Sunday, December 30, 2012
Anyone else think it's time to see senator Cornyn removed as Texas representative? His recent support for the "fiscal cliff" compromise shows me that he enjoys spending other people's money and would rather see taxes increase so that he can continues to do without regard to that unsustainable path. Cornyn would rather ignore the realistic idea that cutting spending creases deficits, while raising taxes only increases the national debt. How can anyone so ignorant of economic principles be allowed to make fiscal choices on behalf of anyone else? There is nothing bipartisan about what politicians are doing today in regards to responsibility in government, and voting them out is one effective way to make a change in the state.
At least, with Cornyn and Pelosi holding hands-on this "compromise," we don't have to pass the billet see what's in it...
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Despite being toosick to testify in front of Congress, Clinton traveled to the Dominican Republic for the New Year. Politics as usual...
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Here's my problem: for months prior to Election Day, many Democrats and liberals insisted that the position of the presidency was so vastly important that it was worth suspending certain moral and ethical principles in order to elect the better candidate. I don't want to rehash the wrongness or rightness of lesser evilism yet again. I'm just pointing out that this was the argument. And please note that the moral stakes simply could not have been higher; what was in argument were issues of literal life and death, of our stance towards the killing of innocent people. Retaining the presidency was so important that we had to put some of our most basic convictions on hold.
More: Lawyers Guns Money
The Swash calls it for what it is;
Seventy-five percent of the new revenue pulled in by President Barack Obama's "fiscal cliff" plan would go toward new spending, not toward deficit reduction, the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee contends. Here's a chart, detailing how money from the new tax hikes would be distributed:
I'm not keen to side with one party over the other, but this is just ridiculous. Budgetary debates within government tend to focus on decreases in future spending rate increases, which is hardly cutting back. It's like saying you are not going to spend $100 in the future, only $97. Adjusting future projected spending rates are not the same as cutting spending when we need immediate cuts to keep things from grinding to a halt as a result of career politicians and their partisan politics, not that anything has or will change while either party has their hands around the necks of taxpayers...
According to the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee, $1.2 trillion of the proposed $1.6 trillion in tax hikes would go toward new spending, while only $400 billion would go toward deficit reduction.
"The [president's] plan called for $1.6 trillion in new taxes, twice what the president asked for in the campaign. He asked for $800 billion during the campaign. Now he wants $1.6 trillion in new taxes," said Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, last week on the floor.
"Spending under that plan would increase $1 trillion above the levels agreed to in the Budget Control Act, as signed into law. We agreed to the Budget Control Act 16 months ago, in August 2011, and we raised the debt ceiling and agreed to reduce spending. We raised the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion and agreed to reduce spending $2.1 trillion. The President's plan would take out over $1.1 trillion of those spending limitations that are in current law. I repeat, spending will increase more than $1 trillion above the already projected growth in spending," Sessions added.
"Our spending is growing. It is not decreasing. It is already projected to grow, but the President's proposal is to have it grow even faster than the law currently calls for."
House Speaker John Boehner accused President Barack Obama on Tuesday of slow-walking negotiations to avoid the "fiscal cliff" and urged him to name specific cuts in government spending he would support as part of any compromise.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Why would the New York Times choose to publish an attack on Susan Rice ("a surprising and unsettling sympathy for Africa's despots") in its Sunday edition? The Times turned over prized op-ed real state to Salem Solomon ("an Eritrean-American journalist who runs Africa Talks, a news and opinion Web site covering Africa and the global African diaspora"), who signaled the UN Ambassador that a nomination to be Secretary of State would not be a bed of roses. Just in case she felt that going on those five Sunday shows and playing a meat puppet mouthing whatever she was told to say about Benghazi deserves some sort of reward.
I see it as a sign that President Obama has decided that confirmation hearings for Rice would be so politically costly that he would be better served by another nominee. Right now, it appears that former Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, is being test marketed. Rice is getting the message indirectly that her reward for loyalty is being deferred.
Friday, December 7, 2012
In case there is still anyone out there that continues to believe that the 2008 campaign lines that Barack Obama gave about changing the way Washington works, stopping “politics as usual,” and providing more transparency in government are true, then get a load of this. On Wednesday, Obama demonstrated just how partisan and how much of a power grabber he is. He indicated that if he were not given unlimited powers to raise the debt ceiling, apart from Congressional approval, that he might just veto his own tax hike proposal should it come to his desk.
As Obama addressed corporate CEOs at the Business Roundtable, he told them that business leaders “should not accept going through” another debt-ceiling crisis like the one that occurred in 2011, which caused stocks to fall and ended with the first U.S. credit rating downgrade.
He said that the Republicans using the debt ceiling as leverage, in order to get more spending cuts, is not only a “bad strategy for America,” but he was adamant that it was a game he would not play.