Now hear this!And now for a Megaphone Moment, the time for me to point out something either well said, or outrageously stupid that just needs more attention. Today, I’m going for something outrageously stupid, as reported at CNS News:

Vice President Joe Biden told people attending an AARP town hall meeting that unless the Democrat-supported health care plan becomes law the nation will go bankrupt and that the only way to avoid that fate is for the government to spend more money.

“And folks look, AARP knows and the people with me here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable,” Biden said at the event on Thursday in Alexandria, Va. “It’s totally unacceptable. And it’s completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it now. It can’t do it financially.”

“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.

“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that’s what I’m telling you.”

I’m having a real hard time pointing to something as dumb as this statement by our Vice President. This ranks up there with “I’m up to my eyeballs in debt, so I’m going to max out a few more credit cards.” Or “I’m over my head in this hole, so I’m going to keep on digging.”

We’re going bankrupt as a nation because of the government’s rampant overspending. What we need is fiscal responsibility, not more wanton spending. Vice President Biden was brought onto President Obama’s ticket to bring gravitas to the team. So how’s that working out for you, Mr. President?

John Nance Garner, the 32nd Vice President of the United States, once summed up the office of the Vice President as being “not worth a bucket of warm piss.” But if you were asked about the duties of the Vice President, could you name them? Here is a video of Republican Vice President candidate Sarah Palin responding to the question of a third-grader — “What does the Vice President do?”

“A Vice President has a really great job because not only are they there to support the President’s agenda, they’re, like, the team member — the team mate — to that President, but also they’re in charge of the United States Senate. So if they want to, they can really get in there with the Senators, and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon, and his family, and his classroom. And it’s a great job, and I look forward to having that job.”

This hands-on approach to the Senate is getting some people on the left upset, as reported on the completely impartial and non-biased *snicker* news organ, CNN:

The comments have drawn criticism from Democrats and liberal blogs which note the actual role of the vice president when it comes to the Senate is simply to cast a tie-breaking vote in the event of a stalemate. According to Article I of the U.S. Constitution, the vice president is the “President” of the Senate, but has no executive position when it comes to presiding over the chamber.

Donald Ritchie, a historian in the Senate Historical Office, told CNN that Palin’s comment was an “overstatement” of what her role would be.

“The vice president is the ceremonial officer of the Senate and has certain ceremonial functions including swearing in new senators and can vote to break a tie,” he said. “It’s a relatively limited role. It’s evolved into a neutral presiding officer of the Senate.

Ritchie also noted recent vice presidents have played a behind-the-scenes lobbying role on Capitol Hill for an administration’s policies, but called it “somewhat limited.”

Let’s read exactly what the Constitution says on the role of the Vice President, as it relates to the Senate:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

That’s it. Notice how the article does acknowledge that the VP is the President of the Senate, but does so by putting it in quotes, like the VP isn’t really President, the VP is only “President.” (Free tip for Alexander Mooney and other aspiring journalists: scare quotes have no place in a serious news story. You’re welcome.) Anyway, the learned opinion of Mooney continues: “but has no executive position when it comes to presiding over the chamber” as if that were actually stated in the Constitution itself. But as you can see, it isn’t.

The VP is free to be as hands-on or hands-off the Senate’s day-to-day activities as he or she desires. The only official responsibility a VP has is to cast the tie-breaking vote, but what stops the VP from mingling with the Senators and persuading them to vote one way or other? The only thing that would stop the VP from doing that is the VP. Did you notice that historian Donald Ritchie admitted as much in his above quote, about how recent VPs have played a “behind-the-scenes lobbying role on Capitol Hill for an administration’s policies”? I see that as being exactly what Palin is talking about when she said a VP could really “get in there with the Senators.” And interestingly enough, she isn’t the only person who claims that power.

The same article quotes the Democrat Vice President candidate, Joe Biden, as saying pretty much the same thing as Palin: “I hope one of my roles as vice president will be as the person actually implementing Barack Obama’s policy. You gotta get the Congress to go along with it.” And how exactly do you get the Congress to do that? Well, you could try to “really get in there” with them.

Palin says it, and CNN responds that she is misstating the role of Vice President. I can envision them murmuring, “Dumb ol’ Sarah.” But Biden makes a similar statement, and there is no sanctimonious head-shaking at his comment over at CNN. That’s why I have to laugh every time I think of CNN’s claim to be impartial and non-biased in their reporting.

Frankly, if I were given the choice between a CNN interview or a bucket of warm piss, I’d take the bucket.

Once again the Democrats’ hatred for the rich is showing. Senator Joe Biden, the Democrat Vice Presidential candidate, is calling for the rich to do the “patriotic thing” and pay more taxes.

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans. In a new TV ad that repeats widely debunked claims about the Democratic tax plan, the Republican campaign calls Obama’s tax increases “painful.”

Under the economic plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less the vast majority of American taxpayers would receive a tax cut.

Although Republican John McCain claims that Obama would raise taxes, the independent Tax Policy Center and other groups conclude that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama’s proposals.

“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people,” Biden said in an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: “It’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.” [emphasis mine - CM]

Oh, where to begin? Is Biden calling for the rich to voluntarily pay more taxes, or is he telling us that the rich should feel patriotism swelling in their breasts as the federal government taxes them more? Past behavior tells me that the Democrat idea here is for the federal government to levy more taxes on the rich. After all, vowing to hike taxes on the rich is a major plank of the Democrat party. Or as one person said, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” The author of that little gem is Karl Marx, and the left loves it. Ain’t it interesting how mad they get when we correctly identify them as Marxists?

I wonder how Senator Barack Obama can say with a straight face that his tax plans would result in a tax cut for most Americans. Oh, wait! I know how he can do that — he’s a Marxist! Here’s the truth: Obama won’t renew the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 when they expire in 2010. When they do expire, every tax bracket will go up — every one. So how exactly does this plan cut taxes for the “vast majority of American taxpayers”? I’ll whisper the answer: it won’t.

The truth of the matter is that in life you get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish. And taxing people’s income is the same as punishing their income. When you punish an activity less, you shouldn’t be surprised to see that people voluntarily engage in that activity more often. Want Americans to earn more? Then stop punishing them for making money.

Don’t believe me? Fine. How about believing history?

In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced from 20 percent and 10 percent (depending on income) to 15 percent and 5 percent. Rather than expand by 36 percent from the current $50 billion level to $68 billion in 2006 as the CBO projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion. Past capital gains tax cuts have shown similar results.

Obama’s plan will call for the capital gains tax rates to go back to 2003 levels, reversing the trend that caused federal revenues to double because people were being punished less for investing. If the Democrats are serious about increasing federal revenues, they would make the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent. But Democrats won’t do that — because, even more than they love tax monies, they hate the rich and want to punish them.

Bigots.

Two things came up this week that make me question the judgment of Democrat Presidential candidate, Senator Obama. First, he used a old phrase that has caught fire in the news.

“You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It’s still gonna stink. We’ve had enough of the same old thing.”

People say that he was talking about the Republican Vice President candidate, Gov. Sarah Palin, but Obama maintains that he was only using a common phrase, and not targeting her at all. I question Obama’s judgment because I see two possibilities behind this phrase:

A) Obama really meant to call Palin a pig, which is sexist language, even for a Democrat, and certainly poor judgment.

or

B) Obama really wasn’t thinking of Palin, but it is easily misconstrued by others to refer to her. He should have the good judgment to recognize how his words could be viewed by others.

In either case, Obama shows a lack of judgment in the use of this phrase.

The second thing that came up this week comes from Senator Biden, Obama’s Vice President candidate, as he was singing the praises of Senator Clinton.

“She’s a truly close personal friend, and she is qualified to be President of the United States of America. She’s easily qualified to be Vice President of the United States of America, and, quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me.”

I love how Ace of Ace of Spades HQ summed up Biden’s comment:

Barack Obama’s judgment was that Joe Biden was the best possible vice presidential candidate.

Joe Biden says he’s wrong.

This was Obama’s first major decision as a would-be president.

He got it wrong.

Yes, Obama got it wrong. He got it wrong with his Vice President pick, and he got it wrong with using the lipstick on a pig comment. And if he is making bad judgment calls at this point in the election, what sort of judgment will Obama have in the midst of a high-pressure crisis while President? I shudder to think about it.

So, yes, I do question his judgment.