Greece, Illinois, California...the USA won't be far behind spending money we do not have.

"At every town-hall meeting I hear, 'Can't we separate from Chicago?'" says Mr. Mitchell.

Chicago pols control almost all seats of power in Illinois. Gov. Pat Quinn, House Speaker Mike Madigan, Senate President John Cullerton, Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Secretary of State Jesse White are all Democrats from Chicago. So was former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who this month was sentenced to 14 years in prison for corruption, including trying to sell President Obama's vacated seat in the U.S. Senate. Consequently, as Mr. Wooters says, a lot "of the money that we have down here goes up there to bail out Chicago."

The state's bond debt has soared to $30 billion from $9.2 billion in 2002, when Democrats seized control of both the governorship and statehouse. Lawmakers have borrowed $10 billion just to fund the state's pension system, which is running a $210 billion unfunded liability. In fact, all of the $7 billion raised by this year's income and corporate tax hikes is going toward funding pensions.

Meanwhile, Republicans, who occupy about 40% of legislative seats, aren't exactly holding the Democrats' feet to the fire. As Speaker Madigan's spokesman Steve Brown told me, "95% of things that get done in Illinois are a result of compromise."  "Republicans who held power in the 1980s and '90s were not ideological. They supported tax increases," says John Tillman of the Illinois Policy Institute. More recently, most Republicans supported the Democrats' crony-capitalist tax credits for Chicago businesses, rather than insisting that the legislature roll back the corporate and income tax hikes.   AND WHY COMPROMISE ON THE CANCER OF EXCESS SPENDING CAN'T BE COMPROMISED.


But is booting Chicago from the state a feasible answer?  A few years ago it seemed unlikely that Republicans could seize control of legislatures and governorships in Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan, all heavily unionized states. But it's happened in all three. That's the difference that budgetary chaos, a strong party organization and the right message can make.

RON PAUL WORTH LISTENING TO!

I would love to have Ron Paul taken seriously by the Republican Party. He states his beliefs clearly without equivocation, and given how quickly Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich change their positions, a threat from Ron Paul might even get these two men to see the wisdom in supporting a big cut in defense spending. And I would love to hear the two give reasons to do away with the fed in response to Mr. Paul's insistent that it be demolished.

Bush and the Bush doctrine was right?

OBAMA: When I took office, nearly 150,000 American troops were deployed in Iraq, and I pledged to end this war responsibly. Today, only several thousand troops remain there. This is a season of homecomings, and military families across America are being reunited for the holidays. In the coming days, the last American soldiers will cross the border out of Iraq with honor and with their heads held high. After nearly nine years, our war in Iraq ends this month. I'm proud to welcome prime minister Maliki, the elected leader of a sovereign, self-reliant, and Democratic Iraq.

Of course the surge, which he opposed was a major reason for the success.

Let's all say that together again, because, my Dear Lib/Socialist/Commie friends, even your Dear Leader...our President... knows it is a good thing.

the elected leader of a sovereign, self-reliant, and Democratic Iraq.

Newt's Wife three is Laura Bush, Jaqueline K, etc

In an interview with The Jewish Channel, Gingrich shrugged off Palestinian statehood with this incendiary blast: “I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places.”
Republicans still seem a bit dazed by Newt’s dizzying rise from the ashes


. Peggy Noonan calls him “a trouble magnet” and “a human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, ‘Watch this!’ ”


Joe Scarborough, one of the House plotters against Speaker Gingrich back in 1997, quipped, “Let me just say, if Newt Gingrich is the smartest guy in the room, leave that room.”


Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who was in the House when Gingrich was speaker, told Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” that he would have a hard time supporting Newt because his leadership was “lacking oftentimes.”


Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, who worked with Newt in the House, noted, “He’s a guy of 1,000 ideas and the attention span of a 1-year-old.”


Congressman Peter King of New York told CNN’s Erin Burnett that Newt’s “inflammatory” statements, his “erratic” and “self-centered” behavior, and his “Armageddon language” wear people out.


The Gingrich grandiosity was on display, King asserted, when the new frontrunner “compared his wife to Jacqueline Kennedy and Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan.” King said that because Newt “puts himself at the center of everything."

The Jews, the Blacks, the Bankers, the one percent.

In times of trouble, demagogues have always been able to blame the ill on "groups"  The simple minded will always follow their lies and falsehoods.

Now we have a group of entitled who think they deserve a lifestyle, deserve a job, and blame the producers for their ills when they have contributed nothing.

Hitler grew out of such circumstance.  The fools on the left will listen to our President blame us, blame Wall Street.  Blame those not paying their fair share, when it is apparent they are paying the whole bill.

Why?  Absolute power corrupts, always has, always will.  A freedom agenda takes courage, a courage President Obama does not know.

We survived Teddy Roosevelt, but that was a different time.  Is out President leading us to "education camps"?  Can violence be far behind?  It will certainly be "community organized"

Help us.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJD8pZiRIzs&sns=fb

Democracy, Some Assembly Required. OWS!

Jim says in his latest blog, no evidence of fat cats hurting the economy Well Countrywide Financial, acquired by Bank of America in 2008, was a central figure in the housing collapse and subsequent foreclosure crisis. Once America's largest mortgage lender, the company has agreed to a litany of settlements since 2008, including a $600 million class-action settlement, an $108 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission and the ousting of former CEO Angelo Mozilo, who paid $67.5 million in penalties to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Wall Street Journal reports.
Still, no top level finance executives have faced federal prosecution for actions related to the financial crisis, despite several reports,that fraud was a common practice. At the same time, as Federal prosecution of financial fraud falls to a 20-year low, while over two thousand people have been arrested in connection with the Occupy Wall Street protests.
Yes let's get those Occupy Wall street people, their ruining America.

Barely four months into his presidency, President George W. Bush fulfilled a campaign promise by signing a $1.35 trillion tax cut over 10 years and declared, "This is only the beginning."


How right he was, although in ways he could not have foreseen. A decade later, with a sagging economy and soaring debt, arguments over the tax cuts passed in May 2001 and additional 2003 cuts are a leading cause of the fiscal paralysis of Congress and President Barack Obama. The looming expiration of the cuts at the end of next year has complicated attempts to reduce the nation's $15 trillion debt.

Obama argues that the cuts unfairly favor higher-income taxpayers and should be extended only for couples earning less than $250,000 a year and individuals making less than $200,000. Republicans say Democrats have yet to get serious about cutting spending, and Republicans argue that raising taxes on anyone -- especially small-business owners who create jobs -- is financial suicide in a struggling economy.

Both sides seem willing to let voters decide which vision they favor in the 2012 elections. But some say that a financial shock might force Congress to act sooner on long-term tax and entitlement reform.



Republicans needed 60 votes under Senate budgeting rules to make tax cuts permanent, so they settled on 10-year cuts through the use of a legislative procedure known as "reconciliation" that required only a majority vote. In 2001, the U.S. was running modest budget surpluses. It was before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the economy was softening, bolstering arguments for a tax-cut stimulus.

Democrats complained the cuts would starve government of money to run necessary programs, but 28 Democrats in the House and 12 in the Senate voted for the Bush tax cuts.

Republicans said restricting revenue fit their vision of smaller government that voters said they wanted in electing Bush, and they vowed to make the tax cuts permanent. They never were able to do that, but they did cut taxes again in 2003.

Many knew Congress would face consequences down the road. "Everybody knew we were baking in a problem," Stretch said, because health-care costs were skyrocketing and Baby Boomers would reach retirement by the end of the decade and begin to strain entitlement programs.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $1.2 trillion, adding to what Stretch called "the tectonic plate of Bush tax cuts moving north and the costs of growing entitlement demands moving south."

But blaming all or even most of the debt crisis on the Bush tax cuts misses the bigger picture. Heritage Foundation tax expert J.D. Foster estimated the Bush tax cuts reduced government receipts by about 1 percent of the gross domestic product last year but that the deficit was about 8.9 percent of GDP.
Obama and Republicans agreed after the 2010 elections to a two-year extension in exchange for things Obama wanted, including a temporary cut in the payroll tax that itself is set to expire at the end of this year. The piecemeal approach makes it difficult for businesses to make long-term plans, and it prolongs the uncertainty about revenue expectations necessary for any serious debt agreement between Congress and the White House.

Foster said he expects pressure for tax and entitlement reform to open a unique window after the November election, when Congress will be forced to either extend the Bush tax cuts, let them expire and risk the political and economic fallout of rising tax burdens, or take a more comprehensive approach to taxing and spending early in Obama's second term or in the opening months of his successor's.

Newt, Run, Newt, Run.

Next to Romney, Gingrich seems authentic. Next to Herman Cain, Gingrich seems faithful. Next to Jon Huntsman, Gingrich seems conservative. Next to Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, Gingrich actually does look like an intellectual. Unlike the governor of Texas, he surely knows the voting age.
The 68-year-old has compared himself to Charles de Gaulle. He has noted nonchalantly: “People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.” As speaker, he liked to tell reporters he was a World Historical Transformational Figure.
Run Newt Run as the Master Card ad says it will be priceless to see the debates.

Thomas Sowell




It used to be common for people to urge us to learn "the lessons of history." But history gets much less attention these days and, if there are any lessons that we are offered, they are more likely to be the lessons from current polls or the lessons of political correctness.  Even among those who still invoke the lessons of history, some read those lessons very differently from others.
Talk show host Michael Medved, for example, apparently thinks the Republicans need a centrist presidential candidate in 2012. He said, "Most political battles are won by seizing the center." Moreover, he added: "Anyone who believes otherwise ignores the electoral experience of the last 50 years."


But just when did Ronald Reagan, with his two landslide election victories, "seize the center"? For that matter, when did Franklin D. Roosevelt, with a record four consecutive presidential election victories, "seize the center"?


There have been a long string of Republican presidential candidates who seized the center -- and lost elections. Thomas E. Dewey, for example, seized the center against Harry Truman in 1948. Even though

Truman was so unpopular at the outset that the "New Republic" magazine urged him not to run, and polls consistently had Dewey ahead, Truman clearly stood for something -- and for months he battled for what he stood for.  That turned out to be enough to beat Dewey, who simply stood in the center.

It is very doubtful that most of the people who voted for Harry Truman agreed with him on all the things he stood for. But they knew he stood for something, and they agreed with enough of it to put him back in the White House.

It is equally doubtful that most of the people who voted for Ronald Reagan in his two landslide victories agreed with all his positions. But they agreed with enough of them to put him in the White House to replace Jimmy Carter, who stood in the center, even if it was only a center of confusion.

President Gerald Ford, after narrowly beating off a rare challenge by Ronald Reagan to a sitting president of his own party, seized the center in the general election -- and lost to an initially almost totally unknown governor from Georgia.

President George H.W. Bush, after initially winning election by coming across as another Ronald Reagan, with his "Read my lips, no new taxes" speech, turned "kinder and gentler" -- to everyone except the taxpayers -- once he was in office. In other ways as well, he seized the center. And lost to another unknown governor.

More recently, we have seen two more Republican candidates who seized the center -- Senators Bob Dole in 1996 and John McCain in 2008 -- go down to defeat, McCain at the hands of a man that most people had never even heard of, just three years earlier.

Michael Medved, however, reads history differently.
To him, Barry Goldwater got clobbered in the 1964 elections because of his strong conservatism. But did his opponent, Lyndon Johnson, seize the center? Johnson was at least as far to the left as Goldwater was to the right. And Goldwater scared the daylights out of people with the way he expressed himself, especially on foreign policy, where he came across as reckless.

Senator Goldwater was not crazy enough to start a nuclear war. But the way he talked sometimes made it seem as if he were. Ronald Reagan would later be elected and re-elected taking positions essentially the same as those on which Barry Goldwater lost big time. Reagan was simply a lot better at articulating his beliefs.

Michael Medved uses the 2008 defeat of tea party candidates for the Senate, in three states where Democrats were vulnerable, as another argument against those who do not court the center. But these were candidates whose political ineptness was the problem, not conservatism.


Candidates should certainly reach out to a broad electorate. But the question is whether they reach out by promoting their own principles to others or by trying to be all things to all people.

Barney is quitting!

That means his seat is wide open....

Bye-Bye, Barney!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/28/rep-barney-frank-wont-seek-re-election/

If you are wondering if the Dems expect to re-take the House, wonder no longer. Barney's decision tells all.

Bye-bye, Barney! Can Nancy be far behind?

All the best,

Hags

HUNTSMAN MAKES SENSE

Huntsman HAS A plan TO call for placing a hard cap on bank size, defined as the bank's total assets as a share of the U.S. economy. The biggest American banks have grown massively larger since the 1980s, and have actually increased in size since the bailouts of 2008 -- which policymakers insisted were necessary due to the sheer size of major Wall Street banks. The proposal also would impose a hard cap on bank leverage, the amount of money a bank could borrow against its pure equity. Banks will have to limit their leverage under an international reform agreement known as Basel III, but they would nevertheless be permitted to gamble higher raters of borrowed money than Lehman Brothers did shortly before the mega bank went bankrupt.
The program would also adjust calculations relating to the FDIC's program to shut down failing banks. Currently, banks pay a regular insurance premium to the FDIC, which the federal agency can use to pay off the bank's creditors if it fails. Huntsman would have banks that engage in riskier activities pay more money into the FDIC fund than more conventional lenders do. He would also adjust the FDIC's policies for shutting down failing banks when they are particularly large.
The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill grants the FDIC the ability to shut-down complex banks like Goldman Sachs or Bank of America, which engage in both securities trading and conventional lending. Prior to the legislation, the FDIC could only shut down conventional lenders that accept deposits and make loans. But economists have questioned the viability of such a program with regard to big banks that operate in multiple nationalities. Big American banks operate all over the globe, and the wind-down policies required by the United States government would not carry the force of law in Europe or South America.
Huntsman would also encourage banks to shrink by charging additional taxes on banks that get too big. But unlike progressive proposals to do the same, Huntsman would explicitly devote this bank tax revenue toward lowering the overall corporate tax rate. In effect, Huntsman would marry a major progressive bank reform wish with a conservative wish -- shrinking Wall Street's influence while cutting corporate taxes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5nNbPWYHOA&feature=relmfu

Do Nothing, Cut Deficit $6T

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-the-gops-dual-trigger-nightmare/2011/11/23/gIQA1BmxnN_blog.html?hpid=z1

Baxter..first bold. Terry...second. Eric...all things always.

As for the 7.8% across-the-board sequester in domestic programs, this may be the only way to begin cutting a government that has grown by $600 billion in three years.


Much of the world, and especially the press corps, will look at this failure and wail about the "dysfunction" in Washington. And it is pathetic that Congress couldn't agree to cut even a single dime from the projected $45 trillion in spending over 10 years. But this is the product of divided government and a clash of political visions. Unlike Bill Clinton in 1996, President Obama is unbowed by his party's defeat in 2010 and is determined to reclaim his mandate to expand government next year.

Democrats are confident they can blame Republicans for the failure and ride their president's class war campaign to victory. Republicans have to counter with a message of economic growth and sensible reforms of our government institutions so the U.S. doesn't end up like Europe.

This is for voters to decide. Let's have it out.