In response to an independent group running an ad in southern Indiana pointing out that Baron Hill has voted for legislation that will cut some $400 billion dollars in funding from Medicare, Baron decided it would be prudent for his office to put forward a statement.

This statement consists, essentially, of Baron claiming that the ad is untrue, citing someone that says it is untrue, and then launching into a bunch of talking points about how great the Pelosi health care bill really is.

But typical for Baron, the statement is itself a distortion. For example, Baron cites FactCheck.org as saying that the legislation does not cut Medicare. He even provides a quote from them to back it up.

The problem is that the quote is taken out of context. In multiple articles, FactCheck.org confirms that the legislation will indeed cut Medicare (though they frequently quibble with the amount of those cuts).

Baron’s quote is taken from this FactCheck.org article. That article doesn’t say that there won’t be cuts in Medicare. It disagrees about the scope of the cuts, calling one characterization of the size of those cuts “simply rubbish” (the quote that Baron uses). At the same time, the article itself confirms that the legislation will cause Medicare cuts.

In fact, this is not the only FactCheck.org article that notes that the legislation Baron voted for will cause cuts to Medicare. This article says the same thing. Though (again) it disagrees with the scope of the cuts in question, it agrees that there will indeed be cuts in Medicare under the legislation that Baron voted for.

On top of FactCheck.org actually confirming the cuts to Medicare that Baron says they are calling “simply rubbish,” other reputable sources have also recently noted that there will be cuts to Medicare.

Example in point, the nonpartisan Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (a government agency tasked with oversight of those programs), as reported in the Washington Post:

Read more after the leap

And in which Baron Hill denounces the girl that asked him a question about his taping policy as “his political enemy.”

It’s a sad state of affairs when a United States Congressman views students wanting to get good grades on projects as his political enemies. But then, it’s also a sad state of affairs that a United States Congressman would view the office he holds as belonging to him and not the people, and it’s dismaying when that Congressman views the town halls he holds as being his rather than the people of the district, let alone have this backward taping policy.

As I’ve noted before, this coverage has been long in coming; you still won’t find a single mention of this video in the many IDEA-aligned local newspapers within the district itself (IDEA being the Indiana Democratic Editorial Association), unless (as–credit where due–the Corydon Democrat did) it gets mention in the letters section.

The CJ tracked down the young lady that asked the question, and reported on the exact circumstances of her involvement. Surprise, surprise, what they reported is not the story that Baron’s staff have claimed–and Baron himself have claimed–for the past few weeks after the video went viral.

What? Baron lie? Surely not.

The story, which featured on the front page of the Indiana edition of today’s Courier-Journal:

(Read more after the leap)

Something that I’ve been talking about since Baron got returned to Congress in 2006 (which was followed by a mention in a column by Robert Novak) is starting to get noticed in Kentucky (in part because of a post I did here).

From David Hawpe, a columnist in the Courier-Journal:

Across the river, Rep. Baron Hill is quietly going about the business of considering a run for the governorship of Indiana.

OK, this is an old story. Back in 2003, Business First reported that Hill had decided against running, although he “reportedly had been considering” a try for the position then held by the late Gov. Frank O’Bannon.

In 2007, the Evans-Novak Political Report said that Hill “may actually be preparing” for a run against Gov. Mitch Daniels. ENPR added, “The equation is simple: a weakened Republican governor in a mostly conservative state, with no other obviously strong Democratic candidates in the wings …” But it didn’t happen.

This month the blog “Hoosier Access” reports, “The 3rd District Democratic Central Committee will host its annual dinner April 25 at Eagle Glen in Columbia City. Rep. Baron Hill, D-9th, will serve as the keynote speaker for the event.” And the headline explains, “Baron Hill’s 2012 gubernatorial campaign getting started early.”

From time to time, I have thought about suggesting that Hill — a bright and capable person, always pleasant, and never in danger of being scolded by Miss Manners — consider John F. Kennedy’s Profiles in Courage for bedtime reading.

Boy, I never thought that I’d see Baron Hill and courage in the same sentence, let alone Baron Hill and Miss Manners. David Hawpe should go to some of the same Baron town halls that I’ve been to (here, here, here, here, here, or here; or just listen to the recordings of them on YouTube).

Hill is the kind of fellow who stays up nights worrying about the imposition of tough fuel efficiency standards, lest the relatively few auto workers in his district (some work at Honda in Greensburg and some at Ford in Louisville) take notice. He had a tough time with cigarette regulation, despite the small number of tobacco farmers in his constituency. (He ended up doing the right thing).

If doing the right thing is gutting CAFE standards to make the increases in them worthless and less significant than they could have been, then Baron Hill did the right thing.

If jacking up taxes on tobacco to hurt the working class folks who predominantly will end up paying those taxes, then Baron Hill did the right thing.

Now he is the swing vote as the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee gets ready to take up the Waxman-Markey bill that would put a cap on carbon pollution. He’s one of a handful who are “undecided” on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. Advocates say it offers a plan to break the country’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil and create new jobs for American workers.

The Environmental Defense Fund says response to the proposal has been positive nearly across the board. EDF says the sponsors have won praise from House colleagues, from business in every economic sector, from the environmental community and from the Obama administration: “They focused on exactly the right issues to quickly build consensus.”

The Department of Energy estimates a carbon cap of this kind would cost the average American household about a dime a day on their utility bills. But Hill is part of the Midwest heartland where coal-fired power plants are the rule.

The “Solve Climate” blog called the 648-page Waxman-Markey proposal a blueprint from Democratic lawmakers: “a brilliantly centrist bill that moves forward while pulling in opposite directions — designed out-of-the-gate to attract the needed votes of heartland lawmakers. That’s why the right wants it destroyed and the left wants it strengthened.”

So there you are, Baron. I’m sure you’ve already checked on the number of Hoosier coal miners in your district and the number of Hoosier coal-fired power plant projects pending. Now put those 648 pages on your bedside table next to Profiles in Courage and start studying.

It will be interesting indeed to see where Baron Hill will stand on cap-and-trade and the gigantic tax increase it will represent to average Americans (to say nothing of the harm it will do to coal miners and coal power plants in southern Indiana).

Also, Hawpe appears to be urging Baron Hill to read the legislation, which has resulted in some sort of incoherent blather from the Clark County Democrats complaining about Hawpe daring to suggest that Baron Hill… doesn’t read the legislation he votes on, or something.

Not that Baron read the pork-stuffed, budget-busting, deficit-expanding “stimulus” bill before he voted for it (and it wasn’t popular in his hometown), but I digress.

Seems after a certain smarta** blogger infiltrated the Baron’s town hall meeting in Seymour with a “media credential” and a tape recorder and posted it for all to hear, the Baron’s campaign has been in a tizzy over who gets to record the Congressman’s comments. At first it was “credentialed media” and now it’s “pre-registered media” – in other words – the left-wing MSM such as the Ryerson Rag and the Louisville C-J that isn’t afraid to line up and kiss the Baron’s ring.

Hoosier Access has brought you the saga of Indiana 9th District State GOP Chairman Larry Shickles and his request to have lie detectors at the Jasper debate. The latest is allowing the use of voice analysis. Now the Baron, using his court jester Dean Alan Johnson of Vincennes University, has pulled the plug and decided that, once again, his loyal MSM subjects shall be the only ones permitted to record the Baron’s likeness and voice.

(More after the leap)

As I noted on Sunday, the gloves have come off. Mike Sodrel’s surge in recent polling has terrified Baron Hill and his liberal allies in Washington, and has spurred them to return to the same old negative campaigning we saw in 2006.

Mike Sodrel, as I noted before, made a proposal to avoid such unpleasantness, but was rudely rebuffed by Baron Hill. A positive campaign wouldn’t suit Baron it seems; he says that negative ads work.

Following their opening salvo of negative mail containing lies about the Fair Tax, Baron’s allies in the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have put forward this ad:

Let’s fact check this, shall we?

(Read more after the leap)

 Baron’s been exceptionally transparent with his phony pandering of late, and the Indiana Daily Student calls him on it:

Lately, Baron Hill has been looking more like a populist than an economist. This was evident in his support of the Commodity Markets Transparency and Accounting Act, which recently passed through the U.S. House of Representatives.

The bill is supposed to increase regulation on oil speculators and lower the price of gasoline. The problem is that speculators aren’t to blame for the dramatic rise in oil and gas prices.

Hill would have us believe that this bill will significantly lower the price of oil, but almost any economist would disagree.

(Read more after the leap)

At a recent town hall meeting, Baron Hill proclaimed repeatedly his support for oil drilling:

Baron’s conversion did not exactly happen on the road to Damascus and it is not very believable. Once again, his assertions here in Indiana do not match his voting record in Washington.

(Read more after the leap)

For the first six years that he was in Congress, the Republican majority effectively allowed Baron Hill to hide his liberal policy views from Hoosiers.

For the fourteen years they controlled Congress, the Republicans never once raised taxes, so the only votes Baron Hill had to cast were in opposition to tax cuts.

And, make no mistake, Baron Hill voted plenty of times in opposition to keeping taxes low or to lowering them further.

In 2001, he voted twice (here and here) against the tax cuts passed in 2001 (and also against making them permanent).

As early as 1999, Baron Hill voted twice against (here and here) the Financial Freedom Act of 1999, which included (PDF warning) a 10% across-the-board cut in income tax rates, the abolition of the Alternative Minimum Tax, lower the marriage penalty in the tax code, cut capital gains taxes, abolish the Death Tax, and a 100% tax deduction for personal (non-employer-provided) health insurance costs. The bill also expanded Medical Savings Accounts, included deductions for long-term care insurance, and a deduction for anyone having to take care of an elderly family member.

Remember all of those health care tax deductions the next time that you hear Baron Hill talking about how he wants to help Hoosiers pay for the rising costs of health care. Nine years ago, when costs were much less, he could have voted to help keep them low. He didn’t.

(Read more after the leap)

The News & Tribune has an article about Baron Hill’s efforts to close the so-called speculator loophole:

Rep. Baron Hill, D-Ind., plans on pushing stricter regulations for oil speculators when Congress reconvenes in September.

The idea of cracking down on oil speculators may sound like “Washington speak,” but the congressman feels it could result in lowering prices at the pump for the short-term, said Katie Moreau, communications director for Hoosiers for Hill, his campaign organization.

“What Baron wants to see happen is his bill enacted to put back regulations that were taken out in 2000,” Moreau said.

The basis of a measure Hill is pushing — which Moreau said will be supported by several other Congress members and will be presented to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi next month — is that speculators are artificially driving up the price of oil based on a presumed shortage.

As I have already noted in extensive posts, this is a crock.

(Read more after the leap)

It’s before Labor Day, and Baron Hill has his first campaign ad of the season out. I saw it twice last night on Fox News (which is pretty surprising in and of itself).

Let’s just say that the ad, while ostensibly positive, is about as disingenuous as any run in the 9th District in any prior race.

First of all, let me say that Baron has a remarkably empty and uncluttered desk for a member of Congress who has supposedly been so busy for the past 19 or so months.

Transcript:

(Read more after the leap)

As blogger, and contributor to Hoosier Access, Scott Tibbs has already noted, Baron Hill doesn’t have much of a problem with Barack Obama or the Obamassiah’s extremely radical position in favor of leaving babies that survive botched abortions to die.

Baron was on WGCL in Bloomington on August 8, and Scott called in to ask him about this position. Baron took exception to being criticized for his endorsement of Barack Obama:

Now that endorsement was also made in the face of the clear support of establishment and rank-and-file Democrats in the 9th District for Hillary Clinton.

(Read more after the leap)

Over the weekend, I blogged about Baron’s new-found opposition to oil price speculators.

Baron now says that there is a loophole in the law that needs to be closed, and this loophole is responsible for the rise in gas prices since Baron was elected (up about 75% as of this posting).

Baron, of course, promised when he ran in 2006 that he would reduce gas prices if sent back to Congress, something that quite clearly has not happened.

In fact, Baron has said that anyone that points out his campaign promise to lower gas prices is an “adversary.”

But anyway, I noted that such opposition to oil speculators was interesting, given that the speculator legislation Baron now denounces came before a committee Baron Hill sat on, and Baron voted for the legislation that created the very speculator loophole he now says he wants to close.

The creation of this loophole was sought by now-defunct energy giant Enron; heck, the loophole itself is frequently dubbed the “Enron loophole” for just that reason.

It turns out, after a bit of digging, that Enron was a contributor to Baron Hill’s reelection campaign.

(Read  more after the leap)