Tag Archives: house of representatives

Payroll Tax Cut : House GOP Call Harry Reid's Bluff

The battle to extend the payroll tax cuts until the end of this year has reached a very welcome milestone recently. The House Republican leadership announced a clean tax cut extension bill yesterday, that does not include the added unemployment extensions nor the extension of the medicare “doc fix” that has been required since the passage of Obama-care, (which lowered the payments received by health-care providers in order for Obama to claim that the passage of Obama-care would result in the reduction the national debt.)  The GOP is calling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (LD-NV)  bluff by dropping any demands for offsets to pay for the tax cut extension.  Speaker Boehner is calling for a vote on the bill this week, depending on how the rank and file House Republicans react to it.

Daniel Horowitz offers the GOP some very sage advice in moving forward on the unemployment extensions and medicare “doc fix” after forcing Harry Reid to bring the clean tax cut extension to the Senate floor for a vote: (emphasis added)

They (Republicans) are leaving out the entitlement spending extensions and daring Senate Democrats to oppose their clean tax cut – one that they have “championed” for the past few months.

Going forward, Republicans must stand strong against pressure to slip the entitlement spending into the payroll tax cut deal.  Once they are free from the burden of shooting the hostage (the tax cut), they should negotiate hard for the rest of the package.  They should be guided by the following principles:

  • No extension of UI benefits unless UI is permanently reformed to reflect a real insurance program, not a European-style social welfare program.
  • No extension of doc fix until Medicare is permanently reformed with free-market solutions to bring down the broader costs and preempt the need for doc fix or any payment formula.
  • Both extensions must be paid for with real offsetting cuts during the period of the extension, not over 10 years.
  • We should be working on a long-term solution for the payroll tax now, so we won’t fall into the same trap next December when we will be forced into another ineffectual short-term stimulus type of tax cut.

 

Now if Senate Republicans will just follow the House’s lead and show some backbone in blocking Harry Reid’s sure-to-come counter-proposal, Republicans will gain the leverage needed to deal with the never-ending federal unemployment benefits and the doc fix without adding to the destructive debt-cycle Democrats have put America into over the last 3-plus years of trillion-dollar deficits. Senator Mitch McConnell? You and Senate Republicans are soon to be the next in line to step up to the plate and reinforce the House Republicans clean tax cut extension bill. Don’t strike out. America is watching.

Obama’s Budget: More Tax, Borrow and Spend

 The White House presented its 2012 budget Monday. A $3.8 trillion proposal which includes $1.43 trillion in new taxes on households whose incomes meet or exceed $250,000 (note: this is the new “progressive” definition of millionaires and billionaires), a fourth straight year of $1 trillion-plus deficit spending (which will require yet more borrowing), and new mandatory spending intended for the Education and Energy Departments.

As has been the case for the past three years, the White House pays lip service to calls for reduced spending. There are no efforts made to reform “entitlement” programs, which make up a sizeable majority of federal spending and will, if continuously ignored, bankrupt the country. The “spending cuts” found in this budget are largely figments of the imagination. Since America’s military is already out of Iraq, and the date for withdrawal from Afghanistan has already been announced, saying that “were the United States armed forces to remain deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan at full troop and equipment levels through 2018” would cost X amount of money, and therefore not spending that money now constitutes spending cut is at best disingenuous. It’s like announcing that a household’s spending has been reduced by $50,000 over the next five years because they didn’t take out a 60-month loan on a new car. Within a $3.8 trillion budget, claims that reducing the Environmental Protection Agency’s spending to $8.34 billion amounts to meaningful reduction is like saying someone changes the world’s sea level by pouring a glass of water into the Pacific Ocean.

That this budget is part of a campaign strategy is both painfully obvious and not especially noteworthy, especially to voters who are aware of the obvious media bias in America. Those who have actively sought out stories that somehow managed to “escape” coverage by the “mainstream” media have seen this one coming since last year’s announcement that occupy Oval Office is running for re-election. Submitting a budget certain to garner no legislative support intentionally creates an environment which allows the current White House occupant to rail against a “do nothing” Congress. Refusals by Congress to raise taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” (that’s those who make $250,000 a year) means they’re helping the “most fortunate among us” avoid paying “their fair share”. This proposal by the White House sets up one campaign theme after another.

The budget is so bad that, like last year, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell plans to introduce it to a Democratically controlled Senate that hasn’t passed a budget in a thousand days (talk about “do nothing”).

There seems to be no satisfying this administration’s appetite for spending. The underlying misconception that government spending stimulates long term economic growth merely stimulates the need for increased taxes to pay for the big government bureaucracies required to process the inefficient, wasteful spending. Since the day this administration took office, they have intentionally driven up spending with borrowed money. Now, they are attempting to institutionalize the spending increases with tax hikes. By stealing money under the threat of fine and/or imprisonment from the private sector that creates the wealth, they are making real economic growth more difficult.

Once again, “progressives” are calling for real; immediate tax increases in exchange for proposed, future spending cut. This is the same deal offered to Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. In both instances, the tax hikes happened, but not the spending cuts. In each case, the tax hikes did nothing to reduce deficits because the spending continued unabated.

“progressives” fondly reminisce about the good old days when Bill Clinton was President. Those were the days when the budget was balanced. Remember those days? That was when tax rates were higher. What “progressive” Democrats selectively fail to remember is that along with those higher tax rates, a Conservative House and a Conservative Senate legislated cut spending to go along with the higher tax rates.

Unless and until there are real, immediate, meaningful spending cuts as part of a budget deal, there should be no tax increases, period.

Obama's Budget: More Tax, Borrow and Spend

 The White House presented its 2012 budget Monday. A $3.8 trillion proposal which includes $1.43 trillion in new taxes on households whose incomes meet or exceed $250,000 (note: this is the new “progressive” definition of millionaires and billionaires), a fourth straight year of $1 trillion-plus deficit spending (which will require yet more borrowing), and new mandatory spending intended for the Education and Energy Departments.

As has been the case for the past three years, the White House pays lip service to calls for reduced spending. There are no efforts made to reform “entitlement” programs, which make up a sizeable majority of federal spending and will, if continuously ignored, bankrupt the country. The “spending cuts” found in this budget are largely figments of the imagination. Since America’s military is already out of Iraq, and the date for withdrawal from Afghanistan has already been announced, saying that “were the United States armed forces to remain deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan at full troop and equipment levels through 2018” would cost X amount of money, and therefore not spending that money now constitutes spending cut is at best disingenuous. It’s like announcing that a household’s spending has been reduced by $50,000 over the next five years because they didn’t take out a 60-month loan on a new car. Within a $3.8 trillion budget, claims that reducing the Environmental Protection Agency’s spending to $8.34 billion amounts to meaningful reduction is like saying someone changes the world’s sea level by pouring a glass of water into the Pacific Ocean.

That this budget is part of a campaign strategy is both painfully obvious and not especially noteworthy, especially to voters who are aware of the obvious media bias in America. Those who have actively sought out stories that somehow managed to “escape” coverage by the “mainstream” media have seen this one coming since last year’s announcement that occupy Oval Office is running for re-election. Submitting a budget certain to garner no legislative support intentionally creates an environment which allows the current White House occupant to rail against a “do nothing” Congress. Refusals by Congress to raise taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” (that’s those who make $250,000 a year) means they’re helping the “most fortunate among us” avoid paying “their fair share”. This proposal by the White House sets up one campaign theme after another.

The budget is so bad that, like last year, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell plans to introduce it to a Democratically controlled Senate that hasn’t passed a budget in a thousand days (talk about “do nothing”).

There seems to be no satisfying this administration’s appetite for spending. The underlying misconception that government spending stimulates long term economic growth merely stimulates the need for increased taxes to pay for the big government bureaucracies required to process the inefficient, wasteful spending. Since the day this administration took office, they have intentionally driven up spending with borrowed money. Now, they are attempting to institutionalize the spending increases with tax hikes. By stealing money under the threat of fine and/or imprisonment from the private sector that creates the wealth, they are making real economic growth more difficult.

Once again, “progressives” are calling for real; immediate tax increases in exchange for proposed, future spending cut. This is the same deal offered to Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. In both instances, the tax hikes happened, but not the spending cuts. In each case, the tax hikes did nothing to reduce deficits because the spending continued unabated.

“progressives” fondly reminisce about the good old days when Bill Clinton was President. Those were the days when the budget was balanced. Remember those days? That was when tax rates were higher. What “progressive” Democrats selectively fail to remember is that along with those higher tax rates, a Conservative House and a Conservative Senate legislated cut spending to go along with the higher tax rates.

Unless and until there are real, immediate, meaningful spending cuts as part of a budget deal, there should be no tax increases, period.

STOCK Act Passes in House 417- 2. Here Come the Hypocrites

The STOCK Act passed in the House by a vote of 417 – 2 , yet there was still plenty of complaining and partisan bickering during it’s passage on Thursday.  S. 2038, also known as the STOCK ACT is,  “An original bill to prohibit Members of Congress and employees of Congress from using nonpublic information derived from their official positions for personal benefit, and for other purposes” according to govtrack.us . This bill was rapidly drawn up in response to the taxpayer outrage that followed a 6o Minutes special that proved that several members of congress were indeed profiting from insider information that is kept from the public sector.

First of all, how did members of Congress away with 78 years of illegal insider trading that would land the average American in prison? According to Fox Business , insider trading was made illegal way back in 1934.( by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)  The rules contained within the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 make it illegal for anyone to profit from insider information being used in the trading/buying/selling of stocks, as was witnessed when Martha Stewart went to prison for dumping her shares of ImClone to avoid big losses in the future.  It was proven that she had used inside information that the stock was going to tank, so she dumped her shares. Off to prison she went, while members of Congress benefited from the very same insider trading for the last 78 years, all because the rules of the 1934 Securities Exchande Act somehow, accidentally, (sarc) exempted Congress from obeying the very law that they had written to prevent insider trading. A quick browser search does not pull up one single member of Congress who has ever done prison time for illegal insider trading, even though they have been allowed to do it for over 78 years. Amazing.

   Ex- Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi took to the House floor on Thursday to praise the passage of this bill, while also stating what can only be seen as one of the most hypocritical statements to ever come out of Congress: (emphasis added)

 “I too want to join the distinguished Majority Leader, Mr. Cantor, in praising the leadership of Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, our Ranking Member on the Rules Committee, and Congressman Tim Walz, for their extraordinary leadership over time.  Their persistence, the approach that they have taken to this—to remove all doubt in the public’s mind, if that is possible, that we are here to do the people’s business and not to benefit personally from it.

Is that not hypocritical to the tenth degree, after reading the following info-byte from the Fox Business article cited above?  “And these deals aren’t limited to one party or the other… In 2008, former  Speaker of the House Nancy  Pelosi (D-CA) was granted access to the Visa IPO back in 2008 while the  House was considering credit card legislation that would hurt the credit card  industry. Her initial $220k investment went up $100k in two days.”

In summary, we see that members of Congress have been allowed to profit from illegal insider trading for almost 8 decades, 60 minutes does a special based on based on a book by Peter Schweizer titled Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison, which exposed what has to be considered just the tip of the iceberg on insider trading by Congress, and which named Nancy Pelosi as one of the offenders. Now she wants the public to give her credit for getting the STOCK Act passed to put a stop to illegal insider trading by members of Congress.  Martha Stewart went to prison for her insider trading, yet Nancy Pelosi wants the American public to reward her and the Democrats by voting them back in control of the House in 2012 for their insider trading. Only in America could people be so gullible, largely thanks to the Liberal political operatives posing as news reporters, and their blatant refusal to report the truth.

While the passage of The STOCK Act is a very welcome  piece of legislation, one has to wonder why illegal insider trading by members of Congress has been allowed to go on for over 7 decades in the first place. NOTE: Will this “bill that prevents members of Congress from participating in illegal insider trading” actuall call for criminal charges and/or prison time when they are caught,  such as was the case with Martha Stewart?  The House passed this bill on Thursday, yet according to govtrack.us, we the people are not able to actually read the bill to see what is in it, once again. “The text of this legislation is not yet available on GovTrack.  It may not have been made available by the Government Printing Office yet.’ (as of 02/10/2012.)

 

 

H.R. 1734 Fed. Firesale to Reduce Deficit Actually Adds Taxpayer Debt

The U.S. House of Representatives is currently working on passage of H.R. 1734The Civilian Property Realignment Act.  According to TheHill.com, “The House on Monday night set up several votes on amendments to a bill that would set up a commission that would make recommendations on the sale of federal property in order to reduce the deficit.”  Of interest to the informed voters across America that are witnessing the current President campaigning against the do-nothing Congress, along with numerous Liberal media mouthpieces claims that the Democrats are being shut out of the Republican-led House legislative process, is the fact that several Democratic amendments have already been allowed to be inserted into this bill.  For example: (emphasis added)

Two other Democratic amendments were also accepted to the bill, H.R. 1734, by voice vote. One was from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), to add a sense of the Congress that the commission should provide assistance to small and minority-owned businesses.

The second, from Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.), would require the General Services Administration (GSA) to evaluate the life-cycle costs of holding the building before constructing or leasing a new building.

Another amendment, from Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), would allow the GSA to override the congressionally approved recommendations of the commission and allow property to be given at no cost to create park land. But Republicans indicated opposition to this amendment, and Connolly asked for a recorded vote, expected Tuesday.

While H.R. 1734 was originally drawn up to help decrease our federal deficits, it actually increases the taxpayer share of the federal debt, according to WashingtonWatch.com.

The CBO cost estimate of H.R. 1734 , which was done prior to the latest round of amendments in which we see Rep. Lee (D TX) demanding the usage of using this bill to “provide assistance to small and minority-owned businesses,” and Rep. Connolly (D-VA) demanding that the federal property be given at no cost to create park land.

The federal firesale of property to reduce the deficit has evolved into a federal giveaway to certain sectors of society after the above mentioned Democrats were allowed to use it to buy votes and peddle influence from certain groups. The end result will be more deficits and taxpayer debt, regardless of the description of the original bill that claims it will reduce federal deficits. Also of note is the inclusion of requiring the amendment to mandate the GSA to evaluate the life-cycle costs of holding the building before building or leasing it. This proves that Congress has been buying/leasing/building projects without doing proper cost analysis to evaluate the total cost of the projects to the taxpayer in the past. That tidbit of information is a big part of why many voters are fed up with self-serving politicians who seem incapable of controlling government spending through responsible, all-inclusive budgeting and cost analysis.

  Once again,  a bill designed to reduce government deficits and debt has morphed into a big-government influence-peddling and vote-buying scheme that will actually add to the already burdensome taxpayer debt.  This was all done under the guise of bipartisanship in the House, where we see exactly how the big-government Liberal Democrats have added amendments that turned this bill into adding more taxpayer debt, instead of reducing it by selling off excessive, expensive, and unneeded land and buildings that should never have been purchased with taxpayer dollars in the first place.

In summary, referring to the above-linked CBO cost estimate of H.R. 1734, we see the following budgetary gimmickry being used to cover the huge costs of implementing this bill: (emphasis added)

H.R. 1734 would establish the Civilian Property Realignment Commission (CPRC) to provide recommendations to better manage federal buildings and facilities. The bill  would require the commission to recommend the sale of at least five specific civilian facilities that have a combined estimated fair market value of at least $500 million. The  legislation also would authorize the appropriation of $20 million to fund the commission and $62 million to implement the commission’s recommendations. Recommendations of the commission, including sale of high-value property, could not be implemented unless approved in subsequent legislation.

Assuming appropriation of the specified amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1734 would cost $3 million in 2012 and $68 million over the 2012-2017 period.

The new big government commission (CPRC) established by H.R.1734 will cost the taxpayer a total of $82 million dollars. Big government just got even bigger, thanks to H.R. 1734, and the wizards of Congress. And this was all done under the guise of being a bipartisan, deficit-reduction bill.

 

Three-Dollar-Bill Obama

Way back in the early days of America, there were a wide assortment of traveling salesmen roaming from town to town selling everything from pots and pans to “magic elixir” guaranteed to cure everything from warts to polio. These unscrupulous traveling elixir peddlers became known by several terms, the most popular of which referred to them as “snake oil salesman.”    Another way of referring to them was expressed in the phrase, “He is as phony as a three-dollar bill,” simply due to the fact that there is no such thing as an American three-dollar-bill. As the 2012 Presidential elections draw nearer, it is becoming more evident by the minute that we currently have a President that is indeed, as phony as a three-dollar-bill. Thus the phrase Three-Dollar-Bill Obama

While on the current taxpayer-funded campaign trail, President Obama constantly states that the national debt and trillion-dollar-plus yearly deficits are a serious threat to our national security, which is 100% correct. The problem there is that his statements are intended to paint himself as some kind of  small government champion while the facts about federal spending show him to be as phony as a three-dollar-bill. See the following chart for the truth. While the chart show the yearly deficits from 2002-2010, covering the G.W. Bush years and Obama’s first two years in office, keep in mind that in the year 2011, Three-Dollar-Bill Obama rang up another whopping $1.3 trillion-dollar deficit!

Next up high on the list of Obama fallacies is the infamous statement that Obama-care will reduce the cost of health-care in America while increasing the quality of care. ( And giving everyone “free” health insurance.) This phony-as-a-three-dollar-bill statement is debunked in a very easy-to-read style here.

Finally, Three-Dollar-Bill Obama is claiming that the do-nothing Congress hasn’t made any attempt to reduce the federal debt and deficits while refusing to acknowledge the fact that the House of Representatives has passed numerous bills to reduce big government spending and move our economy forward, which Liberal Democrat and chief obstructionist, Senate leader, Harry Reid has refused to allow to come up for a vote. This is proven here,   here and once again, here. 

Do we really want to allow Three-Dollar-Bill Obama four more years of saying one thing while doing just the opposite?  As President Obama continues his taxpayer-funded reelection campaign this year while refusing to actually work with Congress to solve America’s problems, expect more three-dollar-bill Obama statements to be debunked on a regular basis here at CDN. ( If any readers have other false Three-Dollar-Bill Obama statements that need to be published here at CDN, drop them in the comment section please.)

Republicans Ensuring Obama’s Re-election

As we go further into the primary season I find the Republican Party doing more each day to ensure that Barack Obama gets re-elected in November. The establishment Republican elitists drove Herman Cain out of the running with a smear campaign of innuendo and accusation without one shred of evidence that any of these women were telling any semblance of truth. Truth didn’t matter, evidence didn’t matter; even to Republicans. The point was to drive out any conservative opponent in the running.

Rick Perry, the John Edwards plastic hair of the race, left the Democrat Party when he saw the winds of change bringing a Republican ascendency during the Reagan/Bush ’41 years. Perry isn’t now and never has been a conservative. In-state tuition and a “path to citizenship (amnesty)” for illegal aliens are not conservative positions, despite what Perry might think.

Once Cain had been eliminated Romney and Gingrich turned on each other in a manner befitting true liberals, or “Republican moderates” as the establishment likes to say. Gingrich berates Romney for making money using capitalism as his method. How can he say he is a conservative when he spends day upon day berating someone using the very system conservatives espouse?

Romney’s chief operative in Florida is busy working with Democrats to re-district Allen West out of the House of Representatives; Romney has destroyed the health care system and the economy of Massachusetts with Romneycare, and believes in the individual mandate. Of course, he mitigates the Romneycare issue by saying it is okay for the state but not the federal government to force citizens into purchasing something they don’t want. Gingrich also believes, or says he does, that the individual mandate is acceptable, even preferable. How is either one of them going to run a general election on abolishing Obamacare with these records? Not much of a difference from Obama to me.

Neither Romney nor Gingrich will bring up the issues that matter to We the People. I wonder why not. Gingrich rails at Romney for being a part of Bain Capitol but mentions not one word about Barack Obama having a former Bain executive in his inner circle. Why is this off the radar screen for Gingrich when he makes such a big deal about Romney’s Bain connection? Any mention of the nearly $500,000 in back taxes owed by current White House staff members while Obama rails at the “rich” who “don’t pay their fair share of taxes”? Or how about Timothy Geithner, the king of tax cheats? Not a word from Romney or Gingrich on Geithner either.

Just last week a lawsuit was heard in Georgia, Gingrich’s home state, dealing with the eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as president due to his not being a “natural born citizen”, a strategy developed by Republican candidate John Albert Dummett Jr., of California. You haven’t heard of Dummett because the ruling elite, including their propaganda arm FOX News, won’t give him the time of day. Just another annoying conservative; keep moving folks, nothing to see here. A ruling is expected very soon and is expected to keep Obama off the Georgia ballot. I watched the hearing and it was an impressive array of evidence showing that Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject, making our current president ineligible to hold the seat. One of the most significant political stories since Richard Nixon resigned due to Watergate, yet not a word from the two Republican front runners about it. I wonder why.

I keep hearing that Republicans need someone who can oust Barack Obama in November. I don’t seem to ever hear them mention what We the people need, or want for that matter. I wrote a few months ago, when Romney and Perry were “our only hope”, that we need to be careful what we ask for. Replacing Barack Obama with a clone is not the answer to our nation’s problems but that is where we are headed with Romney and Gingrich.

It seems Republicans are running to lose once again. This happened in 2008 with John McCain at the helm. He had the best prospect for election in Sarah Palin as his Vice-Presidential candidate but his handlers told her to keep quiet about Obama’s connections to Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. Perceived weakness and a RINO candidate brought defeat and injected Barack Obama into office. I see today’s Republican Party playing the same losing game. They won’t touch Obama’s radical beginnings, the question of his eligibility, or his links to Wall Street money men.

Are the Republicans cowards or are they competing in this race to dissolve the United States of America into a Third World banana republic? I believe it is a combination of both. The party machine, elitist establishment is so afraid of being called “racist” or “extremist” that they refuse to take a stand on anything conservative. Even a dead fish can float downstream and today’s Republican Party is content to be a dead fish. Dead fish is what Romney and Gingrich offer us. Those of us who are willing to fight for freedom are a danger to their little dinghy capsizing in a tidal wave of conservatism and the establishment will do anything to prevent We the People from capsizing their boat. New World Order globalists own the Republican Party and conservatives are a danger to that ownership.

Right now the Republican Party sits back and criticizes Democrats but will not really jeopardize their seats in the back of the bus to stand with those of us who want true liberty to be restored in America. When the winds of change began to blow the way of conservatism during the Reagan years many Democrats wanted to jump on the bandwagon to continue their places of power in congress. Alan Specter is a classic example of this, as is Rick Perry.
Both, along with several others, changed over to the Republican Party and were welcomed with open arms by Gingrich and the Republican leaders in the Senate. I also remember them giving committee chairmanships to Democrats in the name of “civility” and “inclusiveness”. What happened? The Republican Party became almost as Marxist oriented as the Democrat Party. This compromising has led us to where we are now, a Republican Party dominated by “moderates” lacking either the courage or the desire to stand on conservative principles.

If voters compromise and “settle” for Romney or Gingrich our nation will lose our freedom, a freedom given by thousands who have died and suffered wounds in battle after battle against tyranny. If voters are willing to be dead fish and float downstream they will find a swamp of tyranny, despotism, and slavery at the end of that stream. It has happened many times in the past to other nations. France, Russia, Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, and many others have settled for the lesser of two evils only to find that evil is evil and the lesser of those evils sold them into slavery and despotism in the end.

As Neville Chamberlain found out in dealing with Adolph Hitler, appeasement and the compromise of values is always a losing proposition. People say that a third party candidate, or an out-of-the-establishment candidate like Dummett, cannot win so they won’t vote for one. The reason a third party or dark horse candidate can’t win is that too many people would rather take a chance on soft tyranny than stand up for total liberty; they would rather float downstream. We cannot preserve our freedom by floating downstream. Our founding fathers didn’t float downstream, the “Greatest Generation” didn’t float downstream and accept dictatorship from Hirohito and Hitler, and I won’t float downstream and accept dictatorship from Obama, Romney, or Gingrich. I will not accept tyranny from Democrats or Republicans.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
February 2, 2012

CBO Predicts Fourth Consecutive Year With Trillion Dollar Deficit

.

The Conressional Budget Office (CBO) treated us with some bad, yet expected, news: Another year with a deficit exceeding a Trillion dollars.  In their release, the CBO said:

CBO projects a $1.1 trillion federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2012 if current laws remain unchanged. Measured as a share of the nation’s output (gross domestic product, or GDP), that shortfall of 7.0 percent is nearly 2 percentage points below the deficit recorded in 2011, but still higher than any deficit between 1947 and 2008

The U.S. posted $1.3 trillion deficits in each of the past two years after a record $1.4 trillion deficit in fiscal 2009.

 

Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN) Retiring

Indiana Congressman Dan Burton

.

Fifteen term Indiana congressman Dan Burton announced today that he will not seek re-election to his 5th district seat in Congress.  The 73 year old Burton announced his decision today while addressing members of the Indiana House Of Representatives, but did not elaborate with details.

Burton narrowly escaped the 2010 Republican primary election, beating Luke Messer by 2%.  Currently, David McIntosh, a former congressman and lobbyist, is already campaigning for Indiana’s 5th District seat.

 

#NDAA TwitterBomb Monday Night

Today – Monday, January 30, 2012 – starting at 7pm Eastern, Twitter users are encouraged to participate in a “TwitterBomb” for the National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA.

The NDAA allows for the unlawful, indefinite detention of American citizens, and has been mostly ignored by the media and politicians.  Only two Presidential candidates oppose this unconstitutional bill: Ron Paul & Buddy Roemer.

Looking at the image to the right,coming from Google Trends, the top column is the frequency a topic is searched, and the bottom column is the frequency the topic is discussed in the news.

Monday night, we implore you to Google search every thing you possibly can about NDAA, and then post it and share it to your Facebook & Twitter accounts with the hashtag #NDAA – or, if possible, write out “National Defense Authorization Act” completely.

Search YouTube (owned by Google), where you can find videos by Jon Stewart and many, many others who have voiced their opposition towards the bill.  Post and share these videos repeatedly on Twitter, Facebook, and other social media sites.  The American People succeeded in killing SOPA (Is ACTA Worse?), now let’s kill the #NDAA.

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.” ~Samuel Adams~

 

Congress To Attempt Self Policing… Really!

Would you trust your 7 year old child to “self-regulate” their sugar intake the day after Halloween?  Just leave your child with a gigantic bowl of candy, and tell them to use their own discretion.  Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it?  Members of Congress are now claiming that they will try something akin to that.

Congress doesn’t have a sugar intake problem, it has an insider trading problem.

With this issue recently brought to light, FoxNews reports:

Insider trading laws apply to all Americans, but CBS’ “60 Minutes” in November said members of Congress get a pass, citing investment transactions by party leaders and a committee chairman in businesses about to be affected by pending legislation.

The broadcast report raised questions about trades of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio; the husband of Democratic leader and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California; and Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

All three denied using any insider information to make stock trades, but the broadcast set off a flurry of efforts in Washington to deal with the public perception.

Due to the revelations from the “60 Minutes” story, the Senate will take up legislation that will prevent Congress members from using information that is “nonpublic” for their personal gain.  As expected, the bill has your typical Congressional Acronym to identify its purpose:  The STOCK Act, standing for Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge.

A procedural vote is scheduled for today that would allow this bill, which is endorsed by the President, to see a floor vote later in the week.

"Turn This Ship Around" Becoming 2012 Mantra, And Movement

On January 25th, CDN reported on the new video by Florida GOP Candidate Mark Oxner, which was titled “Turn This Ship Around”.  The video created a buzz due to the unique – even odd – nature of the video, with it’s plethora of innuendos and subtle messages.

Now, the message is spreading.  Connecticut Republican Brian K. Hill, who is running for the US Senate, has adopted the video and the message.  What started as a single campaign video, now appears to be transforming into a movement, sporting it’s own website: TurnThisShipAround.com.

 

Senate Candidate Brian K. Hill

Hill is a former active duty military officer & JAG attorney and small business owner  who still abides by the oath he took to protect the US Constitution.  His path to the GOP nomination will be a hard one, as he faces off against Linda McMahon – wife of millionaire Wresting mogul Vince McMahon.

 

—-

Did You Forget About Oregon Election On Tuesday? We Didn't.

On Tuesday, January 31st, Floridians will be heading to the polling booths to vote in the

Presidential primaries for their state.  But there is another election on Tuesday, and it’s on the other side of the continent.

Oregonians will be participating in a special election to fill the vacant seat for the state’s 1st Congressional, formerly held by Democrat David Wu.

The candidates are Democratic State Sen. Suzanne Bonamici and Republican Rob Cornilles.

A recent Moore Information poll showed Cornilles at 42%, with Bonamici holding a 4 point lead at 46%.

 

Rob Cornellis

Suzanne Bonamici (D)

Democrats have maintained control over the 1st District seat for 38 years.

Keystone Pipeline Now In Congressional Hands?


Keystone Pipeline

.

Only two fistfuls of days after President Obama shut the door on the Keystone Pipeline project, it appears that The House Of Representatives and Speaker Of The House John Boehner may be kicking that door back open.

On Sunday, Speaker Boehner spoke with ABC’s Jake Tapper on “This Week” saying:

“All options are on the table. If it’s not enacted before we take up the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, it’ll be part of it,”

The Keystone project would extend an oil pipeline from Canada through the United States.

Citing political maneuvering as President Obama’s motivation for killing the project earlier this month, Boehner said:

“Now that the president has decided for political reasons that we’re not going to move ahead just yet, not until after the election… we’re going to have to find another way to lean on the Senate, to take this issue up, because the Keystone pipeline will create … over 100,000 indirect jobs,”

In an economic environment where jobs are a precious rarity, we will keep an eye on Congress and see if the Split-body can make inroads into the project.

—-

Debt Ceiling Debate: Round 2

.

Congress is fresh off the ‘Great Debt Debate of 2011′, and wasting no time in kicking off Round 2 of this fight.  Today, the US Senate rejected a bill that would have prevented raising the Debt Ceiling by another $1.2 Trillion.

History of US Debt Ceiling

CNN.com has reported:

A procedural motion to move forward with the bill was rejected in a largely party-line 44-52 vote. The measure, approved by the GOP-controlled House of Representatives last week, had little chance of either passing Congress or surviving a certain presidential veto. It was considered a largely symbolic gesture on the part of Republicans.

So we shall keep our eyes and ears on the Congress, the President, and the GOP Candidates for President to see how this will wind up.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »