Tag Archives: Reince Priebus

Leading By Example

Posted on by

Forbes Magazine posted an article today about the impact President Trump has had on the While House payroll.

Here are some of the highlights:

  • There are 110 fewer employees on White House staff under Trump than under Obama at this point in their respective presidencies.
  • $5.1 million in payroll savings vs. the Obama FY2015 payroll. In 2017, the Trump payroll amounts to $35.8 million for 377 employees, while the Obama payroll amounted to $40.9 million for 476 employees (FY2015).
  • Nineteen fewer staffers are dedicated to The First Lady of the United States (FLOTUS). Currently, there are five staffers dedicated to Melania Trump vs. 24 staffers who served Michelle Obama (FY2009).
  • Counts of the “Assistants to the President” – the most trusted advisors to the president – are the same (22) in both first-year Trump and Obama administrations. In the Trump White House, Steven Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, Omarosa Manigault, Reince Priebus, Sean Spicer and 17 others make salaries of $179,700. In Obama’s first-year, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel and twenty others held the title with top pay of $172,000.
  • The highest compensated White House Trump staffer? Mark House, Senior Policy Advisor, has a salary of $187,500. Mr. House is “on detail” from a federal agency which allows him to exceed the top pay-grade of $179,700. In Obama’s Administration (2009), David Marcozzi earned $193,000 “on detail” from Health and Human Services.

The article concludes:

At the nation’s founding, Ben Franklin said, “Diligence is the mother of good luck.” Although the White House personnel budget is an infinitesimal part of the $3.9 trillion federal budget, it could be a leading indicator of Trump’s commitment to cut waste, fraud and taxpayer abuse.

I wish we could pass this thriftiness along to Congress.

 

The Numbers Keep Going Down

Posted on by

This is an election season so all news reporting has to take that into consideration. Anything you read has to be checked against another source and then sorted through to figure out what you weren’t told. Sometimes it gets very frustrating. One of the items that has come up in this campaign is the U.S. economy. President Obama and Hillary Clinton say that it is great, and Donald Trump says it is not doing well. What do the numbers say?

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article yesterday that has some answers.

The article reports:

The U.S. economy expanded in the second quarter of 2016 with real GDP growing 1.1 percent, a lower rate than previously estimated, according to the second estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

“The downward revision to the percent change in real GDP primarily reflected downward revisions to state and local government spending and to private inventory investment and an upward revision to imports,” the bureau said.

Real GDP represents the inflation-adjusted value of goods and services produced in the economy. The second quarter growth of 1.1 percent, which includes performance from April, May, and June, was an increase from the 0.8 percent growth recorded in the first quarter of 2016.

Second quarter growth this year was lower than second quarter growth in 2015, when GDP expanded at 3.7 percent, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

“Today’s disappointing news that the economy expanded even slower than reported is another reminder that we cannot continue President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s failed economic policies for another four years,” said Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee. “Economists say Hillary Clinton’s tax plan alone will slow economic growth, reduce wages, and kill jobs.”

We have had eight years of Democratic policies running the economy. The excuse given by most Democrats is that President Obama started with a mess because the housing bubble had burst. However, when you look at the roots of the housing bubble, you are a little less likely to blame President Bush for the collapse (see Burning Down The House. If in the future YouTube takes down the video, I have embedded it in various articles in this blog–use the blog search engine to find it and watch it.) It is time to let an experienced businessman try his hand at running the American economy. That is the only hope the American workers have.

Support The Eleventh Commandment

Posted on by

If you are under 50, you may not be familiar with the Eleventh Commandment. The Eleventh Commandment was created by the California Republican Party and popularized by President Ronald Reagan. The Eleventh Commandment reads, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” If you have watched any of the Republican debates, you are aware that the Eleventh Commandment has died a violent death.

Holly Robichaud, who writes a column for the Boston Herald, posted her observations on the subject in today’s Boston Herald.

Ms. Robichaud notes:

Where is the Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus?

He is the leader of the Republican Party — not just the establishment wing. It is time for him to lead the entire party by stopping the civil war.

There have been plenty of times when conservatives have been less than thrilled to vote for the Republican nominee, but once the selection had been made there was no ranting or raving about our objections. We kept our nose-holding to ourselves and loyally supported the nominee.

The establishment is having a massive hissy fit over the Trump candidacy. They are not helping the other Republican presidential candidates. They are only hurting our chances to win the White House in November. Shame on them for their self-indulgent whining.

As I have stated many times before, Donald Trump did not get my vote in the Republican primary (North Carolina has early voting, so I have already voted). However, if he wins the votes in the Primary Elections around the country, he is entitled to the nomination.

The maneuverings of the establishment Republicans are amazing. They have ignored the party’s base for years, and now wonder why the base is choosing to ignore them.

The article further reminds us:

Earlier in this election cycle, Priebus got Trump to sign an agreement to not run as a third-party candidate if he did not win the primary. Was it a one-way agreement? Where is the protection for Trump? He’s winning these primaries fair and square. It wasn’t even close in Massachusetts.

Priebus is going to be the last chairman of the Republican National Committee if he doesn’t stop the establishment’s temper tantrum.

What could Priebus do? First and foremost, he needs to shut off all money to people who speak ill of the soon-to-be nominee. That will motivate them.

Second, Priebus can give them a collective dope slap. To suggest that Trump would be a lousy president due to some business failures is beyond ridiculous. According to Forbes magazine, 8 out of 10 businesses fail within the first 18 months. Businesspeople have successes and failures.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton should be indicted over the email scandal! On her watch as secretary of state, four Americans died because she refused to act! The Clinton Foundation is a disgrace!

The Republican Party is in danger from its own establishment. The establishment that has gone along with higher taxes, more spending, and not using every weapon available to fight ObamaCare and executive orders is reaping what it has sown. The Republicans hold the House and the Senate. Does anyone believe that if the Democrats held the House and the Senate that they would not manage to advance their agenda? If the Republicans continue to avoid success and replace it with whining that they cannot do anything because of President Obama, they deserve to be removed from whatever office they hold. Attacking each other only adds to their problems. If the republican leaders continue to act in a way that ignores the base and encourages attacks against the leading candidate, they may find themselves without a party to lead.

What Would Happen To The Presidential Debates If The Playing Field Were Level

Posted on by

The purpose of this article is not to bring up the Candy Crowley incident again. Ms. Crowley made a mistake that had major political ramifications. That is unfortunate, but every one of us has at some time said things we regretted. If you haven’t, I congratulate you, but I have to admit that my foot occasionally finds its way into my mouth. The mainstream media has played more of a role in presidential politics than they should when they have moderated debates. When George Stepanopoulos asked Mitt Romney about birth control early in 2012, he paved the way for the charges that the Republicans were waging a ‘war on women.’ So what would happen if the debate platform were taken out of the hands of the mainstream media?

DaTechGuy posted a story today about the recent statement by Reince Priebus that if NBC and CNN move forward on their documentary on Hillary Clinton, he will deny those networks access to Republican presidential debates. Those networks realize the part the debates play in skewing the picture Americans have of the candidates. Having the mainstream media moderate the debates as well as report the news probably adds at least 10 points to the approval ratings of Democrat candidates.

Yesterday Breitbart.com commented:

And if past is prologue, CNN and NBC hosting GOP primary debates is a much more effective way to put Clinton in the White House than a Hillary miniseries and documentary. 

The left understand that CNN and NBC are at their most effective at winning elections for Democrats when they hide behind a phony shield of objectivity. For good reason, the left is concerned these Hillary projects might weaken that shield.

DaTechGuy comments:

The problem becomes if you pull out of these debates or keep these people from moderating them then the MSM storyline becomes: “GOP candidates duck real journalists.” and that would be the meme on every single network and their excuse to duck out of coverage.

However the Hillary Movies solve this problem admirably. It provides an excuse, a justification, well of COURSE we can’t have our debates with the people from CNN or NBC. as Renice put it:

It will be extremely interesting to see how this all turns out.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Republican Leader Finally Figures Out How To Deal With The Media

Posted on by

It would be naive at best to assume that the mainstream media is fair when dealing with Republicans and Democrats. I am sure that the fact that NBC and CNN are planning film projects very favorable to Hillary Clinton as she seeks to be the Democrat candidate for President in 2016 is purely coincidence.

Normally the Republican establishment would stand back and watch this and do nothing, but evidently there is currently some leadership and some backbone in the Republican party. Yesterday Politico reported that the Republican National Committee Chairman, Reince Priebus, has stated that if NBC and CNN go ahead with their plans for a Hillary Clinton movie, he will deny them access to the Republican debates.

The article at Politico reports:

In open letters to the leadership of NBC Universal and CNN International, Priebus expressed his “deep disappointment” over those networks’ decisions to produce films “promoting former Secretary Hillary Clinton ahead of her likely candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016.”

Should the networks fail to pull those films by the RNC’s Summer meeting on August 14, Priebus writes, he will “seek a binding vote of the RNC stating that the committee will neither partner with you in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates which you sponsor.”

“As an American company you have every right to air programming of your choice. But as American citizens, certainly you recognize why many are astounded by your actions, which appear to be a major network’s thinly-veiled attempt at putting a thumb on the scales of the 2016 election,” Priebus wrote in his letters to NBC chairman Robert Greenblatt and CNN president Jeff Zucker.

Diane Lane will star as Hillary Clinton in the NBC miniseries.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Looking Past The Headline To The News

Posted on by
John_F_Kennedy_1964_Issue-5c.jpg

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday the Los Angeles Times posted a story with the headline, “Election laws tightening in GOP-run states.” Interesting headline. Why are election laws being strengthened in Republican rather than Democrat states? There are two ways to look at this–the Democrats would have you believe that the Republicans are trying to hinder minority voters, the Republicans would have you believe that they are combating voter fraud. Which is closer to the truth?

The article reports:

But Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said the GOP drive was triggered by “the infamous example of ACORN,” the collection of community organizations which, he said, submitted 400,000 fraudulent registrations in 2008. He called the new laws “common-sense proposals” to “preserve the sanctity of our elections by ensuring that only eligible voters vote.”

The results of the election of 2008 would not have been changed had voter fraud not existed, but in a close election, voter fraud can change the results. It s an accepted fact that Mayor Daley stole the election in 1960 for John F. Kennedy.

Wikipedia (not my favorite source) reports:

Known for shrewd party politics, Daley was a stereotypical machine politician, and his Chicago Democratic Machine, based on control of thousands of patronage positions, was instrumental in bringing a narrow 8,000 vote victory in Illinois for John F. Kennedy in 1960. A PBS documentary entitled “Daley” explained that Mayor Daley and JFK potentially stole the 1960 election by stuffing ballot boxes and rigging the vote in Chicago. In addition, it reveals, Daley withheld many votes from certain wards when the race seemed close.

I have no problem with requiring voter identification. Identification is required to do many things in our society that are considerably less important than voting–rent a video, board an airplane, cash a check, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, and receive any sort of federal assistance. Voting is at least as important as any of these.The election of 2012 may be close. I would prefer that whatever the result is, it represents the rule “one man, one vote.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta