Yesterday, GOP negotiators did their impression of Popeye, the Sailor Man, when, in the midst of trying to broker a major deficit-reduction deal, they declared in unison:

I’ve had all I can stands, I can’t stands no more!

The Republicans then proceeded to walk out on Democrats at the negotiating table, leaving it up to President Barack Hussein Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to resolve the toughest issues.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Sen. Jon Kyl (D-AZ), both left the bi-partisan talks yesterday, saying that the Democrats’ demand that the budget deal include tax increases was to blame.

According to Sen. Kyl,  it’s going to take those in the highest levels of power to break the impasse between the two political parties.

The goal of the talks, led by Vice-President Joe Biden, was to strike a budget deal which the Democrats hoped would ease the way for Congress to raise the government’s $14.29 trillion debt limit.

According to Treasury Department officials,without the ability to borrow additional money, the government is going to run out of cash to pay its bills by Aug. 2. They also have said that defaulting on any U.S. obligations could trigger another financial crisis and recession.

Biden’s group has canceled its scheduled meeting for today.

Now, it’s up to the Big Dogs.

Rep. Cantor told the Wall Street Journal:

We’ve reached the point where the dynamic needs to change.  It is up to the president to come in and talk to the speaker. We’ve reached the end of this phase.

The Obama White house and their Congressional minions have, publicly anyway, expressed optimism that talks between the three leaders can reach a satisfactory agreement.

According to Rep. Cantor, the Biden-led group had come up with more than $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next ten years.   A Democratic official close to the talks said the total was only about $1.2 trillion (of course).

Vice-President Biden remarked that:

As all of us at the table said at the outset, the goal of these talks was to report our findings back to our respective leaders. The next phase is in the hands of those leaders, who need to determine the scope of an agreement that can tackle the problem and attract bipartisan support. For now the talks are in abeyance as we await that guidance.

The Democrats seem to gotten the notion, from someone, possibly Karl Marx, that the answer to fixing Obama’s rotten economy is to raise taxes.  Therefore. they are adamant about getting rid of the tax cuts put in place by President George W. Bush.

How would getting rid of the Bush tax cuts affect average Americans?  Eric Fox, posting on forbes.com, breaks it down for us:

The two major tax-cutting bills from the Bush era were the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) of 2001, and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.

These two laws cut taxes across the board for earned income, long-term capital gains and dividends. The legislation also expanded the child tax credit and made dozens of other changes and adjustments to the tax code, involving exemptions, deductions and the marriage penalty.

EGTRRA created six tax rate brackets–10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%, based on income levels. If no extension is passed and signed into law, then the pre-2001 tax rates will go back into effect starting in tax year 2011. The 10% bracket would disappear, and those taxpayers would move up to the 15% bracket, which would apply to all incomes below $34,550. The other tax rates would increase to 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6% for the highest earners making more than $379,650.

One major provision that will expire at the end of 2010 is the child tax credit, which EGTRRA doubled from $500 to $1,000 per child. Unless Congress votes to extend the child tax credit, the maximum amount will revert back to $500 for tax year 2011, and the number of families eligible for that amount will be much less as tougher eligibility standards that existed prior to EGTRRA will go back into effect.

The maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends were also reduced to 15%, with lower income filers facing a 0% tax rate. The sunset provisions would move the capital gains rate back to a maximum of 20%, and qualified dividends would resume being taxed at the regular tax rate of the filer, or as high as 39.6%.

…President Obama has asked Congress to extend and make permanent the 10%, 15% and 25% tax rates. The 28% bracket would be recalculated to include individuals with income less than $200,000 and married filers with income less than $250,000. The “rich” would be out of luck under the proposal, with the 33% and 35% brackets expiring at the end of 2010, and the former 36% and 39.6% tax rates going back into effect.

Obama is also seeking to make permanent the long-term capital gain rates of 0% and 15%, but tax capital gains at a rate of 20% for those taxpayers that fall into the 36% and 39.6% brackets. None of this has been decided yet, and passage is not certain due to the politics of Washington in general–and during an election year in particular.

President Obama and the Democrats seem to be looking for a panacea to their problem of keeping unfulfilled promisethat they made to their base of all the things that they would do for them, and give to them, once Obama ascended to the throne, with a vibrant economy being one of those promises.

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration does not want to accept the fact that the business of America is business, and raising Americans’ tax burden is only going to continue to dig a economic hole that our great-grandchildren will still be trying to dig out of.

Last night, President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) formally addressed the American people for the sixth time since he ascended to the throne of the Regime. He announced a withdrawal of American Troops in Afghanistan, which he euphemistically referred to as drawdown, to be completed by 2014.

He began his address with his usual Don’t blame me, I inherited this mess approach:

By the time I took office, the war in Afghanistan had entered its seventh year. But Al Qaeda’s leaders had escaped into Pakistan and were plotting new attacks, while the Taliban had regrouped and gone on the offensive. Without a new strategy and decisive action, our military commanders warned that we could face a resurgent Al Qaeda, and a Taliban taking over large parts of Afghanistan.

By the way, don’t try to count the number of I’s in this speech. I lost count.

For this reason, in one of the most difficult decisions that I’ve made as President, I ordered an additional 30,000 American troops into Afghanistan. When I announced this surge at West Point, we set clear objectives: to refocus on Al Qaeda; reverse the Taliban’s momentum; and train Afghan Security Forces to defend their own country. I also made it clear that our commitment would not be open-ended, and that we would begin to drawdown our forces this July.

Tonight, I can tell you that we are fulfilling that commitment. Thanks to our men and women in uniform, our civilian personnel, and our many coalition partners, we are meeting our goals. As a result, starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer, fully recovering the surge I announced at West Point. After this initial reduction, our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan Security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.

We are starting this drawdown from a position of strength. Al Qaeda is under more pressure than at any time since 9/11. Together with the Pakistanis, we have taken out more than half of Al Qaeda’s leadership. And thanks to our intelligence professionals and Special Forces, we killed Usama bin Laden, the only leader that Al Qaeda had ever known. This was a victory for all who have served since 9/11. One soldier summed it up well. “The message,” he said, “is we don’t forget. You will be held accountable, no matter how long it takes.”

Here comes the part of the speech that piqued my interest. Evidently, our CIC actually is naive enough to believe that we can negotiate with the Taliban:

We do know that peace cannot come to a land that has known so much war without a political settlement. So as we strengthen the Afghan government and Security Forces, America will join initiatives that reconcile the Afghan people, including the Taliban. Our position on these talks is clear: they must be led by the Afghan government, and those who want to be a part of a peaceful Afghanistan must break from Al Qaeda, abandon violence, and abide by the Afghan Constitution. But, in part because of our military effort, we have reason to believe that progress can be made.

The goal that we seek is achievable, and can be expressed simply: no safe-haven from which Al Qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland, or our allies. We will not try to make Afghanistan a perfect place. We will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely. That is the responsibility of the Afghan government, which must step up its ability to protect its people; and move from an economy shaped by war to one that can sustain a lasting peace. What we can do, and will do, is build a partnership with the Afghan people that endures – one that ensures that we will be able to continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign Afghan government.

What happens after the last American Troops pull out of Afghanistan? Well, just like the last guy at the Sports Bar, we get stuck with the check.

It is estimated that the yearly bill for the US to sustain the Afghan security forces, after we withdraw, will be $6bn to $8bn a year, a figure that has caused a massive political freak-out in Washington and among those in charge of NATO’s end of the deal.

However, we don’t have to worry about the Afghan regime collapsing.  Even after we give the keys to the Afghan Government at the end of 2014, there will still be a significant foreign military presence.

Which countries will make up that force, where it will be based, and who will control it, is currently the subject of negotiations between the Afghan and US governments.

Considering who is presently in charge of our end of the negotiations, we’re destined to get the raw end of the deal.

Tonight, at 7:00 p.m. Central, Americans will have the honor and privilege of, once again, viewing the President of our country, Barack Hussein  Obama, as he comes into our living rooms, against the  advice of the Pentagon, to  announce the withdrawal of up to 30,000 troops from Afghanistan by November next year, just  in time for the US presidential election.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 31% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is at least somewhat likely that the United States will remove its remaining 50,000 troops from Iraq by the end of this year as scheduled, and that includes just three percent (3%) who say it’s Very Likely.  Sixty-five percent (65%) believe a full troop withdrawal from Iraq by year’s end is unlikely, with 21% who say it’s Not At All Likely.

Attorney General of the United State Eric Holder, made a special  announcement yesterday, in a speech to the American Constitution Society:

We have reinvigorated the important work of our Civil Rights Division. Not only is this office once again open for business, it has never been stronger.

Now, some of you know during this administration’s first fiscal year the Department filed a record number of civil rights criminal cases. We’ve also expanded enforcement efforts to guarantee that in our work places, our military bases, in our housing and lending markets, in our voting booths in our border areas, in our schools and places of worship. And I mean all places of worship.

That’s pretty funny. 

While AG Holder is speaking  nobly about locking up those who deny us of our basic civil liberties, he himself refused to prosecute the New Blank Panthers for “violating the Voter Rights Act in November 2008 by using coercion, threats and intimidation at a Philadelphia polling station”.

He also neglected to mention that he and his boss, President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) are under investigation by Congress.

Holder and Obama ordered the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) program “Operation Fast and Furious” to allow gun stores near the Mexican border to sell semiautomatic weapons in bulk to “straw purchasers” and then track their journey. As a result, many of the guns were linked to crimes, including the killing of a Border Patrol agent.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, under the leadership of its Chair, Darrell Issa (R-CA is engaged in questioning witnesses in an effort to get to the bottom of this potentially impeachable offense.

The committee’s quest is to find out who at ATF and the Department of Justice knew and authorized the program.

Rep. Issa and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) have issueda report on “Operation Fast and Furious,” which says border patrol and ATF agents were told to “surveil” weapons and not interdict.  According to the report, agents were warned of devastating consequences, including criminal activity, but supervisors ignored their warnings.

According to  ATF Agent John Dodson, who terstified before the committee:

Every time we questioned that order, there was punitive action.

Also, according to Dodson, the ATF stopped tracking the weapons once they traveled too far from the border.  By doing this,  the ATF lost track of 1500 – 1800 weapons.

Rep. Issa has accused the administration of ignoring committee requests for documents on “Operation Fast and Furious.”

Issa sent out  a subpoena on March 31, 2011 to the acting Director of the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATFE) Agency, Kenneth Melson, to find out what he knew and if he signed off on the program.

While in  committee, Congress is trying to determine whether or not, the administration actually needs to respond to the subpoena. Issa hasthreatened a “slew” of subpoenas in response to the Department of Justice’s refusal to provide information.

Several witnesses have been called, including the family of a slain border security agent, ATFE agents and Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich.

By the way, you remember the New Black Panther Party case, don’t you?

In an article posted on washingtonpost.com, on 1/27/11, Jennifer Rubin summed it up succinctly:

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights came out in December with a draft of its interim report on the New Black Panthers Party scandal. Earlier today a final report was posted on the commission’s website, and with it, a flurry of rebuttals and separate statements from a number of the commissioners. The import of these statements should not be minimized.

The statements indicate several points: 1) the New Black Panther Party case brought by career Justice Department employees was meritorious on the law and the facts; 2) there is voluminous evidence of the Obama administration’s political interference in the prosecution of the New Black Panther Party case; 3) there is ample evidence that the Obama administration directed Justice Department employees not to bring cases against minority defendants who violated voting rights laws or to enforce a provision requiring that states and localities clean up their voting rolls to prevent fraud; 4) the Justice Department stonewalled efforts to investigate the case; and 5) vice chairman Abigail Thernstrom has, for reasons not entirely clear, ignored the evidence and tried to undermine the commission’s work.

In the words of The Naked Gun’s Lt. Frank Drebin:

Move along.  Nothing the See Here.

In closing, you, no doubt, noticed that I highlighted the phrase,  And I mean all places of worship.  While,  in and of itself, that is another very noble thing for AG Holder to say, when you examine Holder’s background, perhaps it isn’t.

Everyone knows how anxious the AG and the president have been to stage the Dog and Pony shows euphemistically called “Civilian Trials”  for the Islamic Terrorists who have murdered out countrymen.

There’s a reason for AG Holder’s eagerness.  Per Andrew Breitbart’s biggovernment.com:

Attorney General Eric Holder says nine Obama appointees in the Justice Department have represented or advocated for terrorist detainees before joining the Justice Department. But he does not reveal any names beyond the two officials whose work has already been publicly reported. And all the lawyers, according to Holder, are eligible to work on general detainee matters, even if there are specific parts of some cases they cannot be involved in.

Holder’s admission comes in the form of an answer to a question posed last November [2009] by Republican Sen. Charles Grassley. Noting that one Obama appointee, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, formerly represented Osama bin Laden’s driver, and another appointee, Jennifer Daskal, previously advocated for detainees at Human Rights Watch, Grassley asked Holder to give the Senate Judiciary Committee “the names of political appointees in your department who represent detainees or who work for organizations advocating on their behalf…the cases or projects that these appointees work with respect to detainee prior to joining the Justice Department…and the cases or projects relating to detainees that have worked on since joining the Justice Department.”

…Holder says other Obama appointees, like Holder himself, came from law firms which represented detainees but did no work on behalf of the terrorist prisoners. But other than Katyal and Daskal, Holder does not reveal any names of any Obama appointees, nor does he mention the cases they worked on.

Suffice it to say, with all this baggage accompanying his United States Attorney General, Obama, in all good judgement, should ask for his resignation, before the trail of corruption leads all the way back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

That probably will not happen, though.  Shady  operations seem to be S.O. P. for this administration.

Why, good morning, Mr. President!  It was a pleasant surprise when you called, saying that you were passing through and wanted to meet me here for breakfast this morning.  Please allow me to order for you:

Waitress, please bring President Clinton a Rooty Tooty Fresh ‘n Fruity with a big glass of Sweet Tea, please.

It’s been a heckuva a week, huh, sir?

It has just been announced that America’s Misery Index, which adds together the unemployment and inflation rates, is at an all time high.

You remember the Misery Index. It was first thought of in the 70s, by economist Arthur Okun.

The other day, when  President Scooter lamely joked, that…

Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected…

he actually got something right, for once.

The index, is showing an extremely economically- sick 12.7—9.1 percent for unemployment and 3.6 percent for annualized inflation.  Americans have not experienced this number since 1983.

By the way, Mr. President, did you know index has been above 10 since November 2009 and had been under double-digits from June 1993 through May 2008.

Of course, back in the 80s, during the reign of Ronaldus Maximus, Paul Volcker, leading the Federal Reserve, brought the Misery Index down sharply, as America recovered under president Reagan’s leadership.

Man, I miss him. How about you, Mr. President?

You do, too? I thought so.

I read in an article at cnbc.com, written by John Carney, where Paul Dales, the chief U.S. Economist at Capital Economics said that:

The good news is that other measures suggest conditions aren’t quite that bad and over the next 18 months the gloom should lift a little. The bad news is that households won’t be in the mood to boost their spending significantly for several more years.

Dales says all the misery may not be as bad as it appears. An alternative measure, put forth in 1999 by Robert Barro, encompasses a wider swath of misery, measuring employment against the so-called “natural rate” and compares inflation against the previous 10 years. The Barro measure also looks at whether gross domestic product is below its “potential” and compares yields on the 10-year Treasury note against the yields of the previous 10 years.

With all that rolled in, Dales says the Barro index is indicating that while things aren’t expected to get dramatically better, the level of misery is probably at a peak and should roll back over the next 18 months.

But, hey, Mr. President, Americans are not alone in our misery.  Republican candidate Mitt Romney feels our pain, just as you did.

According to politico.com:

Mitt Romney sat at the head of the table at a coffee shop here [in Tampa, Florida] on Thursday, listening to a group of unemployed Floridians explain the challenges of looking for work. When they finished, he weighed in with a predicament of his own.

“I should tell my story,” Mr. Romney said. “I’m also unemployed.”

Romney is, of course, worth several hundred million dollars and unemployed by choice. In fairness to him, Jeff Zeleny notes that the voters he was speaking with “joined him in laughter.”

Perhaps you could give lessons to Mittens on how to speak to average Americans, Mr. President?

Anyway, that’s enough about the economy.  I read this week where Hil, and her assistant, Huma Weiner, returned this week from another State Department trip.

What a mess, huh?  No wonder you’re sitting here in an IHOP in Northwest Mississippi with me.

I heard that Anthony Weiner called you to apologize, since you guys have been so close in the past,with her working for Hil as her assistant all these years, and you officiating their wedding last July.

I read in the Wall Street Journal that Huma called your wife, seeking her opinion before the pervert, err, I mean, the Congressman confessed publically on Monday.

I heard that Huma hit the roof, and rightfully so, when Weiner told her the truth last Monday.

I know you guys are upset about the whole thing.

When he finally resigned on the 16th, I know that it must have been both sad and relieving.

But, something has me puzzled.  Why did the Democratic Leadership  jump all over Weiner’s dalliance, and yet, they defended you from impeachment to their dying breaths?

Was it because Anthony Weiner was an abrasive jerk, who presented a poor public image, while you were a presidential Ric Flair:  a wheelin’-dealin’, kiss-stealing, limousine-ridin’, jet-flyin’, saxophone-playin’, glad-handin’, son-of-a-gun?

Or, was it because there were a lot of politically powerful people out there who owed you favors?

Even though all of that is true, I think the reason is deeper and more Machiavellian than that.

You held the most powerful position in the Free World. The Democratic Party was not about to give that up.  Weiner was just one Congressman out of 435, just one vote among many.  The Beltway Elite have little tolerance for anyone who rocks the boat, especially if they belong to the lower echelon of political power, such as a Congressman.

Once Weiner became a national punchline, he became about as welcome as Rosanne Barr singing the National Anthem.

But, don’t worry about Weiner, Mr. President.  Did you hear that Hustler Magazine Founder and Professional Pervert Larry Flynt offer him a job?

Really!  Flynt, speaking to huffingtonpost.com, said that:

He is a natural pornographer who has a skilled eye for unusual views and acrobatics … It’s clear he’s better suited to join our team than be the governor of the state of New York.

I think that he turned down the offer, though.

Anyway, it’s been great to speak with you this morning, Mr. President.  Safe travels and…behave yourself.

About that last part…never mind.

I thought that the Democratic Party and the Labor Unions were supposed to support working Americans?

Per foxnews.com, the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government will hold a hearing in South Carolina on June 17th, looking into a federal labor lawsuit against Boeing Co.

The National Labor Relations Board filed the lawsuit, claiming that the company moved manufacturing facilities from Washington state to North Charleston in order to avoid unionized workers.

The National Labor Relations Board is a U.S. government agency, charged with administering the National Labor Relations Act (1935). The three-member of the NLRB are appointed by the president. The board organizes elections to determine whether employees wish to be represented by a labor union in collective bargaining. They also monitor labor practices by employers and unions.

The NLRB does not initiate investigations.  It becomes involved in a labor dispute, such as the  Boeing factory, after being contacted by employers, individuals, or unions.

The National Labor Relations Board has no enforcement powers. But, it can, and will, especially under a Democratic Administration,  go after perceived offenders in court.

In April, the National Labor Relations Board sued Boeing. The NLRB claimed that the manufacturer located a new 787 passenger aircraft assembly line in South Carolina, which happens to be a right-to-work state, in order to retaliate against Washington state union workers who went on strike in 2008.

The NLRB is demanding that Boeing return the jobs to Washington.

The only problem with that idea, is the fact that Boeing has already built a new South Carolina plant and has hired 1,000 workers.

Yesterday, in another battlefront in the Liberals’ War on Prosperity, the Obama White House blocked a proposal from House Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) to speed up the process of oil and gas leasing and energy infrastructure permitting in an Alaska reserve.

Obama and his bureaucratic minions claim that permitting this production of energy by American companies on American soil could force federal regulators to flout environmental laws and would, by necessity, include a costly, redundant resource assessment.

Mike Pool, deputy director of the Bureau of Land Management, while announcing that his agency will hold lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve, known as NPR-A, in December 2011 and each year after, also emphasized that his agency, which oversees 191 lease tracts covering 1.6 million acres, has all the tools it needs to facilitate development of oil in the reserve while balancing protections for wildlife habitat and subsistence users.

According to Pool, holding lease sales in the areas most likely to produce commercial oil and gas and set permitting deadlines could be detrimental to the agency’s public land management process, including the National Environmental Policy Act:

Systematically over time we have been responsible to conduct and make available leasing in NPR-A. There’s no delay in permitting and processing as it involves BLM responsibilities in NPR-A.

Pool added that his agency has no pending backlog of rights of ways or other projects.

According to another Interior official, there is no reason to reassess or update the U.S. Geological Survey’s most recent assessment of oil and gas resources in the reserve, as called for by Hastings’ bill. The most recent survey found about half a billion barrels ofoil at prices near current levels.

Pool said:

I think we have everything in place and we have demonstrated that over time. We currently have all the regulations and the authorities we need.

Hastings, fresh off a trip last week to NPR-A with Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell (R), said:

Producing oil and natural gas in the NPR-A is pointless if there’s no way to get it out of there. The real problem is the federal government’s blocking and delaying of permits for necessary roads, bridges and pipelines needed to transport the energy out of the NPR-A.

According to committe spokesman Spencer Pederson, speaking after the hearing, the decision of the Interior Department suggests the Obama administration may be responding to the panel’s hearings:

However, if Interior paid attention to our NPR-A Access Act hearing, they would have learned that simply issuing lease sales does not solve the problem of producing oil in the NPR-A and transporting it for use.

He also added that, according to the Interior Department, it would be posting a 30-day request for nominations to industry in the coming week to help identify the potentially most productive areas to lease in the December sale.

And to bring today’s post into focus, here’s a little gem I discovered.

In return for a $5 donation to his reelection campaign, President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) is offering his fans a chance to to win a “casual” dinner with him at an unstated location, by participating in a raffle, whose proceeds go to his re-election campaign.

Obama announced that his campaign will raffle off four tickets for the casual dinner in an e-mail to his supporters:

We rely on everyday Americans giving whatever they can afford–and I want to spend time with a few of you. So if you make a donation today, you’ll be automatically entered for a chance to be one of the four supporters to sit down with me for dinner. Please donate $5 or more today.

The e-mail goes on, trying to rally the troops, neglecting to mention that Obama himself has conducted several high-dollar fundraisers in the weeks since his announcement that he is seeking re-election:

Most campaigns fill their dinner guest lists primarily with Washington lobbyists and special interests. We didn’t get here doing that, and we’re not going to start now. We’re running a different kind of campaign. We don’t take money from Washington lobbyists or special-interest PACs–we never have, and we never will.

Really, Mr. President?

Found on americanthinker.com, in an article written by Mallory Factor, on September 22, 2008, is the following refudiation:

On June 26 [2008], the AFL-CIO brass officially endorsed Barack Obama for president. With Big Labor’s largest umbrella organization and its member unions pouring unprecedented resources into the general election campaign, the public ought to fear the legislative payback that would ensue if Obama were elected.

…The two largest union coalitions — the AFL-CIO and the “Change to Win” Federation, a coalition of the American labor unions formed in 2005 as an alternative to the AFL-CIO — have publicly admitted they will spend at least $300 million combined on federal elections alone. When combined with political action committees and local unions and other union funders, at least $1 billion of union money (mostly in forced union dues coerced from workers as a job condition) is being dumped into electioneering.

And, looking back on the Obama Presidency, in 2011, it certainly appears that Big Labor got its money’s worth.

The term carpetbaggers was used in the South after the Civil War to describe Northerners who came to the South during Reconstruction to make money off of the defeated and disadvantaged populace.

Southerners regarded them as interlopers who were just passing through because of the carpetbags in which they carried their possessions (hence the name carpetbaggers).

The majority of the carpetbaggers planned on settling down in the South and taking advantage of the war-ravaged South and the commercial opportunities that itsa Reconstruction offered.

History has made the term carpetbagger synonymous with corruption in political affairs.

Unfortunately, America now has a new group of carpetbaggers profiting from our national misery.

For example, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) increased her net worth by 62 percent last year, basking in the glow of her status as one of Congress’ wealthiest members.

According to a financial disclosure report released Wednesday, the former Majority Leader (Thank you, Lord) was worth at least $35.2 million in 2010. She publically claimed at least $43.4 million in assets and around $8.2 milion in liabilities.

In 2009, Pelosi’s minimum net worth was $21.7 million.

Forms disclosing the assets and liabilities of lawmakers for the 2010 calendar year were released Wednesday. The forms give a good estimate of lawmaker wealth, though they show ranges and not precise values for stocks, pension plans, vacation homes and other assets of lawmakers.

Pelosi’s enormous gain in personal riches was due to some stock gains and real estate investments made by her husband, Paul.

Paul Pelosi’s acquired stock in Apple Corporation rose from at around $500,000 in 2009 to $1 million in 2010. And, if that’s not enough, Nancy’s main squeeze’s investment in Matthews International Capital Management was worth at least $5 million last year, as compared to $1 million in 2009.

Paul Pelosi also scored big with his investment in some undeveloped residential real estate in Sacramento, Calif., which rose to at least $5 million in value.

And, just for fun, Paul Pelosi also dabbles in the United Football League, holding a $1 million partnership interest in the Jacksonville, Fla., franchise and a $5 million partnership interest in the Sacramento Lions.

However, San Fran Nan is not the only one who doesn’t have to worry about getting a new job when they lose this one.  On August 31, 2010, foxnews.com published the following list of the Top 10 Wealthiest members of Congress, which includes 7 Democrats (8, if you include Pelosi) and 3 Republicans:

1. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.): $188.6 million

2. Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.): $160.1 million

3. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.): $152.3 million

4. Sen. Jay Rockefeller ( D-W.Va.): $83.7 million

5. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas): $73.8 million

6. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.); $70.2 million

7. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.): $56.5 million

8. Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.): $53.5 million

9. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.): $49.7 million

10. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.): $46.1 million

And, while, our erstwhile public servants were lining their pockets, washington times.com reported, as of April 13, 2010, that:

Real personal income for Americans – excluding government payouts such as Social Security – has fallen by 3.2 percent since President Obama took office in January 2009, according to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.

For comparison, real personal income during the first 15 months in office for President George W. Bush, who inherited a milder recession from his predecessor, dropped 0.4 percent. Income excluding government payouts increased 12.7 percent during Mr. Bush’s eight years in office.

“This is hardly surprising,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economist and former director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. “Under President Obama, only federal spending is going up; jobs, business startups, and incomes are all down. It is proof that the government can’t spend its way to prosperity.”

According to the bureau’s statistics, per capita income dropped during 2009 in 47 states, with only modest gains in the other states, West Virginia, Maine and Maryland. But most of those increases were attributed to rising income from the government, such as Medicare and unemployment benefits.

With America in such a horrible economic recession last year, what did Congress spend our money on? On October 13, 2010 wsj.com reported the following:

Spending rolled in for the year that ended September 30 at $3.45 trillion, second only to 2009’s $3.52 trillion in the record books. But don’t think this means Washington was relatively less spendthrift. CBO reports that the modest overall spending decline results from three one-time events.

The costs of TARP declined by $262 billion from 2009 as banks repaid their bailout cash, payments to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were $51 billion lower (though still a $40 billion net loser for the taxpayer), and deposit insurance payments fell by $55 billion year over year. “Excluding those three programs, spending rose by about 9 percent in 2010, somewhat faster than in recent years,” CBO says.

Somewhat faster. You’ve got to laugh, or cry, when a 9% annual increase qualifies as only “somewhat faster” than normal.

What did Washington spend more money on? Well, despite two wars, defense spending rose by 4.7% to $667 billion, down from an annual average increase of 8% from 2005 to 2009.

Once again domestic accounts far and away led the increases. Medicaid rose by 8.7%, and unemployment benefits by an astonishing 34.3%—to $160 billion. The costs of jobless insurance have tripled in two years. CBO adds that if you take out the savings for deposit insurance, funding for all “other activities” of government—education, transportation, foreign aid, housing, and so on—rose by 13% in 2010.

Don’t get me wrong.  I am a Capitalist.  However, in the following Congressional Oath of Office, I don’t see a Growth of Personal Wealth Clause, do you?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter:  So help me God.

Perhaps, especially for our Democrat Congresscritters, we should add the following phrase to the end of the oath:

Now…Show me the money!