THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY WELL PUT AND I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT’S BY A YOUNG PERSON, A STUDENT!!! WHATEVER HE RUNS FOR, I’LL VOTE FOR HIM. OUTSTANDING.

DIVORCE AGREEMENT

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950’s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We’ll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and rednecks. We’ll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security.

We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We’ll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We’ll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute Imagine, I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We’ll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J. Wall

Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.

According to the Washington Post, the Obama administration is making plans to roll back another one of President Bush’s policies.  The policy in questions is a Bush administration regulation, enacted in December, that cuts off federal funding for thousands of state and local governments, hospitals, health plans, clinics and other entities if they do not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists or other employees who refuse to participate in care they feel violates their personal, moral or religious beliefs.  Some of the areas that this regulation covers (and will cover in the future) are abortion, birth control, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, etc.  The argument for leaving the law in place is that the individuals requesting the service will be able to go elsewhere to obtain that service.  The employee has one job and a conscience and is trying to respect both.  This could actually be played out as a freedom of religion issue (for the employee). 

Rolling back this law is not a good thing.  It brings to mind what happened in Massachusetts after gay marriage became legal and the Cathollic Church adoption agencies were told they had to grant adoptions to gay parents, regardless of the church’s teachings on the subject.  As a result, the Catholic Church no longer runs adoption agencies in Massachusetts–they were simply driven out.  A valuable service they were providing was lost because their freedom to practice their religion was not upheld. 

According to the Washington Times, there are many Democrats and Republicans upset about President Obama’s changes to the tax code regarding charitable giving.  The article stated:

Still, the charitable giving deduction reduction, which would limit deductions for couples making $250,000 or individuals making $200,000, provoked the most heat Thursday. Mr. Obama is counting on that provision to raise $179.8 billion over 10 years.

“Some of the reforms and offsets contained or referenced in the budget, such as the limitation on itemized deductions, raise concerns and will require more study as we determine the best policies for getting America back on track,” said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat.

Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said it’s impossible to calculate the exact effects of all the tax changes, but said the overall result is clear – less philanthropic giving.

Remember that many of our hospitals and medical research facilities are funded by charitable giving by people who make more than $200,000.  This tax proposal will result in a degrading of our medical care and research.  There is also another provision in this bill we need to be aware of:

“Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said Mr. Obama took care of that (the change in charitable deductions) by giving charities government money to make up part of the difference. 

“Contained in the recovery act, there’s $100 million to support nonprofits and charities as we get through this period of economic difficulty,” he said.”

This is just wrong.  Why should we let the government make charitable contributions to ACORN instead of people making private contributions to hospitals and medical research facilities?  Considering the political leanings of this administration, that could easily happen.  This is another example of the government deciding they can spend our money better than we can.

This article is posted at World Net Daily.  It gives me hope for the future.

Americans are saying enough is enough to extravagant government spending and throwing more than 40 tea parties across the nation in protest of the recent bailouts and “stimulus” package.

Kellen Giuda, an architect who was recently laid-off, is organizing

his own New York City tea party. He has invited several prominent guest speakers, including politicians, elected officials, an author, blogger, a bond trader and a former contestant on “America’s Next Top Model” to speak out against excessive government spending.

“I saw Rick Santelli’s rant, live, and thought it was awesome,” he told WND. “All of this fiscal irresponsibility is absurd.”

He continued, “Then I started hearing about tea parties, and I decided to do it. It’s really exciting. There are a lot of people getting involved now.”

As WND reported, CNBC analyst Rick Santelli became a YouTube sensation after he spoke out against President Obama’s proposed $275 billion deficit-financed homeowner bailout plan and other massive spending measures with a call for a new “tea party” from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

Giuda is working with Alex Zablocki, top staffer for New York State Sen. Andrew Lanza, to coordinate the New York event. Possible speakers include Kathleen Troia McFarland, deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs at the Pentagon from 1982 to 1985 under President Ronald Reagan; Brett Joshpe, conservative author and graduate of Harvard Law School; Sara-Racey Tabrizi, “America’s Next Top Model” contestant and professional model and various elected officials.

The tea party will take place Feb. 28, at 2 p.m. in City Hall Park in Manhattan.

Giuda said similar nationwide events are becoming very popular as a growing number of Americans prepare to take to the streets.

“It’s time we start fighting back with our own voice,” he said. “America has a history of revolting and standing up to unfair taxation. It’s really fun and exciting.”

Meanwhile, outraged citizens are organizing more than 40 tea party events across the nation. Official sponsors of the events include Top Conservatives on Twitter, Smart Girl Politics, Don’tGo Movement, FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity. Most of the tea parties will take place Feb. 27.

The following are a few scheduled tea parties:

Fayetteville, N.C. – Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at the corner of Bow Street and Hay Street where the Liberty Point Resolves were signed

Washington, D.C. – Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m. at the White House on the Lafayette Square Park side

Boston, Mass. – Feb. 27 from 11:50 p.m. to Feb. 28 at 1:50 p.m., location to be determined

Chicago, Ill. – Feb. 27 from 11 a.m. to 12:20 p.m. at Daley Plaza Civic Center

Atlanta, Ga. – Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at Georgia’s capitol building in Atlanta

Orlando, Fla. – Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at Lake Eola on East Robinson and North Rosalind Ave

Dallas, Texas – Feb. 27 from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. at Victory Plaza located at 3090 Olive St.

Fort Worth, Texas – Feb. 27 from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the Cowtown Bar & Grill located at 7108 Camp Bowie Blvd.

Houston, Texas – Feb. 27 at 12 p.m. at Fondren Lawn at Discovery Green

San Antonio, Texas – Feb. 27 from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. at the Alamo

Austin, Texas – Feb. 27 from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. at the Texas capitol building

Pittsburgh, Pa. – April 11 at Market Square on Forbes Avenue and Market Street

San Diego, Calif. – Feb. 27 from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. north of the Star of India on San Diego Bay

Tulsa, Okla. – Feb. 27 from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. at Veteran’s Park located at 2st Street and Boulder Avenue

Nashville, Tenn. – Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at Legislative Plaza located at 6th Avenue and Union Street

St. Louis, Mo. – Feb. 27 from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. at the Steps of Gateway Arch located on Wharf Street

Portland, Ore. – Feb. 27 from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. at Pioneer Courthouse Square at the corner of Broadway and Morrison

Kansas City, Mo. – Feb. 28 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the J.C. Nichols Foundation located at 47th and J.C. Nichols Parkway

Cleveland, Ohio – Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at 1 Public Square

Denver, Colo. – Feb. 27 from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. at the east capitol steps

Fort Myers Beach, Fla. – Feb. 27 from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. at Bowditch Park located at 50 Estero Blvd.

Lansing, Mich. – Feb. 27 from 11:45 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the state capitol building at 100 N. Capitol Ave.

Omaha, Neb. – Feb. 27 from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. at the Douglas County Courthouse located at 16th Street and Farnam Street

Asheville, N.C. – Feb. 27 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. at Pritchard Park in downtown Asheville

Greenville, S.C. – Feb. 27 at 6 p.m. on the Reedy River & Walking Bridge

Nashville, Tenn. – Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m.at Legislative Plaza on 6th and Union

Shelby County, Ala. – Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at the entrance to Eagle Point Neighborhood

Seattle, Wash. – Feb. 27 from 12:15 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. at Westlake Park at 410 Pine St.

Philadelphia, Penn. – Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at Independence Hall

Los Angeles, Calif. – Feb. 27 from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. at Santa Monica Pier

Sacramento, Calif. – Feb. 27 at 12 p.m. on north steps of state capitol on L Street

Springfield, Mo. – Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at Lake Springfield Park

Sarasota, Fla. – Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at Island Park and Marina Jacks at 41 Bayfront Drive and Ringling Boulevard

Phoenix, Ariz. – Feb. 27 from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. at the state capitol building at 1700 Washington St.

Tampa, Fla. – Feb 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at the federal courthouse on 801. N. Florida Ave.

Oklahoma City, Okla. – Feb. 27 from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. at the state capitol steps

New York City, N.Y. – Feb. 28 from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. at City Hall Park

Wichita, Kan. – Feb. 27 at 11:30 a.m. outisde Sen. Sam Brownback’s office at 245 N. Waco

Davenport, Iowa – Feb. 28 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at Main and Locust Street

Hartford, Conn. – Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at the state capitol

Floridians Unite is looking down the road and planning an Orlando Tea Party for March 21.

“This will be a peaceful rally to unite our voices and express the love that we have for our great nation and the principles it was founded on,” states the Floridians Unite website. “We want to make our politicians hear loud and clear that we are tired of the bailouts, the wasteful Washington spending and the push towards the socialization of this country! We want less government! We want to decide where our hard-earned money goes instead of the elitist politicians in Washington taking it and using it to buy votes, doling it out to special interest groups and pork barrel projects! We want our constitutional rights preserved and protected, not trampled on!”

At the Pittsburgh, Pa., Tea Party on April 11, organizers are inviting people to help them reenact the Boston Tea Party of Dec. 16, 1773, by bringing one tea bag each to Point State Park with plans of actually tossing the tea into the Alleghany, Monongahela and Ohio rivers.

“Somebody in our government needs to finally pay attention,” said Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck on his radio program last week. “It is what I’ve been talking about that was coming for a very long time, and that is disenfranchisement, which will turn into anger and then turn into God knows what.”

CNBC analyst Rick Santelli is hoping those demonstrations will result in real change.

During the televised segment where Santelli revived the term “tea party,” CNBC panelist Wilbur Ross, chairman and CEO of WL Ross & Co., interjected, “Rick, I congratulate you on your new incarnation as a revolutionary leader.”

“Somebody needs one,” Santelli responded. “I’ll tell you what, if you read our Founding Fathers, people like Benjamin Franklin and Jefferson, what we’re doing in this country now is making them roll over in their graves.”

According to WCBS-TV, Hillary Clinton’s honeymoon period as Secretary of State has ended with the New York voters.  Senator Clinton is complaining about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza.  (What about the rockets coming into Israel from Gaza every day?  Is anyone complaining about those?)  The New York voters who supported her in her Senate race and as Secretary of State are very unhappy about her statements.  According to the article, one statement was:

“Hillary had Mrs. Arafat here and she invited Mrs. Arafat for lunch when she was the first lady,” added Babak Chafe of Great Neck. “She is pro-Palestinian 100 percent, really. Of course, we always knew it.”

“The easy way to make a peace agreement is to pressure Israel because you can’t pressure the Arabs,” said Solomon Loewi of Monsey, N.Y.

The easy way to peace may be to put more pressure on Israel and not on the Arabs, but that will not work long term.  Most of the Arabs have stated openly that their goal is the elimination of the country of Israel.  That will not make for a successful two-state solution.  Supporting the Arabs in their (unstated) goal to eliminate Israel is similar to supporting organized crime in its fight against the FBI.  You may get short term results (your neighborhood may look safe), but eventually your decision is going to come back and bite you. 

According to the International Herald Tribune, a group of liberal bloggers said it is teaming up with organized labor and MoveOn to form a political action committee that will seek to push the Democratic Party farther to the left.  Great.

The new group intends to raise money through its blogs to run more liberal candidates in primaries to oust conservative Democrats.  According to the article:

“Organizers of the new group, to be called Accountability Now, said their intention is to enable Obama to seek more liberal policies without fear of losing support from the more conservative members of his party serving in Congress”

The Left-leaning bloggers recently provided muscle for the movement that helped Ned Lamont defeat Senator Joseph Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary in 2006. ( Lieberman went on to retain his seat after running in the general election as an independent.)  This may be an important example–even though the left wing bloggers were successful in the primary, they were not successful in the general election.  I believe that most of the American population is waking up to the consequences of moving further left–higher taxes, more money to people who are being rewarded for acting irresponsibly, moving the war on terror back to the legal system (as it was under Bill Clinton), rather than letting the military be in charge, and socialized medicine.  I’m not sure these will be popular programs.

The political action committee officially begins today.  They have already raised $ 500,000 (which they raised last September).

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal had a wonderful article on decoding ‘Obama speak’.  A few gems from the article:

 “We are not going to get relief by turning back to the very same policies that for the last eight years doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin.” Translation: Blame Republicans, and tax cuts.

 It’s time to “make hard choices to bring our deficit down.” Translation: Hello, higher taxes.

“The only way to fully restore America’s economic strength is to make the long-term investments that will lead to new jobs, new industries, and a renewed ability to compete with the rest of the world.” Translation: Big government. President Obama loves the word “invest.” (He used a form of it 11 times in his congressional address on Tuesday.) It sounds so modern and free market, and, most important, not like what it really is — “spending.” The administration is aware that the deficit is now the story. Thus Mr. Obama’s suggestion that blowing out hundreds of billions for health care, energy and education somehow isn’t Washington as usual — but will instead yield American riches down the road.

“We need to make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy.” Translation: Your utility bills are going up.

“If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime.” Translation: For now.

The president’s budget proves he intends to tax the top 2% of earners at effective rates much higher than under Bill Clinton. Still, even if he taxed 100% of this group’s income, it wouldn’t come close to covering his budget costs. Nor will winding down Iraq. If Mr. Obama is committed to his agenda, much less his deficit reduction, the middle class will have to give it up.

We need to watch the actions of this administration–not listen to their words.

Power Line Blog has some of the numbers on the budget President Obama submitted to Congress.  According to their research:

“Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can’t possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama’s new spending ambitions.

Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and “the wealthiest 2%.” Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That’s about 7% of all returns; the data aren’t broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% — about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 — paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income.”

This budget is not workable, but I don’t believe it can be stopped.  The current income tax system is not fair, and what President Obama plans to do will only make it more unfair.  At some point, the people generating wealth are going to resent giving it to people who are not working, and we will have another Boston Tea Party.

For further viewing see Power Line Blog.

According to the Washington Times, one of the consequences of having a Democrat Congress and a Democrat President is the rush to undo anything that the Democrats didn’t like about the George Bush administration.  According to the article:

“From including language to “consider” government health care benefits for same-sex domestic partners of federal workers to eliminating D.C. school vouchers, which they consider an affront to the public school system, Democrats say there are plenty of wrongs to right in Mr. Bush’s wake.”

The school voucher program in Washington, D. C. has been extremely successful.  According to the Wall Street Journal, the program was started in 2004 by Republicans (with the help of Diane Feinstein).  According to the article:

“A 2008 Department of Education evaluation found that participants had higher reading scores than their peers who didn’t receive a scholarship, and there are four applicants for each voucher.

Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee is working to reform all D.C. public schools, which in 2007 ranked last in math and second-to-last in reading among all U.S. urban school systems on the federal National Assessment of Educational Progress. Without the vouchers, more than 80% of the 1,700 kids would have to attend public schools that haven’t made “adequate yearly progress” under No Child Left Behind. Remember all of those Members of Congress standing and applauding on Tuesday as Mr. Obama called for every American child to get some education beyond high school? These are the same Members who protect and defend a D.C. system in which about half of all students fail even to graduate from high school.”

How many of our Senators and Representatives actually live in Washington, D. C. (the city they are charged with governing)?  Of these, how many send their children to public school?  If the Democrat party is dedicated to helping the poor and ‘working poor’, why are they denying them the chance to get a good education?

According to CNS News, Barney Frank (Democrat Congressman from Massachusetts) told a reporter after the President’s speech, “I don’t think we found any Republican minds today. They shut their minds down. They are so afraid of being yelled at by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity they won’t even clap for him [Obama], even when they agree with him.  They are literally afraid to deal with him,” said Frank. “Outside of Arlen Specter and the Maine senators, and a handful of others, they are all terrified of the iron discipline of the radio talk show hosts.  I think they are frustrated by how effective he [Obama] is that they are not open to him,” said Frank. 

What world is this man living in?  Has he totally discounted the possibility that everyone may not agree with what President Obama is doing with our money?  I watched the speech Tuesday night–there was Republican applause in areas where there was agreement.  Most of us agree that children should finish high school.  Republicans also expressed support for the idea of rebuilding our economy–they just disagreed on how to do it! 

According to Thomas.gov (the Library of Congress Website), one of the things our House of Representatives discussed yesterday was House Congressional Resolution 63.  This resolution states that the United States government should provide, on an annual basis, an amount equal to at least 1 percent of United States gross domestic product (GDP) for nonmilitary foreign assistance programs.   The measure has been referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

As our spending reels out of control and we have deficits are far as the eye can see, Congress decides that we should be legally required to give money away to foreign countries.  The ‘war on poverty’ in this country has not worked, why are we exporting it?

According to the Tennessean.com website, the Democrat governor of Tennessee may not accept part of the government stimulus package.  The stimulus would raise the amount of money that each unemployed person could collect and it would make some previously ineligible people eligible to collect unemployment.  Governor Phil Bredesen is considering rejecting some of the unemployment money because of some of the stipulations that come with it.  According to the article:

“Critics say the conditions will saddle states with a host of people who are newly eligible for unemployment benefits, an obligation legislatures will have to fund long after money from the stimulus package has been doled out.

“We’re looking at adding new benefits that don’t fall under the scope of unemployment,” said Jim Brown, state director for the National Federation of Independent Business. “There’s real mission drift.”

The stimulus package allocates $7 billion to states for unemployment trust funds, but to get the money, they must meet two sets of requirements:

>> One-third of the payout is contingent on states’ changing the formulas used to calculate whether people qualify for unemployment payments. The change is meant to make more people eligible for benefits.”

>> Two-thirds of the payout is contingent on states’ taking two actions on a menu of four options. These options are: adding a $15 allowance for dependents, lengthening benefits for people who are training for a new job, extending benefits to people looking for part-time work or letting people claim unemployment if they leave work for some family reasons, such as a sick relative or domestic violence.

The state of Tennessee is planning to raise taxes on businesses in the state to keep the unemployment fund solvent in the future.  This will slow down the job growth of those businesses.  Adding to the number of people collecting unemployment is counterproductive to balancing the fund.  The long term negative effect of accepting the unemployment money from the stimulus outweighs the temporary gain from taking the money.

In evaluating the changes the stimulus package makes to collecting unemployment benefits, we need to remember that when the government subsidizes any behavior, that behavior increases.  By lengthening the time a person can collect unemployment, you actually tend to slow down that person’s job search–they’re in no hurry–they have months more or benefits!  This sets us up for higher government expenditures in the future. 

President Obama pledged to go through the federal budget and end wasteful spending by eliminating all items that were wasteful.  Sounds like a great idea–but it’s unconstitutional–the President does not have the power of line-item veto.  Budget matters are supposed to be left to Congress.  This is a promise that cannot be legally kept. 

If President Obama went through the budget and elimiated all ‘pork’, the stimulus bill would have been about $300,000–not $800,000!

I watched President Obama’s speech last night and came away thinking it ws a good speech, but I don’t believe the promises.  According to Reuters,  President Obama said he had identified $2 trillion in budget cuts over the next decade.  This is an amazing statement from someone who signed a bill last week that (including interest) will cost over $1 trillion dollars.

President Obama submits his first budget proposal on Thursday; he has vowed to halve the $1 trillion-plus annual deficit he inherited from Bush by the end of his term.  He has inherited a $1 trillion annual deficit, but he just doubled it last week, and there is more to come.

President Obama has promised to let the Bush tax cuts expire and to raise taxes on only the top 2 per cent of Americans.  I have a few problems with this concept.  First, the Bush tax cuts were what kept the economy growning during the majority of the Bush administration.  If you remember, the tech bubble burst and 911 happened early in the Bush Presidency.  Either one of these events had the potential to wreck the economy–the tax cuts prevented that from happening.  Second, the tax increases will only apply to people making more than $250,000 a year.  Who are those people?  For the most part they are small businees owners (the people who create the majority of new jobs) who report their company earnings as their income–it’s not real personal income.  The people who have inherited money and put it in tax shelters–the Kennedys, the Kerrys, etc.–will not be effected by this.  Only the people who actually work for their income will be effected.  That is a tax increase that has a direct negative effect on job growth, and actually does not increase tax revenue.  Please check out the Laffer Curve at Heritage.org to see the impact of raising taxes on tax revenue.

According to , AP News Bobby Jindal stated in his response to Obama’s speech:

“The way to lead is not to raise taxes and put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who gave the Republican Party’s official response, said in excerpts released early. The massive economic stimulus bill recently enacted by Obama and congressional Democrats, Jindal said, will expand the government, “increase our taxes down the line, and saddle future generations with debt.”

It is not possible to grow government, cut taxes, and grow the economy at the same time.  Putting more money in government is taking more money out of the private sector.  This limits the ability of the economy to grow.  This may (or may not) work in the short term, but our children will wonder why their employment and business opportunities are not what they were for their parents.  The Obama fiscal policies are designed to appeal to the selfishness of those people who expect the government to take care of them at the expense of those of us who choose to work for a living and live responsibly. 

I received this in my email this morning; I thought I’d pass it on.

Fear Mongering

The stimulus bill must contain some really important stuff if it’s critical to the survival of our country!  Here is just some of the massive spending proposed in the bill:

Byron York points out in today’s D C Examiner, that in 2006 Nancy Pelosi called the Republican budget “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” because it increased the amount of U.S. debt held by foreign countries.  Sen. Harry Reid accused Republicans of going on “an unprecedented and dangerous borrowing spree” and declared GOP leadership “the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of our country … no other president or Congress even comes close.”

According to the article:

“a check of historical tables compiled by the Office of Management and Budget shows that the spending that so distressed Pelosi and Reid seems downright modest today. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.

The current administration would kill to have such small numbers. President Barack Obama is unveiling his budget this week, and, in addition to the inherited Bush deficit, he’s adding his own spending at an astonishing pace, projecting annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future, and, in the rosiest possible scenario, a $533 billion deficit in 2013, the last year of Obama’s first term.”

The consequences of the rabid spending going on in Washington today are high interest payments and an increasing number of foreign debt-holders.  This is dangerous to the future of our country.  Hopefully someone in Washington will have the wisdom and intestinal fortitude to stand up against this fiscal tidal wave.  If not, we need to make serious changes to our Congressional delegations in 2010. 

According to Yahoo News, the United States plans to offer more than $900 million to help rebuild Gaza.  The goal is to strengthen the Western-backed Palestinian Authority.  The expenditure requires U.S. congressional approval.  I strongly suggest that we all begin to call our Congressmen and tell them to turn down the proposal. 

The money will be disributed through the UN and not through Hamas.  Remember that the UN suspended aid to Gaza on February 5th after Hamas stole all of the food and supplies the UN had shipped in.  The UN resumed aid shortly thereafter, but there are obviously some problems with getting aid to the people of Gaza.  Since America is the major funder of the UN and we are already sending aid, why are we spending $900 million more at a time when our own economy is failing?

In the past, when money has been given to the people of Gaza, it has been spent on guns and bombs.  The west has given the Palestinians billions of dollars over the years and very little of it has found its way into projects that provide work for the people of Gaza or into infrastructure.  The infrastructure that was there when the Israel’s left Gaza has been destroyed. 

The people of Gaza need to face the consequences of their actions.  For example, on December 22, 2008, approximately 60 rockets were fired from Gaza at Israel (according to the Washington Post), how much money was spent to do that?  We have enabled the creation of a terrorist state, why should be have to support it financially?

The Boston Globe has a story today about the upside of being unemployed.  Well. ok, there actually is an upside–family time, personal time, etc., but wait a minute.  The people in the article state that they know they will eventually have to go back to work, but they don’t seem to be in a hurry.  Oh, so we are paying for their little mini interludes.  It used to be that you had to check in with unemployment weekly and tell them about your job search.  Have we lost that requirement somewhere (as we are extending unemployment benefits)?  Where is common sense–when unemployment benefits are extended, people wait longer to find a new job–it’s called human nature. 

The other interesting part of this story is its spin on unemployment.  When George Bush was President, 6 per cent unemployment was the end of the world.  People didn’t have enough money to feed their dogs and cats.  Now with Barack Obama as President and the unemployment rate climbing (it’s still not near what it was under Jimmy Carter), there are joys of unemployment.  I’m definitely feeling manipulated.

I believe I have posted this chart before, but it’s a good idea to keep remembering what is going on with our tax dollars.  The chart is from The Heritage Foundation.

As we go through the next year or so and wonder why the private sector of our economy is not growing, we need to remember this chart.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Congress is getting ready to give Washington, D. C., full voting rights in the House of Representatives.

The Heritage Foundation has also weighed in on this issue.  They point out that:

“The Constitution’s District Clause, in Article I, Section 8, declares the District of Columbia to be subject directly to the federal legislature. “The Congress shall have power,” it reads,

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States….

Contemporary constitutional analysis upholds Congress’s exclusive authority over the District. As a federal court stated in a 2004 opinion, “the District and its residents are the subjects of Congress’s unique powers, exercised to address the unique circumstances of our nation’s capital.””

It seems that there are a few interesting issues here.  Washington, D. C., is an example of the governing ability of Congress–Congress is in charge of administering the city.  The city has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country (most Democrats love restrictive gun laws) and one of the highest murder rates in the country.  The city schools are among the worst in the nation.  Washington, D. C., does not have a reputation of being a well-governed city.  How would having a vote in the House of Representatives help solve this problem?

Aside from being unconstitutional, this is simply a bad idea.  It accomplishes nothing except to provide one more Democrat vote in the House of Representatives.  (Washington, D. C., tends to be liberal–it was the only ‘state’ other than Massachusetts to vote for George McGovern.)  This is attempt by President Obama and the Democrat Congress to make sure they stay in power, regardless of any Constitutional issues that may be involved.

Michael Barone has posted an article at Townhall.com regarding the 2010 Census.  Michael Barone points out that the President takes an oath to defend the Constitution and according to the Constitution, the Census has to be taken every ten years (Congress passed a law putting it under the Department of Commerce.).

The Census determines how many representatives each state sends to Congress and how many electoral votes every state has in the Presidential election.  We depend on an accurate census to allow our government to function fairly.  The Census also determines the amount of federal aid going to each state.

We do have a Census Bureau.  The ideal plan here is to let the people at the Census Bureau handle the Census.  They have the experience and the knowledge–they know what they are doing.

Power Line Blog posted an article today by Dan Diker of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs concerning the recent trip to the Middle East by John Kerry.  Senator John Kerry’s visit to Gaza and Syria was well received in Tehran–Israel was immediately attacked by rockets fired from southern Lebanon and Gaza.  The American outreach is actually strengthening Hamas and undermining PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas on the Palestinian Street.

This sort of outreach will have exactly the opposite effect intended.  We need to realize that the goal of Syria and Iran is the destruction of Israel.  When we strengthen our ties with Syria and Iran, we imperil Israel’s existence.  The sort of outreach that John Kerry is doing will not bring peace–it will only hasten the next war.

I haven’t written much about the budget battle in California because I don’t really understand it.  But I did find a relatively coherent article in the Los Angeles Times that I think covers the highlights.

The bottom line is–it is going to cost more to live in California.  According to the article:

“According to a legislative analysis of those four tax increases, an average family of four with an annual income of $75,000 would pay $963 more a year in taxes.”

As I have said, I really don’t know a lot about California, but from what I have heard, $75,000 a year in that state is not a lot of money. 

The voters will get a chance to vote on some of the provisions of the tax bill.  I’m not sure what the consequences of their voting will be.

The real shame in this is that it is totally unnecessary.  California has enought offshore oil to totally fund their budget.  You have to wonder why they are so afraid of the environmentalists that they have not tapped it.  Just for the record, it can be tapped in an environmentally safe way.