The horror of sequester: congressional aides might have to pay more for subsidized lunches

March 22, 2013
"House cafeteria, post-sequester"

“House cafeteria, post-sequester”

Have those heartless House Republicans no mercy, no soul? How could they do this to poor, starving congressional staffers?

Speaking at a hearing of the House Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, [Debbie] Wasserman Schultz worried that prices of meals in House restaurants are getting so high that aides are being “priced out” of a good meal.

At the carry-out cafe in the Cannon Office Building, where Wasserman Schultz has her office, you can get an 8oz bowl of Ham and Bean soup for $2. You can buy gourmet sandwiches and wraps for around $5. Both of these are cheaper than I can get at delis down the street from my house.

Her aides could walk across the street to the Longworth Building, which has a large sit-down cafeteria. Today, it is featuring a roasted stuffed Chicken, with asparagus and mashed potatoes, for around $7. Or, one could opt for a heaping 12oz bowl of Chicken Chili for $3.

There is also the tried and true method enjoyed by millions of workers around the country: a brown-bag lunch.

Curse you, Tea Partiers! Have you no sympathy for long-suffering, hard-toiling aides who make more than the median salary in the US?

You can imagine that I, who lives the life of luxury –bringing my breakfast four out of five days to work, my lunch every day, going out to a cheap dinner with friends just once per month– Well, dear readers, you can picture just how my heart breaks for people who might have to pay $8 for roasted stuffed chicken with mashed potatoes and asparagus, instead of seven.

I weep.

Actually, I don’t. In fact, Wasserman-Schultz and her overpaid entourage of whiny self-entitled oligarchs can go do something anatomically impossible to themselves. It was her party’s leader who thought of the sequester, it was her party’s leader who fought tooth and nail any effort ease what little real pain it would cause, and it was her party’s leader and his minions (including Debbie) who tried desperately to scare the American people with a “sequester terror” that turned out to be a giant nothing. If she and her staff now have to live a tiny bit more like us great unwashed, don’t expect sympathy from me.

Honestly, this is a glaring example of just how (to use a cliche) out of touch and removed from the everyday life of Americans those who live within the Beltway must be, especially the progressives. If the Republicans don’t use this monumental example of elite cluelessness as a populist  club to beat the Democrats over the head with from now until November, 2014, they don’t belong in politics.

UPDATE: Mockery via Twitchy — #SaveTheStaffers

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


RNC puts Obama’s “Don’t be late” ad to good use

June 4, 2012

A few days ago, I posted the “shockingly not from The Onion” video of Vogue editor Anna Wintour inviting all of us to dinner with her, Barack, Michelle, and Sarah Jessica Parker — for a sizable donation, of course.

The Republican National Committee took that ad and inserted a few reminders of reality outside that glittering bubble of high fashion and $40,000 per plate fundraisers:

Quite the contrast, no?

As John Nolte observes:

The whole thing is ridiculous and the RNC rightly brought it down to earth. People are suffering under Obama’s economy and dangling dinner with Your Elite Betters like a carrot in order to get the fundraising mules to move, is pretty pathetic.

Yep.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Barack Obama, Man of the People

June 2, 2012

I mean, doesn’t this just scream “He’s one of the 99%!!” to you?

Don’t forget, it’s Mitt Romney who’s really the out-of-touch elitist.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Video: A president of the People, and for the People

February 8, 2012

… is not what we have.

Instead we have a guy who spews left-populist, class warfare rhetoric at his State of the Union addresses campaign speeches while raising beau coup bucks at a high-end fashion show that even some of the Evil One-Percent(tm) might have trouble affording.

Republicans are hammering President Obama for his reelection campaign’s New York City fashion-show fundraiser in a new Web ad debuting Tuesday, arguing the optics of the event are inappropriate while the economy continues to struggle.

The ad opens with shots of the invitation to the event, co-hosted by actress Scarlett Johansson and Vogue editor Anna Wintour. Both have been prominent donors for the president in the past. Subsequent shots of the invitation reveal other big-name attendees, including pop stars Beyonce Knowles and Sean Combs and fashion icons Marc Jacobs, Diane Von Furstenberg and Vera Wang.

The RNC wasted no time turning this into a commercial:

Yeah, I can see all those out-of-work Obama voters who lost out on the opportunity for thousands of good-paying jobs when President Common Man killed the Keystone pipeline just rushing out to buy $95 scarves, or tote bags with the symbol of Hope and Change plastered all over them. They must be thrilled to see his campaign pandering to millionaire glitterati while they themselves may be choosing between making the mortgage and getting the car fixed.

Keystone. The new HHS contraception regulations. The Gulf drilling “permitorium.” Fabulous taxpayer-paid vacations for Marie Antoinette Michelle. Attacking the Supreme Court. “I won.” And now this. Sometimes I wonder if the Obama campaign isn’t going out of its way to hand the opposition political prime beef in some subtle trap meant to goad conservatives into overreacting and thus scaring moderates.

Or maybe it’s much simpler. Maybe this administration is simply an egregious example of leftist urban academic elitism mixed with a remarkable political tone-deafness.

My bet is on the latter.

via Jazz Shaw

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


At least Newsweek is honest

January 16, 2012

This really is what the intelligentsia in the MSM, academia, and the leadership of the Democratic Party think of most of the nation:

I don’t know about you, but I prefer this honest contempt to the patronizing variety we usually get.

For those not familiar with Andrew Sullivan, he had been blogger for The Atlantic, until he went off the deep end with wild conspiracy theories about THE TRUTH behind the birth of Trig Palin. Now he writes, supposedly as a conservative, for (what’s left of) Newsweek and The Daily Beast.

But we’re the dumb ones.

via Newsbusters

UPDATE: Joel Pollak asks, “Why is Andrew Sullivan so dumb?”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


That sound you hear is NPR’s funding being flushed

March 8, 2011

During the 2008 campaign, it came out that then-Senator Obama held the average American in a sort of patronizing contempt:

And it’s not surprising then [small-town Americans] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Now we have an example (as if we really needed it) of just how widespread this bigotry is among our progressive elites. Conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe (he of the ACORN exposés) has captured two National Public Radio executives trashing conservatives and Tea Party members, and not at all demurring at antisemitic statements, in order to impress what they thought were two donors from a Muslim Brotherhood front group that wants to spread sharia law. Watch and be enlightened:

And this is only part one. I can’t what to see what part two brings.

From the Daily Caller article:

“The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved in people’s personal lives and very fundamental Christian – I wouldn’t even call it Christian. It’s this weird evangelical kind of move,” declared [Ron] Schiller, the head of NPR’s nonprofit foundation, who last week announced his departure for the Aspen Institute.

In a new video released Tuesday morning by conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe, Schiller and Betsy Liley, NPR’s director of institutional giving, are seen meeting with two men who, unbeknownst to the NPR executives, are posing as members of a Muslim Brotherhood front group. The men, who identified themselves as Ibrahim Kasaam and Amir Malik from the fictitious Muslim Education Action Center (MEAC) Trust, met with Schiller and Liley at Café Milano, a well-known Georgetown restaurant, and explained their desire to give up to $5 million to NPR because, “the Zionist coverage is quite substantial elsewhere.”

On the tapes, Schiller wastes little time before attacking conservatives. The Republican Party, Schiller says, has been “hijacked by this group.” The man posing as Malik finishes the sentence by adding, “the radical, racist, Islamaphobic, Tea Party people.” Schiller agrees and intensifies the criticism, saying that the Tea Party people aren’t “just Islamaphobic, but really xenophobic, I mean basically they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-America gun-toting. I mean, it’s scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people.”

Schiller goes on to describe liberals as more intelligent and informed than conservatives. “In my personal opinion, liberals today might be more educated, fair and balanced than conservatives,” he said.

If you’re done gagging, you might want to read the rest.

It’s rather disquieting (to say the least) that media executives would be so anxious to solicit funds from self-proclaimed religious fascists whose stated goal is the destruction of the very system of constitutional liberty that makes a free press possible — while taking the money of taxpayers who would rightly object to seeing those same liberties replaced by sharia law.

But then, I’m just an uneducated, unfair, and unbalanced rube.

Ed Morrissey has some good analysis of this, including the suggestion that we help Schiller discover whether NPR will, as he believes, do better without federal funding. After this, I think a lot of congressmen and senators will be even more willing to assist.

One last thought: After listening to the bile spewed by Schiller and Liley, they have the nerve to call us bigots? Maybe someone should hand them a mirror — and then tell them to pass it along to all their “more educated” friends.

RELATED: If you want a good laugh, check out this article on NPR chief Vivian Schiller* at Big Government.

When asked “Do you believe there is an imbalance at NPR in terms of liberals and conservatives in the newsroom? If the answer is ‘yes’ what do you propose to do about it?”

Schiller responded by saying they get a “tremendous amount of criticism for being too conservative as well” and wishes those people could be in their editorial meetings so they could see what goes on. She then states NPR’s journalism reflects “no particular bias.”

After, she says there’s no question it’s a “perception issue” that some believe NPR is liberal in nature.

Now, I wonder why folks would get that perception? Follow the link for video.

*No relation to Ron Schiller that I know of.

UPDATE: Roger L. Simon calls this The Protocols of the Elders of NPR.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Pennsylvania Governor: “We lost because people don’t vote logically.”

November 23, 2010

No, really. That’s what he said. It couldn’t be because the majority rejected mistaken policies they didn’t want, policies that are failing miserably. Yeesh.

Patronizing, arrogant, condescending. Maybe Andrew Klavan wasn’t just being funny.

Then again, perhaps the election of an obviously far-Left* senator to the presidency proves Ed Rendell is right.

*(It would have been obvious if the media had bothered to do their homework, that is.)


What’s wrong with Americans?

November 19, 2010

No, this isn’t a dramatic reading from “What’s the matter with Kansas.” Instead, Andrew Klavan takes a close look at why our cultural and political elites don’t seem to like us. Naturally, as Andrew explains, it must be our fault. Enjoy.

Too true, too true.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


And speaking of “elitism,” guess what the President said?

October 17, 2010

President Obama captured the elitist mindset perfectly with this one statement:

“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared,” Obama said Saturday evening in remarks at a small Democratic fundraiser Saturday evening. “And the country’s scared.”

Sigh. This is one his most self-revealing statements since the “bitter clingers” moment in the Democratic primaries in 2008. In Obamaland, it isn’t possible to oppose his policies because one has come to a reasoned conclusion that they’re wrongheaded, bad for the country, and just plain won’t work. It can’t be because one has a different vision for the role of government, its relation to the people, and the best way to bring prosperity to as many as possible. It can’t be because you believe (correctly) that the Constitution is a document that limits government and gives it specific powers because unrestrained government is a threat to both liberty and prosperity.

Nope, it’s because you’re irrational and scared.

If I’m scared, Mr. President, it’s because of a very rational rejection of the poor policy choices you’ve made both domestically and in foreign affairs, and a revulsion at the direction you want to take this nation. It is based very much on “facts and science and arguments,” unlike your “stimulus” program that was nothing but a pork-fest, or your climate-change agenda that’s based on junk-science. It’s because of a feckless national security policy that has only served to make the world a more dangerous place by making us weak and pusillanimous, encouraging our rivals and enemies.

I may have disagreed with George W. Bush on many things, but at least -at the minimum- I knew he didn’t hold the  people he lead in a patronizing contempt.

I’m not a religious person, but God save me from my self-anointed betters.

PS. Bill Whittle is right.

UPDATE: Byron York has a very good column on this today.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


What we believe, part 2: the problem with elitism

October 17, 2010

Bill Whittle continues his series on what American* conservatives believe, this time dealing with the problems caused by a self-appointed ruling class:

Part one is worth reviewing.

*I specify “American” conservatism, since there are significant differences with conservatism as understood in Europe. Conservatism in the US tends strongly toward limited government and free market economics, which no one would associate with, for example, the UK’s Conservative Party.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Silence, peasant!

October 10, 2010

President Thinskin strikes again: While in Iowa at the end of last month to hear from the common folk in their own backyards, Obama was met with unwanted honesty from one of the little people. So, what’s an enlightened being to do when one of the mundanes says something other than praise? Why, cut off his mike, of course:

Trying to sell his economic record in Iowa yesterday, President Obama got an earful from a successful businessman who pleaded with him not to raise taxes.

“One of the things that concerns me is the repeal of the Bush tax cuts,” said David Greenspon, referring to Democratic plans to raise taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and on families and certain businesses earning more than $250,000.

“The repeal — I don’t care if it is 5 percent — that’s 5 percent that would create a job,” he told Obama during a meeting with about 70 people in a couple’s back yard in Des Moines.

“Five percent on millions of dollars of profit creates many jobs . . . As the government gets more and more involved in business and more and more involved in taxes, what you’re finding is you’re strangling those job-creation vehicles.”

Before Greenspon could complete his question, his microphone was cut off and taken out of his hand.

You’d have thought, after the Joe the Plumber incident, that the President would be more careful when wandering into people’s neighborhoods. Americans, after all, have a habit of speaking their minds even to big shots with big titles – and maybe especially to them. One of the skills a politician needs is being able to react with grace even to those who disagree with him. Instead, as the article relates, Obama showed petulance and frustration.

And, of course, incidents like this just reinforce the image that Obama is an out-of-touch elitist who only hears what he wants to hear. A leader, especially in a democratic republic, needs to hear contradictory views if he is to govern effectively. Cutting off Greespon’s mike, on the other hand, is a symbolic slamming of the doors to the ivory tower. It’s a “Kodak moment” that captures the essence of the progressive attitude: “We know best, so be quiet and do as you’re told. You’re welcome.”

Way to bond with the common man, sir.

Via Hot Air.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Elitism + Cluelessness = NRSC

August 27, 2010

I’ve often accused the Obama Administration of being filled with the politically tone-deaf, but the National Republican Senatorial Committee is giving them stiff competition:

Sean Cairncross, the general counsel of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, is headed to Alaska at the request of Sen. Lisa Murkowski  (R) to help provide guidance to the GOP incumbent who finds herself trailing attorney Joe Miller (R) by roughly 1,600 votes.

Cairncross will spend several days on the ground in Alaska as Murkowski and her campaign prepare for the counting of as many as 16,000 absentee ballots — a process expected to start next Tuesday and continue through early September.

Committee sources insisted that too much should not be read into Cairncross’ presence in Alaska — only that the NRSC is an incumbent-retention committee and, as such, provides assistance when Senators ask for it.

As evidence that the committee is not putting all of its chips on Murkowski, a GOP source tells the Fix that Rob Jesmer, the bespectacled executive director of the NRSC, spoke by phone with a top Miller aide yesterday — making clear that if he wins the election the committee will support him wholeheartedly.

How nice: “Oh, if you still happen to win, Mr. Miller (you peasant), we’ll deign to help you. Until then, we’re going to do all we can to help our incumbent sister keep the seat Daddy gave her.”

You would think, after the flack the NRSC took for interfering in Florida’s primary, they’d remember the lesson. (Just how did that Crist endorsement work out for you guys, eh?) Senator Cornyn, head of the NRSC, even promised to not spend money in contested primaries. So…what? Cairncross isn’t  being paid?

For a supposedly smart bunch, the NRSC is like the guy who goes to the doctor complaining that it hurts whenever he hits himself in the head with a hammer: too dumb to realize he should stop doing it. They’re completely misreading the mood of the electorate and spitting in the faces the voters – who want to vote for conservative Republican candidates, not kinda-sorta squishes who are all too happy to bolt the party.

There’s a huge anti-Beltway elitist, anti-incumbent wave sweeping the electorate, and it’s showing up in election after election and poll after poll. People are angry at Washington telling them what they must do; the rejection of  ObamaCare is just one example. It’s largely aimed at the Democrats for the insane way they’ve governed since 2009, showing little but contempt for ordinary citizens, and they’re going to get punished for it harshly in November. But stupid stuff like sending a top lawyer to fight for the incumbent who’s been rejected by the locals tells the voters that the national Republicans are little different from the Democrats. That’ll help bring in the donations.

Is this really smart,  Senator Cornyn? It may not be a big deal in reality, but just how do you think this will look to the average grassroots voter? Ooops. And how long will it take you to scrape the egg off your face again after Murkowski loses in the absentees and then says “thanks for all the help” by bolting to the Libertarian Party?

No wonder they call the Republicans the “party of stupid.”

LINKS: More at Hot Air, Conservatives for Palin, and Obi’s Sister.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Quote of the day

April 20, 2010

Roger Kimball on Humor vs. Contempt: Obama and the Question of Character.

Nowadays you find tea partiers accused of racism, violence, and disloyalty, never mind that the left-liberal establishment can point to no examples of these torts. The thing to grasp is that those making the accusations do not feel called upon to offer examples. The guilt of the tea-partiers transcends anything so pedestrian as actual behavior. Tea partiers are like “class enemies” under Stalin: guilty by definition.


Democracy must stand aside to fight global warming!

March 30, 2010

So says British scientist James Lovelock (Wikipedia bio), who thinks we’re all too stupid to deal with a (nonexistent) problem that only Supreme Geniuses(tm) are smart enough to recognize. The only hope of the sheep Mankind is to institute a dictatorship of the really smart!

Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change from radically impacting on our lives over the coming decades. This is the stark conclusion of James Lovelock, the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory.

It follows a tumultuous few months in which public opinion on efforts to tackle climate change has been undermined by events such as the climate scientists’ emails leaked from the University of East Anglia (UEA)and the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit.

“I don’t think we’re yet evolved to the point where we’re clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change,” said Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November. “The inertia of humans is so huge that you can’t really do anything meaningful.”

One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

Here we have fascist elitism at its most exposed: “You fools can’t understand vast complexities, and so must be lead like children or animals, guided by your betters. You’re getting sleepy, very sleepy….”

What garbage. I’m not denying there are stupid people in the world (hint: Joe Biden), but what really bothers elitists such as Lovelock is that people lacking the proper degrees have the temerity to question and even disagree with him and his brethren. In this modern information age, people can seek their own sources independent of the Lovelocks of the world, whether on the Web or between the covers of a good book. And if they’re more than a bit skeptical of what “their betters” are telling them, perhaps it’s because they’ve been pandered and lied to.

And that’s the real problem people like Lovelock and other statists have with democracy: all those smelly people get in the way of the Truly Enlightened. (All bow.)

It’s not an attitude limited to Lovelock and a few others, nor is it new by any means. Woodrow Wilson, a US president, thought the Constitution was obsolete, that limited, participatory government got in the way of progress. Erudite men such as H.G. Wells, who advocated a form of fascism, and George Bernard Shaw, a supporter of eugenics, felt that Man simply couldn’t be left to govern himself, that he had to be lead by an elite. Their intellectual descendants sit in the White House and run Congress today.

(I can’t let this moment go by without again shilling for Goldberg’s brilliant book, Liberal Fascism, which surveys the history of the fascist idea from the French Revolution to the modern day, though I think he needs to add a chapter for the Green Statists of the Cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming.)

Anyway, back to Dr. Lovelock and his annoyance with democracy. If you ever needed a reason to fight the global warming fraud besides the bad science behind it, there you have it. It’s not nearly so much about “saving the planet” as it is about controlling it.

And us.

(via Ace)

LINKS: More from Sister Toldjah and Hot Air. James Delingpole struggles to reconcile the call for dictatorship with the othwerwise sensible things Lovelock says.


Good advice

July 30, 2009

From Victor Davis Hanson, some words of wisdom for America’s elite hypocrites:

Do the wealthy and the powerful lecture us about our wrongs because they know their own insider status ensures that they are exempt from the harsh medicine they advocate for others? Millionaire Gore is not much affected by higher taxes for his cap-and-trade crusade.

Or does the hypocrisy grow out of a sort of class snobbery? Do elites hector the crass middle class because it lacks their own taste, rare insight, and privileged style? Judging from the police report, Gates seemed flabbergasted that the white Cambridge cop did not know who he was “messing” with.

Or is the new hypocrisy an eerie sort of psychological compensation at work? Perhaps the more Al Gore rails about carbon emissions, the more he can without guilt enjoy what emits them. The more Professor Gates can cite racism, the more he himself is paid to spot it. And the more a Tom Daschle wants to tax and spend for health care, the less badly he feels about his own chauffer and tax avoidance?

Here’s a little advice for all of America’s aristocratic critics: a little less hypocrisy, a little more appreciation of your good lives — and then maybe the rest of us will listen to you a little more.

Read the whole thing. Applause


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,179 other followers