The Hill posted an article yesterday about the Republican plan to roll back and limit new federal regulations that are slowing job growth and causing people to lose their jobs.

For example, The Hill reported on June 9 of this year that American Electric Power said that it will shut down five coal-fired power plants and spend billions of dollars to comply with a series of pending Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations.  The costs of complying with the regulations will result in an increase in electricity prices of 10 to 35 percent and cost 600 jobs, AEP said.  Maybe this would be a good time to put some EPA regulations on hold until the job situation improves.  These are pending regulations, but as far as I know, they are continuing forward.

The article in The HIll yesterday reported:

“The GOP will make a major push this fall for the REINS Act, which would require all major regulations to get a vote in Congress. Also on the short list is a bill sponsored by Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.) and reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee in July that requires more extensive cost-benefit analysis on regulations. Finally, there are dozens of policy riders in the appropriations bills that will target burdensome regulations.”

For whatever reason, Democrats like regulations.  Some of the push-back so far:

“(The Economic Policy Institute’s Isaac) Shapiro said that EPI studies show negligible costs to the economy from Obama’s regulations but massive benefits. One study found all the major implemented environmental regulations costing only $12 billion.

“He said the focus on regulations “is being used as a cover for the lack of any pro-jobs agenda coming out of conservative circles.” He said the 2007-8 financial crisis shows that more regulations are needed in finance and housing and said the BP oil spill in the Gulf shows the damage that can result to the economy from weak environmental regulations.

“”I think it would be very unfortunate if they would choose to shut down the government over environmental regulations,” he added.”

The issue will come to a head in September when the REINS ACT comes to the floor of the House.

This is the summary of the REINS ACT from Thomas.gov:

Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011 or the REINS Act – Rewrites provisions regarding congressional review of agency rulemaking to require congressional approval of major rules of the executive branch before they may take effect (currently, major rules take effect unless Congress passes and the President signs a joint resolution disapproving them). Defines “major rule” as any rule, including an interim final rule, that has resulted in or is likely to result in: (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or U.S. competitiveness.

Provides that if a joint resolution of approval of a major rule is not enacted by the end of 70 session days or legislative days after the agency proposing the rule submits its report on such rule to Congress, the rule shall be deemed not to be approved and shall not take effect. Permits a major rule to take effect for 90 calendar days without such approval if the President determines such rule is necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency, for the enforcement of criminal laws, for national security, or to implement an international trade agreement.

Sets forth House and Senate procedures for joint resolutions approving major rules and disapproving non-major rules.

Things to note about the fight to pass the REINS ACT:

Unions and consumer groups are outraged over the REINS Act and have been lobbying against it

Office of Management and Budget spokesperson Meg O’Reilly said the statistics are inaccurate since they look at hundreds of proposed regulations that might never see the light of day.  (That is pure spin.)

Isaac Shapiro has stated that the benefits of regulations the House of Representatives are trying to rein in are increased working hours due to better employee health.  (More spin.)

The article posted by The Hill on Saturday reports:

“Democrat aides are worried that the push on the appropriations policy riders, especially in the bill funding the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), could lead to a government shutdown crisis at the end of September. That bill is listed by Cantor’s office as a tool for regulatory reform.”

If our nation is to survive, we are going to have to pry power out of Washington, D. C., one fight at a time.  They are going to be nasty fights with a lot of things said that are not true.  It is the reponsibility of all voters to say informed and do their own research.  Good luck!

The United States Constitution states:

“We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Please note “provide for the common defence”–it’s important.  Unfortunately, we seem to be overlooking a serious threat to our nation (other than our runaway spending).  At the end of July, The Diplomat posted a news story about what is currently happening in China with their defense build up. 

The article points out:

“China’s build-up is driven by a two-pronged strategy. First, China seeks to deny access by the United States and other naval powers to the Yellow, East China and South China Seas, thereby (1) establishing its own equivalent to the way the United States saw the Caribbean in the 20^th century, from which its blue water navy can operate globally; (2) dominating the natural resources and disputed island chains such as the Spratly and Senkaku Island chains in those seas; and (3) giving it the capacity to reunify Taiwan with the mainland by force and without US interference, if necessary. China’s assertiveness in confronting and harassing Asian and US civilian and naval ships in the region over the past decade shows a sustained level of determination on this front.”

It will be interesting to see how Japan feels about this build-up, and it could mean serious trouble for the area.

The article further reports:

“The officially reported Chinese military budget for 2011 is $91.5 billion, a massive increase from its $14.6 billion budget in 2000.  China acknowledges that a third of its spending is now devoted to its Navy, yet even this big leap is almost certainly understated. China is notoriously non-transparent with its military expenditures, and most analysts believe that it spends significantly more on its armed forces than the publicly reported number. Further, Chinese military labour costs for its soldiers, sailors and airman is a fraction of what Western governments spend, where salaries, benefits and pensions are usually the largest share of defence budgets. This allows China to devote more of its budget to building weapons systems than its competitors. Unlike Western governments, which are slashing defence spending, China will continue to increase spending in coming years.”

This is not good news.  We have not only overspent–40 percent of every dollar we spend is borrowed from the Chinese.  We are funding the people who are planning to destroy us as a world naval power.

Please follow the link above to read the rest of the article.  The author of the article, Robert C. O’Brien, is the Managing Partner of Arent Fox Los Angeles. He served as a US Representative to the United Nations. He can be followed on Twitter @robertcobrien.

I really am tired of listening to Democrats blame George Bush for the deficits.  The facts do not support the accusation, but somehow a lot of the press has neglected to look closely at the accusation.  Byron York posted a story at the Washington Examiner on Thursday detailing the actual facts.

Let’s look at some of the facts:

In 2003 the government collected $1.782 trillion in revenue.

In 2004 the government collected $1.88 trillion in revenue.

In 2005 the government collected $2.153 trillion in revenue.

In 2006 the government collected $2.406 trillion in revenue.

In 2007 the government collected $2.567 trillion in revenue.

That doesn’t sound as if the tax cuts cost money.

In January 2001 the debt was $5.7 trillion. 

In January 2005 the debt was $7.6 trillion.

In January 2009 the debt was $10.6 trillion.

Obviously the increase of $4.9 trillion over eight years is awful, but it pales in comparison to what President Obama has done in only two and a half hears.  Our current debt is $14.4 trillion–an increase of almost $4 trillion in two and a half years.

The Republicans overspent, but they only controlled Congress for four years.  The rest of the time during the Bush administration, Congress was either controlled by the Democrats or split between the two parties. 

Just a side note on all of this.  Bill Clinton did not create a budget surplus–he was fortunate enough to be in office while the tech bubble was forming.  The increase in tax revenue during the Clinton administration was due to a large increase in capital gains tax income as people began to cash in on the tech bubble.  Unfortunately, George Bush was president when the bubble popped, but he still managed to increase tax revenue with tax cuts.

Think about it.

One of the blogs at the Daily Mail posted an article on Friday about taxing the rich.  If you have listened to any Democrat say anything in the past week you have probably heard the words millionaires and billionaires, corporate jets, rich corporations, people who prospered in recent years, etc.  That is is called class envy.  It’s supposed to make you and I want to sock it to anyone who makes more money than we do.  I fell for it once in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s.  I thought it would be a good idea to put a small tax on luxury items because the rich could afford it.  I then watched the unemployment rate rise because the people manufacturing and building the luxury items lost their jobs because the rich decided not to buy luxury items quite so frequently.  Then the people in the service industries began losing their jobs because the people who made luxury items didn’t have the money to pay for the services offered by the service industries.  People went out to dinner less, traveled less, etc.  Then I watched the Democrats who had brokered the tax compromise with George H. W. Bush use the compromise against him in the election.  That experience was part of my becoming a conservative.

Anyway, back to the Daily Mail.  Don Surber who wrote the article did some basic math.  He points out:

A report from the Internal Revenue Service found that the rich — 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more — earned a total of $240 billion in 2009.

Even of you confiscated every dime they earned, you would barely have enough money to cover government spending for 24 days.

Of course, about a quarter of that money already goes to the federal government for federal income. So make that 18 days.

Another 227,000 people earned $1 million or more in 2009.

Millionaires averaged taxes of 24.4% of their income — up from 23.1% in 2008.

They, too, did not earn enough money to come anywhere close to covering the annual deficits that are $1.5 trillion a year.

 The article concludes:

Individual tax collections totaled $1,175,422,000,000 in 2009 — or 15.4% of all income.

Doubling federal income taxes for everyone would still leave us $400 billion or so shy of balancing the budget.

The true discussion here is the role and size of the government.  Traditionally, government spending has been about 18 to 20 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  Even when you raise taxes, revenues are about 18 percent of GDP.  It should be obvious that if we continue to spend more than 18 percent of the GDP, our debt will grow.

This is where we have been and where we are going.  I think it is time to turn around.

If you think there are not some people out there who are angry with Congress and politicians in general, read this.  I received it in my email today.

Alan Simpson, Senator from Wyoming , Co-Chair of Obama’s deficit commission, calls senior citizens the Greediest Generation as he compared “Social Security” to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats.
August, 2010.

Here’s a response in a letter from a unknown fellow in Montana … I think he is a little ticked off!   He also tells it like it is !

Wow!

As the battle between Boeing Corporation, the unions, and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) continues, the unions continue to use questionable tactics in an attempt to unionize Boeing in South Carolina.

The Daily Caller reported last week on some of the recent union activities in South Carolina.  Workers in the new Boeing plant in South Carolina rejected the attempts of the International Association of Machinists (IAM) to unionize them, but the IAM representatives are still hanging around Charlestown.  Union bosses have paid visits to the homes of Boeing workers to instruct them on the benefits of unionization.  Workers have been told that if they form a union, the IAM will get the NLRB to drop its case against Boeing. 

The article concludes:

“But if union organizers are indeed suggesting to South Carolina workers that unionizing could secure their jobs and dispense with the NLRB case, the IAM could be in serious trouble. Gowdy, who worked as a federal prosecutor before entering politics, told TheDC what the IAM is allegedly doing might be illegal.

“”I’ll liken it to a prosecution: A complaining witness doesn’t have the authority to dismiss a prosecution,” Gowdy said. “And now that [NLRB acting general counsel] Lafe Solomon is in for a dime, in for a dollar with his complaint, it would be highly improper if not illegal to threaten to withdraw the complaint if they unionize the South Carolina plant.””

One of the reasons the unions are so desperate to grow membership is that their pension funds are unfunded.  I ran an article at rightwinggranny in April of 2010 based on a Big Government article which stated:

“The worst part of the Obama executive order is the real reason for it.  According to a September, 2009 report by Moody’s Investor Services, construction union pensions in 2008 were just 54% funded.  Just like Social Security, the promised union pensions were too fat.  They were built on the similar demographic flaw of social security.  The system would pay full benefits to the earliest retirees, but would only be able to continue to do that if the ratio of workers to retirees is sustainable.  So what does it mean when the ratio fails?  How do you restore the footing on a plan so underfunded when the ration of worker to retiree continues to get worse?”

The crunch point of this ponzi scheme is about to be reached.  That is why the unions are desperately trying to change to rules of unionization–to save face on their pension funds.  If more members do not join quickly, the whole pension scheme will collapse.

It is obvious from this chart posted at joeduck.com that the solution to our revenue is simple–increase the taxes on the bottom 50 percent of earners in the United States.  The chart illustrates that the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers only pay 2.59 percent of the total income taxes.  It is also true that 49 percent of Americans pay no income tax at all.  Are we missing a limitless source of government revenue here?  (P. S. Don’t tell Harry Reid!)

Table 1. Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2008(Updated October 2010)

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

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

The article states:

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

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

The article further reports:

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

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air quoted Bloomberg:

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

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

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

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

The article reports:

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

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

The article at Hot Air concludes:

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

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

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

The article reports:

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

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

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

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

The article reports:

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

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

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

The article concludes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article at the Daily Caller concludes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article further states:

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

The article concludes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hot Air reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article reports:

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

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

The story continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the things Mr. Groseclose discovered:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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