Krugman: Obama's Deficit Reduction Plan 'Really Serious'; Ryan's Is 'A Sick Joke'
It certainly isn't a surprise that Nobel laureate Paul Krugman was far more pleased with the deficit reduction plan proposed by Barack Obama this week than the one unveiled by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) last week.
In Friday's New York Times column "Who's Serious Now?" the unabashed liberal declared the President's proposal "really serious" and the Congressman's "a sick joke":
Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, sounds upset. And you can see why: President Obama, to the great relief of progressives, has called his bluff.
Readers are advised to notice how throughout his piece, Krugman was highly disrespectful and contentious towards Ryan.
Is this really necessary?
No matter what one thinks about his politics, Ryan is clearly one of the most intelligent, thoughtful, and serious people on Capitol Hill today. Such a man is deserving of respect by media members on both sides of the aisle.
Unfortunately, that's not how "progressives" in the press see things today. Ryan to them is an enemy whose opinions not only need refuting, but also debasing.
Folks like Krugman don't only want to win the political argument with Ryan; they want to humiliate and degrade him for having the nerve to offer ideas counter to their own.
Such is not only the climate in Washington today, but also at so-called news outlets that are stoking the fires of hyper-partisanship as they hypocritically complain about the caustic tone in politics:
Then people who actually understand budget numbers went to work, and it became clear that [Ryan's] proposal wasn’t serious at all. In fact, it was a sick joke.
To Krugman, a plan to eliminate over $6 trillion in deficit spending in the next ten years is a sick joke. As you might imagine, he's far happier with the President's proposal:
And then Mr. Obama laid out a budget plan that really is serious...[T]he vision was right, and the numbers were far more credible than anything in the Ryan sales pitch.
The numbers were far more credible than anything in the Ryan sales pitch? As NewsBusters reported Thursday, there's nothing credible about Obama's numbers because he offered no specifics to back them up.
Ironically, even Krugman's colleague at the Times, David Brooks, noted the same lack of specificity in his column on this subject Friday:
[Obama] made a sincere call to reduce debt, which will please independents, but he did not specify any tough choices. He called for defense cuts and asked the Pentagon to find some. He called for a reduction in tax credits but didn’t point to any that should actually go. He called for reductions in Medicare costs and asked his board of technocrats to come up with some.
These are exactly the sort of vague but well-intentioned policies that have sold well in election after election.
What's interesting here is that Krugman is supposedly an economist, and such folks typically love to deal with numbers.
But not Krugman. He prefers rhetoric over cold, hard data because it's far easier to advance one's agenda with words rather than facts, and at the moment, the agenda is to support his president at all cost as he attacks the one man in Washington that understands budgets possibly better than anyone in the nation's capital has in many years:
And the hissy fit — I mean, criticism — the Obama plan provoked from Mr. Ryan was deeply revealing, as the man who proposes using budget deficits as an excuse to cut taxes on the rich accused the president of being “partisan.”
Not surprisingly, just as most liberal media members have done since Ryan's plan was unveiled last week, Krugman was being deeply dishonest with this statement. The Ryan plan includes tax reform that positively impacts all Americans, not just the rich.
This built on Ryan's previously proposed "Roadmap for America's Future":
This plan discards a needlessly complex and manipulative tax code, replacing it with a simplified mechanism that promotes work, saving, and investment.
* Provides individual income tax payers a choice of how to pay their taxes – through existing law, or through a highly simplified code that fits on a postcard with just two rates and virtually no special tax deductions, credits, or exclusions (except the health care tax credit).
* Simplifies tax rates to 10 percent on income up to $100,000 for joint filers, and $50,000 for single filers; and 25 percent on taxable income above these amounts. Also includes a generous standard deduction and personal exemption (totaling $39,000 for a family of four).
* Eliminates the alternative minimum tax [AMT].
* Promotes saving by eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends; also eliminates the death tax.
* Replaces the corporate income tax – currently the second highest in the industrialized world – with a border-adjustable business consumption tax of 8.5 percent. This new rate is roughly half that of the rest of the industrialized world.
Simplifying the tax code for all Americans was pivotal to the Ryan plan. It was also a key component of the President's own debt commission which earlier this year proposed brackets as low as 8 percent, 14 percent, and 23 percent.
Shills like Krugman have chosen not to report this, for it makes it far easier for them to claim that all Ryan wants to do is cut taxes on the rich.
But for his sins, Krugman wasn't done:
For the contrast between Mr. Ryan last week and Mr. Obama on Wednesday wasn’t just about visions of society. There was also a difference in visions of how the world works...What happened over the past two weeks, then, was more about staking out positions than about enacting policies. On one side you had a combination of mean-spiritedness and fantasy; on the other you had a reaffirmation of American compassion and community, coupled with fairly realistic numbers.
So, by proposing to save Medicare and Medicaid with a plan that also simplifies the tax code while cutting over $6 trillion in red ink, Ryan was mean-spirited. By contrast, calling your opponent's proposal un-American - to his face, no less! - as you outline one of your own without many details is compassionate.
And Krugman has the nerve to wonder why voters are so ill-informed.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Voters are ill-informed
Submitted by buddyc on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 10:08am.
Voters are ill-informed because the economic experts of the past, the media and the talking heads are not independent thinkers. They are all partisans. The public sees it and tunes them out. They are left to find internet sites that don't really inform them but reinforce the views they already have. The media and people like Krugman are the ones you can blame for our economic problems and the reason why we elect incompetent ignorant fools like Obama.
Forget even 2030 on Ryan.
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 4:14pm.
Forget even 2030 on Ryan. Was it the Heritage Foundation that does a balanced budget in 5 yrs? I don't see it on their web site.
Support the Heritage Foundation today: 4/15 "Money Bomb" TODAY as requested by Rush, Hannity & Levin. I just gave $25. They are at $167K of the $250K goal.
http://www.heritage.org/
The ACLJ is raising money today too. I think they had $31K left to raise on a matching deal. Gave $25 to them also. Doing taxes. Need to invest in the people fighting for us! They are helping fight against the NYC mosque, sharia law, ObamaCare, etc.
Edit: Also went to Rush site & gave $10 today for his annual Leukemia / Lymphoma cancer fund raiser.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Wow Krugman, You're Good!!!!
Submitted by Bourbeau on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 10:09am.
Exactly what details of Obama's plans were you using to compare to Ryan's pale; I mean specific details? I don't mean Obama's 50,000 feet nonsense that even he forgets he said thirty minutes after he speaks.
Plan?
Submitted by ricklail on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 11:26am.
I don't have no stinking plan. I am Duh One.
Guy Benson at townhall.com
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 10:31am.
Guy Benson at townhall.com the other day had the perfect description of President Obama's "plan" for reducing the deficit and saving Medicare.
(If anyone hasn't seen his column yet, I strongly advise reading the whole thing.)
Rationing aside, the president applied the underpants gnomes approach to achieving entitlement-preserving savings:
Step 1: Think about Medicare and Medicaid savings.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Hundreds of Billions in Medicare and Medicaid savings!
To prove his point, he offers facts from Obama's "fact sheet"
o Make Medicaid more flexible, efficient and accountable without resorting to block granting the program, ending our partnership with States or reducing health care coverage for seniors in nursing homes, the most economically vulnerable and people with disabilities. Combined Medicaid savings of at least $100 billion over 10 years.
o Reduce Medicare’s excessive spending on prescription drugs and lower drug premiums for beneficiaries without shifting costs to seniors or privatizing Medicare. Combined Medicare savings of at least $200 billion over 10 years.
This is the "plan" that Krugman finds serious?
And yet Ryan's plan, full of specifics, is a sick joke?
Obama wants everyone to believe that this problem can be solved by campaign rhetoric, and without tough choices.
That's the sick joke.
Mr. Krugman should no longer be referred to as an "economist." He tore up that card when he started ignoring facts and numbers in favor of his political leanings.
Obama's plan can be boiled
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 10:59am.
Obama's plan can be boiled down to the following:
status quo + more spending + more taxes
This has been tried by libs for decades. Percentage of success: 0%
What's the pop definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 10:27am.
Paul Krugman......speaking to the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism ...................sppsttt......snort...............BWAAA-hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I'm sorry. I tried not to laugh!
You know what I'd really like to see a picture of? Paul Krugman addressing the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. There'd be more laughter there than at a Sam Kinison (RIP) show.
That's a great suggestion
Submitted by Boil It Down on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 5:48pm.
Krugman attempting to school reputable economists could be hilarious. Putting him in front of people who have a history of being correct on economic policies would be completely foreign territory for him. -bidn-
Noel, thanks
Submitted by mom_rox on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 10:23am.
You're right. I hadn't seen those Ryan Plan details mentioned.
(I haven't had a lot of time to dig into the details. I've been a bit busy with our tax return preparation.)
Don't miss the left's objective.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 10:23am.
The Left is coming after Paul Ryan, personally. They can't argue with his plan, so they will have to destroy him and his family if necessary to "discredit" him.
These slim bags are despicable. I'll guarantee they already have private detectives crawling all over Ryan and his family's past for anything that they can use against him.
He is about to join the ranks of Palin, Bachmann, and Bork, and many others who never even tried because they knew something would be dredged up from their middle school years to beat them over the head with.
My hope is that Ryan will meet them head on. To paraphrase our president, if Obama brings a knife and a gun to the fight, I hope conservatives will drop a frigging load of napalm on their sorry asses.
Sooner or later we are going to figure out that we have to fight them on their slimy terms. In a conflict, the rules of engagement are established by the combatant with the lowest moral standards. We better be prepared to respond to the bastards. We can move back to the "moral high ground" once we have destroyed them.
"The Left is coming after
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 11:00am.
"The Left is coming after Paul Ryan, personally. They can't argue with his plan, so they will have to destroy him and his family if necessary to "discredit" him."
Straight from Saul Alinsky and found within the liberal Dem's rather thin playbook. They are so incredibly predictable.
A nation of ditch diggers
Submitted by Slyrr on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 10:40am.
The ferret-like Paul Krugman, another of Obama's paid stooges, is saying that Obama's plan is the cat's meow. Big surprise.
Today, Obama frothed and spat that Republican plans will make the US a 'third world country'. So much for his lofty 'why can't we all jus' git along' speech after the Tucson shooting. He's reverted to type and is inflaming the masses, once again using divisive rhetoric and telling his blinded minions to 'get blood', 'bring a gun to a knife fight', all the normal stuff that he hypocrtically denounced just two months ago.
I'll just say that in the time since Obama was elected, HE and his crazed band of radical 'czars' have done more to make the US a 3rd world country than any of America's enemies could have imagined in their wildest dreams. 3 words: 'shovel ready jobs'.
That's what Obama wants for america. To see us all reduced to manual labor. To see us all wearing grimy, dirty overalls, hunched over shovels and caked with dust while he and his rib-munching wife drive by in their gas-guzzling limousine.
Obama and the Demorats have changed America from the world's scientific and technological superpower into a nation of ditch-diggers.
2012 can't come soon enough.
Those 'torches and pitchforks' you spoke of, Mr. Obama? They're coming. They're coming for YOU.
Forget the torches and pitchforks, Sly
Submitted by Newsbubba on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 10:58am.
Load up on some real firepower.
After all, our snippy little rat bastard Fascist SOB of a president told us to!
Palin-ized
Submitted by kilrod on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 10:46am.
Looks like Mr. Ryan is going to find out what it's like to be Palin-ized. If he can show her courage and tuffness(and i believe he will) he will make a good leader. Seeing if the rest of the limp weenie equipped Repunks stand with him is totaly another matter.~?~
kilrod "the Birther"
If an unborn child cannot trust you, why should I,??
Reagan Survived
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 11:20am.
Reagan survived all efforts at being "Palinized", long before that process was referred to in those terms. When I listen to Paul Ryan speak, he demonstrates a depth of knowledge and a comprehension of details that I just don't hear when I listen to Palin. Sure, the left is going to try and destroy Ryan. Hopefully it will make him stronger.
I'm very encouraged when I look at the field of younger, conservative, "Tea Party" Republicans. Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Michelle Bachman, just to name a few. I don't think I could have counted this many solid conservatives five years ago.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Frankly, I hope more
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 11:53am.
Frankly, I hope more conservatives will be elected to office in 2012. Get rid of the liberal Dems and RINOs.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Submitted by ironchefofmunchies on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 10:46am.
I don't know whether to be discouraged by the 4 pages of comments on that NYT article-not ONE of which actually noticed 'there are NO specifics here in Obama's speech" or encouraged by the fact the other side actually couldn't tell the difference between Obama's speech and Ryan's budget plan.
Are having opponents who are that clueless really an advantage?
First of all, I have to tell
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 11:12am.
First of all, I have to tell you that I just crack up every time I see your screen name!!
Anyway, to your question, think about this:
They're preaching to the same people who bought that the rise of the oceans would slow and the planet would begin to heal, and "Yes, we can!"
Oh, and people like this.
So what do you think?
I am the cult of..I am the cult of... Cult of Personality!
Submitted by ironchefofmunchies on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 12:37pm.
I think clearly their base has succumbed to a Cult of Personality. Therefore, nothing the Cult-master does can be wrong (even when it's the same things the Evil Bush did). Anyone seen Cindy Sheehan lately? Code Pink? Did the Iraq/Afghan wars just stop or did the protests stop, and if so why? Answer: Obama cult.
I just wonder if Obama can turn out his base of government dependees and Obama-trons without turning off independent voters. It's pretty clear the media isn't going to call Obama on anything-and I've not seen any Republicans with the stones to do so.
Keep in mind that the Obama
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 12:48pm.
Keep in mind that the Obama regime & libs associated with them throw everyone & anyone under the bus once they have run out of their usefulness. Cindy Sheehan is indeed one such example.
Deleted
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 11:19am.
Misposted
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
I think Mr Krugman has
Submitted by redfish on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 10:48am.
I think Mr Krugman has crossed over the point where he's incapable of empathizing with people who hold different points of view.
Krugman's hubris seems to be
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 10:55am.
Krugman's hubris seems to be continually expanding.
Aw c'mon...Krugman's been a
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 10:56am.
Aw c'mon...Krugman's been the sick, unfunny joke with no punchline for a long time. So is his Nobel laureate title.
Let's see...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 7:05pm.
Qualifications to be a nobel laureate...
Be a popular leftist.
Be an unpopular leftist with a few degrees, who gets a lot of press.
Pretty much covers the last few years.
I didn't know Obama had a
Submitted by Free Thinker on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 10:59am.
I didn't know Obama had a plan? His speech on Wednesday was absent any kind of plan and he has thrown out the plan by the commission he set up to study the deficit. Once Obama releases his plan Paul krugman can talk about it but so far all he has mentioned is a trillion dollar tax increase that would kill our economy and lower tax revenus while spending continues at an unsustainable rate. Perhaps Krugman sees the writing on the wall that Obama is toast and has become Mr. Irrelevant in Washington DC.
Holy Smoke; The Great Economist and Nobel Laureate
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 11:01am.
Paul Krugman promotes the plan of the great economic thinker and Nobel Laureate Barry Obama. How could such a plan possibly fail? The previous Krugman-Obama plans have worked well so far. The deficit has remained well below $5 trillion, real unemployment has held below 35% (their benchmark for success), some businesses are still functioning to some degree, etc.
Also another great economic thinker Hugo Chavez (unfortunately his Nobel Prize was delayed in the mail) has been using the Obama-Krugman economic model longer. And Venezuela is meeting with great success too. The bread and gas lines are surprisingly short, some of them less than a mile long. There are fewer than 10 -15 riots per day.
We don't need to cite Fidel Castro's success using the Krugman-Obama model since that is so well known.
Sick joke.
Submitted by blazermaniac on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 11:02am.
The only sick joke here is Paul Krugman, along with the rest of his liberal friends.
You have to keep in mind that
Submitted by mustango on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 11:08am.
You have to keep in mind that over the past couple of years Krugman has opined that, if anything, a $1.5 trillion deficit isn't big enough. So naturally he considers anything that would actually REDUCE the deficit "sick".
It amazes me that this idiot
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 11:16am.
It amazes me that this idiot actually won a Nobel Prize for Economics, but when you consider they gave The Absentee President one it shows how low the bar is.
Congressman Ryan posted a good response to what Odumbo said in his campaign speech this week.
Sick joke??
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 11:14am.
Having the Chairman doing what he's been doing is a sick joke!
Why he's still there is a sick joke!
People who support this douchebag are sick jokes!
-Jon
The goal is to bankrupt America
Submitted by c5then on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 11:22am.
Regardless of the rhetoric the goal of the progressives is to get America out of the way so they can have a better shot a one world government. That's why their words and the math seem to be at opposite poles. They are.
For the last generation they thought that the USSR was going to be able to over-power the USA and get rid of her that way. When that didn't work, and the USSR actually collapsed instead, they switched to an economic attack.
Either side is being disingenuous because they only have control over the budget while they themselves are in office. Both Ryan's and Obama's "plans" should only be two year plans.
We can trim $1 trillion off of the annual budget by just eliminating unconstitutional departments and agencies. Let's start concentrating on what the Federal Government is allowed to do and then go from there.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Two Year Plan?
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 11:41am.
"Either side is being disingenuous because they only have control over the budget while they themselves are in office. Both Ryan's and Obama's "plans" should only be two year plans."
While dollars appropriated for a budget should get voted on every year, the policy legislation in the plans is permanent. Sure, laws can be changed anytime, but getting legislation through both houses of congress and signed by the President is difficult.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Waht did you expect
Submitted by John21 on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 11:30am.
The New York Times horses rump speaks again (please stand down wind).
Bought and paid for second rate economist and far far left DNC PR guy Love the Obama NOPLAN and hates the only plan out there with any real specific in it I wonder how much he had to pay (bribe) to win the noble, was it really for economics or some special catagory like hackery?
Sorry Krugman
Submitted by NVRAT on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 11:30am.
The only SICK JOKE here is OBAMA.
The Real Sick Joke
Submitted by JayVee on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 12:42pm.
That Krugman actually received a Nobel Prize - in ECONOMICS of all things! - is a really sick joke. And that is almost as sick a joke as Obumbles receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.
Obama has no interest in decreasing the deficit
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 12:53pm.
His intention is to bankrupt America as quickly as possible.
And he's doing it.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Krugman seems to have only
Submitted by Boil It Down on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 1:05pm.
Krugman seems to have only one well rehearsed act and his stubbornness to study new material has made him be recieved with bad reviews by an ever more informed audience. His original act was poorly studied to begin with and had many flaws which he never corrected and they became so firmly ingrained that he cannot now repair them.
Sounds like a Roger Ebert
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 1:07pm.
Sounds like a Roger Ebert movie review. :-)
Roger Ebert?
Submitted by Boil It Down on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 1:15pm.
I was going to go on to say that Krugman's Keynesian extravaganza is a failed, tired and dishonest production which needs to go the way of vaudeville.
I hope the "Roger Ebert" reference wasn't a dig.
Not a dig. Just reminded me
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 2:46pm.
Not a dig. Your wording just reminded me of a movie review and Roger Ebert was the first name that came to mind. Substitute Michael Medved if you wish. Or whomever. :-)
America's accountant--yes, good
Submitted by StarAZ on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 2:46pm.
I just heard a tape of the president on an open mike (another clingers deal) where he sneered at Ryan as "America's accountant." I am sorry--is that bad? He says the Republicans (contempt dripping) only want cuts of things he likes because they can't get rid of them any other way. Yeah, it's all about you, undoing what you did (or more accurately, signed)..you, you....Boo-hoo. Hey, you know what--Ryan is smarter, in better shape, younger, cuter, does more homework, has more political courage than you ever will. And Ryan knows his ideas are a starting point, they won't whip into law--he knows that. But he had the guts to kick this off--then what does the president do--yup, kick him in the teeth.
Two things
Submitted by Model850 on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 2:45pm.
1. What Krugman and every other MSM sycophant ignores -- and hopes the sheeple will forget -- is the Boy Blunder already presented his plan, last Valentine's Day. His latest speech contained little or nothing that alters anything in his already offered "plan." Contrary to what Krugman wants you to believe there was no plan presented Wednesday. Just vague generalities, thinly (if at all) veiled insults and campaign rhetoric. Yeah. Oblunder's the "adult" in the room. (Anyone else notice how this "adult/grownup in the room" has become the new MSM meme? Perhaps this is why Mike Papantonio resorted to calling Ryan a boy.)
2.Oblunder's so-called plan (campaign speech) Wednesday is the same kind of plan found in this exchange:
Dad (to 8-year old son): What do you want to be when you grow up?
Son: I wanna be rich!
Dad: OK. How are you going to do that?
Son: I'll make a lot of money and get rich!
Dad: That's your plan?
Son: Yep.
A serious plan...today
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 3:06pm.
The biggest problem with Obama's "plan" is that it keeps changing, month by month, speech by speech. Apparently, he's abandoned the "plan" he submitted just two months ago, Just as he abandoned his "plan" from less than a year ago, the "plan" from two years ago, as well as the many "plans" he submitted as a candidate. Obama's "plan" has changed more often that the deficit totals themselves. Is that what you would describe as "really serious" planning? Not me. I would describe it as "really frivolous."
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Maybe he's doing what he does
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 3:08pm.
Maybe he's doing what he does in every campaign speech...alter his words to fit the audience. He doesn't mean any of it apparently. "Just words...."
Hay, Paul....
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 3:26pm.
Hay, Paul, truth be told, Obama's, and the majority of the Democrats, "plan" could best be described as the Sara Winchester approach to budgeting: keep changing things, keep adding "details" to the "plan," (two thousand page bills for a SINGLE budget item like ObamaCare? Adding amendments to EVERY SINGLE BILL that is submitted in ether the House or the Senate? That's just crazy! Just because the Constitution say you CAN add amendments, it's doesn't meant that you MUST add amendments!) in order to confuse and disrupt the scary ghosts of fiscal restraint. She kept that up for 38 years, and everyone knew SHE was crazy after just the second year. How long do you think Obama can keep it up until he's just as crazy as Sara Winchester?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.