Wednesday, 17 February 2010

McConnell Is Wrong On Commission To Reduce National Debt

It looks like Senate Republican Leader McConnell favors Obama's idea for creating a bipartisan commission to reduce the national debt.

Speaking Wednesday to the Danville-Boyle County Chamber of Commerce, McConnell said “the commission approach is the right way to go.” McConnell said he will recommend three senators to be on the commission, but he wouldn’t name those picks.

“The only instruction I’m going to give them is that I think the problem is that we’re spending too much, not that we’re taxing too little,” he said.

McConnell said he would like the commission “to come up with a way to deal with our large unfunded mandate problem: Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid. We have massive unfunded liabilities because we have promised way more than we can possibly deliver.”

McConnell is correct in pointing out two obvious points. First that we are spending too much and not taxed too little. Second, we can no longer afford to pay for unfunded mandates like Social Security and Medicare. His prescription for the problem is completely wrong.

Why do we need a commission to come up with solutions? Don't we already have a group whose job it is to solve these problems? They go by the name U.S. House or Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Isn't it their job to fix these problems? Why are the deferring to some faceless committee to do their job? Probably because they can't be held responsible for whatever half baked solution this "bipartisan" committee will produce. They are too scared that they might be held accountable for cutting the government or raising taxes on their own. It really is annoying to watch our representatives pass the buck on cleaning up the mess that they created in the first place.

Posted by brians at 9:32 PM in National Politics
Responses (0)

Thursday, 28 January 2010

Congressman Bret Guthrie Responds to SOTU Address

I came across Guthrie's response to last night's State of the Union address and found this important quote.

 “I liked the fact that he is beginning to look at the freeze on spending. I think that is just a first, very small step. The problem is, since I was elected, I voted against the stimulus bill, the omnibus spending bill, and most of the appropriations bills, because they have increased spending 67 percent.

 “So, it’s increased spending 67 percent, and now we are freezing it at the increase. We should go back and fund at previous levels.

I am glad he is my congressman! Guthrie highlights the disingenuous of Obama's promise to "freeze spending". He and his fellow Democrats who have controlled Congress since 2006 have dramatically increased spending. Now the want to "freeze" spending so they can look like they are doing something about run-a-way spending after they already spent like a drunken sailor. Big deal. Let's put this in perspective. Let's say that normally government spending might grow 20% over 5 years. What the Democrats did was grow it 30% in one year and now want to put a freeze in for a couple of years. Even with the "freeze" government is much larger and spends considerably more than it would have under normal growth.

Now if we can get more congressmen like Guthrie in office we might actually be able to reduce spending and reduce the size of government.

Posted by brians at 8:19 PM in National Politics
Responses (0)

Tuesday, 26 January 2010

EPA: A Danger To Our Country

The EPA is the most dangerous governmental body in the United States. They can arbitrarily change standards that not only become a regulatory nightmare, but can cost cities,  companies, and ultimately all citizens millions of dollars. Take standards for nitrogen dioxide.

Louisville appears — for now — to meet a proposed new national standard for nitrogen dioxide, a contributor to smog.

But Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District officials said they will need to conduct more robust monitoring, including establishing a new monitoring site near a freeway that could show much higher levels of the pollutant that comes from the burning of gasoline, coal and other fossil fuels.

The current monitoring site for nitrogen dioxide is at Bowman Field.

“The bottom line our workload just got a lot bigger,” said Larry Garrison, who oversees air monitoring for the district.

EPA officials said the new standard — 100 parts per billion averaged over one hour — will “protect millions of Americans from peak short-term exposures, which primarily occur near major roads.”

The EPA has decided that a new standard was needed and not only a new standard, but we need a new way to measure it. One that is more likely to cause cities to fail the standard.  How much is this "new monitoring" going to cost the city? How is that going to affect the already strained budget? If the city fails the arbitrary standards, how many millions of dollars is it going to cost the people of Louisville to become compliant? How much damage will it do to the city's economy? More importantly what is to be gained from these new standards? Is it worth the cost? I seriously doubt it.

Yet, this is the power that the EPA has over our lives and our economy. On a whim, they can cause severe damage upon any economic activity they want. Is this the type of power we want to bestow upon same faceless bureaucracy running the EPA. We need to put checks in place before they enact regulations that will ruin our struggling economy.

Posted by brians at 10:03 PM in National Politics
Responses (0)

Monday, 25 January 2010

US Senate Elections 2010 Update

Across the river in Indiana, it looks like Sen Bayh is in trouble. He currently trails Pence(R) 47-44 in the polls. He only holds a 3 point lead over Hostettler who has already announced 44-41. In all of the match ups Bayh doesn't get over 45% of the vote. Not a good starting point for a sitting incumbent. 

I don't find this surprising at all. A Republican wave is building and Indiana has traditionally been a Republican state. I have noted for a while now that Bayh has been drifting to the left since he has been in the U.S. Senate. Most notably on gun issues. Just this year, Bayh voted for Obamacare. Not exactly a popular position with people in his state. 

I think he is going to have a difficult time positioning himself as a "moderate" Democrat this election cycle. A few years ago this was a safe Democrat seat. Today, I think Bayh will be one of the vulnerable Democratic senators facing re-election. If it is a strong Republican year that I believe it will be, I suspect Bayh's tenure in D.C. may be coming to a close.



Posted by brians at 8:49 PM in National Politics
Responses (0)

Monday, 28 December 2009

The Looming Debt Crisis

Everyone likes to spend money. I mean who wouldn't enjoy blowing money as if there was no end? The problem with spending sprees are that you have to pay for them when the fun ends. It is starting to look like the U.S. spending spree is coming to an end.
IT'S TIME to stop worrying about the deficit -- and start panicking about the debt. To put it another way, short-term deficits aren't the real problem. The punishing hangover of borrowed money is. The ballooning national debt once looked like a long-term problem. Now, the long-term has become the middle-term, fast-forwarded by the cratering economy and the unavoidable and immense spending in the service of saving it.

Consider: In the space of a single fiscal year, 2009, the debt soared from 41 percent of the gross domestic product to 53 percent. By way of comparison, the average for the past half-century has been 37 percent. This sum, which does not include what the government has borrowed from its own trust funds, is on track to rise to a crushing 85 percent of the economy by 2018. Getting the debt back down to a reasonable level will require extraordinary, almost unimaginable, fiscal discipline and political cooperation. Failing to do so will lower the national standard of living and ultimately threaten America's economic stability.
The bottom line is we are out of money. Our spending habits over the last few decades are no longer sustainable. It is now time to pay the piper. If we don't, our money will become worthless through a combination of inflation and stagnation. Our standard of living will disintegrate. How do we solve the problem? The Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform offered a solution.
The fiscal situation was serious before the recession. It is now dire. An important proposal being released Monday by the Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform urges Congress and the White House to commit immediately to stabilizing the debt at 60 percent of GDP by 2018; come up with a credible plan for getting there; and begin phasing in the necessary policy changes in 2012, once the recovery is fully underway. Warnings about fiscal danger may sound familiar, but one reflection of the current circumstances comes in the composition of the group that signed on to this report and agreed that both tax increases and spending cuts would be required. They range from a liberal former chair of the House Budget Committee,  William H. Gray III of Pennsylvania, to a conservative former chair, Jim Nussle of Iowa. The recommendations envision annual benchmarks, enforceable by a debt trigger that would impose spending cuts and a surtax if the specified reductions were not achieved. Once the debt is stabilized in 2018, the goal would be to set it on a glide path to further reduction, (emphasis added)
Why is it whenever we talk about reducing the debt, tax increases enter the mix? It really isn't that freaking hard to solve the debt problem. DON'T SPEND SO MUCH MONEY! Half the crap our federal government spends money on is completely unnecessary. Until we cut back government to half the size it currently is we shouldn't be asking the tax payers to pony up any more money.  It is time Uncle Sam went on a diet. All we need are legislators who are willing to say no to the continual feeding of the monstrosity which is our federal government. As Ronald Reagan said "Balancing the budget is a little like protecting your virtue; you just have to learn to say no".

If we can't find any legislators willing to do the easy work, then we need to pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Let's force these idiots to create a balance budget. If most states can survive with a balanced budget law, surely the federal government can survive with the same constraints. The fun and games are over. It is time to get serious before we become a banana republic.

Posted by brians at 10:19 PM in National Politics
Responses (0)

Monday, 7 December 2009

Attack Of The Environmentalists

The environmentalists got a huge win today in their quest to to take us back to the stone ages where everyone lives in mud huts. The EPA ruled that CO2 (and other "greenhouse gases") are a pollutant. Yes, a key component of air is a pollutant. Yes one of the key components that allows plants to thrive is now considered a pollutant.

Completely ridiculous! But the goal is clear.

The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare and began to take public comments under a formal rulemaking. The action marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had refused before leaving office to issue the finding, despite a conclusion by EPA scientists that it was warranted.

Business groups have strongly argued against tackling global warming through the Clean Air Act, saying it is less flexible and more costly than the cap-and-trade bill being considered before Congress....

....the EPA has begun the early stages of developing permit requirements on carbon dioxide pollution from large emitters such as power plants. The administration also has said it will set the first-ever greenhouse gas emissions standards for automobiles and raise fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon by 2016 to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.  (emphasis added)

They are going to use the Clean Air Act to regulate and destroy the energy producers in this country. They have one goal. Rolling back capitalism and replacing it with statism. They have been trying to use environmentalism as the vehicle for some time and now they have won a great victory. They have turned air into a pollutant so they can regulate everything.

What infuriates me the most is that the it is all based upon a sham. Man made global warming is a myth. We are just now learning about how the University of East Anglia CRU has destroyed its raw data and manipulated numbers to make sure that temperatures were "constantly rising". They might not have been the only organization to do so either.

Fortunately, people are beginning to have their eyes opened to the scam. The latest polls show that only 45% of people believe in man made global warming and that number has been dropping. Hopefully, we can stop this dangerous trend towards eco-stalinism before our energy prices soar and economy is destroyed.



Posted by brians at 10:48 PM in National Politics
Responses (0)

Thursday, 8 October 2009

Bob Dole Calls Out McConnell

Former Sen Bob Dole reminded us today why he won 40% of the vote when he ran for president in 1996 by calling out Sen McConnell.
Later, he repeated that news, and elaborated on one "very prominent Republican, who happens to be the Republican leader of the Senate."

That would be Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Dole, to his credit, is having none of it. "I want this to pass," he said. "I don't agree with everything Obama is presenting, but we've got to do something."

He added: "I don't want the Republicans putting up a 'no' sign and saying, 'we're not open for business.'"
Let me get this straight. Bob Dole wants us to eat a crap sandwich just because we are a little hungry? He has got to be kidding? I think I would rather be the party of "no" rather than the party who ruined this country just because "we needed to do something". Last time we heard that logic, we were forced to swallow the turd burger known as 'stimulus". We had to do something or the economy will tank. Well we did something and it  did nothing to help the economy. All we got was a hefty tab we will be paying for generations from now.

Personally, I am relieved that McConnell has learned his lesson from the stimulus debacle and is holding out for real reform rather than allowing government to take over 1/5th of the economy. Especially when a MAJORITY of Americans oppose the bill. But then there was a reason that Bob Dole only got 40% of the vote. Today we are once again reminded why.

Posted by brians at 5:07 PM in National Politics
Responses (3)

Friday, 2 October 2009

Lesson From Failed Chicago Bid For Olymipcs

I am laughing today about the Olympic debacle. I am not laughing because Chicago lost the Olympics. I think it sucks that Chicago lost the bid for the 2016 games. I always want the U.S. to succeed on the international stage. Besides it would have been cool to have another Olympics so close to home. But with that said, I think we need to learn the lesson from this disaster.

When I learned that Obama was heading to Copenhagen to pimp the U.S. for the Olympics, I didn't have a problem with him marketing the U.S., but I thought it was a stupid idea to make a personal appeal to the IOC. Why is the leader of the free world wasting his time for the Olympics? What will it say if he fails? Why waste the political capital on the vote of a corrupt Olympic committee?

But he decided to go. The star struck media thought that Chicago couldn't lose with Obama on their side. They figured the star power of Obama would generate overwhelming support for the U.S in the IOC.  They glowed at Obama and his wife's appeal.
After flying through the night for seven hours aboard Air Force One, nobody would blame President Obama for being at least slightly groggy when he arrived in Copenhagen, Denmark, for a quick four hours to make the final pitch for Chicago to host the 2016 Olympics.

Maybe that explains why the president seemed to snag the silver medal while first lady Michelle Obama, who's been in Copenhagen a couple of days, clearly took the gold with an emotional speech focused on her family's roots in the South Side of Chicago, Illinois, and her late father's battle with multiple sclerosis.
And then the impossible happened.
Chicago is out — in one of the most shocking defeats ever handed down by the International Olympic Committee. President Barack Obama’s appeals for his adopted home town fell on deaf ears Friday.
The U.S. was eliminated in the FIRST ROUND. It was no accident we were eliminated in the first round. It was a chance for people that hate us to stick their thumb in our eyes. What I am laughing about today is the shock displayed by the Mainstream Media. They were flabergasted that Obama's appeal would fail so horribly. I find the whole thing hysterical.

It is about time that these idiots in the media and this administration finally have their eyes opened. The world leaders hate the U.S. They envy our strength and power. They will never love us. No amount of sweet talking and groveling before these people will change that fact. That is the lesson we must take from this debacle. And we must take it to heart!

The only thing leaders around the world care for is to see the U.S. fail. Therefore, we should not try to sweet talk the world. We shouldn't apologize for being Americans. We shouldn't try to play second fiddle on the world stage. In fact. we should be unapologetic about our principles and stand up for them whenever we get the chance. We should stand up for freedom and liberty around the world and not give a damn what the rest of the world thinks.  The world is always going to be jealous of the U.S. so we might as well continue be the shining city on the hill. We must always stand for our founding principles instead of cowering  and wringing our hands about world opinion polls.

Hopefully, Obama learned that lesson today. Otherwise the foreign policy of this presidency will continue to be a failure.

Posted by brians at 1:04 PM in National Politics
Responses (0)

Tuesday, 1 September 2009

The Obama Glow Continues To Faid

I generally don't talk about national politics on this blog because it is covered by so many other great sources, but one thing has struck me in the last couple of weeks and I wanted to comment. When Obama was running for president, he had the strongest asset of any candidate running. He was able to turn himself into a blank canvas. He allowed people to project whatever they desired upon him. He could be a liberal, a moderate, or conservative depending on the person's political leanings. And he ascentuated it with his ability to talk both sides of an issue. He was going to be the new post partisan candidate!

It amazed some of us on the right. We could see through the campaign and the words to the man's deeds. His (limited) history of voting and his associates told us he was going to be a man of the left. The most liberal president this nation has elected. But the average voter couldn't see past the Obama light show.

Fast forward to the 8th month of Obama's presidency. His strongest asset on the campaign trail has become his own personal nightmare. He can no longer hide behind lofty and esoteric words. He has to act as president. It are those actions which have disrobed him. His support for the orgy of spending, cap n tax, and now ObamaCare have unmasked him as the hard core leftists. Everyone now sees that he isn't the post partisan he claimed to be, but a disciple of the left. With the discovery comes something else, disillusionment. And it has found its way into his polling numbers. His numbers have been steadily declining since the early days of his presidency.

The question that remains is can Obama win back those disillusioned voters? I think it will prove much more difficult to regain these voter's trust than when he was a bright shiny blank canvas.

Posted by brians at 8:31 PM in National Politics
Responses (0)

Monday, 20 April 2009

When Did We Elect Dave As President?

This morning, I was perusing CNN's web site when I was befuddled to read that Obama was going to gather his cabinet to seek 100 million dollars in cuts.
President Obama returned to Washington on Sunday night with his eye back on his domestic agenda and a plan to save government money.

On Monday, Obama will gather his full Cabinet together for the first time as president and challenge it to cut a total of $100 million in the next 90 days, two senior administration officials said....

....The agencies would have to report how they saved on expenses after 90 days, the officials said.

A senior administration official described the edict as part of Obama's "commitment to go line by line through the budget to cut spending" and "reform the government."

My first thought was, "Did we elect Dave as President?" Does anyone remember the movie 1993 movie "Dave"? It starred Kevin Kline as a regular guy who happened to have an uncanny resemblance to the president. The president falls into a comma and rather than let the Vice President take over the chief of staff, played by Frank Langella, enlists Dave to fill in as the President. He sees Dave as a puppet that he can use to continue has hold over the strings of power.

At one point in the movie Dave goes and visists a day care center to later learn that the center is being cut from the budget. Dave is outraged that they would do something so slimy as visit a center that was going to be axed. So the chief of staff challenges Dave:  "Yeah. And if you can find a way to cut three hundred and fifty million dollars from the federal budget then you can keep your lousy shelters"

Dave then calls the cabinet together with the media and works with each secretary until he saves enough money for the shelter. At one point Dave is talking to the commerce secretary and asks about a program to make people feel better about the cars they drive.

Dave asks "I don't want to tell some eight-year-old kid he's gotta sleep in the street because we want people to feel better about their *car*. Do *you* want to tell them that?"

With the media all around the Secretary of Commerce has no option but to respond quietly "No sir."

This is the exact scene I envisioned with Obama playing the role of "President". I can see it now. Obama sitting around with his cabinet and asking them about program X. "I don't want to tell the next generation they will be saddled with a crushing debt so we could have X. Do you want to tell them that?"

This presidency has become a farce. Do they really think we are this freaking stupid? That a silly publicity stunt will make everything all right?  I mean come on. The 100 million they are going to "save" is .0125% of the 800,000,000,000 dollars they spent on the stimulus porkulus bill. It is a small pittance of the enormous debts we are going to be running over the next three years. And yet some how we are supposed to feel good that they are going to go line by line through the budget to save us taxpayers $100 million. That we are going to believe that Obama is doing something fiscally responsible. Give me a break. This is a classic case of Obama fiddling while Rome burns.


Posted by brians at 7:30 AM in National Politics
Responses (3)