By Diane Cohen

Goldwater Institute

In an extraordinary move, an expert in President Obama’s administration has challenged the federal health care law’s mandate to arbitrarily reduce funding for Medicare under as “unsustainable,” “unworkable,” and likely to block some people from seeing their doctors.

Richard Foster serves as chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal agency that administers Medicare coverage, and his job is to predict future health care costs. His office wrote a memo in August 2010 that objects to key estimates in the annual report about the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Trustees of those two funds are also Obama administration officials, led by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathryn Sebelius.

The trustees’ annual report claims the federal health care bill “improves the financial outlook for Medicare substantially.” But Mr. Foster’s staff strongly disputed that, writing that the report’s projections “do not represent the ‘best estimate’ of actual future Medicare spending.” Even worse, people with Medicare coverage will “almost certainly face increasing severe problems with access to care,” the memo says.

The memo also pointed out the annual report doesn’t consider that required spending cuts for Medicare could stop people who do see their doctors from getting the best possible health care, which could result in more patients falling ill or dying early.

Notably, the chief actuary must predict future growth in Medicare enrollment and spending each year, and give that information to a new federal agency created by health care reform called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). That board will have virtually unchecked power to adopt laws setting prices and payments for nearly all medical services.

The Goldwater Institute has identified IPAB as a critical reason why the federal health care bill is unconstitutional and must be struck down. Otherwise, as the chief actuary’s office has predicted, the mandated changes to Medicare likely will result in poorer health care for more people.

Diane Cohen is an attorney with the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

With the confidence of knowing he continues to fight the good fight, his devotion to service before self, and the overwhelming support he receives from Arizona voters…John McCain is the obvious choice to continue and represent Arizona in the US Senate. 

While in Congress, JD Hayworth sent out a press release bragging about his ability to bring home the bacon!  And boy did he…to the tune of over $445,000,000. Yep, that is millions.  This must have been before “the scales were removed from his eyes” allowing him to see the true effects of wasteful Washington spending and to become a consistent conservative.

July 29, 2005

Hayworth District’s Transportation Priorities Big Winners In Latest

Authorization Bill

Congressman Steers ‘Earmarked’ Funds Back Home To AZ 

• $3.2 million project from 40th Street to Baseline in Maricopa County; for the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of an I-10 widening 
• $2.4 million for the design and construction of the Rio Salado Pedestrian Bridge in Tempe;
• $2.09 million the new ASU Scottsdale Center for New Technology and Innovation at the intersection of Scottsdale and McDowell roads; to plan design and construct a transit passenger center in Scottsdale to serve
• $5.4 million over four years to construct the East Valley Metro Bus facility in Tempe; and
• $434.4 million through 2009 for the Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail Transit Project

Among the pork” projects…a bridge to go over the now dry Tempe Town Lake:

 The Town Lake Pedestrian Bridge will connect existing bike and pedestrian paths on the north and south sides of Tempe Town Lake, allowing those who continue on the north bank to access the Indian Bend Wash without having to interface with motor vehicles. Those who cross from north to south will be able to link with the Mill Avenue District. This bridge will create a much safer transportation route for runners, walkers, bicyclists and those who use wheelchairs.” (City of Tempe Website, www.tempe.gov, Accessed 5/6/10)

After funds for the bridge were approved in the 2005 Transportation Reauthorization Bill, “The Bridge” was derided as wasteful pork barrel spending, and even compared to the infamous “Bridge To Nowhere”.  It got plenty of attention, not so good attention.

The Arizona Republic’s Robert Robb Asked, “Why, Pray Tell, Is It A Federal Responsibility To Build … A Footbridge To Connect Trails Across The Western Bank Of Tempe Town Lake?” “There’s a tradition of pointing to the earmarks in other states as pork. But the real issue isn’t pork. It’s the federal government doing something that should be a state or local responsibility. And you don’t have to look beyond the borders of Arizona for a multitude of examples. Why, pray tell, is it a federal responsibility to build a bicycle-pedestrian bridge at McDowell Road and 35th Avenue in Phoenix, or a footbridge to connect trails across the western bank of Tempe Town Lake?” (Robert Robb, “Republicans Snap Open Taxpayer Wallets Again,” The Arizona Republic, 8/5/05)

In 2008, The East Valley Tribune Editorialized That …Tempe Should Reject Federal Funding For The Bridge, Comparing It To The Infamous “Bridge To Nowhere” In Alaska. “Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is now well-known for having once supported what has been called the ‘bridge to nowhere,’ a $400 million proposal for a structure that, if Congress had funded it, would have given about 50 Alaskans on one island road access to a more populated one that is currently reached by a short ferry ride. In the face of this, Tempe city officials might be persuaded to do, regarding a bridge of their own, a similar about-face to the one the Republican vice-presidential nominee did.” (Editorial, “Tempe Should Take A Pass On Bridge Funds,” East Valley Tribune, 9/14/08

The East Valley Tribune’s Le Templar Pointed Out That While The “Bridge To Nowhere” Was Costlier Than The Tempe Bridge, “The Principle Is The Same.” “The Tribune Editorial Board noted today an interesting parallel between the Alaskan issue and a proposed pedestrian bridge over Tempe Town Lake that will be funded mostly from federal dollars set aside in highway funding bills. The scale of the two projects certainly were different ($400 million for the Ketchikan bridge vs. $5.7 million for the Tempe bridge). But the principle is the same, isn’t it?” (Le Templar, “Will Hallman Say ‘No Thanks’ To Tempe Bridge?,” East Valley Tribune (Blog), 9/15/08)

• Templar Noted That While Republican J.D. Hayworth “Was The Bridge’s Primary Champion,” The Bridge Represented The Kind Of “Pork-Barrel Spending” That Another Republican, John McCain, Railed Against. “Still, Arizona Sen. John McCain has built his campaign for president, in part, on his absolute refusal to seek pork-barrel spending that the Tempe bridge seems to represent. (Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., was the bridge’s primary champion.)” (Le Templar, “Will Hallman Say ‘No Thanks’ To Tempe Bridge?,” East Valley Tribune (Blog), 9/15/08)

By Steven Robinson

Recently US Senate candidate Jim Deakin’s home went into foreclosure.  Anyone aware of our nation’s tremendous financial problems can understand and even sympathize with Jim’s financial plight.  No one wants to see anyone go through that painful process.  However, in this case you must take a closer look to understand, that IN SPITE of his ‘conservative rhetoric”, Jim Deakin spends money just like the US government he is so fond of criticizing.  That is to say, he borrows with the “promise to pay in the future” SO he can spend it today!!  In this case, Jim does it with government underwritten  loans. You only have to look at the public records to discover Jim and Adonia Deakin’s spendthrift habits.

Many people who obtain loans do so with the intent to pay down the mortgage and in time, own the home free and clear.  Their goal is to have a home that is debt-free, with no monthly payment.  In theory the federal government would ALSO operate this way, keeping the debt in check, allowing for some valid reasons to borrow, such as war.  However, we know that our federal government has borrowed so much money over the last 40 years to finance outrageous spending, guaranteeing re-election by ‘buying’ support of the voters and the companies to whom they dole out this money. (The Taxpayers future earnings)

So let’s get back to Mr. Deakin. As Jim has stated, he bought his current residence in 1995.  He paid, $148,659 with a VA loan for just over $141K, was for a very nice home in North Phoenix.  Unfortunately Jim endured a divorce and he refinanced the home into his name. The new loan for $164,400 closed in August 1999, borrowing  $25,000 more equity, perhaps used to buy out his ex-wife.  Nothing unusual with this loan.

In 2001, Jim married Adonia, and just one year later, in August 2002, Jim and Adonia obtained a $20,000 Home Equity loan (HELOC) in both their names. Again, there is nothing unusual about this loan; people have used their equity for a variety of purposes.  There is one interesting note: Adonia’s home on East Sequoia Drive was paid off two months later.  We don’t know whether these funds were used to pay off Adonia’s loan, just that the loan was paid off.  More on that later.

However, less than 18 months later, in January 2004, Jim again refinanced, borrowed an ADDITIONAL $32,000 more, with a $216,000 loan.  More significant about this loan is that Jim obtained financing as a “Single man, his sole and separate property”!  NOW the financing activities are getting curious; after all, isn’t Jim married!?

Then, in May, Jim obtained another equity loan (HELOC), THIS time for $54,000, and again as “his sole and separate property”.  Weren’t  Jim and Adonia married?  It’s Confusing, to be sure.  Yet the critical point is that again, Jim is borrowing on his ‘future ability to pay’; and with another $54K to spend.

In May 2005 Adonia sells the home on East Sequoia Drive, she had originally purchased in 1997, and had refinanced in 2000.  This is the loan that was paid off in 2002.  So, when the home sold, a very nice home at that, Adonia cleared over $100,000 at the sale, perhaps more.

Then, in June 2007, Jim and now Adonia, refinanced again!  This time the loan is a WHOPPING $376,000!! After paying off the existing liens, Jim borrowed an additional $106,000!  Again, it’s based on Jim’s ‘future ability to pay’.

So here is the situation, In FIVE short years, beginning in August 2002 through June 2007, Jim and Adonia borrowed an total of additional $212,000.  Furthermore they received another $100K from the sale of Adonia’s original home.  NOW, after MORE THAN DOUBLING the mortgage loan balance, Jim Deakin NOW tells us HE and Adonia are “upside down” in their mortgage!?  Well no wonder! They’ve spent over $300,000 in FIVE short years; by borrowing most of these funds, based on Jim’s ‘future ability to pay’!  This is a 130% increase in his debt over five years.  When you contrast  this with the National Debt over the same time period, the  is ONLY a 10% increase!  Yet Deakin wants to lecture the Congressman about spending? I guess Jim knows how to better manage our country’s finances.

Yet, JUST WHO does Jim Deakin blame for HIS financial difficulties?  In his first press release to Fox10 here is what Jim says: “Small businesses have been struggling because of the burdensome taxation and regulation implemented by both of my opponents.”  What? How did taxation and regulation cause Jim to borrow and spend so much?  He then says, “HUD amendments enacted by my opponents and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act allows greedy bankers to create the derivatives market resulting in the crisis we have all experienced since 2008.”  SO THE ‘GREEDY BANKERS’ made him do it!?

No, Mr. Deakin looks for sympathy as he seeks to walk away from his obligations. His home is in foreclosure, NOT because of the economy; BUT due to his irresponsible borrowing!

One thing is for certain; Jim understands and shares the Democrats’  HUGE appetite for debt!  Clearly he borrows and spends money like, well like “like a drunken sailor”; or rather “like a drunken Congress” to coin a phrase!  IS ANYONE beginning to question Jim Deakin’s claims of being conservative?

This begs the question; will Jim Deakin add insult to injury and avail himself of Obama’s government programs to get “Free Money” with subsidized interest and a lower monthly payments, defer part of the principle balance, partial loan forgiveness, or some other taxpayer subsidy?  Is this what Deakin means when he calls himself an “individualist”?  Is THIS why Jim let his mortgage get so far behind in the first place?  Does the term “Huckster” come to mind? ‘Inquiring minds’ want to know.

Arizona’s two Senators took the fight for our nation’s security and sovereignty to the floor of the Senate Thursday, and did it with true conservative values.  While the House passed a very similar plan, it was paid for by $200 million in cuts and added further debt of over $500 million.  Senators McCain & Kyl, however, have a plan that insures no new deficit funding by using remaining stimulus funds and an additional $100 million frozen by Sec. Janet “Big Sis” Napolitano.  The McCain/Kyl plan is designed to provide increased funding to the tune of $701 million for manpower, technology, and other resources to the border.

The legislation we introduced today will provide additional resources to help gain control of our border, without impacting our nation’s deficit,” McCain and Kyl said in a joint statement Thursday. “It is our hope that Democratic majority will swiftly work with us to ensure passage of this bill.”

The Dems attempted to load up the Afghanistan War funding bill with border security funding, all tied to increasing the deficit, and leaving hundreds of millions of unencumbered stimulus dollars available.  Republicans, led by McCain and Kyl, stripped that bill of the border funding and the McCain/Kyl bill was quickly introduced as the alternative.   

Among the items funded will be:

• 1200 Border Patrol Agents
• 500 additional Customs and Border Protection officers at ports of entry
• 3 new Border Enforcement Bases
• 2 Unmanned Aircraft
• The FBI & DEA will have additional investigation and surveillance of drug and human traffickers.

The conservative publication, The Weekly Standard, is reporting a story they feel is so damaging they question how JD can survive.  Political Wire  runs the title, “Hayworth Pitched “Free Money” Seminars” and calls the video where he touts how to make fortunes out of foreclosures…priceless.

Using his Congressional seat as verification of the legitimacy of the offer, Hayworth offers this explanation: 

The money is out there, the opportunities are out there. And by the way, it’s not something where it’s the government’s money — it’s really your money. You surrendered it in the form of taxation. Now’s the time to take advantage of a situation where the government can invest in you. And in turn, you’ll have a chance to build a business, or make a better life for yourself — and in so doing, you’ll help improve the country.”

Well, not exactly… KVOA in Tucson reported that National Grants Conference, the company that Hayworth shamelessly shills in the 2007 ad, was investigated and found to be a scam.  In the KVOA video folks tell stories of handing over thousands of dollars, hard-earned dollars, in hopes of claiming what Hayworth called “free money”.  Hayworth adamantly verifies it to be absolutely real and backs it up with his Congressional experience on the “powerful Ways and Means Committee”.

Mercenary much?  How about scruples or shame?  How much did you get paid “Former Congressman JD Hayworth” to use your positions to take advantage of trusting Americans?  A flat fee or a percentage of the take?   

With Mike Broomhead killing the drive time ratings and the Senate thing looking pretty dismal, maybe this guy is ready to retire and a replacement is needed?  

Scottsdale, Ariz. – Arizona businessman and political activist Robert Graham released another video this week, all about unifying behind the right candidates at the right time.  Graham has been working hard over the last several months raising money and awareness for conservative candidates all across the country.  In doing so, he has been spreading his message for victory to fellow conservatives in 2010: Rise up, Unify, and Fight.

In the video, available online at www.GrahamForArizona.com, Graham exhorts fellow Conservatives to work with him in finding candidates who can not only win in November, but who will represent the ideals and principles which the United States was founded upon.  He calls on friends and neighbors to make phone calls, knock doors, and even make monetary contributions to campaigns able to take back some power from the Obama administration.

“For too long, the Federal Government has been out of touch with the citizens it is supposed to represent,” said Graham.  “I will be working non-stop until election day to make sure we have a government that is of the people, by the people and, more importantly, for the people.  In order to be effective, though, we as Americans need to rise up, unify, and fight for the ideals we believe in.”

The Goldwater Institute will host a national expert on the U.S. debt crisis in Scottsdale on May 26. Former U.S. comptroller general David Walker will speak about the current situation and he will provide insight on the financial calamity just around the corner if Congress and the president don’t act to get the debt under control. David M. Walker understands better than anyone else the looming threats to this nation’s future from mounting federal debt and entitlement programs. For a decade, Mr. Walker was the nation’s top auditor, alerting Congress to waste, fraud and abuse of tax dollars. As United States comptroller general under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Mr. Walker repeatedly warned that out-of-control spending will burden future generations and will create opportunities for foreign powers to manipulate our economy. His early predictions came true so quickly that he was profiled in the documentary “I.O.U.S.A.”

Mr. Walker’s latest book, Comeback America: Turning the Country Around and Restoring Fiscal Responsibility, has been praised for its candid, nonpartisan assessment of what’s wrong with federal spending and what must be done about it.

On May 26, please join the Goldwater Institute as the nation’s top accountant, David M. Walker, offers an insider’s shocking perspective on the debt crisis facing America.

May 26, 2010
11:30 a.m. Registration
12:00 p.m. Lunch

Scottsdale Plaza Resort
7200 North Scottsdale Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85253
Click here for map.

For more information please visit http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org. To RSVP contact Erica Wrublik at (602) 651-1146 or ewrublik@goldwaterinstitute.org.

Once again, Buz Mills does not seem to have a grasp of the issues.  At today’s candidate forum, Martin went after Buz Mills on his continuing flip-flopping on the issues.  Today it was border security.

Often times, good intentions have dire consequences. On Monday, the Senate is expected to vote on legislation that will have an impact on our nation that could far out way the impact of the healthcare reform package. Originally seen as financial reform, this bill (Sponsored by Senator Chris Dodd) lays out the foundation for a complete reform of the nation’s financial regulatory system. The goal is clear and admirable – to minimize the chances of another financial meltdown. The consequences within the numerous provisions of the 1,400 page bill will in fact have catastrophic affects on consumers and the overall economy.

The Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2009 creates a new layer of federal bureaucracy known as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. On the surface it sounds like a great idea, however, as one digs deeper, they will see that the truth is that this will create a public option in financial reform, much like health care reform. It would result in a government managed financial system to oversee credit and banking. This legislation would limit choices and, in many cases, restrict access to credit for those that need it the most – current and future small businesses owners.

Under the proposed legislation, access to the credit that 26.7 million businesses need would be limited because of the bill’s one-size-fits-all approach to reform. The intended purpose is to protect consumers from unfair practices, but the true effect will be that it will reduce the amount of choices and credit available. The one-size-fits-all philosophy completely negates the fact that many of these small business owners rely on consumer credit to meet payroll, improve and/or expand their businesses, and innovate. Ultimately, it will lead to an increase in business closings, a reduction in job growth and a lack of the entrepreneurial opportunity our country provides.

The last thing we need is another government takeover of an industry. The Democrats will say that we need this type of protection to prevent another financial meltdown. No one argues that, or that changes need to be made, but as in most cases the devil is in the details and the dire consequences of this legislation far out way the good intentions.

that which is down will eventually come up.  But, for how long and how high?  Such are the questions of our economy.  No one needs stats and data to confirm what we all are experiencing in one way or another, our economy is in a serious rough patch.  Foreclosures, unemployment, business failures; the serious consequences of the financial melt-down and decades of regulations aimed at forcing unqualified loans.  An economy built on investments in and dependence on mortgage backed securities with oversold insurance against loss; the evidence played out in the snowball effect into our lives.

So what is next?  Is “the boom” coming?  Is it an “L” shaped or a “V” shaped recovery?  As if we didn’t need another reason to solidify our support for conservative candidates for Congress this cycle, Larry Kudlow has detailed how our financial recovery for years to come depends on free markets, lower taxes, and reduction in government. 

Give the people the home-court advantage
By Ralph Benko

We send our elected representatives far from home to conduct The People’s business. We send them to Washington, D.C. where they form what our flyboys (and flygirls) call “a target-rich environment” for the lobbyists and for the political party leadership.

We send them far from us … to conduct our business. There was no other way in the 18th, 19th, and most of the 20th century. In the 21st century, of course, this is absurd.

As things now stand, it is too easy for lobbyists and party leadership to “get at” our elected legislators. And too hard — impossible, on a concentrated basis — for voters to spend “face time” with their representatives.

We plain folks, and our representatives, would be well-served by changing the rule requiring our legislators to vote from the floor of Congress. And this could be done by a simple rule change, no legislation or constitutional amendment required.

The Constitution simply provides that “a majority of each [chamber] shall constitute a quorum to do business” and does not even specify “present,” much less what that would mean in the 21st century of webcams, Skype, videoconferencing, broadband internet or other technologies out there. The rules of both the House and Senate provide that a quorum is assumed unless a quorum call shows that it is not.

Sheer proximity is a very powerful thing. Lobbyists consider “face time” the crown jewel of their pursuit. Proximity is a soft force, but a powerful one. In sports parlance, it’s called “the home court advantage.”

By a simple rule change, our legislators could give themselves permission to vote from their district offices. Not require it. Simply permit it. From there, they could tele-speak, by Web, and tele-listen, by Web.

Now, they listen by closed circuit TV and speak rarely enough. They could speak more conveniently, and thus more often, by Webcam than they do now, and from home.

In fact, they could invite their constituents to form a “studio audience,” changing the chemistry rather dramatically.) They could make a district office home-base for most of their staff, instead of doing it backwards, as now. (Jobs for constituents! What a concept!)

Travel is such a hassle, the cost of maintaining two homes beyond the reach of most of our legislators. Under such a rule, it is highly likely that a lot of members would vote, more and more often, from their district offices. (Many of their wives, or husbands, would see to it!)

More time in the District means less in D.C., and it would be a lot harder, and more expensive (all that travel!) for the lobbyists to smooth talk them and for party leadership to twist their arms.

At home, they would be much more in touch with the people who they represent. With much less wear and tear.

Of course, they would still come in to “the office,” to confer with one another whenever useful, attend major ceremonial occasions, committee meetings when important issues are genuinely at stake, hear out the lobbyists, raise money, get on TV, even play poker or attend prayer breakfasts (depending, of course, on party affiliation) with their colleagues. This would tip a balance. Right now, it’s easy for the lobbyists to get at them in concentrated doses and hard for constituents to get heard.

Legislators! Give yourselves permission to vote from your district offices: Amend Rule XX. Only the (unfairly maligned) lobbyists and the (fairly maligned) party leadership lose.

For them … our pillows will be soaked with tears. For the people … and for you … it’s win-win. Give the home court advantage back to your homies!

Join the People Powered Congress social site here.

Ralph Benko, a principal of Capital City Partners, of Washington DC, is the author of The Websters’ Dictionary: How to Use the Web to Transform the World, the eBook of which may be downloaded without charge from www.thewebstersdictionary.com. He has given himself permission to work from a home office, where he gets far more accomplished than at “the office.”

From the Washington Examiner

Today’s Phoenix Business Journal ran the following article by Mike Sunnucks:

U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Mesa, has been quick throughout his tenure to oppose federal subsidies and special incentives. But the East Valley congressman is keeping mum on state and local proposals within his district to build a new Cactus League ballpark in Mesa for the Chicago Cubs.

The Legislature is considering a plan to impose 8 percent ticket fees on all Cactus League games and $1 Maricopa County rental car tax to help pay for the Cubs stadium. In addition, the city of Mesa will ask its voters to approve bonds and new spending for the $86 million project.

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, the Arizona Diamondbacks and other Cactus League teams oppose the ticket fee idea. Instead, Gordon and D-backs officials would like to see special tax districts created around spring training ballparks and in downtown Phoenix to capture and dedicate sales tax revenue toward those areas, and perhaps bond against future expected revenue.

The Cubs have threatened to move to the Grapefruit League in Florida unless a new ballpark is built here by 2013.

Flake is not taking a stance either on the ticket fees or the tax district idea to help pay for a new stadium.

“We’re going to hold off on commenting for now,” said Flake spokesman Matthew Specht.

The city of Mesa is a prime backer of the ticket fee and car rental tax increase to keep the Cubs from moving.

A bill that would impose ticket fees and the car rental tax has been approved by committees in the Arizona House of Representatives. House Bill 2736 is not yet scheduled for a full House vote.

“This is budget week, and the Cactus League bill is on hold for this week,” said House Majority Leader John McComish, R-Ahwatukee.

The invisible Gabby Giffords, who perpetually proclaims herself a “fiscal-conservative-blue-dog-democrat-who’s-always-looking-out-for-the-residents-of-Arizona”, just announced yet another bill to balance the federal budget.

Snort of the day: Not wanting to put too much pressure on herself and her fellow congressmen, the bill would not take effect until 2020.

WASHINGTON – “Arizona families and businesses struggle every day to make sure their expenses don’t exceed their earnings,” said Giffords. “Balancing a budget is not a complicated concept. Yet over the last decade it has proven difficult for the federal government to grasp. This amendment is intended to change that.”

Giffords is one of 33 original co-sponsors of legislation introduced today that would make a balanced federal budget a requirement of the U.S. Constitution. Arizona and 48 other states have a similar requirement in their state constitutions.

The amendment would:

• Require Congress to produce a balanced budget every fiscal year beginning in 2020.

• Require the president to submit a balanced budget in his or her annual transmission to Congress.

• Prohibit outlays for a fiscal year from exceeding total receipts for that fiscal year unless Congress, by a three-fifths roll call vote of each house, authorizes a specific excess of outlays over receipts (in cases of emergencies).

Read the whole thing here.

And don’t forget that Gabby is also a big supporter of PAYGO. Again from her website:

Giffords, who last week was named the most centrist member of Arizona’s congressional delegation by the respected National Journal, has been a strong supporter of pay-as-you-go legislation. Known as PAYGO, the legislation requires future spending increases or tax cuts to be paid for with either cuts to other programs or new streams of revenue.

And that’s working out really well too.

This video was captured on October 2, 2008 prior to the Presidential Election.

What is stunning is how John McCain criticizes the establishment and system and then turns around and votes for it!

and,

For a man who claims that he was “misled” he sure seems proud of his vote for the Porkulus.