-->
"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done."
Ronald Reagan




Showing posts with label Federal Budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Budget. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Austin Hill - A Free People - And A Resurgence Of Wisdom

“People call this the ‘new normal.’ Let me assure you there is nothing normal about this at all. It’s the new ‘abnormal,’ and it won’t last, because as free people we won’t stand for it…”

With those remarks, business magnate and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes drew thunderous applause from his audience.

It was October of 2012, about 2 weeks before our last presidential election. Forbes was speaking to a crowd of 10,000 in the comforts of a beautiful indoor sporting area (the “Idaho Center”). He was headlining yet another west-coast based “Power Up!” business and motivational seminar with Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani, and Zig Ziglar protégé Krish Dhanam (fyi-we need more native-born Americans to understand American liberty as well as this guy from India named “Krish” understands it).

Forbes had just finished explaining why a confluence of cheap credit, billions of dollars in stimulus spending, lots of new taxes on “rich people,” and a growing-by-the-second government debt have all failed to stimulate our economy. He was confirming with his technical explanation, what many of us instinctively know in our hearts: the reality that no organization- no individual or family, no business, no government – can spend its way out of debt and re-distribute its way to prosperity.

We should all hope that Forbes will be proven right – that, eventually, “as free people, we won’t stand for it.” Because in the election that occurred two weeks after Forbes’ speech, Americans didn’t merely “stand for it” - we asked for “more of it.”

But here is our reality: if Americans continue to ignore their government, or blindly accept the promises of politicians; if Americans continue to vote (either blindly or intentionally) for politicians who viciously take expanding portions of wealth away from our society’s producers, and then selfishly redistribute that wealth to the people of their choosing, eventually the producers will stop producing as much wealth, the politicians will run out of other’s people’s money to redistribute, and we will all suffer the consequences, just like so many Europeans are suffering.

The social disorder and collapse of Greece and Spain and Cyprus could be our future in the U.S., if, “as free people,” we don’t choose more wisely. We need a resurgence of wisdom in America, and we need to understand the frail nature of our freedom.

For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, examples abound in this present day of how not to construct a national economy. Greece and Spain and Cyprus qualify, yes. And within the last few months the news from France, another bureaucratic, debt-laden, and not-so-free-anymore part of the world, should be a wake-up call to Americans, as well.

After five years of service from President Nicolas Sarkozy, a leader who sought to reduce government controls of the economy and to stimulate private enterprise, French voters tossed him aside last May in favor of a presidential candidate who was nominated jointly by both the French Socialist Party, and France’s “Radical Left Party.” Francois Hollande campaigned with a set of 60 propositions - referred to as his “manifesto” – which included raising taxes on corporations; raising taxes on banks; raising taxes on “rich” individuals; lowering the official retirement age back down to age 60 from 62; hiring 60,000 new government school teachers; and establishing government subsidized “youth jobs programs” in regions of high unemployment (does any of this sound familiar?).

Today, many French citizens seem horrified that – shock! – President Hollande is doing precisely what he pledged to do. “The situation is very serious” noted Laurence Parisot, head of France’s largest labor union MEDEF in an interview with the London Telegraph. “Some business leaders are in a state of quasi-panic” he claimed, as the Telegraph reported that “France is sliding into a grave economic crisis and risks a full-blown ‘hurricane’ as investors flee rocketing tax rates.”

Within his first six months in office, French President Hollande managed to raise national capital gains taxes from 34.5% to 62.2%, and now the French people are freaking-out. Juxtapose that with the hatred that American Golfer Phil Mickelson experienced when he acknowledged last month that, between federal and California state income taxes, he’s having “62, or 63%” of his earnings taken away each year, and the reality-check is even more striking.

In short, the French apparently now believe that this level of taxation is a dangerous and destructive thing. In America, however, “rich guy” Phil Mickelson is a dangerous and destructive thing.

And consider this: Laurence Parisot, a major, national labor union leader (arguably a counterpart of Teamsters leader James P. Hoffa here in the U.S.) is upset because a Socialist President is taking more money from “the rich” and re-distributing it to others via government employment programs. Such policies would seem like a dream come true for the AFL-CIO, yet the union leader in France seems to understand that the “rich” in his country play a vital role in other people’s livelihoods, and simply seizing more of their money is harmful for everybody – even unionized workers.

The backlash that the Socialist President is enduring suggests that maybe the citizenry is waking up and facing reality. But are Americans facing economic reality yet?

Last week President Obama said in Miami that “we still got too many roads that are in disrepair,” and promised a plan to put people to work “rebuilding America.” He was promising this five years and five trillion dollars ago (remember the “shovel ready jobs” agenda in 2008?). Are Americans still expecting that more government spending and debt will lead us back to prosperity?

Let’s hope that Steve Forbes is right – that this is not our “new normal;” that we will reject politicians who are vicious with society’s wealth creators. It may, however, have to get much worse in America, before we embrace reality.


Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with
TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Sunday, March 17, 2013

CPAC 2013 - Paul Ryan

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), vice-presidential candidate on the 2012 Republican ticket, understandably made budget proposals the focus of his speech at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference.

They are the party of shared hardship. We are the party of equal opportunity.

I’m proud of our budget, because it’s changed the conversation. Today, we are not talking about cliffs or ceilings or sequesters. We’re talking about solutions. And that’s how it should be. Our budget expands opportunity by growing the economy. It strengthens the safety net by retooling government. And it restores fairness by ending cronyism. And by setting priorities, and choosing wisely, we have a plan to pay off our debt. In fact, we balance the budget in ten years, without raising taxes. How do we do this? You know, it’s really pretty simple. We stop spending money we don’t have.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Paul Ryan - House GOP unveils A Responsible, Balanced Budget

Today, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Committee Republicans released their plan to balance the budget in ten years. It is a responsible plan to cut spending, reform government, and foster a healthier economy. It provides economic security for families, repairs the safety net for the poor, strengthens retirement for seniors, and expands opportunity for all.

March 12, 2013
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Dr. Ben Carson - Obama's Charm Offensive

"As we allow the Government to take more and more of our money, all it does is fuel their growth."
Dr. Benjamin Carson


NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Debt Limit - A Guide to The Federal Debt Made Easy

The United States debt limit explained. A satirical short film taking a look at the national debt and how it applies to just one family.
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Thursday, February 28, 2013

PJTV Trifecta - Fright Makes Right: Obama's Sequester Scare Tear

President Obama is taking to the airwaves in an attempt to terrify Americans about budget cuts that he proposed. Is it working, and if so, why can't the GOP fight back against Obama's scare tactics? Find out as Tammy Bruce visits the Trifecta gang.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Monday, September 24, 2012

Austin Hill - Even The Fed Doesn’t Believe It’ll Work

Breaking news: officials in our U.S. Federal Government do not know how to solve all our woes.

This actually shouldn’t be “news.” Leaders from none other than the Federal Reserve, itself, have repeatedly admitted this in recent months.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has admitted this multiple times, and in a variety of different contexts (a point I’ll review momentarily). But last Wednesday, the President and C.E.O. of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas reiterated this point himself, and his announcements have largely been ignored.

In a Speech before the Harvard Club of New York City, bank President Richard Foster publicly restated his opposition to the Fed’s recent decision to launch “QE3,” its third attempt in three years to use monetary policy to stimulate the economy. Foster began his speech noting that “with each program we undertake to venture further in that direction (in the direction of using monetary policy as stimulus), we are sailing deeper into uncharted waters. We are blessed at the Fed with sophisticated econometric models and superb analysts. We can easily conjure up plausible theories as to what we will do when it comes to our next tack or eventually reversing course. The truth, however, is that nobody on the committee, nor on our staffs at the Board of Governors and the 12 Banks, really knows what is holding back the economy.”

Later in the speech, Mr. Foster noted that our economy “is already flush with $1.6 trillion in excess private bank reserves owned by the banking sector and held by the 12 Federal Reserve Banks. Trillions more are sitting on the sidelines in corporate coffers. On top of all that, a significant amount of underemployed cash—or fuel for investment—is burning a hole in the pockets of money market funds and other non-depository financial operators. This begs the question: Why would the Fed provision to shovel billions in additional liquidity into the economy’s boiler when so much is presently lying fallow?”

The economy is being held back despite trillions of dollars “lying fallow,” and the highly educated experts at the Federal Reserve can’t figure out why. Mr. Foster deserves our thanks for being so truthful – yet we should all be concerned about his observations.

Of course, it was only three months ago when Chairman Ben Bernanke admitted that he had “no idea” why our economy is so “fragile.” This is the man who has overseen the lending of more than $3 trillion American taxpayer dollars to foreign banks; the rapid-fire acquisition of the former giant Merrill Lynch by the gargantuan Bank of America; the multi-billion dollar taxpayer bailout of Wall Street; and – although he craft legislation or sign bills in to law, he nonetheless supported the $800 billion “economic stimulus bill” from the Congress and the Obama Administration.

And after all that – and before the latest stimulus effort announced less than two weeks ago – the Fed Chairman nonetheless admits that he has “no idea” what is wrong with our economy.

The talent, econometric models, and superb analysts at the Federal Reserve notwithstanding, Americans of all stripes need to come to grips with some basic economic realities. If it is still a goal of our country to create wealth and opportunity for all, then we’ll have to start demanding that our government officials think and act differently.

For example, we will not have entrepreneurs once again using those “fallow trillions” to create new businesses and jobs in large quantities, until we demand that government stops bullying private enterprise. Despite the claims at the recent Democratic National Convention that President Obama “saved G.M” with government bailouts, last week General Motors announced that it wants to sever ties with our government. According to G.M. leadership, the restrictions on executive salaries that President Obama has forced upon the company have put G.M. at a competitive disadvantage with other car companies.

The fact that the Obama Administration would use an entire car company to satisfy its political agenda of cutting executive salaries, even at the expense of the company’s wellbeing, does not create a business-friendly environment. It conveys to entrepreneurs that President Obama’s agenda is preeminently important, and prosperity is secondary.

And did you hear about the Gallup organization? After publishing both political polling data and unemployment data that reflected poorly on the President, Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod engaged Gallup in a series of intimidating conversations demanding that Gallup change their methodologies. Gallup didn’t budge – and mysteriously found themselves targeted with a lawsuit from the Department of Justice lawsuit over an “unrelated issue.”

Americans must also demand that both Washington, and Wall Street, embrace the economic wisdom of Main Street. Most of us realize that, just as a drunken person cannot drink himself sober, no individual, household, nor organization can borrow and spend itself out of debt. This reality applies to our government, as well.

Americans deserve, and must demand, better.


Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with
TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Paul Ryan on solutions that stand in solidarity with the poor

Discussion following Paul Ryan's Whittington Lecture delivered at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

THP Videos - Paul Ryan - Credibility Deficit: President's False Claims Evaporate

The President continues to assert that policy changes proposed in his budget will result in $4 trillion in deficit reduction. The claim is simply false. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan unpacks the false claims and the gimmicks -- revealing a deep divide between reality and the Administration's rhetoric.


NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Bill Whittle - The Vote Pump

Barack Obama will have ONE BILLION DOLLARS to spend on his re-election in 2012. Bill calls that chump change. Find out how the Big Government statists spent 22,000 times that amount on buying votes in 2011 alone!


NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Monday, November 28, 2011

Austin Hill - Obamanomics And Bill The Crane Shop Owner

What could possibly be wrong with Obamanomics?

Just ask Bill the crane shop owner.

Bill Looman is the owner of U.S. Cranes L.L.C., a Waco, Georgia-based company that sells and services cranes and hoists. He has apparently found it difficult to hire new workers because of the dramatic increase in governmental regulations placed upon small businesses in recent years, and the overall sluggishness of the economy.

Not being able to expand one’s business is an unfortunate thing. But being harassed because you dare to speak your mind about current economic conditions is something different. And it wasn’t until Bill the crane shop owner actually went public with his assessment that our government was impinging on his business, that things got really dicey.

Six months ago, Looman began posting signs on his company vehicles which read “New Company Policy: We are not hiring until Obama is gone.” This wasn’t a political statement from Looman, so much as it was a statement about the current business and economic climate, and his belief that things won’t improve until Barack Obama exits the presidency. "I've got people that I want to hire now, but I just can't afford it,” Looman noted in a recent television interview. “And I don't foresee that I'll be able to afford it unless some things change in D.C."

According to Looman, initial reaction to this message was mostly favorable – responses were positive by about a ’20 to 1” ratio, he claimed. But last week, a photo of one of these signs went viral on the internet. This led Bill the crane owner to temporarily shut-off his telephones, Facebook account, and company website, to protect himself from a barrage of threatening calls and web postings.

The fact that an American business owner puts himself at risk simply by having financial struggles – and that he makes matters worse by daring to speak his mind about those struggles - is a very disturbing thing. It tells us that Americans have lost sight of even the most basic principles of both economics, and the “right to free speech.”

First, let’s think economically about Bill’s situation. What is the purpose of his crane business? Does it exist simply for the sake of ‘hiring people,” or is “hiring” the result of Bill’s business first having successfully fulfilled a series of other purposes?

Basic economic understanding tells us that U.S. Cranes, L.L.C. exists for the purpose of providing valuable products and services to its customers, and in the process of delivering those valuable products and services, to produce a profit for its owners. As such, “hiring” is a function of “supply and demand:” as demand for U.S. Cranes’ products and services grows, the company will eventually need to hire additional workers as a means of supplying what their customers need.

This is both a very basic, but also a very essential understanding of how our economy works, yet basic and essential economic understanding is in short supply right now. Americans all across our country – and even in the White House – falsely assume that businesses exist first and foremost to “create jobs” and that “not hiring” is evidence of greed and wickedness.

But let’s assume for a moment that Bill the crane shop owner is wrong, and that he has no legitimate concerns about the economy or his ability to hire workers. Is Bill free to express his views of such things, even if they are inaccurate?

For far too many Americans, the answer to this question is a decisive “no.” For them, Bill’s “right to free speech” (and yours and mine as well) ends, where Barack Obama’s agenda begins. The President has told small businesses to hire, so they should hire; the President has said that conditions are right for hiring, and one ought not to disagree with him.

What the President and his antagonistic supporters seemingly fail to understand is that the more belligerent they become with business owners, the less productive those businesses become. As Steve Wynn, C.E.O. of the publicly traded Wynn Resorts, Ltd noted last summer on a conference call with his investors, “… This administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime…my customers… are frightened of this administration… Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America…those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don’t want to say that. They’ll say, God, don’t be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama’s deal and it’s Obama that’s responsible for this fear in America…”

Americans have a big decision to make in the year ahead. Will we give President Obama another four years to have his way with us? Or will we affirm the right of each individual in our country to find their own way – even Bill the crane shop owner?


Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with
TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Friday, September 9, 2011

Barack Obama Wants to Spend More Money

Rather than cut spending, Barack Obama wants to borrow and spend even more money and is NOT only intractable in his demands, but is accusing everyone who disagrees with him of NOT willing to compromise. Barack Obama is acting like a spoiled petulant child pointing fingers at everyone else, instead of taking responsibility for his own Deficit Spending.


Many United States Citizens and Politicians are arguing whether or not a Trillion Dollars spent or saved by the Federal Government is a 'Big Deal'.

Central to the Problem of debating this issue, is that the Human mind cannot grasp nor understand exactly what a Trillion dollars means.

Total Tax Revenue for Fiscal Year 2010 in the United States was 2.16 Trillion Dollars and and Total Spent by the Federal Government in 2010 was 3.45 Trillion Dollars - this created a Deficit of 1.29 Trillion Dollars. Forty Cents ($.40) on every 'Deficit Dollar' spent in 2010 was borrowed - or approximately 516 Billion Dollars.

The Net worth of ALL Billionaires in the United States is 1.3 trillion dollars.

If ALL assets for ALL Billionaires in the United States were 'Seized', it would pay for the 2010 Deficit Spending.


The Graphic below illustrates 1 Trillion Dollars stacked in $100 Dollar bills.

The Graphic below illustrates 15 Trillion Dollars stacked in $100 Dollar bills.

Graphics by: http://www.wtfnoway.com/

Related Post: Bill Whittle Eat the Rich
Related Post: World Economy Collapse Explained in 3 Minutes
Related Post: "Big Deal" Obama Breaks it Down

Retired Geek


NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Monday, August 22, 2011

Mike Adams - I Think Therefore We Should

The most dangerous ideas in contemporary political discourse are easily identified. While they often take hours to explain they are usually introduced in a conversation beginning with these four words: “I think we should.” If you do not yet know what I am talking about then a brief example is warranted. The following comes from a recent conversation I had with a self-identified liberal:
“I think we should provide all of our citizens with national health care. I think we should continue to provide financial security for the elderly. I think we should also have national day care. And I think we should provide a free college education for every American.”
What I have come to refer to as “I think we should” morality is not a completely bad thing. But it is, quite literally, a half-bad thing, which means it is also a half-good thing. The good half of “I think we should” morality is the “I think” part. Let me illustrate with a few examples:

* When a person says, “I think providing citizens with health care is a good idea,” there really isn’t anything wrong. The person can always find someone who needs health care. And he can take the needy to the doctor if he so desires. In fact, he can take as many of them as he wants as long as they are willing to go.

* When a person says, “I think providing financial security for the elderly is a good idea,” there is no problem. The person who says this undoubtedly knows someone who is elderly. And he is certainly free to take out his check book and write a check to that elderly person. In fact, he can take care of as many elderly people as he wants as long as they are willing to accept his generosity.

* When a person says, “I think providing day care is a good idea,” there is no problem at all. The person who says this undoubtedly knows someone who has children. And he is certainly free to take care of his friends’ children whenever he perceives that they have other responsibilities to which they must attend. In fact, he can take care of as many of his friends’ children as he wants as long as their parents are willing and have trust in his supervision.

* When a person says, “I think providing free college education is a good idea,” there is no problem at all. The person who says this undoubtedly knows someone without a college degree. And he is certainly free to send that person to college if he would like. In fact, he can spend his life savings sending other people’s kids to college if he has none of his own. I know of a woman in Mississippi who did just that. She lived modestly - largely because she scrubbed toilets for a living. But she found a way to give.

The problem with all of these wonderful sentiments is not that they begin with “I think.” The initial thought is not the problem. It is that the initial thought is followed by the two words “We should.” This is problematic because the word “we,” in reality, means “you.” In other words, the proponent of “I think we should” morality is less interested in doing charitable things than he is in forcing you to perform his charitable acts for him. And so it is appropriate to ask these two questions of anyone any time he begins to lecture you with a sentence beginning with the four words “I think we should”:
1. What are you presently doing to alleviate the problem?

2. Why should the government force others to do things you are unwilling to do yourself? It is unlikely that the person will be able to identify anything he is doing to alleviate the problem. And his answer to the other question will be that no one will do these things unless compelled by the government. In other words, he will have admitted that, in his view, government, not God, must redeem man and save him from his sins of omission.
Confronting “I think we should” morality is a good way of getting liberals to admit that they favor legislating morality. It is also a good way of getting them to admit that there is a crack in the “Wall of Separation” between Church and State. And it is just big enough to let the secular humanist creep through.


Mike Adams


Mike Adams
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Friday, August 12, 2011

Who Are The Members of the Super Committee

The super Congress, officially titled "The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction," consists of 12 lawmakers - six from each party and each chamber - who have been given nearly unprecedented power to cut projected deficits by $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The committee will need only seven votes to pass its proposal. The rest of Congress will not have the power to amend their plan, obstruct it from coming to a vote, or even filibuster it in the Senate - they will only be able to vote it up or down.

Democrats - Left to Right:
Co-Chair Sen. Patty Murray, Washington:Murray is not just a senator. She also chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and it is her job to recruit candidates who can beat her Republican colleagues. Her appointment has already drawn criticism from the Republican National Committee, which views her as an overly political figure. She is a member of the Budget and Appropriations committees.

448 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2621
Web Form: murray.senate.gov/email/index.cfm
Sen. Max Baucus, Montana:chairman of the Senate Finance Committee -- served on Obama's debt commission. Baucus voted against the final Simpson-Bowles recommendations because he said they cut too deeply into farm subsidies and would have changed Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in away he found unacceptable.

511 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2651
Web Form: baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue
Sen. John Kerry, Massacusetts:A former presidential candidate, Kerry is best known on Capitol Hill for his foreign policy experience. He will lend his expertise on national security matters to the debate over cuts to military funding. He is a member of the Finance Committee and has spent 27 years in the Senate so has participated in his share of closed-door negotiations.

218 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2742
Web Form: kerry.senate.gov/contact/
Rep. James Clyburn, South Carolina:The third-ranking Democrat in the House and veteran of the Appropriations Committee, Clyburn maintains close ties to Pelosi. He also participated in the Biden debt reduction talks.

2135 Rayburn House Office Building 202-225-3315
http://clyburn.house.gov/
Rep. Xavier Becerra, California:A senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Becerra served on the Bowles-Simpson debt commission. But he voted against the plan because he said it cut too deeply into discretionary spending and did not raise revenues to a high enough level.
Member Liberal Progressive Caucus

1226 Longworth House Office Building 202-225-6235
http://forms.house.gov/becerra/webforms/issue_subscribe.html
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Maryland:Van Hollen played a key role in the debt talks led by Vice President Joe Biden earlier this year, and is the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee. A Pelosi acolyte, Van Hollen frequently appears on television to represent House Democrats on policy issues.

1707 Longworth House Office Building 202-225-5341
http://vanhollen.house.gov/Contact/

Republicans - Left to Right:
Co-Chair Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas:Hensarling -- chairman of the House Republican Conference -- served on President Obama's debt commission but voted against it. What did he object to exactly? Tax increases. The debate over taxes is expected to be fierce. If his past positions are any clue, Hensarling is likely to be vocally opposed to any new revenues.

129 Cannon House Office Building 202-225-3484
http://hensarling.house.gov/contact/email-me.shtml
Rep. Dave Camp, Michigan:The House Ways and Means Committee chairman - served on President Obama's debt commission, but voted against it. He objected to the plan's tax hikes and said it failed to address rising health care costs. An expert on taxes - he will bolster GOP credentials on any tax reform that might be discussed.

341 Cannon House Office Building 202-225-3561
http://camp.house.gov/Contact/
Rep. Fred Upton, Michigan :Upton chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He has taken some moderate positions in the past, including attempts to decrease tax cuts in the George W. Bush administration that remain contentious today.

2183 Rayburn House Office Building 202-225-3761
http://upton.house.gov/
Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona:The No. 2 Republican in the Senate behind Mitch McConnell and a staunch advocate for the military, Kyl is a member of the Finance Committee. Kyl is a reliable conservative vote and is opposed to tax increases. He has said he will not run for re-election and walked out of debt negotiations with Biden earlier this year after an impasse over increasing revenue.

730 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4521
Web Form: kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Sen. Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania :Elected to the Senate last year, Toomey was a prominent voice in the debate over raising the debt ceiling, arguing that the United States could prioritize its payments in the event of a debt ceiling breach to avoid a true default. In the end, Toomey voted against the debt ceiling bill that created the super committee. He sits on the Senate Budget and Banking committees, and is the former president of the staunchly anti-tax Club for Growth.

502 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4254
Web Form: toomey.senate.gov/?p=contact
Sen. Rob Portman, Ohio:A former White House budget director in the Bush administration, Portman is a Senate novice and a member of the Budget Committee. More moderate that some of his colleagues, Portman could be a key player in a compromise.

338 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3353
Web Form: portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact?p=contact-form

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Laura Ingraham Show - Allen West slams tea party "schizophrenia"

Congressman Allen West (FL-22) wrote a letter to the American people today explaining his vote in favor of the Budget Control Act.

Excerpts from the letter:

"The Budget Control Act is far from perfect but the hard reality is that fiscal conservatives control only one-half of one-third of our government. This bill will make sure the President does not receive a blank check to continue his spending binge and the old ways of Washington, DC - blindly increasing the debt limit without spending cuts- are over. This vote is historic- it’s the first time we are raising the debt ceiling with cuts greater than the increase.

I learned when I was a solider at Fort Irwin National Training Center that when Officers waste too much time trying to come up with the perfect plan, they fall short because they are too inflexible or divided to see the path to victory. However, if you can come up with a 70-75 percent plan and execute it well, then you can win- and that’s what we have in the Budget Control Act.

The Budget Control Act is not perfect, but it is the 70 percent plan that my colleagues and I can execute to 100 percent.

It is now time for the focus to be on the United States Senate to produce a plan to take this country forward.

My fellow Americans, I ask you: If I had voted “No” on the Budget Control Act, who would I have been voting for?"

Representative Allen West



Related Post: Paul Ryan - Explains Cut Cap and Balance
Related Post: Jeannie DeAngelis - Allen West Nips Back

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Boehner Reveals Whether a Plan Will Be Released Sunday

Boehner says all of the discussion right now is about how many trillions in spending will be cut.

Boehner said that there is going to be a two-stage process, as it’s not possible to do it all in one step. The speaker stressed, “I know the president is worried about his next election. He should be worried about the country.”

Of the Senate’s tabling of ‘Cut, Cap and Balance’, Boehner said, “I continue to believe a balanced budget amendment is the greatest forcing mechanism to bring spending under control. I am going to continue to develop a plan in framework of Cut, Cap and Balance.”


7-24-2011

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Paul Ryan - Cut, Cap & Balance the Budget; Grow the Economy; Save this Country

"Leading on reporters at press conferences is not leadership. Giving speeches, according to the CBO, is not budgeting."

"He drove us deeper into debt. A trillion dollars of borrowed money for the stimulus that was promised to keep unemployment at under 8%. It went up to 10% and now it’s at 9.2%. A stalled economy. A budget the President gave us that doubles the debt in five years and triples it in ten years. That’s not leadership."

"In the good-ole-days of 2007 we use to say that this debt was a threat to our children and our grandchildren. Not so anymore, it is threat to our economy today."

Jul 19, 2011
Transcript:
Mr. Speaker: here’s our problem- we have a crushing burden of debt that is coming to hit our economy. This is what it all comes down to: We are driving our country and our economy off of a cliff.

The reason is because we are spending so much more money than we have. We can’t keep spending money we don’t have. 42 cents of every dollar coming out of Washington is borrowed money. Let’s take a look at where it’s coming from? We’re borrowing 47% of it from other countries, China’s number one.

Mr. Speaker: You can’t have sovereignty and self-determination as a country if we’re relying on other governments to cash-flow half of our deficit. This is where we are.

Here’s the problem we have right now, Mr. Speaker: We have a leadership deficit.

I keep hearing: the President has a plan, the President is offering balance. The President hasn’t offered a thing yet. Nothing on paper, nothing in public. Leading on reporters at press conferences is not leadership. Giving speeches, according to the CBO, is not budgeting.

The President did inherit a tough problem, no two ways about it. What did he do with this problem?

He drove us deeper into debt. A trillion dollars of borrowed money for the stimulus that was promised to keep unemployment at under 8%. It went up to 10% and now it’s at 9.2%. A stalled economy. A budget the President gave us that doubles the debt in five years and triples it in ten years. That’s not leadership.

What has the other body done in the Senate, our partners on the other side of the aisle? Mr. Speaker: It’s been 811 days since they bothered trying to pass a budget. Congress has gone for two years without a budget. What did we do when we assumed the Majority? We passed a budget, we wrote a budget. We did it in daylight, not in the back room. We drafted it, we brought it through the committee, we had amendments, we brought it to the floor, we debated it and we passed it. That is what we’ve done. And when you take a look at our problem, Mr. Speaker, you have to address what is driving our debt.

Here are the cold hard facts: ten thousand people are retiring every day. The baby boomers are here and we are not ready for them. Far fewer people are following them into the workforce. Health care costs are going up four times the rate of inflation. The Congressional Budget Office is telling us that Medicare goes bankrupt in nine years. Medicaid is already bankrupting our states. These are the drivers of our debt.

By the year 2025, three programs – Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare – plus our interest consume one hundred percent of all federal revenues. By the end of this decade, twenty percent of our revenues go to just paying interest. This is unsustainable. So what does our budget do? What does the document that we passed, that shows leadership on this issue, do? It saves these programs.

For Medicare, we say, you already retired, if you’re retired. If you’re about to retire, we don’t want to pull the rug out from under you, you organized your life around these programs, so let’s keep it as is. But in order to cash flow that commitment, in order to make good on that promissory note, you have to reform it for the next generation.

And let’s do it in a way that looks like the commission that President Clinton offered. A system that resembles the ones that we have as Members of Congress, where we get to choose the ones that meet our needs. We don’t subsidize wealthy people as much, and we subsidize low-income and sick people a whole lot more. That’s what a safety net is. We fix it and we save Medicare. What does the other body do? Excuse me, what does the law do that the President does? Raids half a trillion dollars from Medicare, puts a new board in charge of price controlling and rationing care to current seniors, and does nothing to save it from bankruptcy. These are the issues that have got to be dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing about balance. We keep hearing about the need to raise taxes as we cut spending - $3 for $1, or something to that effect. The red line shows Congressional Budget Office projections on spending, the green lines are taxes. Basically what this says is there is no way you can tax your way out of this problem. We asked the Congressional Budget Office, ‘if we try to do that – have balance, raise taxes – the tax rates on the next generation would be this: the lowest income tax bracket that lower income people play which is 10 percent, goes to 25 percent. Middle income tax payers pay a 66 percent rate. And the top tax rate which is what all those successful small businesses that create most of our jobs pay would go to 88 percent.’ That is according to the Congressional Budget Office. That is the path we are on right now. This is unsustainable.

What is needed is leadership and the reason we are talking about this debt limit increase is because we have seen none. None from the President, none from the other body, and if we are not going to have a budget process, how on earth are we going to get spending under control so we can solve this problem.

Our budget, this cap and this cut, gets the debt paid off. It puts us on a path to prosperity. It closes loopholes to lower tax rates to grow jobs. It says the genius of America is the individual, is the business, not our government. It maintains the American legacy of leaving the next generation better off, which we know without-a-shadow of a doubt, we are leaving the next generation worse off.

In the good-ole-days of 2007 we use to say that this debt was a threat to our children and our grandchildren. Not so anymore, it is threat to our economy today. Pass Cut, Cap, and Balance, save this country, grow the economy, and save the nation for our children and our grandchildren. And with that, I yield.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Kathleen Sebelius - Health Secretary Praises Recommendation for Birth Control

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius has praised a recommendation that insurance companies be required to offer free contraceptives to all women. Calling the report “historic,” she also suggested it could become official policy, angering conservative groups, among others, who call the idea “feminist pork.” Other critics say such a proposal may require insurance companies and employers to provide services to which they morally object.

But proponents say it would deter abortion, since, according to Dr. Cathleen London of Weill Cornell Medical College, more than half of pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, with 40% of those end in abortion.

Jim Angle reports on the divisive issue and how the recommendation moves beyond free birth control pills, with access to Plan B, among others, at no cost.




NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Sen. Marco Rubio - Real Problem Is Not Debt Limit, But The Debt Itself

"The way the deal is currently structured right now, it gives the President the ability to raise the debt limit. But as I've said already on the problem: The debt limit is not really the problem here, the problem here is the debt.

"The debt limit is actually the easiest part of the problem. It's one vote away from being solved. But, if all we do is raise the debt limit and it's not accompanied by a credible solution to America's debt problem, we're in big trouble. And I don't believe this plan, as it's been outlined to me is a credible solution to our debt problem," Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) told CBS this morning.


Jul 18, 2011


NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Paul Ryan On Mark Levin: Obama "Going To Veto Limited Government"

What this shows you is that basically he's going to veto limited government. He is going to veto the idea that government out to live within its means and that government ought to be limited in its size. And so I think this little episode today is so revealing of the governing principle that we see here which is a government with no limiting principle. And that's what this episode is all about. The fact that we're here talking about this is because it's been 810 days since the Senate ever bothered to pass a budget and if one house doesn't pass a budget, then no budget passes.

Obama wasted hundreds of billions taxpayer money with his porkulus bill. As Ryan said, only 6% of porkulus was for infrastructure to create jobs, the rest were for social spending.


Jul 19, 2011


NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.