Obamacare Final Rule: $1 Abortion Surcharge From Each Premium Payer

By Susan Duclos

"We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It"--- Nancy Pelosi on Obamacare, 2010

Via LifeNews:

Nestled within the “individual mandate” in the Obamacare act — that portion of the Act requiring every American to purchase government — approved insurance or pay a penalty — is an “abortion premium mandate.” This mandate requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion. As a result, many pro-life Americans will have to decide between a plan that violates their consciences by funding abortion, or a plan that may not meet their health needs.

The Department of Health and Human Services has issued a final rule regarding establishment of the state health care exchanges required under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

As a knowledgeable pro-life source on Capitol Hill informed LifeNews, as authorized by Obamacare, “The final rule provides for taxpayer funding of insurance coverage that includes elective abortion” and the change to longstanding law prohibiting virtually all direct taxpayer funding of abortions (the Hyde Amendment) is accomplished through an accounting arrangement described in the Affordable Care Act and reiterated in the final rule issued today.

“To comply with the accounting requirement, plans will collect a $1 abortion surcharge from each premium payer,” the pro-life source informed LifeNews. “The enrollee will make two payments, $1 per month for abortion and another payment for the rest of the services covered. As described in the rule, the surcharge can only be disclosed to the enrollee at the time of enrollment. Furthermore, insurance plans may only advertise the total cost of the premiums without disclosing that enrollees will be charged a $1 per month fee to pay directly subsidize abortions.”

Obama and Democrats passed it and now we are finding out what is in it.

.

Obama To House And Senate Democrats: No Money For You!

By Susan Duclos


Yes, I paraphrased, but from The Politico article it is quite accurate as the writer describes Obama's message to House and Senate Democrats who privately sought as much as $30 million combined from Obama for America and the Democratic National Committee — a replay of the financial help they received from Obama in 2008 and 2010, which is "you're on your own."

But that’s not going to happen, top Obama aides Jim Messina and David Plouffe told Reid and Pelosi in back-to-back meetings on Capitol Hill on Thursday, according to sources familiar with the high-level talks. It was a stark admission from a presidential campaign once expected to rake in as much as $1 billion of just how closely it is watching its own bottom line.

Messina and Plouffe told the two Hill leaders that there would be no cash transfers to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from OFA or the DNC, at least not before Election Day, the sources said.

Obama required Senate Democrats to put themselves out on a weak limb time and time again as he pushed them to pass legislature such as Obamacare, knowing they were doing so in direct opposition to voter's desires, knowing they would be held accountable as House Democrats were in the 2010 election which produced the biggest turnover in seats from Democratic to Republican than had been seen on decades and resulted a large majority for Republicans who took control of the House.

Now it is 2012 and 23 Senate democrats are on the chopping block compared to only 10 Republican Senate seats and all those Democrats that shoved Obama's agenda down the throats of Americans over the last three years are now being left to hang by Barack Obama.

Hill Democrats won’t be seeing much of Obama at their own fundraisers this year, either. Obama has offered to do one money event each for the DCCC and DSCC. OFA officials suggested Vice President Joe Biden do two fundraisers for each campaign committee. Obama will instead send out an email and fundraising letter solicitations for both committees.

Nor, for that matter, have Obama or Biden committed to do events for individual Democratic lawmakers. That’s true even though 23 Democrat-held Senate seats are up for grabs in a competitive battle for control of that chamber. And no fundraisers have been scheduled yet for House and Senate Democrats with Cabinet officials, usually a staple of an election-year calendar for incumbent presidents looking to boost their party’s prospects.

Dog eat dog Democrats and to Obama, as we have seen over the last three years, Obama's agenda and now reelection comes before everything and everyone else.

.

Sandra Fluke: When Activism Backfires As Rush Limbaugh Becomes Center of Attention

By Susan Duclos

An activist, Sandra Fluke, testified before a hearing set up by Nancy Pelosi in regards to the HHS mandate which would force religious institutes to provide access to insurance carriers that provided coverage of contraceptives and sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.

Pelosi's goal for the hearing was to distract from Obama's direct attack against religious freedom with his HHS abortion mandate.

Instead of Fluke's testimony receiving the attention she wanted, Fluke herself garnered the attention as her "message" drowned in attention to one specific portion of the testimony where Fluke stated "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary."


Sandra Fluke- The Blaze documents Flukes previous activism and statements before her testimony:

Though there aren’t links in the original post to the content mentioned, a little digging shows that it’s all true. Fluke has described herself as a third year law student at Georgetown University, and indeed, that is what she is. However, contrary to the narrative of innocent victimhood that portrays Fluke as a wide-eyed 23-year-old girl caught without contraception on a college campus full of predatory men, Fluke herself is really a 30-year-old women‘s rights activist who not only didn’t get caught without contraception at Georgetown, but specifically knew the university didn’t cover it and chose to attend for precisely that reason.

First, there‘s the matter of Fluke’s age. In a segment on Fluke’s battle with Rush Limbaugh, MSNBC reporter Anne Williams called Fluke “the 23-year-old Georgetown law student, prohibited from testifying.” Yet Fluke’s own Linkedin profile reveals a more mature woman:

In fact, according to that profile, she graduated from college in 2003. Barring Fluke being a child prodigy who somehow graduated college at the age of 15, this would make her at least 30 years old:



It‘s worth noting the massive number of women’s issues groups Fluke was involved in, even while in college.

Now, to be fair, Fluke’s age could have been misreported by the media. Most 3rd year law students are at least 25, and they could have confused her for being an undergraduate senior rather than a 3rd year law student.

The idea that Fluke is herself an unwitting victim of Georgetown’s policy on contraceptives is another matter entirely. In several interviews, especially following Rush Limbaugh’s attack, Fluke has implicitly included herself in the group of women who allegedly unwittingly suffer as a result of Georgetown’s policies. This is a key point for the Democrats supporting her, for if Fluke did happen to read Georgetown’s insurance policy before coming and decide to come anyway, that would, at best, undermine her spokeswoman status.

But what if she not only decided to attend the university anyway, but decided to attend specifically so she could fight this battle? Consider this passage from an early Washington Post story done on Fluke before she was permitted to testify:

Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.

Fluke says she would have used the hearing to talk about the students at Georgetown that don’t have birth control covered, and what that’s meant for them. “I wanted to be able to share their stories,” she says. “My testimony would have been about women who have been affected by their policy, who have medical needs and have suffered dire consequences.. . .The committee did not get to hear real stories I had to share, about actual women who have been dramatically affected by this policy.”

That’s right. It seems Fluke intentionally chose to go to Georgetown so she could agitate and sway them to cover contraceptives. She then went to a hearing as a representative of women who hadn‘t known about Georgetown’s policy until it was too late. Unsympathetic observers might liken this to James O’Keefe attending a hearing to speak against ACORN on behalf of pimps. It certainly raises the question of why the women Fluke claims to speak for couldn’t present their stories for themselves.

Indeed, in a video made after she was denied the opportunity to testify, Fluke raises two “stories” from women who had emailed her, supposedly about their non-sex-related need of contraceptive medicine. She does not identify the emailers by name, or even by school, saying simply that they are students at an unnamed Catholic University:

Go to the Blaze for Video

If Fluke’s stories are real, many will likely call on her to let the women who sent them speak for themselves and stop hogging the spotlight, given that she did choose to attend Georgetown knowing full well what its policy was on contraceptives, and with every indication of being willing to risk the price tag — whether that price tag would be $3000 over 3 years or not.

Fluke deliberately placed herself and her comments during testimony in the spotlight, that is what activists thrive on, but it backfired the second she referenced contraception costing $3,000 during law school.

Enter Rush Limbaugh who dedicated a couple radio show segments to Fluke and saying "Well, what would you call someone who wants us to pay for her to have sex? What would you call that woman? You'd call 'em a slut, a prostitute or whatever."

Much virtual ink is being dedicated to Limbaugh's comments, to the hypocrisy of the left by flipping out over Limbaugh's comments while ignoring the same comments and worse by members of the liberal media, with even liberals noting the double standard, his apology, liberal public outcries against his advertisers, Fluke's prior activism, and how much it costs a college women to have sex while getting a law degree.

Pelosi's diversion worked, to a point. Public discourse was distracted, a nice weekend diversion, but when all is said and done, it will be Rush Limbaugh's comments, the money people like Fluke want taxpayers to spend on their sexual habits and the hypocrisy and double standards when one group uses sexist remarks compared to when another group does the same, that will be remembered.... not Flukes testimony.

I have to wonder if Sandra Fluke and Nancy Pelosi are more annoyed that their activism backfired or that Rush Limbaugh stole the show.

When the furor dies down though and the distraction goes away we will still be left with the original issue, Obama's war on religion, right back where we started.

Eyes back on the ball.

Seven States File Lawsuits To Block Obama's HHS Abortion Mandate

Six Lawsuits Now Filed Against Obama's HHS Mandate

Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist and Jewish Leaders Swear They Will Not Comply To Obama's Abortion Mandate

Priests for Life Associate Director is Arrested Outside White House

Harry Reid's Response To Americans Worried About Obama's Attack On Religion: 'Calm Down'

Catholic League: Obama Legacy- 'The President That Brought The Culture War To Boil'

Religious Freedom Lawsuits Against Obama's s Abortion Drug And Contraception Mandate

Catholic Churches And Bishop of Marquette Punch Back At Obama's War On Religion

Catholic League Prepared To Fight Back Against Obama's War On Religion


.

Russia And China Veto UN Resolution On Syria

By Susan Duclos



Anyone remember the statement below?

"We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace"--- Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared after her visit to Syria and her meeting with its dictator Bashir Assad, 2007

Many were outraged that Pelosi, as Speaker of the House at the time, would go to Syria against the wishes of the White House and talk with leaders of a country that sponsors terrorists.

2012- Now we have reports of over 200- 400 people being massacred by Assad and Barack Obama finally issuing a statement condemning what he calls an "unspeakable assault." Furthermore Obama demands Assad "step aside and allow a democratic transition to proceed immediately." Obama's statement continues "Yesterday the Syrian government murdered hundreds of Syrian citizens, including women and children, in Homs through shelling and other indiscriminate violence, and Syrian forces continue to prevent hundreds of injured civilians from seeking medical help."

Anyone think Assad is going to even give a thought to Obama's wishes? Both Russia and China vetoed a very watered down resolution that the 13 other members of the Security Council voted for.

Russia and China on Saturday vetoed a Western and Arab-sponsored U.N. resolution condemning Syria’s violent repression of anti-government demonstrators, throwing their prestige and power behind President Bashar al-Assad as he intensifies a military operation aimed at crushing the 10-month-old uprising.

The Russian and Chinese stance came as a blow to U.S. and European efforts to rally behind an Arab League plan that would require Assad to step down, making way for a democratically elected unity government with a leader commanding support from both the government and the opposition.

Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations expressed the United State's disgust for the Russia and China vetoes.

The council has “been held hostage by a couple of members,” she said, adding that “these members stand behind empty arguments and individual interests while seeking to strip” any resolution of meaningful terms.

“A couple of members of this council remain steadfast in their willingness to sell out the Syrian people and shield a craven tyrant,” Rice said. She said Saturday’s action was even “more shameful” given Russia’s role in selling arms to Assad’s government.

France and Germany's representatives also expressed their dissatisfaction with the end result of the Security Council's vote.

I wonder if Pelosi still thinks the road to peace goes through Damascus and Assad?

.

Videos- Pelosi: 'Something I know', Gingrich: 'Spit it out', Pelosi's Office: 'No New Dirt'

By Susan Duclos

Nancy Pelosi, trying to appear still relevant, speaking to CNN's John King: (Video below text)

Pelosi: "He's not going to be President of the United States. That's not going to happen. Let me just make my prediction and stand by it, it isn't going to happen."

King: "Why are you so sure?"

Pelosi: "There is something I know. The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him that's their prerogative. I don't even think that's going to happen."

Video:




Newt Gingrich on NBC's "Today" show: (Video after text from The Hill)

"She lives in a San Francisco environment of very strange fantasies and very strange understandings of reality," Gingrich said Wednesday as he laughed off the notion that the House minority leader could derail his bid for the GOP presidential nomination.

"I have no idea what's in Nancy Pelosi's head," Gingrich said on NBC's "Today" show. "If she knows something, I have a simple challenge: Spit it out."

Video:




Mitt Romney who has been overcome in Florida and national polling by a Gingrich surge, really really wants to know!!!!

ROMNEY: I wish I knew what that was [laughter]. I'd tell people what it is right now.

Video:



The last part of the latest Pelosi saga is entertainment for Gingrich, disappointment for Romney and embarrassment for Pelosi.

The Hill's Ballot Box headline "Pelosi's office says she has no new dirt on Newt Gingrich."

Popcorn anyone?

[Update] For history buffs, Byron York asks and answers and provides historic data in his piece "What really happened in the Gingrich ethics case?"

.

John Boehner Is Not Supposed To 'Control' GOP House Representatives. That Is NOT His Job Description

By Susan Duclos

One of my biggest complaints when Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House is how she would strong arm and force her members to vote for legislation whether they agreed with it or not and whether the vote cast by a particular lawmaker represented the will of his/her constituents or not. She insisted her members vote in favor of what she wanted, what she, Obama and Reid wanted. She forced her members to vote for "party" rather than represent those that elected them.

For example, February 2010, Pelosi was quoted, by multiple media sources as telling her colleagues to back a major overhaul of U.S. health care aka Obamacare, even if it threatens their political careers.

Her comments somewhat echoed those of President Obama, who said at the end of last week's bipartisan health care summit that Congress should act on the issue and let voters render their verdicts. "That's what elections are for," he said.

Obama was right and in November 2010, there was indeed an election, the midterms, and Democrats in the House, lost 63 seats and voters handed control of the House of Representatives to Republicans and fired Nancy Pelosi from her Speaker of the House position.

So, when I read in The Politico a quote from Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)that says "If Speaker Boehner were fully in charge, we wouldn’t constantly see this kind of brinksmanship, but he doesn’t have control of his troops in the House," I think to myself, damn straight he doesn't "control" the members of the House, that is not his job and thank heavens he is not Nancy Pelosi who thought that was in her job description.

Democrats may be under the impression that their "job" is to walk in total lockstep with their leadership but a member of Congress is elected locally by those he is supposed to represent, not to do as told and not think for themselves.

Boehner's job is Speaker of the House, not dictator, and perhaps Schumer and Democrats should read the job description of Speaker instead of thinking that how Pelosi did things, forcing members to vote against their constituents, is not part of that job description.

The Speaker does, however, typically presides over special joint sessions of Congress in which the House hosts the Senate. The Speaker exerts power over the legislative process by setting the House legislative calendar determining when bills will be debated and voted on. The Speaker often utilizes this power to help fulfill his or her responsibility of making sure bills supported by the majority party are passed by the House. The Speaker also serves as chair of the majority party's House steering committee.

If the party in majority is not supportive of a bill passed by the Senate, or the language used in the bill passed by the Senate, then it is not Boehner's job to force them to go along with it. It is his job to see to it the bill's language becomes language supported by the majority party so it can be passed.

The main role of members of the U.S. House of Representatives is to serve their constituents through the process of writing legislation.

Controlling members of his party is not what John Boehner's job entails, that is what Nancy Pelosi did in her term as Speaker and she was replaced by election and many of those that walked in lockstep with what she ordered them to do, were replaced as well.

.

Joke Of The Day: Pelosi: 'Dems Can Take Back House'

By Susan Duclos

While every pundit, forecaster and handicapper was predicting a GOP wave in the November 2010 elections, Nancy Pelosi was denying reality showing how disconnected she was from the public she was sworn to represent as Speaker of the House.

Flashback To Pelosi Quotes:

May 2010 "Bring it on: Pelosi predicts 'for sure' that Dems will win House."

July 2010: "I don't think there's much likelihood [of Democrats losing the House], but anytime the White House wants to lower expectations, that's OK with me."

October 2010: Pelosi defiant on keeping the House, "I would rather be where we are than where they are."

October 2010: "Vilified or Not, Pelosi Insists She’s Winning." (Is that where Charlie Sheen got the "winning" phrase?)

November 2010: "The early returns show so far that a number of Democrats are coming out and we are on pace to maintain the majority in the House of Representatives," said Pelosi."

After 2010 Midterm Elections Democrats in the House lost 63 seats giving the majority to Republicans, suffered a net loss of Senate seats and Republicans gained Governorships across the country.

Click image to enlarge

Fast forward to the "joke of the day"- Today's headline from The Hill: "Pelosi: Dems can take back House."

As Michelle Malkin would say .... snort!

.

#OWS News: Police Dismantle Philadelphia, LA Occupier Encampments

By Susan Duclos

In the latest police effort to dismantle unlawful encampments erected by Wall Street Occupiers, Philadelphia and LA police swept through and cleared out the two sites where protesters had recently been set up tents.

Philadelphia:

Police swarmed around City Hall and rousted Occupy Philadelphia protesters from their encampment overnight, more than two days after a deadline passed for them to leave.

The occupiers responded by roaming around Center City, scattering and regrouping with police following their every move in a chaotic night of cat-and-mouse that ended before daylight.

"The Dilworth occupation is over," Mayor Nutter said at a news conference just before 7 a.m.

Crews were using bulldozers and other heavy equipment to clear up debris and fire hoses to wash down the plaza as he spoke.

He called the police operation to clear the plaza "tremendously well planned and executed."

He said at least 50 people were arrested, 44 of them in a 5 a.m. face off on North 15th Street behind the Inquirer and School District buildings.

Los Angeles

Police in riot gear and biohazard suits removed anti-Wall Street activists from an encampment outside the Los Angeles City Hall on Wednesday, arresting an estimated 200 people.

Overnight on the East Coast, about 100 Occupy protesters in Philadelphia swiftly and peacefully vacated their camp but later 52 were arrested around the city on charges ranging from obstructing a highway to aggravated assault on a police officer, officials said.

In Los Angeles, busloads of police closed in on the 8-week-old Occupy LA camp after midnight and declared the hundreds of protesters congregated on the lawn, sidewalks and streets around City Hall to be an unlawful assembly, ordering them to disperse or face arrest, in line with an eviction order from the mayor.

This follows weeks of crackdowns in cities across the country, the most widely publicized was in New York when police evicted Occupiers from Zuccotti Park, where it all started, and a court decided protesters were not legally able to set up encampments in the Park but they were free to protest there as long as they followed Park rules.

There has not been much reported news from that location since the Zuccotti Park Occupiers were disbanded.

No doubt this has been a relief to New York City which the AP has reported $7 million had been spent by taxpayers in "police overtime and other municipal services', all associated with costs to the taxpayers of New York because of the Occupiers.

In Oakland where another highly publicized crack down dismantled their tent city, the city had already had a nearly $58 million budget gap and taxpayers were nailed with $2.4 million responding to the protests.

Without the encampment, SFGate reports that Occupiers have hit their "second phase" which is to "provoke confrontations" in order to stay in the news, but this has "turned off many people who lament the cost of extra policing and the damage done by vandals."

While many liberals have lamented polling that showed the general public agrees with certain concepts generated by the Occupy movement, that has not translated into support for the movement itself because of the constant strife, public reports on death threats from Occupiers and supporters, violence, public urination and defecation by Occupiers, provoked confrontations instigated by Occupiers, unsanitary conditions in which the Occupiers created with their tent cities, diseases running rampant throughout those tent cities, etc...

Mid November the Democratically leaning Public Policy Polling found that 45 percent of voters oppose the Occupiers with 33 percent being supportive of their goals. A month before that PPP found 36 percent opposed and 35 percent were supportive. In just one month, according to the PPP polls, Occupier antics cost themselves 2 percent support and gained themselves 9 percent more opposition.

Two days ago, November 28, 2011, Rasmussen found that 55 percent of likely voters now hold an unfavorable view of the Occupiers, with 39 percent holding a "somewhat favorable view."

Occupiers outstayed their welcome like a house guest that never leaves. The longer they stay the less support they are getting.

You can find all WuA's Occupier antics posts at the class warfare label page here.

CBO Admits Obama's Stimulus Cost More, Did Less And Hurt Economy In The Long Run

By Susan Duclos

Investors.com notices a few thing from the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) latest quarterly report on the economic effects of the Obama stimulus aka American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

The CBO report explains why they revised the employment numbers downward, and specifies how the economy is hurt in the long run.

Recovery: After nearly all the stimulus money has been spent, the Congressional Budget Office now admits it cost more than advertised, did less to boost growth and will hurt the economy in the long run.

The CBO's 22 page PDF report can be found here.

Page 9 of the PDF shows the original cost estimate of the ARRA and how it has taken a 5 percent hike in how much it cost American Taxpayers:

When ARRA was being considered, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would increase budget deficits by $787 billion between fiscal years 2009 and 2019. CBO now estimates that the total impact over the 2009–2019 period will amount to about $825 billion.

Unemployment is 9 percent, U6 unemployment which is the figures when over 2 million unemployed who haven't sought work in the four weeks preceding the survey, is over 16 percent, according to the United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics.

According to a recent FED report released in November, there is a 50-50 chance of the U.S. heading into a double dip recession. (Source- LA Times)

Back to the November 22, 2011 CBO report, page 9:

By CBO’s estimate, close to half of that impact occurred in fiscal year 2010, and nearly 90 percent of ARRA’s budgetary impact was realized by the end of September 2011.

Page 16 of the CBO report revises previous estimates on employment downward:

The current estimates of the impact of ARRA on output and employment differ from those CBO presented in August 2011 because CBO has adjusted its methodology and slightly revised its projections of the timing of changes in federal spending as a result of ARRA. All told, CBO’s estimate of the increase in employment attributable to ARRA for calendar year 2011 was revised downward from a range of 1.2 million to 3.7 million FTE jobs to a range of 0.6 million to 3.6 million FTE jobs.

Page 17 of the report explains how Obama's stimulus hurts economic growth in the long run:

ARRA’s long-run impact on the economy stems primarily from the resulting increase in government debt.14 To the extent that people hold their wealth in government securities rather than in a form that can be used to finance private investment, the increased debt tends to reduce the stock of productive private capital. In the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollar’s worth of private domestic capital, CBO estimates. (The remainder of the rise in debt is offset by increases in private saving and inflows of foreign capital.) Because of uncertainty about the degree of crowding out, however, CBO’s range of estimates of ARRA’s long-run effects reflects the possibility that the extent of crowding out could be more or less than one-third of the added debt.

Over the long term, the output of the economy depends on the stock of productive capital, the supply of labor, and productivity. The less productive capital there is as a result of lower private investment, the smaller will be the nation’s output over the long run.

Reports like this explain clearly why Nancy Pelosi and Democratic politicians, including Barack Obama, have made a calculated decision to stop using the word "stimulus" as reported in The Hill and other news agencies back in September.

Democrats are now being careful to frame their job-creation agenda in language excluding references to any stimulus, even though their favored policies for ending the deepest recession since the Great Depression are largely the same.

Indeed, with President Obama scheduled Thursday to lay out his job-creation plans before a joint session of Congress, liberal Democrats and left-leaning policy groups are pressuring him to ignore short-term deficit spending concerns in favor of sweeping spending initiatives designed to boost hiring.

The Democrats’ signature “Make it in America” platform aims to create jobs by increasing infrastructure spending, providing financial help to struggling states and expanding tax credits for businesses, all of which were key elements of their 2009 economic stimulus bill.

Recognizing the unpopularity of the 2009 package, however, Democratic leaders have revised their message with less loaded language – “job creation” instead of “stimulus” and “Make it in America” in lieu of “Recovery Act” – in hopes of tackling the jobs crisis.

So, the next time you hear Obama or Democrats talk about "investing in America" aka spending more money we do not have, understand they want more of the same "stimulus" that failed to accomplish what their Keynesian ideology thought it would accomplish in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

.