Tag Archives: budget cuts

Army Strong???

Automatic defense cuts scheduled to begin in January may be higher than expected. The predicted adjustments may be 15 rather than the anticipated 10%.  Will our Armed Forces remain strong enough to protect us?

(AP June 7, 2012) Members of the Bipartisan Policy Center painted a dire picture for the nation’s economy, the military and large and small defense contractors if the automatic reductions occur on Jan. 2, 2013. Based on a special task force’s calculations, the group said the cuts would mean an indiscriminate, across-the-board 15 percent reduction in programs and activities within the military, not the 10 percent that had been estimated.

The gross domestic product also would be reduced by roughly half a percentage point, a blow to a struggling economy. About 1 million defense and non-defense jobs would be lost over two years, causing a spike in unemployment.

Are we going to cut so deep that we lose our strength? Will the drastic changes cause our military, those who fight so we don’t have to, to lose those with the most experience? Is this world safe enough for our Army numbers to be thinned to pre-World War II enrollment?

(ArmyTimes June 7, 2012) That the Army must cut 80,000 soldiers is no secret. But the service now stares down a double-barrel disaster that could decimate the service as you know it — and Congress is squeezing both triggers.

A budget bullet is loaded in the first barrel. The Army wants to use attrition to weed out unwanted soldiers and keep the best and brightest. But thousands of quality soldiers will be forced out unless Congress reloads and agrees to cover the cost.

The other barrel is far more deadly. It holds an Army-piercing round called sequestration, which would eliminate an additional 100,000 soldiers and virtually halt all modernization. That round would be fired Jan. 3, and would cut the Army to pre-World War II numbers.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has described these cuts as “catastrophic,” “inflicting severe damage to our national defense for generations,” and “shooting ourselves in the head.”

Not only will the military feel direct impact of the cuts but defense contractors such as Boeing have already been forced to make changes and are looking at further drastic cuts to their forces. Our unemployment is still over 8% will these additional contractor cuts raise it even higher?

(DefenseNews June 1, 2012) Another round of dramatic U.S. defense budget cuts will be “devastating” to the arms industry and will force thousands of people out of their jobs, American corporate giant Boeing warned June 1.

Boeing’s defense business has already seen its workforce slashed by around 8,000 people to 61,000 over the past two years as a result of a $500 billion U.S. defense budget cut currently being implemented.

However, there is also the potential for automatic defense spending cuts, called sequestration, totaling another $500 billion over 10 years from 2013 if the U.S. Congress does not reach a deal on slashing the country’s deficit.

In the efforts to save money soldiers must follow the new rules of engagement which include, “even if under fire, they cannot shoot back if the hadji is more than 30 feet away.” Why? Because they might waste bullets. In Iraq soldiers were given all the ammunition they needed. Now they are issued and it is counted out per man. You run out too bad. Save one for yourself.

So what is the solution? It appears Congress is not willing to do much so it will be up to us. Democrats tell us that proposed legislation to prevent all the cuts in Defense are a “non-starter” for conversation.

One option is to vote in a new administration.

(Washington Examiner May 17, 2012) Romney said such cuts would substantially weaken the nation’s defenses and leave the United States vulnerable to future threats. He pledged to nearly double naval shipbuilding.

“America must have a military so strong no one would ever think of testing it,” Romney said at a campaign stop in Jacksonville, Fla., Thursday. “So rather than cut back on the number of ships we buy per year as the president would … I’d go from the nine we’re planning on building to 17 a year.”

Romney has also promised to increase the Air Force and add about 100,000 active-duty personnel.

After all, don’t we want, no, need to be Army Strong???

Democrats Undermining Defense for Over 200 Years

24's Chloe O'Brian can tell you about the problems with drone technology.

Stephen Budiansky — author of Perilous Fight: America’s Intrepid War with Britain on the High Seas, 1812–1815 ­— has written an excellent book that inadvertently reveals Democrat politicians — in feverish pursuit of imaginary utopias — have been busy undermining our national defense for the past 200 years.

It began with Thomas Jefferson, whose fantasy was the noble agrarian. The rural, independent farmer who was vastly superior to the menial paid worker found in urban areas up North. Jefferson’s was a corrupt vision built on a foundation of parasitical slavery and human degradation that allowed the “massa” at the top to pursue his noble life of the mind, while the overseer drove the slaves.

The fact that Jefferson, and many of the planter aristocracy, was chronically in debt because he couldn’t even make a slave economy produce a profit does not in any way detract from his fantasy. And he wasn’t concerned that many of the devices that made large plantations feasible — notably the cotton gin, invented by a Yankee — and life in the manor house comfortable were manufactured by those same Northern wage slaves.

During his term Jefferson was faced by an arrogant Britain that seized US merchant ships, impressed US sailors into the Royal Navy and blockaded US ports. Ignoring reality, Jefferson believed a strong navy was somehow a threat to agrarianism and liberty.

The rational response would have been to start building frigates. Jefferson’s response was to cut $ 1.1 million from the Navy’s proposed $ 2.1 million budget. Budiansky writes Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, asserted that the cost of building a navy always exceeded the value of the commerce it saved. And Gallatin claimed US merchant ships had no right to government protection once they sailed outside the US territorial three–mile limit.

Jefferson’s solution was to build a fleet of 50 small gunboats. These would have done nothing to protect merchant shipping or break the blockade since the overgrown rowboats were so unseaworthy the slightest storm made using the guns impossible. Gunboats would have been ideal if the Royal Navy could have been persuaded to engage us in a swimming pool, but otherwise his gunboats were totally unsuited for naval warfare.

Replace gunboats with drones and you are close to current Democrat thinking on naval and defense policy. Jefferson starved the Navy in the belief he was protecting his fellow slaveholder’s liberty. Obama protects his fellow Democrat politicians by starving the military so he can use the money to keep voters on the government dependency plantation.

Obama has already signed off on defense cuts that total nearly $800 billion over the next ten years and this total does not include the $500 billion cut looming in January if sequestration takes effect.

These cuts mean that while Obama claims the military will be “pivoting” toward the Pacific in an effort to counter Chinese influence, they may as well be performing a “plie” for all the good it will do. Obama’s “pivoting” Navy will have fewer carrier groups than it does today. Which brings us to the drones. Leading Obama advisors advocate buying fewer carrier–based fighters and shifting the emphasis to unmanned combat drones.

Unfortunately, there is a significant difference between using a drone to incinerate a handful of jihadis careening about the countryside in a VW bus and using drones to establish air superiority. Anyone who has ever watched 24’s Chloe O’Brian lose a suspect after the car drives into a tunnel knows there are limits to drone technology today, just as there were limits to gunboats in Jefferson’s day.

Obama’s fantasy is even more dangerous than Jefferson’s. In a world where Iran wants nuclear weapons, North Korea is trying to build a way to deliver its atom bomb, and Pakistan is playing hide–the–nuke, Obama dreams of a nuclear–free world and believes the best way to achieve it is for the US to drastically reduce its nuclear deterrent and ignore missile defense.

This is the open–mic flexibility he was talking about during his second term in his meeting with Russian President Medevev.

You may be surprised to know that the mission of the Department of Defense under Obama does not include defending you from a missile attack. Obama big thinkers truly believe missile defense is “destabilizing” and actually serves to increase the danger of nuclear war. Of course in the event of a miscalculation on their part and resulting nuclear attack, elected officials, appointees and assorted hangers–on will be whisked away to protective bunkers while the rest of us watch the sky for really bright lights.

A reality–based defense policy would put a priority on protecting Americans from potential missile attacks and offering a credible deterrent to would–be attackers. Much like Israel does for its citizens today.

But that would mean Obama has to abandon a 200–year Democrat tradition: short–sighted defense cuts in pursuit of impossible goals.

A Better Way To Cut The Deficit

The Congressional Supercommittee has failed to come up with a deficit reduction plan. Personally, I’m thankful for that, since the very existence of the “supercommittee” was a Constitutional violation.

I won’t get into a long explanation here of the debated cuts-which-weren’t-actually-cuts, or the sequestration of funds, or the odd process by which the supercommittee would have presented a bill. It would be too much like explaining a Rube Goldberg invention.

Instead, I’ll discuss the other budget proposal, the one which the supercommittee apparently never considered: Just stop spending!

Let me explain: According to the Congressional Budget Office, a “cut” includes any reduction in planned future spending, even if the total amount spent is greater than current spending. To use Neil Cavuto’s analogy, it’s similar to a diet where a person plans to gain 100 pounds in ten years, but instead only gains 50 pounds and calls it a “reduction”. The “cuts” the supercommittee considered were “cuts” of this type.

The Tea Party proposal, which wasn’t even considered by the supercommittee, would have frozen federal spending for ten years. That’s it. Project the federal budget for 2021 at $3.8 trillion- the current amount.

By CBO’s standard, this would have scored as a $9 trillion cut over ten years- and bring federal spending into virtual balance.

This proposal presents one challenge: Certain areas of federal spending will naturally increase over time- namely, Social Security (as new retirees begin collecting benefits), interest payments on the national debt, and “other federal mandatory spending” (the U.S. government’s contractual obligations).

In order to offset these anticipated increases over the long term, actual cuts would be needed in other areas immediately. To give an idea of the shape of these cuts, here is a pie chart (image right) of federal spending from 2010 (the current proportions are very similar).

Something you’ll notice right away: 80% of the federal budget is made up of just six expenses: Social Security, the Department of Defense, other federal mandatory spending, Medicare, Medicaid/SCHIP, and interest on the national debt. The other 20% is “everything else“.

The Tea Party proposal didn’t include specific cuts. Simply an agreement to freeze the budget would have been a huge victory. I’ll take a little license here and make some “proposals” of my own to keep the budget amount at roughly $3.8 trillion for ten years.

1) Freezing the military budget isn’t a bad thing. Admiral Mike Mullen offered a $100 billion reduction is DoD spending in 2010, which he said could be accomplished without making major changes to our military posture, defunding current operations, or defaulting on contractual obligations. I’ll take Adm. Mullen at his word, and assume that these cuts could also be implemented in the form of reducing expenditures over time by freezing the military budget (and assuming that some of our current operations will end within the next ten years).

2) Offset growth in “other federal mandatory spending” by cutting in other areas. The “other federal mandatory spending” category is made up of the federal government’s contractual obligations- military and civil service pensions, federal unemployment extension funds promised to the states, food stamp and HEAP funds, etc.

It goes without saying that there is substantial work to be done in reducing (and in some cases, eliminating) these expenditures- but this is work that can only be done over the long-term. Among these solutions would be transferring responsibility for food and heating assistance to the states, privatizing long-term unemployment insurance, converting future federal pensions into defined contribution programs, and the like. Naturally, some of the solution to these expenses is fixing our broken economy, which is far too long a subject for this post.

In the short term (i.e. over the next ten years), the amount of these expenses would have to be offset.

3) Paul Ryan is right- privatize Medicare (and block-grant Medicaid). Ryan’s plan, which includes an $18,000 annual premium subsidy and, for low-income seniors, a cash account of up to $9,500 to offset out-of-pocket expenses, will reduce the projected cost increases of Medicare- but it will still increase in cost as more baby boomers enter retirement.

Offset these increases by cutting Medicaid funding by 20% or more, and block-granting the remaining funds to the states. Federal regulations add to the states’ cost of supplying Medicaid, so cutting regulations offsets some of the reductions in funds. Let the states decide how to spend the rest of the money- for example, Mitch Daniels’ highly-effective (and cost-reducing) “Healthy Indiana Plan”.

Also: It strikes me as a total failure of the GOP message machine that the generous amounts proposed by Ryan- $18,000 in insurance premiums and $9,500 in a cash account- weren’t being used to sell the idea. Imagine this conversation by pundits on TV:

Democrat Pundit: “Ryan’s plan will kill Medicare, which is a great program!”
Republican Pundit: “Seniors would get up to $27,000 every year to buy insurance and pay out-of-pocket costs, and seniors get to choose their own insurance and keep their own doctor.”

Argument killed.

4) Offset increases in interest payments by cutting departments. Since the budget won’t balance overnight, the national debt would increase in the short-term. This means interest payments on the national debt would increase as well. In the long term, we’ll need strategies for paying down the debt- sale of federal lands, for example- but in the short-term, we can offset the expected increase in interest payments by cutting federal agencies. This is where the “everything else” which makes up 20% of the total budget comes into play.

There are lots of opportunities here- eliminate the Departments of Education, Commerce, and uhh… (yes, I know, it’s an old joke). Cut earmarks and foreign aid. You, the reader, undoubtedly know these talking points by now, so I won’t waste your time repeating them.

5) The big one: Social Security. This is the area which will grow exponentially over the next ten to fifteen years, as the Baby Boom generation enters retirement. It’s also a political minefield: Freezing social security payment amounts would mean political suicide for the GOP.

Again, there’s a long-term fix for Social Security in the form of privatization. But, as with any long-term solution, there’s a short-term problem to address as well.

What’s needed here is a “bold plan” (please forgive the Herman Cain-ism), and Walter Williams has one: Offer an exchange of Social Security payments for a federal land grant. The federal government currently holds 29% of the landmass of the continental United States- nearly 650 million acres. Offering this land to those who will enter Social Security in 10-20 years, in exchange for their Social Security payments, could accomplish two things:

a) offset projected Social Security expenses;

b) create a demand for development in the states where this land is held- Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Nevada, etc.- for new home construction, road development, electrical, natural gas, and water supply systems, service-oriented businesses such as grocery stores and restaurants, and the like.

I think this is a terrific idea, and merits much more attention than it currently recieves.

In sum: It’s easy to overcome the budget hyperbole from both sides of the aisle and see a solution to our budget problems. All you need is a calculator, a pie chart, and Occam’s razor.

State Medicaid Budgets Slashed / Where's the Outrage?

As we see President Obama currently campaigning across America and telling citizens that Republicans are out to hurt the poor, pollute the air and push Granny off the cliff, we see that the President’s administration is approving cuts to State medicaid healthcare programs, some of the them seeing as much as a 10% total reduction in funding. With medicaid costs soaring, many state budgets are on the verge of insolvency. Driven by higher enrollment and medical costs,  Medicaid spending was projected to rise an average of 11.2% in fiscal 2011, which ended in June, from $427 billion in 2010, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers. We were promised that healthcare costs would go down for everyone if Obama-care was passed into law, yet it is proving to do just the opposite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For fiscal year 2012, the association estimated state Medicaid spending will rise 19%, largely because of the end of the federal stimulus dollars.

Medicaid enrollment has exploded in large part due to the mandates in Obama-care that has made healthcare insurance so expensive that companies could no longer afford to offer it to their workers. While the stimulus package was touted as a way to spur the economy through such things as “shovel-ready-jobs” a huge part of it was spent to shore up over-burdened State Medicaid budgets caused by, you guessed it, the passing of Obama-care. If this was not the case, then why has the Obama administration had to hand out over 1300 Obama-care waivers, which temporarily allows health insurers to offer low cost plans,( which is outlawed in Obama-care) as of May, 2011?

Using federal stimulus dollars to prop up exploding medicaid costs due to Obama-care forcing millions of more people to be put on Medicaid rolls was just another gimmick to try to cover up the truth about the Liberal Democrats so-called health-care reform. As the stimulus dollars dried up, states are forced to make steep cuts to their Medicaid programs. This will hurt folks who had health care insurance from work before the passage of Obama-care, but are now on medicaid, plus the poorest of the poor. Where is the outrage?

Check this out for just one example of what is being done to the poor people on medicaid today:  More States limiting Medicaid hospital stays. What stands out the most in that article is the fact that many States have already received federal approval to cut Medicaid budgets, yet those facts have largely been hidden from us. Arizona, which last year stopped covering certain transplants for several months, plans to limit adult Medicaid recipients to 25 days of hospital coverage a year, starting as soon as the end of October.

Hawaii plans to cut Medicaid coverage to 10 days a year in April, the fewest of any state.

Both efforts require federal approval, which state officials consider likely because several other states already restrict hospital coverage.

Many states will simply refuse to discharge a patient who needs to stay the full time in the hospital, and say they will just eat the extra costs, but how long will they be able to keep their doors open under that scenario? Where is the outrage about [Democrat] Governor Jerry Brown cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from Medi-Cal, with the Obama administration’s approval?  Where is the outrage ?

Los Angeles Times: California Gets OK For Large Cuts To Medi-Cal
The Obama administration will allow California to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from Medi-Cal, a move doctors and experts say will make it harder for the poor to get medical treatment. California plans to reduce rates by 10 percent to many providers, including physicians, dentists, clinics, pharmacies and most nursing homes, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced Thursday (Gorman, 10/28) Where is the outrage on how Obama and the far left Liberals in California want the poorest of the poor in California to go without medical care?

North Carolina is facing the same dilemma of medicaid budget cuts as California:

Associated Press/Houston Chronicle: Different Takes On NC Medicaid Shortfall Argued
Republican budget-writers and Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue’s administration quarreled Thursday over why North Carolina’s Medicaid program could face a $139 million shortfall this coming year. State health regulators told the Legislature’s chief oversight committee they’re falling short of meeting $356 million in net reductions for the division that oversees Medicaid, the government-run health care plan for poor children, older adults and the disabled. They said the savings are difficult, if not impossible to come by this year in part due to slow enrollment of the chronically ill in the state’s managed-care arm (Robertson, 10/27).

What has exasperated this problem is the fact that in the 2010 elections, Republicans were elected into governments across America and are now facing actual truth in numbers about their State budgets, many of which are mandated by law to be balanced annually. State budget battles are exposing the exploding medicaid cost-burdens being forced onto state budgets due to Obama-care mandates, and the attempt to hide these costs through federal tax dollars being  funneled to state medicaid programs through the stimulus package. 

With Republicans holding a majority in the House of Representatives today, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid no longer have carte blanche to use federal tax dollars to hide the disastrous effects Obama-care is having on State budgets across America.  This idea that “everyone gets free healthcare” with the passing of Obama-care is now proving to be nothing more than a Liberal fairy tale heavily rooted in the denial of the reality that comes with Obama-care.  When Barack Obama says he will insure an extra 35 million Americans through Obama-care, he conveniently refuses to tell the people just who he will steal from in order to pay for it. He started the whole thing off by taking $500 billion dollars from Senior’s Medicare to pay for Obama-care, and he is counting on Seniors to be naive enough to believe it was somehow Republicans who were pushing Granny off a cliff, and thus con them into voting for four more years of Barack Obama’s thievery from one class of citizens to another.     2012 just can’t get here fast enough!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Boehner Releases Framework of Debt Ceiling Deal

John BoehnerOn Sunday night, Obama announced that a deal on the debt ceiling had been reached. While House minority leader Nancy Pelosi was saying that some or none of her Democrats might vote for the proposal, House Speaker Boehner held a conference with the leaders on the right side of the aisle.

Later Sunday night, he released the details of the framework on his website.

The framework is a two-step increase with a trigger:

Phase one is an immediate $900 Billion increase to the debt ceiling that will hold the government over until roughly February. In exchange for that increase, discretionary spending will be cut and capped immediately which will save $917 Billion over ten years. In an effort to prevent the increase from happening without the savings (remember Reagan anyone?), the ceiling increase will not occur until Congress and the President implement the spending cuts. This would signal that a short term measure will need to be passed to allow a small debt limit increase (perhaps a week’s worth) while Congress irons out the spending cuts.

Phase two: The President can ask for a second debt limit increase of $1.5 Trillion if either a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is sent to the states for ratification or a the recommendation of a 12-member special committee are implemented that would save more than $1.5 Trillion.

The trigger: Specific spending caps would be put in-place to limit spending. If the government fails to remain below these limits, it will trigger across-the-board cuts to government spending. The trigger is specifically hit if the Joint Committee fails to achieve at least a drop of $1.2 Trillion in the deficit. Once the trigger fires-off, the President can request another $1.2 trillion increase in the debt-limit. If the increase is passed, across-the-board cuts in all government spending equal to the difference between $1.2 trillion and the amount of the deficit reduction enacted by Congress. These cuts would be equally applied to mandatory and discretionary spending, both defense and non-defense. While Medicare would be included in the cuts, Social Security, Medicaid, veterans benefits and government pay (civilian and military) would not be affected.

One way to read the summary presentation from Boehner is that the triggers could cause the spending cuts to be split 50-50 between Defense and Medicare spending. Some reports have said that the Medicare spending would only affect providers (hospitals, doctors, suppliers) not beneficiaries.

As a final note, the framework includes no tax hikes, but the committee will be free to recommend them as a method for reducing the deficit.

 

Obama: 80% Favor Balanced Approach [Fact Check]

Obama reiterated several times in this morning’s presser that 80% of voters favored a balanced approach to the debt problem. The President’s idea of a balanced approach is equal tax hikes and budget cuts. Unfortunately, there isn’t a single poll to support his delusion.

A Rasumussen Report poll indicates that only 45% would favor tax increasese in the debt ceiling deal. Reading into the poll further and statistics show that mainstream voters oppose tax hikes in the debt deal by a 68%-22% margin. That would indicate that only 32% of mainstream Americans would like to see tax hikes in the budget deal at all. So where did President Obama get the magic 80% number he spouted so often this morning? Revisionist use of a Gallup Poll:

Americans do not favor a balanced approachObama took the reverse view of the first statistic. While worded to downplay tax hikes, the poll gives a result that 20% of respondents would favor a budget deal with only spending cuts in it. So Obama took the reverse and said that 80% favor a balanced approach (equal tax and cut). Unfortunately, the very poll he sought to use tells a different story. Only 32% of Americans said they favor equal tax hikes and spending cuts. And the poll also shows that 50% of respondents want only/mostly a deal with spending cuts. Less than 12% want a deal with only/mostly tax hikes.

Then again, the Obama administration has said that most Americans don’t pay attention to this debt ceiling stuff. A recent poll says otherwise:

Eighty-five percent (85%) of voters are following the debt ceiling story at least Somewhat Closely. That figure includes 48% who are following it Very Closely. Older voters are following the story more closely than younger voters.

Obama is once again painting a false picture in hopes that Americans will believe it enough to make it true. Most voters do NOT want job-killing tax hikes in the budget deal. Most of us ARE paying attention to the debt ceiling talks. And finally, Mr. President, most voters don’t like you very much right now (polls actually back that assertion up).

THE FEDERAL BUDGET—AN EASY MORAL SOLUTION

Budget CutsMany believe the concept of balancing the Federal budget is not only an economic problem but also moral one. The importance of protecting the poor, vulnerable and down-trodden while balancing a budget is of concern. When considering morality in writing about budget cuts, why not consult the writings of the creator of morality, God Himself?

Some of God’s laws in the Old Testament commanded that those who owned farms/lands were to leave part of their crop in the field when harvesting. This was left for the poorer people to reap. However, the Lord expected these poor people to reap the left-over crops in the field themselves. Even the poorer of the land had to get off their butts and go glean the fields if they did not want to starve to death.

Leviticus 19:9-10 —- “When you harvest your crops, do not harvest the grain along the edges of your fields, and do not pick up what the harvesters drop. It is the same with your grape crop—do not strip every last bunch of grapes from the vines, and do not pick up the grapes that fall to the ground. Leave them for the poor and the foreigners who live among you, for I, the Lord, am your God.

The good book clearly shows that the Lord is a protector of aliens, the down-trodden, orphans and widows. The Bible is loaded with verses which clearly state that it is God’s will that the poor and helpless be taken care of. Fact of the matter is the Lord, through His prophets, soundly rebukes healthy, well-off people for thinking only of their wants and desires, and forgetting about the needs of orphans, widows, aliens and the handicapped. However, the Lord is not a ‘provider’ for lazy people or people who wallow in their sinful lifestyles.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 —- For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.

It is not the Church’s responsibility to feed people slothful dregs — period! The compassion of God does not extend to providing for those lazy (i.e. slugs, sloths, parasites, leeches, etc.) type of people who have the ability to take care of themselves and yet refuse to.

Proverbs 19:15 —- A lazy person sleeps soundly—and goes hungry.

I believe the ‘orphan/widow’ situation going on in America today is a lot different than the orphan/widow situation that was going on in past historical times. For literally thousands of years women were dependent on a husband. Societies recognized the husband as the bread winner. The husband many times literally brought home the ‘bacon’ (i.e. monkey, deer, fish, turkey, snake, alligator, etc.) This was even the common sense way it was in America until the women’s lib days of the sixties—and look at the mess that the “I am women, hear me roar” philosophy has got the husband/wife relationship into these days!

Now I am quite aware that not all people who starved to death did so because they were lazy. Famines and plagues have caused the death of millions upon millions of innocent, hard-working people. However, these people did not die for lack of trying to live.

If people/individuals are going to a  ‘home’ church and they suddenly find themselves in need of spiritual, financial, physical or emotional help, the other more fortunate people in that specific church should help them out. It should work this way in every church—in any country. If a country is striving to be spiritually moral and righteous there will be no need for government run assistance programs.  Unfortunately, many in America these days don’t go to church anymore–and yet they expect ‘help’ from charitable organizations. There was a time when Christian Churches did not help those who continually refused to attend a church, or those people who were not willing to repent of their laziness, sexual promiscuity or drunkenness.

1Timothy 5:8 —– But those who won’t care for their own relatives (especially those living in the same household) have rejected what we teach. Such people are worse than pagans.

There are many people who refuse to attend a church, who refuse to work, and yet they still expect organizations and/or programs to feed them. If both the government and the church stopped the practice of feeding healthy lazy people we would see an amazing change in this country’s work ethic. People would be more willing to take whatever job they could get if they knew no one was going to give them handouts!

We have many ‘orphans’ because we have a nation full of males (not men) who enjoy the pleasure of breeding with females who have no real concern about becoming responsible husbands and fathers. The children are the innocent parties in these immoral mating rituals and are most definitely to be helped/assisted in whatever way possible. The immoral parents are another story.

People make sexual mistakes. However, I believe that most of the sexual immorality going on today in America is not the result of heated sexual moments of weakness. The sexual freedom going on today in America is a result of a lack of concern for sexual purity (i.e. God’s morality.) To a lot of people in America words like: chastity, purity and virginity are words to laugh and joke about. However, these same people are not laughing about the 50 or so sexually transmitted diseases they are spreading amongst themselves like a plague. And sadly, these same sexually active disease carriers have no problem getting ‘free’ medical help (through one governmental agency or another) for the diseases caused by their sexual promiscuity!

American tax-payers are spending a fortune assisting people who are in the financial or physical situation they are in because of sin; the sin of sexual immorality; the sin of laziness; the sin of stealing; the sin of corruption; and the sin of greed, the sin of coveting, etc.

I personally do not see a moral dilemma when making large cuts to our government ‘entitlement’ programs. The only budget ‘dilemma’ cut I see, is trying to separate those who really need help from those who are scamming the system.

I do not believe it should be the government’s job (or place) to feed, school, hire or to be an employment agency. It is definitely not government’s job (or place) to give out free health insurance to everyone who asks for it. The federal government (of the America) was founded and established mainly for the purpose of protecting its citizens from foreigners who want to do us harm, and then to uphold the federal Laws (Bible based laws) initially established by our Founding Fathers–period.

Way too many Americans have become like the drug addict who is dependent on the drug dealer for their fix. In some ways the lazy, scheming American slug/parasite who continually feeds of the tax-payer’s dime is even worse than the drug addict because even the drug addict has to come up with ways to provide monies in order to get their drug. The drug addict does not lie around all day watching Oprah and eating fat foods. Even the drug addict knows that if they have no income, they get no drugs! And by the way, we HAVE TO make prisoners feel uncomfortable while locked up. Prisons are not supposed to be like the local YMCA! We do not want prisoners committing crimes knowing that if they do get caught it is not a big deal because life in the prison is really not that bad! Let’s make it bad! Prison should be a place where bad people ‘suffer’ for the crimes they committed. We need to stop babying prisoners in this country. America wastes billions of dollars helping hard-core, ‘not about to change’ criminals in this country. We could ‘eliminate’ a lot of these criminals if America went back to the death sentence for murderers, rapists and child molesters (and those lawyers who defend them, and those judges who give light sentences!)

So I say, let’s continue to force American politicians to end wasteful spending by voting in real conservatives who care more for the nation than they do for the individual. Let’s pass laws which require politicians to keep a balanced budget. Let’s pass laws which require us to chop Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to the bare bones if need be. We MUST stop listening to ‘cries’ of bleeding-heart liberals who use deceptively use Grandma Moses and Baby Jane in their anti-budget cuts campaigns. Believe me when I tell you that children will not starve to death if we make deep and drastic budget cuts! Old people will not be thrown into the streets if we make huge changes to Medicare and Medicaid. We live in the most generous nation on the planet. When disasters hit this planet, Americans give much more than any other country. Trust me, if we make major cuts to our nearly bankrupt tax-payer funded entitlement programs, American citizens will be there to help the true orphans and widows, the down-trodden and the handicapped.

For those who will suffer because of their sinful lifestyles, I say—make them work (wherever, doing whatever), get clean, be productive, get themselves educated, or let them starve. Trust me they will choose to work rather than starve!

Chris Christie: None of Your Business

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie tells a constituent that it’s “none of your business” when she asks why he sends his kids to private school.

Gov. Chrisitie nails the voter in a 3 point argument:

Christie pays property taxes for a system he doesn’t even use

Gov. Christie and his wife pay $38,000 annually in property taxes but don’t use the services. He helps fund the system and therefor has a say in how they function – whether he uses them or not. This is the argument for school vouchers so that parents could choose whatever kind of school they want and use the money they pay into the system (or not) to fund it.

Christie and his wife want religion in their children’s education

Christie chose a private parochial school because they wanted their children to have their faith involved in their schooling.

Governor Christie is the Governor of the Whole State

Chris Christie has to make the right decisions for all children in the state, not just his own. What if he had no kids? Would that make him unqualified to make decisions on how best to fund the public school system?

The constituent was going for a gotcha moment and got gotcha’d by the governor. Perhaps a teacher herself, or at a minimum a liberal, she didn’t think her point all the way through. A governor (or any executive) makes decisions that impact the entirety of their office. Does he have to be a truck driver to sign legislation on trucking safety? Does he have to be a manufacturer to entice factories to come to his state? No. He also does not have to have children in public school in order to improve the decaying system. In fact, his exposure to private schools might bring new ideas to a 1960’s era system that is stuck in a mode of abject failure.

Tim Pawlenty’s “Better Deal”

On Tuesday, Tim Pawlenty announced his “Better Deal” for the American economy. The plan may be appetizing to Conservative voters and contains many ideas that even moderates should be able to latch on to.

Pawlenty starts by proposing a basic re-write of the tax code – corporate, business, individual, investment .. all of it.

For businesses, his plan modifies the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%, end tax loopholes, eliminate subsidies, and allows small and medium businesses to take advantage of the corporate tax rate.

The plan also changes the individual income tax mess into a – not-quite-flat – two tiered system:

  • Individuals making $50,000 or more will be taxed at 25%
  • Individuals making less than $50,000 will pay a 10% tax on income

It does not appear that Tim Pawlenty’s plan gets rid of individual tax deductions as one part of his contains the phrase, “Married couples making $50,000  or lower will have an effective 0% tax rate”. This indicates that there is either a third bracket for that demographic or there is a credit that when two people apply it would equal up to $5,000 – thereby cancelling out the up to $5,000 in taxes they would owe on incomes of that size. With a 25% tax rate at $50,000 I would imagine there would have to be some deductions as a married couple making $100,000 would be required to pay $25,000 in income taxes. That would certainly be an increase as that demographic currently has an effective income tax rate much lower than that.

The “Better Deal” also seeks to spur investment by eliminating capital gains, dividend, and the so-called “death” or estate tax. Encouraging Americans to save more would make it much easier to be less-dependent upon the government for periods of unemployment or upon retirement.

Pawlenty’s plan also addresses the nearly insurmountable debt that the federal government has taken on. He would push for a balanced budget amendment that caps federal spending at 18% of GDP. Should Congress still fail to balance the budget, the proposed amendment would also grant the President the power to impound up to 5% of Federal spending and freeze spending at current levels until the budget is balanced.

To try and shrink the size of government, the proposed plan would implement the Lean Six Sigma process – used in large companies to streamline processes and reduce wasteful effort – with the promise of saving federal agencies of up to 20%.

Gov. Pawlenty also proposed several initiatives to remove obstacles from businesses. Much of it seems centered on trade agreements with South Korea, Columbia, Panama, and others. But, it also seeks to limit the mandate of the Federal Reserve to focus only on price stability.

One aspect to his plan that is almost certainly in response to the attempt of the current administration to use regulations to skirt Congress is that it requires the sunsetting of all federal regulations unless Congress explicitly re-authorizes them.

There are many promising aspects of Pawlenty’s plan. The approach is probably the safest way to approach entitlement reform. Force it to happen without actually talking about it. The proposed changes, if ever enacted, would certainly cause severe cuts to something – something big.

Conservatives Want to Turn U.S. into Pakistan .. or something

The New York Times .. I could probably stop there, but Nicholas Kristof’s intellectually dishonest op-ed deserves rebuke.

Kristof’s post asserts that Republicans’ strategy will amount to turning the United States into a backwards, military-led, middle-eastern-like country (emphasis mine).

With Tea Party conservatives and many Republicans balking at raising the debt ceiling, let me offer them an example of a nation that lives up to their ideals.

It has among the lowest tax burdens of any major country:fewer than 2 percent of the people pay any taxes. Government is limited, so that burdensome regulations never kill jobs.

This society embraces traditional religious values and a conservative sensibility. Nobody minds school prayer, same-sex marriage isn’t imaginable, and criminals are never coddled.

The budget priority is a strong military, the nation’s most respected institution. When generals decide on a policy for, say, Afghanistan, politicians defer to them. Citizens are deeply patriotic, and nobody burns flags.

So what is this Republican Eden, this Utopia? Why, it’s Pakistan.

Now obviously Sarah Palin and John Boehner don’t intend to turn Washington into Islamabad-on-the-Potomac. And they are right that long-term budget issues do need to be addressed. But when many Republicans insist on “starving the beast” of government, cutting taxes, regulations and social services — slashing everything but the military — well, those are steps toward Pakistan.

Riiiiiight. Absolutist argumentation. If we cut government spending – at all – we will be living in squalor with a military-run government.

Federal Budget Surplus/deficitThe truth is that Conservatives do not want to remove all government spending, in direct contradiction to Nicholas’ post. But, we don’t need to spend Americans’ tax dollars on abortions, art festivals, Libya, research on shrimp on treadmills, NPR, the NLRB, over a trillion in stimulus that went to fund Unions and democratic campaigns (and brought no jobs), Obamacare, and so much more.

According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans disagree with the Times columnist. 73% believe government spends too much on programs and only 22% believe the government takes in too little in taxes.

Government has been the only answer to almost every problem since 1965 and it’s being proven wrong. The postal system is going broke and can’t fix itself, Medicare can’t handle its costs and will be bankrupt in a matter of years, Social Security has been robbed by the spend-happy liberals for decades and their answer is to keep the status quo. That’s not an answer, that’s restating the problem and pretending it is its own solution.

No one disputes the facts that Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid will go broke if they are allowed to continue as-is. There simply isn’t enough money in the economy to pay for benefits when less than half of Americans pay income taxes. Conservative Republicans have led by offering multiple solutions – all of which the Democrats have simply defeated or refused to vote on. The only plan coming from Democrats is to keep things as they are.

The liberal assertion is that we can’t reform any entitlement programs because we will be heading down a slippery slope that will end in America turning into something resembling a third-world country. The truth is that bankruptcy is upon us and if we do nothing to reform our spending to levels that our economy can support – we will be envying those third world nations.

 

 

Democrat Plan Will Cause Country to Die Sooner

Kathleen SebeliusObama-appointed Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius is supporting President Obama and congressional liberals in their concerted effort to kill America sooner.

To make sure that no critically-thinking Americans stop them on their reckless spending binge, Kathleen channeled the oratory prowess of Alan Grayson who last year told us that Republicans want us to “die quickly”. In her testimony to the House Education and Workforce Committee, Sebelius echoed Mr. Grayson’s concerns.

“If you run out of the government voucher and then you run out of your own money, you’re left to scrape together charity care, go without care, die sooner. There really aren’t a lot of options.”

The left-wing extremists in our government know that any cut to entitlements threatens there very base of power. They buy votes by handing out gifts from the treasury. Americans have to be bold enough to say, no thank you Madame Secretary, we can’t afford this anymore – we can’t afford YOU anymore.

It is becoming obvious that voters are going to be barraged with an entire line of messaging based on only emotion – no facts, no realization that we’re broke, no compromise – just pure emotion. We’ll be told that any cuts will harm children, kill grandma, or cause the earth to be destroyed by global warming/climate change/human-caused disasters or whatever.  The truth is that if nothing is done, everyone will be harmed, all children will suffer, everybody will die quicker.

If we do not cut entitlements – the nation will fall into bankruptcy. Look at Greece, Ireland, Portugal, the list goes on.

Democrats aren’t coming up with any solutions, just poking holes in the well-thought plans of the House Republicans – Paul Ryan’s plan. Instead. senate democrats are position a status-quo Medicare bill as having savings in it. Senate Budget Committee Charman Kent Conrad (D-ND) is proposing a Medicare bill as a contrast to the House GOP plan. Unfortunately for America, there is absolutely zero deficit reduction in the bill.

“There are savings in Medicare, modest savings to pay for the doc fix,” Conrad said.

The doc-fix is Congress’ annual fix to a shortcoming in Medicare that would underpay doctors for their services. The underpayment would be so significant as to force many out-of-practice. Sen. Conrad’s bill proposes unspecified cuts in Medicare so that more money can be paid to physicians, but does nothing to reduce the deficit.

The Democrats plan simply proves that the current Medicare model cannot continue to exist – it must be reformed. It can’t afford to pay doctors and Sen. Conrad’s cuts will reduce services to seniors in some way.

The major differences in Sen. Conrad’s plan and Rep. Ryans is that Ryan’s reform phases in changes so that seniors aren’t immediately affected and that Rep. Ryan’s plan reduces the deficit – Sen. Conrad is fine with the status quo and hurting seniors to keep it that way.

It is expected that progressives would attack Paul Ryan’s honest attempt to save the country from its fiscal mess. Now, it appears that other house GOP members are quietly stepping back from supporting the plan they voted for. Dave Camp, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has already stated that he will not creating the chairman’s mark-up on Ryan’s proposed entitlement reforms.

If the Democrats status quo entitlement plan is allowed to continue, the America our parents and grandparents gave us –  will “die quickly”.

As New WH Deficit Commission Gets Underway, Sessions Debunks President’s ‘Framework’ And Repeats Call For New Budget

“As it stands now, we have no plan to have any real reduction of the deficit we’re facing from this Administration, or the Democratic Senate, let alone a ‘framework’ to reduce it by $4 trillion. But they pretend it’s so, and that’s offensive, and the American people are not happy about it. They know that this Senate and this Congress has a responsibility under the law and under any morality and decency to produce a budget that says what we’re going to do with their money.”

« Older Entries