The Nuclear Option: Reid's Stupidity Will Come Back To Bite Him on the ...

On Thursday, Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader crossed the Rubicon.  His decision to invoke the "nuclear option" that limits the ability of the minority party to add amendments and force debate on any issue will come back to bite him on the ass. 
Why is this issue important?  Well, as the Washington Examiner editorial tells it,

For more than two centuries, the U.S. Senate has been known as the world's greatest deliberative body because of its rule ensuring the right of every senator to force consideration of, and a recorded vote on, any issue. The rule made the Senate unique as the world's only legislative entity in which the rights of majorities and minorities were equally protected. But 221 years of tradition and majestic debate mean nothing to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who, for no better reason than avoiding an embarrassing vote, used procedural legerdemain to obliterate minority rights in the upper chamber.

In 2012, the Democratic Party will have to defend 23 seats in the US Senate that are up for reelection, versus 10 for the GOP. 13 of those seats could very easily be won by the GOP as the current incumbents are facing stiff challenges or are unpopular in thier states. By attempting to save senators who are at risk from a vote that would hinder their relection chances, he is guaranteeing that the "nuclear option" will be used by the GOP once they almost certainly regain control of the US Senate in 2013.

The mere threat of the use of this "option" in 2005, during the Bush administration sent Democratic Senators and their MSM enablers into screaming fits...but it was done in relative silence last week.  The GOP declined to use it because they understood that "what goes around, comes around," and doing so would irrevocably damage the legislative system of the Senate.  But, after the shenanigans during the passage of ObamaCare, where in both the House and Senate, the Democratic majority trampled on the democratic process, hiding behind closed doors to lock out the GOP, Reid has shown he doesn't care about minority party rights, just about his party's agenda. 

This will come back to haunt in 17 months when it bites him on the ass...

Obama's Low Poll Numbers: Congress' Fault

This is a man who refuses to take responsibility for anything he does.  It was Bush's fault that he entered office on a recession...now it's Congress' fault he has very low approval ratings.  In an interview with a friendly CBS reporter in his lavish Martha's Vinyard digs Mr. Obama is quoted as saying {emphasis is mine}

President Barack Obama says his low approval rating is a reflection of public unhappiness with Congress.  Obama tells CBS in an interview broadcast Sunday that he's "impacted," just like Congress, when people aren't happy with Washington. He says he understands that his arguments that the country would have been worse off if he hadn't taken certain actions don't resonate with the millions of unemployed people. The president, who's vacationing on Martha's Vineyard, Mass., says he expects to be judged in November 2012 on whether things have improved. Recent public opinion polls have shown Obama's job approval rating at near 40 percent, the lowest of his presidency.  Obama taped the CBS' `Sunday Morning" interview last Wednesday in Illinois at the end of a Midwest bus tour focused on the economy.

but of course, none of it is his fault...that in his first two years, with a Democratically controlled Congress, he signed legislation that was passed over the howling protests of millions of Americans, that has failed to do anthing about the 2007-10 recession, and that the vast increase in the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy that has greatly expanded the reach and scope of that bureaucracy, has had nothing to do with his current poll woes...nope, perish the thought.

Economic History 101: WaPo Blames Bush...again

The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this BULL. So once more, a short civics lesson

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for FY 2008 & FY 2009 as well as FY 2010 & FY 2011. (FY = fiscal year)

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi

& Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until

Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.  And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period: (below)

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, including Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

Submitted by a regular reader,  who asks to remain anonymous.

Democratic Control Of Congress

For the most part since 1932, the Democratic party has controled Congress.  Not just one house occasionally, but both, as well as the office of the Presidency.  From the comments section on "what the little people think" about the recent downgrading of US debt by S&P.  The article the comments come from is linked here.

Iceman, the Dems are not blind, or stupid. They just want job security: their own. Carville says in his book that the Dems will rule for 40 years. The Dems have been the dominant party since 1930. Here's some facts on that since 1930:

The Democrats controlled the House:
1930-46
1948-52
1954-94
2006-present
R-16 years, D=60 years

The Democrats controlled the Senate:

1932-46
1948-52
1954-80
1986-94
2000 (a week)
2001-02
2006-present
R-21 years, D=55 years

The Democrats controlled the Presidency
1932-52
1960-68
1976-80
1992-00
2008-present
R-36 years, D-40 years.

There has been Democratic control over both houses of Congress and the Presidency:

2008 to present
1992-94
1976-80
1960-68
1948-52
1932-46.
That is, 28 years in the lifetime of most Americans.

There has been Republican control over both houses of Congress and the Presidency:

1952-54
Jan. 20-June 6, 2001
2002-06.

See what I mean. And don't forget, Congress makes the budget, not the President. If it wasn't for Brown's election, followed by the November 2010's election, this Country would be closer to bankruptcy than it is now, the Constitution would be a memory, and our Democratic government would take care of everyone, via taxes, and the beginning of our new socialist form of living, like eastern Europe.
Don't think the Dems are blind, or stupid. They know what they're doing

What Democrats are truly afraid of is that "the little people" will finally figure out that the vast majority of US debt stems from Democratic party policies that were passed and larded upon through their control of Congress...and that they will be blamed, rightly, for what we are now going through.

After all, from January of 2007, when the Democratic Party took control of Congress, they passed the largest of "Bush's" deficit budgets ($400 billion dollars)...once Mr. Obama took over the White House,  the deficit spigot became gusher, and they have in the past several years added fully 1/3rd to the US debt...it's so bad, that in 2010, neither the House of Representatives, under Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) or the Senate under Harry Reid (D-UT) passed a budget bill, because they were terrified of what would happen to their rather slim majorities if they did...they're still playing politics...and We The People will end up paying for this.

Not So Social Security

I received this from one of my readers...and after I checked out the facts, decided to post it.

History Lesson on Your Social Security Card


Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids.They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican.  Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes.

Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message was removed.

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary, No longer Voluntary

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual  Incomes into the Program,Now 7.65% on the first $90,000

3.) That the money the participants ele cted to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,No longer tax deductible

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Under Clinton &Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following:
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.
----- ------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.  Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the R epublicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!  If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?  Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.

AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!

But, not to let the GOP off the hook, some Republicans voted for ALL OF THE ABOVE...and the GOP has never moved to eliminate the loop holes in the above.

This is why the American people have thrown you out of power.

Here is why the Democrats were thrown out of power a couple of weeks ago...and a clear abuse by the Left.



Via Instapundit and Jamiewearingfool

It's All Bush's Fault, Part 3

Let's think about just what Mr. Bush is at fault for.  He did push the toxic TARP legislation which was passed at the very end of his term...Mr. Obama hasn't allowed us to forget that pretty much was his fault.  It's been his mantra for two years now.  However, here's what Mr. Bush did right. 

We’ll undoubtedly be treated to more of the Bush blame game. Forget for a moment that Bush held average unemployment at 5.3%, saw the strongest productivity growth in four decades, and witnessed robust GDP growth. Set aside the fact that he oversaw this growth despite an inherited recession, 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Focus instead on the simple fact that the last budget that a Republican Congress had control over had a deficit of approximately $162 billion dollars — a large number to be sure, but not so large that the Democrats and our “progressive” president couldn’t expand it in under two years by nearly a factor of ten. Under the Obama administration and with the Democrats in complete and total control, we have record debt, record deficits, record unemployment, record underemployed, record foreclosures, record bankruptcies, and soon, record tax increases.

That bolded section is something to take a long hard look at.  The first budget passed by Congress after the Democrats took control in 2007, had a budget deficit of $462 billion dollars.  The first budget signed by Mr. Obama was $1.7 TRILLION DOLLARS!  More than 10 time that of Mr. Bush's last GOP Congress.  Last year's budget was $1.6 Trillion dollars...so in two years of complete Democratic control of both the legislative and executive branches of government they added $3.3 Trillion dollars to the debt...that leaves off the $1.3 Trillion dollars of the last budgetary year for Mr. Bush that was passed by Congress AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE and it was then signed by the newly sworn in President Obama...so just what has Mr. Bush wrought?

That's rather difficult to quantify, but with the plethora of these:

sprouting around the country, I'd have to say that he probably will fare far better through the lens of history than the current occupant of the White House will.  On the other hand, on January 1, 2011, the largest tax increase in history will go into effect.  Pretty much everyone's taxes will go up by 13%.  Some businesses will see a 28% increase while other only see a 23% increase.  Death taxes will double...and all sorts of fees, taxes, etc., will kick in under ObamaCare...no wonder business has been very nervous the past year or so.  They worry about just what it will cost them to hire each individual "new" employee...much less how much it will cost them to continue to employ "old" workers.

American's for Tax Reform has published this:

First Wave 

Bush Tax Cuts Expire. Congress didn’t even have the strength of character to stay and vote on extending the Bush tax cuts before running home to protect their professional political careers. These tax cuts all expire on January 1, 2011. Thereafter, the top income tax rate will rise from 35% to 39.6%, the same rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed. The lowest rate will rise from 10% to 15%. All the rates in between will also rise. Somewhere I seem to recall a promise about tax cuts for 95% of “working families.”

• Higher Taxes on Marriage and Family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) starting with the first dollar of individual income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.
• Death Tax Returns. 2010 is a great year to die; there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1, 2011, however, there is a 55% top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind a home and a 401k could easily pass along a death tax bill to their family.
• Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15% this year to 20% in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15% this year to 39.6% in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8% in 2013.

 The second wave — summarized by Joan Pryde, senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters — will follow closely on the heels of the first.

Second Wave

 

Obamacare will be the focus of congressional wrangling over the next two years, but it is unlikely to be repealed in that time. There are over 20 huge and completely new taxes contained within the new health care law which was hurried through Congress without being read and passed against the will of the American people. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011.

 

They include:

• The “Medicine Cabinet Tax.” Under Obamacare, the ability to use pre-tax dollars from health savings accounts, flexible spending accounts, or health reimbursement accounts to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicine will be a thing of the past.
• The “Special Needs” Kids’ Tax. There will be a new cap on flexible spending accounts of $2500 where there currently is no limit. This will hit parents of special needs children particularly hard. Tens of thousands of parents with special needs kids currently use FSAs to pay for their kids’ educations — which can add up to tens of thousands of dollars per year.
• The HAS Withdrawal Tax Hike. The health care bill Nancy Pelosi told us we’d have to pass to see what was in it increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from a health savings account from 10% to 20%, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10%.

The third wave will ensnare an additional 28 million Americans and countless small businesses.

 

Third Wave

• The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes. The AMT, which was originally intended simply to make sure that wealthy taxpayers didn’t use tax shelters and other tactics to avoid having to pay any taxes at all (a good start for an argument for a flat tax), affected nearly 4 million families last year. Starting in 2011, it will affect over 28 million families. According to the leftist Tax Policy Center, Congress’ ineptitude and failure to index the AMT will result in an explosion of AMT taxpaying families, each of which will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level.
• Small Business Expensing Is Slashed and 50% Expensing Disappears. Obama doesn’t understand that small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.” The effect is a huge tax and an additional expense to the businesses which create jobs.
• Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Slashed. The deduction for tuition and fees will no longer be available. Tax credits for education will be limited and teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut, as will employer-provided educational assistance. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.
• Charitable Contributions From IRAs Disappear. Under current law, an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity without penalty. This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.” Not any more, thanks to a compassionate and ultra-liberal Congress.
• The Health Care Tax That Wasn’t. Remember when your president told you straight-faced that when Americans are required to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty it wasn’t a tax? He lied. In defending the Obamacare mandate in court, Obama and his army of lawyers are now defending the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.” How’s that hope and change working out for everybody? I thought everybody making less that everybody making less than $250,000 per year wouldn’t see an increase in their taxes.

This is what we face in 2011...the largest tax increase in our history...and it's all Bush's fault, right?

Far Left Cheering Dem's Electing Pelosi Caucus Leader

Over at the Daily Beast, one of the few blogs that regularly presents articles from both sides of the political spectrum is a peice that lauds Heath Shuler's protest against reselecting Nancy Pelosi to lead the Democratic Party.  Here's a thread from the comments

Snidely70448
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barak Obama are the Judas Goats that led the Democratic Party to the slaughter. If the caucus wants to be anything but the party of limousine liberals, urban blacks and predatory unions, they will relegate Nancy Pelosi to the back bench where the electoral performance of the party in the 2010 elections show she belongs.

Flag It                              Permalink                                 Reply
(1) Show Replies

Collapse Replies7:32 am, Nov 17, 2010

AlanD2
Don't worry, Snidely. In 2013, Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker of the House again, and you can go back to complaining about her.

Flag It                                                                     Permalink
Reply   (3) Show Replies                                                    Collapse Replies11:16 am, Nov 17, 2010

AlanD2
Mattin, I have indeed said in a number of threads that while I was sure a lot of Democrats would lose, I didn't think Republicans would win the House or Senate.

I was half wrong - we lost the House. Happy now?

As for redistricting, I doubt it will be much worse than it was in 2000, when Republicans controlled a lot of states. And when Obama wins in 2012, his coattails will carry a lot of House seats for Democrats no matter how redistricting goes.

Flag It                                                                                Permalink7:45 pm, Nov 17, 2010

rvail136

Alan, it's not just loss of control of the house that is going to hurt the Dems for at least the next 10 years....it's the 680 state legislative seats and control of 22 MORE state legislatures, on top of the 29 governships they now have.

"Republicans now hold about 3,890, or 53 percent, of the total state legislative seats in America, the most seats in the GOP column since 1928. The GOP will now control at least 54 of the 99 state legislative chambers, its highest number since 1952. As a result, state legislatures will likely reflect a more conservative political agenda when they convene in 2011, NCSL reports.

"2010 will go down as a defining political election that will shape the national political landscape for at least the next 10 years," said Tim Storey, elections specialist with NCSL. "The GOP, in dramatic fashion, finds itself now in the best position for both congressional and state legislative line drawing than it has enjoyed in the modern era of redistricting.""

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2010/11/04/114611.htm

THAT is what Dems should be concerned about. They will control redistricting of not just the US House, but of their states legislative districts as well. Furthermore, in California, redistricting of state legislative/senate districts as well as US House districts has been taken away from the legislature and given by voters to an independent body...in order to eliminate gerrymandering. Think about that for a moment...thus have Nancey Pelosi, Barack Obama and Harry Reid have wrought.

Their far left agenda has driven the Democratic Party to a disaster worse than any other leadership has since 1928, yet 2 of those three were "reselected" by their legislative caucus (Obama's turn comes in 2012). Senator Evan Bayh wrote in the NYT just after the election:

Many of our problems were foreseeable. A public unhappy about the economy will take it out on the party in power, even if the problems began under previous management. What's more, when one party controls everything - the House, the Senate, the White House - disgruntled voters have only one target for their ire. And the president's party almost always loses seats in midterm elections...It is clear that Democrats over-interpreted our mandate. Talk of a "political realignment" and a "new progressive era" proved wishful thinking. Exit polls in 2008 showed that 22 percent of voters identified themselves as liberals, 32 percent as conservatives and 44 percent as moderates. An electorate that is 76 percent moderate to conservative was not crying out for a move to the left...We also overreached by focusing on health care rather than job creation during a severe recession. It was a noble aspiration, but $1 trillion in new spending and a major entitlement expansion are best attempted when the Treasury is flush and the economy strong, hardly our situation today. "

http://thevailspot.blogspot.com/2010/11/election-was-referendum-on-democrat%20s.html

Your party is more cohesive, because every one of the moderates who voted for the party line...were defeated and kicked to the curb by their constituents. Those who bucked, and voted against Cap & Trade, The Porkulus and ObamaCare, survived. Think about that for a moment. The democratic party that is now represented in Congres is going to be at least 63 seats smaller than is was a few weeks ago. With redistricting coming in this year, it will likely lose at least another 20 seats in 2012. By following an agenda that has been roundly rejected by a strong majority of voters, and promising to continue pressing that agenda, how on earth, other than living in a fantasy eduring, echo chamber can you see a recovery in only 2 years? I can't see how that could possibly happen.

You can't depend upon the opposition to FUBAR (though, I wouldn't put it past the GOP to do just that). If they even stick to half of their party's principles, the Democratic party will be in the wilderness for at least a decade. The Democratic leadership in the House, Senate and White House vastly over-reached and led the party off the cliff...we can't get rid of Obama (impeachment would be stupid in the extreme), but reselecting both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to lead in Congress was stupid in the extreme.

For the first time in our history, the party leaders who lead their party to election disasters have been retained in their leadership roles. This basically says that their party's representatives want more of the same, even when a large majority of the country's voters have said...NO!

I'm not a Democrat, nor am I a Republican any more...but having 2 relatively strong parties vie-ing (spell?) one against the other has done well for our country for well over 200 years. I would hate to see that balance upset by stupidity of one party or the other. We as a nation don't do well, when one party gains too much power over the other. We prefer bi-partisanship when ever possible. The past 2 years of Democratic control tossed that out the winder. The GOP was never given the opportunity of particiapate...because "We Won" attitude became pervasive in Dem circles in 2009...now the party, and the country will pay for that stupidity.

Think about it, ObamaCare passed through both houses of Congress without one single vote of the party in opposition. When you look at the major social legislation in history, every singe one was passed with affirmation by the minority party...the Voter's Rights act of 1964, the vote cast that passed it was by a GOP Senator...same with much of the agenda of Lyndon Johnson...but the current leadership chose to pursue a straight, one party agenda. That, and that alone is what cost the Dem's control of so many seats in not just Congress but, "3,890, or 53 percent, of the total state legislative seats in America..." http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2010/11/04/114611.htm#ixzz15d YVndxj

It's time to wake up and realize that this country isn't a left/right...but more of a centre/right country and a straight liberal agenda will be soundly defeated at the polls. Instead of trying to "Get it all NOW"...a more incremental agenda, one that's been followed for more than 80 years has a better chance of success. But Nancy, Harry and Barack have forgotten that in their hubris of the 2008 election. Now at least 63 (3 more races are pending, with the GOP contender leading) have paid the price...one that will be continued to be paid for at least 10 more years.

Rich Vail
Pikesville, MD
The Vail Spot                  Flag It        Permalink7:40 am, Nov 18, 2010

The rest of the thread is pretty much an echo chamber where Nancy is lauded for all "of her accomplishments...leading the country off the cliff.

Mad Duck Session

I expect that we'll see in the rump session of Congress, an attempt by Mr. Reid and Mrs. Pelosi to push through all those agenda items that they refused to see to prior to the election, rightly thinking that this would further inflame voters.  After all, with the loss of 60 seats, many of them committee chairmen and thus senior members of the Democratic leadership, the party thinks that it has nothing to lose...

 I expect to see "Cap & Trade" pushed through the Senate, as well a "Card Check" and a few other sundry items that Democratic constiuencies have been pining for for decaes.  This "Mad Duck" session will only make the election of 2012 much, much worse for the Democratic Party...voters have much longer memory than we did just a few years ago...

Debt Has Increased $5 Trillion Dollars Since Mrs. Pelosi Took Control Of The House

Since 2007, when Nancy Pelosi declared that there would be no new deficit spending, the United States Debt has added $5,000,000,000,000.00...that's a hell of a lot of money passed through the Democratically controlled Congress...

When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave her inaugural address as speaker of the House in 2007, she vowed there would be “no new deficit spending.” Since that day, the national debt has increased by $5 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.


"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,” Pelosi said in her speech from the speaker’s podium. “Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."

Pelosi has served as speaker in the 110th and 111th Congresses.

At the close of business on Jan. 4, 2007, Pelosi’s first day as speaker, the national debt was $8,670,596,242,973.04 (8.67 trillion), according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. At the close of business on Oct. 22, it stood at $13,667,983,325,978.31 (13.67 trillion), an increase of 4,997,387,083,005.27 (or approximately $5 trillion).

Pelosi, the 60th speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has added more to the national debt than the first 57 House speakers combined.

The $4.997-trillion increase in the national debt since she took the gavel is more debt than the federal government amassed from the speakership of Rep. Frederick Muhlenberg of Pennsylvania, who became the first speaker of the House on April 1, 1789, to the start of the speakership of Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, the 58th speaker, who took up the gavel on Jan. 4, 1995...[emphasis is mine, ed.]

Now, the GOP has one last opportunity to walk the walk, not just talk the talk that they forgot from 2002-2006...if they don't the Republican Party is finished...and so is the United States, because we will have not walked off the cliff, we will have jumped off of it.