Today, I saw a brand new mailer from Congressman Stivers. Unfortunately, Stivers is proud of his vote for the Budget (Outta) Control Act of 2011. I will address the 3 points he makes touting this piece of Status-Quo legislation, and urge you to contact him (information on my Ohio 15th watch page):
Point 1: Cuts government spending
Reduces government spending by a greater amount than it increases the debt limit
The CBO estimates the bill would initially reduce deficits by 917 billion over 10 years
guarantees future additional cuts of up to 1.5 trillion making the total deficit cuts of at least 2.1 trillion over 10 years.
Does anyone really believe that 2.1 trillion in deficit cuts (that is a reduction of the rate at which the deficit grows, NOT an actual cut in real and current spending levels, which will continue to increase even if future congresses follow the absolute letter of the law) over 10 years is anywhere near the 2 trillion dollar debt increase given to status quo politicians through 2012 and likely to continue every year over the next 10 years? This bill is nothing but a campaigning smokescreen. Two trillion over 10 years does not equal 2 trillion this year, it breaks down to 200 billion per year, which is a joke, and which makes the very generous assumption that future congresses will adhere to what amounts to a non-binding resolution. And again a reminder this is not an actual spending reduction, but merely a promised decrease in the rate at which spending increases. So, claiming this bill’s decade long stretch of promised “deficit cuts” are equal to the 2 trillion dollar give away THIS YEAR is, to be polite, a lie.
Point 2: Controls government spending
Caps discretionary spending immediately
Imposes spending caps that would set clear limits on future spending and serves as a barrier against government expansion while the economy grows
Capping is not reducing. What are we going to do, freeze spending at 2011 levels? Is that fiscal responsibility? These spending levels helped downgrade our credit rating (along with this irresponsible piece of legislation). This is status quo, and unacceptable and unenforceable. If it is as the mailer says a “barrier against government expansion,” then it is a barrier built of air and wagging fingers. Neither of which is capable of stopping the creation of new departments, new regulations, or new and expanded regulations.
Point 3: Fights for a balanced budget
Requires both the house and Senate to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment after October 1, 2011 but before the end of the year.
How is forcing congress to vote on an amendment “fighting for a balanced budget”? Do you expect an amendment with any real teeth to make it through a still-progressive congress? Moreover, with the government’s constant attempts to end run the Constitution over even just the past couple years, what honest good do you think adding another amendment would do? The most it would do is add another sheet of paper to already massive bills explaining how the bill is “fiscally responsible” and inline with the amendment. It is another smoke and mirrors campaign in lieu of actual government spending.
Another point, though not listed as a point, but rather in big bold letters to the right: NO TAX HIKES! As a major victory for families and businesses, these budget and spending reforms were accomplished without raising taxes. There will be NO TAX INCREASES as part of the Budget (outta) Control Act of 2011.
What it doesn’t mention is that the extra constitutional Super Congress created by the Budget (Outta) Control Act can and will likely increase taxes. In fact, Stivers doesn’t mention this new body anywhere in the mailer. Further, where is the spending reform? Caps on current rates? Laugh out loud! Promises of future reductions in the rate of spending increases by future congresses? Kicking any meaningful reductions down the road? This bill does NOTHING now, EXCEPT give progressives a 2 trillion dollar credit card extension through the 2012 elections. It is laughable for this bill to be touted as some kind of victory for fiscal responsibility.
Mr Stivers, voting against this monstrosity would have shown that you had a genuine commitment to fiscal responsibility. Perhaps you could confer with Congresswoman Bachmann, Congressman Paul or perhaps even fellow Ohio Republican Jim Jordan on what it means to stand up for fiscal integrity even in the face of intra-party opposition.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver’s infamous name for the Budget Control Act actually has more truth to it than one might realize. Here is my analysis of what it took to make the budget control act a real “Satan sandwich.”
1. Sugar Coating:
~2 trillion parts cuts
10 years
Promises
Mix together thoroughly, making sure everyone thinks that 2 trillion dollars of cuts over 10 years equals 2 trillions of dollars of deficit spending in one year. Further, pretend you can pin down and require future congresses to act on your desires. Ensure further that they don’t see that the cuts will actually be in the rate of spending increase, not actual cuts. In other words, don’t let them know that spending will continue to increase at a “drunken sailor” rate even if future congresses agree to these cuts.
2. Sandwich.
12 parts super congress
1 part shredded constitution.
Mix together 6 members from each house. Imbue them with power from below, to leverage “revenue enhancements” and “cuts.” Put a gun to their head (forced cuts) with noone to pull the trigger. Discard the one part shredded constitution, as this super committee/congress violates the constitution’s granting of the power of the purse to the House.
3. Nancy Pelosi’s side order of Satan Fries.
100 parts partisanship
10 parts grand strategy
Dilute the constituency into thinking this Budget Control Act is a complete capitulation to the tea party. Conceal that Obama got everything he wanted in this legislation (a historic increase in the debt ceiling with only promises of cuts later, along with a super congress that will help the next progressive president sidestep a pesky house with a conservative majority with a good liberal coating of hot partisan rhetoric.
4. Blame Sauce.
By presenting this fine dish as a product of the tea party, when the inevitable fallout comes (debt downgrade, stocks, inflation, all the stuff that was supposed to happen if NO “deal” was reached!). The progressives will be able to blame the tea party for the mess. Unfortunately, in as far as tea party freshmen and supposed conservatives voted for this bill, it will be their fault. However, Stalwarts like Jim Jordan, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul voted against serving this toxic Sugar Coated Satan Sandwich to the American people as a tonic that will move us closer to a responsible and restrained government. But the media doesn’t care about facts, and you can bet the conservative Republicans in the house will be slammed by the MSM.
One of my friends had this to say about the deal, and I think its worth repeating here:
2008: Pass the bailout, or we’ll have a financial crisis! 2009: Pass the stimulus, or we’ll have 9% unemployment! 2011: Raise the debt ceiling, or we’ll lose our AAA rating! Are you starting to see a pattern here?
A recent redistricting meeting where myself and others questioned the integrity of the system after an article mentioned some anonymous sources purportedly “close to the redistricting process” indicated that Jordan’s disloyalty to the debt plan could cost him his district. As much as we are willing to call out politicians who renege their pledges to their constituencies, we must be willing to stand up with and for those statesmen who risk it all to do what is right. Is there not a cause?
Republicans are faced with a historic opportunity. It they hold firm, they can make a strong statement and begin the process of actually reducing government spending. By refusing to grant an extension of the government’s credit limit, cuts will have to be made.
However, despite historic fear mongering (everything done by Obama is “historic”), team Obama can not justify ending social security payments. Though insolvency resides for it in the future, right now, money that was payed into Social Security is there to continue making payments to those who were forced into the system and who paid into it. Obama is shamelessly lying about these payments for political gain.
There are those who urging the tea party GOP freshmen in the house to surrender their fight, calling any victory on the debt ceiling, ceremonial and empty, instead urging the old “go along to get along” strategy of the past 100 years that got us to the mess where we now find ourselves. Whether it is McConnell’s outright surrender of the power to the white house to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, or for the House to rubber stamp any old budget that Obama comes up with in the name of “saving face” from the lies and scaremongering about unsent social security checks. They harken back to Newt and the 1995 government shutdown scare. Never mind the fact that Newt may well have sabotaged the GOP on that issue (this is speculation based on Newt’s ideology as a progressive futurist and his complete failure to repeal the Department of Education as part of the Contract with America) with his comments about wanting to shut down the government. The house has made a budget. The White House doesn’t want it. The answer is not to give Obama what he wants. The answer is to buck the trend of the past hundred years and stand firm, no matter how much the TV talking heads scream about electability and no matter how much Obama lies about Social Security payments. The freshmen GOP were not elected to enable runaway government, but to check it. It is fiscal insanity to vote a budget where almost have of each dollar is deficit spending.
While they may not be able to get a budget that Obama will endorse (unless they pass HIS budget), they can halt the process by refusing to allocate money for his programs. It is risky, since people are not familiar with politicians holding their ground on principle. No doubt the lying attack adds will be launched. But then again, if they DO endorse the Obama budget and do whatever they can, surrender what ever principles they have to in order to prevent a government shutdown, they will be attacked. The left will not give them a moment’s rest. They will alienate and neutralize their base. And America will continue, unabated, on its road to perdition…
Most of us Tea Partiers know what its like to be slandered. Whether it’s being labeled racist, “astro-turf,” anti-government, etc. The far left in this country is busy doing its best to thwart the revival of interest in government by those who wish to see it smaller and more constitutional. But sometimes the damage is done by one of our own, that so believes in moderates that he is willing to throw under the bus those groups that have been stigmatized by the main stream media for decades, and whom is willing to cast off the concept of long term strategies to focus solely on one election at a time. These individuals believe in the so called inevitable march of “liberal democracy,” (most tea partiers and birch members would tell you we are a republic not a democracy) and that societal evolution is such that totalitarianism (such as communism and fascism) can never again threaten America or the rest of the world. Upon mentioning the fact that at a town hall meeting in the international Union SEIU’s union hall I saw the distribution of the People’s Weekly World, he proceeded to say that the Communists were the left’s radicals, like the John Birch Society was the right’s radical group. This likely stems from the fact that he believes totalitarianism is dead, and an unsubstantiated slur from the far left that the JBS was somehow a racist organization (those of us in the tea party should be all too familiar with this slander, and . Whatever the reasons, it was clear this gentlemen had no understanding of the Birch Society, or of the Tea Party and 9/12 movement in general. Which was shocking to me, seeing as he was addressing such a group. Most of us happen to believe the government is rapidly expanding and moving towards socialism. The only real element of doctrine some tea partiers may disagree with the JBS is on the element of foreign policy, however there are numbers among the Tea Party who endorse that as well, seeing the value in the US curtailing its policy of nation building and redistributing American wealth in the form of foreign aid and “free” world policing. However, this hardly makes the JBS more radical than the tea party! The JBS has been right along side the tea party in ohio collecting signatures for the Health Care Freedom Amendment, and it has been in the arena fighting since the days of open Communism. Today the concerns are similar, with the old left preferring the term “progressive” over communist, and operating under the authority that has been ceded thus far to the United Nations. Our institutions are grand, but they are not immune to corruption at the hands of progressive radicals bent on “fundamentally transforming” this country. One can see how over the past century power has been consolidated in Washington in general, and in the presidency in particular (From FDR’s gold seizures to vast executive bureaucracies in the EPA, FDA, DoE, HUD, DHS, TSA to Obama’s recent interventions by fiat in Libya). Focus on the immediacy of an election is good, but it should not be at the expense of creating an electorate educated in the foundation of constitutional liberty and the nature and doctrines of those who oppose it. This has been a part of both the Tea Party and the John Birch Society. Long term strategy and understanding of the true nature liberty as well as of those who oppose it is essential to defending liberty. As to communism being dead, why not visit the party’s official website, http://www.cpusa.org and seeing for yourself the praise they lavish upon many of the Obama administration’s policies and agenda items. Even in Europe, masses of people are being stirred up by communists and socialists against austerity measures designed to save governments hemorrhaging euros due to massive socialist welfare states. Communism is dead in a sense, that few want to be identified as such. But the underlying philosophies are alive and well. As is progressive internationalism in organizations like The Council on Foreign Relations, the SEIU, George Soro’s Moveon.org, and any organzations promoting and funding the United Nation’s Agenda 21.
I had the opportunity to meet up with members of the John Birch Society in 2009. They were hosting a speech by the Society’s president McManus, a speech about the economic crises and I decided to go and see what they were about. As it turned out, what they were saying was in line with the Tea Party’s stance on the size and scope of government spending. Afterwards I was able to grill some members about the Society, most notably the racist issue because I will not ever knowingly associate with a group that does harbor racist ideologies. As it turns out, the nebulous charges I had heard as a youth were as accurate as those thrown against the Tea Party today. To sum it up. I joined two organizations and one movement in 2009: The Union County 9/12 Group, the John Birch Society and the Tea Party. All of these are, in a sense, radical organizations, but to those concerned with liberty, they are hardly radical, but are practical and essential allies to the cause. But the empty charges of “out of the mainstream” really aren’t holding water any more as more and more people continue to wake up to the dangers presented by an out of control federal government.
An interview with the president of the JBS on the floor of the We The People Convention.
If you would like to find out more about the John Birch Society, and how they have been aiding the cause of Liberty in America, check out the following sites:
Update: TO clear any possible confusion, the JIDF (Jewish Internet Defense Force) has nothing to do with the IDF (Israel Defense Force) and is not affiliated in any way with the government of Israel. I support and embrace a sovereign and independent nation of Israel and oppose any and all attempts to disarm, partition or otherwise damage it. This article is concerned not primarily with the personality of Glenn Beck, but of the ability of even usually good organizations to use and descend to slander and deception when they put an agenda ahead of the truth.
I only address this issue because I take such matters of racial hatred seriously, and that charges of racism/anti-Semitism should only be made when there is clear and indisputable proof of said charge. The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) has often taken a decent stand and I have stood with them on some issues. However, I cannot stand with an organization that condones, sanctions and engages in slander and outright fabrications of the truth. Recently, they have been attacking Glenn Beck as an anti-Semite, without any credible sourcing. Further, it must be noted before reading this that it has become clear through this episode that the JIDF defines witnessing and reaching out to Jewish people with Jesus Christ as anti-Semitism on par with the Holocaust, “Hitler’s dream.” This would qualify many people who genuinely love the Jewish people as anti-Semites. The JIDF also counts the New Testament of the Bible as anti-Semite too, and has demonstrated animosity towards Messianic Jews, who have accepted Yeshua (Jesus) as the Messiah. These things said, now lets examine the JIDF’s claims against Glenn Beck:
1. JIDF claims that Beck placed the guilt of Jesus’s death on the entire Jewish population saying, “He promoted the anti-Semitic idea that the Jews killed Jesus to millions. All of us. We’re all to blame, apparently.”
Regarding the YouTube video link above, one YouTube user said this, and it is true:
another misrepresentation by TYT. He is clearly stating that christ was NOT victimized by the jews. If you understand the actual context of his statement (which you wont unless you see the whole thing…which I have) then you understand that he is stating that THE JEWISH PEOPLE ARE NOT TO HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE DEATH OF JESUS. He is stating that the “jesus as a victim” theology is an abomination..which it is. TYT….i can actually smell the shame from here….jgmetals81
Further, Glenn Beck wrote the following letter to the ADL, which is on their website and which I here quote in its entirety:
Mr. Foxman,
Thank you for the note and for reaching out to me.
As you assumed, it was certainly not my intention to say what I have been accused of saying. I strongly believe that it is a historical fact that the Romans, not the Jews, put Jesus to death and that fact has been confirmed by the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian denominations.
Although the words I chose did not make this clear, I was trying to reference accusations that have been made against the Jews and how some of those accusations have led to horrors like the Inquisition as they were permitted to go unchallenged.
While as a non-Jew, I can never fully understand the suffering that has resulted from the historically inaccurate deicide charge, as someone with German heritage, I recognize the horrors that have been perpetrated on Jews throughout history and have asked if my ancestors knew what was taking place and looked the other way or how they could not have known of the horrors taking place. .
Thank you again for reaching out to me, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my thoughts and would welcome the chance to continue the dialogue so I can better understand the injustices that your organization is committed to fighting.
2. The JIDF claims Beck endorsed an anti-Semite while discussing the book “The Red Network,” written by Elizabeth Dilling in 1934. Here is a segment of the transcript posted on Glenn Beck.com where he discusses the book:
GLENN: Oh, I know. I know. This here is a pocket history of the American Revolution, pocket history, 1826. Now, I’m getting a lot of people sending their books in. I think they are mainly from people who are like, “I don’t have any relatives to leave them to and I know you’ll preserve them.” And I will. In fact, I had a conversation with my daughters yesterday when I came home. I showed them these books and I said, I will come back from the grave if I ever see anybody with jam hands generations down the road that don’t appreciate what these books are. But I’m also getting these. This is a book, the Red Network. This came in from 1936. People — McCarthy was absolutely right. Now, he may have used bad tactics or whatever, but he was absolutely right. This is a book — and I’m getting a ton of these from people who were doing what we’re doing now. We now are documenting who all of these people are. Well, there were Americans in the first 50 years of this nation that took this seriously and they documented it. And this is from 1936. And in it, it talks about, it’s The Who’s Who and Handbook For Radicalism For Patriots. This is, who were the communists in America. The overwhelming number of communists? Labor unions.
The other thing that they talked about was, in this book that I was reading last night, they said, you know, there’s this — there’s this teachers union thing but you really want to know who the real radical communists are? The NEA. That’s 1936. And they are talking about this new organization that is really nasty that you really have to look out for. The NEA. But everything this book has talked about they have mainstreamed.
Until I read it, I can’t comment on the book’s content, but, given Beck’s record, I doubt he would knowingly give place to anti-Semitism. Beck was discussing a book he was reading that exposed communism in America, and said that regarding communism, the book had a prophetic element to it. It should also be noted that, according to Wikipedia, Dillings didn’t give place to anti-Semitism until 1940:
She then wrote The Roosevelt Red Record and Its Background (1936), condemning the New Deal, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and officials in his administration, claiming they had strong links to Communists. In The Octopus (1940), which she wrote under the pseudonym Rev. Frank Woodruff Johnson, she attacked the Jewish Anti-Defamation League and linked Jews to communism. It was then that she shifted her emphasis to Jews as being responsible for all the world’s problems, partly based on her readings of the Talmud.
This should mean that Red Network was not an anti-Semitic work, however, I will not assert this until I have read the book.
3. The JIDF accuses Glenn Beck of trivializing the Holocaust. Apparently they believe that examining the many evil elements of the National Socialist agenda is equal to trivializing the Holocaust. One must also note that Germany did not go from Weimar Republic to Holocaust over night, and there were many incremental changes that set the state for an atrocity of that magnitude to occur in a supposedly civilized country. Unfortunately, the best source they offer is “Countdown with Keith Olbermann, obviously not someone to go to for an unbiased analysis of Glenn Beck:
As you can see, even in these cherry-picked seconds long snippets, Glenn Beck does not call any of these things “the Holocaust” but merely discusses aspects of Nazi (National Socialist) teaching and policy. Nothing Anti-Semitic about it. And Keith certainly doesn’t understand the danger of allowing empathy to take the place of the law, and is ignorant of the dangers of government funded propaganda, but those are topics for another place and time.
4. They take issue with Beck’s list of “most dangerous people,” accusing Beck of being an anti-semite because he denounced the following individuals. I have hyper-lined each individual to his discussion on GlennBeck.com, and I will let you be the judge of whether or not these individuals deserve to be denounced, without regard to their alleged backgrounds (brief quotes are from the linked article):
· Edward Bernays: Bernays believed that people were motivated by irrational, animal urges. It was a philosophy of the Progressive era, much different than that of the Founders. He believed people were motivated by self-preservation, security, aggression or sex. He shared many of the same theories as Freud.
· Sigmund Freud: Freud basic tenet: hidden deep within all human beings were dangerous and irrational desires and fears. People are not rational - we have inside of us powerful sexual and aggressive forces that were remnants of our animal past. Feelings we repressed because they were too dangerous.
· George Soros: QUOTE: “I don’t deny the Jews their right to a national existence–but I don’t want to be part of it.” That experience notwithstanding, Soros has chosen to exclude Israel and Jewish causes, by and large, from his massive philanthropy-a decision that has caused comment among one of his colleagues in the financial community, particularly those who are strong supporters of Israel. In Hungary, Soros has been subject to anti-Semitic attacks. Referring to being a target, Soros, in his book “Underwriting Democracy,” wrote, “I am ready to stand up and be counted.” When I mentioned that rather suggestive line to Soros during one of several extended interviews with him, he responded quickly, “Right. It took me a long time.”
· Cass Sunstein: The office of information and regulatory affairs, Cass Sunstein who I maintain is the most dangerous man in America because you never see this guy coming. According to Red State, Cass Sunstein had championed creating fake websites and using outside 501(c)(3) interest groups to act as alleged independent champions of government policy and to, quote, cognitively infiltrate, end quote, opposition websites.
·Andy Stern, QUOTE: “We created global trade, we created global finance. We created global companies, but we forgot to create a global government.”
· Walter Lippman: Walter Lippmann was the guy who every journalist in America has studied and hails as a hero. He was a eugenicist or eugenics guy. He was a progressive, he was a member of Woodrow Wilson’s administration. He was a really evil dude. When he when Walter Lippmann heard about Fabian Socialism, he said the guys opened up for him. But Stuart Chase just went and became a Fabian Socialist with him at Harvard.
· Frances Fox Piven: The above video shows Frances Fox Piven, in her own words, calling for chaos and manipulating current events in order to achieve the goals of the progressive movement.
· Ed Rendell Link is to full article which is provided on Glenn’s abbreviated article. Not really much on Beck’s site if Beck Considers him one of the “most dangerous, its not readily clear on his website: QUOTE: Glenn highlights the real problem with ‘discourse’ in America today – superiority. He plays the incredibly revealing audio clip of Ed Rendell trying to explain his position on an issue, and when the guest disagrees his reaction is shocking. Read more and watch a free clip HERE.
5. The JIDF takes Glenn Beck’s ignorance of some of the tenants of “Reform Judaism, and transliterates it into blame for a forum poster blaming 9/11 on Israel!
That’s right. Despite the fact that the Glenn Beck forum itself identifies the 9/11 attackers as mostly the Muslim Brotherhood. The JIDF’s slander of Glenn Beck has echoed across the internet, leading others to blame the ludictrus article, which doesn’t show up using the JIDF’s google search hyperlink that is supposed to prove Glenn Beck believes Israel did 9/11. What a vicious and deceitful way to slander someone. But according to the JIDF, it is true because someone was repeating in forums related to Glenn Beck, the 9/12 movement, Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul. The JIDF doesn’t even take care to note that Glenn Beck has absolutely no control over the individual 9/12 groups, and that trolls can join groups and post obscene things and then go away.
They end this point with the ridiculous assertion that based on one screw ball’s alleged post that, ” it’s no wonder that many of Beck’s fans believe that Israel was responsible for 9/11. I do not know why they have such animosity towards Beck now. Well actually, it will become apparent with the final point.
You have no proof Glenn Beck wrote this. You are relying on a post by a nobody. You are guilty of the 9th commandment. You are trying to slander Glenn Beck’s reputation w no evidence at all. I did not expect this from you guys. I watch his show daily and he is pro-Israel all the way. I know he would never say such a thing. You are being just like the media, posting lies and ruining somebody’s reputation without evidence of wrongdoing. I did not expect this low from this group. Glenn Beck 5:00 EST fox channel. Folks watch it and see for yourselves! Also, check out all of the replies to this article on facebook.
6. Then, they blame Glenn Beck for the alleged Mormon practice of baptising Dead Jews to convert them to mormonism! But that is just a side rant, here’s the kicker, and the reason for that animosity, and I quote:
And no, his superficial “support” for Israel to get all the Jews there so that he and his Mormon and Christian “Rapture Ready” minions can convert us, does not convince us that he does not hate Jews. “Support” like that—with an agenda to convert (ie. destroy) Jews—is not support at all, it’s a Hitler-esque dream.
The JIDF equates preaching salvation through Christ (and most of what I have heard Glenn Beck say about Jesus and Christianity has been basic Christian doctrine, not Mormon doctrine. They assert that preaching destroys Jews, and that it is tantamount to Hitler’s “dream.” Hey, JIDF, isn’t that trivializing the Holocaust, which you so baselessly and deceptively accused Glenn Beck of doing earlier? Equating a gospel tract, or a quote of John 3:16 to committing genocide is ridiculous.
But it doesn’t end there. They even take credit for Glenn Beck’s departure from his TV show on Fox News:
All of this explains why we called for him to be fired. And within two days of doing so, he was. (Never mind that Van Jones’ group, ColorofChange.org also declared the same thing too – Wolfe) It was probably a “coincidence,” but we’re glad still when stuff like that happens. It gives us a shred of faith that there might be a shred of justice in an overwhelmingly unjust world. The fact that this nutcase Glenn Beck influences millions and makes millions is just one of the many things wrong with it. Beyond this, our pointing out the facts does not mean that we are diving our people. If anyone is responsible for so much disunity among right and left wing Jews, it’s people like Glenn Beck, who obsess and express so much hatred toward our left-wing brethren. Who can blame them for voting for Obama when right wing nutcases like Glenn Beck foster so much hatred and vitriol toward them? Is that going to bring us closer to them, or further away? Like it or not, left wing Jews are our brethren. We can “convert” them to the right wing through our smarts, not by blaming all the world’s problems on them, as idiots like Glenn Beck and his fans always do.
In this post, the JIDF is claiming racial solidarity (because clearly people like Soros and Stern are not practicing the Jewish faith, 10 commandments, etc) trumps ideological unity, which is in line with the progressive agenda and which keeps people from recognizing those who are out to harm all of us! The JIDF, throws all of its principles under the bus and espouses the left’s racial solidarity and translates it into an us verses them. Glenn Beck has been open and outspoken against far left ideologues, politicians, and celebrities of every stripe. This charge from the JIDF is absurd in the highest fashion. Even one of the racists in the anti-semitic forums that came up from one of the hyperlinks posted by the JIDF said this: “A small part of me wonders if he tries to slip little things in without getting himself in too much trouble. I doubt it but the possibility is perhaps there. But, and this is a big but, when he speaks on the actual topics of J (capitalization mine) ews and Israel he is a HUGE Philosemite and typical neo con.” You can google it to find the quote if you like, I do not wish to post links to hate forums.
I’ve been accused of looking for a “perfect” candidate. However, I am merely looking for someone who will actually move us in the right direction. The “right direction” can roughtly be broken down in to 10 areas, many of which are somewhat interlinked, but still worth noting separately:
Budget reduction: Does a candidate actually specify things which he would work to have cut. “streamlining” or “eliminating waste” sounds really good, but ANY candidate should be doing that, and in light of the massive federal budget, this only ever amounts to a few drops in the bucket, and it almost never gets done.
Redacting Green agenda: Does a candidate seek to curtail carbon emissions? If so, they are uninformed about global warming and are a serious threat to economic and personal liberty.
End Abortion: Often sidelined as a “social issue,” abortion actually should actually be at the center of the fight for constitutional rights. The Declaration of Independence cited the unalienable right of Life first, and that is proper, because without life, you can neither exercise liberty or pursue happiness. Abortion was forced on an entire county by an activist Supreme Court in direct violation of the Bill of Rights: No personal shall be deprived of LIFE, liberty or property without due process of law. Congress could remove the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on the matter and return the issue of abortion to the states. A candidate that encourages that and/or which works to remove federal funds from paying for ANY abortion would be helping to move this issue forward.
Reducing the Size of government: Does a candidate have an agenda that involves cutting the size of government in some concrete way, such as reigning in the EPA, eliminating the federal department of education, eliminating federal entitlement programs (like free cell phones), vetoing any budget that includes any money to enact ObamaCare/signing any legislation that repeals ObamaCare? Any candidate can, and probably will talk about “big government” and how bad it is, but do they back up this talk with a plan for action? No candidate who supports laws banning so-called raw milk or Edison’s light bulb can be said to be concerned about the size of government- unless their concern is that it’s too SMALL!
Educational choice: Is the candidate committed to getting the federal government out of education? Eliminating the federal department of Education, eliminating grants? Education has declined in quality in America as the federal government has taken it over more and more.
Debt reduction and the Federal Reserve: Will the candidate veto any budget that includes debt ceiling increases, or deficit spending? Will he work to pare down the executive branch of the government of which he is head? Will he support a sound money program that seeks to restore proper money, the kind of money we had when America was a creditor and not a debtor nation? The kind of money we had when the dollar became the “world reserve” currency?
Health Care freedom: Is the candidate committed to protecting the rights of doctors to own hospitals (as ObamaCare bans)? Is he committed to pulling the government out of healthcare? Will he promote a plan that opts this and future generations out of mandated programs (paying medicare and Social security taxes, etc, while providing means to protect those who were forced under penalty of law to invest in these programs?
Gun rights:Is the candidate committed to supporting the right to bear arms along with the other rights in the constitution? Does he support gun grabs, registration, waiting periods, or so-called assault weapons bans? If he does, then he does not support the second amendment. It should be noted that Adolph Hilter supported full gun registration in National Socialist (NAZI) Germany. Only a dictator fears an armed populace.
Illegal Immigration: Does the candidate endorse “comprehensive immigration reform” or “guest worker programs to legalize those here illegally” or any form of amnesty? If so, then he does not oppose illegal immigration. It should be noted, that if a candidate supported and promoted serious reforms like those mentioned above, that illegal immigration would be greatly deterred. A president that cuts off federal money to cities in general will also go a long way in undermining so called “Sanctuary cities” because they will be forced to rely entirely on tax money extorted from their own people to pay for illegal aliens. A president that refuses to get in the way of a state that is actively seeking to solve its own illegal immigration problem would get a positive rating on this, and it could create an environment where other states would be willing to enforce the laws without getting sued by a government that refuses to protect them from an invasion. Radical Chicano groups support the idea of seizing the southwest US by mass immigration.
Foreign Affairs: Is a candidate dedicated to pursuing America’s interests? Will they oppose using any federal tax dollars for foreign aid? Will they remove America from harmful progressive international treaties? Will they work towards removing us from the UN and from supporting it with our tax dollars and troops? Will they speak out against and oppose Kyoto and other treaties designed to strangle American businesses? Will they speak out against and oppose any and all treaties that would harm our second amendment rights, or any other rights? Will they speak out against “climate debt” or other globalist scams designed to redistribute wealth and induce guilt because of success. Is the candidate willing to go to war on behalf of the UN? Is the candidate willing to go to war without having a congressional declaration of war? If the answer is yes, then the candidate has no respect for the separation of powers or the danger of “entangled alliances” like the UN which pit our interests against the interests of socialists and other kinds of dictators.
Constitutional fidelity: the above tenants basically embody this one, and all would move America towards a limited government like that in line with what the founders intended.
All of these tentants rely on one more thing, and this will determine their honesty even if they profess adamant support for any or all of the preceding items:
Time Frame: When does a candidate intend to start taking concrete steps towards the above goals? Within 10 years? 15? Any candidate that does not pledge to take steps in his first term of office is in fact pledging to do nothing. Some glitzy “waste reductions” and speeches and more and more promises will mean nothing. Passing a budget that starts to reduce spending “by 2016″ or some future date is committed to doing nothing now. Unfortunately, by passing the ball to a future year, the candidate has no responsibility to work on it now. Further, he could get replaced and his promised future reforms overturned. I don’t care if a candidate pledges to cut the budget by 25% by 2020, I care what they do NOW to accomplish these goals. Talking about future actions and making promises that extend to future congresses or presidencies is just foolish. They can no more guarantee their reelection than they can promise a sunny day on July 4th this year. (At least so long as we maintain free and fair elections).
I will not endorse a candidate who is not moving forward on these agenda items in some tangible way. Where do candidates like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich fall on these issues? It should be fairly obvious by now that they intend either to continue the status quo, or continue to drag us farther from these goals. Do not endorse a candidate just because “they are electable.” It doesn’t matter how electable they are if they indulge in the status quo or take us even farther down the road to serfdom.
Mitt Romney explains what he thinks the government's role in job creation is.
While no one can argue with low taxes, the rest of the list- remember this is in relation to the federal government- should give any conservative pause.
“Dynamic regulation,” seems to be an unusual position for one branding himself as a conservative. Flexible regulations with no relation to what they actually say would only cause confusion amongst business forced to attempt to comply with them. Reducing regulations, while seeking to prevent new ones would be a the best idea of a president looking to use his role to reduce the post-constitutional mentality of the modern federal government.
“Educational achievement.” The more the federal government has taken over education, the more it has degraded. Further federal subsidization or manipulation of what should be local or state matters will only serve to spend much more money and achieve poorer, albeit more “politically correct” results.
“Investment in research” This is code speak for spending tax dollars on federal projects. While this may create a few jobs, they are not the free market, and thus are a burden to the economy and not a benefit. Let the free market choose where to invest in research.
“Robust Competition” Again, here is something that one cannot really argue with. However, in light of his commitment to “dynamic regulation” and his own ObamaCare, Jr, one has to doubt seriously a President Romney’s commitment to the principles of a free market of “robust competition.”
“Free Trade” As far as this goes towards supporting multinational agreements that take American trade policy control outside of the US will be the extent to which it actually undermines trade policy that will benefit the US.
“Purposeful” Immigration. This is probably the most meaningless statement on the entire page. Every immigrant, illegal or otherwise, has a purpose in coming to America. More than likely, it is code for “comprehensive immigration reform,” which is itself code for amnesty for illegal immigrants already here.
“Seeking to eliminate government waste” Even Obama utters this phrase from time to time. Merely streamlining existing government spending will not do anything to balance the budget or allow the free market to create jobs.
“Seeking to eliminate excessive litigation” This sounds good too, but who determines what is excessive? Is it referring to frivolous suits against corporations and businesses, or is it referring to litigation against the government’s overreach? Its pretty hard to tell.
“Runaway healthcare costs” The government has supposedly been battling this for a while. But it seems the more the government gets involved, the more skewed health care costs become. How will Romney attempt to battle “runaway healthcare costs?” Probably like he did as governor, that is, his own flavor of mandated healthcare insurance and government control thereof.
“Dependence on foreign oil” Romney, Obama and everyone else claims to want to do this. Yet since the creation of the Department of Energy, we have become more and more dependent on foreign oil. Will Romney roll back federal restrictions on exploration for oil, or perhaps return federally occupied lands to the states wherein they reside? It doesn’t seem likely.
America’s only economic agenda ought to be to ensure a free market and an honest judicial system in which to resolve disputes.
Reverse President Obama’s massive expansion of federal power
We must cut federal spending to free up resources for productive investment, and curtail ever-expanding federal authority to provide businesses with the certainty and stability they need to make those investments. As President, Mitt Romney will place a hard cap on federal spending, forcing Washington politicians to control the size and growth of government.
There are some serious flaws in the above. First and foremost, the President does not have the power of the purse, that lies with Congress, more specifically, the House of Representatives. Second, The government must NOT cut spending to “free up resources for productive investment,” it must cut spending to return to solvency WITHOUT taking on more spending, no matter how “productive” it may promise to be.
Economic Competitiveness
Make America the most attractive place in the world to do business Today, more than ever, new businesses can choose where to form and existing ones can choose where to invest and hire. America has long been the most dynamic economy in the world, and we must not let our government change that. As President, Mitt Romney will:
Lower taxes on businesses to keep America competitive in the global economy
Slash bureaucratic red tape and place a hard cap on the impact that federal regulations can have on the economy
Limit the corrosive influence of union bosses on productive businesses
This sounds good, but instead of attempting to place an undefined “hard cap” on the impact of federal regulations, why not delete the actual regulations causing the problems. Well, again the problem is the fact that congress has the law making power, not the president. The most the executive branch can do is to refuse to enforce an unconstitutional law. How does a president limit “the corrosive influence” of union bosses on productive businesses? It would seem to me that labor laws are the jurisdiction of the states per the 10th amendment.
Free Trade On Fair Terms
Open markets on fair terms for our products and services around the world
Access to foreign markets is crucial to growing our economy. We must reassert American leadership in international negotiations, follow through on commitments we have already made, and push aggressively for advantageous new agreements.
Who is defining fair? America must only accept agreements that are beneficial to itself. Our government is not a charity, and harming hardworking Americans to earn federal politicians international fame is disgusting. If the commitments that were “already made” are illegal agreements which the government did not have the authority to create or enforce, then they should be terminated as well.
Energy Security and Independence
Meet the challenge of achieving a secure and affordable supply of fuels
We need to lower the amount of energy we use and increase the supply of domestic energy sources. Government must be a partner, not an obstacle, in this effort. As President, Mitt Romney will facilitate the exploration and development of conventional fossil fuels, remove the regulatory hurdles that prevent the construction of nuclear power plants, and address market failures that prevent the adoption of new technologies.
We do not need to lower the amount of energy we use, or if we do, it is not a governmental concern. Government should neither be a partner, nor an obstacle, but the states and companies should lead the way in their own efforts. The best things the government could do is end immediately all subsidies for so-called alternative energy sources and let them fight for competitiveness on a level playing field. Necessity breeds invention, and those with the incentive and skill to perhaps make wind and solar energy work will be drowned out in the sea of subsidized “green” companies who do not have to improve their products or attain ever increasing levels of efficiency in order to be profitable.
Perhaps the most ominous phrase in this section, and the one which completely destroys Romney’s claims of free market champion is this: “Address market failures that prevent the adoption of new technologies.” This should send a chill down the spine of anyone who loves freedom because what this means is this: The people operating on the principle of freedom of economic choice are not making the decisions we (the government) like. Therefore, we need to nudge them (command economy, socialism) towards the things we think they should be purchasing.
Training and Preparing America’s Workers
Prepare the American workforce to succeed in a 21st-century economy
Our economy is rapidly changing. Some of the steps we must take to restart economic growth—for instance, expanding trade relationships and developing new sources of energy—will only hasten that evolution. We need to eliminate ineffective government handouts, and instead give workers the resources and responsibility to develop valuable skills and make the transition to new types of work.
The federal government has no role to train workers, nor to allocate tax payer money for the purpose. The federal government also has neither the credibility nor authority to determine what constitutes “valuable skills” or to plan the economy.
The bottom line is that Mitt Romney does not have a conservative economic agenda which, even aside from the above analysis of his presidential economic platform, should be apparent from his endorsement of RomneyCare. He also lacks an understanding of the proper authority vested in the Executive Branch by the Constitution.
Obama has fought now for years to keep personal documents relating to his birth and education secret, spending a substantial amount of time, effort and money to do so. What has happened since the last presidential election that has changed his mind?
The political environment is different. The unpopular and unconstitutional legislation being discussed is no longer Bush’s, it is his own. His precurser to an open nationalized healthcare system (obamacare), his quiet reauthorization of the Patriot act, and his push for carbon taxes (cap and trade) has drained enthusiasm from the independents, and his vaunted internationalism has alienated the US in the world, even among our closest allies. His lips speak of austerity, but his budgets hemmorage more red ink with each passing year.
Also different is the loudest voice demanding it’s release: none other than progressive insider turned tea partier Donald Trump. Trump has been loudly shouting about the birth certificate and apparently Obama has capitulated, releasing what is allegedly his long form birth certificate. Why? Because ‘The Donald’, unlike early ‘birthers’ such as Jerome Corsi, has no concern for the constitution or reducing the size and scope of government.
Just last year, his donations to Harry Reid helped topple tea party favorite Sharon Angle, and his substantial donation to Rahm Emmanuel’s campaign made it in just in time to avoid new campaign contribution limits in Chicago this year.
I believe that Obama has done this for two reasons. First, to nudge conversation away from his unconstitutional agenda and redirect media attention to his birth certificate. Second, Trump is a perfect opponent. His practical differences of agenda with Obama boil down mostly to some good rhetoric, especially in light of his substantial decades-long support of open progressives and a few rinos. In his book, he extols universal government healthcare which means that, like Romney, his purported critique of Obama’s government run health care plan falls a little flat. This in addition to Trump’s own ‘soak the rich’ plan and his eager use of eminent domain to have the government do his dirty work. In short, Trump is a big government progressive and thus giving him some power and attention will do nothing to harm Obama’s agenda. And as a bonus to Obama, Trump will draw away those tea partiers more interested in a personality to clash with Obama in a beautifully choreographed dance and a few strategically placed profanities than in substantial policy differences. These are the so-called tea partiers who snarl and call you an Obama supporter for daring to criticize their favorite (pseudo) Conservative Idol.
The irony of this is that only a couple short years ago, it was Obama supporters showing the exact same mentality in their deflection of all criticisms of their so called chosen one.
The fact of the matter is that Obama’s eligibility for the presidency is an issue, and he should be vetted for such eligibility prior to the 2012 elections (just as moderate McCain was in 2008). However, when it drowns out discussions of other more dangerous unconstitutional power grabs, it aides and abets the progressive cause.
The bottom line is this: if a president Trump or Romney gets the tea party excited, then the movement as it was founded has already failed and its founding principles have been abandoned as surely as the government has abandoned the Constitution.
The following is a letter I wrote which appeared in the Delaware Gazette this Tuesday (2-8-2011)
I am writing in response to William A. McCartney’s recent letter (February 2nd, 2011) about taxes. He is right about one thing, we should keep taxes in perspective.
Yes, taxes are high. As a percentage, they consume much more of our weekly paychecks than they did when houses cost 6,000. When the income tax was first implemented, 1913, it was a 1% for those making 20,000 to 50,000 and rose to a maximum of 6% for those making 500,000 and over. Today there are countless tax brackets, and the percentage taken from the gross income is itself gross.
Where the income tax used to start at 1% for individuals making 20,000 or more, today they take a whopping 10% from those making between $0 – $17,000 (married filing jointly) and $0 – $8,500 (single)! And that’s not even counting, state, local and sales taxes, as well as the built in cost of taxes on every good and service that makes its way to the end consumer. And on the other end, if you’re making over 379,150, you get socked with a punitive 35% tax. And this is not even factoring in the new 50% tax on good health plans (isn’t that what the “healthcare” bill was supposed to promote). What’s more, a 20,000 salary has nowhere near the buying power it did in 1913. He also neglects to mention that the gimmick of printing money via the Federal Reserve to pay for government expenses helped to cause the inflation that makes us look back with awe at a time when a six room house cost 6,000!
Some people do not like that John Doe makes 375,000 a year plus benefits, so politicians play on this jealousy to enact punitive tax levels. If Mr. McCartney really wanted to address unfairly untaxed wealth, he would look where the real wealth is, places like the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Ford Foundation. However, that would be uncomfortable because each of these treasure troves of billionaires are used to fund progressive causes, namely things like social justice, environmental justice, and about every other euphemism for wealth redistribution coupled with overbearing government intrusion that can be contrived of. (There is also the awkward irony of mega wealth funding those who claim to rail against the accumulation of wealth).
It is not a mere “bumper sticker” to demand a balanced budget, to demand a dramatic reduction in government spending. With the deficit surging quickly beyond 1 trillion dollars annually, it is only a matter of time before this economic madness collapses. It cannot continue indefinitely. McCartney seems to imply that massive social spending is “what made America great.” America was already great before the income tax was enacted, before generational wealth transfers were mandated. America will cease to be great because it continues to make promises with other people’s money, bribing voters with money taken from others.
McCartney is right, it is not taxes alone that are the problem. It is the mentality in Washington that it is ok to: spend money you don’t have and create new entitlement programs when you cannot pay for the ones you already have. This has got to stop. How long can a bankrupt Federal government hand out money on loan?
Government charity is an oxymoron. Whereas faith and values and love govern true charity work, the federal government gives out bonus money to states who spend the most tax payer money! Moreover, true charity is more effective with its face to face interaction with the downtrodden. They are able to apply not just financial resources, but time and love and actually invest in the lives of people and raise them up.
Government “charity” is little more than paychecks and food stamps and discounted housing and free cell phones appearing to emanate from a faceless, nameless, emotionless bureaucracy with a host of rules that make trying to break free an exercise in futility.
High taxes are a symptom of a government run amok, throwing other people’s money at problems it cannot truly solve.
Let charities and churches fund charity work. Let the federal government fund only those activities related to actually governing and running the country. Americans are already among the most charitable. Let people keep more of their money. This will certainly lead to more charitable giving, and all without going through a low efficiency middleman.
There is a glitzy high dollar campaign running now featuring a spoof presidential candidate “Hugh Jidette,” A play on the words “Huge Debt.” The thrust of the campaign is to draw attention to the mounting national deficit and to then offer “solutions” to the impending crises. It all looks and sounds really good… on the surface. But upon closer inspection, the message which seems tailored to the current tea party angst that recently swept many long time progressives from office (including establishment liberal republicans in the primaries).
The “owe no” campaign featuring Hugh Jidette is NOT a conservative campaign. It is not a “tea party” campaign. It is new, quasi-conservative rhetoric surrounding an old-fashioned false-face defense of both old progressive programs, and the recently enacted ObamaCare legislation. Its purported solutions will do nothing to decrease either the deficit or the size and scope of the federal government. Hence, it will also do nothing to decrease the size of the federal budget.
Update 11-23-2010: OweNo is a project of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. The Peter G. Peterson Foundation is chaired by its namesake, who happens to be chairman emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, or CFR for short. The CFR is a powerful thinktank that advocates internationalist and progressive causes, which are often intertwined. The Owe No campaign has been designed by the progressive Peter G. Peterson to direct Tea Party energy towards actually supporting the very things the Tea Party Movement is against.
The way the “Solutions” section is organized reveals the progressive nature of the “Owe No” campaign, which sees only four sections to the federal budget: Defense, HealthCare, Social Security, and “other.”
Here is what OweNo says about defense:
America’s military is the strongest fighting force in the world. And it should be since the United States spends more on defense than the next 14 countries, combined. We can develop a defense budget that protects our nation against our most important threats in an affordable way. Reviewing our priorities and making responsible choices can generate significant savings, while also maintaining national security and an important role for the U.S. in the world. An over-bloated defense program that adds to our debt burdens and hurts our economic future is certainly not good for national security.
Possible changes to our defense budget include: eliminating costly weapons systems, reducing troop deployments overseas, lowering the number of nuclear weapons, and reforming military pay and benefits.
While there is clearly value in reducing foreign commitments, There is no value in eliminate weapons or reducing America’s arsenal. The destruction of, or forfeiture to international control of America’s nuclear arsenal is ironically, something that Communists have pursued for decades. Further, is the pay for the men and women who serve us with their lives really the place to start cutting the debt? It is if you desire a weak US and demoralized army, something that progressives desire, as they would much rather see an empowered UN serving as the ultimate Big Brother with full power to regulate and tax and control nations, communities and individuals. The CFR supports global government as built on efforts to curtail carbon, as well as the accompanying redistribution of US wealth to other countries. Given the source of the Owe No, campaign, it can be expected that it will not take a constitutional conservative position on domestic issues either and, as it turns out, it doesn’t.
Here is what they say about Healthcare. It is interesting how similar some of it is to Obama’s rhetoric and how they ignore the elephant in the room, that is the federal government paying for healthcare:
Healthcare represents 44% of projected federal spending by 2040, and is the largest and fastest growing fiscal challenge. The federal government spends money on healthcare through various programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and insurance for government employees.
The U.S. spends twice as much per person on health care than most other countries, but our results are no better. The rapid growth in healthcare costs has placed a huge burden on families, businesses and the federal government. If we don’t take action soon to change these trends, health care costs will lead to more and more borrowing and leave fewer resources for our economy and our daily lives.
In order to address this important component of our fiscal challenge, we need to lower healthcare spending, and particularly to slow the growth in these costs. However, we all want to maintain high quality care for Americans and avoid making changes that would result in poorer health. Therefore, we need to get more “value for our money” in healthcare — spending less, while achieving better health. Options to consider include: developing best practices, promoting wellness, reforming the payment system (so that it rewards good patient outcomes rather than simply tests and services), reforming medical malpractice laws, and using technology to improve efficiency.
Our results are no better? Is that why Canadians come here to get treatment? They don’t even take issue with the federal government choosing what constitutes “best practices” and “promoting wellness” and seizing control and telling doctors and hospitals what they MUST charge? You will notice also, that they have no problem at all with “Obamacare.” In fact, they recognize healthcare as a federal responsibility:
As a nation, we need to work together to make this system more efficient, so that we can put America on a better path, both fiscally and for our health. There are many ways that we can make our healthcare system more efficient and effective. SOURCE
They even lift Obamacare’s “patient outcomes” payment method, where the number of tests and procedures doesn’t matter, but only vaguely defined “outcomes.” How can this result in anything but less tests and procedures being done? Notice also how they talk as if “the healthcare system” is a single entity that is to fall under the control of the federal government.
Adopting better ways to organize the healthcare system, so that doctors and hospitals are helping to lower costs. For example, paying hospitals based on good patient outcomes rather than the number of tests and procedures and encouraging integrated groups of providers who can better coordinate care at a lower cost . SOURCE
Here is what they say about Social Security:
Social Security is an important program that is part of the fabric of the America. We must ensure that Social Security is available for future generations. Without reform, Social Security’s shortfall will grow larger and larger until the program will simply be unable to pay full benefits to future retirees. By acting sooner rather than later, needed reforms can be phased in more gradually, giving people time to plan for retirement years. Reforms can also be implemented in ways that protect the most vulnerable. Options to address these shortfalls include: raising the retirement age gradually, reducing the automatic growth in benefit payments, and increasing the amounts collected from workers.
Real world translation: You will pay more and wait longer to get less, INCREASING YOUR SS TAX! Please pass this on and let people know this “Owe No” campaign is BOGUS. It is progressivism sprinkled with conserva-speak. If there was any grain of conservatism in this, they would put a ‘phased withdraw from Social (in)security on the table and let people take back their own money and prepare for their own retirement. Protecting the most vulnerable means that some will pay in more and get fewer “benefits,” that is, less of their own money back. In other words, Obama’s wealth redistribution program. Social Security is an unjust program that robs people and provides meager return. A phased withdraw from forced retirement programs would be the best course of action. Falling somewhere in between would be the transformation of Social Security into actual private accounts that you could track and pass on to your children or spouse or whomever your will designates WITHOUT restriction or limitation.
Here is what they say about the “other 21 percent” of the federal budget. (As if this is insignificant).
Making changes to defense, healthcare and Social Security will help us reduce our debt and also leave money to fund other critical responsibilities and make important investments in our future. But there are also opportunities to save money in the remaining 21% of government spending, which includes things such as agriculture, transportation, homeland security, education, unemployment benefits, national parks, international relations, and the operations of government. All of these areas need to be reviewed so that we can find savings and reduce wasteful and ineffective activities.
Things like FEDERAL funding of education, unemployment benefits, international relations (foreign aid?) need to be seriously debated and then not just reduce waste or eliminate “ineffective activities” but completely eliminate ALL unconstitutional funding and programs from ALL areas of the federal government.
Then if you still think “Owe No” might be serious about fiscal conservatism and constitutional government, they also support energy taxes, IE cap and trade!
Options to consider include: making our tax system less complicated, increasing rates for individuals and/or corporations, eliminating or scaling back tax deductions, introducing new taxes (for example on energy or consumption); reducing corporate taxes and replacing them with others, improving tax collection and prosecuting tax cheats.
Source of quotes (unless otherwise noted in article):
The Peter G Peterson Foundation (PGPF) is the money behind the OweNo Campaign, and here is an interesting exert from their official press release:
PGPF also works to raise awareness and inspire citizens across the nation to engage on the development of solutions to the growing fiscal challenges that threaten the long-term future of our nation, through initiatives such as the critically acclaimed film “I.O.U.S.A.”, the “Indebted” campaign in conjunction with MTV, a grant to Columbia University to create a national curriculum on fiscal issues, and a “Fiscal Wake Up Tour” with The Concord Coalition. Additionally, the Foundation engages in policy research in areas such as healthcare payment and delivery reform.
Have you ever known MTV to be involved with anything beyond “progressive” politics?
The Concord Coalition likes Obamacare’s special tax on good healthcare plans, and seems to generally like Obamacare, even offering their subtle suggestions for “improving” this onerous government intrusion. Link (scroll to end of article for their suggestions). Notice throughout the article a general lack of concern about the Constitutionality of the law, and their naive faith that the law is as its strongest proponents suggested it was.
Some quotes from the Concord Coalition’s website:
The most obvious benefit of either bill is that they would expand health insurance coverage to almost all Americans. According to CBO estimates, the House bill would expand coverage from 83 percent of the legal nonelderly population in 2010 to 96 percent by 2015. The Senate version would expand such coverage to 94 percent by 2016.
The revenue package in the Senate bill holds more promise to reduce the deficit than the House version because the Senate bill’s largest component — the excise tax on high-cost insurance plans – will better keep pace with the growth rate of health care spending, and will also work to lower health care costs.
A tax base that includes health spending. Taxes on this base allow revenues to grow at approximately the same rate as expenses. Taxing employer-provided health benefits (which are now exempt from the federal income tax) is one example of a revenue source that will keep pace with the costs of health care. As an added benefit, such taxes further the reform goal of letting consumers see a truer price of health care — thus working to hold down spending.
Taxes not limited to a very narrow segment of the population. Limiting tax increases to only the very richest households means that marginal tax rates on such households would likely rise substantially compared with a tax increase levied on the broader population. Not only does this increase any adverse effects of the tax on economic incentives, but it raises a potential political challenge as one small segment of the population is asked to pay for the benefits that go largely to others. Broadly based tax increases, even if they remain progressive, spread the notion that all must contribute something for government benefits — imposing an important breaker against “free lunch” spending giveaways.
The OweNo campaign is a progressive trojan horse that is not aligned with constitutional authority. It should NOT be supported by any Constitution and freedom loving conservative. Please share this article with others and tell them to “Just say NO!” To Owe No and their false fiscal conservatism.
Link is to full article which is provided on Glenn’s abbreviated article. Not really much on Beck’s site if Beck Considers him one of the “most dangerous, its not readily clear on his website: QUOTE: Glenn highlights the real problem with ‘discourse’ in America today – superiority. He plays the incredibly revealing audio clip of Ed Rendell trying to explain his position on an issue, and when the guest disagrees his reaction is shocking. Read more and watch a free clip 
