I think the Democrats hope the debit limit increase issue will split the Republican/Conservative base. If Republican leadership folds and allow an increase the debt limit without significant real budget reductions a large portion of the conservative right will abandon the party. Obama then wins the election in 2012. The only way the Right wins this is to hold strong against any effort to increase the debt limit without significant spending cuts.
Read this:
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/JimDeMintTeaPartyBarackObamaDebtCeiling2012election2012GOPPrimaries/2011/06/24/id/401316?s=al&promo_code=C818-1
"And he (Jim DeMint) told Fox News’ Sean Hannity, “The Democrats are not able to cut spending. Their whole political base is created by giving money away – redistributing wealth; new government programs. The idea of a balanced budget to them essentially puts them out of business."
This statement by DeMint is the reason the Democrats must not win in 2012. If they do win, with four more years like the last two the country will take a political and philosophical direction that will permanently alter the fabric of this nation and they will commit the country to financial ruin from which we will not recover. The age of the United States will be over. Consider up until now what the world would now be like without us in the lead. And consider the future with the United States financially unable to protect freedom.
This is the most critical negotiation and vote in the history of the country. Conservative strength will be halved if the Right does not remain firm on this issue. Weakness and a lack of support to force the Democrats to cut spending before the vote on the debt limit will end America as we know it. The country is lost if spending continues unchecked and that will happen if the Right does not stand firm on the debt limit negotiations .
Therefore, forcing the Democrats to make permanent, long term cuts in spending must occur before and if the debit limit increase is approved. This is more important than the more manageable and of less permanent implications of not increasing the debit limit. The Congress should tell the President and Timothy Geithner as with any CEO and CFO "do your job with the resources available. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, resign or get fired."
Mike
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Friday, April 8, 2011
Democrat's Dead End
Reid and Pelosi have both come out in the last twenty-four hours with “the Republicans are at war against women” comments. Obviously, this is another “what the caucus told me to say” moment. The democrats would be more credible and not so laughable if at least one Democrat would acknowledge there is a fiscal crisis and suggest least one meaningful cut in the federal budget. It is painfully obvious that democrats are aware their days are numbered as their ability to stay in office requires them to feed their constituents from the government trough. And one way or another that system’s days are numbered. We must either proactively cut government welfare and reduce the bureaucracy to avoid bankruptcy or go broke. In either case the system the democrats rely upon to obtain support is at a dead end and they know it. So they adopt these ridiculous emotional comments in the hope they can make the kings horse talk; that is play out the clock and hope for a miracle. The democrats have no serious solutions to offer for the future of this county and they know it.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
The Solomon of Washington
Obama likes to play the omniscient, independent arbitrator in all partisan disputes; the Solomon of Washington. It is a continuation of an earlier demonstration during last year’s Blair House Obamacare meeting when he declared his comments did not count in the equal time allotment between the parties because "I am the President".
Yesterday following a White House meeting with Senator Reid and Speaker Boehner Obama's examples of those "playing games” in the continuing resolution negotiations only include issues which the Republicans care about with no examples of issues Democrats care about. Therefore, in doing he is creating the rationale that a shutdown of the government will be the fault of the Republicans when in fact it takes two to tango.
If there is a fault to be assigned with the government shut down, both parties and the President share it evenly. Perhaps the Democrats share it even more because it is their budget they failed to create last year they are now trying to piece together with the continuing resolution. This is a budget Pelosi, Reid and Obama were too afraid to create during an election year as they knew in order to create one they would either have to unilaterally scale down their insatiable spending habits or go on record that they neither recognized nor cared about the economic future of this country.
Obama continues to demonstrate he is the most partisan President in our history with his unending Presidential campaign. And he continues to portray himself with wisdom and equanimity speaking and acting on behalf of the American people. I am of the American people and not one of his utterances in his term have resonated with me nor has he ever spoken on my behalf. Obama is transparent in only one way: his obvious partisan, hypocritical positions on everything.
Yesterday following a White House meeting with Senator Reid and Speaker Boehner Obama's examples of those "playing games” in the continuing resolution negotiations only include issues which the Republicans care about with no examples of issues Democrats care about. Therefore, in doing he is creating the rationale that a shutdown of the government will be the fault of the Republicans when in fact it takes two to tango.
If there is a fault to be assigned with the government shut down, both parties and the President share it evenly. Perhaps the Democrats share it even more because it is their budget they failed to create last year they are now trying to piece together with the continuing resolution. This is a budget Pelosi, Reid and Obama were too afraid to create during an election year as they knew in order to create one they would either have to unilaterally scale down their insatiable spending habits or go on record that they neither recognized nor cared about the economic future of this country.
Obama continues to demonstrate he is the most partisan President in our history with his unending Presidential campaign. And he continues to portray himself with wisdom and equanimity speaking and acting on behalf of the American people. I am of the American people and not one of his utterances in his term have resonated with me nor has he ever spoken on my behalf. Obama is transparent in only one way: his obvious partisan, hypocritical positions on everything.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Obama's View of "Reptilian" Race Relations
I just posted this to an article on "Politico" about Boy Wonders appearance on "The View"
Its not all race related, though some of it is.
Obama can try to make it all race related, but the truth is there are logical intuitive responses and philosophical issues involved. Unfortunately, when it comes to race Obama doesn't have credibility with any group.
On the philosophical side of this national issue it is clear that Blacks disproportionately identify with the Democrat Party. At its core Democrats push social justice and entitlements to the Black voting block. Whether this is heartfelt or politically expedient is up to the up to the observer to determine. To me, neither is acceptable.
The former, the heartfelt motivation, at its foundation is the assumption that Blacks without the nurturing of the liberal left cannot fend for themselves. This is worst form of bigotry for its insidious, subtle nature that is purports to be helpful when it is pure condescension.
And the second, the political expedient aspect, is pandering to a voting block to which little of real lasting value has been provided since the inception of "Great Society". In fact, one can make a good argument that all that has come about is generational dependency on government.
Either way it is just a Democrat plantation.
On the intuitive response level there is clear evidence from violent crime statistics that it is logical to be weary of Blacks as a group. I live in the San Francisco Bay area and while I count a number of blacks as my friends I am not just going to go into Oakland, Richmond or Hunters Point for a good time on Saturday night nor move to any of those neighborhoods. Until that reality changes there are going to be race issues. To me, however, it is not a reptilian response to race; it is about logic and statistics.
The bottom line is the Democrats are not helping. And the Boy Wonder is doing nothing to help. In fact, is now coming to light from Shirley Sherrod and others that since he doesn't have slave blood he doesn't have street cred when it comes to race. As long at that goes on and Blacks live in the past, it is going to be a slow trek into the future.
As for the present, Obama and his administration have just fueled racial tension by their actions in the Graves case, the neglect of the DOJ in the New Black Panthers case, with Holders "nation of cowards" statement. I for one think the nations of cowards is made up with black leaders like Obama and Holder, and not Bill Cosby, who avoid the real black issue.
Its not all race related, though some of it is.
Obama can try to make it all race related, but the truth is there are logical intuitive responses and philosophical issues involved. Unfortunately, when it comes to race Obama doesn't have credibility with any group.
On the philosophical side of this national issue it is clear that Blacks disproportionately identify with the Democrat Party. At its core Democrats push social justice and entitlements to the Black voting block. Whether this is heartfelt or politically expedient is up to the up to the observer to determine. To me, neither is acceptable.
The former, the heartfelt motivation, at its foundation is the assumption that Blacks without the nurturing of the liberal left cannot fend for themselves. This is worst form of bigotry for its insidious, subtle nature that is purports to be helpful when it is pure condescension.
And the second, the political expedient aspect, is pandering to a voting block to which little of real lasting value has been provided since the inception of "Great Society". In fact, one can make a good argument that all that has come about is generational dependency on government.
Either way it is just a Democrat plantation.
On the intuitive response level there is clear evidence from violent crime statistics that it is logical to be weary of Blacks as a group. I live in the San Francisco Bay area and while I count a number of blacks as my friends I am not just going to go into Oakland, Richmond or Hunters Point for a good time on Saturday night nor move to any of those neighborhoods. Until that reality changes there are going to be race issues. To me, however, it is not a reptilian response to race; it is about logic and statistics.
The bottom line is the Democrats are not helping. And the Boy Wonder is doing nothing to help. In fact, is now coming to light from Shirley Sherrod and others that since he doesn't have slave blood he doesn't have street cred when it comes to race. As long at that goes on and Blacks live in the past, it is going to be a slow trek into the future.
As for the present, Obama and his administration have just fueled racial tension by their actions in the Graves case, the neglect of the DOJ in the New Black Panthers case, with Holders "nation of cowards" statement. I for one think the nations of cowards is made up with black leaders like Obama and Holder, and not Bill Cosby, who avoid the real black issue.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Tone Deaf and Out of Touch – John Garamendi
The following was reported in the Sacramento Bee on February 7, 2010.
“While he is not done unpacking, [John Garamendi] California's newest congressman is more than ready to play a time-honored game: It's called Bring Home the Bacon.
"If there are earmarks, I'll make sure my district gets its share," said Garamendi, D – Walnut Grove.
He has a message for purists who object to members of Congress fighting for money for their special projects
.
"My task is to make sure that the money comes home," he said. "And if it comes in earmarks, it'll come in earmarks."
Garamendi's comments are disappointing and unfortunate for a person holding such a responsible position to have his first actions upon joining the U.S. Congress was to belly up to the trough. Garamendi's comments about earmarks beg the question whether he understands there is no money. The money he is bringing back to the 10th District is borrowed from China and our children and our grandchildren will have to play it back. His approach is like the lout who when going out to dinner with friends and knows the bill at the end of the meal will be an evenly split then orders the most expensive meal and drinks he otherwise, if alone, would not order.
His first instinct should have been to lead and help educate his constituents by emphasizing his primary efforts would be to reduce their tax burden and reduce our national debt by setting an example among his peers in congress to eliminate and reduce discretionary earmarks. His second instinct would be to question why funds needed in the district are sent to Washington in the first place only to be returned through him to dispense to his pet projects and contributors. These funds should have been kept here from the start either not collected as taxes or collected and used for local initiatives approved by the citizens .
The citizens of California and the 10th District should clearly send the message to Mr. Garamendi that his approach to his duties is a continuation of unacceptable corruption and waste.
“While he is not done unpacking, [John Garamendi] California's newest congressman is more than ready to play a time-honored game: It's called Bring Home the Bacon.
"If there are earmarks, I'll make sure my district gets its share," said Garamendi, D – Walnut Grove.
He has a message for purists who object to members of Congress fighting for money for their special projects
.
"My task is to make sure that the money comes home," he said. "And if it comes in earmarks, it'll come in earmarks."
Garamendi's comments are disappointing and unfortunate for a person holding such a responsible position to have his first actions upon joining the U.S. Congress was to belly up to the trough. Garamendi's comments about earmarks beg the question whether he understands there is no money. The money he is bringing back to the 10th District is borrowed from China and our children and our grandchildren will have to play it back. His approach is like the lout who when going out to dinner with friends and knows the bill at the end of the meal will be an evenly split then orders the most expensive meal and drinks he otherwise, if alone, would not order.
His first instinct should have been to lead and help educate his constituents by emphasizing his primary efforts would be to reduce their tax burden and reduce our national debt by setting an example among his peers in congress to eliminate and reduce discretionary earmarks. His second instinct would be to question why funds needed in the district are sent to Washington in the first place only to be returned through him to dispense to his pet projects and contributors. These funds should have been kept here from the start either not collected as taxes or collected and used for local initiatives approved by the citizens .
The citizens of California and the 10th District should clearly send the message to Mr. Garamendi that his approach to his duties is a continuation of unacceptable corruption and waste.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Letter to the Editor of the Contra Costa Times
This will not be 200 words, nor will it be something your staff would write and it too complicated to argue in 200 words. However, in fairness it should be presented to your readers for them to consider and to accept or reject.
It is amazing whats going on in the country with Health Care and other great issues of the day. It is clear from the many speeches of Democrats and the from the President's Health Care Forum the arguments of Democrats are emotional and anecdotal. In many cases these are sincere, heart felt concerns; however, they do not question nor address the following question: If it takes, as the new health care legislation does, 10 years to fund 6 years of benefits in the first decade, how in the second decade and beyond will this bill be able to fund 10 years of benefits?
The standard reply is "Congressional Budget Office said it would". We don't always believe what the government says. Trust yourself. So I ask you again; if it takes 10 years to fund 6 years in the first decade, how in the second decade and beyond will this bill be able to fund 10 years of benefits? It is critical for you as citizens to come up with a viable answer to that question. It is not to say the the stories of pain and suffering noted by the Democrats are not real and don't need to be resolved. It is to say, is this the right solution for those in need and for the long term prospects of this country and this state?
It is not possible, as this bill requires, to have insurance companies provide extended coverage for kids up to 26 years old, no pre-condition restrictions, and no maximum annual and lifetime coverage for free. The administration says the insurance company will get extra revenue to cover these new costs from the new 30 million people the bill requires to obtain insurance. TMany of the people that don't pay for insurance today are not going to buy insurance at hundreds of dollars a month, just because the government says so. They will simply pay the $650/year fine the new health care imposed and that the 16,500 new IRS agents, the bill hires, will collect from them if they don't. If and when if these people get sick enough they will simply sign up with one of the insurance companies since there are no pre-condition exclusions. The insurance company will not have had the opportunity to collect premiums from these people while they were healthy (the insurance company that signs up these people doesn't even get the fine the government was collecting), but they will immediately have to start paying for this new person's illness.
Because of all these new costs the insurance companies will have to increase premiums. We recently heard the administration's response to premium increases and they have gone record saying this new legislation would limit premium increases. Therefore, the government will say "no" to the increase. (The new law gives this power to the Secretary of Health and Human Services). The insurance companies cannot take on all the new costs without increases in premiums and they will start to go out of business. The government will then jump in to replace the insurance companies and we will have single payer government health care in five to seven years. Look how well that works at the Veteran's Administration or in Canada and Europe.
In the meantime people will be loosing their insurance and many will have to go into Medicaid. Obama says "there is no government takeover of health care. Its not in the bill". He is right it is not in the bill, but it is the natural consequence of the bill. He knows this. He is being deceptive. He is on tape saying his goal is single payer, government run health care. This new law assumes an additional 15-20 million people will go into state Medicaid which the law requires the States to fund. Most states are broke now,as is California. How can they support this new mandate? Taxes will go up significantly. If Medicaid is is available, doctors will not take the limited payment provided by Medicaid and these people will still not get care the bill provides. This, as Obama likes to say, "is a false choice".
Even if doctors would take these patients at lower payment rates there probably won't be enough doctors to handle these new people. There will then have to be rationing to match the limited numbers of doctors to patients and to keep cost down. People say doctors will quit. Not so, but many will retire early and people who in the future would have become doctors will probably do something else. And we will run out of doctors. Maybe we can hirer illegal immigrants to be doctors, because being a doctor will be one of the jobs "Americans will not do".
To many Democrats this new heath care law is 'Social Justice". But this bill will send the country and the state to financial ruin. And it will take us to a new level of government control in out lives we cannot imagine. Remember, at the outset this new law funds the hiring of 16,500 additional IRS agents to enforce it. Do you want the IRS to have 16,500 more IRS agents? That is only the beginning. To the Democratic leadership this bill is a strategic initiative with the intent to gain for the Democrats long term sustainable votes and power. To some Democrats this is the beginning and fulfillment of dream of social/democratic society as found in Europe today. Do you want to power plays and finagling we have just witnessed in Congress to become the norm?
As citizens of a State on the brink of financial collapse you must go deep and ask is this where you want to go? Do you want your country to follow? If the citizens would think it through for themselves they would see it is not viable. In the long term this bill will fail to do what it promises and it will collapse in on itself; as has been said "the problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other peoples money". But unless you act now it will be too late to repair the damage.
Hopefully, those against this new legislation will not forget and will replace the democrats who have taken this state to the brink failure and are allowing the country to follow. Remember, “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.
Whether this new health care legislation can be repealed is questionable. Hopefully it is possible. On the positive side 38 states have started legislation or legal action to take the Federal Government to court to stop this legislation because of the individual insurance mandate and the unfunded state Medical mandate. If you are against this bill and you are in a district that has the slightest chance of replacing a Democrat with a Republican in the House or the Senate you should contribute as money and time as you can to get it done. And you should get involve now, as soon as you can. Get the right candidates who will promise and prove to you they are for financial solvency. Do this now before the primaries. Don't wait until the fall elections. It may be too late by then.
It is amazing whats going on in the country with Health Care and other great issues of the day. It is clear from the many speeches of Democrats and the from the President's Health Care Forum the arguments of Democrats are emotional and anecdotal. In many cases these are sincere, heart felt concerns; however, they do not question nor address the following question: If it takes, as the new health care legislation does, 10 years to fund 6 years of benefits in the first decade, how in the second decade and beyond will this bill be able to fund 10 years of benefits?
The standard reply is "Congressional Budget Office said it would". We don't always believe what the government says. Trust yourself. So I ask you again; if it takes 10 years to fund 6 years in the first decade, how in the second decade and beyond will this bill be able to fund 10 years of benefits? It is critical for you as citizens to come up with a viable answer to that question. It is not to say the the stories of pain and suffering noted by the Democrats are not real and don't need to be resolved. It is to say, is this the right solution for those in need and for the long term prospects of this country and this state?
It is not possible, as this bill requires, to have insurance companies provide extended coverage for kids up to 26 years old, no pre-condition restrictions, and no maximum annual and lifetime coverage for free. The administration says the insurance company will get extra revenue to cover these new costs from the new 30 million people the bill requires to obtain insurance. TMany of the people that don't pay for insurance today are not going to buy insurance at hundreds of dollars a month, just because the government says so. They will simply pay the $650/year fine the new health care imposed and that the 16,500 new IRS agents, the bill hires, will collect from them if they don't. If and when if these people get sick enough they will simply sign up with one of the insurance companies since there are no pre-condition exclusions. The insurance company will not have had the opportunity to collect premiums from these people while they were healthy (the insurance company that signs up these people doesn't even get the fine the government was collecting), but they will immediately have to start paying for this new person's illness.
Because of all these new costs the insurance companies will have to increase premiums. We recently heard the administration's response to premium increases and they have gone record saying this new legislation would limit premium increases. Therefore, the government will say "no" to the increase. (The new law gives this power to the Secretary of Health and Human Services). The insurance companies cannot take on all the new costs without increases in premiums and they will start to go out of business. The government will then jump in to replace the insurance companies and we will have single payer government health care in five to seven years. Look how well that works at the Veteran's Administration or in Canada and Europe.
In the meantime people will be loosing their insurance and many will have to go into Medicaid. Obama says "there is no government takeover of health care. Its not in the bill". He is right it is not in the bill, but it is the natural consequence of the bill. He knows this. He is being deceptive. He is on tape saying his goal is single payer, government run health care. This new law assumes an additional 15-20 million people will go into state Medicaid which the law requires the States to fund. Most states are broke now,as is California. How can they support this new mandate? Taxes will go up significantly. If Medicaid is is available, doctors will not take the limited payment provided by Medicaid and these people will still not get care the bill provides. This, as Obama likes to say, "is a false choice".
Even if doctors would take these patients at lower payment rates there probably won't be enough doctors to handle these new people. There will then have to be rationing to match the limited numbers of doctors to patients and to keep cost down. People say doctors will quit. Not so, but many will retire early and people who in the future would have become doctors will probably do something else. And we will run out of doctors. Maybe we can hirer illegal immigrants to be doctors, because being a doctor will be one of the jobs "Americans will not do".
To many Democrats this new heath care law is 'Social Justice". But this bill will send the country and the state to financial ruin. And it will take us to a new level of government control in out lives we cannot imagine. Remember, at the outset this new law funds the hiring of 16,500 additional IRS agents to enforce it. Do you want the IRS to have 16,500 more IRS agents? That is only the beginning. To the Democratic leadership this bill is a strategic initiative with the intent to gain for the Democrats long term sustainable votes and power. To some Democrats this is the beginning and fulfillment of dream of social/democratic society as found in Europe today. Do you want to power plays and finagling we have just witnessed in Congress to become the norm?
As citizens of a State on the brink of financial collapse you must go deep and ask is this where you want to go? Do you want your country to follow? If the citizens would think it through for themselves they would see it is not viable. In the long term this bill will fail to do what it promises and it will collapse in on itself; as has been said "the problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other peoples money". But unless you act now it will be too late to repair the damage.
Hopefully, those against this new legislation will not forget and will replace the democrats who have taken this state to the brink failure and are allowing the country to follow. Remember, “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.
Whether this new health care legislation can be repealed is questionable. Hopefully it is possible. On the positive side 38 states have started legislation or legal action to take the Federal Government to court to stop this legislation because of the individual insurance mandate and the unfunded state Medical mandate. If you are against this bill and you are in a district that has the slightest chance of replacing a Democrat with a Republican in the House or the Senate you should contribute as money and time as you can to get it done. And you should get involve now, as soon as you can. Get the right candidates who will promise and prove to you they are for financial solvency. Do this now before the primaries. Don't wait until the fall elections. It may be too late by then.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
My response to Politico's Question: Tea Party movement: How much of a factor in 2010?
The Tea Party Movement is clearly a demonstration that the Silent Majority is no longer silent. In the past the small vocal minorities on the left and right held sway through their passion tipping the scales in political decision. The policies of the current administration have altered the largely conservative majority of the nation to realize how much is a stake if they were to remain silent.
The Tea Party movement will not cause a split between Republican and unaffiliated conservatives. It will first cause rhetoric of politicians to change. We are seeing that now. If behavior does not also change to match the rhetoric citizens of the Tea Party movement will remove politicians on both sides of the aisle who are more interested in their political careers than they are of solving problems.
Those politicians that think bigger government and big spending is the solution will not pass the serious test. There are too many people in this country that are doing the math and they know the "change we can believe in" is smaller government and fewer entitlements. This administration's policies have had the opposite and unintended consequence of altering the public to the dangers of reckless spending.
The Tea Party movement will not cause a split between Republican and unaffiliated conservatives. It will first cause rhetoric of politicians to change. We are seeing that now. If behavior does not also change to match the rhetoric citizens of the Tea Party movement will remove politicians on both sides of the aisle who are more interested in their political careers than they are of solving problems.
Those politicians that think bigger government and big spending is the solution will not pass the serious test. There are too many people in this country that are doing the math and they know the "change we can believe in" is smaller government and fewer entitlements. This administration's policies have had the opposite and unintended consequence of altering the public to the dangers of reckless spending.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)