I Do Not Like This...

found on facebook:

 

Pretty much says it all...

Congress Doesn't have a Spending Problem?

From Twitter:

David Jones‏@davidjones72019s

Treasury dept: debt added 

$37,829 a second 

$2.2 million a min. 

$136.19 million a hr 

$3.268 billion a day 

And Obama said no spending problem!

DEBT FACTS:

US National debit
16,618,292,042,950

Debit per citizen
52,733.92

Debit per Taxpayer
131,834.81
Pop. 315,136,653

Big Bird Love's the O...

via Instapundit,

 

 





Paul Ryan's Proposed Budget Cuts...

Via reader LindaD, here's a somewhat itemized list of the cuts proposed by Paul Ryan if Romney wins the election.

PAUL RYAN'S PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS A List the Republican Budget will cut Notice S.S. and the military are NOT on this list. These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting. 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 duplicating education programs -- H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 programs 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. * Freedom CAR 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 IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) into the Treasury, instead of allowing 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 savings. WHAT THE HELL IS THIS ABOUT – a billion dollars for a no-brainer? * 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. WHAT??? * Eliminate Mohair Subsidies -- $1 million annual savings. * Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- $12.5 million annual savings WELL ISN'T THAT SPECIAL * Eliminate Market Access Program -- $200 million annual savings. * USDA Sugar Program -- $14 million annual savings. * Subsidy to Organization 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   Oddly enough, I think most of this stuff is just a starting point.  Eliminate the Depts of Education, Energy, HHS, HUD, Homeland Security as well as various offices, agencies such as the EPA (can be consolidated into a much smaller more efficient entity).  Eliminate the duplicate offices that still exist. Replace those departments with block grants to the various states.  Furthermore, eliminate the strangling regulations that those departments, agencies and offices on the economy

This is Sustainability?

Via Vodkapundit:

Since Obama has taken office ….

[through Q2 2012 for comparative purposes]

–> For every $1 added to the economy, we’ve added more than $3 in debt

–> added $5.23 trillion in debt vs. $1.68 trillion to the economy

–> 50% increase in debt vs. 12% increase in economic output

Total Public Debt:

$10,626T [Jan 20, 2009]

$15,856T [Jun 30, 2012]

–> $5.23 trillion increase in debt
[source: Treasury Dept]

As Stephen says...this is "sustainability?"  How in the hell can Democrats justify this kind of spending?  Not terribly long ago, Mr. Obama said it was unpatriotic of George Bush to add $4 Trillion dollars to the debt...over 8 years.






WTF do you call adding almost $6 trillion dollars to the debt in just over 3  years?

The Obama Hypocrisy...

Here's the real hypocrisy  of both Obama and the Democratic Party. 



If it was unpatriotic to add $4,000,000,000,000.00 to the debt over the eight year G. W. Bush presidency, what do you call adding $5,700,000,000,000.00?  That's the thing.  Over the past THREE years, Mr. Obama has added more to the public debt than every other presideng prior to  Bush combined.  In 2008, Obama called that a terrible thing.  Since then, he's more than doubled that.

Mr. Obama and the Democratic party are a threat to America and it's past time to do something about it.  They work for us and their policies have failed and have mortgaged the future to pay for today.  We've run out of other people's money.  It's time for them to go...

The "Super Committee"s Failure...

Here's an interesting video of Chris Chritie, governor of New Jersey commenting on the failure of Obama's "Super Committee."

The "Debt Commision"

from a reader...

Dear Alan, Alan Simpson, Senator from Wyoming , Co-Chair of Obama's deficit commission, calls senior citizens the Greediest Generation as he compared "Social Security" to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats. Here's a response in a letter from PATTY MYERS in Montana ... I think she is a little ticked off! She also tells it like it is! "Hey Alan, let's get a few things straight.. 

1. As a career politician, you have been on the public dole for FIFTY YEARS.  

2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 years old. I am now 63).  

3 My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero ambition losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would have made Bernie Madoff proud..  

4. Recently, just like Lucy & Charlie Brown, you and your ilk pulled the proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age 67. NOW, you and your shill commission is proposing to move the goalposts YET AGAIN.  

5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from Day One, and now you morons propose to change the rules of the game. Why? Because you idiots mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal money from Medicare to pay the bills.  

6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again.  

Why? Because you incompetent bastards spent our money so profligately that you just kept on spending even after you ran out of money.

Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off YOUR debt. To add insult to injury, you label us "greedy" for calling "bullshit" on your incompetence.  

Well, Captain Bullshit, I have a few questions for YOU.  

1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?  

2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers? 

3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?  

4. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or, as usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?  

It is you, Captain Bullshit, and your political co-conspirators called Congress who are the"greedy" ones. It is you and your fellow nutcases who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers. And for what? Votes. That's right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing your pathetic political careers. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it. And you can take that to the bank, youmiserable son of a bitch.

Rather eloquent, I'd say.

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.

National Debt Road Trip

Here's a great video:

The Budget: How I Would Pare Down The Deficit

If I were president...(fat chance that, ed.) I would take the last GOP congressional budget, which what was considered to be a huge deficit...$400+ billion dollars, and I would make across the board cuts...of  30% in every single program, across all departments.  Additionally, I would layoff 30% of all federal workers.

I would also require means testing for Medicare, Medicaide and Social Security.  I  would also submit a bill to Congress that would repeal ALL of ObamaCare, as well as a bill that would:

propose the following as the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
The purpose of this amendment is to restrict the duration and number of consecutive terms any President, United States Senator and Congressman may serve consecutively.  It will additionally limit the number of days Congress may meet and so designate the meeting times of those sessions.

1. No citizen of the United States shall be elected to the House of Representatives to more than four (4) consecutive, two (2) year terms to office.
2. No citizen of the United States shall be elected to the United States Senate for more than two (2) consecutive, six (6) year terms of office. 
3. No citizen of the United States shall receive any retirement benefits from serving in either the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate.
4. The term of office of the President of the United State shall be for one (1), six (6) year term and he may not succeed him or herself.
5. Congress shall not exempt itself from any laws of the United States of America, in whole or in part. 
6. Congress shall be in session for a period of not less than 60 consecutive days in the Spring, and 60 consecutive days in the Summer of each year. Each sitting of Congress may be extended by the President for a period not to exceed 15 days. The Spring session shall start on the first Monday of March. The Summer session shall begin on the first Monday in August. An additional 15 day session to begin on the 2nd Monday of December may be called by the President if so deemed necessary by declaration of a national emergency and voted so by a 2/3rds majority of the sitting Congress and may not be extended. 

as well as this one:

29th Amendment to the United States Constitution
The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that the Congress of the United States will not spend monies that exceed those taken by the IRS and Treasury Department.

• Section 1. Prior to each fiscal year, the Congress shall adopt a statement of receipts and outlays for that year in which total outlays are no greater than total receipts. The Congress may amend such statement provided revised outlays are not greater than revised receipts. Whenever three-fifths of the whole number of both Houses shall deem it necessary, Congress in such statement may provide for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a vote directly to that subject. The Congress and the President shall ensure that actual outlays do not exceed the outlays set forth in such statement.
• Section 2. Total receipts for any fiscal year set forth in the statement adopted pursuant to this article shall not increase by a rate greater than the rate of increase in national income in the last calendar year ending before such fiscal year, unless a majority of the whole number of both Houses of Congress shall have passed a bill directed solely to approving specific additional receipts and such bill has become law.
• Section 3. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect by affirmative vote of two-thirds..
• Section 4. The Congress may not require that the states engage in additional activities without compensation equal to the additional costs.
• Section 5. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States except those derived from borrowing and total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States except those for repayment of debt principal.
• Section 6. This article shall take effect for the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification.
• Section 7. If Congress fails to pass a balanced budget, then both chambers will be disolved and a Special election will be held in 90 days following the recess without passage of a bill. This election will be fore the remainder of the current session of Congress.

 In 2007, Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, and Harry Reid, as Majority Leader of the US Senate increased spending by 30 percent.  Once Barack Obama assumed office, that rate was excellerated...until the deficit in each of the last 3 years has been FOUR TIMES the size of the last GOP controlled Congress.  They have added one-third to othe national debt...and have set the country on the course to financial ruin. 

It's well past time that the Constitution be amended to first, eliminate the "professional political class," and secondly, force Congress to do what every one else must do...not spend money we don't have except in times of emergency.

I'd also eliminate the Dept of Energy (there's no energy policy derived from there...failed dept), Homeland Security (isn't that what the dept of Def is for?), Education (that's a function of the states and counties), HUD, Transportation (beyond their investigating plane, train accidents, and broad planning regime, the rest is a function of the states), HHS, BATF, and a whole host of other alphabet "security" agencies...as well as several other departments. Suggestions on what else to cut? 

The Numbers They Are Aweful!

From Steven Green of VodkaPundit, via Instapundit...these numbers speak for themselves.  I don't often reproduce entire blog posts, but these...speak for themselves...

“The numbers, they are awful.”

9.2% — unemployment rate for June.
0.1% — increase since May.
16.2% — underemployment rate for June.
0.4% — increase since May.
8% — conventional wisdom for the maximum allowable unemployment rate to win reelection.
15 — remaining BLS reporting months before Election Day.
255,000 — net jobs that must be created each and every month to reach 8%.
18,000 — net jobs created last month.
44,000 — downward revision to April and May job creation.
3,825,000 — total net jobs needed before Election Day.
2,100,000 — jobs created in the last fifteen months.
11.2% — unemployment rate if the labor participation rate was as high as it was in January, 2009.
290,000 — best monthly net jobs gain during Obama administration.
231,000 — real best gain, minus temporary Census hiring.
14 — months since best monthly gain.
1% — decrease in DJIA in the opening minute of trading, day that jobs figures released.
$1,200,000,000,000 — cost of ARRA “stimulus,” with interest.
1,900,000 — net jobs lost since ARRA was signed.
2 — quantitative easing programs since 2008.
~$2,000,000,000,000 — total of first QE program during Great Recession.
$600,000,000,000 — total of second QE program, just ended.
40% — increase in federal debt since January, 2009.
30% — increase in annual federal spending since January, 2009.
20% — decrease in federal revenues since January, 2009.
12% — decline in value of US dollar since January, 2009.
37% — increase in number of Americans on food stamps since January, 2009.
62% — increase in Misery index since January, 2009.
800 — days since the Senate passed a budget.
1.9% — last quarterly GDP increase.
2.5% — consensus projection for last quarterly GPD increase.
2.7% — official White House projection.
3.0% or better — GDP growth needed to dent unemployment.
3.6% — official White House GDP growth projection for 2012.
2.7% — IMF GDP growth projection for 2012.
30% — federal debt held by public as percentage of GDP, 2005.
60% — federal debt held by public as percentage of GDP, 2010.
180% — federal debt held by public as percentage of GDP, CBO estimate, 2035.

0% — odds of current path being sustainable.

Then toss in this graphic that shows that the recovery from the current recession is the slowest-worst in modern times:

and then this:

...and then think about our "elite political leaders" in Washington argueing whether or not to raise the debt ceiling!  They are quibbling over fake "spending cuts" (which aren't really cuts at all as has been demonstrated in the past few months) that at best cut fractions of a percentage point, while our economy struggles along, it's time to dump the leadership in the GOP, and start fresh.  They don't have the courage to do what needs to be done.

Time to Raise the Ceiling Again!

HT Don Surber

Obama: It's His Policies, Not His Race

People are upset about Mr. Obama's policies and many, if not most, don't give a damn about his race.  Yet, when the Racers attempt to equate oposition to Mr. Obama to racism, they're merely trying to shout down debate.  Tony Katz hammers Racer Contessa Brewer on this on MSNBC.



Here's the money Quotes:  

CONTESSA BREWER, MSNBC HOST: That’s what a lot of people are saying it’s not a laughing matter. They say that there are questions about him, not because there really are questions about where he is born, but because he is black. […]

KATZ: But this whole idea of race, you know what, if there are birthers and they’re all crazy and silly for actually wanting to see a birth certificate, well let’s talk about the racers, the people who believe that everything is a conspiracy about race. It’s Obama’s race that people want to see the birth certificate. It’s Obama’s race that people don’t like the out of control spending. It’s not his race. It’s that he’s awful. The policies are terrible. ObamaCare is a lie and a failure. QE1 and QE2 didn’t work. It’s crazy.

..............

KATZ: They didn’t say it was race. Everything that comes out of the racers, and they exist – the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Huffington Post”, some people at your very network, and you know I enjoy having these conversations with you. They are so focused. Everything is about race. It’s not about race. When we talk about Obama and the policies, it’s about the awful policies. It’s about the inability to bring down debt. It’s about the inability to tackle the deficit. And when everybody says, “Oh, they’re just after this because of race,” it is nonsense. It’s a way to stop people from having conversation. Political correctness at its worst. If we want to talk about the issues, let’s talk about the issues.  {emphasis is mine, RAV}

That's it, by constantly using the race card, liberals devalue it to meaninglessness.  It's not about Mr. Obama's race, who friggin' cares about that?  Not me.  What I care about is the simple fact that his economic policies, and those of his party are sending this country down the path of financial ruin.  We simply cannot continue to spend money we don't have.  In the past 4 years of Democratic control of Congress and since 2009, of the presidency, they have added 1/3  to nearly 1/2 to the debt.  That's unacceptable.  It took 225 years to reach 7 trillion dollars.  Put only 4 years for Democrats to nearly double that figure.  Four years!

That's utterly unsustainable.  I genuinely hope that Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling because we simply cannot continue to spend money we don't have.  It's time to pass a balanced budget amendment.  Most states must balance their budgets so must our national government.  In that balanced budget amendment, there must also be provision for a line item veto.

Our Debt

Please, take the 3 minutes to watch this video:

The Coming Financial Crisis

Here is a link to a video by Porter Stansbury, the founder of Stansdury & Associates, a research company based in Baltimore.

And So It Begins...

Many people have been suspicious about how serious the GOP leadership in Congress would be a fiscal conservatism in the coming session that starts in January.  Many feared that since this leadership was in place during the period of 2002-2006 when the GOP began to act  like "Democrat Lite", they would merely continue those policies that led to giving the Speaker's Gavel to Nancy Pelosi.  Fear no more...it will happen.

Tim Cavanaugh of Reason.com is reporting that the ranking GOP members have sent a letter to presumptive Speaker of the House, John Boehner, that purports to lend support to Spencer Bachus. 

As I noted Thursday, Spencer Bachus has supported the majority of the most fiscally unsound, expensive and destructive pieces of legislation that have come before him in the past ten years -- including but not limited to Medicare Part D, the 2008 farm bill (a $300 billion million monstrosity that passed over President Bush's veto), and most importantly the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act that produced the $700 billion TARP.

This is the crap that gave us $5,000,000,000,000.00 in new debt over the past four years.  That more than 1/3 of our entire national debt.  But, it gets worse,

Bachus is not just an out of control spender. He is directly implicated in the most important domestic failure of the last decade: the refusal to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the fight over the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform. This bill had the potential to impose tighter financial restrictions on Fannie and Freddie, turn off their direct line to taxpayer support, and allow the Federal Housing Finance Agency (then known as the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight) to take a much stronger role in regulating the GSEs. During negotiations over this bill, Bachus:

• opposed an amendment by Ron Paul that would have eliminated Fannie and Freddie's ability to borrow from the Treasury;
• opposed an amendment by Scott Garrett (R-NJ) to strike the increase in the Conforming Loan Limit for the GSEs;
• opposed an amendment by Former Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) to strengthen the minimum capital requirements for Fannie and Freddie;
• and opposed an amendment by Ed Royce (R-California) authorizing the FHFA to limit the portfolios of Fannie and Freddie based on the systemic threat they posed.

 ...The rejection of these sensible restrictions on the GSEs meant that the House version of the bill ended up substantially weaker than the Senate version, and the bill never made it to reconciliation. By 2005 the housing bubble was already topping out, but three more years of mischief might have been avoided if Bachus and the House Democrats had been serious about regulating the GSEs -- both of which subsequently went bust and had to be rescued by Treasury. Fannie and Freddie continue to cost us billions of dollars every month in bailout money.

 

 

But this is not the end of Bachus' trail of economic destruction. In February 2008, after the disinflation of American real estate had begun and the credit unwind was in full swing, Bachus decided that Fannie and Freddie (which at this point had only six months left to live) should drastically expand their portfolios of bad and doubtful mortgage debt. So he voted for the Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act -- a $117 billion pig that upped the GSEs' conforming loan limit to $729,750. Assuming a 20 percent down payment, this means the government was now redefining an average home as one costing close to a million dollars -- at a time when real estate values were two years into a decline that still shows no signs of ending.

His chief rival isn't much better.  Ed Royce of California (now there's the home of some "fine" fiscal conservatives!  That state just elected an entire slate of new "even MORE of the same" free spending politicians).  Supported pretty much all of the above points.

If John Boehner is serious about fiscal conservatism, which many including myself doubt, the only way to dispel such doubts is to appoint men and women to chair the major committees who are serious about it.  What makes this so troubling, is that the senior members of all the subcommittees are in support of Mr. Bachus.

Bloomberg, The Hill and Wall Street Journal all say deputy ranking HFSC member Randy Neugebauer (Texas) signed on, along with prospective subcommittee heads Jeb Hensarling (Texas; sucommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit), Scott Garrett (New Jersey; Capital Markets, Insurance and Government-Sponsored Enterprises), Shelly Moore Capito (West Virginia; Housing and Community Opportunity), Paul, Judy Biggert (Illinois; Oversight and Investigations) and Gary Miller (California; International Monetary Policy and Trade).Of this crew, Hensarling, Garrett, Moore Capito and Paul are to varying degrees improvements, while Miller and Biggert are stinkers.

We The People need to let Mr. Boehner know that on this past Tuesday, we only voted in the GOP majority in the House because WE are serious about fiscal responsibility and reigning in the out of control spending of Congress.  More of the same will not be tolerated.

Earmarks: An Open Letter To Mitch McConnell

Politico.com is reporting that Senator Mitch McConnell is walking back on the moritorium on Earmarks. 

The incoming House speaker, Ohio Republican Rep. John Boehner, has long opposed lawmakers’ tendency to include earmarks for parochial projects in annual spending bills, and wants to end the practice. South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, the party purist who helped elect a handful of conservative tea party-backed candidates Tuesday, has vowed to offer an earmark moratorium during the next Senate Republican Conference meeting on Nov. 16.

...
On Thursday, McConnell, who has secured $113 million in earmarks this past year, declined to say whether he’d support DeMint’s moratorium.

Dear Mr. McConnell
I'm not going to give you a title, because I'm a republican (small "r", and this isn't a monarchy, Senator is your job, not a lifelong title).  You have no idea how close you are to losing the support that the GOP has gained.  Your party didn't win control of the House of Representatives because America now loves the GOP more than the Democrats...it's because the GOP sucks just a little bit less.  If you don't support Jim DeMint on this you will single-handedly squander the chance to gain control of the US Senate in 2012 and begin the real work of rolling back the mess that Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and Harry Reid have made in the past 2-4 years.

Not only that, but you will show, by continuing the corrupt practices that have nearly bankrupted this country that the GOP isn't serious about fiscal conservatism.  The GOP has, literally, a once in a generation chance to roll back both the size of government but how intrusive that government is.  You will blow this by not being serious on being fiscally responsible.  Certainly earmarks, when considered against the size of currents budgets, are rather small percentage of that budget...but it's not your money you are spending on your pet projects.  It's my money, it's my neighbor's money, the the guy's down the street. 

Statments like this:

“As I think all of you know, you can eliminate every congressional earmark and save no money,” the Republican leader said. “It’s really an argument about discretion.”

 are why I question just how serious you are.  You sir, may very well be part of the problem in Washington and not part of the solution.  Think about that.  America repudiated the policies of the Democratic Party on Tuesday.  If you continue with "business as usual" or "going along to get along" you will show that your party isn't sincere about BEING fiscally conservative.  America doesn't really trust the GOP, your party just "sucks a little less" than the other one. 

If you don't support this measure, you will prove that America's trust was misplaced.  If that is in fact the case, the GOP will be swept away in a tidal wave that makes this past election look...like a small ripple in puddle.

Rich Vail
Pikesville, MD

E J Dionne's Hypocrisy

It's not often that a liberal commentator of the Washington Post can be all things to everyone...but E J Dionne manages it in a 2 year span.

"Above all, it is time to celebrate the country's wholehearted embrace of democracy, reflected in the intense engagement of Americans in this campaign and the outpouring to the polls all over the nation. . . . Barack Obama's sweeping electoral victory cannot be dismissed merely as a popular reaction to an economic crisis or as a verdict on an unpopular president. . . . In choosing Obama and a strongly Democratic Congress, the country put a definitive end to a conservative era."--E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, Nov. 5, 2008

This time the election of Mr. Obama can't possibly be a rejection of the GOP and George W. Bush, though Mr. Obama campaigned for 2 solid years as the "anti-Bush" candidate.

"Much of the post-election analysis will focus on ideology, on whether Obama moved 'too far left' and embraced too much 'big government.' All this will overlook how moderate Obama's program actually is. It will also pretend that an anxiety rooted in legitimate worry about the country's long-term economic future is the result of doctrine rather than experience. . . . The classic middle-ground voter who will swing this election . . . has always been suspicious of dogmatic promises that certain big ideas would give birth to a utopian age. This voter is looking for simpler and more realistic things."--E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, Nov. 1, 2010

But here...Mr. Obama, and his enabler's in the Congressional leadership who spent money that makes the $485 Billion dollars last (Democratic majority passed) fiscal year deficit look like child's play...But then, the original post above is exactly the point of the 2nd one...Obama promised us the moon and stars and has delivered dust...this election is nothing but about a rejection of the profligate spending and far left socialist agenda that Mr. Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have pursued since assuming office in January of last year.

GMA George Asks About His Tan?

Is this the best George Stephanopoulos  can do?  Ask about a tan?



Here are the facts...

The FY2008 budget allocated $3.1 trillion in spending, an increase of over $300 billion from the previous year. It makes more political than fiscal sense in that the FY2008 budget was passed by a Democratic Congress, which means that Obama and Nancy Pelosi will find it a little difficult to argue that it’s somehow inadequate. It still would outstrip revenues by around $600 billion, but that’s less than half of the projected deficit for FY2011 — if Democrats ever get around to proposing a budget for that fiscal year, which starts in 23 days. It’s a good pre-emption effort by Boehner and a way to focus on the real problem in the economy, which is not a lack of government spending or interventions

While that's better than what Congress has been doing...it certainly isn't enough.  We, as a nation must stop spending money we don't have.