Vol. 09 No. 34
Page I of IV ->
THE FOUNDATION
"To say that the United States should be answerable for twenty-five millions of dollars without knowing whether the ways and means can be provided, and without knowing whether those who are to succeed us will think with us on the subject, would be rash and unjustifiable. Sir, in my opinion, it would be hazarding the public faith in a manner contrary to every idea of prudence." --James Madison
GOVERNMENT & POLITICS
Obama's plan for America: Debt, debt and more debt
So This Is Hope 'n' Change?
In May, when the federal deficit was projected to be $7 trillion over the next decade, President Barack Obama was asked, "At what point do we run out of money?" His reply was actually rather candid: "Well, we are out of money now," he said. Last Friday, the administration adjusted its deficit projection -- upwards, of course. The White House now says the number will reach $9 trillion, including $1.6 trillion this year and $1.5 trillion next year. So much for The One's promise to end the years of "borrow and spend" budgeting.
The Congressional Budget Office simultaneously projected a deficit of $7 trillion over the next decade, a lower number because the CBO considers only current law, not White House proposals. The Wall Street Journal reports that "these deficit estimates are driven entirely by more domestic spending and already assume huge new tax increases. CBO predicts that debt held by the public as a share of GDP, which was 40.8% in 2008, will rise to 67.8% in 2019 -- and then keep climbing after that. CBO says this is 'unsustainable,' but even this forecast may be optimistic."
Among the problems with the White House estimate is that it depends, in part, on raising $640 billion through the cap-and-tax bill as well as another $200 billion in international business taxes. Both bills face opposition in the Senate, even from some Democrats. And these new taxes aren't guaranteed to produce more federal revenue. Instead, we can count on cap-and-tax to depress the economy, resulting in less revenue. The White House already expects unemployment to hit 10 percent this year.
The CBO estimate, meanwhile, is based on the ridiculous premise that Congress will hold spending to the rate of inflation. The Journal remarks, "CBO actually has overall spending falling between 2009 and 2012, which is less likely than an asteroid hitting the Earth." The CBO also assumes that all of the Bush tax cuts will expire, even those for lower and middle class families.
Finally, the president's crown jewel, ObamaCare, projected to cost at least $1 trillion over the next 10 years, is entirely omitted from the deficit estimate because Obama pledges that it won't add to the deficit. Next, he'll be trying to sell us some oceanfront property in Arizona.
From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File
Speaking of Arizona, at a town hall meeting in his home state, sometimes-Republican Sen. John McCain was asked by an audience member, "I would like to know how the president is getting by with all of this money. It's against the Constitution. Doesn't he know we still live under a Constitution?" The transcript follows (hat tip to Rush Limbaugh):
McCain: I'm sure that he does. I'm sure --
Audience: (laughter)
McCain: No, no, I'm serious. I'm sure that he does and I'm sure that he respects the Constitution of the United States.
Audience: (groans)
McCain: No, no, no, no. No, I -- I -- I -- I really do. I -- I am absolutely convinced of it.
Audience Member: No!
McCain: I just believe, my friends, that there is a fundamental difference in philosophy and about the role of government. That's why we have competition for public office and competition amongst parties and competition about different ideas and visions for the future of America. I am convinced the president is absolutely sincere in his beliefs.
Audience: (groans)
McCain: But he's -- wait a minute. Wait a minute. He is sincere in his beliefs. We just -- we just happen to disagree, and he's the president of the United States and let's be respectful.
In a friendlier atmosphere on ABC's "This Week," McCain said, "I look at this as an opportunity right now. ...[W]ouldn't it be a good idea for us Republicans and Democrats to sit down with the president? ... There's so many areas that we are in agreement on."
In a nutshell, that's why McCain lost in November. He just doesn't get it.
'Win One for Teddy'
Predictably, Democrats and their accomplices in the Leftmedia began using the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy to rally the troops for a government takeover of health care. Oddly enough, radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh predicted last March that the bill would soon be known as the "Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill." As National Review's Jonah Goldberg notes, "At the time, the official position of the Democratic Party was outrage and disgust." Now Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), the only senator having occupied office longer than Kennedy, has fulfilled Rush's prediction by proposing the legislation be named after Kennedy. Goldberg observes, "[T]his suggests that either Democrats already had the idea when Limbaugh floated it, which would mean their protests were just so much opportunistic and cynical posturing, or they actually got the idea from Limbaugh himself, which would be too ironic for a Tom Wolfe novel."
Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto adds that Democrats "propose to brush aside the public revolt against ObamaCare, seize control over one-sixth of the economy, and give government life-or-death powers over all Americans -- all so that they can pay tribute to their dead colleague. Haven't they heard of a nonbinding resolution? ... It's hard to imagine anything more outrageously self-indulgent than for [Kennedy's] erstwhile colleagues to pay tribute to him by imposing on everyone an expensive, unpopular and potentially deadly scheme of social control. Could Washington be more out of touch?"
Former vice president Al Gore put in his two cents: "Ted would want nothing more than for his colleagues to continue his life's work and to make real his dream of quality health care for all Americans." That's true. Why else would one of Kennedy's last acts be so blatantly partisan? As we noted last week, Kennedy fought to change Massachusetts law in 2004 so that Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, couldn't appoint a Republican to replace John Kerry should the latter have won the presidential election. Just before his death, however, Kennedy pushed to have the law changed back so Democrat Gov. Deval Patrick could appoint a Democrat. ObamaCare, after all, may depend on that 60th vote. Still, as even The New York Times editorialized, "To change back now would look like an unseemly amount of partisanship."
ObamaCare is Big Brother Legislation
We regularly draw attention to provisions in the health care bill guaranteed to make stomachs turn. This week is no different. "Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and 'other information as is prescribed by' regulation," CBS News reports. "That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for 'affordability credits.'"
But wait, there's more. CBS says, "Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify 'affordability credits.' Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a 'low-income prescription drug subsidy' but has not applied for it."
Such intrusion comes with the territory -- let the federal government provide for such personal things as health care, and one can expect to encounter unfavorable regulations and privacy violations in the name of countering fraud.
But at least some Republicans get it: Here's Rep. Mike Rogers (MI) explaining the false choices before us.
Meanwhile, not that it's news, but the Leftmedia is securely in the pocket of the Democrat Party. While ABC News contributed a prime-time slot to the never-ending Obama campaign in June so that the president could sell his health care plan, it's no surprise that the network has refused to run an ad by the non-partisan League of American Voters. ABC labeled the ad, which aims to highlight the truth about ObamaCare, "partisan." Spokeswoman Susan Sewell said, "The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue." No word on whether she said that with a straight face.
On Cross-Examination
"I'm a Marine Corps vet. And, like you, I did swear an oath to defend my Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. ... Now, I heard you say tonight ... that you're going to let us keep our health insurance. Well, thank you. It's not your right to decide whether or not I keep my current plan or not. That's my decision. ... I've heard recently in the media you and some other people on the national political stage call us 'brown shirts' because we oppose [government health care]. ... A little history lesson: The Nazis were the National Socialist Party. They were leftists. They took over the finance. They took over the car industry. They took over health care in that country. If Nancy Pelosi wants to find a swastika, maybe the first place she should look is the sleeve of her own arm. ... What I want to know is, as a Marine, as a disabled veteran that served this country, I've kept my oath. Do you ever intend to keep yours?" --Marine Corps vet David Hedrick at a town hall meeting in Clark County, Washington, speaking (with resounding applause) to Democrat Rep. Brian Baird
Hot off the press! "American Patriot" stickers are back!
Our newly revised American Patriot sticker is made from durable, high quality vinyl and measures 10" x 3".
Cash for Kitchens and Criminals
On top of soaring deficits, Business Week highlights more outlandish federal spending: a "$300 million cash-for-clunkers-type federal program to boost sales of energy-efficient home appliances." Rebates of $50 to $200 will be available this fall for the purchase of such appliances. "These rebates will help families make the transition to more efficient appliances, making purchases that will directly stimulate the economy," claimed Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Still, dishwashers aren't quite as cool as cars...
In other news, "The federal government sent about 3,900 economic stimulus payments of $250 each this spring to people who were in no position to use the money to help stimulate the economy: prison inmates, reports the Associated Press. "The checks were part of the massive economic recovery package approved by Congress and President Barack Obama in February." Prisons returned about 1,700 checks, but 2,200 inmates got to keep the money because they weren't incarcerated in any one of the three months prior to the so-called stimulus being enacted. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) quipped, "Taxpayers already believe the inmates are running the asylum in Washington. Now it appears they are being compensated for their efforts."
From the Left: Rangel's Latest Ethics Lapse
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) recently amended his 2007 financial disclosure report, adding $500,000 in previously unreported assets. Small oversight. Among the additions were a Congressional Federal Credit Union account valued at $250,000, an investment account valued at $250,000, real estate in New Jersey and various corporate stocks. Rangel is already a poster child for ethics lapses, and he currently faces a number of investigations for tax evasion, improper use of his office and violating New York City rent control laws. Although it's unlikely that true justice will be served in such a hyper-partisan atmosphere, Rangel's image has been tarnished as his troubles continue to mount. In addition, he's had to assemble plenty of financial and political resources toward fighting the allegations, thereby reducing his ability to support liberal causes. Shucks!
Republicans have asked him to step down as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee while these investigations are taking place, but Rangel has refused. Naturally, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has stood by his refusal, although in the past she has called for Republicans in less egregious circumstances to relinquish leadership roles. So much for San Fran Nan's incessant vows to clean up the "culture of corruption." If it weren't for double standards, liberals wouldn't have any.
Knoxville Conviction
On Tuesday, Letalvis Cobbins was convicted of first degree murder in the infamous Knoxville slayings reported by Mark Alexander. He is the first of four defendants to face trial for the double murder of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian in Jan. 2007. The following day, he was spared the death penalty and instead sentenced to life without parole -- and Tennessee taxpayers were sentenced to between $70,000 and $100,000 per year to support him. Still, one down, three to go.
0 comments:
Post a Comment