Ron Paul has a new campaign commercial out... take a look.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://youtu.be/pChzOaIeyxY
Read the rest...
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Friday, August 12, 2011
Breaking: US Appeals Court Nixes Individual Mandate
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, upholding Florida Judge Roger Vinson's earlier ruling.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2011/08/12/individual-mandate-unconstitutional/
However, the court disagreed with Vinson's full overturn, finding that the individual mandate IS severable from the rest of the law.
So we have a mix of good news and bad. The individual mandate was upheld by the appeals court... which means that SCOTUS review may well happen during the upcoming term in 2012. With different appeals courts offering differing opinions, SCOTUS is more likely to accept the case to reconcile the issue.
I must be honest, though. I found Vinson's ruling tossing out the whole law compelling. In finding that the individual mandate wasn't severable from the rest of the law, he essentially followed this logic:
1) Earlier drafts of the law had severability statements, which were removed for the version that passed, which indicates the intent of Congress NOT to make the law severable.
2) The government argued in court that the individual mandate was absolutely critical to the law as a whole, and also argued that the correct functioning of the law depended upon the presence of the individual mandate. In effect, the government argued before Judge Vinson that the statute wasn't severable.
Since Congress seemed to intentionally remove the severable statement, and since the government made such a point of how important to the law the individual mandate is, I agree with Vinson's ruling that if the mandate went, then so did the entire law. That, also, is a point that SCOTUS will have to review.
UPDATE: Here is a link to the full decision issued by the 11th Circuit. It's hard to get to right now, as the server is being slammed by people anxious to read their decision. Be patient, and keep trying.
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201111021.pdf
Read the rest...
http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2011/08/12/individual-mandate-unconstitutional/
"The individual mandate was enacted as a regulatory penalty, not a revenue-raising tax, and cannot be sustained as an exercise of Congress's power under the Taxing and Spending Clause. Further, the individual mandate exceeds Congress's enumerated commerce power and is unconstitutional. This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded asserts of congressional authorty; the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have not elected to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives. We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers. “Uniqueness” is not a constitutional principle in any antecedent Supreme Court decision."
However, the court disagreed with Vinson's full overturn, finding that the individual mandate IS severable from the rest of the law.
"The individual mandate, however, can be severed from the remainder of the Act's myriad reforms. The presumption of severability is rooted in notions of judicial restraint and respect for the separation of powers in our constitutional system. The Act's other provisions remain legally operative after the mandate's excision, and the high burden needed under Supreme Court precedent to rebut the presumption of severability has not been met."
So we have a mix of good news and bad. The individual mandate was upheld by the appeals court... which means that SCOTUS review may well happen during the upcoming term in 2012. With different appeals courts offering differing opinions, SCOTUS is more likely to accept the case to reconcile the issue.
I must be honest, though. I found Vinson's ruling tossing out the whole law compelling. In finding that the individual mandate wasn't severable from the rest of the law, he essentially followed this logic:
1) Earlier drafts of the law had severability statements, which were removed for the version that passed, which indicates the intent of Congress NOT to make the law severable.
2) The government argued in court that the individual mandate was absolutely critical to the law as a whole, and also argued that the correct functioning of the law depended upon the presence of the individual mandate. In effect, the government argued before Judge Vinson that the statute wasn't severable.
Since Congress seemed to intentionally remove the severable statement, and since the government made such a point of how important to the law the individual mandate is, I agree with Vinson's ruling that if the mandate went, then so did the entire law. That, also, is a point that SCOTUS will have to review.
UPDATE: Here is a link to the full decision issued by the 11th Circuit. It's hard to get to right now, as the server is being slammed by people anxious to read their decision. Be patient, and keep trying.
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201111021.pdf
Read the rest...
Who Does Obama Hate?
I got to thinking about this yesterday, and I was wondering who Obama hates. I know he hates folks, because of the way he demonizes and vilifies people on a regular and ongoing basis. But who does he hate? I have taken this opportunity to write down a few of those that Obama has expressed... let's call it profound unhappiness with, okay? Without further ado, I give you:
Obama Hates -
Millionaires and billionaires - This theme runs throughout his presidency, that rich people earn too darned much and don't pay enough in taxes. If we'd just tax the bejeezus out of those dastardly cusses, we'd be able to pay for all the massive spending in which Obama wants to engage. And they are evil enough to OPPOSE those proposed taxes... which are obviously for their own good.
Corporate jet owners - This is a subset of rich people, and nobody is really sure why he's picking on such a small target. Repealing the "tax breaks" on corporate jet ownership wouldn't bring in THAT much revenue, by DC standards, but those jets sure are a nice target for wealth envy.
Health insurance companies - These guys are just pure evil. They want senior citizens to die, and don't want to ever, ever, EVER pay any money for any health care services. Why, if it weren't for those evil health insurance companies, nobody would ever be sick again!
Republicans - Obama purely detests Republicans, while at the same time being at a loss to understand why they don't just fall in line with worshipful adoration behind his obviously great Godhood. His disdain was obvious early on ("I won," "sit in the back of the car," etc), and has rapidly escalated. Now we hear such incongruities as Obama begging for Republicans to cooperate with him, while in the same speech he blames Republicans for intentionally trying to destroy the country! See? Even when he's trying to convince Republicans to compromise, he can't holster his hate. After all, they're terrorists who held a gun to the head of this nation, and what self-respecting President could fail to point that out? Endlessly.
George Bush - This, THIS, my friends, is the devil incarnate. We know this because everything is Bush's fault. George Bush caused each and every one of our economic problems. He caused the Great Gulf Oil Leak, he caused higher gas prices, and he even caused the recent S&P credit downgrade. And if something bad happens in the future, you can rest assured that will turn out to be George Bush's fault, as well. The man could do no right, and Obama is quick to remind us of that fact. The former President, by Obama's own admission, has a far greater impact on current events and our economic situation than does the sitting President. And what greater reason to hate him could Obama have?
The Tea Party - Obama harbors a deep hatred for those racist, violent, hate-mongers, mainly because he would have had a much easier time of things if the movement had never arisen. Much of what little spine we've seen displayed by Republicans of late over fiscal issues was put there by the Tea Party, and Obama knows it. As an early indication of his hate for the movement, witness the report his administration tried to put out early on showing that single-issue groups who respect the Constitution are really domestic terrorists. The report didn't actually SAY "Tea Party," but the meaning was quite clear. Dang you, Tea Party, dang you to Heck.
Wall Street - Yes, Obama hates Wall Street. These evil rich people (see #1, above) actually exist to make (gasp) money! To be honest, of all the groups that his animosity is most likely to be a put-on merely to extend government authority over an entire section of our economy, this one leads the pack. But he gets far too much traction from this "hatred" to abandon it.
There you go. This is a partial catalog of those whom Obama hates. Did I miss anybody?
Read the rest...
Obama Hates -
Millionaires and billionaires - This theme runs throughout his presidency, that rich people earn too darned much and don't pay enough in taxes. If we'd just tax the bejeezus out of those dastardly cusses, we'd be able to pay for all the massive spending in which Obama wants to engage. And they are evil enough to OPPOSE those proposed taxes... which are obviously for their own good.
Corporate jet owners - This is a subset of rich people, and nobody is really sure why he's picking on such a small target. Repealing the "tax breaks" on corporate jet ownership wouldn't bring in THAT much revenue, by DC standards, but those jets sure are a nice target for wealth envy.
Health insurance companies - These guys are just pure evil. They want senior citizens to die, and don't want to ever, ever, EVER pay any money for any health care services. Why, if it weren't for those evil health insurance companies, nobody would ever be sick again!
Republicans - Obama purely detests Republicans, while at the same time being at a loss to understand why they don't just fall in line with worshipful adoration behind his obviously great Godhood. His disdain was obvious early on ("I won," "sit in the back of the car," etc), and has rapidly escalated. Now we hear such incongruities as Obama begging for Republicans to cooperate with him, while in the same speech he blames Republicans for intentionally trying to destroy the country! See? Even when he's trying to convince Republicans to compromise, he can't holster his hate. After all, they're terrorists who held a gun to the head of this nation, and what self-respecting President could fail to point that out? Endlessly.
George Bush - This, THIS, my friends, is the devil incarnate. We know this because everything is Bush's fault. George Bush caused each and every one of our economic problems. He caused the Great Gulf Oil Leak, he caused higher gas prices, and he even caused the recent S&P credit downgrade. And if something bad happens in the future, you can rest assured that will turn out to be George Bush's fault, as well. The man could do no right, and Obama is quick to remind us of that fact. The former President, by Obama's own admission, has a far greater impact on current events and our economic situation than does the sitting President. And what greater reason to hate him could Obama have?
The Tea Party - Obama harbors a deep hatred for those racist, violent, hate-mongers, mainly because he would have had a much easier time of things if the movement had never arisen. Much of what little spine we've seen displayed by Republicans of late over fiscal issues was put there by the Tea Party, and Obama knows it. As an early indication of his hate for the movement, witness the report his administration tried to put out early on showing that single-issue groups who respect the Constitution are really domestic terrorists. The report didn't actually SAY "Tea Party," but the meaning was quite clear. Dang you, Tea Party, dang you to Heck.
Wall Street - Yes, Obama hates Wall Street. These evil rich people (see #1, above) actually exist to make (gasp) money! To be honest, of all the groups that his animosity is most likely to be a put-on merely to extend government authority over an entire section of our economy, this one leads the pack. But he gets far too much traction from this "hatred" to abandon it.
There you go. This is a partial catalog of those whom Obama hates. Did I miss anybody?
Read the rest...
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Partial Retraction On Martha Roby
Last week I wrote a piece entitled "I Have Questions For Martha Roby". In that piece, I pointed out that Roby had voted for the final debt-limit deal.
As it turns out, this was incorrect. The early reports I had read did not list Roby as one of the no-votes, and that's what I based my piece on. So I apologize to Miss Roby and retract that portion of my post.
However, I believe that the questions I posed are still relevant today. Why? First, Roby supported Boehner's bill, which looked very similar to the bill that finally passed. Second, Roby's stated reason for voting no has nothing to do with any of the points raised by my questions, but rather centers around the automatic defense cuts if the "supercommittee" can't reach a deal.
As you can see, that was her sticking point. Presumably, she still supports the idea that one year's worth of borrowing can be "paid back" or "balanced" with matching spending cuts over a ten-year period. (Assuming those later-year cuts ever happen... future Congresses have full control over future budgets, and can do anything they like.) Presumably, she still thinks it's fine and dandy to let Obama borrow another $1 trillion this year, while enacting a paltry $27 billion in one-year spending cuts. Presumably, she still thinks the idea of the super-committee is fine... a 12-member minority meeting, potentially in secret, to devise a bill that no other Congressman has the opportunity to influence or alter through the amendment process.
And as I said in my original post, if that's her idea of how our legislative process should work, she needs to resign and take a civics class.
So, although I was wrong in my statement that she voted for the debt-limit deal, based upon her earlier support for similar bills, and based upon her stated reason for voting no, I believe the questions I posed are still relevant.
Read the rest...
As it turns out, this was incorrect. The early reports I had read did not list Roby as one of the no-votes, and that's what I based my piece on. So I apologize to Miss Roby and retract that portion of my post.
However, I believe that the questions I posed are still relevant today. Why? First, Roby supported Boehner's bill, which looked very similar to the bill that finally passed. Second, Roby's stated reason for voting no has nothing to do with any of the points raised by my questions, but rather centers around the automatic defense cuts if the "supercommittee" can't reach a deal.
"I was unable to support this legislation because, after a careful reading of the bill, I fear it could ultimately result in devastating and unjustified cuts to our national security. This bill, unlike previous proposals I supported, has a weak firewall against potentially destructive defense cuts. To be sure, there are savings to be found in the Pentagon’s budget, and I have already voted this year to trim wasteful and unnecessary defense spending. But this bill goes much too far. The legislation would use our defense budget as an insurance policy to guarantee savings in the event that the special joint committee, which this legislation creates, fails to achieve cuts in other areas of the government bureaucracy."
As you can see, that was her sticking point. Presumably, she still supports the idea that one year's worth of borrowing can be "paid back" or "balanced" with matching spending cuts over a ten-year period. (Assuming those later-year cuts ever happen... future Congresses have full control over future budgets, and can do anything they like.) Presumably, she still thinks it's fine and dandy to let Obama borrow another $1 trillion this year, while enacting a paltry $27 billion in one-year spending cuts. Presumably, she still thinks the idea of the super-committee is fine... a 12-member minority meeting, potentially in secret, to devise a bill that no other Congressman has the opportunity to influence or alter through the amendment process.
And as I said in my original post, if that's her idea of how our legislative process should work, she needs to resign and take a civics class.
So, although I was wrong in my statement that she voted for the debt-limit deal, based upon her earlier support for similar bills, and based upon her stated reason for voting no, I believe the questions I posed are still relevant.
Read the rest...
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Effects Of S&P Credit Downgrade
Now that S&P has downgraded our credit rating to AA+ AND warned of possible future downgrades to come, now that other countries' credit ratings show they are a lower risk, what is going to happen?
China is already lashing out at us as "the US' biggest creditor" to stabilize our fiscal future.
Here is a video, made during the debt limit debate, that shows what could happen.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbOO3w43AJc&feature=player_embedded
The thing to remember is that higher interest rates are NOT automatic. Interest rates on the national debt rise and fall based upon what creditors are willing to accept. If folks are still willing to buy our treasuries at the same interest rates, then nothing will happen. If, however, they begin to balk, we will have to raise our interest rates in order to find a buyer. If that happens, then interest rates on everything else will rise to match. You'll pay more interest on loans, credit card debt, and so forth.
But, as I said, increased interest rates are not a given. They won't automatically happen. Much depends on how potential buyers feel about the S&P downgrade come Monday.
Stay tuned.
Read the rest...
China is already lashing out at us as "the US' biggest creditor" to stabilize our fiscal future.
Here is a video, made during the debt limit debate, that shows what could happen.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbOO3w43AJc&feature=player_embedded
The thing to remember is that higher interest rates are NOT automatic. Interest rates on the national debt rise and fall based upon what creditors are willing to accept. If folks are still willing to buy our treasuries at the same interest rates, then nothing will happen. If, however, they begin to balk, we will have to raise our interest rates in order to find a buyer. If that happens, then interest rates on everything else will rise to match. You'll pay more interest on loans, credit card debt, and so forth.
But, as I said, increased interest rates are not a given. They won't automatically happen. Much depends on how potential buyers feel about the S&P downgrade come Monday.
Stay tuned.
Read the rest...
Friday, August 5, 2011
Breaking: S&P Downgrades US Credit Rating
It has happened, as I more than half suspected it would. The United States' AAA credit rating has been downgraded to AA+. Why did this happen? Because the debt limit bill that both Republicans and Democrats agreed to did not sufficiently address our massive debt problem.
That's right. John Boehner agreed to this bill, as did most Republicans. Obama, Reid, and many other Democrats also supported it. The thing is, they were convinced that reaching A deal, ANY deal, would solve the problem. In reality, only a GOOD deal would have forestalled a credit downgrade, but a good deal was never seriously considered.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/08/05/general-us-us-debt-rating_8605451.html
Credit rating agency Standard & Poor's on Friday downgraded the United States' credit rating first time in the history of the ratings.
The credit rating agency said that it is cutting the country's top AAA rating by one notch to AA-plus. The credit agency said that it is making the move because the deficit reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough to stabilize the country's debt situation.
Did you catch that? The deal was ineffective, so they downgraded our credit. And what, do you think, is the reaction from our dearly beloved El Presidente?
A source familiar with the discussions said that the Obama administration feels the S&P's analysis contained "deep and fundamental flaws."
That's right, nothing is EVER Obama's fault, somebody else is always screwing things up.
But, as bad as this is, there is worse to come. You see, S&P said there is a distinct possibility that they will FURTHER downgrade our credit within the next two years.
S&P said that in addition to the downgrade, it is issuing a negative outlook, meaning that there was a chance it will lower the rating further within the next two years. It said such a downgrade to AA would occur if the agency sees less reductions in spending than Congress and the administration have agreed to make, higher interest rates or new fiscal pressures during this period.
And since, in my opinion, one or more of these is almost guaranteed, we will see a further downgrade of our credit rating... unless Congress comes to their senses and stops writing blank checks for unlimited borrowing.
This will have consequences. Along with a lower credit rating comes the increased possibility of higher interest rates. Maybe not immediately, but a lower credit rating means they are a distinct possibility.
Ladies and gentlemen, the politicians decided that if they cut ANY DEAL then they'd be fine. They're learning now that, as most adults already know, expectations usually crumble when slammed by a harsh dose of reality.
This debt limit deal sucks, is bad for the country, and this is merely THE FIRST adverse consequence we will experience.
Thank you, Democrats and Republicans alike, for once more screwing our country in the name of partisan advantage.
UPDATE: Here are more details on the reasoning behind the downgrade.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2011/08/05/sp-downgrade/
Read the rest...
That's right. John Boehner agreed to this bill, as did most Republicans. Obama, Reid, and many other Democrats also supported it. The thing is, they were convinced that reaching A deal, ANY deal, would solve the problem. In reality, only a GOOD deal would have forestalled a credit downgrade, but a good deal was never seriously considered.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/08/05/general-us-us-debt-rating_8605451.html
Credit rating agency Standard & Poor's on Friday downgraded the United States' credit rating first time in the history of the ratings.
The credit rating agency said that it is cutting the country's top AAA rating by one notch to AA-plus. The credit agency said that it is making the move because the deficit reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough to stabilize the country's debt situation.
Did you catch that? The deal was ineffective, so they downgraded our credit. And what, do you think, is the reaction from our dearly beloved El Presidente?
A source familiar with the discussions said that the Obama administration feels the S&P's analysis contained "deep and fundamental flaws."
That's right, nothing is EVER Obama's fault, somebody else is always screwing things up.
But, as bad as this is, there is worse to come. You see, S&P said there is a distinct possibility that they will FURTHER downgrade our credit within the next two years.
S&P said that in addition to the downgrade, it is issuing a negative outlook, meaning that there was a chance it will lower the rating further within the next two years. It said such a downgrade to AA would occur if the agency sees less reductions in spending than Congress and the administration have agreed to make, higher interest rates or new fiscal pressures during this period.
And since, in my opinion, one or more of these is almost guaranteed, we will see a further downgrade of our credit rating... unless Congress comes to their senses and stops writing blank checks for unlimited borrowing.
This will have consequences. Along with a lower credit rating comes the increased possibility of higher interest rates. Maybe not immediately, but a lower credit rating means they are a distinct possibility.
Ladies and gentlemen, the politicians decided that if they cut ANY DEAL then they'd be fine. They're learning now that, as most adults already know, expectations usually crumble when slammed by a harsh dose of reality.
This debt limit deal sucks, is bad for the country, and this is merely THE FIRST adverse consequence we will experience.
Thank you, Democrats and Republicans alike, for once more screwing our country in the name of partisan advantage.
UPDATE: Here are more details on the reasoning behind the downgrade.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2011/08/05/sp-downgrade/
Read the rest...
Thursday, August 4, 2011
I Have Questions For Martha Roby
For those of you "in the know," the Wetumpka Tea Party will be holding a "town hall" style meeting on Monday, August 15, at 6:30 PM. At that meeting, US Congressman Martha Roby will be on hand to answer questions.
And man, do I have some questions for Miss Roby.
Unfortunately, I cannot make that meeting. So, I thought I would ask these questions here, and maybe somebody would make sure Roby has to answer them.
They're about her vote on the debt-limit deal. You see, she not only voted in favor of the "Boehner bill" and the, ultimately, final bill, she vehemently defended both the bill and her vote on talk radio. I heard her tell us that the bill was "the best" they could do. I heard her say something along the lines of "you sent me here to make hard choices, and that's what I did."
I have three different questions on this debt limit deal and her vote on it.
Question #1: The "first phase" of the debt limit deal includes $27 billion of spending cuts in the first year. I discount the "planned" cuts in the future, because future Congresses have total control over future budgets. Do you think it's wise to let Obama borrow about $1 trillion over the next year, while we only get $27 billion in spending cuts over the same period?
Question #2: Let's assume that all of the phase one spending cuts happen as planned over the next decade. Do you honestly think that we can return to a fiscally responsible government by allowing borrowing in the current year to grow by $1 trillion, when it will take us TEN YEARS to enact the matching spending cuts? Your position is akin to the driver of a car traveling at 100 MPH towards a cliff... who decides the solution is to slow down to 90 MPH. Do you REALLY think this was wise? How was this the "hard choice" you're pretending it is?
Question #3: The debt limit deal allows Congress (that means YOU, Miss Roby) to punt on choosing spending cuts. The 12-member commission will meet, decide on spending cuts and/or tax increases, and Congress will have to vote on their recommendations without amendments. Is it your understanding that this is the way our legislative system should work, with bills being designed behind closed doors by a small minority while no other Congressmen have input to the process OR the ability to propose amendments to the bill? (If it is, I'd suggest you first resign your position, and then take a social studies class that covers the Constitution... or just listen to this.)
And oh, heck, we might as well toss this one into the mix, just to stir the pudding a bit.
Question #4: Miss Roby, since you defend your vote and call the debt limit bill "what is right for our country," does that mean you think AL Senators Sessions and Shelby, both of whom voted NO in the Senate, are working AGAINST the best interests of the country?
Those are my questions about the debt limit and Martha Roby's vote. Does she honestly expect us to accept her argument that $27 billion in spending cuts is a good return for $1 trillion in new debt? Does she truly expect us to believe that she is honestly working to reduce spending and bring fiscal sanity to Washington?
I'm sorry, but her voting record simply does not support that. The Republicans' "Cut, Cap, & Balance" bill, which I admit I didn't think was anywhere close to perfect but was a lot better than what Roby wholeheartedly supported and defended, passed the House overwhelmingly and missed the 60-vote threshold in the Senate by four votes. That's close enough that passage of it could have happened, had THAT been the only vehicle on the table when the deadline loomed. So why didn't she support THAT bill instead of this piece of junk that does little except allow Congress to keep spending like drunken sailors?
UPDATE: I've already gotten an email, politely but earnestly informing me that their are NO cuts to actual spending in the deal. Yes, I know that. You see, these "spending cuts" are simply reductions in planned spending increases. It would be more accurate to say that the debt limit deal reduces next year's spending increase by $27 billion. Spending next year will still be higher than spending this year.
Read the rest...
And man, do I have some questions for Miss Roby.
Unfortunately, I cannot make that meeting. So, I thought I would ask these questions here, and maybe somebody would make sure Roby has to answer them.
They're about her vote on the debt-limit deal. You see, she not only voted in favor of the "Boehner bill" and the, ultimately, final bill, she vehemently defended both the bill and her vote on talk radio. I heard her tell us that the bill was "the best" they could do. I heard her say something along the lines of "you sent me here to make hard choices, and that's what I did."
I have three different questions on this debt limit deal and her vote on it.
Question #1: The "first phase" of the debt limit deal includes $27 billion of spending cuts in the first year. I discount the "planned" cuts in the future, because future Congresses have total control over future budgets. Do you think it's wise to let Obama borrow about $1 trillion over the next year, while we only get $27 billion in spending cuts over the same period?
Question #2: Let's assume that all of the phase one spending cuts happen as planned over the next decade. Do you honestly think that we can return to a fiscally responsible government by allowing borrowing in the current year to grow by $1 trillion, when it will take us TEN YEARS to enact the matching spending cuts? Your position is akin to the driver of a car traveling at 100 MPH towards a cliff... who decides the solution is to slow down to 90 MPH. Do you REALLY think this was wise? How was this the "hard choice" you're pretending it is?
Question #3: The debt limit deal allows Congress (that means YOU, Miss Roby) to punt on choosing spending cuts. The 12-member commission will meet, decide on spending cuts and/or tax increases, and Congress will have to vote on their recommendations without amendments. Is it your understanding that this is the way our legislative system should work, with bills being designed behind closed doors by a small minority while no other Congressmen have input to the process OR the ability to propose amendments to the bill? (If it is, I'd suggest you first resign your position, and then take a social studies class that covers the Constitution... or just listen to this.)
And oh, heck, we might as well toss this one into the mix, just to stir the pudding a bit.
Question #4: Miss Roby, since you defend your vote and call the debt limit bill "what is right for our country," does that mean you think AL Senators Sessions and Shelby, both of whom voted NO in the Senate, are working AGAINST the best interests of the country?
Those are my questions about the debt limit and Martha Roby's vote. Does she honestly expect us to accept her argument that $27 billion in spending cuts is a good return for $1 trillion in new debt? Does she truly expect us to believe that she is honestly working to reduce spending and bring fiscal sanity to Washington?
I'm sorry, but her voting record simply does not support that. The Republicans' "Cut, Cap, & Balance" bill, which I admit I didn't think was anywhere close to perfect but was a lot better than what Roby wholeheartedly supported and defended, passed the House overwhelmingly and missed the 60-vote threshold in the Senate by four votes. That's close enough that passage of it could have happened, had THAT been the only vehicle on the table when the deadline loomed. So why didn't she support THAT bill instead of this piece of junk that does little except allow Congress to keep spending like drunken sailors?
UPDATE: I've already gotten an email, politely but earnestly informing me that their are NO cuts to actual spending in the deal. Yes, I know that. You see, these "spending cuts" are simply reductions in planned spending increases. It would be more accurate to say that the debt limit deal reduces next year's spending increase by $27 billion. Spending next year will still be higher than spending this year.
Read the rest...
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
US Passes Historic Debt Deal
The US House passed the "compromise debt deal," and nobody whom I've spoken to in the real world thinks it is worth the paper it is printed on... except the Congressmen who voted for it. Martha Roby is quite happy with it... which should tell you a lot about Martha Roby. She's not alone, though, because none of our Alabama Congressmen voted against it.
But let's look at the deal. It would, potentially, raise the debt limit by more than $2 trillion... and isn't that the largest debt limit increase in recorded history? The extra borrowing is "matched" with corresponding spending cuts... supposedly. The initial "spending cuts," however, amount to a total of $900 billion over the next 10 years. That's an average of $90 billion per year... a mere 6% of our current $1.5 trillion yearly deficit.
However, the deal isn't that level. In the next budget year, you will be thrilled to learn that the deal only enacts $27 billion in spending cuts. The rest are left to later years, which could easily not materialize, because future Congresses have total control over future budgets. In other words, the future cuts won't happen, and we'll be trillions of dollars deeper in debt in exchange for a paltry $27 billion in spending cuts.
Think about it. All of the new borrowing and spending will happen between now and the 2012 elections, but only $27 billion of the cuts will? How can any thinking person count that as a victory? Or, for that matter, as a good thing?
Speaker Boehner, however, is proud of his deal, and says he got 98% of what he wanted.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/01/eveningnews/main20086598.shtml
So that means the Boehner didn't want to cut $27 billion in spending next year, he really, REALLY wanted to cut next year's spending by a whopping $27.5 billion!
Pardon me, but that's hardly breathtaking, and it shows the poverty of the Republicans' position. It also shows the disconnect between THEIR idea of "significant spending cuts" and OURS.
You see, they don't REALLY want to dramatically reduce spending immediately, because they could catch the blame. No, they just want to capitalize on the political rhetoric and do nothing while they make us think they're doing something good.
Elsewhere in the debt limit deal debate, our own Vice President Biden has declared that fiscal conservatives who support spending reductions are terrorists.
That's a real helpful and constructive comment, Joey-boy.
Guys, the issue is simple, and it's one that neither party's leadership wants to address. The Democrats want to keep right on spending as much as they want. The Republicans want to "control the rate of growth of the debt." In other words, deficit spending is fine, just not so much of it all at once. In the meantime, our debt continues to rise.
The REAL issue isn't the deficit at all, it's that unrealistically huge mountain of debt that they are busily adding to. We can't "reduce the deficit," we have to ELIMINATE the deficit, turn it into a surplus, and start paying down our debt. And the sooner we start, the easier it will be.
The debt is the looming disaster, and this "deal" did absolutely nothing to address that problem in any meaningful way.
UPDATE: Since I posted this, the bill has also passed the US Senate... where BOTH of our Senators, Sessions and Shelby, voted against it. Way to go, guys!
Read the rest...
But let's look at the deal. It would, potentially, raise the debt limit by more than $2 trillion... and isn't that the largest debt limit increase in recorded history? The extra borrowing is "matched" with corresponding spending cuts... supposedly. The initial "spending cuts," however, amount to a total of $900 billion over the next 10 years. That's an average of $90 billion per year... a mere 6% of our current $1.5 trillion yearly deficit.
However, the deal isn't that level. In the next budget year, you will be thrilled to learn that the deal only enacts $27 billion in spending cuts. The rest are left to later years, which could easily not materialize, because future Congresses have total control over future budgets. In other words, the future cuts won't happen, and we'll be trillions of dollars deeper in debt in exchange for a paltry $27 billion in spending cuts.
Think about it. All of the new borrowing and spending will happen between now and the 2012 elections, but only $27 billion of the cuts will? How can any thinking person count that as a victory? Or, for that matter, as a good thing?
Speaker Boehner, however, is proud of his deal, and says he got 98% of what he wanted.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/01/eveningnews/main20086598.shtml
"When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the white House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy."
So that means the Boehner didn't want to cut $27 billion in spending next year, he really, REALLY wanted to cut next year's spending by a whopping $27.5 billion!
Pardon me, but that's hardly breathtaking, and it shows the poverty of the Republicans' position. It also shows the disconnect between THEIR idea of "significant spending cuts" and OURS.
You see, they don't REALLY want to dramatically reduce spending immediately, because they could catch the blame. No, they just want to capitalize on the political rhetoric and do nothing while they make us think they're doing something good.
Elsewhere in the debt limit deal debate, our own Vice President Biden has declared that fiscal conservatives who support spending reductions are terrorists.
That's a real helpful and constructive comment, Joey-boy.
Guys, the issue is simple, and it's one that neither party's leadership wants to address. The Democrats want to keep right on spending as much as they want. The Republicans want to "control the rate of growth of the debt." In other words, deficit spending is fine, just not so much of it all at once. In the meantime, our debt continues to rise.
The REAL issue isn't the deficit at all, it's that unrealistically huge mountain of debt that they are busily adding to. We can't "reduce the deficit," we have to ELIMINATE the deficit, turn it into a surplus, and start paying down our debt. And the sooner we start, the easier it will be.
The debt is the looming disaster, and this "deal" did absolutely nothing to address that problem in any meaningful way.
UPDATE: Since I posted this, the bill has also passed the US Senate... where BOTH of our Senators, Sessions and Shelby, voted against it. Way to go, guys!
Read the rest...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)