HURT: The only thing worse than the economy is Obama talking about it – Washington Times

HURT: The only thing worse than the economy is Obama talking about it – Washington Times.

By Charles Hurt


If you are wondering why President Obama and his supporters spend so much time in this election condescending to female voters, jabbering about gay marriage and contraception, or whether Mr. Obama really was born in Kenya, it is because they simply cannot talk about the economy.

And when they do, they quickly make clear why they work so hard to avoid any discussion of it.

The Obama campaign made a rare foray this past week into the economy with a television ad attacking Mitt Romney’s economic record as governor of Massachusetts. OK, stop laughing.

Of course, it strains absurdity for Mr. Obama to be attacking anybody else on their economic record. But this is a political campaign that will be determined by the economy. And, anyway, we should just be grateful that for once they are not arguing that you and I should be paying for some college student’s olympic sex life.

In the ad, Mr. Obama attacks Mr. Romney for job losses in the manufacturing sector while he was governor. He also claims that Massachusetts “fell to 47th in job creation. Fourth from the bottom.”

In his ad, Mr. Obama fails to mention that when Mr. Romney became governor, Massachusetts was dead last in job creation nationwide. But, yes, it did hit 47th on its way to ranking 30th in the nation by the time Mr. Romney left office — a considerable improvement.

But while we are talking about jobs — or the lack of them — consider this: When Mr. Obama took office in 2009, there were 11.6 million people unemployed in this country. Today, after all of Mr. Obama’s economic voodoo, there 12.7 million unemployed.

The unemployment rate when Mr. Obama took office was 7.8 percent. It was not supposed to pass 8 percent, but, of course, it did. And didn’t stop going up until it hit 10 percent in October 2009.

Since then, the rate has been dropping, though that is largely because of people simply giving up looking for jobs. If that weren’t happening, according to federal jobs data, the unemployment rate would be about 11 percent today.

And last week, the unemployment number reversed course and began ticking back up.

Understandably, job creation is a bit of a sore subject for Mr. Obama and an area where he might not be terribly reliable when it comes to judging his opponent.

But the most shocking and disingenuous attack in Mr. Obama’s ad is his claim that Romney left Massachusetts deeper in debt.

This, from the man who has single-handedly piled on such historic mountains of debt as to be — literally — beyond comprehension.

When he took office, the U.S. was struggling under the weight of $10.6 trillion in debt. Through bailouts and wild spending, Mr. Obama has amassed an additional $5.1 trillion in debt, bringing the total to $15.7 trillion.

In his first 3½ years, Mr. Obama has burned through more money we don’t have than all eight years of his immediate predecessor. It is, without question, the biggest bonfire of debt in world history.

No wonder he would rather talk about gay marriage.


Romney: Obama had little to lose in Solyndra – Washington Times

Image representing Solyndra as depicted in Cru...

Image via CrunchBase

Romney: Obama had little to lose in Solyndra – Washington Times.

‘It’s the taxpayers that get stuck’

By Seth McLaughlinThe Washington Times

Standing outside the shuttered California headquarters of Solyndra on Thursday, Mitt Romney said President Obama must answer to voters for the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars he gambled on the politically connected solar technology company, which went belly-up in 2011.

Across the country in Boston, Mr. Obama’s top campaign strategist charged that Mr. Romney, the Republicans‘ presumptive presidential nominee, failed to help a struggling economy in Massachusetts when he served one term as governor from 2003 to 2007.

In an election that is being billed as a referendum on Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy and federal spending, Mr. Romney and congressional Republicans have accused Mr. Obama of being more interested in using taxpayer money to reward his allies and push his ideology — even as Democrats have argued that Mr. Romney’s job-creating credentials fall short of the smart businessman’s image he is trying to portray.

“If the business had done spectacularly well, the shareholders — his friends — would have done very, very well, but the taxpayers would have just gotten their money back,” Mr. Romney said. “On the other hand, of course, if the business failed, as it did, it’s the taxpayers that get stuck with losing a half a billion dollars. So it’s heads and his cronies win, and tails and the taxpayers lose.”

With deep ties to the White House, Solyndra was awarded $535 million in government-backed loan guarantees, even as some staffers in the administration warned that it was a worrisome gamble and cautioned the president and his advisers against the plan.

Mr. Obama toured the solar panel facility in 2010, holding it up as one of the success stories to come out of the $831 billion in federal stimulus spending. At the event, he called companies like Solyndra “the true engine of economic growth.”

“Well, you can see that it’s a symbol of something very different today. It’s a symbol not of success, but of failure,” Mr. Romney said Thursday, arguing that the way the administration handed out the federal grants sent the wrong message to companies “that the best way to get ahead is not with the best ideas and the best technology and the best people and the best marketing, but instead with the best lobbyists.”

“That is not the nature of how America works,” he said.

David M. Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s top strategist, looked to deliver a different message in Massachusetts, where he opened his remarks, just steps away from the Statehouse that Mr. Romney used to occupy, by saying, “It is great to be in Massachusetts — Obama country.”

He painted the Republican as a political huckster, saying that Mr. Romney is once again peddling the false narrative that his experience as a “corporate buyout specialist” has given him special insight into how to jump-start the economy and get Americans back to work.

“After selling himself to Massachusetts as an economic savior, the Massachusetts record was alarmingly weak,” he said. “As you’ve heard, under Gov. Romney, the state was 47th in job creation — fourth from the bottom.”

Manufacturing jobs, he said, vanished at twice the national rate, household income fell, the size of the state government grew and Mr. Romney raised more fees than any other governor in the country — including for marriage licenses and home sales.

He also held up a 2007 study from Northeastern University that he said showed that on key labor market measures, the state often ranked near or at the bottom when compared with other states.

“It wasn’t happenstance that Massachusetts stumbled under Gov. Romney,” Mr. Axelrod said. “He brought the orientation of a financial engineer, whose career has not been about generating jobs, it has been about generating short-term profit. Not about generating long-term growth, or building for the future, but about taking what he can when he can.”

The news conference, though, was largely overshadowed by a boisterous group of Romney supporters who crashed the event after word of it leaked overnight.

While Mr. Axelrod and local Democratic leaders spoke, the pro-Romney forces booed and taunted them with noisemakers and chants, including “Where are the jobs?” and, perhaps fittingly, “Solyndra, Solyndra.”

Clearly rattled, Mr. Axelrod tried to silence them early on, but to no avail.

“You can shout down speakers, my friends, but it is hard to Etch-a-Sketch the truth away,” he said.

The punch-counterpunch came less than 24 hours after Mr. Obama phoned Mr. Romney to congratulate him on clinching the Republican nomination Tuesday, following his strong showing in the Texas primary.

Five months from Election Day, polls show the race is basically a dead heat, with Mr. Obama running a couple of points ahead of Mr. Romney in the latest average of polls.

Most of the same polls, though, also show that while Mr. Obama is the more likable of two candidates, voters tend to side with Mr. Romney when they are asked whom they trust more to strengthen the economy.

With friends like his – Tea Party Nation

Mitt Romney in 2007 in Washington, DC at the V...

Mitt Romney in 2007 in Washington, DC at the Values Voters conference (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

With friends like his – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

Everyone one of us heard the same expression from our parents when we were growing up.  People will judge you by your friends and the company you keep.  You can tell a lot about someone by the people they choose as friends, mentors and collaborators.

 There is someone we should definitely judge by the company he has kept.

 Who is it?

 Mitt Romney

 In April 2006, Mitt Romney signed what we now call “Obamneycare” into law.   As he did, Romney heaped praise on Ted Kennedy.  He called Kennedy, “My collaborator and my friend.”

 Romney went to Kennedy to make it possible to pass Obamneycare.  The myth the Romney campaign wants us to believe is that this was just passed by the Democratic majority in the Massachusetts legislature.    Romney was knee deep in getting this bill passed.

 According to the New York Times, which did a fascinating piece on the history of the Kennedy Romney relationship and how they worked together to give Massachusetts Obamneycare, Romney had no hope of passing his massive socialist healthcare program with the Democrats in total control of the State legislature.  So Kennedy went behind the scenes to lobby legislators and push negotiations along. 

 As the bill went to crunch time, Romney went so far as to show up at the homes of the Senate leader and the Speaker of the House to lobby for its passage. 

 In April of 2006, when the bill was passed Romney, with a glowing Ted Kennedy standing near him, signed the bill into law Romney had already announced he was not running for reelection. 

 If Romney was not running, why did he sign the bill?

 Romney wants everyone to believe he mostly a passive observer and had little to do with this bill.

 The truth is far different.   Mitt Romney created this bill and got Ted Kennedy to support it.

 When Mitt Romney says he is a conservative, his track record belies that claim.  He is the moving force behind Obamneycare.  If he had not pushed it, Obamneycare never would have happened.  He got Ted Kennedy to help him.


 The answer is, Kennedy and Romney may not have been friends, but they saw eye to eye on a lot of issues, including big government socialism. 

 Kennedy’s long time goal was a single payer socialist system.  So was Romney’s. 

 In 1994, Romney ran to the left of Ted Kennedy.  We keep getting the lame excuses from his campaign that this is what he had to do in Massachusetts.   

 Someone’s past behavior is the best guide to what they really believe and who the really are.

 Romney’s behavior says it all.  He is a liberal and if the Republicans nominate him, we simply have the choice between an anti-American Marxist and a far left, Ted Kennedy liberal.

 What a choice.

The Real Mitt Romney: He’s no conservative – Tea Party Nation

The Real Mitt Romney: He’s no conservative – Tea Party Nation.

Will the real Mitt Romney please step forward.  We know who the real Mitt Romney is.  He is the liberal who ran Massachusetts as a liberal.  He even says so in his own words.   Here is the real history of Mitt Romney.

Here is Mitt Romney and all of his liberal positions. How can anyone now say he is anything but a politician who will say anything to get elected. He is not a conservative and we conservatives must stop him from getting the nomination for President.

Mitt Romney: Still not supported by the Tea Party – Tea Party Nation

Mitt Romney: Still not supported by the Tea Party – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

The Washington Times is usually pretty good, but they really blew this one.   They claim that Romney is now getting Tea Party support.  The writer for the Times either didn’t know better or engaged in some creative writing.  Among other things, he claims that Freedomworks has dropped its opposition to Romney, something that Freedomworks denies.


The Times in its blatant desire to see Romney as the nominee claims that Freedomworks launched the Tea Party movement.  Ignoring the fact that is not true, I don’t think even Freedomworks makes that claim.  They did help organize a big DC rally in 2009, which was one of the most impressive rallies held, but the movement launched months before they became involved. 


The desperation of the Romney crowd to get him anointed as the nominee is becoming disgusting and desperate.  It reminds me of the bum’s rush a used car salesman gives a customer so they will buy before they realize how bad a deal they are getting.


And we are already starting to see this. 


On CNN this morning, Romney’s communications director, one Eric Fehnstrom announced that once the primary was over, Romney would be “resetting.”


HOST: Is there a concern that Santorum and Gingrich might force the governor to tack so far to the right it would hurt him with moderate voters in the general election.


FEHRNSTROM: Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all of over again.


Restart it all over again? 


In plain, non-RINO English that means as soon as the primary is over, Romney is going to move far to the left.  We will see the real Romney.  We will see the Romney Massachusetts saw and did not like for four years.  We are going to see what we will really be getting with the Massachusetts liberal.


Guess what? 


We are not going to like it.


This is going to be 2008 all over again, except this time it will be worse.  Romney has ignored the conservative base and has made it a point of trying to win without the base.  He has done this because he had a huge money advantage.  He has outspent opponents anywhere from 5-1 to 21-1 in the Illinois primary.


Romney advisors have already said, despite Romney’s promise, he is not going to repeal Obamacare.  Now we have someone in the Romney campaign basically saying he will move to the left as soon as he is absolutely certain he has the nomination. 


It is not too late to stop Romney and this is what we must do.


We must support both Gingrich and Santorum.   Neither can win at this point but they can still stop Romney. 


While I do not speak for the Tea Party, I think I have a pretty good understanding of this movement and I believe this movement does not support Mitt Romney.


Romney is not an anti-American Marxist like Obama but beyond that there is little difference.  If elected he will govern from the left and destroy not only the Republican Party but also the conservative movement.


This is why we must act to try and stop him at the convention while we still can.

Democrats Love Taxes — They Just Don’t Want to Pay Them – Larry Elder – Townhall Conservative


Al Sharpton

Al Sharpton (Photo credit: Ewils Photo)

Democrats Love Taxes — They Just Don’t Want to Pay Them – Larry Elder – Townhall Conservative.

Forgive Republican candidate Mitt Romney for his alleged failure to adequately explain why he paid “only” 14 percent of his income in taxes.

The honest answer — “Well, because my accountants couldn’t figure out how to get them any lower” — does not work in this or very many other election years. Romney seemed flat-footed because, like most business people, he seeks to minimize costs and expenses.

This includes taxes.

A normal wealthy-and-proud-of-it guy would have said: “Let me get this straight, pal. I’m not supposed to take every legal advantage provided me by the tax laws to reduce my taxes?” For what it’s worth, about 15 percent of Romney’s last two years of income went to charity — substantially higher than the percentage given by the Obamas or Joe Biden’s $380 (not a typo) of his quarter-million dollar income in 2006.

“Tax savings” allows people more money to save, spend, invest, bequeath and donate. On some level, even Democrats understand this.

Democrat Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., is one of them. In 2001, Massachusetts lowered it state income tax rate. But the legislature showed mercy for the Bay State‘s guilt-ridden, tax-hike-supporting liberals. The tax form allowed the filer to check a special box — and pay the old, higher rate. Out of more than 3 million tax filers in 2004, a tiny fraction of 1 percent — 930 taxpayers — volunteered to pay the higher rate. Among those who declined the opportunity was Mr. Frank. Frank explained, “I don’t trust the legislative leadership and Gov. (Mitt) Romney to make the right decisions.” Instead, Frank said, “I’ll donate the money myself.” What?! Charity might better spend money than can government, which, by its nature, operates less efficiently and more expensively than can private welfare?

Democrat Sen. Howard Metzenbaum from Ohio (served 1974, 1976-1995) was another tax-supporting Democrat not too keen on paying more in taxes than he needed to. But after retirement, the wealthy Metzenbaum moved to Florida, which, unlike Ohio, is a state with no estate or personal income taxes. This saved him millions.

Democrat John Edwards‘ wife Elizabeth, during the 2004 campaign, said rich politicians like her husband reveal “character” when they vote against financial “interest” by supporting higher taxes. This is the same John Edwards who, as a trial lawyer winning big jury awards, established a separate sub-corporation to accept the money, paying him through dividends rather than income. Perfectly legal. But this allowed Edwards to avoid some $600K in Medicare payroll taxes.

Democrats like Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., rail against the Bush tax cuts that rich people — like himself — “didn’t need” and “didn’t ask for.” Rhode Island requires no sales tax on yachts registered in that state — provided the boat is primarily housed in Rhode Island. Massachusetts is not so understanding. That state requires a sales tax and annual excise taxes. Folks say that Kerry and his 75-foot yacht spend way more time in Massachusetts than in Rhode Island. But accountants say that the wealthy yachtsman can avoid nearly $500K in state taxes by registering his boat in Rhode Island — which he did. All was going well, until a New York paper got hold of the story and Kerry “voluntarily” agreed to pay the Mass. tax — while continuing to insist that he does not really owe it.

Democrats like the late Ted Kennedy support the estate tax. And why not? The Kennedy family transfers wealth from generation to generation through trusts that avoid the very estate taxes that Kennedy consistently voted to impose on the wealth of others.

Shouldn’t tax-hike-supporting rich people like Warren Buffett want to pay more rather than less taxes? Yet one of Buffett’s companies is contesting tax claims against it.

Pro-tax-hike Democrats like MSNB-Hee-Haw’s the Rev. Al Sharpton deserve a special wing all to themselves in the Chutzpah Hall of Fame. Sharpton assails the Bush-era tax cuts and wants “the rich” to pay more. Sharpton lists income from his nonprofit at just under a quarter million dollars. Add this to his estimated salary at the cable network, and the “civil rights leader” likely pulls in a tidy $500K. Not bad for a guy that not long ago was a gold-medallion-wearing Harlem rabble-rouser in velour sweatpants who got famous by playing the race card in a phony rape case.

Sharpton, according to the New York Post, owes federal taxes and state taxes totaling $3.5 million. How much income would Sharpton have had to earn to amass $3.5 million in state and local taxes? A lot. How much nerve does it take for a guy making a half mil to go on television and pound the podium for higher taxes on the rich — when his own effective tax rate is 0 percent?

Ask Sharpton.

Is Liberalism a Religion? – John C. Goodman – Townhall Conservative

Is Liberalism a Religion? – John C. Goodman – Townhall Conservative.

When people make statements that are completely at variance with reality and they continue to repeat them and you know they are not crazy, it’s only natural to wonder, what’s going on?

I’ve concluded that for some people on the left, political beliefs are like a false religion in which the parishioners become unable to distinguish myth from reality.

How else can you explain the statements of Donald Berwick, President Obama’s recess appointee to run Medicare and Medicaid, on his way out of office the other day? For starters, he claimed that the Affordable Care Act (what some people call ObamaCare) “is making health care a basic human right.” Then he went on to say that because of the new law, “we are a nation headed for justice, for fairness and justice in access to care.”

Now I can’t claim to have read everything in the 2,700-page law, but I can assure you that “making health care a right” just isn’t in there. Nor is there anything in the new law that makes the role of government more “just” or “fair.”

To the contrary, a lot of knowledgeable people (not just conservative critics) are predicting that access to care is going to be more difficult for our most vulnerable populations. That appears to have been the experience in Massachusetts, which Obama cites as the model for the new federal reforms. It’s not that Massachusetts tried and failed to expand access to care. It didn’t even try.

True enough, Massachusetts cut the number of uninsured in that state in half through Governor Romney’s health reform. But it didn’t create any new doctors. The state expanded the demand for care, but it did nothing to expand supply. More people than ever are trying to get care, but because there was no increase in medical services, it has become more difficult than ever to actually see a doctor.

And far from fair, the new federal health law will give some people health insurance subsidies that are as much as $20,000 more than the subsidies available to other people at the same level of income. In fact, the new system of health insurance subsidies is about as arbitrary as it can be.

Berwick isn’t alone in making bizarre statements about health reform. Right after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, administration health advisors Robert Kocher, Ezekiel Emanuel and Nancy-Ann DeParle announced that the new health reform law “guarantees access to health care for all Americans.”

In fact, nothing in the act guarantees access to care for any America, let alone all Americans. Far from it. Again, take Massachusetts as the precedent. The waiting time to see a new family practice doctor in Boston (63 days) is longer than in any other major U.S. city. In a sense, a new patient seeking care in Boston has less access to care than in just about every other U.S. city!

The disconnect between belief and reality is not unique to our country. With the enactment of the British National Health Service after World War II, the reformers claimed that they too had made health care a “right.” The same claim was made in Canada after that country established its “single-payer” Medicare scheme.

Yet in reality, neither country has made health care a right. They didn’t even come close. Neither British nor Canadian citizens have a right to any particular health care. A patient with a mysterious lump on her breast has no right to an MRI scan in either country. A cancer patient has no right to the latest cancer drug. A cardiac patient has no right to open heart surgery. They may get the care they need. Or they may not. Sadly, all too often they do not.

The British and the Canadians not only have no legally enforceable right to any particular type of care, they don’t even have a right to a place in line. For example, a patient who is 100th on the waiting list for heart surgery is not entitled to the 100th surgery. Other patients (including cash paying patients from the United States!) may jump the queue and get their surgery first.

Imagine a preacher, a priest or a rabbi who gets up in front of the congregation and gets a lot of things wrong. Say he misstates facts, distorts reality, or says other things you know are not true. Do you jump up from the pew and yell, “That’s a lie”? Of course not. But if those same misstatements were made by someone else during the work week you might well respond with considerable harshness. What’s the difference? I think there are two different thought processes that many people engage in. Let’s call them “Sunday morning” thinking and “Monday morning” thinking. We tolerate things on Sunday that we would never tolerate on Monday. And there is probably nothing wrong with that, unless people get their days mixed up.

In my professional career I have been to hundreds of health policy conferences, discussions, get-togethers, etc., where it seemed as though people were completely failing to connect with each other. One day it dawned on me that we were having two different conversations. Some people were engaged in Monday morning thinking, while everyone else was engaged in Sunday morning thinking.

Here’s the problem. Whether the beliefs are true or false, if people didn’t come to their religious convictions by means of reason, then reason isn’t going to convince them to change their minds.

This same principle applies to collectivism and health care. If people didn’t come to the false religion of collectivism by means of reason, you are not going to talk them out of it by means of reason. If you remember this principle, you will save yourself the agony of many, many pointless conversations.

Impersonating a Republican – Tea Party Nation


Mitt Romney - Caricature

Image by DonkeyHotey via Flickr

Impersonating a Republican – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips on December 16, 2011

There is one major candidate who should be careful.  He could be arrested for impersonating a Republican.  Who is impersonating a Republican?

 It is Mitt Romney.

 Romney has been trying to claim he is a conservative.  Ignoring the fact that in 1994, he ran against Ted Kennedy basically claiming to be more liberal than Kennedy.  In 2002, he said he was a “progressive.”  He said he was a “moderate” Republican.

 What would Romney do as President? 

 Well realistically, he will never be President.  A Romney nomination is going to depress the conservative base.  Between one third to one half of conservatives will not vote for Romney if he is the nominee.

 What kind of Chief Executive would Romney be?

 Romney explains most of his liberal actions by saying he was in Massachusetts.  If he wanted his administration to work, he had to work with the Democrats.

 Romney decided halfway through his term that he was not going to run for reelection as governor and instead set his sites on the Presidency.   On December 14, 2005, he announced he would not seek that second term.

 Once he made that announcement, he was a lame duck in Massachusetts.  He was free to do what he wanted to.  What did he do as a lame duck?

 First, he signed the Romneycare bill.  On April 12, 2006, Romney signed the bill that served as a blueprint for Obamacare.

 Universal government healthcare has long been a goal of the far left.   If Romney is such a conservative, why did he work so hard on that bill and get it signed, especially while he was a lame duck.

 On January 1, 2006, Massachusetts became the first state to regulate CO2 emissions.   The regulations were announced on December 7, 2005, featuring Romney gushing over his “environmental experts,” including John Holdren who is Obama’s science advisor.   Holdren is the same lunatic who has called for forced abortions, involuntary sterilizations and “de-development” of the United States back to pre-Columbus days.   Mitt for brains announced his plans as he was planning to run for the Presidency, and not for reelection in Massachusetts.  He no longer needed to appease a liberal state for reelection.


Then in 2006, Romney created the Wheels for Welfare program.  The idea was if you were on welfare you got a car, you got car repairs, you got car insurance and you even got AAA for their cars.  All of this was at taxpayer expense.

 In short, Mitt for brains, when he was a lame duck, he went left.  He opted for big government socialism, even when he didn’t have to.

 What is the difference between Mitt Romney and Obama?  Other than Romney having better hair, not much. 

 If Romney is the nominee, we will have a second Obama term.  Many conservatives will not go to the polls for Romney.   Even if Romney is elected, which is not likely, his policies, based on his past, there will be no conservative revolution if he is nominated and elected.

 Meanwhile, can we have Mitt for brains arrested for impersonating a Republican?

Romneycare at work. – Tea Party Nation

Romneycare at work. – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

While Mitt Romney flip-flops all over the place, on all issues, including the infamous Romneycare, the truth comes out about how bad and how expensive it is, now five years later. 

 Massachusetts taxpayers might not have it so bad if they were not paying for health care for ILLEGAL ALIENS!

 From the Boston Herald:

 A dogged freshman lawmaker who refused to budge from the House chambers earlier this month until the Patrick administration came clean on how much taxpayers coughed up last year for free health care to illegal aliens finally got his answer yesterday: a whopping $93 million.

“I didn’t think it would take as much work as it did to answer such a simple question about how our tax dollars are spent,” state Rep. James J. Lyons Jr. told the Herald yesterday.

“My whole goal was to get the information and open the process up. (MassHealth spending) is a third of the state budget. That was what we highlighted to (Health and Human Services) Secretary (JudyAnn) Bigby.”

The 58-year-old Andover Republican — who bucked Beacon Hill by holding a sit-in in the House chambers two weeks ago — pried the shocking report from state officials. It showed that nearly 55,000 illegal immigrants received more than $93 million in MassHealth benefits for emergency medical services last year.

Watchdogs predicted that the report is likely to inspire deeper questions about the state’s lavish spending on health care for illegals. The staggering medical bill for poor and jobless residents was supposed to level off under the Bay State’s landmark universal health insurance plan enacted five years ago under the aegis of then-Gov.Mitt Romney.

  Meanwhile Romney continues to preach about his business acumen, yet Romneycare, which he designed for the State of Massachusetts is a job killer!

 Back in September, the Boston Herald released a copy of a report that showed Romneycare killed 18,000 jobs in the State of Massachusetts!

 The real horror of Romneycare is that it is like all other liberal programs.  It does not deliver what liberals like Romney promise.

 From Politico:

 Mitt Romney’s health care albatross isn’t just the similarity between his Massachusetts health care overhaul and President Barack Obama’s health reform law.

It’s also the fact that Massachusetts still has the highest health costs in the country — even after the reforms Romney signed into law as governor.

It’s a problem his Republican challengers are beginning to use against him, and it’s yet another health care issue that could keep him on the defensive in the primaries. But if he is the Republican nominee, it is unlikely to be a significant issue in the general election — in part because Obama can’t claim that his plan has gotten health costs under control, either.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has already gone after Romney on the issue, claiming the price of the Massachusetts reform law was too high. And Romney himself has admitted that his law didn’t reduce costs — putting him in the awkward position of promising to do at the national level what he couldn’t accomplish in his own state.

 So the long and short of it is, Massachusetts, after Romneycare is spending almost $100 million a year on healthcare for illegal aliens and his brilliant law has not held down costs in Massachusetts. 

 Can you imagine the damage he could cause as President?