I am a numbers person.  I like to see numbers in front of me in order to figure out what a situation is.  Sometimes that works; sometimes it doesn’t.  There are two stories posted today on the internet about the new jobs numbers that show why we need to examine any government numbers carefully.

The first, at CNBC, is an article by Jeff Cox, which states that while the government reported that the unemployment rate in July dropped from 9.2 percent in June to 9.1 percent in July, the drop was caused by the fact that the number is based on a smaller workforce.  

The article states:

“According to a Bureau of Labor Statistics breakdown, there were 139,296,000 people working in July, compared to 139,334,000 the month before, or a drop of 38,000.”

Obviously, if many of the unemployed are not counted as part of the workforce, the unemployment number will be lower. 

The article further reports:

“The average duration of unemployment rose for the third straight month and is now at a record 40.4 weeks–about 10 months and now double where it was when President Obama took office in January 2009. The total number unemployed for more than half a year now stands at 6.18 million, 130 percent higher than when the president’s term began.”

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air quoted Bloomberg:

“The jobless rate declined as 193,000 people left the labor force and the number of unemployed dropped by 156,000. The share of the eligible population holding a job declined to 58.1 percent, the lowest since July 1983.”

I have no idea why the numbers from Bloomberg and the Bureau of Labor Statistics are different.  We did add 117,000 jobs last month.  That is good news.  There are a few things we can do to encourage the economy to grow–get rid of unnecessary government regulations, develop our own energy resources, and change the tax structure so that it does not punish success.  Until those things are done (or at least one or two of them), the economy will continue to limp along. 

I am currently reading the book CAR WRECK written by Mark Ragsdale (see rightwinggranny.com) and was intrigued when I came across an article at Hot Air posted on Wednesday about the sales numbers for the Chevy Volt.  One of the challenges Mr. Ragsdale gave his audience when he spoke locally recently was, “Do you know anyone who owns a Chevy Volt who likes their car?”  Considering Americans’ love affairs with their cars, the fact that he has yet to meet a satisfied Volt owner is somewhat disconcerting. 

Anyway, the article at Hot Air pointed out that in February, General Motors sold 281 Chevy Volts.  In July, General Motors sold 125 Chevy Volts. 

The article reports:

“GM claims that sales were slow this month because there simply aren’t many Volts left to sell. They had to shut their plant in Detroit for a month for upgrades, so the production line ground to a halt and the supply of new cars slowed to a trickle.”

When Mark Modica of the National Legal and Policy Center investigated this statement by calling Chevy dealers in his area, he found that five out of the six dealers he called had Volts in stock. 

The article at Hot Air concludes:

“…Toyota’s planning to roll out a new plug-in Prius next year that’ll likely be $10,000 cheaper than the Volt. It won’t go as far solely on electric power — just 13 miles compared to the Volt’s 35-mile range — but it costs less, charges much more quickly, and will get you 51 mpg via its hybrid engine once you’re beyond the 13-mile range. If your work commute is a short one, you’re in business. And even if it isn’t, with gas at $4 per gallon, the ten grand you save on the Prius will pay for 127,000 miles of driving on gas power. Japan wins again.”

When the private sector runs a business, the goal is to make a profit.  When the government takes over a business, anything can be on the agenda.  The Volt is not a car the average American will buy–the price, even with the government subsidy, is too high.  The hybrid car may be a good idea, but the technology is not at a place where it is actually economical to own one.  There is also the problem that batteries lose a percentage of their power in cold weather.  Not a good thing in New England.  We need to kick the government out of the car industry and deal with the unrealistic demands made of the industry by the unions.  At that point, we may again have reasonably priced cars that Americans can afford and enjoy.

The UK Guardian reported yesterday that Rostam Ghasemi joined President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s cabinet last week and has been approved by the Iranian parliament.  Rostam Ghesemi is a senior Iranian revolutionary guards commander targeted by international sanctions.  As the new head of Iran’s oil ministry, he automatically takes over the presidency of Opec (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), which controls the flow and price of oil around the world.  Great. 

The article reports:

“As its second-largest crude oil exporter, Iran took the presidency of Opec after 36 years last October and Ghasemi’s position will give the revolutionary guards a unique opportunity to influence an international organisation.”

This is not a surprise to anyone who watches Iran closely.  The revolutionary guard plays a major role in all economic activity in Iran.  Any westerner doing business with Iran has probably come into contact with the revolutionary guard, although they may not have been aware of it.

This is not good news for western countries.  The news underlines the need for western countries to develop their own sources of energy apart from the Middle East. 

CBN News reported today that Sharif El-Gamal, developer of the controversial Islamic center at Ground Zero, said that it may be years before the mosque at Ground Zero will be built. 

The article reports:

“Over the past year, El-Gamal has focused on raising funds for the project and meeting with neighborhood groups, The New York Times reported. He said he only accepts funding from people with “American values,” and he has invited a relative of a someone who perished in the attack to sit on his advisory board.

“He says the mosque would also include an Islamic community center, a health club and a theater.”

During this time the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has been representting Tim Brown, a 9-11 first responder and fire fighter,  who is seeking landmark status for a building that suffered a direct hit from one of the hijacked planes used in the terror attack.

The article concludes:

“The New York Supreme Court ruled that Brown did not have “legal standing” to challenge the decision not to declare the building a landmark.

“If a 9-11 hero and first responder does not have standing in a case like this, where developers want to tear down a standing monument to 9-11 and replace it with the largest mosque in the country, then who does?” ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow said in response to the court’s decision.

“The ACLJ said they intended to file an appeal in the First Department Appellate Division.

“”We intend to appeal this flawed decision and are confident that this project will never be built,” Sekulow said.

“In an interview with FOX News anchor Martha MaCallum, Brown vowed to “keep up the public pressure” because “the families…aren’t going away.”

There are other places in New York City to build this mosque.  If you investigate the history of this project, you find many questions as to the source of the money to build the mosque and the rulings from the zoning board regarding the issue,.

It is my hope that another place in lower Manhattan will be found to build this mosque.

I haven’t followed this story very closely, because it made no sense to me.  It still doesn’t, but I am going to try to figure it out.

The Daily Caller posted an article yesterday explaining what is going on with the Federal Aviation.Administration.  The article explains that some Washington lawmakers are refusing to extend the Federal Aviation Administration’s authorization because they want subsidies to empty airports to continue at their current rate.  It is an incredible coincidence that some of these small airports receiving the subsidies are the very airports some of the Congressmen use to commute between Washington and their home districts.  For example, taxpayers have been spending over $3,700 per passenger for the 471 passengers who used Ely airport (Nevada).

The House of Representatives has already passed an extension which includes capping the subsidy at no more than $1,000 per passenger.  That change to the law will result in millions of dollars of savings each year.

Originally the authorization bill was held up due to union opposition.  The unions were opposed to this bill because it undoes a change made by President Obams’s National Mediation Board (NMB) that said that the majority of workers in a company were not needed to form a union–all that was needed was a majority of the people voting.  This rule was changed to make it easier to unionize, undoing a law that has been in place since FDR.  The House of Representatives passed an FAA authorization bill which returned union voting to what it has been since FDR.  The unions objected.

The article at the Daily Caller concludes:

“The rational approach starts with passing the extension with spending cuts.  Congress should then come together, pass the reauthorization legislation and reverse the NMB’s unfair rule change so airline and railroad workers aren’t forced into unions they otherwise would not freely join.”

I am not totally convinced that Congress is capable of rational.

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article about the debt ceiling deal which included an internal memo among Democrats.

Mr. Hinderaker posted the entire memo, but highlighted one paragraph:

“The compromise expected to pass today, in effect, “deems” a budget resolution passed for each of the next two fiscal years. This effectively sets the top-line spending levels-the so-called “302(a) allocations-for both FY 2012 and FY 2013. These top-line levels are specified as follows: $1.043 trillion for FY 2012, and $1.047 trillion for FY 2013. These figures represent a reduction of $7 billion and $3 billion, respectively, in budget authority, relative to FY 2011 levels.”

It’s interesting to me that we are back to ‘deeming’ things passed.  This is Mr. Hinderaker’s conclusion:

“Here is the analogy I would offer: in the past, liberals have steamrollered conservatives on pretty much all issues relating to spending; hence today’s federal spending that almost everyone regards as out of control. This time, conservatives stood our ground and fought the liberals to a draw. This was not the end of the battle over the budget, but rather the beginning. We conservatives have a long way to go to bring fiscal sanity to Washington. On the other hand, we also have another election in November 2012. Like John Paul Jones, we should let the liberals know that we have not yet begun to fight.”

The Tea Party did not stop the runaway train that is government spending, but they did slow it slightly and they did make many Americans aware that the spending was out of control.  The debt ceiling agreement represented a reasonable first step–not a great first step, but a reasonable one.  Please follow the link to the article to read the entire memo.

A website called Freedom Works postd and article on Monday about the philosphical problem with Obamacare.  It comes down to the definition of a few words we use very casually–rights and charity. 

The article reports on some of the obvious problems with Obamacare:

“The unintended consequences of ObamaCare keep rolling in. Insurance prices are skyrocketing, major health insurers have stopped offering child-only policies and we may soon be facing a huge doctor shortage. It comes as no big surprise that health care law will end up costing more than originally thought. A new report from Cornell economist Richard Burkhauser and his colleagues warns that ObamaCare could cost at least $ 50 billion more per year than previous Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates.”

But there are some other very interesting points in the article.  The article points out sone basic facts about the concept of rights:

“Most politicians -and unfortunately many Americans–believe that health care is a right. This is a perversion of the idea of rights. As the Declaration of Independence states, Americans have the unalienable right to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Note that none of these things require anything of anybody else.”

The government, which is paying for Obamacare, has no money of its own.  All the money the government has comes from the taxpayers.  When did it become a right of some Americans to simply take money from other Americans? 

The article further states:

“We are not entitled to health care. Economics professor Walter Williams writes that “true rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another… For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else’s rights, namely their rights to their earnings.” Where’s the compassion for taxpayers–who are forced to foot the bill?”

The article concludes:

“Genuine compassion is when you reach into your own pockets to help out the less fortunate. Reaching into other people’s pockets and forcing them to pay for compulsory government programs is false philanthropy and should not be considered noble.”

Unfortunately, we have forgotten our roots.  Taking money from one person and giving it to another is robbery.  You can call it anything you want, but it is robbery.  It is amazing that when the statistics are known, conservatives give a much higher percentage of their income to charity than liberals.  Conservatives understand the responsibility of wealth and the need for compassion, liberals just like spending other peoples’ money.  It’s time we realized that the government should not be in charge of compassion.

Power Line began a contest on May 8 where they offered $100,000 to the person who could most effectively and creatively dramatize the seriousness of the federal debt crisis.  The winner was announced yesterday.  Here is the link to the winning entry and some background information on the winner–“The Spending Is Nuts.”  Enjoy.

I need to say up front that I would have voted for the debt ceiling bill that was passed.  Conservatives simply do not currently have the power to pass a bill that would seriously cut spending.  There is an entrenched political class in Washington (made up of members of both parties), and until the offenders are voted out, there will be no serious progress made on spending or the debt.  I think term limits are a really good idea, and the debate we have seen in recent weeks confirms that thought for me. 

That having been said, I want to talk about tax hikes in the near and distant future.  The ‘Bush tax cuts’ expire in December of 2012, and the new taxes to pay for Obamacare begin in January 2013.  Notice that both these things happen after the November 2012 election.  The expiration of the ‘Bush tax cuts’ is expected to add between $3000 and $4000 a year to the tax burden of the average American family (Fox News October 11, 2010).  The Obamacare taxes will include higher payroll taxes, payroll taxes on investment income, and higher taxes on ‘rich’ Americans making $250,000.  The taxes on ‘rich’ Americans are not indexed for inflation, so it is very possible that people struggling to feed their families and pay their mortgages may soon be considered ‘rich.’  Most economists predict a severe economic slowdown as a result of these taxes.

It gets better.  Hot Air reported yesterday that it looks like the Super Committee which will be formed as a result of the debt ceiling agreement will be able to raise taxes. 

Hot Air reports:

“Remember yesterday’s GOP talking point about how “baseline budgeting” would make it virtually impossible for the Committee to impose tax hikes? Supposedly, because CBO is required to assume that the Bush tax cuts will lapse next year, the $3.5 trillion in new revenue that will come from that lapse is already part of the Committee’s “baseline.” In order for them to hit their target of $1.5 trillion in additional savings, they’d have to recommend tax hikes above and beyond that $3.5 trillion. Which, with an election coming up, they surely aren’t going to do.”

Well, evidently that statement has already expired.  The article further reports:

“Former Bush econ advisor Keith Hennessey seems to think that the baseline will govern Committee action on tax rates but won’t affect their ability to raise taxes through other means, like closing loopholes. Assuming Tapper’s correct, though, not only will the Committee spend the next three months bickering about where to find savings, they’ll be bickering about what standard should be used to measure whether a new spending cut or revenue-raiser qualifies as a “savings” in the first place. Which means the GOP is caught between tax increases from the Super Committee, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts next year if the Committee does nothing about revenues, and sharp cuts to defense if Congress doesn’t enact the Committee’s recommendations.”

Hang on to your hats.  It’s going to be a rough year and a half.

WUSA9 in Virginia posted a story today about an eleven-year old child who saved a baby woodpecker from becoming dinner for the family cat.  This act of kindness resulted in the child’s mother being sent a letter asking for payment of a fine of more than $500 and the child’s mother being threatened with jail time.  Impossible?  No, unfortunately.  Here is the story.

Skylar Capo rescued a baby woodpecker from being eaten by the family cat at her father’s house.  When she couldn’t find the woodpecker’s mother, she asked her mother if she could take the baby bird home.  Her mother agreed. 

The article reports:

“But on the drive home, the Capo family stopped at a Lowes in Fredericksburg and they brought the bird inside because of the heat. That’s when they were confronted by a fellow shopper who said she worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” 

Under the Federal Migratory Bird Act, the woodpecker is a protected species and it is illegal to take or transport a baby woodpecker. 

The story continues:

“So as soon as the Capo family returned home, they say they opened the cage, the bird flew away, and they reported it to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

“”They said that’s great, that’s exactly what we want to see,” said Capo. “We thought that we had done everything that we could possibly do.”

“But roughly two weeks later, that same woman from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service showed up at Capo’s front door. This time, Capo says the woman was accompanied by a state trooper.  Capo refused to accept a citation, but was later mailed a notice to appear in U.S. District Court for unlawfully taking a migratory bird.  She’s also been slapped with a $535 fine.”

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued the following statement today:

“”On June 13, a special agent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service observed a woman carrying a cage that contained a woodpecker at a home improvement store in Fredericksburg Virg.

“As possession of a bird may potentially violate the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the agent initiated an inquiry to determine whether a potential violation had occurred.

“Upon speaking with the subject, later identified as Alison Capo, on June 27, the agent determined that no further action was warranted. A citation that had been previously drafted by the agent was cancelled on June 28.

“Unfortunately, the citation was processed unintentionally despite our office’s request to cancel the ticket. The Service has contacted Ms. Capo to express our regret. The Service is also sending Ms. Capo a formal letter explain the clerical error and confirming that ticket should never have been issued.

“This misunderstanding was the result of a Service inquiry into possible violations of federal wildlife law. In particular the Service is responsible for the protection of all federally listed migratory birds. The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries did not participate in the inquiry.””

The bigger the government, the smaller the individual.  Be careful where you take your bird.

A new book called Left Turn details how the liberal leaning of the mainstream media influences the politics of Americans.  The book allows people to calculate their Political Quotient (PQ) to see where they fall in the political spectrum.

Today, CBN News interviewed UCLA political scientist Tim Groseclose, the author of the book, and discussed what Mr. Groseclose discovered in his research. 

Some of the things Mr. Groseclose discovered:

– All mainstream news outlets in the United States have a liberal bias.

– The Drudge Report is the most fair, balanced and centrist news outlet in the United States.

– Fox News’ “Special Report,” which is usually characterized as conservative, is not biased as far right as typical mainstream outlets are biased to the left.

The article at CBN includes a quiz you can take to determine your PQ.  The higher the number, the more liberal.  I got a 20!  Have fun!

This is a portion of a speech President Obama made to America on March 28 of this year:

“As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do — and will do — is support the aspirations of the Libyan people.  We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supplies of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Qaddafi leaves power.  It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Qaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power.  But it should be clear to those around Qaddafi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on Qaddafi’s side.  With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.” 

This is a statement from the Washington Post on July 27:

“”Obviously, him leaving Libya itself would be the best way of showing the Libyan people that they no longer have to live in fear, but as I have said all along, this is ultimately a question for Libyans to determine,” British Foreign Secretary William Hague told reporters Monday night before talks with his French counterpart, Alain Juppe.”

It seems that we have given up the original plan of removing Qaddafi from Libya and decided that he can stay if he steps down and behaves.  This is the recipe for a prolonged civil war.  To me, this means that we have lost the war in Libya and are trying to give the appearance of still being in control.

It is expected that the deal reached yesterday in Congress will be voted on today.  It is expected to pass.

Last night, Chris Cillizza posted an article in the Washington Post listing the groups he considered winners and losers in the final product.  Obviously until the bill is written into law and the small print read, nothing is certain, but Mr. Cillizza sums up what the current agreement says about the power struggles in Washington.

The list of winners includes Mitch McConnell, the Tea Party, President Obama, the Congressional Budget Office, Grover Norquist, and David Wu.  Mitch McConnell was the closer.  He stated clearly what was at stake and was at the center of the negotiations.  The Tea Party changed the debate.  They also forced John Boehner to create a more conservative bill by refusing to pass something that did not have the provisions they had promised to their voters.  President Obama succeeded by reaching a compromise.  His goal is to convince the independent voters that he is not as liberal as he seems.  This deal will probably anger his base, but it may win him the votes of some independents.  The Congressional Budget Office played a major role in the negotiations–scoring the plans as they were announced.  Many people who had not been paying attention until recently became acquainted with the Congressional Budget Office during this debate.  Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, who asked House Members to sign a pledge not to raise taxes, remains a person whose wishes have to be respected.  David Wu was forced to resign because of a sex scandal that simply got lost in the news because of the budget debate.

The losers in this deal include Congress, the Gang of Six, Commissions, and Liberals.  Congress loses because it really looked ineffective in resolving the situation.  With a few exceptions, most Congressman looked as if they were more concerned about winning votes than solving the problem.  The Gang of Six was totally ineffective.  The underlying issue of this debate was the size of government and the money the government would need to grow–there was never any agreement on that and probably never will be.  The answer to that divide is to elect a majority of people who support one side or the other.  The divide will always be there.  Commissions do not have a good success rate.  It is questionable whether the commission established in this compromise will be any different.  Liberals lost because there are no tax increases in the deal.  Just as the Tea Party insisted on no tax increases, liberals stated that tax increases had to be part of the deal.  The Tea Party won.

It’s too early to celebrate–the details are not totally known.  One big problem with this bill will be that no one will be able to study it carefully before it is passed.  Transparency was not part of this process and that is unfortunate.

Townhall.com is reporting that United States District Judge Claude Hilton, acting in the eastern district of Virginia, has ruled that the French-based food service and facilities management company Sodexo can proceed with an extortion claim against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

The union is accused of using its close ties to the Obama Administration to harass the company.  Sodexo is a non-union company where only 18,000 of the company’s 98,000 qualified employees have chosen to join the SEIU.  The company is charging the SEIU with attempting to unlawfully unionize employees and increase revenue in violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the article:

“According to the National Legal and Policy Center only 18,000 of the company’s 98,000 qualified employees have chosen to join the SEIU. In retaliation, says the NLPC, the union has carried out a campaign of intimidation that includes:

• threw plastic roaches onto food at a high-profile event catered by Sodexo;
• scared hospital patients by insinuating that Sodexo food contained bugs, rat droppings, mold and flies;
• sneaked into elementary schools to avoid security;
• violated lobbying laws to steer business away from the company; and
• threatened Sodexo USA employees with public exposure of alleged wrongdoing.”

Obviously, if the charges are true, the SEIU is breaking the law. 

The article concludes:

“On July 1^st the Competitive Enterprise Institute published the SEIU’s plan “to launch a national campaign of economic strong-arming and sabotage. Their plan envisions mortgage and student loan strikes and bank boycotts. Also contemplated are acts of harassment and intimidation directed against bank officials, corporate heads and public officials deemed to be enemies of the people.”

“So if indeed the SEIU has been guilty of illegal activities such as using government influence to threaten or intimidate companies or individuals, the question is how much does the Obama administration know and how high does it go?”    

The Obama administration is one whose election was financed by unions; therefore, it is not unusual that they would expect something in return.  However, it would be nice if they showed some respect for the law.  

Today’s U.K. Daily Mail is reporting that the FBI believes it has finally caught DB Cooper.  For anyone under the age of 40, DB Cooper boarded an airplane in Portland, Oregon, in 1971, took over the airplane on the way to Seattle, Washington, demanded and got four parachutes and $200,000 and demanded to be flown to Mexico.  Somewhere along the way, he and his money jumped out of the airplane.  He has been missing ever since.  In 1980, $5,800 of the money he was given was found in the Columbia River.

There was a man who was suspected of being DB Cooper who was killed after a prison break in 1974, but he did not fit the description given by the flight attendants. 

The FBI is looking at fingerprints and DNA evidence to link the suspect to the crime.  Stay tuned. 

Why we need to repeal Obamacare and generally cut spending.  The chart is from the August 8 issue of the Weekly Standard.

The article concludes:

“For Republicans, spending cuts have been the top priority, and rightly so. But the real problem is spending on health-entitlement programs. If that category of spending is not brought under the discipline of an effective marketplace, then American health care, and our economy as a whole, will be on the road to ruin.

“Genuine health care reform therefore needs to be at the core of the Republican case for fiscal sanity​–​a case that in turn must be front and center in the 2012 election. That election may well be the only real chance we have left to avoid a genuine debt crisis and set America back on the path to enduring prosperity and strength.”

Americans need to stand strong in their support of serious spending cuts and on the repeal of Obamacare.

Yesterday The Lede, the blog at the New York Times, reported on a rally in Tahrir Square that was supposed to be a protest against the current military government.  

The article reported:

“But the turnout was lopsided, dominated by members of religious movements, ranging from the most conservative, the Salafists, to the relatively moderate Muslim Brotherhood.” 

The first thing to understand here is that there is nothing moderate about the Muslim Brotherhood.  The goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is a world-wide caliphate under Sharia Law.  That is stated in their charter and was reaffirmed in the documents uncovered in the Holy Land Foundation Case in Texas. They have no intentions of allowing a western-style democracy to take place anywhere in the Middle East–particularly in Egypt, which has in the past been an ally of the United States. 

The article further reported:

“According to The Associated Press, instead of chanting “The people want to topple the regime,” a slogan heard at protests across the Arab world this year, from Tahrir Square to Tunisia, demonstrators called out, “The people want to implement Sharia,” a strict code of Islamic law.”

Sharie law is not compatible with democracy.  Egypt is only the beginning of the Arab Spring’s turning from what appeared to be a bridge to freedom to a bridge to a caliphate.

Harry Reid made this statement yesterday after the House of Representatives passed a bill to raise the debt ceiling and cut spending:

“It is time for Republicans to stop the political games and embrace compromise.”

Senator Reid made this statement right after the bill was tabled to prevent the Senate from taking it up and discussing it.

I am not a strategist.  I don’t play chess because I can’t sit still and concentrate long enough to finish a game.  I barely play checkers, and I am not very good at hearts.  That is one of the reasons I am having so much trouble figuring out what in the world is going on in the debt celing debate.

The Hill reported today that Speaker Boehner will add a balanced-budget amendment to his proposed debt ceiling legislation in order to win the support of conservatives in the House of Representatives.  Senator Harry Reid has stated that such a bill will be dead on arrival.  I am assuming that a stonger bill coming out of the House will give Republicans more negotiating room and that Harry Reid is just making statements for the base, but I really do not know where the truth is in any of this. 

The article reports:

“Republican lawmakers say the Boehner framework would still pave the way for the debt limit to be raised through the 2012 election in two chunks. But it would also mandate that the second hike of the ceiling could only occur after a balanced-budget amendment passed both chambers of Congress and went to the states for ratification.”

The current crop of Washington politicians (with the exception of the Tea Party) have no interest in balancing the budget–it would limit their power.  They have no interest in simplifying the tax code–that would also limit their power.  I hate to be cynical, but I truly feel that what we are currently watching in Washington is an elaborately staged dance between the Democrats and the Republican establishment.  The Tea Party was not invited.  I don’t support a third party, but I am beginning to believe that the solution to Washington is more Tea Party, less Democrats and less Republican establishment.  I have a feeling that no one is going to be satisfied with whatever solution is reached on the debt ceiling.

Yesterday the Los Angeles Times reported that a retired policeman who worked in a gun shop alerted police to a man that he felt was asking some strange questions.  This led to the arrest of Pfc. Naser Jason Abdo

The article reports on Pfc Abdo:

“He’ll likely face federal charges after FBI agents found a large amount of bomb-making materials in his hotel room not far from the base.

“The 21-year-old had gone AWOL from Fort Campbell, Kentucky after refusing deployment to Afghanistan on religious grounds and then being charged with possession of child pornography during his discharge process.”

The article further reports:

“Abdo appeared in a local gunshop Tuesday afternoon, according to Greg Ebert, a retired police officer now working there. Ebert said Abdo purchased shotgun shells, a magazine and six one-pound canisters of gunpowder.

“But he then asked Ebert numerous questions indicating little knowledge of the gunpowder.”

At that point, Mr. Ebert checked with his boss and then alerted police.  Thanks to Mr. Ebert, we avoided another massacre at Fort Hood.

I am not sure whether two incidents can be considered a pattern, but I wonder if when a soldier refuses to deploy because he is a Mulsim he should be looked at more closely.  But for the actions of Mr. Ebert, our military was going to be attacked again by a terrorist member of the military.

On Tuesday the Washington Times posted an article reminding us that Iran has been holding two American hostages since July 31, 2009.  The third hostage, Sarah Shourd, was released in September of last year.  The three were arrested while hiking near the poorly marked border between Iraq and Iran and charged with spying. 

The article states:

“The two Americans are being held in Evin Prison. Tehran’s central clearing house for dissidents, political prisoners and others who fall afoul of the Islamic regime. Miss Shourd was released in September 2010 after enduring 410 days of solitary confinement and after Iran was paid half a million dollars, which Tehran called bail money but was more akin to ransom. After her release, she told of beatings, isolation, threats of summary execution and other mistreatment at the hands of Iranian authorities.”

When America has a weak President, the world is a more dangerous place for everyone.  President Obama needs to make the release of these two young men a priority.  There is no evidence showing that is currently being done.

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted a story entitled, “The Road to a Downgrade.”   These are two graphs from that article.  The article reviews the history that brought us to this point, beginning with FDR.  I strongly suggest you read the entire article for the total picture. 

The article reminds us of some of the false information currently circulating:

“On Monday night Mr. Obama blamed President George W. Bush’s “two wars” for the debt buildup. But national defense spending was 7.4% of GDP and 42.8% of outlays in 1965, and only 4.8% of GDP and 20.1% of federal outlays in 2010. Defense has not caused the debt crisis.

“Many on the left still blame Ronald Reagan, but the debt increase in the 1980s financed a robust economic expansion and victory in the Cold War. Debt held by the public at the end of the Reagan years was much lower as a share of GDP (41% in 1988 and still only 40.3% in 2008) compared to the estimated 72% in fiscal 2011. That Cold War victory made possible the peace dividend that allowed Bill Clinton to balance the budget in the 1990s by cutting defense spending to 3% of GDP from nearly 6% in 1988.”

These are just two of the things to keep in mind as the debate on the debt celing continues.

The article concludes:

“Yet Mr. Obama and most Democrats still oppose any serious reform of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This insistence on no reform reinforces the notion that our entitlement state is too big to afford but also too big to change politically. This is how a AAA country becomes AA, the first step on the march to Greece.”

Please follow the link above to read the entire article.

Investors.com posted an article yesterday about Speaker Boehner’s plan to deal with the debt ceiling.  They acknowledged (along with most of us) that the plan is not perfect, but they also realize the practical aspects of getting a bill through Congress. 

One of the basic facts the article points out:

“Despite the widespread notion that raising tax rates automatically means collecting more revenue for the government, history says otherwise.

“As far back as the 1920s, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon pointed out that the government received a very similar amount of revenue from high-income earners at low tax rates as it did at tax rates several times as high.”

This has to do with the fact that high-income earners often have a better understanding of how money works than the rest of us and can put their money in places that protect it from taxes, such as overseas investments, which do very little to increase tax revenue in America.

The artice reminds us:

“The most basic fact of life is that we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available. It is not idealism to ignore the limits of one’s power. Nor is it selling out one’s principles to recognize those limits at a given time and place, and get the best deal possible under those conditions.

“That still leaves the option of working toward getting a better deal later, when the odds are more in your favor.”

It is time for the Tea Party to step back, take a deep breath, and prepare for 2012.  Anything else will insure that President Obama will be a two-term President and America as we know it will no longer exist.  I realize that is a strong statement, but look how much damage President Obama has done to the Constitution in two and a half years.  This is the time to be practical, even though it is tempting to hold out for radical spending reductions–they are not going to happen with the current Senate and current President.  I wish we could slash and burn the budget, but we really can’t right now.  Hopefully, there will be a time for that after 2012.  Rome was not built in a day, and the leviathan that the American government has become will not go down easily.

It really isn’t Bush’s fault.  Or the tax breaks, or the wars–its the spending–mostly since 2007.

Power Line recently ran a contest to see who could best illustrate the impact runaway spending will have on America if it is not stopped.  This is the link to one of the best entries (Digging A Hole).  It did not win, but it definitely gets the point across.  One of the best comments on the video stated that it gives new meaning to the words “shovel ready.”