The DEMs Want It Both Ways
Ironic that both political parties say that they want a balanced budget amendment. But when it actually comes time to vote for one, one political party is totally absent from the scene. The Democrats have now had two bills come to them from the House of Representatives that contained a balanced budget amendment. So what did the Democratically controlled US Senate do? They tabled both bills - effectively dumping them so they won't have to vote for them. By doing so, the DEM Progressives in the Senate don't have to go in the public record for voting AGAINST the balanced budget amendment. Instead, on camera, they look you in the face and LIE to you!
So Let's Get This Straight
The DEMs say that they would support a balanced budget amendment. However, when presented with just such legislation, they refuse - not once, but twice to even consider voting for it. Why? Because their vote would occur before the November elections. AHHHH! They do NOT want to have their negative (reject) vote recorded so it can be played back when they run for re-election in November.
What's This All About?
This isn't about the balanced budget amendment. This isn't about cutting spending, This isn't about eliminating entitlements. And most certainly this isn't about doing what's right for America. No, this is all about getting re-elected. Pretty selfish.
Both parties are guilty of playing politics. That's why they have been throwing the hot potato back and forth trying to make the other political party look like the bad guys. Look what it got us! No new legislation (yet) and no real serious cuts in Big Government spending.
On the Bright Side
There were 200 GOPs (Republicans) who voted AGAINST John Boehner's bill. He only won the vote by 8 GOPs! This means that half of the GOP House of Representatives voted the way Americans wanted them to vote. Look closely at who supported Boehner's bill to raise the debt ceiling. If these Representatives are in YOUR district, VOTE THEM OUT in November in favor for the TEA PARTY Candidates! Don't be fooled again. And OHIO, don't re-elect John Boehner because he's not on YOUR side. He still wants to raise the debt ceiling and allow Obama to continue his reckless spending and outrageous borrowing.
Action To Take
See how your representative voted on the Boehner bill. If they voted "YES" they don't deserve to remain representing you in Congress. Don't let the lying BASTARDS get away from it any longer!
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
Guest Article - Sleeping with the Alligators
What 'Big Deals' Did to America
by Patrick J. Buchanan - syndicated columnist.
"Thanks to Tea Party fanatics, we are told, America just lost an historic opportunity to deal with her national debt.
Because of Tea Party intransigence and threats against their own leader John Boehner, the speaker had to reject Obama's "grand bargain," the "big deal" of $3 trillion in budget cuts for $1 trillion in "revenue enhancement."
These crazed ideologues, the Tea Partiers, we are told by the talking heads, just do not understand that governing is about compromise.
And that is the mindset of a city that relishes nothing more than those "Kumbaya" moments when Democrats and Republicans break ranks and appear grinning together at a joint press conference to announce a "big deal" to do what is best for America.
Decade after decade, the play is re-enacted.
But the Tea Party folks were elected to close the play. As Ronald Reagan said, "We were sent here to drain the swamp, not to get along with the alligators."
And what have the big deals done for America?
Reagan was persuaded to sign on to a bipartisan big deal to cut spending three dollars for every dollar he accepted in new taxes. And the Gipper forever believed he had been lied to, as he got three dollars in tax hikes for every dollar in spending cuts.
Obama's offer to Boehner is the same one Reagan signed on to.
George H.W. Bush agreed to break his pledge of "no new taxes," and raised the top rate from Reagan's 28 percent to 35 percent.
How did that work out?
A recession ensued that probably cost Bush his presidency.
The biggest of big deals came when the GOP establishment arrived in Bill Clinton's East Room to endorse NAFTA, GATT and a World Trade Organization that stripped America of her right to make and enforce her own trade laws.
Economic patriots fought the surrender of sovereignty and were dismissed as protectionists.
How did NAFTA, GATT and the WTO work out?
Since 1992, the United States has run a total of $7 trillion in trade deficits. Six million manufacturing jobs disappeared in the last decade, along with 50,000 factories. This year's trade deficit just returned to an annual rate of $600 billion.
China is now the world's leading manufacturing power. And what are Republicans doing? Demanding new free-trade deals with Panama, Colombia and South Korea.
Anyone heard any Republican candidate advance a credible plan to reindustrialize America and leave China in the dust?
Anyone heard a Republican candidate call for America to give the WTO six months' notice and get out, so we can go about rebuilding our country rather than babbling on about some New World Order? The biggest dealmaker of them all was George W. Bush.
Before he launched the war on Iraq, he got Democratic Sens. Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards and Chris Dodd to give him a blank check. As the Republican Establishment signed on to Clinton's trade deals, the Democratic Establishment signed on to Bush's war.
Dissenters were denounced, once again, as isolationists.
How did that big deal turn out?
It cost us 4,400 dead, 35,000 wounded and $1 trillion, with 100,000 Iraqi dead and half a million widows and orphans. Four million Iraqis have been uprooted from their homes, half fleeing to foreign lands. Half of these exiles are Christians whose communities, there since the time of Christ, are dying, as Islamists assume they are allies of the Crusaders that attacked their country.
And those weapons of mass destruction that the Democratic leadership authorized Bush to find and destroy? They did not exist.
Then there was the George Bush-Teddy Kennedy No Child Left Behind deal, which doubled spending at the Department of Education.
How did that work out?
Hundreds of billions sunk, test scores stagnant or dropping and teachers caught cheating on behalf of students to get test scores back up to keep the NCLB money flowing.
The racial gap endures, and though we spend more per capita on education than any nation save Luxembourg, we are getting creamed in international competition by East Asians and Europeans.
The response to this disaster?
"We need bipartisan agreement to invest more in education."
Did not Albert Einstein define insanity as doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result? Why would we give more money to an education establishment that has consumed the wealth of an empire and failed us for 40 years?
Bipartisan big deals gave us Vietnam, Iraq, the Reagan and Bush 1 tax hikes, NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, No Child Left Behind and prescription drug benefits under Medicare. Bipartisan big deals led America to the brink of bankruptcy.
When JFK wrote "Profiles in Courage," it was not about the dealmakers like LBJ, but the men who stood apart and stood alone for what was right."
by Patrick J. Buchanan - syndicated columnist.
"Thanks to Tea Party fanatics, we are told, America just lost an historic opportunity to deal with her national debt.
Because of Tea Party intransigence and threats against their own leader John Boehner, the speaker had to reject Obama's "grand bargain," the "big deal" of $3 trillion in budget cuts for $1 trillion in "revenue enhancement."
These crazed ideologues, the Tea Partiers, we are told by the talking heads, just do not understand that governing is about compromise.
And that is the mindset of a city that relishes nothing more than those "Kumbaya" moments when Democrats and Republicans break ranks and appear grinning together at a joint press conference to announce a "big deal" to do what is best for America.
Decade after decade, the play is re-enacted.
But the Tea Party folks were elected to close the play. As Ronald Reagan said, "We were sent here to drain the swamp, not to get along with the alligators."
And what have the big deals done for America?
Reagan was persuaded to sign on to a bipartisan big deal to cut spending three dollars for every dollar he accepted in new taxes. And the Gipper forever believed he had been lied to, as he got three dollars in tax hikes for every dollar in spending cuts.
Obama's offer to Boehner is the same one Reagan signed on to.
George H.W. Bush agreed to break his pledge of "no new taxes," and raised the top rate from Reagan's 28 percent to 35 percent.
How did that work out?
A recession ensued that probably cost Bush his presidency.
The biggest of big deals came when the GOP establishment arrived in Bill Clinton's East Room to endorse NAFTA, GATT and a World Trade Organization that stripped America of her right to make and enforce her own trade laws.
Economic patriots fought the surrender of sovereignty and were dismissed as protectionists.
How did NAFTA, GATT and the WTO work out?
Since 1992, the United States has run a total of $7 trillion in trade deficits. Six million manufacturing jobs disappeared in the last decade, along with 50,000 factories. This year's trade deficit just returned to an annual rate of $600 billion.
China is now the world's leading manufacturing power. And what are Republicans doing? Demanding new free-trade deals with Panama, Colombia and South Korea.
Anyone heard any Republican candidate advance a credible plan to reindustrialize America and leave China in the dust?
Anyone heard a Republican candidate call for America to give the WTO six months' notice and get out, so we can go about rebuilding our country rather than babbling on about some New World Order? The biggest dealmaker of them all was George W. Bush.
Before he launched the war on Iraq, he got Democratic Sens. Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards and Chris Dodd to give him a blank check. As the Republican Establishment signed on to Clinton's trade deals, the Democratic Establishment signed on to Bush's war.
Dissenters were denounced, once again, as isolationists.
How did that big deal turn out?
It cost us 4,400 dead, 35,000 wounded and $1 trillion, with 100,000 Iraqi dead and half a million widows and orphans. Four million Iraqis have been uprooted from their homes, half fleeing to foreign lands. Half of these exiles are Christians whose communities, there since the time of Christ, are dying, as Islamists assume they are allies of the Crusaders that attacked their country.
And those weapons of mass destruction that the Democratic leadership authorized Bush to find and destroy? They did not exist.
Then there was the George Bush-Teddy Kennedy No Child Left Behind deal, which doubled spending at the Department of Education.
How did that work out?
Hundreds of billions sunk, test scores stagnant or dropping and teachers caught cheating on behalf of students to get test scores back up to keep the NCLB money flowing.
The racial gap endures, and though we spend more per capita on education than any nation save Luxembourg, we are getting creamed in international competition by East Asians and Europeans.
The response to this disaster?
"We need bipartisan agreement to invest more in education."
Did not Albert Einstein define insanity as doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result? Why would we give more money to an education establishment that has consumed the wealth of an empire and failed us for 40 years?
Bipartisan big deals gave us Vietnam, Iraq, the Reagan and Bush 1 tax hikes, NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, No Child Left Behind and prescription drug benefits under Medicare. Bipartisan big deals led America to the brink of bankruptcy.
When JFK wrote "Profiles in Courage," it was not about the dealmakers like LBJ, but the men who stood apart and stood alone for what was right."
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Guest article - The Debt Facts
Five Facts About the Debt
Setting the economic record straight.
Ira Stoll - Editor of FutureOfCapitalism.com and author of Samuel Adams: A Life.
"Five under-appreciated points about the federal budget and debt ceiling:
1. Whenever I need to get my bearings in the debate over the debt, the deficit, or the debt ceiling, I go to the web site of the White House Office of Management and Budget and download historical table 1.3. The story it tells, in very round numbers, is as simple as 2, 3, 4. The federal government spent about $2 trillion in 2000, at the end of the Clinton administration. It spent about $3 trillion in 2008, at the end of the Bush administration. And it is going to spend about $4 trillion in 2011, three years into the Obama administration.
You can fool around with inflation and with the percentage of GDP and with the revenue side of the equation, but the bottom line is that the federal government is spending about double what it was at the end of the Clinton administration. For all the clamor on the left to bring back the Clinton-era top tax rates, there are few, if any, politicians in Washington talking about bringing back the Clinton-era spending levels.
2. A default wouldn’t be as bad as President Obama says. “If interest rate costs go up for the United States, they're probably going to go up for everybody. So it would be a indirect tax on every single one of you. Your credit card interest rates would go up. Your mortgage interest would go up. Your student loan interest would potentially go up,” Mr. Obama said Friday. “So it is not an option for us to default.”
The reference to “every single one of you” is inaccurate. Credit card interest rates apply only to those who carry a balance from month to month; those with no credit card debt would be unaffected. As for mortgage rates, roughly 93 percent of homes with outstanding mortgages have fixed-rate loans; those payments would be unaffected, too. Home prices might decrease if mortgage rates go up for new buyers, but that’d be good for those people who haven’t yet bought a home. As for student loan interest rates, since 2006 they’ve been set by law, under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, at 6.8 percent.
Even Michael Bloomberg, who knows something about bonds, said the other day that if America defaults, “The world won't come to an end....We will find a way to pay people afterwards and get government going again.”
3. President Obama’s most recent annual personal financial disclosure form showed that he has by far most of his personal assets, anywhere between $2 million and $10 million dollars, in "U.S. Treasury Notes" and "U.S. Treasury Bills." It sure would be interesting to know if he has since moved out of those positions. If he hasn’t, someone should ask him why he’s so eager to pay more in income taxes, yet so unwilling to take a haircut on his bond portfolio.
4. When it was Chrysler secured bondholders objecting to getting defaulted on by the president’s auto task force, Mr. Obama denounced them as “a small group of speculators” who were “hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices and they would have to make none.” Where was Mr. Obama’s newfound respect for bondholders back during the Chrysler deal? Or, conversely, if Chrysler bondholders should have had to bear some sacrifice then, why shouldn’t Treasury bondholders now?
5. That constitutional provision in the 14th Amendment that says “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…shall not be questioned” is followed immediately by a section that says “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” It doesn’t say “the president.” It says, “The Congress.” Likewise, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power “to pay the debts” and “to borrow Money on the credit of the United States.” If there’s a way out of the spending and borrowing problem, it’s not only going to be a result of the 2012 presidential election. Congress is going to have to rise to the challenge, too."
Setting the economic record straight.
Ira Stoll - Editor of FutureOfCapitalism.com and author of Samuel Adams: A Life.
"Five under-appreciated points about the federal budget and debt ceiling:
1. Whenever I need to get my bearings in the debate over the debt, the deficit, or the debt ceiling, I go to the web site of the White House Office of Management and Budget and download historical table 1.3. The story it tells, in very round numbers, is as simple as 2, 3, 4. The federal government spent about $2 trillion in 2000, at the end of the Clinton administration. It spent about $3 trillion in 2008, at the end of the Bush administration. And it is going to spend about $4 trillion in 2011, three years into the Obama administration.
You can fool around with inflation and with the percentage of GDP and with the revenue side of the equation, but the bottom line is that the federal government is spending about double what it was at the end of the Clinton administration. For all the clamor on the left to bring back the Clinton-era top tax rates, there are few, if any, politicians in Washington talking about bringing back the Clinton-era spending levels.
2. A default wouldn’t be as bad as President Obama says. “If interest rate costs go up for the United States, they're probably going to go up for everybody. So it would be a indirect tax on every single one of you. Your credit card interest rates would go up. Your mortgage interest would go up. Your student loan interest would potentially go up,” Mr. Obama said Friday. “So it is not an option for us to default.”
The reference to “every single one of you” is inaccurate. Credit card interest rates apply only to those who carry a balance from month to month; those with no credit card debt would be unaffected. As for mortgage rates, roughly 93 percent of homes with outstanding mortgages have fixed-rate loans; those payments would be unaffected, too. Home prices might decrease if mortgage rates go up for new buyers, but that’d be good for those people who haven’t yet bought a home. As for student loan interest rates, since 2006 they’ve been set by law, under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, at 6.8 percent.
Even Michael Bloomberg, who knows something about bonds, said the other day that if America defaults, “The world won't come to an end....We will find a way to pay people afterwards and get government going again.”
3. President Obama’s most recent annual personal financial disclosure form showed that he has by far most of his personal assets, anywhere between $2 million and $10 million dollars, in "U.S. Treasury Notes" and "U.S. Treasury Bills." It sure would be interesting to know if he has since moved out of those positions. If he hasn’t, someone should ask him why he’s so eager to pay more in income taxes, yet so unwilling to take a haircut on his bond portfolio.
4. When it was Chrysler secured bondholders objecting to getting defaulted on by the president’s auto task force, Mr. Obama denounced them as “a small group of speculators” who were “hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices and they would have to make none.” Where was Mr. Obama’s newfound respect for bondholders back during the Chrysler deal? Or, conversely, if Chrysler bondholders should have had to bear some sacrifice then, why shouldn’t Treasury bondholders now?
5. That constitutional provision in the 14th Amendment that says “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…shall not be questioned” is followed immediately by a section that says “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” It doesn’t say “the president.” It says, “The Congress.” Likewise, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power “to pay the debts” and “to borrow Money on the credit of the United States.” If there’s a way out of the spending and borrowing problem, it’s not only going to be a result of the 2012 presidential election. Congress is going to have to rise to the challenge, too."
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Guest Article - Why You Can't Trust Boehner
Tea Party leader: Boehner must go
By Cameron Joseph and Daniel Strauss - The Hill.com
"Tea Party Nation leader Judson Phillips called on House Speaker John Boehner "to go" and be replaced by a "Tea Party Speaker of the House" in a blog post Wednesday morning, the same day that Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, said that her group was looking into the same idea.
"Now Boehner is in the process of surrendering again. He is surrendering not to [President] Obama, but to the status quo in Washington," Phillips wrote. "The House passed Cut, Cap and Balance, which would cut $111 billion from the budget. It would cap spending and set a good course for the future."
Martin sounded a similar theme at a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor, saying that in a just-completed poll of their members, four-fifths are not satisfied with Boehner and nearly three-quarters would like to have a new Speaker of the House.
"Maybe we should see about a different Speaker right away," she said.
Phillips was more strident in his criticism. "Boehner has no real interest in solving the problems this country faces. ... He worships at the altar of massive spending," he wrote. "We need a Speaker who is a leader. We need someone with courage and vision. Boehner has none of those qualities. He is not a leader."
Phillips urged readers to call their legislators and advocate for Boehner "to go" and be replaced by a "Tea Party Speaker of the House."
Earlier this week Boehner unveiled a two-step proposal to increase the debt ceiling that attracted criticism from conservative members of his caucus. The proposal aims to raise the debt limit by roughly $900 billion and set up a commission to find another $3 trillion in deficit reduction. Boehner's plan is likely to also require another debt-ceiling vote before the 2012 elections.
Many Republicans instead called on Boehner to back the House "cut, cap, and balance" proposal, which is unlikely to make it through the Senate [the DEMs already killed it]. On Tuesday Republicans were scrambling to try and find 217 House votes to pass the Boehner plan, the same day that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that Boehner's plan would reduce the deficit by roughly $850 billion over 10 years, about $350 billion short of what he had been aiming for.
The Tea Party Patriots is a loose-knit group of approximately 3,500 local Tea Party groups around the country. Martin and Mark Meckler, co-founder, poll local leaders before taking policy or political positions.
Meckler derided Boehner's plan as "phantom cuts" that Congress could reverse in future years. He also said he was not worried about hitting the debt ceiling, and called the possibility of the federal government defaulting on its loans a "myth that has been pretty much debunked."
He slammed both parties for their handling of the debt-ceiling debate. "We're asking Congress, the leaders in both parties and the president to keep real," said Meckler. "There's nobody in a leadership position who's putting real cuts on the table."
The government could continue to pay off its loans and cover military costs, Social Security and Medicare in the case of a default, according to Meckler. When pressed on what cuts he would like to see, he said "it's not the job of individuals or outside organizations" to decide what cuts to make and that elected officials should find programs to axe.
The Tea Party groups' attacks aren't the first time Boehner has come under fire throughout the debt-ceiling negotiations. At one point during the talks, Boehner received pressure from his right flank to walk away from a so-called "grand bargain" that he and President Obama were reportedly close to finalizing. Democrats tried to capitalize on the criticism by arguing that Boehner was not, in fact, leading the GOP in negotiations and that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was really in charge. Boehner and Cantor both denied there was any rift between them or that anyone but Boehner was leading Republicans in the talks.
There have not yet been public calls from elected Republicans for Boehner to step down as Speaker. But the Tea Party movement is an influential one within the GOP, and this could spur some members to be more vocal in their criticisms of the Ohio Republican."
By Cameron Joseph and Daniel Strauss - The Hill.com
"Tea Party Nation leader Judson Phillips called on House Speaker John Boehner "to go" and be replaced by a "Tea Party Speaker of the House" in a blog post Wednesday morning, the same day that Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, said that her group was looking into the same idea.
"Now Boehner is in the process of surrendering again. He is surrendering not to [President] Obama, but to the status quo in Washington," Phillips wrote. "The House passed Cut, Cap and Balance, which would cut $111 billion from the budget. It would cap spending and set a good course for the future."
Martin sounded a similar theme at a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor, saying that in a just-completed poll of their members, four-fifths are not satisfied with Boehner and nearly three-quarters would like to have a new Speaker of the House.
"Maybe we should see about a different Speaker right away," she said.
Phillips was more strident in his criticism. "Boehner has no real interest in solving the problems this country faces. ... He worships at the altar of massive spending," he wrote. "We need a Speaker who is a leader. We need someone with courage and vision. Boehner has none of those qualities. He is not a leader."
Phillips urged readers to call their legislators and advocate for Boehner "to go" and be replaced by a "Tea Party Speaker of the House."
Earlier this week Boehner unveiled a two-step proposal to increase the debt ceiling that attracted criticism from conservative members of his caucus. The proposal aims to raise the debt limit by roughly $900 billion and set up a commission to find another $3 trillion in deficit reduction. Boehner's plan is likely to also require another debt-ceiling vote before the 2012 elections.
Many Republicans instead called on Boehner to back the House "cut, cap, and balance" proposal, which is unlikely to make it through the Senate [the DEMs already killed it]. On Tuesday Republicans were scrambling to try and find 217 House votes to pass the Boehner plan, the same day that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that Boehner's plan would reduce the deficit by roughly $850 billion over 10 years, about $350 billion short of what he had been aiming for.
The Tea Party Patriots is a loose-knit group of approximately 3,500 local Tea Party groups around the country. Martin and Mark Meckler, co-founder, poll local leaders before taking policy or political positions.
Meckler derided Boehner's plan as "phantom cuts" that Congress could reverse in future years. He also said he was not worried about hitting the debt ceiling, and called the possibility of the federal government defaulting on its loans a "myth that has been pretty much debunked."
He slammed both parties for their handling of the debt-ceiling debate. "We're asking Congress, the leaders in both parties and the president to keep real," said Meckler. "There's nobody in a leadership position who's putting real cuts on the table."
The government could continue to pay off its loans and cover military costs, Social Security and Medicare in the case of a default, according to Meckler. When pressed on what cuts he would like to see, he said "it's not the job of individuals or outside organizations" to decide what cuts to make and that elected officials should find programs to axe.
The Tea Party groups' attacks aren't the first time Boehner has come under fire throughout the debt-ceiling negotiations. At one point during the talks, Boehner received pressure from his right flank to walk away from a so-called "grand bargain" that he and President Obama were reportedly close to finalizing. Democrats tried to capitalize on the criticism by arguing that Boehner was not, in fact, leading the GOP in negotiations and that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was really in charge. Boehner and Cantor both denied there was any rift between them or that anyone but Boehner was leading Republicans in the talks.
There have not yet been public calls from elected Republicans for Boehner to step down as Speaker. But the Tea Party movement is an influential one within the GOP, and this could spur some members to be more vocal in their criticisms of the Ohio Republican."
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
No More False Promises
Tired of the Same-Old Same-Old?
Wait a minute! Congress is planning on raising the debt ceiling in yet another short-term arrangement in a last ditch effort to save America. This is the same old behavior we have seen from them in the past. No wonder a new poll shows Congressional approval at 6%! They still don't get it! Regardless of whatever they do, Standard and Poors has already indicated that they will down grade America's credit rating. That's not good for us.
However, neither party wants to make serious entitlement cuts for fear that they will not be re-elected. This is another good reason why term-limits should be imposed on Congress in addition to the Presidency. Well, at least they got that last part right! In either case, we won't re-elect them!
Obama's Idea
In a speech he gave over the weekend, Obama said that he'd like to "bypass Congress and change the laws on my own." That's spoken like a true dictator. In last night's speech Obama reiterated his old arguments that he inherited the economic problem from Bush and that we should tax the owners of corporate jets. This is getting quite tiresome to keep hearing the same blather over and over. Apparently, he's overlooking the fact that because of excessive government entitlements, 51% of Americans now do NOT pay any income taxes. Yes, you heard right - 51%
Why is this? Shouldn't everyone pay a fair share? Not according to Progressive philosophy. The central government should decide who pays and who doesn't. This allows for the re-distribution of wealth by the government to those who "deserve" it. These decisions are made by government officials who know better than you.
Is this America any longer? Those are not American values!
Action To Take
Call or write your representatives. Tell them NOT to raise the debt ceiling and to start cutting big government entitlements like welfare, farm subsidies, Project Head Start. It's time to start living within our means America.
Wait a minute! Congress is planning on raising the debt ceiling in yet another short-term arrangement in a last ditch effort to save America. This is the same old behavior we have seen from them in the past. No wonder a new poll shows Congressional approval at 6%! They still don't get it! Regardless of whatever they do, Standard and Poors has already indicated that they will down grade America's credit rating. That's not good for us.
However, neither party wants to make serious entitlement cuts for fear that they will not be re-elected. This is another good reason why term-limits should be imposed on Congress in addition to the Presidency. Well, at least they got that last part right! In either case, we won't re-elect them!
Obama's Idea
In a speech he gave over the weekend, Obama said that he'd like to "bypass Congress and change the laws on my own." That's spoken like a true dictator. In last night's speech Obama reiterated his old arguments that he inherited the economic problem from Bush and that we should tax the owners of corporate jets. This is getting quite tiresome to keep hearing the same blather over and over. Apparently, he's overlooking the fact that because of excessive government entitlements, 51% of Americans now do NOT pay any income taxes. Yes, you heard right - 51%
Why is this? Shouldn't everyone pay a fair share? Not according to Progressive philosophy. The central government should decide who pays and who doesn't. This allows for the re-distribution of wealth by the government to those who "deserve" it. These decisions are made by government officials who know better than you.
Is this America any longer? Those are not American values!
Action To Take
Call or write your representatives. Tell them NOT to raise the debt ceiling and to start cutting big government entitlements like welfare, farm subsidies, Project Head Start. It's time to start living within our means America.
Monday, July 25, 2011
What If No Deal?
Default Means Impeachment
Representative Steve King (R, Iowa) says that if Obama doesn't get a deal from Congress to raise the debt ceiling and he decides to default on our obligations, that's grounds for IMPEACHMENT. According to King, the USA does not have to default because we take-in enough revenue to cover our debt obligations each month.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
Allowing the country to default to protect entitlements like welfare, IS grounds for impeachment. That would constitute a "High Crime" and or a "Misdemeanour". Obama should tread softly and think of the consequences of those actions before he decides to negate Congress again.
Two other Congressmen have mentioned the "I" word but for other reasons. Dennis Kucinich (D, OH) wanted to begin impeachment proceedings for Obama's ILLEGAL declaration of war when he began attacking Libya. However, he did not get enough backing from Congress to continue with the resolution. The other challenger for impeachment is from Congressman Tim Scott (R, SC) who stated that if Obama raised the debt ceiling without Congressional approval, Obama could/should be impeached.
The Bottom Line
Congress should NOT RAISE the debt ceiling. This action (or lack of) would force Congress and the President into cutting expenses immediately. ISN'T THIS WHAT WE WANT? No more bickering and fooling around. No more politicking. No more stonewalling or tabling legislation. No more Presidential threats against seniors and veterans. No more Washington games. Just reality! Imagine, Congress having to cut spending and live within their means. What a concept.
Representative Steve King (R, Iowa) says that if Obama doesn't get a deal from Congress to raise the debt ceiling and he decides to default on our obligations, that's grounds for IMPEACHMENT. According to King, the USA does not have to default because we take-in enough revenue to cover our debt obligations each month.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
Allowing the country to default to protect entitlements like welfare, IS grounds for impeachment. That would constitute a "High Crime" and or a "Misdemeanour". Obama should tread softly and think of the consequences of those actions before he decides to negate Congress again.
Two other Congressmen have mentioned the "I" word but for other reasons. Dennis Kucinich (D, OH) wanted to begin impeachment proceedings for Obama's ILLEGAL declaration of war when he began attacking Libya. However, he did not get enough backing from Congress to continue with the resolution. The other challenger for impeachment is from Congressman Tim Scott (R, SC) who stated that if Obama raised the debt ceiling without Congressional approval, Obama could/should be impeached.
The Bottom Line
Congress should NOT RAISE the debt ceiling. This action (or lack of) would force Congress and the President into cutting expenses immediately. ISN'T THIS WHAT WE WANT? No more bickering and fooling around. No more politicking. No more stonewalling or tabling legislation. No more Presidential threats against seniors and veterans. No more Washington games. Just reality! Imagine, Congress having to cut spending and live within their means. What a concept.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Guest Article - How To Balance the Budget!
How to Do Nothing and Balance the Budget
By Bill Tatro Townhall columnist.
So this is it.
"The deadline.
The edge of the abyss; the Rubicon; Armageddon.
Both sides entrenched in an all out war for the heart and soul of America. Make no mistake, this is the real deal, but not in the way you may think.
The Republicans have offered a program that encompassed a balanced budget amendment (defeated in the Senate, of course.) Democrats, and a President ever in favor of an expanding government, are opposed.
Republicans, specifically freshmen Tea Party members, are vehemently supportive. All know that it takes a constitutional amendment, and must be passed by the states (several years in the making.)
But here’s the rub. If the debt ceiling is not raised, and I sure hope it’s not, the balanced budget amendment is no longer theoretical. It’s very real, and it’s happening right NOW.
All agree that for the month of August, there is approximately $200 billion of revenue coming into the Treasury.
It’s been widely discussed that the Treasury and the President can decide which bills to pay first. Assuming the debt is paid off, so no default (not even Greek style); there still is sufficient money for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and military salaries. Then it gets dicey.
The problem is there’s not enough to go around in order to meet the rest of the obligations. Isn’t that what a balanced budget amendment is? It’s spending only the money taken in.
I would dare say that if you asked not only the Democrats, who think that a balanced budget is a good idea (probably not many publicly), but also the Republicans who dramatically espoused the amendment, most would say it’s a great idea, but not now. Not on our watch.
Who really wants to make the tough decisions to cut education, Medicare, or even defense spending? No one. All politicians of both parties want others to make those decisions at another time, as most are afraid of voter backlash, and voter backlash there will be since nobody wants their favorite program cut.
Regrettably, cuts will have to be made, and made quickly. Most politicians, economists, Wall Streeters, and television pundits will argue the country is not ready yet for the draconian cuts that must be made.
They’ll say perhaps another time, maybe another set of politicians, or another administration, but certainly not now. They also claim it would be too destructive and the financial markets couldn’t handle it.
I would offer that just the opposite would happen. After the initial shock of actually taking action, the response would be a universal salute to America for reassuming its leadership role in the world.
In addition, the American public would rally, since living with a balanced budget is the right thing to do. In fact, American citizens do it every single day.
So, it comes down to this: Pass something, anything, and you put off a balanced budget.
Pass nothing and the balanced budget is NOW."
By Bill Tatro Townhall columnist.
So this is it.
"The deadline.
The edge of the abyss; the Rubicon; Armageddon.
Both sides entrenched in an all out war for the heart and soul of America. Make no mistake, this is the real deal, but not in the way you may think.
The Republicans have offered a program that encompassed a balanced budget amendment (defeated in the Senate, of course.) Democrats, and a President ever in favor of an expanding government, are opposed.
Republicans, specifically freshmen Tea Party members, are vehemently supportive. All know that it takes a constitutional amendment, and must be passed by the states (several years in the making.)
But here’s the rub. If the debt ceiling is not raised, and I sure hope it’s not, the balanced budget amendment is no longer theoretical. It’s very real, and it’s happening right NOW.
All agree that for the month of August, there is approximately $200 billion of revenue coming into the Treasury.
It’s been widely discussed that the Treasury and the President can decide which bills to pay first. Assuming the debt is paid off, so no default (not even Greek style); there still is sufficient money for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and military salaries. Then it gets dicey.
The problem is there’s not enough to go around in order to meet the rest of the obligations. Isn’t that what a balanced budget amendment is? It’s spending only the money taken in.
I would dare say that if you asked not only the Democrats, who think that a balanced budget is a good idea (probably not many publicly), but also the Republicans who dramatically espoused the amendment, most would say it’s a great idea, but not now. Not on our watch.
Who really wants to make the tough decisions to cut education, Medicare, or even defense spending? No one. All politicians of both parties want others to make those decisions at another time, as most are afraid of voter backlash, and voter backlash there will be since nobody wants their favorite program cut.
Regrettably, cuts will have to be made, and made quickly. Most politicians, economists, Wall Streeters, and television pundits will argue the country is not ready yet for the draconian cuts that must be made.
They’ll say perhaps another time, maybe another set of politicians, or another administration, but certainly not now. They also claim it would be too destructive and the financial markets couldn’t handle it.
I would offer that just the opposite would happen. After the initial shock of actually taking action, the response would be a universal salute to America for reassuming its leadership role in the world.
In addition, the American public would rally, since living with a balanced budget is the right thing to do. In fact, American citizens do it every single day.
So, it comes down to this: Pass something, anything, and you put off a balanced budget.
Pass nothing and the balanced budget is NOW."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
