this legislation would create and impose on the rest of the country,” Grassley said. “This creates a double standard that’s inexcusable.”

Grassley said it also only makes sense that the requirement be applied to the President, the Vice President and all political appointees in the executive branch. “The President, Vice President, White House staff and cabinet secretaries are working very hard for this massive restructuring of America’s health care system. It’s only fair and logical that if this bill becomes law, these leaders should themselves be subject to the reforms,” he said.

Currently, members of Congress, congressional staff, the President, Vice President, cabinet secretaries, and political appointees participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The exchange that would be established by the legislation pending in the Senate is modeled after this federal employees’ program.

Grassley’s interest in having policy makers participate in the exchange is consistent with his long-held view that Congress should live under the same laws it passes for the rest of the country. In 1995, President Clinton signed into law the Congressional Accountability Act, which Grassley authored and fought to advance for six years before it was enacted. Grassley’s Congressional Accountability Act gives employees of the legislative branch protections under 12 civil rights, labor and workplace safety laws by making those laws apply to Congress.

Before enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act, Congress had exempted itself from these laws:

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Veterans’ employment and reemployment rights at Chapter 43 of Title 38 of the U.S. Code
The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1989.

The Congressional Accountability Act was amended in 1998 to include certain provisions of the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998.

Yesterday’s early morning vote brings the health care reform bill one step closer to final passage.

Regardless of whether the other side has 60 votes, my friends on the other side still have a problem.

The pending bill still raises taxes on middle-income Americans.

The Reid modification did nothing to reverse this fact.

Let me take a moment to illustrate the winners and losers under the bill.

I want to start by asking the following question: If a person is not receiving a subsidy for health insurance under the bill, how can the person receive a tax cut?

Why is this question relevant?

Because the White House and the Democratic Leadership continue to proclaim that the bill is a “net tax cut” for middle-class Americans.

For example, on Wednesday, December 16th, a senior White House aide wrote, “The bill being considered represents a substantial net tax cut for middle income families.”

The statement begs more questions. Who do you believe? The White House? Or the non-partisan, independent experts – the Joint Committee on Taxation?

JCT tells us that in 2019 a little more than 13 million individuals, families, and single parents would receive the government subsidy for health insurance.

JCT also tells us that the total number of tax filers in 2019 would be 176 million.

That means that out of 176 million individuals, families, and single parents only 13 million of them would receive a government subsidy for health insurance.

That is only 7% of tax filers.

Let me repeat that. Only 7% of Americans will benefit from the subsidy for health insurance.

I have a pie chart here so my Democratic friends can see.

You can see here, out of 176 million tax returns, around 13 million of them get the government subsidy for health insurance.

This means that 163 million individuals, families, and single parents or 93% of all tax returns receive no government benefit under the Reid bill.

So what does this mean?

It means that there is a small beneficiary class under the Reid bill – 7% of Americans.

And a very large non-beneficiary class – 93% of Americans.

Is this non-beneficiary class affected in other ways?

Yes. While one group of Americans in this class would be unaffected – another group of Americans will see their taxes go up.

And this group won’t have a tax benefit to offset their new tax liability.

That means that these Americans will be worse off under the Reid bill. What happened to their “net tax cut”?

What they will see instead is a net tax increase.

Based on JCT data, in 2019, 42 million individuals, families, and single parents with income under $200,000 will see their taxes go up.

This is even after taking into account the subsidy for health insurance.

Again, this is on a net basis.

If we were to identify (1) those Americans who are not eligible to receive the tax credit and (2) those whose taxes go up before they see some type of tax reduction from the subsidy, this number climbs to 73 million.

I have a chart here that illustrates this:

The first bar illustrates what we’ve already established, but looks at Americans earning less than $200,000.

Here, 13 million individuals, families, and single parents would receive the subsidy.

The middle bar shows the net tax increase number of 42 million Americans under $200,000.

Finally, when we identify those Americans who get no benefit under the bill – and those Americans who see a tax increase – we find there are 73 million individuals, families, and single parents under $200,000 in this category.

I want to close by referring to a final chart that illustrates the winners and losers under the Reid bill.

What we see here is that there is a group of Americans who clearly benefit under the bill from the government subsidy for health insurance.

This group, however, is relatively small – 8% of Americans if you look at those earning less than $200,000.

There is another much larger group of Americans who are seeing their taxes go up. This group is not benefiting from the government subsidy.

Also, there is another group of taxpayers who are generally unaffected.

But, JCT tells us that this group may be affected by tax increases like the cap on FSAs or the individual mandate penalty tax.

The bottom line is this. My Democratic friends (1) cannot say that all taxpayers receive a tax cut and (2) cannot say that the Reid bill does not raise taxes on middle-income Americans.

JCT tells us differently.

No one can dispute the data.

I yield the floor.