CBS News New York reported yesterday that New York Jets trainer Sal Alosi has been suspended without pay for the remainder of the season and fined an additional $25,000 for tripping Miami Dolphins cornerback Nolan Carroll on the sidelines during Sunday’s game.

I like football, and I am a Jets fan, but there is no excuse for this kind of behavior.  Mr. Alosi has apologized, but there is still no excuse.  It’s a game.  Just because it is a game, you do not have license to act like a petulant five-year old.  I realize that there have been other incidents of this type in the past, but I hope that suspending Mr. Alosi and fining him will put an end to this sort of behavior in the entire league.  It simply does not belong in the sport.

The American Thinker is reporting today that Japan has cut its corporate tax rate from 40 percent to 35 percent in order to spur economic growth.  According to the article:

“The DPJ-led government had already unveiled a “new growth strategy” under which it pledged to lower the 40 per cent effective corporation tax rate to a level closer to that of competitor nations – put at 25-30 per cent – during the next decade.”

Dogs are more obedient than cats–I don’t think anyone would argue with that–but cat’s are smarter!  Today’s UK Mail Online posted a story about a five-year old cat named Pepper who saved his owners home from being destroyed by a fire. 

Pepper sounds like a really neat cat.  Pepper has learned to open a window in the kitchen of his house to let himself out at night.  A fire broke out in his owners home while his owners were Christmas shopping.  Pepper simply opened the window and let himself out.  The smoke escaping from the opened window alerted the neighbors to the fact that there was a problem.  The fire department was called, the owners were called and told what was happening and Pepper and his owners still have a place to live.  Because the fire department was called, the damaged was limited to smoke damage mainly in the kitchen.

I hope Pepper has a really great Christmas.

CNS News reported today on the Presidential signing of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.  Just for the record, I fully approve of healthy, hunger-free kids–it’s the law part I don’t like.

The article reports:

“First Lady Michelle Obama said of deciding what American children should eat: “We can’t just leave it up to the parents.”” 

I must be incredibly old-fashioned, but I think you can leave it up to the parents.  If there is a problem with that, you might consider better educating the parents about nutrition.

The article explains:

“The law gives the federal government for the first time the authority to regulate the food sold at local schools, including in vending machines.”

I understand that the generation growing up is overweight, but are we addressing the actual problem or is this just another federal power grab?  Would it make more sense for American consumers to begin reading the labels on the food they buy?  Would it make more sense to tell mothers to buy whole grain bread for their children?  Would it make more sense for the elementary schools who have eliminated recess to reinstate it?  Would it make more sense for the schools that are currently charging fees for students to participate in athletic programs to drop those fees so that more children can participate?  What is the gym class requirement in our high schools?  Does it involve sweat?  Can high schools put in an hour of exercise two or three times a week?

As you can see, there are many other ways to address the problem of obesity in our children.  I don’t think a power grab is the right answer.

Today’s Wall Street Journal is reporting that U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson has ruled on the consitutionality of the Obama Healthcare Law.

According to the Journal:

“In a 42-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said the law’s requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.””

The question at hand is whether the government can force you to buy health insurance.  There have been two prior lower court rulings that upheld that right; this judge said it was not legal.  Obviously, this matter will be going to the Supreme Court.  Hopefully, the matter can be moved forward quickly and a decision reached.

The judge pointed out that the only part of the healthcare law that his ruling strikes down is the requirement for individuals to buy health insurance and the parts of the law related to that requirement. 

I really have trouble with the concept that the government can require you to purchase something.  Massachusetts has had a similar health insurance plan in place since 2006.  It has created more problems than it has solved.  Health insurance premiums have risen to the point that the state has had to step in to attempt to control the price increases.  This has resulted in insurance companies changing the policies and benefits available.  Requiring everyone to have insurance has not been successful.  Emergency rooms lines in hospitals have not gotten shorter as the people who supported this bill claimed they would–they are the same or longer. 

The biggest problem with the requirement to buy insurance is the requirement that insurance companies cannot turn anyone down.  What has happened in Massachusetts is that people have paid the fine for not having insurance until they needed major medical care.  At that point they took out insurance, had the necessary procedures down, then dropped the insurance and went back to paying the fine.  This has created serious problems for the insurance companies.  What happens in this case is that the state collects the fines paid for not being insured, so the insurance company has no way to recoup the large, sudden expenditure needed to cover the ‘new’ patient.  Over a very short period of time, this is guaranteed to put private insurance companies out of business.  

Yesterday is history. Tomorrow is a mystery. Today is a gift. That’s why we call it ‘The Present’.”

                  Eleanor Roosevelt

The discussions on the bill to keep the current tax rates are getting very interesting.  The orginial deal negotiated with President Obama is dead.  The new deal has everything in it except the kitchen sink, and that’s probably there somewhere in the small print.  There is a tremendous amount of anger on both sides of the political spectrum (although for very different reasons).

On Friday, CNS News reported that the Senate won’t hold hearings before they vote on the Obama tax bill.  The bill is expected to be brought to the floor next week.

According to the article:

“…the bill also includes provisions that extend special tax breaks for autom racetracks and movie and television producers and that transfer revenues derived from federal excise taxes on rum to the governments of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, which use the money for, among other things, subsidizing the local production of rum.”

On Friday, CNS News also reported some of the details of the rum subsidy.  According to the article:

“…Section 755 of the bill, which can be found on the 68th page of the 74-page bill.

“The provision extends so-called “cover-over” payments that the federal government has been making to the governments of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Essentially, the program returns nearly all of the excise-tax revenue that the federal government collects on the sale of rum produced in these two U.S. territories.

“Currently, federal law charges an excise tax on all liquor produced and sold in the United States, including rum from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

“The special provision in the bill returns to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands $13.25 of the $13.50 per gallon excise tax on the rum produced there. In fiscal year 2008, those payments amounted to $371 million for Puerto Rico and almost $100 million for the U.S. Virgin Islands, according to a Congressional Research Service report.”

I have said this before.  A simple bill exchanging a continuation of the current tax rates for an extension of unemployment benefits is not wonderful, but acceptable.  A bill that includes every spending idea Congress can think of before the end of the year is not acceptable.  I hope this bill goes down in flames.  The Republicans can clean up the mess when they take over Congress.  If they fail to do so, they can expect to be voted out of office in November 2012.

One of the duties of the President of the United States is to appoint people to positions within the government.  Since theoretically no one person has a whole lot of authority, that really shouldn’t be too much of a big deal.  Well, sometimes it is. 

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article about the recent elections at Delta Airlines where the flight attendants of the company decided to remain a union-free shop.  After a five-week campaign, the flight attendants voted 9,544 to 8,778 to remain union free.  Unfortunately that was not the end of the story.  The Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) has alleged that Delta interfered with the election by pressuring the flight attendants to vote against the union.  Delta denies the charges.  Now the union is asking the National Mediation Board (NMB) for a revote.  Well, let’s look at who President Obama has placed on the NMB–two of the panels three members are former airline union officials.

The article concludes:

“Delta workers have been courageous in their repeated attempts to resist this tide and remain masters of their own fate; unfortunately, the corrupt bargain between Big Labor and liberal politicians is conspiring to strangle their democratically expressed wishes.  It is outrageous that a federal board charged with resolving labor disputes is comprised of former union officials.  How can two former airline-union leaders possible adjudicate the Delta election in a dispassionate manner?  How is it possible that Puchala and Hoglander (the two board members) will not be forced to recuse themselves in llight of their obvious loyalties?”

Union leaders have become the new ‘greedy robber barrons’ of the past.  It is dangerous to have them so tightly woven into the fabric of our government.

In November of 2010 a message was sent to Congress.  Some of it came from a group known as the Tea Party and some of it came from simple, ordinary Americans who had never been active in politics before.  In some cases, these were the same people.  The message was pretty basic–it had three parts–stop the runaway spending, get back to laws based on the U. S. Constitution, and stop taking so much of my income away from me in the form of taxes and fees.  There were many variations, additions, and other aspects of this message, but those three points were at the core.  Well, here we are five or six weeks later, what are the results of the message?  Both parties have the same leadership in Washington, and the current activity in Congress appears to be more of what was happening before the message was sent.  I guess they haven’t gotten the message yet.  The question is, “Will they get it in January?”  The answer is, “I don’t know.”

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article entitled, “I Didn’t Vote For A Christmas Tree.”  Mr. Hinderaker states:

“For several years, I have assumed that my taxes, and those of many millions of Americans, would skyrocket in 2011. So when I first learned the terms of the compromise between the President and the Republican leadership–most of the Bush-era tax rates made permanent, tax rates for upper-income taxpayers extended for two years, a one-year two percent payroll tax holiday, long a favorite conservative policy–I thought, and wrote, that it was an excellent deal for conservatives.”

I agree with him.  I didn’t think it was an excellent deal, but it was a deal I could live with–everyone got something and no one got everything.  Unfortunately the people currently serving in Congress were not content to let the original agreement stand. 

Mr. Hinderaker cites an Associated Press article posted at Breitbart.com that describes what has happened as turning the tax-cut bill into a Christmas tree with ornaments.  Some of the ornaments listed:

“The tax deal, reached behind the scenes and still informal, now includes ethanol subsidies for rural folks, commuter tax breaks for their cousins in the cities and suburbs and wind and solar grants for the environmentalists–all aimed at winning votes, particularly from reluctant Democrats. …

“Almost $5 billion in subsidies for corn-based ethanol and a continuing tariff to protect against ethanol imports were wrapped up and placed on the tree Thursday night for farm-state lawmakers and agribusiness lobbyists. Environmentalists won more grants for developers of renewable energy, like wind and solar.

“For urban lawmakers, there’s a continuation of about-to-expire tax breaks that could save commuters who use mass transit about $1,000 a year. Other popular tax provisions aimed at increasing production of hybrid automobiles, biodiesel fuel, coal and energy-efficient household appliances would be extended through the end of 2011 under the new add-ons.

“The package also includes an extension of two Gulf Coast tax incentive programs enacted after Hurricane Katrina to spur economic development in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.”

There are two things that can happen at this point.  This now horrible tax bill can be defeated (as it should be) and all of our taxes can go up drastically in January.  At that point, the first business of the new Congress should be to pass a tax law making current tax rates permanent, instituting low estate taxes (the money has already been taxed at least once), and extending unemployment benefits for six months if needed.  No pork allowed–no earmarks allowed.  If the leadership in Congress does not change its ways, it should be voted out–in both parties.  The Republicans need to understand that if they do not start listening to the American voters, there will be a third party–but it will be the Republican party.  The energy in this election on the Republican side came from the Tea Party.  The Republicans had best remember that.

The other option is that Congress can pass the original bill with no add ons.  According the public opinion polling that has been done, that would also be acceptable to most Americans. 

There is no third option. 

This article is based on an old newspaper article, but it caught my eye when Michael Yon put up a related story on Facebook.  On August 11 of this year the New York Times posted an article about something called a geotag.  A geotag is a bit of data embedded in a photograph that provides the longitude and latitude of where a photo is taken.

The article reports:

“Security experts and privacy advocates have recently begun warning about the potential dangers of geotags, which are embedded in photos and videos taken with GPS-equipped smartphones and digital cameras. Because the location data is not visible to the casual viewer, the concern is that many people may not realize it is there; and they could be compromising their privacy, if not their safety, when they post geotagged media online.”

This is particularly significant to members of our armed forces serving overseas who may post pictures online for their families at home. 

The article also points out how posting pictures on social networks showing expensive cars or possessions can put you at risk for theft:

“Moreover, since multimedia sites like Twitter and YouTube have user-friendly application programming interfaces, or A.P.I.’s, someone with a little knowledge about writing computer code can create a program to search for geotagged photos in a systematic way. For example, they can search for those accompanied with text like “on vacation” or those taken in a specified neighborhood.

“”Any 16 year-old with basic programming skills can do this,” said Gerald Friedland, a researcher at the International Computer Science Institute at the University of California, Berkeley. He and a colleague, Robin Sommer, wrote a paper, “Cybercasing the Joint: On the Privacy Implications of Geotagging,” which they presented on Tuesday at a workshop in Washington during the Advanced Computing Systems Association’s annual conference on security.

“The paper provides three examples of so-called cybercasing that use photos posted on Twitter and Craigslist and a homemade video on YouTube.

“By looking at geotags and the text of posts, Mr. Sommer said, “you can easily find out where people live, what kind of things they have in their house and also when they are going to be away.””

Social networking is a great thing–I truly appreciate being able to turn on my computer and see current pictures of my grandchildren.  However, like anything else, social networks need to be used carefully and cautiously so that people with less-than-honorable intentions do not take advantage of those of us who are simply sharing family pictures.

On Wednesday, the Washington Times posted an article reporting that part of the spending bill passed by Congress included a ban on detainee-transfer funds (to transfer inmates at Guantanamo to America). 

The article reports that the comprehensive spending bill was not really what either Democrats or Republicans wanted:

“The spending bill, which includes wide-ranging new regulations on food safety and shifts money to Democratic priorities, even as it also blocks the Guantanamo Bay transfers, is already two months overdue as Democrats have struggled to find ways to balance their policy preferences with the deteriorating fiscal condition of the government.”

The Democrats are anxious to pass as many bills as they can before the Republicans take control of the House.

Meanwhile, there are some numbers recently released that show the need for Guantanamo.  On Tuesday the Washington Times posted an article about a recent report on the number of Guantanamo detainees that have returned to terrorism after being released:

“The report, made public Tuesday, stated that out of a total of 598 (Guantanamo) detainees released as of October, 150 were confirmed or suspected of “reengaging in terrorist or insurgent activities after transfer,” the two-page unclassified summary said.”

Traditionally prisoners of war are held until the war is over.  We are in an awkward position here because technically the prisoners at Guantanamo are not prisoners of war–they did not wear uniforms, and they do not represent a country.  Chances are the war on terror will continue for at least one generation.  What do we do with these people?  There has been some talk recently about colonizing Mars with senior citizens.  What about with Guantanamo detainees?  The British did it with Australia.  Just thinking.

This chart is from National Review Online‘s The Corner (via Mark Levin).  The bottom number on this chart is how much disposable income each earner has after the government gets done with him.  This is disturbing.

More data here:

The article concludes:

“Maybe President Obama and Mr. Krugman should direct some of their attention to this problem rather than spending so much of their time complaining that the rich don’t get soaked enough.” 

It looks to me as if the rich are getting pretty well soaked as it is.

Larry Elder posted an article at Townhall.com citing some information in the Wikileaks documents leaked that puts a lie to the Democratic campaign slogan, “Bush lied, people died.”  Evidently, according to Wikileaks, President Bush didn’t lie, and when the information came out that he hadn’t lied, somehow the American press forgot to report it.

According to the article:

“Wired magazine’s contributing editor Noah Shachtman — a nonresident fellow at the liberal Brookings Institution — researched the 400,000 WikiLeaked documents released in October. Here’s what he found: “By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction (emphasis added). … Chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.”

“In 2008, our military shipped out of Iraq — on 37 flights in 3,500 barrels — what even The Associated Press called “the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program”: 550 metric tons of the supposedly nonexistent yellowcake. The New York Sun editorialized: “The uranium issue is not a trivial one, because Iraq, sitting on vast oil reserves, has no peaceful need for nuclear power. … To leave this nuclear material sitting around the Middle East in the hands of Saddam … would have been too big a risk.”

“Now the mainscream media no longer deem yellowcake — the WMD Bush supposedly lied about — a WMD. It was, well, old. It was degraded. It was not what we think of when we think of WMD. Really? Square that with what former Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean said in April 2004: “There were no weapons of mass destruction.” MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow goes even further, insisting, against the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that “Saddam Hussein was not pursuing weapons of mass destruction”!

“Bush, hammered by the insidious “Bush Lied, People Died” mantra, endured one of the most vicious smears against any president in history. He is owed an apology.”

I’m not holding my breath. 

If you read this blog on a regular basis, you understand that I am a strong supporter of Israel.  I believe Israel has a right to exist as a free nation with an undivided Jerusalem as its capital.  I don’t want to see a Palestinian state until that moment when the future leaders of such a state renouce their previous goal of wiping Israel off the planet (and stop sending rockets into Israel aimed at civilian populations).  There is an old expression, “If all the Arab nations around Israel gave up their weapons and declared peace, nothing would change.  If Israel gave up her weapons and declared peace, she would be destroyed in a matter of minutes.”  I think that says it all.

Reuters reported Tuesday:

“President Barack Obama brokered the direct talks that were relaunched in September but broke down over the issue of settlements built on captured land that Palestinians seek for a state.

“”We reached the conclusion this is not the time to renew direct negotiation by renewing the moratorium,” a senior U.S. diplomat told reporters in Israel, ending weeks of intense U.S. diplomacy aimed at forging a settlement deal.”

When I read this, I was encouraged.  We need to realize that Israel is a sovereign nation and has a right to build settlements anywhere within its country where it chooses to build, and I thought we have finally realized that.  Well, not so fast.

The article further reports on the progress of the United States’ quest for peace in the Middle East:

“”We’re not throwing in the towel at all. Our objective is still a framework agreement … (but) we are going to look for a different mechanism,” the (U.S.) official said.”

What might that different mechanism be?  There are some clues near the end of the article:

“Palestinian officials have said they may seek to declare statehood unilaterally in the occupied West Bank if negotiations with Israel foundered.

“Three Latin American nations — Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay — declared recognition of a Palestinian state at the weekend, drawing Israeli condemnation.”

Normally I would celebrate the birth of a new nation.  However, I cannot celebrate the birth of a new terrorist state.  There is no doubt in my mind that the new state of Palestine would be a center for people who are opposed to the existence of the state of Israel.  Recognizing a Palestinian state at this time is not a move toward peace–it is a move toward the destruction of Israel.  It is a bad move.

President Obama negotiated a deal with the Republicans regarding the current tax rates.  The President definitely has a horse in this race because he wants to be a two-term President.  Many of the Democrats currently voting in Congress will not be there in January, so it could be said that they don’t have a horse in the race.  But having or not having a horse in this race is not a qualification for voting on the issue.  It is generally understood that if a deal is not reached on this matter and taxes go up in January, the economy will stumble badly.

What is the problem?  It is a philosophical difference of opinion.  Regarding the estate tax, hasn’t the money that anyone inherits been taxed at least once already?  If it is the form of dividends and certain other assets, it has already been taxed twice!  Unless you support redistribution of wealth, there is no reason to tax it again.  Isn’t part of the joy of being a parent being able to leave your children something to help them on their way?

Whatever the sticking point, The Hill is reporting that the House Democratic Caucus has rejected the deal that President Obama has brokered with the Republicans on taxes.  This is a non-binding resolution.  What the Democrats want is to renegotiate the tax deal President Obama negotiated with the Republicans.

The thing to remember here is that what is being discussed here is not a tax cut–all it would do is keep the tax rates the same.  If you are not changing the tax rates, how can the Democrats complain that it would be too expensive?  Well, actually it’s the compromise parts of the bill that will actually cost money.  All the Republicans wanted to do was extend the current tax rates, the President added the additional thirteen months of unemployment insurance–that costs money.  The President also negotiated to add the two percent cut in payroll taxes–that also costs money.  Extending the current tax rates does not cost money–it does not change anything.  The Republicans agreed to spend the money to keep the current tax rates; the Democrats added spending in order to allow the Republicans to keep the current tax rates.  Everyone played the roles they were expected to play. 

Pop up some popcorn and stay tuned.  This is going to be interesting!

John Stossel at Townhall.com posted an interesting article about the relationship between poverty and private property rights.  In his artice he mentions the work of Hernando de Soto.who has focused on a revolutionary concept that is having repercussions throughout the world’s poor countries: the lack of formal property rights is the source of poverty in poor countries.

Mr. Stossel quotes Mr. de Soto:

“”To get an address, somebody’s got to recognize that that’s where you live. That means … you’ve a got mailing address. … When you make a deal with someone, you can be identified. But until property is defined by law, people can’t … specialize and create wealth. The day they get title (is) the day that the businesses in their homes, the sewing machines, the cotton gins, the car repair shop finally gets recognized. They can start expanding.”

“That’s the road to prosperity. But first they need to be recognized by someone in local authority who says, “This is yours.” They need the rule of law. But many places in the developing world barely have law. So enterprising people take a risk. They work a deal with the guy on the first floor, and they build their house on the second floor.”

We totally take our property rights for granted.  Mr. de Soto further explains:

“It’s not very different from when you Americans started going west, (but) Americans at that time were absolutely conscious of what the rule of law was about,” de Soto said.

“Americans marked off property, courts recognized that property, and the people got deeds that meant everyone knew their property was theirs. They could then buy and sell and borrow against it as they saw fit.

“This idea of a deed protecting property seems simple, but it’s powerful. Commerce between total strangers wouldn’t happen otherwise. It applies to more than just skyscrapers and factories. It applies to stock markets, which only work because of deed-like paperwork that we trust because we have the rule of law.”

The obvious conclusion here is that enforcing property rights and the rule of law breeds prosperity.  Hopefully we can remember those two things in the coming years.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article this morning about a discussion between outgoing Senator Judd Gregg and Andrea Mitchell about paying for tax cuts.  Senator Gregg points out that the concept of ‘paying for tax cuts’ assumes that all money belongs to to government and that there is a cost to letting people keep the money they earn. 

The article references a New York Times article from yesterday:

“What the Times left out was the fact that the top-earning 1% currently pays more than 38% of all income taxes.

“Had the tax cuts expired, the seethingly evil top 1% would’ve pitched in just $0.25 of every new tax dollar (per the Times’ analysis), ratcheting down their 38% share.  While taxes would’ve gone up for everyone, the relative burden on the wealthiest would’ve eased.

“The “savings,” then (a creative choice of words, given that we’re talking about maintaining the status quo), are indeed disproportionately shared by the highest earners.  But not nearly as disproportionately as they share in the existing tax burden.”

Every time a Congressman talks about paying for tax cuts, we need to ask him whose money it is.  It is also important to note that our current tax system taxes income–it does not tax wealth.  I suppose it is just a coincidence that Congress has a higher percentage of millionaires than the general population.  Their wealth is not taxed–only their income.  We need to keep that in mind as they are trying to impose higher taxes on the rest of us.

Heritage.org posted an article on Tuesday about some of the antics currently going on in the outgoing Congress. 

The article points out that the compromise points the Republicans agreed to in the tax deal are bad policy (reinstating the death tax (at 35% with a $5 million threshold), 13 more months of non-offset unemployment benefits, and a temporary 2 percentage point reduction in the payroll tax to replace the failed “Make-Work-Pay” stimulus tax policy). 

The article states:

“Heritage has long opposed any return of the death tax, which is bad for small business and wrong on principle. The unemployment benefits are not only bad for job growth but increase spending at a time when we need to be reducing it, and, as economists have long recognized, perpetuate long-term unemployment. As for temporary tax holidays, they have proven to be completely ineffective.”

The article further points out:

“Congressional Democrats were busy plotting a last-gasp massive spending surge back on Capitol Hill. Written by the Senate Democratic majority in backrooms, a draft omnibus spending is circulating that will fund all federal government agencies not just through fiscal year (FY) 2011 but into 2012 as well. Heritage Foundation Distinguished Fellow Ernest Istook details the spending spree:

• Handcuffs the ability of newly elected Representatives and Senators to de-fund Obamacare
• Restricts the new Congress’s leverage to rescind unused “stimulus” and TARP spending
• Has the outgoing Congress dictate spending for more than the usual one year
• Bypasses the normal appropriations process of public committee votes, floor debates, and the ability to offer amendments on the floor of the House and Senate.”

First of all–is it legal for this Congress to fund the government into 2012?  Are we in danger of a government shutdown as a result of this reach? 

I don’t like to admit this, and I guess it isn’t really news, but I simply do not trust the Democrats in charge right now.  They have bent the rules too many times to suit their own purpose with no regard for public opinion or what is best for the country.  I see no reason to believe that their current behavior is any different than their past behavior.  Remember that healthcare was pushed through by means of some serious manipulation of the rules.  I realize that the new Congress does not take office until January, but they need to exert their influence now.  As my husband recently pointed out, in the time between election day 2008 and Inauguration Day 2009, President Obama created the official seal of the “President-elect” and began to attempt to influence public policy.  The Congress-elect needs to follow his example!

The following entry appeared on Hugh Hewitt’s Blog this afternoon.  This is directly quoted from Mr. Hewitt’s blog.  I am posting it because I believe it represents the ideas of one group of the voters.  If your local radio stations do not carry Mr. Hewitt’s show, you can find it at the Townhall Radio connection at Townhall.com from 6 to 9 pm Eastern Time.  He is well worth listening to.

I will spend a lot of time on the program today discussing “the deal,” but as Rush pointed out on his show this past hour, the GOP could have gotten so much more.  President Obama would never have allowed taxes to go up on the middle class.  Never.

What the D.C. GOP failed to grasp and what is now the source of anger among its supporters beyond the terms themselves is that for the past two years the D.C. GOP has been complaining bitterly and appropriately about being excluded from the process of governing.  No sooner does the D.C. GOP get welcomed into the governing councils of the Beltway but they in turn exclude the people who sent them there, and not just the scores of newly elected representatives and senators who were not consulted on this “deal,” but the millions of people who worked and contributed to the victory of November 2. 

All it would have taken was a a request for input on various terms from the Republican negotiators to the new members of Congress and an invitation to the public to weigh in.  But the old guard took it upon themselves to decide for the rest of the country what should be in the deal, and in so doing reverted to the form that brought about the Gang of 14 and immigration fiasco.

If the GOP intends to wield their new power the way that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid did over the past two years, they will be shocked at how quickly the public deserts them.  Springing this deal on their new colleagues and their supporters without any opportunity to comment on it is the GOP version of refusing to attend townhall meetings.  Simply astonishing.

UPDATE: President Obama referred to the GOP as hostage takers just now, and is referring to the polls as on his side.  Chuck Todd’s question about whether the president will now cave again and again leads to the president’s declaration that he hopes the GOP tests him.  He points out that there are a “whole bunch of things the Republicans are giving up.”  His additional statements that “I am happy to have that battle” and “I am happy to be tested over the next several months over our ability to negotiate with the Republicans” signal that Obama cannot again disappoint the left.  The GOP had one moment of leverage, and they used it for the minimum they could have had, and they did so in such a way as to cut out their new colleagues and their strongest supporters.

I don’t totally agree with this viewpoint, but I can understand where he is coming from.  I think what the Republicans feared was something similar to what happened when the government was actually shut down during the Clinton administration and the Republicans were blamed.  I think the fear on the part of Republicans is of again moving too fast to implement their agenda (particularly with a Democrat president in the White House).

Balancing the federal budget sounds scary.  From what members of Congress say, we will all have to give up everything in order to balance the budget.  I realize that is an extreme statement, but it does seem as if some members of Congress are trying to turn the American people against the idea of balancing the budget.  Well, one person has come up with an almost painless solution.

Yesterday Hot Air posted an article by Jimmie Bise, Jr., on what it would actually take to balance the budget.  It is one of the most sensible plans I have heard.  He cites a plan put forth by Nick Gillespie and Veronica de Rugy called “The 19 Percent Solution”. 

According to the article at Hot Air, this is the essence of the plan:

“A balanced budget based on 19 percent of GDP would mean $1.3 trillion in cuts over the next decade, or about $129 billion annually out of ever-increasing budgets averaging around $4.1 trillion. Note that these are not even absolute cuts, but trims from expected increases in spending.”

The article also points out the year-to-year growth of federal spending.  From 2001 to 2002: 5 percent, 2002 to 2003: 4.5 percent, 2003 to 2004: 4.3 percent, 2004 to 2005: 4.2 percent, 2005 to 2006: 11.1 percent, 2006 to 2007: 3.6 percent, 2007 to 2008: 3.4 percent, 2008 to 2009: 6.5 percent, 2009 to 2010: 13.9 percent, 2010 to 2011: 5.3 percent.  The article points out that the average increase per year from 2001 to 2011 was 6.1 percent.

The article suggests:

“Are our leaders willing and able to identify and cut just $25 billion in waste and excess out of more than $700 billion in non-defense discretionary spending? Is reducing the $714 billion the Department of Defense received in 2010 by a paltry $25 billion impossible? Can Medicare and Medicaid, two programs that are infamous for waste and fraud and cost well over $720 billion in 2010, find $35 billion in efficiencies? The specific cuts should be open to negotiation, but the historical record shows that the available level of government revenue is fixed.”

This plan definitely needs to be added to the discussion.

Today is the 69th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor.  Thank you to the generation who responded to that attack by joining the military or helping the war effort at home by working in factories and planting gardens.  Hopefully we have not forgotten the values of that generation.  The World War II generation is a major part of what makes America a great nation.  Thank you to all of you who served in the military and at home during World War II.

Today’s Wall Street Journal just posted an article on the tax deal reached between the Democrats and Republicans in Congress.  It definitely is a compromise, but I am not sure that the ‘true believers’ on either side of the spectrum will be happy with it.

Many conservatives felt that the Republicans should have held out for a permanent extension of the current tax rates–after all, those tax rates have been in effect for ten years.  Many Democrats believe that the tax rates for high income earners should be raised regardless of the recession. 

For me, there are a few problems with the compromise reached.  To extend unemployment benefits for thirteen months seems to be excessive to me.  Does the Obama Administration have that little faith in the number of jobs being created in the next year?  It bothers me to see people collecting unemployment insurance for three years.  To me that creates a disincentive to work.  Another problem is the uncertainty that only extending the current tax rates for two years creates.  Businesses need to know their tax rates more than two years into the future in order to plan expansion.  We need permanent tax rates.

There is another problem with the reaching of this compromise.  As soon as this legislation is passed, Congress will be able to move on to other things–such as the DREAM Act and the START Treaty.  A lame duck session is not the place to discuss either of those items.  If they were that important, they could have been done in the last two years while Democrats  had control of Congress.

There is a mixed blessing in this compromise.  Included in the compromise was a 2% cut in the payroll tax for workers.  This will put more money in people’s pockets, and thus will stimulate the economy.  Ironically, that may make Barack Obama a two-term President!

The thing to remember here is that it’s our money–not Washington’s.  Government is too big, and we are paying too much for it.  We will never lower the deficit until we cut the size and spending of government.  The deficit is not a revenue problem–it is a spending problem!

Byron York posted an article at the Washington Examiner last week about the new Pentagon report on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  The report gives the impression that changing the policy concerning homosexuals openly serving in the military is no big deal to those currently serving in the military.  Well, not so fast.  When you examine the numbers more closely, you discover that there is a sharp divide between the opinions of those who serve (or have served) in combat and those who have not.  Fifty-nine percent of the Marines who have served in combat say that changing the current policy would have a negative effect. 

The article concludes:

“According to the study, 70 percent of respondents are now or have been deployed, and 83 percent of them have been in a combat zone or an area where they received hostile fire pay.  There is simply no way to argue that they overwhelmingly support repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

“Bur repeal is what the president and many lawmakers want.  And civilian control of the military is a bedrock principle of the U.S. government.  If the president and Congress order service members to do something, then that’s what they are going to do.  But don’t pretend they all think it’s a good idea.”

We need someone in Congress to remember that serving in the military is a privilege–not a right.  There are many reasons why a person might be told that he (or she) could not serve.  The military is there to protect and defend our country–not to be a social experiment. 

The Washington Examiner posted a portion of a speech made by Lt. Gen. John F. Kelly delivered in St. Louis on Nov. 13, four days after his son, Robert M. Kelly, was killed in Afghanistan.  The part of his speech that the Washington Examiner published is not about his son–it is about two amazingly courageous American Marines who served their country in Afghanistan.  They were standing guard duty when they were killed.  Please follow the link and read the entire article.  It is amazing.

There is one paragraph I would like to share here:

“I (General Kelly) traveled to Ramadi the next day and spoke individually to a half-dozen Iraqi police all of whom told the same story. They all said, “We knew immediately what was going on as soon as the two Marines began firing.” The Iraqi police then related that some of them also fired, and then ran for safety just before the explosion. All survived. Many were injured, some seriously. As one of the Iraqis explained, they had merely done what any “normal man” would do – run for his life. “What I didn’t know until then,” he said, “and what I learned at that very instant, was that Marines are not normal.” Choking past the emotion, he said, “Sir, in the name of God no sane man would have stood there and done what they did. They saved us all.””

God bless the families of those two amazing young men.

As I stated in a previous article, the pay freeze on federal workers is a sham (see rightwinggranny.com).  It is simply a non-adjustment of the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA)–it does not effect any other pay increases.  The freezing of the COLA was expected anyway after there was no COLA allowance given to Social Security this year as well as last year.  There is no federal pay freeze.  That’s what makes the story at The Hill‘s Blog Briefing Room so funny.

Barney Frank stated this week that exceptions may have to be made to President Barack Obama’s proposed pay freeze in order to effectively implement the Wall Street reform bill.  What that means is that he wants exemptions to the pay freeze if regulatory agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CTFC), can show they are needed to hire the appropriate talent.  I would like to point out that federal workers already make about 30 to 40 per cent (including benefits) more than private sector workers.  Why in the world would you have to exempt them from the pay freeze?  Also, this is the man who constantly complains about what Wall Street people are being paid–don’t companies have to pay enough to attract the talent?  You can’t have it both ways Representative Frank. 

According to the article at The Hill:

“In July, SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro announced that her agency intends to hire 374 new employees in 2011. She also indicated that to meet the requirements set out in the Dodd-Frank bill, the agency will need to hire up to 800 staff in total.”

This is called growing the government.  The SEC now has to hire 800 new people.  The taxpayers have to pay for those jobs.  This is where the deficit comes from.  The problem is not low tax revenue–it is high spending.