Photo by roberthufstutter

Throughout out the Republican campaign process, Herman Cain has been portrayed as an interesting candidate, but with no serious chance of winning the Republican nomination. What I found was the most curious logic was on the O’Reilly Factor the other night. Bill’s reasoning that Herman Cain won’t win the nomination was because the most important thing to Republicans was to unseat Obama and that independents won’t vote for Cain because he is too conservative.

A 2010 Gallup Poll showed that about 42% of Americans described themselves as conservative, 20% as liberal and about 35% moderate. So, if Herman Cain were to win the Republican nomination, independents would not vote for him because he is too conservative, but where does that lead? It would lead you to the conclusion that they would vote for Barack Obama instead and where, exactly, does he fall on the political spectrum? No American president is or was further left on the political spectrum than Barack Obama. So given a choice between a strong conservative candidate and a strong liberal candidate we are supposed to believe that, naturally, moderates are going to vote for the far left guy. If you check your math, a conservative in America today only has to hold his base and grab 25% of the moderates to win. A progressive candidate has to hold his base and grab 75% of the moderates to win.

But Republicans keep falling into the trap that O’Reilly is claiming. We say, uh oh, a conservative can’t win because the main stream media tells us that, so we go wobbly and pick someone who appeals to the moderates. What we end up with is a liberal (the Democrat) and liberal light (the moderate Republican) and we get our clocks cleaned (see John McCain).

I would have no problem seeing Herman Cain on the debate platform facing off against Barack Obama. In these troubled times, who better than someone who has actually turned around two companies (Burger King in Philadelphia and Godfather’s pizza). He learned the Burger King business by going through the company’s training “boot camp” where he actually worked at the grill. What has Barack Obama ever worked at in the private sector? Herman Cain can give an inspirational talk for 30-45 minutes without a teleprompter. I don’t know about you but I felt pretty embarrassed to listen to the master communicator, Barack Obama, stop in the middle of  a speech to tell the teleprompter operator to move the speech up a few lines. Barack Obama thinks he’s the Wizard of Oz, but he should turn around to see that the curtain has fallen to the floor.

Another knock on Cain was his lack of knowledge about foreign policy. How much did Bill Clinton know about national defense, other than how to dodge the draft, before he was elected president? How much did Barack Obama know about anything before he was elected? They are not the same in their experiences. The presidency is an executive position, and what counts is executive experience. Governors have it, generals have it, CEOs have it; legislators do not. What a legislator decides to do carries no weight unless he can get a large number of fellow legislators to agree and go along with him. Everything an executive decides to do has an impact, some large, some small but an impact nonetheless.

We are in the mess we are in because Obama didn’t understand that coming into office and he has yet to learn it. His signature program, ObamaCare, was just thrown over the wall to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to finish the details and when it was done it was an abomination.  When in doubt, Obama goes into campaign mode. Herman Cain comes up with solutions. They may not be perfect, they may undergo some changes, but they are serious solutions to real problems, not just another transfer the wealth program.

Herman Cain deserves a serious look for who he is, what he stands for, and what he has accomplished. Don’t write him off because some political pundits think they know the formula for winning. If you don’t believe me, ask Marco Rubio, or Rand Paul, or Bob Turner, or Mike Lee.

That’s my opinion; I’s like to know yours.Please comment below.

Democrat Tim Bishop recently sent an e-mail to his constituents blaming Republicans, although they only hold the House while Democrats hold the Senate and the White House, for being against bipartisanship. So what does Tim Bishop do when the opportunity for bipartisanship presents itself? He cements his far left credentials by voting against it.

Three free trade agreements, with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama, passed the House by wide margins (262-167, 278-151, 300-129, respectively). They passed the Senate by similarly large margins (66-33, 83-15, 77-22, respectively). President Obama supports the passage of all three. So, Tim Bishop, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid hung tough in their fight against a strong bipartisan measure.

Proponents of the trade deals, including Mr. Obama, Republican leaders and centrist Democrats, predict that they will reduce prices for American consumers and increase foreign sales of American goods and services, providing a much-needed jolt to the sluggish economy.  — New York Times, October 12, 2011.

The House also passed a measure that would provide expanded benefits for workers who lose their jobs to foreign competition.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton hailed the deals Wednesday as an important victory for American foreign policy. And she said she expected that the South Korea pact alone would create 70,000 American jobs. “By opening new markets to American exports and attracting new investments to American communities, our economic statecraft is creating jobs and spurring growth here at home,” Ms. Clinton said at a Washington event.

Perhaps instead of having to fight Washington so that Long Island vintners can get their wine bottles and labels approved, Tim Bishop should encourage the US Trade Representative to promote those wines to Columbia, South Korea and Panama. How about Tim Bishop doing something useful rather than spending money we don’t have, loading debt upon his constituents to pay for government spending elsewhere in America, trying to prop up a bankrupt postal service, and asking constituents how we can make Washington bigger and more costly and get more deeply involved in our lives. Please, Tim, don’t help us any more.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Photo by boss tweed

Ah, 1922, the Yankees won their second American League pennant and finished up their final season at the Polo Grounds before moving across the river to their new stadium in the Bronx. In the summer, hyperinflation in Germany meant it took 493 marks to equal one dollar. Feature length film Nanook of the North  is released. In the fall the conversion rate in Germany is 1,000 marks to the dollar. Stalin comes to power in Russia, and Mussolini in Italy. By November it takes 3,000 marks to equal one U.S. dollar in Germany. Alexander Graham Bell dies. By year-end it takes 7,000 German marks to equal one U.S. dollar. It was also the last time the 9th Congressional District in New York was held by a Republican.

Printing money was not working in Germany. In 1921, there was a deep recession in the U.S. Unemployment hit 11.7 percent, but the Republican administration did not launch any massive bailout programs nor plaster the economy with new regulations. Business owners had the freedom to react to their circumstances. They could adjust wages and prices as the market demanded. They did and as steep as the recession had been the snap back to full recovery was just as sharp. By 1922 the unemployment rate was down to 6.7% and a year later in 1923, it was down to an incredible 2.4%.

We are now in an economy under this administration where the unemployment rate started at 7.4% and has climbed and is now stuck at around 9%. It has been this way for nearly three years and the projections are that it will stay this way for years in the future, just like it was under FDR. And why not? President Obama is following many of plans of FDR that didn’t work in the 1930s and are not working now.

If a trillion in stimulus spending didn’t work, let’s spend another $500 billion, right? If passing enormous regulations such as ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, EPA, kills any business desire to hire people, blame the Republicans for saying STOP!

A message went out from New York to Washington last night. In a district with 3:1 Democrat advantage. The people voted for a Republican. A Republican who said stop the spending, support our allies, don’t destroy our social institutions and remember that all Obama’s horses and all Obama’s men and women, are not smarter than the rest of us. Get out of our way. Let us make decisions for our own lives and stand back. We, the American people, not the bureaucrats in Washington who never set foot in the private economy, like Chuck Schumer and Anthony Weiner, will turn this economy around. Give us our lives, our liberty and stop impeding our pursuit of happiness. It is our pursuit and our responsibility to catch up with our happiness. You bureaucrats cannot deliver it to us. Give not, Take not.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours; Please comment below.

Photo by Neil T

I had no idea. I thought that runaway spending was a bad thing. I know that in business as well as in our personal lives when we borrow and spend far beyond the amount of money we take in, trouble comes calling. How did I get it so mixed up?

What did I do? I spoke up along with my Tea Party brethren. I should have kept my mouth shut. After all, John Kerry said so, and John Kerry went to Harvard. This is what he said,

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, the Massachusetts Democrat called Standard & Poor’s lowering of the nation’s credit rating from AAA to AA+ as “without question, tea party downgrade.”

“A minority of people in the House of Representative countered even the will of many Republicans in the United States Senate, who were prepared to do a bigger deal,” he said.

Kerry defended President Barack Obama’s repeated efforts to put a grand bargain deal on the table, which would have cut upwards of $4 trillion from the deficit over a decade, rather than the final debt ceiling deal that cuts between $2.1 to $2.4 trillion.

It makes perfect sense. John Kerry was for out of control spending before he was against it. He makes it crystal clear. The Tea Party which sprang up like the grass roots movement that it is, after TARP and the stimulus spending passed the Democrat controlled Congress and was signed by the Democrat President Barack Obama, spoke out against the spending and made it a front and center issue and then demanded a smaller amount of spending cuts? How could that be? (Hint: John Kerry likes taxes; lots of them).

Since becoming a Tea Party activist, I have visited Washington several times. It looks like a normal city. I guess you have to live there or work there a long time before you realize that up is down and down is up. It takes a lot of imagination to grasp that spending a little more money than spending a lot more money is a cut in spending, even though you are spending more. We rubes who don’t live in Washington don’t get it and the politicians keep rolling their eyes to let us know they are tired of explaining it to someone who didn’t go to Harvard. The real estate market in Washington is doing fine, but the real estate market in the rest of the country is in the tank. How does that happen? (Hint: all those additional federal government workers have to live somewhere).

How could I be so foolish? I guess I needed another lecture from David Axelrod to ‘splain it to me. And, hey, here he is:

“If we had defaulted on our debt, the consequences would have been dramatic and lasting,” Axelrod said. “It was the wrong thing to do to push the country to that point. It was something that should never have happened that clearly is on the backs of those who were willing the see the country default, those very strident voices in the tea party.”

I need to work on lowering my strident voice. I should have shut my mouth so that the debt limit could have been raised without a peep and the spending binge could have continued. I didn’t realize that I was jeopardizing Barack Obama’s chances for a second term. How could I possibly expect the dear man to fix “the mess” he inherited in less than eight years? After all, Roosevelt couldn’t get us out of the Great Depression in eight years until he hired all of those unemployed men into the Army, Navy and Marines. Obama is following Roosevelt’s playbook and it is not working today either. If Roosevelt could get elected four times, why not Obama? (We’ll get around to that Constitutional Amendment problem later).

Defaulting on our debt means not paying the interest or principle on our debt not on the failure to subsidize ethanol or Chevy Volt cars. As President Obama holds the checkbook, he could always make those payments on time with the tax revenue coming in, but somehow default, default, default is all we heard. I guess the “devil would make him do it,” the Tea Party being said devil.

The Tea Party supported strong fiscal conservatives in the 2010 election. How dare we?! Those we elected put together a budget in the House of Representatives shortly after taking control. How reckless! The Senate hasn’t passed a budget in over 800 days. John Kerry ,call your office. The Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a plan called Cut, Cap, and Balance that would actually bring down the spending and toward a balanced budget. When that bill arrived in the Senate, it was immediately stuffed in a drawer. John? Rand Paul, a freshman member of the Senate who has not yet breathed enough of the rarefied air there to understand that spending is cutting, put together his own plan to cut $500 billion from the deficit immediately and balance the budget in four years. Does John Kerry know who Rand Paul is?  John, look him up, you can probably find him easily enough on the floor of the Senate when you are not out wind surfing or figuring out how not to pay sales tax on your multimillion dollar yacht.

So, I apologize for causing the downgrade of America’s debt. I didn’t mean to cause so much trouble for the ruling class. After all, they are very busy meeting at the Harvard Club deciding how to run our lives, so that we don’t screw that job up, with all that Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness crap. I will try very hard to mind my peas and cues, or is it, mind my cues and eat my peas? Whatever. I will try very hard…but don’t bet the ranch on it.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Phot by Amanda M Hatfield

Congressional members high tailed it out of Washington after passing a debt limit agreement, but Democrats Steve Israel and Tim Bishop wasted no time in holding a press conference at MacArthur airport on Long Island to blame Republicans for a crisis they created.

“They’re now injecting ideology into our runways,” Rep. Steve Israel, D-Dix Hills, said of Republicans in the House. “They’ve allowed Congress to return home without reauthorizing critical FAA airport safety.”

Wow, that sounds pretty serious. Those Republicans are at it again working hard to make America unsafe.

“Ask yourself if there’s a single company in this country that would solve a $16 million problem at the expense to their corporation of $1.2 billion,” said Bishop, a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. “No, the answer is absolutely not.”

Tim Bishop, a man who has spent his entire career in academia and government is now an expert on what private businesses would do in a given situation. But as we have all learned by now, that when Democrats lips are moving and they are calling people terrorists (which you know are never real terrorists), hostage takers, racists, etc., etc. that they are probably covering up the real issue.

The Two Real  Issues

As you have probably guessed by now the issues are not safety and they are not about foolish fiscal management. The issues are a Democrat union power grab and wasteful spending. First, the union issue.

The House passed an FAA funding bill that the Democrats in the Senate, led by Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, stopped cold, and then, of course, blamed the Republicans. The labor issue was described by the New York Times as follows:

The House also passed a long-term F.A.A. bill that included a measure to repeal a rule of the National Mediation Board, which oversees union and labor issues in the airline and railroad industries. The new rule, which passed after President Obama appointed two of the board’s three members, reversed a 76-year-old rule and made it easier for unions to win a representation election. Under the old rule, workers who did not vote were counted as “no” votes; under the new rule, only those casting ballots were counted.

So we have a labor rule that had been in place since 1935, on how union representation elections would be conducted. President Obama appoints two far left members to the National Mediation Board and they reverse the rule. Unions represent only about 7% of workers in the private sector but they are bedrock supporters for the Democratic Party. While Obama tries to refashion America in his own image, the Democrats blocked this bill for that reason and somehow it is the Republicans who are the villains.  The Republicans keep doing what they were elected to do, they keep passing legislation in the House; the Democrats do not seem to pass anything and they block whatever legislation the Republicans pass. Who do you think is the problem?

Wasteful Spending

The other issue concerns funding for a program called Essential Air Service (EAS). EAS, by law, was supposed to expire twenty three years ago, but Congress keeps it alive. It was created after Jimmy Carter deregulated the airlines in 1978 as a way to ease the impact on rural airports by subsidizing them over the ten years after deregulation. The budget for EAS has grown from $50 to $200 million. This program should be eliminated. Those heartless Republicans wanted to cut $16.5 million from the program. The Republicans said that in the overall scheme of things it’s not a lot of money, but we have to start somewhere. Tim “I haven’t found a program I can cut” Bishop naturally jumped in to call the move foolhardy. Well, just what is the EAS?

Essential Air Service

This program subsidizes air service to 140 airports around the country. Here are some examples:

• An airport in Lewiston, Montana. In 2007 it reported that it averages 0.6 passengers per flight. In other words, for every ten flights, six of them had ONE passenger and four of them took off EMPTY! You, my fellow Americans are paying for this.
• Three airports in Kansas in Dodge City, Garden City, and Liberal (no pun) are all within 75 miles of each other and yet we subsidize all three
• Chuck Schumer’s favorites in Messina, Plattsburgh, Ogdenburg, and Saranac Lake are about as close to the large airports in Montreal and Ottawa as Stamford, Connecticut is to JFK airport in New York.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., issued a typical defense of EAS, which supports service to six airports in New York. “There is no question about it,” he said. “Access to air travel is good for businesses, good for jobs, and good for the financial health of the community.”

The politburo has spoken. The central committee of the Democrat party has decided which airports are important and which ones are not, the free market be damned.

Okay but what about places were there are no alternatives such as the 45 subsidized airports in Alaska? In Alaska there are no Interstate highways. The Alaska Railroad only runs from May to September, and air travel is the only transportation available to some remote areas. Surely these places deserve the subsidy. Do they?

In Alaska there is something called the Alaska Permanent Fund, which was created at about the time the North Slope opened up to oil exploration. It collects about 25% of the oil royalties and invests it for Alaska and Alaskans. As of 2008 there was about $28 billion in that fund. There is also the Permanent Fund Dividend which is an annual payment from that fund to Alaskans and in 2010 it paid out $1,281 to every Alaskan who was eligible. If 45 airports, that benefit Alaskans, are in need of a subsidy, why not use this fund to subsidize it instead of using the taxes of someone in New Jersey? The same should go for other states. It’s called the Tenth Amendment. If we eliminate this program, as Congress said it should be eliminated after 1988, we could save $200 million. If we can’t agree to save $200 million, how are we going to save $2 trillion?

Circling back to Mr. Bishop’s remarks, “Ask yourself if there’s a single company in this country that would solve a $16 million problem at the expense to their corporation of $1.2 billion,” it is chutzpah at its highest. The FAA is losing $1.2 billion in tax revenue during this shutdown because Tim Bishop, Steve Israel, Chuck Schumer can’t stand the idea that their union power grab or their automatic pork would be curtailed. As a result jobs are on hold, construction projects stopped, because they won’t even allow a $16.5 million cut, let alone my suggestion to eliminate the whole $200 million. To hold a press conference to blame anyone but themselves is absolutely shameless, but then where is the news in that?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Photo by BlueRobot

A contentious battle has concluded today with the passage of the debt limit deal. It was a hard fought battle where no one is entirely happy with the outcome. Before we leave this field of battle, we should take stock of the accomplishments and the players involved.

President Obama

President Obama is damaged goods. His poll numbers have been falling due to the economy and he was disengaged in the debt limit debate until the very end. He has angered the left, the right, and the center. According to Scott Rasmussen, the only reason his approval rating is not lower is that he still has strong, albeit reluctant, support from Democrats. The economy is not likely to improve with him at the helm and the silver lining of the flaws in the debt deal, is it won’t help him on the economy although he managed to push another round of this past the election.

Vice President Joe Biden

Gaffe machine Joe Biden went beyond the gaffe by saying the Tea Party was a band of terrorists. Terrorists? Biden and the main stream media get all clutched up when it comes to calling real terrorists, terrorists, but easily call patriots and a large percentage of Americans, terrorists. It is a badge of dishonor he will carry for a long time.

Senator Harry Reid

Senator Harry Reid has proved, that while an adept parliamentarian in using procedures to try to play Goliath against “David” John Boehner, he just can’t get it done. He couldn’t or chose not to pass a budget for over 800 days. President Obama’s own budget went down to ignominious defeat 97-0 in his chamber. He didn’t bring Cut, Cap, and Balance up for a vote in the Senate because to do so would be lose-lose. If he brought it up he would have to defeat it. If he defeated it, many of the  twenty-three Democrat senators up for election in 2012, would  be on record for more spending and against sound fiscal policy and against two-thirds of Americans who support it. When he and President Obama hit that ball back over the net by saying Boehner walked out of the talks, that Obama has been left at the alter, etc., Boehner couldn’t just ignore it, from a political perspective, he had to respond. And so he prepared another round to put the ball back in the Democrats court. Reid tried to gut that proposal to stuff it with his own and send it back to the House but Boehner outflanked him by copying Reid’s bill and put it up for a vote, the result being it went down in flames. Reid could not even get his own version passed in the Senate. In the end the negotiations proceeded with Obama, McConnell, and Boehner; Reid was sidelined.

Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi was Obama’s right hand legislator slamming through ObamaCare, stimulus, TARP, etc. She has been essentially muzzled. When the final deal was negotiated she agreed with one of her members that this was a “Satan sandwich with a side of Satan fries.” Satan? Write that one down folks, it will come in handy along with , “We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.” She voted for the deal, but told her members to “vote your conscience.” Sounds like “every man for himself.”

John Boehner

Sell out. Traitor. He got rolled. He is done. Not strong praise for playing the role of David, controlling one-third of the legislative power against two-thirds. But he must be doing something right when the New York Times editorial board screams

There is little to like about the tentative agreement between Congressional leaders and the White House except that it happened at all. The deal would avert a catastrophic government default, immediately and probably through the end of 2012. The rest of it is a nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists.

Terrorists, hostage taking, brinkmanship. One need only look back to where this started: just raise the debt limit without condition just like every other debt limit increase. The taxes that Obama and the left wanted, were declared a non-starter; cuts equal to or greater than the amount of the debt limit increase were held firm; a vote on a balanced budget amendment in both houses and although it is not likely to pass, every member of Congress will have to go on record where they stand on it. Would this have even seen the light of day in Reid’s Senate without this deal?

There is a lot not to like in the deal, but it is a lot better than where it started. Most important is that it has brought the debt and the consequences of dealing with it into laser focus. It is up to the Tea Party to keep it there over the next fourteen months with a simple question, “If you want the spending to continue, elect Democrats; if you want to get our fiscal house in order, elect Republicans.”

 Mitch McConnell

McConnell also gets scorched for selling out, making deals to undermine real reform, etc. McConnell is the equal if not the superior parliamentarian to Reid. Many of us do not understand how the “sausage” is made in Congress and do not like it when we see it, but McConnell does. Remember when there were only forty Republican senators in the Senate it was McConnell who held them all together, even the RINOs, until Scott Brown was elected to be able to block legislation. It was McConnell who checked Harry Reid’s maneuver to sneak through his version of a deal with a simple majority. It prompted the news conference with Reid, Dick Durbin, and Chuck Schumer to chant, filibuster, filibuster! But McConnell and his deft maneuvering has been holding down the fort until reinforcements arrive.

The Tea Party

The Tea Party was not in complete agreement on this deal but everyone should take something positive out of this. This debate would not have happened at all without them. This would have passed quietly with no strings attached without the efforts of the Tea Party. Some members took a hard line that there should be no increase in the debt limit at all. Others argued caution that the political reality of only controlling one-third of the legislative process meant fighting for the best deal possible, without seeking a “bridge too far,” and triggering Treasury not sending out some checks. If that happened, which checks those would be is anyone’s guess. If the most political damage could be done and tagged to the Tea Party through that process, the left could turn a big defeat into a big victory. With seventy percent of the public disgusted with the process in Congress, if the blame could be hung on those “stubborn, inflexible, terrorist” Tea Party members, instead of having momentum to pick up more seats in November 2012, it could be turned around to “get those crazies out of there,” which would mean electing more RINOs and more Democrats and the disaster that would follow. The spirited debate in  the Tea Party was a good thing, one side kept pulling for a better deal, the other provided enough resistance to keep it from going over the edge. The goal is to get as close to the edge as possible without going over.

Where We Go From Here

Some are saying the deal will allow tax increases when the joint committee convenes. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No. Boehner and McConnell, if they are smart, will appoint hardliners to the committee. My suggestions: Paul Ryan, Allen West, Connie Mack from the House and Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Jim DeMint from the Senate. I believe there is zero chance that they would vote for a tax increase, regardless of what the Democrats want. Even if such a calamity would come to pass, it would still have to get through the House and I don’t see that happening.

Where do we go from here? We need to get more like minded people elected to Congress and the White House. This deal was by no means a great deal, but it was far better than no deal. We often lament that many people in America are just not focused on what is going on in Washington and what it means to us. This debt debate was front and center on the national news for weeks. This is something we need to leverage and expand on. We have come a long was since the fall of 2008 in getting people involved, getting them interested, and getting them educated. This event is an opportunity to get more people enraged and engaged. We must seize the opportunity, formulate the message, and drive it home as we close in on November 2012.

Consider if we had a great budget deal, everything we wanted. The stock market would rebound, the economy would start to recover with some uncertainty lifted, and if the employment picture improved, who do you think would take credit for it? It would be Obama crowing all day, every day, how it was a tough struggle, but he alone saved the day. Everything bad was Bush’s fault, but everything good was his doing. Therefore American must obviously give him four more years. A imperfect deal is a gift. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth; ride it to the finish line.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

When last she held the Speaker’s gavel in the 111th Congress, Nancy Pelosi failed to pass a budget at all. This was the first such failure since 1974. But somehow Republicans are obstructionists. When asked in May of this year about the Senate passing a budget, Harry Reid had this to say, “It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage.” Foolish. But somehow Republicans are obstructionists.

When the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in January of this year, they promptly set about working on and passing a budget, which they did. But Republicans are the obstructionists. Harry Reid held a vote on the Republican budget in the Senate and it was defeated. We already know what Reid thought about putting together his own plan. So the Republicans put together a budget and pass it in the House, Reid puts it up for a vote in the Senate and it is voted down, but then says it would be foolish, foolish, to submit his own plan. And the Republicans are the obstructionists.

President Obama put together his own budget and then remarkably pulled it back when it was laughed at. He then submitted another budget plan. The Republicans in the Senate forced a vote on the Obama budget and it went down in flames 97-0, not even a single Democrat voted for it and yet Obama lectures us on Republicans being the obstructionists. Obama wanted a blank check, that is, a clean, no strings attached raising of the debt limit. No spending cuts. Okay, the Republicans said let’s vote on that (those obstructionists!). It failed 318-97 and there are only 242 Republicans in the House so they were joined by about half the Democrats, but remember, the Republicans are the obstructionists.

As the sides dig in for the debt limit battle, the Republicans passed Cut, Cap, and Balance in the House. When the bill went over to the Senate, Harry Reid held a vote to table it, that is, set it aside so that there is no debate or consideration of the bill let alone a vote on it. The Democrats didn’t want it on their record that they voted against Cut, Cap, and Balance when 66% of Americans support it. That measure passed and the bill was successfully obstructed , er, set aside. After all, we all know it is the Republicans who are the obstructionists.

In President Obama’s speech to the nation, he wasted no time saying that when he took office, the deficit was on a “trajectory” to hit a billion. And he did what to stop it? He increased it by half. Since he seems to be the only person left who still believes the “It’s all Bush’s fault,” let’s look at the record of spending under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, since after all the power of the purse lies with Congress.

Reid and Pelosi added $4.8 trillion to the national debt. The Republicans since taking over the House have tried to stop it so in a sense I guess they are obstructing the runaway spending. I kinda like that.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Two-faced can be such an overused term, but on the other hand two doesn’t seem to be enough to capture Harry Reid.

“Their unwillingness to compromise is pushing us to the brink of a default on the full faith and credit of the United States,” Mr. Reid said of Mr. Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader who also attended the session. “We have run out of time for politics. Now is the time for cooperation.

That’s how Harry Reid characterizes the Republican position in an article in today’s New York Times. They are stubborn, they won’t compromise, they have left poor President Obama standing at the alter, etc., etc. But just a little further on in the same article we have these gems.

Democrats, who have dug in against anything they see as a short-term extension that would require multiple votes on the debt increase before the end of next year, said they accepted the two-stage plan but wanted the full increase in the debt limit now.

“I will not support any short-term agreement, and neither will President Obama nor Leader Pelosi,” Mr. Reid said in a written statement earlier on Saturday. “We seek an extension of the debt ceiling through at least the end of 2012. We will not send a message of uncertainty to the world.”

“Dug in,” “not support,” sounds somewhat stubborn to me. So Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama “will not send a message of uncertainty to the world.” Really? How certain is not passing a budget for the past two years? How certain is not having any plan of your own other than to shoot down every proposal the Republicans put forth? How certain is not letting Cut, Cap, and Balance, which passed the House and according to a CNN poll is supported by two-thirds of Americans, even come up for a floor vote?

So how is the Republican demand that this is a spending problem best solved by cutting back on the $5 trillion that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid added to the debt since they took control of Congress in 2006, being stubborn, but Harry, Nancy and Obama’s insistent on taxing Americans more and more so that this trio can spend and spend, not unreasonable? The other demand that the debt be raised high enough not to be discussed again before 2013 is pure politics. Reid, Pelosi, and Obama want to bury this until after the next elections.

The Republicans are drawing a line in the sand, because they told the voters that they would get our fiscal house in order. The voters agreed and put Nancy Pelosi out of the Speaker’s chair and cut back on Reid’s power. They are standing up and honoring their campaign promise and in many cases saying they don’t care about the election of 2012. They came to Washington not to get reelected as their number one priority but to fix the problem. How refreshing is that?

But the Republicans have a tough fight as they are outgunned 3:1. The Republicans only hold the House of Representatives, while the recklessly spending Democrats hold the Senate, the White House, and the Main Stream Media who pump out whatever propaganda is fed to them by the White House. Hint: that’s why after months of no press conferences, Obama is holding daily press briefings.

The Republicans showed the courage to tackle the tough issues, put forth a budget, pass Cut, Cap and Balance in the House and are fighting to stop the runaway spending. All the Democrats have to say is No. We want to spend more. What do you say?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Mommy! Johnny Boehner didn’t return my phone call! Waaaah! Seriously? Is this what a president says in a press briefing? Good Grief!

Peggy Noonan wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, that captures the character of this president quite nicely.

For the longest time he wouldn’t engage, and now he’s engaged. For the longest time he didn’t care about spending, and now he cares about spending. Good, both in terms of policy and for him. But his decision to become engaged has become a decision to dominate, to have his face in front of the television cameras with his news conferences, pronouncements, and what his communications people are probably calling his “ownership” of any final agreement. He’s trying to come across as the boss, the indispensable man, the leader. And, of course, the reasonable one.

That’s all very nice and part of Political Positioning 101, but at this point it’s not helping. He’s becoming box-office poison. His numbers are falling. The RealClearPolitics composite job approval poll rating has him down six points since June 2, when the debt-ceiling crisis began. That fall, from 52% to 46%, exactly tracks his heightened media presence and his increased attempts to be seen as dominant. Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, said that if he ran for president today he’d lose, that his job-approval numbers are “worse than they appear,” and that he continues to have real trouble with undecided voters.

And if you’ve watched him lately, you know why. When he speaks on the debt negotiations, he is not only extremely boring, with airy and bromidic language—really they are soul-killing, his talking points—but he never seems to be playing it straight. He always seems to be finagling, playing the angles in some higher game that only he gets. In two and a half years he has reached the point that took George W. Bush five years to reach: People aren’t listening anymore.

The other day he announced the Gang of Six agreement with words that enveloped the plan in his poisonous embrace: “I wanted to give folks a quick update on the progress that we’re making.” We’re. He has “continued to urge both Democrats and Republicans to come together.” What would those little devils do without Papa? “The good news is that today a group of senators . . . put forward a proposal that is broadly consistent with the approach that I’ve urged.” I’ve urged. Me, me, me.

The Republicans have put forward plan after plan, the Democrats acting alone, none. Yes there is that gang of six or seven or whatever, but you will notice that the Democrats will not take a step into that minefield without a Republican at their side. But what have the Democrats done by themselves? President Obama puts forth a budget and when that is laughed off the air, he comes back a couple of weeks later with a new one. It’s unheard of for a president to do that, and then his budget is put up for a vote and it goes down 97-0. He couldn’t even find a single Democrat to vote for it? Do the Democrats in the Senate under Harry Reid vote for anything other than to block it?

Let’s recap the plans on the table:

While Obama, who shunned press conferences and briefings for months, now seems to hold one like Grace before meals, is all posturing all the time. He is also trying to paint the Tea Party patriots as unreasonably stubborn. Well, let’s revisit that one.

Do you remember a negotiation a few short months ago, after the 2010 election. The Republicans ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility and were rewarded with the overwhelming support of the American people. So they set about to work cutting $100 billion from the current fiscal year. Through intense negotiations with the president, the $100 billion became $30 billion (it’s okay, because it’s less than a full year). Then when that onion got peeled back there were only about $300 million in real immediate spending cuts. Snookered?

It is a time honored Democrat tradition to negotiate a deal and then welsh on it if they can. Ronald Reagan negotiated with Tip O’Neill to raise $1 in taxes for every $3 in spending cuts. The tax increase was immediate, the spending cuts never came. George H. W. Bush, negotiated spending cuts and the Democrats insisted on tax increases. Bush went along and then the Democrats ran on a platform that Bush broke his “Read my lips…” pledge. Let’s see, you get what you want and then you beat up the other guy for giving it to you?

So does anyone wonder why the Republicans might be digging in their heels. I have a suggestion for Speaker Boehner. Go play golf. Start the August recess early. Send everyone home. When the Democrats and the president find enough of a spine to put their plan on paper and present it to the Republicans to accept or reject, then perhaps we can consider this a negotiation among adults. But for right now it is the Democrats who are blocking every effort to put our fiscal house in order.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

National Debt Clock A Long Time Ago When the Debt was Only $6 Trillion

Today the House of Representatives voted on a bill HR 2650, called the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill to get the runaway debt and deficit spending under control. The bill passed the house 234-190, will all but 9 Republicans voting for it and all but 5 Democrats voting against it. Tim Bishop voted no.

I had an opportunity to watch some of the floor debate and the Democrats wasted no time in going in to scare and distort mode. Almost every Democrat who rose to speak said the bill was an attack on Medicare and protecting the rich.

Medicare

But what are the facts on Medicare?

• Medicare is in dire need of reform. Medicare is the second largest federal program and is growing at a staggering 7% a year.  Its costing taxpayers nearly $500 billion a year, with long-term liabilities in excess of $38 trillion. Medicare spending is expected to double over the next decade.
• Conservatives have a plan to save Medicare. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) has offered a plan, which passed the House on April 15th, that would save Medicare for current retirees and future generations without rationing or benefit cuts. The Ryan plan would inject choice and competition into the program, and thus save money by making Medicare more efficient. The plan would take effect  in 2021, and would not affect current seniors. Everyone born before 1956 could keep their current Medicare, exactly as it is.
• The Democrats’ Medicare plan is rationing and benefit cuts. Democrats vehemently oppose the Ryan plan. Instead, their plan is to cut $500 billion out of Medicare, in order to fund their massive new ObamaCare entitlement. They created a rationing board of 15 unelected bureaucrats, known as IPAB, to impose these cuts. IPAB will slash what Medicare pays doctors and hospitals to the  bone. As a result, seniors will have trouble finding a doctor who will take them. Mr. Obama’s own Medicare experts predict 15% of hospitals will go out of business.
• The Ryan plan will allow patients to choose their Medicare plan. Starting in 2021, the Ryan plan would enroll new Medicare seniors in the same kind of health care program that Members of Congress enjoy today. Seniors will be able to choose the coverage that best meets their individual needs from a list of competing high-quality health plans. Why do Democrats oppose giving seniors the same good health care Congress enjoys?

Congress gave themselves a handsome $174,000 salary. Does anyone believe they would skimp on their own healthcare? So why is it a bad idea if seniors have the same plan as Congress?

President Obama’s Plan

The Democrats also talked about Obama’s plan. What plan? As several Republican lawmakers said, “If you have a copy of that plan on paper, slide it over, we’d like to see it.” But there is no plan from the Democrats, just like there has been no budget for the last two years. They say Obama is proposing $3 in spending cuts for each $1 increase in taxes. Where have I heard that before? Ah, yes, that was the deal Tip O’Neill negotiated with Ronald Reagan. They got the tax increases, but the spending cuts never happened. Reagan was lied to. So now President Obama is playing Lucy and he wants Speaker Boehner to be Charlie Brown. No thanks. If it’s not on paper, it doesn’t exist.

Even as they tried to demonize the Republican proposal they couldn’t help themselves; they had to keep talking about the need for “investment” which to Democrats is just a code word for spending. They don’t invest anything. Investing is what the evil rich do, the Democrats job is to take it from them and give it to their backers.

The Democrats also attacked the Republicans for wanting to change the Constitution. How it would be hard to spend money in an emergency or in a time of war. Which is just another lie. There are provisions in the bill to exceed the limits with a super majority. But leaving these lifetime politicians, many of whom never held a job in the private sector, to curb their own appetites to spend their way to reelection, reminded me of budgeting in the private sector. When the business was facing tough times the word came down for everyone to cut. Inevitably people would push back and say, “everything in my budget is critical, I can’t cut anything, you’ll have to get it elsewhere.” That response was typically met as follows. “You can cut it, or I will, but it will be cut. If you cut it, you can decide how it will least impact your responsibilities, but being further removed if I cut it you probably won’t like it.” That’s how it works in the private sector and that is how it will work with the Balanced Budget Amendment. Tough choices have to be made.

In 2007 after the Bush tax cuts of 2003, the Treasury took in more tax revenue than at any time in our history. This is not a revenue problem. It is a spending problem. Congress cannot tax their way out of this and trying to do so will kill the already moribund economy. Tim Bishop, are you listening?

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NddO5yMxicw&feature=player_embedded

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.