Another Billboard...

Obama's 2012 Bumper Stickers

What's Your Political Qotient?

Dr Tim Groseclose, a professor of Poly-Sci at UCLA has come up with a system based upon votes in both the House of Representatives and the US Senate that will give you an idea of your political beliefs...Nancy Pelosi scored a 100...and I scored a

Here’s your PQ: 5.3
Politicians with similar PQs are:

Michele Bachmann (R-Minn, 2007-09) PQ=-4.1
James DeMint (R-S.C. 1999-2009) PQ=5.1
Newt Gingrich (R-Ga., 1979-94) PQ=11.4
Richard Nixon (R-Calif., 1947-52) PQ=12.5
Lindsay Graham (R-S.C., 1995-2009) PQ=14.9

Here's a link to his site and the test.  It's 40 questions long and takes about 10 minutes.  Here are some other famous PQ's:

He's also written a book Left Turn, How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind.  Here's some video of him discussing his PQ test.

Cartoon of the Day

Epicenter of Excuses:

Jonathan Alter's Challenge: You Think Obama's Been A Bad President?

Jonathan Alter, a far left blogger and "pundit" has asked in Bloomberg,  "You Think Obama’s Been a Bad President? Prove It".  Peter Wehner's response is very, very good...but here's agreat "non-professional" response that is just as good, if not better coming from an average citizen type:

ChallengeResponse 11 hours ago 3 comments collapsed CollapseExpand

Mr. Alter,

I thank you for your challenge to readers: "What, specifically, has he done wrong on policy? What, specifically, would you have done differently to create jobs? And what can any of the current Republican candidates offer that would be an improvement on the employment front?"  I take it as an actual challenge and not a rhetorical ploy. I accept your challenge.

You mention policy on Libya. The President should have acted far more quickly and forcefully with an air campaign. If he had done so, this phase of the war would have ended in days not weeks, as the President promised, and their would have been significantly fewer Libyan lives lost. The faster end to this phase of the war also means it would have cost less. This was all known at the time the President had to make a decision. With the exception of Ron Paul, it's reasonable for the public to believe that the major Republican candidates would likely have acted more swiftly and forcefully than Obama did.

Your comparison to Iraq is reasonable if you concede that Iraq was much more heavily defended and their were no rebels. The comparable phase of that war, toppling Saddam Hussein, took far less time than this phase of the war in Libya. For this comparison, President Bush was clearly a better Commander in Chief than President Obama. The hard part is just beginning in Libya.

I sincerely doubt that former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell would agree with your characterization that he is "a hardcore liberal Democrat." He wouldn't have been elected governor of a relatively centrist state had this been true. The fact that the previously most liberal member of the Senate, President Obama, would press for a bigger stimulus hardly seems noteworthy given that fact.

Except for some Democratic partisans, there is near unanimity that the economy has been in bad shape for the entire Obama administration. This is why only 26% of the population approves of Obama's handling of the economy. The unemployment numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics give a rational for this sentiment. Under the Bush administration, unemployment was below 6.5% for 93 of 96 months, 97% of the time. Under the Obama administration, unemployment was above 8.5%

for 31 of 33 months, 94% of the time. With numbers like these it's entirely reasonable for the public to believe that any number of people, even Ron Paul, could do a better job.

There's wide spread agreement that the economy was in poor shape when President Obama took office. He had an opportunity to turn it around.For the first two years President had such a strongly Democratic Congress that Republican votes didn't matter. The President could pass almost any legislation he wanted to, and he did. The stimulus was enacted so swiftly that the Congress had little time to review it before voting. The administration said this haste was necessary because the stimulus would improve the economy so quickly and included numerous "shovel ready" jobs. The administration's economic theory predicted that the stimulus would hold unemployment below 8%. In fact, none of these things have been true. The public is rightly distrustful of Keynesian stimulus after this performance. It's entirely reasonable to conclude that the stimulus was just an excuse for a government payout to the President's political allies: unions, government employees, green technology firms, etc.

We can agree that Ben Bernake, appointed by President Bush, and the TARP bailouts of the banks that Bush pushed for have been successful. The bailout of Chrysler, General Motors, and their unions is another case. It is highly unlikely that the government will ever be fully repaid, and Ford has performed better without a bailout. There's no evidence that restructuring Chrysler and General Motors through the normal bankruptcy process would have performed any worse, and there

wouldn't have been any political favoritism involved.

You said "The Republican alternative for job creation wasn’t tax cuts (the stimulus contained almost $300 billion in tax cuts) but deficit reduction and rolling back regulation. I’ve yet to see a single economist convincingly argue how either would have reversed the catastrophic job losses." With all due respect either you're not looking or your standard of proof is unreasonable: economic arguments aren't generally provable at the same level as in the physical sciences. Just to offer one example on regulation, I suggest ThomasHopkins, an economist at the Rochester Institute of Technology. There

are many others if you're serious about looking. The onslaught of new and anticipated regulation and its attendant uncertainty have nearly paralyzed business. The cumulative effect is that businesses are hoarding cash, and waiting for the regulatory storm to end. The regulation includes unattainable EPA standards, Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, and the Affordable Care Act. To the average American, this is just common sense. While quantifying the cumulative effect of regulation is difficult, it is no less real. When Republican candidates campaign on these facts and President Obama ignores them, these candidates become more competitive.

You claim the Affordable Care Act couldn't possibly have a negative effect on the economy. "And Republicans have offered no evidence for their claim that the Affordable Care Act (which includes tax credits for small businesses) has contributed to current levels of unemployment. How could it? The program hasn’t even fully begun yet." Business investment and hiring isn't based entirely on current
conditions; a far greater factor is anticipated future returns. The Affordable Care Act will significantly affect most business for the worse, and they are reluctant to hire employees and make risky investments because of it. You quote Warren E. Buffett, "People invest to make money and potential taxes have never scared them off." For the sake of your argument, let's ssume that's true. That doesn't mean that taxes don't affect how people invest. For example, taxes are the reason that people invest in municipal bonds. Higher potential taxes drive investors towards safer investments with less risk but also less return. This is a net loss for the economy.

 

By the way, your attempt at sarcasm, calling Buffett a "noted lefty socialist" fails. Buffett has been a consistent supporter of thePresident, an occasional adviser, and has endorsed him for 2012 without any idea who he will be competing against. Given Buffet's banking investments and the President's consistent support of the banks, indeeds if not always in words, Buffet's actions could just be rational self interest. The tax hikes Buffet suggests would have limited effect on him, most of his money is shielded by donation to the Gates foundation.

 

I'm glad we can agree that the President "looked weak during the debt-limit debate.” You ask, "what would you have done?" Cut, cap, andbalance sounded reasonable to me. It's too bad that the Senate never debated the merits. Americans are waking up to the fact that their share of government debt has gone from owing roughly $30,000 apiece to $45,000 in two and a half years because of the current spending binge. They are reasonably outraged that government is growing at this pace while they tighten their belts to pay down their household debts. One could reasonably argue the repayment of this debt will be uneven across society, some will repay more while others will repay nothing. However, those repaying nothing may be hit hardest; the government services they depend on may cease to exist.

You left out an important proposal made by most Republican candidates to reduce tax rates, particularly corporate rates, by reducing deductions, exemptions, and credits for following the government's preferred activities. The entire economy would benefit if companies like General Electric payed their fair share of taxes and everyone else had a lower rate and was better able to compete with extreme right-wing countries like Canada with lower rates. Money that companies don't pay in taxes they reinvest; as Buffett said, they want to make money. Reasonable Democrats understand this, but there are many extremists who don't want to give up the donations that come from playing political favors with the tax code. The poster boy for this kind of favoritism is GE President and head of the President's Jobs Council, Jeffrey Immelt. In addition, if foreign corporate profits could come back to America without being taxed twice, additional American investment could take place.

 

To summarize, the President's economic policies have failed by any objective standard, including his own. The Republican candidates havesuggested that flatter taxes, reduction of double taxation, and a more common sense approach to regulation would create a better environment for the private sector to grow. When polls indicate that the public is willing to support almost any Republican candidate against President Obama, they're indicating a willingness to try a different economic theory.

Let's return to the actual, but unstated, question of your column, what can a President who is "a hardcore liberal Democrat" do within the current situation without abandoning his values? He can put the good of the nation ahead of partisanship and honestly search for common ground with Republicans. It needs to go beyond the lip service offered thus far. I suspect members of both parties in Congress would respond to an honest effort. If George W. Bush and Ted Kennedy could do it, and Bill Clinton and Rick Santorum could do it, President Obama could do it with enough of this Congress.

This doesn't have to be a zero sum game of redistribution. The President can push the reset button, give up for now on class warfare, and adopt strategies that make everyone wealthier. A tax neutral reduction of tax rates via tax reform is beneficial for most of the country. Getting rid of government programs and regulations with limited value is beneficial for most of the country. (The nation could survive without the Cowboy Poetry Festival.) Every politician talks about waste, fraud, and abuse, but no one does anything about it. It's hard to calculate the exact damage wasteful government activity does to the economy, but it certainly distorts it. Doing something about it isn't a panacea, but it could easily be bipartisan.

 

One could argue that the really big money is entitlements, and that's true. However, by any other standard there's still real money and economic improvement in the above ideas. There isn't going to be any progress on entitlements until both sides can resist the temptation to play politics with it. True bipartisanship on smaller stakes programs is a prerequisite to progress on entitlements, and even that looks unlikely.

Here's the real problem President Obama has: unlike President Clinton, he would rather be an ideologically pure one term president than honestly seek common ground with Republicans. Absent a third party candidate, that's the trajectory he's on.
Notice that I've played by your very reasonable rules: "I’m not interested in hearing ad hominem attacks or about your generalized 'disappointment.'" I've used specific facts and arguments. You may not agree with the arguments, and you may know of other facts that I haven't considered, but I have stated my case as factually and honestly as I can.      

Well said sir.   Here are Peter Wehner's points:

• * Under Obama’s stewardship, we have lost 2.2 million jobs (and 900,000 full-time jobs in the last four months alone). He is now on track to have the worst jobs record of any president in the modern era.
• * The unemployment rate stands at 9.1 percent v. 7.8 percent the month Obama took office.
• * July marked the 30th consecutive month in which the unemployment rate was above the 8 percent level, the highest since the Great Depression.
• * Since May 2009 — roughly 14 weeks into the Obama administration — the unemployment rate has been above 10 percent during three months, above 9 percent during 22 months, and above 8 percent during two months.
• * Chronic unemployment is worse than during the Great Depression.
• * The youth employment rate is at the lowest level since records were first kept in 1948.
• * The share of the eligible population holding a job has declined to the lowest level since the early 1980s.
• * The housing crisis is worse than in the Great Depression. (Home values are worth roughly one-third less than they were five years ago.)
• * The rate of economic growth under Obama has been only slightly higher than the 1930s, the decade of the Great Depression. From the first quarter of 2010 through the first quarter of 2011, we experienced five consecutive quarters of slowing growth. America’s GDP for the second quarter of this year was a sickly 1.0 percent; in the first quarter, it was 0.4 percent.
• * Fiscal year 2011 will mark the third straight year with deficits in excess of $1 trillion. Prior to the Obama presidency, we had never experienced a deficit in excess of $1 trillion.
• * During the Obama presidency, America has increased its debt by $4 trillion.
• That is to say, Obama has achieved in two-and-a-half years what it took George W. Bush two full terms in office to achieve — and Obama, when he was running for president, slammed Bush’s record as being “unpatriotic.”
• * America saw its credit rating downgraded for the first time in history under the Obama presidency.
• * Consumer confidence has plunged to the lowest level since the Carter presidency.
• * The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Obama’s watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.
• * A record number of Americans now rely on the federal government’s food stamps program. More than 44.5 million Americans received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, a 12 percent increase from one year ago.

 Again...well said sir.

Perry & Obama @ 22 Years Old....

...and it's an extreme that must be seen!

But to criticize Mr. Obama is either unpatriotic or racist...but who is the patriot?

Hat Tip:  The Other McCain

Dangers Of Deficit Spending

In the not too distant past, a candidate for President warned America about the dangers of deficit spending...



I guess he didn't mean it.

Virginia Earthquake: The View From Baltimore

I was sitting on the grown out side the Mount Washington, Baltimore City, Maryland light rail station when the "quake" hit.  Honestly?  It wasn't much.  The local TV stations made it seem far worse than it was, and probably fed the hysteria.  I just a little shaking, with 2 very small aftershocks...I really thought I was suffering from the after affects of my recent concusion...I still get a little dizzy occasionally, so until I saw people walking out of the restaurants and businesses  in that area...I thought it was just me.

More Debt, Urges NBC Host

Savanah Guthrie, the backup host of  is urging Mr. Obama to try and pass more debt-backed "stimulus packages." 

In an interview with former press secretary and current Obama campaign advisor Robert Gibbs on Sunday’s Meet the Press, substitute host Savannah Guthrie pushed the President from the left: “If the President thinks more should be done, if he thinks there should be more stimulus, why doesn’t he just go for broke? Why doesn’t he go out there and ask for it, make a case for it?”

 We as a nation can't afford the spending of the past 4 years, yet the left, who seem to be bereft of any sense at all...are demanding MORE spending, backed by debt...what can't continue won't...

 We can't afford the current level of debt...and urging the president to double down, just means the Liberal left wants to finish off the economy.

Paul Ryan Not Running For President...bummin'...

According to ABC news, Congressman Paul Ryan will NOT be running for President next year.  That's bad for the country...

After much speculation and some pressure from fellow Republicans, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin and the House Budget Committee Chairman, says he is NOT running for President.

"I sincerely appreciate the support from those eager to chart a brighter future for the next generation. While humbled by the encouragement, I have not changed my mind, and therefore I am not seeking our party's nomination for President. I remain hopeful that our party will nominate a candidate committed to a pro-growth agenda of reform that restores the promise and prosperity of our exceptional nation. I remain grateful to those I serve in Southern Wisconsin for the unique opportunity to advance this effort in Congress."

HatTip:  Legalinsurection

Touch Wood

I'm a cabinetmaker, and I want one!

Cartoon of the Day

via Don Surber

Deficit Crisis Explained!

I found this on Don Surber's blog it's by Kate @ Small Dead Animals...and it's a great way to explain just what the recent "deficit deal" was about, and how it cuts spending...in the future, but not today:

America's Fiscal Reality 

A friend of mine in Texas republished some recent financial numbers:
U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent budget cut: $38,500,000,000

Most people glaze over such numbers so he then equated it in simpler terms:
Annual family income: $21,700
Money the family spent: $38,200
New debt on the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
Total budget cuts: $385
Finally, he wrote: "This is an impossible way for a family to survive. Bankruptcy is the only way out. This family is headed for complete failure."

P.S. Keep in mind that anyone who "dares" suggest that much more should be done to get America's fiscal house in order: is mentally unstable, wants to destroy their country, is a terrorist, and/or is a right-wing extremist. So says Obama's foot soldiers in government and in the MSM.

Now...does that make things a little easie to understand?  Or...to put them in Mr. Surber's words:

If anyone is wondering why we are in financial straits as a nation, consider that the president we elected in 2008 spent more money than anyone has ever spent in any election anywhere — 50% more more than John McCain — just to finish 6 points ahead on Election Day. President Obama is not exactly a penny-pincher or even a Benjamin-pincher. A Democratic Congress gave Obama a boxload of blank checks. The amount of misspending by this administration is nearly impossible to comprehend for most of humanity, and so Kate at Small Dead Animals put federal spending in terms of a family’s spending, but the numbers she described were rather lowball.

She gave the annual income of this family as $21,700. But the median household income in 2009 (the point where half earn less and half earn more) was $50,277. So I will adjust her figures accordingly.

Family income: $50,277.
Family spending: $88,506.
Added to the credit card: $38,229.
Outstanding credit card debt: $330,646.
Proposed cuts: $829.

That $829 cut means we will borrow another $37,400 next year.

But some will say it is a mortgage not a credit card. If so, we just took out a home equity loan of $38,229 last year on a house that is already underwater.

Barack Obama may do things this way. But not the rest of us.

What I don't understand is how our current political elite can justify continuing spending at this rate?  Are they stupid?  Retarded?  Do they think that the bills just won't come due?  They're coming due at a rapid rate...and we just can't continue spending like this.  The GOP & Democratic leadership had better understand, that the time for insane spending is over.

Obama's Low Poll Numbers: Congress' Fault

This is a man who refuses to take responsibility for anything he does.  It was Bush's fault that he entered office on a recession...now it's Congress' fault he has very low approval ratings.  In an interview with a friendly CBS reporter in his lavish Martha's Vinyard digs Mr. Obama is quoted as saying {emphasis is mine}

President Barack Obama says his low approval rating is a reflection of public unhappiness with Congress.  Obama tells CBS in an interview broadcast Sunday that he's "impacted," just like Congress, when people aren't happy with Washington. He says he understands that his arguments that the country would have been worse off if he hadn't taken certain actions don't resonate with the millions of unemployed people. The president, who's vacationing on Martha's Vineyard, Mass., says he expects to be judged in November 2012 on whether things have improved. Recent public opinion polls have shown Obama's job approval rating at near 40 percent, the lowest of his presidency.  Obama taped the CBS' `Sunday Morning" interview last Wednesday in Illinois at the end of a Midwest bus tour focused on the economy.

but of course, none of it is his fault...that in his first two years, with a Democratically controlled Congress, he signed legislation that was passed over the howling protests of millions of Americans, that has failed to do anthing about the 2007-10 recession, and that the vast increase in the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy that has greatly expanded the reach and scope of that bureaucracy, has had nothing to do with his current poll woes...nope, perish the thought.

Wal-Mart vs. The Morons

I didn't write the following, but the facts are correct...

AN interesting read that's for sure, no matter what your political
affiliation.

1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart every hour of every day.
2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!
3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.
4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target +Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.
5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people, is the world's largest private employer, and most speak English.
6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world.
7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only fifteen years.
8. During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.
9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.
10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had five years ago.
11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at Wal-Mart stores. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 Billion.)
12. 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a Wal-Mart.
You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the ground work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to fix the economy.

This should be read and understood by all Americans Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE!! To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislature, It is now official that the majority of you are corrupt morons:

A. The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.
B. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.
C. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke. (...and corrrupt former politicians who ran it in the last 20 broke the US and world economies...)
D. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.
e. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.
f. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.
g. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.
You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.

By the way; since the Eisenhower era there have been over 200 taxes added to our taxpaying citizens so during the times of government run agency’s failures they had more tax money income that ever.

And you took over the Mustang Ranch in Nevada because they didn't pay their taxes, and now it is closed. You could not even run a house of prostitution.

AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM ??

I know what's wrong. We have lost our minds to "Political Correctness"

Someone please tell me what the HELL's wrong with all the people that run this country!!!!!!
We're "broke" & can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless etc.,???????????
In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti , Chile , and Turkey .. And now Pakistan .....home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!

Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income' receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while our government pours Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$'s and Tons of Food to Foreign Countries! We have hundreds of adoptable children who are shoved aside to make room for the adoption of foreign orphans.

AMERICA: a country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed hungry, elderly going without 'needed' meds, and mentally ill without treatment -etc,etc.

YET......................They have a 'Benefit' for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations, ships and planes lining up with food, water, tents clothes, bedding, doctors and medical supplies. Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries. Sad isn't it?

...and we entrust these several thousand legislative buffoons with our hard earned treasure...

BUDGET CUTS

I hope you're sitting down reading this because here is a short list of some of the proposed "extreme" cuts that the GOP House of Representatives would like to cut.  Read to the

end.

• Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.
• Save America's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.
• International Fund for Ireland . $17 million annual savings.
• Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.
• National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.
• National Endowment for the Humanities.  $167.5 million annual savings.
• Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.
• Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
• Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress) , authored by Rep.
• McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
• U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.
• Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.
• Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.
• John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.
• Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.
• Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings
• Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings Trim
• Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.
• Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.
• Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.
• Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.
• Department of Energy Grants to States  for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.
• Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.
• New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.
• Exchange Programs for Alaska , Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical  Trading Partners in Massachusetts . $9 million annual savings
• Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings. Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.
• Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.
• Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.
• Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.
• Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.
• FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.
• Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.
• Economic Assistance to Egypt . $250 million annually.
• U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.
• General Assistance to District of Columbia . $210 million annual savings.
• Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.
• Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.
• No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.
• End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services. Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act.
• More than $1 billion annually.
• IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
• Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total

 

Some savings...add up the totals...there there are these proposals for the next ten years.

• Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten
• years.
• Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.
• Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.
• Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
• Change. $12.5 million annual savings
• Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.
• USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.
• Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.
• Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.
• Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.
• Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings..
• HUD Ph.D. Program. Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.

TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years

 

But the real question is just what were these items doing in the budget in the first place?  We're out of other people's money and it's time to pay as we go.  What we need to do is return to the 2006 budget, the one that had $150 million or so deficit and cut that by  30% across the board.  Eliminate several departments...and eliminate bureaus, offices and departments that duplicate their efforts. 

 

FEDERALIST No. 24: FEDERALIST No. 24

Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:
To THE powers proposed to be conferred upon the federal government, in respect to the creation and direction of the national forces, I have met with but one specific objection, which, if I understand it right, is this, that proper provision has not been made against the existence of standing armies in time of peace; an objection which, I shall now endeavor to show, rests on weak and unsubstantial foundations.

It has indeed been brought forward in the most vague and general form, supported only by bold assertions, without the appearance of argument; without even the sanction of theoretical opinions; in contradiction to the practice of other free nations, and to the general sense of America, as expressed in most of the existing constitutions. The proprietory of this remark will appear, the moment it is recollected that the objection under consideration turns upon a supposed necessity of restraining the LEGISLATIVE authority of the nation, in the article of military establishments; a principle unheard of, except in one or two of our State constitutions, and rejected in all the rest.

A stranger to our politics, who was to read our newspapers at the present juncture, without having previously inspected the plan reported by the convention, would be naturally led to one of two conclusions: either that it contained a positive injunction, that standing armies should be kept up in time of peace; or that it vested in the EXECUTIVE the whole power of levying troops, without subjecting his discretion, in any shape, to the control of the legislature.

If he came afterwards to peruse the plan itself, he would be surprised to discover, that neither the one nor the other was the case; that the whole power of raising armies was lodged in the LEGISLATURE, not in the EXECUTIVE; that this legislature was to be a popular body, consisting of the representatives of the people periodically elected; and that instead of the provision he had supposed in favor of standing armies, there was to be found, in respect to this object, an important qualification even of the legislative discretion, in that clause which forbids the appropriation of money for the support of an army for any longer period than two years a precaution which, upon a nearer view of it, will appear to be a great and real security against the keeping up of troops without evident necessity.
Disappointed in his first surmise, the person I have supposed would be apt to pursue his conjectures a little further. He would naturally say to himself, it is impossible that all this vehement and pathetic declamation can be without some colorable pretext. It must needs be that this people, so jealous of their liberties, have, in all the preceding models of the constitutions which they have established, inserted the most precise and rigid precautions on this point, the omission of which, in the new plan, has given birth to all this apprehension and clamor. 
If, under this impression, he proceeded to pass in review the several State constitutions, how great would be his disappointment to find that TWO ONLY of them [1] contained an interdiction of standing armies in time of peace; that the other eleven had either observed a profound silence on the subject, or had in express terms admitted the right of the Legislature to authorize their existence.
Still, however he would be persuaded that there must be some plausible foundation for the cry raised on this head. He would never be able to imagine, while any source of information remained unexplored, that it was nothing more than an experiment upon the public credulity, dictated either by a deliberate intention to deceive, or by the overflowings of a zeal too intemperate to be ingenuous. It would probably occur to him, that he would be likely to find the precautions he was in search of in the primitive compact between the States. Here, at length, he would expect to meet with a solution of the enigma. No doubt, he would observe to himself, the existing Confederation must contain the most explicit provisions against military establishments in time of peace; and a departure from this model, in a favorite point, has occasioned the discontent which appears to influence these political champions.
If he should now apply himself to a careful and critical survey of the articles of Confederation, his astonishment would not only be increased, but would acquire a mixture of indignation, at the unexpected discovery, that these articles, instead of containing the prohibition he looked for, and though they had, with jealous circumspection, restricted the authority of the State legislatures in this particular, had not imposed a single restraint on that of the United States. If he happened to be a man of quick sensibility, or ardent temper, he could now no longer refrain from regarding these clamors as the dishonest artifices of a sinister and unprincipled opposition to a plan which ought at least to receive a fair and candid examination from all sincere lovers of their country! How else, he would say, could the authors of them have been tempted to vent such loud censures upon that plan, about a point in which it seems to have conformed itself to the general sense of America as declared in its different forms of government, and in which it has even superadded a new and powerful guard unknown to any of them? If, on the contrary, he happened to be a man of calm and dispassionate feelings, he would indulge a sigh for the frailty of human nature, and would lament, that in a matter so interesting to the happiness of millions, the true merits of the question should be perplexed and entangled by expedients so unfriendly to an impartial and right determination. Even such a man could hardly forbear remarking, that a conduct of this kind has too much the appearance of an intention to mislead the people by alarming their passions, rather than to convince them by arguments addressed to their understandings.

But however little this objection may be countenanced, even by precedents among ourselves, it may be satisfactory to take a nearer view of its intrinsic merits. From a close examination it will appear that restraints upon the discretion of the legislature in respect to military establishments in time of peace, would be improper to be imposed, and if imposed, from the necessities of society, would be unlikely to be observed.

Though a wide ocean separates the United States from Europe, yet there are various considerations that warn us against an excess of confidence or security. On one side of us, and stretching far into our rear, are growing settlements subject to the dominion of Britain. On the other side, and extending to meet the British settlements, are colonies and establishments subject to the dominion of Spain. This situation and the vicinity of the West India Islands, belonging to these two powers create between them, in respect to their American possessions and in relation to us, a common interest. The savage tribes on our Western frontier ought to be regarded as our natural enemies, their natural allies, because they have most to fear from us, and most to hope from them. The improvements in the art of navigation have, as to the facility of communication, rendered distant nations, in a great measure, neighbors. Britain and Spain are among the principal maritime powers of Europe. A future concert of views between these nations ought not to be regarded as improbable. The increasing remoteness of consanguinity is every day diminishing the force of the family compact between France and Spain. And politicians have ever with great reason considered the ties of blood as feeble and precarious links of political connection. These circumstances combined, admonish us not to be too sanguine in considering ourselves as entirely out of the reach of danger.

Previous to the Revolution, and ever since the peace, there has been a constant necessity for keeping small garrisons on our Western frontier. No person can doubt that these will continue to be indispensable, if it should only be against the ravages and depredations of the Indians. These garrisons must either be furnished by occasional detachments from the militia, or by permanent corps in the pay of the government. The first is impracticable; and if practicable, would be pernicious. The militia would not long, if at all, submit to be dragged from their occupations and families to perform that most disagreeable duty in times of profound peace. And if they could be prevailed upon or compelled to do it, the increased expense of a frequent rotation of service, and the loss of labor and disconcertion of the industrious pursuits of individuals, would form conclusive objections to the scheme. It would be as burdensome and injurious to the public as ruinous to private citizens. The latter resource of permanent corps in the pay of the government amounts to a standing army in time of peace; a small one, indeed, but not the less real for being small. Here is a simple view of the subject, that shows us at once the impropriety of a constitutional interdiction of such establishments, and the necessity of leaving the matter to the discretion and prudence of the legislature.

In proportion to our increase in strength, it is probable, nay, it may be said certain, that Britain and Spain would augment their military establishments in our neighborhood. If we should not be willing to be exposed, in a naked and defenseless condition, to their insults and encroachments, we should find it expedient to increase our frontier garrisons in some ratio to the force by which our Western settlements might be annoyed. There are, and will be, particular posts, the possession of which will include the command of large districts of territory, and facilitate future invasions of the remainder. It may be added that some of those posts will be keys to the trade with the Indian nations. Can any man think it would be wise to leave such posts in a situation to be at any instant seized by one or the other of two neighboring and formidable powers? To act this part would be to desert all the usual maxims of prudence and policy.

If we mean to be a commercial people, or even to be secure on our Atlantic side, we must endeavor, as soon as possible, to have a navy. To this purpose there must be dock-yards and arsenals; and for the defense of these, fortifications, and probably garrisons. When a nation has become so powerful by sea that it can protect its dock-yards by its fleets, this supersedes the necessity of garrisons for that purpose; but where naval establishments are in their infancy, moderate garrisons will, in all likelihood, be found an indispensable security against descents for the destruction of the arsenals and dock-yards, and sometimes of the fleet itself.
PUBLIUS.

1. This statement of the matter is taken from the printed collection of State constitutions. Pennsylvania and North Carolina are the two which contain the interdiction in these words: "As standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, THEY OUGHT NOT to be kept up." This is, in truth, rather a CAUTION than a PROHIBITION. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Delaware, and Maryland have, in each of their bils of rights, a clause to this effect: "Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE"; which is a formal admission of the authority of the Legislature. New York has no bills of rights, and her constitution says not a word about the matter. No bills of rights appear annexed to the constitutions of the other States, except the foregoing, and their constitutions are equally silent. I am told, however that one or two States have bills of rights which do not appear in this collection; but that those also recognize the right of the legislative authority in this respect.

My Census Form Came Back...

From email:

I can't believe they sent my Census form back!!

The Census Bureau didn't like my answer to, 'Do you have any dependents?'
I answered; 12 million illegal immigrants, crack heads, unemployable bastards, 140,000 people in the penal system in FL, leftovers from Hurricane Katrina, half of Mexico, most of Congress, Senate, and a Sorry Ass President!'

Did I do something wrong????

Shut Up!!!

A picture is worth a thousand words:

Thanks Linda.

What Has Become America

Has America become the land of the special interest and home of the double standard?
Let’s see: If we lie to the Congress it’s a felony and if the Congress lies to us it’s just politics. If we dislike a black person, we’re racist and if a black person dislikes whites it’s his First Amendment right. The government spends millions to rehabilitate criminals and does almost nothing for the victims. In public schools you can teach that homosexuality is OK but you’d better not use the word “God” in the process. You can kill an unborn child, but it’s wrong to execute a mass murderer.

We don’t burn books in America — we now rewrite them. We got rid of the communist and socialist threat by renaming adherents “progressives.” We are unable to close our border with Mexico, but have no problem protecting the 38th parallel in Korea. If you protest against President Obama’s policies you’re a terrorist, but if you burned an American flag or George Bush in effigy it was your First Amendment right.

You can have pornography on TV or the Internet, but you’d better not put a Nativity scene in a public park during Christmas. We have eliminated all criminals in America — they are now called sick people. We can use a human fetus for medical research, but it’s wrong to use an animal.

We take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who don’t want to work. We all support the Constitution, but only when it supports our political ideology. We still have freedom of speech, but only if we are being politically correct. Parenting has been replaced with Ritalin and video games. The land of opportunity is now the land of handouts. The similarity between Hurricane Katrina and the gulf oil spill is that neither president did anything to help.

And how do we handle a major crisis today? The government appoints a committee to determine who’s at fault, then threatens them, passes a law, raises our taxes, and tells us the problem is solved so incumbents can get back to their reelection campaigns.

What has happened to the land of the free and the home of the brave?
© Ken Huber, Tawas City, all rights reserved.

Obama Quotes

You just can't make this stuff up.  Here are some memorable quotes by The One:

• "Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation."
• "America does not presume to know what is best for everyone"
• "As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam."
• "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world."
• "The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history."
• "Too often, the United States has not pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors."
• "The United States will be willing to acknowledge past errors where those errors have been made."
• "We need to internalize this idea of excellence. Not many folks spend a lot of time trying to be excellent."
• "Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans."
• "The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person...."
• "Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism - it is an important part of promoting peace."
• "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
• "Small towns cling to guns or religion" ...  
• “There are things that you can do individually though to save energy. Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much."
• “Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it.”
• "Our founders, Marx and Engels, believed that parasitic government was endowed with unalienable rights to regulate life, ration liberty, and dispense happiness - and in order to secure these rights, government must rationilize what's best for the governed. We must redistribute their property and indoctrinate their children.

...and this man is arrogant enough to believe that he's brilliant...

"The Gun Is Civilization"

This makes more sense, and is the best argument for the 2nd Amendment than any other I've seen recently.  Sent by JP Pendergast,

"The Gun Is Civilization"
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.  If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either
convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of
force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and
the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as
paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use
reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or
employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal
footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with
a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload
of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical
strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force
equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if
all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a
[armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's
potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative
fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the
young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a
civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful
living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that
otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in
several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal
force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier
works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If
both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian
as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well
as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but
because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I
cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but
because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those
who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who
would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why
carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Well said.

..."Paraprosdokian".

My son sent this..."

Paraprosdokian". Here is the definition:

Figure of speech in which the latter part of a sentence or phrase is surprising or unexpected; frequently used in a humorous situation."

"Where there's a will, I want to be in it," is a type of paraprosdokian.
1. Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
2. The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on my list.
3. Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
4. If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.
5. We never really grow up, we only learn how to act in public.
6. War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
7. Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.
8. Evening news is where they begin with 'Good Evening,' and then proceed to tell you why it isn't.
9. To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism. To steal from many is research.
10. A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk, I have a work station.
11.. I thought I wanted a career. Turns out I just wanted paychecks.
12. Whenever I fill out an application, in the part that says, 'In case of emergency, notify:' I put 'DOCTOR.'
13. I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you.
14. Women will never be equal to men until they can walk down the street with a bald head and a beer gut, and still think they are sexy.
15. Behind every successful man is his woman. Behind the fall of a successful man is usually another woman.
16. A clear conscience is the sign of a fuzzy memory.
17. I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness.
18. You do not need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to skydive twice.
19. Money can't buy happiness, but it sure makes misery easier to live with.
20. There's a fine line between cuddling and holding someone down so they can't get away.
21. I used to be indecisive. Now I'm not so sure.
22. You're never too old to learn something stupid.
23. To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target.
24. Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
25. Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.
26. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.
27. A diplomat is someone who tells you to go to hell in such a way that you look forward to the trip.
28. Hospitality is making your guests feel at home even when you wish they were.
29. I always take life with a grain of salt. Plus a slice of lemon, and a shot of tequila.
30. When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water..

OK GO: This Too Shall Pass

Stephen Fry: Sweetaton23

Stephen...let Molly have your child!

Jay & Kay...garage band...lovely voices

Hi  guys, here's a Youtube group...Jay & Kay

T-Mobile Sucks Balls In Customer Service

I recently purchase a new phone from T-Mobile.  Being nearly destitute, I've been using prepaid phones the past couple of years.  I've never had any major problems until this phone.  It has been a nightmare of insults an humiliation attempting to deal with T-Mobile's customer service department.  Hence the following letter:

Philipp HummCEO and President

T-Mobile Corporation

3720 128^th St. SE

Suite D

Bellevue, Washington 98006

(425) 378-4000

August 18, 2011

Dr. Richard A. Vail PH.D.

Pikesville, MD

Dear Mr. Humm,

Last week my wife, Cheri D. Vail, purchased a “refurbished” phone; Samsung T-359 “Smiley” for me to replace the phone I’m currently using. She made the purchase via the T-Mobile’s website; and having been a customer who has enjoyed T-Mobile for about 10 years, she trusted the company and the product without thinking twice about making the purchase.

We received the phone about 3:00 pm on the 17^th of August, 2011 and we thrilled that we got it a day earlier than what we thought. She waited for me to come home so that we could put my current sim card into the new phone and start using it immediately.

I put the sim card in and called the customer service line because the phone was not working properly and then was informed to “Just put the sim card in and it will work”; they then hung up on me. (Hold time 45 minutes.)

I told my wife that the phone wasn’t working and she asked me if they asked me for my phone number and other information to ensure that the phone indeed was working properly.

I told her what had happened and she then called them back. (Hold time another 30 minutes.) After speaking to about 4 different people and all having different solutions and one supervisor telling my wife that she didn’t know what she was doing and was told, “If I was there and looking at the card, I could tell you what the number is.” This basically telling her she was incorrect which just made her even more upset and angry. My wife has her degree in Electronic Technology and Telecommunications as well as being a retail manager for 20+ years.

After all the disputes and two hours on the phone the supervisor (#811075) told her that it would take up to two hours for the phone to work. By this time it was late and we would wait until the morning to verify that the phone was indeed working properly.

The following morning we checked the phone and of course the phone was not working as promised by the supervisor (#811075).

When my wife, Cheri, arrived home from work she was on the phone again, trying to get someone who could assist her in getting the new phone to work correctly. Only one person was kind enough to actually try to assist her to correct the issue with the phone.

This process took another 3 to 4 people transferred twice put on hold for another 1.5 hours, was told by one of the “customer service reps.” that she could go to any T-Mobile store and would have no problem exchanging the phone for one that worked (not the case). In each case she was also told that she could return it due the “Buyer’s Remorse” policy; but as she had been explaining from the beginning that we had not even had the phone for not even 24 hours and that an “exchange” is all we wanted.

She was not given the opportunity to explain what she had in order to expedite the return of the phone for an “exchange”. She was told that in order for her to receive another phone that she would have to purchase another and then get a credit for the phone that was being sent back when received by the claims department and then would have to wait another ten days after they received it to get credit.

(This by the way for someone who is on a budget and using a prepaid phone may not have “Extra” money to just places an order for another and then wait to get credit for the one that is being sent back.)

This process needs to be addressed and that all functions of the T-Mobile company; whether it be via the Internet, the phone, a “brick and motor” store, or a kiosk, they all should be able to take care of any issue and no matter how one obtained the product, they still all say “T-Mobile”.

Please review and inform of any compensation.

Thank you,

Dr. Richard A. Vail PH.D.

Cc: file

Jim Alling
Chief Operations Officer

Cole Brodman
Chief Marketing Officer

Peter Ewens
Chief Strategy Officer

Dave Miller
Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel

Larry Myers
Chief People Officer

Neville Ray
Chief Technology Officer

Feel free to click on any of the above names and send them an email expressing your opinion on this matter.  After all, the squeeky wheel gets the grease.

,

Video: Roots of the 2007-Present Economic Crisis

Here's a 10 minute video on the 2007 Economic Crisis:

Economic History 101: WaPo Blames Bush...again

The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this BULL. So once more, a short civics lesson

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for FY 2008 & FY 2009 as well as FY 2010 & FY 2011. (FY = fiscal year)

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi

& Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until

Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.  And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period: (below)

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, including Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

Submitted by a regular reader,  who asks to remain anonymous.