Yesterday the Daily Caller reported that it had obtained documents showing that top aides to Iowa Democrat Senator Tom Harkin collaborated with a special interest group and a law firm with a financial interest in the matter to edit the written and oral testimony of a witness at a key investigative hearing last year.  The witness was Josh Pruyn, a disillusioned former employee of the for-profit Westwood College online.

Senator Harkin was investigating for-profit schools. There are also questions about a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report commissioned by Senator Harkin that was also unveiled at the hearing in which Pruyn testified.  Mr. Pruyn testified about the high pressure tactics used to enroll students in the school, but the fact that he was coached by people who would be financially impacted by his testimony undermines his credibility.  The Daily Caller has emails and document revisions showing the roll of the James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich law firm in shaping Mr. Pruyn’s testimony.  His testimony was also influenced by officials of the Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS).

The article reports:

“Despite TICAS’s relatively small $2.3 million budget in 2009, the group was tremendously influential in pushing strict new regulations on the for-profit colleges, finalized June 2, with its former president, Robert Shireman, joining the Obama administration in 2009 as a top deputy to Education Sec. Arne Duncan.”

The danger here is the concept of using the government (Congress and the White House) to pick winners and losers in a particular area of the economy.  This is more Chicago thuggery entering into the business world.  If for-profit colleges can be put under scrutiny by Congress and made to look bad, colleges that have administrators and professors that support the current administration can increase their share of students and profitability.  Keep in mind that even though many private colleges are not declared as ‘for-profit’, they have teachers to pay, buildings to maintain, etc.  If some of the competition is eliminated, they may be more successful and a little freer to raise their student tuition and fees without worry about being undercut by for-profit schools.

There may or may not be something to the charges against Westwood College, but there is definitely something wrong with tampering with a witness preparing to testify before Congress.

This story is based on three sources.  I will list them as I refer to the information they provide. 

Mark Hemingway in his blog at the Weekly Standard reported today that:

“At a lengthy hearing on ATF’s controversial gunwalking operation today, a key ATF manager told Congress he discussed the case with a White House National Security staffer as early as September 2010. The communications were between ATF Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix office, Bill Newell, and White House National Security Director for North America Kevin O’Reilly. Newell said the two are longtime friends. The content of what Newell shared with O’Reilly is unclear and wasn’t fully explored at the hearing.”

This is the first official testimony that I have seen that confirms that the White House was informed as to what was going on with Operation Fast and Furious.  This calls into question many statements made by the President and his Administration.

CBS News reported yesterday:

“It’s the first time anyone has publicly stated that a White House official had any familiarity with ATF’s operation Fast and Furious, which allowed thousands of weapons to fall into the hands of suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels in an attempt to gain intelligence. It’s unknown as to whether O’Reilly shared information with anybody else at the White House.”

It will be interesting to see if the White House continues to deny knowledge of the operation. 

Meanwhile, today the Daily Caller reported:

“Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agent Brian Newell continues to deny Operation Fast and Furious allowed for guns to be “walked” into Mexico.”

House oversight committee chairman Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican, had a very appropriate response to this testimony.  The Daily Caller reported his response:

“”You’re entitled to your own opinions, not to your own facts,” Issa responded. “But there comes a point when I go, “Wait a second: 730 weapons bought by a man who had no money. Every penny he bought with he had to get from somebody.’ You knew that at some point. You knew who was buying them and you allowed it to continue.””

This story does not seem to be going away.

Last night I was privileged to attend an event sponsored by the Liberty Clubhouse that featured Mark Ragsdale, author of CAR WRECK, as the speaker.  Mr. Ragsdale grew up in a car dealership family and owned a number of car dealerships at various times.  Mr. Ragsdale has served as Director for the Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association, as Chairman of a National Dealer 20 group, and as a member of the Kia National Dealer Council.  He spoke about how the government has invaded the free market in the auto industry and the impact that has had on the industry and the consumer.

Mr. Ragsdale spoke of the impact the credit market has on the auto industry–both on dealerships and consumers.  He pointed out that the credit market has been manipulated by the government and that a manipulated market has no predictability, making it very difficult for dealerships to plan for the future. 

Mr. Ragsdale also spoke about the government bailout of Chrysler and General Motors.  He talked about the laws of bankruptcy being violated in the Chrysler bailout (see rightwinggranny.com article of May 8, 2009, for further information).  He also explained how “Cash for Clunkers” had a detrimental effect on consumers–creating a bubble in the used car market because 800,000 cars that were road-worthy, insured, and fully paid off (the requirements for turning in a ‘clunker’) were destroyed.   He reported that the average cost of a new car before government intervention in the auto industry (TARP) was $26,500.  The average cost now is $29,500. 

Mr. Ragsdale also illustrated the myth of the hybrid car.  He pointed out that a hybrid car begins to make economic sense when gas is $7 a gallon, but not before.  One thing he mentioned that I was not aware of is the fact that after 10 years or 100,000 miles, the batteries in hybrid vehicles have to be replaced.  These batteries cost a minimum of $4,000.  There is also, as yet, no environmentally friendly way to dispose of the used batteries.  The Chevy Volt guarantees its battery for 8 years.  The replacement batteries for the Volt cost $10,000.

Mr. Ragsdale also spoke about CAFE standards (Corporate Average Fuel Economy).  These are the regulations that control the gas mileage of the cars the auto industry in America produces.  He pointed out that for the first time in America under President Obama CAFE standards have been raised by executive order through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), rather than through Congressional action.  This is not a move in the right direction–it gives more control to unelected government officials, which is never a good idea.

I strongly recommend CAR WRECK as good summer reading.  A friend of mine who attended the event had been planning to go car shopping tonight.  She told me after she left that she would not go car shopping until she had read the book.  I think that is a really good idea.

For further information, Mark Ragsdale’s website is MarkRagsdale.com.

Bloomberg.com reported today that the August 2 deadline to raise the debt ceiling may not be entirely accurate.  Because tax revenue is coming in faster than expected, the date will probably be later than August 2. 

The article reported:

“The Treasury “has another two weeks after Aug. 2 basically of cash flow that’s available, and they will pay off the interest on the debt as their No. 1 priority to avoid any default,” John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo Securities LLC Silvia, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television yesterday.”

Considering the total lack of agreement on how to handle our out-of-control spending, I suspect that this is good news.

This is the link to Speaker John Boehner’s speech.  In his speech, Representative Boehner stated:

“Last week, the House passed such a plan, and with bipartisan support. It’s called the ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance’ Act. It CUTS and CAPS government spending and paves the way for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which we believe is the best way to stop Washington from spending money it doesn’t have. Before we even passed the bill in the House, the President said he would veto it. 

“I want you to know I made a sincere effort to work with the president to identify a path forward that would implement the principles of Cut, Cap, & Balance in a manner that could secure bipartisan support and be signed into law. I gave it my all. 

“Unfortunately, the president would not take yes for an answer. Even when we thought we might be close on an agreement, the president’s demands changed.”

I realize that Cut, Cap and Balance will probably never pass the current Senate or be signed into law by the current President, but it contains the elements that will allow America to begin to bring her debt under control.  I am hoping that the eventual deal that is worked out includes some serious real cuts in spending.  Unfortunately in the last spending bill passed by Congress, the spending cuts included a lot of accounting gimmicks that were not serious cuts.  Hopefully, the Republicans will not be fooled again. 

Speaker Boehner further points out:

“You see, there is no stalemate in Congress. The House has passed a bill to raise the debt limit with bipartisan support. And this week, while the Senate is struggling to pass a bill filled with phony accounting and Washington gimmicks, we will pass another bill – one that was developed with the support of the bipartisan leadership of the U.S. Senate. 

“Obviously, I expect that bill can and will pass the Senate, and be sent to the President for his signature. If the President signs it, the ‘crisis’ atmosphere he has created will simply disappear. The debt limit will be raised. Spending will be cut by more than one trillion dollars, and a serious, bipartisan committee of the Congress will begin the hard but necessary work of dealing with the tough challenges our nation faces. 

“The individuals doing this work will not be outsiders, but elected representatives of the people, doing the job they were elected to do as outlined in the Constitution. Those decisions should be made based on how they will affect people who are struggling to get a job, not how they affect some politician’s chances of getting reelected.”

A lot of what is going on in Washington right now has to do with the fact that there is an election in a little more than a year.  The actions of both parties need to be observed keeping that in mind.  My question at this point is, “What is the polling done by the White House showing?”  Does the White House believe they will gain a political advantage by shutting down the government and blaming Republicans?  Would the lack of agreement cause the President to declare that he can raise the debt ceiling unilaterally using the Fourteenth Amendment, thus sending the issue to the courts (where it would not be decided until it was no longer relevant)?  I truly wonder whether or not the President has decided that not solving this problem is in his best interest.

President Obama and House Speaker Boehner both gave speeches last night on the debt ceiling and the ongoing negotiations on how to raise it responsibly.  This is the link to the text of the President’s speech.  This is the link to the text of Speaker Boehner’s speech.

First a few comments on the President’s speech.  My comments on Speaker Boehner’s speech will be in the next article.  When President Bush left office, spending was less than $2 trillion a year–it is now almost $4 trillion a year.  That is spending–it has nothing to do with tax cuts or corporate jets and wars are not a major part of that spending.  It has to do with the fact that the House of Representatives, which initiates spending bills, has been out of control since 2006.  The elections of 2010 have begun to correct that. 

The President stated:

“…the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more — on tax cuts for middle-class families to spur the economy; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off.  These emergency steps also added to the deficit.”

Tax cuts are not spending–a tax cut allows people to keep more of THEIR money–that money never belonged to the government.  If the problem is the recession (it partially is), then why not loose regulations on companies, give everyone (including companies) a tax break, develop American energy sources, and set the economy free?

The President also stated:

“Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling — a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before. 

“Understand — raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money.  It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up.  In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine.  Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it.  President Reagan did it 18 times.  George W. Bush did it seven times.  And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills.”  

I suspect at least 70 percent of voters have developed a good understanding of the debt ceiling in recent weeks. 

Regarding the claim that raising the debt ceiling only pays for past expenditures, Bill Kristol pointed out in the Weekly Standard last night:

“That statement might be true about a rise in the debt ceiling that would take us only through the rest of the current fiscal year, for which funds have already been appropriated by Congress. It is simply not true about the increase Obama is asking for, which is designed to cover the next fiscal year and a bit more. The fact is, Obama’s $2.4 trillion increase (a number that never appears in the speech) does precisely what Obama says it doesn’t: it “allow[s] Congress to spend more money.” It is not the case that Obama’s debt ceiling hike “simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up.””

There was no indication in this speech that the President is willing to cut spending.  There is also no indication that his goal of increasing taxes has changed.  There is a basic philosophical divide here.  The goal of the conservative Republicans now in control of the House of Representatives is to reduce spending to approximately 18 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  Traditionally tax receipts are about 18 percent of GDP.  The goal of the Progressives (liberals) in Congress is to increase taxes to bring in 25 percent of GDP to pay for their expanded government programs.  There are some genuine questions as to whether tax revenue can reach 25 percent even if taxes are raised significantly.  There is a tipping point where people simply stop producing because their efforts do not bring sufficient rewards to justify the work.

The President’s speech did not help bridge the gap between the two sides.  It seems as if all President Obama did was dig his heels in on positions that have already been discredited.

NFL.com is reporting that the 32 player representatives voted unanimously this afternoon to approve the deal agreed to early this morning. 

The articlel reports:

“Meanwhile, the sides have agreed to a timeline that would allow some transactions and league business to begin Tuesday, sources with direct knowledge of the situation told NFL Network insider Jason La Canfora.”

I don’t know much about what goes on behind the scenes in the National Football League, but I love to watch football.  This is the year I hope to see my team in the Super Bowl for the first time since the 1960’s! 

The article also reports that there are still some loose ends to be worked out:

“Now that the 32 team representatives approve a deal, the total NFLPA membership would need to vote, with a simple majority required for passage.

“The 10 named plaintiffs in the players’ lawsuit against the league — including Tom Brady, Payton Manning and Drew Brees– must officially inform the court in Minneapolis of their approval of the pact, too.

“Even after that, while training camps would be opened, a true collective bargaining can’t be agreed upon until the NFLPA re-establishes itself as a union. Players will need to vote to do so even as the sides put the finishing touches on a deal; only after the NFLPA is again a union can it negotiate such items as the league’s personal conduct policy and drug testing.”

I think this is good news.  Let the games begin!

This article is based on an opinion piece in today’s Wall Street Journal by Mary Anastasia O’Grady.  I am not linking to the article because the full article is not available without a subscription.

In November 2009, Honduras voted for a new President.  In June 2009, President Manuel Zelaya was removed from office by the military because he was planning to ignore the term limits provision in the constitution in order to seek another term.  Roberto Micheletti was installed as temporary President and the election was scheduled.  Friends of President Zelaya such as the Castro brothers and Hugo Chavez protested that the arrest of President Zelaya was a military coup.  The left demanded a ‘truth commission’ in an attempt to bolster their claims.

The truth commission was formed under the Organization of American States (OAS) and its report was released earlier this month.  The report did not provide the results President Zelaya and his allies were looking for. 

The report reminds us that in June 2009, President Zelaya had stated that he planned to hold a referendum to overturn the term limits required in the constitution. 

The article at the Wall Street Journal reports:

“Honduran institutions, the report says, “were not effective in resolving the crisis…not for lack of actions and resolutions taken but because the authorities’ decisions were ignored and were not acted upon by [the president] who personally took the actions required to execute the referendum.”  The human-rights commission, the prosecutor, the attorney general, the electoral tribunal and the Supreme Court all took measures to try to stop Mr. Zelaya.”

The report attempts to balance the blame–calling Mr. Micheletti’s government illegal.  The report also ignores the dangers of leaving Mr. Zelaya in Honduras rather than deporting him–his followers had already demonstrated their willingness to use violence to achieve their aims. 

Unfortunately, the American State Department and some other nations were on the wrong side of these events as they were happening.  However, democracy and the rule of law triumphed in the country of Honduras.  And now the events have been studied and the lawfulness of what was done has been proven.

Haaretz is reporting today that Israeli senior defense officials have stated that one of the consequences of the ‘Arab spring’ is the increase in the amount of weapons being smuggled into the Gaza Strip. 

The article reports:

“In the past few months, Hamas has acquired improved high-trajectory rockets, ready-made explosive devices, anti-tank missiles and possibly anti-aircraft missiles, the sources told Haaretz.”

The article further reports:

“The situation has been exacerbated by the anarchy in the Sinai, former Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter told Haaretz. “The Sinai went from being an area through which they smuggle weapons to an area through which they simply transfer weapons,” he said. “No Egyptian security official dares to confront the Bedouin anymore.”

“Dichter said the construction of the steel fence on the Rafah border, which Egypt began in the last year of Hosni Mubarak’s rule, had been stopped, and parts of it were already being dismantled by the Bedouin.”

The article also reports that the civil war in Libya has also resulted in more weapons coming into Gaza.  After the Libyan army lost control of weapons stored in the eastern part of the country, local arms dealers made contact with leaders in Gaza and began smuggling them into the Gaza strip.

This is not a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.  There were probably protesters in Egypt and other countries who had a sincere desire for freedom, but they were not allowed to gain or keep control of the revolutionary movements.  As soon as Hosni Mubarak had stepped down, the Muslim Brotherhood began its move to take over the country.  Abboud el-Zomor, who was in prison for his role in the assassination of Anwar Sadat, was released in March.  Known radical Muslims who had been exiled under Mubarak came back into Egypt.  Freedom in the Middle East is a wonderful idea, but Sharia Law, the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood, is not compatible with freedom.  We need to keep that in mind when we determine which countries and revolutions we are willing to support.

Yesterday a website of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University posted an article explaining why Social Security checks are not at risk if the debt ceiling is reached.  This is the explanation:

“The Social Security trust fund holds about $2.4 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds, which its trustees are legally entitled to redeem whenever Social Security is running a current account deficit. Thus, if we reach the debt ceiling (which I continue to think is a remote prospect, even if less remote than it seemed a week ago), this is what will happen. The Social Security trust fund will go to Treasury and cash in some of its securities, using the proceeds to send checks to recipients. Each dollar of debt that is redeemed will lower the outstanding public debt by a dollar. That enables the Treasury to borrow another dollar, without violating the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is not a prohibition on borrowing new money; it is a prohibition on increasing the total level of public indebtedness. If Social Security cashes in some of its bonds, the Treasury can borrow that same amount of money from someone else.”

There will be no excuse if Social Security checks do not go out as usual.  The only possible reason would be the search for political advantage by those people currently in power. 

Logically, in a free society, you should be able to pick any news source at random and get approximately the same stories–maybe with a slightly different slant–but essentially the same stories.  Well, we seem to have lost that concept somewhere.

On Friday, Newsbusters.org reported that despite polling showing public support for a balanced budget amendement, ABC, CBS, and NBC did not report on the Cut, Cap and Balance Plan until last week.  The article also mentioned that none of the three networks mentioned that the majority of Americans favored a balanced budget amendment despite the fact that polling results have shown as many as 72 percent of Americans favor the idea.

The article reports:

“At CBS, correspondent Whit Johnson on the July 17 “Evening News” was the first to write CCB’s obituary without acknowledging public support: “They want immediate cuts, an aggressive cap on future spending, and constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.” Senate Democrats say the proposal has no chance.”

“Correspondents Bill Plante and Nancy Cordes joined the hit parade in the following days, mimicking each others reports on the “Early Show” and “Evening News.”

“On the July 18 “Early Show,” Plante called CCB “dead on arrival,” failing to mention the favorable polls: “It would revert spending back to 2008 levels and cap the budget at eighteen percent of gross domestic product. It also calls for a balanced budget amendment, a provision Democrats say is dead on arrival.””

It is unfortunate that the major networks chose not to tell the whole story.

The article also reports:

“On the cable side, MRC analyst Matt Hadro reported that CNN ignored the findings of its own poll released Thursday demonstrating broad suport for capping spending and implementing a balanced budget amendment.”

There is a reason Fox News has become so popular–they tend to tell both sides of the story.

Football lost a hero this week.  It wasn’t a player, or even an owner–it was Myra Kraft, the wife of New England Patriot’s owner Robert Kraft.  Mrs. Kraft did not call attention to herself, she worked quietly and tirelessly behind the scenes managing the Robert and Myra Kraft Family Foundation, serving as president of the New England Patriots Charitable Foundation and contributing her time and efforts to many other charities in the Boston area.  As a resident of Massachusetts, I know she will be sorely missed, not only by her family, but by all those who knew her and knew of her involvement in many worthwhile causes.

I apologize if this article seems disrespectful to the President, but I watched him have a temper tantrum on national television last night.  Had any one of my grandchildren spoken in the tone he used with the body language he used, they would have been sent to their room.  The President’s press conference did nothing to bridge the divide–it made compromise considerably more difficult.  The message I heard from the President at the press conference was:  the Republicans have to compromise, the 2010 election is irrelevant, I am going to make everyone come talk to me tomorrow morning, and I am going to hold my breath until I turn blue.  That was my impression.

Today’s Daily Caller had a slightly different reaction.  Neil Munro posted an article pointing out that the problem for the President was that because John Boehner stood his ground on no new taxes, the President’s plan to use this situation to boost his chances for re-election in 2012 did not go as planned.  If serious tax increases are part of the eventual deal, there will be a serious split in the Republican Party.  There will also be a problem getting those tax increases through the House of Representatives.  Evidently, what caused the breakdown in the debt ceiling talks was the fact that the President added a last-minute demand for $400 billion in tax increases.  This is in addition to any tax revenue that would result from the repeal of the ‘Bush tax cuts.’  I will admit that I am sick of hearing about the ‘Bush tax cuts.’  In December, when the compromise budget deal was reached, the President stated that raising taxes on anyone would slow economic growth.  Has he changed his mind?  Did that statement (like so many others) have an expiration date?

The article reported:

“Boehner explained his decision to work with the Senate by saying the president’s negotiating position was unclear.

“”Never once did the President ever come to the table with a plan,” he said. “We were always pushing … [but] dealing with them is like dealing with Jell-O,” he said.

“”I will not get into the partisan sniping that I heard earlier [from Obama], but I can tell you there was every effort to avoid the real [budget] cuts we need to make to preserve the fiscal authority of the country … [and to preserve] and the entitlement programs,” he said.”

I think that sums up where we are now.  The Republicans have been put in a position where they are expected to negotiate with themselves.  That is never a good place to be.  The question is whether or not the words of the President last night will cause a panic in the financial markets on Monday morning.  If that is the case, we have another example of creating a crisis with the idea of using it to put forth a plan that otherwise would be unacceptable.

This post is based on two articles–one in the U. K. Daily Mail today and one at a website called Infowars.com yesterday.

The Daily Mail reports:

This is either polical correctness run amok or lack of knowledge of what the actual threat is.  It is unfortunate that these are the people entrusted by the public with the duty of protecting the American public from terrorism.  We can do better than this.

Jeff Sessions’ website posted a statement Congressman Sessions made before Congress yesterday detailing some of the problems in reaching agreement on the debt ceiling.  Some excerpts from the statement:

First, I would like to address the myth that the president has a $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan. The only plan the White House has ever put on paper is his February budget, which doubles our national debt.

The president has never put a single spending cut plan on paper and he has no proposal to slash the deficit. If he does, it’s a closely guarded secret. And if such a secret plan does exist it should be made public this very afternoon. I’d like to see it. I’m sure millions of Americans feel the same.

We also have no debt plan from Senate Democrats. In fact, they haven’t even passed a budget in 813 days.

As of now, there is only one debt limit plan on paper. Only one plan available for public scrutiny and review. That’s the plan we are debating today: cut, cap, and balance. It cuts spending immediately, it caps it so it doesn’t go up, and it requires the passage of a balanced budget amendment to ensure Washington ends the deficit spending once and for all. The American people do not trust Washington to pass some grand budget deal with tax hikes that never go away and spending cuts that never materialize.

They are wise to the gimmicks and accounting tricks. That’s why I’ve introduced legislation requiring 7 days to review any bill increasing the debt limit.

In fact, Washington Democrats are resisting cut, cap, and balance because they know there’s no gimmick or accounting trick to get around it.

If this becomes law, Washington will have to end the spending spree. There will be no other option. These are the responsible choices families, cities, and states make every year.

In Alabama, Governor Robert Bentley oversaw an across-the-board cut of 15 percent from the General Fund in the current year because of a constitutional prohibition on deficit spending. For next year, he has proposed cuts of up to 45 percent for some state agencies. Unlike the federal government, our state is legally obligated to live within its means.

Another myth I’d like to address is the idea that our current budget crisis is the result of two wars and a tax cut. Let’s consider that claim. The total cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, over the entire last decade, is $1.3 trillion. Again, that’s over the last decade. This year alone the deficit is expected to be $1.4 trillion dollars. War costs represent only 4 percent of total outlays over the last ten years. The total amount of money spent since the president took office is $8.5 trillion dollars. By the end of his first three years in office we will have added $5 trillion to our gross federal debt. We are borrowing almost half of what we’re spending every single day. In the last two years, non-defense discretionary spending has soared 24 percent. The stimulus package alone–enacted into law in a single day in 2009–cost more than the entire war in Iraq. Annual spending when President Bush took office was less than $2 trillion. Today, it’s almost $4 trillion. It will be almost $6 trillion by the end of the decade.

There is only one honest answer to the question over why our debt is rising so fast: out-of-control domestic spending.

Another myth that’s circulating which I’d like to address concerns the budget summary from the Gang of Six. The authors of the summary claim that their approach would reduce the deficit by $3.7 trillion. But my staff on the Budget Committee can only find $1.2 trillion in reduced spending, along with a tax increase of $1 trillion. Where does the other $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction come from? Chairman Conrad, one of the members of the Gang of Six, even says the outline has a $1.5 trillion tax cut. But this is compared against a baseline that assumes a $3.5 trillion tax increase. It’s just an accounting gimmick. The real cost of the tax changes could be an increase as large as $2 trillion.

This is why we need more than a handout–we need legislative text.

I realize that is a lot to read, but it is the best summary of where we are now that I have seen.  I know there are reports that a deal is in the works, so the facts on the ground may change quickly.  I understand that the Republicans only control one half of one house of the government.  I also understand that according to the surveys I have seen, two-thirds of the American people support spending cuts–not tax increases.  Two-thirds of Americans also support not raising the debt ceiling, which I think is a bad idea.  I understand the frustration that would cause people to be against raising the debt ceiling, but I don’t believe that that is the answer.  I don’t expect a perfect deal, but I am looking for immediate spending cuts.  Just as an additional bit of information, the federal deficit at the end of 2008 was $10,024,724.  As of the end of 2010, the federal deficit was $13,561,623.  That is considerable growth in two years.

One thing to remember in this debate is that the government brings in about 18 percent of the Gross Domestic Product in tax revenue.  President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have a goal of increasing the federal budget from the 20 percent it has averaged in the past to 25 percent of the Gross Domestic Product.  Unless taxes are significantly increased, which may or may not increase revenue, that is not a workable long-term business plan.

Steven Hayward posted an article at Power Line today noting some places where spending might be reasonably cut.  He points out that although the current converstaion seems to be focused on Social Security and Medicare, there are other prorgrams that have grown totally out of control and need to be looked at. 

Mr. Hayward points out:

“The four largest federally funded poverty programs–Medicaid, food stamps, housing subsidies, and supplemental income programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit–cost $650 billion last year, compared to $451 billion for Medicare.  The real problem is not the high spending amounts per se, but the way they have expanded willy-nilly beyond the ranks of the truly poor, which has run up their price tags beyond where they ought to be.  Some states offer benefits up to 200 percent of the poverty line, and Obamacare includes subsidies for people up to 400 percent of the poverty line–people ordinarily called “middle class.””

These programs need to be reexamined not only for their eligibility requirements, but also to evaluate the success of the program.  Programs that do not do what they were designed to do need to be scrapped.  The only thing that seems to be immortal in today’s world is a government program.

Yesterday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about the departure statistics of federal employees.  It seems that the way the majority of federal employees leave their jobs is through death. 

The article points out:

“The federal government fired 0.55% of its workers in the budget year that ended Sept. 30 — 11,668 employees in its 2.1 million workforce. Research shows that the private sector fires about 3% of workers annually for poor performance, says John Palguta, former research chief at the federal Merit Systems Protection Board, which handles federal firing disputes.

“The 1,800-employee Federal Communications Commission and the 1,200-employee Federal Trade Commission didn’t lay off or fire a single employee last year. The SBA had no layoffs, six firings and 17 deaths in its 4,000-employee workforce.

“When job security is at a premium, the federal government remains the place to work for those who want to avoid losing a job. The job security rate for all federal workers was 99.43% last year and nearly 100% for those on the job more than a few years.”

Federal workers make more than their private sector counterparts.  This chart is from a website called InvestorsInsight.com:

Would you leave a job that paid twice as much as anyone else would pay you?

ABC News reported yesterday that Senator Harry Reid will schedule a cloture vote on the Republican Cut, Cap and Balance Bill on Saturday.  The article goes on the explain that there is no chance of the bill getting through the Senate.  I tend to agree with that statement–if the bill had any chance of passing, Harry Reid would make sure it never came up for a vote.  What the vote on cloture will do is put Senators on the record as to who is actually serious about cutting government spending and who is not.

Dan Henniger in today’s Wall Street Journal posted a column about the debate on the budget ceiling.  Mr. Henniger points out that the root of the debate has to do with the size of government:

“What Republicans and ideologically independent voters want is a GOP candidate willing–and more importantly, able–to engage Barack Obama frontally and in detail over the future of the spending commitments embedded in the events of the past three years and the past 70 years. Mr. Obama wants spending to rise to 25% of GDP to support those commitments for the next 70 years. Until we settle this and the taxes it implies, everything else a candidate may propose, such as devolving power away from Washington, is beside the point because it won’t be possible.”

Part of the Cut, Cap and Balance Bill includes the statement:

“We need statutory, enforceable caps to align federal spending with average revenues at 18% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with automatic spending reductions if the caps are breached.”

I don’t know if any of the principles in Cut, Cap and Balance will make the final cut, but in listening to the debate, a few things stand out.  Spending cuts go against the grain of most Congressmen serving in Washington.  Even if spending cuts are promised, if there is not a mechanism to ensure that they occur, they will not happen.  We saw that principle at work during the Reagan years–the Democrats promised spending cuts and tax cuts–the tax cuts happened, the spending cuts never did.  Unless the spending is capped as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, government will continue to grow and spending will continue to spiral out of control.

I am concerned that any budget cuts promised in the compromise that is eventually reached will never happen.  Budget cuts scheduled for more than two years away, somehow disappear as the time for them draws near.  All we can do is hope that there are enough grown-ups in Washington to see the severity of the budget problem and be willing to deal with it.  I am not sure there are.

On Sunday, the New York Post posted an article giving the readers some idea of where the money goes. 

The article asks the question:

“…just ask yourself this simple question: When did it become the primary function of the federal government to send millions of Americans checks?”

That is an interesting question.  The article points out:

“The feds now borrow 43 cents of every dollar they spend.  Under Obama, outlays have soared to nearly a quarter of GDP (the historical average is just under 20 percent) — and once ObamaCare starts to fully kick in around 2014, it will only rise.”

The article also reminds us of the history of Medicare.  When Medicare began in 1966, the cost was $3 billion.  Congress predicted that by1990 it would cost about $12 billion, allowing for inflation.  The actual figure was $107 billion.  The future unfunded obligations of Medicare total at least $36 trillion.  This is typical of government programs–they never get smaller and they rarely stay within the bounds of their estimated cost!

The article further points out:

“Yet the president and the Democrats still refuse to put meaningful spending cuts on the table–and refuse completely to deal with the entitlement monster.  Even though they know the numbers don’t work, they’re trying to lock in Obama’s sky-high spending as the new normal–and then up the ante.

“The debt-ceiling cage match is the culmination of the Democrats’ 75-year-long fight to establish a voting bloc of dependents under the false flags of “compassion” and “social justice.”  It’s sapped out strength, created a welfare mentality and, if unchecked, will reduce us to a nation of aging, resentful beggars with eyes cast permanently toward Washington.”

That statement pretty much covers the situation.

Overspending by the government is not a new thing.  In October of 2009, Heritage.org posted a list of 50 examples of government waste.  Please follow the link and read the list.  In October 2010, Heritage.org posted a plan to cut $343 billion from the federal budget.  The link provides a very specific list of cuts that can be made in 2012 to reach that number–something Congress (other than Paul Ryan) has been willing to do.

Last night the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.  The bill passed 234 to 190, with five Republicans voting against the bill and nine Democrats voting against it.  The article posted at Hot Air quotes Paul Ryan:

“”The House of Representatives continues to advance serious solutions to get our budget on the path to balance and our economy on the path to prosperity.  The Cut, Cap and Balance legislation passed today cuts $5.8 trillion in spending over the next decade, locks in those savings with enforceable caps on spending, and forces Washington to finally live within its means with a Balanced Budget Amendment.

“”The coming debt crisis is the single most predictable economic disaster in the history of this nation. Unfortunately, the White House refuses to put forth a credible plan to solve our spending problem, and Senate Democrats have not passed a budget in over 800 days. I remain hopeful that responsible leaders will work with us to advance specific solutions that uphold our solemn commitment to leave the next generation with a stronger, more prosperous nation than the one we inherited.””

Michele Bachmann voted against the bill stating that the only way she would be willing to raise the debt ceiling would be if it included a full repeal of Obamacare.  Paul Broun of Georgia also voted against the bill because he had made a pledge to his constituents that he would not raise the debt ceiling.

The article at Hot Air also points out that this is the second Republican budget proposal this session, while the Democrats have not passed a budget in more than 800 days–they are happy just to criticize Republican ideas rather than come up with their own ideas.

Realistically, I don’t think Cut, Cap, and Balance will get past the House of Representatives.  What the bill does accomplish is to make clear what the goals of the Republicans are in regard to spending and debt.  Even if the bill never sees the light of day in the Senate, the fact that the bill exists will give voters a clear choice in November 2012.

I am in favor of legal immigration.  My family is made up of people from at least four countries and three major religions.  I am glad they all came here and managed to get together and form my family.  There are family stories of extreme poverty and also stories of major successes.  There are things we can be proud of and things we would rather not talk about, but we are all Americans.  We have family traditions that go back to our roots, and we have family traditions that are totally based in American traditions.  But we are all Americans and we believe in this country and the laws of this country.  That is part of what makes America one country.

Britain has a problem.  According to a CBN News report dated Sunday, a group calling itself Muslims Against the Crusades is proposing that two towns in Yorkshire and one in East London be turned into states ruled only by Islamic law, entirely outside British common law.

The article reports:

“Some government officials in the towns also agree that the Muslims Against the Crusades proposal doesn’t represent the wishes of most of the Muslim population there.

“Still, Christians are fighting the proposal, saying Islamic law isn’t compatible with Britain’s Christian heritage and values.

“Last month, Baroness Caroline Cox introduced a bill into the House of Lords to protect Muslim women from abuses under Sharia law.

“”In Britain, we have a country where many people have died to protect the democratic freedoms enshrined in our laws and our culture,” Cox said.

“”And we have now allowed an alternative quasi-legal system to develop in our land, which is fundamentally incompatible with those democratic freedoms and where many citizens, especially women, are suffering as a result,” she said.”

Currently there are 751 Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones in France–these are zones in France that the French state does not control. They range from two zones in the medieval town of Carcassone to twelve in the heavily Muslim town of Marseilles, with hardly a town in France lacking in its ZUS. The ZUS came into existence in late 1996 and according to a 2004 estimate, nearly 5 million people live in them.  This information is from an article at Daniel Pipes.org written in November 2006 and updated in January 2010.

Is this the direction western civilization is headed?  Can western civilization survive going in this direction?

Yesterday Holly Robichaud posted a column in the Boston Herald which beautifully listed the scare tactics currently being used by Democrat lawmakers to try to take more of your money.  Holly lists six myths the Democrats are using in their quest for more money.

The myths:

1.  If Congress does not raise the debt ceiling, Social Security checks will not go out.  I reported at rightwinggranny.com on July 14th:

“”The responsibility of the Social Security Administration per se, my boss, Commissioner Astrue, is to in fact determine how much in the way of benefit payments people are supposed to receive,” Goss said. “We send that information actually over to the Department of the Treasury. They are the ones who actually send out the payments, whether it’s electronic funds, transfers, or check.””

Just for the record, even without raising the debt ceiling, there is enough money coming into the treasury to pay social security checks.

2.  Republicans are unwilling to negotiate.  The Republicans have laid numerous specific plans on the table.  The only specific plan laid out by the Democrats was the President’s budget, which was so bad it was voted down in the Senate 97 to 0.  The President has also stated that he is unwilling to sign a short-term solution.

3.  Medicare is being cut for seniors.  Just for the record, there are $ 500 billion cuts to Medicare in Obamacare.  No Republican plan cuts Medicare for anyone over the age of 55.  The Republican plan is to restructure it for younger people in order to prevent the program from going broke in the very near future.

4.  The national debt is Bush’s fault.  It is true that President Bush did not control spending–but if you look at spending during the Bush years, you will notice that it increased dramatically when the Democrats took over the House of Representatives.  Technically, spending comes from the House of Representatives.  President Bush and past presidents created $10 trillion of the debt–President Obama has created $4 trillion in just three years.  It’s the spending, stupid!

5.  Republicans are playing politics with the debt ceiling crisis.  The Democrats have not passed a budget in 810 days.  Instead, they have simply been criticizing all of the Republican proposals.  Who is playing politics?

6.  Taxes need to be raised.  No, they don’t.  They might need to be revised, but this is not the time for that.  It really is the spending.  The only sector of the economy that has grown in this recession is the government.  Government employees now make about 150 % of what people in the private sector make.  It’s the spending, stupid!

I just want to post one picture of government spending.  Do you think there might be room for cuts here?

It’s time to take another look at how the government spends OUR money.  We need to remember that it is our money–not the government’s.  We earned it.  We are obligated to give a small amount to the government for their expenses, but we are not obligated to support unnecessary government bureaucracies.

I don’t consider myself an unsympathetic person; however, I do believe that most of the time people should suffer the consequences of their own behavior.  I may be a minority in that belief if the following story is any indication of current thinking.

Today Charleston’s Post and Courier posted a story about how the new requirement for identification in order to vote in South Carolina may disenfranchise some voters.  The example they cite is Everett Garlington, a resident of West Ashley.  Mr. Garlington has a problem that will prevent him from voting under the new law.  He lost his driver’s license.  He could get a replacement, but because he owes $160 to the Department of Motor Vehicles because of turning in license plates late, he can’t afford to get a new license.

The article goes on to explain that requiring voters to identify themselves is discriminatory, etc.–the usual arguments.  Those protesting the requirement for identification compare this requirement to activities of the KKK and other racist groups.

The article reports:

“Representatives from several opposition groups said Monday their immediate goal is to petition U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to strike down the law as a violation of the Voting Rights Act.”

Now stop and think a minute.  There are a few obvious questions I would like to ask at this point.  If Mr. Garlington is still driving, is he breaking the law?  If he pays the fine that he incurred, he gets his license back, and the problem is solved.  The problem is not the law–it is the fact that Mr. Garlington owes a fine he has not paid.  If he did not have a license, he would be eligible for a free identification card, and he would be able to vote.  We live in a country where identification is needed to do certain things–buy cigarettes and alcohol, board an airplane, buy certain cough or allergy medication, etc.  Would the writer of this article have us believe that the majority of poor residents in South Carolina do not smoke, drink, buy cough medicine or fly airplanes?   Seems a bit of a stretch to me.

Said by Tre Hargett, Tennessee secretary of state:

“I think that nothing could disenfranchise an eligible voter more than finding out that ineligible voters are voting.”

This quote is taken from an NPR article on voter identification cited in a Hot Air article today.  In reporting on the drive for voter identification, NPR has pushed the Democrat Party line–“…minorities, students, the poor and disabled — those most likely to vote Democratic — will be hurt the most.”  I would just like to mention that if any of those minorities, students, or poor and disabled smoke, buy alcohol, or ever get on an airplane, they need a photo ID.  Certainly voting is as important as those activities.  Supporters of voter identification laws say the rules are needed to ensure honest elections.  After what we have seen with bogus voter registrations in some of our major states, I agree.

Fox Business reported today that more that 400 companies have sent a letter to Congress urging repeal of a $20 billion medical-device tax scheduled to go into effect in 2013.  This is one of many taxes scheduled to go into effect after the 2012 election–the purpose of the tax increases is to attempt to pay for Obamacare.  The companies are asking for a repeal of the 2.3% excise tax on medical-device manufacturers. 

There were two letters–one to the House of Representatives and one to the Senate.  The letters stated:

“We believe that implementation of this $20 billion excise tax will adversely impact patient care and innovation, and will substantially increase the costs of health care.”

One of the things to remember when we hear complaints about the cost of drugs and medical devices in America is that a very large percentage of what we pay goes to research and development of new drugs and devices.  If we intend to keep moving forward in medical science, we need to allow the companies developing drugs and devices to reap the rewards of their research and development.  Like it or not, profit is a strong motive–it works.  To impose higher taxes on medical device manufacturers will increase the cost to the consumer (tax hikes on corporations are always passed on to the consumer–the companies never pay them!).

The best solution to this problem is twofold–first repeal the tax, then repeal Obamacare.