Today Is My Birthday

I will be doing little, if any, blogging today. It's my birthday. I have the day off, and I intend to do some grilling tonight for dinner. But I'll be back online tomorrow (MAYBE one later tonight) with more of my thoughts and observations.

For the moment, though, I'll be celebrating (???) this day that I turn another year older. I am 36 today.

Well, okay... 41.

(sigh) Well, if you want to be PERFECTLY accurate... 43?

Oh, all right! I turn 45 today! THERE... are you satisfied?

(grin)


Read the rest...

Breaking: House Votes To Adjourn... Barely

For those who don't follow the daily activities of Congress, we had something interesting happen today. The Democrat leadership put the motion to adjourn on the floor for a pro-forma vote... and things started going wrong immediately.

A total of 39 Democrats voted against adjourning, many of whom said they wanted to first hold a vote on extending the Bush tax cuts. Democrats eventually got it passed by a vote of 210 - 209... Speaker Pelosi cast the deciding vote and quickly closed the voting early. A total of eight Republicans did not vote on the measure, either.

The eight Republicans not voting on the measure included two of our own... Reps Aderholt and Griffith. Here is the complete list:

Aderholt AL, Blunt MO, Buyer IN, L. Diaz-Balart FL, Fallin OK, Griffith AL, Schock IL, Young FL

The 39 Democrats voting against adjourning without voting on the Bush tax cuts ALSO included one of our own... Bobby Bright. Here is a complete list.

Shuler NC, Space OH, Taylor MS, Titus NV, Michaud ME, Minnick ID, Mitchell AZ, Murphy PA, Nye VA, Perriello VA, Peters MI, Schauer MI, Sestak PA, Kilroy OH, Kirkpatrick AZ, Kratovil MD, Markey CO, Marshall GA, McIntyre NC, McMahon NY, McNerney CA, Melancon LA, Donnelly IN, Driehaus OH, Edwards TX, Ellsworth IN, Foster IL, Giffords AZ, Heinrich NM, Herseth Sandlin SD, Adler NJ, Altmire PA, Arcuri NY, Bean IL, Bishop NY, Bright AL, Carney PA, Childers MS, Connolly VA

You can find the official tally here:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll546.xml

The long and short of it is that the Democrats can't even hold their own membership together after requiring too many hard, tough votes on legislation that the American people are not happy with. Many members, mostly blue-dogs and other Democrats in trouble, realize that delaying this issue is NOT a wise thing to do!

We should applaud Bright for his vote on this, and we should give Aderholt and lame-duck Griffith a stern talking to. Just because he lost the primary, that's no excuse for abrogating his responsibility to vote.

Read the rest...

Latest Poll: Bentley Still Leading Sparks

A new poll has been released on the Governor's race, and Republican candidate Robert Bentley is maintaining a substantial lead over Democrat candidate Ron Sparks.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/09/campaign_2010_poll_finds_rober.html

Republican Robert Bentley holds a 13-point lead over Democrat Ron Sparks in the race for gov­ernor, according to a poll released Tuesday.

The poll was conducted by Capital Survey Research Center, the polling arm of the Alabama Education Association, which histori­cally has been aligned with the state's Democratic Party. The poll showed Bentley with 52 percent of the vote to Sparks' 39 per­cent.

It is my opinion that state-level Republican candidates will do well this election. Barring some major change in the political wind, which I do not expect to happen, I predict that Bentley will be the next Governor of Alabama... for good or ill.

But what about the State Legislature?


According to the poll, Republicans have a good shot at taking control of the Legislature. The poll showed that 61% of voters want to see the leadership of the Legislature changed. When asked specifically about party labels, 41% said they were more likely to vote for Republicans this time around... only 37% felt the same way about the Democrats. The remaining 22% are still undecided.

If the news for Demo­crats who want to win back the governor's man­sion is not rosy in this latest poll, Johnson's num­bers won't provide them much comfort when it comes to what arguably is a more important battle on election day, the fight for control of the Alabama Legislature.

Asked if they are "more likely to vote for change in Alabama or vote for main­taining current control," 44 percent of those re­sponding in the poll said they are much more likely to vote for change. An­other 17 percent said they are somewhat more likely to go for change. Only 14 percent said they are much more likely to vote for maintaining current control.

Even when Johnson's survey pointed out that, under 136 years of Democratic Party control of the Legislature, the state has had the nation's lowest taxes, has had a balanced budget every year and has brought the automobile industry to the state, the numbers didn't get much better for Democrats.

Only 29 percent said they were much more likely to vote for Democrats in the fall, with 8 percent saying they were somewhat more likely to vote for Democrats. About 41 percent said they were still somewhat or much more likely to vote for change to Republican Party control of the Legislature.

I will further predict that Republicans will take control of at least one House of the Legislature in November. It could be interesting, with new people in charge of running the Legislature.

One of the things that the GOP has complained about for years is partisan control over scheduling votes on legislation. Hopefully, we'll soon have the opportunity to see if they do better... or if they just do that same things right back to the Democrats.

Read the rest...

Constitutional Restoration Amendment

Okay, this is an official request for comments. I would like your feedback on this. It's intended to be an amendment to the US Constitution to restore existing provisions of the Constitution to their intended purpose. It's not intended to ADD anything to or REMOVE anything from the Constitution. Rather, it's intended to eliminate what I call "court drift"... many small rulings that twist the Constitution to say what it doesn't actually say.

For example, courts have gradually ruled a Federal government with limited and enumerated powers out of existence. The purpose of this amendment is to overrule those rulings and take us back to founding principles.

What do you think of this?


Section 1: Congress shall not pass, nor shall the federal government enforce, any law that incorporates powers not specifically listed in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. The “common defense and general welfare” clause explains the goal of Congressional action, and shall not be construed to be a limitless power in and of itself. Existing programs and departments in violation of this amendment will be automatically terminated three years after the ratification of this amendment.

Section 2: The practice of the President of the United States appointing paid advisers, sometimes referred to as “Czars,” to wield government power without being confirmed by the United States Senate is hereby prohibited as an abuse of Presidential authority.

Section 3: Presidential “signing statements” that modify the text and/or meaning of a law duly passed by Congress are invalid and have no effect on those laws.

Section 4: No candidate for President of the United States may be considered by the Electoral College for the office of President of the United States unless the electors have received and verified proof of natural citizenship as required by the United States Constitution.

Section 5: The practice of government, at any level, using the power of eminent domain to seize property and sell or give it to another private entity is prohibited. The power of eminent domain is only to be used for infrastructure work and other essential government interests.

All comments are welcome.

Read the rest...

Are We Better Off Today Than We Were In 2007?

Democrats have been trying ton convince voters that Republicans will "take us back to 2008." In other words, that they want to move us backwards to a time that is worse than this. Democrats have had control of Congress since 2007, so let's look backwards to see if we are actually better off now than we were in 2007.

Republicans are running this ad, which is a take-off of the famous "Morning in America" ad run by Ronald Reagan, and it's quite telling. With Democrats in charge, things have been getting progressively worse.





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YXqf_6ug54

So when the Democrats tell you this, ask yourself if our current situation is worse or better than it was in 2007.


In case you don't remember it, here is Regan's original "Morning in America" ad.





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU-IBF8nwSY

Read the rest...

Boehner: Voters Don't WANT Solutions From GOP

I have been pointing out for a while now how out-of-touch the Republicans are with everyday voters. When they presented their vague and unimpressive "Pledge to America," I noted that they'd just confirmed it. And if further confirmation is even NECESSARY, Minority House leader Boehner says that us voters (remember us?) don't really want solutions at all.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017649-503544.html

In an interview on Fox News Sunday, John Boehner (R-OH) was asked about the lack of solutions, such as for costly entitlement programs like Medicare, in the GOP "Pledge to America."

The House minority leader responded that the purpose of the Pledge was to "lay out the size of the problem," not "to get to potential solutions." Boehner reasoned that once Americans understand how big the problem is, then the talk can turn to potential solutions.

It seems that Boehner is content to leave the American people uncertain as to what the Republican's would do to help the economy besides extending the Bush tax cuts.

Did you catch all that? According to the GOP leadership in the US House of Representatives, Americans are satisfied with a statement of the "size of the problem," and don't really CARE what the GOP's plans to fix it are.

I care, Mr. Boehner, and I have zero confidence that YOU care. It's my opinion that you will lead your party right back into the same old behavior that we're all fighting against.


Speaking for the many people who agree with me, WE WANT TO SEE YOUR PLANS! Are you seriously telling us that you went to all this trouble to create this stupid thing, and it's a worthless paper that does NOT really indicate what the GOP will do if placed back in power?

Gee, uh... thanks?

Stunts like this make me even more certain that the GOP is planning, actively PLANNING to betray the American people by ignoring our concerns and opinion, once they are in power.

Read the rest...

The Right To Earn A Living

If you have a few minutes, this is an excellent look at how our rights have been destroyed over the years. It's an excellent piece to watch.





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9p-7s0tuH4&feature=player_embedded

Have fun with this...


Read the rest...

PresBo Re-Election Prospects Dim

Well, odds are increasing that PresBo will, in fact, be a one-term President. In a recent poll, only 38% said they'd vote for him in 2012, with 44% saying they'd vote to get Obama out of office.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42737.html

Only 38 percent of respondents said Obama deserves to be reelected, even though a majority of voters hold a favorable view of him on a personal level. Forty-four percent said they will vote to oust him, and 13 percent said they will consider voting for someone else.

It’s Obama’s policies that are hurting him right now. By a 13-point margin, voters are down on the health care law. In an especially troubling sign, more than half of self-identified independents — 54 percent — have an unfavorable opinion of the law, compared with just 38 percent who have a favorable opinion.

In my opinion, this is a GOOD development... and it should give Democrats pause as they debate what policy initiatives to pursue.


They MUST remember that this country is made up of MANY people, and the majority of us don't share the extremist liberal views espoused by the current President and Congressional majority.

Hopefully, the next two election cycles will be strong reminders of that...

Read the rest...

GOP Waffles On Earmarks

For quite a while now, the GOP has said that earmarks are bad. The voters don't want even more pork spending. In another sign that the GOP isn't serious about their small-government push, John Boehner refuses to rule out using earmarks if they regain the majority.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0910/Boehner_ducks_on_earmark_ban.html?showall
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) declined to say on Sunday that he would push a ban on spending "earmarks" if he becomes speaker.

"Today, we have a moratorium on earmarks. I can tell you that if Republicans win the majority in November, it will not be business as usual here in Congress," Boehner said on "Fox News Sunday" in response to questioning by host Chris Wallace.

When asked about a second time, Boehner repeated the same mantra: "It will not be business as usual here in Washington, D.C.... It will not be. It will not be business as usual."

I have expressed doubts that the GOP has actually learned their lesson and will actually pursue a small-government agenda if they regain power. Their weak and vague "Pledge to America" confirmed my fears, and this little episode just makes things more certain. They are ALREADY waffling on fiscal conservatism... there will be a lot of justifications made by elected officials as to WHY they're spending so much money... but they'll still spend it.

My opinion is, though, if the GOP makes the mistake of ignoring and betraying the voters AGAIN, it will haunt them for quite a while.


Read the rest...

Obama: "I Can't Work With GOP Leadership"

Okay, this is a recipe for disaster. PresBo says that the simply can't work with the GOP leadership.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017668-503544.html

President Obama said today that he is at odds with Republican leadership in Congress -- but not necessarily Republican voters.

What is he going to do when he has no CHOICE? Will he stick to the same "vilify and ignore" tactics that he's used so far?


PresBo's reason that he can't work with Republicans is based upon policy differences. He thinks cutting, as he put it, $4 trillion in taxes is irresponsible. Well, PresBo, many of us just happen to think that doubling the national debt in four years is a tad irresponsible, as well.

So far in his administration, he's had the luxury of a Democrat-controlled Congress, so he's bad-mouthed the GOP and basically ignored them to push extremely liberal policies and laws. The bad blood between them stems from that... But treat the minority party too badly, and what do you do when they regain the majority?

His entire strategy will backfire if the GOP retakes power in November. He will HAVE to work with Republicans and small-government ideas at that point. And if he continues demonizing his opponents... well, that little trick is already losing its power to motivate voters, so I don't think it will serve him well in 2012.

Get a clue, PresBo. You're not President for just the Democrats, you know. Start paying attention to the rest of us, dang it!

Read the rest...

Weekend Insanity

There's something strangely humorous about such a simple and ridiculous topic, you know?





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_sfnQDr1-o


Read the rest...

Do We Still Value Freedom And Liberty?

Ronald Reagan was not a perfect President, by any means. He was, however, the President in the past half century that best embodied the American ideas of Freedom and Liberty. He got a lot of it right, and his words, if not his actions, speak even more eloquently to us now, in our current situation. Listen to this, and tell me his words aren't relevant today.





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wusgcG4rfo

"Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite, in a far distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves..."


"The government can't control the economy without controlling PEOPLE. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose."

"They also knew, those founding fathers, that outside its legitimate functions, government does NOTHING as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy."

"The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan."

"We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing next to a thin man without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one."

"Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping through our grasp as it is at this moment."

"I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the founding fathers."


That's a good question. Do we?

Read the rest...

How To Balance The Budget Without Tax Increases

Okay, looming large in the national debate is what to do about the massive federal debt that will eventually sink this country. I am willing to weigh in with not one, but TWO proposals for how to balance the budget without increasing a single tax. Are you ready?

Plan #1
Liberals will hate this plan, and even Conservatives will cringe. Why? Because this plan is fiscally responsible policy, but it's not politically appetizing. Quite simply, we start cutting spending. Massively, savagely, and immediately.

Let's start by eliminating (not reducing, but getting rid of) all those agencies that are not specifically authorized by the United States Constitution. These include, but are not limited to, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), Department of Education, and the Small Business Association. Just junk 'em. And we start reducing total spending amounts immediately.

We also need to reduce Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spending, so reforming benefits and participation for those programs should be on the agenda.

With all that in play, it shouldn't be too difficult to dramatically reduce spending and, maybe, turn the deficit into a surplus.

See what I mean about not politically appetizing?


Plan #2
The second method is quite different, and a lot less painful.

Let's look at a spending freeze at today's levels. We won't increase spending a single dollar for the next few years. Do you know what we have in 2016? We have a balanced budget. And we accomplish that without reducing a single dime of spending.

To work, this spending freeze would have to be across the board, including entitlement programs.

I hear you complaining loudly that we can't freeze spending. Okay, let's allow spending growth at NO MORE than 1% per year. At that rate, spending is still increasing every year, but we reach a balanced budget in 2017.

This is based upon the growth rate over the next decade that is predicted by the CBO... who we know never makes a mistake. (sarcasm alert) Obviously, if tax revenue growth varied from that amount, it would affect the time-line.

For more details, check out this in-depth analysis done by Cato.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12160

Balancing the budget is not difficult. Getting rid of red ink is easily achievable with fiscal restraint. Obviously, we can — and should — do much more than simply limit the growth of federal spending. But I'm simply debunking the assertion that it is impossible to balance the budget without tax increases. Indeed, it can be balanced while making all the tax cuts permanent.

The key thing to understand is that there is no need for tax increases. Politicians might not balance the budget if we say no to all tax increases. But the experience in Europe shows that oppressive tax burdens are not a recipe for fiscal balance either. Milton Friedman was correct many years ago when he warned that, "In the long run government will spend whatever the tax system will raise, plus as much more as it can get away with." That's why spending restraint is the only effective, pro-growth way to balance the budget.

It's past time to give up the erroneous thought that debt reduction is only achievable through tax increases. There are other ways. Our Congress simply has to do the fiscally responsible thing.

Read the rest...

Novel Way Of Restraining Deficit Spending

I have to admit that I read about this and immediately experienced one of those "Hmmm..." moments. Essentially, the new government of Slovakia inherited an 8% budget deficit from the previous government, and tried to come up with a way to restrain deficit spending. This is what they settled upon.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/a-novel-way-of-keeping-fiscal-deficits-under-control/

Having inherited an 8 percent budget deficit from the previous socialist government, the new conservative-liberal government of Slovakia has come up with a novel way of keeping budget deficits under control in the future. Starting in 2011, salaries of government ministers will rise and fall depending on the evolution of the fiscus. Thus, a budget deficit of 5 percent will translate to a 10 percent decrease in salaries, while an (unlikely) budget surplus of 5 percent will translate into a 10 percent rise in salaries.

This method might actually work, you know? Punish the people responsible for putting us deeper into debt. So, do you think this method should be implemented in the US Congress?







Read the rest...

UN Delegation Walks Out On Iranian Speech

Yesterday, in the New York HQ of the United Nations, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stood up to give a speech to delegates gathered from around the world. This guy is a nutcase, and proceeded to prove it. While attacking the US for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said that: "...some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view."

The US delegation stood up and walked out at that point.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100923/ap_on_re_us/un_un_world_summit_ahmadinejad

The U.S. delegation walked out of the U.N. speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday after he said some in the world have speculated that Americans were behind the Sept. 11 terror attacks, staged in an attempt to assure Israel's survival.

He did not explain the logic of that statement that was made as he attacked the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

My major comment on this is... GOOD FOR THEM!


This guy is crazy, really. He has denied the holocaust ever happened and calls for the destruction of Israel, for example. He is working on producing a nuclear bomb, and expects us all to believe he isn't... just because he says so.

Walking out on his rantings and ravings is the least the delegation could do. I'm glad they had the nerve to do it, instead of sitting there and listening like nice little citizens of the world.

Way to go, US Delegation!

Now, if we can only figure a way to EXIT the UN and boot their headquarters from our country...

Read the rest...

Insurers Drop Child-Only Policies, Dems Mad

One of the early "benefits" of ObamaCare is that insurers will not be able to refuse coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions. Because of that, and because of the financial consequences involved, several major insurers have decided to stop offering child-only policies. They will still cover children on family policies, and will not refuse coverage due to pre-existing conditions, but child-only policies are on the way out. Because of ObamaCare.

Predictably, Democrats are mad as wet hens.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/20/AR2010092006665.html

Some of the country's most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.

"We're just days away from a new era when insurance companies must stop denying coverage to kids just because they are sick, and now some of the biggest changed their minds," Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now, an advocacy group, said in a statement. "[It] is immoral, and to blame their appalling behavior on the new law is patently dishonest."

So that's the line... attack the insurance companies some more, try to beat them into submission. But are the insurance companies claims accurate? Can this be "blamed" on ObamaCare? To find out, let's read their logic.

Three insurers - WellPoint, Cigna and CoventryOne - all cited uncertainty in the health insurance market for their decisions. That incertitude and the resulting decision of other insurers to drop their child-only plans, according to WellPoint spokeswoman Kristin Binns, "has created an unlevel competitive environment."

CoventryOne spokesman Matthew D. Eyles said that the insurer was facing "unique challenges that could undermine our ability to offer value and meet our continued obligations to existing policyholders."

Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for AHIP, noted that insurers will be accepting children with preexisting conditions in other types of plans.

But, he said, extending such coverage in child-only policies "provides a very powerful incentive for a parent to wait until their child becomes very sick before purchasing coverage."

Zirkelbach added that in 2014, when similar protections kick in for all individuals with preexisting conditions, virtually all Americans will be required to get health insurance.

With no such mandate currently in place, however, the result over the next several years could be that the pool of children insured by child-only plans would rapidly skew toward those with expensive medical bills, either bankrupting the plans or forcing insurers to make up their losses by substantially increasing premiums for all customers. And Zirkelbach said the effect could be compounded if only a few plans remain in the market.

In other words, this decision was driven by finances. They saw the policies would likely only be purchased in the future for high-cost sick kids, which would either bankrupt them or require higher premiums across the board. So they opted, instead, to not offer these policies at all.

To tell the truth, it sounds like a perfectly reasonable decision.

And their claim that ObamaCare is to blame? That seems reasonable and accurate, as well.

Reason Magazine puts it quite well, as they consider the contradictions embraced by the Pro-ObamaCare folks:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/21/we-probably-didnt-need-those-c

But it’s indicative of one of the new health care law’s fundamental contradictions: Insurers are expected to both abide by new rules, which could prove costly, and not significantly change their prices or services in response to them. And it suggests how easy it is for well-meaning policies to backfire. A provision intended to ensure that children have unimpeded access to health insurance coverage has ended up resulting in fewer options for covering children’s health.

Democrats are screaming mad because of the economic realities created by the ObamaCare law. You know what? You wrote and passed the dang bill... so live with it!

Read the rest...

My Critique: Gop's New Contract With America

Okay, I've had a chance to read and understand the new GOP Contract with America, and this is my analysis of it. Basically, it has some good points in it, but it is also weak and vague in many areas... such as spending cuts. And as always, there is the lingering spectre as to whether they really mean it. Can we trust these guys?

I've been expressing doubt that the GOP has truly learned its lesson and will honestly try to reduce spending and the size and scope of government. This document shows me that I was right to doubt.

I wasn't impressed with this Contract with America, V2. They left out too many details and stopped short of committing to real change. My assessment is that even if they accomplish the majority of the planks in this contract, the impact on the underlying form of our government will be slight. No major downsizing in government size or spending, no major increase of individual liberty. The economy may well turn around, but getting us back to where we were in the early Bush years is hardly a fundamental change. This document ignores the strident call for a smaller and fiscally responsible government, providing instead modest goals that LOOK like they're accomplishing something when they really aren't.

The proposal, found here, offers plans in four areas. I will deal with each area separately, focusing on as many of the bullet points that I think are necessary. The first area is:

Create Jobs, End Economic Uncertainty, and Make America More Competitive
This is their economic plan, and it seems to be mostly on the right track. It's a bit thin on permanent incentives for growth, though.

Make all of the Bush tax cuts permanent
Good plan. Tax increases right now would have the effect of further stifling economic growth. Making the current tax rates permanent would at least maintain the status quo... it wouldn't make things worse.

Give small businesses a tax deduction equal to 20% of their business income
Tax incentives like this are intended to promote new economic activity. One thing missing from this pledge, though, is some kind of duration. Would this be a one-year incentive, will it span multiple years, or is it permanent? Temporary, short-term incentives usually do not spur businesses to hire new employees or expand operations, because those are permanent commitments. Businesses are reluctant to make long-term commitments based upon short-term incentives.

Reign in the Red Tape
This bullet may actually be misleading. They want to require Congressional approval for any regulatory changes that have an impact of $100 million or more. The problems here are two-fold. First, we all know that the economic impact of a regulation can be jerry-rigged to appear less than it is. Second, all the government would have to do is segment the changes into lots, each of which has an impact of less than $100 million. And if you don't think they'll do this, where HAVE you been lately?

Repeal job-killing business mandates
This header is VERY misleading, as all they intend to repeal is the 1099 reporting requirement that was included in ObamaCare. That's a good step, but it certainly doesn't live up to the mantle of "repealing job-killing business mandates." What about the many others out there, guys?

That's it for an economic plan. To me, it looks a bit thin, though it is definitely a step in the right direction. And now, on to their second area of focus.


Stop Out-of-Control Spending and Reduce the Size of Government
This is their attempt to reduce spending and make government smaller. Though it has some good ideas, they fail to make the hard choices that are necessary, so this won't accomplish very much.

Repeal the stimulus
Not all of the money allocated by the stimulus program has been spent. Cancelling all future stimulus spending is a good step that will reduce spending by hundreds of billions of dollars.

Cut spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels
On the surface, this sounds great. However, they included a phrase that makes this an exercise in futility. That phrase is "with common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops." In other words, they won't cut spending for the military, social security, medicare, medicaid, and veterans' services. The problem is that those agencies combined make up 60% of the 2010 budget. Exempting them from spending cuts simply means that in order to cut the federal budget by 20%, they'd have to cut all the remaining budget by HALF! Obviously, that's not going to happen. This failure to realize that entitlement spending is a part of our problem that MUST be gotten under control means that their spending reductions will have a minor impact at best.

Establish a Hard Cap on New Discretionary Spending
Beyond feel-good platitudes that they will "put common-sense limits on the growth of government" and "set strict budget caps to limit federal spending on an annual basis," they provide no details of their plans. Heck, Congress already has PAYGO in place, and they routinely classify things as emergency spending to get around the limitations. How will the GOP proposal change that? They don't say.

Cut Congress' Budget
Another bullet point that sounds good but has no details. They claim they will "significantly reduce" Congress' budget, but what will they cut to get that decrease? Also, notice there is no target for the reduction... for example, 10%. So they can claim success even if they manage a 0.01% decrease. This bullet point sounds good, but doesn't mean much.

Hold weekly votes on spending cuts
They are not talking about weekly votes in Congress, here. No, they're referring to their "YouCut" program, where they put up a list of cuts and let us vote online as to which one we like the most. To my knowledge, none of the spending cuts they've voted on so far have been passed... though I admit I could be wrong. But this is a ridiculous program and pledge. If you have a series of proposed spending cuts, PUT THEM IN A BILL and let CONGRESS vote on them. Cutting spending isn't an either-or proposition. Start cutting spending, guys, without the PR games.

End TARP
This is a good step, albeit a minor one. This would save maybe $16 billion... worth doing, but hardly a central plank for major spending reductions.

End government control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
This is good... except they don't really mean it. They want to privatize the two and end federal support that has already cost taxpayers over $100 billion. But they also want to "reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by ending their government takeover, shrinking their portfolios, and establishing minimum capital standards." They want to relinquish ownership and responsibility, but still keep control over them. Pick one, guys.

Propose a net federal hiring freeze
Since the federal workforce has continued to grow even while the private workforce has shrunk, this is a good goal. However, they fail to specify how long the freeze will last... in my mind, that's a pretty important detail. Oh, and notice that they don't promise to PASS this freeze, just to propose it. They promise to cut spending, reduce taxes, but only PROPOSE a hiring freeze? Hmmm...

Root out government waste and duplication
This is the perennial pledge to cut waste in government. It seldom produces concrete results... may this time be different.

And that's it for their second focus area... if you ask me, it's pretty weak. I don't see how this will SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the size and scope of government. Do you?

Repeal and Replace the Government Takeover of Health Care
This is probably the strongest portion of this new contract, and it holds out the most hope. Of course, it all hinges on being able to get a repeal of ObamaCare through Congress and signed by President... Obama. Yeah, probably not going to happen unless the GOP gets the Presidency AND both houses of Congress.

Repeal ObamaCare
Good step, though they don't tell us how they plan to actually DO it. That's the major weak point, here.

Enact medical liability reform
One of the things raising the cost of medical care is how easy it is to sue a doctor and win a multi-million dollar award. This means that they must carry large malpractice insurance policies, and perform tests and procedures solely for CYA purposes. Again, the problem is a lack of details. Calling their intended reform "common-sense measures" doesn't actually make them good and effective.

Allow us to purchase health insurance across state lines
Another good idea, treat health insurance just like auto insurance, boat insurance, and homeowner's insurance. Let US shop around to purchase the policy we want.

Strengthen the Doctor-Patient Relationship
How the HECK does Congress do that? Apparently, they're going to pass "common sense reforms." Again. See what I mean by nice-sounding bullet points with no details?

Ensure Access For Patients With Pre-Existing Conditions
Okay, how? The reason that Democrats imposed the "individual mandate" was because provisions like this one would significantly INCREASE health insurance premiums. By expanding the customer base, they hoped to offset those increased costs. So now the GOP wants to force insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions and remove lifetime liability caps from policies. How will they deal with the premium increases? They want to "reduce the cost of coverage" and "incentivize states to develop innovative programs that lower premiums." Yeah, I know... they have no real plan, here.

Permanently Prohibit Taxpayer Funding of Abortion
This is a sop to all those social conservatives who've been feeling ignored by all this focus on fiscal matters. I don't have any problems with eliminating taxpayer-funding for abortions, just so long as they don't try to push that envelope further. Freedom, guys, remember that concept?

And that's the end of that one. Though it is the strongest area they've focused on, it still has significant weaknesses and vagueness.

Reform Congress and Restore Trust
Write the Oxford dictionary on the head of a pin, climb Mount Everest without any breathing gear, reform Congress and restore trust. These are three tasks of about equal difficulty. Their proposals fail, I think, to do anything that would substantively move us closer to accomplishing these goals.

Read the bill
They pledge to post the bill online for three days before it is voted on by the House. No mention of the Senate... how about "house of origin?" Regardless, we've heard this before, and PresBo has ignored this promise when it suited him.

Adhere to the Constitution
They want to require each bill moving through Congress to cite the section of the Constitution that justifies its passage. Sounds great, and it's a good step, but anybody can CLAIM anything. Where's the review process to affirm it? That's the hard part... because to make this work SOMEBODY is going to have to make a constitutional ruling on each bill. And at that point we're back to somebody's interpretation of the Constitution.

Make it easier to cut spending
They complain that the Democrats have kept Republicans from amending bills... a claim that is undeniably true. They then commit to allowing anybody, of any party, to submit amendments that cut spending. Notice the qualification... ONLY to cut spending.

Advance Legislative Issues One at a Time:
They want to end the practice of "bundling" an unpopular law with a popular one. They pledge to "major legislation one issue at a time." Okay, that's great, but it's voluntary. How about figuring out a way to REQUIRE this? THAT would be a real reform.

So, that's it. That's what I think of the provisions in the GOP's Contract With America V2.

This "contract" has significant weaknesses and a lot of vague promises and pledges. Yes, there are many good things in it, but it will be easy for the GOP to weasel out of it later on because of the many holes in it. If this is the best that the GOP can do, then we're in trouble. They may halt the slide, or at least slow us way the heck down, but they're unlikely to begin our long climb back to a small government of limited powers.

Unfortunately.

Read the rest...

GOP Releases New Contract With America

We've been hearing for a few days now that the GOP will unveil their new "Contract with America" later today... and they've been pretty coy about what is in it. MSNBC posted what they call a draft copy of the contract last evening. And given the amount of time before the official unveiling, it is probably pretty close to the final. You can find the contract here:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/A_Capitol%20Hill/GOPagenda.pdf

Let's look at some of the preamble:

America is more than a country. America is an idea – an idea that free people can govern themselves, that government’s powers are derived from the consent of the governed, that each of us is endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America is the belief that any man or woman can – given economic, political, and religious liberty – advance themselves, their families, and the common good.

In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the governed, and regarding the policies of the current government, the governed do not consent.

An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down long-standing laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people.

An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many.

Rising joblessness, crushing debt, and a polarizing political environment are fraying the bonds among our people and blurring our sense of national purpose. Like free peoples of the past, our citizens refuse to accommodate a government that believes it can replace the will of the people with its own. The American people are speaking out, demanding that we realign our country’s compass with its founding principles and apply those principles to solve our common problems for the common good.

Okay, the preamble sounds good. They sound like they get it, like they understand what is happening and the general direction in which we must take this country if it is to survive. My problem is, and always has been, how do we tell if this is sincere or just an attempt to gain political power? How many of these goals will they actively and aggressively pursue? That's the real rub... It sounds good, but can we trust them?

The draft plan contains many details on their proposals, and I am reading it as I write this. I'll have more to say on this later. Until then, give the document a read and let's see what the Republicans are offering.

Read the rest...

Obama Challenges Tea Party!

Obama thought he would be clever and issue a challenge to the Tea Party that he thinks they can't answer.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20016979-503544.html

"The challenge, I think, for the Tea Party movement is to identify specifically, what would you do?" Mr. Obama said. "It's not enough just to say, 'Get control of spending.' I think it's important for you to say, 'You know, I'm willing to cut veterans' benefits,' or, 'I'm willing to cut Medicare or Social Security benefits,' or, 'I'm willing to see these taxes go up.'"

This is a straw man, basically, set up so that when people respond with specific suggestions he can demonize them and tell them why it wouldn't work. When you hear him do that, understand that they don't want to make ANY spending cuts, and will always have a reason to maintain spending.

But what the heck, I'm not one to shy away from a challenge. You want a specific plan to reduce the debt and return this nation to fiscal sanity? Okay, here's one...


The first thing we have to do is stop spending so much. We can make some quick steps to pull the budget out of the stratosphere by repealing the stimulus and NOT spending money that hasn't yet been spent. Then we repeal ObamaCare and the government takeover of the student loan program... large bureaucratic nightmares pumping out tons of regulatory hell don't do a single thing to REDUCE spending. ALL of Obama's major initiatives result in massive spending increases, so the first thing to do is get rid of them.

Next, let's enact some hard limits on how much spending is okay. Tie it to GDP... say, for example, 25% of GDP is the MOST that the Federal government can spend. Period. No exemptions just because all the big-spending Congressmen got together and called this an "emergency" spending measure. Want to spend more money? Cut something from elsewhere in the budget to free up the money, first.

Along with that, we might want to throw in a hard provision, unable to be bypassed, that federal spending cannot grow more than does the private economy. If the economy grows at 2%, the budget can't grow 10%. And if the economy is shrinking with a growth rate of -2%, guess what has to happen to the Federal budget? That's right, AT LEAST a 2% cut.

Now we get to where PresBo issued the specific challenge. What to cut? The short answer is everything. He's trying to get us to say that we want to cut Social Security or Medicare, so that he can launch partisan attacks against us to benefit his party in the fall.

The problem is that cutting the entitlement programs is absolutely essential if you want to truly reign in the budget. Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are known as "mandatory spending" programs. Those mandatory spending programs account for more than half of the entire federal budget. Also, if you look at their projected growth rates, they are responsible for a projected $46 trillion in deficit spending over the next 75 years. Getting spending under control WITHOUT dealing with these programs is literally impossible.

We must reform these programs, changing eligibility and benefits so they aren't a budgetary albatross around our fiscal necks. It MUST happen. If it doesn't, then any proposal will only make minor changes in our debt picture, at best.

As financial guru Dave Ramsey says, the government will have to go on serious beans and rice in order to get rid of all this debt.

There are other things that can be done, as well. Instead of trying to centralize power and functions in the federal government, which requires higher spending rates, we can farm more things out for the States to handle. We also need to focus on waste... "each year Washington loses $98 billion to payment errors, spends more than $90 billion on corporate welfare and pays $25 billion maintaining vacant federal properties."

Okay, PresBo, that's the bare bones of a plan. It's been done. Your challenge has been answered.

Now, the thing YOU need to do is actually try something, ANYTHING, that might actually result in lower spending! Until you do, all the challenges in the world won't make you any less a big-government raving liberal.

Read the rest...

UK Proposal Frightening, Obama Probably Likes It

Way over in the UK, they've come up with an innovative idea to make sure that all taxes owed by workers are actually paid. Their goal is to establish a system where employers don't pay employees directly. No, they send the entire paycheck to the government's Treasury department, which subtracts the appropriate amount of taxes and then sends the rest to the employee.

Wait a minute... what?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39265847

The UK's tax collection agency is putting forth a proposal that all employers send employee paychecks to the government, after which the government would deduct what it deems as the appropriate tax and pay the employees by bank transfer.

The proposal by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) stresses the need for employers to provide real-time information to the government so that it can monitor all payments and make a better assessment of whether the correct tax is being paid.

As disquieting as this is, at least it's over there, right?

Don't be so sure.


Let's face it, an honest appraisal of this administration leads to the conclusion that they would probably FAVOR a plan like this in the US. It does solve the problem of taxation... simply take what you need from each paycheck.

Yes, the probability of the system being error-prone and abused is there... but heck, we all work and earn money so that government can take what they need. Right?

That's what our government thinks, anyway...

Read the rest...

Obama: I'm NOT Anti-Business!

Have you heard the latest news? President Obama has settled the energetic debate on whether he and his policies are anti-business. The Anointed One has spoken, and he is NOT anti-business.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017009-503544.html

Yes, you read that right. Despite passing numerous taxes and supporting even higher taxes on businesses, he is not anti-business. Despite openly proclaiming the "private sector" to be "the enemy," he is not anti-business. Despite demonizing Wall Street firms and health insurance companies for most of his term in office, he is not anti-business.

Only... hang a second. This administration is FILLED with people uttering anti-business rhetoric. Just listen for yourself.





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://blip.tv/file/4142594

After listening to that, how can you doubt the Obama and his administration are staunch pro-business activists?


For those new to this blog, please note the high level of sarcasm employed in much of the preceding text.

I think the most revealing line in that video is this one:

"... because we have been guided by a Republican administration who believes in the simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it."

So, the idea that you have the right to keep the money you earn by your labor is "simplistic." Our political masters in Washington know so much more than us, and can obviously spend our money better than we can.

I submit that no free society can exist without the recognition of basic property rights. That means that we have the right to own and keep property. This means real estate and buildings, yes, but it also means cars, TVs, and refrigerators. Oh yes... and money.

Money is property, for the simple reason that we own that money. If the government respected property rights, they would view that money as ours. Unfortunately, this government does NOT think money is ours to earn and keep. As evidence, read this article, which cites President Obama as saying:
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2010/09/18/commentary/op-eds/doc4c956f2fe214a004246174.txt

“This isn’t to punish folks who are better off – it’s because we can’t afford the $700 billion price tag.”

This is in reference to extending the Bush tax cuts, of course, and it reveals their underlying assumption. Keep in mind that he was referring to money that the government is NOT currently collecting in taxes, but that they WOULD see if they raised the tax rates.

In their view, that money is theirs by right. It doesn't matter that WE worked hard to earn it. It doesn't matter that we could certainly USE that money. That money is theirs and we have to shut up and hand it over.

With this underlying philosophy revealed, a lot of what PresBo has done makes a bit more sense. But my question is this: Do we want a government that thinks this way about us?

I don't... and I intend to vote accordingly this fall AND in 2012.

What about you?

Read the rest...

Rasumussen: More Identify With Palin Than Obama

A new poll from Rasmussen shows that more people identify with Sarah Palin's views than with PresBo's views.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/september_2010/52_of_voters_say_their_views_are_more_like_palin_s_than_obama_s

Fifty-two percent (52%) of Likely U.S. Voters say their own views are closer to Sarah Palin’s than they are to President Obama’s, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Just 40% say their views are closer to the president’s than to those of the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate.

And again, the disconnect between regular voters and those in the political class is evident.

Among the Political Class, however, 68% say their views are more like Obama’s, while 63% of Mainstream voters describe their views as more like Palin’s.

So as the political class moves further and further left in their political views, they are leaving the rest of the country behind. News flash: Ignoring our opinions doesn't make us go away.


Read the rest...

Breaking: Dems Blocked On "Don't Ask" Measure

Let's look at what happened today in the US Senate. The Democrats tacked an amendment onto a defense spending bill that would repeal the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, and attempted to move it through WITHOUT allowing Republicans any chance to amend it. They want the bill to go through while at the same time denying Republicans any input on the bill beyond voting Yea or Nay.

Keep in mind that the Senate needs 60 votes to close debate and send it to the floor for a vote. That means they need some Republican support in order for this to happen... and they didn't get it. The vote to end debate on the defense spending bill failed on a vote of 56 to 43.


Democrats were hoping that Republicans who support repealing "Don't Ask" would fall in line and let them continue to shut out Republicans from the legislative process. However, not only did every Republican vote against it, but so did Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Mark Pryor (D-AR). Senators Snowe and Collins, two Republicans who support repealing "Don't Ask," announced they were voting "NO" specifically because Republican amendments to the defense bill were not being allowed.

In other words, the Democrats were running roughshod over the minority party. That's a bad policy when they need SOME support from the minority party in order to pass legislation. And the Republicans made that point today.

So, when - not if, but WHEN - you hear the Democrats talking about how Republicans are working against the military by blocking the defense spending bill, you'll know the truth. It's the DEMOCRATS who are playing games with the process right now, and the Republicans are just issuing a reminder that they can't be completely ignored without consequences.

You see, despite the Democrats' claim that being the "party of no" is a bad thing, sometimes it is necessary. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with voting against bad legislation.

UPDATE: Here is Senator Collin's statement on the issue:

"I find myself on the horns of a dilemma, I support the provisions in this bill. I think it is the right thing to do. I think it is only fair... But I cannot vote to proceed to this bill under a situation that is going to shut down the debate and preclude Republican amendments. That too is not fair. So, I'm going to make plea to my colleagues to enter into a fair time agreement that will allow full and open debate, full and open amendments to all provisions of this bill including Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017115-503544.html

Read the rest...

Almost 2/3 Want ObamaCare Repeal

Rasmussen has been conducting a weekly poll to track how the public feels about the new health care law. The average has been hovering around 55% favoring repeal. This week, however, Rasmussen found that fully 61% of Americans favor repealing ObamaCare.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

Sixty-one percent (61%) of Likely U.S. Voters now at least somewhat favor repeal of the new national health care law, including 50% who Strongly Favor it. That’s up eight points from a week ago and the highest level of opposition measured since late May.

Only 33% say the health care plan will be good for the country, the lowest level measured since late July. Fifty-six percent (56%) disagree and believe the new law will be bad for the United States.

And once again, the divide between the "political class" and regular Americans is highlighted in these results.

On both questions, there is a large divide between mainstream voters and the Political Class. While 74% of Mainstream voters favor repeal, 74% of the Political Class are opposed. Likewise, most Mainstream voters (71%) feel the health care law will hurt the country, but 68% of the Political Class believe the law will be beneficial.

In other words, support for repeal is only that low because a super-majority of politicians, lobbyists, and so forth are happy with ObamaCare. If you factor them out, support for repeal approaches the 75% level.

Almost THREE-QUARTERS of American voters, not counting the political class, favor repealing ObamaCare.

That's an eye-opening figure...

Read the rest...

Health Care Tyranny On The Way

Michael Ciamarra, of the Alabama Policy Institute, has written a wonderful piece on the ObamaCare compliance issues that states will have to deal with starting next year. Not to mention how the two Gubernatorial candidates stand on this issue.
http://www.alabamapolicy.org/gary_blog/article.php?id_art=428

A document from the National Conference of State Legislatures recently came across my desk innocently entitled, “State Legislators’ Check List for Health Reform Implementation.” I was astonished, to say the least, at the check list of sweeping mandates, requirements to change state law to ‘conform,’ questions on who will run state high-risk pools, Medicaid funding ratios and dozens of different complex challenges for 2011 state legislatures in order to comply with the newly enacted Obama health care law.

The Obama Administration will move forward with this implementation, along with the creation and expansion of 159 new federal offices charged with administering, which also means Alabama’s new governor will be faced with multitudes of complications to be implemented as required by federal law.

Which means we should pay attention to how both candidates have indicated they would respond, right? So, what about Democrat candidate Ron Sparks?

A review of Democratic candidate Ron Sparks’ public statements on health reform does not reveal much. The Birmingham News reported that Sparks said “… the federal overhaul of health care is now the law and state legislators early next year must take up measures to come into compliance with it.” What is his approach to health care reform, especially if Obama’s health care law is repealed? As you might expect, he proposes to rely on regulating and taxing gambling as a way to raise money to fund public health programs. Nothing new there.

Doesn't sound so good. Now, what about Robert Bentley?

The Republican candidate, Dr. Robert Bentley, is much more detailed and thoughtful in laying out state-driven reform measures. Bentley does not mince words on the Obama health care plan, “It’s the worst thing that has happened in this country and as governor I will stand up and fight it.” Bentley is also prepared with a number of reforms that will create a 21st century approach to personal health care and access.

Bentley would like to create competition among insurance companies which, he believes, would drive down the cost for Alabamians. His plan expands tax incentives to companies to provide wider health insurance coverage.

Very significantly, Bentley’s plan also would establish Health Savings Accounts which would allow consumers to contribute pre-tax funds into the account dedicated to paying for medical costs. Coupled with high deductible insurance policies, Bentley argues that it will save Alabamians millions of dollars. Bentley also suggests creating health savings accounts as a way for state and education employees to address health insurance costs, retirement costs and state pensions.

Significantly, Bentley wants to create incentives and opportunities for more primary care physicians.

I don't agree with Bentley on every issue, but on this one he stands head and shoulders above his opponent.

I urge you to read the entire piece at the link provided above.

Read the rest...

More Guns = Less Crime

John Lott once wrote a book entitled "More Guns, Less Crime." Liberals HATE this book. I've been told that the concept is OBVIOUSLY wrong... How could MORE deadly weapons lead to LESS crime? I guess the underlying supposition is that the guns practice some kind of mind control, and merely owning them puts you in their influence. And the guns want us to kill each other off.

Heck, I don't know.

But the fact of the matter is that, since PresBo took office gun sales have SKYROCKETED. At the same time, crimes rates have declined.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75359

Violent crime continued to fall in 2009, even as gun sales reached an all-time high, according to statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This is “proof positive that gun prohibitionists have been consistently and undeniably wrong,” the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said in a statement.

According to the FBI, the number of violent crimes of all types declined in 2009 by 5.3 percent and property crimes declined 4.6 percent. In fact, the rate of violent crime declined 6.1 percent below 2008 figures.

In fact, the types of crime most likely to be committed with a firearm, murders and manslaughters, experienced one of the greatest rates of decline in 2009 – 7.3 percent.

While violent crime was going down in 2009, guns sales were experiencing a record year. According to data from the FBI’s National Instant Background Check System (NICS), 2009 was the best year on record for gun sales.

In fact, there were nearly 2 million more guns sold in the United States in 2009 than in 2008, the next best year for gun sales, when 12.7 million NICS checks were recorded.

Who'da thunk it?


Liberals have been telling us for years that if we let people in cities like DC and New York own guns, crime rates will soar. These claims mirror those used to combat concealed carry initiatives, when they usually claim that the streets will "run with blood." When it doesn't happen that way, gun control advocates are strangely silent.

The sad fact of the matter is that criminals don't want to attack you or rob you in order to get killed; they have the goals they want to achieve. Money, getting rid of somebody, whatever... they don't want to DIE. When more people own and carry guns, the pool of victims shrinks, and criminals become just a LITTLE more worried about whether or not their intended victim has a gun.

So when I heard gun sales went up, I EXPECTED violent crime rates to drop at least a little. And I was right.

John Lott, the title of your book has been proven confirmed. More guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens does, in fact, result in less crime.

Read the rest...

DeMint: GOP Dead If Doesn't Cut Spending

Well, at least ONE GOP Senator gets it. Senator Jim DeMint, who has embraced the Tea Party call for fiscal conservatism and responsible governing, says that the GOP will die if it betrays the American people again.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0910/DeMint_GOP_dead_unless_it_reins_in_spending.html





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://videoshare.politico.com/singletitlevideo.php?bcpid=19407224001&bctid=611055303001

Did you catch that?


It's heavy stuff, and the GOP leadership would do well to listen to him.

"I came into the Senate in the majority...55 senators, large majority in the House, Bush in the White House, and Republicans didn't do what we said we were going to do," DeMint said in an interview aired Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." "We spent too much, we borrowed too much. And frankly, if we get the majority again, even if it's just in the House, and we don't do what we say, I think the Republican Party is dead."

I agree completely. There is a limit to how often a political party can betray the voters... and they've reached it. But DeMint seems to REALLY get it, here.

"The Republicans are the only one who can carry the banner of what I think millions of Americans are saying - not just Republicans, independents and Democrats - stop the spending, stop the borrowing, stop the debt, stop the takeovers," the senator said. "This is kind of uniting America."

He seems to understand that this resurgence of support for the GOP doesn't mean we love them. Quite the contrary, we lack confidence that they will actually do what they claim they will. But who else can we turn to? With the Democrats being, as DeMint put it, "to the left of Europe"... Well, we have to turn to SOMEBODY!

We don't love the GOP, they're just the only other game in town right now. But if the GOP betrays the voters again and continues with business as usual... Well, we have the nucleus for a new political party to take the place of the GOP. The Tea Party is bringing together millions of people from all political ideologies, and could easily become the heart of a new political party.

The GOP HAS to realize this. Follow through on your small government promises for once, or be relegated to the ash bin of history.

Well said, Senator DeMint. Well said.

Read the rest...

This Should Be A Warning To The GOP

Okay, by most measures it looks like the GOP stands to make major gains in Congress this year. They are most likely to win the House back, which has current minority leader John Boehner licking his chops at the prospect of being Speaker of the House.

Only that's not what GOP voters WANT. They want NEW leadership, not a continuation of the old.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0910/Poll_Voters_want_to_oust_Republicans_too.html?showall

Fifty-seven percent of Republican voters would get rid of Republican leaders if the GOP wins back Congress, including House Minority Leader John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, according to a Public Policy Polling survey.

The poll reflects the ongoing dissatisfaction that Republican voters have with the establishment GOP in Washington -- a trend also reflected in a series of upsets of Republican incumbents throughout the country.

According to the PPP poll, 21 percent are not sure about whether to keep the current GOP congressional leaders, and the same percentage wants to keep the leadership intact.

In other words, the majority of GOP voters view Boehner as a continuation of the old leadership that got the GOP removed from power in the first place. As such, he's unlikely to take the GOP in the new direction that voters want, which includes dramatically reducing spending and paying down the national debt.


In other words, they view Boehner as part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Okay, that's what Republican voters WANT... Now, how many out there think that John Boehner has the SLIGHTEST intention of listening to his voters and giving them what they want?

Anybody? Anybody at all???

Yeah, me, neither. If we wanted the same old crap from the Republican party, why'd we go to all the trouble with the Tea Party and all those protests? Why have so many Republicans been ousted in favor of other candidates? What, do they think it was all just a show, and we'll be just as happy with the "status quo" politicians who like things just the way they are?

If you care about this issue, you should contact your representative after the election and tell him you want NEW leadership and NOT John Boehner! Whether or not your rep will LISTEN to you and vote accordingly is another matter, but you need to do it, anyway. You ALSO need to remember what your representative does and hold him accountable NEXT time.

Read the rest...

Gibbs' Obvious Lie

This is priceless, and a perfect example of how the Obama administration tries to own both sides of the fence. Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs made the observation that Sarah Palin is "testing the waters" on a 2012 Presidential run. Then, not a minute later, he tries to tell us that PresBo isn't thinking about the 2012 elections yet. Well, if PresBo isn't thinking about it, then why is his oficial spokesperson running off at the mouth about it?
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0910/dip_that_toe_c5bc24cd-f1d7-4a53-8eae-d8c4407f08d2.html

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs predicted Friday that Sarah Palin is testing out a run for president by speaking in Iowa, comparing her upcoming speech at a GOP dinner with President Obama’s presence in the state in 2006.

Suggesting Palin might be "the most formidable force in the Republican Party right now,” Gibbs said he doesn’t “doubt” her ability to draw big, conservative crowds -- though when asked if Obama considers her a political threat, he denied that the president is “thinking” about the 2012 presidential election.

If the President isn't thinking about the 2012 election cycle, then why is Spokesman Gibbs talking about it?


Keep in mind that this doesn't seem to have been in response to a question. Rather, Gibbs decided on his own to discuss the matter. You'd think these guys would have learned by now that there are times NOT to talk about something.

So, because of Gibbs and his denial, we know that PresBo IS concerned about the 2012 Presidential elections... as well he should be.

Read the rest...

Study: Stimulus Spending Doesn't Work

Alberto Alesina is a professor of political economy at Harvard, and he has been studying the issue of tax cuts vs stimulus spending for quite a few years. He just published an article in the Wall Street Journal explaining his findings.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704271804575405311447498820.html

Politicians argue for increased stimulus spending, as opposed to spending cuts, on the grounds that it would speed up economic recovery. This argument might have it exactly backward. Indeed, history shows that cutting spending in order to reduce deficits may be the key to promoting economic recovery.

Economic history shows that even large adjustments in fiscal policy, if based on well-targeted spending cuts, have often led to expansions, not recessions. Fiscal adjustments based on higher taxes, on the other hand, have generally been recessionary...

How can spending cuts be expansionary? First, they signal that tax increases will not occur in the future, or that if they do they will be smaller. A credible plan to reduce government outlays significantly changes expectations of future tax liabilities. This, in turn, shifts people's behavior. Consumers and especially investors are more willing to spend if they expect that spending and taxes will remain limited over a sustained period of time.

On the other hand, fiscal adjustments based on tax increases reduce consumers' disposable income and reduce incentives for productivity.

In short, stimulus spending doesn't work, but cutting taxes AND SPENDING does.

Does this message sound like something we've been hearing from the Tea Party folks for almost two years?


It's past time to reign in spending that is far past "out of control" and is venturing into "maniacally stupid and irresponsible" territory. We need to lower spending across the board BELOW 2008 levels, eliminate the deficit, and start paying down our national debt.

And we need to do this NOW!

Read the rest...

Stimulus: Spend $111 Million For 55 Jobs?

The idea of the stimulus package was to create jobs, theoretically. Or, in the parlance of PresBo, "save or create" jobs. We know from experience that this only happens when the money is spent in the "best" way possible... in other words, more productively than the original owners of that money would have spent it.

Do you think that receiving $111 million in stimulus money to "save or create" 55 jobs would qualify? Keep in mind that this is $2 million per job! No? Well, that's what two happened with two agencies in LA.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-stimulus-audit-20100917,0,3706864.story

Two Los Angeles departments have received $111 million in federal stimulus funds yet have created only 55 jobs so far, according to a pair of reports issued Thursday by City Controller Wendy Greuel.

The article goes on to claim they will eventually create 264 jobs... but we see little sign of this. So to date, they have created a handful of jobs at a ruinously high cost per job.

Welcome to Recovery Summer.


Read the rest...

First Democrat Signs ObamaCare Repeal Pledge!

As you know, the GOP is trying to win support in the US House for a repeal of ObamaCare. Thus far, they have have managed to gather 171 signatures on a petition, all Republicans. Thus far... until yesterday, that is. Because yesterday saw the 172nd signature by Rep Gene Taylor (D-MS).
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42237.html

Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor became the first Democrat to sign a petition to repeal his party’s health care overhaul legislation.

The Blue Dog Democrat, who frequently bucks his party’s leadership, signed the petition Wednesday, his office said.

Taylor underscores how unpopular the legislation is in some conservative districts held by Democrats.

This is no longer a partisan effort, as the first of those Democrats who voted against the bill has now signed onto efforts to repeal it.


My question is simple: where is Bobby Bright? Bright voted against ObamaCare, just like Taylor. Bright's constituents want him to repeal ObamaCare, just like Taylor's. So why hasn't Bobby Bright signed the petition promising to repeal ObamaCare?

It's time, Bobby. Either sign the petition or admit that you secretly support ObamCare after all.

Read the rest...

History Lesson On ObamaCare Thuggisms

Although I normally don't refer to Michelle Malkin's pieces, she does occasionally write something that qualifies as an "absolutely must-read." This is such a piece. She chronicles the Obama administration's history of thuggish behavior and threatening people over ObamaCare dissent. It started with the White House request to "flag" dissenters on the pending bills.
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/09/15/the-obamacare-inquisitions-a-brief-brutish-history/

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is just the latest creepy keeper of the Obamacare enemies list. The White House has been keeping tabs on individual and corporate critics of the federal health care takeover for more than a year. It started with the health czar’s Internet Snitch Brigade. Remember?

Last August, the White House Office of Health Reform called on its ground troops to report on fellow citizens who talked smack about the Democratic plan. Team Obama issued an all-points bulletin on the taxpayer-funded White House website soliciting informant e-mails.

Then they attacked Anthem for proposed rate increases.

In February, the White House coordinated a demonization campaign against Anthem Blue Cross in California for raising rates. Obama singled out the company in a “60 Minutes” interview, and Sebelius sent a nasty-gram demanding that Anthem “justify” its rate hikes to the federal government. A private company trying to survive in the marketplace was forced to “explain” itself to federal bureaucrats and career politicians who have never run a business (successful or otherwise) in their lives. Sebelius went even further. She called on Anthem to provide public disclosure on how the rate increases would be spent — a mandate that no other private companies must follow.

Then they targeted private companies who were planning on raising the costs to their employees for health care based upon the ObamaCare law.

On Capitol Hill, Democratic chief inquisitor Henry Waxman trained his sights on executives from Deere, Caterpillar, Verizon and AT&T in a brass-knuckled effort to silence companies speaking out about the cost implications and financial burdens of Obamacare. He scheduled an April 21 show trial of corporate heads who dutifully reported writedowns related to the Obamacare mandates. Obama Commerce Secretary Gary Locke joined in on the witch-hunt, pummeling the companies on the White House blog and TV airwaves for their “premature” and “irresponsible” disclosures.

After the Democrats’ own congressional staff pointed out that the companies “acted properly and in accordance with accounting standards” in submitting filings that were required by law, Waxman called off the hounds.

And now, of course, we have Sebelius threatening health care companies if they DARE to raise premiums because of the effects of the ObamaCare law.

Undoubtedly, we have more such examples to come in the future. This administration seems more than willing to abuse the power of government to bludgeon policy critics into silent submission.

This group of people cannot be permitted to remain in power. Their vision of America is anathema to freedom and liberty.

Read the rest...

Republicans Waver On Earmark Ban

This is an excellent example of why I doubt that Republican politicians are sincere in their newly rediscovered fiscal responsibility. I have little faith that they will actually take the hard steps necessary to reduce taxes AND spending... much less start paying down the national debt. When they were in the minority with few prospects for changing that, Republican politicians enacted a voluntary ban on earmarks and said they'd do a lot of fiscally responsible things. Now that it looks like they might regain the majority, they're vacillating already.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42251.html

With their eyes on a House majority, Republicans are leaving the door open to allowing earmarks after a one-year party-imposed moratorium.

So cue the “bridge to nowhere” and “pork” rhetoric and fire up the angry press releases from fiscal watchdogs.

This close to the election, Republicans are all over the place on how they’ll handle earmarking as they are poised to ride an anti-spending wave to electoral victories.

So their resolve wavers even BEFORE they regain the majority? Huh.

And people wonder why I don't have faith that the Republicans will actually do better this time...




Read the rest...

Banks Siezed Record Number Of Homes In August

Does anybody remember what started our economic problems in the first place? Think way, way back. You got it? That's right, the housing bubble burst. People who had home loans they couldn't afford started defaulting, with all the attendant angst of tumbling home sales and house prices.

Today, the President and his ilk tell us the economy is fixed, that we're moving in the right direction, albeit slowly. Everybody sing kumbaya, and somebody get that chorus of angel singers from General Hospital.

Meanwhile, reality intrudes. The latest figures show that banks seized a record number of homes in August... a crystal-clear sign that the problem underlying all of our problems is NOT fixed. And it's not going to be "fixed" any time soon.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39207626/ns/business-real_estate

A record number of homeowners lost houses to their banks in August as lenders worked through the backlog of distressed mortgages, real estate data company RealtyTrac said Thursday.

Root problems of high unemployment, wage cuts, negative home equity and restrictive lending practices persist, however, pointing to lingering housing market pain.

RealtyTrac sees a record 1.2 million repossessions this year, up from just under 1 million last year, with more than 3.2 million homes in some stage of foreclosure.

In 2005, before the housing bust, banks took over just about 100,000 houses, according to the Irvine, California-based company.

Any guesses as to WHY this problem hasn't been "fixed?"


The Democrats in Congress haven't even tried to fix this one, really. Doing so would go against their political philosophy, and we can't have THAT, now can we?

Democrats believe that everybody "deserves" to own a home. So, a long time ago, they started passing laws making it easier to own homes. How? By requiring mortgage lenders to give high-risk mortgages to people who couldn't really afford the payments, i.e. the poor. Oh, they were so happy when home ownership rose above 60%... but this led DIRECTLY to our current problems.

People who couldn't afford the payments began defaulting on those loans, and the rest is history.

Now, in response to this, a sane man would remove the laws that required mortgage lenders to write high-risk loans to those who couldn't afford the payments, i.e. the poor. I guess that settles THAT question, though... our current political masters aren't sane. Not only didn't they remove those laws, they created new programs that mirrored the old, encouraging even MORE such loans.

I know, it's crazy not to fix the laws that caused the problems in the first place... That's my point.

Here is my prescription to "fix" the housing problems. First, repeal any law, dismantle any program, and remove any regulation that requires mortgage lenders to write high-risk loans. This will go a long way towards fixing the underlying housing problems.

That alone, however, isn't enough anymore. The continuing housing problems can be tied to the unemployment rate, which can be tied to the current policies coming out of Washington DC. So...

Second, roll back the entire Federal budget, sparing nothing, to 2008 spending levels. Don't spare the military, don't spare social security, the goal is to reduce spending immediately. That means repealing ObamaCare and refusing to pass any useless new spending initiatives that the Democrats dream up. That includes EPA regulation of greenhouse gasses and any cockamamie cap & trade schemes that might be in the works.

Third, repeal all pending tax increases... In fact, roll back all tax rates to their 2008 level. The goal is to get lower tax rates across the board.

Once all that is accomplished, it's time for the next step.

Fourth, begin taking business friendly steps that will encourage economic growth. Lower taxes AND SPENDING, and begin paying down the national debt.

THAT is what the government can do to help this economy recover. Behave responsibly, stop raising taxes, stop instituting new entitlement programs, and stop enacting business-hostile regulatory overhauls.

The economy WILL respond.

Read the rest...

Democrat Hypocrisy

Democrats seem to be taking a firm stance against "going back" to the economic policies that "caused our troubles" in the first place. We've all heard them say that, right? Well, listen to PresBo's chief economic advisor talking about the "Bush tax cuts."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/09/14/whs_bernstein_millionaires_dont_need_the_extra_cash.html

"The most important thing we have to do right now is hold the line for the tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaires who, frankly, do not need the extra cash.

Anyone who thinks that these tax cuts for our millionaires and billionaires costing $700 billion over 10 years -- we we're just talking about the importance of that long-term budget under control. This is a great way to lose control of that and if you think an extension of one or two years is going to hold, I think that is very misguided political thinking,"

What he's saying is that if the government doesn't think you "need" the money that you worked hard to earn, then they have the moral right to just take it away from you. And did you notice the hypocrisy?


It's simply this... they don't want to "go back" to old "economic policies,, but they certainly don't mind going backwards in our tax policy. The party that says they want to look forward actually wants to wind the clock backwards to higher and higher tax rates that will make this country less competitive in the global market.

Hypocritical.

When you hear these guys talk about how tax cuts ALREADY IN PLACE will cost the government money, you hear them betraying their worldview. In THEIR MINDS, your money isn't yours, it's theirs. You may have earned it, but by God they are the government and they have a right to any money they want!

I remember a newspaper article many years back, talking about a new WalMart in a small Alabama town. In the second paragraph they talked about how much tax revenue the store would generate. The article didn't mention new jobs or the goods you could buy at low prices until six or seven paragraphs later.

Guys! It's not all about government and what they can take from us. Sometimes, it's just us. We should NOT be thinking of government first and foremost.

It's time for government to do what everybody else in this country has already started doing... Stop spending money they don't have. They also need to stop raising taxes on those of us in the private sector. The higher our taxes go, the less economic activity we'll be able to engage in.

Do they really WANT to hurt our economy?

Read the rest...

Montgomery District 6 Runoff!

Montgomery held a special election yesterday to fill the City Council District 6 seat left vacant by the untimely demise of Willie Cook. With 13 candidates in the race, a runoff was almost inevitable, and a runoff it is. Candidates John Dow and Andre Bolding will head to a runoff.
http://tinyurl.com/39ylvtw

The list of candidates wanting to replace the late city Councilman Willie Cook has been narrowed down to Jon Dow and Andre Bolding Sr. in an outcome decided by a small slice of the population in District 6.

Dow, who is 50, earned 535 votes or more than 35 percent. Bolding walked away with 205 votes, or 13.58 percent. Murphy "Mo" Green narrowly missed the runoff election, getting 195 votes or about 13 percent.

The sad part of this is that only 12% of registered voters bothered to cast a vote at all. John Dow came in first place with 35% of the votes cast, but that means only 4% of registered voters supported him.


THIS is why I hate special elections of any kind. Low turnout is almost guaranteed, and we get a result that doesn't reflect the wishes of the vast majority of the registered voters.

So. We've narrowed this thing down to two men who will have to go through this election thing one more time. And if we have any luck, a few more people will deign to vote... But don't count on it.

Read the rest...