I think I am an inch away from endorsing Rick Santorum if he keeps this up. I am sure my endorsement will put him over the top, but that aside Santorum has really been standing as the only actual conservative left in the race at this point. His latest triumph occurred in Minnesota where he raked Romney over the coals for Romneycare — something that not enough people are doing.

Santorum’s charge is simple. How can a guy that still to this day defends Romneycare be the one to take the fight over Obamacare to the President? I’ve been saying for three years that Romney is simply unable to be the candidate to refute Obamacare and I am thrilled to see Santorum saying the same.

At his appearance in Rochester, Santorum said, “Gov. Romney is absolutely incapable of making the case against Obamacare successfully.”

“The problem is, we have a candidate who is running and seen by the media as the prohibitive favorite, who is the worst possible person in the field to put up on this most fundamental issue in this campaign, and that is Gov. Romney,” Santorum said. “The plan he put together in Massachusetts is in fact ‘ObamaCare’ on the state level.”

Santorum’s exactly right, too. How can we believe a word Romney says on repealing Obamacare when he still to this day is a huge supporter of Romneycare and its individual mandate? Especially since early in his campaigning for the presidency Romney said that Romneycare was a model for the nation. Especially since one of his chief advisors says that they really aren’t going to repeal Obamacare despite what Romney says on the stump.

Romney simply cannot face Obama on the issue because his record is no different than Obama’s on healthcare. Romney is an anti-Constitutionalist, a big government guy, a statist, whatever you want to call him his record is exactly like Obama’s on the issue. Should we believe what Romney says on the stump that he’ll repeal Obamacare if elected? I say we go by his actual record, not what, in a desperate attempt to win, he claims he’ll do if elected. His words have no veracity. Just look at his record.

Romney has taken notice of Santorum, too, and he’s set his smear machine on over drive to destroy Santorum. Romney has chosen to go after Rick on earmarks, but, as Santorum notes, that is a bit cynical since Romney and those that are acting as his surrogate have been big supporters of earmarks in the past.

“Here’s a situation where someone is now doing well, rising in the polls and instead of Gov. Romney going out and talking about his plans and what he’s going to do, he goes out and throws the kitchen sink and runs negative ads and sends out his surrogates to rip and tear — even though he’s as vulnerable on this issue [earmarks] as anybody,” Santorum said.

He said some of Romney’s surrogates have used earmarks in the past, but did not specifically mention Pawlenty.

“This is the narrative which you’re going to see. Anytime someone challenges Gov. Romney, Gov. Romney goes out and instead of talking about what he’s for … he just simply goes out and attacks and tries to destroy,” Santorum told reporters after his speech. “I don’t think it’s going to work this time.”

The main takeaway here is that Romney has been allowed to skate without having to confront his statist love of Romneycare. It is good that Santorum is finally taking it to Mitt forcefully. Some one needs to, anyway.

(Fox News) Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn on Tuesday released his annual “Wastebook” highlighting what he’s labeled some of the government’s most wasteful spending items, including $113,000 for a video game preservation center and $765,000 to subsidize “pancakes for yuppies” in Washington.

Coburn, a Republican who is known around Washington as “Dr. No” for his opposition to excess spending, said in a press release Tuesday that his “Wastebook 2011″ details the “most egregious ways your taxpayer dollars were wasted” — items he claims total more than $6.5 billion in “unnecessary” spending.

Coburn’s statement includes

“Video games, robot dragons, Christmas trees, and magic museums. This is not a Christmas wish list, these are just some of the ways the federal government spent your tax dollars. Over the past 12 months, politicians argued, debated and lamented about how to reign in the federal government’s out of control spending. All the while, Washington was on a shopping binge, spending money we do not have on things we do not absolutely need. Instead of cutting wasteful spending, nearly $2.5 billion was added each day in 2011 to our national debt, which now exceeds $15 trillion,” Dr. Coburn said.

A few choice bits of waste Coburn highlights

• $75,000 to promote awareness about the role Michigan plays in producing Christmas trees & poinsettias.
• $15.3 million for one of the infamous Bridges to Nowhere in Alaska.
• $113,227 for video game preservation center in New York.
• $550,000 for a documentary about how rock music contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
• $48,700 for 2nd annual Hawaii Chocolate Festival, to promote Hawaii’s chocolate industry.
• $350,000 to support an International Art Exhibition in Venice, Italy.
• $10 million for a remake of “Sesame Street” for Pakistan.
• $35 million allocated for political party conventions in 2012.
• $765,828 to subsidize “pancakes for yuppies” in the nation’s capital.
• $764,825 to study how college students use mobile devices for social networking.

That’s what he highlighted. Digging into the report itself, we also find

• $120 million in benefits for dead federal employees
• $492,005 to study whether or not to trust Tweets
• $742,907 grant to Montana State University to research the use of targeted sheep grazing to control weeds
• $50,000 for cowboy poetry
• $5.2 million for the Steamboat Overlook Interpretive Center
• $592,527 to study feces throwing in Occupiers chimps
• $74,470 – The Treehouse Museum Spends Taxpayer Dollars to Teach the Art of Puppetry
• $6,279 for snow cone makers for emergency situations

Gotta stop there, I could keep going on and on with the list. And some might say “sheesh, come on, it was only $6k for the snow cone makers.” OK, let’s see you spend your own money on them. Not such a pleasant purchase now, is it? Your significant other, children, parents, friends, would excoriate you and call you a fool, right? Why should the federal government wasting your taxpayer money be treated any differently?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

The government has settled on a label for gas stations selling a blend of gasoline and ethanol called E15, which contains more ethanol — grain alcohol — than the E10 blend that’s replaced pure gasoline at most stations.

The Environmental Protection Agency previously approved E15 — 85% gasoline and 15% ethanol — for use in vehicles back to 2001 models. The approved label is part of the EPA’s final rule spelling out about how E15 can be sold and what standards it must meet.

There’s only one problem (well, there are lots of problems with ethanol): E15 doesn’t exist.

EPA says tests show E15 won’t harm 2001 and newer vehicles, which have hoses and gaskets and seals specially designed to resist corrosive ethanol. But using E15 fuel in older vehicles or in power equipment such as mowers, chainsaws and boats, can cause damage and now is literally a federal offense.

So says the EPA and ethanol interest groups, but…

Many automakers oppose the EPA’s ruling to allow E15 to be used in 2001 and newer vehicles and already they have twice challenged it. Automakers have been opposing the EPA’s approval of E15 because they say not all of their vehicles will run properly on the blend and because it potentially can void a vehicles warranty.

So, the people who actually design and build cars state that not all built from 2001 and on can accommodate the blend? And use of it could void the warranties? But, don’t worry, the EPA has a sticker! Because we all know if our vehicle can take the E15 (that doesn’t yet exist).

Also, automakers argue that making an E15 blend available will cause an increase in misfueling, resulting in voided warranties, fuel system damage and additional greenhouse gases.

You mean use of E15 could put more GHGs into the atmosphere?

Pro-Ethanol lobbying group Growth Energy argues that E15 is safe in all gasoline-powered vehicles.

Let’s see: listen to the pro-Ethanol group, or the people who actually make the vehicles? Tough choice.

Good thing using corn as fuel isn’t already driving up the costs of food already, otherwise, using even more corn as fuel would be a Bad Idea.

POLITICO posted a piece last week that shows the arrogance of our duly elected Senators in Washington D.C. After reading this piece, one gets the impression that this good old boys club is not only one that not just anyone is allowed to join but one that finds itself beyond even the voters that put them there. It is an arrogance of self-assumed stature in this great Republic that is galling and should be.

The piece, headlined “Mark Kirk not sorry for Senate ‘end zone dance,’” was all full of the tsk tsking by nose-in-the-air senators that didn’t like the fact that newly minted Senator Mark Kirk was ebullient about the GOP having won a recent legislative victory. It was gauche, these senators said, not proper, completely untoward, over-the-top, low-rent, “amateurish,”and entirely eyebrow raising.

What did Senator Kirk do to cause all this finger wagging to be unleashed like a torrent in his direction? In a news conference Kirk put on a “demeanor” that amounted to “spiking a football on the decorous Senate floor,” after the GOP defeated the Democrat’s $1.1 trillion spending bill riddled with pork, waste, and earmarks.

Imagine that? A Senator reveling in victory, a victory both his party and his voters were keen on winning. How “amateurish.”

Kirk, POLITICO reported, was “showboating for voters” but that “demeanor” soon “became a lesson in the perils of punching above your weight in a club in which methodically won stature is everything.” It was a “rookie mistake” POLITICO and the other more seasoned senators insisted.

Here is some of the reaction reported:

“I think his whole demeanor wasn’t that appropriate,” Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) told POLITICO after chiding Kirk on the Senate floor. “I saw what he said, and I thought, ‘I’m going to say something.’ And I thought that that was the politics that people are fed up with. So he has to be very careful.”

…Breaking from his party, Kirk voted to support the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military. Kirk ended up in a heated exchange on the Senate floor with his mentor, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who had made clear his disagreement with Kirk’s position, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

..Kirk has shown quickly that he can be a show horse, but in the Senate, the real test for Kirk will be to prove he’s a workhorse, able to cut deals across the aisle, according to one senior GOP aide who was taken aback by his remarks on the spending bill.

… Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who took him to task after his victory lap on the Senate floor, said she’s willing to give Kirk a second chance to make a first impression.

How nice. Senator McCaskill has deigned to “give” Kirk a second chance. Does she care that the voters of Illinois have spoken and that THEY are the ones giving Kirk his “chance”? Apparently that little bit of reality doesn’t intrude on her arrogant assumption that she is the one responsible for giving an elected senator from another state any “chances.”

Shocking, no? Shocking, yes. What is shocking is what this story reveals about the U.S. Senate. It reveals that the Senate is the problem in Washington, not the solution. These snooty, arrogant cusses are far more concerned with their status, their place and their position and with keeping those new to the game down than they are about actually doing their jobs. They are more interested in massaging their already bloated egos than in working for the betterment of the country.

But, I guess since our senators don’t actually want to do their jobs, they have to fill their time with something, don’t they? Since actually taking the time to learn about the issues and voting on them is not something these swelled-headed so-and-sos feel disposed to do, I guess playing high school-styled popularity games is the next best thing to fill their days. Everyone’s gotta do something, right?

So, yeah, it’s no wonder that all these important personages got a bit upset that the new guy in the block actually went out and helped achieve something his constituents wanted him to do. I mean, how annoying to find a junior, first year senator actually doing something without the other’s by-your-leave approval!

It’s all just so amateurish.

Now, me, I am happy to see Mark Kirk stick it in the faces of these do-nothing, ignoramuses. I was not the biggest Kirk fan in the world, but I most certainly have his back on this. Someone’s gotta shake up these placid, stuffy, arrogant cusses.

Apparently for at least ten years our U.S. Senators have been creating operating rules that allow them to get out of doing one of their most important jobs: actually voting on legislation. As it happens ninety three percent of the approved measures that have come out of the Senate never got a roll call vote.

This means that the massive spending that the Senate has approved for the last ten years has simply sailed through the so-called most deliberative body in the world without all that annoying deliberating stuff being forced on our busy, busy Senators.

In the Washington Examiner Tina Korbe highlights the Senate’s use of the “unanimous consent” rule that allows bills to flow quickly through the Senate by dispensing with Senators having to actually sit down and hit the “yea” or “nay” button before a bill is passed on to the reconciliation phase of the lawmaking process.

Unanimous consent is a procedural device used to speed up the legislative process — as long as no senator objects. In practice, the Senate arrives at unanimous consent not by debate or by thoughtful consideration of bills, but by the Senate “hotline,” an informal telephoned request asking senators to allow measures to be approved by the Senate without debate or amendment.

Korbe goes on to say that a bill will pass automatically unless any senator calls the majority leader on the phone and asks for a “hold” to be placed on the bill. And if a senator isn’t in his office? Well, if he misses the “unanimous consent” why then his absence is taken as consent to pass the bill.

Those “holds” also remain secret. Once the “unanimous consent” attempt is stopped by a “hold” no one knows which senator placed that hold on the process (unless that senator announces his hold vote, of course).

So, what is Harry Reid’s Senate doing? Is it trying to get rid of the “unanimous consent” rule so that votes are transparent and known to the voters and so that our senate actually has to do the work they were sent there to do?

Nope.

Harry Reid’s majority is trying to get rid of the secret holds so that the “unanimous consent” can go even easier. This way, you see, the senate doesn’t have to do any actually “deliberating” to earn their long-time reputation as the most deliberative body in the world and the massive spending that Democrats and Obama want can be passed without any mess and fuss of all that silly “voting” business.

Now, there are some things that the senate does where the “unanimous consent” procedure makes sense. When these people pass their silly, time-wasting resolutions for sports teams or praise for local folks back home, a roll call vote really would be a waste of time. In these cases a constant roll call vote really would unnecessarily slow down the actual legislative process.

Of course, why our senate is wasting its time congratulating little league teams, or creating the name-your-month months is another question, one that we should be requiring our senators to justify. Get rid of all such nonsense and the “unanimous consent” rule won’t be needed… unless, dear senate, your goal is to hide your vote from the public and continue your outlandish, wasteful spending.

As Korbe says, this new congress is the ideal time to address these idiotic rules. Let’s have some of that transparency that President Obama claimed for years that he’d foster. But let’s actually have that transparency instead of the president’s empty promises.

Jim DeMint

Focusing on earmarks is not among them:

Fix the tax code

Fix Social Security

Repeal Obamacare and come up with health care that really works

Evolve Education and Transportation back to the states

DeMint, named Human Event’s 2010 Conservative of the Year, says he is hoping we will find a GOP presidential candidate as winsome as Ronald Reagan, a candidate who will make no promises because America is broken. We must do less, not more.

Interestingly, there is a conversation at the beginning of the video about the Congressional Budget Office scoring tax cuts as spending. While I understand the math and accounting procedures behind it, and see the possibility of the government suffering from tax cuts, historically and factually, revenues increase with tax cuts.The government is making an assumption that isn’t reality.

I have to wonder how this started in the CBO offices. At what point did we begin deeming the possibility of every penny of every taxpayer dollar belonging to the U.S. government? Think about it, if the government taxed us 100% of every penny we have, taking every penny we have, and then decided to give us back some of our money to live on, it would be considered a deficit-building move. Surely there is another way. How about starting with the assumption of a very modest tax debt on the taxpayer, across the board, and spend accordingly. That would definitely help “fix” America.

Jim DeMint, 2010 Conservative of the Year on the GOP’s Big Issues

Pork, pork, pork. It’s enough pork to make a Southside Chicago BBQ joint greasy with envy. Yes, it’s a bacchanalia of pork spending and earmarks in the Omnibus spending bill, for sure, and we now have the database to prove it.

Senator Tom Coburn has posted a Google Spreadsheet data base document on line and there you can see how much the earmark costs us, where it is going, and which of our congressmen asked for the earmark.

There’s One million, five hundred eighteen thousand dollars for animal vaccines in Greenport, New York. There’s three hundred grand for the study of phytoplankton in Boothbay, Maine. Millions going to various drug enforcement programs across the country. Ten mil is being shelled out to the “John P. Murtha Foundation” for… well, just because John was such a prince of a guy. There’s a mil six hundred thou for the “Brain Safety Net,” so that brains can be safe… and stuff. Lots of cash for the study of renewable energy, various road and bridge projects, and educational efforts. Even more cash to the Department of Energy for the “Office of Science” because, well, only government can do science, ya know?

So far there have been 6,715 earmarks attached to the Fiscal 2011 Omnibus Spending bill that Congress is now considering.

According to Senator John McCain (R, AZ), the earmarks total nearly $8.3 billion. They include such things as $349,000 for swine waste management in North Carolina; $413,000 for peanut research in Alabama; $235,000 for noxious weed management in Nevada; and $300,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii.

So, yes, it looks like Congress has learned its lesson about fiscal responsibility…. and is duly flaunting that lesson and the voters that schooled it.

In fact, I wonder if there is an earmark for Christmas cards from Congress? Those cards might read…

Dear American Voters,

Screw you.

We’ll spend what we want.

Love,
Your Democrat Controlled Congress

Merry Christmas, America.

Not only did they not listen, but at least one of them, Democrat Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri was going for — as Jim Hoff put it — the mother of all earmarks.

Cleaver had proposed a $48 billion earmark that was supposed to go to the inner city of Kansas City, Missouri. It was supposed to be “for the kids”… usually that is a clue right there that it is going to go to graft and corruption.

And BOY was Cleaver going for the brass ring. You see, Cleaver wanted this $48 billion to go to the not-for-profit Quality Day Campus, an organization run by Cleaver’s buddy, Lamar Mickens.

One might think that this organization must be a great effort with dozens of employees and a long list of good works that are serving thousands of Missouri’s most needy citizens… right?

Not so much. The Quality Day Campus headed by Cleaver’s buddy is run out of his house in Kansas City. He is the President and the Treasurer of the “organization.” His wife is the vice president. Yep it’s a big concern alright.

What should concern us is that Rep. Cleaver wanted to give $48 billion to a guy that runs a shady, fly-by-night “child care” center out of his own house!

Merry Christmas, America, indeed.

The draft proposal by the chairmen of President Obama’s deficit-reduction commission was a welcome antidote to the low-minded debate that dominated the midterm elections, in which politicians all vowed to reduce the deficit but offered no credible plans.

By low minded debate, they mean you TEA Partiers and everyone else who followed along and voted to throw all the Democrats out of the House, State legislatures, and governorships.

The proposal, released Wednesday, comes from Erskine Bowles, formerly the chief of staff for President Bill Clinton, and Alan Simpson, the former Republican senator from Wyoming. It frankly acknowledges what most politicians are too cowardly to admit — that deficit reduction will require shared sacrifice.

They’re right, it should be shared. Shared by the federal government, which needs to seriously reduce expenditures and revamp how they spend, and Democrat voters who love taxes so much and voted for idiots who drastically increased spending, the debt, and the deficit, so, should have their taxes raised. Huh? That’s not what they meant. Oops.

TAXES The proposal includes three options for tax reform, two of which would simplify the code by reducing income tax rates while modifying or repealing many tax deductions and other tax breaks. The third calls on Congress to undertake tax reform, while putting in place automatic tax increases if it fails to act by 2013.

The sensible aim is to raise more money — roughly $1 trillion over 10 years — than under the current system. We wish the co-chairmen had come right out and said directly that the country needs to raise taxes. Instead, the proposal says coyly that the tax changes would “reduce the deficit.”

No one is stopping all the liberals out there, including the Fish Wrap editorial board, from ponying up and paying more taxes. They’ve whined about lower tax rates for almost a decade now, yet, they never seem to put their money where their mouths are. Regardless, since we know liberals will never match their actions with their rhetoric, taxation to stimulate an economy and do things like reduce the federal deficit and debt won’t work, because government officials, especially Democrats, will never cut back on spending. And yes, this does include Republicans under Bush, who took all the extra tax money from the tax cuts and went hog wild.

THE MILITARY The new proposal would go far beyond that, anticipating $100 billion in military budget cuts in 2015 alone — and would put the savings into deficit reduction.

It calls for freezing salaries and bonuses for the Pentagon’s civilian work force and noncombat military pay, cutting weapons procurement by 15 percent and slashing military personnel at bases in Europe and Asia by one-third. All ideas well worth debating.

Obviously, all liberals love cutting the military, and reducing that evil military industrial complex. Now, cuts are not really so bad, which goes for all federal agencies. What really needs to be done is to streamline the appropriation and spending processes, closer to the way private companies spend and appropriate (without the making a profit portion, obviously.) That’s a massive conversation in detail for another day.

They also like some of the Social Security and health care ideas, especially those that raise taxes and introduce a public option, and end with

As we read the chairmen’s proposal, we had one very strong reaction: We hoped the Republicans would pause long enough in their gleeful planning of President Obama’s final defeat, and the Democrats would stop wringing their hands, long enough to read this important document — and then act on it.

Wasn’t that the same yammer we heard about the 9/11 Commission, the provisions of which Democrats immediately promised to implement in full, and then forgot about when they regained the House and Senate?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. sit back and Relax. we’ll dRive!

President Barack Obama said Americans’ “fear and frustration” is to blame for an intense midterm election cycle that threatens to derail the Democratic agenda.

“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.”

Obama told the several dozen donors that he was offering them his “view from the Oval Office.” He faulted the economic downturn for Americans’ inability to “think clearly” and said the burden is on Democrats “to break through the fear and the frustration people are feeling.”

Well, on one hand, he’s correct: many people were scared and clearly were not thinking clearly when they decided to vote for a man with no experience as an executive, who peddled unicorns and lollipops, and who they knew almost nothing about. Of course, being a community organizer is all about playing on people’s fears. Witness the constant drumbeat about the evil Chamber of Commerce, verbal attacks against private individuals and entities that question his agenda, and his car analogy (D is for drive, R is for reverse), not too mention the blamestorming Obama has engaged in since day 1. As Tom Maguire writes

Still, I wonder whether telling us we are a nation of cowards for worrying about our jobs will be a winning message.

No, no, that’s the fear talking, Tom. You need not be afraid. Everything is going to be OK. Some years down the road. Until then, we have unicorns! Can’t you just smell the fragrant emanations?

“You can respond in a couple of ways to a trauma like this,” Obama said, referring to the economy. “One is to pull back, retrench and respond to your fears by pushing away challenges, looking backwards. Another is to say we can meet these challenges and we are going to move forward. And that’s what this election is about.”

Yes, that is what this election is about, Professor. It’s about the American people realizing that they want things to get better, so they are willing to give the GOP the chance to fix the problems that your administration, along with Congressional Democrats, have made worse/created. Obviously, all you folks who are scared for your jobs, scared about the possibility of inflation or deflation, scared about what ObamaCare will do to your health insurance, scared what will happen with your taxes, scared about unemployment, scared about runaway government spending, scared for your children’s futures, well, you’re apparently idiots for being feart.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Re-Change 2010!

The feud between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) flared up again Wednesday over Coburn’s objection to a bill protecting sharks.

The shark legislation, which deals with a prohibition on the harvesting of shark fins, was one of several bipartisan bills intended to protect wildlife that drew objections from Coburn on Wednesday.

Reid called for unanimous consent, Coburn said “hell, no” over some really good legislation which would protect sharks, otters, and other sea creatures. And from USA Today

A letter from two senators is the only thing blocking congressional approval of a decade-long effort to build a women’s history museum in the nation’s capital.

Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Jim DeMint, R-S.C., have placed a “hold” on a bill that would sell land near the Smithsonian Institution for the National Women’s History Museum. A “hold” is a Senate practice that prevents bills from passing with unanimous consent — and implicitly threatening a filibuster.

He must be a misogynist or something, to go with his animal hating ways. But……not so fast

(the sharks issues) “The problems that are facing this country are so big and so massive that our attention ought to be focused on those large problems, not on five separate bills that have been proffered for special interest groups.”

Coburn said the bills would add to the federal deficit at a time “when our economy is languishing because we continue to grow the federal government.”

Oh.

(women’s museum) The senators say their concerns are financial: Though the museum would pay fair market value for the land, the group has raised little money. And they said the new institution would duplicate more than 100 similar museums — some of which already get taxpayer subsidies.

Abortion politics are also in play: The senators’ action came two days after the Concerned Women for America, a conservative group, wrote DeMint asking for a hold. The group’s CEO, Penny Nance, wrote in July that the museum would “focus on abortion rights without featuring any of the many contributions of the pro-life movement in America.”

Um huh. Coburn even wrote a letter to Mitch McConnel about his intentions. The cost would have only been about $124 million for the sea critters bills, but, $50 million would have gone overseas. Interestingly, Coburn introduced a bill, along with Rep Peter Roskam (R-Il),to stop Medicare and Medicaid fraud. It went nowhere. He also planned to introduce up to 9 pieces of legislation for unanimous consent, which include

1. Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
2. Tax Hike Prevention Act of 2010
3. Tax cheats bill for members of Congress
4. Tax cheats bill for federal employees
5. The Earmark Transparency Act
6. Stop Secret Spending
7. Excluding Abortion Coverage from Health Reform Act
8. The Firearms Fairness and Affordability Act
9. Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act

Whether he was able to put them up for UC, we’ll have to see once Coburn’s website is updated, or when Thomas releases the daily digest, which will occur tomorrow.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Re-Change 2010!