What a footstool ... I use the Haaaaaarvard trial lawyer bit to remind you that he will remind you of that every time you meet him.

In case you don't know this idiot, Grayson is a freshman Democrat Congressman from Central Florida. If the voters of central Florida have any sense at all this nut job will serve one term and that will be it.

Well ... here's the latest on Grayson. During an after-hours speech on the floor of the House yesterday Grayson had this to say about the Republican's approach to health care: "If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly,"

Hear that? That's the Republican health care plan. Just die as fast as you can as soon as you get sick.

Now I realize that Obama's media myrmidons won't give the Republicans any credit for their health reform plans, so maybe Grayson just missed these points. Wanting people to be able to buy their health insurance across state lines means you want them to die, right? Wanting people to be able to deduct the cost of their health insurance they way their employers do means you want them to die, right?

Know what? I really don't have to spend a lot of time on this one, do I. You already have all the information you need to have to completely understand how underserved the good people of central Florida by having this moron in the congress. I expect they'll change that next year.

So yesterday the House voted to admonish Rep. Joe Wilson for his "you lie" outburst during Obama's joint session of Congress. The votes pretty much went down party lines. To the best of my knowledge, it was the first time that a Congressman has been reprimanded like this by the House. Maybe be will ask Jamie Dupree about that. Speaking of Jamie Dupree ... Yesterday during the Information Overload hour, he asked me whether or not I would vote to reprimand Joe Wilson and I said that I would. I would like to see a return of some degree of civility to the Congress .. and that means you spank the hand of those that you may agree with as well as those with whom you disagree.

Now ... a few questions. What about Barney Frank? Which do you think is worse, an outburst on the floor when you're confronted with a president who plays loose with the truth? Or having your male lover run a homosexual prostitution business out of your home in Washington? And then there's Charles Rangel. This guy is running the committee that writes tax laws, yet he is a serial tax cheat. Does that measure up to a serious breach of ethics or not? The House ethics committee can't seem to even so much as scowl at Rangel.

We know the vote was purely partisan. That doesn't mean that Joe Wilson didn't deserve the rebuke.

Meanwhile, it's not like this is the first time we have heard such language on the floor of the House. Take this little tirade from Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark. Do you think that would qualify as a "serious breach of decorum"? Just curious.

And while we are at it ... let's take a look at exactly what is proper and improper, according to our own federal government. House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter took the time to remind lawmakers about the proper etiquette for conduct on the floor and in committees. From Politico:

Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:

• refer to the government as "something hated, something oppressive."
• refer to the President as "using legislative or judicial pork."
• refer to a Presidential message as a "disgrace to the country."
• refer to unnamed officials as "our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs."

Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:

• call the President a "liar."
• call the President a "hypocrite."
• describe the President's veto of a bill as "cowardly."
• charge that the President has been "intellectually dishonest."
• refer to the President as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."
• refer to alleged "sexual misconduct on the President's part."

Looking at that list it is clear that there are quite a few Democrats who should be facing the same condemnations that Joe Wilson faced today. We all know that isn't going to happen.

It's all just a bit tiring, isn't it?

To say that Americans are "extremely displeased" with Congress right now would be an understatement. Poll numbers right now are at one of their lowest points in more than two decades, according to the Pew Research Center. Only 37% of Americans express favorable views of Congress.

The real test will be ... can this dissatisfaction take us through the 2010 election? You can hoot and holler all you want, but where your voice ultimately counts is in the voting booth. If you've calmed down by then all of this is worth exactly nothing. Right now you are upset because these politicians want to usurp more power over your lives, take more money away from you and expand the size of our already massive federal government. This isn't going to change by 2010. What IS going to change is your vigilance, if you let it.

If you decide next year that every member of congress needs to be replaced, EXCEPT YOURS, then the problem continues.

Here's some good news! Polling now shows that 57% of Americans would just as soon replace every single member of congress. If you just poll the independents our there that figure rises to 70%.

OK .. that's now. There isn't an election on the horizon. When we get closer to election time these people will start to modify their beliefs a bit. They'll think that every member of congress should be replaced except their own. And why not replace their particular representative? Simple! Because he or she brings home the bacon!

Will the American people figure out that we have a Republic to save here? Will they understand that restoring freedom and individual responsibility may well be more important than a new road or some new sidewalks in their community? We'll find out next year.

Here's how the story goes ... Chrysler and GM are forced to the brink of collapse due to declining sales and increased union influence on wages and benefits. The federal government decides that these companies are "too big to fail" and decides to give them billions of taxpayer dollars to keep them afloat. They go bankrupt anyway. They are forced to restructure their business plans. Part of that restructuring includes closing down thousands of dealerships across the country.

This is where politics gets involved. Lawmakers in Congress start to get calls from their constituents. These voters are upset that their local dealership is being closed down. So politicians start to go up to bat to save dealerships in their districts or states from closing. Some politicians, like Rep. Steve LaTourette, a Republican from Ohio, go as far as to propose an amendment forcing the auto companies to reinstate these dealerships and franchise agreements. Chrysler and GM get upset, saying that this would "jeopardize the viability" of their new companies and complicate the emergence from bankruptcy.

This is what you get when politics gets involved in the operation of private businesses. The people charged with the responsibility for the survival of these businesses have to do battle with political hacks who have no business experience. These politicians have one interest: POWER. Their power depends on staying in office. That depends on votes. If their constituents get upset because of a bona fide business decision to shut down a dealership, then the politician steps in. Votes over business sense.

Your government at work, folks.

The Hill did a little survey to find out exactly what Congressmen think of each other. So over the last couple of months, they asked Representatives to name the hardest and easiest members of Congress to work with. Here's what they found ...

Most partisan Democrats

1. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.)
2. Henry Waxman (Calif.)
3. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.)
4. Barney Frank (Mass.)
5. Jim McDermott (Wash.)

Most partisan Republicans

1. Tom Price (Ga.)
2. Virginia Foxx (N.C.)
3. Jeb Hensarling (Texas)
4. Patrick McHenry (N.C.)
5. Michele Bachmann (Minn.)

Most bipartisan Democrats (listed alphabetically)

Neil Abercrombie (Hawaii)
Rick Boucher (Va.)
Bill Delahunt (Mass.)
Barney Frank (Mass.)
Steny Hoyer (Md.)
Jim Oberstar (Minn.)
Collin Peterson (Minn.)
Ike Skelton (Mo.)
Gene Taylor (Miss.)
Ed Towns (N.Y.)

Most bipartisan Republicans (listed alphabetically)

Judy Biggert (Ill.)
Bob Inglis (S.C.)
Walter Jones (N.C.)
Steven LaTourette (Ohio)
John McHugh (N.Y.)
John Mica (Fla.)
Ron Paul (Texas)
Lee Terry (Neb.)
Fred Upton (Mich.)
Bill Young (Fla.)

Did ya notice anything peculiar about these lists .... How about the fact that Barney Frank is the only House member to appear on both the partisan and bipartisan lists? You will notice also that Nancy Pelosi appears only as a hyper-partisan Democrat.

Does Barack Obama really think that he can push all of his dreams and schemes through Congress? The answer is yes. And when it comes to government healthcare, global warming initiatives and increasing taxes, he wants to make sure that there is no way the Republicans can stop him. How is he going to do this? By including these policy provisions in the annual budget. Then they can use a parliamentary procedure called reconciliation. Basically what that means is that the Democrats wouldn't have to worry about gaining Republican support in the Senate .. because reconciliation reduces the number of votes needed to pass legislation to a simple majority (which the Democrats clearly have in the Senate). It also limits debate to no more than 20 hours and imposes restrictions on amendments. So we are talking about less than 20 hours on the floor of the Congress would be devoted to such grandiose plans as government healthcare and cap and trade schemes.

Yeah .. I watched it. There was no doubt that President Barack Obama was going to do a great job of delivering a speech. That's his forte. So, how do you judge a great speech? By the delivery or by the content? On delivery President Smooth Talker gets an A.

On content? Well, if you're a believer in big government; if you big on wealth envy; if you think that government does everything well and private businesses do everything poorly; if you think that banks are the focus of all that is evil in the modern world; if you don't believe that Islamic terrorism is a true threat to our safety .. in short, if you believe that America is great because of government, then the speech gets an A as well. If, on the other hand, you believe that America is great because of the dynamic created by free people working under the rule of law in a system based on economic liberty ... then the speech a D --- D for demagogue.

As I was watching the speech I opened a Word document. I just sat there typing when the mood hit. Here - unedited - are the notes I made as President Smooth Talker was doin' his thang. Remember ... this is real time ... and I had a little Bailey's on the rocks sitting there next to me.

California Congresswoman Maxine Waters .. arguably the dumbest member of Congress ... grilling Bank CEOs. The pinnacle of absurdity.

I've been telling you this for years, folks. This whole global warming scam is nothing more than a front for wealth distribution and anti-capitalist activism. Democrats have come up with a great way to do accomplish those goals .. carbon credits. Charge companies and/or people for their carbon output and then let the government use that money to redistribute as it likes.

Now, thanks to California Senator Barbara Boxer, we have a clearer picture of what that could mean very soon. Boxer released a letter detailing the basic principles that will be included into this absurd global warming legislation. Plans are for Congress to take this on soon. We are talking weeks, not months. Democrats know they need to move on this while a substantial portion of the American people still buy this man-made global warming nonsense. Some people actually think this is a crisis, and you need to remember that the Obama Administration believes that no crisis should be allowed to go to waste. So now let's all take a look at these principles for global warming legislation:

1. Reduce emissions to levels guided by science to avoid dangerous global warming. (The science, of course, will come from government-paid scientists who know that their funding depends on continued global warming alarmism.)

2. Set short and long term emissions targets that are certain and enforceable, with periodic review of the climate science and adjustments to targets and policies as necessary to meet emissions reduction targets.

3. Ensure that state and local entities continue pioneering efforts to address global warming.

4. Establish a transparent and accountable market-based system that efficiently reduces carbon emissions. (No .. establish a system that efficiently redistributes wealth and weakens capitalism.)

5. Use revenues from the carbon market to:

- Keep consumers whole as our nation transitions to clean energy;

- Invest in clean energy technologies and energy efficiency measures;

- Assist states, localities and tribes in addressing and adapting to global warming impacts;

- Assist workers, businesses and communities, including manufacturing states, in the transition to a clean energy economy;

- Support efforts to conserve wildlife and natural systems threatened by global warming; and

-Work with the international community, including faith leaders, to provide support to developing nations in responding and adapting to global warming. In addition to other benefits, these actions will help avoid the threats to international stability and national security posed by global warming.

6. Ensure a level global playing field, by providing incentives for emission reductions and effective deterrents so that countries contribute their fair share to the international effort to combat global warming.

Oh yeah ... just had to include that "fair share" phrase in there. A real favorite for Democrats. It means nothing, but the great unwashed really like it.

I hope that you noticed three particular parts of this letter. First of all, the fact that revenues from this government-created carbon market will go towards protecting species that are threatened by global warming. Why do you think the environmentalists were so insistent on declaring polar bears a threatened species due to global warming, even while their numbers are increasing? That would be because now they will have a steady source of income in which to fuel their efforts! Also, this government-created carbon market will be used to aid other countries. Here we go with the wealth redistribution - carbon revenues from companies in the United States would be collected and redistributed to "provide support" to developing nations. And if #6 on this list doesn't convince you .. then you don't know your head from a hole in the ground.

Before you get too bent out of shape and continue sending me the emails .. just know that I am aware of the proposed Constitutional amendment to repeal the 22nd Amendment. For those of you who went to government schools, this is the amendment calling for the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. The repeal was proposed by Democrat Representative from New York Jose Serrano on January 6th.

Look, folks ... we have so many other issues to discuss. Are you really concerned that the Congress is going to amend the Constitution to make Barack Obama president for as long as the people want? No. Not to mention the fact that Jose Serrano did not propose this amendment specifically to keep Barack Obama in the White House. He has proposed this amendment in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007. And guess what? It hasn't passed before, and I highly doubt that it is going to pass now.

Obama has eight years .. at the most.

Barack Obama has chosen former Republican congressman from Illinois Ray LaHood to be in charge of directing billions in federal highway spending through the stimulus package. The only problem is .. LaHood is known for his love of earmarks and has notoriously used his influence to get funding for projects that would benefit his campaign contributors.

Last year alone, LaHood sponsored $60 million in federal earmarks .. $9 million of which was directed to his campaign donors. He ranked in the top 10% of earmark sponsors in the House last year.

You can read all of the specifics as to where LaHood directed these federal funds, but it doesn't seem like a smart appointment for Obama considering his apparent dedication to transparency and earmark reform.

Yes ... I know that earmark pork only accounts for one percent of less of federal spending. It's not the amount. It's the fact that these politicians see the working taxpayers of this country - those few that are left - as not much more than funding machines for vote-buying projects in their districts. Enough.

The FairTax has been introduced into the 111th Congress as H.R. 25. While that's good news in and of itself, here's some better news. The FairTax is being introduced with more co-sponsors than at any previous Congress. Now why do you think this is? It's because of you .. those of you who are undying in your support of this badly needed tax reform proposal.

Now ... since PEBO is making a big time speech today on the economy, here's a little reminder about the FairTax. PEBO is considering a one trillion dollar stimulus bill. Well, what about a $13 trillion dollar stimulus? Do you think that would work? Well $13 trillion is the best estimate of the amount of money that is floating around in overseas investments, and this is money that belongs to American citizens and corporations. Why is this money working overseas instead of here in this country? Simple: To escape our high tax burdens. Get rid of the income tax and replace it with the FairTax and watch this $13 trillion start to come home and work in our economy .. work producing jobs and expanding domestic wealth. The problem, of course, is the FairTax takes power away from politicians. Politicians will approve almost any scheme for economic recovery - any scheme except one that diminishes their power.

The Democrats are getting straight to work on passing their agendas for Obama to approve once sworn in. And as soon as next week, the Congress will be debating a children's healthcare bill. Otherwise known as SCHIP. You'll remember that SCHIP passed the Congress twice in 2007 and it was vetoed twice. Now, we are playing a different ball game.

Next Tuesday or Wednesday, expect a vote for the program, which is described by democrat lawmakers as "providing health insurance for children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford coverage." Why can't they just call it what it is, folks? It's welfare. And many of these people who cannot afford coverage .. how many of you want to bet that they have big flat-screen televisions, cell phones and a brand new car with huge payments ... plus other assorted luxury items. Remember that our definition of "poverty" in this country is becoming synonymous with the size of your flat screen TV, not your ability to obtain food and shelter.

I've said this before and I will say it again, this SCHIP nonsense is just a Trojan Horse .. what these politicians are really after is establishing universal healthcare in this country. And this isn't just me being all "glass half empty." This is straight from the mouth of Henry Waxman. He says that passing the SCHIP bill next week is a "down payment on national health insurance."

Did you get that? This is just the beginning. I hope you are ready to get back into the thick of things. These politicians have a goal .. and that goal is to make you dependent on the government for health care. Once they have control of your health care, they have control of you.

The 111th Congress convenes today. Oh joy. It will be a Congress led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Nancy Pelosi, by the way, is trying to re-write the House rules, reversing Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America." The purpose behind the new rules promulgated by the aging hollow eyed hippie from Haight-Ashbury is to completely emasculate the Republicans - somehow I think she has a lot of experience along these lines. The new rules say no alternative bills from GOP members, no amendments to Democrat bills and no guarantee of open debate. This will be the Congress that will allow funnyman Al Franken to take a seat but deny entry to Roland Burris. The fact that Al Franken has been declared the winner is, by the way, an atrocity. You remember, I hope, the details of that "recount" in Minnesota I shared with you yesterday. Anyway .. the game is on. BOHICA.

There is one certainty in these uncertain times .. this unionization by intimidation bill, otherwise known as the card check bill, will come up in the Congress. And it will be supported by Democrats who have to repay their union supporters for getting them elected. Knowing the inevitable, some states have decided that they are going to have to take the matter into their own hands. Five states are gearing up for state initiatives to enacting a constitutional amendment that would protect the right to a secret ballot in union elections. People are already starting to gather signatures in Arizona, Arkansas and Missouri. Utah and Nevada state legislatures are also considering the amendment.

The amendment says, "The right of individuals to vote by secret ballot is fundamental. Where state or federal law requires elections for public office or public votes on initiatives or referenda, or designations or authorizations of employee representation, the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed."

There is a new twist to this card check nonsense. It seems that many Democrats are starting to bail. They could vote for this absurdity when they were assured of a Republican filibuster or a Bush veto. Now they're concerned that it might actually become law - and the support of many of these Democrats is starting to weaken. If you want a law that would cripple American business and prolong this recession/depression or whatever it is ... pass this Unionization-by-Intimidation bill. That would do it.

A Congresswoman from California by the name of Anna Eshoo (bless you) says that she is going to work fiercely to make sure that hate radio is shut down! Okay, so she didn't exactly say that .. but she did say that she is going to work to restore the Fairness Doctrine in the new Congress. She also wants the Fairness Doctrine to apply to cable and satellite programming as well as radio and TV.

She says, "I'll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it ... It should and will affect everyone." She says that the current system is "unfair" and that there needs to be "equal time for the spoken word."

Or are you confused about the difference in the way the Democrats react to scandal-plagued Charlie Rangel and Governor Blago? Charlie, you see, is the chief congressional tax writer. He's the mighty powerful of the House Ways and Means Committee ... and this tax expert has apparently claimed homestead exemptions in two different states and somehow conveniently forgot to claim as income the proceeds of the rental of his little Caribbean hideaway. Now you or I do this stuff and we get nailed. Not so Charlie. Governor Blago, on the other hand, is standing in front of a Democrat firing squad. Now if I weren't so cynical I would wonder if they wanted to get rid of Blago because he might be an embarrassment to PEBO .. but Charlie is on the team, so let's circle the wagons!

Did you know that Harry Reid has decided to slip a little something extra into this auto bailout for the Big Three? What auto bailout, you ask? Oh ... there will be an auto bailout. The unions demand it. We just have to wait to get rid of a few more evil Republicans in the congress and one in the White House. Anyway ... Harry wants to include something in an auto bailout. What might that be? Well, how about a pay raise for federal judges.

Tricky, huh? Before we go any further, let's address one thing. Did you know that your Senators and your Congressmen are getting a $5,000 raise on January 1st? That must be for all of the great work that they have done spending your tax dollars and putting your grandchildren on the hook for trillions and trillions of dollars. Now this federal judge raise is a COLA - cost of living adjustment - but let me ask you this .. how many of you out there who own your own business are giving $5,000 cost of living adjustments to your employees right now? How many of you have worked for years without a raise that won't even keep up with inflation? Or a raise at all?

But Congress is getting one. And if this bailout bill passes, these US District court judges will be getting an "adjustment" to their pay .. all thanks to your tax dollars. That this would be on top of the 2.8% raise that the judges are "expected" to be rewarded next year.

Government. How are we going to rein these people in?

If the people had it their way .. there wouldn't be a bailout. Thanks to you, Congress will probably not support the bailout ... at least not the full Monte. Although that is very disappointing to some like Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levin, Diane Feinstein. But the White House is currently working with Congress to give the Big Three up to $17 billion in emergency loans. Along with that loan would come a "car czar." Oh boy. Another czar. This would be a government bureaucrat who would be in charge of any bailout for the auto makers. There is a better person to oversee the bailout: a bankruptcy judge. At least a bankruptcy judge would allow the businesses to restructure themselves, rather than having a government appointed bureaucrat making those decisions. And I guarantee you that if we give these automakers a bailout now ... they WILL be back in a few years if not months ... maybe weeks. You just wait.

Meanwhile, Obama says that if top auto executives don't agree to drastic reforms, they should be fired. He said, "If this management team that's currently in place doesn't understand the urgency of the situation and is not willing to make the tough choices and adapt to these new circumstances then they should go." Did Obama mention the need for the UAW leaders and union members to come to the reform table? Are you nuts? Of course he didn't. Oh that's right, Obama got elected thanks to the unions and these CEOs are evil and greedy. I keep forgetting that.

I've been telling you for months about a 2001 letter written by Congressional Democrats to the Mexican government. In this letter, about 11 Democrat politicians urged the Mexican government to use a secret ballot in all union elections. Now let's fast-forward to 2008. Barack Obama has been elected. The Democrats are in control of Congress. And the unions want to be rewarded for their efforts. What they want is for Congress to pass the card check bill. This bill would be crippling for American businesses because it would do-away with secret ballot union elections. The unions expect this bill to be passed within Obama's first 100 days in office. And the Democrats seem willing to comply. After all, they pandered to the union vote to get elected ... now they have to do whatever it takes to stay in power. Even if that means changing your tune on an issue like secret ballot elections.

Let's not here that when the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted to replace John Dingell with California's anti-business icon Henry Waxman in the Chairman's seat .. the vote was by secret ballot.

The Wall Street Journal has now caught wind of this letter from the Democrats back in 2001. Good read. If they had been reading the Nuze they would have known about this a month ago.

Well the good news is that there isn't going to be an auto bailout right now. No surprise. Did you pay attention to these hearings in Washington? These auto company executives weren't even able to sit there and tell the Congress just how they would spend the money if it were actually given them! Are these characters serious?

"If we give you this money, just how are you going to spend it?"
"Well, we're not actually sure."
"Go get in your private jet and get the hell out of here."

The bad news is that one the Execs may be back in Washington in just a few weeks. Congress says that auto execs have failed to show the American people that this bailout would be the last. But there will be another chance. They are being given time to re-group and come up with a business plan to prove that this bailout will work.

Question: Do you think they'll fly commercial when they come back to Washington for their second bite at the apple?

Here's the plan: break the UAW contracts. These unions are crippling your business and you know it. You know that you are adding thousands of dollars to the cost of your cars because of outlandish union contracts. If you really want to prove to the American people ... after all, it is our money you are asking for ... that you mean business, do what you need to do to emasculate the unions. Stop allowing them to dictate your business model. If you can't even manage to do that, then there is no reason for any American, much less Congress, to believe that you are serious about restructuring your businesses.

Congress plans to reconvene in December to tackle the issue again. There are a few things that could happen. Congressional Democrats could be relying on the American people to lose interest. By December, you will be focused on Christmas and stuffed from Thanksgiving. At that point, will you still be as adamant about this auto bailout as you are now? I sure as hell hope so. Because unless these auto execs return to Washington (on freaking commercials airlines) and say that unions will no longer be dictating their business models, then let them fail.

Remember a few days ago I gave you the link so that you could apply for a position in the Obama administration? You would have to fill out some 63 questions about some very personal issues. One of which the Obama camp chose to include was about gun ownership. Under the headline of "Miscellaneous," the question reads: "Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage."

A question like this did not exist for the Bush administration. But many people, including the NRA, are upset by this question. Apparently one Republican Senator has already considered legislation that would make it illegal for a president to use an applicant's gun ownership status to deny anyone of employment.

Yeah, that's not going to get far with 60 Democrats in the Senate.

At least Barney Frank is being honest about this bailout. He has admitted, it is not about the auto industry, it is about the unions. And he doesn't think that $25 billion is enough to save them. In fact, he doesn't think that number is "fair" because companies like AIG have been given more of your tax dollars in the form of a bailout. And this is "biased" towards white collar workers.

Here's Barney Frank on NPR:

"Well, AIG, which I don't think anyone would think was as important to the American economy as the auto industry ... got $40 billion just now to make it up over $100 billion. To some extent, let's not have a white-collar/blue-collar bias in our public policy. You know, those who say, hey, go bankrupt so you can cut back on what the unions have won -- the unions have already made some concessions. But, you know, we've had enough anti-union activity, and enough increase in income inequality in this country. I don't want to set a precedent that bankruptcy now is a way in which you undo what gains unions have been able to hold on to."

Wow, he really hits on all the high points here. Wealth envy. Income inequality. Anti-union activity.

Then we have Senator Carl Levin. He says that it would be "unthinkable" for Congress to let a "dispute over the source of the funds" be the reason not to bailout the auto industry. A dispute over the source of funds? Those funds don't just magically appear, Mr. Senator. Those funds are the tax dollars of your constituents. That's the issue here .. not just an ancillary dispute.

And finally, we have GOP Rep. from Michigan Joe Knollenberg. He says that the money funding the auto bailout "isn't your money." Do you hear that? It's not your money. Someone needs to remind this guy, who thankfully lost his bid for reelection, that the government is not independently wealthy but funded by the taxpayers.

Could today be the last day for Joe Lieberman as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee? The Democrats will be voting today on whether or not to strip him of his chairmanship. A good start to that whole bipartisan thing. But who knows? Insult this man enough and maybe he gets in on some of the filibuster action.

Things seem to be in a headlock in Washington right now ... at least over this auto bailout bill. But this auto bailout ... more appropriately called a union bailout ... won't be the Democrats only chance to pander to the unions.

The labor movement has already declared their intentions: they want the Employee Free Choice Act (unionization by intimidation) to be passed in Obama's first 100 days in office. Some even want it attached to the next economic stimulus plan. I don't think that's going to happen ... but you never know.

The Wall Street Journal has a piece on why the labor unions shouldn't be so quick to try and pass their legislation. For those of you who aren't familiar with this Employee Free Choice Act, the WSJ sums it up:

The Employee Free Choice Act has three main components: certification of a union as the bargaining representative if a majority of employees sign authorization cards; mandatory arbitration on the terms of a contract if the parties cannot reach agreement; and stronger penalties for unfair labor practices during a union organizing campaign or while the parties are negotiating a first contract.

Over the weekend, the Denver Post came out against the union card check law. It says that Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats would essentially be silly to focus on this "unnecessary" card check bill when there are clearly more important issues to tackle at the moment. That hasn't stopped Congressional Democrats from working on a bailout for the UAW ... so in this case, I'd say the Denver Post got it half right. The union card check law would be a job killing machine. That's because employers aren't going to want to put up with this, so they'll pick up and move elsewhere or head to staffing agencies to get workers. But I think that Democrats see this as a very "necessary" bill for the first 100 days, along with healthcare reform.

Speaking of healthcare reform ...

Teddy Kennedy returned to Capitol Hill yesterday. Glad he is able to do so. But it is no secret that he has one big fish to fry: socialized medicine. Teddy is already meeting with Senator Max Baucus, who just last week outlined his plan for universal health insurance. His plan is pretty similar to the one Barack Obama campaigned with, only Baucus' plan would mandate that every American have health insurance. Don't you just love the word "mandate?" That means the government ... the taxpayers ... are going to be stepping up in a big way to fund the dreams and schemes of Max Baucus, Ted Kennedy, and Barack Obama. How much are we talking? Try $75 billion in the first year alone. Within ten years, the tax payers will have forked over more than $1 trillion to follow through with a government mandate that all Americans be insured.

Question: Just where in our Constitution does the Imperial Federal Government get the right to mandate that any American buy anything? Let alone health insurance. But then what good is the Constitution when politicians want to flex their muscles. Answer: Less and less.

Today in Washington, Senators will be sitting down and figuring out their game plan for how to get this legislation passed. What they are relying on here, folks, is your government education. What is happening today in Washington is a handful of politicians are figuring out how they are going to divvy up the power between them ... they are planning a war against a dying cause: self reliance.

Just yesterday, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services decided that it does not plan to make the taxpayers pay for weight loss surgery for diabetic patients who are not dangerously overweight. Did you know they were even considering this? What would stop these back-room Senators from determining that weight loss surgeries should be included in their efforts to provide "adequate" healthcare? You may think it's a stretch, folks, but it is only a matter of time once the government gets more of its hands on the healthcare industry in this country.

Wait until plastic surgery gets on the list.

There is no doubt that this $700 billion bailout is serious money. And by the time all is said and done, and all the pigs have fed from the trough, this is going to cost the taxpayers at least a trillion dollars. In fact, Forbes magazine estimates that the full impact of the financial crisis is going to cost the taxpayers upwards of $5 trillion.

For right now let's stick with an original estimate of $0.84 trillion. Now take that figure and multiply it by 50 and you get over $40 trillion. Now THAT'S a lot of money. So who cares, right? You should care. Because that is how much it is going to cost to pay for government benefits for Medicare and Social Security.

In order to pay for these government entitlement programs, the Heritage Foundation estimates that it will require three things:

• Doubling all tax rates.
• Eliminating all other federal programs, including defense and education.
• Running massive budget deficits that eventually would capsize the economy.

That's unless the Congress decides to do anything about massive government growth and entitlement spending. But don't count on it with this new Congress. You can bet that there will be a lot of changes, but entitlement spending isn't going anywhere.

Let's try this again. Yesterday, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson decided to go in a new direction with this $700 billion bailout plan. The original plan, which was drafted with the help of Congress, was for your tax dollars to purchase troubled assets, specifically troubled subprime mortgages. That was then, this is now. Unfortunately, this plan would take too much time, according to Paulson. Instead the government is going to buy stakes in banks and hope that they can resume normal lending.

Despite reaction from the market (the Dow dropped 410 points yesterday), some Wall Street analysts think that this is actually the right move ... first you make sure the banks can survive, then you give them loans.

Along with this change in plans came an announcement of a new goal for the bailout program to support financial markets that supply consumer credit for credit card debt, auto loans and student loans.

So what is this REALLY costing us? That $700 billion seems like a lot, but a research firm has calculated the running total of the government's response to the credit crisis ... and it says that the United States government (aka. the taxpayers) has put itself on the hook for $5 trillion in order to save our financial system. And that figure is just $5 trillion, so far ...

Meanwhile, every lobbyist is chomping at a piece of the bailout pie. Here's a prime example: the National Marine Manufacturers Association is asking whether or not boat financing companies are eligible for a bailout. They want to make sure that dealers have access to credit so that they can stock their showrooms with boats.

... now here come the hedge fund managers. Five of the nation's top hedge fund managers will appear before a Congressional firing squad today to determine if they had a hand in the current financial crisis. Financial columnist Jesse Eisinger says that this is the end of the evil rich, secretive hedge fund era. The government is on its way to regulating hedge funds and the IRS will be taxing the hedge fund manager fees "just like they would Joe the Plumber's salary."

What are we really seeing here? Could it really just be an all-out attack on capitalism? But you wouldn't expect that from Democrats led by a man with Marxist tendencies, would you?

Next year, the Congress will absolutely address the issue of universal healthcare. And it seems they are already getting the process underway. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Democrat from Montana, has unveiled his own healthcare plan. It happens to be very similar to Barack Obama's plan that he touted on the campaign trail. Except there is one large difference ... Baucus' plan would require that all Americans have health insurance. In other words, it would be illegal for you to be without health insurance.

The proposal would create a new insurance exchange for those 47 million uninsured Americans - many of which are illegal -- some of which can afford to pay for medical expenses out of pocket, and some of which are too lazy or cocky to buy their own health insurance. But don't worry, there will be government subsidies available to people who can't afford it. Employers will be required to provide health insurance to employees, meaning healthcare would no longer a benefit but a government mandate. If the company did not provide health insurance, it would be required to pay into a fund to cover the uninsured.

God forbid we should ever promote the idea that individuals are responsible for their own health care. Oh .. wait. That's right! We're at war against the concept of individuality here. Almost forgot.

An analysis of Barack Obama's healthcare plan was also released yesterday. A consulting firm estimates that his plan, which is similar to Baucus' proposal, would cost the tax payers $75 billion in the first year. By 2018, we will have spent over $1 trillion to fund this government insurance scheme. The analysis also found that Obama's plan may worsen some problems like shortages of primary care doctors. The report said, "Unless costs are cut, growing health care costs will increase the costs of Obama's plan dramatically over time and reduce the effectiveness of mandates. This could make the federal costs unsustainably high."

I've said it before and I will say it again ... hang on to your private pension plans. Love 'em while they last, because the reality of them being usurped by the government is becoming more real.

Back in October I told you about a House hearing that took place, where the chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor Rep. George Miller said that sweeping changes are coming to the 401(k) system. Those changes could include confiscating workers' personal retirement accounts and converting them into accounts managed by the Social Security Administration. Just what we need - more government.

The real instigator is a woman I told you about by the name of Teresa Ghilarducci. She testified at this hearing and proposed that the government should eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) plans and other retirement plans. She also went on to suggest that these private pension plans should be converted into universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs).

And what's the motivation? Government knows best, wealth envy, wealth redistribution and power. Ghilarducci says that our current retirement system "'exacerbates income and wealth inequalities' because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are 'skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do.'" Do you hear the wealth envy, folks?

Now let's get to the wealth redistribution. In October of this year Ghilarducci explains to a radio station that "I'm just rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and spreading -- spreading the wealth."

And why would Democrats consider a plan like this? Because according to George Miller the "Democratic Congress will continue to conduct this much-needed oversight on behalf of the American people" in regards to your pension plans. See, folks, there is the government-knows-best mentality.

I hate (love) to say this, but I've been telling you for over 10 years that if the Democrats are ever returned to full control of our government our pension plans are going to be in jeopardy. A plan to seize a portion of your 401K and pension plans was being discussed during the early years of the Clinton administration .. then abandoned when the Republicans moved into the Capitol. Just a few weeks ago the President of Argentina announced a plan to seize all private pension plans there. This one's a no-brainer, my friends. All the Democrats have to do is wave the wealth-envy flag; talk about all the advantages the rich had in setting up these plans - advantages that cost the middle and lower class their opportunities to do the same. So, "it's only fair," that these pension plans be seized and rolled into some type of government plan that benefits everyone, not just the evil rich. We're talking about somewhere around $4 trillion dollars here, and that's big change to Obamacons - change you can believe it.

And then, of course, there's the power thing. For decades the Democrats have been playing the "If you vote for the Republicans they'll make you _______! (Just fill in the blank.) Since 1952 the mantra was "If you vote for Republicans they'll take away your Social Security." Just think how powerful the message will be when the Democrats say "If you vote for Republicans they'll make you pay for your own retirement."

For more of the details on what Ghilarducci and the Democrats want to do with your private pension plan, I encourage you to read this excellent article by Karen McMahan in the Carolina Journal. Be sure to read up on the government seizing half of your pension plan if you die, only allowing half of your pension to be left to your family. And that's just the beginning.

Some interesting information about Barack Obama's new chief of staff Rahm Emanuel ... Emanuel served on the board of directors for Freddie Mac at the same time that Freddie misreported billions in profits in order to deceive investors. Bill Clinton appointed Emanuel to the board of Freddie Mac in 2000 where he served for 13 months until resigning to run for Congress. It turns out that at the same time, 2000 to 2002, Freddie Mae misreported billions of dollars. In the SEC complaint, the entire board (including Emanuel) was accused by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of "failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention."

Ahhh ... but who really cares.

What is clear is that the Republican Party has failed on so many levels. I'm not talking about John McCain, I'm talking about the Republican Party. A party that was supposed to reflect the Conservative values of limited government, fiscal restraint, among others, got completely drunk with power. Our Founding Fathers would be ashamed.

Republicans also failed to communicate a message that people could understand. Only in the last days, when Joe the Plumber arrived, did a light bulb flicker. But it shouldn't have taken one man in Ohio to do it. John McCain should have spent months hammering Obama's Marxist tendencies -- his 95% tax cut lies -- his cutting capital gains for small businesses. As a party Republicans failed to rally a base that reflected its core values. Maybe that is because those core values no longer exist for the Republicans in power. Just take a look at the past eight years. But somehow, before the next election, they must figure out which direction they want to take their party, and they must believe it, market it, and most importantly - live up to it.

If the Republicans don't learn from this, that is their own fault. They created Barack Obama. They created a Congressional Democrat majority. But they also have the power to re-create their party. Some pundits are worried that this "new direction" will be more socially Conservative. Perhaps that's exactly what we need! My preference would be to see a move back to basic principles of individualism, freedom, economic liberty, self sufficiency and pride in our Country ... with a highlight on individualism. Barack Obama is merely a continuation of the leftist war against the concept of the individual. Democrats look at us as tools ... tools to be used to create some sort of an egalitarian society. Can the Republicans make this point to the voters? Hint: Republicans need to look to the Libertarian Party for some ideas on how to promote the idea of individualism and fight the concept of the individual as government property.