Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts

Sunday, May 10, 2015

Iran letter divides Democrats

By Mike Lillis, May 9, 2015, TheHill.com

The warning from Democrats to Republican leaders about undermining President Obama's Iran diplomacy has split party leaders.

One hundred and fifty House Democrats wrote a letter to Obama Thursday urging him to exhaust all diplomatic avenues to a nuclear deal before pursuing tougher options like sanctions — a strong indication that Democrats are ready to block any Republican effort rejecting such an agreement.

But while top leaders like Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) and Xavier Becerra (Calif.) endorsed the May 7 letter, Reps. Steny Hoyer (Md.), the minority whip, and Joe Crowley (N.Y.), vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus, did not.

The same divide does not surround legislation that would give Congress an up-or-down vote on any nuclear deal finalized between Iran, the United States and five other global powers. Democratic leaders have endorsed that legislation, which sailed through the Senate 98-1 on Thursday and is expected to soon pass through the House with broad bipartisan support.

But the Democrats' letter is widely viewed as a warning shot to Republicans that they have the numbers to sustain a presidential veto if the GOP uses the power provided by the Senate bill to disapprove of an Iran deal down the road.


Read the full story:  www.thehill.com

Join us - become an Elderado today at: LarryElder.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Thursday, November 20, 2014

By Larry Elder, Nov. 20, 2014

Economist Milton Friedman said the promotion of bad policy requires two types of advocates. "Do-gooders," he said, act in good faith but out of ignorance in promoting counterproductive policies. The second type are the "special interest" rent-seekers, those who stand to personally profit from the scheme.

For economist Jonathan Gruber, the primary architect and intellectual godfather of both Romneycare and Obamacare, we need a new category. Gruber is a two-fer -- both a do-gooder and a rent-seeker. Gruber, so far, has pocketed $6 million advising the federal and state governments on the very law he helped design.

Massachusetts retained MIT economist Gruber to help design its signature health care measure. President Obama later employed Gruber to do the same thing for Obamacare, which Gruber called a deficit-reducing measure that bends the cost curve down. But it turns out when Gruber lets his hair down, he speaks very differently about the nature and goals of Obamacare. Recently, some rather embarrassing videotapes of Gruber comments have surfaced.

Gruber on cost controls: "Cost control turns out to be very, very hard to do. Probably the single biggest frustration I have with critics of this law are people who say it didn't go far enough. ... We do not solve our cost problem in health care in the U.S. with this legislation. We simply do not, OK? But you know what? That's because it was impossible to do so."

Gruber, in 2012, explaining how Massachusetts pulled off Romneycare: "The dirty secret in Massachusetts is the feds paid for our bill, OK? In Massachusetts we had a very powerful senator you may know named Ted Kennedy. ... Ted Kennedy and smart people in Massachusetts had basically figured out a way to sort of rip off the feds for about 400 million dollars a year."

Gruber, in 2012, admitting that Obamacare was intentionally designed so that only enrollees in state-run exchanges -- not the one run by the feds -- receive subsides and tax credits (a matter the Supreme Court will soon decide): "I think what's important to remember politically about this, is if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits."

Gruber, in 2013, on voter stupidity: "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever. ... Look, I wish ... that we could make it all transparent, but I'd rather have this law than not. ... Yeah, there are things I wish I could change, but I'd rather have this law than not."

Gruber, in 2012, on Americans' lack of understanding economics: "We just tax the insurance companies. They pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get -- it ends up being the same thing. It's a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter."

Gruber, in 2013, on Democrats' efforts to disguise a direct tax on people who purchase so-called Cadillac plans: "Then another Massachusetts hero, John Kerry ... came up with a great substitute idea. They said ... 'What if we instead just levied a 40 percent tax on the insurance companies that sell these terrible expensive Cadillac plans?' We said, 'Well, that's pretty much the same thing. But why does it matter?' 'You'll see.' And we proposed it, and that passed because the American voters are too stupid to understand the difference."

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in 2009, extolled his credentials: "I don't know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT's analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange."

Then-Sen. Obama, in 2006, bragged about how he stole ideas from Jon Gruber: "You have already drawn some of the brightest minds from academia and policy circles, many of them I've stolen ideas from liberally. People ranging from Robert Gordon to ... Jon Gruber." In 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called Gruber "one of the most respected economists in the world."

Today neither Pelosi nor Obama knows the economist from a fence post. Asked recently about Gruber, Pelosi said, "I don't know who he is." When asked about him, Obama shrugged and reduced Gruber to some guy who "was never on our staff": "The fact that an adviser who was never on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters is not a reflection on the actual process that was run." According to Fox News, Gruber visited the Obama White House at least 19 times.

In deciding this key issue about state exchanges, the Supreme Court may throw the Gruber's own words right back at him -- and rule Obama's unilateral reinterpretation unlawful. Then even Pelosi will know Gruber's name.



Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Wednesday, November 19, 2014



Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Embattled House Dems Turn Against Nancy Pelosi

By Shane Goldmacher, Oct. 8, 2014, Nationaljournal.com

House Republicans have surprising new company in attacking Nancy Pelosi: her fellow House Democrats.

Three Democrats running in GOP-leaning House districts have used late-stage television ads in a bid to distance themselves from the liberal leader of Democrats' House caucus—the same caucus they're fighting to join in 2015.

"Here's what I believe: Congress is broken," says Gwen Graham, one of the Democratic Party's top recruits, in a recent TV ad as a photo of Pelosi and House Speaker John Boehner flashes on the screen. "Both parties—Republican and Democrat—are to blame. And both need new leaders in Washington."

In Georgia, Rep. John Barrow, one of five Democrats to vote against Pelosi as party leader at the start of the 113th Congress in 2013, uses that fact as one of the key reasons to reelect him. "I voted against Nancy Pelosi as speaker," Barrow brags to Georgians in a recent television ad.

And in Colorado, Democratic candidate Irv Halter is trying to gain some traction in a very Republican district by lumping in his opponent, Rep. Doug Lamborn, with the Democratic leader. "Career politicians like Doug Lamborn and Nancy Pelosi have failed," Halter says, as he gestures toward photos of Lamborn and Pelosi. "…There's only one way to change Washington: Vote them out."

Read the full story:  www.nationaljournal.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi 
By Colin Campbell, Jun. 28, 2014, Businessinsider.com

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) traveled down to Texas on Saturday, where she addressed the ongoing humanitarian crisis of thousands of unaccompanied children who have attempted to cross the border.

Pelosi, using cautious language around the word "crisis," labeled the problem an "opportunity" for America to demonstrate its values. Many of the children have been kept in shocking conditions as federal officials scrambled to provide them basic necessities.

"This is a community with a border going through it. And this crisis — that some call a 'crisis' — we have to view as an opportunity," Pelosi told reporters at a press conference.

Pelosi stressed the children involved are worthy of basic human respect as they are being moved "as quickly as possible into another setting."

"What we just saw was so stunning. If you believe as we do that every child, that every person, has a spark of divinity in them and is therefore worthy of respect, what we saw in those rooms was [a] dazzling, sparkling array of God's children, worthy of respect. So ... we have to use the crisis — that some view as a crisis, and it does have crisis qualities — as an opportunity to show who we are as Americans, that we do respect people for their divinity and worth," she said.


Read the full story:  www.businessinsider.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader
By Carolyn Lochhead, Jun. 12, 2014

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi made it clear Thursday that she would oppose renewed U.S. intervention in Iraq, which is under assault from Sunni forces sweeping down from the north.

The San Francisco Democrat said at her weekly press conference that there is “no appetite in our country to be engaged in any military activity in Iraq.”

She attributed Democratic gains in 2006 that gave her the House gavel to public frustration over the Iraq War.

“I don’t think this is our responsibility,” Pelosi said of the recent violence. “I do think we were irresponsible going into Iraq for a variety of reasons.”

President Obama said Thursday that Iraq will need help from the United States to fight the al Qaeda-inspired insurgents, who have captured the cities of Mosul, Tikrit and Fallujah and are threatening to advance on Baghdad.

Obama did not specify what type of help the U.S. might provide, but said nothing had been ruled out.

“We do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold in either Iraq or Syria, for that matter,” Obama said during an Oval Office meeting with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

Pelosi’s comments reflect a profound exhaustion among Democrats with two overseas wars started by the George W. Bush administration and wound down by the Obama administration.

Republicans are alarmed that the effort in Iraq will all go for naught now that the U.S. has withdrawn. Leading the charge Thursday was Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Obama’s GOP challenger for the presidency in 2008.


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Rep. Nancy Pelosi
By Megan R. Wilson, Jun. 14, 2014, Thehill.com

The wealth of House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi grew more than $4 million last year thanks to gains on investments in her home base of California, according to new financial records.

Pelosi’s minimum net worth grew to about $28.6 million in 2013, with increases in several assets, including a boost of at least $250,000 in Comcast stock that is held by her husband, Paul Pelosi. The stock is worth at least a half million dollars.

Paul Pelosi also holds sock in Facebook that rose in value last year from at least $100,000 to a minimum of $250,000.

But most of the increase in the couple’s wealth came from a single investment called Russell Ranch LLC, which is described as an underdeveloped real estate investment in Sacramento, Calif. The investment’s value rose by at least $4 million.

The Pelosis also have a home and vineyard in Napa, Calif., that’s worth more than $5 million.

The forms do not provide a precise measurement of the congresswoman’s wealth, because lawmakers can report the value of their investments, bank accounts and loans in vast ranges, such as the $5 million to $25 million range.

Paul Pelosi is known for having a variety of eclectic investments, including a $5 million to $25 million stake in the Sacramento Mountain Lions, a team in the United Football League (UFL).

Last summer, five players of the Sacramento franchise sued, claiming Paul Pelosi owes them $250,000 in unpaid wages. The recent financial forms indicate that Paul lost anywhere from $100,000 to $1,000,000 of the millions he has invested in the team.

Pelosi also has an additional $5 million to $25 million invested in the league itself.

Nancy Pelosi is considerably richer than the Republican holding her former job, Speaker John Boehner (Ohio), who had a minimum net worth of about $2.3 million last year, according to a calculation by The Hill.

Read the full story:  www.thehill.com


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Friday, May 30, 2014


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Friday, May 23, 2014

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi
By Joel Gehrke, May 22, 2014, Washingtonexaminer.com

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., repeatedly put the blame for the Veterans Affairs scandal on former President George W. Bush, while arguing that her party has worked hard for veterans in recent years.

Pelosi took a shot at Bush while saying that the scandal is a high priority for Obama. "He sees the ramifications of some seeds that were sown a long time ago, when you have two wars over a long period of time and many, many more, millions more veterans," she told reporters during her Thursday press briefing. "And so, I know that he is upset about it."

The Democratic leader never mentioned Bush by name, but she alluded to him early and often in the press briefing.

"Maybe when we go into war, we should be thinking about its consequences and its ramifications," Pelosi said while discussing the scandal. "You would think that would be a given, but maybe it wasn't. And so, we go in a war in Afghanistan, leave Afghanistan for Iraq with unfinished business in Afghanistan. Ten years later, we have all of these additional veterans. In the past five years, two million more veterans needing benefits from the VA. That's a huge, huge increase."


Read the full story:  www.washingtonexaminer.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi
By Byron York, May 6, 2014, Washingtonexaminer.com

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is complaining that the new select committee on Benghazi will have more Republican members than Democrats. "If this review is to be fair, it must be truly bipartisan," Pelosi said in a just-released statement. "The panel should be equally divided between Democrats and Republicans, as is done on the House Ethics Committee."

The House has not yet voted to create the select committee, although that is a sure thing. Beyond that, Speaker John Boehner has not said how the new committee will be divided between Republicans and Democrats. But it's a pretty good bet there will be more Republicans than Democrats. The GOP holds the majority in the House, and the majority party has a majority on almost all House committees. More specifically, that is the way things worked on the select committee appointed by Pelosi when she was speaker.

In 2007, the House created a Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. As Speaker, Pelosi set up the structure. There were nine Democrats and six Republicans. "The House has a long history of creating Select Committees focused on crucial issues," Pelosi said in a statement. "With a large number of committees exercising jurisdiction over issues affecting energy and climate, the Select Committee will provide the coordination of information on these critical issues."

Now Pelosi wants an even split between the parties. And that is if Democrats even participate. In her statement today, Pelosi said the new Benghazi committee "should require that witnesses are called and interviewed, subpoenas are issued, and information is shared on a bipartisan basis. Only then could it be fair." Pelosi seemed to indicate that Democrats will take part in the select committee, but other Democrats are calling for their party to boycott the panel. As it turns out, Pelosi has a record of doing just that.


Read the full story:  www.washingtonexaminer.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Friday, May 9, 2014

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi
Photo:  AP
By Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer, May 7, 2014, Politico.com

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is considering totally boycotting the Benghazi special committee, or appointing fewer members than allotted to her, according to Democratic aides and lawmakers familiar with her thinking.

Appointing fewer than five lawmakers would be an attempt to show that Democrats don’t fully endorse the committee but still are in place if Republican “tricks happen,” according to a Democratic aide — maneuvers like releasing selective transcripts of depositions.

The California Democrat huddled with her leadership team on a conference call late Wednesday — one day before the Republican leadership plans to pass a bill that would create a special committee to investigate the 2012 attack in Benghazi.

(Also on POLITICO: Behind the Benghazi panel)

Republicans have seven slots on the panel, and Democrats are allowed five members. Pelosi is still considering appointing five Democrats, although sources close to her think that’s unlikely.

Pelosi has made no secret that she thinks this special panel — chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) — is a sham.

Read the full story:  www.politico.com


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Friday, April 18, 2014

SFGate, Apr. 18, 2014

To "honor the dignity and work of immigrants," Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi helps Bishop Marc Andrus wash the feet of two children Thursday at Saint John the Evangelist Episcopal Church in San Francisco.

Pelosi also used the occasion to talk about passing HR15 - bipartisan immigration legislation that her office says would "reduce the deficit by nearly $1 trillion, secure our borders, unite our families, protect our workers and provide an earned pathway to citizenship."

The Democratic leader's ceremony coincides with Pope Francis' similar ceremony in Rome to mark Holy Week. As he did last year, the pope broke with the tradition of washing only priests' feet during the Mass for the Last Supper - this time, washing the feet of disabled people.

Read the full story: www.sfgate.com


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook
Credit:  AP
By Larry Elder, May 25, 2006

As Memorial Day approaches, 51 percent of Americans, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, think the commander in chief "deliberately misled" us about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. "Deliberately misled"? Once again, let's go to the videotape:

Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, February 1998: "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, February 1998: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983."

Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, October 2003: "When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently he told me was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: "There is a problem -- the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right . . . in having decided Iraq should be disarmed."

President Bill Clinton, December 1998: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly -- unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war, not only against soldiers, but against civilians; firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. Not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. . . . "

Clinton, July 2003: " . . . [I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there."

Gen. Wesley Clark, September 2002, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks, as would we."

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean [D], September 2002: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."

Dean, February 2003: "I agree with President Bush -- he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country."

Dean, March 2003: "[Iraq] is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons."

Robert Einhorn, Clinton assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, March 2002: "How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously -- and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner."

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and others, in a letter to President Bush, December 2001: "There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. . . . In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., December 1998: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., ranking minority Intelligence Committee member, October 2002: "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years."

Any questions?


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook

Tuesday, April 15, 2014



Read the full story:  www.townhall.com


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook

Saturday, April 5, 2014



Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Sunday, March 23, 2014


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook

Friday, March 14, 2014


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook