"I Like to Fire People" -- A non-controversy by the MSM

As is usually the case, if the media can take a comment, cut it out of it's context and then regurgitate it as pablum to the masses who lean the same direction as the media outlet, they can definitely make it run.

The BostonHerald.com today reported the following. I will provide the text verbatim so that you can see what they claim the former Masschussetts governer said at a Nashua, Hew Hampshire meet and greet.

“GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney – who has based his campaign on his sometimes controversial record as a corporate czar – sparked a furor today with the remark that he likes 'being able to fire people.'

The former Bay State governor was discussing health insurance when he said that insurers give fairer prices if they know they will be held accountable.

'It also means that if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me, ' Romney said.”

There was more in that article, about 600 words more... but nothing else from Mitt Romney's actual statement. With only that chunk of the statement, it would be pretty easy and quite reasonable to think that Mitt Romney is a ruthless man who enjoys firing people for no real reason other than he can.

Fortunately, we have YouTube.com and you can find the entire clip of what he actually said.

“It also means that if you don't like what they do you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. If, if, you know, if someone doesn't give me the good service I need, I want to say 'you know, that if... I'm gonna go get somebody else to provide that service to me.' And so that's one thing I'd change.”

See the difference? In the entire context, what Mitt Romney said is; if you can find somebody that provides a service and does a better job at it than your current provider, you should have the right to terminate the relationship with your current provider. Further, he says that you should be unapologetic about it.

In my opinion this is a contrived controversy. There is nothing radical or controversial about a successful businessman stating that in the course of his business dealings he would have no hesitation to fire a service provider if he can find somebody else to provide the same service for less cost, more service for the same cost, or more service for less cost.

What we really should be looking at in a free-market economy is at what point do we as consumers insist that providers continue to cut costs to the point that the labor to provide the service or good cannot live on the wages. But this isn't Mitt's problem, this is America's problem.

Funny stuff. TOTUS comments.

I follow a blogger site called Barack Obama's Teleprompter Blog. If you are a progressive, you'd be better off not following that link. Stay away. But if you are a little more on the conservative side, like I am, I find this guy to be pretty darned funny.

So here's a "tweet" from TOTUS (Teleprompter Of The United States).

Big Guy says he's been fighting for America for 2 years, unfortunately for him America has started fighting back.

OK. That's funny.

Republicans have to sit in the back of the bus.

As distasteful a tactic as it has been, the Republicans have finally gotten some cojones and have refused to participate in the current administration's reckless spending spree.  Although this President promised to be post-partisan and post-racial, nearly every major GOP led initiative with regards to the health care, TARPII and cap and trade have been rejected out of hand by the dominant party.

So here's President Obama's most recent olive branch to the GOP going forward. He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

No, Mr. President. If the current batch of GOP-ers are going to be true to their campaign promises, then the GOP is going to continue to fight you if you continue to add to the crushing debt that is now threatening to destroy our entire way of life.

But thank you, Mr. President, for so eloquently sum up your feelings about the GOP in particular and conservatives in general.  It helps to clarify our choices for the upcoming elections.

The Unfinished Business of the Federal Government (or We have met the enemy and they is us)

I'd be willing to bet that more than 70% of the American public is completely ignorant with regards to the responsibilities of the U.S. federal Congress.  Article I Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

But the partisanship being displayed by both the Republicans and Democrats have made the environment in Washington so toxic that Congress has utterly failed in this fundamental and Constitutionally mandated responsibility. 

A federal income-tax hike in the midst of our weak economic recovery seems unfathomable. Such a hike will surely stifle consumer spending and either stall or dampen any recovery we might experience going into 2011.  And yet, our Congress completely failed to come to any agreement on the extension of the "Bush tax cuts", which are scheduled to expire on December 31st of this year.  Worse yet, here we are in late September of 2010 and we don't even know what the tax tables are going to look like for next year. How can our vaunted and esteemed Congress possibly budget when they don't even have a GUESS as to what revenues will be?

So we don't get a federal budget. Of course, the political junkies will tell you that Congress is not required to provide a federal budget. And they're mostly right. But how can you possibly control spending unless you create a budget and then try and stick to it? Or maybe it's that our "transparent Congress" doesn't want to pass a budget because then they might be expected to actually control spending. Hmmm...

That same "transparent" Congress (reference to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's infamous promise) has failed to adequately investigate misconduct charges leveled against Representatives Charlie Wrangle (D-NY) and Maxine Waters (D-CA).

But Congress CAN raid our empty treasury to authorize a $42 billion "small business  stimulus" bill even though small business aren't likely to borrow money for expansion or hiring because the tax hike will discourage consumers from parting with what little discretionary spending they still have in their own household budgets. More "chicken in every pot" politics and Americans LOVE it.

Every taxpaying citizen I talk to (I don't talk to non-taxpaying citizens because they have no skin in the game so why in the hell do I care about THEIR opinion?)  laments the fact that the government spending is completely out of control. And yet, when I start mentioning reduction of the budgets for the Dept. of Education, teachers scream. Or if I mention reduction in Medicare/Medicaid then seniors and the unfortunates of our society scream.  Or if I mention reduction in military spending, then the hawks and those serving in the military scream. 

Our elected leadership has utterly failed (for at least 60 years) to give it to us straight, to give us the plain, unvarnished truth.  If you want to have a healthcare system like Sweden's, or Canada's, or the United Kingdom's, then you have to pay taxes like a Swede, a Canadian or an Englishman. Or, if you want lower taxes, then you must do more for yourself and your community and expect less from your government, especially with regards to entitlements and the redistribution of wealth.  But our Congress and our President (again, for over 60 years), has told us we can lower taxes and still provide all the entitlements that you could ever ask for.

I do not lay the huge mess, the possibly unrecoverable mess, at the feet of Pelosi, Reid and the President. I lay it instead at the feet of every Congressman that ever asked for an earmark, every President that pushed social-engineering through government programs, every Senator that ever tacked on unrelated resolutions to authorizations (ala Harry Reied and the "DREAM" act for the current Defense Spending Authorization). Ultimately, I lay our huge mess on every American that still refuses to do with less of their piece of the entitlement pie and still expects our bloated federal government to reduce spending.

So Congress is going into recess. Well, during that period I guess the important and constitutionally mandated business of the people will have to wait. But by the same token, if they are in recess then they can't do any more harm to us.  I guess that's the silver lining. But that sure isn't the American Exceptionalism I grew up with.

Glenn Beck cranks up the culture wars.

Rich Benjamin, in an article on cnn.com (click here) made a series of arguments designed to support the position that Glenn Beck, the wildly popular conservative pseudo-religious radio and talk-show host, has "cranked up" the culture wars.

His first argument is based on the claim that despite Beck's assertions to the contrary, the August 28th rally in on the Washington Mall was a political rally. He points to the presence of a rally participant wearing a t-shirt with the message "If you can't love America, move back to Kenya."  Even though Beck specifically directed the attendees to not bring signs of any kind.  Even though not one speaker mentioned President Obama by name, or the Democratic party. It's reaching way down into the barrel to label this a patriotic rally based on a few t-shirt slogans. 

With regards to the "tea-party" opinion that President Obama is a marxist/socialist, well, it does seem to be that way. The massive expansion of nationalized health care at the same time that 47% of American workers (the majority who are in the poor, lower income and lower middle income brackets) do not pay any income taxes at all is seen by most fiscal conservatives as redistribution of wealth, a fundamental tenet of socialism.  He also rammed cash for clunkers down our throats, encouraging people to buy cars with taxpayer subsidies. Again, money moving from those who pay taxes to many who do not.  This was followed by cash for toasters, encouraging people to buy new appliances with... you guessed it... taxpayer subsidies. 

And for good measure let us not forget the first time homebuyer credit of $8,000 dollars (in 2009) and homebuyer assistance program of $6,500 dollars, again targeting those in the lower income brackets (most of whom pay no or little in income taxes) with money taken from the income tax payers.

There's lots more where that came from, but I think that the citations above are a clear indication of a political motivation on the part of the president and his party to move money from those who can afford to pay taxes to those who cannot. Is, or is that not socialism?

He further claims that the claims on the part of the conservative factions that President Obama is a communist or marxist or socialist is similar to admittedly similar claims against Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr in the 1960's  The huge difference is that the attacks against Dr. King where clearly fueled by racist hatred, especially in the South.  But in the case of President Obama, we only have to look at the record of legislation passed during his administration to see what is plainly written.

As an aside, Reverend Al Shaprton claimed that the push by the "tea party" to restore "state's rights" is a direct assault on the civil rights movement and is a conscious effort to rollback those hard won gains.In this case the US federal government through civil-rights legislation signed in the late 60's forced states to accept a federally mandated standard for guaranteeing the protection of the civil liberties and rights of minorities.  There is no question that under the guise of state's rights, many states (again especially in the South) implemented legislation that unarguably were designed to deny or obstruct the rights of minorities, and particularly blacks, to vote, equal access to education and government services. 

But today, the resurgence of state's rights advocacy is couched firmly in the US federal government's failure to uphold its end of the contract that binds the states of our union together.  The federal government continues to spend more and more and yet services seem to decline or fail altogether. Immigration laws, especially with respect to the prosecution and deportation of aliens living here illegally, including border security is one aspect of the federal failure. Another is the inability of the government to respond quickly to natural disasters. The 2005 hurricane Katrina disaster clearly demonstrated the red-tape that obstructs swift response by the federal government as well as the complete and utter lack of coordination between federal, state and local emergency response agencies.  Our national infrastructure is coming apart. Roads, bridges and dams are falling into disrepair before our very eyes, and yet there is no money to fix them!  People who genuinely need government assistance can't get it while shysters and thieves who have studied the system collect "overpayments" from the government with impunity. The US Dept of Education consumes more tax revenue than ever and yet our nation continues its slide into mediocre scholastic performance among industrialized nations.

States are understandably outraged.  They are being forced by federal mandate to spend more money on federal programs and yet they do not have the access to print more money when their budgets are bled dry.  Not to mention that progressive legislation in states like Michigan, California, Arizona and Ohio have literally bankrupted them. States and local communities would very much like to have more say in the standards of education and welfare that they provide to their citizens, but are continually stymied by an outrageous and bloated bureaucracy that is reflected in the HUGE amount of regulatory law that those bureaucracies are expected to enforce. 

I understand the need for regulations, but when the process for getting FDA approval to get a drug to market can cost multiple billions of dollars. And yet, after getting such approval, a drug company is completely unprotected against expensive lawsuits when unknown side-effects not discovered during the FDA approval process inevitably arise. Question: If the FDA won't stand behind its approval process by helping to defend the pharmaceuticals, why in the hell do we force them to seek FDA approval? 

With regard to Mr. Benjamin's concern that a third of the nation thinks that President Obama is a muslim. Well, I don't get that either.  And we further agree that birthers are idiots. 

But I think that the charge of the current administration's movement of the nation to a more socialist government is completely founded and beyond debate.

Democrat Candidate *May* be Trying to Steal "Tea Party" Label

On the Rush Limbaugh show yesterday a caller stated that the State of Nevada had authorized a new political party, the "Tea Party", to participate in the 2010 Senatorial election.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is fighting an uphill battle in his own state. President Obama has not been helping his Majority Leader by frequently stating that businesses shouldn't be blowing money on expensive conferences in "Sin City".

The national "Tea Party" movement, sparked by CNBC's Rick Santorelli's rant last year and then coalescing around Glenn Beck's 9/12 project, focuses on reducing federal government size, federal spending and the return of much of current federal functions to the states.

Interestingly, the secretary for the Nevada Tea Party is lawyer Barry Levinson, who is a registered Democrat. Their candidate for Senate is John Scott Ashjian. It has been noticed that he has only given e-mail interviews and barely returns phone calls. That does not sound like the response of an active campaigner fighting for an important Senate seat in a national election.

It is important to note that it is certainly possible that some fiscally conservative Democrats might find the Tea Party movement's mantra of responsible federal spending to be attractive to them. But I think it is very important that Nevada voters ask really hard questions about the legitimacy of Barry Levinson's Nevada "Tea Party" and the true intent of John Scott Ashjian.

Something else to consider is the effect a real third party candidate, especially a conservative candidate, could have on the election. If Harry Reid is in a standup fight against a the GOP candidate and a handful of other party candidates (Libertarian, Green, John-Birchers, etc.) then if the election were held today, he would lose by over 10 points. But you throw in a viable third party conservative, then you split the conservative vote and Harry Reid loses by only 1 point or possibly even wins it.

You Nevadans who oppose the progressive agenda, if you don't want 6 more years of Harry Reid then you better throw all of your electoral weight behind the GOP candidate or the "Tea Party" candidate (if he's proven to be a legit conservative), but not both.

John Murtha (D) 1932-2010

John Murtha, the Democrat Representative from Pennsylvania, passed away today (Jan 8 2010) at the age of 77 from complications arising from a gall-bladder surgery.

He was a Marine officer who served in the Vietnam War. As a Democratic representative he often steered funds not only to his home state and home town. He was an advocate for a strong national defense. This often brought him into conflict with his own party, which at times during the Bush administration tried to stop all military spending in an effort to shut down the Iraq war.

He gained notoriety for vehemently opposing the war in Iraq. Considering his strong pro-military position, this caught many in the political establishment by surprise.

He also gained a reputation for having never met a Congressional budget earmark that he didn't like and was under Congressional Ethics Committee investigation at the time of his death for certain earmarks he'd won for Pennsylvania firms.

Murtha's 2008 political opponent, William Russell, made this statement today: "Regardless of your political position, you always knew Jack had an immense love and loyalty to his family and the residents of the 12th Congressional District,'' Mr. Russell said."

The Wisdom of Luis Rodriguez, Massachusetts voter.

According to a FoxNews.com article concerning the strongly contested race between Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley for Ted Kennedy's vacated Senate seat, a voter by the name of "Luis Rodriguez" appears to speak for many across the nation:

The 46-year-old plastics factory supervisor, who emigrated to the U.S. in 1988 from Uruguay and became a citizen last year, said he's fed up with what he calls the lies told by Washington. It's enough for him that Coakley supports Obama, who Rodriguez says has failed to make good on his pledge for openness.

"We don't buy what we can't afford. We don't spend what we don't have," said Rodriguez, echoing the anger expressed by other voters who say Democrats are too eager to bail out bankers and people who bought homes they couldn't afford. "These people, what they're doing now, they're spending money they don't have so they can get elected again."

Assuming that the attribution is correct (you never know, after all, this was reported on Fox News, which according to President Obama's administration is not a "real news organization", then I would have to say that Mr. Rodriguez has completely and correctly stated my opinion concerning Democratic lead initiatives. They are a "chicken in every pot" in order to maintain control in a government that Democrats believe should be used to "take care" of it's citizens, whether they want it or not.

'nuff said.

MSNBC Ed Schult "I'd Cheat to Keep Brown From Winning".

MSNBC's political talkers continue to prove that they are an entirely owned subsidiary of the Democratic National Committee.

As reported on January 16th by the Washington Times and then highlighted on the much vaunted (or reviled) DrudgeReport, MSNBC's Ed Schultz made the following statement:

"I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are."



Ed's comments were made in context of the surprisingly competitive Massachusetts Senatorial seat election between Democrat Martha Coakley and Rebuplican Scott Brown. And expectedly, he's supporting Coakley over Brown.

I'd not be surprised if you were to say "Ed who?". Ed Schultz is a MSNBC primetime opinion talker (6pm to 7pm Eastern). This puts him up against Brett Baier on Fox News, who is crushing him in the ratings.

Ed appears to be a little unclear on the whole "democracy" concept that is supposedly the basis for our government. You know, that part that says that each person gets a single vote, and when you tally up those votes, the candidate with the most of them win? (OK, the US Presidential Election doesn't quite work like that because of the Electoral College thingy that actually helps low-population states a little, which makes it possible to win the popular vote by a slim margin and still lose the electoral college vote by a fairly large margin.)

What Ed, a national (in theory) cable commentator is doing is encouraging voter fraud in the State of Massachusetts for the benefit of the Democratic Candidate.

Now say what you like about the right-wing talkers like Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilley but you have not heard them encourage illegal voter behavior or insinuate that they'd do it themselves.

And what do you think the "main-stream" media pundits, talkers and bloggers would be doing right now had Hannity or Beck said the same thing in support of Scott Brown? So I'm completed fascinated by the defeaning silence from them concerning Ed's angry outburst. I attribute it to one of two possibilities: One) Nobody watches "The Ed Show" on MSNBC except for other political hacks, so they're the only ones noticing, or Two) most of media in this country is friendly to left of center commentators and are willing to give him a pass on his indiscreet commentary and thereby doing a huge disservice to the voting public by failing to equally illuminate outrageous commentary from either the left or right.

As I have said to my friends many times, you must consider the source from which the comment came and then discount it accordingly.

Not Kowtowing to Special Interests? Dems are Lying to Us.

On Wednesday, after a fifteen hour closed-door session between key Democratic Senate and House leadership and Labor Union executives, it sounds like just like Senator Nelson's "Cornhusker Kickback", the special tax on "Cadillac" plans will be deferred until 2017 on labor union members.

What a crock of flup. Didn't Candidate Obama run on a platform that specifically said that they would not kowtow to special interests? In fact, doesn't he specifically say in a current political ad for Candidate Coakley, the Democrat running for Teddy Kennedy's vacant senate seat, that a vote for Coakley will help cement the progress being made against special interests in Washington?

This is how bizness is done in Washington, ladies and gentlemen. It's a process where people are bought and sold. The labor unions have managed to buy themselves 7 years of protection from Health Care Reform costs even though they will be permitted to participate in it immediately.

Just like the campaign lies of "transparency and openness" in the current administration, we are now seeing that special interest involvement in the writing of legislation is alive and well.

Is Archie Bunker talking about 1974 or 2010?

HR-4191: Speaker Pelosi and Prime Minister Brown have Never Met a New Tax They Didn't Like.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58099

Considering the number of reports indicating that "stimulus spending" is actually not very stimulating, the job creation is being reported in districts that don't exist, or that job creation can't be actually verified or in fact job creation is being reported when the money allocated for the jobs hasn't been actually received or spent yet. In other words, there is little or no accountability for the current stimulus spending and strong questions as to whether or not there has been any effect at all.

At every turn, as more and more Americans are yelling at their Federal Government to stop the spending their elected representatives and Senators continue to suffer electoral deafness.

In this legislative silence comes Rep. Pete DeFazio (D-OR) who has proposed HR-4191, which would levy a separate tax on all stock trades, futures contracts, swaps, credit default swaps and stock options. These revenues would be used to fund another stimulus spending program, even though we're not even sure that TARP and TARPII are working. At .025 percent, the potential revenues generated are estimated to be $150 billion every year.

"To restore Main Street America, a small securities tax on Wall Street should be invested in job creation on 'Main Street'. This transfer tax would be assessed on the sale and purchase of financial instruments such as stocks, options and futures."

It did not take long, however, for other Democratic representatives to raise opposition. Notably, Reps Michael McMahon (D-NY), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Debbie Halvorsen (D-IL) circulated a "Dear Colleague" letter that stated, in part: "A $150 billion tax on financial transactions will fall on millions of hardworking Americans who are saving for their future through their 401k plans, mutual funds, pensions and others savings vehicles." They correctly note that mutual fund and money market fund transactions are also purchases and sales of securities and bonds. They further note that the American version of the proposal would not exempt middle-class Americans because while the tax would be paid by major stock brokers. The brokers would almost assuredly pass the cost down to the investors, be they individuals or pension and retirement fund managers.

And wait a minute... the American version? That's right! This is part of a coordinated plan to make sure that this tax is global. The genesis of this idea comes from the embattled British Prime Minister, Mr. Gordon Brown. As part of his proposal all major financial centers - Asia, the EU, the U.S. and the U.K. - would also have to pass similar transaction taxes to avoid "disadvantaging" any single country's stock exchange. Nancy Pelosi apparently thinks that this "idea" might be popular amongst a public eager to see "Wall Street" firms "pitching in" to help the government grow the economy. Ms. Pelosi, how in the hell would Wall Street be "pitching in" to "help" when these taxes are being forced upon them by the bayonet point of the various law enforcement agencies of "all major financial centers"? The courts have a word for actions like this: Extortion.

To summarize, there is now a movement in the Democratically controlled U.S. House of Representatives to now levy a tax on most of all financial instrument transactions in order to create a new pool of money that can be used for additional "stimulus spending", even though there are convincing arguments that neither TARP or stimulus are having an actual positive effect and in fact are drowning our people in unimaginable levels of debt?

A warning to most of you Generation X and Y people. If you think that your 401(k) contributions will be affected, you'd be RIGHT.

How's that HOPE and CHANGE working for ya? For myself, I think it SUCKS.

Here's one more tidbit of information for you: http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/12/07/cost-benefit-analysis-of-jobs-stimulus/. Summary: Since the Obama administration says that about 640,000 jobs have been created with the $157 billion already spent, that works out to roughly a quarter million dollars annual salary per job created. Since the average payroll employee made roughly $57,000 last year, had the government just paid for the labor, they could have created over 2.7 million jobs. But they want to create another tax (HR-4191) so we can enjoy the similar benefits of our highly efficient, honest, transparent and honest government.

Chris Matthews' Characterizes West Point Academy as "Enemy Camp" to President Obama.

Follow the weblink to a video of the relevant excerpt of Chris Matthews' commentary after President Obama's Afghanistan strategy speech of December 1, 2009:



Now... I'm a former Marine. My son is currently serving in the U.S. Marine Corps. I have a fair number of friends who either are serving or who have served in the U.S. armed forces. And I don't think it's news that these people are generally not friends of members of the Democratic party or persons who lean towards liberal/progressive ideology.

However, I think it is safe to say that neither the regular military establishment, or the military academies such as West Point (Army), Annapolis (Navy) or Colorado Springs (Air Force) have ever taken any action that would make it fair to label them as "enemies" of any President of the Unite States.

Just as the rhetoric against George Bush during his administration was way over the top, we still continue to see extreme partisan invective from both sides in this administration. Chris Matthews' rhetoric will continue to reinforce in the minds of his devotees that the military is openly antagonistic of the President and his policies, which is patently untrue.

If we look at recent American history, we can see that the U.S. Military establishment has reasons for being suspicious of Democratic presidents. President Carter canceled more military programs than any U.S. President since Harry Truman. While President Lyndon Johnson increased our commitment of troops in Vietnam, he purposefully did not try to build public support for the conflict because of his fear that support for our Vietnam commitments would take support from his "Great Society" social programs. Because of this, service personnel returning from duty in Vietnam were literally spit upon by anti-war protesters that Johnson did very little to control (although when he did, such as at Kent State, the result was disastrous). President Clinton, exulting in the Reagan-caused collapse of the Soviet Union, tried to leverage the so-called "peace dividend". The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of the Shah of Iran and rise of militant fundamentalist Islam in Iran and elsewhere, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the 1998 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen all occurred during Democratic administrations. Many in the military believe that these relatively unpunished acts encouraged the greatest act of terrorism ever experienced, which were the September 11, 2001 assaults on the World Trade Center, Pentagon and possibly the Capitol building or the White House.

Only during the American Civil War did large elements of the regular military establishment openly defy the President of the United States. Otherwise, the U.S. military has been a devoted and faithful servant of the American people, directed by the legal orders of their President. To characterize West Point or any other military establishment as the camp of the enemy is absurd and an unwarranted accusation against the honorable men and women who learn the trade of war in order to preserve the peace and security of our people.

Good Liberal Argument Concerning the National Debt

When you throw away the name-calling and other infantile behavior that currently plagues our legislatures at the Federal and State levels it becomes possible to listen to well-reasoned arguments from either side of the political spectrum and learn from it.

I was perusing a Progressive website (Centers for American Progress or CAP) and read an article written Michael Ettlinger and Michael Linden.

Michael Ettlinger is the VP for Economic Policy at CAP, principal developer of the ITEP Microsimulation Tax Model. He holds degrees from Cornell and American University.

Micheal Linden is the Assoc. Director for Tax and Budget Policy at the CAP. He has a master's degree in public policy from UC Berkeley. He is also a children's advocate, working at First Focus.

Both of these gentlemen lean heavily to the left. But, can we actually hear words of common ground from them? You bet...

In an article hosted on CAP's website that was posted on September 30, 2009 titled "Deal wit It. A Guide to the Federal Deficit and Debt".

While I disagree with their position that heavy deficit spending is necessary to prevent economic collapse during challenging times, I found several of the following quotes to be self-evident and very common sense.

"The real challenge is what we face after the recession: significant sustained deficits which, while not quite as eye catching, are equally historic, harder to solve, and pose a greater danger."

They also point out that sustained high levels of national debt can deter domestic investment, lower future incomes, raise interest rates and promote inflation, which causes further damage to people who see their wages fail to keep up with increasing inflation.

They provide a dire warning by stating that the CBO1 and the OMB2 both project high deficits through 2019, the latest year for which they offer their estimates.

The offer the following for consideration:
1) Revenue shortfalls are projected in personal income taxes, corporate income taxes and payroll taxes, especially compared with previous periods (they cite 1998, when the budget was actually generating a surplus of .8 of GDP3). This is especially pernicious in light of the fact that in the short term, stimulus spending (TARP4, ARRA5, TARPII, CARS6) is going to produce greater deficits in the short term, adding dramatically to the national debt burden and therefore also the amount of money the federal government pays monthly on that debt plus interest.
2) Government health care spending is expected to dramatically increase as the baby-boomers go from workers paying INTO social security to retirees taking FROM the system. Hence, the extreme urgency of reforming health care. Yes, health care reform is a national security issue. It's the WAY that we reform health care that is the source of so much angst and invective in our current political conversation.
3) Because of our involvement in Afghanistan, the ongoing campaign against jihadist threats and the likelihood that we will be facing a resurgent threat from an increasingly socialistic Russia and an emerging threat from socialist China, our military expenditures are projected to INCREASE.

These postulations are not in dispute by any reasonable person of either party.

They emphasize the difficult decisions that we are going to have to make and offer the following analysis.

"The [deficit] 6.3 percent of GDP swing is driven by both decreases in revenues and increases in spending." This is also common sense and incontestable. They make more assertions. Let's see if you agree with any of them.

1) Across the board spending cuts aren't likely. Some areas of the [federal] budge will be spared, which means other areas will have to face deeper cuts. Examples: We aren't going to default on our debt payments. We are also not going to cut Social Security, simply control the rate of growth. By taking these two items off of the table, the REST of the budget would have to be cut by 27% to achieve balance, or 14% to bring the deficit to below 2% of GDP.
2) Health care reform (assuming that the current version of USNHC were passed) is assumed to result in significant Medicare cost reductions, but most of these reductions will not become apparent for a decade or more. Assuming we can't cut Medicare, then the remainder of the budget must be cut by 35% to balance the budget or 18% to get the deficit below 3% of the GDP.
3) If we also exempt military spending from the cuts, which we would probably be obligated to do considering our current geopolitical obligations and future scenarios, that would mean that the rest of the budget would have to be cut by 51%.

So what gets cut by 51%? Funds to health clinics, federal retiree and veteran benefits, public schools, grants to higher education, the entire transportation infrastructure, regulatory agencies, the US Post office, etc. This is not a realistic solution.

The other side of the coin is to balance the budget by raising revenues (taxes and fees). It's also equally dismal. We would have to increase federal revenues by 22% in order to balance the budget by 2014. That's a 22% increase in everybody's income taxes, gas taxes, payroll taxes and federal charges. And don't forget that the 50 states are also raising or will be raising taxes and fees. To bring the deficit to 2% of GDP would still require a 12% across the board increase in revenues. However, the current administration has promised that they will not increase taxes on individuals who earn less than $250k annually. This means that family's earning more than $250k annually and corporations would have to pay a tax rate of nearly 70% in order to cut the budget deficit to only 2% of GDP by 2014. Note that this does NOT balance the budget.

They then ask some questions that I don't agree with. Example: "Can the U.S. afford to continue to spend so much more of it's national income than the rest of the world on defense?" As of 2003, the U.S. spent 3.7 of national income on military expenditures, which represented 49% of U.S. discretionary spending. While this does not include the last five years, 49% of the discretionary spending budget is nearly the lowest percentage spent in any given fiscal year since before World War II.

For over four decades our government has run budget deficits, with the natural result that our national debt has grown to a dangerous high. The conclusion: In order to slow our deficit spending and return to a balanced budget or even a budget surplus will require significant sacrifice on our part.

Here's the part my conservative friends isn't going to like. Our economy is a national security issue. We must stop spending money that we do not have. Quite the opposite, we must start to repay the money that we have already borrowed. The only way that we are going to be able to do that is to both reduce government spending (including military and health care) while at the same time, all American citizens are going to be called upon to pay more in fees and taxes while at the same time receiving less entitlements. It's going to hurt. Any conservative that tells me that we can solve this solution while not increasing taxes is not looking dispassionately at the facts of our situation. However, any liberal that thinks we can balance the budget and reduce the debt by increased taxation alone are also equally deluded. Programs of all kinds, including social programs (education, housing, health care, regulatory agencies) are going to have to be cut or dramatically reduced.

We've had our party. It's time to pay the bill.


(1) CBO: Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan Federal organization that provides the Congress with financial impact analysis.
(2) Office of Management and Budget, a Federal organization that monitors existing Federal spending.
(3) GDP: Gross Domestic Product
(4) TARP: Troubled Asset Relief Program
(5) ARRA: American Reinvestment and Recovery Act
(5) CARS: Car Allowance Rebate System

Adulation of the MAN vs. the INSTITUTION (Follow up to previous posting)

The American system of government is greater than any one man or even group of men. This why adulation for the MAN instead of the INSTITUTION is so scary to me and many who share my point of view.

Barack Obama's accomplishment of becoming the first American President "of color", especially considering our checkered history with the institution of slavery, specifically the slavery of Africans is momentous. But the accomplishment of Barack Obama pales when viewed in light of the greater context that our system permits any person regardless of creed, race, sex to achieve the highest levels of success and authority.

But are these children being taught to praise that system? I doubt it. I suspect that Dr. Denise King, the principal of the school where this song was recorded, would probably say that the American system is full of inequalities and injustices and that minorities are repressed. She is probably teaching children that capitalism is "evil" and "uncaring". She probably dwells on the mistakes of our nation's past, such as the nearly successful genocide of the Native American or the institution of African slavery.

I suspect she does NOT teach much about the indentured servitude (economic slavery) of Irish, Scots, Germans, Poles and Italians in the 1800's or the Chinese and other Asians in the late 1800's and early 1900's. I also bet she doesn't talk much about the current genocide taking place in both eastern and southern Africa, where Africans are enslaving or destroying whole other tribes of Africans solely on basis of clan affiliation. Or how about the sexual enslavement or mutilation of African women by African men? Hmmm? Or how about the current repression by China of Tibet and it's eastern Muslim population, or the destruction of millions of lives in Myanmar (formerly Burma)?

Then there's India with it's caste system. Does she spend much time talking about the purely social discrimination of the Bhangis ("untouchables") by the Brahmins, even though those people are genetically the same family? Or the "honor killings" practiced in much of the Islamic world? Or the outright racist attitudes of most Asians? To this day, Japanese print media depicts Africans with big lips and low foreheads and the book "Little Black Sambo" is a popular children's picture book. In fact, there is no redress for "hate crimes" in Japan because there is NO JAPANESE LAW protecting civil rights.

The American system of government and the society it has created is far from perfect. And by definition, a capitalistic economic system means that people will fail although that does not mean that those people are failures. People become failures only when they prove unable to overcome adversity. But in our society, which is now dominated by an arguably corrupt and non-representing representative system, the charged are still presumed innocent until proven guilty and people like Bernard Madoff or the CEOs of corrupt companies like TYCO, Enron or MCI Worldcom go to jail for destroying the financial future of others. While perfection eludes us what other nation on Earth presents as much opportunity as the United States? Even in decline with possibly our best days now behind us are still one of the freest, safest places on Earth to live.

So when I see children pouring out their adulation for only a MAN instead of the INSTITUTION, in my opinion I am justifiably concerned. If this is an innocent act then it's wrong. If it's purposeful then it can only be called one thing: INDOCTRINATION.

Showing Respect to the Office of President is Worshipping His Name.

There is a video on You Tube titled “(No background music} School kids taught to praise Obama.” The tape shows a class of students, about thirty or so, singing this little catchy ditty. According to the notes with the video, it was filed at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, NJ and uploaded on June 19, 2009.

Here are the lyrics to that song:
Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama

I have stated before on my blog and elsewhere that any person that is elected to the Presidency of the United States is worthy of respect, even if you are opposed to many of the policies or political views of that person. In my own case, I won’t ever represent President Obama as a monkey or a witch-doctor, as some of the 9/12 protesters did. I do not use inflammatory names when referring to Mr. Obama. But I have no problem with disagreeing with him on any policy he presents that grows government or limits personal freedom. Further, I have no problemexpressing those views on my blog and in personal conversations.

Prior to the 1970s, it was not uncommon at all for photographic portraits of the current U.S. President to hang in classrooms all across America. But during my public school education journey from 1966 to 1979 I do not ever remember singing a song about the man that held that office. We had our ditties about George Washington and Abe Lincoln back when those President’s birthdays were actually celebrated on the anniversary of their births. But a living currently serving President? Nope.

I find the lyrics in this song to be bordering on cult of personality worship:
“He said red, yellow, black or white All are equal in his sight.” This is almost demigod worship in its tone, much like the song “Jesus loves the little children”. This is a message to children that President Obama loves you no matter who or what you are. It is nearly cultlike. It is not the job of the President of the United States to love us. It is his job to protect us from all enemies foreign and domestic and to ever support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

“He said that we must take a stand To make sure everyone gets a chance.”
Who can argue with this sentiment? The problem here is that our children are being taught that there is blatant inequality in our culture, which I concede there is still some. However, the reality is that not everybody makes the most of the opportunities that life and our culture provides them. If opportunity for "minorities" was truly as bad as the progressives would have you believe, then why do Haitians fleeing abject poverty in their own country bypass Cuba, the Turks and Caicos, Jamaica and the Bahaamas, which are all far closer in order to emigrate to the United States? Why do hundreds of thousands of Mexicans flee to the U.S. in the face of the chance of capture, punishment or deportment? Opportunity! That's why!

But instead, for the sake of creating "nurturing" environments where our children are not subject to the "threat" of failure we are instead creating a whole generation of kids who do not know how to learn from their mistakes and overcome adversity using innovation, dedication and persistence. This school environment is emulated nowhere in the real world of employment. If you fail and give up, or repeatedly make the same mistakes you will be written up, demoted or terminated. But I digress...

I have no problem in teachers encouraging an attitude of respect for our President, but I am vehemently opposed to teaching our kids politics unless you will teach them by presenting both viewpoints equally or worse, adulation for a man who has yet to prove if he deserves the respect of the office that the People of the United States have already entrusted to him.

Comparing Joe Wilson's "You Lie" to the "New Face of the KKK". You've Gotta Be Kidding Me!

Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) has now taken the political debate to yet a new low, showing that the Black Congressional Caucus and the Democratic Party is completely prepared to throw the "race card" down on the table at any time that it looks like it might create political advantage.

Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) blurted out "You lie!" during President Barack Obama's September 9th speech promoting his health care reform plan to Congress. Wilson personally apologized to the President the following day, and that apology was accepted.

However, since Congress is a tank of sharks that just love the smell of blood, and partisan rhetoric is just as rancid and raucous as ever, the Democrats wasted no time in debating and then voting on a censure of Wilson today (September 15th). Of course CNN was there to cover this debate (where were they on Van Jones, ACORN, All the President's Czars, etc?). CNN caught Johnson on camera and he had this to say:

"He did not help the cause of diversity and tolerance with his remarks. If I were a betting man, I would say it instigated more racist sentiment and feeling. 'It's OK. You don't have to bury it now. You can bring it out and talk about it fully.' And so I guess we'll probably have folks putting on uh, white hoods and white uniforms again, riding through the countryside intimidating people. And uh, you know, that's the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude, uh, is not rebuked. If Congressman Wilson represents, uh, he's the face of it."

I've never cussed on this blog before. But I'm going to now. You've got to be shitting me. Joe Wilson is now the face of racial intolerance and hatred in the United States of America because he disagrees with the President's assertion that SR3200 will not prevent illegal immigrants from receiving health care benefits? You got all that from two words?. In my opinion that's one helluva stretch. This just demonstrates and proves what Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin and all the other conservative talkers have been saying since Obama started campaigning for election, which is that you cannot disagree with the President on any topic and then avoid being charged with opposing the President because you are a racist and he is an African-American.

I'm sure that were I to have an opportunity to speak directly to Representative Johnson, and he were willing to actually waste his time defending himself to me, that he could come up with some convoluted explanation about how he can rationalize the connection between Rep. Wilson to the KKK by the evidence of the two words "You lie!" In my opinion, this can only be rationally explained by Saul Alinsky rule #12: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." By portraying Wilson as a personalized face of racism, Johnson successfully demonizes Wilson and weakens him and what he stands for. The simplest explanation is the most likely, and this certainly fits the data.

Political discourse in this country is dying. And the rules are skewed. Nobody will defend Wilson against this ridiculous, baseless and from my point of view, irresponsible charge because no white guy is going to get fair representation.

ACORN Contradictions in Tax-Evasion/Prostitution Advice Scandal.

Jim O'Keefe released a video through www.biggovernment.com that shows himself and a young, attractive woman disguised as a pimp and prostitute trying to get advice from a pair of ACORN "community organizers" on how to buy a house in order to lodge over a dozen young females from El Salvador. During the conversation, the undercover couple let the following "facts" be known to the ACORN workers:

1. Their business was prostitution.
   
2. They would be housing 13 young women from El Salvador.
3. They weren't paying income taxes.
4. If they were to start paying taxes, what should they claim in terms of income, occupation and dependents.

The response from the ACORN representatives is truly stunning. They tell the undercover couple that they can file under the classification of "Performing Arts". They tell them that since the 13 young girls don't have Social Security numbers, don't worry about them. They completely ignore the implication that the girls are probably illegal aliens, that they are underage, and that they will be working in their "business". The advice received concerning how to avoid paying taxes given is "Don't file." Even though the undercover couple indicate that their annual income would be about $96,000, they are told to declare $9,600 in income since they are probably doing mostly a cash business.

If it weren't as grotesque as I've just described it, this would be hilarious. But it gets better.

On Wednesday, ACORN spokesman Scott Levenson said "The portrayal is false and defamatory and an attempt at 'gotcha' journalism." The national headquarters also stated that there would be no further comment until they saw the "entire" video. This notwithstanding the "entire" video is currently available for download at www.biggovernment.com right now and has been since September 5th.

On Friday it was reported by ACORN Maryland chapter leader Stuart Katzenberg that the two employees were fired because "they did not meet ACORN's standard of professionalism." Whoa. I though ACORNs position was that the video was misleading, "false and defamatory". Yet two employees were fired? Seems contradictory to me.

Oh wait, it get's even better! (Or sicker, depending on your point of view.) Fox News is now reporting that in addition to the Baltimore office being "stung" by Jim O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, they managed to pull the same stunt off at an ACORN office in Washington, D.C. as well. In this NEW tape Lavernia Boone, an ACORN "mortgage consultant" and Sherana Boone, an ACORN "housing employee" (are they related?) allegedly give the undercover couple similar advice as the Baltimore office did.

So... I think we've got some contradictions here.
ACORN believes the videotape is "false and defamatory" and yet two "community organizers" lost their jobs because of their "unprofessional standards". ACORN would also have you believe that the Baltimore employees were part-time temporary help and that no senior staffers were in the office at the time. This is clearly intended to get people to believe that the situation was unique to "Tonya" and "Shira" at the Baltimore office and that they were acting beyond ACORN rules and regulations. And yet... here comes the DC video! And what advice does the DC office give? The exact same advice as in Baltimore. To wit; lie on your taxes, tell the kids to shutup, keep your prostitution business low-key or somebody will get nosey and call "Fox".

ACORN Offers to Help Setup a Brothel.

Wow. I thought I'd seen it all...

Then I see a video on www.biggovernment.com that shows two young white students posing as a prostitute and her pimp in trying to use ACORNs consulting services to secure a loan to purchase a house. The video completely speaks for itself and every American should be casting severe distrust against this organization.

ACORN responding by saying that the video was "false and defamatory" and an attempt to "smear" their organization. False? How? This was a video of two of their employees providing the following advice:
1) Run a prostitution brothel under the IRS classification of "Performance Arts".
2) Avoid paying taxes by using the following tactic: "Don't file."
3) Continue to assist with tax form preparation even when the couple states that they will also have numerous young girls from El Salvador working for them "in the trade" and living in the house.

What should have happened at that point is that the ACORN employees (or representatives or whatever) demand the couple's identification or even make a citizen's arrest. What this couple were "pretending" to setup was a child pornography/sex slave operation working out of the house that ACORN was going to assist them in purchasing with falsified tax documents.

And President Obama wants to use these same people to collect 2010 census information and funnel them 8.9 billion dollars?!?

I agree with Glenn Beck. This is not a Democrat/Republican issue. This is a corruption issue. And it is clear that ACORN and the politicians that support/protect them are about as corrupt as it gets.

More about ObamaCare: August 27, 2009

ITEM 1:
According to a Fox News report, both ABC and NBC news are refusing to run a national ad critical of Pres. Obama's health care reform plan. The ad was created by the League of American Voters, which describes themselves as a "national non-partisan and 501(c)4 non-profit organization created to keep our elected officials in Washington and across the nation accountable." The ad features a neurosurgeon who admonishes that the current health care reform plan will affect the U.S. industry much like the rapidly failing public single-payer systems in both the United Kingdom and Canada. Quotes from important newspapers scroll across the screen, proclaiming dire consequences if the current plan is enacted into law.

An ABC News spokesperson responded to criticism for this decision by stating that "The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue."

Really? So when ABC essentially gave an entire day to discuss the plan with Preisdent Obama back in June, when did ABC plan on giving the same amount of time to the loyal opposition to provide their views on this complex legislation. This is an example of where the "Fairness Doctrine" could certainly be applied to broadcast TV as opposed to just AM talk radio. 33 seconds vs. most of primetime for a day. To me, it still seems that ABC is in President Obama's hip pocket.

ITEM 2
I read on Breitbart.com that Representative Pete Stark (D-CA), head of the Health subcommittee on the House Ways and Means committee has declared that the "Blue Dogs" (a fiscally conservative faction of roughly 50 Democratic representatives) are "brain dead" and "just want to make trouble" with their opposition to President Obama's health care reform plan. He went on to essentially accuse the Blue Dogs of siding with big-money insurance companies and health care providers in order to "raise money". The political discourse in this country has absolutely gone to the dogs (pun intended). Why can't either side of this debate admit that the other side believes what they want is the best without slandering their character or intentions? Sure... the constituency for the Blue Dogs has nothing better to do than send representatives to Congress who just want to make trouble. I find it interesting that the Blue Dogs are fiscal conservatives. Maybe they have not yet been convinced that ObamaCare won't actually cause our federal budget deficit to skyrocket to the point where we might actually owe more money in debt than our gross national domestic product. And this at a time when foreign countries are actively considering dumping U.S. dollars in favor of a new "world currency" or a fund made up of several currencies, not just U.S. dollars.

ITEM 3
TimesOnline.co.uk: Apparently the Democrats, realizing that the August recess has only shown a weakening of public support for Pres. Obama's health care reforms, are trying to capitalize on the recent passing of Senator Edward "Ted" M. Kennedy (D-MA). Senator Robert Byrd suggested the health care reform plan (currently the United States Nationalized Health Care Act) should "bear his name", while Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) opined "Ted Kennedy’s dream of quality healthcare for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration.” While there is no question that the Chappaquiddick... er ... Massachusetts senator made public health care a major policy priority during his tenure as a elected servant, isn't this getting just a bit operatic?

ITEM 4
This is from CBSnews.com. ObamaCare would require that the IRS (yes, THOSE guys) would be required to divulge taxpayer identity information to include filing status, modified adjusted gross income, number of dependents and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. This information will then be used by the Health Choices Commissioner (a new position mandated by USNHC (ObamaCare)) to determine if someone qualifies for "affordability credits". Don't believe, go to Section 431(a) of the bill. I'd give you the page number, but this thing keeps getting rewritten so the section keeps moving. This is also restated in Section 245(b)(2)(A). Uh, wait a minute... I think I remember reading that the Privacy Act requires that agencies get their information directly from individual, not from other agencies. This would mean that thousands upon thousands of government employees would suddenly have very easy access to some of your most important information, namely, your income. What's to prevent those agencies from using this information in other ways?

Well, that's enough for today... oh yeah, and still no addition of Tort reform in USNHC. Which absurdly brings me to DNC Chairman Howard Dean's opinion on that subject.

ITEM 5
From SFExaminer.com: SFExaminer reporter Mark Tapscott accurately described this slip as "incredibly candid" when he reported on the following. At a townhall meeting hosted by Jim Moran (D-VA), an audience member asked why the legislation does nothing to cap medical malpractice class-action lawsuits against doctors and medical institutions (Tort reform). DNC Chairman Howard Dean, himself a former physician, responded by saying "The reason tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on. And that's the plain and simple truth." Well, great. So it's ok to take on doctors, hospitals, clinics, pharamceutical companies, but those trial lawyers just FIGHT TOO HARD so we'll not take them on, and incidentally, cut U.S. national spending on healthcare by possibly as much as two-hundred million dollars as the result of smaller malpractice insurance premiums and outrageous settlement amounts. Incidentally, you WERE aware that the most common prior occupation for a member of the U.S. House of Representatives is "lawyer", right?