Michelle Fields - Sean Hannity - The Great American Panel

FNC's Sean Hannity hosts the panel with Michelle Fields -- Daily Caller Reporter; Dr. Michael Burgess (R) -- Texas Congressman/Author of 'Doctor in the House"; and Bob Beckel -- co-host of 'The Five'; weigh in to discuss "Crony Capitalism" taking place in congress as bills are introduced and affect stock prices. Also discussed: Obamacare, Welfare Spending, Food Stamps, and Unemployment.

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

Barack Obama's Empty Promises - Debt and Deficits

Although the national debt under President Barack Obama has increased $4 trillion since he took office in 2009, as a presidential candidate in 2008 Obama criticized then-President George W. Bush for adding $4 trillion to the national debt, saying it was “unpatriotic” and also “irresponsible” to saddle future generations with such a large national debt.

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents -- number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child,” Obama said on July 3, 2008, at a campaign event in Fargo, N.D.

“That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic,” said candidate Obama.

July 3, 2008

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

Allen Barton - Ryan's Hope: A New Budget That Cuts Taxes and Curbs Spending

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) put forward a new budget the simplifies the tax code while cutting spending. Is it possible to clean up the federal balance sheet with just two tax rates of 10% and 25%? Find out as Allen Barton talks to Brian Doherty of Reason Magazine, and Terry Jones of IBD.

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

Dan Mitchell - Spending Restraint

Part 1: Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both reduced the relative burden of government, largely because they were able to restrain the growth of domestic spending. The mini-documentary from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity uses data from the Historical Tables of the Budget to show how Reagan and Clinton succeeded and compares their record to the fiscal profligacy of the Bush-Obama years.

Part 2: Examples from recent history in Canada, Ireland, Slovakia, and New Zealand to demonstrate how it is possible to achieve rapid improvements in fiscal policy by restraining the burden of government spending.

Part 1: Lessons from Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton


Part 2: Lessons from Canada, Ireland, Slovakia, and New Zealand

Dan J. Mitchell, Ph.D.

---

Dan J. Mitchell, Ph.D. is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, Washington’s premier free-market think tank.
Visit his Website at: http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/

---

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

---

Lurita Doan - New Spending Bill, More Fiscal Stupidity

If Congress was ever in search for a theme song, it would surely be the 60’s hit by Sonny and Cher called—“The Beat Goes On”. Americans received yet another reminder of just how far this group of fiscal miscreants will go to avoid making tough budget decisions when Congress passed a “minibus” spending bill. This hodgepodge of appropriations manages to simultaneously delay, once again, the painful necessity of confronting excessive spending, while simultaneously eroding the little fiscal discipline that does exist.

No one should be surprised that fiscal malpractice continues in Congress as we lurch from CR to CR to Omnibus budget for the past few years. Our Senate has been too busy for the last 960 or so days to submit a budget, and it has become clear that congress doesn't have the stomach, nor the will, to truly trim the fat off the federal budget. Instead, members of congress focus their efforts on lots of photo ops, sound bytes and a Supercomittee Big Top circus that would put Barnum & Bailey to shame.

But, tucked away inside the most recent spending bill, is language that will further erode our finances and fiscal health. While Obama's signature on the legislation will keep the doors open for continued operations of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, USDA, NASA, FDA, Transportation, HUD and several other federal agencies, the bill, in no way, encourages restraint in spending.

Given the language used, the new Minibus bill will almost certainly cause more problems than it solves.

One example of the language problem, which seems to encourage unfettered federal spending is clearly outlined in Section 524 of the recently ratified H.R. 2112 (the "Minibus") spending bill, in which congress tells the leaders of agencies that it is okay to exceed the budget allocated by congress.

In fact, so certain is congress that one or more agencies is going to exceed the budgets set for them, that the "Minibus" proceeds to outline the process these agencies should follow when they blow the budgets.

Here's what the "Minibus" tells executive agencies to do.

First, the agency program manager (who blew the budget) is required to notify the agency's head. Then in 30 days the agency head is required to notify congress. This 60 to 90 day window allows the bloat to continue. At no point is the agency told to issue a Stop Work Order to government employees and federal contractors, nor are they told to trim back project expenses and live within the expenditures appropriated by congress. Instead, agencies are told to submit the new revised, increased estimate of costs for congressional approval, accompanied by a validation statement from the project manager that the new estimate will be sufficient.

Three problems become immediately apparent. First, congress has shown that it does not intend to hold federal agencies responsible for staying within their budgets. Second, congress has, de facto, shown that cost overruns will be rubber stamped for approval. Third, congress has indicated that it is not interested in fixing the problem, since there is no prescriptive action required such as monitoring or penalizing the project manager, the federal contractor or the government employees responsible for the cost overruns.

Congress has, in essence, given federal agencies a license to overspend. This is, perhaps, the inevitable result of electing folks who don't understand how business and budgets work.

Those who come to the conclusion that the primary problem with our government's budget is not that it is taking in too little taxes, but that it is simply spending too much, will have their worst suspicions of government-sanctioned, runaway spending confirmed.

The recently approved "minibus" appropriations only reduce the level of spending by a mere $1 billion dollars. But more importantly, given the flexible, fungible spending language throughout the legislation, such as Section 524, that $1 billion in savings could easily get gobbled up pretty quickly by cost overruns. Hence, even the paltry savings that Congress would like us to believe they support, is masked by yet more fiscal irresponsibility that will likely result in higher taxpayer expenditures. The beat just goes on.

The "minibus" appropriations bill raises as many questions as it answers. For example, a quick review of the Agriculture section (pages 82-137) of the legislation reminds Americans of what Congressman Paul Ryan said: "Why is Washington wasting your money on entrenched agribusiness?"

For those hoping for a merciful end to the $6 billion annual gift to the ethanol lobby, forget about it. That beat will go on and on until wiser statesmen can muster the courage to stop that peculiar madness.

Worse news awaits anyone willing to read the section on Housing and Urban Development appropriations, Title II, page 355. Incredibly, Congress has decided to expand the scope and its promise to continue to backstop mortgages that people can't afford, with money the federal government doesn't have. This remarkable bailout expands entitlements and assumes even more governmental risk for dodgy mortgages, which of course is how the country got into the housing mess in the first place.

Americans should be shocked and outraged, but congressional fiscal malpractice has long been established as an ingrained attribute of Washington. So, cue up Sonny and Cher. For the beat goes on--yes, and the beat goes on. La-de-da-de-de, la-de-da-de-da.

Lurita Doan

---

Lurita Alexis Doan is an African American conservative commentator who writes about issues affecting the federal government.

Lurita has been involved in the business community through participation in many trade associations, membership in business organizations including the Young Entrepreneurs' Organization (now Entrepreneurs' Organization) and Young Presidents' Organization, and involvement on charitable community activities.

---

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

---

Paul Ryan - Saving the American Idea: Rejecting Fear, Envy and the Politics of Division

"We’re here today to explore the American Idea, and I can’t think of a better venue for this topic. The mission of the Heritage Foundation is to promote the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

These are the principles that define the American Idea. And this mission has never been timelier, because these principles are very much under threat from policies here in Washington.

The American Idea belongs to all of us – inherited from our nation’s Founders, preserved by the countless sacrifices of our veterans, and advanced by visionary leaders, past and present.

What makes America exceptional – what gives life to the American Idea – is our dedication to the self-evident truth that we are all created equal, giving us equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And that means opportunity."
Rep. Paul Ryan

October 26, 2011

---

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

---

Austin Hill - Who Benefits From All The Obama Spending Sprees?

“Did you hear about the new ‘Obama Happy Meal Deal?’” a friend posted on Facebook earlier this week.

“You order whatever you want and as much as you want, and the person in line behind you has to pay for it….LOL!”

Americans have always enjoyed poking fun at their Presidents, and cheap jokes that illicit more groans than laughs aren’t to be taken too seriously. But, as is often the case with humor, there was a slight bit of truth entailed in this little online anecdote.

The joke suggests that, even among people who don’t think much about politics and public policy, or who don’t often utter words like ‘socialism,” “Marxism,” or “economic redistribution,” there is nonetheless a growing recognition that our President likes to spend other people’s money. And in light of this, we would all do well to ask a couple of questions.

Let’s start with this: “Where did all the stimulus money go?” What began in February of 2009 as a plan that the President said would “save or create 3 to 4 million jobs,” and what his Administration claimed would prevent our unemployment rate from rising over 8%, had an original price tag of $787 billion.

Months later the price of the “stimulus plan” had ballooned up to about $813 billion, and neither the Administration nor members of Congress could offer many details about it. By the end of 2009, both the fiscally conservative Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who voted against it, and the big government liberal Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) who voted in favor of it, both admitted that there had not been proper oversight of how this enormous amount of taxpayer money had been spent (a fact that I documented in my latest book, “The Virtues Of Capitalism”). All this, as the unemployment rate continued to rise well above the 8% watermark.

So let’s ask this next: “Who benefits from the spending?” This is an especially painful question, because it’s easier to think in terms of who is not benefiting, and who is being harmed, by the spending.

Ethnic minority groups living in America’s inner city regions are most certainly not benefiting from the President’s wealth redistribution. As much as they may have superimposed their own expectations on to the President’s promises of “hope” and “change,” non-whites living in America’s urban centers are now experiencing some of the worst fallout of an economy that won’t expand.

Just last week an editorial by writer Walter Russell Mead, published in “The American Interest,” pointed out that Black America in particular is suffering under President Obama. Noting that some of the most staunchly Democrat states in the country – including Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota – have produced some of the highest double-digit unemployment rates among Black Americans, Mead described our current era as one of “deepening alienation, anger, and despair in America’s inner cities.” Of course it is still not acceptable for elected Democrats to admit that the president’s “spending solutions” are harmful. Thus, Chicago Police Chief Gary McCarthy recently chose to blame the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for the rising crime and unrest in his city, claiming that the right to “keep and bear arms” is an “extension of government sponsored racism.”

Americans who have maintained good credit scores and payment histories are most certainly not benefiting from President Obama’s wealth redistribution policies. The President insists that his Administration is providing “help” to borrowers who have fallen on hard times, but in reality the Administration has bailed-out banking institutions, and not individual people. We now have a financial system that is incentivized by our government to “forgive” portions of debt and to modify repayment terms for consumers with bad credit, while banks ignore credit-worthy consumers who pay their bills on time.

On the other hand, banks and the people who run them seem to be benefiting pretty well from President Obama’s spending. So do certain executive level folks at certain companies in certain other sectors of our economy. In fact, a new research project conducted by Capgemini and Bank of America shows that the world’s population of High Net Worth Individuals (HNWI) with $1 million or more in “investable assets” rose 8.3% over the previous year, to a total of 10.9 million people. This is to say that while President Obama’s policies are not “creating jobs,” a lot of personal wealth is being created for select individuals.

As much as President Obama has served up plenty of harsh criticisms for “overpaid executives” and “greedy companies” over the last three years, businesses and corporate executives that have politically allied themselves with him have, in many cases, been “blessed” by his spending of our money. For example, ABC News reported earlier this spring that “billions” of “stimulus dollars” have been handed-over to unionized construction companies, yet “shovel ready” infrastructure projects still haven’t emerged. More interestingly, many of these same companies owe the federal government unpaid taxes – but, they’re unionized.

If you’re on good political terms with President Obama, you may get to order “as much as you want.” If you’re second in line, you may have to pay for it all.

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.

---

Klavan, Whittle - Is a Spending Freeze the Answer to US Budgetary Problems

John Ferreira asks Andrew Klavan and Bill Whittle whether a spending freeze might be the answer to US fiscal troubles. Is America ready for some belt-tightening? Find out.

---

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

---

PJTV: Obama's Economic Recovery Summer, Part II: The Wrath Of Keynes!

Trifecta looks at the failed theories of economist John Maynard Keynes, and his economic follower, President Obama. Does more government spending lead to prosperity, or does it result in more debt and a severely damaged economy?

---

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

---

Austin Hill - Collusion, Corruption, And Barney Frank’s Boyfriend

First, a note to the naysayers: this piece is not about “homophobia.”

If you were trolling the internet doing “Google searches” with the words “Barney Frank” and “boyfriend” and you thought you discovered a homophobic jackpot on a “conservative” website, well – read on. You might actually find that you agree with my assessments here, but it won’t be what you were hoping for.

In fact, the problematic behavior with Barney Frank entails something that, according to the Congressman himself, elected officials do with their spouses “all the time” (and he’s probably right about this). This is to say that it has nothing to do with sexuality or gender.

Congressman Barney Frank, former Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, helped his then-lover Herb Moses land a nice, lucrative “government job” working at Fannie Mae back in the 1990’s. Even though it happened several years ago, this “news” raises some very legitimate questions about a “conflict of interest,” because in his position as an elected member of Congress, Mr. Frank had direct governmental oversight of Fannie Mae.

Could it be that Congressman Frank used his power and influence to extend an opportunity to his significant other, an opportunity that might not have been so easily accessible to another American?

The Congressman has already dismissed concerns about his ethics as mere “nonsense.” And it’s not the first time Mr. Frank has been discovered in a conflicted situation like this.

Back in 2009 after General Motors officially declared bankruptcy and threw itself at the financial mercy of the U.S. government, a corporate re-organization committee determined that a particular east coast G.M. parts distribution warehouse was losing a lot of revenue and needed to be shut down. It also happened that the failing parts warehouse resided in the state of Massachusetts – in the congressional district that Barney Frank represents, no less,.So, despite the wisdom of the business people who advised the closure, Congressman Frank stepped-in and “negotiated” for the unproductive warehouse to remain open, thus saving the unionized jobs of his constituents.

This kind of corruption among elected officials – the use of one’s political position to extend employment, perks and privileges to those who can be politically helpful to the official – has become commonplace across the country. It happens with Democrats and Republicans alike. And it is happening at a time when the federal government is broke, and many state and local governments are nearly broke as well.

This is to say that, ethics and “fairness” aside, government corruption is flourishing at a time when our nation can least afford the price tag of it all.

Liberal Americans became accustomed to lamenting this type of cronyism during the years of Republican reign in Washington last decade. They also bought the lie that, as long as we willingly handed-over more control of our lives and our wealth to Barack Obama, then justice would be done in our American economy and “public money” would be handled in the best interests of “the public.”

Now, after creating the monstrosity known as Obamacare, many of the President’s enthusiasts seem shocked that he is rewarding individuals and organizations that can be politically beneficial to his re-election efforts with the “gift” of Obamacare waivers. And the General Electric Corporation was recently granted a waiver from – gasp! – federal environmental regulations in the process of building an electrical power plant in California. Why G.E.? Probably because the company’s C.E.O. Jeff Immelt is a big Obama donor and supporter.

This type of “political favoritism” has become flagrant, and is out in the open in many parts of the country. What is not so out in the open is the way taxpayer dollars get spent by government agencies and bureaucracies “behind the scenes.” If you’re fed-up with the waste and corruption (as I am), then why not let your voice be heard? I suggest that the following questions would make for a legitimate inquiry to just about any governmental office – from your local public school district, to your congressional representative’s office. Start by identifying a specific period of time – say, calendar year 2010 – and then ask about these items:

1. How much money has been spent on staff mobile telephones and mobile data plans?
2. How much money has been spent on staff travel (air and rental car) expenses, and on hotel accommodations?
3. How much money has been spent on personal "car allowances" - possession and usage of vehicles, fuel and maintenance costs, and insurance costs?
4. What outside “contractors," "consultants," and "vendors” have been paid by this office,and how much money has been spent on each of them? What products and services were received in return?

Do any of these questions seem “unfair” or even a bit surprising to you? The answers may be far more surprising than the questions themselves.

If any government bureaucrat tries to tell you that this kind of information is “confidential,” rest assured that the law is on your side. If taxpayer money is being spent, taxpayers have a right to know about it.

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.

---

Elko Mike - Wasteful Spending of Government

My mother passed away in Feb of 2004 and in May of 2011 Medicare paid a claim, presumably fraudulent, for a number of tests that were allegedly performed on her behalf. Worse still, remarks in the paperwork noted that according to Medicare records she was deceased.

I bring this up to illustrate the fact that fraud is rampant in this program -- more than $60 billion per year by some estimates is lost to fraud. A GAO study found $100s of billions per year of waste because of duplicate government programs. Sen Coburn (R-OK) maintains a Wastebook to illustrate out-of-control government spending. Among the things he has highlighted are studies of Farmville on Facebook, March Madness and choosing baby names, and a shrimp running on a treadmill. Why are these things worthy of taxpayer money?

While on his European junket President Obama is promising to send billions more to bolster the Arab Spring and who knows where else. Where will he get the money? Well, America will borrow it from the Chinese. This is so strange I recap: we are borrowing money from one foreign country to give to other foreign countries. What are they thinking?

Hey Washington, wake up, WE ARE BROKE. We can’t afford to waste all of this money; soon Congress will vote to grant itself authority to borrow and spend even more money. On what?

Before the debt limit is raised the government should clean up its spending mess. When they can honestly say to the American people they no longer wasting 100s of billions of dollars then, and only then, should we discuss raising the debt limit.
Just as a drinking problem isn’t solved with more alcohol, a deficit problem won’t be solved with more borrowing. Let’s not raise the debt limit until government brings its spending binge under control.

Elko Mike

---

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

---