Friday, July 29, 2011

Representatives in congress MUST listen to their constituents!

Way to go Palin! She stopped the vote last night with this post. Why? Because this latest bill doesn't cut anything at all. It spends more in fiscal year 2012...

  • Republicans campaigned on a promise to rein in out-of-control government spending
  • You've also got to be deadly serious about cutting the deficit.
  • In order to avert a fiscal disaster, we will also need to check the growth of spending on our entitlement programs. That will be a huge challenge, but it must be confronted head on.
  • When the Left in the media pat you on the back, quickly reassess where you are and readjust, for the liberals' praise is a warning bell you must heed.
  • These are the men and women who sent you to Washington. May your work and leadership honor their faith in you.

Governor Palin posted the following note on her Facebook page:

Out here in proverbial politico flyover country, we little folk are watching the debt ceiling debate with great interest and concern. Today I re-read the open letter I wrote to Republican Freshman Members of Congress in November 2010, just days after they were ushered into office in an historic landslide victory due in large part to the activism of commonsense patriots who are considered part of the Tea Party movement. I respectfully ask these GOP Freshman to re-read this letter and remember us "little people" who believed in them, donated to their campaigns, spent hours tirelessly volunteering for them, and trusted them with our votes. This new wave of public servants may recall that they were sent to D.C. for such a time as this.

The original letter is pasted below, with added emphasis to certain passages that I feel are especially relevant to the current discussion.

All my best to you, GOP Freshmen, from up here in the Last Frontier.


Sarah Palin

P.S. Everyone I talk to still believes in contested primaries.


November 13, 2010

Welcome to all Republican Freshmen and congratulations!

The task before you is daunting because so much damage has been done in the last two years, but I believe you have the chance to achieve great things.

Republicans campaigned on a promise to rein in out-of-control government spendingand to repeal and replace the massive, burdensome, and unwanted health care law President Obama and the Democrat Congress passed earlier this year in defiance of the will of the majority of the American people. These are promises that you must keep. Obamacare is a job-killer, a regulatory nightmare, and an enormous unfunded mandate. The American people don't want it and we can't afford it. We ask, with all due respect, that you remember your job will be to work to replace this legislation with real reform that relies on free market principles and patient-centered policies. The first step is, of course, to defund Obamacare.

You've also got to be deadly serious about cutting the deficit. Despite what some would like us to believe, tax cuts didn't get us into the mess we're in. Government spending did. Tough decisions need to be made about reducing government spending. The longer we put them off, the worse it will get. We need to start by cutting non-essential spending. That includes stopping earmarks (because abuse of the earmark process created the "gateway-drug" that allowed backroom deals and bloated budgets), canceling all further spending on the failed Stimulus program, and rolling back non-discretionary spending to 2008 levels. You can do more, but this would be a good start.

In order to avert a fiscal disaster, we will also need to check the growth of spending on our entitlement programs. That will be a huge challenge, but it must be confronted head on. We must do it in a humane way that honors the government's current commitments to our fellow Americans while also keeping faith with future generations. We cannot rob from our children and grandchildren's tomorrow to pay for our unchecked spending today. Beyond that, we need to reform the way Congress conducts business in order to make it procedurally easier to cut spending than to increase it. We need to encourage zero-based budgeting practices in D.C. like the kind fiscally conservative mayors and governors utilize to balance their budgets and reduce unnecessary spending.

There in the insulated and isolated Beltway you will be far removed from the economic pain felt by so many Americans who are out of work. Please remember that if we want real job growth, we must create a stable investment climate by ending the tidal wave of overly burdensome regulations coming out of Washington. Businesses need certainty – and freedom that incentivizes competition – to grow and expand our workforce.

The last thing our small businesses need is tax hikes. It falls to the current Democrat-controlled Congress to decide on the future of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. If it does not permanently renew all of them, you should move quickly to do so in the new Congress. It would remove from households and businesses the threat of a possible $3.8 trillion tax hike hitting all Americans at the worst possible moment, with our economy struggling to recover from a deep recession! You must continue to remind Democrats that the people they are dismissing as "rich" are the small business owners who create up to 70% of all jobs in this country!

Another issue of vital importance is border security. Americans expect our leadership in Washington to act now to secure our borders. Don't fall for the claims of those who suggest that we can't secure our borders until we simultaneously deal with the illegal immigrants already here. Let's deal with securing the border first. That alone is a huge challenge that has been ignored for far too long.

On foreign policy and national security, I urge you to stick to our principles: strong defense, free trade, nurturing allies, and steadfast opposition to America's enemies.  We are the most powerful country on earth and the world is better off because of it.  Our president does not seem to understand this. If we withdraw from the world, the world will become a much more dangerous place. You must push President Obama to finish the job right in Iraq and get the job done in Afghanistan, otherwise we who are war-weary will forever question why America's finest are sent overseas to make the ultimate sacrifice with no clear commitment to victory from those who send them. You should be prepared to stand with the President against Iran's nuclear aspirations using whatever means necessary to ensure the mullahs in Tehran do not get their hands on nuclear weapons. And you can stand with the Iranian people who oppose the tyrannical rule of the clerics and concretely support their efforts to win their freedom – even if the President does not.

You need to say no to cutting the necessities in our defense budget when we are engaged in two wars and face so many threats – from Islamic extremists to a nuclear Iran to a rising China. As Ronald Reagan said, "We will always be prepared, so we may always be free." You will also have the opportunity to push job-creating free trade agreements with allies like Colombia and South Korea. You can stand with allies like Israel, not criticize them. You can let the President know what you believe – Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, not a settlement. And for those of you joining the United States Senate, don't listen to desperate politically-motivated arguments about the need for hasty consideration of the "New START" treaty.  Insist on your right to patient and careful deliberation of New START to address very real concerns about verification, missile defense, and modernization of our nuclear infrastructure. No New START in the lame duck!

You can stand against misguided proposals to try dangerous, evil terrorists in the US; precipitously close the Guantanamo prison; and a return to the failed policies of the past in treating the war on terror as a law enforcement problem. Finally, you have a platform to express the support of the American people for all those around the world seeking their freedom that God has bestowed within all mankind's being – from Burma and Egypt to Russia and Venezuela – because the spread of liberty increases our own security. You, freshmen lawmakers, can and will be powerful voices in support of foreign policies that protect our interests and promote our values! Thank you for being willing to fight for our values and our freedom!

In all this, you should extend a hand to President Obama and Democrats in Congress. After this election, they may finally be prepared to work with Republicans on some of these issues for the good of the country. And if not, we will all be looking forward to 2012.

Remember that some in the media will love you when you stray from the time-tested truths that built America into the most exceptional nation on earth. When the Left in the media pat you on the back, quickly reassess where you are and readjust, for the liberals' praise is a warning bell you must heed. Trust me on that.

I and most Americans are so excited for you. Working together, we have every right to be optimistic about our future. We can be hopeful because real hope lies in the ingenuity, generosity, and boundless courage of the everyday Americans who make our country exceptional. These are the men and women who sent you to Washington. May your work and leadership honor their faith in you.

With sincere congratulations and a big Alaskan heart,

Sarah Palin

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Playing Through

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

0.025% cut. WOW!

As Mark Steyn notes at National Review

If the CBO's scoring is correct – that it reduces the 2012 deficit by just $1 billion – then the "cut" represents what the United States borrows every five hours and 20 minutes. In other words, in the time it takes to photocopy and distribute Boehner's "plan", the savings have all been borrowed back.

As for the rest, I'm philosophically opposed to "entitlements" because they strike at one of the most basic principles of representative government – that a parliament cannot bind its successor. But the same objection applies to jelly-spined legislators announcing grand plans for bazillions of savings years after their term of office has expired. Who knows what'll be happening in 2017? Maybe North Korea will accidentally nuke the South Sandwich Islands and we'll be expected to chip in for reconstruction.

Totally amazing, Obama, Reid and the Democrats aren't even willing to cut anything. $1 Billion in a $4 Trillion dollar budget represents only 

0.025% cut.  WOW! 

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

The sad truth is that the president wants a blank check to spend

Great speech.

The reality is that even 1 trillion spread out over 10 years is not nearly enough to solve the debt problem. Worse yet: there are NO cuts for the upcoming fiscal year, so the whole thing is a sham anyway.

I can't wait until we have president Palin in there to make some REAL CUTS in federal spending which is way out of hand!

Boehner's Address to Nation on the Debt Ceiling

By Rep. John Boehner

Good evening. I'm John Boehner. I serve as Speaker of the whole House -- of the members of both parties that you elect. These are difficult times in the life of our nation. Millions are looking for work, have been for some time, and the spending binge going on in Washington is a big part of the reason why.

Before I served in Congress, I ran a small business in Ohio. I was amazed at how different Washington DC operated than every business in America. Where most American business make the hard choices to pay their bills and live within their means, in Washington more spending and more debt is business as usual.

I've got news for Washington - those days are over.

President Obama came to Congress in January and requested business as usual -- yet another routine increase in the national debt limit -- we in the House said 'not so fast.' Here was the president, asking for the largest debt increase in American history, on the heels of the largest spending binge in American history.

Here's what we got for that spending binge: a massive health care bill that most Americans never asked for. A 'stimulus' bill that was more effective in producing material for late-night comedians than it was in producing jobs. And a national debt that has gotten so out of hand it has sparked a crisis without precedent in my lifetime or yours.

The United States cannot default on its debt obligations. The jobs and savings of too many Americans are at stake.

What we told the president in January was this: the American people will not accept an increase in the debt limit without significant spending cuts and reforms.

And over the last six months, we've done our best to convince the president to partner with us to do something dramatic to change the fiscal trajectory of our country, something that will boost confidence in our economy, renew a measure of faith in our government, and help small businesses get back on track.

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

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

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

The president has often said we need a 'balanced' approach -- which in Washington means: we spend more. . .you pay more. Having run a small business, I know those tax increases will destroy jobs.

The president is adamant that we cannot make fundamental changes to our entitlement programs. As the father of two daughters, I know these programs won't be there for them and their kids unless significant action is taken now.

The sad truth is that the president wanted a blank check six months ago, and he wants a blank check today. That is just not going to happen.

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

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

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

This debate isn't about President Obama and House Republicans ... it isn't about Congress and the White House ... it's about what's standing between the American people and the future we seek for ourselves and our families.

You know, I've always believed, the bigger government, the smaller the people. And right now, we have a government so big and so expensive it's sapping the drive of our people and keeping our economy from running at full capacity.

The solution to this crisis is not complicated: if you're spending more money than you're taking in, you need to spend less of it,

There is no symptom of big government more menacing than our debt. Break its grip, and we begin to liberate our economy and our future.

We are up to the task, and I hope President Obama will join us in this work.

God bless you and your families, and God bless America.

John Boehner is a United States Representative from Ohio and the House minority leader.

Gee, what a shock, democrats lied about spending cuts

Gee, what a shock. Democrats put out a spin-line, media regurgitates before checking or getting a comment.

The $2.7 trillion debt-limit increase proposal offered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid contains a $1 trillion gimmick meant to disguise the plan's shallowness on spending cuts. Supporters of the Reid plan are measuring their savings against a baseline that assumes the continuation of surge-level spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the President has neither requested this funding nor signaled that he might request it. Instead, the President has signaled the opposite: a troop drawdown over the next few years. In other words, the Reid plan is claiming credit for "savings" that were already scheduled to occur, and for "cutting" spending that no one has requested.

Rather than defend this gimmick on the merits, supporters of the Reid plan are defending it by claiming that House Republicans "also included" this $1 trillion in savings when calculating spending reductions in the budget resolution that passed the House last April. This claim is false. The House-passed budget cuts $6.2 trillion in spending relative to President Obama's FY2012 budget request, and this spending reduction assumes ZERO savings from the global war on terror relative to the President's budget.

In the interest of maximum transparency, House Republicans produced additional estimates in order to provide a broad range of comparisons by which outsiders could judge the seriousness of the their budget's commitment to real spending cuts and controls.

I wound up getting it right without checking myself. (Not that not-checking is a good thing or anything.)

Charts are included in his budget noting projected spending. Since he does not project fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan forever, there is little spending for those wars included in those charts.

Obviously. If you're not spending money for X it doesn't show up in your charts.

But he didn't include the "savings" of not fighting wars in his budget proposal.

So, shock, the Democrats lied, and the media trumpeted their lies around the world, before the truth had time to get its shoes on.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Dewey: Open Letter To the Most Arrogant and Petulant President in History

Dewey from Detroit... on the president's recent press conference.

[-- snippets -- click the above link for the whole thing -- it's, sadly, true, yet, funny, too...]

I just got a call about a half hour ago from Speaker Boehner who indicated that he was going to be walking away from the negotiations that we've been engaged in here at the White House for a big deficit reduction and debt reduction package. (See? Right out of the box, derisive. Most presidents would have said something like " the talks broke down over disagreement regarding the size and scope of the tax increase." What you said, if I may paraphrase, was "that arrogant little prick had the unmitigated gall to walk away!? From ME?!" See the difference?) 

Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense. (I  think it's fair to say that nearly all of the "discretionary" spending was in defense. That might be considered by some to be disingenuous.) 

We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.  We believed that it was possible to shape those in a way that preserved the integrity of the system, (As I understand it, you intend to preserve them in every way, just pretending to cut them by using the usual Congressional  accounting standards  comprised primarily of smoke and mirrors. Again, disingenuous. And  derisive, in that you think we'll all swallow another mouthful of that hogwash.) 

made them available for the next generation, and did not affect current beneficiaries in an adverse way. (Certainly not before you plan on leaving office, sometime around 2034? I think you see my point, above. More hogwash.)

So you had a bipartisan group of senators, including Republicans (always good to in include the R-words in a "bipartisan group" but again, a little derisive) 

 What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking taxes — tax rates, but could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could have lowered rates generally while broadening the base. (Three problems: 1st, and here's that disingenuous thing again, eliminating "loopholes," and deductions is the same as raising taxes. And besides, blanket terms like "loopholes"  don't set well with "the folks" after the debacle of  Obamacare. We want specifics, details. How about a little more of that transparency we heard so much about? we don't feel good about deals cut behind closed doors, why don't you go to the floor of the House and Congress and have C-span cover the "negotiations" in like you (disingenuously) promised.  2ndly, it's a bit derisive to expect us to fall for the old "trust us, we'll reform the tax code later and you'll love it:" it's the oldest trick in the book, and we aren't that stupid. How about specifics? Honest, we don't need our betters to process this for us.  3rd: read our lips, NO NEW TAXES –aka, "revenues." There you go again, with the dismissiveness.)

And we were calling for modifications (as opposed to "reductions" – do you see where I'm going here?) to entitlement programs, would have saved just as much over the 10-year window (the window that doesn't open until 2034; are you following me here? That's totally disingenuous).  In other words, this was an extraordinarily fair (almost an oxymoron) deal. [totally unfair deal as there are little if no real cuts, especially in the next fiscal year, which is all that counts because everything will be redone next year anyway.] 

If it was unbalanced, it was unbalanced in the direction of not enough revenue. (You really don't get it do you? We're spending too much: and BTW nobody before your administration referred to taxes as "revenue". Generally you have to do something in order to generate revenue. Collecting taxes does not qualify as "doing something." And here's an interesting little bit of trivia for you:  tax "revenues" are currently the same % of GDP as they've  been historically. Government spending doesn't increase GDP, that's why it's so damn hard to spend your way out of a recession. You do know that, right? As The Big Dawg's loveable band of crazed Democratic operatives used to say: It's the economy, Stupid! Say - you might want to see if Carville and Begala are available.)

It is hard to understand why Speaker Boehner would walk away from this kind of deal.  And, frankly, if you look at the commentary, there are a lot of Republicans  that are puzzled as to why it couldn't get done.  In fact, there are a lot of Republican voters out there who are puzzled as to why it couldn't get done. Because the fact of the matter is the vast majority of the American people believe we should have a balanced approach. (Would that be the 2/3 of Americans in CNN's poll who favor the Cut, Cap and Balance Bill? Or the 65% who are opposed to the Gang of Six plan? Or the other 80% that agree with you?) [Balanced budget, not balanced approach. Balanced budget means spending reductions. Cut the spending.]

Now, if you do not have any revenues, as the most recent Republican plan that's been put forward both in the House and the Senate proposed, if you have no revenues at all, what that means is more of a burden on seniors, more drastic cuts to education, more drastic cuts to research, a bigger burden on services that are going to middle-class families all across the country. (Well no, that's just disingenuous. There's trillions of dollars to pick and choose from. Leave the seniors out of it, but feel free to eliminate the Department of Education – a misnomer if ever there was one. I also offer up the EPA , and then we could build hydro-electric plants too. And as far as "research" goes: any government funded function that invented the religion of global warming ought to have it's heart cut out. Before the golden age of federal grants, college professors used to teach, conduct research - with grad students - and publish their results, all for the salary that the college could afford. Now they earn a princes income, they don't teach, barely talk to students and spend most of their time "overseeing" the writing of "their" grant requests and research projects while  flying all over the world to "present" their "findings." All of  which will be refuted by new research, equally non-scientific, in less than the span of a computer's useful life. So I vote to ax federal research grants too. So far they've  just made people dumber. And don't even get me started on "arts" grants. Pretty sure they're not in the Constitution.)  

And it essentially asks nothing of corporate jet owners, it asks nothing of oil and gas companies, it asks nothing from folks like me who've done extremely well and can afford to do a little bit more.(Dude, you've run that one up and down the flag pole so often it's getting threadbare. STFU.)

In other words, if you don't have revenues, the entire thing ends up being tilted on the backs of the poor and middle-class families.[Clue me in Mr. President, how can spending cuts hurt poor and middle class families?  They need jobs, and those jobs will come from the private sector when you lower the business tax rate]

  And the majority of Americans don't agree on that approach. [Patently untrue!] (See above for discussion on which "majority" we're talking about.)

And they are going to have to explain to me how it is that we are going to avoid default.  (Yeah, see, that petulant crap? Not so much. It's like the grand slam: arrogant, derisive, dismissive and disingenuous.) And they can come up with any plans that they want and bring them up here and we will work on them.  The only bottom line that I have is that we have to extend this debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013. (Seriously? Did you really say that? Your petulance is beginning to sound like hysteria, boss.)

And the reason for it is we've now seen how difficult it is to get any kind of deal done.  The economy is already weakened. (Well, thanks for setting that straight. And for noticing.) [nd thanks for making a recession much worse with your policies] And the notion that five or six or eight months from now we'll be in a better position to try to solve this problem makes no sense.[Exactly, so do the cutting now!]

The American people expect action.  (Hey Bozo, the American people expect a President that knows a tax from a revenue, and can at least buy a damn clue in the leadership department. But to paraphrase a great man  "we go to battle with the President we have, not the President we wish we had." And again, knock off the imperial BS, we're getting tired of it.) I continue to believe that a package that is balanced and actually has serious debt and deficit reduction is the right way to go. (Duh) And the American people I think are fed up with political posturing and an inability for politicians to take responsible action as opposed to dodge their responsibilities. (We undoubtedly disagree on what the meaning of "responsible" is, but at least we agree on the concept.)

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Democrats have forgotten their principles over the deficit and the debt

Those of us who still watch old movies can compare the present situation to the 1957 classic "The Bridge on the River Kwai."

In the film, an upright British colonel who had become a prisoner of war forgets temporarily the principles he was sworn to uphold and—to show his Japanese captors the professionalism of British soldiers—puts his men to work building the best bridge possible.

In the end, he recovers his sanity and realizes he is only helping the Japanese war effort, and he helps destroy the bridge.

It isn't too late for us yet. Government spending is currently at 24.3 percent of GDP, and U.S. debt held by the public stands at 69.1 percent of GDP. This bridge needs to be stopped.

Congress should not raise the debt limit without getting spending under control. Debt limit legislation should put America on the path to driving down federal spending and borrowing, while preserving the ability to protect America without raising taxes.

Edwin J. Feulner
President, The Heritage Foundation

Quick Hits:

ha ha ha ha

ObamaMedia to GOP Congressman: Do you have a degree in economics?  GOP Congressman: Yes ma'am I do.  Highest honors.  ObamaMedia: ……..

Strong correlation of Obamacare to joblessness

So it was Obamacare that caused the huge loss of jobs and the lack of new jobs... Hmmmm.

By Neal Boortz

What happened almost immediately after Dear Ruler signed ObamaCare into law?  The private sector stopped creating jobs, that's what.  Yeah, I know … Nancy Pelosi said that the passage of ObamaCare would create 400,000 jobs "almost immediately," but she was as full of yak squeeze on that one as she is on most of her other pronouncements. 

A new report from the Heritage Foundation highlights the correlation between the time ObamaCare was signed and job creation figures.  From January 2009 through April 2010 (when ObamaCare went into effect), we were created jobs at a pace of about 67,600 per month.  After ObamaCare was passed, that figure dropped by 90% to just 6,400 jobs a month.  While it can't be said for sure that ObamaCare was the cause, the timing is convenient and would be in line with interviews, articles and polls showing that job creators are stifled by uncertainty, government regulations and higher taxes … all of which are a guarantee under ObamaCare.  The Heritage Foundation offers a few reasons as to why ObamaCare discourages employers from hiring:

  • Businesses with fewer than 50 workers have a strong incentive to maintain this size, which allows them to avoid the mandate to provide government-approved health coverage or face a penalty;
  • Businesses with more than 50 workers will see their costs for health coverage rise—they must purchase more expensive government-approved insurance or pay a penalty; and
  • Employers face considerable uncertainty about what constitutes qualifying health coverage and what it will cost. They also do not know what the health care market or their health care costs will look like in four years. This makes planning for the future difficult

Creating jobs, better healthcare .. these are not important compared to the idea of making more people dependent on the government.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

The economy was working under Bush and a Republican congress - The Dummycrats changed all that

As recently as 2007 only 5 cents of every dollar spent by the federal government was borrowed. In just four short years, that number has skyrocketed to 43 cents …

Bush was terrible when it comes to government spending .. but what if Barack Obama had just stuck to Bush's spending levels?

Would you be happy with $2 trillion in cuts?  Read this and you may think otherwise. It's not nearly enough.

ObamaCare is supposed to increase health coverage and slow spending. The promises of RomneyCare in Massachusetts were the same. The results?

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Media Bias

You should have heard the news report on NPR this morning. It was disgusting.

They indicated that the cut and balance bill put forth in the house was:

"A tea-party lead bill that the president would veto and has no chance in the senate where a bipartisan bill is being originated to give the president the power to raise the debt ceiling"

Anything biased there? Nah.

How about this: the bill in the house only cuts $111 Billion in the next fiscal year. That's only 2.5% of the $4Trillion dollar budget.

How can NPR claim to be unbiased? It's a joke.

A non-biased news network would have pointed out that the bill in the house indeed does not go very far toward solving the imbalanced budget problem at all. 2.5% just won't close the gap of 40%. A non-biased news network would have indicated that Obama - by indicating he'd veto a bill that only cuts 2.5% - is being partisan.  Additionally, a 'smart' network would have pointed out that the balanced budget amendment doesn't even go to the president. It goes to the states to garner 50% approval of 2/3 of those states. The brainiac Obama probably doesn't even know that.

"Of the one hundred or so news outlets that I examine, only a handful lean right. These include: the Washington Times, the Daily Oklahoman, the (Tucson) Arizona Daily Star, and Fox News' Special Report... But even the latter, supposedly conservative news outlets, are not far-right. For instance, Special Report is more centrist than any of the three network evening news shows. That is, its conservative bias is less than the liberal bias of ABC, CBS, or NBC.

The effects of media bias are real and significant. My results suggest that media bias aids Democratic candidates by about 8-10 percentage points in a typical election. I find, for instance, that if media bias didn't exist, then John McCain would have defeated Barack Obama 56-42, instead of losing 53-46." --Dr. Timothy Groseclose

Monday, July 18, 2011

Obama has revealed the hollowness of liberalism

Obama has revealed the hollowness of liberalism,
too bad so many had to suffer in order to shed that light on a failed top-down government boondoggle.

The good news: Less than a year and a half to go of the vain Obama and his Democrat minions until they are forced to retire by the people.

Re: Walk today?

Two fallacies:

1). Fair share, the 1% are already paying for 50% of the revenue collected.

2). Increasing taxes might make you and the rest of the Obama Zombie Bots feel good because you are 'sticking it to the rich', but the reality is that those individuals will shut down even more, stop generating economic activity, which will in turn hurt the economy even more. So are you prepared for an even worse depression just to do your social form of justice?

Now this is the kind of proposal that has some real teeth to it, and it's about time:

Senator Tom Corburn will introduce a $9 trillion deficit-reduction package today.

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Hopey Dude wrote:

More hard right-wing rubbish. Rs are trying to blackmail the president into making cuts to vets, and elderly to avoid default because they disagree with spending decisions they he made when the Rs could not during the Bushwack era…bringing us to the worse budgetary and economic situation since the depression. Taxation IS the way to pay for government…nothing punitive about it. Time for the top 1% earners to pay fair share for access to our democracy that made them wealthy.



This is spot-on true:


"Modern liberalism is an ideology of hatred and envy.  Its blood burns hotter as every product of its imagination becomes a titanic failure in the real world.  It has nothing left but hatred now.  Liberals have sunk so low that they openly value punitive taxation more than avoiding national default.  They spend their time looking for targets, not solutions."


On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:58 AM, indi wrote:

You are suffering under the delusion that government can do anything in the form of an 'act' or 'bill' to solve unemployment.  They cannot. Period.

What they can do is get out of the way of the private sector.


From:   Hope 'n Dude 
 gee…so if Palin-g becomes the president, there will be yet another way Americans can suffer at the hands of Republicans…. Republican controlled congress has been whining about job creation by the Dems but somehow have failed offer a SINGLE job bill or offer real direction to overcome the unemployment problem. What will Palin-g do to fix that?


We Are The Undefeated: Why Sarah Palin should run: Hayward

Re: Walk today?

This is spot-on true:

"Modern liberalism is an ideology of hatred and envy.  Its blood burns hotter as every product of its imagination becomes a titanic failure in the real world.  It has nothing left but hatred now.  Liberals have sunk so low that they openly value punitive taxation more than avoiding national default.  They spend their time looking for targets, not solutions."

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:58 AM, indi wrote:

You are suffering under the delusion that government can do anything in the form of an 'act' or 'bill' to solve unemployment.  They cannot. Period.

What they can do is get out of the way of the private sector.

From:   Hope 'n Dude 
 gee…so if Palin-g becomes the president, there will be yet another way Americans can suffer at the hands of Republicans…. Republican controlled congress has been whining about job creation by the Dems but somehow have failed offer a SINGLE job bill or offer real direction to overcome the unemployment problem. What will Palin-g do to fix that?


We Are The Undefeated: Why Sarah Palin should run: Hayward

2006: Every Dem Sen -- including Obama -- voted against raising debt limit

FLASHBACK: Every Dem Sen -- including Obama -- voted against raising debt limit in 2006...

Hypocrite: The last 6 times the Democrats raised the debt ceiling there were no tax increases included.


Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Here’s a look at how we balanced the budget last time, in the 1990s.

Here's a look at how we balanced the budget last time, in the 1990s.

Miki's hero was Clinton ... well, let's do what worked under Clinton. (and I don't mean Monica)

Thursday, July 07, 2011

Obama says he froze salaries for federal workers so how did the majority of his White House staff end up with salary increases

Obama says he froze salaries for federal workers .. so how did the majority of his White House staff end up with salary increases?

Obama Refers To The Internet As "The Internets" -- Media Silent

This speaks for itself - lame!

Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures

The lies coming from Obama are bold and astounding. He says he wants to cut $4,000,000,000,000.00 over 10 years, but that's only $4 Billion a year, which is only about 1/4 the yearly deficit which is now over $1.5 Trillion. We need at least a Trillion a year in deficit reduction, and most of that needs to be a reduction in SPENDING! I call his rhetoric lies because he won't take responsibility for making a problem worse, and he won't take the necessary steps to fix the problem.

Hey, Obama increased the budget spending by 30% over two and a half years, why not decrease it by at least that? And that doesn't even include the stimulus, TARP and QE/QE2.

2011 $3.8 Trillion
2010 $3.4 Trillion
2009 $3.5 Trillion
2008 $2.9 Trillion

So, now that our budget is $3.8 Trillion, why not reduce it back to 2008 spending levels? That's still a lot of money. You mean to tell me they can't get by with that? Most of it is used in Washington D.C. And almost none if it helps improve the economy.

UPDATE: Chart revised 5/14/2010

Releasing his budget this Monday, President Barack Obama told the American people:

We won't be able to bring down this deficit overnight, given that the recovery is still taking hold and families across the country still need help. … Just as it would be a terrible mistake to borrow against our children's future to pay our way today, it would be equally wrong to neglect their future by failing to invest in areas that will determine our economic success in this new century.

But not only does President Obama's budget fail to reduce deficits "overnight", his budget actually moves them in the opposite direction. President Obama's budget would:

  • Permanently expand the federal government by nearly 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over 2007 pre-recession levels;
  • Borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010;
  • Leave permanent deficits that top $1 trillion in as late as 2020;

The chart above compares the President's budget deficit projections to the Congressional Budget Office's budget deficit projections under current law. In other words, the policy changes embodied in President Obama's 2011 Budget puts our country $2.5 trillion deeper in debt by 2020 than it other wise would be if current law were left unchanged.

Now the President is apparently arguing that his trillions of dollars in additional deficit spending are needed to "invest in areas that will determine our economic success in this new century."

This is statement goes to the core of the fundamental difference between leftists and conservatives in this country: liberals belief economic growth comes from wise investments by government experts; conservatives believe that economic growth stems from  millions of Americans having the freedom to make their own economic decisions everyday.

President Obama's bailouts, massive stimulus spending, and other dangerous interventionist policies (some of which began in 2008) have made Americans less economically free. The 2010 Index of Economic Freedom analyzes just how economically "free" a country is, and this year America saw a steep and significant decline, enough to make it drop altogether from the "free" category, the first time this has happened in the 16 years we've been publishing these indexes. The United States dropped to "mostly free." As the Index shows, lack of freedom has a direct, negative effect on job growth. It should be no surprise that President Obama's policies have taken us down the path to fewer jobs and record deficits.

Posted in Energy and Environment

Wednesday, July 06, 2011

New Obama “Executive Order” Puts 25 Federal Agencies in Charge of “Rural” America

Cross-posted at

One or two pundits mentioned during the "Weinergate" scandal in early June, that the scandal was just a distraction, and we needed to pay more attention to what Barack Obama was doing while we were looking the "other way."  They were right.

Missouri River flooding near Council Bluffs Iowa

 On June 9th, Barack Obama signed an executive order to create a "White House Rural Council." What is it? Why does rural America suddenly need 25 federal agencies "coordinating" sustainability, resources and whatever?

You know the answer is: This is a power grab of America's farmland and rural communities. This has huge impact, most of which we won't see unless and until Obama is re-elected and then…….watch out. This is good reason to work overtime to make sure there is no second Obama term. Many links follow which give background and context to this EO.   My theory, based on all of this is: The endgame for the administration:  Flood farmers out, distress them financially, buy them out, the government controls the land.

Text of the White House Rural Council created by Exec. Order #13575

Section 1. describes the "purpose" for this Rural council, to which 25 federal agency department heads belong, including Treasury, EPA, Commerce and Homeland Security.

"Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential. The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.

To enhance the Federal Government's efforts to address the needs of rural America, this order establishes a council to better coordinate Federal programs and maximize the impact of Federal investment to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in our rural communities."

I have highlighted above what are common liberal environmentalist agenda "code" words. Why do we suddenly need 25 federal agencies overseeing America's farmland? Why does the federal government have "an important role to play" in what farmers and rural communities do?

Combine this discussion above with the Army Corps of Engineers letters offering to buy farmland which went out [check the date below] at the EXACT same time as Obama signed the executive order.

Fox 4 WDAF TV- Kansas City MO:

"A letter from the US Army Corps of Engineers to landowners along the Missouri River has many in Missouri crying foul, but the Corps says the letters were just poorly timed.

On June 6, the Army Corp of Engineers sent letters to some landowners along the Missouri River, offering to buy their land. Some were and still are now underwater. Everyone from farmers to the Missouri Farm Bureau to even a Missouri senator are asking why now?

Senator Claire McCaskill, touring flood zones in St. Joseph Sunday, says she's angry.

"When these farmers are underwater and struggling to figure out a way forward, they get a letter from the Corp wanting to buy their land," she said. "It seems to me that's kind of kicking a guy when he's down."

The Corp says letters like this go out at this time every year, but that the timing this year was coincidental.

The Corp says it has been acquiring land for 18 years, when Congress authorized a program that allows them to acquire and develop land for fish and wildlife habitat. It says in the future it will be more sensitive.

"If we'd had a little bit better communication internally between programs it wouldn't have happened, but I think we got that fixed, it's regretful and hopefully it won't happen again," Jud Kneuvean with the Army Corp said.

Missouri Farm Bureau President Blake Hurst said, "Even if the letters are not tied to current flooding, there is no excuse for the poor timing."

The Corp says landowners don't even have to respond to the letter. It says its top priority right now is flooding and flood control.

There is so much information to go along with this I am simply going to link these very important articles that tie into this. Each article has many links.

Spread the word.

Government Is the Soros-Sponsored 'Agenda 21' a Hidden Plan for World Government? (Yes, Only it Is Not Hidden): The Blaze

The Australian: Food security fears as foreign farm investors rush in

Soros is buying [flooded] American farmland via Ann Barnhardt

"The Purposeful Flooding of America's Heartland:" American Thinker

From Matt Bunk, Great Plains Examiner in Bismarck, ND: 3 articles on how the Army Corps of Engineers held back dam releases for 45 days this spring to help sturgeon and piping plover habitats, which has caused thousands to be flooded from Montana to Kansas.

Public records show Corps reacted too late to avoid flood

It's time to change the Corps' Master Manual

First we told you, now we'll show you

Tuesday, July 05, 2011

Re: Bill Clinton: Lower the corporate tax rate

Bill Clinton says the nation's corporate tax rate is "uncompetitive" and says lowering the rate should be a part of the deal in raising the debt ceiling.

ASPEN, Colo. — President Bill Clinton says the nation's corporate tax rate is "uncompetitive" and called for a lower rate as part of a "mega-deal" to raise the debt ceiling.

"When I was president, we raised the corporate income-tax rates on corporations that made over $10 million [a year]," the former president told the Aspen Ideas Festival on Saturday evening.

"It made sense when I did it. It doesn't make sense anymore — we've got an uncompetitive rate. We tax at 35 percent of income, although we only take about 23 percent. So we should cut the rate to 25 percent, or whatever's competitive, and eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a fair amount, and there's not so much variance in what the corporations pay. But how can they do that by Aug. 2?"

Clinton also said Grover Norquist, who as president of Americans for Tax Reform is the GOP's unofficial enforcer of no-new-taxes pledges, has a "chilling" hold on the nation's lawmaking.

The former president said it has seemed like Republicans need any revenue concessions to be "approved in advance by Grover Norquist."

"You're laughing," he told the crowd of 800. "But he was quoted in the paper the other day saying he gave Republican senators permission … on getting rid of the ethanol subsidies. I thought, 'My God, what has this country come to when one person has to give you permission to do what's best for the country.' It was chilling."

Asked by moderator Ron Brownstein what President Obama's posture should be on a debt deal if Republicans hold to their view that no new taxes can be included, Clinton replied: "Well, look, there are some spending cuts [Republicans] agree on, … and apparently they run it by a fair number of people in the Democratic caucuses …

"He could take those, and an extension of the debt ceiling for six or eight months. But if they're really going to reach a mega-deal, you cannot reach a mega-deal without doing something like what the Bowles-Simpson committee recommended. … I don't see how you can do this by Aug. 2. …

"I don't think you can agree to some mega-deal on [the Republicans'] terms. … If they get closer, I believe they will agree on a more modest package of cuts. And the Republicans, if I were in their position, I'd say, 'OK, this only counts for six months' or eight months, or whatever. 'But we don't want to let the American people's credit go under, let our credit get downgraded, let interest rates get up and slow down the recovery.'"