Now, McIntyre planning to vote for McCain – that would be a story!

Rep. Mike McIntyre a Dem, and one of the “SuperDelegates” to the convention in Denver has stated he is not endorsing either Hillary or Obama.

There may be a good reason for him to hedge. His district has voted over 50% for the Republican in the past few Presidential elections. By endorsing either Dem for President he could be losing critical votes from the Conservative Dems in the southeastern NC district.

Somebody please go look in his yard in Lumberton and see if there isn’t maybe a McCain sign buried in the hedge!

Soccer fields vs Senior Center

I can’t imagine that Brunswick County NC cannot find another piece of property for their new senior center. With all the concern about obese couch potato kids here is Mike McIntyre handing out his bogus big checks using taxpayer’s money to do it.

This little incident gained Will Breazeale a nice new crop of supporters – energetic supporters!

Breazeale’s friend from Iraq on how Will saved taxpayer’s money

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CPhhKFOGXw[/youtube]

Will Breazeale – Candidate for Congress in the 7th District of North Carolina was awarded the Bronze Star medal for saving the taxpayer’s money. This video of his friend and former Iraqi interpreter Benny al Dosakee explains the operation.

Biofuel vs Food – Stop putting Corn in my Gas

I’ve been ranting for a long while (since before I started blogging) that turning corn into a “fuel” was bad policy and stupid economically (except for “Big Corn”).

Turns out  other people have finally come to the same conclusion.

At a weekend conference in Washington, finance ministers and central bankers of seven leading industrial nations called for urgent action to deal with the price spikes, and several of them demanded a reconsideration of biofuel policies adopted recently in the West.

Food prices are skyrocketing,  world food experts are touting potatoes as the savior of the starving populations (Did that really work out well for my Irish relatives? Hmmm…)

How about this – drill in ANWR and off the coastlines, use that oil to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, cut the cost of refined fuel by allowing new and more efficient refineries in this country, use the reduced cost of fuel and reduced false demand for corn to reduce the costs of most ag products, stop paying farmers to not grow products and encourage them to grow produce that will actually be consumed.

Yeah, I know politically it will never happen – not with the current make up of Congress.

Politics driving up the price of oil

Congress has just been told the truth about the price of oil – but they probably did not really understand it. In testimony to  a Senate committee:

geopolitical tensions in big oil producing countries “provide the best explanation for crude oil price increases,” Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chief Economist Jeffrey Harris told a Senate panel’s hearing.

What they obviously don’t want to understand is that much of the “geopolitical” tension in one big oil producing country is  their own responsibility.

The politics of energy, as practiced by the majority in Congress has resulted in considerable tension. They have voted to take away tax credits from producers of energy in the US, credits that were enacted to encourage more production. The Majority in Congress has also voted to maintain the difficulties facing companies seeking to increase, replace or rebuild their refining and processing capabilities. The majority has also voted to prevent exploration and production of oil in many areas of the country where there are known reserves.

The majority in Congress has also caused tension in other energy producing countries by calling for a withdrawal of US troops from the volatile and oil rich Middle East.

Rather than criticize oil companies and speculators for the price of oil, the Majority in Congress should first reverse their own actions that have worked to increase the prices. But then, the hypocrites that make up that Majority in Congress are habitually unable to actually work to prevent or solve any crisis. They instead create crisis after crisis so that they can make political mileage out of criticizing all sorts of Capitalist, wringing their hands and beating their chests – but certainly never actually taking action that would solve the problems they them selves help to create.

Democrat Pride marches on in Concord!

Last July I wrote about Sylvia Larsen and the NH DEMs bragging about their “accomplishments”:

this Legislature met a court deadline to define an adequate education, a significant step on the path to finally solving the problem of education funding.

Well, ain’t that just so special – they bent low before the all mighty court and passed a “definition” of adequate education which she and the Senate Dems just priced out at just shy of a Billion dollars. (A little over a million people in the state, about a thousand dollars each, so a family of four will owe an extra $4000 a year).

We raised the minimum wage, giving a much needed boost to working families.

They raised it what – a buck? $40 more a week times $50 weeks- well I guess those minimum wage earners can handle that – as long as they are single.

We put a stop to smoking in restaurants and bars, so restaurant workers don’t risk their health to keep their jobs and customers can breathe easy knowing they won’t be subjected to second-hand smoke when they eat out.

Who will be going out to these smoke free establishments? Not taxpayer families trying to scrounge up that extra 4 grand.

We also made important investments in our environment, finally restoring funding to the Land and Community Heritage Investment Program to help communities preserve valuable open space and historic buildings. We’re finally paying for much-needed improvements to our beautiful state parks and promoting renewable energy by requiring our electric utilities to buy a growing percentage of their energy from renewable energy producers.

So to make the parks, many of which charge a fee to enter, nicer thanks to the taxpayers, who while trying to save up to pay the adequate education taxes, get to pay higher energy rates because the electric company has to buy renewable energy. Oh, Sylvia, you must be very proud!

We’re getting more New Hampshire children covered with health insurance under Healthy Kids.

So the program was not generous enough by subsidizing health insurance for families up to 4 times the poverty level? Will you rename it the “Healthy millionaire’s kids” program – I remember figuring out that in 2002 it covered families earning as much as $90,000 a year – what did you jack it up to now? And how much will that struggling taxpayer family pay in taxes so all these new kids get subsidized insurance?

We’ve increased spending for our universities and colleges.

More money from the taxpayer to the colleges and university system? So tuitions will come down and poor strapped taxpayer family can afford to send their kids off to UNH or the Tech colleges? OH? tuition is still going up? What a deal – so are the administrators and over paid professors sucking it all up? Proud Sylvia, you must be very proud!

We’ve made a new commitment to increasing our high school graduation rate by expanding programs for at-risk students and raising the drop-out age.

Oh, yeah, I read about how Gilford is adding to their alternative programs for these kids, sounds like a nice program – they neglected to say how much it will cost. With most school systems costing $10,000 or more per student and special alternative programs for a small group certainly costing more – just how much will this really cost? Ask the taxpayers next spring – after the school budgets are written. It won’t be cheap! Wonder how much that will add to the $4000 our taxpayer family is already facing along with their higher costs for energy and college.

We did all this without losing sight of the importance of a healthy business climate and avoiding a sales or income tax.

For now. No new sales tax or new income tax – for now. Of course when the cost of the adequate education is determined that can all change can’t it? Certainly there is not an extra billion a year in the state’s current revenue stream. You spent every dollar expected to come in under the existing taxes and you even inflated those revenues beyond reality, but now the cat is out of the bag – the revenues are not there are they? So what will you do Sylvia? Increase the state property tax? That will be popular. But Gov. Lynch has said he would veto a new income tax. Now did he say he would veto a new sales tax? Gee I don’t know about that one. No, my bet is on an income tax – and Lynch will flinch – forget to veto it and let it go without signature, that is the courageous way Dems like him and Jeanne Shaheen do those things – just don’t sign it, then the blame falls somewhere else – the buck never stops in the corner office when a Dem is in it!

Oh what a world….what a world! (Hey, anyone got a bucket of water handy – maybe an untaxed bottle will do!)

McIntyre voted for tougher ID requirements for citizens who fly than for voters.

Rep. Mike McIntyre (D NC7) voted to impose on the states and the citizens the requirements of the Real ID act (Roll Call 2006-459) which in May will deny citizens from some states the ability to board domestic airliners by showing their state drivers license. He also voted not to require anyone to show photo ID in order to vote (Roll Call 2005-031).

 There are some who say that the sanctity of our voting process and thereby the integrity of our elections is more important even than the safety of our air travel.

At the very least voting should be as important as air travel. Why does McIntyre feel showing a more secure ID is proper for flying but not for voting? Does he know something we do not? Perhaps there are people he wants voting that should not be voting? Does he condone voter fraud? Certainly that cannot be true – perhaps he will tell us.

Breazeale Signs Earmark Pledge

Washington, DC – Declaring his intention when elected to Congress to forego “Earmarking,” – the practice by which members of Congress divert taxpayer funding to special projects outside of the normal competitive and merit-based review process – Congressional Candidate Will Breazeale (R NC-7) has signed the “Earmark Pledge”.

Striking a cord for fiscal responsibility, Breazeale said “If a project in my district needs and deserves Federal funding I will submit that as a bill or as a budget request – which will be held up to the daylight of public debate and a vote by Congress. I will not request or support these earmarks that go outside of the regular legislative process!”!”

THEREFORE, I, _Will Breazeale__, in my capacity as _Congressman_, do hereby pledge that I will personally support spending reform in Congress by refusing to seek, support, or enact earmarks during the appropriations process for fiscal year 2009.

“I have no doubt that Rep. Mike McIntyre will avoid signing this pledge, since he has repeatedly submitted earmarks of his own” Breazeale continued “and refused to vote against removing even ridiculous earmarks like Rep. Charley Rangel’s $2 million for a public policy center, conference center and library that will bear Rangel’s name. Senate Republicans called it Rangel’s ‘Monument to Me’.” (Roll call 678)

The pledge is the centerpiece of FreedomWorks’ overall campaign to stop out of control federal spending and end the earmarking process. Grassroots activists will be able to download the pledge and monitor progress at the FreedomWorks sponsored site, www.earmarkpledge.com.

Sweet Deal for McIntyre and Sugar Producers

Cross posted from aWILLtoWIN.blogspot.com

 

Sweet Deal for McIntyre and Sugar Producers

By Will Breazeale – Candidate for Congress

Wilmington, NC – Order iced tea in Southeastern North Carolina and the waitress will expect you want it “sweet” – with lots of sugar, that is the way many people take it here. Democrat Congressman Mike McIntyre (NC-7) is a fan of sugar as well, to the tune of some $30,000 just since last April. That is how much “Big Sugar” contributed to his campaign in the past year.

According to the NC Dept. of Agriculture web site, sugar is not an NC grown crop or product. These donors to McIntyre’s campaign are predominately from Florida. What is the connection? Why does “Big Sugar” care if McIntyre has enough money to run for re-election?

McIntyre sits on the Agriculture Committee – where the price guarantees for sugar producers originate. H.R 2419 is the reauthorization bill that includes the “sweet deal” for Big Sugar. A very sweet deal! Under this ongoing deal – which H.R.2419 would extend until at least 2012 – the sugar producers get a guarantee from Uncle Sam that if they cannot sell their sugar on the free market for the guaranteed price, Uncle will buy it from them at that price. Besides that, Uncle Sam slaps a tariff on imported sugar to further support the price.

The bill also provides for Uncle Sam to buy sugar at the artificially inflated prices from the producers and then sell it at deep discount to the companies that produce ethanol! What a great idea from McIntyre’s Democrat controlled Congress. Funnel taxpayer’s cash to sugar producers and then sell the sugar at a loss! No wonder this country is Trillions of dollars in debt and the dollar is dropping in value!

By contributing to McIntyre’s campaign “Big Sugar” expected his favorable vote on the bill. They got it.

What did “Big Sugar” get for their money? Not only did McIntyre vote for the whole bill containing the extension and revamping of the sugar program – which he could claim was a vote for other “important” sections of the bill – he voted against an amendment that would have stripped just the sugar program from the bill. (Roll call 751)

Why do you care? Well, the price of Sweet Tea and all other products using sugar are higher because the price of sugar is artificially high. Other products manufacturers move out of the USA so they can buy sugar cheaper.

Sugar is so inexpensive in other countries – like Brazil – that they use it, rather than corn, to make ethanol for fuel. The Government Accountability Office estimates that the sugar program costs US consumers as much as $2 billion a year in higher food prices. Add to that the jobs lost, the taxpayer’s costs and the $30,000 to McIntyre is a drop in the bucket!