Health Insurance

As a true capitalist, I see no further legitimate purpose for health insurers.

All insurance companies are a form of legalized gambling that we tolerate only when it is socially beneficial. (Our modern society no longer has a 'barn raising' tradition to replace a neighbor's building in the event of a fire.)

So, like good capitalists, we pool our money and charter insurance companies to hold the bet. However, they are not permitted to take advantage of their role; since they are essentially casinos that can easily harm their customers.

That is why every state has an Insurance Commissioner.

Health insurance companies are currently keeping 30% of the take for themselves. They have breached the public trust. They employ over one half million persons that do not provide a good or service that BENEFITS the household. They are obsolete; and they know it.

They are putting up quite a fight. Why are right thinking Republicans on their side?

April 3, 1790. Senator William Maclay.

Journal Entry:

Went to the Hall. The minutes were read. A message was received from the President of the United States [Washington]. A report was handed to the Chair.

We looked and laughed at each other for half and hour, and adjourned.

Of course, we would not want to try something that works.

Just wish there were alternatives to Obamacare.

Hey Terry, does this give you any pause? Any at all?

What has happened in Mass is exactly what we, Conservatives, doctors, Capitalists, say is going to happen to the nation.

Patients need "skin in the game"

Jim/Capitalism/Socialism/Fascism

Capitalism is alive and well, Jim. I'm impressed with how resilient retail sales have been. Also, a savings rate of less than 5% is the not the behavior pattern of a panicked population. Consumer Q&A surveys aside; the consumer continues to spend.

It is very hard to follow the logic of your Capitalism/Socialism rhetoric. It is unintelligible for couple of reasons:

1) GW Bush was hardly the iconic champion of laissez faire capitalism.

2) The Obama administration has not taken the country in another direction. There has been very little change. In fact, that is the most common criticism -- where is the change?

Just in case you missed that class; we live in representative democracy. Our system of exchange is a heavily regulated interpretation of capitalism. That has been the case for our entire lives.

The biggest structural threat our government is facing right now is from non-politicians. Sixty thousand lobbyists sitting on 900 federal agency advisory panels have effectively taken over your government; and they do not have your best interests at heart.

Ten financials institutions now control over 75% of banking assets. The robber barrons have taken over; they own the congress. Ron Paul knows it. Paul Volcker knows it. Alan Greenspan knows it. Barack Obama knows it. Milton Freidman would have said -- get the money back and let them fail.

The big banks are not only too big to fail, they are now beyond the reach of meaningful regulatory reform. They are above the law.

Forget about Greece -- your country is in real trouble; and it has very little to do with Barack Obama's health care proposal.

Why isn't a sincere conservative like yourself outraged by a banking oligopoly? Tolerating oligopoly flies in the face of bedrock republican principles.

Please don't reply by cutting and pasting something from a publication owned by Rupert Murdoch. He makes William Randolph Hearst look like a piker wearing pajamas.

It is different now.

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama has signed a one-year extension of several provisions in the nation's main counterterrorism law, the Patriot Act.


Provisions in the measure would have expired on Sunday without Obama's signature Saturday.

The act, which was adopted in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, expands the government's ability to monitor Americans in the name of national security.

Three sections of the Patriot Act that stay in force will:

--Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.

--Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.

--Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

Obama's signature comes after the House voted 315 to 97 Thursday to extend the measure.

The Senate also approved the measure, with privacy protections cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government's authority to spy on Americans and seize their records.

Productivity Increases as a Cop Out

It has been said that Clinton simply benefitted from extraordinary productivity growth in the economy, thanks to the growth of personal computers, the dot coms and technology in general. I have pointed out that each post-war decade has had it's reasons to excel. The 1950's benefitted from post-war growth and the unequivocal US supremacy of the industrial world. We entered the jet age, which certainly enhanced our industrial productivity.

The '60's was the age of IBM and Xerox and the Nifty Fifty. The '70's were ugly thanks to the oil shocks. The '80's saw the boomers come of age - there was a huge growth in family formations and then, the earliest of the generation entered their peak earning years. The '90's did benefit from technological gains, but the growth was not unique. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the 2000's saw greater productivity gains than the preceding decade.

I went to the OECD to check on annual US productivity gains, and the data went back to 1985:

1985 - 1990: .7

1990 - 2000: .9

2001 - 2008: 1.4

So - I hope this puts to rest the idea that the 1990's were some sort of unnatural era in productivity growth. They weren't. However, our government tax and spending policies were disciplined for the first time in a generation, at great political cost to the adults in the room.

There is no global warming

Another two feet of snow!

Greece, NY, CA can the good old USA be far behind?

Tax and spend. Taxing and spending. Taxing begat spending? Regardless of the grammar, Liberal tax and spend policies and class warfare for political gain always ends with the same result.


Move over, New Jersey, you're getting a run for your tax money as the nation's most dysfunctional state from the once great mecca of commerce and finance known as New York. Politics in the Empire State has become a carnival of spendthrifts, sexual miscreants and the all-purpose ethically challenged.

In the latest sign that the Apocalypse is upon Albany, New York Governor David Paterson announced yesterday that he won't seek election to a full term in November only two weeks after he had announced that he would. Mr. Paterson, a Democrat who became governor in March 2008 after Eliot Spitzer resigned in a prostitution scandal, has spent the past two years lurching from one fiasco to the next.

Mr. Paterson's troubles have been catnip for "Saturday Night Live," but the state's voters are laughing to keep from crying. New York's budget deficit is an estimated $8.2 billion, due in no small part to state spending that has risen by nearly 70%, or $35 billion, over the past decade. The recent financial crisis has exposed the state's overreliance on tax revenue from Wall Street.

THE HEALTH CARE DEBATE

I stayed up till midnight last night watching the entire health care debate and came away with 5 observations.
1. While Pelosi, and Reid, are IDIOTS, there is no shortage on the other side. John Boehner, Jon Kyle, are right up there with them.
2. Obama is the best spokesman for the Democratic position on health care. He knows the bill.
3. Republicans can't stop preaching fear to the American people. They did it during Bush and are doing it again.
4. There is more than a philosophical difference between the Republican position and the Democratic position. They just want to win the next election period.
5.PROPS,CODE WORDS, LIKE WASHINGTON,WELFARE,SOCIALISM are keeping the Fear going and stop the bill going forward.
Where were all these Republicans when you had the Presidency and the Congress, and your concern about health care then that you profess so deeply about now.
Oh! I forgot your agenda then was WAR, TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY SO THEIR COULD BE TRICKLE DOWN.
By the way how are those tax breaks you passed doing now shouldn't we be enjoying the prosperity you promised.

WSJ

ATHENS—Greek police clashed with youths in central Athens Wednesday as tens of thousands of people took to the streets in protest at the Socialist government's austerity measures.
The strike has affected transport and public services, with government offices, schools and universities all shut and travel around the capital, Athens, disrupted. Athens International Airport was also closed as air traffic controllers joined the action, with no flights in and out of the country's airports. Train, bus and ferry services were canceled nationwide.
Protesters clash with riot police during a demonstration in Athens on Wednesday. Greece ground to a halt as unions staged a one-day general strike and thousands of demonstrators took to the streets to protest austerity measures designed to tame a public debt crisis.
Banks are also expected to be affected while state hospitals will operate on skeleton staffing. No newspapers will be published because the journalists' union is taking part too.

"In many industries participation in the strike is 100%. Many banks in the center are closed or are operating with skeleton staff," said Stathis Anestis, spokesman for private sector umbrella union ADEDY. "It shows that the working people are totally against the government's austerity plans. We understand the difficulties in the economy, but the average worker can't give anything more. If the EU wants more measures, the rich and those who evade taxes should pay for it."

Another Looney Left Quote - Harry Reid - Planet Liberal

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/82803-reid-men-when-theyre-out-of-work-tend-to-become-abusive

Funny comments afterward:

Voters, when they are being scrwd by their government, tend to tar and feather their politicians and run them out of town on a rail.BY KMichaels on 02/22/2010 at 19:12

I guess Reid will find out soon enough.BY MD on 02/22/2010 at 19:12

I am curious to hear his views of the favorite foods of African Americans.BY saintknowitall on 02/22/2010 at 19:12

Harry will become more "abusive" soon enough.BY CCPony on 02/22/2010 at 19:12

This man is totally out of touch with reality I can't believe he is a Senator The people of his State should be embarassed of his representation.BY Jon Ross on 02/22/2010 at 19:13

Well Harry, after November let's see if you can become anymore abusive than you have been to date.BY Al J on 02/22/2010 at 19:14

the man is an idiot. Nevada deserves him. Lets see if they are willing to get rid of the moron come November.BY Jack on 02/22/2010 at 19:14

Why won't he just die? How anyone could vote for this moron is beyond me…BY Roderick on 02/22/2010 at 19:14

I've tried for over ten years to get Harry Reid to get psychiatric help. The man is insane. I'm certainly hoping that Nevadans will show him the door next election. The man is certainly an embarrassment to the wonderful citizens of Nevada.BY RightStuff on 02/22/2010 at 19:14
What would Reid know about being a man?

A bad deal

They always are and always will be.  Let me guess, Harvard Economics is not as astute as Harvard Law Review.

Another Republican Officeholder Speaks Out

Apparently, disabled kids are God's punishment for abortion. So says Virginia State Rep Bob Marshall (R)

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/02/22/virginia-delegate-handicapped-children-are-gods-punishment-women

Two Statesmen: Simpson & Petraeus

I have enjoyed hearing from two statesman over the past two days. The first - General Petraeus - opposes "enhanced interrogation techniques" on MTP stating that we need to "live our values" and when we don't, we ended up getting "bitten on the backside." I guess it is just like our parents told us growing up - we need to do the right thing especially when it is inconvenient. That is the test of integrity.

Alan Simpson (R) was interviewed by Maria Bartiromo today and said something like "don't tell me to find the savings in earmarks, foreign aid and waste, fraud and abuse. That is a cop-out that doesn't add up to 2%." He said he is going after the "Big Three" - Entitlements, Social Security and Medicare. Discretionary spending is now such a small part of the budget, that it is the last place you'd look for meaningful savings. "It will be very bloody," says the former Senator from Wyoming.

So, fellow bloggers, are we part of the problem or part of the solution? Shall we live by cop-outs and disingenuous rhetoric or will we honestly set about solving our problems at home and abroad?

History

History

Perfect

Agree

The Fat Lady Has Sung

• MySpace
• Yahoo! Bu
• PerHOMAS L. FRIE

A small news item from Tracy, Calif., caught my eye last week. Local station CBS 13 reported: “Tracy residents will now have to pay every time they call 911 for a medical emergency. But there are a couple of options. Residents can pay a $48 voluntary fee for the year, which allows them to call 911 as many times as necessary. Or there’s the option of not signing up for the annual fee. Instead they will be charged $300 if they make a call for help.”

Welcome to the lean years.
Yes, sir, we’ve just had our 70 fat years in America, thanks to the Greatest Generation and the bounty of freedom and prosperity they built for us. And in these past 70 years, leadership — whether of the country, a university, a company, a state, a charity, or a township — has largely been about giving things away, building things from scratch, lowering taxes or making grants.
But now it feels as if we are entering a new era, “where the great task of government and of leadership is going to be about taking things away from people,” said the Johns Hopkins University foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum.
Indeed, to lead now is to trim, to fire or to downsize services, programs or personnel. We’ve gone from the age of government handouts to the age of citizen givebacks, from the age of companions fly free to the age of paying for each bag.
Let’s just hope our lean years will only number seven. That will depend a lot on us and whether we rise to the economic challenges of this moment. Our parents truly were the Greatest Generation. We, alas, in too many ways, have been what the writer Kurt Andersen called “The Grasshopper Generation,” eating through the prosperity that was bequeathed us like hungry locusts. Now we and our kids together need to be “The Regeneration” — the generation that renews, refreshes, re-energizes and rebuilds America for the 21st century.

Brit Hume will be Disappointed

The news of the day was Tiger Woods mea culpa, which received extensive airtime on all of the news networks. I confess, I just don't get it. He obviously owes his wife an apology and probably his sponsors, but everyone else? I know he is a "public figure" which carries with it less legal protections regarding slander and libel, but does the public have any moral right to be involved in this very private and personal matter?

He apparently rejected Brit Hume's extremely presumptuous advice to ditch his faith for Christianity, but still felt compelled to talk about his Buddhist upbringing today. I was embarrassed by the blanket coverage and what a shallow, nosy population we have become. Can't a great athlete ply his craft without signing on for all the drama? As a society, we have a lot of nerve thinking it is our business. What am I missing? Am I wrong?

Obama - strength you can believe in

OUT THE BACK DOOR DALAI; DON'T SLIP ON THE GARBAGE!

One More Reason to Ditch the Filibuster

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=125514

Chart - (source Congressional Budget Office)

Chart

Team of Rivals

Mark:

Obama gets his playbook from Abraham Lincoln. (Doris Kearns Goodwin's -- Team of Rivals.) You bring together politicians that can't stand each other, you let them fight; only after the people have figured it out do you announce the big decision. It infuriates onlookers who call for your head along the way, but it gives the nation the catharsis it needs to choose between unpleasant options.

Obama is not planning on doing nothing this year; he's going for the brass ring.

And I agree with you. TIME IS UP!

Your kidding right?

Eric seems to pine for a new party.  Baxter says: "we just need to tax more"

Eric, there is a party of fiscal conservativism, at least in theory, it is called the Republican party.   The Tea Party movement, at its core, is about too much spending and too much government control.  Yes, like in all groups there are fringe elements, but their ideas are great. 

Baxter, you keep taunting about the cuts necessary to balance the budget and, without consenting to your incorrect assumption that we cannot grow out of the deficit, how about you answer this one?...we cannot get them (congress) to make the simple choices, like cutting earmarks and freezing growth, so, if your narvana of increased taxes is acheived, why, and as you are making your taunting comments, I taunt you back, should any citizen think that they will ever make spending cuts?  And I might add, America agrees with me!

So freeze spending,
reform entitlements
eliminate earmarks
stop and save (great word save) the rest of the porkulus.

Now...that may not balance the budget, but it would not "hurt". I think the tea party and Conservatives are saying...spending cuts first.

The "commission" is just going to dance around, avoiding hard decisions or if they do make them, they will not pass muster in the Congress and all this will be is an exercise in "agnostic" tax hikes.

Eric, there is a party who attempts to address spending, has so for years. Remember when the Republican Congress tried to limit the growth of automatic spending increases? The Democrats of course demagogues the issue. Rich, spending restraint denier that he is, always forgets those little gems.

Final point, Rich keeps noting that we would have been out of debt if we had kept tax rates the same (not!), but we also would be out of debt IF WE HAD CONTROLLED SPENDING!  Specifically, the growth of government spending and if we give the beast, a beast which has never, NEVER, controlled its appetite, more, it will just spend it and we will be right back in the same place.

Eric, you seem a reasonable sort, I know Rich has a genetic, wrong word genetic, his Mom agrees with me, inherent defect, but you see this don't you?

Can "O" do it or will arrogance rule the day!

Time to pay the piper for a guy who spent all year messing with Health Care while people want jobs (where is Carville when you need him). Maybe he can put them all back to work for the federal government. It's crunch time baby! Bring it!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069911762940080.html

George Will Talks Populism

I guess that George Will and I occasionally make the same point; "...populism, a celebration of intellectual ordinariness. This is not a stance that will strengthen the Republican Party, which recently has become ruinously weak among highly educated whites."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021703507.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

18-member National Commission of Fiscal Responsibility

Do we really need a commission to tell us to stop spending? My god, when you are not bringing in enough revenue - CUT BACK SPENDING. Can Obama make a decision or not, where is the leadership? If he wants to raise taxes (I disagree, but that's not the point) then do it - you and your party have the power. Don't have 60 votes (excuses excuses) do it by reconciliation. Strap on a pair of balls. Typical indecisive Liberal. Use Executive powers, just do it. You can no longer just vote "present". It is obvious he is in way over his head, incapable of making a decision and seeking cover by appointing a commission. Maybe we should quit hiring more and more union government employees at incredible pay rates. And then, maybe he should take a page from Chris Christie and make hard decisions. People gravitate towards decision makers.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/02/chris_christies_speech_on_budg.html

Alan K. Simpson has got it Right

The president is not giving up. On Thursday, administration officials say, he will sign an executive order establishing the 18-member National Commission of Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. He also will name as co-chairmen Alan K. Simpson, a former Republican Senate leader from Wyoming, and Erskine Bowles, a moderate Democrat from North Carolina who, as President Bill Clinton’s White House chief of staff, brokered a 1997 balanced budget agreement with Congressional Republicans.

“There isn’t a single sitting member of Congress — not one — that doesn’t know exactly where we’re headed,” Mr. Simpson said in a telephone interview Tuesday just before word of his role got out. “And to use the politics of fear and division and hate on each other — we are at a point right now where it doesn’t make a damn whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican if you’ve forgotten you’re an American.”

While he criticized some liberal Democrats’ refusal to reduce entitlement benefits, Mr. Simpson also dismissed Republicans’ antitax arguments that deficits could be controlled with spending cuts alone. “But they don’t cut spending,” he said, referring to the years Republicans governed with President George W. Bush.

One More Dispatch from Planet Republican

South Carolina Lawmaker Seeks to Ban Federal Currency

South Carolina Rep. Mike Pitts has introduced legislation that would mandate that gold and silver coins replace federal currency as legal tender in his state.

As the Palmetto Scoop first reported, Pitts, a Republican, introduced legislation this month banning "the unconstitutional substitution of Federal Reserve Notes for silver and gold coin" in South Carolina.

In an interview, Pitts told Hotsheet that he believes that "if the federal government continues to spend money at the rate it's spending money, and if it continues to print money at the rate it's printing money, our economic system is going to collapse."

"The Germans felt their system wouldn't collapse, but it took a wheelbarrow of money to buy a loaf of bread in the 1930s," he said. "The Soviet Union didn't think their system would collapse, but it did. Ours is capable of collapsing also."

The lawmaker believes that a shift to an economy based on gold and silver coins would give the state a "base of currency" should that collapse come. As one expert told the Scoop, however, his bill would likely be ruled unconstitutional because it "violates a perfectly legal and Constitutional federal law, enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, that federal reserve notes are legal tender for all debts public and private."

In addition, since gold and silver regularly fluctuate in value, they could not easily function as stable currency.

But Pitts maintains that his state is better off with something he can hold in his hand and barter with as opposed to federal currency, which he described to the Scoop as "paper with ink on it." He says he resents what he considers the federal government's intrusions on states' rights.

Though he did not offer a timeframe, Pitts told Hotsheet that he anticipates a nationwide economic collapse "if our federal government continues the course it's been traveling under the previous administration and this administration."

WASHINGTON—Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, an influential Democrat who carved out a rare role at the political center, announced Monday that he won't seek a third term, dealing a blow to a party already facing the prospect of big losses in November's congressional elections.

"What am I going to do?  If I create one job in the private sector, I will have done more than this Congress has in the past 6 months".

Past the grave yard

As Long as We Are Cutting and Pasting

Jeffrey Sachs tells us how to Tame the Deficit

Cuts they protest too much.

Interesting for those who bother to read the whole document.

Rich, cut and paste is a great way to start a conversation.

Now...we talked about this...be nice.

Pay-Go Ho Ho....BS. Obama signs Pay-Go law but also raises federal debt ceiling

President Barack Obama on Saturday congratulated Congress for restoring a requirement that the federal government spend only what it can afford — a day after authorizing $1.9 trillion more federal debt.
Obama used his weekly radio address to report that he signed into law on Friday night the legislation commonly known on Capitol Hill as “Pay-Go,” which has been used sporadically over the past 20 years by congressional budget-writers. Obama also repeated his call for $20 billion in budget cuts, a freeze in certain government spending, and the creation of a fiscal commission.

But it was the pay-go legislation that highlighted the address. Obama credited the concept with the balanced budgets of the 1990s and its abandonment for the deficits of the past decade. He signed the law as part of a larger measure that raised the government’s debt ceiling from $12.4 trillion to $14.3 trillion, as Congress authorized in a divisive vote last month. Obama’s address did not mention the debt ceiling increase.

Progressives and the Growing Dependency Agenda By George Will

WASHINGTON -- Only two things are infinite -- the expanding universe and Democrats' hostility to the District of Columbia's school choice program. Killing this small program, which currently benefits 1,300 mostly poor and minority children, is odious and indicative. It is a small piece of something large -- the Democrats' dependency agenda, which aims to multiply the ways Americans are dependent on government.  Democrats, in their canine devotion to teachers unions, oppose empowering poor children to escape dependency on even terrible government schools. Unions and their poodles say school choice siphons money from public schools. But federal money funds D.C.'s program, so killing it denies education money to D.C. while increasing the number of pupils D.C. must support.


Most Democrats favor a "public option" -- a government health insurance program. They say there is insufficient competition among the 1,300 private providers of insurance, so people should not be dependent on those insurers. But tuition vouchers redeemable at private as well as public schools is a "private option" providing minimal competition with public schools. Government, with 89 percent of the pupils, dominates education grades K through 12. So, do Democrats favor vouchers to reduce American's dependence on government education? Of course not.

For congressional Democrats, however, expanding dependency on government is an end in itself. They began the Obama administration by expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It was created for children of the working poor but the expansion made millions of middle-class children eligible -- some in households earning $125,000. The aim was to swell the number of people who grow up assuming that dependency on government health care is normal.

Many Democrats favor -- as Barack Obama did in 2003 -- a "single-payer" health insurance system, which means universal dependency on government. The "public option" insurance proposal was to be a step toward that. So was the proposed "alternative" of making 55- to 64-year-olds eligible for Medicare. Both of these dependency multipliers will be revived.
As will the Democrats' drive for "cramdown" legislation that would empower government (courts) to shred mortgage contracts, thereby making borrowers eager to embrace dependency on judges. Soon, the two most important financial decisions most families make -- to get a mortgage and a college tuition loan -- will almost always be transactions with the government.
The government used TARP funds not for their stipulated purpose of buying the "toxic assets" of banks, but to pull auto companies and other economic entities into the spreading web of dependency. Servile -- because dependent -- banks were pliable during the farce of Chrysler's bankruptcy, but secured creditors resisted when settled law was disregarded. Nevertheless, those creditors received less per dollar than did an unsecured creditor, the United Auto Workers, which relishes dependency on government as an alternative to economic realism.
Democrats' "reforms" of the financial sector may aim to reduce financial institutions to dependent appendages of the government. By reducing banks to public utilities, credit, which is the lifeblood of capitalism, could be priced and allocated by government.
Many Democrats are untroubled by governments' rampant abuses of eminent-domain powers. Wealthy interests embrace dependency on collaborative governments that seize property from less wealthy people and transfer it to those wealthy interests who will pay more taxes to those governments.
Many Democrats, opposing the Supreme Court, advocate new campaign finance "reforms" that will further empower government to regulate the quantity, timing and content of speech about government. Otherwise voters will hear more such speech than government considers good for them. Such paternalism is American progressivism's oldest tradition.
A century ago, Herbert Croly published "The Promise of American Life," a book -- still in print -- that was prophetic about today's progressives. Contemplating with distaste America's "unregenerate citizens," he said "the average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to a serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities."
Subordination is dependency seen from above. Today, it is seen approvingly by progressives imposing, from above, their dependency agenda.

Sorry, could not stay away. This does not describe Freedom and Eric, if Freedom is your thing, perhaps you need to attend the next "tea party" event.  As Rich(ie) opines away about national debt and raising taxes without ever even seeingly to consider the function of government and crazy Rich and Terry just crave this stuff (I guess), our Freedom is being taken from us.  Boy I hope he fails!

Part two in reforming congress

Congressional Reform Act of 2010 1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two
Year House terms

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

2. No Tenure / No Pension:

A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

3. Congress (past, present & future)
participates in Social Security:

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a
career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, server your
term(s), then go home and back to work.


4. Congress can purchase their own
retirement plan just as all Americans.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a
career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your
term(s), then go home and back to work.


5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a
pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a
career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your
term(s), then go home and back to work.

6. Congress looses their current health care
system and participates in the same health care system as the American
people.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a
career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your
term(s), then go home and back to work.


7. Congress must equally abide in all laws
they impose on the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a
career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your
term(s), then go home and back to work.

8. All contracts with past and present
congressmen are void effective 1/1/11 .

The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a
career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your
term(s), then go home and back to work.

It would be nice

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!!

A friend sent this along to me. I can't think of a reason to disagree.

I am sending this to virtually everybody on
my e-mail list and that includes conservatives, liberals, and everybody in
between. Even though we disagree on a number of issues, I count all of you
as friends. My friend and neighbor wants to promote a "Congressional Reform
Act of 2009". It would contain eight provisions, all of which would probably
be strongly endorsed by those who drafted the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights.

I know many of you will say, "this is impossible". Let me remind you, Congress has the lowest approval of any entity in Government, now is the time when Americans will join together to reform Congress - the entity that represents us.

We need to get a Senator to introduce this bill in the US Senate and a Representative to introduce a similar bill in the US House. These people will become American hero's..

Thanks,

A Fellow American

Very good, from the WSJ Jimmy says bye till next Tuesday.

The Scalia v. Stevens Smackdown   In President Obama's view, corporations are anathema not even George W. Bush—has sent liberaldom screaming into the streets more than the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The Court's ruling that corporations have a free-speech right to express opinions about politicians running for office really let the furies out.
President Obama's in-their-face criticism of the Supreme Court over Citizens United at his State of the Union speech got pundits on every blogger barstool chattering about the propriety of this public smackdown.

America's Democrats and Republicans, crudely defined, are with this presidency and this Congress living today on opposite sides of a moon that they both call the United States.

Says it like it is...

'Well you see, Norm, it's like this .. ... . A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells.. Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers.'

Baxter's last post

Hey you guys have to see this - it's Looney Tunes! Take a look below it's hillarious, I'm showing everyone at the office!

An Example of the Paranoid Right

I received this today in my email inbox.

A GOOD REASON why Obama would want a Civilian Court Trial for all Muslim Terrorists?

Have you wondered why Barack Hussein Obama has insisted that the U.S. Attorney General hold the trials for the 911 Murdering Muslims Terrorists in Civilian Courts as Common Criminals instead of as Terrorists who attacked the United States of America ? Think about this:

If the Muslim Terrorists are tried in Military Tribunals, convicted, and sentenced to DEATH by the Military Tribunal, BY LAW of the United States , Barack Hussein Obama, as President of the United States , would be required to SIGN their Death Warrants before they could be EXECUTED. He would not be required to sign the death warrants if sentenced to death by a Civilian Court .

Think about the Muslim Jihadist, Major Hassan who slaughtered his fellow soldiers at Ft.. Hood , Texas . Major Hassan did not want to go to Afghanistan and be a part of anything that could lead to the deaths of fellow Muslims. He stated that Muslims could not and should not KILL FELLOW MUSLIMS. Is the motive for Barack Hussein Obama's decision to make sure he doesn't have to sign the death warrants for the Muslim Terrorists? Why would he, as President of the United States , not want to sign the death warrants for Muslim Terrorists who attacked the United States and MURDERED over 3,000 innocent United States Citizens on 911?

Could it be that he is FORBIDDEN BY HIS RELIGION to have anything to do with the execution of Muslims?

Think about that!!! Join me in opening our ears, eyes, and minds to what THEIR President is doing. PLEASE pass this along to your friends if you agree that this sounds reasonable. Makes one wonder, doesn't it!!!

John W. King, Attorney at Law

Jim: I play golf, belong to clubs, have friends, young and old;

schucks, I can get on at the Bridges. I also pay mucho taxes, give to charities, go to church with my kids, write letters to my aunt. Last year I payed Arthur Laffer a $20,000 honorarium to speak at my professional organization meeting. He recently relocated from San Diego to Nashville where his wife is a college professor.

Bax:

THIS IS WHAT I NEED FROM DEMOCRATS THIS WEEK.

I want the congressional majority to stand up and admit, one right after the other, that there needs to be a $5 copay for every medicare doctor visit, every medication, every injection, every trip to emergency. I want $5 more for every seniors' medical event. I want it passed by both houses and on the president's desk next week.

Jim:

THIS IS WHAT I NEED FROM REPUBLICANS THIS WEEK.

I want the minority party to get my money back from the banks. The money that Hank Paulson gave them and the rest. Since the investment banks obviously have no regard for the sanctity of public dollars, I expect the Republicans to use a little spine and be heavy handed about it. I want the banks taxed, fined or threatened with sanctions. Obama's plan or any other. I want it passed right now. This week; next week at the absolute latest.


FYI - Jim: Yesterday, in response to my post, you used both fascism and socialism almost interchangeably. They are very different. I'm sure about this because, among other things, I have a Bachelors Degree in Philosophy. Regardless, it is just useless slander. Divisive. Not accurate.

Its not just that we told you so

It is that we said that the left was playing dangerous politics with the security of this country and that the useful idiots (Pacifists and the young who seem to have never seen evil) who had so much "hope" were living in a dream world, which if their dreams were to come true, would expose this country to much danger.  I give "o" credit for seeing the light.

WSJ  I think that the most important thing for the public to understand, is we're not handling any of these cases any different than the Bush administration handled them all through 9/11. d Mr. Obama went on to add that "190 folks"—folks presumably just like the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks—had been tried and convicted in civilian court during Mr. Bush's tenure.


Leave aside, for just a moment, the substance. Far more arresting is that Mr. Obama now defends himself by invoking a man he has spent the past year blaming for al Qaeda's growth. You know—all those Niebuhrian speeches about how America had gone "off course," "shown arrogance and been dismissive," and "made decisions based on fear rather than foresight," thus handing al Qaeda a valuable recruiting tool.

sara's back & to correct ol' buddy jim, did not leave 'over a word' but over the disdain some of you have for ideologies other than your own. we ALL suffer that notion because it is 'safe' for us. but 'cop out' is uncomfortable for ol' sara.

for example, we get caught up in 'left' & 'right' which in today's jargon connotes political PARTIES instead of political POWER i.e. the 'parties' would reflect 'communism on the left' & 'fascism on the right'. fortunately, our founding fathers used a POWER continuum which had 'ruler's law' (tyranny) on the left and 'no law' (anarchy) on the right. The objective of the founders was to discover the 'balanced center' between these two extremes or a 'peoples law'.

is not this something we should consider as we express our notions & sometimes fears? ol' sara suspects that the MA election reflected a rejection of 'tyranny' rather than 'political support' for the republican agenda. perhaps something to consider.

cheers...

Just my Opinion

Bax/Jim: Not every news cycle is interesting. Yesterday and today are great examples. Sometimes the weather is the story. Although I'm sure you guys can argue about the weather, as well. I'm still waiting for your politicians to do something useful. I'm at work today, like every day, paying my taxes to fund; a seniors' pension scheme and free medical programs that I may never live long enough to share in; 700 foreign military bases, 40 of which are valued at over 1.5 billion dollars each -- while our allies contribute incredibly little; a bloated pathetic Federal government -- that has been shrinking for several administrations, if anyone else owns an Almanac -- but that could still be cut in half tomorrow; a failed educational system controlled by local school boards that ban "Catcher in the Rye" because the board members are, yes, undereducated dolts. Antiquated infrastructure. Insufficient funding for basic research. Tax breaks for obese farmers. Dirty air everywhere. A budget deficit that was easy to predict over 30 years ago. Lobbyists so numerous and so successful that even Paul Volcker doesn't carry enough water to merely prevent banks from speculating with deposits. Forget about registering $50 trillion in credit default swap bets made by corporations that don't even own the underlying bonds.

Are you partisans kidding me? Do you actually think it is the 'other party'? Your relentless bickering is damaging my country.

I'm taking about people who spend their time, eating in nice restaurants, golfing, whining about their taxes, while 1600 homeless teenagers slept somewhere outside in San Diego last night. Too old for foster care, too young for welfare; they show up at County services and are told that they are 'merely homeless.' They are routinely forced into 'survival sex' by low rent predators and porn producers. They sleep in the park, far apart, because they are afraid of one another.

I met a kid, a US citizen, born in the US to an unmarried mexican woman. She took him and his sister back to live in Mexico. Sixteen years later both the mother and sister are deceased. Two years ago, this kid was found by charity workers sleeping in the park. They got him a bed in an overcrowded shelter so that he could go to high school. He's smart and says he wants to be a doctor. Now 18, he supposed to leave the shelter with nowhere to go, no family.

I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, and my TV gets Fox news and some other irrelevant crap owned by six huge companies. So what.

Excuse me, I have to go check on the hard working legal immigrants downstairs hammering drywall. Enjoy lunch at the club today. Partisans.

Poll on Fox News Sunday

On Sunday, Chris Wallace interviewed Sarah Palin in the first segment of Fox News Sunday. FNC put up a poll that showed Palin at the head of the pack in 2012 Republican preferences. If you are wondering who conducted the poll, it was Research 2000, the respected and non-partisan pollster that also conducted the recent poll that the GOP found embarrassing. So - the FNC talking heads bashed the 23% of-Republicans-want-to-secede poll but when they wanted a poll for their flagship Sunday morning political show, they used... Research 2000.

If the 2012 Primary for President were held today, which of the following would you vote for?
Sarah Palin 16%
Mitt Romney 11%
Dick Cheney 10%
Newt Gingrich 7%
Mike Huckabee 7%
Tim Pawlenty 3%
Ron Paul 2%
John Thune 2%
Undecided 42%

Dick Cheney's revenge. WSJ

The Administration has tried to break from its predecessors on several big antiterror issues, and it is on those that it is suffering the humiliation of having to walk back from its own righteous declarations. This is Dick Cheney's revenge. Begin with Mr. Obama's executive order, two days after his inauguration, to shut the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay within one year. The President issued this command before undertaking a study to determine how or even whether his goal was feasible. In his May speech, Mr. Obama declared, "The record is clear: Rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security."   Mr. Obama's deadline has come and gone, and Guantanamo remains open. In part this is the result of political opposition from Americans—including many Congressional Democrats—who understandably do not want terrorists in their backyards. Congress may never appropriate the money to close Gitmo, and Mr. Obama never mentioned the prison in his State of the Union address.
The Administration similarly has been backing away from its intention, announced in November, to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other enemy combatants in civilian court a few blocks from Ground Zero. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who at first endorsed the trials, has since reversed himself and urged the Administration to "do the right thing" and move the trials somewhere else, preferably to a military base.
When NBC's Chuck Todd asked him in November to respond to those who took offense at granting KSM the full constitutional protections due a civilian defendant, the President replied: "I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him." Mr. Obama later claimed he meant "if," not "when," but he undercut his own pretense of showcasing the fairness of American justice.
There is a real possibility, too, that convictions would be overturned on technicalities. KSM and other prospective defendants were subjected to interrogation techniques that, while justifiable in irregular war, would be forbidden in an ordinary criminal investigation. Mr. Holder said: "Failure is not an option." A judge may not feel the same way, and the Administration is derelict if it is as unprepared for the contingency as Mr. Holder indicated.
In the event of an acquittal or an overturned conviction, it would be entirely legitimate under the laws of war to continue holding KSM and the others as enemy combatants. But this would defeat the moral rationale of a trial and require the Administration to explain why it was continuing to detain men whose guilt it had failed to establish in court.
A third policy under increasing criticism is the Administration's approach to interrogation. In August, Mr. Holder announced that he had appointed a special prosecutor to investigate—or rather re-investigate—allegations of abuse by CIA interrogators. At the same time, Mr. Obama declared that responsibility for interrogating detainees would shift from the CIA to a new, FBI-led High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, which would employ only tactics that are "noncoercive" or approved by the Army Field manual.
Then came the attempted Christmas bombing and the revelation that the new interrogation group is not fully operational and won't be for months. Not that it would have had a chance to question Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. On Mr. Holder's order, investigators immediately classified him as a criminal defendant. After interrogating him for just 50 minutes, they advised him of his right to remain silent, which he promptly exercised.
Fifty minutes was plenty of time, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs assured "Fox News Sunday" viewers last month: "Abdulmutallab was interrogated, and valuable intelligence was gotten as a result of that interrogation." Mr. Holder told Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in a letter last week that Abdulmutallab "more recently . . . has provided additional intelligence to the FBI"—which is encouraging if true, but makes Mr. Gibbs's earlier assurance look empty.

One of Scott Brown's most potent campaign themes in Massachusetts was his line that "Some people believe our Constitution exists to grant rights to terrorists who want to harm us. I disagree." Mr. Brown even endorsed waterboarding.

The Power of Iconography

Here is a thought-provoking video regarding the branding of Obama. Worth a watch, particularly in light of coming events.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdtqtfXdR-c

All the best,

Hags

Abortion

Let's talk about something easier.  Abortion, that is easy right?  Its wrong.

I mean, if you end the life of a baby after it is born, it is wrong.  Right?

So, the day before, still wrong.  Right?

So, what babies are born after their 6th month?

And yes, by the logical extension of my logic, life begins at conception.

No it is not practical and I can see both sides, but let's be honest, it is wrong.

I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

No, Rich is not a bigot, not even remotely.  As the person who knows him best (perhaps excepting Eric) on the blog I can, without reservation, state that despite his Liberal view of the "issues" he does not have a racist-bigoted bone in his body.
His issues are not the "issue".

But before I rip into Rich, let me chide my fellow bloggers. Sara left over the word evolution and Tom over an misunderstanding that Rich was referring to Sara as a Redneck, when he was (sarcastically) wishing her well for her Nashville speech this past weekend.  Honestly, not much there.

Hags (and of course you are entitled to your opinion) seems to be making much over complementing Jewish Democrats for their intelligence. You have a point, especially as you contrasted it to a hypothetical derisive comment about blacks, but that makes for debate and growth and well...a political blog, not disengagement.

But Rich, you have driven out/pissed off 4 fellow bloggers, a blog you love to participate in and are a valuable contributor.  Folks have posted stuff about condescending liberals.  Replies have been written that you respond without seeming to have read what is actually in our posts.  You make fun of my spelling:),  So, get a clue Lou, we are not running for office, we are having a debate.  Be nicer.

OK, kiss, kiss, hug, hug, all done, now lets get back to business.

Wow!

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/08/smallbusiness/l3c_low_profit_companies/index.htm

Eric you may not like cut and paste...

But this says it all, this is what we are arguing about.

And as "o" fiddles, Rome burns.  Conservatives are the only ones making an argument about limited government.  Rich's tax schemes and income redistribution will only go so far. 

Rich, no one from your side, no one (except you a little) is talking about limiting entitlements.  Remember grandma and dog food.  Remember the resistance to $17 B in cuts.

We are going broke and no one will stand up and say STOP.

We have not taxed too little, we have entitled too much.

 

Rich seems to argue that because we are not willing to comb through the budget we are unable to opine.

Some points, random at best.

The left of this country has consistently stood in the way of spending controls.  This is where I usually trot out the grandma eating dog food example.  What evidence is there that they/we will ever change.

I'm all for reductions in corporate welfare but just like earmarks, that is not where the meat of the budget lies.

He also seems to agrue that we cannot cut our way out of the deficit and therefore need to raise taxes (he really does!).  However, and while I am glad to admit that I am not anxious to pour over the budget, (could however) he seem oblivious to the fact that spending has spiked and a great way to cut the budget is to reduce it to former levels.  After these orgies of spending increases, spending cuts never happen.  If we tax more, we are just going to ratchet spending up even more!

The left always ignores what has happened to CA and Greece (and France and Spain and New Jersey).

So to be clear Mr. Cricket, I have answered your question, many times.  So have the Conservatives Mr Will speaks about.  You just chose not to hear.

One thing we can all agree on - The Who Was The Best 1/2 Time Show Ever!

The Cynical Misuse of the Words Bigot and Racist

Websters says that a bigot is “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”

Calling someone a bigot is certainly an insult and much worse if the party uttering the word absolutely knows better. That is cynicism at its deepest level.

The sexist accusation is just silly. My arm was bruised the other night as Jim continually pointed out “the show” from his smoking hot 2nd row seats at the Suns game. Not that I didn’t appreciate the heads up…

I also looked up the term racist, and Websters says,
“1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination.”
Clearly, I said no such thing. In a moment of anger, Hags overreached and made a scurrilous accusation as a way of lashing out. When I posted my answer to his question, I worried that he may respond with an “I’m outta here” purely on the basis that I think my party is more thoughtful and intelligent than his. Please see my Obama/Palin response to his “Why are Liberals…” post for more on this topic.

For the record, I do not believe that Jews possess any inherent superiority based upon race. I think that the reason for their undisputable success is cultural. Education in particular is honored within the community, which surely leads to all of the post-grad degrees. The Jews have had to work harder and smarter than the dominant culture over the years, for they have been an oppressed minority the world over. In this country, they have only escaped institutional racism in the last fifty or sixty years. So – why is it that such an educated group would overwhelmingly vote Democratic? Does it speak well of the Democrats? I say it does.

James Webb wrote a book that I will soon read called “Born Fighting, How the Scots-Irish Shaped America.” Is such a topic racist? Or, has the Scots-Irish culture continued to influence our country centuries after their first arrival? Is it okay to even ask the question or does it reveal a latent racism? You know my opinion. I look forward to learning more about an ethnic group that has so influenced our culture. I make no apologies.

Words have meaning, guys. You should not throw words like bigot and racist around so casually. I’ll give Hags a pass on this – he doesn’t know me and sometimes he succumbs to a moment of pique. The Good Doc has no excuse. He should be vouching for me rather than stoking the fire.

Another pesky white guy with another good idea.

I never realized "Libies" where such bigots and sexists. 

Anyway, this article exactly answers Rich(ie)'s question.

By the way, cutting taxes to promote growth, freezing all spending at current levels, tort reform and HSA's and eliminating pork does address the question of how to eliminate the deficit until entitlement reform can be addressed. (see the comment section) 

Does not eliminate the deficit you say?  Correct but, as the Robb article stated, it does return us to a more historical and better tolerated debt.

Hags, if you are still there, gotta love this cognitive dissonance....Deficits are bad! They are Bush's fault.


OK, what to do then? Obviously, you stupid white guy, raise spending by 18% to stimulate the economy! But the spending increases are baked in...they don't end. If our current situation is bad, and you say its bad, this is sure to make it worse, much worse. Look, I talked to my smart Jewish friends and they said this will all work out, they had talked to some Asians who were good at math, who talked to an Indian at a 7/11 (dot-not feather) and they said that as long as we keep the hot women out of the picture (OK, not out of the picture, because we want to look at them, we mean silent) we can add 2+2 and get 3! But government programs do not have a history of shrinking. With this huge expansion, don't you worry about a permanent welfare state? No! Not at all. We are just going to tax the crap out of high earners, transfer that money to our supporters, sorry, the less fortunate, expand government, delay entitlement reform and nothing will change. But isn't that exactly what the folks in MA voted against? No! They are sexists, that is all.

Why Are Liberals So Condescending

This is another well written article discussing the Liberals characterization of conservatism as intellectually inferior.

I started following politics when I was about 14 years old (Nixon-Kennedy), and I have always been struck by the fact that the "educated class" seems to think they are smarter than the guys who didn't go to college or, perhaps, even graduate from high school.

My personal experience has been that I have met wonderfully intelligent people who never made it past 8th grade, and I have met lost-in-space-cadets with PhDs. Having graduated means you may have more education (not all graduations are truly earned), but it is no indication of intelligence.

Regardless, this is a great article describing the way that the Liberal Elitists seek to reassure each other of the superiority of their positions, notwithstanding the fact that they can't convince a simple majority of the American public that they are right.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403698.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR

All the best,

Hags

Oops. TIme for rehab.

Bax, I don't like this, but I have to call you out as a racist.

I'm not joking, and I'm not having fun. You have revealed a side that is not just unattractive, it is absolutely wrong. You need to reflect, and you need to change.

If I were Tim Russert I would play the video, but there is no video. There is only this verbatim quote from your recent post:

"I think that the average Democrat is clearly smarter than the average member of the Republican base. Obama, of course, won the vote of the college-educated voters. In Massachusetts, the 2010 move to the right v 2008 was primarily among whites without the benefit of college.

Now, I will stray from PC, understanding the attacks that will follow. Jews vote Democratic on a 2/1 - 3/1 basis and are probably the most intelligent and educated among us. I don't think that is a coincidence. It figures."

Even if you mean the comment regarding Jews as complimentary, it is racist. What's next? Are blacks dumb? Oh no, the dumb ones are Republicans.

Let me be clear: when you characterize ethnic groups as dumb or smart you are a racist. In my opinion, when you characterize Republicans as dumb you are merely an elitist. Right now I have you down as a racist elitist. You have broken the social contract and I am done with you.

I am into repentance and forgiveness, but I don't have the standing to absolve you, I can only forgive you. You have revealed an ugly side and i recommend a deep and serious taking of stock.

I won't respond to you without evidence of meaningful change.

Good luck,

Hags

Deficits and Social Security Exaggerating

For a quarter-century Peter G Peterson Foudation has been exaggerating long term costs of Social Security and Medicare. In truth, social security is close to balance - 75 year year projected deficit is just one half of 1% of gross GDP. Medicare is seriously in deficit tho but reform of medicare consistent with high quality health care depends on tackling the deeper drivers of medical inflation.

But let's look at other exaggerations. 37% of the 2009-2012 deficit stems from the recession itself,because of revenue losses and increased automatic relief outlays. Another 33% reflects Bush era tax cuts and Bush programs like Medicare Drug benifits, the military build up 20% more. Only 7% came from the Obama stimulus all other domestic spending adds just 3%.

Why is Sarah Palin popular!

Much has been made recently about Ms. Palin and her popularity.  While Rich and his inherent sexism make much of her appearance, I think she represents the thoughts of many folks who see bullshit and are calling it on our government.  To the point, we are going broke, let's stop digging.  We see that, she says that, yet from the following:  From Krugman

These days it’s hard to pick up a newspaper or turn on a news program without encountering stern warnings about the federal budget deficit. The deficit threatens economic recovery, we’re told; it puts American economic stability at risk; it will undermine our influence in the world. These claims generally aren’t stated as opinions, as views held by some analysts but disputed by others. Instead, they’re reported as if they were facts, plain and simple.  They are not?

Yet they aren’t facts. Many economists take a much calmer view of budget deficits than anything you’ll see on TV. Nor do investors seem unduly concerned: U.S. government bonds continue to find ready buyers, even at historically low interest rates. The long-run budget outlook is problematic, but short-term deficits aren’t — and even the long-term outlook is much less frightening than the public is being led to believe.  The smugness of that last sentence is amazing and is why America hates liberals and watches Fox News.  "We, the smart people will decide how close to the cliff to drive.  We know what is best.  Yes our long-term outlook is in trouble but don't worry, you are being led incorrectly."

So why the sudden ubiquity of deficit scare stories? It isn’t being driven by any actual news. Really?  Like legislation to raise the debt limit?  It has been obvious for at least a year that the U.S. government would face an extended period of large deficits, and projections of those deficits haven’t changed much since last summer. Yet the drumbeat of dire fiscal warnings has grown vastly louder.

Let’s talk for a moment about budget reality. Contrary to what you often hear, the large deficit the federal government is running right now isn’t the result of runaway spending growth. Instead, well more than half of the deficit was caused by the ongoing economic crisis, which has led to a plunge in tax receipts, required federal bailouts of financial institutions, and been met — appropriately — with temporary measures to stimulate growth and support employment. And the other half?

The point is that running big deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930s is actually the right thing to do. If anything, deficits should be bigger than they are because the government should be doing more than it is to create jobs.  So if we are broke, the cure is to max out the credit cards?  That does not even pass the laugh test.  Government does not create jobs, except in government.

True, there is a longer-term budget problem. Even a full economic recovery wouldn’t balance the budget, and it probably wouldn’t even reduce the deficit to a permanently sustainable level. So once the economic crisis is past, the U.S. government will have to increase its revenue and control its costs. And in the long run there’s no way to make the budget math work unless something is done about health care costs.  Then why not start now?

Why Can't We All Just Get Along: Term Limits!!!

How about it? 12 years and out, whether you are a senator or a representative.

Personally, I would take a blind draw out of the telephone book-- a random sample of the electorate-- rather than the the collection of goofballs, perverts, thieves, and egomaniacs we currently have in office. And I am willing to take that blind draw knowing full well that Republicans are a minority party (I don't believe Conservatives are, however. It is, after all, a center-right country!).

Please go ahead and tell me all about the problems with term limits, but then please compare those problems to the totally dysfunctional body in place today.

Revolution!!!

All the best!

Hags

It's not my fault, I inherited this!

February 04, 2010
The president is no team playerNeil Braithwaite
After losing a close game, the coach put his arm around the young rookie quarterback who came off the bench to try to spark a comeback for his team. In an unsettling retort to his coach's encouragement, Tom Brady said, "I gave it my best shot coach, but remember, I inherited that situation."
A young relief pitcher was called in with the game tied in the bottom of the 9th inning with a runner on third and no outs. As he takes the ball from the manager, Mariano Rivera looks into the manager's eyes and says, "I'll give it my best coach, but remember, I inherited this situation."
These two scenarios seem unimaginable in the world of sports. In fact, if they had really happened, you may not have expected these two players would have ever become superstars.
Any player with that attitude would be toxic to a team. And that kind of attitude would not be tolerated for an instant from any coach, teammate, or fan for that matter. Their selfishness and egotism would always upset the balance and continuity of team play, making it very difficult to win. As a detriment to the team, they would be eliminated as soon as possible. (Contracts not withstanding)
However, there have been instances of players like this. Take Terrell Owens for example. He never took responsibility for a loss and always made sure any blame landed on someone else. He was shuffled from team to team and always with the same result - he didn't last. Owens has great talent, but because he's not a team player, he'll always exit early.
I preface my political point with all of this because it is painfully relevant to our situation in America today. After playing for a full year and no longer considered a rookie, it seems obvious that America has recruited a President who continues to exhibit these same toxic characteristics.
For years Barack Obama wanted to play on the team. No, he begged to play on the team. He asked over and over to be put in the game. He was adamant and confident that only he could win. He even promised the team and fans that he would win. Yes, Barack Obama made it abundantly clear to the whole world that he was the one the team had been waiting for and he wanted the ball - in a big way!
So with great hope and anticipation for a game changer, America gave the ball to Barack Obama late in the fourth quarter when things weren't looking so good.
The rookie took the ball and began to swell with pride as he reminded team America in the face of this great adversity -- they could count on him -- but he also made it very clear to the team that he inherited this whole situation.
With three years left on Obama's contract, how is America's franchise player working out for the team now?
Neil Braithwaite is a Real Estate Broker and writer in Charlotte, NC. He writes political commentary and satire and is a regular contributor to PoliticalDerby.com.

More Political Math

The Republicans want to talk about Massachusetts ad nauseam these days as well as New Jersey and Virgina, to a lesser extent. I have heard suggested that the Democrats have contempt for the voters since they haven't all changed their registration to Republican after those election results were in. Scott Brown won by a whopping 4.8 points and Drudge asks if he should run for president.

What about the other 533 elections? Do they matter? Should Republicans take notice? Of course, I am referring to the 435 house members, 100 Senators, and our Democratic president. How come all we hear about on Fox News is about 3 unique elections and not the others?

If the Republicans have any respect for the electorate, would they mount a Filibuster on nearly every bill? That certainly is not what the framers intended. In fact, it was the 48th year of our constitution - 1837 - before the Senate saw it's first Filibuster.

Clearly, a super-majority requirement in the Senate is not democratic. It is minority rule. The Senate should ditch the rule by a simple majority vote, which would certainly be upheld by the SCOTUS if challenged.

Charles Krauthammer Wing-nut

Charlie Krauthammer is shouting the usual wingnut mantra that the concept of Universal Health Care is some kind of a fanatical left-wing fantasy that could only come to pass in countries that have fallen prey to the EVIL idealogy of "social democracy".

The truth is of course, that these countries that have fallen to"social democracy"; the rest of the developed world, have institutions, both government and private, and a way of life that is pretty much like that of the US.
The big difference between the US and the rest of these countries is the curious "tradition" we have of allowing people who lack employer provided health Insurance and have some sort of "Pre-existing Condition" to face Finacial Ruin and Premature Death. (JIM please argue your point) (we also have second rate health care that cost twice as much).
So much for "America's deeply and historically individualist idea of health care.
.

The Electorate vs. Obama's Agenda

The link is to an article by Charles Krauthammer that appeared today in The Washington Post.

I recommend it, particularly to my friends on the Left side, because I think it expresses very well the feelings many of us on the Right have regarding Liberal disdain for Conservative philosophies, and, more importantly, Liberal disdain for the electorate.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/05/dont_they_understand_massachusetts.html

As the article notes, Obama and his troops have repeatedly stated that a key part of the problem of passing health care legislation is that he has not explained the issue clearly enough or well enough. He has described the issue as complex (which it certainly is), and the implication is that we, the electorate, just aren't smart enough to see the wisdom of his proposals. The guy simply will not consider the possibility that we do understand what he and his party are trying to do, and we don't want any part of it.

Give the article a look. Krauthammer is an excellent writer and thinker (even if you don't agree with him) and he captures very well my feelings regarding what I see as the arrogance of certain Liberal elitists.

All the best!

Hags

What scares me is that the leaders of our country actually beleive this crap.

By ROBERT B. REICH


Alright class, here's your assignment: Look at President Obama's budget proposal, spending freeze, jobs bill, stimulus, tax hikes on upper-income individuals, and proposed deficit commission. Also take a look at the fees he wants to impose on the biggest banks, and his proposed regulations of Wall Street. Look at his stalled trade agenda. Now, explain the big picture.

To see the big picture you need to keep your eye on three big things. The first is the extent of government spending needed to offset the continued reluctance of consumers and businesses to spend.

You don't have to be an orthodox Keynesian to understand that as long as the private sector is deleveraging the public sector has to borrow and spend in order to keep the economy moving forward. Spending on the original stimulus will peak soon; spending for additional unemployment insurance and the jobs bill will add about $90 billion.

But even this sum is not likely to be enough to make up for the shortfall in private spending. Consider also that state and local governments are slashing jobs and services—while raising taxes by about $350 billion over this year and next—so the feds probably need to spend even more.

Crickets

Riegel authored a post yesterday that suggested that government simply needs to spend less and the Good Doc chimed in with agreement, labeling those who disagree "whack jobs." I then challenged Riegel to identify which spending he would cut to balance the budget and all I hear are crickets. It is deadly silent on the right whenever that question is asked.

"We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem!" is the populist cry. However, it is not a thoughtful or well informed opinion. Most people that make the claim are not remotely familiar with the budget, which explains the dead air. A few facts:

1. If you immediately eliminated Social Security and Medicare, you would still have a deficit.
2. If you immediately eliminated Social Security and Medicare, you would reduce the GDP by over 7% before accounting for the multiplier effect. That merely reflects the dollars "saved" by the government. It would be reasonable to take that number to >12% when factoring in the cascading effects of such an act.
3. The USA has the lowest government revenue as a percentage of GDP of any western industrialized country.
4. Each time we enacted supply side tax cuts since 1981, revenues as a percentage of GDP have dropped.

So - I am all ears. I challenge all of our right wing bloggers to identify what spending they would cut and how long that would take to balance the budget (and then pay down the debt). I will kindly ask that you never again suggest that the budget can be balanced absent tax increases - unless you specify such a proposal. Further, lets never hear the lie that tax cuts raise revenue again. With a few isolated exceptions, that simply is not the case. Just ask Reagan and Bush, who delivered $10T of debt through such policies.

Obama's budget has a lot of red ink. He inherited a $1.3T deficit that was rapidly growing. When one inherits an economy in free fall, with a growing $1.3 deficit, what would you expect? Did you think he would shrink the deficit in the middle of a great recession? Shall we act like Hoover and starve the economy or perhaps, should we deficit spend, as needed, to get the train back on the tracks?

You all have been challenged. Lets see what you got.

No, no, no... really! Don't worry guys. Everything is going to be fine.

The seminal moment of this morning's Q and A between Senate Democrats and President Obama was an extraordinary — and extraordinarily uncomfortable — exchange between Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Obama over the party's left and right wings.

Obama, in professorial mode is there any other, had spent much of the first hour of today's appearance instructing Democrats to stay his progressive course on health care and other key issues.
Lincoln, who faces serious competition in her '10 reelection — and a 27 percent approval rate in Arkansas — practically demanded Obama "push back in our own party ... for people at the extremes."  Like Rich Baxter for example.

She added that "no one in your administration" understands how to make payroll.

Obama shot back hard, warning Lincoln, gently but firmly, that he had no intention of adopting the previous administration's policies, cautioning, "I don't know what would differentiate us from the other guys."  "We should not be spooked," he added.  We are tone deaf, have no idea what we are doing, scaring the producers of this country and engaging in class warfare and got our ass kicked in the last 3 statewide elections, the last one really badly, but don't be scared. You are expendable.

Remember Keith Olbermann?

He was the one-time must-see anti-Bush ranter who helped rescue MSNBC (yes, it's still on at night) from even worse oblivion years ago. Well, quietly last month while no one was looking, hardly anyone was watching Keith Olbermann anymore.
The guy, who's even apparently tried to get some Sarah Palin-like eyeglasses, is now forced to leap over-the-top on ex-state senators like Scott Brown and Tuesday's worst person, Fox News' Glenn Beck. Beck is the successful talker with the perfect haircut for radio. Like most Americans, he wasn't watching Keith.

Hey Terry!

Still want to rant about bigoted Republicans?

Given:

"o" special olympics comment
and
Rahm's"retards" one.

Or are rules just for Republicans?

Or This! Obama deficits not Bush's fault Robb

The Obama administration undoubtedly wants the budget message to be all the good things it wants to do for the American people, except those who make the mistake of earning too much money.
There's a second stimulus, rechristened a jobs program. Health care reform, repositioned as an attack on the insurance industry's dirty deeds. New middle-class tax breaks. More spending on education. Lots more spending on infrastructure and clean energy.  The budget is intended to position the Democratic Party as the friend of the middle-class. But the message is blotted out by all the red ink.  Obama likes to depict himself as a deficit victim. He inherited a huge deficit and a deep recession. Not his fault.
Certainly the Republicans during the Bush years were fiscally irresponsible. But within historical bounds. The deficits in Obama's budget are beyond historical bounds and are his alone.  Even with Bush's tax cuts, federal revenues in 2007 were at the average as a percentage of GDP, 18.5 percent, going back to 1960. The deficit was just 1.2 percent of GDP, historically on the low side. Accumulated federal debt was 36 percent of GDP.
Then the recession hit. From 2008 to 2009, federal spending increased 18 percent. This was a budget year that straddled the Bush and Obama presidencies. But the spending increase was driven by anti-recession measures, predominately the Bush stimulus and bailouts.
Obama supported these measures. In fact, his complaint about the Bush stimulus was that it was too small.  This raises a question of political ontology: If Obama agreed with Bush, is it still just Bush's fault?  The Bush tax cuts expire this year. Except for the legacy costs of the Iraq war, Obama is free to recommend changing anything Bush did. The deficits he recommends from 2011 on are purely his own. And they are massive, and driven by spending.  Obama purposes that the federal government spend over 25 percent of GDP in 2011, compared to a historical average of around 20.5 percent. He justifies this as necessary to continue to fight the recession.

Obama, however, projects that the recession will be fully over in 2011 and robust growth under way. Yet he proposes that federal spending continue to be nearly 24 percent of GDP through 2020. In other words, rather than wind down the additional recession spending after recovery, Obama is proposing that it simply become a new, higher base.
After the World War II debt was reduced, accumulated federal debt never exceeded 50 percent of GDP until 2009, when it reached 53 percent. Under Obama's recommendations it would grow to 77 percent by 2020.
If Obama were to recommend a path to return spending to its historical share of economic output, in 2020 the deficit would be just $255 billion, about what the federal government spends each year on large capital projects, and just 1 percent of GDP. In other words, not a problem. And federal spending would have still increased by more than 4 percent a year since 2008.  Instead, Obama recommends a 2020 deficit of over $1 trillion and a troubling 4.2 percent of GDP.
Rather than recommend deficit reducing measures himself, Obama wants to turn the job over to a bipartisan commission. Republicans suspect a rat, an attempt to get them to support even larger tax increases than Obama is already proposing.
They are right. Under Obama's budget, revenues are already projected to be 19.6 percent of GDP, much higher than the historical average. Yet he still proposes trillion dollar deficits.  The problem is spending. Obama wants to do too much of it.

Want to reduce debt

Well lets think about this for a moment. I am going to assume that all of us want to reduce the rising debt that we now have from lots of Administrations. I am also going to assume that anyone with a brain the size of a Nat can figure that you can't spend you way out of debt. If you believe in these two ideas then wouldn't it make sense that for our economy to flourish, and for our government to pay down debt that the American people need to have more money in their pockets to spend and invest so that through these success the government would receive more revenue from these success that they could pay down debt. Of course the other assumption you have to make is the people in power would have to commit to smaller government and drastically cutting spending for this to work. Taxing the crap out of people and corporations is not going to work, unless you believe in bigger government involvement in your life, more tax's that would ultimately drive down the incentive for people to invest and spend resulting in less revenue for the government to reduce the debt.

This is worth debating! Edited.

OBAMA: Ten years ago we had a budget surplus of more than $200 billion with projected surpluses stretching out toward the horizon. Yet over the course of the past ten years the previous administration and previous Congresses created an expensive new drug program, passed massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and funded two wars without paying for any of it, all of which was compounded by recession and by rising health care costs. As a result, when I first walked through the door the deficit stood at $1.3 trillion with projected deficits of eight trillion over the next decade.
RUSH: That is a lie. By the way, Mike, we're going to go get audio sound bites. That is an out-and-out lie. He said the same thing to Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and the Republicans on Friday at the retreat in Baltimore, and Hensarling went on MSNBC today to put the lie to what Obama had said. But here once again: "It wasn't my fault. I didn't do anything! When I showed up here, Bush ruined the country. Bush did this, an entitlement program and all the tax cuts that weren't paid for. Bush did it. Bush did it! All those irresponsible things were the previous administration."
He voted for all of it! He voted for every spending bill that came up, from 2005 on. You know, we've got a serious problem: A delusion. We have a serious delusional problem here. And if the Medicare entitlement is so bad, if it's such a strain and drain on us then repeal it. Just offer legislation to get rid of it, it's so bad. Now, here's Jeb Hensarling. You just heard Obama say, "We arrived in office with a $1.3 trillion deficit and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade." Here's the truth: Obama's spending is much higher than Republican spending. Obama is delusional, and being a little bit disingenuous -- and don't forget, nine years ago we were attacked on 9/11.
HENSARLING: Well, either the president misunderstood the point or he just hasn't been well informed. If you look at the 12 years when Republicans controlled the Congress, the average annual deficit was about $104 billion. I'm not proud of that number. That's too high. But in the three years that Democrats have controlled Congress, the average annual deficit is now $1.1 trillion. Do the math. What used to be an annual deficit under Republicans has become a monthly deficit under Democrats. And so when the president says, "I inherited a big deficit," I agree, but he inherited it from a Democratic Congress and only Congress can spend the money. That's the point I was making. Facts are facts, and maybe that's why he wasn't too happy with me.
RUSH: At the retreat Obama actually implied Hensarling was lying in his question about this, but he's right. The Democrats ran Congress starting in 2007, all of 2008 -- and, of course, all of last year. So, "Isn't the economy recovering?" That was the next question that Hensarling got.
HENSARLING: No jobs, no recovery. I'm happy to see the GDP numbers, and I don't understand how you can slosh around so much money -- borrowing it from the future, bringing it into the president and not have an impact on GDP, so I'm glad to see that -- but if it's working, I guess it begs the question: Why does the president want yet another stimulus plan? I lose track, this is either Stimulus 3 or Stimulus 4 when you throw in the whole government omnibus plan.  I personally don't think it's working, and small businesses are wondering: How are we going to pay for this debt?
RUSH: So there is no recovery -- and trust me, there's not. The 5.7% GDP that everybody was going crazy about on Friday, you watch. It's going to be revised downward a couple of times. That won't get much news. CNN today, you will not believe their headline over the Obama budget story: "Obama Maps Route to Lower Deficits." Obama maps route to lower deficits! Folks, let me tell you what this business is all about. All of this he announced today was a prelude to massive tax increases to reduce the deficit that he created.