Tag Archives: Democrats

About Those Airport Flight Delays

Posted on by

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article about the flight delays the traveling public has been experiencing and their solution.

I love the opening paragraph of the article:

The Democrats proposed sequestration as part of a package to secure an increase in the debt ceiling, but they never expected it to go into effect. When it did, they felt double-crossed, apparently because they thought Republicans owed it to them to fold like a cheap suit, as usual. When the Republicans figured out that sticking with the sequester was a pretty good outcome–it represented a modest, but real, restraint on federal spending, which is what Republicans always say they want–the Democrats went to Plan B.

Plan B or course was cutting in places where the cuts would be most visible and hurt the American public the most. There was no regard for what was good for the country. But some Americans are getting smarter and seeing through the game that is being played. First of all–they are not cuts–they are cuts in the rate of growth. Second of all–some of the Republican leadership is as guilty as the Democrats on this one. The only people in Congress who seem to have any idea that government spending is truly out of control are some of the House Republicans–generally not the leadership.

Yesterday The Hill posted the following:

The House on Friday passed legislation that would let the government redirect millions of dollars to air traffic controllers’ salaries and expenses in a bid to end sequester-related furloughs that have caused flight delays around the country.

Members approved the Reducing Flight Delays Act in an overwhelming 361-41 vote, just a day after the Senate approved the same bill by unanimous consent. A two-thirds vote was needed, as House leaders called it up as a suspension bill.

The bill was sent directly to the White House for President Obama’s signature.

The vote is a victory for House Republicans, who had been pushing for a restructuring of the $600 million sequester cut to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to avoid air traffic controller layoffs. In contrast, Democrats were looking for a broader solution to the sequester that included new taxes.

As John Hinderaker points out in the Power Line article, the sequester does not need a solution–it is a solution. I guess The Hill hasn’t figured that one out yet.

The article at Power Line concludes:

One of conservatives’ chief frustrations for a generation is that most Americans say the federal government spends too much money, and wastes too much money, yet it has proved more less impossible to convert this consensus into meaningful spending cuts. Perhaps the sequester will be seen, with hindsight, as the moment when the American people finally said “Enough,” and meant it.

I hope so.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

You Can Depend On Politicians To Want More Taxes

Posted on by

In Massachusetts you can always depend on the leaders of the Commonwealth to want to raise taxes. This is loosely related to the fact that the majority of the leaders in the executive and legislative branches of government In Massachusetts are Democrats. Well, this year is no exception to the rule.

Holly Robichaud posted an article in the Boston Herald today about Governor Patrick’s latest tax plan and the political theater surrounding it.

The article in the Herald reminds us of a few basic facts:

To sell Speaker Robert DeLeo’s $500 million tax package, there is a whole lot of political theater being staged to fool low information voters into being grateful it’s not Gov. Deval Patrick’s $1.9 billion plan.

When initially announced last week, Patrick pounced by stating that no Democrats lost their seats because they voted for his sales tax increase in 2009. There are Deval’s statements and then there are the facts. In 2010, the GOP doubled their numbers in the House.

It might be a good idea for Democrats to remember the consequences of raising the sales tax as they prepare to vote on the present tax bill.

Ms. Robichaud also notes that Democratic Party Chairman John Walsh has publicly warned Democrats that they will face challenges in primary elections if they do not support higher taxes.

I have lived in Massachusetts since 1978. I have spent a certain amount of that time wondering what in the world was in the water that caused the residents to vote the way they do. We are responsible for the government we have–we elected it. Until the voters of this state wake up and decide to protect their income from the kind of fraud we see in the EBT program and the constant demand for more of our money from the statehouse and legislature, the political theater surrounding tax hikes will continue.

I will be leaving Massachusetts by the end of this year and resettling to a place that has more respect for the fact that I wish to keep the money I earn. I will continue to blog about the perils of big government and its endless appetite for taxpayers’ money, but I will be glad to be in a place where that appetite is slightly smaller. More to follow…

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Obamacare Will Bring

Posted on by

Yesterday Breitbart.com posted a story entitled, “Top Ten ObamaCare Horror Stories the Media Are Covering Up.” That seemed a little drastic to me until I read the article. There wasn’t anything in it that we are not already seeing happen.

Here is the list. Please follow the link above to the article to read the details:

1. Millions are and will lose the insurance Obama promised they could keep.

2. The cost of healthcare premiums is about to further skyrocket.

3. Lost jobs. Lost jobs.

4. Potential doctor shortages that will mean rationing.

5. Somewhere around $800 billion in tax increases will hit America’s middle class.

6. Inflation, the cruelest tax on the poor.

7. Added bureaucracy.

8. To cut costs or to avoid having to provide insurance, workers on the economic margins are already losing hours, which means a lower paycheck.

9. ObamaCare is projected to add $6.2 TRILLION to a deficit the GAO has already declared “unsustainable.”

10. More taxes than currently estimated are likely to hit because of situations like this one.

There is actually a small glimmer of hope that this monstrosity of a law may be repealed. If Republicans are smart (and lately that is a big “if”), they will keep demanding votes on the repeal of Obamacare. As Obamacare is implemented and people see the problems in it, fewer Democrats will be willing to vote to keep it because many of them will have to run for election in 2014. That is the small hope we have that this miserable law will go away.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sequester Cuts For Thee But Not For Me

Posted on by

Today’s Boston Herald is reporting that as Democrats in Congress scream that the sequester cuts are the end of the world, the Democrats in the Massachusetts congressional delegation spent nearly $200,000 in bonuses, pay hikes and new hires in a timeworn tradition of end-of-the-year handouts. Despite their concern about closing the federal deficit, the Massachusetts congressmen increased their payroll by $196,000 in the last three months of 2012.

The article reports:

Local Democrats tried to place the lion’s share of the blame on House Republicans for forcing the sequestration because they hold a majority in the House.

“Most of them come to Washington because they don’t like government, they don’t think government should play a role in our lives. Maybe they don’t know anybody who needs heating assistance,” Capuano said at a local anti-sequester rally in February.

Ian Prior, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said, “The fact that the delegation is bemoaning all the cuts and saying they are standing up for the working class while they are passing out bonuses and beefing up their staff is rank hypocrisy.”

Until America’s voters wake up to the fact that they are being taken to the cleaners by their so-called representatives, I think we can expect more of the same.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sometimes There Really Is A Cost To Ignoring The Constitution

Posted on by

The Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” do many of our current lawmakers not understand?

I know you can twist the words in ninety directions to attempt to change what they say, but the words are pretty straightforward. Anyway, a state is about to pay a price for choosing to ignore those words.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday about a new gun law about to be signed by Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado. The bill limits magazine capacities. The executives at Colorado-based Magpul, a company that manufactures high-capacity magazines, has announced that if the Governor signs the bill they will leave Colorado for friendlier venues and take hundreds of jobs with them. Two legislators from the State of Pennsylvania have already put out the welcome mat for the company.

The article reports:

A Colorado-based magazine manufacturer said it would leave the state if the new restrictions were passed, taking hundreds of jobs with it. Democrats tried to ease the concerns from Magpul Industries, saying the company can still manufacture higher-capacity magazines if they were sold out of state.

Waller blasted Democrats on that amendment, saying it was hypocritical because they are telling the company “you can sell (magazines) at any other place where any of these tragic shootings have happened.”

Waller called the exemption “a monumental inconsistency in their thought process.”

What was the message here? Colorado won’t allow people to purchase high-capacity magazines because that will supposedly decrease violence, but they’re happy to export them to other states? One can’t blame Magpul for failing to trust Democrats to leave that loophole open for very long, not after their demonstration of hostility to Magpul’s industry.

I will admit that I don’t know why anyone needs a high-capacity magazine, but when the government starts limiting something it never seems to know where to stop. From what I have heard from people who know, high-capacity magazines jam easily and are actually not as deadly as lower-capacity magazines in many cases. At any rate, this law is an infringement–something the Second Amendment says is not allowed.

We need more Americans like the executives of Magpul who are willing to stand up for what they believe.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Forbes Magazine Gets It Right

Posted on by

Yesterday Forbes.com posted an article that totally explains the lack of representation that the average American receives in Washington. The article talks about the “country class” of Republicans–identifiable by their opposition to ever-bigger government financed by ever-higher taxes as opposed to those Republicans who side with the “ruling class“–those Democrats who support higher taxes and bigger government. Because of those Republicans who are now aligned with the “ruling class,” the ideas of many Americans are not represented in Congress.

The article states:

Thus public opinion polls confirm that some two thirds of Americans feel that government is “them” not “us,” that government has been taking the country in the wrong direction, and that such sentiments largely parallel partisan identification: While a majority of Democrats feel that officials who bear that label represent them well, only about a fourth of Republican voters and an even smaller proportion of independents trust Republican officials to be on their side. Again: While the ruling class is well represented by the Democratic Party, the country class is not represented politically – by the Republican Party or by any other. Well or badly, its demand for representation will be met.

The author of the article seems to believe that the current crop of Republican and Democrat leaders will result in the formation of a new political party. As much as I don’t like that idea (it takes a long time for a third party to actually get people elected), I can see the roots of that in the Tea Party. America is well along the road to bankruptcy. We have Washington screaming about sequestration, when upon close examination you find out that sequestration does not cut spending–it only slows the rate of growth. Upon close examination, you also learn that all you would have to do to limit the potential damage that might be caused by sequestration is to give various government agencies control of where they cut the rate of growth. Why hasn’t either the President of Congress suggested that? This is a political issue–not a practical issue. If it ever gets out that sequestration is not a spending cut and that the panic we are hearing is totally unnecessary, Congress might not be able to raise our taxes. Make no mistake–even though we are being told that we need to raise taxes on the ‘evil rich,’ the eventual goal is to raise taxes on the middle class. Be forewarned. We are being played by some very smart politicians who reside in Washington.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article at Forbes. It is fascinating.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Really Does Not Sound Like Co-operation

Posted on by

Yesterday’s Washington Examiner posted an article stating that the Democrat Senate intends to pass a budget this year. Sounds like good news, but wait a minute.

The article reports:

But now a prominent Democratic lawmaker says his party will finally pass a budget — for the express purpose of raising taxes.  “We Democrats have always intended to do a budget this year,” Sen. Charles Schumer said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”  “It’s a great opportunity to get us some more revenues.”

“You’re going to need more revenues as well as more cuts to get the deficit down,” Schumer said.  “And I’ve talked to Leader Reid. I’ve talked to Budget Chair Murray. We’re going to do a budget this year. And it’s going to have revenues in it. And our Republican colleagues better get used to that fact.”

Great. More taxes. The article also explains why the Democrats have not passed a budget since 2009:

The Democrats’ strategy has long been clear.  The last time Majority Leader Harry Reid allowed a budget through the Senate was in April 2009, when huge Democratic majorities in Congress passed steep increases in spending.  Since then, Democrats have funded the government through a series of continuing resolutions — essentially locking in the 2009 budget as the new baseline for spending.

The article concludes:

Schumer, with 55 Democrats in the Senate, is now saying: Think again.  We’re going to raise taxes, and you can’t stop us.  The battle between the two sides will likely consume the Senate for the next two years.

The question is simple. Are there enough grown-ups who vote in America who realize that we cannot continue to spend money we don’t have? Raising taxes does not necessarily increase revenue. (Please see the Laffer Curve.) Raising taxes also slows the economy, increases unemployment, and ultimately causes the cost of government to increase while slowing growth in the private sector.

Part of our current economic problems is the relationship between government spending levels and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Traditionally spending has been about 18 percent of GDP and tax revenue has been about 18 percent of GDP.  Unfortunately since 2009 (when the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives), spending has been approaching 25 percent of GDP. Unless the government takes almost all of the money that Americans earn away from them, there will never be enough tax revenue to fund that spending.

The chart below (from The Big Picture) shows where we are:

The American voters will determine in 2014 whether or not America survives economically.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Trying To Win The Media War Instead Of Governing

Posted on by

The basis of the American republic is the U. S. Constitution. It serves as a guide to governing the nation.. We ask the President and Congress to swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution when they take office. It is a little disconcerting when our elected officials seem to forget or ignore this oath.

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article which illustrates an apparent lack of knowledge of the Constitution by some of the leaders of the Democrat party. Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Patty Murray and Chuck Schumer have written a letter to President Obama asking him to take all “lawful steps” to increase the debt ceiling–with or without the Republicans. They are fully entitled to write that letter, and they are fully entitled to their opinion, but do they have any idea what the U. S. Constitution says?

This is the letter (from the website Scribd):

This letter is political theater. Either the Senators who wrote it have not read the U. S. Constitution or they don’t understand it.

John Hinderaker at Power Line takes a closer look at the letter. Some of his comments:

Why are they talking about default? Default is constitutionally prohibited by the 14th Amendment. The federal government’s cash flow is more than ample to pay all interest on the national debt and to retire bonds as they mature. Other spending would have to be cut, to be sure; but default will not, and cannot, happen.

The senators telegraph here what they are really afraid of: the House may pass legislation that extends the debt limit along with spending cuts–cuts that will no doubt seem reasonable, not “unreasonable” or “unbalanced,” to voters. I believed that the Republicans wouldn’t be able to get much in exchange for increasing the debt limit because the threat not to do so lacks credibility, but this letter suggests that the Democrats are more worried than I thought.

…What “lawful steps” could Obama take “without Congressional approval” that would permit racking up more debt? Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive “Power…To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.” Obama has no such authority. Are the senators urging Obama to violate the Constitution? Or perhaps to pursue the trillion-dollar platinum coin gambit? It is impossible to say.

Sure. They want it for nothing, just like Obama wanted tax increases for nothing. The Dems say they are willing to negotiate, they just don’t want the GOP to have any bargaining power.

But wait! Didn’t Obama just get higher income and investment taxes on everyone earning over $250,000, precisely the higher taxes on the “rich” he has always said he wanted? The Democrats’ greed is never satisfied.

It would be a wonderful thing if the entire budget were on the table, but that isn’t what the Democrats have in mind. Still, the Democrats’ evident concern about the debt limit, manifested not just by this letter but by the trillion-dollar coin and other half-baked ideas that are being taken seriously by Democrats, suggests that more of the budget might be on the table than we once thought possible.

Does anyone remember what President Obama said about the national debt? RedState reminds us:

On July 3, 2008, Presidential candidate Obama said that adding $4 trillion in debt was “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.” Obama was referring to the $3.764 trillion that had been added to the national debt during the seven and one-half years Bush had been president. Obama of course got his facts wrong when he falsely claimed President Bush increased the national debt by $4 trillion “by his lonesome.” When Speaker Pelosi took over Congress on January 3, 2007, the national debt was $8.7 trillion. So the Democrats must get some of the credit for one of the four trillion dollars candidate Obama tried to blame on Bush.

I guess debt is only good when the Democrats are in the White House.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Battle For Union Reform Moves To Virginia

Posted on by

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today about the next battle in reforming unions. In Virginia, the Senate’s Privileges and Elections Committee has passed a bill to guarantee voter privacy in union elections. This is a preemptive strike in case the Obama Administration passes card check–a union election procedure that takes away the secret ballot.

The article reports:

Held over from the 2012 General Assembly session, the bill is expected to come to the Senate floor in the session that opens Jan. 9.

“This amendment is essential if we are going to preserve voter integrity and privacy,” said Sen. Bryce Reeves (R-Spotsylvania), who introduced the measure. “No citizen should be forced to reveal how they voted in any election, be it a federal, state, local or a union election.”

Unions have a place in the American workforce. Ideally they protect the rights of the individual worker and provide a way for grievances to be resolved. However, unions have become a cash cow for the Democrat party, and an excuse for their leaders to live in luxury at the expense of the average worker. Union leaders are no better than the corporate fat cats they condemn. It is time for the unions to remember their original purpose–protecting workers–and begin to focus on that.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Broken Promise

Posted on by

I seem to remember both Republicans and Democrats saying that they did not want to raise taxes on the Middle Class. Then how come, even if a deal is reached to avoid the fiscal cliff, taxes on the Middle Class are going up in January?

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article today explaining what is about to happen:

Employee payroll taxes are scheduled to rise nearly 50 percent in 2013 absent action by lawmakers, and there is a growing sense that both parties might be willing to let that happen.

Party leaders have about five weeks to resolve a host of budget issues to avoid going over the “fiscal cliff,” the term used to describe more than $600 billion in automatic spending cuts and tax increases scheduled to occur on Jan. 1, 2013.

The discussion thus far has focused on the Bush-era tax cuts, with very little discussion of what to do with the temporary cuts on employee payroll taxes that has been in effect for the past two years. The employee payroll tax cut affects roughly 160 million Americans and saves the typical middle class family $1,000 per year.

U. S. News posted an article in January 2012 which listed five facts about the employee payroll tax cut. One of these is very interesting:

Even though workers are paying less tax into the Social Security system, they do not suffer any reduction in the benefits that will ultimately be collected. The federal government promises to pay the benefit that would otherwise have been received. The benefits are figured on the basis of earnings (up to the wage base limit for the year) and not on the taxes paid.

So Congress took a program (Social Security) that has been teetering on bankruptcy for a number of years and reduced the amount of money paid into it without reducing the benefits being paid out. What a business plan!

The article at the Washington Free Beacon concludes:

There is some concern among Republicans that Democrats might disregard policy considerations in order use the payroll tax cut as a political wedge issue. Democrats did this in February when House Republicans arguably lost a showdown with the White House.

It remains to be seen whether or not lawmakers can strike a deal to avoid going over the fiscal cliff.

Either way, though, the payroll tax cut appears unlikely to survive.

Obamacare increases taxes on the Middle Class in January. It is likely that even if a deal is reached to avoid the fiscal cliff, other taxes on the Middle Class will be increased in January also. As Americans, we need to tell Washington–THE PROBLEM IS NOT A LACK OF REVENUE–IT IS TOO MUCH SPENDING!!! Until Congress and the President get that message, the American taxpayer will continue to be seen as a never ending source of money, and at some point the American taxpayer will run out of money.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Voter Fraud ?

Posted on by

Yesterday the Providence (RI) Journal posted a story and video clip concerning a press conference held by Congressional candidate Anthony Gemma, charging voter fraud in past Rhode Island elections.

This is the video of the press conference:

Mr. Gemma explained that he had hired TRP Associates, a detective agency run by three retired state troopers, to investigate voter fraud in recent Rhode Island elections.

The article reports:

Gemma contends an investigation he initiated by retired state troopers found evidence of people being paid to vote for certain candidates, people voting multiple times at different voting places and people who impersonated other voters.

Speaking at an outdoor press conference near his headquarters, Gemma called Cicilline the “common denominator” through most of the evidence, some of which dates to 2002.

The findings, Gemma said, are not “run-of-the-mill dirty politics” or “gossip, but evidence of conduct that compromises the very core of our electoral process.”

…Gemma says he has met with the head of the state police Col. Steven G. O’Donnell to discuss the evidence. Gemma said he also turned over information to the FBI.

There are a few things to remember here. These charges are being made in the heat of a Democrat Party primary election campaign. That means that the charges should be examined carefully, but it doesn’t mean that they should be dismissed out of hand. Rhode Island is a one-party state–Democrat. The Democrats in Rhode Island have a very strong political machine, and it is hard for a non-sanctioned-by-the-machine candidate to get past a primary with a machine candidate.

This is a story that needs to be watched to see what evidence actually is made public and how important that evidence is.

Enhanced by Zemanta

When You Lie Down With Dogs You Get Up With Fleas

Posted on by

Many leaders in the Democrat Party have been quick to endorse the ‘values’ expressed in the Occupy Wall Street protests. The Occupy protests were supposed to be the balance to the Tea Party. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out that way.

There were significant differences between Occupy and the Tea Party from the start. The demographic on Occupy tended to be under the age of 30 and unemployed. There were exceptions, but generally, that is the age group involved. The Tea Party tended to be over the age of 45 and often of retirement age. The Tea Party appeared in response to the vote on Obamacare when many citizens felt their wishes were totally ignored. I am not sure if there was a specific event that spawned Occupy.

A website called Anguished Repose illustrates one other difference:

That difference was also evident in Oakland, California, last night. The Blaze reported today that:

Between 100 and 200 Occupy protesters marched through downtown Oakland, Calif. Friday night, smashing several car windows and the glass front of President Barack Obama’s local campaign office, according to media reports.

I thought Occupy and the Democrats were on the same side. It is possible that the anarchists that make up Occupy simply enjoy destroying things?

Enhanced by Zemanta

How Much Are We Actually Spending On Food Stamps ?

Posted on by

The chart below was posted yesterday at Power Line Blog:

The chart was posted as part of an article on recent Congressional activity regarding the Food Stamps Program. Power Line reports:

So Senator Jeff Sessions tried to introduce a minimal amount of fiscal discipline into the food stamp program by offering amendments that incorporated two basic reforms: 1) preventing states from waiving federal eligibility requirements for the program, and 2) eliminating the bonuses that the federal government now pays to states that deliberately swell the ranks of food stamp recipients. Given that the federal government pays 100% of the program’s cost, such bonuses create perverse incentives in the states, with predictable consequences. And at least 28 states have no limit whatsoever on the financial assets a household can have, and still qualify for food stamps.

One might think that a government running trillion-dollar-plus annual deficits would take common-sense reforms like those proposed by Senator Sessions to heart, but no: the Democrats voted them down. The prefer the irresponsible, free-spending status quo.

Technically the House of Representatives is supposed to be in charge of spending, but unfortunately, the Senate is so totally out of control, there is no hope for slowing the runaway spending. The Democrats in the Senate have refused to pass a budget for more than 1000 days. It’s time for a new Senate.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Truth About The Impact Of Sequestration on Defense

Posted on by

The Center for Security Policy posted a video of a program entitled “‘Like Shooting Ourselves in the Head’: The Implications of Sequestration on Defense.”  The program was put on by the Reserve Officers Association (ROA) and co-sponsored by the Defense Education Forum and the Center for Security Policy. This is a long video, so I suggest you watch it in a few sittings–there is an awful lot of great information included. (The video does not actually start until about 30 seconds into the count).

 

I really can’t adequately summarize the discussion of sequestration, but there are a few things I learned that I can share. The defense budget is a very small part of the overall spending in America–drastically cutting it will not only not help with overall spending, but the civilian job losses as a result of the cuts will further slow down the economy. Sequestration is not about defense–it’s a cover for a tax increase on Americans. The Obama Administration and the Senate Democrats understand the dangers of sequestration–they are counting on the Republicans not to let it happen. The Democrats are playing a game of chicken with the defense of America. If the Republicans want to stop sequestration, the Democrats will gladly do it–if a tax increase is included in the proposal.

Please watch the video and decide for yourself what is happening. Again, I can only say that part of the road to fiscal sanity in America has to be a Republican Senate. Otherwise, all we will hear is a constant cry to raise taxes and not lower spending.

Enhanced by Zemanta

It May Not Have Been Very Funny, But I Believe It Was A Joke

Posted on by

Even as a retiree, I sometimes get too busy to pay attention to what the news is actually saying. And when I pay attention to the mainstream news media, I generally get confused. Recently I wondered why Allen West would make the remark he made recently about communists. It really doesn’t seem to fit with the entire picture of who he is.

Well, I got my answer this morning when I heard the full story on my local talk radio show (Helen Glover). It seems that the sound bite played by the media was not the entire sound bite. Why am I not surprised at this?

The Huffington Post reports:

West’s video is nearly 30 seconds longer but adds little in the way of content. Most of the added time is taken up by audience members murmuring after West states that “about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party that are members of the Communist Party,” which was the focus of the original video from the Democrats. After the reaction dies down, West identifies his alleged Communists.

“No, they actually don’t hide it. It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus,” he tells the audience.

I think the video released by Allen West  totally changes the content–even if the Huffington Post doesn’t. I suspect the comment was made rather tongue in cheek. Unfortunately, a lot of the mainstream media and the left have lost their sense of humor. Maybe they should look for it the same place they lost their sense of fiscal responsibility!

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Yesterday’s House Of Representatives Vote On President Obama’s Budget

Posted on by

Yesterday the Washington Times reported that President Obama’s proposed budget was voted on in the House of Representatives. The vote was 414 to 0. Even the Democrats in the House did not support the proposal.

The article reports:

The vote came as the House worked its way through its own fiscal year 2013 budget proposal, written by Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan. Republicans wrote an amendment that contained Mr. Obama’s budget and offered it on the floor, daring Democrats to back the plan, which calls for major tax increases and yet still adds trillions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade.

Why is it that no Democrat was willing to go on the record in support of the President’s budget proposal?

The Senate has already stated that they will not bring a budget proposal to the floor this year–despite the fact that they are required by law to pass a budget. It is truly sad that the Democrats in Congress do not have the backbone to stand up for their convictions. If they believe that higher taxes and increased spending will help the economy, why are they unwilling to vote as they believe? I happen to disagree with that idea, but if the Democrats in Congress believe it, why don’t they act on their belief?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Taking Advantage Of An Uninformed Electorate

Posted on by

 Charles Krauthammer posted an article today at National Review about the bill passed yesterday in Congress allowing a 60-day tax break for Americans. First of all, it is not a tax break–it is a raid on Social Security at a time when Social Security can least afford to be raided. Second of all, no sane government sets a two-month tax policy.

The Republicans had the right argument on principle–the tax cut needed to be for the full year, but they lost on the politics. The reason they lost on the politics is that most Americans were paying more attention to their Christmas shopping than to what was actually happening in Congress, and when the media (and the Democrats) told them that the Republicans were holding up their tax break, they believed it.

Dr. Krauthammer states:

To begin with, what even minimally rational government enacts payroll-tax relief for just two months? As a matter of practicality alone, it makes no sense. The National Payroll Reporting Consortium, representing those who process paychecks, said of the two-month extension passed by the Senate just days before the new year: “There is insufficient lead time to accommodate the proposal,” because “many payroll systems are not likely to be able to make such a substantial programming change before January or even February,” thereby “creat[ing] substantial problems, confusion and costs.”

He further states:

The House Republicans’ initial rejection of this two-month extension was therefore correct on principle and on policy. But this was absolutely the wrong place, the wrong time, to plant the flag. Once Senate Republicans overwhelmingly backed the temporary extension, that part of the fight was lost. Opposing it became kamikaze politics.

The responsibility for this debaucle ultimately rests with the American people (and the fact that the media was failing to report both sides of the story). If we have truly reached a point in our history when we are tired of politics as usual, then we need to be willing to do something about it. We need to pay enough attention so that politics cannot trump good policy. Until that happens, we will get more of the same.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Two Congressmen Trying To Get It Right

Posted on by
Today’s Wall Street Journal (no link–subscribers only) posted an article on their Opinion Page written by Senator Ron Wyden and Representative Paul Ryan. The two Congressmen have worked together to design a plan that will ensure the future of Medicare. My experience in watching Representative Ryan is that he is a true geek on the subject of Congressional spending. I am not familiar with Senator Wyden, but I suspect he is also strong on the subject.

The basic outline of the Medicare proposal is that it would not effect people under the age of 55 and that it would include the toughest consumer protections in American government. Part of the plan is a ‘premium support’ system that would allow Medicare users to choose between a government and a private plan. There would be conditions in place to make sure the private plans provided the same service as the government plan.

The article concludes:

Yes, these are ambitious reforms, and while we are hopeful for the future, we are under no illusions that they will pass tomorrow. Nevertheless, we offer this plan as proof that Democrats and Republicans don’t have to spend next year making Medicare reform more difficult. Instead, our parties can work together on bipartisan reforms to save and strengthen Medicare.

I have no idea what Congress will do with this plan. It is, however, extremely encouraging to see the sort of co-operation that this plan represents. When members of Congress from both parties work together, America wins.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Something To Watch In The Next Week

Posted on by

This article is based on two stories–one from The Hill on Friday and one from Power LIne today. Both stories deal with legislation drafted by House Republicans regarding the F.I.C.A. tax holiday extension requested by the President, the extension of unemployment insurance, and the delay of changes to the Medicare  reimbursement rate for doctors. The House Rules Committee has scheduled a hearing on the legislation for Monday. This is the legislation that President Obama says has to be passed before he will go on Christmas vacation.

The problem with the bill, as President Obama and the Democrats see it, is the inclusion of a provision that directs the executive branch to approve the Keystone pipeline within 60 days, or else report the reasons to Congress. The details of the President’s previous actions regarding the Keystone Pipeline are detailed in a rightwinggranny article of November 10. For the President, the pipeline represents a dilemma–unions support it (it will create a huge number of union jobs) and environmentalist oppose it (it produces carbon-based domestic energy–that is not their stated reason, but that is the reason). To act on the pipeline before the November election is going to alienate one of those two groups.

John Hinderaker at Power LIne comments:

But there are a number of other significant provisions in the House bill. It would strip Obamacare of $34.9 billion in implementation funding; extend unemployment benefits while gradually reducing the time for which they can be claimed; delay implementation of the EPA’s new boiler and incinerator regulations; freeze pay for federal employees; and more. Some of the provisions are a little silly, like barring millionaires from receiving unemployment insurance and food stamps. But on the whole it is a good package.

For people trying to shrink government spending and create jobs, it’s a good bill. Politically for the Democrats, it’s a poison pill. Unfortunately this bill does nothing to create peace and harmony in Washington, so prepare to hear a lot of name calling on the Sunday news shows this weekend and in the mainstream media during the coming week.

The article at Power Line concludes:

But there is something more serious going on as well. If the payroll tax holiday extension passes–and both parties are now on record as favoring it–the dam will have been breached, and Social Security will be massively insolvent, not at some point in the future, but today. Many liberals have argued–I think correctly–that this is a decisive step that will probably doom the program in anything like its present form. Inevitably, with revenues grossly inadequate to pay benefits to all retirees, Social Security will be means tested. In other words, it will become a welfare program that provides a safety net to the indigent elderly. Will today’s young workers be willing to pay for forty years into a program from which they anticipate that they will get no benefit when they retire–unless, of course, they are planning on being indigent? No way. The consensus that has sustained Social Security will be broken, and the program will be just as popular as other welfare programs; which is to say, not very popular at all. It will be the beginning of the end of the welfare state as we now know it. (That trend, by the way, is prefigured in another feature of the House Republican bill, which would begin the means testing of Medicare.)

The Democrat Party likes the issue of extending the F.I.C.A tax holiday because if the Republicans oppose it, it looks as if the Republicans support raising taxes on the middle class while protecting ‘the rich.’ The fact that extending the F.I.C.A. tax holiday puts Social Security at greater risk and really does not significantly stimulate the economy does not really enter into the political discussion of the issue.

The root of the problem in passing this bill is not the bill or the additions to the bill–the root of the problem is that there is an election in November of next year. Unfortunately we have a bunch of career politicians on both sides of the aisle who are willing to put their re-election ahead of the good of the country. We need the Keystone Pipeline project to go forward for national security and economic reasons, and we need a middle class tax cut (although not out of the ‘Social Security Fund’, which in reality does not exist). It would be nice to see both sides work together for a change.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Class Warfare Is More Important Than Actual Numbers

Posted on by

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a story on the Democrats’ recent efforts to pay for a continuation of the payroll tax by imposing a tax on the rich. (Actually, the Democrats solution to any given problem at any given time is to impose a tax on the rich). Anyway, a Power Line reader ran the numbers to see how much impact the proposed tax on the rich would have. This is what the reader found:

The taxes on the highest incomes are never enough for any of their schemes. The Dems’ proposal is a fraud, which the MSM helps to perpetrate by never estimating the revenues from upper income tax increases.

Politico reports that the cost of the Democrats’ payroll tax reduction is $265 billion. Will that really be paid for by a 3.25 percent surtax on adjusted gross incomes over $1 million?

According to the Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute/Brookings Institute, approximately 388,000 households have income above $1 million in any given year; the average income of such households is about $2.7 million. The surtax would be levied on the increment above $1 million. So the arithmetic is simple on a static analysis: 388,000 * $1.7 million * 3.25% = $21.437 billion.

So the “millionaires and billionaires” surtax doesn’t come even remotely close to the reduction in payroll tax. It’s a complete fraud–gratuitous class warfare for revenues that, in the overall scheme of things, are trivial.

The problem with the budget is not the lack of tax revenue–it is the increase in spending. The Obama administration has increased government spending to approximately 24 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). It had previously been between 18 and 20 percent. The average tax revenue collected by the government in a year is about 18 percent of the GDP. Therein lies the problem. Even when taxes on the rich are increased, the amount collected hovers around 18 percent because the ‘rich’ have accountants that help them pay as little taxes as possible. When you tax the rich you only wind up taxing the middle class more and moving closer to the elimination of the middle class. That is not a good idea.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Voter Fraud ?

Posted on by

Many states currently under Republican control have moved to set up voter identification requirements in order to prevent voter fraud. Many Democrat Party members have accused the Republicans of trying to suppress the voter rather than prevent fraud. I posted a story about this yesterday (rightwinggranny.com).

Today there is a new story. WALB.com in South Georgia reports:

12 former Brooks County officials were indicted for voter fraud. The suspects are accused of illegally helping people vote by absentee ballot.

State officials launched an investigation after an unusually high number of absentee ballots were cast in the July 2010 primary election. “As a result of their grand jury findings 12 individuals were indicted in that particular matter and we will be trying that case in a court of judicial law instead of a court of public opinion so that will be pending this next year,” said District Attorney Joe Mulholland.

The people indicted included some workers in the voter registrar’s office and some school board members. It is a shame that supposed leaders in the community would engage in this sort of behavior.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why We Need New Republican Leadership

Posted on by

CNS News reported yesterday:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va,) were not among the 72 House Republicans who signed a letter to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction–the so-called “Supercommittee”–asking the committee not to call for increasing taxes.

This is a chart from USGovernmentSpending.com which shows where the budget problem is:

It shows a dramatic rise in government spending as a percentage of the gross domestic product since about 2006 (when the Democrats took over the House of Representatives–the branch of government that controls the purse strings). Until the spending is brought down to the traditional 18 to 20 percent of the gross domestic product, we will continue to borrow (from China) 40 cents of every dollar we spend. Eventually, we will go bankrupt.

The problem is not low taxes–it is out of control spending. If the Republican leadership does not realize that, we need new Republican leadership.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Rolled Again ?

Posted on by

Are the Republicans about to be rolled by the Democrats on the Super Committee? The Hill reported yesterday that word has leaked out that Republicans on the super committee have put nominal tax increases on the table. This has resulted in the Tea Party circulating a petition blasting any supercommittee compromise that includes tax increases.

The article reports:

“Reports that the Republican members of the committee have agreed to a framework of tax increases to replace spending cuts is appalling,” Tea Party Express co-chairman Amy Kremer wrote in an email sent to members asking them to fight any compromise. “The election of 2010 was a total repudiation of the ‘tax and spend’ mentality that has brought America to a fiscal crisis with excessive spending and an out-of-control national debt.”

The Hill is not necessarily and objective news source and reports that the Tea Party is forcing the Republicans into an uncompromising position. That is not the whole story. The Tea Party members were elected to Congress to stop the runaway spending. Every time they have attempted to do that, they have been met head-on by the Washington establishment–both Republican and Democrat. If the Tea Party cannot stop the spending, the current rate of spending will probably bankrupt the American economy by next summer. Frankly, until the Republican leadership changes, I don’t believe we have any hope of solving our economic crisis. The other thing to remember here is that the Democrats have done very little compromising–they are letting the Republicans negotiate with themselves in the hope that the Republicans will either cave or no deal will be reached. Either way, the Republicans will have a very difficult time retaining any House of Representative seats in 2012. The Tea Party was elected to do something. If they do nothing, they will probably not be reelected.

The problem is not that our taxes are too low. The problem is that government spending, traditionally at about 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) are now over 20 percent. It is time to cut the spending!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Behind The Scenes At Occupy Wall Street

Posted on by
Wall Street taken above steam stack road works...

Image via Wikipedia

Big Government has posted two articles on some of the people involved in the Occupy Wall Street protests. The first article is here. It summarizes some of the emails that reporters from Big Government have obtained. These emails show who the people and groups are that are behind Occupy Wall Street, what these groups are planning, and what their goals are.

One highlight of the article:

The true purpose of the Occupy movement appears to be further economic and governmental destabilization, at a time when the world is already facing major financial and political challenges. By embracing the Occupy movement, President Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, and their union allies may be supporting an effort to harm both the domestic and global economies; to create social unrest throughout the democratic world; and to embrace other radical causes, including the anti-Israel movement. Ironically, the emails suggest that the President and the Democrat Party may soon find their friends in the Occupy movement to be a political burden. The email below calls for the Occupy movement to begin “executing higher-risk actions, civil disobedience and arrests,” and suggests: “We must draw a line, disavow the Democrats explicitly, make our messaging a little uncomfortable.” 

The second article at Big Government explains what caused Big Government to investigate the people behind Occupy Wall Street.

The article reports some disturbing connections:

Then, at the end of August, we were alerted by a fellow researcher that information about USDoR (U.S. Day of Rage, to which Occupy Wall Street is connected) had been posted on Shamuk and Al-Jahad, two Al-Qaeda recruitment sites. We began to take the “Occupy” protest more seriously, and dedicated more time to research and monitoring.

Days later, Anonymous announced that it would be releasing its new DDOS (Distributed Denial of Service) tool. Because of the Al-Qaeda posting, we contacted the New York Field Office of the FBI so they could investigate the potential threat. From that point on, we decided we needed to include the Human Element of Intelligence (HUMINT), and to infiltrate the protestors to map their ties to Anonymous, and to the postings on Shamuk and Al-Jahad.

Admittedly, a protest movement cannot truly control who shows up to protest, but I do think recruiting on Al-Qaeda websites is a bit much.

The second article contains links to emails relating to specific plans of the protesters. So far, the attempts at violence and financial disruption have failed. Hopefully, that will be the case in the future.

I will admit to being a child of the sixties. I have protested. I was a peaceful protester. I never destroyed property or was rude to police or protesters on the opposite side of the issue. Protests are valid in a free society. Destruction of property and violence are not valid. As Occupy Wall Street continues, we need to take a very close look at who is behind the protest and exactly what they are doing and what they intend to do.

Enhanced by Zemanta