State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo denounced Hiram Monserrate's last-ditch legal bid to keep his Senate seat as "dangerous" and "absurd," in papers filed yesterday in Manhattan federal court.
Cuomo, who's defending the Senate's historic vote last week to expel the convicted Queens Democrat, argued that lawmakers had every right to protect the institution.
If Monserrate's case were upheld, Cuomo contended, the Senate "could not expel a member who is demonstrably corrupt, insane or violent."
The Senate voted, 53-8, to boot Monserrate Feb. 2 as punishment for his conviction last fall on a misdemeanor domestic-violence charge. The former city cop was acquitted of more serious charges stemming from a 2008 incident in his apartment that left his girlfriend, Karl Giraldo, with a slashed face.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/18/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Back in early 2009, while the MSM noted the tax evasion problems of several of Obama's appointees, Congressman Charlie Rangel (D, NY) sat nearby, grinning like the Cheshire Cat from Wonderland. The tax transgressions of Timmy Geithner, Tommy Daschle, Nancy Killefer, et al are equivalent to shoplifting a candy bar from a convenience store when compared to Charlie's multiple, long-term, bank heists. Cholly's been at it for four decades!
... The Ethics Committee probe has been underway now for about a year-and-a-half. The Warren Commission took 10 months to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy.
If the House Ethics Committee drags out its "investigation" of Charlie until the 2010 elections, they'll come close to matching the time it took the Allies to plan the Normandy Invasion in World War II.
So what's going on his with this Inspector Clouseau-like, alleged investigation of Congressman Charlie Rangel?
Does the Ethics Committee accept Senator Reid's bizarre assertion that paying taxes is, after all, voluntary?
Are they covering Charlie because, after 39 years in the House, he knows where too many bodies are buried?
Do the Democrats plan to put the "investigation" into a coma until the 2010 elections when Charlie, who will be 80 years old next June, steps down to spend more time with his family?
Or, is Nancy Pelosi giving Charlie a pass because his predecessor in the first congressional seat Charlie occupied (NY-18) was Democrat Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.?
Powell was more overt in his financial and legal misbehaviors. On March 1, 1967, he was excluded from the House on a vote of 307 to 116. They threw him out, although he was later re-elected to the seat the House had tried to deny him and took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, where he won on Constitutional grounds.
Charlie, less flamboyant, has been more circumspect with his funny money deals. He's a team player.
And, finally, what's up with the MSM's silence about the investigation that just won't end?
Posted by: Fred ||
02/18/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
MSM=sock puppet, mouthpiece, party organ of one party. It's the great case, not the narrow exception.
New Jersey's leaders had a great idea for balancing the budget a few years back. Tap the state's wealthy through hikes in income taxes, property taxes and even a "wealth tax". So, how's that working out? Not so well, reports the Newark Star-Ledger:
More than $70 billion in wealth left New Jersey between 2004 and 2008 as affluent residents moved elsewhere, according to a report released Wednesday that marks a swift reversal of fortune for a state once considered the nation's wealthiest.
Conducted by the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College, the report found wealthy households in New Jersey were leaving for other states -- mainly Florida, Pennsylvania and New York -- at a faster rate than they were being replaced.
The story notes that this is a reversal from the five years prior to 2004, when wealthy people were moving into the state. All of that stopped abruptly with the tax hikes. That's a big problem for the Garden State because the top 1% of taxpayers pay about 40% of the state income tax. As one expert quoted in the story dryly notes, the loss of those residents may explain state budget shortfalls.
Wow, who knew the wealthy actually had the resources to relocate themselves if they decided taxes were too high?
An alternate theory -- that they are fleeing the state in embarrassment over the "Jersey Shore" reality TV show -- doesn't hold up since the exodus predates the show's premiere. It probably isn't helping though.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/18/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Aesop (also spelled Æsop or Esop, from the Greek Αἴσωπος—Aisōpos) (ca. 620-564 BC). The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs is one of many fables attributed to Aesop.
Two and a half millennium and humans still haven't picked up on their basic behaviors. But, we're so smart and modern, we're different. /sarc off
#3
When the public pension fund checks stop, it will all come tumbling down. I don't think we have long to wait in California. New Jersey and Illinois will be following in hot pursuit. The Gig is nearly Up.
#4
The public pension checks won't stop. They'll get bailed out by the Feds. And when that doesn't work anymore, they'll get bailed out by merging with non-bankrupt plans like your 401(k) & IRA. Only after that runs out will they fail.
#7
Keep an eye on Barry's "Deficit-reduction panel." Unless I miss my guess, they'll be coming up with a VAT for us. Of course it won't have Barry's name on it.
#8
they'll be coming up with a VAT for us That will be very good for strangling economic expansion, not so good for paying down the national debt. For that a growing economy is necessary, and I just don't see that on the horizon.
#9
And so it is with most States where taxes are very, very high, i.e. blue states and all that is wrong with them. The people who create wealth go somewhere where taxes are lower.
#10
I'm a big believer in national debt repudiation, because it will not only work, but work faster than any other technique, lead to recovery here and internationally faster, and force discipline where there is none.
First of all, debt repudiation primarily hits on "imaginary money", created out of leveraged debt, entitlements, promises and interest. This means it mostly nails speculative gamblers instead of "brick industries."
Second, it hits very quickly, before they can cash out and "buy good money with bad". If all they have is numbers on a computer, then they have no money.
Third, no more budget deficits. The only money in the Treasury are that years tax receipts. International trade ends as well, except for commodities transfer. 10-20 years later it will pick up again.
Outsourcing is dead as well. If America wants it, it has to make it. This starts our economic recovery.
#11
I like an idea I heard years ago. Limit the Federal budget to the total of tax receipts for the previous year. Anything over that has to be passed as a totally separate appropriation by 2/3 of both houses AND it has to be for an explicitly declared emergency on the order of a war, AND anyone voting for it needs to be term limited to current term (+1 for house) so that they are showing an up front committment to the critical nature of the problem.
Just when you thought Congress couldn't reach a new low, it did.
Only a third of US voters think their Congress members have earned the right to get sent back next year -- a record-low number, a poll released yesterday shows.
Thirty-four percent of voters queried think members of the House and the Senate ought to be re-elected -- while an astonishing 63 percent were in favor of throwing the bums out, the new CNN poll showed.
That's the worst performance for Congress in the history of the network's polling -- the latest red flag for the floundering Democratic leadership as it heads into an anti-incumbent voter wave just eight months before the midterm elections.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/18/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
Voters are dissatisfied with Congress as a whole, but mostly not with their own Congressmen, so things won't change. A few bodies may get swapped out but the replacements won't be any different.
#5
Incumbents' self-confidence does seem to be waning. We'll see what %-age of incumbents who run for re-election actually make it, I predict about the same as it has always been. I do not support term limits. I do support throwing the rascals out.
#7
For the older incumbents it a matter of cost effectiveness. Empty their reelection funds in a desperate attempt to hold on to their seat which is looking real iffy, or call it quits and get to keep the money in the reelection fund which is a sure thing.
#9
I was a long and fervent supporter of term limits until I listened to someone with a strong counter argument.
The problem with term limits is that it increases the power of the unelected bureaucrats because they are the only ones that know what is going on and how to make things happen. Imagine a totally uncontrolled HHS or DD.
This is why we need to cut way back on gov't. If there wasn't so much regulation we could worry about term limits. As of now I think that we need strong Congress folk with the power to rein in the bureaucrats. Ummm, does anyone know where to find some?
#10
The problem with term limits is that it increases the power of the unelected bureaucrats because they are the only ones that know what is going on and how to make things happen.
Yet you've live with just those conditions in DoD. The officers move about every three or four years to new assignments. It's the civil bureaucrats in the Pentagon, at the installations and schools, that provide continuity between those coming and goings. It has its issues, but one of them is not dominance outside of the [Service] Secretaries who usually move themselves with each administration change.
#12
The problem is the relationship between the federal and state governments. We've lost our federalism and need to get it back. Dems have spent 80 years chipping away at the basic structure of the Constitution. Here's how we get it back.
1. Repeal the 16th Amendment. Power and money go together. Congress could still collect excise taxes and the like, but no VAT, income, wealth or sales taxes.
2. Repeal the Commerce Clause. Section 1, Article 8 of the Constitution lists the powers that Congress has. It has no Constitutional authority to do anything else. One of those enumerated powers is to regulate interstate commerce. This is the basis for 99.99% of what the federal government does. Health care, light bulbs, growing wheat in your own backyard for your personal consumption -- Congress can regulate it all under its commerce power. So, that power goes away entirely and we replace it with an amendment which amounts to a free trade agreement among the states enforceable in federal court.
Congress would never approve these changes to the Constitution. It would have to be done via a Constitutional Convention of the States. That makes sense. It's in their interest. We'd need at least 30 rock solid governors to make sure the process stays on track.
Once enacted the balance of power shifts right back to state and local government where it belongs.
#15
yes term limits, it was never supposed to be a life long profession. I'm tired of the old timers telling the newbies to vote with them if they want to be on the right committees.
Also no more two tier health and benefits deal.
Posted by: Jan ||
02/18/2010 15:01 Comments ||
Top||
#16
How about banning any laws which only apply primarily to members of congress or their families or staff. Isn't that in violation of the 'equality clause'?
Actually simply banning any type of Security at the capital building will probably do wonders....
#19
Seems to me that the compensation for being a member of Congress used to be minimal.
The real money is in the reelection funds they build and get to convert to personal use at the end of their 'service'. The salary and staff are just small operating expenses by comparison for those who've been in long enough. Check how many family members are on the reelection committee payroll.
#20
The job has been morphed into something that is too desirable by the political types.
Read some history. Congress has been corrupt from the first one convened. That's part of life. At least a free press and elections allow us to pick new crooks so the old ones don't go too far.
#21
"At least a free press and elections allow us to pick new crooks so the old ones don't go too far."
It might if we had a free press, NS, instead of the PR wing of the DemocRat Party. And ACORN is doing their damndest to take care of the elections part. >:-(
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/18/2010 18:22 Comments ||
Top||
#22
We have a free press, Barbara, and you just demonstrated it. As did Rush this afternoon. And elections have always been rigged when possible. But it is less and less easy to do and easier to detect all the time. Look at the video of the New Black Panthers. I'm not saying things are perfect, just lots better than they used to be and improving all the time.
A review of Mr. Johnson's rise and his history, undertaken after he emerged as perhaps the man closest to the state's chief executive, shows that he was twice arrested on felony drug charges as a teenager, including a charge of selling cocaine to an undercover officer in Harlem.
The examination of his background, based on interviews and records, shows he has at least one other arrest, for misdemeanor assault in the 1990s, although there is very little publicly available about that case.
In a statement, Mr. Paterson noted how long ago the drug arrests had happened. "David Johnson has demonstrated, over the course of his adult life, that people can change their personal circumstances and achieve success when given a second chance," he said. "I will not turn my back on someone because of mistakes made as a teenager."
Mr. Johnson, 37, has also on three occasions been involved in altercations with women, two of which led to calls to the police. As recently as October, the police responded to a complaint of harassment at a Bronx address of a woman involved with him. It is unclear if the altercation was verbal or physical or both, but the case is listed as closed.
In 2001, when Mr. Paterson was a state senator, Mr. Johnson, according to a person who was present, punched a girlfriend outside the senator's Harlem office. No arrest resulted, and Mr. Johnson, through a spokesman for the governor, said that he never touched the woman, that she had come to the office inappropriately and that she had been asked to leave by others. He declined recent requests for interviews.
The woman involved, who insisted on anonymity, said in a recent interview that Mr. Johnson had gotten violent with her in the episode. She said she did not file a formal report, but said she had filed an earlier domestic violence complaint to the police about Mr. Johnson. She declined to offer evidence of that.
A spokesman for Mr. Paterson said Mr. Johnson underwent a standard background check by the State Police in 2008, which found no criminal record. Regarding the October incident, the spokesman, Peter E. Kauffmann, said, "The governor looked into the matter, and the complaint has been withdrawn." He said Mr. Paterson planned no further inquiry into Mr. Johnson's history.
Mr. Paterson has made domestic violence a key issue in his career; when he was lieutenant governor, it was among his signature causes. In 2008, just a few months after taking office as governor, he signed a major expansion of New York's domestic violence law to allow judges to issue civil protection orders against people in dating relationships, in addition to those who are married.
Last October, two weeks before the episode involving Mr. Johnson and the Bronx woman, Mr. Paterson opened a campaign to raise awareness about domestic violence, gathering with advocates for a lighting ceremony at the Empire State Building.
He has also become increasingly vocal in his criticism of former Senator Hiram Monserrate, who was convicted of misdemeanor assault last fall for dragging his companion down the hallway of his apartment building. On Friday, the governor praised the Senate's move to expel Mr. Monserrate and spoke at length about the pressures that victims of domestic violence face from their batterers.
"This seemed like a classic case of a woman who was intimidated, who didn't really understand what her independence could be, and was victimized," he said of the Monserrate case, adding, "The reality is that it's really just a prelude to another attack, in many instances."
Posted by: Fred ||
02/18/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin urged tea party activists on Tuesday night to "start picking a party."
In remarks to a fundraising dinner for the Arkansas Republican Party reported by CBS News, Palin praised the anti-tax tea party activists for their independence, but urged the "grand movement" to start thinking about joining one of the two political parties.
"Now the smart thing will be for independents who are such a part of this tea party movement to, I guess, kind of start picking a party," she said.
Palin suggested the grass-roots activists consider "Which party reflects how that smaller, smarter government steps to be taken? Which party will best fit you?"
"And then because the tea party movement is not a party, and we have a two-party system, they're going to have to pick a party and run one or the other: 'R' or 'D,'" she said.
Palin was speaking Tuesday as Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele was meeting with 50 tea party leaders in Washington.
After a more than four-hour meeting, Steele and the grass-roots organizers agreed to keep a dialogue open and meet on regional levels. The tea partiers would not, however, commit to supporting GOP candidates or to holding off from savaging Republican candidates in primaries.
Palin has been making an aggressive play of late to situate herself as a leader of the movement, recently speaking to the first-ever National Tea Party Convention in Nashville.
The Arkansas Republican Party said it hoped to raise $400,000 off of the event, according to The Associated Press.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/18/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I picked a side, and I won't vote for any incumbents for many years.
#3
We're picking a side. Push better primary candidates. Then pick the less bad of those in the general, regardless of party. Work into local party delegates etc., in either party. I have a copy of Heinlein's handbook around here somewhere.
#4
Glenmore, you have it right. It's really pretty simple:
1) The GOP is much more friendly to the concepts supported by the Tea Party than the Dems.
2) The members of the GOP that believe in the good ole boy trough slurping (eg John McCain) need to be beaten severely in the primaries.
3) Then in the general vote for the one closest to believing in smaller, cheaper gov't. which MIGHT actually be the Dem if the primary didn't work out.
#5
I picked a side a long time ago Governor -- It's called the The Constitution of the United States.
If I think a particular party's candidate can best uphold its original intent of limited self-government and those mandates in the way it was meant to be held will get my vote. I could give a rat's ass what party they belong to. Of late that party has been the GOP but not by a whole lot. The Tea Party doesn't need to be a wing of the GOP - if the GOP does what it is supposed to based on it's "supposed" core principles then they have nothing to fear from us Tea Partiers in fact, they will be benefitted by us...if they pull a mccain or trent lott - then yeah, go fuck off and rightly so. BTW - I think SP is one awesome lady in every respect but I'm suspect on this move.
#6
I'm with Broadhead, though I'm pragmatic enough (as in my arguments with Bill Quick) to vote the way Glenmore suggests.
As Bill Buckley once noted: I'll vote for the most conservative candidate electable. Sometimes that means voting for a RINO, in which case I'll hold my nose and do it.
But I want the pols to uphold the meaning of the Constitution: the government has a defined place in our lives, and that's not every place. It works for us. It has a job. Focus on that job and leave everything else alone. Candidates who understand that get my vote and my money.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/18/2010 9:43 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I think it's the republican party that needs to pick a side.
#8
the tea party movement seems very fractionalized at this point, she represents one aspect of it from what I can tell. I'm with Ron Paul and his version of the "Tea Party". Political concern and patriotism are whats needed though so every little bit helps, best to keep her speaking to the "people" through the Fox news network rather than through the executive branch of the USA, me thinks......just sayin
#9
Palin is wrong in this, because neither political party can do anything about this current mess. However, at the State level, these issues are starting to be addressed, in a *bipartisan* way.
In other words, this isn't a Republican-Democrat thing, this is a national government-State governments thing. The national government has too much power, and it is up to the States to reduce that power.
Not revolution but reformation. A return to constitutional principles.
Right now, the 10th Amendment movement is strong, but needs to move to the next level: State delegations traveling around to discuss and debate with other State delegations what must be done, and how to do it.
#10
Y'know, I voted for Ron Paul back in '88, and for the next libertarian candidate back in '92. It didn't result in libertarian policies or any sort of rollback in government.
#11
Since I am not an American you could tell me to mind my business but I will still give you an advice; Stop whining.
You have a wonderful system, one who is a thousand times more democractic than anything they have in Europe and that because you have thing called primaries so you can mold the parties to your tastes. It is not like in Europe where your betters decide what is good for you and you are asked to eat their dog food. Don't dream about a third party: in Europe they have plenty of them and they still don't have democracy (that is not elections but power of the people). Besides like for Ross Perot it would only handle victory to the Party who is soft against jihadists. Instead go to primaries and vote. I have seen too many people complain about RINOs, about GOP not being conservative but did they bother to vote in the primaries? If you did and your candidate was defeated then OK you may be angry but if all you did was seep beers in front of your TV watching liberal sitcoms then you have only you to blame if Obama's Republican successor is a second McCain or your representative is a RINO.
Please don't tout the Ron Paul nut jobs. This is as 'moose points out a case of too much Fed Gov taking away Sovereignty from the States. HOWEVER, it is very much in the power of the two parties to gain control of the Fed Gov and butt out of the many issues that should be the purview of the States.
The one thing that gives the FG so much power is the unlimited access to money. The states can't coin their own currency so they can't run the kind of deficits we see here without the devil coming due.
There are any number of issues that are important but the key one right now is to rein-in the spending machine. Concentrate on that and the natural necessity of defense and let the rest of it go back to the states.
#13
She's right. All the talk about third parties may be emotionally satisfying, but if you want to actually have something to say about who gets elected, you need to engage in the primaries. Register. Volunteer. Show up -- 90% of it is showing up!
The other thing is: keep at it. It's a long march, not a commando raid. There's always the next election cycle.
Finally: as Reagan once said, someone who agrees with you on 80% of the issues is not 20% your enemy. Let the lefties burn heretics for their insufficient purity; I'm out to win converts.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/18/2010 11:29 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Since I am not an American you could tell me to mind my business but I will still give you an advice; Stop whining.
JFM, your comments are always thoughtful and often thought-provoking. And always welcome here, whatever the subject.
#15
JFM is right. Let's quit whining. There's no reason Tea Party folks can't take over the parties (esp. the GOP) at the local level. Find 'em, support 'em, and vote for 'em. And to hell with that "idealogical purity" crap. I don't expect anyone to agree with me on everything, but I would like them to agree with me on the essential things, which starts with the Constitution (as BH6 would say).
When I see people talk of a third party or some fringe candidate like Ron Paul I remember that the implosion of the Whigs led to eight years of Democratic administrations and to, through nominations of pro-slavery SCOTUS judges to teh Dredd Scott sentence who opened the way for forcing lmeagalization of slavery in the North. Ie by the time the third party picks up steam the red star would be floating on the WH and/or USA be renamed US of Americanistan.
Now I will explain what happens in European countries with proportional systems (ie most).
You get to select one of several lists of people. These lists were made by a few party big cheeses and depending on the position in the list some people are either sure to be elcted or surte not to be elected. So for one side the party leaders have complete control over the representatives so these listen more to waht the leaders order thelm athan to the people. And for another side if he is on position two or three of a party who is expected to get 50 representatives even a known pedophile will be elected without the people being able to do anything about it.
Also government is formed through negotiations between the parties completely behind of the people. Now you could think that the party who got a known pedophile elected would suffer consequences isn't it? WRONG! Lety's consider three parties: two dominant ones alpha and beta, alpha being the biggest but neither of them being able to govern by itself and a smaller one Gamma. For one side it will be Gamma (ie the one who represents the lesser number of people) who will have the most influence over who will govern and wich policies will be implemented and for another side as long as it doesn't fall so low that the combo Beta+Gamma not superior to Alpha losing represntatives is irrelevant for either party. You can vote its opponents to your sake, you, your family, your friends and your dog, you will be unable to prevent the pedophile from being elected and you will be unable to do any harm to the party who did it.
That is why I tend to go ballistic when I see Americans complaining about their system or dreaming about third parties.
#17
Pick a side? I will as soon as one side comes to somethgin worthy of my full support.
The GOP is closest, but as long as Lindsey Graham, McStain, and other RINOs keep voting for bigger public spending, corporate favoritism/welfare, an opaque governing system, a damaged and convoluted tax system, intrusive laws, open borders and increased entitlements, they will not have my support.
Open and transparent government, smaller efficient government that does what it needs to do and NOTHING ELSE. Stop letting big business use government to stifle competition or bail out failed strategies (software patents for example, or the hideously overlong copyright laws, or healthcare mandates/regulations). Stop using tax policies as anything other than fund raising for the government programs. Stop earmarks. Stop pork. Stop pulling power to DC.
When the GOP starts doing that, and starts decreasing the size and scope and reach of government power, then and only then will you see people going there willingly.
Sarah, get the GOP to change. They need to earn our sanction, or go the way of the Whigs. Tell the Beltway RINOs and their blue blood hangers on that their time is up.
#18
Sorry Sarah, they HAVE picked, the choice was NEITHER, and OTHER.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
02/18/2010 14:42 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Instead of a third party they need to talk about a Caucus. That is a group (from any party) that subscribes to the Tea-Party Ideals. Have someone write them up and try to get politicians to pledge to that. Who knows, if you get a significant enough number you might start to talk about a new party, but at this point it's just bravado.
#20
Good idea RJ. Let's start with the GOP side because on this keystone issue I think that the Dems are hopeless.
Think what a "Teaparty Caucus" could do to the GOP? The bigger it gets the less clout the RINOs, of whom there will always be some, will have. And if push comes to shove the RINOs have to go Dem or go home. How do you think Specter's feeling about now?
The political numbers tell a grim story. In five decades of closely following American politics, I have never seen the Democratic Party in worse shape. Democrats trail in polls in 11 of the 18 Democratic-held Senate seats up this fall and lead in polls in none of the 18 Republican-held seats.
Republicans currently lead Democrats in most generic polls -- which party's candidate will you support for the House of Representatives? -- even though Democrats have almost always held the lead since Gallup began asking the question in 1950. Incumbents usually lead in individual House race polls. But polls have shown Democratic incumbents trailing Republican challengers in Arkansas, Indiana, Massachusetts and North Dakota.
Of course opinion can change, and the balance of enthusiasm, which currently favors Republicans, could shift. But if the election were held today, the numbers tell me that Democrats would fare worse than they have in any election since 1946.
But if I have never seen the Democratic Party in worse shape, I have seen the Republican Party in better shape -- in 1972 (when Richard Nixon unaccountably failed to boost his party), at various points in the 1980s and 1990s, in 2002 and in 2004, when enthusiasm for George W. Bush eluded most political reporters but showed up in the election returns.
The numbers suggest that the Republicans could well wind up with a majority of House seats next year, and perhaps more than they had at any time between 1994 and 2006. And they could even wind up with a majority of Senate seats as well, though that would require winning all the currently close races and maybe several more.
In that case, they may find themselves asking the question the Robert Redford character asked at the end of the movie "The Candidate": "What do I do now?"
Public opinion points them in a direction that could be politically dangerous. Most Americans are dismayed at the big government programs of the Obama administration and the Democratic congressional leadership. They are upset by the specter of federal budget deficits that threaten to double the national debt as a percentage of the gross domestic product.
That means that Republican majorities would have a mandate to cut spending sharply. But spending cuts can be politically perilous.
Some cuts are obvious. A Republican Congress would not channel billions to state and local governments to bail out public employee unions, as the 2009 stimulus package did and the House's current "jobs" bill would.
A Republican Congress could take up the suggestion of recently appointed Florida Sen. George LeMieux to cut spending back to 2007 levels. The 2009 stimulus package raised the budget baselines of many domestic programs. They could be cut back again.
But beyond that loom the problems of ever-expanding entitlements: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Rep. Paul Ryan has advanced a "road map" to cut spending by means-testing benefits, replacing Medicare with vouchers to pay for health insurance for beneficiaries currently under age 55, and providing refundable tax credits for health insurance premiums for the nonelderly. It would allow but not require employees under 55 to set up personal retirement accounts in place of the current Social Security program.
Barack Obama has called Ryan's road map interesting, but there's zero chance he would support it. In which case Republican congressional leaders would probably be unwilling to advance such substantial changes, which are already under attack by Democrats.
But there is a case for boldness. The architects of Bush's victory in 2004 and of Obama's victory in 2008 dreamed of establishing permanent governing majorities for their parties. But as political scientist David Mayhew has argued, and as the events following those victories suggest, a permanent majority is a will o' the wisp.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/18/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
With or without a "plan" the American people are gonna get rid of a lot of Congress. The Dems are gonna lose big. Skinny in the WH is gonna drift like a turd in the bowl until the end of his Term. He hasnt got a prayer in Hell of a second one.
Sarah Palin IS gonna run.The Left is gonna have to live with cold hotchie after she does.
Then Robert Redford can take his chances...everybody and his naked brother is gonna have advice to offer the winner. What advice is taken is the trick.
Sarah, is homeboy, and her slant is "common sense". (Whatever that means). Not too much "nuance", I would expect.
Cut spending, rolling back "Socialism". Radical winging it and let the entrepreneurs fall where they will.
Dick Cheney in your dreams and some hardass. The military gets a Reagan. And Tofu takes a hike.
If you liked Obama you are gonna absolutely hate what happens to the US. And France and the EUroweenies are gonna see us shake the dust off and stand up mean. We dont hafta be nice.
And who is gonna stop us? WHO?
The bills are gonna come due. We make 13 trillion a year when we run sound. We can do it again.
Get RID of the Dems. Small town America and small town values along with small business in the 100's of Billions...can take on anybody. Leave the people alone and let them work.
Cut THEIR taxes.
Feed the military well and keep it healthy.And if its not in the Constitution, screw it.
Stay out of people's lives and make sure the USMC has what it needs. And if the Media wants to play...let the FOXes settle who listens.
The NYT isnt sellin' too good. Have you noticed?
Susie Creamcheese and Bud the Stud are the future. They want a nice car and an a new house. Get on it.
Let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the people who voted for Obama pay for it. There is a lot of open road between the Delta and the Cornfields.
1. any spending not constitutionally mandated as a necessity is cut or defunded.
2. Repeat #1
3. cut all corporate, payroll and income taxes in half.
4. Repeat #3 until we can figure out a sensible flat or fair tax.
5. Either regulate or abolish the fed.
6. build a huge wall on our southern border and "re-patriate" all those here who just happen to be lost or forgot they overextended their visas. Americans will do the jobs, but not for $3.50 an hr.
7. we will drill, build nuke plants, coal plants and whatever else it takes to become not only fuel independent but exporters of fuel to foreign countries.
#5
Keep an eye on Barry's "Deficit-reduction panel." Unless I miss my guess, they'll be coming up with a VAT for us. Of course it won't have Barry's name on it.
#7
Personally I'd start by rolling the federal budget back to 2006 levels of funding. We weren't exactly blessed with too little government then, but it would be a start, and it would bring us to a rough balance with the current levels of taxation.
End TARP and all similar bailouts. Sell GM and Chrysler for whatever we can get. Ditto our warrants in the banks. Close Fannie and Freddie in an orderly way. Just wind them down.
As BH6 said, drill baby drill. More nuclear power plants. More natural gas. It's embarrassing to be beholden to foreign countries when we have so much energy locked away.
Then go to work on the longer term issues. What sort of social contract is sustainable in the future? How do we fund that? What's the best way to tax ourselves?
But in any bad situation, first you stop the bleeding. We're bleeding badly. Roll back federal (and state!) spending to the last fiscal year that was manageable and start over from there.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/18/2010 9:49 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Paul Ryan's plan has a VAT too, but they call it a Business Consumption Tax (BCT)
#9
BH6, Also abolish lobbyists and special interest groups from the political process. There should be only one special interest group, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, those who vote.
#13
A clever strategy might be to run on the idea of an orderly, peaceable constitutional convention, supported and encouraged, but not interfered with by the congress.
To start with, this is a way for the Republicans to get back in power without the risk of "holding the bag" when the economy goes south--which it is likely to do. That is, run as a "caretaker government", while the States are holding their convention, the national government temporarily having "reduced authority."
This is also clever in that it does *not* promise radical change, and right now the public are sick to death of change and want stability.
It does not mean that the caretaker government is idle, however. Under the cover of the constitutional convention, it can prepare for the elimination of large parts of the government, so that after the convention decides what must be done, the enabling laws will be passed quickly.
For their part, the States will be expected to agree before the convention what changes are to be made, so that when the convention is assembled, the draft will be quickly returned to the States for 3/4ths of the (38) to vote "yes".
Then the convention remains seated until the enabling laws are passed, its sole function being to remove and replace any federal official or officer who refuses to carry out what the States have agreed to.
Ideally, after two years of caretaker government, the next congressional elections will be back to normal, with little change in the political balance of power.
#14
Republicans should stop trying to pass laws through the Congress and instead should try to get different laws passed at the State Level. As many states as you can in one shot to get national press on the topic. They've done this before with Gay Marriage issues on a dozen state ballots. Pretty much everything should be considered a state matter.
I suggest they start with a few common sense campaign laws in time for the 2010 elections so they'll be inacted by 2012. (1) Separate ballots for state and national office so that there is no confusion and no divining intent based on the rest of the ballot. (2) No punchcards or computers for the national ballot, just scantron. Americans know scantron from school. (3) ID required for national ballot. (4) No mail in except for military. Stuff like that. (4) Minimum sentences for election fraud or intimidation.
The Federal government should be about national defense and getting our economic house back in order. Elections should not be something people can steal.
#15
There, see all the ideas that came forward. A lot of good ones too. The American people have what it takes. The Politicians havent done too well,have they?
Congress has the wrong sort of people. They are professional compromisers and ego freaks... what kind of a human being is Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid? Would you like them for your mother or father...how about as a personal friend? Would you like them in your life at all?
Do you think they are talented and sound role models for anything? Would you like to take a Cruise with them and share their thoughts? Would you like to invite either of them over to your home for a pleasant evening?
What WOULD you like to do with them? I mean really? Lets be honest.....
the average guy sweeping out his store in Missouri, in some small town is a better judge of real decision making and listening to others. Just plain folks always are.
What kind of people "run for office? Every town has them, every high school class has them. Student Council types...you know the sort.
Suits, ambitious suits. HI THERE, shake my hand kind of guys. A little smarter and more twisted than a used car salesman...too smart sometimes, devious as lawyers...a LOT of them ARE Lawyers.
Sharps and Squeezers, Slicks. Suits.
Definite types, identifiable. Big SMILES. Hair just perfect. Take it like they own it. A cross between a Delegate in a straw boater and a Pimp.
Somebody's gotta do it. Thank God they arent doing something with blood on it. Stay away from them if you can.
Cincinattus plowing on his Farm in the early Roman Republic....the man for the job...but you have to be realistic...he probably screwed his slaves..like Thomas Jefferson did. We live in a world where we look at ourselves in the mirror and its not pleasant. Power. You develop a taste for it.And you use it to your advantage. And you make a deal and take what you can get. And you listen to the sound of your own voice and its a one way street to Warren G. Harding or Hitler.
We all get what we deserve when we vote or get voted for. Its just us.
#17
The problem is spending and the problem areas that need to be addressed are social security and medicare. It is only after these two massive entitlement programs are fundamentally changed that the other things talked about here are going to get addressed.
New, simpler tax code that eliminates all extraneous deductions...absolutely. Elimination of whole federal departments with a corresponding reduction in the scope of government...you betcha. Unwind fannie and Freddie...tomorrow please. But all of this is going to have to be sold on the basis of long-term debt reduction/elimination. I hope that the people are ready for the message. There is going to be pain in it for everybody.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Back in early 2009, while the MSM noted the tax evasion problems of several of Obama's appointees, Congressman Charlie Rangel (D, NY) sat nearby, grinning like the Cheshire Cat from Wonderland. The tax transgressions of Timmy Geithner, Tommy Daschle, Nancy Killefer, et al are equivalent to shoplifting a candy bar from a convenience store when compared to Charlie's multiple, long-term, bank heists. Cholly's been at it for four decades!
New Jersey's leaders had a great idea for balancing the budget a few years back. Tap the state's wealthy through hikes in income taxes, property taxes and even a "wealth tax". So, how's that working out? Not so well, reports the Newark Star-Ledger:
Just when you thought Congress couldn't reach a new low, it did.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin urged tea party activists on Tuesday night to "start picking a party."
The political numbers tell a grim story. In five decades of closely following American politics, I have never seen the Democratic Party in worse shape. Democrats trail in polls in 11 of the 18 Democratic-held Senate seats up this fall and lead in polls in none of the 18 Republican-held seats.
