What: Dustin Hoyt takes on the biggest issues of the day, advocating for smaller government, liberty, common sense, and honest politicians. His insight and witty commentary provide entertaining and provoking angles on everything from fiscal policy to the most sensational statements. With a twist of Libertarianism and Conservativism that blends well to all who support the tea party and true American values. This show taps into all the things patriotic Americans love and need to hear in the battle against the left and the expansive government we fight against.
Tonight: Dustin will be talking about Liz Cheney taking on Mike Enzi in the Wyoming Senate primary, and the concept of instating term limits on the Hill.
Every election cycle – let’s face it, every day – voters criticize the government for its inability to function. We decry that electing someone new doesn’t mean anything when it comes to improvement. We hope that new politicians will mean new ideas and new policies that will help our country move in a positive direction, but alas, what we really get is SSDD (same stuff, different day).
Clearly, the voters want change; one need only look to the Obama campaign slogan of 2008 for evidence. But the kind of change the politicians continue to bring us isn’t at all what the voters have in mind. This is why Congressional approval ratings are so atrocious (ended 2011 with a record low 11% approval) and why this President hovers at 50% approval (coincidentally, 49.5% of people in this country are not paying taxes…hmmm). What we want is for the changes to make us a better country, to offer our citizens greater opportunities to grow wealth, to tax us fairly and less, to leave us to make decisions for ourselves, to protect our freedoms – not squash them – and to generally get out of our way.
When politicians are criticized for their inability to move this country forward in a positive direction, they complain that they are being blocked by their opposition, that it’s increasingly difficult to get bipartisan agreement on anything. But why is that? Don’t both political parties have the nation’s best interest at heart?
I know it’s an unpopular idea to consider, but do politicians really have a motivation for moving us forward? After all, if our nation’s people don’t have legitimate educational, health care, financial, retirement, and employment problems, they don’t need the government. If we don’t need the government to resolve these day-to-day challenges for us, then there isn’t as much at stake in the elections. Without a need for change, what would drive voters to the polls to vote in new candidates? It might sound outrageous to posit this, but we must consider that our politicians actually create problems instead of solve them just to ensure a future for themselves.
Our founding fathers would surely roll over in their graves if they considered this twisted idea, because they believed Americans should be self-reliant. They designed the framework of our country around the principles of limited government precisely because they didn’t want the masses to become dependent on government. They were wise enough to realize such dependence would lead to an over-powerful political body that would infringe on individual liberty. Each day, each election, we are moving farther and farther away from what our founding fathers envisioned for this country. We even have leaders who are so arrogant to claim that maybe the founding fathers didn’t have it right and maybe we need to “change with the times.”
But it is essential that we remember not all change is good change, and we need to question the motives behind our political figures’ inability to get this country moving forward. Beyond just questioning these motives, we need to demand that they start answering to the inefficiencies and total lack of meaningful action during their time in office.
Term limits are a great place to start. If politicians know there is a finite amount of time they can serve in public office, then maybe they will actually SERVE us instead of their own interests. Maybe a limit to their time in office will prompt only those who are genuinely interested in working toward positive change, progress, growth, and freedom to apply for the job. It sure would put an end to the distraction of campaigning while in office (and on the taxpayer’s dollar).
A resurgence of “citizen legislators” would bring the focus back to getting work done and making a positive difference while in office, and it would ensure that those who are making laws that impact the real world have actually worked in it.
Government should be limited, as should the power and influence of politicians. Our political leaders need a reality check and a real job. It’s high time we re-ignite this conversation on a national level. I wonder what the likelihood is that a career politician will get on board. Yep, that’s why the government will never change.
There’s nothing like spending 43 months in prison for fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy in connection with Congressional influence–peddling to make you an advocate of political contribution reform.
Notorious Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff is back on what the late Watergate scandal participant, John Ehrlichman might term a “modified limited hang out” book tour.
Abramoff contends that Washington equals swamp and the only reason he went to jail, for what he claims is standard operating procedure, is Jack made the mistake of raising his head too far above the scum line.
Jack’s obvious continuing pride in his accomplishments on behalf of his clients is cause to doubt sincere contrition on his part. And Abramoff appears blissfully unaware that the reputation he earned and scandal he created are in large part responsible for the GOP losing the House in 2006 — or if not unaware, he’s certainly unrepentant.
Still, Jack took advantage of the “me time” the feds gave him in Cumberland Prison to propose two reforms to clean up some of the mess he reveled in before his unfortunate incarceration.
First, he recommends that lobbyists, recipients of federal contracts and anyone who benefits from public funds be prohibited from making contributions or providing gifts to those in power. This alone covers everyone from General Dynamics to residents of Section 8 housing. Then he adds to his impossible dream by calling for a lifetime ban on lobbying by Members of Congress and their staff.
Conservatives automatically suspect any contribution prohibition because contributions are a form of speech. Yet I’ve never been entirely sold on the idea that semi–Socialist George Soros’ speech should forever be exponentially louder than mine, given the disparity in our bank accounts.
Counter–balancing conservatives like the Koch brothers grant what little peace of mind I have. (For conservatives the best of an uncertain situation would probably be to return to the unlimited contributions regime that existed before the “reforms” with the addition of unlimited and immediate disclosure of the donor.)
Campaign contributions from companies and individuals that take government money are inherently incestuous. It’s quite possible that most of the money that comprises the contribution originated as tax dollars before it was washed through the contractor’s accounts.
That’s one reason I like the idea. The other is the restriction is voluntary: don’t take the government check and you can contribute to your heart’s content. Even those affected by the ban face only a limited imposition on political speech. They can still give to state and local candidates, they can give to parties and they can spend their money on independent expenditures.
Speech bans already exist without undermining the Constitution. For example, individuals with a Top Secret clearance are prohibited from discussing the secrets in public, which is a limit on speech. Judges aren’t allowed to discuss cases while the trial is in progress, which is another voluntary limit on speech. So how does the prohibition on contributions differ?
Precedent for the equally voluntary lobby ban already exists in a limited form. Congressmen, Senators and staff are currently required to wait one year before they can board the lobby gravy train. Abramoff’s idea just extends the time limit to forever.
Politicians become lobbyists after leaving office because they’ve been captured by Washington and joining the permanent political class just seems like the thing to do. The constituents, who were fine as long as they were providing votes, are no longer up to snuff when it comes to being neighbors.
This voluntary rule — combined with term limits, which has also has a new supporter in Abramoff — would do much toward ridding us of the professional politician who’s only goal in life is serving in big government where he can “be a positive force for change.”
Three good ideas, regardless of the source, that have as much chance of being enacted as Ron Paul does of being President.
When I learned Cong. Barney Frank (D–Libertine) was retiring after 30 years in the House, my first thought was don’t let the door hit you in the behind. That’s because Frank personifies everything that’s wrong with the political class currently infesting our nation’s capitol.
Frank is morally, politically and ethically corrupt. This Democrat party leader helped produce a nation that’s economically crippled and morally adrift. He may be the Congressman from Taxachusetts, but everyone is enjoying his legacy.
When the first warnings regarding the housing bubble were sounded Frank was rabid in his defense of federally supported Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s ‘come one, come all’ lending practices. Frank stated, “I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.”
What Frank didn’t say was that he had used his influence as a member of the House Financial Services Committee to land his homosexual lover a job at Fannie Mae. So while Frank was rolling our dice his boyfriend was one of the croupiers.
Herman Cain may have been squeezin’ the Charmin while he was head of the National Restaurant Association, but I guarantee he didn’t twist arms at Denny’s to get them to hire his sweetie.
Unfortunately, Frank’s roll of the dice came up snake eyes for the rest of us as we continue to endure the Great Recession.
Are foreclosed homes lowering your property values and contributing to the decline of your neighborhood? Thank Barney Frank.
Are you having trouble refinancing because loan documentation is causing you to jump through hoop after hoop? Is getting a loan to buy a new home impossible because down payment requirements have skyrocketed? Or is selling your home difficult because every appraisal is low–balled? Thank Barney Frank.
Are your annual dues increasing while your homeowner’s association is simultaneously cutting back on services due to budget deficits caused by foreclosures? Thank Barney Frank.
Is your retirement nest egg now your retirement embryo after your 401k tanked? Thank Barney Frank.
Lacking any moral compass, Frank doesn’t feel any shame over what his advocacy and legislative record caused. He doesn’t fade into the background. Instead, as Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, he co–authors the Frank–Dodd financial reform legislation that’s supposed to repair what he’s destroyed.
Only in Democrat party politics does the master of the disaster get to write the legislation that’s supposed to clean up the mess. At least the captain of the Titanic had the decency to go down with his ship. Frank would have demanded a seat in the lifeboat so he could direct the rescue.
But why shouldn’t Frank feel entitled? His longevity is a product of a gerrymandered district that made him impervious to public opinion. Frank’s first scandal involved putting a live–in homosexual hustler and convicted drug dealer on his House office payroll. Frank used his position to fix parking tickets for his roommate and later lied to a Virginia prosecutor who was investigating the prostitution ring the hustler was running out of Frank’s townhouse.
Then Frank finds a new boyfriend and puts him on the job at Fannie Mae. Now Frank’s latest paramour is growing marijuana in their home, but who knows, maybe Massachusetts voters believe progressing from prostitution ring landlord to in–home illegal agriculture is progress.
Barney Frank’s personal and political record is a living endorsement of term limits. He survived for 30 years because his district was drawn to prevent Republicans from running and Democrat political insiders prevented primary opponents from challenging him.
Term limits would prevent much of that insider gaming of the political system. There is simply no reason for someone to be in Congress for 30 years.
And please spare me the “seniority means we have more clout” argument. Seniority rewards longevity, not productivity. If your elected representative is able, your district will have influence.
There is a perfect example near where I live in Virginia. Del. Jackson Miller (R–Manassas) was just elected Majority Whip by the Republican caucus in the House of Delegates. This puts him number four in the House hierarchy, yet he’s only been in office since 2006. Miller didn’t have to get arthritis in service of the public before his merit was recognized.
The average tenure of a CEO in business is six years; surely a Congressman can do enough to have a post office named after him in twelve.
Good riddance to Barney Frank. Now if only two or three hundred members would follow him out the door there might be a chance to change the incestuous culture in Washington.
Impeached, former president Bill Clinton specifically told Morning Joe that while he does not think he should be allowed to pollute our White House again in the future, run for POTUS again, so just whom would he have in mind when he says U.S. Presidents should be able to take a little break and then run for reelection again? He tells America that we should just repeal the 22nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the above interview. Would Bill be suggesting that he would like his good friend, G.W. Bush to be allowed another shot at being our president? Not likely there, despite the media-muckers pathetic attempts to convince us that those two are lifelong buddies today. How about digging up Progressive Poppa FDR for a fifth term? He has certainly has had a good long rest. [in a graveyard where it is quite peaceful] I,m sure the progressive stage prop managers of today could find one of their Hollywood make-up artist pals to make FDR look presentable for photo shoots for another presidential campaign if they tried hard enough. No, FDR probably wouldn’t be elected to another term today, as the whole world now knows FDR died of a massive brain tumor that exploded in a stroke that killed him.( That sure explains a lot, as far as how mentally competent the author of the progressive New Deals 1 and 2, was during his time in office)
Stop the presses! What if the person to whom Bill is referring to isn’t an ex-President of the United States ? What if Bill Clinton has now come to the reality of the distinct possibility that Barack Obama will become a one and done President by being thrown out of office in the 2012 elections? Barry is still relatively young, and with a few more years of mentoring from Billy Clinton and Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, Barry just might be able to hide enough of his record to make another run for POTUS in the future. Would the American citizenry ever be so gullible and politically ignorant enough, to ignore just what Barack Hussein Obama has done to this country during his first term in office, and elect him at a future date? They certainly proved to be just that in 2008, when they elected him the first time, didn’t they?
Pictured at the left is President Obama, Bill Clinton and Chicago slumlord extraordinaire Valerie Jarrett, whom with no actual credible experience in government is now serving as a senior adviser to the President, and whom many say is the driving force behind the far left Liberal Obama policies that have plagued this nation for over three years now. We can only surmise just what Clinton was lecturing Obama about on that occasion, yet when considering Clinton’s recent calling for the repeal of the 22nd amendment on Presidential term limits, we could now draw the following caption:
“Now listen, Barry, these ignorant Americans have somehow caught on to our Socialistic agenda of transforming America into a third-world rat-hole by trampling on the U.S. Constitution and bypassing Congress by enforcing illegal laws by executive fiat, so here is what we are going to do. We will start a national propaganda campaign to repeal the 22nd amendment, so that when the American voters throw you out of office in the 2012 elections, we can reinsert you at a later date to continue our Socialistic agenda. Remember, I am the expert here on fooling the American public, just look at how I got away with saying I never had sex with Monica. Even though I was impeached, there are still enough gullible sheep who think we are the Democrats of yesteryear who actually cared about the working class and the poor. “
In getting back to the above interview with Joe Scarborough, once again Americans are being lectured by disgraced ex- President Bill Clinton, he of the “Head White House intern, Monica Lewinsky goes down under in the White House” fame. With 2012 GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain facing an avalanche of allegations of “attempted” vague sexual advances while being married, ( just as Clinton was when he actually cheated on Hillary) and the media flooding our lives with the related sensationalist headlines across America the past few weeks, we must ask ourselves why we constantly allow ourselves to be lectured by Slick Willy Clinton, the former pot-smoking-but-never-inhaling, philandering, dishonest, morally bankrupt adulterer, on anything concerning our lives today. Has America become that soullessly ignorant or so completely morally bankrupt today? Considering that the infamous “Little Blue Dress” Monica Lewinsky was wearing at the time she was showing Willy just how delicious she thought he was started a pop-culture-like worship once upon a time, yes, I,d say America is well on their way to becoming 100% morally bankrupt.
Willy refused to actually identify the actual piece of legislation that created term limits in America, while slickly also avoiding mentioning by name the Democratic President that the 22nd amendment was specifically drawn up for, to prevent future Presidents from remaining in the White House for more than two terms. That would be what many historians believe to be considered the father of the Progressive/Socialist movement in America, one Franklin Delano Roosevelt. (FDR) Not to be confused with the Grandfather of the progressive movement, Mr. Woodrow Wilson, with a dishonorable mention going to semi-Republican Teddy Roosevelt.
Past Progressive Presidents make GOP candidate Herman Cain look like an alter boy.
FDR was the President of the United States from 1933 – 1945. President Franklin Roosevelt died in the first year of his fourth presidential term. In the room with him at the time of his death was his daughter, Anna Roosevelt Boettiger, an artist doing a portrait of FDR and…. his longtime mistress, one Lucy Mercer Rutherfurd. Upon hearing of her husband’s death, Mrs. Roosevelt faced not only the disturbing news of FRD’s death, but also the fact that his mistress was with him on his deathbed in the White House. While U.S Presidential history is chock full of philandering, womanizing, morally bankrupt adulterers, (FDR, JFK, Willy Clinton) today’s progressive media hypocrites are today consumed with Herman Cain’s ”suggested” or “wishful” unfaithfulness to his wife by unnamed and non-credible accusers. Golly gee whiz Batman, imagine what they would be doing if Herman Cain actually had Bialik under the White House desk like Slick Willy did, or carried on a decades long affair with a mistress who was at his bedside upon his death right in the White House? (As Poppa-Progressive FDR did)
The last thing the American people will ever allow to happen is the repealing of the 22nd amendment of Willy Clinton’s dreams in order to allow the Marxist ideologue and lifelong Bill Ayers student, Barack Obama to slither back into the White House again. It is also immensely disgusting to see the progressive-liberal media operatives putting the perverted, unfaithful adulterer who disgraced the United States office of the Presidency for all the world to see, on national television to lecture the American people. Bill Clinton is a disgrace to this great nation, and nothing more.