Tag Archives: debt ceiling

Cities tell Congress: Raise Debt Ceiling Now!

debt-ceiling

The National League of Cities wants Congress to “stop stalling” and “raise the debt ceiling now!” They believe raising the debt ceiling… again… is acting responsibly! No thought is given to cutting spending, they just want to continue holding their hands out for more, more, more! Is there any wonder our National Debt is out of control?

WASHINGTON, Feb. 11, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — National League of Cities (NLC) President Chris Coleman, Mayor of Saint Paul, Minn. today released this statement calling on Congress to raise the U.S. debt ceiling limit:

“As the federal government approaches its debt ceiling, cities call on Congress and the Administration to act responsibly and avoid another fiscal showdown. Let’s not even get close to defaulting on our debt obligations. Cities call on members of both parties to work together to raise the debt ceiling and protect our nation’s economy from the financial disaster that would result following a default.

“As the bipartisan budget act and ‘Farm Bill’ showed, Congress is capable of compromise and working together to get the job done. Rather than squander the legislative time remaining in this session, cities urge Congress to continue moving beyond the era of manufactured crises and instead prioritize investments in cities and their residents that are proven to stimulate economic growth and innovation nationwide. Following years of uncertainty due to the absence of federal leadership during Great Recession, cities need a federal partner that will step up to the plate and provide a foundation for a generation of growth.”

The National League of Cities (NLC) is dedicated to helping city leaders build better communities. NLC is a resource and advocate for 19,000 cities, towns and villages, representing more than 218 million Americans.

Jabberwonky Christians are CRAZY style – October 18th

JabberwonkyCDNFinal

JabberwonkyCDNFinal

When: Friday, October 18th, 11pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Jabberwonky on Blog Talk Radio

What:

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Whether it’s “down the rabbit hole”, or “through the looking glass”, the world of politics is often referred to in the lexicon given to us by Lewis Carroll. No matter what, those terms are resurrected when referring to something that has gone terribly wrong. And that’s what’s here on Jabberwonky…

Tonight: No, you’re not dreaming, or confused. Well, maybe you are a little confused… It’s Friday, not Sunday. The show is on at 11pm Eastern, not 10pm. Jabberwonky obviously has moved, and that’s because there will be a new show on Sunday nights. (More on that later!) For now, Liz is ticked at liberals – nothing new, but this time it’s a little worse than usual. Yes, they have been absolutely disgusting in their political and press porn lately, whether it’s picking on stenographers, or setting up the Republicans for more garbage after the new year. So, listen in to see just what happens when there isn’t anyone around to keep things a little calm!

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

AMAC: there’s a ‘foul odor’ coming from the deal to end the shutdown and raise the debt ceiling

This was no confrontation between them and the Republicans;

it was a showdown between them and the people of this country.

WASHINGTON, DC, Oct 18 – “There’s a foul odor emanating from the nation’s capital that should have Americans wrinkling their noses. It’s the stench of a political power-grab undertaken by ideologues intent on usurping the Constitutional rights of the people,” according to Dan Weber, president of the Association of Mature American Citizens.

Weber said the bargain that ended the partial shutdown of the government and raised the nation’s debt limit was a “deal with the devil. We, the people, wanted reasonable concessions in exchange for the extension of credit-things like spending cuts and controls, a health care law that would treat us and those who enacted the law the same way and much-needed checks on the growth and power of government. We got none of these things because President Obama and his Democratic henchmen dug in their heels and refused to negotiate with us. This was no confrontation between them and the Republicans on the Hill; it was a showdown between them and the people of this country. They threatened rack and ruin and forced us to give in.”

But the AMAC chief noted, it may all come back to bite them. For example, he said, even the president’s closest allies were “appalled by his mule-headed intransigence regarding the request for a delay of Obamacare. Some of his friends even went so far as to call him an inept leader. And, it’s made the mainstream media see the light.”

Weber cited the newspapers that endorsed him, like his hometown paper, the Chicago Tribune, which editorialized this week saying: “There is a growing mountain of evidence that Obamacare has fundamental problems in design and implementation.”

Weber said that the Tribune went on to say what AMAC has been saying all along: “The administration cut a sweet deal for Congress and its staffers, who will continue to get generous federal subsidies. It has allowed any number of carve-outs for special pleaders. A delay in the individual mandate would not be a special favor to American consumers. It’s a matter of fairness.”

Weber said that Obamacare is only part of the problem. “The president has demanded an unfettered trillion dollar extension of his line of credit in the face of dire warnings that upping the debt limit without spending cuts is lunacy. His own Comptroller, Eugene Louis Dodaro, told him that current spending is ‘unsustainable.’ The president’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, meanwhile warned that the size of our national debt is the greatest threat to our national security. But Mr. Obama remains aloof, seemingly disdainful of anyone who dares to criticize his intrusive authority.”

Their Finest Hour with Allan Bourdius – Anarcho-capitalism-style – October 14th

TFHRsquare - 300x300

TFHRsquare - 300x300
When: Monday, October 14th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Their Finest Hour with Allan Bourdius

What: Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it – or to not repeat the parts that should be. We’re in a solemn hour in the cause of freedom, and yes, we’re only ever one generation away from losing it. Allan Bourdius of the Their Finest Hour blog (theirfinesthour.blogspot.com) brings his conservative/libertarian fusion (“conservatarian”) perspective to the events of the day and contextualizes them with facts and history to arm the forces of liberty to better our communities and our society, open eyes, and win converts – so that one day our children, still with freedom intact, can look back and say of us, their parents: “This was their finest hour.”

Tonight: The country’s in the hands of toddlers, at least if you pay attention to the drivel coming from the left. They must have their way, or else! Listen tonight as Allan discusses shutdown, and the debt-ceiling with Twitter’s favorite anarcho-capitalist – Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl). There probably will some talk about bacon, coffee, and potatoes. (Yes, you’ll have to tune in to find out why taters are important!)

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Jabberwonky playing chicken Washington-style – October 13th

JabberwonkyCDNFinal

JabberwonkyCDNFinal

When: Sunday, October 13th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Jabberwonky on Blog Talk Radio

What:

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Whether it’s “down the rabbit hole”, or “through the looking glass”, the world of politics is often referred to in the lexicon given to us by Lewis Carroll. No matter what, those terms are resurrected when referring to something that has gone terribly wrong. And that’s what’s here on Jabberwonky…

Tonight: Maybe they’ll make a deal, maybe they won’t. Who stands to win in this battle over the budget and debt ceiling? Who will blink first? We’ll be talking about the possible outcomes tonight, and probably will talk at least a little about bacon – because @MissRuth1021 will be stopping by.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Federal Government: Embarrassing to the Point of Painful

As the so-called “government shutdown” drags on, one thing is hard not to admit: the Obama Administration is acting in a manner that is attempting to extract the maximum amount of pain on the American people. While many are wondering how it came to this point, those of us who actually paid attention in Social Studies, Civics and American History classes – school subjects that are, today, given little, if any, attention –
understand it’s because the US Constitution and the purity of the original governmental process has been raped by the opportunistic political class.

Our nation has always had a robust political discourse, commencing from before we were even a documented nation. We have always been represented by a passionate, spirited political class; strong in their beliefs, but educated and knowledgeable enough to legislate and govern for the good of all the people. Today, this is not the case.

Today, we have a political class that insists on the importance of ideologically motivated political “achievements” over the honest representation of the American people; loyalty to political faction – of which each and every Framer and Founder warned – over loyalty to those who delivered them to power via the ballot box.

Today, we literally have people in the political class that have an inferior command of the English language, an inferior and under-performing understanding of the principles of the Constitution and the Charters of Freedom, and a devotion to Progressivism; a non-indigenous, Marxist-based ideology that believes the State is the Alpha and the Omega; the giver of rights and the final arbiter of freedom and liberty.

Today, we have a government that does not – does not – serve the American people, evidenced – in a singular point – by the overwhelming and sustained majority of Americans who do not want the Affordable Care Act implemented on any level.

FOX News reports:

Is the Obama administration employing a make-it-hurt strategy to gain political leverage in the budget battle on Capitol Hill?

Republicans are making that charge as the stalemate drags on, and point to the Pentagon furlough of 400,000 civilian staffers — even though Congress passed and the president signed a bill to supposedly keep them on the job…

Republicans argue that the intent of the law was to keep them on the job, and that the Obama administration “narrowly interpreted” it against congressional intent in order to furlough more employees.

It’s one example of how, Republicans say, the administration is making the partial shutdown of government services worse than it needs to be. Many have complained about the National Park Service cordoning off even open-air monuments in Washington, DC, such as the World War II Memorial.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), responded to criticisms by saying, “It is time for Speaker Boehner to stop the games.”

Shamefully, FOX also reported that correspondence on this situation has stalled because, as Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), stated, “Unfortunately, most of the staff who draft congressional correspondence are furloughed.”

A few notes on this shameful situation.

First, and to be equally critical to both sides, if “staffers that draft congressional correspondence” have been furloughed, perhaps those elected to Congress should learn to (and actually) write their own correspondence.

Second, to the Progressives, Democrats and our embarrassing President, it is never “game-playing” when the taxpayer’s money is being spent. It is “game-playing” when members of our military who have been maimed and permanently injured can’t get medical care because the politically opportune refuse to entertain appropriations passed through a traditional method (not every spending bill has to be an omnibus package, in fact traditionally, the 12 appropriation bills have been passed separately).

House Republicans “screwed the pooch” when they didn’t advance ACA funding as a separate, stand-alone appropriations bill from the start. When House Speaker Boehner stated that this Congress would operate under “regular order” he should have stated that the House would be de-bundling all legislation into stand-alone pieces, shining the light of truth and accountability on everything that passed across the House floor. Sadly, traditional, inside-the-beltway pork politics prevailed and the practice of bundling legislation to appease the politically greedy has delivered us to this point.

Truth be told, had the political class not blindly followed the Progressive Movement into ratifying the 17th Amendment, none of this would have ever come to pass. But, then, the Commerce Clause wouldn’t have even come close to allowing much of what the Federal government has done that encroaches into our daily lives.

Additionally, if Harry Reid would have operated lawfully, the omnibus appropriations package would have already been legislated, as he is – is – bound by law to have produced a budget by April 15 of each year. He has not done so since before Republicans took control of the House.

The sad, but glaringly true, fact is this. Our government has become too big and too bureaucratic. Our government has manipulated and strayed from the boundaries of the US Constitution, which is a mandated blueprint for limiting government.

Until We the People insist on repealing the 17th Amendment so as to re-employ constitutional protections for the States, and until Congress re-visits the Federal government’s grotesquely over-reaching interpretation of the Commerce Clause, it will be up to the States to save the nation, either by Constitutional Convention (which in and of itself is very dangerous were the original words of the Constitution to be manipulated by the opportunistic) or by, God forbid, secession.

And it is with tears in my eyes for our country; for freedom; for liberty itself, that I acquiesce to the notion. Buy, my God, are we to allow the greatest achievement of freedom in the history of the world be extinguished at the hand of ideological bullies?

The words of Patriot Patrick Henry said so very seriously then, are just as cogent today:

“Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! — I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Debt Ceiling Arbitrarily Raised

debt ceiling



debt ceiling
Did you know that the debt ceiling was arbitrarily raised by $51 billion back in July? It seems that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, an unelected Obama appointee, took it upon himself to raise the ceiling. Without a vote by Congress. Not a word of protest from the Republicans who were elected to keep this from happening. And there was not a word about the raise from the MSM either. Or did I somehow miss it? Please watch this short (1:10) video.

Lew said that the “standard set of extraordinary measures” allows him continually raise the debt ceiling. Lew just arbitrarily gave himself permission to print an additional $51 billion.

Here’s a little nugget of information that you need to (but probably don’t) know. The Budget Control Act of 2011 (Pub.L. 112-25) set the debt ceiling at $16.4 billion. It was supposed to prevent default of the US government on or around August 3, 2011. But (and there’s always a “but” when Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama is involved), Obama and Congress suspended the debt ceiling from February 4, 2013, until May 18, 2013. Guess how much additional debt was added during those four months. $300 billion. That’s additional debt. Obama and Congress decided in February that they would continue borrowing through May 18, with the new debt limit becoming the then-current limit of $16.4 trillion, plus whatever was added on during the February-May period.

You will remember that the Budget Control Act of 2011 was supposed to obviate the need for any more debt ceiling increases. The act established the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the so-called “super committee”), options for a balanced budget amendment, and automatic budget sequestration. And you will remember that, during debt ceiling negotiations, Speaker of the House John Boehner said of Lew: “I don’t need somebody who just knows how to say no.” And, that’s the same Jack Lew who, on February 13, 2011, said:

“Our budget will get us, over the next several years, to the point where we can look the American people in the eye and say we’re not adding to the debt anymore; we’re spending money that we have each year, and then we can work on bringing down our national debt.”

Irony of ironies. So, the question is, “Was Lew lying in 2011, did he really believe what he said, or was he just stupid?” Unfortunately, the MSM did not bother to broadcast his statement, and enough low-information voters re-elected Obama.

I guess the $51 billion debt ceiling raise was such a small percentage (3.054%) of the debt ceiling of $16.7 trillion that a protest was just not worth the effort.

Borrow, borrow, borrow. Raise the debt ceiling. And the RNC wonders why the TEA Party is so popular!

But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

Sequestration delivers biggest budget surplus on record refuting dems claims

waste_of_money

The Federal government posted the largest budget surplus on record for the month of June thanks to budget cuts and mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie paying back a portion of the bailouts.

June’s federal balance sheet leaned $117 Billion to the positive thanks mainly to the cuts that came from sequestration – a clear win for the Conservatives in Congress who have been pushing for cuts to pigish government spending. A smaller portion, just $59 Billion came from a payback by government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

While news outlets point to an improving economy, which there is little proof of, the spending cuts are the main source of the budget surplus.

While the surplus is looked upon as a great positive, it is far too small to affect the gigantic public debt incurred by decades of over-spending and failure to manage the nation’s finances.

Obamacare will likely deplete such small deficits if it is ever allowed to go into effect.

It is being reported that the surplus will stave off the upcoming debt ceiling battle. While this may come to pass, lunar national parks, a bloated farm bill and other spending are likely to spend future surpluses before they can truly balance the budget.

The wide-breadth spending cuts brought about by sequestration are the main reason for the surplus, but leave it to the media  to mention that as nothing more than a foot note. Here’s the very last sentence of a CNBC article on the subject:

Across-the-board budget cuts began March, which also contributed to the surplus.

Yeah… spending cuts causing a surplus… who’d a thunk it?

In Deep with Michelle Ray – What Difference Does It Make?

womencombat

When: Thursday, Janurary 24th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.

Tonight:What difference does it make? Suspended debt ceiling, Cllinton’s faux indignation, women in combat. And meet the newest members of the CDN Radio family!

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

The Propaganda of Defaults & Debt Ceilings

DebtCeiling2

Understand what Obama’s doing, why he’s doing it & how his decisions are intended to influence you.

Raising the Debt Ceiling is the same as a credit card company raising your credit limit. It has nothing to do with paying what’s already owed. It simply allows you to spend more than you already owe. The Debt Ceiling doesn’t stop government from paying its existing bills any more than your credit limit keeps you from paying your existing bills. It isn’t possible to “default” when a debt ceiling isn’t raised. The whole purpose of a debt ceiling is to protect against defaulting.

The problem occurs when you don’t have enough sense to know to stop charging more than you can afford to pay. By Obama’s own admission, America is already there. That is exactly the cycle Obama is perpetuating. By his definition a debt limit is a circular that has no end as long as you want more than you can afford. We all know better. Until Obama most Americans hadn’t heard of the Debt Ceiling, because until Obama we didn’t have this perpetuating problem.

A humorous look at understanding the Debt Ceiling:

 

America already brings in enough revenue every month to pay for ALL of our essential services and still have money left over – including military and social security and existing interest on debt.

When Obama threatens military or social security payments, understand that he is voluntarily making those personal choices. It is not because there isn’t money to pay those particular items. It is only because he chooses those items from among all of the wasteful spending there is to choose. Obama is opting not to pay what will hurt Americans most. That is unconscionable fear-mongering. He is counting on you being so frightened at his prospects that your outcry pressures Congress to give him a higher debt limit … so he can keep spending more of other people’s money.

When we have someone at the helm who is not governing our money responsibly, it is our job to be the banker in the video.

Default Not at Issue, Federal Spending Is

Default. The only way the federal government would default on its debt in the event the debt ceiling remains unchanged is for the Treasury to choose to default—an utterly implausible eventuality. Suggestions to the contrary in the press and elsewhere are simply inaccurate and shameful.

(Click title link for full story.)

“Default” Is a Red Herring in Debt Ceiling Debate

Obama accused his opposition in Congress of threatening to “default” on America’s loans in order to make a political point.

“I am not going to have a monthly or every three months conversation about whether or not we pay our bills because that in and of itself does severe damage. Even the threat of default hurts our economy. It’s hurting our economy as we speak. We shouldn’t be having that debate.”

The “threat of default,” as Obama called it, is a red herring.

“Suggesting that the United States might default on its debt is factually wrong and shameful behavior on the President’s part,” Heritage’s J.D. Foster, the Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy, said yesterday.

The U.S. is not going to default on its interest payments, Foster said, and “this assurance rests not on congressional action to raise the debt ceiling, but on the simple fact that the Treasury has far more than enough funds to pay all interest as it comes due.”

Facts have been slim in the President’s rhetoric on the debt ceiling. And in his press conference yesterday, he dug himself into a deeper hole, again arguing against his toughest opponent: the Barack Obama of 2006.

Yesterday in his press conference, the President argued the opposite. This time, he said raising the debt ceiling was simply an acknowledgement of the country’s bills:

“America cannot afford another debate with this Congress about whether or not they should pay the bills they’ve already racked up.”

Click here to see Obama’s Congressional Record in arguing against the Debt Ceiling.

(Click title link for full story.)

One might reasonably ask of Obama (he being a man of endless personal resources), if he has The People’s best interests at heart why wouldn’t he choose to withhold his salary or travel costs – or those of Congress – rather than already-earned pay of those he and Congress are paid to lead? Why wouldn’t he defund programs of any number of glaringly wasteful other spending, like the ilk of lice nits or dry river beds, BEFORE messing with the earned pay that sustains our military and elderly?

As leader of a household, would you take food from the mouths of your children or spouse before you would your own? Would you keep your money in a bank if the bank was so poorly managed your money wasn’t there when you went grocery shopping or tried to pay a utility bill?

A leader holds himself aside from those who rely on them, because a leader is more responsible for making good decisions. Good leaders make decisions in favor of those who are most vulnerable and adversely effected by their decisions, before doing so in favor of themselves. That is what leaders do. They live by example. If for no other reason than to protect the less capable of protecting themselves, those for whom they are the most responsible. That is a leader’s job. Why else have one?

Obama’s personal choice in threatening military pay is an especially egregious act for a leader that calls himself ‘Commander In Chief’ of the very men and women he is personally threatening. We pay Obama and Congress to make good decisions and to set proper examples. When government fails in their job it is their obligation to absorb the consequences of those failed decisions, not shuffle them onto the least among us. That is their moral duty. That is their leadership obligation. That’s why they make the big bucks.

Enough is enough. If it doesn’t sicken you that a president would willingly use and knowingly hurt the most vulnerable and deserving among us, to coerce his way in a course of action that is self-serving, irresponsible and self-destructive, then something is very awry with the way you’re thinking.

Now it’s clear what Obama is doing and why he’s doing it. The only question remaining is, how are you going to allow his decisions to effect you? Just as Obama is counting on public outcry over his choices, to influence Congress, the reverse is true. When Americans decry what Obama is doing for the unconscionable reasons he is doing it, that influences him.

My family is reliant on one of the sources of income that Obama chooses to threaten. Common sense dictates that at this juncture Obama will not risk turning a nation of people against him by realizing threats of such an egregious nature. I am willing to call that bluff so we can get America’s spending back in line. And I will never forget that it is Obama’s doing – and only Obama’s doing – if the day comes when I can’t pay my bills because HE wanted more for himself, from My money, than what he was willing to repay in what he already owes Me.

Stand firm.

Call and email your legislators to Stop Spending.
Voices in number DO make a difference.
Find yours here: Contact Elected Officials

(Click on image to enlarge and clarify.)

DebtCeiling Jan2013

The Debt Ceiling, Revenue & The Progressive Overreach

9.4 debt by states-02 (2)

9.4 debt by states-02 (2)Soon, President Obama will stand before the American people, at his inaugural, and take the Oath of Office. He will place his hand on the Holy Bible (we assume) and swear an oath before God and country to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. He did this once before in 2009. But, he has increasingly ignored the dictates and tenets of this Founding Document – one of the documents in the Charters of Freedom. He has disparaged the document as “flawed” and has transparently sought out legal mechanisms – and sometimes not so legal mechanisms – to circumvent the provisions and authorities set forth within. Many Presidents have done the same, although, perhaps, not as egregiously.

Truth be told, a great deal of the partisan gridlock – at least where the finances of the nation are concerned – wouldn’t exist today if the politicians we elect to office would simply cease being politicians upon being tasked with doing the business of government; if they simply followed the rules of government as set forth by the Founding Documents. But then, as James Madison said, “If men were angels…”

In a prior article, Why Is Boehner Negotiating with Obama at All?, I pointed out:

“Article I, Section 7, of the United States Constitution reads:

“‘All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.’

“And while the verbiage that follows outlines the processes by which the presidential veto and congressional veto overrides are to be executed, nowhere is the power of the purse – the ability to create legislation that raises revenue – extended to any other branch of government or congressional body.

“I bring this fundamental tenet of our system of government to the forefront because I am puzzled as to why House Republicans, led by Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), are negotiating budgetary financial matters, a responsibility and purview exclusively vested in the US House of Representatives, with anyone outside that body, let alone the Executive Branch, which only has the constitutional power of the veto over said legislation?

“Such are the questions that arise when the bully pulpit is used to usurp the constitutional order of our government.”

So, you can imagine how happy I was to read that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), has told his fellow Republicans that he is done with private, one-on-one negotiations with President Obama. The simple fact of the matter is that he never – ever – should have entered into negotiations with anyone from the Executive Branch over issues of raising revenue in the first place; not on the fiscal cliff, the debt ceiling, the budget, tax reform, deficit reduction…none of it. Pure and simple, the Executive Branch, other than allocating revenues granted to it to through the constitutionally mandated legislative process, to the agencies and departments under their purview, has no authority over the raising of revenue whatsoever. I defy anyone to find any provision in the US Constitution that contradicts that fact.

The reality that President Obama (and through him his team) can co-opt authority over matters of national finance simply by bullying his way to a “negotiating table” under the perverted guise of “leadership” says a lot about how far we have gotten away from the constitutional process of government. That the elected officials in the Legislative Branch do not howl in protest over the usurpation of the Separation of Powers – and perhaps that they don’t know better to howl in the first place – presents as a frighteningly, but all to true, commentary on just how constitutionally illiterate (or subversive) our elected officials have become. The same, sadly, can be said of the electorate itself.

If, and that is the optimal word here, our elected federal officials adhered to the US Constitution as the rulebook by which government is executed (which it is), legislation would follow a path that goes something like this:

▪ Legislation regarding the generation and securing of revenue (including matters of debt reduction, budgeting and borrowing) would be created working through regular order, letting the House work its will.

▪ The legislation would be advanced to the US Senate where they “may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” (Note: had the 17th Amendment not been passed allowing for the direct election of Senators by the electorate, Senators would still be charged with protecting the rights of their respective States from the overreach of the federal government.)

▪ The legislation would then go to “conference” where the original legislation would be reconciled between the two chambers.

▪ The legislation would then be presented to the Executive Branch (as is the proper procedure for any piece of legislation), where the President can either sign it into law or veto it.

▪ At this point the House (because the legislation for our purposes has to do with revenue generation) would reconsider the legislation and the objections of the Executive Branch and either override the veto or make changes so as to satisfy the Executive’s objections. The overridden or revised bill would then go to the Senate for a similar procedure.

So, as you can see, the only options available for President Obama (or the Executive Branch), constitutionally, are to either sign the legislation into law or veto the legislation presented. Nowhere – nowhere – in the US Constitution is the Executive Branch afforded negotiating rights on matters of raising revenue but for those two options and at that moment in the timeline.

That understood, what we just witnessed – with the US Senate crafting legislation regarding the raising of revenue and the Executive Branch negotiating from the start with the leadership of the US House – was wholly in usurpation of the constitutional process by which revenue legislation is supposed to adhere. In fact, it could be said that the entire piece of legislation, by way of its origination, is unconstitutional.

Yet, because there will be no constitutional objection to this travesty of process, American taxpayers are now saddled with higher taxes and over $4 trillion in new debt over the next ten years, and we haven’t even dealt with the sequestration, the debt ceiling or the budget, all of which will, most likely, see an arrogant and belligerent Executive Branch bullying its way to yet more “negotiating tables”; negotiating tables at which they do not belong. I am willing to bet that through it all, taxes spending and the national debt will rise, and deficit reduction will remain in the realm of political rhetoric; the filth of political opportunism soiling the futures of our great-grandchildren.

On January 21, 2013, Barack Obama will place his hand on the Holy Bible (we assume) and swear this oath, as mandated by Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Nowhere in that oath exists the caveat, “…unless I think the document is flawed.” Barack Obama’s job as President of the United States is to uphold and protect; to defend the US Constitution. That means adhering to the provisions, limitations and authorities held within, including the legislative process by which revenue is raised for the federal government.

So, when you hear Mr. Obama say: “I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they’ve already racked up through the laws that they passed,” two thoughts should come to mind.

First, your eyes should roll, given the fact that all the Obama Administration has done over the past four years is scream that they need to spend more money. Blaming Congress for racking up trillions in new debt with nothing to show for it but fictitious “jobs saved or created” numbers that don’t reconcile with the unemployment and workforce stats is tantamount to piling up debt on your Dad’s credit card and then blaming him for being a spendthrift.

Second, you should be asking yourself – and your elected representatives – this: What gives Mr. Obama the right to say he “will not have another debate with this Congress,” over the debt ceiling when he has no authority to debate it in the first place? More importantly, you should ask yourself why your elected members to the US House would allow their leadership to include Mr. Obama in debates exclusive to House membership…ever.

The time to understand the US Constitution – to become constitutionally literate – is now…as is the time to actually start asking these question. Your great-grandchildren’s’ freedom may just depend on what you do right now.

House Republicans Have More Than Two Options

fiscal-cliff-boehner

fiscal-cliff-boehnerThere were a few anxious moments in the White House last night and early Thursday morning. For a brief moment it looked liked John Boehner’s re–election as Speaker might be in trouble. This would have been a disaster for the Obama administration — equivalent to the French hiring Gen. George S. Patton as their commander–in–chief in the fall of 1938.

It’s quite possible that Boehner is the favorite Republican of Oval Office denizens. He’s never won a showdown with Obama. He huffs and he puffs and he blows his own House down. Cong. Boehner is the Ambrose Burnside of GOP strategists. He’s always a pontoon or two short of victory.

Which is why his three–vote margin was uncomfortably close for the Obama administration.

Speaker Boehner — and admittedly much of the Republican brain trust both in and out of elective office — is trapped in a binary, tactical battle with the White House. A battle he manages to re–fight and re–lose on a regular basis. The fiscal cliff confrontation was simply not a choice between passing Obama’s tax and spending increases or plunging headlong off the cliff.

A truly strategic thinker would have seen there was a third option. An option that was difficult in the short run, but promised a lasting victory in the long run.

I outlined that strategy here in mid–December. I contend that Obama has a legitimate mandate to raise taxes, so let him raise taxes to his heart’s content. Instead of fighting and losing, House Republicans step aside and let the Democrats pass a bill that gives the public a mandate right upside their head.

Only the Democrats do it without a single Republican vote.

Instead, Boehner states very plainly the GOP believes this bill is wrong and raising taxes will damage the economy. Unfortunately, the people have spoken, so the GOP will abstain on this vote. Making the 2014 off–year election a referendum on the Obama plan.

A referendum Republicans will win in a landslide, if we are correct. If we are wrong, and the voters actually want big, bigger and biggest government, then it doesn’t matter anyway.

Using a political rope–a–dope strategy means Republicans can’t be blamed for pushing the country over the fiscal cliff, nor can they be blamed for the recession redux that follows passage of Obama’s Christmas list.

Instead, binary, short–term, tactical thinking has saddled the nation with a terrible deal: $41 in new spending for every $1 in elusive spending cuts. And what’s worse, because the House GOP leadership helped pass the bill, Republicans now have part ownership of the blame for Obama’s failure!

Ss long as Boehner is speaker, this willing participation in mutually assured economic destruction undercuts responsible conservatives in the future.

On the other hand, Republican governors, when presented with an almost identical situation, made just the type of choice I’m advocating.

GOP governors loathe Obamacare. They believe it to be bad policy, bad medicine and bad government. Now Obamacare is the law of the land and the next step is implementation on a state–by–state basis. In any potentially chancy political situation Democrats can be certain to monopolize all the credit and outsource the blame if things go wrong.

Acting on this principle, Democrats established a system where each state is supposed to create a health insurance exchange, which insulates national Democrats from blame. When Obamacare goes horribly wrong, state governors will be in the line of fire, since they created the exchange.

If Boehner had been governor of say Virginia, he would have fallen right into the trap and worked to create an exchange that implemented Obamacare and dispensed blame to Republicans.

Fortunately Bob McDonnell is governor and he — along with other wise Republicans at the state level — refused to create an exchange. Leaving Obamacare a Democrat sole proprietorship, since the exchange will be run by the feds. Obama owns the law and he owns the outcome, because Republicans refused to participate.

Looking ahead, our next defeat will be the vote on increasing the debt limit. Sure Boehner has pledged that he won’t negotiate with Obama in the future, but I fail to see where being buffaloed by Harry Reid is an improvement.

Unfortunately for conservatives, Boehner is an excellent strategist when it comes to protecting his career. As Virginia Del. Rich Anderson (R–VA) points out, back in 2009 Boehner was a strong supporter of a secret ballot for union elections.

Boehner declared that a public vote with union organizers watching would “actually would strip workers of free choice in union organizing elections…. Instead, it would leave them open to coercion and intimidation — from either union officials or company management — to sign or not sign a card expressing their desire to join a union.”

Which makes the 12 Republican members of the House who voted against Boehner on Thursday all the more noble. Since he was watching teamster–like as each one of them voted against him.

Voting as a conservative in the Boehner House is not conducive to career advancement. As the four freshmen Congressmen who lost their committee assignments last month, in retaliation for failing to toe the company line, will be happy to tell you.

« Older Entries