Earlier this month, Baron Hill cheered the passage of PAYGO rules by Congress.

What Baron didn’t mention was that the approval of these so-called “Pay As You GO” rules was accompanied by a record increase in the Federal debt ceiling to accomodate the vast new deficits created by the spending that has been advocated by Obama and voted for by Baron Hill.

This hypocrisy was not lost on ABC News:

President Obama used his weekly address to highlight the “pay-as-you-go” rule he signed into law Friday – within the bill which also raises federal debt limit to $14.3 trillion — a number which Obama does not mention once during his address.

Such interesting contradictions, such as voting simultaneously to skyrocket the debt ceiling while passing phony deficit reduction fig leaves, reminds me of the entertaining confession of Saint Augustine: “Lord make me good, but not yet.”

Of course, the problem with PAYGO is that there is no becoming good later, because PAYGO is a scam. It’s a hoax devised by budget-busting Blue Dog Democrats to try and hoodwink their constituents into believing that they actually care about the deficits they are voting to create.

What Baron can count on is that local newspapers, such as the News & Tribune, will parrot his press releases praising PAYGO without ever taking the time to investigate the facts about it. For example, the News & Tribune never mentioned that the PAYGO bill itself contained a provision that blew the roof off of the Federal debt ceiling.

On the subject of PAYGO, Citizens Against Government Waste notes just a few of its many problems and the hypocritical contradictions of so-called “Blue Dogs” like Baron Hill:

(Read more after the leap)

A letter in Sunday’s News & Tribune:

Resident unhappy with Hill’s votes

Dear Congressman Baron Hill,

I believe you could save the taxpayers a lot of money if you would just throw the Constitution in the trash, get rid of the House of Representatives, and Senate, with the exception of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and, of course, the president. They are making all the laws anyway.

That way we could save all your salaries, the salaries of your staffs, the expense of your offices, the expense of all those “fact-finding trips,” their travel to and from Washington, and the expense of upkeep of the Capitol. Perhaps, we could rent it to the Chinese. They will probably be looking for a large office building soon.

You may be able to see the sarcasm in the above statement. I believe in the Constitution, even if you, as my elected representative, don’t.

As I understand that document, you are to represent your constituents, not your leaders. According to the polls, 61 percent of us are against the health care bill. That doesn’t seem to affect you in your vote.

You call yourself a Blue Dog Democrat. Your record doesn’t support that. I cannot vouch for all bills, but lately you have voted right down the line with Pelosi.

The so-called “stimulus bills” have failed, I feel, and now I am hearing that the president wants another one. I have always heard that, “an idiot is one who keeps doing the same thing and expects a different outcome.”

I wish you would take a page from the Democrat’s hero playbook — President Kennedy — and reduce taxes to the people that do the hiring, putting people to work.

Tax revenues go up and we will surely need to have more tax money to pay for all the free money you have given out. This has worked every time it has been tried, so we shouldn’t get a different result.

— Gordon McCall, Charlestown

Exactly. It’s like I said earlier:

Baron is always there when Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi need him.

When the vote margins on the Obama-Pelosi agenda are close or when the issue is important to them, Baron is there.

When they don’t need him or when the issue is minor, Baron makes a big phony celebration of being “independent.”

When Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi needed his vote for the $787 billion “stimulus” boondoggle, Baron was there.

When Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi needed his vote to raise taxes on working Americans, Baron was there.

When crooked Congressman Charlie Rangel needed Democrats to vote to cover up his corruption, Baron was there.

When Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi needed his vote for cap-and-trade to strangle Hoosier jobs, Baron was there.

When Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi needed his vote for a government takeover of health care paid for by slashing Medicare, Baron was there.

When they need him, Baron is always there.

Show me one place where Baron voted against something on final passage that Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi wanted when what they wanted didn’t pass anyway, and it will be the first.

It’s true. Ben Nelson sold out the pro-life movement with his decision to vote for cloture on ObamaCare.

But Nelson, inarguably, got something for his state in exchange.

From the Washington Post:

Nelson secured full federal funding for his state to expand Medicaid coverage to all individuals below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Other states must pay a small portion of the additional cost. He won concessions for qualifying nonprofit insurers and for Medigap providers from a new insurance tax, and was able to roll back cuts to health savings accounts.

A dirty secret of Harry Reid’s latest legislative Frankenstein is that it will push the costs of increases in Medicaid off onto the states.

Ben Nelson, at least, sold his vote in exchange for making the other 49 states pay for the cost increases in Nebraska, instead of Nebraska’s state budget having to pay for it.

What did Evan Bayh sell his vote for? Do Hoosiers, facing a huge budget shortfall as we do, get a similar exemption?

And if we don’t, why isn’t Evan Bayh threatening to kill ObamaCare to get similar special treatment for Indiana?

Why would Evan Bayh vote for legislation that will crush Indiana’s budget but give a free pass to Nebraska (and, in fact, make Hoosiers pay for Nebraska’s free pass)?

Why not be as ornery and contrary as Nelson and, at least, get a free pass for Hoosiers, too?

Why does Evan Bayh value Nebraskans over Hoosiers?

Roll call vote is here.

Baron’s statement is here.

Donnelly’s statement is here.

Ellsworth, as of this posting, is hiding (probably still begging Right-to-Life to leave him alone) and hasn’t put a statement out yet.

Poor Baron. He realized too late that he’s probably about to have an opponent capable of holding him accountable for his liberal votes. He hasn’t had that so far.

Accountability’s coming, Baron, and it’s driving a semi truck.

On Friday, the Howey Political Report carried an item saying that State Rep. Vernon Smith (D-Gary is trying to instigate a class-action lawsuit against the state by urban school districts around the state.   According to Rep. Smith, urban schools were treated unfairly in the two-year budget passed back in June, and they have been treated wrongly by the state for several years now.   The problems these districts face, ranging from dilapidated school buildings to overcrowded classrooms and tight budgets (Memo to the Rep: everyone is facing a tight budget), are allegedly the fault of state government.  Apparently, we are not to remind ourselves that local taxes pay for the majority of school costs and that when a tax base leaves a city due to poor government policies, the amount of revenue coming in to pay for a school system declines.  Budget shortfalls, spending cuts, and other tough choices then result for the local school district.
(Story continues below the fold)

This cartoon was published in the Chicago Tribune in 1934. Wow. The more things “hope” to “change”, the more they stay the same. Substitute the present day Chinese leader for Stalin. Put in Reid and Pelosi in the wagon and it’s just as valid today as it was in 1934.

(H/T Chicks on the Right)

The “stimulus” package was passed about 120 days ago.

Aren’t you glad we passed it?

Why, just look at how much it has reduced the unemployment rate from what was projected by Obama…

Fortunate we are to have acted so quickly, spent so much, and accomplished so little, no?

There are certain words that Speaker Pat “The Hair” Bauer couldn’t spell if his life depended on it; that’s one of them.

After having already destroyed the economy of Indonesia when he was just a wee lad–younger than he is now but still looking as young and inexperienced as he does now–Timothy Geithner has set his sights on destroying the American economy, too.

The Corner has this interesting tidbit about Timmy Terrific’s recent visit to China:

Do you remember how Obama was going to improve the United States’s image in the world? Well, he may or he may not (in a planet that is, and always wilI be, Hobbesian, I know what I’d guess, but it’s early days, I suppose), but as we wait to see how he does, it’s worth remembering that his domestic spending program is having international consequences…

Via the Daily Telegraph:

In his first official visit to China since becoming Treasury Secretary, Mr Geithner told politicians and academics in Beijing that he still supports a strong US dollar, and insisted that the trillions of dollars of Chinese investments would not be unduly damaged by the economic crisis. Speaking at Peking University, Mr Geithner said: “Chinese assets are very safe.”

The comment provoked loud laughter from the audience of students. There are growing fears over the size and sustainability of the US budget deficit, which is set to rise to almost 13pc of GDP this year as the world’s biggest economy fights off recession. The US is reliant on China to buy many of the government bonds it is planning to issue but Beijing’s policymakers have expressed concern about the strength of the dollar and the value of their investments.

Lest there be any doubt, those Chinese students are laughing “at” not “with.”

Timothy Geithner has a special place in his heart for reducing deficits, it must be said. After all, he helped increase the deficit by failing to pay his taxes.

With such a track record, and with Obama’s promises of yet more spending on top of his already huge mountain of deficit spending, no wonder the Chinese laughed at him to his face.

From the Campaign Spot:

I keep hearing people talk about the deficit that Obama inherited, but it’s nonsense. The accumulated deficit for the past three months amounts to 89 percent of the entire total for the last fiscal year. This includes April of this year, which is the month the government collects all those income-tax checks.

Even better, Obama’s deficits are getting so big that the United States government is in danger for the first time of losing its top-line bond rating, which means that interest on the debt will go sky-high.

According to this handy little chart, nothing:

From Ace:

Below, see in blue Obama’s own projections of unemployment — what he predicted unemployment would be with the Spendulous, and the higher unemployment he predicted we’d have without the Spendulous.

[The only thing added to the chart] was the red triangles indicating real-world unemployment rates in March and April.

That’s right — the unemployment numbers track exactly with Obama’s prediction of what would happen without his Spendulus.

So what has the Spendulus accomplished? According to Obama’s own predictions, nothing.

Isn’t that a comforting thought?

All of that spending (which we needed to hurry up and pass so that it wouldn’t be spent anyway) has accomplished nothing.

But all things just keep getting better.

The budget deficit will be a whopping 50% bigger this year than originally anticipated.

National Review provides perspective:

(More after the leap)

Watch for the morons in the national media to mindlessly tout the $17 billion in cuts line all day Thursday.

From ABC News:

On Thursday, the White House will unveil it’s budget for fiscal year 2010, and the White House says it will be a strong example of fiscal discipline.

Speaking on background, senior administration officials hailed the new $3.55 trillion budget as a “new foundation for broad and sustained economic growth,” saying, “the president has made clear that fiscal discipline is another pillar of the economic foundation that we want to build.”

The budget will show 121 terminations, reductions and savings for a total savings of $17 billion in 2010 — $11.5 billion from discretionary spending, the rest from the mandatory part of the budget. Roughly half of the savings come from defense budget, and the other half is non-defense related. The officials said that 80 of the programs that will face cuts are new and have not been previously discussed by the administration. The bulk of the defense cuts have already been announced by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

First of all, is anyone surprised that half of Obama’s supposed budget cuts come from the Department of Defense?

Second of all, I suppose this is a modest improvement on the original plan to cut a whopping hundred million dollars from the budget.

Or at least it would be an improvement, if there were any actual cuts taking place.

(Read more after the leap)