From the “I can’t make this —– up” category comes this tidbit from boston.com: Elizabeth Warren, who raised more money than any Senator, challenger, House member, or challenger, ended her campaign in debt.

n an e-mail, the Harvard Law professor – considered one of the nation’s preeminent scholars of American debt – asked for donations to help her wash away the red ink.

Warren did not say how much debt she needs to pay down, but blamed the shortfall in part on the thousands of volunteers who flocked to her campaign, saying “that meant even more last-minute coffee and pizza.”

“One of the results of our embarrassment of riches was, well I’ll come out and say it – we ended up with a little bit of debt,” Warren wrote. “Everyone, we need a little more money to pay off our final bills. Can you help one more time?”

Emphasis my own.

Coffee and pizza, folks, coffee and pizza.  That was before the ObamaCare taxes forced Papa Johns to up their prices, that will force Domino’s to post menus with 34 million different pricing options on them.  Heaven only knows how much more money her campaign would need if she were buying snack food from companies forced to comply with the policies she supports.

Some people – like Mitt Romney – can run a campaign on time and under budget.  They are also able to run their personal and business lives that way, and, in Romney’s case, the state of Massachusetts.

Maybe we ought to have a rule: if you out-fundraise your opponent, and you still wind up in the red, you don’t get to go to Washington.  Do not pass Go, do not collect millions of dollars.

Update (DaTechGuy): They put a woman who with one of the richest campaigns in history still managed to run a deficit on the Banking committee? What were all the seats on Budget full, doubt it after all Senate Democrats don’t believe in Budgets do they?

This weeks talk is on Obamacare and my Mom

I must admit this was a bit cathartic for me, people handle things a different way. To some degree this commentary is part of me coping, but the Obamacare points are salient independent of anything else.

Anyway if you want to see the entire thing it’s here. You will need the code for the post.

To get those codes simply hit DaTipJar




and I’ll send you the code as soon as I see the confirmation e-mail. If you don’t want to worry about ever missing a single video choose any subscription level




and I will e-mail you the codes every week as soon as the videos are uploaded and the posts are ready.

There are two things that really don’t make any sense to me in the so-called “Fiscal Cliff” debate.

The first is the considered opinion of everyone involved that “sequestration” is a bad thing when it was a bipartisan law passed by a GOP House with broad democrat support and through a democrat senate with over half of the GOP signing on then signed by the president.

But there is a second question that I found odd that isn’t getting a lot of play.

We are told by both sides that we have to do X because of the election. The left says the GOP has to give into the president because he won re-election, the right says the president has to give some because the members of the House won re-election and the senate says nothing because they don’t want to remind people that Democrats have control (and responsibility) for half of congress.

This makes no sense since the congress that WAS elected won’t be sworn in until Jan 3rd.

If we as a nation are going to make decisions, one way or the other, based on the election, why not simply let the congress that is coming make these decisions? Let sequestration come, and then let the new congress do what they were hired to do when they were hired to do it.

And if we don’t like the job they do, well their contracts come up in two, four and six years.