Do not be a Karl Rove republican.
More:Print This Post
Given the intransigence and ideological rigidity of the Democrats, Republicans may be forced to decide between the two calamitous scenarios as regards the US debt. The first would be to give in to the Democrats who oppose even the most minimal spending reduction, raise the debt ceiling and allow the debt to continue to skyrocket to the point of insolvency.
The second option would be to shut down the government until appropriate and effective spending reductions are agreed upon and can be instituted. Any such agreement may take quite a while to reach and, of course, would result in the U.S. defaulting on its obligations which will have quite severe consequences.
Though the Democrats will be the offending and irresponsible party in either of these financial meltdown scenarios, the Republicans will be blamed instead by the news media.
Government: US Default Could Be Doomsday Option For Economy
Scott Baker April 23, 2011
WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States has never defaulted on its debt and Democrats and Republicans say they don’t want it to happen now. But with partisan acrimony running at fever pitch, and Democrats and Republicans so far apart on how to tame the deficit, the unthinkable is suddenly being pondered.
The government now borrows about 42 cents of every dollar it spends. Imagine that one day soon, the borrowing slams up against the current debt limit ceiling of $14.3 trillion and Congress fails to raise it. The damage would ripple across the entire economy, eventually affecting nearly every American, and rocking global markets in the process.
A default would come if the government actually failed to fulfill a financial obligation, including repaying a loan or interest on that loan. The government borrows mostly by selling bonds to individuals and governments, with a promise to pay back the amount of the bond in a certain time period and agreeing to pay regular interest on that bond in the meantime.
Among the first directly affected would likely be money-market funds holding government securities, banks that buy bonds directly from the Federal Reserve and resell them to consumers, including pension and mutual funds; and the foreign investor community, which holds nearly half of all Treasury securities.
If the U.S. starts missing interest or principal payments, borrowers would demand higher and higher rates on new bonds, as they did with Greece, Portugal and other heavily indebted nations. Who wants to keep loaning money to a deadbeat nation that can’t pay its bills?
At some point, the government would have to slash spending in other areas to make room for any further sales of Treasury bills and bonds. That could squeeze payments to federal contractors, and eventually even affect Social Security and other government benefit payments, as well as federal workers’ paychecks.
A default would likely trigger another financial panic like the one in 2008 and plunge an economy still reeling from high joblessness and a battered housing market back into recession. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke calls failure to raise the debt limit “a recovery-ending event.” U.S. stock markets would likely tank — devastating roughly half of U.S. households that own stocks, either individually or through 401(k) type retirement programs.
Eventually, the cost of most credit would rise — from business and consumer loans to home mortgages, auto financing and credit cards.
Continued stalemate could also further depress the value of the dollar and challenge the greenback‘s status as the world’s prime “reserve currency.”
China and other countries that now hold about 50 percent of all U.S. Treasury securities could start dumping them, further pushing up interest rates and swelling the national debt. It would be a vicious cycle of higher and higher interest rates and more and more debt.
The U.S. has long been the global standard for financial stability and creditworthiness, with Treasury securities seen as a fail-safe investment. But after the near-shutdown of the U.S. government and a new credit-rating report this week questioning the country’s fiscal health, Treasury bills and bonds are losing luster.
If there is a debt limit deadlock, the government by this summer could find itself legally unable to borrow more money to pay its bills, beginning with interest on its debt and gradually extending to day-to-day federal operations. At some point, the government would have to decide which bills to pay and which to put aside.
The debt ceiling will be hit on or around May 16, the Treasury Department says. Unlike the threatened government shutdown, the impact would start slowly, but then build mightily until the damage would be so dire that few political leaders or economists even want to contemplate it. The day of reckoning could likely be delayed at least until early July with creative bookkeeping.
When the House first rejected the Bush administration’s $600-billion bank bailout in September 2008, the Dow Jones industrials went into a dizzying 778-point tailspin. A whiff of a possible similar stock market collapse came on Monday with a sharp selloff on Wall Street when the Standard & Poors lowered its outlook on U.S. debt to “negative” from “stable,” possibly a first step toward a possible downgrade of America’s coveted AAA credit rating.
“We haven’t downgraded it. We just said, if nothing happens, we may have to,” said S&P chief economist David Wyss. He said a government default remains uncharted territory, “which is one reason why it’s not a good idea to hit the debt ceiling.”
“There’s reason to worry,” said Wyss. “But my best guess is that we sort of muddle through this. Cuts will be made, they’ll be too little too late, but at least they will be enough to maintain a triple-A rating.”
“It’s another game of chicken. And this time there are Mack trucks going at each other, not bumper cars. This is a biggie,” said American University political scientist James Thurber. But he predicted that, as in the past, “there will be an accommodation. They will avoid a crash.”
Investment bank J.P. Morgan Chase recently concluded that any delay in making an interest or principal payments by the Treasury “even for a very short period of time” would have large “long-term adverse consequences for Treasury finances and the U.S. economy.” The analysis is being circulated on Capitol Hill by supporters of raising the debt limit.
“If anyone wants to push that button, which I think would be catastrophic and unpredictable, I think they’re crazy,” JP Morgan CEO Jaime Dimon said recently of those seeking to block raising the debt limit.
House Speaker John Boehner and most other GOP leaders agree on the need to raise the debt limit — and don’t want to be held responsible for a new financial meltdown. Still, they want Obama to make more concessions on spending cuts than he has done thus far. That isn’t sitting well with liberal Democrats, who think Obama has already given too much ground.
One reason the two parties can’t find common ground: they can‘t even agree on what’s causing high deficits. Democrats mostly blame it on policies of George W. Bush: two wars, tax cuts that continue to benefit the wealthy and an expensive prescription drug program. Republicans see government spending as the culprit, particularly on Obama’s watch.
In fact, the main reason is the deep recession, which slashed tax revenues and led to hundreds of billions of dollars in recession-fighting spending by both Bush and Obama. The debt was $9 trillion in late 2007 before the start of the Great Recession, and it’s just a sliver under the $14.3 trillion limit today.
Even though GOP leaders say they want to avoid more economic chaos, there is a large crop of tea-party aligned Republicans threatening to refuse to raise the cap under almost any circumstance. Polls suggest a large percentage of Americans oppose raising the debt limit.
The debt limit has been raised ten times over the past decade. Obama voted against Bush’s debt-limit increase in 2006 as a senator, accusing Bush of “a leadership failure.“ Obama recently apologized for ”making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country.”
More:Print This Post
In the following call to arms, conservative Lloyd Marcus exhorts all of us to vociferously oppose Obama, Progressives and their anti-American, anti-freedom and big government agenda. Being politically correct or silent will not allow us to obtain our goals. We must be fearless and relentless in our attempts to oust Obama and the Democrats in Congress (and elsewhere).
Tea Party David Vs. Two-Headed Goliath
Lloyd Marcus April 23, 2011
On the O'Reilly Factor TV show, Dennis Miller was asked his thoughts regarding the media's response to Obama's numerous flip flops. Miller said the media will report whatever Obama does in a positive light.
We patriots are well aware of the liberal media's love affair with Obama. And yet, for some reason, the reality of Miller's comment hit me hard right between the eyes. I thought, "Oh my gosh. This is not funny. Our country is in serious trouble."
Not only must we defeat the Obama administration, we must take on and defeat the liberal mainstream media as well; take on the two powerful well-funded entities committed to the fundamental transformation of America. Lord, help us!
Patriots, we can, will and must defeat this two headed evil Goliath. Despite the left's shock and awe public relations slanderous attacks on the tea party and our candidates, we took the House of Representatives. Thus proving, they can be beaten!
I am so sick of advisors cautioning us conservatives to walk on eggshells when dealing with the liberal media. It has even been suggested that we stop using the term "tea party" due to the negative image created by the media.
Patriots, even if we change our name to the "Happy Go Lucky Nice People Movement," we will still be targeted for destruction by the media. What part of they hate us and want us to fail do our advisors not understand? The liberal media is going to put a negative spin on whatever we say.
Now, am I advocating saying stupid provocative things? Of course not. I am advocating fearlessly and aggressively attacking Obama's horrific record. Call out the liberal media on their biased reporting. Stop allowing the Democrats and their media minions to set the rules of engagement. Patriots, the stakes are far too high to wimp out foolishly seeking approval from those actively pursuing our total destruction.
Again, I say, what do we have to lose by confronting the democrats and the liberal media? They are going to trash us regardless.
Yes, they will call you a racist. I say this in love: "Get over it." Throughout U.S. history many have suffered far greater and paid the ultimate sacrifice. Why? Because America is worth it.
Tons of articles have been written calling me a stupid self loathing n****r, an Uncle Tom, a tea party minstrel, a traitor, a sellout, and a clown. It all rolls off my back. I know I am on the right side. So, why should I care what evil stupid people say or think of me? But most of all, my strength and peace comes through knowing God is with us and America is worth it.
Like little David in the Bible, we must boldly confront the two headed Goliath, Obama administration/liberal media.
Why do you think Trump and Palin are doing so well in the polls? Both are boldly and unapologetically takin' it to Obama and are not kowtowing to the liberal media. Patriots are frustrated with Republicans pandering and trying to "play nice" with a Democratic Party and liberal media who are relentlessly and viciously attempting to kill us politically. The Democrats and the liberal media take no prisoners.
Rush Limbaugh says the Democrats and liberal media will tell you who they fear most by the intensity of their attacks. Who have been numbers one, two, and three on the Democrats' and liberal media's list? Answer: Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, and the Tea Party. Brothers and sisters, we can beat them!
How do we defeat them? In addition to ceasing to fear Obama and his liberal media co-conspirators, we must continue doing what we have been doing. Patriots must continue following their passion and using their gifts and talents wherever needed in our extraordinary divinely inspired Tea Party Movement.
We are blessed with great minds on our side; patriots are writing books, organizing and conceiving various strategies to take back our country.
While some lament that we lack a central leadership organization or charismatic leader, I am grateful for all of our numerous patriot groups and committed individuals. Each is driven to politically defeat Obama in its own way. Their spirit is the tea party.
Just as God's grace guided David's stone to topple Goliath, our stone of truth, honor, and freedom will hit its mark and bring down the two headed evil Goliath of the liberal media and the Obama regime in 2012.
More:Print This Post
In the following speech in the Senate by Sen. Rand Paul, he rails against a large, omnipotent central government, the "Collective", and instead exhorts Senators to consider the protection and expansion of the rights, freedoms and choices of the individual. He cites Ayn Rand and her prescient novel, "Anthem", in his discussion.
More:Print This Post
There are few serious players who are willing to responsibly address our country’s rapidly approaching fiscal apocalypse. Surely this doesn’t include Obama who submitted his 2012 budget with a $1.7 trillion deficit which he claims will help solve our crisis. Oh, and of course, his plan includes similar gargantuan deficits for as far as the eye can see.
The Democrats are outraged at even a $6 billion cut out of $3.65 trillion. This miniscule amount represents approximately 25 hours of federal spending out of an entire year (of 8760 total hours).
Many Republicans are seeking far more in budget cuts, $60 - $200 billion. Unfortunately, these amounts still fall far short of what is needed.
Who are these (brave) individuals who are willing to put everything on the line in order to save our nation from fiscal calamity? They are all Republicans and Conservatives and include such names as Senators Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Jim DeMint and Rep. Paul Ryan.
We need to give them our support as well.
Sen. Rand Paul introduces Five-Year Balanced Budget Plan with Senators Lee and DeMint
Senator Rand Paul unveiled his five-year path to a balanced budget, which includes cutting four federal government departments: Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce and Housing and Urban Development.
The proposal also calls for the repeal of “Obamacare,” leaves entitlements untouched, and he also said he is willing to make changes to the cuts, but there will have to be cuts elsewhere.
Rand Paul said:
“While official Washington is sitting on their hands and ignoring the ever-expanding deficit, I am offering a real plan to rein in spending and address the looming debt crisis. The only way we can balance the budget is if we have real leadership, and the President has abdicated his leadership on this issue. It’s time to take bold action to bring our country back from the brink, and I am proud to start the conversation on how we go about that.”
Via ABC’s The Note:
“There’s a lot of things in here that everybody could agree to, Republicans and Democrats, but nobody’s leading on the president’s side and on our side we felt we needed to put this forward to get the debate started, at the very least.”
“There’s an argument for every federal program up here… Nobody’s coming up here asking me for money that’s not for a good reason. But the alternative is that we get into a point of financial disaster where nobody gets any money,” he said.
Fellow Tea Party Caucus members, Senators Mike Lee and Jim DeMint were by Paul’s side when he introduced this bill. Both men supported Paul and called for Washington to get serious about the budget and to make cuts. The country is in fiscal jeaopardy.
Senator Mike Lee challenged anyone who criticizes Paul’s plan to present something better rather than verbally criticize it.
“There may be some in this town who will disagree with the manner in which we’re proposing moving toward a balanced budget over a five year period. That’s fine, that’s understandable, that’s what this town is about… but to those who may disagree with it, to those who might want to attack it. I would ask that they come up with their own five year plan.”
Senator DeMint echoed Lee and said that balancing the budget may require “letting things go” back to the state level.
“There are functions and departments at the federal level that need to be devolved to the states. Part of balancing the budget is restructuring and devolving federal functions back the states, local communities and people,” he said.
DeMint said he did not agree with “every particular thing in here,” but stressed the importance of balancing the budget.
More:Print This Post
The following editorial provides the stark facts regarding America’s impending financial Apocalypse. There has been massive, unrestrained, irresponsible government spending that has spiraled out of control. The debt increase under Obama has been an astounding six times faster than that occurring under previous administrations. We are also borrowing around 45 cents for every dollar that is spent.
Obama and Congressional Democrats don’t want to cut spending despite the fact that the fiscal 2012 budget will chalk up another record deficit of $1.65 trillion. To them, even their compromise $4.7 billion dollar cut which represents 0.1% of the total budget of $3.73 trillion ($3730 billion) is too much. That represents just 25 hours of federal spending out of the entire year (8760 total hours). Clearly, any way you look at this, it is miniscule.
The Republicans who claimed that they would responsibly address the problem appear to have gotten cold feet. Their $61 billion dollar cut, though substantially more, still represents pocket change. They need to resolutely call for and support reductions of far greater magnitude or national bankruptcy will not be averted. Fortunately, there are Tea Party members and younger conservatives who are fervently pursuing this more aggressive tack.
America Slouching Towards Fiscal Armageddon
Chris Banescu March 18, 2011
America is in grave danger. Our government's out-of-control spending and our politicians' refusal to implement meaningful budget reforms are leading us towards a fiscal crisis that can undermine our very way of life. We are spending ourselves into oblivion. With each passing day, we are $5 billion in deficit spending closer to the edge of an abyss that can cripple our economy, destroy America's wealth, and lead to catastrophic social consequences for all current and future generations. Yet our leaders in Washington refuse to face reality and continue to play political games while the country's budget crisis deepens and the threat grows exponentially.
In February of this year the US federal budget deficit grew by a record $224 billion; the biggest one-month increase in history. Worse still, the 2011 US budget deficit is forecast to reach $1.5 Trillion. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) this annual deficit represents the largest budget gap in our country's history, equivalent to approximately 10% of America's total economic output. This follows the enormous $1.3 Trillion deficit racked up for 2010 and will be superseded by an equally disturbing $1.65 Trillion deficit forecast for 2012.
In just three short years, Obama and the Democrats have racked up a whopping $4.5 Trillion in debt. That is more than double the $2.1 Trillion in debt added during the entire eight years of the Bush administration. It's an astronomical increase in deficit spending of roughly 571%; that's nearly six (6) times faster than previous administrations.
With Congress unwilling to address the runaway spending, roughly half the money the federal government now spends it has to borrow. Approximately 40 cents out of every dollar in spending is financed by mortgaging our future to foreign investors, primarily China. For 2012, the deficit spending will increase to 45 cents per dollar. Each day America will add another $4.5 billion to the $14.3 Trillion total National Debt. Sometime between now and 2012 the US debt will equal the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the total market value of all the goods and services in our economy for an entire year.
This year the US will spend $200 billion in interest payments on the debt. Thanks to historically low interest rates this figure is lower than normal. Once interest rates start to rise -- and rise they will as inflation is quickly spreading throughout our economy and the world -- we will face an extra $100 billion in interest payments per year for every one (1) percent increase in interest rates. The Wall Street Journal predicts that without any changes, the interest on the nation's debt will reach $900 billion annually in another 10 years. According to their forecast, those yearly interest payments will be 17% greater than our annual Medicare costs and 82% larger than "the cost of all non-security discretionary spending programs combined."
The $1.65 Trillion deficit for 2012 will make the debt grow to 105% of the nation's GDP, a perilous milestone. If the structural budget gaps are not effectively dealt with, the CBO predicts that an additional $7.1 Trillion in debt will be racked up in the next 10 years, increasing our total National Debt to $21.4 Trillion by 2021. But it gets worse. The current unfunded liabilities total (social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security which the US government has promised to pay to its citizens) is rapidly approaching $113 Trillion, about $1 million per taxpayer. That will grow to a disastrous $144 Trillionby 2015 if nothing changes.
Last month, members of the National Association for Business Economics provided yet another ominous warning. These economists identified the US budget deficit as the "gravest threat facing the economy, topping high unemployment and the risk of inflation or deflation."
We are on an unsustainable path of uncontrolled and wasteful spending that can devastate the United States. And what is Congress actually doing to effectively deal with this looming catastrophe?
The delusional Democrats have proposed a microscopic $4.7 billion cut for the 2012 budget. That's a ridiculous 0.1% of the total budget for 2012. It represents exactly 25 hours of spending by the government. Multiply that by 100 and it still falls short of the proverbial drop in the bucket. Clearly Democrats are not interested in helping this country avoid fiscal calamity. They're more concerned with demonizing conservatives and maintaining power, instead of governing responsibility and rationally for the welfare and safety of all Americans.
President Obama's phony budget, submitted last month, insanely claims about $1.1 Trillion in "cuts" over the next decade. These fictional cuts happen courtesy of an additional $2 Trillion in new taxes proposed by his administration over that same period. Even taking Obama's fraudulent budget proposal seriously, the US debt will still grow from $7.2 Trillion to as high $9 Trillion over 10 years. This is worse than doing nothing.
The supposedly fiscally conservative Republicans in the House originally proposed a small $100 billion cut in spending. That amount was subsequently reduced during House negotiations to a measly $61 billion, representing just 1.6% of the $3.73 Trillion budget for 2012. Even that minor reduction was mischaracterized as "draconian" and soundly rejected by the Democrats in control of the Senate. Obama has twice threatened to veto the measure if it passed the Senate by some miracle. There is little hope for mature engagement and sane debates with the current majority of leftists in power. They are not interested in cutting spending or negotiating reasonably to implement authentic budget reductions.
A devastating debt crisis is coming; simple mathematics predict it. It is no longer a matter of if, but when. The time for hysterics, hyperbole, and finger-pointing is over. The time for political games, grand-standing, and partisan shenanigans is long past. This is no longer about Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, or progressive issues. This affects all of us. The looming danger crosses all party and ideological lines and jeopardizes all Americans, present and future generations. We're staring down a massive debt tsunami that threatens the US with a fiscal Armageddon the likes of which we've never seen.
Since Democrats and the White House are obviously unwilling to face reality and completely AWOL on this crisis, here's a call to action to the conservatives and the Tea Party lawmakers in Washington, our only remaining hope.
Republicans, it's all hands on deck. Convince weak-kneed and waffling colleagues to find their backbone and stand firm. Since you're going to be demonized and vilified anyway, regardless of what you do, make a stand and demand meaningful reductions in government spending. Ask for at least $500 billion in budget cuts, slowly negotiate down to a more comprehensive $400 billion number, and only settle for a final compromise of $370 billion in cuts (still just 10% of the 2012 budget, but better than the original 1.6%). Stop worrying about "bi-partisanship", "reaching across the aisle", and all that other nonsense. It's evident that most Democrats and Obama are not interested in any of it. To them it's all about consolidating and maintaining their own power at all costs, damn the consequences. They would rather shove the country into bankruptcy and fiscal collapse than act responsibly and sensibly. Didn't the ObamaCare battles and the last few decades of disastrous compromises with liberals and progressives teach you anything?
Conservatives, act like leaders and worthy stewards of this great nation. Trust that God will be with you if you remain faithful to Him, speak truthfully, and act honorably. Be true public servants and courageous representatives of the people who elected you. Demand real action and sweeping reforms. Do not back down and compromise just to get along. It doesn't work! Be ready to shut down the government if you have to. Force Congress to do its job to protect the lives, freedoms, and interests of all American citizens, not just the unions, the lobbyists, and other political operatives and supporters. Show the rest of country that you're willing to do the heavy lifting and take the hits. Make the hard choices and stand behind your principles. That is real leadership!
Republicans, in November 2010 we elected you to represent our voices and bring the right kind of hope and change America desperately needs. We're counting on you now to act decisively! Don't disappoint us, the clock is quickly counting down to the fiscal catastrophe awaiting all of us. We're almost out of time.
More:Print This Post
We may just be in the midst of “bloodless” revolution of epic proportions that is not far behind that of the Civil War or even the original American Revolution. With the far reaching and noxious tentacles of our ever burgeoning and increasingly tyrannical federal government that is sucking out our life’s work in oppressive taxes and restricting our rights and freedoms with infinite and costly regulations, this pronouncement is not hyperbole.
“Give me Liberty or Give me (Death)” is not an anachronistic chant as tens of millions of Americans have become thoroughly disgusted with our contemptuous, profligate, over-taxing, somewhat omnipotent federal government that has become too corrupted in the Progressive/Liberal design.
We need to ratchet up the decibel level of our disgust against the elitism and disdain of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi et al Progressives, neutralize and reverse their actions. Concurrently, we must relentlessly support those Conservatives and Republicans championing our causes, whether they are local, in our State Houses or in Congress.
We have an awful lot riding on this.
The Real Revolution Has Begun
J. Robert Smith February 21, 2011
How delicious is irony, how fickle fate?
Just a little more than two years ago, liberals were ecstatic about Barack Obama's election and Democrats' control of Congress. Liberal pundits were all atwitter about the brand new Democratic Era that voters had ushered in. America would finally become what America should have been years ago: a European-style social democracy.
Boy, did Democrats misread their mandate! With very little hindsight needed, it's apparent to all but ideologically-blinkered liberals that the Democrats' gross overreach isn't what voters wanted or expected. Voters wanted a redo of the Clinton years. Instead, in the person of Barack Obama, voters got an amalgam of FDR and LBJ with a dash of Neville Chamberlin thrown in.
But here's the real kicker. Two years of Obama-Reid-Pelosi overreach and excesses may have been the table-setter for the real revolution now unfolding. Voters and taxpayers first needed to see the irresponsibility and recklessness of unalloyed liberalism to appreciate that conservative government is far superior. Thank you, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.
Of course, the real revolution began last year with the 2010 midterm elections. Yes, the GOP made the largest gains in U.S. House seats since 1948. But the underappreciated story is that the GOP racked up huge gains in state legislative contests, and further down ballot, Republicans swept plenty of local offices. State legislatures control congressional redistricting. Republicans now dominate enough key statehouses to lock-in GOP congressional electoral advantages for a decade.
Had voters limited their ballots to throwing out the rascals in Congress, a fair argument could be made that 2010 was just a protest vote -- an attempt by voters to shake up the Democrats. But when voters drill down to change party control of legislatures, city halls, and county commissions, you can bet that they're thoroughly repudiating the party in power. The 2010 repudiation of Democrats was a clear expression of what voters did and didn't want from government.
Move now to the present time. Republicans are on the march in Congress. Late last week, House Republicans passed a budget bill containing $61 billion in cuts. It's not the $100 billion that conservatives aimed for, but it's substantial and can be considered a down payment. The House Republican proposal now goes to the Senate. The budget process wrangling is just in its first phase. Moving forward, the GOP will have multiple opportunities to push more cuts.
And look what else House Republicans are doing. They're using the budget process to hamstring Obamacare by denying it funding. Shutting down and then nixing ObamaCare would be an historic victory in the fight to end liberalism's nearly hundred-year dominance; it would be one of those critical turning points in history -- like Vicksburg and Gettysburg -- a momentum shifter that leads to other key victories, such as entitlements reform.
Also, Indiana Republican Mike Pence offered and passed an amendment cutting funding for the odious abortion mill called Planned Parenthood. Another amendment, offered by Oregon Republican Greg Walden, that passed, chokes off funds for the Federal Communications Commission's net-neutrality gambit. Net -neutrality would concentrate more power in the FCC's hands and stymie free speech across the internet. Net-neutrality could well have been made in China.
Of course, the revolution just beginning isn't confined to the Halls of Congress. Chris Christie, New Jersey's intrepid Republican governor, fired the first shots last year in the burgeoning struggle to bring sanity back to state affairs. Christie's efforts aren't limited to balancing state budgets and reining in taxes, important as those things are. Christie is working to limit government and expand the playing field for the private sector. As we're seeing, government without proper limits is a ruinous beast. California is a prime example.
Now newly elected Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is making headlines because he dares to say that his state is broke and that the public employees' gravy train needs to end. Governor Walker wants to end collective bargaining for public employees, excepting police and firefighters, on the simple, common sense premise that employees shouldn't be negotiating the hours they work, among other things.
In Ohio, Governor John Kasich is gearing up to slash budgets, rollback taxes, cut regulations, and confront the Buckeye State's public employee unions. There'll be fireworks aplenty in Columbus.
Thomas Jefferson is being proven right again. The states are the laboratories of democracy. Christie, Kasich, and Walker are seeking to demonstrate that limited, financially responsible government is best for economic and societal health. If successful -- and we should all have high confidence that these governors will succeed -- the lessons will not be lost on voters and politicians in other states. Revolutions are like that; it takes just a few courageous leaders to embolden others and for revolutions to spread.
A marvelous, if unintended, consequence of this burgeoning conservative revolution is what it's doing to liberalism. The budding conservative revolution is starting to place strains on liberalism; beginning to make liberals and their allies fight defensive battles in multiple -- and multiplying -- places. Call this a modified Cloward-Piven -- or Cloward-Piven turned on its masters.
Challenging liberal governance, and pressing limited government reforms, will help bring down liberalism across the nation. And that should be an indisputable aim of the new conservative revolution. Liberalism became a pox on the nation years ago. Marginalizing liberalism would be an incomparable service to generations to come -- and to those kids being lied to now by too many Wisconsin teachers.
"Change We Can Believe In." Mr. Obama's slogan always had a nice ring to it, but it was misapplied and a little ahead of its time. With the conservative revolution, change we can really believe in has arrived. How's that for rich irony?
More:Print This Post
If we want to protect our rights and freedoms and even recoup much of what has been lost, the relentlessly expanding federal Leviathan needs to be tamed and substantially reduced in size. Its immensity is a perpetual threat to the individual and not what our Founding Fathers desired or envisioned. They presciently knew the threats of a larger, more invasive and powerful central government and warned against this happening.
We need to support and elect individuals like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) who declared in his response to Obama’s State of the Union address that: “We believe, as our founders did, that the pursuit of happiness depends on individual liberty, and individual liberty requires limited government.” Of its small role, he also opined that: “We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility.”
None of these conditions are being met today.
We must make them a reality!
Choice, Not Compromise
Terry Paulson 2/14/2011
Rep. Paul Ryan’s response to President Obama’s State of the Union provides a clue to the political battle that is coming: “The principles that guide us; they are anchored in the wisdom of the founders in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and in the words of the American Constitution. They have to do with the importance of limited government and with the blessing of self-government. We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility. We believe, as our founders did, that the pursuit of happiness depends on individual liberty, and individual liberty requires limited government.”
There is no compromise on opposite principles; it’s either empowered individuals or an all-powerful government. Thankfully the recent overreach by President Obama on healthcare reform, the Republican gains in November, and recent court decisions are moving things closer to a showdown in the Supreme Court and in the coming budget battle.
Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, Fla., concluded that it was unconstitutional for Congress to enact the Affordable Care Act that required Americans to obtain commercial insurance. Judge Vinson argues that to allow the law to stand, would fundamentally transform our constitutional scheme from limited to unlimited federal power and narrow the scope of individual liberty. In Judge Vinson's words, "the more harm the statute does, the more power Congress could assume for itself under the Necessary and Proper Clause. This result would,…allow Congress to exceed the powers specifically enumerated in Article I." A Supreme Court decision looms on the horizon.
As President Obama delivers his 2012 Budget this week, the battle will accelerate. With Republicans looking to cut the size and spending of government by cutting the funding for implementing the Affordable Care Act, additional stimulus investments, and relief for debt-ridden states, the battle of all battles will begin. Glenn Beck, in his well-documented book Broke, challenges conservatives to focus the fight on the Constitution and core principles. Our founding fathers fought for equal rights, not rights to benefit some at the expense of others.
Beck points to Ayn Rand for an easy way to distinguish whether a right is in accordance with the Constitution. After any right is proposed, simply ask the question “at whose expense?” Is there a universal right to a college education or healthcare? At whose expense? Your right to life and liberty was not to come at expense of anyone else. As Ayn Rand wrote, “The government was set to protect man from criminals, and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government.” Individual rights were to supersede any government power.
Could it be that government “help” has just escalated the cost of healthcare and education? While published college tuition and fees increased 439 percent from 1982 to 2007, the median family income rose only 147 percent and healthcare cost rose only 250%. Are those increases a result of true costs to improve education or are they a result of the fact that they can get away with such charges because government provides more loans and grants? Parents, students and taxpayers are left with more debt because government tries to “help” by throwing your money at the “problem!”
How can citizens afford the cost of college and healthcare? By keeping most of the money they now give to government.
John Stossel, in Give Me a Break, shows Federal spending from 1789 to 2003. The line is all but flat until World War II. When America began, government cost the average citizen $20 in today’s money. That’s $20 a year! Taxes rose during wars, but for most of the history of America spending never exceeded a few hundred dollars per citizen. During World War II, government got much bigger. It was supposed to shrink again after the war. It never did; it just kept expanding. In 2010, federal spending ($6.3 trillion) cost every man, woman and child in this country just under $20,000 a year! If you aren’t paying that, you’re making your neighbor pay your share!
It’s not too late. Support politicians who are fighting to take back America to what it was formed to be—a beacon for liberty and opportunity not an invitation to dependence on big government!
More:Print This Post
In the following editorial, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist by training, delivers a succinct but thorough and trenchant analysis and refutation of the charges made by liberals against conservatives as to their influential role in the committing of the Tucson massacre. This is the coup de grace to wildly unfounded and politically motivated accusations made by liberal and Progressives against the Tea Parties and higher profile conservatives like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
He also brilliantly trivializes and emasculates the intellectually and morally corrupt and uncontrollably partisan Progressive Paul Krugman along with the NY Times in addition to highlighting their hypocrisy.
Massacre, followed by libel
Charles Krauthammer January 12, 2011;
The charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the "climate of hate" created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the "climate of hate" created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare.
The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence.
As killers go, Jared Loughner is not reticent. Yet among all his writings, postings, videos and other ravings - and in all the testimony from all the people who knew him - there is not a single reference to any of these supposed accessories to murder.
Not only is there no evidence that Loughner was impelled to violence by any of those upon whom Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, the New York Times, the Tucson sheriff and other rabid partisans are fixated. There is no evidence that he was responding to anything, political or otherwise, outside of his own head.
A climate of hate? This man lived within his very own private climate. "His thoughts were unrelated to anything in our world," said the teacher of Loughner's philosophy class at Pima Community College. "He was very disconnected from reality," said classmate Lydian Ali. "You know how it is when you talk to someone who's mentally ill and they're just not there?" said neighbor Jason Johnson. "It was like he was in his own world."
His ravings, said one high school classmate, were interspersed with "unnerving, long stupors of silence" during which he would "stare fixedly at his buddies," reported the Wall Street Journal. His own writings are confused, incoherent, punctuated with private numerology and inscrutable taxonomy. He warns of government brainwashing and thought control through "grammar." He was obsessed with "conscious dreaming," a fairly good synonym for hallucinations.
This is not political behavior. These are the signs of a clinical thought disorder - ideas disconnected from each other, incoherent, delusional, detached from reality.
These are all the hallmarks of a paranoid schizophrenic. And a dangerous one. A classmate found him so terrifyingly mentally disturbed that, she e-mailed friends and family, she expected to find his picture on TV after his perpetrating a mass murder. This was no idle speculation: In class "I sit by the door with my purse handy" so that she could get out fast when the shooting began.
Furthermore, the available evidence dates Loughner's fixation on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to at least 2007, when he attended a town hall of hers and felt slighted by her response. In 2007, no one had heard of Sarah Palin.
Glenn Beck was still toiling on Headline News. There was no Tea Party or health-care reform. The only climate of hate was the pervasive post-Iraq campaign of vilification of George W. Bush, nicely captured by a New Republic editor who had begun an article thus: "I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it."
Finally, the charge that the metaphors used by Palin and others were inciting violence is ridiculous. Everyone uses warlike metaphors in describing politics. When Barack Obama said at a 2008 fundraiser in Philadelphia, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," he was hardly inciting violence.
Why? Because fighting and warfare are the most routine of political metaphors. And for obvious reasons. Historically speaking, all democratic politics is a sublimation of the ancient route to power - military conquest.
That's why the language persists. That's why we say without any self-consciousness such things as "battleground states" or "targeting" opponents. Indeed, the very word for an electoral contest - "campaign" - is an appropriation from warfare.
When profiles of Obama's first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, noted that he once sent a dead fish to a pollster who displeased him, a characteristically subtle statement carrying more than a whiff of malice and murder, it was considered a charming example of excessive - and creative - political enthusiasm. When Senate candidate Joe Manchin dispensed with metaphor and simply fired a bullet through the cap-and-trade bill - while intoning, "I'll take dead aim at [it]" - he was hardly assailed with complaints about violations of civil discourse or invitations to murder.
Did Manchin push Loughner over the top? Did Emanuel's little Mafia imitation create a climate for political violence? The very questions are absurd - unless you're the New York Times and you substitute the name Sarah Palin.
The origins of Loughner's delusions are clear: mental illness. What are the origins of Krugman's?
More:Print This Post