Archive for the ‘Tea Party’ Category
Short of seceding from the union, the states can take strong action to counter an abusive federal government
The Red States should issue a “Declaration of Non-Compliance” with all unconstitutional Federal laws and regulations
For example, suppose a big state, such as Texas, declared itself a tax sanctuary — that no Texan will be required to pay an income tax of, say, more than 15 percent to the federal government.
It would cite the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments for legal justification.
The Fifth Amendment states that “Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”
This is known as the “Takings Clause.”
The Fourteenth Amendment states that the government must not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.“
This is known as the “Equal Protection of the Laws” clause.
The progressive income taxes violates both these Amendments.
If some Americans are taxed at a higher rate than others, they are being denied equal treatment under the law — a fundamental principal of common law and justice.
I should not pay a bigger fine for running a red light if I’m richer.
If the government is taking my money to give to someone else, clearly my property is being taken without just compensation . . . and not even for public use. So this is a violation of the “Takings Clause.”
So there is plenty of legal justification for Texas to simply declare (by passing a state law) that no Texan will be required to pay an income tax of more than 15 percent to the federal government.
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution establishes the dual sovereignty doctrine. It states that,
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
According to the Tenth Amendment, most of what the federal government is doing today is unconstitutional.
If the federal government actually followed the Tenth Amendment, it would be about one-third the size it is now.
The Constitution set up a federal government to do certain very specific things –”establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Clearly, the federal government has no Constitutional authority to take money from one American to give to someone else.
The Sixteenth Amendment states that,
Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
But the federal government does not have the authority to tax some people at a 30 percent rate and others at a 10 percent rate (for the purpose of wealth redistribution) because that violates both the Fifth Amendment’s “takings” clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s “equal protection of the laws” clause.
The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly upheld the “dual sovereignty” doctrine of the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.
Most recently, in the ObamaCare case, the court ruled that the states are under no obligation to comply with the ObamaCare law. That is, the states are under no obligation to use money from the state treasury to set up the ObamaCare “exchanges” or to expand “Medicaid.”
Thus, much of the financing mechanism for ObamaCare is gone if the states simply refuse to provide the funds and refuse to set up the exchanges.
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson both argued that the states have the right simply to refuse to go along with unconstitutional federal laws and decrees. After all, it was the states who created the federal government in the first place.
At North Carolina’s ratifying convention, James Iredell told the delegates that when “Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.”
In other words, the states would have the right to ignore any law Congress might pass that violates the Constitution.
So let’s say Texas declares that no Texan will pay more than a 15 percent rate on income to the federal government and that no Texan will be subject to arrest by federal authorities for refusing to pay more than this. What practically could the federal government do in response?
Well, the federal government could try to come into Texas to arrest the non-compliant Texan.
The state of Texas would then provide legal defense for the Texas taxpayer while the case worked its way through the courts, which could take years.
The state of Texas can just use the courts to tie up the federal government for years in litigation.
This would be taking a page from the ACLU’s playbook.
The ACLU has achieved a lot for the Left by threatening litigation and tying up the government in litigation.
Texas could take this approach with every abusive federal law, such as the Obama Administration’s plans to deny Americans their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, or all the unconstitutional regulations coming from the EPA.
In fact, the state of Texas could declare every federal regulation illegal that was not explicitly passed into law by Congress.
The federal agencies have issued hundreds of thousands of regulations that carry the force of law. You will pay fines and can go to jail for failing to comply with these regulations. But these regulations should carry no weight whatsoever because they were not actually passed into law by Congress.
Congress is the lawmaking body, not the Executive Branch.
And Congress has no Constitutional authority to transfer the lawmaking power to the Executive Branch.
So the state of Texas (or any state) could go through every federal regulation and declare it will no longer comply with these regulations.
What could the federal government do if Texas did that?
And what if this trend caught on in other solidly Red states? — such as Oklahoma, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Wyoming, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Nebraska, Kentucky, the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho.
That’s a pretty sizeable chunk of territory that we might call the “Free United States of America” — in contrast to the “Enslaved United States of America.”
What could the federal government really do if this happened?
We would not actually secede from the union. These states would just refuse to comply with unconstitutional laws and regulations. They would continue to comply with Constitutional laws. We would want, for example, to continue to pay for national defense because that’s authorized by the Constitution.
The states can go through the federal budget and determine what they will pay for (the Constitutional items) — and NOT pay for (the unconstitutional items).
We will be happy to pay for all Constitutional federal functions of government.
Another area for the states to put their foot down is to say “no more seizing of private and state lands by the federal government.”
The states are perfectly capable of identifying places of true scenic beauty to protect.
What’s been happening is that the federal government has abused its eminent domain power to simply seize as much American land as it can for itself.
The federal government now owns 84.5 percent of Nevada, 69.1 percent of Alaska, 57.4 percent of Utah, 53.1 percent of Oregon, 50.2 percent of Idaho, 48.1 percent of Arizona, 55.3 percent of California, etc. — in other words, most of the Western United States.
The Obama Administration has mapped out a plan to seize millions more acres of valuable Western lands, putting many ranchers out of business.
The Red States need to say not only no more lands will be seized the federal government, but should begin taking lands back from the federal government.
Who is the federal government to say what Texas or Alaska can and can’t do with their own land — including their oil?
Kick the federal government out of the state.
And it really doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court rules because most of these federal laws and regulations are unconstitutional, no matter what liberals on the Supreme Court say.
The Supreme Court is not the supreme authority of the land. The Constitution is. If the Supreme Court ruled that it’s okay to kill all red-headed children, that would not make it Constitutional to do so.
There’s no mention of the Supreme Court in the Constitution as the supreme authority in the land. That did not happen until 1958, when in Cooper v. Aaron the Court declared that its rulings have exactly the same weight as the text of the Constitution itself.
But that’s a self-evident absurdity.
The Constitution very clearly states that the courts operate under the laws established by Congress. And Congress operates under the Constitution.
It’s then clear from the ratification debates on the Constitution that the states are supposed to be the final arbiters on what is Constitutional, or not. In fact, that was the entire promise in the ratification debates, or the Constitution never would have been ratified. The states were assured over and over again, that they would be the judge of the Constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress.
If the federal law is Constitutional, the states would and should be pleased to abide by the law. We all agree that sensible laws and rules are needed for the proper functioning of a civil society.
But under the American system, most of the governing is supposed to be handled by state and local governments.
Instead, the federal government that is the big usurper and primary lawbreaker America. It’s come more to resemble organized crime than a real government.
We have a rogue President, a rogue federal bureaucracy, and a largely rogue Supreme Court — a court that actually found an unalienable right to an abortion in the text of the Constitution — where no such right exists — thus nullifying abortion laws in all 50 states.
So if the Supreme Court can nullify laws in all 50 states, the states can counter by nullifying unconstitutional federal laws. We then have a stand-off — which is what happens when the government attempts to impose its will on an unwilling people. We’re supposed to be governed in America by the “consent of the governed.”
Since we do need courts, the “Free United States” can set up its own Supreme Court — a competing court made up of Constitutionalists.
Again, what could the federal government really do about this?
The feds could theoretically take military action.
But that’s not likely to happen unless the states actually secede from the union. But the states would not be doing that. We are not talking about attacking Fort Sumter here.
The states would just be enforcing their Constitutional rights — vigorously, on every front and in every way.
It would not be a Declaration of Independence, we would be issuing a Declaration of Non-Compliance – non-compliance with unconstitutional laws and regulations.
The Supreme Court has already given the states the roadmap for how to do this with its ObamaCare ruling — declaring that the states are under no obligation to comply with ObamaCare.
Its time for the Red States to reassert their Constitutional authority in every area — to take authority back from the federal government.
And it would good to formalize the Red State complaint against the federal government with a formal Declaration of Non-Compliance — following the same pattern of argument as America’s Declaration of Independence of 1776.
America’s Declaration of Independence made its case by cataloguing a long list of abusive behavior by the British government. It’s well worth reading this list, because so many of these complaints apply to our own federal government today:
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world . . .
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance . . .
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation . . .
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever . . .
A strong case can be made that much of this is happening now — only more so. The federal government has vastly over-stepped its constitutional authority in many areas — “has erected a multitude of New Offices [not envisoned by the Constitution], and sent hither swarms of Officers [bureacrats] to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”
Isn’t this happening today?
Let’s take ObamaCare as just one example.
ObamaCare sets up a Soviet-style health care bureaucracy that will destroy freedom in America and wreck our health care system if its allowed to take root and spread like a cancer into every area of American life. ObamaCare . . .
- Requires the hiring of 16,000 brand to IRS agents to enforce the 2,700-page law.
- Establishes 159 brand new government agencies to administer the program;
- Includes 21 new taxes and tax increases.
Barack Obama promised in his 2008 campaign for the Presidency that he would “fundamentally transform” the American system (his words) — including our Constitutional structure of government.
The engine that’s driving this fundamental transformation of our society is”ObamaCare.”
Communists and socialists have always known that the fastest and surest way to move a country to socialism is through socializing medicine — that is, by putting a country’s health care system under government control.
Vladimir Lenin, the founder and architect of the Soviet Communist state, said “Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state.”
Lenin and the Communists knew that once you control people’s access to health care and medical treatment, you control their lives. The Left here in America is well aware of this also.
When radio host Paul W. Smith asked liberal Congressman John Dingell (D-MI) why it will take the government until 2014 to fully set up the ObamaCare system, Dingell said this:
“It takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”
Source: News Talk WJR Radio with Paul W. Smith 3/23/2010
Does this sound like the America established by our nation’s Founding Fathers and described in the Constitution of the United States?
Is this really the purpose of our federal government — “to control the people“?
The Constitution says the primary purpose of government is to “secure the blessings of liberty” and to provide for the “common defense” – not to “control the people.“
Under our Constitution, people are supposed to be free to do whatever they want, so long as they are not harming someone else.
That’s called freedom.
America’s Declaration of Independence says the purpose of government is to secure our “unalienable rights” to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
ObamaCare is about none of this. ObamaCare is about the opposite of what described by our nation’s founding documents.
No wonder Cuba’s Communist dictator Fidel Castro hailed the passage of ObamaCare as “a miracle.”
In other words, when Barack Obama told us in 2008 that he was out to “fundamentally transform” America, he meant it. And he’s doing it primarily through ObamaCare — but also via the EPA, Executive Orders, and his administrative control of the vast federal bureaucracy.
His bureaucrats and regulators are issuing an avalanche of regulations on their own every week that carry the force of law — complete with criminal penalties and sanctions. All this is unconstitutional.
It’s time for the Red States to Declare Independence from all this — or rather Declare their Non-Compliance with a long catalogue of federal abuses by the federal government, very similar to America’s original Declaration of Independence of 1776.
This is not a proposal to go to war or to secede. It’s a proposal simply to refuse to comply with all federal laws and regulations that are clearly unconstitutional.
What could Obama and the Left do if the Red States actually did that?
Grover Norquist has been catching a lot of heat lately for holding politicians to the pledge they signed not to vote for any net tax increases.
He was the Best Man at the wedding for my first marriage on October 10, 1987.
He may be the smartest political mind I know.
Here’s how his “No Net Tax Increase Pledge” came about.
Way back in 1984 or 1985, I was having dinner with Grover and several others at Gallagher’s on Capitol Hill when he (we) conceived of challenging all federal elected officials and candidates for federal office to sign such a pledge.
Drinks and dinner at Gallagher’s back then with Grover and our little group of pro-freedom activists was a near-nightly event — as none of us were yet married. We’d get together almost nightly to plot and scheme the rollback of socialism and big government, plus tell jokes and laugh a lot.
One of our big complaints was that President Reagan just wasn’t moving fast enough to shrink the federal government back down to Constitutional size — which would mean cutting the size of the federal government by about two-thirds. ”Why isn’t Reagan even trying to eliminate the Departments of Education, Energy, Labor, Commerce, HUD, and much of Health and Human Services?” we’d wonder.
One night, I mentioned to Grover that I grew up in Vermont and New Hampshire.
In the 1970s, New Hampshire had a great conservative governor by the name of Mel Thomson.
This then became a tradition in the state.
After that, you could not hope to win your race for Congress, for Senate, or for the Governorship in New Hampshire without putting your hand on a Bible and pledging never to vote for instituting an income tax or sales tax.
New Hampshire financed its government with a fairly stiff property tax, state-owned liquor stores, and assorted user fees.
New Hampshire has changed a lot since then. People from Massachusetts have since moved into New Hampshire to escape high taxes in Massachusetts — only to vote for Democrats and higher taxes in New Hampshire.
Southern New Hampshire is now a suburb of Boston.
So New Hampshire has become a purple state instead of a solidly red state.
But back in the Mel Thomson days (the 1970s) Dartmouth economics professor Colin Campbell conducted a study comparing the quality of government services in Vermont versus New Hampshire.
The study made sense because the states are mirror images of each other geographically and demographically. But a Vermonter paid 40 percent more taxes on average than a New Hampshirite.
Professor Cambpell’s study found, however, that government services in New Hampshire were superior to Vermont’s. And New Hampshire’s government was collecting more tax revenue.
How can this be?
Well, Professor Campbell concluded that the business climate in New Hampshire was superior to Vermont because of New Hampshire’s low (almost non-existent) taxes.
So, given a choice, why pay 40 percent more in taxes just to live in Vermont?
As a result, business boomed in New Hampshire, and New Hampshire was able to attract triple Vermont’s population.
All this economic activity then generated more tax revenue for the government of New Hampshire to spend on public services.
Grover (at our 1985 dinner at Gallagher’s) was very interested in Governor Mel Thomson’s idea of challenging politicians to take the “No Tax Increase” pledge.
So he developed a similar pledge for federal politicians to sign.
Who would have thought that 1985 dinner conversation at Gallagher’s would have turned into such a political firestorm in 2012?
Of course, no one is required to take this pledge. But if you decline, voters have a right to assume you plan to raise taxes — or, at least, want to keep your options open.
Politicians take Grover’s pledge for one and only one reason — because they believe doing so will help them win their election. So voters have a right to expect their elected representatives to keep their pledge.
Under Grover’s Pledge, you can vote for tax reform that closes loopholes if there is a corresponding decrease in tax rates. What you can’t vote for is a net tax increase.
But as Mel Thomson, JFK, and Ronald Reagan demonstrated — if you cut tax rates, this increases economic activity and economic growth. So there’s almost always an increase in tax revenue for the government. As people get richer, the government gets richer. It’s a win-win proposition.
The logic is this . . .
If taxes are 100 percent, the government will collect no revenue . . . because no one’s going to work if all their earnings are confiscated by taxation. And if taxes are zero, the government collects no revenue either.
No one knows exactly what the optimal level of taxation is to produce the fastest economic growth and most revenue for the government. Regulation also factors into this because regulation acts like a tax.
Grover’s view (and mine) is that we are a long way past this optimal point on the Laffeur Curve.
The burden of government (taxes plus excessive regulation) is deterring business and economic activity — disincentivizing work, production, and risk-taking . . . while incentivizing leisure and sloth.
If you don’t believe me, watch this video . . .
A big reason economic growth in the U.S. has been so slow in recent years is because there are other countries today that are more favorable for business — such as Canada.
Canada recently cut its top corporate tax rate to 15 percent.
The top corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.2 percent — now the highest in the developed world.
So why start a business in the United States if you can pay less than half the tax rate by setting up your factory a few miles to the north?
Communist China has also been cutting taxes like crazy lately — on both corporations and individuals.
Well, to spur more economic growth. That’s why.
China’s top corporate tax rate is now 25 percent — 38 percent lower than America’s top corporate tax rate of 39.2 percent. But for qualified enterprises, the top corporate tax rate in China is now 15 percent. No wonder business capital is flowing out of the United States and into Communist China.
Communist China today is a lot less Communist than we are.
In Hong Kong (now part of Communist China) the top corporate tax rate is 16.5 percent.
By the way, two thirds of Britain’s millionaires have pulled a John Galt and left Britain since the introduction of its 50 percent top tax rate.
Grover doesn’t want that to happen to America.
Paul Krugman argued recently in the New York Times that in the 1950s, the top income tax rate was 91 percent for individuals. He notes that the U.S. was then the unrivaled #1 economic superpower in the world.
JFK than cut the top rate to 70 percent. Reagan cut the top rate to 50 percent, then to 28 percent.
What Krugman misses with his 91 percent top tax rate thesis is that we had just emerged from World War Two as the big winner. The rest of the world had been destroyed, for the most part. Then most of the rest of the world was either Communist or Third World.
The U.S. (relatively unscathed by World War II) was just about the only game in town for any kind of capitalism.
The 91 percent top tax rate was a hangover from WWII when we had to fund the big war machine so we could defeat both Hitler and the Japanese.
Because of the huge tax rate in the 1940s and 50s, most corporate executives did not take much in the way of pay. Instead, companies had generous pensions and other befits that were not taxed.
And people tended to stay at the same company for their entire lives because they could not afford to leave their pensions and benefits behind. So employees were, in essence, indentured servants. So that’s not so good if you value freedom.
We actually had much faster economic growth in the 1960s than we had in the 1950s after JFK cut tax rates to a top rate of 70 percent (despite the cost of the Vietnam war and other Cold War costs).
Of course, no one ever paid close to these top rates. They hid the money in their companies and had a lot of deductions and exemptions.
I actually think that, more than the top income tax rates, over-regulation is the much bigger hurdle to starting a business.
Regulations hurt start-up businesses more because they can’t afford the lawyers to make sure they are in compliance. As a result, new business start-ups are almost non-existent today. Small business is always where the new jobs and economic growth come from.
Grover believes (quite common-sensicallly) that the emphasis should be on lightening government’s burden on new business formation and productive activity by lowering tax rates, striking down unnecessary government regulations, and reining in out-of-control federal spending.
That’s what JFK and Reagan did. The result in both cases was economic growth rates of more than four percent per year — more than double the growth rate we are seeing today.
Government at all levels is taking 40 cents out of every dollar earned in America. The federal government is borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar it spends.
Enough is enough. It’s time for government to tighten its belt and to stop strangling the goose (capitalism) that’s laying the golden eggs.
It’s both good economics and good politics. There’s absolutely no reason to strike a deal with Obama on this. Just let the Fiscal Cliff happen.
On January 1, 2013, automatic spending cuts plus Taxmageddon kick in — unless President Obama can strike a deal with House Republicans over spending cuts and taxes.
Obama wants to increase taxes, but doesn’t want to cut spending, with the possible exception of military spending. He certainly doesn’t want to cut or even limit spending on entitlements and welfare programs. He wants those expanded. Obama always wants to spend more. Obama always wants to grow government.
The Fiscal Cliff stops his spending spree.
I’m not the least bit concerned about the automatic spending cuts.
Remember, the Fiscal Cliff is not a Fiscal Cliff for you or me. It’s a Fiscal Cliff for the federal government. It requires the federal government to cut spending across-the-board if Congress and President Obama fail to hit spending cut targets they all agreed to. It requires the federal government to go on a diet.
Isn’t this exactly what we want — mandatory spending cuts?
So this is only a crisis for liberals and Leftists who want no restraints on spending.
Yes, the military will be hit by this. But, frankly, it’s high time we started scaling back our military. Not that I’m against having a huge military if we can afford it. But we can’t.
Right now, 43 percent of the entire world’s military spending is, well, us. We are spending six times more
on our military than #2 China. We are spending 14 times more than Russia. Both Britain and France spend more on their military than Russia.
Russia is really just a Third World country, no longer much to worry about.
There’s no Hitler on the horizon and aircraft carriers are not needed to kill terrorists.
Surely the 11 aircraft carriers we now have are enough.
No other country in the world has more than two aircraft carriers. China and Russia each have one aircraft carrier.
So I’m not losing much sleep over the prospect of scaling back our military some if it also means we have to cut government spending everywhere else by the same proportion.
We need to do this.
The U.S. government now has a $16.3 TRILLION debt and is borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar it spends. We need to cut and we need to cut now. If that means we go from 11 aircraft carriers to six, so be it.
Then we’d only be spending three times more on our military than #2 China.
While we’re at it, let’s also end all foreign aid. We can’t afford that either.
But what about Taxmageddon?
Starting on January 1, 2013, American households will see an estimated average tax increase of $4,223 per year.
Not only will the Bush tax cuts expire, but the patch on the dreaded Alternative Minimum Tax also expires. This will rope another 20,000,000 middle income households into paying the AMT who were never supposed to pay this brutal tax. The FICA payroll tax holiday will also expire on January 1.
The expiration of the Bush tax cuts produces about one-third of Taxmageddon’s tax increases. It’s a myth that the Bush tax cuts only reduced taxes on the wealthy. They also reduced the marriage penalty, increased the Child Tax Credit and the adoption credit, and increased tax breaks for education costs and dependent care costs.
But there’s more, much more.
Taxes on capital gains will go up to 20 percent from 15 percent. Taxes on dividend income will triple for many Americans. Instead of a top rate of 15 percent on dividend income, you’ll be paying whatever your income tax rate is on dividends. So that could be 39 percent under the new rates. And the “death tax” exclusion drops from $5,000,000 to $1,000,000 — with a mind-boggling 55 percent tax rate.
So goodbye family farm, and goodbye family business.
Then, perhaps most crushing of all, most of the 21 tax increases that are embedded in the ObamaCare legislation kick in.
So a tax increase nightmare awaits us January 1.
I say, so what?
If Americans want a gigantic social welfare and entitlement state, they need to start paying for it.
Now, I would certainly prefer there be no Taxmageddon on January 1. But I’m willing to live with it if we also get all those mandatory across-the-board spending cuts.
It would be far better just to have the spending cuts and no tax increases. The tax increases will certainly hurt the economy, probably plunge us into another recession — a double dip.
But I’ll take Taxmageddon if we get all the immediate mandatory across-the-board spending cuts.
I’ve always believed that if Americans had to actually pay for the government they are getting, they would not want this much government.
But politicians have found a way to increase government spending (especially entitlements) without requiring voters to pay the tab. They do this through deficit spending, and letting future generations pay for it — when the current crop of politicians have long since left office.
But that’s immoral. That’s stealing from future generations to pay for today’s government benefits.
It’s time to end this generational theft. It’s criminal that we are saddling babies who haven’t even been born yet with the tab for our benefits. Right now, every baby born in America owes $81,000 on the national debt. It’s time we pay the piper.
This will require brutal fiscal austerity.
But there’s also a big political benefit to going over the Fiscal Cliff and allowing all these automatic spending cuts and tax increases go into effect.
Barack Obama will get the blame.
Taxmageddon will likely push America back into another recession. But that’s, frankly, what America needs. What recessions do is blast the fat out of the economy. We then emerge stronger.
We need to get our fiscal house in order. And that’s painful.
Most Americans won’t like it and will take their anger out on Democrats in the 2014 mid-term elections and the 2016 Presidential Election.
But that’s just a side benefit. It’s also the correct economic prescription.
If you run up your credit card debt so you can live beyond your means, that eventually catches up with you. Then comes the hangover. There comes a point when you have no choice but to dramatically cut back your spending (perhaps even live like a pauper) until you can pay off your credit cards. You must learn to live with less.
That’s what America must do now.
Why not use this opportunity of the Fiscal Cliff to do these two wonderful things:
1) Put America’s fiscal house in order with across-the-board mandatory cuts in government spending; and . . .
2) Let Obama and the Democrats pay the political price for the pain.
There’s really no need to fear the Fiscal Cliff. It’s the tough medicine America needs. We have a $16.3 TRILLION national debt, for Pete’s sake. Soon the debt will be $20 TRILLION. And then we’ll be Greece.
The mandatory spending cuts will make us stronger in the long run.
The House GOP position should be no more increases to the debt ceiling. There’s nothing to negotiate. The debt ceiling should not go up again, period, ever. There’s really no reason to meet with Obama to talk over any of this. Just let it happen.
Anti-tax increase Grover Norquist calls the attacks on him by pro-tax increase Rep Frank Wolf “disgusting”
Norquist says that just because he’s married to a Muslim woman doesn’t make him pro-terrorist. Notes that his wife is pro-America, pro-freedom, pro-U.S. Constitution, is a U.S. citizen, and shares his anti-tax increase views. Wonders what the heck Wolf is even talking about.
YAHOO!: Conservative activist Grover Norquist responded to attacks from Virginia Republican Rep. Frank Wolf Tuesday, calling Wolf’s accusations that Norquist was connected to terrorists “disgusting” and saying they were copied from “racist websites.”
Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, a group that has convinced all but six House Republicans to pledge never to raise taxes, has been sparring with with Wolf for some time. Norquist has refused to support a commission that would consider tax increases as a way to decrease the federal deficit–while Wolf has long supported a deficit-reduction plan that would combine spending reductions with tax hikes, a proposal Norquist has fought for decades.
On the House floor Tuesday, Wolf accused Norquist of being associated with terrorist financiers, discussed his connection in 2006 to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and said that Norquist has used his organization’s pledge “to advance many other issues that many Americans would find inappropriate, and when taken as a whole should give people pause.”
New video game released called “Tea Party Zombies Must Die” allows you to slaughter Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and other constitutionalists
Apparently, this game is designed to rev up Obama’s base for 2012
It’s not clear whether this game is a product of the 2012 Obama reelection effort. Are staffers over at the DNC playing this? No reaction yet from Gabby Giffords. You see, violence against Tea Partiers isn’t really violence because Tea Partiers aren’t really people. This seems to be the thinking in the Obama camp.
Denies Biden called Tea Partiers “terrorists.”
Obama, increasingly, just does not seem to have a grip on reality.
You see what this is again? These guys are terrorists! You know, Joe Biden, they say he’s getting in a little bit of trouble because he called them terrorists, but that’s exactly what they are.
They’ve taken us hostage again and they’re demanding 100% their ransom. And unless they get 100%, they’re holding a gun to our head. What do you call people who put a gun to your head and say, “Unless you pay me whatever, I’m going to kill you or kill this program.” You know what they call them? Terrorists! Exactly what they are over this FAA.”
So what ever happened to the era of civility in the wake of the Gabby Giffords shooting (that had nothing to do with politics)?
Bill Press is saying that the Republicans are terrorists because hitting the debt ceiling would mean President Obama would have to cut funding for the Federal Aviation Administration and send air traffic controllers home. Obama continues to say he might have to do that anyway.
But hold on a second.
$250 billion comes into the federal treasury every month — even if we had not raised the debt ceiling.
There’s no reason Obama would have to send the air traffic controllers home.
How about shut down the departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, Labor, HUD, large chunks of HHS?
Surely we could do without that tunnel for turtles that was build in Florida with Obama’s stimulus to help turtles pass safely under the highway. How are the turtles going to find that tunnel anyway?
This is the standard liberal playbook whenever there are government budget cuts.
They love to cut the services that people actually want.
The first items to go are always trash collection, fire fighters, police, snow removal — stuff we’ll actually miss.
It’s not Republicans who do this. It’s Democrats.
WASHINGTON TIMES: It might not be the beginning of a Chinese tea party movement, but some citizens are railing about bureaucratic waste as the Communist Party releases some details about government spending.
Internet-savvy Chinese are using social networking to share their complaints about extravagant government spending. Even the state-controlled media are starting to grumble. Caijing magazine called for the government to prosecute bureaucrats who still ignore the June 30 deadline for reporting on some expenses.
“They just don’t have a sense of how much money they’re spending,” said Liang Xiaoqin, a Chinese college student from Nanjing.
That fact should tell you all you need to know about this farce. He’s lost the Tea Party.
THE HILL: The debt-limit deal announced on Sunday night is expected to attract more than 60 votes in the Senate, but its outlook in the House is much more cloudy.
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will need Democratic votes to clear the bill through the lower chamber. How many remains unclear.
GLENN BECK: Don’t be fooled. We’ve just been betrayed by Washington.
A deal on the debt ceiling is near and Washington still hasn’t gotten serious about the fundamentals. It hasn’t gotten serious about default. It certainly hasn’t gotten serious about the future. When Harry Reid hails a “bipartisan compromise” you know we’re doomed.
Republicans and Democrats have just negotiated away the future of our children behind closed doors. The big compromise on Capitol Hill features elaborate triggers, tranches, Hornswogglers, Snozzwangers, Super Duper Commissions that will make the Snozzberries taste like Snozeberries, and a whole bunch of other convoluted gibberish that will, no doubt, come with loopholes and create entire new bureaucracies. What it doesn’t do is fix the problem.
PAUL BEDARD-U.S. NEWS: If House Speaker John Boehner or his senior leadership team thought they had the support of the Tea Party movement, they better think again. An internal poll of the largest group in the movement, the Tea Party Patriots, found that they are dissatisfied with the House leaders, Boehner in particular, and simply can’t stand President Obama.
Co-Director Jenny Beth Martin told Whispers bluntly: “We’re really not satisfied with any of them.” [Check out editorial cartoons about the Tea Party.]
She said that the Tea Party Patriots on Tuesday surveyed “tens of thousands” of their members in 3,500 affiliates about the current leadership and found these stunning results:
–81.5 percent are not satisfied with the House GOP leadership.
–74.1 percent, asked if they want a new House speaker, said yes or maybe.
–71.7 percent are not satisfied with the performance of the House.
–97.6 percent are not satisfied with the performance of the Senate.
–98.8 percent are not satisfied with Obama’s performance.
–Whopping majorities believe that their House representative and senators are more concerned with party politics than “what’s best for America.”
–62.8 percent trust neither party to fix the debt problem; 36.4 percent trust the GOP to fix it; less than one percent trust the Democrats.
Worse for those like Boehner and Obama trying to cut a debt ceiling increase, most do not want a deal unless it includes massive spending cuts, likely over the $4 trillion figure earlier under negotiation.
On Boehner, Martin and Co-Director Mark Meckler, who both earlier today met with reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast, said the movement is worried that he is giving in too much to Obama. “He’s not proven that he means to cut anything,” said Martin. [See political cartoons about the budget and deficit.]
Meckler said that while the movement wants lawmakers to “stand firm” and not raise the debt ceiling, it could be done if major cuts were included far and above what’s been proposed, though he wouldn’t set a bottom line. “If you want to raise the debt ceiling, prove to us you can make some cuts,” he said. “Get real. They need to act like adults,” he added of Congress.