Cognitive Disconnect or Misplaced Priorities?
"I could never vote for Rick Santorum because he's against federal funding for rubbers."
And then say:
"I am voting for Ron Paul because he respects the Constitution."
Last time I checked, there was nothing in the Constitution about providing high school kids with condoms so they can have sex without consequences.
There's also the whole "I don't care if radical Islamist nations get the atomic bomb. It's none of our business" thing. That just scares me. If you can honestly say that ending funding for rubbers is a down check but allowing an enemy nation to acquire nuclear weapons is not, then I have to say that your grasp on reality might be a tad loose.
Catholics Paying for BIrth Control is Like A Muslim Charity Serving Pork Chops; So Why Force It?
The First Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, three separate issues are dealt with in this, the First entry of the Bill of Rights:
- Freedom of Religion
- Freedom of Speech and the Press
- Freedom to Assemble and Petition for redress of grievances
You should notice that the construction of the Amendment treats all three parts as equal; none are dependent on or subordinate to another. Each stands complete in itself. You also should notice that I divide them up a bit differently than do most people talking about this Amendment. I link freedom of speech and freedom of the press as one unit and I do this because the punctuation tells me to. Each section is separated by a semi colon, while components with the section are separated by a comma. For example, freedom of religion is broken into two parts, the prohibition against establishment, and the prohibition against restraint. In a like manner, the Amendment calls out freedom of the press as part and parcel of freedom of speech. And to finish this comparison, the right to assemble is joined to the right to petition the government.
Now is also a good time to point out that the language of the Amendment does not grant rights to the people; instead it is clearly prohibiting the federal government from infringing on those rights people already possess. That's an important concept that forms the basis for our Constitution. One of our Supreme Court Justices was quoted recently as saying the US Constitution did not provide a good model for a modern Constitution because it didn't do enough to recognize foundational human rights. The only way for her to make that statement was to willfully ignore that the US Constitution was written specifically to recognize and guarantee those rights, and it is only through the activity of jurists like her that those protections have been mortally weakened.
But that's a post for another day.
So, there are two pieces to the religious freedom clause of the First Amendment. The anti- establishment clause, and the free exercise clause. The anti-establishment clause states that the government can do nothing to indicate that it favors a particular religion, or religion in general. This section has been interpreted increasingly broadly to the point where a poster demonstrating the rule of law through the ages can be removed from public property for an image of the stone tablets representing the Ten Commandments. This compares well to the broad interpretation of the freedom of assembly clause, which has been used to justify the violation of local, state and federal laws by OWS and other protest groups. On the other hand, the second portion of the religious freedom clause has been under increasing attack over the last couple of decades. Rather than being interpreted as a broad restriction of the government's ability to restrict religious expression and activity, it has been instead been interpreted as an increasingly narrow band of allowed activities for the religious adherents.
This latest ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is another example of the secular state working to minimize and marginalize religion.
But that, too, is a post for another day.
Today, I want to talk about why the Obama Administration would be so intent on restricting faith based hospitals from carrying out their mission.
Faith based churches have been placed in a bad position. They have only a few options.
- They can comply with the law, abandoning their religious principles.
- They can ignore the law, paying fines to continue operating in accordance with their religious principles
- They can reject serving patients who are not members of their faith
- They can shut down their hospitals and clinics altogether
Option 1 diminishes the role of religion in public life, restricts the free practice of religion guaranteed by the Constitution and according to spokesmen for the Catholic Church, is not an option.
Option 2 places a significant financial burden on church clinics and hospitals, making them less able to serve their communities. Some smaller facilities may not be able to afford to remain in business, and may have to shut down.
Option 3 would be cruel, and potentially illegal, a violation of anti-discrimination laws, but is presented here for the sake of completeness.
Option 4 would mean a significant loss of beds in most areas, reduction in the amount services available, as well as the quality, and would drive prices for care up. Catholic spokesmen have already said that this alternative is more preferable to them than complying with the ruling.
Every option outlines reduces services, raises prices, or both, while at the same time making faith based clinics and hospitals look like the bad guy. My thought is that this is exactly what the Obama administration wants. By driving a major player out of the market, costs will increase while availability will decrease, leading to a situation where the people will once again demand that their government "Do Something!" without ever stopping to consider that the crisis will have caused by their government "doing something."
Within 18 months, I predict we'll see government advocates pushing for an expansion of Obamacare to make up for all the private clinics and hospitals that have been driven out of business by this and other regulations. The cost for that expansion will be another increase in the federal government's control over our lives along with another large chunk of the American economy being taken over by the state.
Not a pretty picture.
How to Reduce Unemployment Without Even Trying
All day today I heard the news trumpeting that the unemployment rate fell to a new low and that the recovery must be really getting underway, just in time for Obama's re-election.
Well, not so much. It turns out that the reason the unemployment rate went down is not because more people are working, but because the BLS, Bureau of Labor Statistics removed just over one million people from the workforce!
A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that's not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month!
This is just sad. Fewer people with jobs, but in order to re-elect a President, we are being told that unemployment is actually going down.
Even sadder is the number of people who will buy into the lie because they desperately want to believe it.
A Little Good News for a Change: Knoxville Makes the Top 25, and You’ll Never Guess for What
The worst areas?
The Democrat dominated North East and the union dominated states of Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. AKA Obama's base.
These numbers come out of the Urban Institute and are based on 2010 Census data.
A while back, I wrote about a theory I had about the two political parties. Back in school, I was taught that the Republicans used to be all about freeing the slaves and bringing civil rights to minorities and that Democrats, particularly the Southern variety, were dyed in the wool slaveholders and racists, until suddenly, for no particular reason, they switched sides in the 1960s. Republicans became the evil racists while Democrats burned their Klan robes and became the minority man's best advocate. My theory was that they never really switched sides, that Republicans held tight to their values while Democrats mounted the biggest con job in the history of the world, building a new system of slavery called welfare and affirmative action.
Everybody laughed at me.
Look at the map below the fold and see if you still want to laugh. Who is providing economic freedom, and who is maintaining economic slavery?
Who Decides Who Lives or Dies?
It sounds like fiction, but it isn't. This process is the one used by the Obama Administration to designate a US citizen for assassination.
The story appeared at Reuters.com.
There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.
The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.
The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy.
No law establishing its existence. No operating rules. No Congressional oversight. No accountability. No way for Congress or the American people to verify that the intelligence behind the decision was accurate.
This is no way to run the most transparent administration in history.
Here's what really bugs me about this whole thing. Bush was excoriated in the press for justifying enhanced interrogation techniques, which many held equivalent to torture. Those same folks, the ones screaming for impeachment and trial by the World Court, are mostly silent while a President from their party orders the murder of an American citizens.
Folks, Awlaki was a bad man, but our President has just given himself the power to order the death of an American citizen with no eternal review whatsoever. That is far more dangerous than anything the terrorists could do.
It can't be allowed to stand. The President does not have the right to declare citizens to be enemies of the state and to execute them without trial. That power is not afforded to any branch of the government anywhere in the Constitution.
Yet Obama may very well be allowed to get away with it as his accomplices in the lap dog media remain silent.
Speaking of accomplices, let's not forget his allies in Congress, who have just introduced a bill that would allow him to seal all of his Presidential records after he leaves office.
U.S. citizens may never know how or why an individual was targeted, just that they were declared an enemy of the state.
Where this becomes even scarier is in situations where we aren't talking about the 'kill' portion of 'kill or capture.' Essentially, this panel has the power to order the arrest and incarceration of any American citizen they designate, again, without review or oversight. Based on the Reuters report, the President claims to have the authority to 'disappear' citizens, without trial and without charges. I'm telling you folks, this is bad stuff here; this is the kind of thing that brings down countries.
We can't allow this to go on.
This is beyond politics. Bush opened the door with the Patriot Act; Obama just walked through it. The next President will open it a bit wider, and so on. That's the nature of power; unless opposed, it accrues. Who will oppose these excesses? Who will speak up?
Here's a question for you to consider: Are there ANY Presidential candidates talking about the Reuters report today?
If so, I haven't heard. Instead, everybody wants to talk about Obama's jobs bill. It's safe and doesn't require any independent thought. If you're a Democrat, you're for it; Republican, against it. But the issue of the unchecked power grab by the executive branch, well, we don't want to think about that one because it cuts both ways. Political activists want the President to be powerful so when their guy holds the seat, he can accomplish their agenda. They'll tolerate Presidential power for the other team because they know eventually it will be their turn to play.
Politicians aren't the answer. It's going to have top be us.
Are we up to the challenge?
The Federalist Papers: Chapter 1; Setting the Stage
First, there's this article from Time's Richard Stengel, in which he concludes that the Constitution is like the Pirate Code; it's really more of a guideline than a set of laws limiting the powers of the Federal government. That article was quickly followed by this piece which shows that Stengel has some major factual errors regarding the Constitution. These fundamental errors concerning the meaning of the Constitution are widely shared by the American public, particularly by our politicians, and form the basis for the extreme growth in the power and scope of the federal government.
Next, a recent survey by Newsweek showed that most Americans are woefully ignorant of our own history, including the principles of our government. Sadly, our elected representatives in Washington scored even worse than the general population. The department of Education reports that only 12% of high school kids are proficient in US history. If we don't know our own history, or the rules of our government, then how can we hold the folks in Washington accountable?
Finally, Glenn Beck has released a 'translation' of the Federalist Papers that claims to update the language of the originals while preserving the meaning. I read a few critiques of the book, and then read the indicated passages of the original, and found that the critics were right and there were significant errors in the paraphrasing. While these errors did not substantially alter the meaning of the passages in question, they were enough to discourage me from getting the book.
But I think Beck is on the right track on trying to get Americans interested in the founding documents of our government, and just as importantly, the reasoning behind those documents. The arguments we're having today over the scope and power of the Federal government are nearly identical to those that went on during the ratification process. If we knew how the framers thought, and why they wrote the Constitution as they did, it just might keep us from doing significant damage to our founding principles.
So I've armed myself with online versions of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers as well as the text of the US Constitution and over the next few weeks, I'm going to work my way through both sides of the argument.
The first thing we have to realize before we get started is what each side was hoping to achieve. It strikes me as ironic that folks like Beck, Limbaugh, and Coulter use the Federalist Papers to support their arguments for a limited government since the Federalists were the big government proponents of their day. The papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, argued for the Constitution because it established a strong federal government, while the anti-federalists, represented by Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, and Thomas Jefferson among others, favored a weaker federal government, with more power reserved to the Sovereign States. It is a measure of how much the federal government has increased its power that today's small government proponents work towards a return to the limited government spoken of in the Federalist papers.
One more thing; while the Federalist papers were conceived and written in an organized fashion, the Anti-Federalist Papers is more or less a compendium of arguments made in response to the Federalist papers. Like the Federalist Papers, there were multiple authors, but unlike them, there was limited coordination between them. The correspondence in numbering is an editorial device added after the fact, to allow the reader to compare the arguments on each side of the topic.
I'm not going to include the text of each paper but I will link to them. I'll provide an outline or summary of the major points; quote the highlights of each; and give you my thoughts on the papers, for whatever that might be worth. With 85 papers to go through, I expect this project to take a significant amount of time, but I believe the investment will be well worth it.
Obama Calls Me a Pessimist; I Wish I Were that Hopeful
Remember that $38 billion in reduced spending that Cry Baby Boehner so bravely forced the Democrats in Congress to fork over?
Yeah, well, it turns out then when you look at it through the lens of real world math, it's more like $352 million.
That's with an m.
Folks, by any measure, our fiscal picture is bleak. Real inflation is up, the economy is stagnant, the housing markets are on the verge of another collapse, states are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, an all our President can say to those of us who see these problems is that we are pessimists.
Seriously? Like if we all join hands and sing a couple of choruses of "High Hopes" then all our problems will just disappear?
Talk about out of touch.
And just when you think it can't possibly get worse in Washington, we get Ross Perot: the Sequel, with another billionaire with bad hair running for President. I guess it's only to be expected. Obama is a Jimmy Carter retread; why not a reboot of Ross Perot? With an exciting new director and cast, I mean, campaign manager and staff, Trump might actually win this thing.
It's not like he's an unknown, untried, and untested Senate freshman or something silly like that.
I have to admit, I'd love to hear his victory speech come November. "Mr President, You're fired!"
Folks, I just don't know anymore. I don't see a clean way of getting through the mess we're in. More importantly, I don't see anybody in our government with the will to make the tough decisions that it will take to dig ourselves out of this hole. And ultimately, I don't think 'we the people' possess the moral fiber required to dig out. We're spoiled, soft and weak. We all want spending cuts, but only for the other guy. We talk a big fight but when it comes down to it, we vote for the guy that promises to keep us safe from the cuts.
Face it. Come election time, who will you vote for? The candidate that promises you rainbow farting unicorns, pie in the sky, and peace and prosperity all for the low low price of your freedom? Or the guy who looks you in the eye and tells you that you're going to have to cut back, pay more in taxes, accept fewer government services, work longer, harder and for less, forget Social Security, and accept a seriously reduced standard of living for at least a decade, probably two, and all to try to reduce a debt that's been building for a generation?
That's how deep the hole is. That's where we are. Most of us have experienced getting in over our heads with dept. We run up bills on our charge cards, buy cars or houses we really can't afford, and then we have to struggle for a couple of years to get back on our feet. America has overspeant way beyond that point, and instead of cutting up the charge cards, our politicians are applying for more.
It's going to end, and it's going to end badly. We're now to the point where instead of making good choices, we'll have to choose the best of the bad ones.
But we won't.
We'll try to keep the game of musical chairs going just a little longer, trying not to be the one caught standing when the music stops.
We're on a ship at sea that's sinking and instead of bailing out the water and patching the holes, we're all trying to be the last guy on board before she slides beneath the waves forever.
And folks, I'm not leaving myself out of that. I'm doing the same thing. I'm doing what I can to protect and provide for my family, and I am spending some effort at damage control, but in truth, I avoid thinking about this as much as possible. It's unpleasant. It's scary. I'd rather build a garden shed and play with my grandkids. I tell myself that I'm not infallible, that I could be wrong, that there might be some magical way out of the crushing debt we've laid on ourselves. Just because no other country in the history of the world has managed to find a workable solution doesn't mean that we won't. After all, we're America!
The illusion is comforting, but in the end, it is an illusion. The way forward goes through a very dark place and I don't know what America will look like when...if...it comes out the other side.
So yeah, I'm a pessimist.
Finally, something Obama and I agree on.
Does Anybody in Washington Know what the word Cut Means?
These plans have two things in common:
Every one of them, even Ryan's "extreme" budget, results in increased spending every year, more borrowing every year, and an increase in the federal debt every year, and every one of them is touted as a"spending cut."
Only in Washington can increased spending and debt be called a budget cut.
Do they really think we're that stupid?
The Budget Deal: What Congress Does instead of Doing Something
I can't run my home that way; a business would go bankrupt trying to borrow that much, and a country is no different. If we keep this up, we will go bankrupt as a nation.
What really pisses me off is that there is nobody in Washington right now willing to admit how bad things are. Paul Ryan is taking heat for his budget proposal which takes a stab at fiscal sanity but it still doesn't balance the budget, even 10 years out.
As Tam says:
We are so boned.
So John Q. Public is wheeled in with an arterial bleeder, and Dr. Reid says a bandaid should fix it, while Dr. Boehner wants one of those little 3" gauze squares. They compromised on a 2" gauze pad, but with only one strip of tape.
My neighbor's dog has more foresight than these yahoos
So, what would it take to make me happy? I'm glad you asked.
- Roll back spending to 2008 levels before Obama and the Democrat Congress exploded the budget. And yes, I know Bush signed TARP into law, but TARP came from a Democrat dominated Congress, and Obama voted for it so even though he likes to claim he inherited the deficits, he didn't. he voted for them; he owns them. TARP was supposed to be a one time event, aiming to prevent a full economic crash. Once he took office, Obama and the Democrats have tried to make spending at this level permanent and our economy can't handle it. We need to return to sustainable levels of spending and going back to where we were before the spending orgy is a good start.
- End stimulus spending, and make sure that every dollar given out in bailouts is returned with interest. And no, GM's bullsh*t claim doesn't count. Obama loves to tout all the jobs created or saved, and Democrats trip over themselves talking about the great success of TARP and the two stimulus bills.
OK, great. They worked. The economy is saved and we can go back to living within our means.
- Pass a Constitutional Amendment that
- requires a balanced budget.
- If there is cause for a deficit, that budget must be approved by super majority in the House and Senate, must include Constitutional justification for the spending, and a plan to pay back the deficit.
- links congressional pay to the GDP. If it goes down, so does their pay. Alternately, Congressional pay raises should be linked to the whatever calculation they use to determine military pay raises.
- caps government spending at a percentage of GDP, which historically runs at just under 20%. Exceeding that cap would again require super-majorities of the House and Senate.
- Make it illegal for the Fed to purchase US debt. Monetizing the debt is no different than monetizing mortgage debt. It didn't work in the housing market, and it won't work for federal debt either.
- Make a rule forcing Congress into continuous session starting Oct 1st if there is no budget. Limit continuing resolutions to 2 weeks in duration and cap spending at 90% of the previous budget, to include Congressional and federal pay, with the exception of military pay and benefits. That gives Congress incentive to do their jobs.
- Replace the tax code with one that rewards saving, simplifies returns, and distributes the burden more equitably. A flat tax with deductions for food, clothing, and housing and an income threshold of the poverty level would be a good start. That would come out to something like 23% or so to fund government at the current level of spending.
- Abolish capital gains and inheritance taxes. Income should be taxed once, not multiple times.
- Welfare payments should be repaid just as student loans are. Payment can be in cash, or time spent in civic service.
I could go on, but you get the point. Almost every one of these ideas is a political non starter, which is too bad because TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch) isn't just good idea; it's fairly close to being a natural law. Any culture that flouts that law generally fails within a generation or two. We're in our second generation now. Time is running out. We can take charge of our fiscal affairs and get America back on a sound financial footing, or we can continue on the path to insolvency, default, and ruin.
Unfortunately, based on what's been going on in Washington, and some of the conversations I've had with folks lately, I think the choice has already been made. Too many people have an entitlement mentality and they are unwilling to face the truth, that America is on a path that will lead to financial ruin. We won't change our direction.
Let’s Make Sure We Shut Down Truly Non Essential Government Agencies
Starting with Congress.
Congress had a duty to pass a budget over six months ago. They failed to do so. If they can't do their job, why should they get paid?
"But Rich, if we don't pay them, then they can't work to fix the problems!"
Hey, Obama expects the military to work without being paid, forcing their families to cope with bills, rent, and groceries with no money: surely we can expect the millionaire lawyers that make up Congress to do the same.
In fact, in solidarity with his government employee brothers and sisters, I think Mr Obama should also go without pay during the shutdown. I'm sure Michelle would understand the need to forgo spending trips and vacations during the crisis.
Let's furlough the White House staff as well. I don't have hundreds of servants to keep my house clean, food on the table, and my clothes washed. In these tough times, we need tough measures. During the shutdown, let Obama wash his own underwear.
Let's lay off the White House PR department, including the press secretary. Let the President speak for himself, without speech writers teleprompters and flacks. We might actually hear the truth for a change.
You know, the more I think about it, the more I'm liking this idea of a shutdown. Let's strip government down to its bare essentials and see how much of it we really need.
Compromise Obama Style
"Why won't the Republicans compromise?" they ask. "Do they want Americans to suffer?"
They point to John Boehner who indicated that the last CR that passed would be the last one, that he and the House Republicans were going to hold out for a budget agreement that lasted the rest of the fiscal year, and that they were willing to go through a partial government shutdown if that's what it took.
Ahh, the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth in DC was audible clear out to Chicago. It seemed that all the media could talk about was how many people would be hurt by the shutdown and how irresponsible the republicans were being by trying too force the Democrats to meet their demands for real spending cuts.
Then a funny thing happened. As we got closer to the shutdown, the Republicans gave ground and reached for a compromise. They reduced their goal from $61 billion to $40 billion. But that was not enough for the Democrats, and they continued to hold out for more spending, higher deficits, and bigger debt.
Then we all discovered that because there had been no appropriations bill, and because Obama had decided to vacate an OMB directive that authorized payment of the military during a government shutdown, Boehner changed his mind, and authored another CR, this one lasting a week, calling for minimal spending cuts, and funding the military through the end of the fiscal year, making sure our troops, including those in three different combat zones, would continue to get paid.
Their wives would be able to pay rent, bills, and buy groceries and their spouses in harm's way wouldn't have to worry about their families being held hostage to political gamesmanship in Washington.
In short, the Republicans put the well being of our troops ahead of politics, and compromised by proposing and passing another CR.
So of course, Obama and his Democrats, in the spirit of compromise, and having gotten significant compromises from Republicans, acted immediately to pass the CR, fund the troops, and keep the government running.
Obama said he would not accept any continuing resolutions, that he wanted a budget to last to the end of the year, and that if the Senate passed Boehner's CR, he would veto it.
This bill is a distraction from the real work that would bring us closer to a reasonable compromise for funding the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011 and avert a disruptive Federal Government shutdown that would put the Nation’s economic recovery in jeopardy. The Administration will continue to work with the Congress to arrive at a compromise that will fund the Government for the remainder of the fiscal year in a way that does not undermine future growth and job creation and that averts a costly Government shutdown...If presented with this bill, the President will veto it.
That's what Democrats mean when they ask for compromise. Do it their way, or somebody gets hurt.
This President is willing to force our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines to face combat without pay, leaves their families back home without money for groceries, rent, or other bills, all so he can get his way. republicans showed a weakness, concern for the troops, and Obama and the Democrats are going to exploit that weakness.
Obama may call this compromise; I call it extortion.
The man has no shame whatsoever.
If you're a Democrat, and you support this man using our troops, including those in harm's way, as bargaining chips, then I have absolutely no respect for you.
As for compromise, it takes two parties to compromise. Democrats have shown that they view compromise the same way all bullies do; as a sign of weakness.
A trait they share in common with union thugs and Islamic terrorists.
Things to Remember in the Budget Mess
- Democrats failed to pass a budget through cowardice.The fiscal year runs from Oct 1 to Sept 30 which means we've been operating without a budget for over 6 months. While past administrations have had trouble getting a budget deal passed before, never have we gone an entire year without a budget, not even in wartime. Now, for the first time in history, we will go without a budget for the fiscal year 2010. The reason why this happened is very simple.
2010 was an election year, and given the bad economy, Democrats knew they were in a tough spot. Historically, sitting administrations lose seats during mid term elections as administrations find it impossible to live up to all of their campaign promises. Given a crashing economy and several unpopular initiatives, Democrats knew that passing a pork laden deficit busting monstrosity would hurt their chances even further.
So they punted. Rather than standing up for their principles and voting their platform, they passed a series of Continuing Resolutions to allow the government to operate without having to go on record as supporting massive deficit spending.
- Republicans are not responsible for the failure to reach a budget agreement last year. In the days leading up to the end of the last fiscal year, Democrats controlled the White House and both branches of Congress with veto proof majorities. Republicans couldn't have stopped a Democrat budget if they wanted to. Remember this when the press yammers about Republican obstructionism. The Democrats had the chance to pass their budget and failed to do so.
- Extreme doesn't always mean what we think it means. Right now, Republicans are aiming to reduce spending for the rest of the year by 61 billion dollars. Democrats are saying that's too much, that the cuts are extreme.
But are they really?
Right now, the deficit for this fiscal year is predicted to be $1.6 trillion. That works out to $4.3 billion dollars a day we have to borrow to fund our government. So the cuts the republicans are asking for would make up for just over two weeks of deficit spending. Or to put it another way, we'll reduce the daily amount we have to borrow by $339 million. Wow! That's a lot, right?
Yeah, now we will have to borrow only $4 billion a day instead of $4.3 billion.
The scary thing is that Democrats are railing against this relatively minor spending adjustment as extreme.
- Obama is not serious about cutting the budget remember when Obama created a bi-partisan, blue ribbon commission to study the deficit and come up with a plan to cut it down and to balance the budget? remember when they came back with a plan to cut spending by bout $6 trillion over 10 years, resulting in a balanced budget and real job creation?
That's ok. Niether does Obama.
His budget ignores nearly every single provision the commission came up with.
Despite the above, all you will hear as we draw closer to Friday is that it's George bush's fault, aided by those extremists in the Tea Party.
What He Said
Bottom line: It is always a dangerous thing for a president to start a war without Congress, without a consistent mission, without a coherent methodology, without a plausible end game, and without a clue who our rebel allies are or just how strong their opponent actually might be — contingent on a fickle UN, impotent but oil-enthused allies, and a passive-aggressive Arab world, all to prove a point that we could reinvent our military into a humanitarian rescue force, subordinate to international unelected bodies — and all the more dangerous during the golfing, basketball-playoffs, and resort seasons.
Obama’s Libyan Adventure
I just want to say that I believe Obama has the authority to order limited military strikes based on situations that involve danger to the United States without going to Congress for permission. I also believe that the War Powers gives Obama 60 day window to achieve his goals, or he'll have to stand down, or get Congressional approval.
On the other hand, to all the libs who are giving Obama a pass on his invasion of Libya, I don't want to hear another word about Bush's 'illegal' wars.
Not one freakin' word.