About Me

In writing the "About Me" portion of this blog I thought about the purpose of the blog - namely, preventing the growth of Socialism & stopping the Death Of Democracy in the American Republic & returning her to the "liberty to abundance" stage of our history. One word descriptions of people's philosophies or purposes are quite often inadequate. I feel that I am "liberal" meaning that I am broad minded, independent, generous, hospitable, & magnanimous. Under these terms "liberal" is a perfectly good word that has been corrupted over the years to mean the person is a left-winger or as Mark Levin more accurately wrote in his book "Liberty & Tyranny" a "statist" - someone looking for government or state control of society. I am certainly not that & have dedicated the blog to fighting this. I believe that I find what I am when I consider whether or not I am a "conservative" & specifically when I ask what is it that I am trying to conserve? It is the libertarian principles that America was founded upon & originally followed. That is the Return To Excellence that this blog is named for & is all about.

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Sequester Cuts - A Start In The Right Direction

Regular readers of RTE know that sequester updates & reports have been posted on the blog right from the beginning of the series of cliffs & crises that resulted from the standoff between Congress & BO regarding raising the debt ceiling on July 28, 2011 & continued all through 2012 & right up to today – just hours before the sequester's mindless across the board spending cuts are set to take effect.  Of course Congress & BO have not put forth an effort equal to raising their little fingers to sensibly prevent the sequester let alone done one substantial thing about it in the last 19 months.  It would take about two hours to figure out a better solution than the sequester if both political parties were really interested.  Pitiful how we the people allow this to happen to our future, isn't it?
Now you can just imagine how surprised I was (as well as any of you who read these messages closely) to find out that the overwhelming majority of Americans have no idea what the sequester is or have never even heard of it.  I hope everyone who works in the defense industry as well as everyone concerned about our military readiness made their voices heard when it counted.
The original August 2011 debt ceiling crisis resulted in four flashpoints for the Republicans to take on BO's socialist policies – 1) the fiscal cliff of the 2013 New Year's night when BO got his tax rate increase, 2) the late January round that raised the debt ceiling until May, 3) the start of the sequester on March 1 that calls for $85 billion in across the board spending cuts through September 30 on the 40% of the spending plan that Congress controls every year, & 4) the reauthorization of the Continuing Resolution (CR) on March 27 that funds many government agencies.
To paraphrase Nancy Pelosi we had to come to this point of crisis to find out what the sequester means to people:
1. Conservatives have become fond of saying that the sequester cuts are only about 2.4% of total federal-government spending & this is true as far as it goes. However, the 60% of the spending plan that is on auto pilot (e.g. Social Security) as well as other programs & agencies such as the Federal Reserve & Post Office are exempt from the sequester cuts. This means that only a portion of the total spending plan is affected by the sequester & accordingly it is estimated that the cuts will be 5% to 13% of the portion being considered.
2. The $85 billion 2013 FY sequester cuts are made up of about $44 billion of budget reductions that will take place during the rest of FY 2013, which ends September 30, with the remainder lagging by months or even years in the esoteric Washington budget processes.
3. The sequester cuts will be divided into about 1,200 federal programs & then further divided into tens of thousands of subprograms & projects. There are three main categories:
A. Defense spending constitutes about half of the total cuts with many individual programs cut about 13%.
B. Nondefense spending.
C. Medicare payments to hospitals & doctors are projected to be cut 2%.
It has always been obvious that BO has no intention of cutting any spending whatsoever other than from the DOD.  We have to be careful that we aren't fooled by the old Washington trick of proclaiming financial responsibility by only cutting the rate of growth of planned spending while not actually reducing the absolute spending level.  In fact after this first round of sequester cuts federal spending will increase by over $15 billion in FY 2013 & after the entire ten years of the $1.2 trillion sequester program is enacted federal- government spending will increase by $7 trillion.  So although there will be some pain from time to time overall federal spending will increase after implementation of the sequester program.
But BO made one of his few political mistakes when he suggested & signed the sequester into law nineteen months ago.  All the Republican House has to do now is nothing & the sequester cuts will go into effect @ 12:01 AM on March 1.  Accordingly the hurtful sequester, as distasteful & mindless as it is, is the last chance we have in the foreseeable future for our elected reps to show any financial responsibility whatsoever.
Since BO does not want to enact the nondefense sequester cuts this entire matter is very aggravating to him because it diverts his attention from the programs he really is interested in regarding the completion of the socialization of America (comprehensive immigration reform to grant citizenship to future Democrat voters thereby ensuring that no Republican ever wins the White House again, minimum wage increases to shore up the union vote, & stricter gun controls to further disarm the citizenry).  Accordingly BO is trying to put forth the worst front possible regarding the sequester & it will not all be good – some people will lose their jobs.  The biggest point for all of us to understand regarding BO's position is that if we cannot cut $85 out of every $3,528 that the government spent in FY 2012 we have no hope of ever achieving any financial responsibility going forward. 
My hope is that this infinitesimal amount may just resonate with some people who are BO supporters & that a little chink develops in his armor.  If BO proposes a starting point by making dreadful cuts of the most strategic programs Republicans can counter by showing where more sensible cuts could be made.  That is finally a start in the right direction.  We then have until March 27 to lock the sequester cuts into the CR & a whiff of financial responsibility will be in the air.  If we show support to get these politicians thinking in these terms the sequester can be replaced by the type of budget control thinking that goes on around every kitchen table in America.
On a historical note the first sequester legislation was the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.  Coincidentally the first sequester under Gramm-Rudman took effect on March 1, 1986 – exactly twenty-seven years ago to the day.  After a few attempts @ spending restraint Gramm-Rudman was watered down by subsequent legislation until it disappeared & really has been long forgotten. 
There is a meeting @ the White House on Friday that Boehner has been invited to – nothing good can come of this & Boehner has sworn off negotiating with BO.  The survival of this current sequester legislation will depend on the outcome of this meeting. 

Sunday, February 24, 2013

O'Reilly Identifies America's Biggest Problem

"We have met the enemy & he is us." – Pogo, April 22, 1970
In nine words Pogo succinctly made the same point that Bill O'Reilly expounded upon on the O'Reilly Factor on FNC last week in two talking points memos that asked the question & provided the answer to "What is America's biggest problem?"  Both of Bill's excellent memos are below that identified America's biggest problem – we the people. 
It is refreshing to see Bill's consistency on this most important point over the last year - something has riveted home to him BO's intentions.  But we need many more sources with no obvious political bent that reach large audiences to join in to help the American citizenry see what is happening under the covers.  Even with the tremendous change in mindset that Bill has made himself I am still not sure that he sees where BO's plan ends for America – & it is not pretty for anyone but especially not for those who are taking our freedoms for granted or think & blindly hope there must be a viable alternative to BO's policies – there isn't yet.
After presenting the first memo Bill questioned Scott Brown who either did not have a clue as to why the American people themselves are the biggest problem facing the country today or Scott is planning a run for governor of Massachusetts & did not want to say – his dodging the question "why is this happening" was embarrassing & reminded me of Mitt Romney running from the "47% victims" remark that could have made the difference in the last presidential election if he had taken it on.
Herman Cain, who came on next, was not much better saying the problem is "a deficiency of leadership."  Herman went on to say "We have a severe ignorance problem with people who are so mesmerized by his (BO's) popularity that they are not looking @ the facts."  Herman was so dissatisfied with his answers on The Factor that the next morning on his radio program he returned to the scene of the interview & defensively said you cannot answer a question like that in a six minute TV segment & then proceeded to talk more about the lack of leadership the people have allowed in a twelve minute radio segment – generalities that are still far from the mark.  Too bad – Herman has still not recovered from the election campaign & persists in promoting his disastrous 9-9-9 tax reform plan.
Of course we are the problem because we have allowed the country to move to the apathy to dependence stage of Death of Democracy & we are teetering on the dependence back into bondage final stage.  The majority has voted for the candidate who promised the most benefits from the public treasury & the result is that the country is about to collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which will end with the Fed totally debauching the currency followed by a dictatorship. 
Until more people are willing to clearly say, define, & explain the transformation of America that BO is executing right before our very eyes the country will continue to slide toward the final stage of Death Of Democracy.  In just the last seven to ten years I have seen the country drop @ least two stages & we only have one more to go before all the freedoms the citizenry takes for granted disappears. 
---O'Reilly Factor Talking Points Memo – February 19, 2013 - What is the biggest problem facing the country today?---
"On paper, the biggest problem is the national debt, which is approaching $17 billion with no end in sight.  But in reality, the biggest problems the nation has is us, the folks.  After World War II millions of military people returned home to start families & the prevailing wisdom was simple – work hard, respect your country, & provide a good education for your kids.  The USA was not a fair society back then as blacks & other minorities were still denied equal rights, but most Americans regarded their country as noble.  Today we have a society where the President, who sets the tone, believes his country is not a fair place, & also believes that his mandate is to change the capitalistic system so that Washington can provide.  That philosophy saps personal motivation & creates a mindset of victimization.  Add to that the rise of the machines, where you & I can create our own little world & spend most of our leisure time playing mindless games or texting about trivia.  What is society doing to encourage achievement  these days?  Nothing!  If you are prosperous, you are a bad person in many people's minds.  The biggest problem this country has is the way we the people are now behaving."
---O'Reilly Factor Talking Points Memo – February 20, 2013 – What is America's biggest problem? Part II---
"As we told you last night, America is changing rapidly and many of those changes are harmful to the nation. A big problem is the court system, and here is a good example: The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that a woman who ingested crack cocaine two days before giving birth did not abuse or neglect the baby she was carrying. The judges were basically saying you can take hard narcotics while pregnant and society will not hold you accountable. On the political front, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has proposed a new law that would allow late-term abortions for pretty much any reason, and those abortions would not even have to be performed by doctors. If I could speak to Governor Cuomo, and he would never consent to that interview, I would simply ask him, 'Do you care at all about the unborn?' This kind of mentality is a dramatic shift from what America used to be, and that shift is also reflected in our social programs. Over the past 10 years, means-tested welfare is up 91% and federal disability claims are up nearly 60%. The brutal truth is that we are a country in decline. Our social programs don't work, we do not protect the innocent, and more and more of us want handouts."

Thursday, February 21, 2013

The Laffer Curve Versus BO's Idea Of Fairness

click on graph to enlarge
Above is the famous Laffer Curve first drawn on a cocktail napkin by Arthur Laffer in 1974 to explain to Jude Wanniski, Dick Cheney, & Don Rumsfeld that there is a sweet spot on the tax rates axis that will yield the maximum tax revenue for the government.  This sweet spot is paradoxically @ a lower rate than what many politicians instinctively think it should be.
Now I have always had a problem with the Laffer Curve because of its proponents, including Art Laffer, who emphasize the part about "the maximum tax revenue for the government" – the curve shows the government how to get the most money possible from an income tax system but by so doing provides politicians an open invitation to spend even more money than they normally would – give them more money & they will spend it.  Many of us remember that in the 1980s Reagonomics lowered the income tax rates & the tax revenues increased only to find that spending increased even more & the deficits & interest on the national debt widened.
Of course it is true that every time supply side principles like those derived from the Laffer Curve have been tried under the Harding, Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, & GW Bush presidencies the country experienced economic growth.  JFK, the lone Democrat in this supply side group, realized that high income tax rates were an anchor around the country's neck.  JFK was willing to see more people get rich while he watched the increased revenues flow to the government treasury from his reduction in the top marginal rate from 91% to 70%.1
Not so BO, who has repeatedly put his idea of fairness over maximum revenue collections meaning that his plan is designed to punish success as measured by income while increasing destructive class warfare & envy.  BO parts company with JFK in that BO turns down maximum tax revenue if it means people will prosper in living the American dream to its fullest – BO would rather spread the wealth around & have less wealth than have people succeed & generate more tax revenue.  After all, BO knows that he can borrow any shortfall in tax receipts from the Fed to fund his many programs as he has been doing since his first day in office.  
Don't think for a minute that BO does not understand that high income tax rates bring in less revenue than lower income tax rates found around the sweet spot on the Laffer Curve or that lowering the top federal income tax rate brings in higher revenue from other taxes like the payroll tax when more people go back to work due to increased economic growth.  Payroll taxes can find their way into the General Fund of the Treasury when they are borrowed from Social Security – the payroll tax receipts can be exchanged for "special issue" securities held in the accounting Trust Fund from where the cash can go into the General Fund of the Treasury where it is indistinguishable from other cash in the General Fund.
Even those who don't pay the least bit of attention, but still are breathing, must ask themselves from time to time "just how does any of BO's policies help anyone?"  Adding record numbers to the food stamp rolls, the disability ranks, & the national debt while hoisting a nationwide healthcare insurance program on over 300-million people to theoretically obtain healthcare insurance for the fraction of the uninsured American population plus his near trillion dollar Stimulus & job destroying cap-and-trade plan are just a few topics that touch on BO's anti-American policies that have been documented on RTE for well over five years. 
Are people really so oblivious that they don't know, even if they are one of them, that 12.3 million people are unemployed + 8.0 million are working part time but want full time employment + 2.4 million are marginally attached to the labor force of which 800,000 have become so discouraged that they have stopped looking for any work @ all?  Aren't enough people feeling the pain of the deterioration of over $4,000 in real inflation adjusted median annual household income during BO's first term or the artificially manipulated low CD interest rates that deprive many seniors of some additional money they could use in their golden years? 
Now I know BO has a way of addressing one mess after another as though he was just an innocent bystander who had nothing to do with anything that has gone wrong even though he is the head of our government & all of the problems described immediately above are intentionally imposed by his design.  It takes a real master of disguise to deliberately inflict this punishment on people & continually get away with it.  Or is it that government programs have replaced the immediate need for jobs & CD interest income for enough people that BO was able to win reelection & still has a 52% approval rating?
To confirm the last question with an obvious yes & to answer who is helped (in the very short run) by BO's policies I return to a posting of over two & a half years ago that many of you may remember where I described the ultimate telecommuter - "we have a portion of the electorate who is growing in size all too fast - who could not care less about what happens to America as long as they receive their government relief checks. This portion of the electorate would not hesitate to vote for someone in jail who has raped their grandmother, been convicted of pornographic crimes, is an admitted crack cocaine dealer who dodged paying income taxes on millions of dollars of money derived from illegal activities, & was captured by our military as an enemy combatant fighting for al Qaeda against America - if that person could telecommute from his jail cell with phone, fax, & computer to approve the issuance of the relief checks needed by his hapless constituents who very soon will comprise the majority."
1.  Supply side economics works best in an income tax system when both the capital gains tax rate & the top marginal income tax rate are on the sweet spots on their respective Laffer Curves.  This is because people who have significant unrealized capital gains & high incomes that can be deferred have discretion as to when to take income & don't pay these elective taxes unless it makes economic sense to them.  These risk takers of their own capital & job creators work best to grow the economy when the tax rates are low.
The most successful president who practiced supply side economics was Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s.  The income tax, ratified by the 16th Amendment in 1913, was supposed to be a flat tax with a single rate of 4% but it quickly changed to a graduated tax of 1% to 7% with the income brackets determined by the ability to pay.  By 1921 Congress had raised the top marginal rate from 7% to 73%.   President Coolidge was the only president to follow all of the supply-side economic principles:  1) the reduction of the size of government and its claims on earned income, 2) a lower marginal tax rate for the highest income earners, & 3) sound-money policies.   Silent Cal reduced the top 73% income tax rate to 25% by 1925, reduced the national debt, & balanced the budget – a budget that actually was smaller when he left office than when he took office.  Federal spending was 3% of GDP in 1928 – it is 24% today. 
One of the problems with the current Flat Tax plan is illustrated above.  The income tax was conceived as a flat tax but rapidly grew into a progressive & graduated tax with huge increases in the rates.  This was made possible because of the complexity of the income tax bureaucracy – today there are over 70,000 pages that comprise Treasury Department Rulings, IRS Regs, CCH's own tax explanations, & the Internal Revenue Code itself.  With this entire body of quite often contradictory knowledge that a taxpayer is held accountable for when preparing a tax return it is easy for politicians to tell one group of voters that another group will pay for any income tax hikes – & of course this rarely if ever works out for the average tax payer.  This cannot happen with the FairTax because there is only one rate & it is uniformly paid by everyone so if the FairTax rate is raised the electorate will be able to quickly determine if they are getting their money's worth & if not take appropriate action @ the ballot box.

Monday, February 18, 2013

Responses - Rubio's Response - No Laughing Matter

Below are four very thoughtful & insightful responses that add to the original discussion of the subject message re Marco Rubio's State of the Union Response.
---Response #1---
Just two thoughts about all the multiple airings of Senator Rubio reaching out to drink some water. Will there be any backlash from the Hispanic people in our country towards the ridiculing of Senator Rubio? Also, you may have seen Reverend Al Sharpton's mocking Senator Rubio by holding up a big jug of water to get a drink - it doesn't seem to me that that is very kind behavior by someone who expects us to call him Reverend.
---Response #2---
Doug, thanks for sharing Rubio's response. He covered a lot of territory in less than 15 minutes, and yes, the word substantive fits exactly with his presentation.  How sad that one insignificant moment caused such a stir, when the content of his speech was right on target.  Carol is so right – what a shame.
---Response #3---
It is outrageous that the Left and Media refuse to debate core points of Senator Rubio's arguments. Instead they pursue to destroy an articulate, bright guy who can seriously challenge the Left's power.

Why is the Main Stream Media (MSM) a propaganda machine for the Left?

My opinion:
They went to college and chose not to learn skills that would create wealth and increase prosperity. Instead they majored in liberal arts, communications, or journalism while learning much from Leftist professors about their call for Big Government solutions. They then entered the MSM with an anti capitalist passion and a goal to expand Big Government and emulate European social welfare. Many more intellectual ones learned Marxism in detail and yearned to be part of a drive to establish a modern version of Marxism in the US (not outright ownership of the means of production but major control over all industries and companies). The root cause of Leftist thought in U.S. colleges came from Europe, the birth of Marxism in the 19th century and perhaps the first truly Big Government/social welfare ruler – Otto von Bismarck. European professors came over to U.S. colleges, feeling it was their calling to spread Leftist thought.

So the Left feels it is a noble mission to spread Leftism. Those like myself who champion free market capitalism must accept this fact. And then what are we to do? A great answer is to emulate Dr. Benjamin Carson. On Hannity (Feb 15) he stated that it was his mission to educate the populace of how the U.S. can reach new prosperity through choices of tax and regulatory reform to unleash the private sector to create wealth, not distribute it. Carson also pointed out that the Left makes most significant choices based on ideology, not empirical data or facts. Is not that why the Left can only mock Rubio about his lunge for a water bottle?
---Response #4---
Need not worry, after the first amendment is erased anyone will be able to sue for any words spoken.

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Rubio's Response - No Laughing Matter

Florida Senator Marco Rubio provided the best, most substantive State of the Union Response I have ever heard.  All of the media, including FNC, has continually shown only the portion of the video of the senator reaching for & taking a drink of water.  This spot has been analyzed to the nth degree for format, presentation, & comedy but not a word about substance have I heard – Carol commented "what a shame."
For anyone who missed it on Tuesday night click here to see for yourself if Marco's response is a laughing matter for the still unsuspecting people whose lives are being torn apart by BO.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Tea Party & Establishment Republicans Move Farther Apart

click on graphs to enlarge
Thanks to a frequent contributor for sending this link of a video that follows up on the recent posts re how Tea Partiers should present their non-apologetic pro-growth ideas that oppose BO's socialist giveaway policies that are meant to destroy America. 
Please note the acknowledgement to Congresswoman Michele Bachmann made early in the video.  Michele is the founder of the House Tea Party Caucus – the idea for a Tea Party Caucus was originated by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul when he was campaigning as a Tea Party candidate in 2010. 
Unfortunately establishment Republicans are not moving in the Tea Party direction of limited government, personal responsibility, & free enterprise let alone talking these points up.  Instead they are more focused on addressing the trends shown on the above graphs by appealing to Hispanics & other groups in similar ways that the Democrats do – namely government giveaways.
For instance last week House Majority Leader Eric Cantor made a pitch in a speech @ the American Enterprise Institute that he hopes will broaden the GOP base.  Cantor focused on women, minorities, & younger voters by saying Republicans would be working to improve student-aid programs, inner-city education, & the need for better use of medical research funds.  Cantor said he believes that colleges should publicize the potential earnings & job potential opportunities associated with different majors – as if we don't know this already – & that employers should give working parents more flexible hours so that they can spend more time with their families.  All of these topics are more closely identified with Democrats than Republicans. 
When quizzed by Larry Kudlow later that same day Cantor assured Larry that Republicans were still the same financially responsible party they always have been – & the truism of that statement is the reason we are in this mess.
Now I don't minimize the importance of winning the electoral support of women, minorities, & younger voters - it's just that establishment Republicans are going about it all wrong. In fact far from dismissing these groups I believe it will be hard for Republicans to win another national election in our lifetimes if the voting trend of Hispanics shown on the above graphs continues.  That is why something real needs to be done.
But we shouldn't underestimate or deny what is happening right before our eyes.  BO won reelection in November, has an approval rating of 52%, the Democrat controlled Senate picked up seats, the Republican controlled House lost seats, & the Supreme Court unconstitutionally found ObamaCare constitutional so we have a lot going against us & the majority of people are satisfied with the way things are going.  It just could be that BO sees the future of America correctly – if the people want it his way & are not persuaded to go another route.  From such a precarious position it is not farfetched to think America could turn from our democratic tradition to welcoming a dictatorship.
The Tea Party approach, when properly expressed so that its simplicity & truthfulness can be understood, not only wins the electoral support of the foregoing groups but makes the future of these groups & everyone else for that matter much brighter – not only economically but in the happiness & fulfillment people will feel.  Do people want a life of government programs & dependence that will not be sustained for much longer meaning we will move to the final stage of Death Of Democracy of apathy back into bondage or do they prefer the happiness & dignity that comes from the personal responsibility that returns America to the liberty to abundance stage of our founding?  Throughout the world free countries are the wealthiest & healthiest – that is freedom = prosperity.
Our Wall Street Financial VP gets us away from the mediocrity of Cantor's new pandering approach & same losing ways & returns us to Tea Party ideas when he recently wrote the following:
Doug - yes. Evidence is strong that BO is trying to destroy the GOP and capitalism. He seems to be strictly following his ideological idol Saul Alinsky. Most Americans have no clue about this. So how can the opposition respond?

The answer is that we need at least one prominent persuasive person intimately versed in Economics, Marxism, and Alinsky tactics. This person should relentlessly and in great detail describe what BO appears to be up to. This person should explain that an Alinsky variant Marxist is not a Stalinist or Maoist. Nevertheless he should explain what the likely consequences of Alinsky Marxism will be for the U.S. if fully implemented. This person should be a quick thinker on his feet and an exceptional debater and be able to outsmart the press. He would be wise to hire body guards as he will drive the Left crazy.

What can we do? Contact prospective leaders to step it up as described to save the country. First thoughts about prospects include Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Rand Paul Delivers The Tea Party Response To The State Of The Union Address

Click here to read the text of Rand Paul's Tea Party Response to BO's State of the Union address.  Along with the excellent GOP response delivered by Florida Senator Marco Rubio we have found two leaders who effectively make the contrast between BO's socialist intentions & our heritage of limited government, personal responsibility, & free enterprise which are the bedrocks of our liberty.  As both senators pointed out in their remarks the choice is up to us.

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Responses - Dr. Benjamin Carson's Keynote Address BO Did Not Want To Hear

Below are four responses to the subject post that I present for the benefit of subscribers who do not read the posts directly on RTE – where all comments are always posted.
Since Dr. Carson delivered his speech he has been in great demand – he has been on Hannity, Fox & Friends, & was the subject of a WSJ editorial to name three I know of.
Sean was so taken that he unabashedly told Dr. Carson he should be president.  On Fox & Friends Dr. Carson said that his older brother Curtis also was academically inclined & is a mechanical engineer who works for Honeywell in the aircraft landing division.
Both of their successes are the result of their not accepting that they were victims of anything.
In June 2002 Dr. Carson was forced to cut back on his public appearances when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, but the cancer was caught in time.  Thank Heavens.
---Response #1---
Saw the video per RTE yesterday. Thanks for the heads up. We need more like him to come forward.

WSJ took note. Maybe now more persons of influence concerned for our country will come forward.  I can only hope.

---Response #2---
Excellent.  Notice he said what was on his mind in a simple eloquent way. And he had the courage to say it with the Obamas sitting 5 feet away. John Boehner and the rest of the wimps A/K/A "The Republicans" in Congress should take some notes.
---Response #3---
I think BO had all he could do to keep his facial muscles in check. The video is excellent, usually I can't stomach BO on video for that long... But I kept watching his face... I was enjoying watching him twist in the wind... Much enjoyed... I will be sharing this one...
---Response #4---
I just watched the video.  I have one word for this man---Incredible!  Will go to the Library Monday to get his book.

Friday, February 8, 2013

Dr. Benjamin Carson's Keynote Address BO Did Not Want To Hear

Thanks to our SC businessman for sending this link of Dr. Benjamin Carson speaking not a word BO, MO, or Biden wants to hear in the keynote speech Carson delivered yesterday @ the National Prayer Breakfast as BO sat just a few feet away.
Dr. Carson is a world-renowned pediatric neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital.  In 2008 he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom – the highest civilian award in the U.S.

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

An Immigration Lesson On Finding The American Dream

click on graph to enlarge
Once the BLS issued the January unemployment report last Friday I expected BO to give his usual short disingenuous comment that the economy is getting better & then get back to what he really is interested in these days – comprehensive immigration reform, gun control, man-made global warming, & getting Chuck Hagel confirmed as Secretary of Defense.
With the U6 unemployment rate unchanged in January @ 14.4% with over twenty-two million people in this category (12.3 million unemployed + 8.0 million working part time but wanting full time employment + 2.4 million marginally attached to the labor force of which 800,000 have become discouraged & stopped looking for work @ all) some of us wonder how BO gets away with avoiding the effects of such a bad economy he inherited from the last administration – namely his.  Could it be that half of the citizenry (& the media) don't care about jobs any more?  Has the government provided enough dependent programs that gainful employment is no longer desired in America?
I would like to see a U7 category that would include all of U6 plus those employed full time who make a fraction of their former pay.  This category really describes the economic wealth spend down condition in America today.  But the above two questions still apply.
But BO's new tack is not to brush the economy off but to tie an improving economy to comprehensive immigration reform.  In a twenty five minute speech he delivered last week in Nevada that was supposed to be on immigration BO referenced the economy ten times – a record for him in that he rarely mentions the economy that often in speeches billed as being on the economy.
Although the Republicans did beat BO by one day in presenting their immigration reform plan they are still letting BO control the agenda – meaning by definition it is only a matter of how much of the issue they lose.  After the trouncing Republicans took in the last election where Mitt received only 27% of Hispanic votes many Republicans are looking to Rubio to lead them out of the Latino wilderness. 
Rubio's tone seems reasonable but sooner or later he comes out with things like 1) secure our borders first, 2) pay fines & back taxes, 3) go to the back of the line, & 4) learn English – none of which sounds friendly to Latinos.
The biggest mistake in every Republican immigration control plan I have ever heard is that they always start with "secure our borders".  No - the first point is to determine if we want these people in America or not – are we better off with them here?  Starting with "secure our borders" takes for granted that all eleven million people in the country illegally are here to stay one way or another which is exactly what BO & the Democrats want.
Now there are many reasons both for & against having the eleven million people who are here illegally stay, some of which are summarized as follows:
1.  They are already integrated into the economy.  For instance, Dan Henninger has said for years that the NYC restaurant business would collapse overnight without them.
2.   More workers will be needed when the economy starts to grow again.  The native born fertility rate in the U.S. is 1.6  The overall fertility rate in the U.S. has been about 2.1 (minimum number required to sustain a population) for the past several decades when you take into account immigration.  The above fertility graph shows that we dipped to 1.93 in 2010 meaning that if not for immigrants (legal & illegal) the population of the United States would be falling fast.  There have been over 55-million abortions in the U.S. since the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973 – looking @ this case from a labor shortage standpoint resulting from a below replacement fertility rate adds another dimension to Roe's significance.
3.  Since the 1920s most of America's immigration policies (& laws) have been based on quotas that restricted racial composition.  This should be rethought so we let in the people we want & need – like engineers & scientists who graduate from American universities.
4.  Solving the illegal immigration problem has the benefit to the U.S. that we would no longer have a growing underclass of people working in the shadow economy.
5.  Guest worker programs have worked before but the unions would have a large problem that could turn ugly.  In the event that the illegal immigrants gain legal status & join a union their wages will sky rocket sending the cost of everything they work on much higher.
6.  Many conservatives believe that any program that lets the eleven million people who are here illegally stay is amnesty & is a reward for breaking the law.  They reason that anyone who arrives hiding in the trunk of a car @ midnight is off to a very bad start.
The biggest problem with the position "we must secure our borders first" is the separate issue that this is admitting that our borders are not secure.  When Arizona Governor Jan Brewer pointed this out to BO her state was sued by the federal government.  The point being that if our elected representatives were interested in securing our borders & protecting our citizens they would do so regardless of the legal status of any eleven million people.  Regardless of any immigration reform program our borders should be secured.  What are our elected representatives waiting for? – but of course you know the answer to that.
But are Republicans smart to even get into an issue that may very well turn on whether they or Democrats offer the sweeter package – really just starting such an issue means that you lose if you withdraw later or more likely if BO drops out but successfully blames Republicans for any negotiation breakdown.  I say "may turn" because Republicans have an almost impossible task of winning a majority of Hispanics with an immigration reform approach.
Wouldn't Republicans be on firmer ground - rather than trying to beat the Democrats @ an immigration bidding war game that Democrats specialize in - to explain to Hispanics, & really everyone, that America under free enterprise is a far superior way to lasting prosperity than the unsustainable way of life that is being promised to them by BO.   Hispanics are quite capable of seeing the declining standard of living that the future holds for them under BO if it is pointed out to them consistently & sincerely by people who believe it themselves.  The American dream is the most optimistic gratifying way of life ever realized on the face of the earth & people who really want to experience it will respond when they understand the stakes. 
Part of the message is to unmask BO as someone who is trying to kill the American dream & cheat everyone out of reaching the potential in life they were born to live.  Under BO people will never experience the thrill & triumph of high achievement - the highs of life - so that to reverse paraphrase TR - everyone's place will always be with those cold & timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. As such the true cost to any socialist society like BO's, namely the opportunity cost, is more than just enormous - it is literally unimaginable.
Whether you start with the 47% of Americans who are "dependent on government, believe they are victims entitled to government handouts, & pay no income tax" or with the eleven million people who are in America illegally the message has to be delivered that there is a better way.  America's future depends on finding such a messenger – how apropos on President Reagan's 102nd birthday .

Sunday, February 3, 2013

Jim DeMint's Thirty

The great former SC Senator Jim DeMint said he would rather have thirty senators like himself in a party than seventy senators like Arlen Specter.  Although I agree with Jim I always point out that if you only have thirty such senators you will lose every vote in the short term but you will have a real solid base to rebuild from & that is what America needs if she is to have any chance @ all to continue to exist as a free land.  Once a majority is reached with these type of people our future will be a lot brighter.
Now the new senate has already taken a few votes & it looks like a solid caucus is emerging led by Rand Paul, Jeff Flake, Deb Fischer, Ted Cruz, Tom Coburn, Mike Lee, Jerry Moran, Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Pat Toomey, Richard Burr, Jeff Sessions, & I'm delighted to say Tim Scott – the new senator from SC who replaced Jim DeMint – who is now the President-elect of the Heritage Foundation.  Joe Manchin of WV was the lone Democrat to vote with this group.  A good bunch – just not enough of them yet.
There are two more key votes between now & March 27 – the first on the sequester will take place on or about March 1 & the second on the continuing resolution to fund the government on or about March 27.
All four of the financial cliffs that will be encountered in the first three months of 2013 (the first two have already passed) come with baggage for the Republicans & more importantly for the citizenry.  The fact that BO has a handy excuse or seemingly clever reason each time why not to work to control spending is another clear indication that he has no interest in America's financial future except to ruin it.  For instance what better time to agree to a program to control debt than the vote last week re whether or not to raise the debt ceiling.  I don't know how much more evidence some people need to understand BO is not promoting traditional America.  In fact he is an enemy of traditional America – how can anyone come to any other conclusion after studying his policies?   BO's immediate goal is to destroy the Republican Party & he has painted them into a terrible corner regarding these financial issues that he may just succeed with such an ill-informed electorate .
Below is the complete list of 34 senators who voted "Nay"  on raising the debt ceiling last week.  The biggest disappointments were Kelly Ayotte, John Thune, & Richard Shelby who voted "Yea" with John McCain, Lindsey Graham, & seven other Republicans to raise the debt ceiling. 
Not voting was Patty Murray, Democrat from Washington.  Senator Murray is the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.  Oh well.
Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 325 )
Vote Number: 11 Vote Date: January 31, 2013, 03:37 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: H.R. 325 (A bill to ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the United States Government until May 19, 2013, and for other purposes.)
Measure Title: A bill to ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the United States Government until May 19, 2013, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 64
NAYs 34
Not Voting 2
NAYs ---34
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kirk (R-IL)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Not Voting - 2
Kerry (D-MA)
Murray (D-WA)