Did you know that the so-called Gang of Six "plan" could not possibly "sovle" the problem of the August 2 "deadline", when we supposedly come up hard against the debt ceiling (which the AP, maintream media, Yahoo and AT&T keep FALSELY calling a "default" date, but that is propaganda)?
No. This is not a matter of opinion. The Gang of Six "plan' is nothing more than a concept. It is a vastly complicated "plan", the details of which have not even worked out . It not only has not been reduced to actual legislation, but the legislation cannot even be written with the vague outline the Gang of Six has put ouit. What purpose did it serve, then.?
Come on. You now this one. TheRepublicans were about to pass ltheir "cut, cap and balance" pan in the House. Obama and the Democrats desperately wanted to deflect from that plan--the ONLY debt ceiling raising plan put downon paper--with actual LEGISLATION drafted. So the Gang of Six comes out with this "plan" the vey day the House is going to vote, and Obama IMMEDIATELY jumps on it as a way to totally distract from the House plan. Sabotage by saotuers, with a very specific purpose in mind. The idea is not to pass the Gang of Six plan, which cannot even be in any kind of"final" form in time, but to put us firmly on the OBAMA path toward the "big deal" that Obama is counting on (see yesterday's articles and this blog's articles all week).
"Wait a second, Skip. Are there not REPUBLICANS, like Tom Coburn, in the Gang of Six." Yes, and whaat does that telly you? It tells you that stablishment Republicans in the United States Senate regard the Tea Party, and conservative Republicans, as ENEMIES to be sabotaged. sNo matter what these people SAY, they do NOT LIKE the Tea Party. They do not "get it". They hate Rush Limbaugh. They are "politics as usual" politicians, with few real principles (and those totally arising from selfish self-interest). Am I being "too harsh" to Tom Coburn? No, I an not being harsh enough The man should be DEFEATED, even if it takes voing for a Democrat.
Look at what SABOTEUR Coburn did First, he came up with that ridiculous 9 trillion dollar "deficit reduction" plan, which this blog immediately exposed as a total fraud. But that was merely the prelude to this Gang of Six nonsense--a lpreliminary dsigraction designed to undermine the House conservatives. These Republican politicians do NOT "get it". Rather, they DO "get it", and they don't LIKE IT. The entire process by which Coburn injected himself into this "debate" just at the time Republicans were becoming unified beheind the House plan wasw a balatant, deliberate BETRAYAL. The way Cbourn did this, starting off with that 9 trillion dollar SHAM, showns that Couburn knew EXACTLY what he was doing, as much as Benedict Arnold kew what he was doing.
"Skip. Did you nt fall into this TRAP, by allowing yourself to be distracted by a paln which had no other purpose than to deflect from the House plan behind which Republicans HAD been coming together."
Yes and no. Yes, I allowed myself to be distracted, even though I knew what was gonig on. I knew that the Gang of Six plan was not "serious", in the sense of beig a ral, documented "solution" to ANYTHING. It is not likely to even be reconnizable in whatever ultimate "big deal" Obama, the Democrats and the establishment come up with. It is just a TACTIC to get everyone focused on the "big deal" that Obama wants, and away from the conservative position. I knew that. BUT. I had no coice but to expalin the BETRAYAL establishment Republicans are setting up here. For example, the ONLY way an actual bill will be "ready" by August 2, is if sp,e people are SECRETLY draftig it RIGH NOW (or before now). That is what happened with ObamaCare, as legilation is pulled out of a hate at the last minute. But it goes beyond that. The whole idea here is to sell the concept that the ONLY way Repubicans can appear to "win" out of this is to go along with Obama and Coburn: to go along with the establishment "big deal" that Obama has wanted all along (which Boehner dearly wanted to buy into). I could not allow that tactic to go unchallenged, even though I knnew that "distraction" was part of the tactic (as illustrated by the Cooburn 9 trillon dollar prelude, and the fact that the Gang of6 "plan" is not even on paper).
Well, won't I at least admit that I am contributng to the DESPAIR conservatives should be feeling about these constant betrayals: despair that is one of he main goals of Obama, the mainsteam media, and the Gang of 6? Again, I would pled "guilty" to spreading a sense of despair that the opposition is tryig to induce. Again, however, I hav no choice. Once Obama and establishment Republicans achieve the momentum and sense of inevitably of a "big deaL' that is the whole goal of this betrayl, there will be no stopping it. Therefore, this blog had no choice but to TRY to stop this betrayal in the making, however small my influence,.
But it goes beyond that. Republicans need to get the message that these constant betrayals will not continue to "work". They may think they "win", as they thought theey did at the end of 2010 (with that "deal'), and with the government "shut down" sham deal. that did not really "ctu" spending. But they are not "winning". Every such betrayal may, indeed, spread despari among conservatives, but it also puts the establishment at further, extreme risk. If this particular betrayal happens, the Repubilcan Party will be DEAD to me. At which point do the people REVOLT, and simply turn on both Republicans and Democrats alike? If this "politics as usual" continues I believe it will be soon. The only questin is whehter it will be a construtive revolt, or a destructive revolt. I don't know the ansewr to that. I just no that my private revolt has already happened.
No. I have not tottally given up. I still think there is about a 20% chance that I will not feel totally betrayed when I come back from my New York/Boston vacation on August 3. But this blog was obligated to telly you what my reaction will be to a sell out 'big deal", and how the sell out could be avoided. I still don't think that Republicns can push through "cut, cap and balance", not matter how hard they try. The problem is that they seem determined to turn a mere lack of victory, which could BE a "victory" if Republicans merely stated their UNILATERAL adoption of the "cut, cap and balance" approach as the official Republican FIGHT for as long as it takes. Instead, I am afraid Republicans--and estblishment Republicans have wnated this all along--will accept the DEFEAT of an Obama "big deal". The establishment may thnk this is "victory" for them What it will really be is a guarantee of future disaster for them.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking, as usual (bad eyesight).
P.P.S, : Republicans in the Senate are gong to cotinue to face ESCALATING primary fights, and they deserve it--as much as any politicians have ever deserved such a fate. "politcs as usual" is just not acceptable, and these people know nothing else.
P.P.P.S. As previously stated, I will eat my words on Tea Party tactics IF Republicans can force a Balanced Budget Amendment, and the "cap" philosophy to be stated in legislation. I don't think they can. That means there must be a FALL BACK STRATEGY. What Obama, Democrats and establishment Republicans are trying to do is make that "fall back strategy" nothing but the ABJECT DEFEAT of an Obama "big deal". As previously stated, I will NOT FORGIVE House Republicans for accepting such a defeat. I am actually MORE flexicble than many conservatives in recognizing that Republicans simply do not have the votes to FORCE their full program to be adopted, without virtually destroying the country in the process. If they do hold out, and virtually destroy the country, but SUCCEED, I will congratulate them. But if they end up wth an Obama deal, I will BLAME them NO credit for "trying', if uou end up in a total, unnecessary defeat--a defeat when even MSNBC has said you have the LEVERAGE for VICTORY . Nope. NOT enough leverage for the victory of passing "cut, cap and balance", but the victory of forcing a SMALL DEAL, while the fight continues. House Republicans: You are AT RISK here, and "politics as usual"--accepting what the Senate establishment and Boehner tell you to do--will NOT save you.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
New York, Boston and My Daughters: Pray for Me
I will be making my (almost) annual trip to NYC and Boston to visit my lawyer/feminist daughters. In other words, I am heading into enemy territory--away from the sane people of Texas (even in El Paso). And I can't see. You can see how dangerous this is. My daughters alone, being modern "feminit" women, are dangerous enough. Add NYC and Boston, with all of those leftists, and things get hairy. The only saving grace, although it is also my shame, is that I have been forced to come out of the closet as a great feminist, in comparison to every leftist out there. This has slightly reduced my danger from the feminist ire of my daughters---leaving only the danger because they are WOMEN. Tim Dorsey had it correct, when he had his serial killer anti-hero marry another serial killer--fidning out that his PROBLEM was not the serial killer aspects of her, but the fact that she was a WOMAN. And the feminist danger is not quite gone, despite my coming out of the closet in this blog. I almost got done in by my older daughter when I complained about the fat stewardesses--challenging my inner Michelle Obama and fighting obesity for their own good--of American Airlines.
No, there will not be any new articles from July 22 to August 3. That is one reason I have tried to say everything I have to say about what I perceive as the coming betrayal of Republicans. I hope I am wrong. You and I will probably know by the time I return. There may be one or two more articles tomorrow, but that will be it until August 3 or 4.
About the headline: Hey, you know I am an agnostic., allthough not anti-Christian like Bill Maher, CNN and Anderson Cooper (who I willl get back to on my return). That means I can't pray for myself. It is up to thoe of you who are Christians to ingercede for me.
I hope for the bet (not on my trip into enemy territory, where I assume that your prayers and my formidable daughters will protect me, but for our country). I amn not optimistic. There have simply been too many betrayals, from my point of view. But maybe it will be different this time. What if I am wrong, and they reach a GOOD ten year deal? There ain't no such thing, just as there ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL). But couldn't I be wrong, juust this once? Don't count on it. Never happens. Still, if you want to have faith, go ahead. You may be a better person than I am. The reason I am not a Christian--primary reason-is that I do not believe in the CONCEPT of faith. But I have to say that I have way more faith in a God of whom I am skeptical than I do in Republican politicians. I am not skeptical of them. I KNOW that faith in them is not justified.
I DO have faith in leftist politicians: that they will continue to lie and deceive in their push towward a cntral planning, morality-free paradise that can never exist, and should not exist. But I am afraid it may make more sense to have faith that God will stop them than to have faith that Republican politicians will.
Back--maybe--about Augut 3. Good luck You can read my articles over the past weekw, and figure out what I am THINKING while not communicating.
No, there will not be any new articles from July 22 to August 3. That is one reason I have tried to say everything I have to say about what I perceive as the coming betrayal of Republicans. I hope I am wrong. You and I will probably know by the time I return. There may be one or two more articles tomorrow, but that will be it until August 3 or 4.
About the headline: Hey, you know I am an agnostic., allthough not anti-Christian like Bill Maher, CNN and Anderson Cooper (who I willl get back to on my return). That means I can't pray for myself. It is up to thoe of you who are Christians to ingercede for me.
I hope for the bet (not on my trip into enemy territory, where I assume that your prayers and my formidable daughters will protect me, but for our country). I amn not optimistic. There have simply been too many betrayals, from my point of view. But maybe it will be different this time. What if I am wrong, and they reach a GOOD ten year deal? There ain't no such thing, just as there ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL). But couldn't I be wrong, juust this once? Don't count on it. Never happens. Still, if you want to have faith, go ahead. You may be a better person than I am. The reason I am not a Christian--primary reason-is that I do not believe in the CONCEPT of faith. But I have to say that I have way more faith in a God of whom I am skeptical than I do in Republican politicians. I am not skeptical of them. I KNOW that faith in them is not justified.
I DO have faith in leftist politicians: that they will continue to lie and deceive in their push towward a cntral planning, morality-free paradise that can never exist, and should not exist. But I am afraid it may make more sense to have faith that God will stop them than to have faith that Republican politicians will.
Back--maybe--about Augut 3. Good luck You can read my articles over the past weekw, and figure out what I am THINKING while not communicating.
Obama: Desperate for Big Deal, RElying on Republican Betrayal
"Obama open to signing stopgap measure on debt, if deal near"
That is the pesent propaganda headline from Yahoo and AT&T (boycott Yahoo and AT&T), But go beyond the propaganda, and realize that this headline again proves this blog right. What I have been telling you is that it is OBAMA who wants the "big deal", because he knows that is the way he can DECEIVE to get what he wants. The above hedline shows that Obama is not even "open" to a shrot-term "deal", butr wanst to FORCE the deceptive, Obama-type "ten year deal".
Kent Conrad haS told you--at least if you are not a leftist Democrat--that the Gang of Six ten year "plan' is intended to deceive you (see previous article, about how a plan can increase revenue 1 trillion dollars and decrease taxes 1.5 trillion dollars, all at the same time and with the same plan, using the very same numbers). You should not have needed Kent Conrad. OBAMA is telling you that he is DESPERATE for the DECEPTIVE "big deal". As this blog has told you, as the result of my SACRIFICE for you in surfing MSNBC, that MSNBC leftist Democrat are fearful of ONE thing: that Republicans will force Obama into a "small deaL".
Obama is relying on Republican politicians to BETRAY conservatgives yet again--for many of us, for the VERY LAST TIME. No, Republicans are NOT going to get their "cut, cap and balance" bill". So what. Does that mean that conservatives should therefore accept a Republican TEN YEAER BETRAYAL. Not this conservative. House Republican (voing for or against such a plan). Senat Republican (ditto). Repubilcan candidate for President (whether you approve lthe ten year plan or not). If this betrayal occurs, I am going to BLAME YOU ALL. You can stop this, if you want. I will assume you do not want, if we ned up with a ten year paln. It will be enve worse if we tget a "stopgap" measure based on a ten year plan to be formulated later.
Nope. Obama will NOT veto a short-term extgensioin--deal or no deal--if his coicce is that or what HE says wilkl destroy the country Now we know that Obama does not listen to what he, himself, says. He does not listen on "living within our means'. He did not listen when candidate Obama said lthat an "individual mandate" owas a MISTAKE in health care reform. He did not listen when Senator Obama said that hitting tthe deb ceiling was proof of FAILED LEADERSHIIP, and a signal for fiscal discipline. Nevertheless, I don't think Obama can afford to veto a "clea" extension of the debt ceiling.
Yet, Obama is TELLING you that he does not want a "clean" extension of the debt ceiling without a "big deal". Do you realize just how big a betrayal it was for Tom Couburn and his merry band of Senate traitors to assume that we have to have a "big deal", even though Coburn does not even have one draftted? Yes, the Republican bill is the ONLY plan for raising the debt ceiling that has been DRAFTED. It is the only game in town.
"But Skip, you say that the Republican plan will not pass the Senate, and will never be accepted by Obama.". Yes, I do say that. Obama, as the headline says, is relying on Republican BETRAYAL, and Tom Coburn encouraged him in that belief. So waht Republicans can say that they are going to FIGHTT for their plan year by year, and bill by bill, and that if Obama would prefer to RUIN the country (shich his own words say he would be doing) by refusing to engage in this battle on the merits, then Obama is eposing himself for the partisan idologue he really is. As I have said, Obama evidently has no FEAR of htting the debt ceiling Republicans should have no FEAR either, but they should fight the battle on their terms. If they really are willing to hang in there for a Balanced Budget Amendment, fine. I don't think they are willing to do it, and I bel believe it is politically dangerous. But it is NOT politically dangerous, in my view, to say you are going to continue to FIGHT for "cut, cap and balance". That means Republicans promise to continue to FIGHT for a Balanced Budget Amendment, for a cap EVERY YER on spending, and for a CTU THIS YER in spending. Tht means Republicans pass a bill to get usthrough September 30 (the end of this fiscal year), and say that the only current "deal they are intereted in is a deal on SPENDING for next year, and a deal to incrase the debt ceiling just enough to cover that spending (through next September 30). In other words, Republicans say they intend to IMPLEMENT their "cut, cap and balance" approach, to the extent they can, and if they can't get it done they will conttinue the fight ON THE MERITS, year by year, until it does get done.
You may be able to come up with a variaton on this, but Repubicans need to get away from SHAM ten year plans, and SHAM numbers (trillions of "cuts" here, and trillions of "cutgs" there, but nary a "cut" anywhere" (a variation on" water, water everywhere, but nary a drop to drink").
Nope. The very CONCEPAT of a "ten yer plan" is a BETRAYAL. And I will never forgive lthe Repubilcan Party, which will then be dead to me, if it happens. And no, I am NOT interested in Mitch McConnell's political games designed to make Obama take responsibility for failing to cut. FIGHT on the spending bills for the year beginning on October 1, 2011. Make a deal there, and then make clear how much that REQURIES the debt ceiling to be raised. Propose your "cut, cap and balance" bill AGAIN. Then go ahead again and raise the debt ceiling just enough to cover the spending that has ALREADY passed.
Or just pass a "clen" raise of the debt ceiling by 2.4 trillion, and say that you are UNILATERALLY implementing "cut, cap and balance", to the extent Obama and the Democrats will let you. Say that it is up to the VOTGERS whether you are gong to be able to implement "cut, cap and balance", and that the dbet ceiling fight has accomplished its purpose of defining what this country NEEDS to do. Say it is now up to the WILL of the voters whether you can get it done. Say you will submit the Balanced Budget Amendment. You will FIGHT for the spending cuts for the coming year. You wil FIGHT for the cap in futre years. But you can only win if voters support you . Say that the "debt ceiling" fight has unfortunately gotten away from the focus on the things you thingk are important, helped by the mainstream media deception, and that lyou have decided to put the focus right where it belongs: ON "cut, cap and balance", whether you currently have the ovtes to pass it or not. Say thta you hope you can get it passed, but that the fight will continue if you can't. That is why you are dong a short-term bill to key the debt ceiling to SPENDINg, so that voters will know exctly how much is being added to the debt by each year's spending bills-startting with the current year.
You say "conservatives' will not like this "cave"? What cave? To say you are going to FIGHT to implement your own plan rather than accept a sham ten year plan? But maybe conservatives, or many of them, will dishonestly say that you could have FORCED a Balanced Budget Amendment. I say "dishonestly", because I don't think it can be done. The ONLY excuse I will accept here is if Republicans in the House GET IT DONE---refuse to raise the debt ceiling until it gets done, even if the country is imploding around them. . I don't believe it. Do you? But what I do believe is that Republicasn do NOT have to accept some sort of "deal". That is absurd. And if the Republican politicians try to tell me otherwise, their ass is grass--and I am the lawnmower.
You can see that I don't think this "debt ceilig" fight was exactly the right fight. I would have prfeferred a government "shut down" OVER SPENDING for this current year. Instead we got what everyone agrees was a SHAM DEAL. Now Republican politicians want--I guarantee you they want it--to sell us an even "bigger" SHAM DEAL. Fine. By so doing, they will decare themselves my ENEMY--including many who will cast "conveninece" votes against the plan.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
That is the pesent propaganda headline from Yahoo and AT&T (boycott Yahoo and AT&T), But go beyond the propaganda, and realize that this headline again proves this blog right. What I have been telling you is that it is OBAMA who wants the "big deal", because he knows that is the way he can DECEIVE to get what he wants. The above hedline shows that Obama is not even "open" to a shrot-term "deal", butr wanst to FORCE the deceptive, Obama-type "ten year deal".
Kent Conrad haS told you--at least if you are not a leftist Democrat--that the Gang of Six ten year "plan' is intended to deceive you (see previous article, about how a plan can increase revenue 1 trillion dollars and decrease taxes 1.5 trillion dollars, all at the same time and with the same plan, using the very same numbers). You should not have needed Kent Conrad. OBAMA is telling you that he is DESPERATE for the DECEPTIVE "big deal". As this blog has told you, as the result of my SACRIFICE for you in surfing MSNBC, that MSNBC leftist Democrat are fearful of ONE thing: that Republicans will force Obama into a "small deaL".
Obama is relying on Republican politicians to BETRAY conservatgives yet again--for many of us, for the VERY LAST TIME. No, Republicans are NOT going to get their "cut, cap and balance" bill". So what. Does that mean that conservatives should therefore accept a Republican TEN YEAER BETRAYAL. Not this conservative. House Republican (voing for or against such a plan). Senat Republican (ditto). Repubilcan candidate for President (whether you approve lthe ten year plan or not). If this betrayal occurs, I am going to BLAME YOU ALL. You can stop this, if you want. I will assume you do not want, if we ned up with a ten year paln. It will be enve worse if we tget a "stopgap" measure based on a ten year plan to be formulated later.
Nope. Obama will NOT veto a short-term extgensioin--deal or no deal--if his coicce is that or what HE says wilkl destroy the country Now we know that Obama does not listen to what he, himself, says. He does not listen on "living within our means'. He did not listen when candidate Obama said lthat an "individual mandate" owas a MISTAKE in health care reform. He did not listen when Senator Obama said that hitting tthe deb ceiling was proof of FAILED LEADERSHIIP, and a signal for fiscal discipline. Nevertheless, I don't think Obama can afford to veto a "clea" extension of the debt ceiling.
Yet, Obama is TELLING you that he does not want a "clean" extension of the debt ceiling without a "big deal". Do you realize just how big a betrayal it was for Tom Couburn and his merry band of Senate traitors to assume that we have to have a "big deal", even though Coburn does not even have one draftted? Yes, the Republican bill is the ONLY plan for raising the debt ceiling that has been DRAFTED. It is the only game in town.
"But Skip, you say that the Republican plan will not pass the Senate, and will never be accepted by Obama.". Yes, I do say that. Obama, as the headline says, is relying on Republican BETRAYAL, and Tom Coburn encouraged him in that belief. So waht Republicans can say that they are going to FIGHTT for their plan year by year, and bill by bill, and that if Obama would prefer to RUIN the country (shich his own words say he would be doing) by refusing to engage in this battle on the merits, then Obama is eposing himself for the partisan idologue he really is. As I have said, Obama evidently has no FEAR of htting the debt ceiling Republicans should have no FEAR either, but they should fight the battle on their terms. If they really are willing to hang in there for a Balanced Budget Amendment, fine. I don't think they are willing to do it, and I bel believe it is politically dangerous. But it is NOT politically dangerous, in my view, to say you are going to continue to FIGHT for "cut, cap and balance". That means Republicans promise to continue to FIGHT for a Balanced Budget Amendment, for a cap EVERY YER on spending, and for a CTU THIS YER in spending. Tht means Republicans pass a bill to get usthrough September 30 (the end of this fiscal year), and say that the only current "deal they are intereted in is a deal on SPENDING for next year, and a deal to incrase the debt ceiling just enough to cover that spending (through next September 30). In other words, Republicans say they intend to IMPLEMENT their "cut, cap and balance" approach, to the extent they can, and if they can't get it done they will conttinue the fight ON THE MERITS, year by year, until it does get done.
You may be able to come up with a variaton on this, but Repubicans need to get away from SHAM ten year plans, and SHAM numbers (trillions of "cuts" here, and trillions of "cutgs" there, but nary a "cut" anywhere" (a variation on" water, water everywhere, but nary a drop to drink").
Nope. The very CONCEPAT of a "ten yer plan" is a BETRAYAL. And I will never forgive lthe Repubilcan Party, which will then be dead to me, if it happens. And no, I am NOT interested in Mitch McConnell's political games designed to make Obama take responsibility for failing to cut. FIGHT on the spending bills for the year beginning on October 1, 2011. Make a deal there, and then make clear how much that REQURIES the debt ceiling to be raised. Propose your "cut, cap and balance" bill AGAIN. Then go ahead again and raise the debt ceiling just enough to cover the spending that has ALREADY passed.
Or just pass a "clen" raise of the debt ceiling by 2.4 trillion, and say that you are UNILATERALLY implementing "cut, cap and balance", to the extent Obama and the Democrats will let you. Say that it is up to the VOTGERS whether you are gong to be able to implement "cut, cap and balance", and that the dbet ceiling fight has accomplished its purpose of defining what this country NEEDS to do. Say it is now up to the WILL of the voters whether you can get it done. Say you will submit the Balanced Budget Amendment. You will FIGHT for the spending cuts for the coming year. You wil FIGHT for the cap in futre years. But you can only win if voters support you . Say that the "debt ceiling" fight has unfortunately gotten away from the focus on the things you thingk are important, helped by the mainstream media deception, and that lyou have decided to put the focus right where it belongs: ON "cut, cap and balance", whether you currently have the ovtes to pass it or not. Say thta you hope you can get it passed, but that the fight will continue if you can't. That is why you are dong a short-term bill to key the debt ceiling to SPENDINg, so that voters will know exctly how much is being added to the debt by each year's spending bills-startting with the current year.
You say "conservatives' will not like this "cave"? What cave? To say you are going to FIGHT to implement your own plan rather than accept a sham ten year plan? But maybe conservatives, or many of them, will dishonestly say that you could have FORCED a Balanced Budget Amendment. I say "dishonestly", because I don't think it can be done. The ONLY excuse I will accept here is if Republicans in the House GET IT DONE---refuse to raise the debt ceiling until it gets done, even if the country is imploding around them. . I don't believe it. Do you? But what I do believe is that Republicasn do NOT have to accept some sort of "deal". That is absurd. And if the Republican politicians try to tell me otherwise, their ass is grass--and I am the lawnmower.
You can see that I don't think this "debt ceilig" fight was exactly the right fight. I would have prfeferred a government "shut down" OVER SPENDING for this current year. Instead we got what everyone agrees was a SHAM DEAL. Now Republican politicians want--I guarantee you they want it--to sell us an even "bigger" SHAM DEAL. Fine. By so doing, they will decare themselves my ENEMY--including many who will cast "conveninece" votes against the plan.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Kent Conrad and the Gang of Six: Dishonest Decepriton of the "Big Deal"
What is the purpose of the "big deal'--the "comprehensive deal"? This blog has told you: The purpose is to DECEIVE. The purppose is to make it impossilbe to hold politicians accountable, because every "deal" has so many conflicting elements, and SHAM elements, that the public does not know what is going on. That was true of ObamaCare. It was ture of the "financial refrom bill". It was true of the "immigration reform bil (whch did NOT pass) It is ture of every one of these bills. It is true of EVERY debt ceiling "big deal"--at least every one tghat Ob,a wamts/ No, it is NOT ture of the conservative "cut, cap and balance" bill, because that is NOT a comprehensive "bill" dealing with false "cuts" and real tax incfreases. It is an APPROACH, which Is why I say to Republicans: UNILATERALLY declare that you are adopting the "cut, cap and balance" approach as to spending EVERY YER< and then raise the debt ceiling just enough to put the debt ceiling in sync with spending bills. Don't "promise" yo will shut down the government if yo don't get yor way. Simply say that you are going to FIGHT to save the countgry, using your appoach. Raise the debt ceiling ONLY n one year increments, to correspond with the deadline for spending bills, and make it clear that the debtg ceiling will NEVER by raised until all lspendin gbills have been approved---and then only enough to cover the spending that has been approved. It is the SPENDING that counts here,, and not the debtr ceiling. The purpose of the debt ceiling, as SENATOR OBAMA said, is to let you kow that SPENIDNG is out of control. The point of thiis article, however, is not really that. This blog has told you that the "big deal"--the "comprehensive ten year plan, like the FAILED Soviet Union "Five Year Plans" of old--is merely a cover for DECEPTIOIN. You probably thought that this blog could never be PROVEN right, even if this blog is right. As usual, youi underestimate this blog.
Klent Conrad, the dishonest Democratic Senator from North Dakota, has ADMITTED this blog is right. Oh, he did not directly mentioni this blog, or admit he is a LIAR (along with the rst of the Gang of 7, including the Republicans. But that os tje effet pf wjat je saod/ Lemt Cpmrad wemt pf Fpx Mews am vortia;;u uea;;ed" We are DECEIVING you, and we expect you to LIKE it. We inted to add a corollary to Lincoln's theory, and show that you CAN fool most of the people most of the time, even if you can't fool all of the people, all of the time."
What Kent Conrad said was that the Gang of Six "p;am" (to be filled in later, in the grand tradition of ObamaCare) CUTS 1.5 TRILLION dollars in taxes, according to CBO socring. Wait a second. Did not Tom Coburn, and the rest of the Gan of Six--not to mention tht media--say that their plan would REDUCE the deficit by 3.7 trilliong (or whatever other arbitrary, sham number you want to put in--including 1 TRILLION dollars in increased revenue (increased taxes)? Yep. The Gang of Six are such LIARS--in a plan intended to DECEIVE--that they are willing to say one thing to support one argument, and the exact OPOSITE thing to support a contradictory argument. What is ging on here, besides proving that Kent Conrad and the Gang of Six are LIARS, and their plan inttneded to DECEIVE (as I told you was true, and they have now admitted)?
Remember the Bush "tax cuts", which represent the PRESENT TAX LAW--in effect for almost a decde now? Well, those tax cuts are still scheduled to EXPRIE, in that previous, disgraceful "big deal" (Republican BETRAYAL) at the end of 2010. One of the goals of Obama is to AVOID the fight oove the TAX INCREASE that would be reprsented by the expiration of those Bush tax cuts. We KNOW that the TAX INCREASE represented by eliminating the Bush "tax cuts" would supposedly ADD 4 trillion dollars to government revenue (another lie, but the subject of another article)--3.3 TRILLION of that to come from the middle class (or thereabouts). What Kent Conrad was saying--deceitful as he and the Gang of Six are--is that the CBO is ASSUMING that the Bush tax cuts are going to expire (present law). Therefore, what Kent Conrad is saing is that the CBO will "score" (yet anoterh reason to ignore the CBO as being GAMED--the Bng of Six bill by determining whether the Gang of Six bill will result in a smaller tax increase than the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Republicans, of course, suppposedly OPPOSE the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for what it is: a TAX INCREAS. But I guess Gang of Six Republicans are willing to LIE about that too, or let Kent Conrad LIE for them!!! What is more, OBAMA opposes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS (3.3 TRILLION of that FALSE CBO "scoring" about lwhich Kent Conrad is willing to DECEIVE you!!!
I am giving it to you straight. But it does not even matter if you understand me. Understand this. To come up with their "deficit reduction" number, the Gang of Six is saying tthat they are goiing to ADD REVENUES. To"defend' their indefeinsible, deceptive "ten year plan", Kent Conrad is willing to say that the Gang of Six is REDUCING revenues (adding to the defict) by 1.5 trillion dollars. Both things cannnot be true, and they are not ture. The whole idea here is to CONFUSE and DECEIVE, and that ha ALWAYS been the purpose of this tactic invented by the SOVIET UNIONI: Make up goals, in a five-year plan, that you KNOW your system cannot meet. When your plan is not successful, as you kewn it would not be, sijply say that is because the plan was not properly implemente (usually because of ati-Soviet elements undermining the plan). That is all President Obama, Democrats, and estalbishment Republicans are doing with these massive "ten year plans" (ven more ridiculous than "five year plans", which is probably why Vladimir Putin lectured us for EXCEEDING the mistgakes of the old Soviet Union).
Let me be, again, as blunt as I can. Kent Conrad, who should obviously be defeated, has admitted that he is all about DECEPTION. In effect, he has admitted what is obvious (to me, if not to you): ALL of these "comprehensive" "big deals' are all about DECEPTION. They are inteded to dECEIVE and CONFUSE the public about what is oing on. That is why the proposals of this blog have been aimed at making this deception impossible, by concentrating on the REAL. The "real" now is SPENDING, and yet th ewhole goal of all of these "plans' is to AVOID actually cutting spending NOW. Spending ALWAYS gets "cut" in the far future, where none of these politicians--especially Obama and the Democrats--expect it to really happen. And if it DOES happpen, because our country finally collapses from the wwight of their spending, they think they will be LONG GONE. What do they care? Their careeer is NOW. The spending they WANT is NOW. They don't care about the future, except to DECEIVE you by references to a future they never intend to take place. Yes, Tom Coburn, I mean YOU. I consider you one of the most dishonest politicians I have ever encountered. My problem is that I don't think you are much more dishoenst than almost every other Republican Senator elected before 2010.
Q.E.D. These "ten eyar plans" are all about DECEPTION. They are ot about making "hard choices". They are about AVOIDING "hard choices'.
Bottom lien: The Republican Party is still in grave, immediate danger of committing suicide. Obama and the Democrats WANT this deception. And their core voters do not care, because they know that the deception is in aid of Big Government. But Republican corfe voters--of whom I do not count msyelf one, as they have already lost me as a core voter and are about to lose me FOREVER--do NOT want this deception, or the results of this deceiiption. Every time Republicans BETRAY these core voters, they get closer to destroying the Repubican Party. I think they have used up all of their chances.
By the way, Tom Coburn and you other Republican TRAITORS, removing the "mortgage deduction" for the "rich" is a TAX RATE INCREASE (ot a "not a "loophole" closing. Further, it would DESTROY the housing industry. All of thee "special" rules for the "rich" are COMPLICATIONS to the tax code INCREASING the marginal rate, and they are terrible tax policy And no, you House Republicans are NOT going to get away with the usual tactic of blaiming this looming betrayal on the Senate. If you don't stop this, this time. I will blame YOU for the dishonest hypocrites wyou will have exposed yourseleves to be. I know the game. The game is to have JUST ENOUGH votes to let the DECEPTION happpen, so that those who voted "no" can say they "opposed" what happened. GOOD LUCK, House Republicans. I am NOT buyiing it, this time, and I think you will find an incrasing number of people are not.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Klent Conrad, the dishonest Democratic Senator from North Dakota, has ADMITTED this blog is right. Oh, he did not directly mentioni this blog, or admit he is a LIAR (along with the rst of the Gang of 7, including the Republicans. But that os tje effet pf wjat je saod/ Lemt Cpmrad wemt pf Fpx Mews am vortia;;u uea;;ed" We are DECEIVING you, and we expect you to LIKE it. We inted to add a corollary to Lincoln's theory, and show that you CAN fool most of the people most of the time, even if you can't fool all of the people, all of the time."
What Kent Conrad said was that the Gang of Six "p;am" (to be filled in later, in the grand tradition of ObamaCare) CUTS 1.5 TRILLION dollars in taxes, according to CBO socring. Wait a second. Did not Tom Coburn, and the rest of the Gan of Six--not to mention tht media--say that their plan would REDUCE the deficit by 3.7 trilliong (or whatever other arbitrary, sham number you want to put in--including 1 TRILLION dollars in increased revenue (increased taxes)? Yep. The Gang of Six are such LIARS--in a plan intended to DECEIVE--that they are willing to say one thing to support one argument, and the exact OPOSITE thing to support a contradictory argument. What is ging on here, besides proving that Kent Conrad and the Gang of Six are LIARS, and their plan inttneded to DECEIVE (as I told you was true, and they have now admitted)?
Remember the Bush "tax cuts", which represent the PRESENT TAX LAW--in effect for almost a decde now? Well, those tax cuts are still scheduled to EXPRIE, in that previous, disgraceful "big deal" (Republican BETRAYAL) at the end of 2010. One of the goals of Obama is to AVOID the fight oove the TAX INCREASE that would be reprsented by the expiration of those Bush tax cuts. We KNOW that the TAX INCREASE represented by eliminating the Bush "tax cuts" would supposedly ADD 4 trillion dollars to government revenue (another lie, but the subject of another article)--3.3 TRILLION of that to come from the middle class (or thereabouts). What Kent Conrad was saying--deceitful as he and the Gang of Six are--is that the CBO is ASSUMING that the Bush tax cuts are going to expire (present law). Therefore, what Kent Conrad is saing is that the CBO will "score" (yet anoterh reason to ignore the CBO as being GAMED--the Bng of Six bill by determining whether the Gang of Six bill will result in a smaller tax increase than the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Republicans, of course, suppposedly OPPOSE the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for what it is: a TAX INCREAS. But I guess Gang of Six Republicans are willing to LIE about that too, or let Kent Conrad LIE for them!!! What is more, OBAMA opposes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS (3.3 TRILLION of that FALSE CBO "scoring" about lwhich Kent Conrad is willing to DECEIVE you!!!
I am giving it to you straight. But it does not even matter if you understand me. Understand this. To come up with their "deficit reduction" number, the Gang of Six is saying tthat they are goiing to ADD REVENUES. To"defend' their indefeinsible, deceptive "ten year plan", Kent Conrad is willing to say that the Gang of Six is REDUCING revenues (adding to the defict) by 1.5 trillion dollars. Both things cannnot be true, and they are not ture. The whole idea here is to CONFUSE and DECEIVE, and that ha ALWAYS been the purpose of this tactic invented by the SOVIET UNIONI: Make up goals, in a five-year plan, that you KNOW your system cannot meet. When your plan is not successful, as you kewn it would not be, sijply say that is because the plan was not properly implemente (usually because of ati-Soviet elements undermining the plan). That is all President Obama, Democrats, and estalbishment Republicans are doing with these massive "ten year plans" (ven more ridiculous than "five year plans", which is probably why Vladimir Putin lectured us for EXCEEDING the mistgakes of the old Soviet Union).
Let me be, again, as blunt as I can. Kent Conrad, who should obviously be defeated, has admitted that he is all about DECEPTION. In effect, he has admitted what is obvious (to me, if not to you): ALL of these "comprehensive" "big deals' are all about DECEPTION. They are inteded to dECEIVE and CONFUSE the public about what is oing on. That is why the proposals of this blog have been aimed at making this deception impossible, by concentrating on the REAL. The "real" now is SPENDING, and yet th ewhole goal of all of these "plans' is to AVOID actually cutting spending NOW. Spending ALWAYS gets "cut" in the far future, where none of these politicians--especially Obama and the Democrats--expect it to really happen. And if it DOES happpen, because our country finally collapses from the wwight of their spending, they think they will be LONG GONE. What do they care? Their careeer is NOW. The spending they WANT is NOW. They don't care about the future, except to DECEIVE you by references to a future they never intend to take place. Yes, Tom Coburn, I mean YOU. I consider you one of the most dishonest politicians I have ever encountered. My problem is that I don't think you are much more dishoenst than almost every other Republican Senator elected before 2010.
Q.E.D. These "ten eyar plans" are all about DECEPTION. They are ot about making "hard choices". They are about AVOIDING "hard choices'.
Bottom lien: The Republican Party is still in grave, immediate danger of committing suicide. Obama and the Democrats WANT this deception. And their core voters do not care, because they know that the deception is in aid of Big Government. But Republican corfe voters--of whom I do not count msyelf one, as they have already lost me as a core voter and are about to lose me FOREVER--do NOT want this deception, or the results of this deceiiption. Every time Republicans BETRAY these core voters, they get closer to destroying the Repubican Party. I think they have used up all of their chances.
By the way, Tom Coburn and you other Republican TRAITORS, removing the "mortgage deduction" for the "rich" is a TAX RATE INCREASE (ot a "not a "loophole" closing. Further, it would DESTROY the housing industry. All of thee "special" rules for the "rich" are COMPLICATIONS to the tax code INCREASING the marginal rate, and they are terrible tax policy And no, you House Republicans are NOT going to get away with the usual tactic of blaiming this looming betrayal on the Senate. If you don't stop this, this time. I will blame YOU for the dishonest hypocrites wyou will have exposed yourseleves to be. I know the game. The game is to have JUST ENOUGH votes to let the DECEPTION happpen, so that those who voted "no" can say they "opposed" what happened. GOOD LUCK, House Republicans. I am NOT buyiing it, this time, and I think you will find an incrasing number of people are not.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Tom Coburn, Dr. No, and James Bond: Boycott Yahoo! Boycott AT&T!
Where is James Bond when you need him? Yes, Dr. No is a James Bond Villain. Tom Coubrn is a present day villain. You don't know what I am talking abut? Here is the PURE PROPAGANDA present hedline from the despicable people at Yahoo and AT&T:
"Dr. No to the debt rescue"
"Dr. No" is apparently a nikname given (probably by opponents on the left, although I do not know) to Tom Coburnl, Republican Senator (but who I, for one, DISOWN as a "conservative", or would except that I have done so months or years ago in this blog's usual foresight).
You can see that this is part of the big PROPAGANDA push for the Obama "big deal" on raising the debt ceiling, where the Senate "Gang of 6" is being used as the stalking horse for Obama. Doubt me? You better read that PURE PROPAGANDA headline again. But it gets worse.
Here is an approving seetence from the propaganda story: "Coburn is giving political cover to his fellow conservatives."
That is the mainstream media/Obama storyline: that Coburn has now made it "acceptable" to vote for an Obama "big deal", and betray conservatives and the Tea Party.
If Republicans believe that, they should read this blog over the laswt month, and especially the article over the past week. Not only is Tom Coburn providing NO political "cover", but he is in danger of leading Republicans, in cluding Republicans in the House, to complete disaster.
Message to Republicans in the House: Yuo can run, but you can't hide. Yes, even Michele Bachmann is in danger ou RUINING any chance she might have had for the Repubican nominatioin. It is NOT enough for Republicans in the House to merely "vote" against an Obama//Coburn type plan. I give NO credit for that "vote", if the plan passes. That is because I know too much about how Washington works. So long as the establishment has enough votes to pass the bill, many Republicans will have "permissioin" (explicit or implict) to vote against the bill, as long as they don't make too many waves.
Well, I have a message for you Republicans out there, including Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann: "WAVES" are all I am interested in here, and RESULTS. Did James Bond expect credit for merely TRYING to stopp Dr. No? Don't be silly. A vote here is not nearly enough. And for hose candidates not in Congress, watching from the sidelines is not nearly enough. Michele Bachmann must CONDEMN the Republican leadership, Tom Coubrn and the rest (if that is what it takes to stop Dr. No, villain that he is). A tame "vote' simplly seals your fate with me, if you are a Republican seeking "cover". Whether you are Michele Bachmann or Eric Cantor or Joh Boehner, if you do not YELL and SCREAM (if necessary) to stop the Dr. No approach, then you are to BLAME for the reult. How do I knoow you yelled and screamed enough? Easy. You WIN. Okay, we know John Boehner is lost. But if the others in the House expect "cover", they are sadly mistaken. IF, and only if, Michele Bachmann yells LOUDLY ENOUGH, and separates herself from the Republican leadership in Congress in strong ters, I would be inclined not to condmen HER. But I will not accept a relatively silent vote, even from her.
Let us be blunt here: Tom Couburn (Dr. No, great villain) deliberately SABOTAGED the Republican effort in the House. If Republicans in the House let the establishment get away with this kind of blatant sabotage, just before the VOTE in the House, then what good does it do to elect "Tea Party" Republicans to the House? Republican politicians, no matter how much they say otherwise, still don't "gt it'. The old political games-the old political deceptions--are just not acceptable aymore, and there is NO "ocver. As stated, you can run, but you can't hide.
lI have told you before that I have AT&T internet service, which combines with Yahoo to provide "news" on my "default" page (which I keep just to see what they are doing, so I can tel you on this blog). For awhile, Yahoo was noting the sourcxe of each headline (such as citing "AP"). That source was usually the despicable Associated Press, but not always. The single common elemnt is that the featured headlines are almost ALWAYS LEFTIST. Yahoo seems to have dropped the poliicy of citing the source of itts featured headlines right next to each headline. As to this particular headline, it is not clear what the source of the headline is. I am sure that if I could see better, I would know. But the story is NOT clearly labeled as being from the Associated Press, and apparently it is not. I am not sure where it is from. At the very top, AT&T and Yahoo are referenced, as if they are partners.
So be it. I am perfectly willing to accept this story as coming from AT&T and Yahoo. They are taking responsibility for this BLATANT PROPAGANDA, and they should. I am more than willing to give them that responsibility.
I have toldy you to BOYCOTT YAHOO for a long time. Now it is obviuos, if it were not before: BOYCOTT AT&T. For more than one reason, I am inclined to leave AT&T myself It is NOT either an economic orr quality service. If I stay, it will be a SACRIFICE for you, as I previously sacrificed by staying on AOL to the bitter end. You can see the other problem These services all seem to issue LEFITST PROPAGANDA, although Yahoo and AT&T are becoming especailly blatant. As I decided with AOL, it may be that I must resign myself to using ONE of the propaganda outlets to keep up with leftist thinking, and that it does not much matter which one I use. However, my problems and possible hypocrisy are not your problem My clear advice to you (do as I say and not as I do) is: BOYCOTT YAHOO. BOYCOTT AT&T. There is no doubt that both are terrible companies, with no redeeming social value.
P..S. No oproofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
"Dr. No to the debt rescue"
"Dr. No" is apparently a nikname given (probably by opponents on the left, although I do not know) to Tom Coburnl, Republican Senator (but who I, for one, DISOWN as a "conservative", or would except that I have done so months or years ago in this blog's usual foresight).
You can see that this is part of the big PROPAGANDA push for the Obama "big deal" on raising the debt ceiling, where the Senate "Gang of 6" is being used as the stalking horse for Obama. Doubt me? You better read that PURE PROPAGANDA headline again. But it gets worse.
Here is an approving seetence from the propaganda story: "Coburn is giving political cover to his fellow conservatives."
That is the mainstream media/Obama storyline: that Coburn has now made it "acceptable" to vote for an Obama "big deal", and betray conservatives and the Tea Party.
If Republicans believe that, they should read this blog over the laswt month, and especially the article over the past week. Not only is Tom Coburn providing NO political "cover", but he is in danger of leading Republicans, in cluding Republicans in the House, to complete disaster.
Message to Republicans in the House: Yuo can run, but you can't hide. Yes, even Michele Bachmann is in danger ou RUINING any chance she might have had for the Repubican nominatioin. It is NOT enough for Republicans in the House to merely "vote" against an Obama//Coburn type plan. I give NO credit for that "vote", if the plan passes. That is because I know too much about how Washington works. So long as the establishment has enough votes to pass the bill, many Republicans will have "permissioin" (explicit or implict) to vote against the bill, as long as they don't make too many waves.
Well, I have a message for you Republicans out there, including Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann: "WAVES" are all I am interested in here, and RESULTS. Did James Bond expect credit for merely TRYING to stopp Dr. No? Don't be silly. A vote here is not nearly enough. And for hose candidates not in Congress, watching from the sidelines is not nearly enough. Michele Bachmann must CONDEMN the Republican leadership, Tom Coubrn and the rest (if that is what it takes to stop Dr. No, villain that he is). A tame "vote' simplly seals your fate with me, if you are a Republican seeking "cover". Whether you are Michele Bachmann or Eric Cantor or Joh Boehner, if you do not YELL and SCREAM (if necessary) to stop the Dr. No approach, then you are to BLAME for the reult. How do I knoow you yelled and screamed enough? Easy. You WIN. Okay, we know John Boehner is lost. But if the others in the House expect "cover", they are sadly mistaken. IF, and only if, Michele Bachmann yells LOUDLY ENOUGH, and separates herself from the Republican leadership in Congress in strong ters, I would be inclined not to condmen HER. But I will not accept a relatively silent vote, even from her.
Let us be blunt here: Tom Couburn (Dr. No, great villain) deliberately SABOTAGED the Republican effort in the House. If Republicans in the House let the establishment get away with this kind of blatant sabotage, just before the VOTE in the House, then what good does it do to elect "Tea Party" Republicans to the House? Republican politicians, no matter how much they say otherwise, still don't "gt it'. The old political games-the old political deceptions--are just not acceptable aymore, and there is NO "ocver. As stated, you can run, but you can't hide.
lI have told you before that I have AT&T internet service, which combines with Yahoo to provide "news" on my "default" page (which I keep just to see what they are doing, so I can tel you on this blog). For awhile, Yahoo was noting the sourcxe of each headline (such as citing "AP"). That source was usually the despicable Associated Press, but not always. The single common elemnt is that the featured headlines are almost ALWAYS LEFTIST. Yahoo seems to have dropped the poliicy of citing the source of itts featured headlines right next to each headline. As to this particular headline, it is not clear what the source of the headline is. I am sure that if I could see better, I would know. But the story is NOT clearly labeled as being from the Associated Press, and apparently it is not. I am not sure where it is from. At the very top, AT&T and Yahoo are referenced, as if they are partners.
So be it. I am perfectly willing to accept this story as coming from AT&T and Yahoo. They are taking responsibility for this BLATANT PROPAGANDA, and they should. I am more than willing to give them that responsibility.
I have toldy you to BOYCOTT YAHOO for a long time. Now it is obviuos, if it were not before: BOYCOTT AT&T. For more than one reason, I am inclined to leave AT&T myself It is NOT either an economic orr quality service. If I stay, it will be a SACRIFICE for you, as I previously sacrificed by staying on AOL to the bitter end. You can see the other problem These services all seem to issue LEFITST PROPAGANDA, although Yahoo and AT&T are becoming especailly blatant. As I decided with AOL, it may be that I must resign myself to using ONE of the propaganda outlets to keep up with leftist thinking, and that it does not much matter which one I use. However, my problems and possible hypocrisy are not your problem My clear advice to you (do as I say and not as I do) is: BOYCOTT YAHOO. BOYCOTT AT&T. There is no doubt that both are terrible companies, with no redeeming social value.
P..S. No oproofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Illegal Immigration: The Comprehensive Scam
See my previoius article, about the SCAM of a "comprehensive deal" on our defict and debt problem--a scam that is on the verge of destroying the Republican Party. The very SAME scam is used by Obama, Democrats and establishment Repubicans on illegal immigation.
What is the purpose of the "comprehensive bill" on immigratin that President Obama keeeps calling for, as was the puroose of the "comprehensive health care plan", the "comprehesinve financial overhaul", and the "comprehensive ... (fill in the blank)". The main purpose is to DECEIVE, by people (politicians) withut courage and withut honor. The idea is to avoid defending, or even letting people know abut, specific provisions of a massive Christmas tree bill that tries to give "everybody" something, while costing the nation everything. That is especailly true on illegal immigration, but it is true of every one of these "comoprehensive" bills, to one degree or another. ObamaCare, with its corrupt "hore trading" and multiple deceptions ("we have to pass it to know what is in it") is the poster child for this desgraceful tactic.
You should automatically vote AGAINST any politican in Washington who even utters (in a positive way) the word "comprehensive", or any similar word or term. Yes, this means you shold automatically vote AGAINST Barack Obama, the master of this tactic. The problem, of course, is that this does not mean you can automatically vote for REPUBLICANS. For example (see previous article again), you should automatically vote against Tom Coburn, and you may end up having to vote against most of the Repuublican Party. Who does that leave? That is the problem.
Do you doubt that the whole concept of 'comprehensive immigration reform" is merly a COVER for one type of amnesty or another? For one type of "open borders" encouragement of illegal immigration or another? If you don't understand that, you are a FOOL (or dishonest, like th epeople who push thee "comprehensive" plans to deceive).
Nope. I will oppose AnYONE who wants "comprehensive immigratin reform"--Republican or Democrat. And I am right to do so, even if I were wrong about my position on individual parts of the proposed "reform". These shold be SEPARATE bills. For example:
1. National ID card? Separate bill.
2. Secure the border? Separate bill.
3. Amnesty or limits on deportation lol)? Separate bill.
4. Employer sanctioins, incluidng REQUIRING emplyers to verify Social Security numbers when our computers find a discrepancy (as our computers already do, with notification letters, but with NO requirement that employers take actiion).? Separte bill, placing substantial fines on employers who do not act on a letter notifying of a discrepancy in Social Security number by invetigating the deiscrepanc and verifying the number is not a fraud.
5. You get the idea.
Republicans, of course, should be PUSHING individual bills, and criticizing the entire idea of "comprehensive reform". That they are not is another STRIKE against the Republican Party, which has already haad about 5 strikes. It is about time to tive the "OUT" call.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
What is the purpose of the "comprehensive bill" on immigratin that President Obama keeeps calling for, as was the puroose of the "comprehensive health care plan", the "comprehesinve financial overhaul", and the "comprehensive ... (fill in the blank)". The main purpose is to DECEIVE, by people (politicians) withut courage and withut honor. The idea is to avoid defending, or even letting people know abut, specific provisions of a massive Christmas tree bill that tries to give "everybody" something, while costing the nation everything. That is especailly true on illegal immigration, but it is true of every one of these "comoprehensive" bills, to one degree or another. ObamaCare, with its corrupt "hore trading" and multiple deceptions ("we have to pass it to know what is in it") is the poster child for this desgraceful tactic.
You should automatically vote AGAINST any politican in Washington who even utters (in a positive way) the word "comprehensive", or any similar word or term. Yes, this means you shold automatically vote AGAINST Barack Obama, the master of this tactic. The problem, of course, is that this does not mean you can automatically vote for REPUBLICANS. For example (see previous article again), you should automatically vote against Tom Coburn, and you may end up having to vote against most of the Repuublican Party. Who does that leave? That is the problem.
Do you doubt that the whole concept of 'comprehensive immigration reform" is merly a COVER for one type of amnesty or another? For one type of "open borders" encouragement of illegal immigration or another? If you don't understand that, you are a FOOL (or dishonest, like th epeople who push thee "comprehensive" plans to deceive).
Nope. I will oppose AnYONE who wants "comprehensive immigratin reform"--Republican or Democrat. And I am right to do so, even if I were wrong about my position on individual parts of the proposed "reform". These shold be SEPARATE bills. For example:
1. National ID card? Separate bill.
2. Secure the border? Separate bill.
3. Amnesty or limits on deportation lol)? Separate bill.
4. Employer sanctioins, incluidng REQUIRING emplyers to verify Social Security numbers when our computers find a discrepancy (as our computers already do, with notification letters, but with NO requirement that employers take actiion).? Separte bill, placing substantial fines on employers who do not act on a letter notifying of a discrepancy in Social Security number by invetigating the deiscrepanc and verifying the number is not a fraud.
5. You get the idea.
Republicans, of course, should be PUSHING individual bills, and criticizing the entire idea of "comprehensive reform". That they are not is another STRIKE against the Republican Party, which has already haad about 5 strikes. It is about time to tive the "OUT" call.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Soviet Union Five-Year Plans: When Did U.S. Start Down This Dead End Road?
I vomit every time I hear anyone in Washington talk about a "comprehensive" plan that will "solve" a problem in ten years. This is the "magic wand theory of government" perfected by Barack Obama and ad adopted by SELL OUT Republicans (yes, even before Obama).
The Soviet lUnion kept trying those failed 50year plans. But our Republicans and Democrats have done the old Soviet Union one better. Now we have TEN YEAR plans, complete with fuzzy maath: real tax increases and fake spending "cuts". No wonder Vladimir Putin, the present Russian leader, LETURED the Untied States about making the same mistakes as the Communits in Russia made. He was right (even if he is a despicable autocrat).
No, I will never forgive lthe Republican Party, as an institution, if hey go down this road. Nope. Republican members of the House may think they can make a "safe" vote gainst this, knowing it will pass. They aree wrong. I will not forgive them for THAT standard game, unless they FIGHT tooth and nail, or tooth and claw, to stgop such an atrocity. Ype. That means CONDEMNTING John Boehner and the Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate (IF this kind of atrocity, which you will note I have expected all along, happens). And this DOES apply to Michele Bachmann. If she jsut votes, and doesn not make major noise, I will reevatulate my support of her. As previously stated, I don't expect there is any chance I will be able to support someone like Rick Perry or Mitt Romeny,m unless they assert LEADERSHIP on this. Otherwise, I am going to assume that are "politics as usual" politicians, and I will not moutn their defeat by Obama (as I did not mourn John McCain, corrrectly).
Here is the way this stuff should be done:
. Tax reform? Pass a SEPARATE BIL with almost no net revenue increase.
2. Next year's spending: CUT this spending, NOT a as lpart of a "comprehensive" plan but as parat of a DETERMINED effort to REALLY "cut" spending NOW. Shut down the government, if you have to, to get real lspending cuts. And do NOT fall for the SHAM of making a "deal"--supposedly on next year's spending, but really to AVOID hard choices on spending. This should really be no. 1.
3. Medicare? Separte bill to SAVE MEDICARE. If it does not pass, so be it. But address this, as all of thee things, on its own MERITS (I konw: a realy novel concept for the magic wand theory of goernment people in Washington).
4. Medicaid? Separate bill. Or, as on all of these things, several separate bills dealing with different ASPECTGS of the problem.
5. ObamaCare? Multiple separate bills,, with the goal of repeal.
6. Social Security? Multiple separate bills. Need to change cost of living calculation? DO IT on its merits. We know wwe need to try to keep Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid from bankrupting us. Trying to do this in one massive bill,m as lpart of a ten year plan to solve the debt deficit, and every other problem wwe have, is STUPID. Yes ,it is Communist Soviet Unioin STUPID.
7. NPR, Planned Parenthod, NEA and all of thee other sacred cows of the Democrats? Do them as part of the spending bills of individual agencies. Boehner PROMISED separate appropriations bills , and NOT one, two or three "conitinuing resolutions" or "omnibus spending bills". I hold him to that, although I may have declared him "dead" to me before we get to that. See above, and the previsou articles yesterday and today.
8. Balanced Budget Amendment? I would leave out the tax language, but leave in the essential spending cap language. Then I would FIGHT for this as a separate measure--not a government shut down or debt ceiling measure. Make the Democrats EAT IT. But it is fantasy to think you can EXTORT passage of this through the House and Senatte. As I have previously stated, I will aplaud, and eat my words, if Republicans ccan get away with this. Or if lthey had the GUTS to FORCE it. They can't, and they don't.
9. Everything else: Separate bills.
ANNOUNCE your own "plan": the same CUT, CAP and BALANCE plan that the House will pass tonight (may already have passed--I am assuming it did not fail, but I have not been paying attention because I am too worried about the end game being planned by the Republican establishment in the Senate). Republicans should have their OWN PLAN, and NOT get trapped into a "comprehesive ten year plan" that SELLS OUT conservatives. We will not forget it, if Republicans do go down this oad again. I, especailly, will not forget it. The Republican Party will be dead for me.
What about the debt ceiling? If Republicans won't adopt MY great idea of KEYING the debt ceiling to each year's spending bills (see my previus articles on that), then FORGET IT. Yes, that is what I said. If you make ANY deal, make it on NEXT YEAR'S SPENDING. Then either extend th debt ceiling only until next eyar's end of the fscal year (September 30), or extend it the way Obama wnats. These SMALL deals are what DEMOCRATS FEAR. Watch MSNBC some time There is a reason Obama wants the "big deal". He is the master of the "magic wand theory of government". A "big deal" can only help him.
Shoot Tom Coburn, Kay Bailye Hutchinson, John McCain, Chambliss, and all of these other Senate turncoats. Just kidding . I am not really a violent man. But I would FIGURATIVELY "shoot" every single Republican in the Senate up for election next year (unless there is a real conservative elected in 2010 to fill an expired term, and I don't remember any). . By that, I mean that EVERY Senate Republican running for reelctions should get a PRIMARY OPPONET. Orrin Hatch? Gone. No, lyou may think you can pick out some conservatives who are worth saving> I would mourn NONE of them. The only ones I wuold muorn were elected in 2010, and are presumbably not up for election next year. Cost some seats? So what. I am really, really tired of these peoiple in the United States Senate.
There you have it. If necessary GIVE Obama a clean debt ceiling bill, and FIGHT THE SPENDING. No BETRAYAL with a Soviet style "ten year plan". Simply announce your WON ten year plan, bkut with the idea of DOING BETTER. Republiicans picked this fight on the debt ceiling. If it lead to a BETRAYAL of conservatives, that could have been avoided with a simple extension of the debt ceiling, then Republicans--almsot ALL of them--will be PUNISHED. If tghe Senate shoots down "cu, cap and balance", DECLARE VICTGORY (hainv used the debtg ceiling to devleop the REPUBLICAN tgen-year plan, even if Democrats will nto agree to it). If you can't bring yourself to FIGHT for my idea, just GET OUT and live to fight on SPENDING (and all of those other issues referenced above). You will rightly guess that I do NOT believe that Republicans have the courage to FORCE the dal they want by refusing to vote for a debt ceeiling increase until t hey get it. And I--as I have previously stated--am not even sure that this is the RIGHT place to make a stand. I would never, to be honest, have picked this particular fight. I have told you the fight I would have picked--the SMALL fight over next year's spending, and keying the debt ceiling to each year's spending bills.
What if Republicans don't even have th guts to EVER fight over spending, so that the debt ceiling is the only chance we will ever have? Read that carefully. If Republicans are THAT spineless, there is not chance on prevailing here anyway.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Lucky you (lol). I am so redundant that you can probably pick up the meaning, even if some of the article is garbled.
The Soviet lUnion kept trying those failed 50year plans. But our Republicans and Democrats have done the old Soviet Union one better. Now we have TEN YEAR plans, complete with fuzzy maath: real tax increases and fake spending "cuts". No wonder Vladimir Putin, the present Russian leader, LETURED the Untied States about making the same mistakes as the Communits in Russia made. He was right (even if he is a despicable autocrat).
No, I will never forgive lthe Republican Party, as an institution, if hey go down this road. Nope. Republican members of the House may think they can make a "safe" vote gainst this, knowing it will pass. They aree wrong. I will not forgive them for THAT standard game, unless they FIGHT tooth and nail, or tooth and claw, to stgop such an atrocity. Ype. That means CONDEMNTING John Boehner and the Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate (IF this kind of atrocity, which you will note I have expected all along, happens). And this DOES apply to Michele Bachmann. If she jsut votes, and doesn not make major noise, I will reevatulate my support of her. As previously stated, I don't expect there is any chance I will be able to support someone like Rick Perry or Mitt Romeny,m unless they assert LEADERSHIP on this. Otherwise, I am going to assume that are "politics as usual" politicians, and I will not moutn their defeat by Obama (as I did not mourn John McCain, corrrectly).
Here is the way this stuff should be done:
. Tax reform? Pass a SEPARATE BIL with almost no net revenue increase.
2. Next year's spending: CUT this spending, NOT a as lpart of a "comprehensive" plan but as parat of a DETERMINED effort to REALLY "cut" spending NOW. Shut down the government, if you have to, to get real lspending cuts. And do NOT fall for the SHAM of making a "deal"--supposedly on next year's spending, but really to AVOID hard choices on spending. This should really be no. 1.
3. Medicare? Separte bill to SAVE MEDICARE. If it does not pass, so be it. But address this, as all of thee things, on its own MERITS (I konw: a realy novel concept for the magic wand theory of goernment people in Washington).
4. Medicaid? Separate bill. Or, as on all of these things, several separate bills dealing with different ASPECTGS of the problem.
5. ObamaCare? Multiple separate bills,, with the goal of repeal.
6. Social Security? Multiple separate bills. Need to change cost of living calculation? DO IT on its merits. We know wwe need to try to keep Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid from bankrupting us. Trying to do this in one massive bill,m as lpart of a ten year plan to solve the debt deficit, and every other problem wwe have, is STUPID. Yes ,it is Communist Soviet Unioin STUPID.
7. NPR, Planned Parenthod, NEA and all of thee other sacred cows of the Democrats? Do them as part of the spending bills of individual agencies. Boehner PROMISED separate appropriations bills , and NOT one, two or three "conitinuing resolutions" or "omnibus spending bills". I hold him to that, although I may have declared him "dead" to me before we get to that. See above, and the previsou articles yesterday and today.
8. Balanced Budget Amendment? I would leave out the tax language, but leave in the essential spending cap language. Then I would FIGHT for this as a separate measure--not a government shut down or debt ceiling measure. Make the Democrats EAT IT. But it is fantasy to think you can EXTORT passage of this through the House and Senatte. As I have previously stated, I will aplaud, and eat my words, if Republicans ccan get away with this. Or if lthey had the GUTS to FORCE it. They can't, and they don't.
9. Everything else: Separate bills.
ANNOUNCE your own "plan": the same CUT, CAP and BALANCE plan that the House will pass tonight (may already have passed--I am assuming it did not fail, but I have not been paying attention because I am too worried about the end game being planned by the Republican establishment in the Senate). Republicans should have their OWN PLAN, and NOT get trapped into a "comprehesive ten year plan" that SELLS OUT conservatives. We will not forget it, if Republicans do go down this oad again. I, especailly, will not forget it. The Republican Party will be dead for me.
What about the debt ceiling? If Republicans won't adopt MY great idea of KEYING the debt ceiling to each year's spending bills (see my previus articles on that), then FORGET IT. Yes, that is what I said. If you make ANY deal, make it on NEXT YEAR'S SPENDING. Then either extend th debt ceiling only until next eyar's end of the fscal year (September 30), or extend it the way Obama wnats. These SMALL deals are what DEMOCRATS FEAR. Watch MSNBC some time There is a reason Obama wants the "big deal". He is the master of the "magic wand theory of government". A "big deal" can only help him.
Shoot Tom Coburn, Kay Bailye Hutchinson, John McCain, Chambliss, and all of these other Senate turncoats. Just kidding . I am not really a violent man. But I would FIGURATIVELY "shoot" every single Republican in the Senate up for election next year (unless there is a real conservative elected in 2010 to fill an expired term, and I don't remember any). . By that, I mean that EVERY Senate Republican running for reelctions should get a PRIMARY OPPONET. Orrin Hatch? Gone. No, lyou may think you can pick out some conservatives who are worth saving> I would mourn NONE of them. The only ones I wuold muorn were elected in 2010, and are presumbably not up for election next year. Cost some seats? So what. I am really, really tired of these peoiple in the United States Senate.
There you have it. If necessary GIVE Obama a clean debt ceiling bill, and FIGHT THE SPENDING. No BETRAYAL with a Soviet style "ten year plan". Simply announce your WON ten year plan, bkut with the idea of DOING BETTER. Republiicans picked this fight on the debt ceiling. If it lead to a BETRAYAL of conservatives, that could have been avoided with a simple extension of the debt ceiling, then Republicans--almsot ALL of them--will be PUNISHED. If tghe Senate shoots down "cu, cap and balance", DECLARE VICTGORY (hainv used the debtg ceiling to devleop the REPUBLICAN tgen-year plan, even if Democrats will nto agree to it). If you can't bring yourself to FIGHT for my idea, just GET OUT and live to fight on SPENDING (and all of those other issues referenced above). You will rightly guess that I do NOT believe that Republicans have the courage to FORCE the dal they want by refusing to vote for a debt ceeiling increase until t hey get it. And I--as I have previously stated--am not even sure that this is the RIGHT place to make a stand. I would never, to be honest, have picked this particular fight. I have told you the fight I would have picked--the SMALL fight over next year's spending, and keying the debt ceiling to each year's spending bills.
What if Republicans don't even have th guts to EVER fight over spending, so that the debt ceiling is the only chance we will ever have? Read that carefully. If Republicans are THAT spineless, there is not chance on prevailing here anyway.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Lucky you (lol). I am so redundant that you can probably pick up the meaning, even if some of the article is garbled.
Tom Coburn and the Gang of Six
This lobg has already told yoiu that you should not vote for Tom Coburn for dogcatcher of Mt. Ida, Arkansas (the small Arkansas town in which I spent most of my first 12 years of life).
Now the despicable Associated Press is pusing another one of thse Seante SELL OUTS at which Republica ns in the Senate have become so "expert". Here is the headline: "Gagn of Sex debt plan gains momentum". Contrast that with the AP headlines on HOUSE Republican plans The AP and Yahoo are despicable organizations (Yahoo because it relies gotally on the AP for this stuff, and publishes the WROST of the AP).
Let me be as blunt, and brief (hard for me) as I can be: If Republicans let anything like a Gang of Six plan through Congress to lift the debt ceiling, then the Republican Party is DEAD to me forever after. Not only will I vote against any $%^&&^$$% (practicing deleting the party from this blog) who votes for such a plkan, AND contribute to any mprimary oppoent I can find with any chance at all, I will do the same for any #$%#$%%%^^ I even SUSPTECT of conspriing in that betrayal, though such a Republican (using the name only because I have not YET adopted tghe other policy) may vote "against" a Gang of Six plan. That is because I KNOW how these games work. Any "plan" that passes will have a certain number of people "allowed" to vote agaInst it, so that the plan ends up having just enough votes to pass. Those games are over for me, and I well err on the side of SUSPICION. No, I will not suspect Michele Bachmann or Rand Paul, but I will supspect most of the rest of consiring in any result.
Message to Republiicans: Forget it, or be (figuratively) dead as a party.
Message to House: Just how many times are you going to let the Senate come up with these last minute things. If you will remember the original BAILOUT bill, that wa a last minut plan from Senate Republicans. The same thing happened on extending the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2010. The same thing tried to happen on the governent "shut down" fight, althugh Boehner may have ultimately engineered that sell out himself (being a Senate Republican type). I will not forgive House $%^$^&% (practicing again) for this one, if it happens.
I am begging you, Republicans, to forget the SELL OUT "grand deal". If lyou do not, then I will do everything I know how to do to oppose both your party, AND most of its members, in the future.
Note to Mitt Romeny, Rick Perry and the rest of the Republican Presidential candidates: I know where Michele Bachmann stands. YOU, I am not sure about. If lyou LET Republicans in Congress do this SELL OUT, without a MAJOR effort to stop it, then you can be sure I will not support you for President, even in the general electioin and even against the devil himself.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). If I have not beeen blunt or clear enough above, let me know (whether because of typos or because I just did not make myself celar). I am willing to condemn these Republicans in STRONGER terms, if I have not been clear enough how strong I feel abut this. PLESE, somebody, ask me for money to oppose Coburn, or ANY Republican Senator. I am ready fro primary opponets for them all , in office before 2010--excuding only, possibly Jim Demint and less than a single handful of others.
Now the despicable Associated Press is pusing another one of thse Seante SELL OUTS at which Republica ns in the Senate have become so "expert". Here is the headline: "Gagn of Sex debt plan gains momentum". Contrast that with the AP headlines on HOUSE Republican plans The AP and Yahoo are despicable organizations (Yahoo because it relies gotally on the AP for this stuff, and publishes the WROST of the AP).
Let me be as blunt, and brief (hard for me) as I can be: If Republicans let anything like a Gang of Six plan through Congress to lift the debt ceiling, then the Republican Party is DEAD to me forever after. Not only will I vote against any $%^&&^$$% (practicing deleting the party from this blog) who votes for such a plkan, AND contribute to any mprimary oppoent I can find with any chance at all, I will do the same for any #$%#$%%%^^ I even SUSPTECT of conspriing in that betrayal, though such a Republican (using the name only because I have not YET adopted tghe other policy) may vote "against" a Gang of Six plan. That is because I KNOW how these games work. Any "plan" that passes will have a certain number of people "allowed" to vote agaInst it, so that the plan ends up having just enough votes to pass. Those games are over for me, and I well err on the side of SUSPICION. No, I will not suspect Michele Bachmann or Rand Paul, but I will supspect most of the rest of consiring in any result.
Message to Republiicans: Forget it, or be (figuratively) dead as a party.
Message to House: Just how many times are you going to let the Senate come up with these last minute things. If you will remember the original BAILOUT bill, that wa a last minut plan from Senate Republicans. The same thing happened on extending the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2010. The same thing tried to happen on the governent "shut down" fight, althugh Boehner may have ultimately engineered that sell out himself (being a Senate Republican type). I will not forgive House $%^$^&% (practicing again) for this one, if it happens.
I am begging you, Republicans, to forget the SELL OUT "grand deal". If lyou do not, then I will do everything I know how to do to oppose both your party, AND most of its members, in the future.
Note to Mitt Romeny, Rick Perry and the rest of the Republican Presidential candidates: I know where Michele Bachmann stands. YOU, I am not sure about. If lyou LET Republicans in Congress do this SELL OUT, without a MAJOR effort to stop it, then you can be sure I will not support you for President, even in the general electioin and even against the devil himself.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). If I have not beeen blunt or clear enough above, let me know (whether because of typos or because I just did not make myself celar). I am willing to condemn these Republicans in STRONGER terms, if I have not been clear enough how strong I feel abut this. PLESE, somebody, ask me for money to oppose Coburn, or ANY Republican Senator. I am ready fro primary opponets for them all , in office before 2010--excuding only, possibly Jim Demint and less than a single handful of others.
"Tea-Party Backed Debt Plan": Sodom and Gomorrah Warning--AP Lies Again (Boycott Yahoo)
See my previious article. Then realize that this is the CURRENT featured headline from the AP, on Yahoo "News' (boycott Yahoo):
"House to vote on tea-party backed debt plan"
The above headline appeared while I was composing my previous article. Read that article, and then read that headline again Realize that yesterday the despicable AP was calling this a "tea party plan". That was a LIE. The slightly softer headline today, using "backed", is still a LIE--a partisan lie designed to dismiss this vote. Here is the correct headline (as if the "journalists" at the despicable AP, or the fellow travellers at Yahoo, care about an accurate headline):
"House ot vote on Republican plan to lift debt ceiling"
Remember, the position of the Tea Party, and of perhaps MOST of the American people, is NOT to raise the debt ceiling AT ALL, under any circumstances. Thus, some members of the Tea Party may back eements of this Republican plan. Some may even back the whole thing. But there are a whole lot more who don't want the debt ceilng raised. This is a plan to RAISE the debt ceiling. I know that the Tea Party does not back the part of the plan that "cuts' only 111 billion from this coming year's spending. I don't "ack" that part of the plan, and I am morally certain most Tea Party people do not. These are lpeople willing to see NO debt ceiling increase, which would cut Federal spending some 44%. (because we are borrowing 44 cents out of every dolllar we are spending). They cannot possibly "back" a plan that "cuts" LESS than 3% off of Federal spending for the next fiscal year (beginning in October). The REPUBLICAN plan is totally inadequate. I might vote for it if I were in the House, only because it is the only game in town, and becaues I do favor the Balanced Budget Amendment (fantasy though I think it is to believe you can get it throught the preent Congress, and wrong though I think this approach is when we should be focusing on present SPENDING). However, this is simply NOT a "tea party" plan, and the Tea Party no more "backs' the plan than the many other Republicans who are backing it. In fact, I would say the Tea Party backs the lan LESS enthusiastically than non-Tea Partry conservatives.
Warning: Stay away from AP facilities. Sodom and Gomorrah altert (similar to those weather alerts on tornadoes). Indications are mounting that aSodom and Gomorrah event is likely to take place near Associated Press people and facitlities. Take precautions. Go to shelters.
Message to Fox: Forget parroting the AP. You merely expose yourselves for the INCOMPETENTS you are. No, it is an absurd, incompetent oversimplification--more of an outright lie--to associate the Tea Party with this particular plan. Hohn Boehner--no Tea Party person--said that this was the OFFICIAL Republican House plan on Friday, in a big press conference attended by several elements of the House Republican caucus. To try to isolate lthe "Tea Party" as the group behind this particlar plan, or the MAIN support of this particular plan, is indefensible. Not ture.
No, I don't care if indificual Tea Party people want to "take credit" for this plan. It is still a LIE, and incompetent "journalism', to label this particular plan as the "Tea Party plan".
Warning: Don't be dsitracted. I see funny clouds gathering here in El Paso, where there are not even very many AP people. Remember that a Sodom and Gomorrah warning has officially been issued. If you are anywhere in the vacity of AP personnel or facilities, TAKE IMMEIDATE COVER. Everyone out there needs to take precautions to avoid unnecessary loss of life, anddisruption of the salt marktets with exessive supply.
P.. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
"House to vote on tea-party backed debt plan"
The above headline appeared while I was composing my previous article. Read that article, and then read that headline again Realize that yesterday the despicable AP was calling this a "tea party plan". That was a LIE. The slightly softer headline today, using "backed", is still a LIE--a partisan lie designed to dismiss this vote. Here is the correct headline (as if the "journalists" at the despicable AP, or the fellow travellers at Yahoo, care about an accurate headline):
"House ot vote on Republican plan to lift debt ceiling"
Remember, the position of the Tea Party, and of perhaps MOST of the American people, is NOT to raise the debt ceiling AT ALL, under any circumstances. Thus, some members of the Tea Party may back eements of this Republican plan. Some may even back the whole thing. But there are a whole lot more who don't want the debt ceilng raised. This is a plan to RAISE the debt ceiling. I know that the Tea Party does not back the part of the plan that "cuts' only 111 billion from this coming year's spending. I don't "ack" that part of the plan, and I am morally certain most Tea Party people do not. These are lpeople willing to see NO debt ceiling increase, which would cut Federal spending some 44%. (because we are borrowing 44 cents out of every dolllar we are spending). They cannot possibly "back" a plan that "cuts" LESS than 3% off of Federal spending for the next fiscal year (beginning in October). The REPUBLICAN plan is totally inadequate. I might vote for it if I were in the House, only because it is the only game in town, and becaues I do favor the Balanced Budget Amendment (fantasy though I think it is to believe you can get it throught the preent Congress, and wrong though I think this approach is when we should be focusing on present SPENDING). However, this is simply NOT a "tea party" plan, and the Tea Party no more "backs' the plan than the many other Republicans who are backing it. In fact, I would say the Tea Party backs the lan LESS enthusiastically than non-Tea Partry conservatives.
Warning: Stay away from AP facilities. Sodom and Gomorrah altert (similar to those weather alerts on tornadoes). Indications are mounting that aSodom and Gomorrah event is likely to take place near Associated Press people and facitlities. Take precautions. Go to shelters.
Message to Fox: Forget parroting the AP. You merely expose yourselves for the INCOMPETENTS you are. No, it is an absurd, incompetent oversimplification--more of an outright lie--to associate the Tea Party with this particular plan. Hohn Boehner--no Tea Party person--said that this was the OFFICIAL Republican House plan on Friday, in a big press conference attended by several elements of the House Republican caucus. To try to isolate lthe "Tea Party" as the group behind this particlar plan, or the MAIN support of this particular plan, is indefensible. Not ture.
No, I don't care if indificual Tea Party people want to "take credit" for this plan. It is still a LIE, and incompetent "journalism', to label this particular plan as the "Tea Party plan".
Warning: Don't be dsitracted. I see funny clouds gathering here in El Paso, where there are not even very many AP people. Remember that a Sodom and Gomorrah warning has officially been issued. If you are anywhere in the vacity of AP personnel or facilities, TAKE IMMEIDATE COVER. Everyone out there needs to take precautions to avoid unnecessary loss of life, anddisruption of the salt marktets with exessive supply.
P.. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Tea Party, John Boehner and Fox News: Boycott Fox (Gloria Borger is a Partisan Hack)
John Boehner laid out the REPUBLICAN House position on raising the debt ceiling on Friday. No one in the mainstream media seems to have noticed. As this blog has often shown, thee peple are not "journalists", but partisan political hacks.
I am talking about the "cut, cap and balance" plan upon which the House is going to vote today. The mainstream media talked yesterday as if Boehner had not giveen that press conference Friday MORNING, in combination with several other Repubublicans, designating this as the OFFICIAL House Republican position on how to go forward, telling everyone that there would be a vote this week. Despite that, on Friday and over the weekend, the mainstream media IGNORED Boehner and concentrated ont the Mitch McConnell "deal".
Then, yesterday, the lying parisan hacks in the mainstream media seemed to suddenly realize that Boehner was serious. Thus, yo had the despicable AP /Yahoo (boycott Yahoo) headline yesterday balring out: "Tea Party plan to be voted on in House" (or words to that effect). I saw Gloria Borger on one of those woman anchored CNN programs in the daytime yesterday. Do women come any DUMBER than this? I don't thiks so. If they do, they should ot admit it. The woman anchoring the program obviusly had no idea wat "cut, cap and balance" was all about, even though it was the whole focus of the MAJOR Republican press conference on Friday. The woamn CNN ancor said to Gloria Borger (partisan political hack): "cut, cap and balance" meaning to cut TAXES, cap spending, and balance the budget." Of course (for you leftists out there, and for you mainstream meedia/CNN peple), the plan is actually to ctu SPENDING this year, cap spending for the future, and pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Gloria Borger--partisan political hack that she is--did not contradict the woman anchor--did not correct her wrong description of the plan that Boehner had described on Friday. Borger may not have known herself what the plan is about--she certainly did not describe it--or Borgeer may just have been in partisan political hack mode. Borger--partisan political hack tha she is--went on to dismiss the plan as "politics", rather than a serious proposal.
What did Fox News do yesterday? They picked up the AP headline (as the poor sods do way too often), and described the Boehner/House Republican plan as a "Tea Party plan". You really have to boycott Fox News. They are getting worse every single day.
What is the official Tea Party position? Oh, I am sure that the Tea Party likes the Balanced Budget Amendment, but so do about 70-75% of the American people. The official Tea Party position is not to raise the debt ceiling UNER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. At least one of the major "umbrella' Tea Party organizations reviewed the position taken by local Tea Party groups across the nation. 86% opposed increasing the debt ceiling--period. No deals. Nope. Not even a Balanced Budget Amendment. "No" means "no".
Thus, it is absrud to call the House Republican plan, to be votedon today, a "Tea Party" plan. At most, you can say that many consrvative Republicans smypathetic to the Tea Party have singed on to it, a have the MAJORITY of the Republicans in the House. Labeling this as a "Tea Party" plan was a transparent attempt to dismiss it--showing againthat there is no wore "news" organization in any uninverse than the despicalbe Associated Press (becaues none CAN be worse, as it is impossible to be wrose) I will admit that CNN and MSNBC give the AP a run for its money, except that it is overly kind to acknowledge CNN and MSNBC as either "news" or "organizations" (limited as there lifespan is likely to be and with viewers about the number that a test pattern attracts).
Fox bys into this ridiculously false propaganda regularly, and that is why you should BOYCOTT FOX NEWS CHANNEL (ecept brief surfing on the same basis you surf CNN and the rest of thee idiots, wihout believing a word they say). No, I am not naive enough to believe that John Boehner really believes in this "cut, cap and balance" plan. But ti is a LIE to call it a "Tea Party plan".
This, by the way, is a reason I do not callmyself a "Tea Party" person. It is also why my endoreseement of Michele Bachmann for President does not mean I endore everything about her. You just are not quite existing in the real world if you think that the government can be IMMEDIATELY cut 44%, without the shock being to much for both tethe people and the economy (over any kind of long period of time). I am somewhat dsiappointed in Tea Party people wo try to tak about "waster" when they say how we could easily leave the debt ceiling where it is. If you want to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits 20% or so, AND cut back on a large part of the rest of the Federal Government, we can "lieve within our means'. I have actually proposed short term Meicare and Social Security cuts of5%, in an attempt to reduce the deficit 1/3 or so next year. Tea Party people don not talk about that kind of thing, and it is somewhat dishonest--not as dishonest as the estalbishment, but somewhat dishonest. I have heard Michele Bachmann EVADE this questin of where the cuts would come, and it is where she looks her worst. Stll, the Tea Party is right. Republicans--in this "cut, cap and balance" plan are propsing only a 111 billion dollar "cut' in next year's spending, and I am not sure that is "real" (an actual CUT form this year's spending, rather than gimmicks papering over some small "cuts', such as what happened with the spending bill that avoided a government shut down earlier this year). Greta Van Sustern (Fox, in one of HER worst moments) called the Republican "cut" "biillioins of doallrs" (lol--Greta, you HAVE to do better than that!!!). I told lyou the truth The 11 billiion is LESS than 3% of the total spending. It is less than 10%--way less--of the DEFICIT. Tea Party peole have some LEVERAGE in the debt ceiling vote. Politicians are reluctant to vote for increasing the debt ceiling. Senator Obama voted against it, as a Senator!!!! That was as cynical a vote as ou ill ever see, and there are many other is Congress ALMOST as cynical and dishonet as Obama. o the Tea Party epople see their chance to make their point in a way that gets the attentino of the etablishment, and the natin. It is hard to blame them for that. I still lprefer to exist in the real world, even if I am perfectly willing to spit in the eye of supposed political reality. In the real world, we will not be able to SUDDENLY "live within our means". I jsut wish we were making a REAL effort to get as close to that as we can--NOW. We are not And that is why I am a major Tea Party sypathizer, even if I refuse to call myself a Tea Party member. The Tea Party is, of coure, really only a looe affiliation of people with similar ideas, rather than any kind of defined organiation with a real platform.
The "cut, cap and balance" plan adopted by the House Republicans as the REPUBLICAN offical position in the House is a plan to RAISE the debt ceiling Now you can say that the Balanced Budget Amendment will not pass the present Congress, and I agree with you. However, if it did pass, the Republican plan would NOT "balance the budget" immediately, or for many years into the future. As stated, it would "cut" very little out of next year's spending. Tisis simply NOT a "Tea Party" plan, woever much SOME Tea Party people may hav influenced it. To say otherwise is a LIE, whether from the consistent liars at the AP, from CNN, or from Fox News.
If you are wondering, I am still forced to continue my Sodom and Gomorrah search for an honet, competent AP reporter. I know it is futile. He knows it is futile. I think I am justified in believeing that I am being PUNISHED because I happen to be an aganostic. I mean: Be real. Why should an agnostic be assigned to this search? I still advise proper precautons, to avoid becoming a pillar of salt.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
I am talking about the "cut, cap and balance" plan upon which the House is going to vote today. The mainstream media talked yesterday as if Boehner had not giveen that press conference Friday MORNING, in combination with several other Repubublicans, designating this as the OFFICIAL House Republican position on how to go forward, telling everyone that there would be a vote this week. Despite that, on Friday and over the weekend, the mainstream media IGNORED Boehner and concentrated ont the Mitch McConnell "deal".
Then, yesterday, the lying parisan hacks in the mainstream media seemed to suddenly realize that Boehner was serious. Thus, yo had the despicable AP /Yahoo (boycott Yahoo) headline yesterday balring out: "Tea Party plan to be voted on in House" (or words to that effect). I saw Gloria Borger on one of those woman anchored CNN programs in the daytime yesterday. Do women come any DUMBER than this? I don't thiks so. If they do, they should ot admit it. The woman anchoring the program obviusly had no idea wat "cut, cap and balance" was all about, even though it was the whole focus of the MAJOR Republican press conference on Friday. The woamn CNN ancor said to Gloria Borger (partisan political hack): "cut, cap and balance" meaning to cut TAXES, cap spending, and balance the budget." Of course (for you leftists out there, and for you mainstream meedia/CNN peple), the plan is actually to ctu SPENDING this year, cap spending for the future, and pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Gloria Borger--partisan political hack that she is--did not contradict the woman anchor--did not correct her wrong description of the plan that Boehner had described on Friday. Borger may not have known herself what the plan is about--she certainly did not describe it--or Borgeer may just have been in partisan political hack mode. Borger--partisan political hack tha she is--went on to dismiss the plan as "politics", rather than a serious proposal.
What did Fox News do yesterday? They picked up the AP headline (as the poor sods do way too often), and described the Boehner/House Republican plan as a "Tea Party plan". You really have to boycott Fox News. They are getting worse every single day.
What is the official Tea Party position? Oh, I am sure that the Tea Party likes the Balanced Budget Amendment, but so do about 70-75% of the American people. The official Tea Party position is not to raise the debt ceiling UNER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. At least one of the major "umbrella' Tea Party organizations reviewed the position taken by local Tea Party groups across the nation. 86% opposed increasing the debt ceiling--period. No deals. Nope. Not even a Balanced Budget Amendment. "No" means "no".
Thus, it is absrud to call the House Republican plan, to be votedon today, a "Tea Party" plan. At most, you can say that many consrvative Republicans smypathetic to the Tea Party have singed on to it, a have the MAJORITY of the Republicans in the House. Labeling this as a "Tea Party" plan was a transparent attempt to dismiss it--showing againthat there is no wore "news" organization in any uninverse than the despicalbe Associated Press (becaues none CAN be worse, as it is impossible to be wrose) I will admit that CNN and MSNBC give the AP a run for its money, except that it is overly kind to acknowledge CNN and MSNBC as either "news" or "organizations" (limited as there lifespan is likely to be and with viewers about the number that a test pattern attracts).
Fox bys into this ridiculously false propaganda regularly, and that is why you should BOYCOTT FOX NEWS CHANNEL (ecept brief surfing on the same basis you surf CNN and the rest of thee idiots, wihout believing a word they say). No, I am not naive enough to believe that John Boehner really believes in this "cut, cap and balance" plan. But ti is a LIE to call it a "Tea Party plan".
This, by the way, is a reason I do not callmyself a "Tea Party" person. It is also why my endoreseement of Michele Bachmann for President does not mean I endore everything about her. You just are not quite existing in the real world if you think that the government can be IMMEDIATELY cut 44%, without the shock being to much for both tethe people and the economy (over any kind of long period of time). I am somewhat dsiappointed in Tea Party people wo try to tak about "waster" when they say how we could easily leave the debt ceiling where it is. If you want to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits 20% or so, AND cut back on a large part of the rest of the Federal Government, we can "lieve within our means'. I have actually proposed short term Meicare and Social Security cuts of5%, in an attempt to reduce the deficit 1/3 or so next year. Tea Party people don not talk about that kind of thing, and it is somewhat dishonest--not as dishonest as the estalbishment, but somewhat dishonest. I have heard Michele Bachmann EVADE this questin of where the cuts would come, and it is where she looks her worst. Stll, the Tea Party is right. Republicans--in this "cut, cap and balance" plan are propsing only a 111 billion dollar "cut' in next year's spending, and I am not sure that is "real" (an actual CUT form this year's spending, rather than gimmicks papering over some small "cuts', such as what happened with the spending bill that avoided a government shut down earlier this year). Greta Van Sustern (Fox, in one of HER worst moments) called the Republican "cut" "biillioins of doallrs" (lol--Greta, you HAVE to do better than that!!!). I told lyou the truth The 11 billiion is LESS than 3% of the total spending. It is less than 10%--way less--of the DEFICIT. Tea Party peole have some LEVERAGE in the debt ceiling vote. Politicians are reluctant to vote for increasing the debt ceiling. Senator Obama voted against it, as a Senator!!!! That was as cynical a vote as ou ill ever see, and there are many other is Congress ALMOST as cynical and dishonet as Obama. o the Tea Party epople see their chance to make their point in a way that gets the attentino of the etablishment, and the natin. It is hard to blame them for that. I still lprefer to exist in the real world, even if I am perfectly willing to spit in the eye of supposed political reality. In the real world, we will not be able to SUDDENLY "live within our means". I jsut wish we were making a REAL effort to get as close to that as we can--NOW. We are not And that is why I am a major Tea Party sypathizer, even if I refuse to call myself a Tea Party member. The Tea Party is, of coure, really only a looe affiliation of people with similar ideas, rather than any kind of defined organiation with a real platform.
The "cut, cap and balance" plan adopted by the House Republicans as the REPUBLICAN offical position in the House is a plan to RAISE the debt ceiling Now you can say that the Balanced Budget Amendment will not pass the present Congress, and I agree with you. However, if it did pass, the Republican plan would NOT "balance the budget" immediately, or for many years into the future. As stated, it would "cut" very little out of next year's spending. Tisis simply NOT a "Tea Party" plan, woever much SOME Tea Party people may hav influenced it. To say otherwise is a LIE, whether from the consistent liars at the AP, from CNN, or from Fox News.
If you are wondering, I am still forced to continue my Sodom and Gomorrah search for an honet, competent AP reporter. I know it is futile. He knows it is futile. I think I am justified in believeing that I am being PUNISHED because I happen to be an aganostic. I mean: Be real. Why should an agnostic be assigned to this search? I still advise proper precautons, to avoid becoming a pillar of salt.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Obama and I Agree: No Fear of Debt Ceiling Deadline
President Obama SAYS that failing to raise the debt ceiling by the deadline will virtually destroy this country, and that we absolutley cannot let it happen.--no matter what principles we have to "compromise". As usual, Obama's actioins do not match his (alternate hour) words.
Yesterday, Obama said that he will VETO the House "cut, cap and balance" bill if it comes to his desk. In other words, there are things more important to Obama than raising the debt ceiling. Is it so hard to beliee that there are things mrore important to conservatives than raising the debt ceiling? The mainstream media cannot believe it, but the maintream media (Gloria Borger and CNN, this conitinues to mean YOU)is composed of the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth: partisan political hacks who simply oppose what conservatives believe. Jut like Republicans with principles (as distinguished from those without them, other than the principle of saving their skins), Obama has no fear of the debt ceiling, if it means compromising what he regards as his fundamental principles.
Why is it any less "stubborn" to say that revenue increases HAVE to be part of any "deal" to raise the debt ceiling, than it is to say that such a deal must NOT include tax increases? In fact the consrevative position is ore HONEST, becaue Obama's proposed tax increases are REAL, while his "promises" on spending "cuts" are NOT REAl. The mainstream media still talks about that "deal" Obama allegedly "offreed" to "cut" three dollars in spending for every dollar in tax increases. The partisan mainstream media, of course, does not care that this is a LIE. Thy--the mainstream media---are partisans. They support Obama, and don't even understand what conservatives are saying--much less agree with it. If Obama thought that the debt ceiling raise was the MOST important thing here, then he could get the debt ceiling raised. Everyone but the mainstream media understands that. Both sides have thngs more important to them than the debt ceiling increase. The difference is that Obama and the mainsteam media LIE to the very end about what they are all about. I will put it to you in my usual blunt way: Obama does NOT want ANY net spending "cuts"--now or in the future. His protestations to the contrary are mere poliltical postuuring. But the mainstream media will never suggest that, because they are Obama/lefitst partisans.
Yes, Obama agrees with ME. That should bother both of us. Both of us believe that there are things more important than raising the debt ceiling. Unlike the Tea Party, I don't thik we are prepared, as a country, to IMMEDIATELY "live within our means". Note how Obama keeps SAYING that ("we need to learn to live within our means as a government, just like normal families") , when he so obviously does not mean it that it is amasing his head does not explode, from cognitive dissonance, every time he says it. Tea Party peoiple DO mean it. Where I don't agree with the Tea Party is that the country can stand the shock of "going cold turkey" on living within our means. I have suggested "drastic" measures (see previous articles over the past few weeks) to cut the deficit by as much aS 1/3 in ONE YEAR. The Tea Party has not done that. They have simply said that we should "prioritize" so as to spend only the amount of money we have. Uh-huh. But Obama, the Tea Party and I (unholy group though you may think that is) all agree: We have NO fear of the debt ceiling deadline. There are things more important to us than that.
Why have I suggested that it would be better for the country, in the long run, if we did NOT raise the debt ceiling by the deadline? Firt, any "deal" that Republicans are likely to agree to will BETRAY things that I believe are more important than violating the deb ceiling (the point on which Obama and the mainstream media agree with me). Second, I am opposed to SCARE MONGERING on principle. I am curious. I would like to see what WOULD happen if we did not raise the debt ceiling by August 2. I agree it has the potential to disrupt our economy, but Armageddon it will not be. Third, and most importantly, the "establishment" thinks that it can ALWAYS get its way by threats and scares even though the establishment has no intention of "giving" on its own view of how the world should be. To SHAKE that complacency is worth more to me than whatever we gain by raising the debt ceiling.
This blog has told you how to avoid the continual debt ceiling problem, at the cot of FORCING HONESTY on both Democrats and Republicans. Avoiding that is one of thoe principles that our politicians believe is much more important than raising the debt ceiling. I would prefeer that we raise the debt ceiling in such a way that we FOUCS, every year, on our spending, and on exactly how much each year's spending will REQURIE the debt ceiling to be raised. This would force politicians to acknowledge they are raising the debt ceiling with EVERY SPENDING VOTE. But I have no fear of not raising the debt ceiling. On balance, I think it would be good for the country (not necessarily good for the Republlican Party, bt who cares?). I am sho tired of shams, and "politics as usual', that i much prefer shaking things up. The risk of coninuing the way we are is MUCH greater than the risk of not raising the debt ceiling on time.
You can see why both establishment Republicans and Obama have to watch out here. Tea Party people, and at least half of the country, do not want the debt ceiling raised AT ALL (although I have a question as to whether they really just don't want the establishment to again get away with MANIPULATING the process than really being prepared for the consequences--believing, like me, that such a lesson is more important than whatever negative thngs will happen if we don't have a timely raise in the debt ceiling). People like me (and Obama, on the other side) believe that there are a number of things more important than raising the debt ceiling, and that Republicans are more than ready to SELL US OUT. We are ready to turn on Republican politicians as our enemies. Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans: This means YOU!!!!! Now Mitch McConnell (like Obama) SAYS he gets it, but he does not However, the risk here for both the Republican establishment (really the whole establishment--Democrat and Republican) is that ENOUGH Republicans now gt it that they will BALK at the end.
Obama, the maisntream meida and the establishment all think that they can manipulate this in the end, as they have manipulated every previous "government shut down' "crisis". Their time is coming to an end. Obama ACTS like he has no fear of not raising the debt ceiling. People like me REALLY have no fear of it., and are more lthan willing to accept any negative consequences. I actually think the public is more ready now to stand up against fear, although perhaps not fully there yet.
Obama and I both appear to have no fear of not raising the debt ceiling. But it is the increase of people like me who give rise to the distinct possibility that we WON'T raise the debt ceiling on tie, this time. I still thijnk that the estblishment/media fear campaign will work one more time, ON THE POLITICIANS. In other words, I still think the debt ceiling wil be raised, in a way that will cause me to wak away from the Republican Party forever. If that happens, I will adopt the G. Gordon Liddy approach to the Washington Post: I will refuse to even mention the Republican Party, or identify any person as a Republican, in this blog. If I fell I have to make reference to that dead party walking, I will BLEEP out the actual word. "The @#$%%%# Party...."
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkig (bad eyesight).
Yesterday, Obama said that he will VETO the House "cut, cap and balance" bill if it comes to his desk. In other words, there are things more important to Obama than raising the debt ceiling. Is it so hard to beliee that there are things mrore important to conservatives than raising the debt ceiling? The mainstream media cannot believe it, but the maintream media (Gloria Borger and CNN, this conitinues to mean YOU)is composed of the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth: partisan political hacks who simply oppose what conservatives believe. Jut like Republicans with principles (as distinguished from those without them, other than the principle of saving their skins), Obama has no fear of the debt ceiling, if it means compromising what he regards as his fundamental principles.
Why is it any less "stubborn" to say that revenue increases HAVE to be part of any "deal" to raise the debt ceiling, than it is to say that such a deal must NOT include tax increases? In fact the consrevative position is ore HONEST, becaue Obama's proposed tax increases are REAL, while his "promises" on spending "cuts" are NOT REAl. The mainstream media still talks about that "deal" Obama allegedly "offreed" to "cut" three dollars in spending for every dollar in tax increases. The partisan mainstream media, of course, does not care that this is a LIE. Thy--the mainstream media---are partisans. They support Obama, and don't even understand what conservatives are saying--much less agree with it. If Obama thought that the debt ceiling raise was the MOST important thing here, then he could get the debt ceiling raised. Everyone but the mainstream media understands that. Both sides have thngs more important to them than the debt ceiling increase. The difference is that Obama and the mainsteam media LIE to the very end about what they are all about. I will put it to you in my usual blunt way: Obama does NOT want ANY net spending "cuts"--now or in the future. His protestations to the contrary are mere poliltical postuuring. But the mainstream media will never suggest that, because they are Obama/lefitst partisans.
Yes, Obama agrees with ME. That should bother both of us. Both of us believe that there are things more important than raising the debt ceiling. Unlike the Tea Party, I don't thik we are prepared, as a country, to IMMEDIATELY "live within our means". Note how Obama keeps SAYING that ("we need to learn to live within our means as a government, just like normal families") , when he so obviously does not mean it that it is amasing his head does not explode, from cognitive dissonance, every time he says it. Tea Party peoiple DO mean it. Where I don't agree with the Tea Party is that the country can stand the shock of "going cold turkey" on living within our means. I have suggested "drastic" measures (see previous articles over the past few weeks) to cut the deficit by as much aS 1/3 in ONE YEAR. The Tea Party has not done that. They have simply said that we should "prioritize" so as to spend only the amount of money we have. Uh-huh. But Obama, the Tea Party and I (unholy group though you may think that is) all agree: We have NO fear of the debt ceiling deadline. There are things more important to us than that.
Why have I suggested that it would be better for the country, in the long run, if we did NOT raise the debt ceiling by the deadline? Firt, any "deal" that Republicans are likely to agree to will BETRAY things that I believe are more important than violating the deb ceiling (the point on which Obama and the mainstream media agree with me). Second, I am opposed to SCARE MONGERING on principle. I am curious. I would like to see what WOULD happen if we did not raise the debt ceiling by August 2. I agree it has the potential to disrupt our economy, but Armageddon it will not be. Third, and most importantly, the "establishment" thinks that it can ALWAYS get its way by threats and scares even though the establishment has no intention of "giving" on its own view of how the world should be. To SHAKE that complacency is worth more to me than whatever we gain by raising the debt ceiling.
This blog has told you how to avoid the continual debt ceiling problem, at the cot of FORCING HONESTY on both Democrats and Republicans. Avoiding that is one of thoe principles that our politicians believe is much more important than raising the debt ceiling. I would prefeer that we raise the debt ceiling in such a way that we FOUCS, every year, on our spending, and on exactly how much each year's spending will REQURIE the debt ceiling to be raised. This would force politicians to acknowledge they are raising the debt ceiling with EVERY SPENDING VOTE. But I have no fear of not raising the debt ceiling. On balance, I think it would be good for the country (not necessarily good for the Republlican Party, bt who cares?). I am sho tired of shams, and "politics as usual', that i much prefer shaking things up. The risk of coninuing the way we are is MUCH greater than the risk of not raising the debt ceiling on time.
You can see why both establishment Republicans and Obama have to watch out here. Tea Party people, and at least half of the country, do not want the debt ceiling raised AT ALL (although I have a question as to whether they really just don't want the establishment to again get away with MANIPULATING the process than really being prepared for the consequences--believing, like me, that such a lesson is more important than whatever negative thngs will happen if we don't have a timely raise in the debt ceiling). People like me (and Obama, on the other side) believe that there are a number of things more important than raising the debt ceiling, and that Republicans are more than ready to SELL US OUT. We are ready to turn on Republican politicians as our enemies. Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans: This means YOU!!!!! Now Mitch McConnell (like Obama) SAYS he gets it, but he does not However, the risk here for both the Republican establishment (really the whole establishment--Democrat and Republican) is that ENOUGH Republicans now gt it that they will BALK at the end.
Obama, the maisntream meida and the establishment all think that they can manipulate this in the end, as they have manipulated every previous "government shut down' "crisis". Their time is coming to an end. Obama ACTS like he has no fear of not raising the debt ceiling. People like me REALLY have no fear of it., and are more lthan willing to accept any negative consequences. I actually think the public is more ready now to stand up against fear, although perhaps not fully there yet.
Obama and I both appear to have no fear of not raising the debt ceiling. But it is the increase of people like me who give rise to the distinct possibility that we WON'T raise the debt ceiling on tie, this time. I still thijnk that the estblishment/media fear campaign will work one more time, ON THE POLITICIANS. In other words, I still think the debt ceiling wil be raised, in a way that will cause me to wak away from the Republican Party forever. If that happens, I will adopt the G. Gordon Liddy approach to the Washington Post: I will refuse to even mention the Republican Party, or identify any person as a Republican, in this blog. If I fell I have to make reference to that dead party walking, I will BLEEP out the actual word. "The @#$%%%# Party...."
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkig (bad eyesight).
Monday, July 18, 2011
Anderson Cooper and CNN: Sexist, Barbarian Hypocrites and Liars
We are back to my CNN-type campaign against Anderson Cooper and CNN for their disgraceful, utterly stupid and dhishonest attackon Michele Bachmann's HUSBANED (apparently "invetigating" every word he every said, even though he is not a candidate for anything--although we know that what CNN has really done is turn the network over to gay activists to make any kind of attack they want upon Michele Bachmann's husband as a means of attacking Bachmann).
Anderson Cooper, at the end of last week, had the second LONG segment devoted to an attack on Michele Bachmann's husband for being a Christian who does not believe God approves of homosexual conduct. Now Mr. Bachmann--the man so evvil that he helped his wife raise five children of their own and took in 23 foster children to help, at various times--runs the Christian counseling service in which Michele Bachmann has an interest (but is not involved in the day-today operation). That made Mr. Bachmann a target for gay activists tryig to get at Michele Bachmann through her SPOUSE. Two leftist people, including the very left Pul Begala, TOLD Anderson Cooper that he should be "careful" going after the SPOUSE of a candidate, since that was a terrible precedent. But sexist, dishonest, evil Anderson Cooper ignored this advice, and plowed ahead on his program.
Wju should he not? You know how CNN ruthlessly "invetigated" Michelle Obama, and demanded that she explain every word she ever said--NOT. This, of curse, is a recurrence of my old sarcasm disease. CNN people are the worst hypocriates to ever walk the Earth, on tow legs or four. And Anderson Cooper is lthe worst of the worst (keeping him honest). Anderson cooper is absolutely the most SANCTIMONIOUS. The man spreads evil with a sanctimonious smirk. . As at least one of the guests on Cooper's program tried to tell him, a homosexual who goeses to a CHRISTIAN counseling service talking about problems in sexual identity can expect a certain kind of advice. But Cooper wants to make a major "issue' out of what a mere SPOUSE of a candidate said about his views on homosexual conduct.
Let me be as blunt as I now how to be (pretty damn blunt, if I say so myelf): The views of a CANDIDATE on whethr God can work a miracle with people who claim to be homosexual ARE NOT RELEVANT TO ANY ISSUE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. Imagine,m if you can imagine the evil and dishonest Anderson Cooper committing such religious heresy (from his religion, as he is an anti-Christian atheist) asking Barack Obama: "You calim to be a Chisstian. That means that you believe God can work miracles. Do you believe that God can work the miracle of converting a homosexual youth to a God-fearing, heterosuxal liefe?" No, I don't think that is an appropriate question. But I would ask it, if I had the chance of sasknig the question to either Obama or Cooperf. (without the part that he claims to be a Christian,). No, it is HPORCIRICAL and dishonest to claim that such a question would not be appropriate for Barack Obama, but is perfectly appropriate for Michele Bachmann . Bachmann has been perfectly straightforward on the gay ISSUES that might be regarded as legitimate (if minor, to everybody but CNN and the mainstream media) in the Presidential campaign: Bachmann supports a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and would support reversing the "don't ask, don't tell" repel, after consultation with the military as to their views on the matter. End of story. But not for the gay obsessed CNN, and Anderson Cooper.
Nope. Anderson Cooper not only wants to ask Michele Bachmann about her person religious views, but he went back YEARS to find statements by Bachmann's husband about his Christian viewsd on homosexual conduct. This is beyond 'inappropriate". It is EVIL, dishonest, SEXIT stuff. Doubt me? Don't..
In the program late last week, Cooper acutally went back to an interview Mr. Bachmann gave some time ago (years ago, I think) on a Chrisitian show. Let me be blunt again: For the anti-Christian Anderson Cooper it is virtually a crime to go on a Christian radio show and admit you are a believeing Christian. Mr. Bachmann was asked abut his views on homosexual conduct, and he pretty much said he diid not approve of it (SHOCKING--to quote Claude Rains in "Casablanca"). Bachmann went on to talk about the deterioration of our society in general.
Segue to reality (away from the dishonest world of Anderson Cooper and CNN). Did you know that "barbarian" is a well known insult word toward homoosexuals? neither did I. Although I do not use them, I have have heard the following words used: "queer", "faggot", "pervert", etc. Mr. Bachmann did not use ANY of those words in this non-political interview given to a Christian radio host (again, I swear that alone is a "crime' for the anti-Christian Cooper). Waht Mr. Bachmann did, in discusinsing the deterioration of our society, was saythat there are "barbarians" out there. This was in the same interview that Bachmann talks about homosexuality (the same non-political interview not dsicussing any public policy matters). You should see where this is going. Yep. Cooper accused Bachmann of saying that homosexuals are "barbarians". In the insane, dishonest world of Anderson Coo9per, this is oobviously a well known epithet for gays. In my rfeal world, I don't even know what it would MEAN when used with reference to gays Whatever it means, I know that Anderson Coooper is one (barbarian, as I have no idea whether he is gay). I don't know if I would consider it an insult if someone called ME a "barbarian", but if cooper thinks it is an insult, I am glad to concede that he is a brabarian (and every other insulting thing you can think of under the sun).
Nope. Cooper is NOT doen with his smiring dishonesty. Remember, this is a SPOUSE thaqt gay activists are being allowed to attack through the use of CNN and Cooper as their agents. Cooper goes on to quote Bachmann's explanation for the term "barbarian", which is basically the only logical explanation of the workd (the one I vave above). After the explanation which Cooper says isd supported by the Christian host, Cooper gives that smirking, sekeptical look at the camera and says: "We will show you the context--Cooper being so dishonest that you can believe this if you want--and YOU can decide (Cooper leaving no doubt how he expected the viewer to decide) I sawI read what Coopr put on the screen, and my opinion is unchanged: Bachmann honestly stated the onlyconceivable way you could interpret the word "barbarian", and Anderson Coooper is the most sanctimonous liar that ever lived.
As I said, I am not a Christian. I do not turn the other cheek. If CnN, and Obama partisans, are going to do this kind of trash, then so am I. And so would I, if I were interviewing Obama. I would put Obama's words up on the screen: about small town Americans "clinging to their guns and their religion." Yep. I would put the words in full context, which does not help Obama. Then I would show Obama MISQUOTING the Declaration of Independence (I think deliberately) by leaving out the words "by their Creator". Then I would turn to the camera and say. "President Obama CLAIMS to be a Christian. You decide.'
And I would be MORE honet than Anderson Cooper,. both Bill Maher and I agree that Obama is NOT a Christian, but a secualr humanist. That means that Obama--not his spouse--is a LIAR. Yu ccan certainly make the case that Oama is a liar, and is not a Christian, and applying the standards of CNN and Anderson Cooper you ShOULD make lthat case if you are a "journalist"--at leat, assuming your agenda is against Obama as Cooper's is against Michele Bachmann. Bill Maher and I both know what it means NOT to be a Christian. Neither one of us is a Christian, although I am not an anti-Christian bigot like regular CNN guest Maher. When both Maher and I believe that Obama isd NOT a Christian, you can take it to the bank. And don't tell me that shoulld not be an "issue" in a PresPresidential campaign, even if it would make Obama a liar. Once you start down the road of talkinga bout a person's religious beliefs, you are on dangerous ground (as Cooper's guests tried to tell him about attackng spouses). But I refuse to leave CNN and the sanctimoniusly dihonest Anderson Cooper in possession of the field. Therefore, I repeat; President Obama is NOT a Christian, and Anderson Cooper is a sanctimonius liar.
If you think I am through with Cooper and CnN, think again. As Joh Paul Jones said, "I have not yet begun to fight.".
No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Anderson Cooper, at the end of last week, had the second LONG segment devoted to an attack on Michele Bachmann's husband for being a Christian who does not believe God approves of homosexual conduct. Now Mr. Bachmann--the man so evvil that he helped his wife raise five children of their own and took in 23 foster children to help, at various times--runs the Christian counseling service in which Michele Bachmann has an interest (but is not involved in the day-today operation). That made Mr. Bachmann a target for gay activists tryig to get at Michele Bachmann through her SPOUSE. Two leftist people, including the very left Pul Begala, TOLD Anderson Cooper that he should be "careful" going after the SPOUSE of a candidate, since that was a terrible precedent. But sexist, dishonest, evil Anderson Cooper ignored this advice, and plowed ahead on his program.
Wju should he not? You know how CNN ruthlessly "invetigated" Michelle Obama, and demanded that she explain every word she ever said--NOT. This, of curse, is a recurrence of my old sarcasm disease. CNN people are the worst hypocriates to ever walk the Earth, on tow legs or four. And Anderson Cooper is lthe worst of the worst (keeping him honest). Anderson cooper is absolutely the most SANCTIMONIOUS. The man spreads evil with a sanctimonious smirk. . As at least one of the guests on Cooper's program tried to tell him, a homosexual who goeses to a CHRISTIAN counseling service talking about problems in sexual identity can expect a certain kind of advice. But Cooper wants to make a major "issue' out of what a mere SPOUSE of a candidate said about his views on homosexual conduct.
Let me be as blunt as I now how to be (pretty damn blunt, if I say so myelf): The views of a CANDIDATE on whethr God can work a miracle with people who claim to be homosexual ARE NOT RELEVANT TO ANY ISSUE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. Imagine,m if you can imagine the evil and dishonest Anderson Cooper committing such religious heresy (from his religion, as he is an anti-Christian atheist) asking Barack Obama: "You calim to be a Chisstian. That means that you believe God can work miracles. Do you believe that God can work the miracle of converting a homosexual youth to a God-fearing, heterosuxal liefe?" No, I don't think that is an appropriate question. But I would ask it, if I had the chance of sasknig the question to either Obama or Cooperf. (without the part that he claims to be a Christian,). No, it is HPORCIRICAL and dishonest to claim that such a question would not be appropriate for Barack Obama, but is perfectly appropriate for Michele Bachmann . Bachmann has been perfectly straightforward on the gay ISSUES that might be regarded as legitimate (if minor, to everybody but CNN and the mainstream media) in the Presidential campaign: Bachmann supports a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and would support reversing the "don't ask, don't tell" repel, after consultation with the military as to their views on the matter. End of story. But not for the gay obsessed CNN, and Anderson Cooper.
Nope. Anderson Cooper not only wants to ask Michele Bachmann about her person religious views, but he went back YEARS to find statements by Bachmann's husband about his Christian viewsd on homosexual conduct. This is beyond 'inappropriate". It is EVIL, dishonest, SEXIT stuff. Doubt me? Don't..
In the program late last week, Cooper acutally went back to an interview Mr. Bachmann gave some time ago (years ago, I think) on a Chrisitian show. Let me be blunt again: For the anti-Christian Anderson Cooper it is virtually a crime to go on a Christian radio show and admit you are a believeing Christian. Mr. Bachmann was asked abut his views on homosexual conduct, and he pretty much said he diid not approve of it (SHOCKING--to quote Claude Rains in "Casablanca"). Bachmann went on to talk about the deterioration of our society in general.
Segue to reality (away from the dishonest world of Anderson Cooper and CNN). Did you know that "barbarian" is a well known insult word toward homoosexuals? neither did I. Although I do not use them, I have have heard the following words used: "queer", "faggot", "pervert", etc. Mr. Bachmann did not use ANY of those words in this non-political interview given to a Christian radio host (again, I swear that alone is a "crime' for the anti-Christian Cooper). Waht Mr. Bachmann did, in discusinsing the deterioration of our society, was saythat there are "barbarians" out there. This was in the same interview that Bachmann talks about homosexuality (the same non-political interview not dsicussing any public policy matters). You should see where this is going. Yep. Cooper accused Bachmann of saying that homosexuals are "barbarians". In the insane, dishonest world of Anderson Coo9per, this is oobviously a well known epithet for gays. In my rfeal world, I don't even know what it would MEAN when used with reference to gays Whatever it means, I know that Anderson Coooper is one (barbarian, as I have no idea whether he is gay). I don't know if I would consider it an insult if someone called ME a "barbarian", but if cooper thinks it is an insult, I am glad to concede that he is a brabarian (and every other insulting thing you can think of under the sun).
Nope. Cooper is NOT doen with his smiring dishonesty. Remember, this is a SPOUSE thaqt gay activists are being allowed to attack through the use of CNN and Cooper as their agents. Cooper goes on to quote Bachmann's explanation for the term "barbarian", which is basically the only logical explanation of the workd (the one I vave above). After the explanation which Cooper says isd supported by the Christian host, Cooper gives that smirking, sekeptical look at the camera and says: "We will show you the context--Cooper being so dishonest that you can believe this if you want--and YOU can decide (Cooper leaving no doubt how he expected the viewer to decide) I sawI read what Coopr put on the screen, and my opinion is unchanged: Bachmann honestly stated the onlyconceivable way you could interpret the word "barbarian", and Anderson Coooper is the most sanctimonous liar that ever lived.
As I said, I am not a Christian. I do not turn the other cheek. If CnN, and Obama partisans, are going to do this kind of trash, then so am I. And so would I, if I were interviewing Obama. I would put Obama's words up on the screen: about small town Americans "clinging to their guns and their religion." Yep. I would put the words in full context, which does not help Obama. Then I would show Obama MISQUOTING the Declaration of Independence (I think deliberately) by leaving out the words "by their Creator". Then I would turn to the camera and say. "President Obama CLAIMS to be a Christian. You decide.'
And I would be MORE honet than Anderson Cooper,. both Bill Maher and I agree that Obama is NOT a Christian, but a secualr humanist. That means that Obama--not his spouse--is a LIAR. Yu ccan certainly make the case that Oama is a liar, and is not a Christian, and applying the standards of CNN and Anderson Cooper you ShOULD make lthat case if you are a "journalist"--at leat, assuming your agenda is against Obama as Cooper's is against Michele Bachmann. Bill Maher and I both know what it means NOT to be a Christian. Neither one of us is a Christian, although I am not an anti-Christian bigot like regular CNN guest Maher. When both Maher and I believe that Obama isd NOT a Christian, you can take it to the bank. And don't tell me that shoulld not be an "issue" in a PresPresidential campaign, even if it would make Obama a liar. Once you start down the road of talkinga bout a person's religious beliefs, you are on dangerous ground (as Cooper's guests tried to tell him about attackng spouses). But I refuse to leave CNN and the sanctimoniusly dihonest Anderson Cooper in possession of the field. Therefore, I repeat; President Obama is NOT a Christian, and Anderson Cooper is a sanctimonius liar.
If you think I am through with Cooper and CnN, think again. As Joh Paul Jones said, "I have not yet begun to fight.".
No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Debt Ceiling and Moody's: This Blog Ahead of the Curve Again
Moody's is a debt rating agency. Maybe somebody at Moody's reads this blog. Months ago, I told you that the logic of the establishment--including Obama and almost all establishment Democrats and Repubicnans--suggests that the debt ceilig is MEANINGLESS. If we HAVE to raise the debt ceiling, as the establishment always says, then what good is the debt ceiling? This bog asked that question. Now Moddy's (part of the establishment) is proposing this as the "solution" to the deb ceiling "crisis" (as distingushed from the defict/debt crisis, which Mody's does not propose to help "solve".). Yep. Moody's is advocating eliminating the continual "uncertaint" by doing away with the debt ceiling altogethr!!!
Just how good is this blog? I ANTICIPATED theMoody's idea, and also provided the SOLUTION which does not require doing away with the debt ceiling idea first enacted into law in 1917. We have DELIBERATELY made the debt ceiling pretty much meaningless, but it does not have to be.
What we have done is DIVORCE the debt ceiling from the SPENDING that creates a violation of the debt ceiling. We need to tie them back together. The debt ceiling has been raised 100 times. Moody's is using this to suggest that it is meaningless. It suggests to me that it should be a YEARLY event, tied to the budget and appropriations process. I head a cable TV report--the same one that said the debt ceiling was first enacted in 1917--say that the law required the debt ceiling be adjusted "every year". This may have been loose talk, and there may not have been a direct link between the debt ceiling and the yearly appropriations process, but tTERESHOULD HAVE BEEN, and THERE SHOULD BE.
What this means is that the debt ceiling law shold be amended to REQUIRE that Congress produce a yearly budget that estimates the amount the budget will require the debt ceiling to be raised. That same amendment to the debt ceiling law will REQUIRE that the debt ceiling NOT be raised until every appropriations bill has been passed. But it will also REQUIRE that Congress declare, at the end of te parropriations process, how much the approved spending will likely REQUIRE the debt ceiling to be raised, and to what amount, AND that Congress raise the debt ceiling to that level to cover the spending that Congress has just approved. Amd leep doing this year after year, always keying the debt ceeiling TRANSPARENTLY to the budget and appropriations process.
Notice how this SOLVES llthe Moody's problem on 'certainty". The debt ceiling will always HAVE to be raised to cover each year's approved spending. But it will still be MEANINGFUL, because every menmber of Congress voting for a budget, and for spending bills, will have to acknowledge EXACTLY (within reason) how much that person has contriubed to RAISING OUR DEBT. That will put on more pressure than the debt ceiling preently does to control spending, because members of Congress will have to be ACCOUNTABLE for their contributions to the nation's debt.
What if Congress does not pass a budget, as Democratws apparently never intend to do? Well, I have NO sympathy for Congress and the government not passing theappropriations bislls on tieme. That is a non-roblem because every member of Congress who participates in that farce should lose hi or her job. The debt ceiling law will FORCE the appropriations bills to be done, and that is a GOOD thing The debt ceiling law should put TEETH in the budget process, which would be another benefit. IF a budget was still not passed, each Congrsssional branch would still be required to estimate--EFORE votnig on AnY appropriatioins bill--the amount that total appropriations are expected to raise the debt, and therefor e the debt ceiling at the end of the appropriations process. The debt ceiling law should PROHIBIT more lthan a 10% error in that estimate, or Cohngress will ahve to revise the appropriations bils to stay within the estimate (margin of error taken into account), BEFORE any raisein the previous debtg ceiling. Again, this process will take place EVERY year, as part of the budget and appropriations process. Others may be able to come up with a more elegant debt ceiling bill enbodying these concepts, but the concept is osund. The debut ceililing should be KEYED to spending, and each Congress shoudl ahve to FACE the amount that its spending will require the debt ceiling to be raised.
Nope. It does NOT make any sense to pass spending bills that require the debt ceiling to be raised, and then refuse to raise the debt ceiling. That is simply sihonesty on the part of our politicians (as it was with Senator Obama). At the same time, Congress SHOULD have to address the debt ceiling in a way that acknowledges exactly how much each year's spending is adding to the debt. And Congress should still have to VOTE on that debt ceiling increase, to publicly acknowledge that they are taking repsonsibility for the spending that they have approved. Any person in Congress who votes FOR a budget, and spending bills, then will have to explain how he or she could vote AGAINST raising the debt ceiling.
If you don't do osomehting like what I propose, there is no way to make the debt ceiling meaningful. No, the preent fight is simply USING the debt ceiling to fight a SHAM battle on "spending". If the debt ceiling is directly keyed to spending, then it will be impossible to do a SHAM (well, hard anyway, as politicians are dishonest creatures at heart).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Just how good is this blog? I ANTICIPATED theMoody's idea, and also provided the SOLUTION which does not require doing away with the debt ceiling idea first enacted into law in 1917. We have DELIBERATELY made the debt ceiling pretty much meaningless, but it does not have to be.
What we have done is DIVORCE the debt ceiling from the SPENDING that creates a violation of the debt ceiling. We need to tie them back together. The debt ceiling has been raised 100 times. Moody's is using this to suggest that it is meaningless. It suggests to me that it should be a YEARLY event, tied to the budget and appropriations process. I head a cable TV report--the same one that said the debt ceiling was first enacted in 1917--say that the law required the debt ceiling be adjusted "every year". This may have been loose talk, and there may not have been a direct link between the debt ceiling and the yearly appropriations process, but tTERESHOULD HAVE BEEN, and THERE SHOULD BE.
What this means is that the debt ceiling law shold be amended to REQUIRE that Congress produce a yearly budget that estimates the amount the budget will require the debt ceiling to be raised. That same amendment to the debt ceiling law will REQUIRE that the debt ceiling NOT be raised until every appropriations bill has been passed. But it will also REQUIRE that Congress declare, at the end of te parropriations process, how much the approved spending will likely REQUIRE the debt ceiling to be raised, and to what amount, AND that Congress raise the debt ceiling to that level to cover the spending that Congress has just approved. Amd leep doing this year after year, always keying the debt ceeiling TRANSPARENTLY to the budget and appropriations process.
Notice how this SOLVES llthe Moody's problem on 'certainty". The debt ceiling will always HAVE to be raised to cover each year's approved spending. But it will still be MEANINGFUL, because every menmber of Congress voting for a budget, and for spending bills, will have to acknowledge EXACTLY (within reason) how much that person has contriubed to RAISING OUR DEBT. That will put on more pressure than the debt ceiling preently does to control spending, because members of Congress will have to be ACCOUNTABLE for their contributions to the nation's debt.
What if Congress does not pass a budget, as Democratws apparently never intend to do? Well, I have NO sympathy for Congress and the government not passing theappropriations bislls on tieme. That is a non-roblem because every member of Congress who participates in that farce should lose hi or her job. The debt ceiling law will FORCE the appropriations bills to be done, and that is a GOOD thing The debt ceiling law should put TEETH in the budget process, which would be another benefit. IF a budget was still not passed, each Congrsssional branch would still be required to estimate--EFORE votnig on AnY appropriatioins bill--the amount that total appropriations are expected to raise the debt, and therefor e the debt ceiling at the end of the appropriations process. The debt ceiling law should PROHIBIT more lthan a 10% error in that estimate, or Cohngress will ahve to revise the appropriations bils to stay within the estimate (margin of error taken into account), BEFORE any raisein the previous debtg ceiling. Again, this process will take place EVERY year, as part of the budget and appropriations process. Others may be able to come up with a more elegant debt ceiling bill enbodying these concepts, but the concept is osund. The debut ceililing should be KEYED to spending, and each Congress shoudl ahve to FACE the amount that its spending will require the debt ceiling to be raised.
Nope. It does NOT make any sense to pass spending bills that require the debt ceiling to be raised, and then refuse to raise the debt ceiling. That is simply sihonesty on the part of our politicians (as it was with Senator Obama). At the same time, Congress SHOULD have to address the debt ceiling in a way that acknowledges exactly how much each year's spending is adding to the debt. And Congress should still have to VOTE on that debt ceiling increase, to publicly acknowledge that they are taking repsonsibility for the spending that they have approved. Any person in Congress who votes FOR a budget, and spending bills, then will have to explain how he or she could vote AGAINST raising the debt ceiling.
If you don't do osomehting like what I propose, there is no way to make the debt ceiling meaningful. No, the preent fight is simply USING the debt ceiling to fight a SHAM battle on "spending". If the debt ceiling is directly keyed to spending, then it will be impossible to do a SHAM (well, hard anyway, as politicians are dishonest creatures at heart).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Obama and Tom Coburn: Soul Mates
Start off with this proposition: Is Tom Coburn willing to shut this government down over spending cuts NOW? If you anser is "no", then yoiu are being honest. Tom Cobun is just another establishment Republican Senator I have mentioned before (unfavorably) in this blog.--as is true of almost every Republlican Senator in office before 2020 (including "my" two Texas Senators).
This blog has propounde the Magic Wand Theory of Government. Maybe I should copyright or trademark the phrase. The concept is getting more prevalent all of the time. President Obama has made a career out of this tehory. Now Tom Coburn--a supposed conservative Republican--is trynig to give him a run for his money,.
Let us "cut" 15 TRILLION dollars from the Federal budget/spending, and use "that money" to BOTH pay for Obama's "infrastructure" union pork AND reduced taxes. How do e "cut" 15 TRILLION dollars from Federal spending? Easy. The same way Obama"cuts" 4 trillion. We simply SAY we will--teny years from now. No legally binding law. No Balanced Budget Amendment. Just SAY we are going to make the "cuts". It does not erally matter to Obama WHERE we say we are going to make the "cuts", so long as it does ot overly embarrass Democrats by suggesting even fictioinal future "cuts" in Medicare or Social Secruity. As long as we don't actually do something like restructure Medicare by LAW, which means it might actualy happen since the law would have to be replealed, Obama is perfectly willing to PROMMISE almost any futre "cuts' to government spending that do not seem to promise undercutting the Democrat campaign plan to scare seniors. That is why the media PROPAGANDA LIE is so absurd. You knw the lie: That Obama has "offered" 3 dollars in spending "cuts" for every one dollar in tax increases. Problem (even apart from Obama's reluctance to say where the "cuts" are coming from, since he does not care but does not want to even take the hit on propsoing fictional "cuts"): The tax increases, even if they SPRING into exitence at a future date, are REAL. The tax increases will be passed into LAW, where the only way to stop them will be REPEAlL. And they will occur BEFORE any spending "cuts". Obama has no intention that the spending "cuts" will ever take place. Besides, he will not be around by the time we get to the nitty gritty on the spending "cuts". All Obama does is "wave a magic wand", and say that the deficit problem is "solved", because Obama has PROMISED to "cut' 4 trillion dollars in the future--the far future--along with raising taxes much sooner. Obama is really being "clever" here. The reason he is so desperate for the "big deal" is not only that Obama wants to declare that his "magic wand" has "sovled" the problem so he can move on to MORE SPEDNING. That might be enough. But Obama is facing the EXPIRATION OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS in the election year of 2012. Obama desperately wants a "deal" that enables him to say that he kept his promise of not extending the Bush tax cuts for the"rich", while avoiding raising taxes for the "middle class".
Enter Tom Couburn, who has watched how Obama oprates. Coburn thinks: This is my SOUL MATE< except I can do this magic wand business better.". Therefore, today Coubrn is proposing 9TRILLION dollars in deficit reduction over ten eyars, with a 7 to 1 ratio of spending "cutss" to tases. I feel like cring. No, I would not vote for Coburn for dogctcher of Mt. Ida, Arkansas. Even if Coubrn does not know what he is doing (I don't believe it), Coburn is just actin as a sTALKING HORSE for the Obama "big deal". In fact, Coburn is quoted as saying: "Pick and choose 4.5 trillion out of my 9 trillion.". What Coburn, dishoenst that he is, does NOT say is how he si going to ENFROCE the "cuts". I told you above how the tax increases are enforced. Indeed, spending INCREASES are enforced the same way, as Medicare, Medicaid and ObamaCare roll on until repealed (ObamaCare) or reformed. But there is NO WAY to enforce spending "cuts", except with a Balanced Budget Amendment and/or structural reform of programs passed into law.
YHou thought I was being outrageous, in that first paragraph, didn't you? Now you know better. Why did Coburn not pick my number of 15 trillioni? He could have. His number, like Obama's, is arbitrary and meaningless. It is a scam. When you listen to Coburn, see if you hear him talk about the amount he will "cut' from this coming year's spending. How much will HIS deficit be for this coming year. How much would HE add to our debt in the next year? Next 2 years? Next three years? And exactly HOW does he intend to ENFROCE spendin g"cuts". I am sorry. You can tell me Coburn is a conservative Republican if you wnat. As fra s I am concerned, he is a dishonest soul mate of Obama. Yes, I WOULD be willling to say that to Coburn's face. I invite any supporter of Coburn to tell me where I am wrong.
This "bottom line' number business is STUPID--except that Obama and Coburn think it is a clever way to dECEIVE. Why should Obama care if there is a 3 to 1 ration of spending "cuts" to proposed tax increases, or a 10 to 1 ratio? The spendin g"cuts" are NOT REAL. Next year' spendin gis ALL this Congress can control, short of legally binding STRUCUTRAL changes in these lng-term programs. No, this Congress cannot even really control that future, but it would at least require REPEAL. Going back on these promises written in water does not even require that anything be repealed. Even is some "plan" is approved by Congress, a future Congress can ignore it unless there are specific laws that must be separately repealed (and not just brushed aside as part of the appropriations process). That is true of the tax increase bills. It is NOT true of the "spending cuts".
Nope. Forget it, Coburn. If Republicans adopt the magic wand theory of government, at the end of this "fight", then I WALK (walk away from the Republican Party FOREVER). What matters is THIS COMING YER'S SPENDING. If Republicans are not willng to "cut' that with real "cuts", then I certainly do't trust them to "cut" in the FAR FUTURE. It is only if threis an ENFROCEMENT mechanism (real, and not imaginary) that I would reconsider. A Balanced Budget Amendment has SOME potential in this regard, but--as this blog has shown--if will NOT "solve" our deficit/debt problem over the next five years, and is more than "iffy" in terms of ever getting a "real" (not fraudulent) Amendment passed in both houses of Congress and the states.
Have I disosed of Tom Coburn and the establishment Republicans in the Senate to your satisfaction? I hopee so. I have disosed of him to my satisfaction. By the way, the ONLY way I would regard a "ratioo" of spending "cuts" to tax increases as REAL (not saying it is desirable to go down this road anyway) is if the $7 in spending "cuts" (to ue the Coburn ficton) occurs BEFORE each dollar of tax increases, AND it is specifically in the law that no dollar of tax increase shall go into effect ntil $7 dollars in spending "cuts" have happened. You can see the absurdity of this entire approach by the difficulty in even formulating how to make sure tax increases do not occur without the spending "cuts" happening.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Rick Perry is having this prayer meeting down in Texas. Do you think that Cobrun, Obama andsimilar people who have FAITH in the "magic wand" of politicians will have some sort of similar meeting? Oh. I forgot. They ARE, as Senators like Mitch McConnell get together with Harry Redi to prduce another "last minute" magic wwand "solution" that we will be told HAS to be passed. Remember the TARP bill, which was not going to be a blank chec, but was AND used entirely diefferently than debated? Remember ObamaCare, where we had to have it passed before we knew what was in it? Remember the recent "governent shut down" deal, where the CBO said that the last minute bill CUT NOTHING. How many times do Republicans thik they can get away with this? And how many times can they say that they have "learned". before the public--peplelike me, anyway--decide that the PARTY is made up of nothing but sociopathic/patholgical liars (at least the politician branch of the party).
This blog has propounde the Magic Wand Theory of Government. Maybe I should copyright or trademark the phrase. The concept is getting more prevalent all of the time. President Obama has made a career out of this tehory. Now Tom Coburn--a supposed conservative Republican--is trynig to give him a run for his money,.
Let us "cut" 15 TRILLION dollars from the Federal budget/spending, and use "that money" to BOTH pay for Obama's "infrastructure" union pork AND reduced taxes. How do e "cut" 15 TRILLION dollars from Federal spending? Easy. The same way Obama"cuts" 4 trillion. We simply SAY we will--teny years from now. No legally binding law. No Balanced Budget Amendment. Just SAY we are going to make the "cuts". It does not erally matter to Obama WHERE we say we are going to make the "cuts", so long as it does ot overly embarrass Democrats by suggesting even fictioinal future "cuts" in Medicare or Social Secruity. As long as we don't actually do something like restructure Medicare by LAW, which means it might actualy happen since the law would have to be replealed, Obama is perfectly willing to PROMMISE almost any futre "cuts' to government spending that do not seem to promise undercutting the Democrat campaign plan to scare seniors. That is why the media PROPAGANDA LIE is so absurd. You knw the lie: That Obama has "offered" 3 dollars in spending "cuts" for every one dollar in tax increases. Problem (even apart from Obama's reluctance to say where the "cuts" are coming from, since he does not care but does not want to even take the hit on propsoing fictional "cuts"): The tax increases, even if they SPRING into exitence at a future date, are REAL. The tax increases will be passed into LAW, where the only way to stop them will be REPEAlL. And they will occur BEFORE any spending "cuts". Obama has no intention that the spending "cuts" will ever take place. Besides, he will not be around by the time we get to the nitty gritty on the spending "cuts". All Obama does is "wave a magic wand", and say that the deficit problem is "solved", because Obama has PROMISED to "cut' 4 trillion dollars in the future--the far future--along with raising taxes much sooner. Obama is really being "clever" here. The reason he is so desperate for the "big deal" is not only that Obama wants to declare that his "magic wand" has "sovled" the problem so he can move on to MORE SPEDNING. That might be enough. But Obama is facing the EXPIRATION OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS in the election year of 2012. Obama desperately wants a "deal" that enables him to say that he kept his promise of not extending the Bush tax cuts for the"rich", while avoiding raising taxes for the "middle class".
Enter Tom Couburn, who has watched how Obama oprates. Coburn thinks: This is my SOUL MATE< except I can do this magic wand business better.". Therefore, today Coubrn is proposing 9TRILLION dollars in deficit reduction over ten eyars, with a 7 to 1 ratio of spending "cutss" to tases. I feel like cring. No, I would not vote for Coburn for dogctcher of Mt. Ida, Arkansas. Even if Coubrn does not know what he is doing (I don't believe it), Coburn is just actin as a sTALKING HORSE for the Obama "big deal". In fact, Coburn is quoted as saying: "Pick and choose 4.5 trillion out of my 9 trillion.". What Coburn, dishoenst that he is, does NOT say is how he si going to ENFROCE the "cuts". I told you above how the tax increases are enforced. Indeed, spending INCREASES are enforced the same way, as Medicare, Medicaid and ObamaCare roll on until repealed (ObamaCare) or reformed. But there is NO WAY to enforce spending "cuts", except with a Balanced Budget Amendment and/or structural reform of programs passed into law.
YHou thought I was being outrageous, in that first paragraph, didn't you? Now you know better. Why did Coburn not pick my number of 15 trillioni? He could have. His number, like Obama's, is arbitrary and meaningless. It is a scam. When you listen to Coburn, see if you hear him talk about the amount he will "cut' from this coming year's spending. How much will HIS deficit be for this coming year. How much would HE add to our debt in the next year? Next 2 years? Next three years? And exactly HOW does he intend to ENFROCE spendin g"cuts". I am sorry. You can tell me Coburn is a conservative Republican if you wnat. As fra s I am concerned, he is a dishonest soul mate of Obama. Yes, I WOULD be willling to say that to Coburn's face. I invite any supporter of Coburn to tell me where I am wrong.
This "bottom line' number business is STUPID--except that Obama and Coburn think it is a clever way to dECEIVE. Why should Obama care if there is a 3 to 1 ration of spending "cuts" to proposed tax increases, or a 10 to 1 ratio? The spendin g"cuts" are NOT REAL. Next year' spendin gis ALL this Congress can control, short of legally binding STRUCUTRAL changes in these lng-term programs. No, this Congress cannot even really control that future, but it would at least require REPEAL. Going back on these promises written in water does not even require that anything be repealed. Even is some "plan" is approved by Congress, a future Congress can ignore it unless there are specific laws that must be separately repealed (and not just brushed aside as part of the appropriations process). That is true of the tax increase bills. It is NOT true of the "spending cuts".
Nope. Forget it, Coburn. If Republicans adopt the magic wand theory of government, at the end of this "fight", then I WALK (walk away from the Republican Party FOREVER). What matters is THIS COMING YER'S SPENDING. If Republicans are not willng to "cut' that with real "cuts", then I certainly do't trust them to "cut" in the FAR FUTURE. It is only if threis an ENFROCEMENT mechanism (real, and not imaginary) that I would reconsider. A Balanced Budget Amendment has SOME potential in this regard, but--as this blog has shown--if will NOT "solve" our deficit/debt problem over the next five years, and is more than "iffy" in terms of ever getting a "real" (not fraudulent) Amendment passed in both houses of Congress and the states.
Have I disosed of Tom Coburn and the establishment Republicans in the Senate to your satisfaction? I hopee so. I have disosed of him to my satisfaction. By the way, the ONLY way I would regard a "ratioo" of spending "cuts" to tax increases as REAL (not saying it is desirable to go down this road anyway) is if the $7 in spending "cuts" (to ue the Coburn ficton) occurs BEFORE each dollar of tax increases, AND it is specifically in the law that no dollar of tax increase shall go into effect ntil $7 dollars in spending "cuts" have happened. You can see the absurdity of this entire approach by the difficulty in even formulating how to make sure tax increases do not occur without the spending "cuts" happening.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Rick Perry is having this prayer meeting down in Texas. Do you think that Cobrun, Obama andsimilar people who have FAITH in the "magic wand" of politicians will have some sort of similar meeting? Oh. I forgot. They ARE, as Senators like Mitch McConnell get together with Harry Redi to prduce another "last minute" magic wwand "solution" that we will be told HAS to be passed. Remember the TARP bill, which was not going to be a blank chec, but was AND used entirely diefferently than debated? Remember ObamaCare, where we had to have it passed before we knew what was in it? Remember the recent "governent shut down" deal, where the CBO said that the last minute bill CUT NOTHING. How many times do Republicans thik they can get away with this? And how many times can they say that they have "learned". before the public--peplelike me, anyway--decide that the PARTY is made up of nothing but sociopathic/patholgical liars (at least the politician branch of the party).
Balanced Budget Amendment and Taxes
As stated in recent articles, I strongly support a Balanced Budget Amendment to theConstitution, so long as it has a SPENDING CAP in it (18% of GDP being about as high as I would go). I will cheer if Republicans were abele to pull it off. And I will CONDEMN Republicans--not cheer them for trying--if they fail to pull it off after putting all of their eggs in that FANTASY. That smacks to me of fraudulent "politics as usual". Why do I call it a "fantasy". Read my articles. It takes a 2/3 vote to get a Constitutioinal Amendment through Congress, of both houses. That strikes me as impossible, in the current Congress, AND it strikes me as somehthing over which Republicans are unlikelyl to fight to the end ("the end" being refusing to raise llthe debt ceiling, and enduring weeks of the government not being able to borrow any more money, which will require a 40% cut in the Federal Government). I would be willing to go to those lengths to CUT PRESENT SPENDING (although I doubt the will of Republicans). I just don't see it happening overf a Balanced Budget Amendment that wold not go into effect for 8 years or more, and would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. More power to Republilcans if they prove me wrong--especailly snce I an never wrong. You can see, however, that the odds are against them. (me, WRONG!!!! Not going to happen.) Again, NO credit for playing "politics as usual", when you have no intention of really following through.
I would not support a Balanced Budget Amendment without a spending cap. However, I question inserting a TAX provison in a "Balanced Budget Amendment". Right now, Republicans have inserted aprovision that it would require a 2/3 vote of both houses to raise taxes. If you have a spending cap, which is necessary to keep the "balanced budget" part from becoming a fraud, I see no purpose to the attempt to control future taxes in the Constitution. In one of those cable TV interviews with a Republican and a Deomocrat, the ONLY criticism the Democrat had of the Amendment was that it is wildly unfair to make it easier to balance the budget by Medicare cuts than by raising taxes. I actually thnk he has a good point. What do TAXES have to do with either a balanced budget or a spending cap? So long as there IS a spending cap, the CHOICE of what mix of policies to use to comply with the Amendment seems to me to be a POLICY decision that should be up to Congress. You only have to look at the preent arguments to understand why. Is it "raising taxes" to "cloe loopholes"? What about eliminating a PAYMENT, such as the earned income tax credit? What about eliminating a deductioin that no longr makes any sense? You just don't need thee arguments as to what is and is not a "tax" as part of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. If Congress can stay within spendnig limits, the choice of how to balance the budget should be up to Congress. I, personally, would go so far as to favor not even having the "balanced budget" part (although that is what is politically popular and easy to understand0, and just have the spending limit, WITH TEETH. (I have suggested that if an "emergency" is decleared, even with a 2/3 vote, that the entire Congress declaring such an emergency not be allowed to stand for reelection when the term of each member is up, whehter the member voted for waiving the limit or not.)
Don't I realize that the Democrat I heard opposes a spending limit just as much as he opposes a 2/3 vote requirement for a tax increase? Yes, I do. But the difference is that he is right on the tax increase unfairness, and wrong on the spending limit. To require every "adjustment" of the tax code to have a 2/3 vote is hard to defend. Now it would be too much to say I would OPPOSE such a requirement, if I thought it was easy to passs it. I would have to think about that. This constant TINKERING with the tax code is a major problem. Certainty that taxes will not be raised has great value. But it still makes no sense, theoretically, to take all flexibility away from Cnogress on taxes--especailly given the inherent ambiguity of exacthly what is a tax increease and what is not.
In short, if I were a Republican "leader", and really WANTED this Balanced Budget Amendment to pass, I would delete the 2/3 vote requirement on tax incrfeases. No, if yu have not guessed, I don't think that a lot of Republican leaders WANT a Balanced Budget Amendment to pass (not one with teeth, anyway--even the safeguards against waivers in the present Republican draft). I am morally certain that EVERY Republican leader doe not expect a Balanced Budget Amendment to actually pass unless it is gutted into uselessness. These kind of games are what may yet push the Republican Party to extinction. But if Republicans are serious about the Balanced Budget Amendment, they need to forget about trying to use it to push their policy on TAXES.
What about the argument that there is no way for us to have expanded Medicaid, ObamaCare, expoloding Medicare, and other "entitlements", and keep the government at the 40 year average for a percentage of GDP? Yu know the answer to that one. We just CAN'T HAVE all of these massive, out of control programs and keep the things that made this country great (including a limited Federal Government that is not out of control). We need to start with ObamaCare, which alone will destroy this country as we once knew it. We MUST learn to control Medicare and Medicaid, or those programs will destroy us. We have something like 60 TRILLION dollars in "unfunded liabilities" with Medicare and Medicaid (not sure whether ObamaCare in there too, although my impresson was that this just applies to Medicare and Medicaid). Nope. If ew can't keep a program within that 28% limit on spending, then we need to reform the program. Once we accept the idea that there is a "new normal" (like Obama apologists like to asssert on unemplyment, even though BUSH managed to get us to 5% unemplyment), and that the Federal Government can't possibly limit itself to a certain percentage of GDP, then we are DOOMED. The Federal Government will inevitably grow to consume our entire economy, and ur entire lives.
Bottom line: I don't thik a Balanced Budget Amendment, with a spending cap, is going to happen. And I will BLAME Republicans for making it a keystone of the debt ceiling fight, if they do not make it happen (at least to the point of actually going past the debt ceiling deadline). That smacks to me of "poliltics as usual": propose something you know will not happen for political points. If Republicans are serious about it, they should DELETE the requirement of a 2/3 majority on raising taxes. An effective Balanced Budget Amendment, with spending cap, may well be necessary to sAVE this country in the form it was intended to be, and once was. But it is absurd to say that it represents an IMMEDIATE "solution" to our defict and debt problem. By the time a Balanced Budget Amendment will take effect, especailly with that 5 year delay that is in the Amendment (to my understanding), our deficits and debt may have already destoroyed us. That has nothing to do with whether we SHOULD pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. But it does have something to do with whether we should GTE SERIOUS abut CUTTING SPENDING NOW. Republicans have proposed "cutting" 111 billion or so from this coming year's spending. That is not nearly enough. It may, of course, emphasize how important an Amendment is, if we can only survive until the Amendment goes into effect.
Will I be wrong (say it ain't so!!!!) about cynical Republican politicians and the Balanced Budget Amendment? Will Republicans ultimately BETRAY me--and you? Stay tuned, as this soap opera(or farce?) continues.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). By the way, will 3/4 of the states really support a Balancced Budget Amendment if they look at the Federal Government being properly required to pass a lot of expeenses and responsibiity back to them, with no chance that the Federal Government will have the ability to bial the states out? I wonder. It might happen, if the peole force it on reluctant politicians. It is not a slam dunk. And look what happens if we do manage to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment--proving me wr...rr...ro...wron.......--sorry, can't gt the word out), and declare the debt "crisis" "solved"? Then we merrily spend away at the same 25% level of GDP that we are now approaching. Can you imagiethe SHOCK when we suddently have to balance the budget, and immediately revert to 18% of GDP? There is no sbustitute for CONTROLLING SPENDING NOW--Balanced Budget Amendment or no Balanced Budget Amendment.
I would not support a Balanced Budget Amendment without a spending cap. However, I question inserting a TAX provison in a "Balanced Budget Amendment". Right now, Republicans have inserted aprovision that it would require a 2/3 vote of both houses to raise taxes. If you have a spending cap, which is necessary to keep the "balanced budget" part from becoming a fraud, I see no purpose to the attempt to control future taxes in the Constitution. In one of those cable TV interviews with a Republican and a Deomocrat, the ONLY criticism the Democrat had of the Amendment was that it is wildly unfair to make it easier to balance the budget by Medicare cuts than by raising taxes. I actually thnk he has a good point. What do TAXES have to do with either a balanced budget or a spending cap? So long as there IS a spending cap, the CHOICE of what mix of policies to use to comply with the Amendment seems to me to be a POLICY decision that should be up to Congress. You only have to look at the preent arguments to understand why. Is it "raising taxes" to "cloe loopholes"? What about eliminating a PAYMENT, such as the earned income tax credit? What about eliminating a deductioin that no longr makes any sense? You just don't need thee arguments as to what is and is not a "tax" as part of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. If Congress can stay within spendnig limits, the choice of how to balance the budget should be up to Congress. I, personally, would go so far as to favor not even having the "balanced budget" part (although that is what is politically popular and easy to understand0, and just have the spending limit, WITH TEETH. (I have suggested that if an "emergency" is decleared, even with a 2/3 vote, that the entire Congress declaring such an emergency not be allowed to stand for reelection when the term of each member is up, whehter the member voted for waiving the limit or not.)
Don't I realize that the Democrat I heard opposes a spending limit just as much as he opposes a 2/3 vote requirement for a tax increase? Yes, I do. But the difference is that he is right on the tax increase unfairness, and wrong on the spending limit. To require every "adjustment" of the tax code to have a 2/3 vote is hard to defend. Now it would be too much to say I would OPPOSE such a requirement, if I thought it was easy to passs it. I would have to think about that. This constant TINKERING with the tax code is a major problem. Certainty that taxes will not be raised has great value. But it still makes no sense, theoretically, to take all flexibility away from Cnogress on taxes--especailly given the inherent ambiguity of exacthly what is a tax increease and what is not.
In short, if I were a Republican "leader", and really WANTED this Balanced Budget Amendment to pass, I would delete the 2/3 vote requirement on tax incrfeases. No, if yu have not guessed, I don't think that a lot of Republican leaders WANT a Balanced Budget Amendment to pass (not one with teeth, anyway--even the safeguards against waivers in the present Republican draft). I am morally certain that EVERY Republican leader doe not expect a Balanced Budget Amendment to actually pass unless it is gutted into uselessness. These kind of games are what may yet push the Republican Party to extinction. But if Republicans are serious about the Balanced Budget Amendment, they need to forget about trying to use it to push their policy on TAXES.
What about the argument that there is no way for us to have expanded Medicaid, ObamaCare, expoloding Medicare, and other "entitlements", and keep the government at the 40 year average for a percentage of GDP? Yu know the answer to that one. We just CAN'T HAVE all of these massive, out of control programs and keep the things that made this country great (including a limited Federal Government that is not out of control). We need to start with ObamaCare, which alone will destroy this country as we once knew it. We MUST learn to control Medicare and Medicaid, or those programs will destroy us. We have something like 60 TRILLION dollars in "unfunded liabilities" with Medicare and Medicaid (not sure whether ObamaCare in there too, although my impresson was that this just applies to Medicare and Medicaid). Nope. If ew can't keep a program within that 28% limit on spending, then we need to reform the program. Once we accept the idea that there is a "new normal" (like Obama apologists like to asssert on unemplyment, even though BUSH managed to get us to 5% unemplyment), and that the Federal Government can't possibly limit itself to a certain percentage of GDP, then we are DOOMED. The Federal Government will inevitably grow to consume our entire economy, and ur entire lives.
Bottom line: I don't thik a Balanced Budget Amendment, with a spending cap, is going to happen. And I will BLAME Republicans for making it a keystone of the debt ceiling fight, if they do not make it happen (at least to the point of actually going past the debt ceiling deadline). That smacks to me of "poliltics as usual": propose something you know will not happen for political points. If Republicans are serious about it, they should DELETE the requirement of a 2/3 majority on raising taxes. An effective Balanced Budget Amendment, with spending cap, may well be necessary to sAVE this country in the form it was intended to be, and once was. But it is absurd to say that it represents an IMMEDIATE "solution" to our defict and debt problem. By the time a Balanced Budget Amendment will take effect, especailly with that 5 year delay that is in the Amendment (to my understanding), our deficits and debt may have already destoroyed us. That has nothing to do with whether we SHOULD pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. But it does have something to do with whether we should GTE SERIOUS abut CUTTING SPENDING NOW. Republicans have proposed "cutting" 111 billion or so from this coming year's spending. That is not nearly enough. It may, of course, emphasize how important an Amendment is, if we can only survive until the Amendment goes into effect.
Will I be wrong (say it ain't so!!!!) about cynical Republican politicians and the Balanced Budget Amendment? Will Republicans ultimately BETRAY me--and you? Stay tuned, as this soap opera(or farce?) continues.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). By the way, will 3/4 of the states really support a Balancced Budget Amendment if they look at the Federal Government being properly required to pass a lot of expeenses and responsibiity back to them, with no chance that the Federal Government will have the ability to bial the states out? I wonder. It might happen, if the peole force it on reluctant politicians. It is not a slam dunk. And look what happens if we do manage to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment--proving me wr...rr...ro...wron.......--sorry, can't gt the word out), and declare the debt "crisis" "solved"? Then we merrily spend away at the same 25% level of GDP that we are now approaching. Can you imagiethe SHOCK when we suddently have to balance the budget, and immediately revert to 18% of GDP? There is no sbustitute for CONTROLLING SPENDING NOW--Balanced Budget Amendment or no Balanced Budget Amendment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)