Neither Party is Serious about Fiscal Responsibility

For the last two years, Republicans have lambasted the President over the deficit spending that he and the Democrats in Congress have pushed.  There is no question that such spending has been reckless given our national debt.  But it is hard to take seriously when their solution is nothing more than a regurgitation of the Bush (43rd) Administration fiscal policy.

Anyone in business realizes that when you are running a deficit, there are essentially three ways to get out:  either you increase revenues, decrease expenses, or engage in some combination of both.  It isn't any more complicated than that.  And yet, neither party is willing to engage reality and make the hard policy decisions that are required.  And for which the American public has for the last two years, begged.

The Republicans just last week put out their new "Pledge to America."  It sounds good, and for the most part, I like what it has to say, but on the most important issue, the economy and deficit reduction, it rings hollow.  There is no serious discussion in it about actually reducing the deficits.  Of course, they want to allow the Bush tax cuts to remain in effect, and they would like to cut discretionary spending, but for much else, they are silent.  I am ashamed to be a Republican supporter when they publish such a cowardly position.  There is no discussion about resolving problems with the entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security), there is no talk of looking at the defense budget, and there is no talk about revising the tax code.  That is about 90% of the budget that they have not discussed, and no way to pay for it.

Let's be clear, though.  It is better than what the Democrats have proposed.  They want to increase taxes on only a very small portion of the rich, while spending two and three times more on everything else.  That's like taking a weekend job earning minimum wage and hoping to use it to finance a yacht.  The Democrats' plan is spend until it is someone else's problem.

At some point, someone is going to have to propose a serious discussion about how to solve our problems.  We need to look at the defense budget and decide just what we need to defend our country.  There are a lot of good things that our military does that have nothing to do with national defense.  And as great as those programs may be, we simply can't afford them.  Entitlements are going to have to be cut.  You can say it any way you like, but the bottom line won't change, so there is no sense beating around the bush.  And the tax system needs to be overhauled.  Right now, we are punished for success in having an income tax.  Either move to a flat tax system that is fair for everyone, simpler and encourages less cheating, or scrap it in favor of a system based on consumption.

It is disappointing that we have an election coming up, and there is no real choice that makes sense.  Either our leaders have to step to the plate and make the tough decisions, or else we need to make the tough decisions for them by sending them home.

Carter is a kook.

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_6419/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=tnx1ff3f

How senile has Carter gotten in his old age? He honestly doesn't understand why the Jewish community might be upset with him? It might be his continued support for the Palestinians and his constant criticism for everything the Israelis do, like building in the West Bank.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.5.9

Why should Obama get credit for the surge?

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_6419/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=5ktqFqWc

President Obama, while Senator of Illinois, opposed the surge in Iraq, yet when he copies that strategy in Afghanistan, he gets credit for its success? Are reporters' memories really that short or are they simply lying?

Published with Blogger-droid v1.5.9

The Daily Kos' Daily Dupe

Ah, the Daily Kos tries so hard to make you think that Republican values are their own.  First of all, who they think they are fooling?  But second, and a much more interesting point is that it has gotten so bad over on the liberal side of politics that they are actually trying to show that they are good Republicans!


Initially I was heartened to think that the Daily Kos would start reading the Republican platform as they might educate themselves.  Then I realized that they had simply pulled out random sentences without context only to make a point that wasn't there.

You see, the platform itself also contained many other statements, like:
-"America's trust is in the merciful providence of God, in whose image every man is created ... the source of every man's dignity and freedom."  Wow, first sentence, declaration of support for monotheism.
-"In this trust our Republic was founded. We give devoted homage to the Founding Fathers. They not only proclaimed that the freedom and rights of men came from the Creator and not from the State, but they provided safeguards to those freedoms."  That's the second sentence, that all good things come from God and man, not government institutions.
-"We shall maintain our powerful military strength as a deterrent to aggression and as a guardian of the peace. We shall maintain it ready, balanced and technologically advanced for these objectives only."  Pro-military.
-"Restoration of integrity in government has been an essential element to the achievement of our unparalleled good times. We will faithfully preserve the sound financial management which already has reduced annual spending $14 billion below the budgets planned by our Democratic predecessors and made possible in 1954 a $7.4-billion tax cut, the largest one-year tax reduction in history."  Tax cuts and spending cuts.  That is a truly conservative statement.  Unfortunately, even today's Republicans don't go that far.
-"The individual is of supreme importance."  This is very different than what liberals (progressives) preach.  They want society and government to be at the forefront, like all other systems of government before us.  Under their theory, you can do as you like to an individual as long as it benefits society/the majority.  Conservatives believe by allowing each individual to pursue the best goals for themselves, we make society better.
-"Further reductions in Government spending as recommended in the Hoover Commission Report, without weakening the support of a superior defense program or depreciating the quality of essential services of government to our people.
"Continued balancing of the budget, to assure the financial strength of the country which is so vital to the struggle of the free world in its battle against Communism; and to maintain the purchasing power of a sound dollar, and the value of savings, pensions and insurance."  Reduction in spending and a balanced budget, both good.
-"We believe in good business for all business—small, medium and large. We believe that competition in a free economy opens unrivaled opportunity and brings the greatest good to the greatest number."  This espouses the true conservative's belief that we need open and fair markets that are pro-consumer, not pro-business, and without the government stepping in to put a thumb on the scale (as they have done so much lately).
This highlights only the first 10% or so of the platform, but it shows just how much the libs chose to ignore because it didn't fit their premise.

So, let's look at what they did say:
-They highlight the statement that we should be liberal.  That's correct, under the original meaning of the word, I agree.  You see, the two sides used to be liberal and progressive.  Sometime in the 60's "liberal" came to have the usage we understand today.
-We did support the United Nations... in 1956.  Back then, we could still count on other nations because we were not that far removed from people like Churchill.  It is not the same UN today.
-They highlight lower taxes?  Maybe there is hope for the Daily Kos yet.
-The largest expansion of infrastructure, good.  Because in 1956 we didn't have interstates and we weren't broke.  Today, we have interstates and we are damn near bankrupt.
-Under the guide of environmentalism, they list conservation efforts.  This is very different than the global warming theories.
-They highlight that the platform is pro-labor.  Indeed it is.  Because in 1956, labor unions worked for the benefit of the workers.  That isn't the case anymore (ask my father who had to fight his union so he could work and maintain the pension he worked all his adult life for).
-Support for the EPA and equal rights for men and women.  Again, 1956.  Things have changed in 50 years.

Leave it to a liberal website to pull 1% of the Republican platform from 50 years ago to make a point that doesn't follow logic.  But, I've never expected to find much logic within a ten-foot radius of a liberal.

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_6414/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=7ywF5RjA

It seems at least a few Democrats remember what liberty means.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.5.9

Is this the best Republican Commercial?

If this is the best commercial Republicans can come up with, we are in trouble.

The First Lady's Edible Agenda

Betty Ford fought against alcoholism.  Nancy Reagan fought against drugs.  Laura Bush fought against illiteracy.  Michelle Obama is fighting against butter.

Barack Obama just doesn't understand Linclon.

Last week, the President quoted a line from the first President from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln.  He stated that sometimes the government must step in to do things for the public that they cannot better do for themselves.  Specifically he was referring to healthcare.  I completely agree with him; unfortunately, I don't think the President understands what Lincoln meant.

One of the great things that Republicans (the good ones, anyway), can get from Lincoln is the idea that government should really only do two things for us:  things we could not do better for ourselves and things for which we could not have foreseen and therefore could not have planned.  First, of the things we could not do better ourselves, I would include national defense (I don't know about you, but I can't afford even a fractional share of an F-22), national parks, the highway system, and those things listed in the Constitution under Article I Section 8 (I know, liberals would have to actually read the Constitution).  Second, of the things we could not foresee or plan, it would include natural disasters beyond the scope of what we could foresee.  You couldn't include your multi-million dollar beach home because you know hurricanes happen and can destroy homes, but who imagined that Katrina would flood New Orleans?  There are times when the government needs to offer assistance.  And by extension it would include those people in society who can't help themselves.

Obama, however, misses the point when he tries to argue that Lincoln would have supported healthcare.  Take the second point first.  Don't we all know that some time in our lives, we are going to have health issues, problems, accidents that require a trip to the emergency room?  We can foresee these things.  Just because some people (usually younger, healthier adults) choose not to buy insurance, doesn't mean that government should use taxpayer money to buy it for them.  As for the first point and the one the President was trying to make, the truth is that people can get better healthcare than what the government is going to provide.  Would you trade your Blue Cross plan for medicaid?  Again, there are people who choose not to buy insurance or buy the cheapest plan (although it always amazes me that they have the latest cell phones and PS3 games), but that doesn't mean they couldn't.  They have simply chosen to allocate their resources on something else.

Next time the President wants to quote Lincoln, perhaps he should understand his point first.