Tea Party, Obama's Re-election, Non-essential Employees and Brain DamageDear Mark: Since the tea party's inception, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats have constantly attacked and minimized this grass-roots movement. They are now blaming the tea party for the budget impasse. Where do they get off? — Mr. Tea in Texas Dear Mr. Tea: Arrogance is the overriding answer, especially when you consider that 48 percent of likely voters in a Rasmussen poll feel their views are closer to the average tea party member versus the average member of Congress. Even 62 percent of the all-important independent voters feel their views are most closely aligned with those of the tea party. Facts can be so inconvenient to liberals. Dear Mark: President Obama announced that he will seek re-election in 2012. Whoop-dee-do, like we didn't expect that. The "unbiased" media made a big deal out of the announcement, as if they were trying to jumpstart his campaign. Did Obama ever actually stop his operation? — Poo Poo on Politics Dear Poo Poo: Of course not. He's a politician, and politicians constantly have one eye focused on the next election. The scary part of the Obama re-election campaign is that pundits are predicting Obama will raise $1 billion for the 2012 effort. To put that number into perspective, 1 billion equals 1,000 million. Although with a track record like the president's, it's going to take every penny of that billion to fool the people again. To help fill his war chest, President Obama will be attending a $35,800 a plate fundraising dinner later this month in San Francisco. That will be followed up the next morning in Los Angeles with a $10,000 per-plate breakfast fundraiser. They'd better be scrambling up some golden eggs for that kind of cash.
It's ironic to constantly hear liberals bash Republicans as being the party of the rich when I'm guessing that at $35,000 per plate there won't be too many ACORN workers in attendance. Have I mentioned that facts can be so inconvenient to liberals? Dear Mark: With the big budget battle going on in Washington, there's talk of the federal government shutting down. The decision then has to be made as to who are essential versus non-essential government employees, and who will and won't get paid during the closure. Who determines all of this? — Essential Ed in East L.A. Dear Essential: With public health and safety in mind along with national defense, Federal laws are in place to maintain certain government services in the event of a government shutdown. According to an article in The Washington Post, the Office of Management and Budget delegates the authority to determine who works or who doesn't to the leadership of the respective agencies. There is also a battle over whether members of Congress should receive their paychecks in the event of a shutdown. At least we could save a few bucks by closing Capitol Hill, as most Americans would probably agree that Congress is definitely non-essential. Dear Mark: I know most of you conservatives don't believe in global warming or that manmade pollution can have a negative impact on life on our planet. But now there is more proof with new research from the University of Southern California suggesting that air pollution in California can cause brain damage. What have you got to say? — Solar Sal in So Cal Dear Solar: That certainly explains how Jerry Brown was elected governor of California again. Dear Mark is a public platform for your enrichment and entertainment. E-mail your questions to marklevy92@aol.com. To find out more about Mark Levy, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
