Enough

Here, go read this.

Now, I'm not going to go over anything Drew says there.  Read the whole thing, it's worth it.

So what we have here is the GOP, once again, trying to have their cake and eat it, too.  The Chamber of Commerce really likes Amnesty.  They've made no attempt to hide that fact.  The Chamber of Commerce is a big Republican donor.  No one has tried to hide that fact, either.

So when the SCOAMT enacted Executive Amnesty, the CoC and the Republican establishment were jubilant (in private, anyway).  The CoC gets what it wants (amnesty) and Republicans get to pretend that they had nothing to do with it and no way to stop it.

Except then November 2014 comes along, and Republicans retake the Senate- largely on promises to stop ObamaCare (how's that going?) and Executive Amnesty, so the GOP is in a bind.  If they actually act on their promise, they tick off the CoC and lose donation money.  If they do nothing, they tick off the base and become the minority party again.

So rather than showing some moral fiber, making a decision, and explaining it like men, they hide behind this pathetic move attempting to be seen as trying to do something, while their actions actually make it impossible for anything to be done.

A commenter at the HQ summed it up like this:

"Or to paraphrase Rudy Giuliani, 'They do not love the American people.'"

This is correct.

The rest of this post goes out to the few Republicans who *do* love the American people.

Please join us.  Various pundits, bloggers, and commenters have mentioned a 3rd party.  The Republican party is going the way of the Whigs- they care too much for their privilege and "unity" than they do doing what is right.

It is time for a 3rd party.  It is a time for you, you remnant of the Conservative Right, to stand up and say "No more."  While you support Mitch McConnel and John Boehner even simply by wearing the same party label, you are supporting people who are willing to sacrifice the American People to their privilege.

You must disassociate with them.  You must form your own bloc, your own Party.  If you lead, there are countless Conservatives who will follow.  You will be amazed at the support.

If you love this country- if you love her people- you will stand for what is right, even though the cost will be high.  The cost will be so much higher if you do not.

I didn't leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me.

Okay. Let's get this straight.

For 5 years (2009 - 2014) the GOP said "Oh, we just don't have enough influence to do anything." At first there was some truth to that- minorities in both houses of Congress, and a Dem President will do that. Even so, they seemed unwilling to use what influence they did have, because the MFM would call them big meanies. 

Porkuluous passed with nary a word.  ObamaCare could have been derailed at any of several points, but Republicans wouldn't.  At one point it could have been killed in committee.  At any number of points it could have been killed by a single Republican refusing "unanimous consent" to skip the reading of the bill (or the various amendments). 

Then Scott Brown was elected as the "41st Vote Against ObamaCare."  All Republicans had to do to kill it was keep the debate moving until he could be sat.  Instead, they allowed it to be passed because they didn't want to work over Christmas.

Then, 2010, we handed them the House. With which they immediately preceded to do... nothing much. "1/2 of 1/3 of Government!" we were told. "Oh, a Shutdown would ruin our chances in 2014!" we were told. (Hmm... almost as if winning elections were more important to them than doing the right thing)

Did they even pass a budget?  No.  "Oh, it will just get stopped in the Senate."  So Continuing Resolution after Continuing Resolution passed.  Did they stop raising the debt ceiling, or even get some kind of real budget cut in return for raising it?  No.  In fact, they ceded that power to the President, just so no one would ask them to do something scary like vote on it again.

So in 2012 (after 2 years of them doing nothing, and with a candidate who couldn't/wouldn't take on TFG) we let them maintain their control of the house. For another 2 years they proceeded to do... not much. 

Admittedly, after Mitt Romney's loss in 2012, they were a somewhat reduced party.  Lots of soul-searching had to be done.  But they still had chances.  The shut down was the most intestinal fortitude any Republican had shown in years, and the leadership fell over themselves to end it, and give up yet more concessions in the process.  Only their (stated, though not acted upon) opposition to ObamaCare saved them.

Now in 2014 we have given them majorities in both houses of Congress. So rather than stall until the new congress can be sat of course they rush to pass a bill which takes away almost all of the influence they would be able to wield for nearly half (and really more than that, considering we'll be spinning up for 2016 at the end of 2015) of the next Congressional term.

Why should I ever vote Republican (for national office) again?

Yeah, What He Said

Here, go read this.

It says something I've been thinking- and even saying- for the last week or so.

Let's set aside all the problems with Emperor Obama's Amnesty.  Let's pretend he did something I liked.  I dunno- an across the board tax cut, just to pick something.

That makes it no less wrong.  That makes it no less evil.  Barack Obama is not an Emperor- or, he's not supposed to be.  He is a President.  Our Founders sought for just the right term for the Chief Executive of our Nation for some time before settling on "President."  He "presides."  He is supposed to "faithfully execute" the law, see that it is Justly applied to all.

But note that he is precisely operating as an Emperor.  Even if he were going to simply ignore immigration law, that would be one (very, very bad) thing.  But it would be equally applied to all.  Instead, he enacted- by executive fiat- new law.  He did not simply say, "I'm just ignoring immigration law," his plan has requirements and prerequisites which must be met.  That's not "details about the execution of a law."  That's not "discretion."  That's authoring new law.

And the Legislature will let this stand.  The Republicans will do nothing because there's nothing they can do.  All the talk of defunding the government or shutting it down?  It won't stop this amnesty.  It won't stop an Imperial President.  Not confirming presidential appointees?  For one thing, no one will really notice that.  For another, that *also* won't stop the amnesty.

There is only one remedy- the Constitutional remedy: impeachment.  And Republicans will not do that, because the Democrats will not do that.  Democrats have welded themselves to the SCOAMT.  They hitched their wagons to him in 2008, and now it's too late.  If they turn on him now, they lose *both* the black and hispanic vote.  At least, that's their fear, and it's not entirely irrational.

Absent some real action from the Legislature- a united legislature looking to preserve the great Republic our Founders created- we have just witnessed the end of the American Experiment.

SCOAMT^2

Readers of this blog know that I believe that the President of the United States is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.  I have been saying the same since shortly after September 11, 2012.

Well, now I have more evidence.  Enter Bowe (pronounced, I’m told, “Bo”) Bergdhal.  Young Mr. Bergdhal was rejected from the French Foreign Legion before joining the United States Army (hey: US Army- you might take that under consideration).  Apparently, he believed that USA, in this case, meant US Aid and was a humanitarian outreach program, as opposed to a military force designed to kill people and break things.

So, upon being deployed to Afghanistan and actually required to fight against terrorists, he decided “this blows” and walked away.  Literally walked away- he left his duty station along with a note (apparently) in which he declared his desire to renounce his citizenship.  Now, the US Army has Views on people who leave their duty stations in the middle of a war.  It’s called Desertion in the Face of the Enemy, and it’s perhaps the second-biggest no-no an Army private can commit.

But, it turns out, this was not the end of his parsimonious behavior.  When US Army forces were sent to apprehend him, they discovered that he specifically wanted to join the Taliban.  This moves from second biggest no-no (desertion) to the biggest no-no: treason.  Providing Aid and Comfort to the Enemy.  That crime for which there is exactly one punishment.  Yes, Bowe Bergdhal is, at best, a deserter who got half-a-dozen of his buddies killed, and at worst a traitor.

So it makes all kinds of sense that the Traitor-in-Chief would release five of our highest-value terrorists from Guantanamo Bay prison to secure his release.  Absolutely.  Hey, we’re only down a net 4 terrorists.  This is also “Aid and Comfort to the Enemy.”  Releasing five guys to do more harm to Americans (because that’s what they want to do) in order to get back one deserter?  Whatever happened to “we don’t negotiate with terrorists?”

Oh, SCOAMT is all over that one, too.  Now, apparently, these enemy combatants taken on the field with no uniforms, answering to no government, and representing no organized military force are somehow POWs.  That deserter? Not a deserter who was taken hostage- but also a POW.  So it’s a POW-swap.  Because King Barakanhanen said so, you racist tea-bagger.

Now, I actually expect this kind of behavior from the Man-Child-in-Chief.  He was under heat for the VA scandal, and wanted something to take that heat off.  As Ace pointed out today, it’s a political decision that Democrats can spin- unlike the VA scandal.  So it makes some sense.

What doesn’t make sense is that Republicans have remained almost uniformly silent on this.  What does it take to get John Boehner and Mitch McConnell fired up?  The President of the United States just arguably committed treason.  He violated several laws to do so- on top of all the other laws he’s already broken, and his general Imperial approach to the Presidency.  If that’s not grounds for Impeachment, what is?

It may already be too late, but Republicans must push back against the SCOAMT.  They must start stone-walling him at every turn.  No more bipartisanship, unless it’s unification against the SCOAMT.  No more pushes for Amnesty.  No more “my friends across the aisle.”  Either the Democrats are with America, or they’re with Barack Hussein Obama.  And the Republicans face the same choice; they are either for America, the Rule of Law, and basic moral decency, or they are with Barack Hussein Obama.

Which is it?

Beware the Trojan Horse

 Or... "Those aren't spending cuts, Jim."

Jim Kunhenn with the AP doesn't even realize his own bias.  Most people don't, but the AP would have you believe the are not biased, so it is important to realize they are.  It is also important to spot the bias before you fully read an article, so that you can know the author's starting position.

For instance, Jim gets this part right:

"President Barack Obama's proposed budget will call for reductions in the growth of Social Security and other benefit programs while still insisting on more taxes from the wealthy..."  

President SCOAMT's current plan does call for "reductions in growth."

But then he gets this part wrong:

"Obama has also called for limits on tax deductions by the wealthy, a proposal that could generate about $580 billion in revenue over 10 years."  

First off, the limits he's calling for (last time I heard, maybe the new proposal is different), are not "on the wealthy," but rather are on deductions that SCOAMT would you to to believe only the wealthy take.  I have discussed before that this is simply not accurate.  There is no deduction that only kicks in when you're a millionaire.  Rather, there are deductions that people who run their own businesses can take, and (on paper at least) many of the "wealthy" do run their own businesses.  The "Corporate Jet Deduction" is exactly the same deduction that small businesses get to take for their commercial trucks or vans.  It's the same deduction that an IT business gets to take for the computers it buys.

The first part is said because it sounds good for SCOAMT- that is, it makes him sound "reasonable"- and therefore attempts to paint any opposition to the President's proposal as "unreasonable."  The second part was said because it also sounds good for the President, it makes him sound like he out "for the little guy," and therefore any opposition must be out "for the rich."

So, now that we have the issue of his unacknowledged bias out of the way, we can proceed with the rest of the article.  Click over and read it, but here is the main highlight:

A key feature of the plan Obama now is submitting for the federal budget year beginning Oct. 1 is a revised inflation adjustment called "chained CPI." This new formula would effectively curb annual increases in a broad swath of government programs, but would have its biggest impact on Social Security. By encompassing Obama's offer to Boehner, R-Ohio, the plan will also include reductions in Medicare spending, much of it by targeting payments to health care providers and drug companies.

By changing Chained CPI, the President a) gets to monkey (yet again) with the inflation numbers to hide actual inflation, and b) hurt Social Security recipients (the blame for which he would then lay at the feet of Republicans).  The sensible, reasonable way to "fix" Social Security is to cut the bureaucracy, and ruthlessly cut out anyone on SSDI who is capable of any work whatsoever.  I was laid up with back-pain so bad it made me immobile for most of a month recently- I still worked.  Not everyone can do that, but most people who are "disabled" aren't really- they could do work, they just couldn't work that construction job they've had their entire working lives.  It sucks, but that's not really the Government's job to fix.  Don't even get me started on people who are "disabled" because of depression.

Then note the changes to medicare- all in benefits (that is: payments to doctors and pharmacies).  Not even lip-service toward "waste, fraud, and abuse." 

This budget is designed to be a poison pill.  For the SCOAMT, it is a win-win-win.  If the Republicans uniformly (or nearly uniformly) oppose it, then he can blame the "obstructionist Republicans," for four more years.  If some Republicans oppose it, and others support it, he gets to further deepen the divide between the Conservative and Moderate factions of the Republican Party.  If Republicans agree, he gets to hasten the destruction of the political party he views as his enemy, and deepen the mistrust between Republican officials and grass-roots conservatives.

The only way Republicans have any chance of "winning" is not to play.  Remind people that Obama campaigned on 3:1 cuts to taxes, then moved the goal-posts to 2:1 cuts to taxes, and then moved them again to 1:1 cuts to taxes.  Tell people this is unacceptable; that the first might have been agreeable, but that you cannot negotiate with someone who refuses to negotiate in good faith.  Then point out- relentlessly- every chance you get that SCOAMT's cuts are all in services, he never once proposes to cut Government.

The rules of the current game are rigged.  Play a new game.

More, Please Part 2

Take a look at this article (I know, it's Rachel Maddow- think of it as opposition research).  Now, tell me the unnoticed bias which is just completely wrong.

Here, I'll highlight the specific paragraph:

Congress passes hundreds of resolutions, meant to commemorate everything from a special awareness week or Little League champions. The resolutions lack any real power of law and are predominantly ceremonial. For example, earlier this month the Senate passed resolutions to mark "World Plumbing Day" and commemorating the three-year anniversary of the Haiti earthquake.

Found it?  Why is US Congress "commemorating" anything?  What business are "special awareness week(s)" or "Little League champions" of the Federal government?  If they so "clutter the floor," maybe we should just do without them?  If they're so much ceremonial fluff, why have them at all?

No, I appreciate this move by Ted Cruz.  More, please.  This is just more reinforcement to the idea that the Federal Government should be involved in our day-to-day lives.  I reject that premise completely.  It is not even partly true.  In a perfect world, I would never have to consider the Federal Government.  I could focus on my State and Local governments (places where a) my voice can really be heard and b) I can at least sort of pay attention to everything that is going on), and let the Federal Government get on with doing it's job.

Unfortunately, the Federal Government has decided that I cannot do that.  Or, rather, that I cannot do that if I don't want more and more of my liberty stolen.  So I have to pay attention to this kind of crap.  Well, if I have to pay attention to it, then you'd better treat it seriously.  If it's not important enough to treat seriously, then don't do it.  Period.

I should also mention that I'm glad Ted Cruz does not seem to believe he is there to make best buddies with Harry Reid or (even) John McCain.  Rather he is there to represent the State of Texas and see to it that the Federal Government begins adhering to its actual Constitutionally granted authority.

An authority, I'll note, that includes not one word about "commemorating Multiple-Sclerosis Awareness Week" or anything similar.

A Fundamentally Unserious Party

So Senate Democrats, for the first time in 4 years, have released a budget proposal.  It's contents are depressingly unsurprising, tax-and-spend policies that Democrats always pursue.  Meh.

However, there were somethings this brings up that we should look at.

From the report:

The plan calls for $975 billion in new tax revenue through closing loopholes and ending deductions and credits benefiting corporations and the country’s highest wage earners.

Like all "tax increases" this is a load of bovine fecal matter.  First off, raising tax rates- whether through marginal rate increases, or "closing of loopholes" never generates much more revenue.  Instead, it depresses GDP.  Oh, certainly, people will have less money to take home, but that won't be because the Government is actually taking in much more.

Then there's that whole "deductions and credits benefiting corporations and the country's highest wage earners."  This, like "tax increases" is complete horse hockey.  The US Tax Code does not give Bill Gates a single deduction for which you could not qualify.  Not one.  It does not give Exxon-Mobile a single deduction for which Joe's Pizzaria down the street could not qualify.  Not one.

That whole line of argument is a lie.  It is a damnable lie and the Democrats and Media should nto be allowed to keep getting away with it.  Closing those "loopholes" will hurt middle-class families far more than it would hurt the rich, and that's not even taking into consideration the fact the Rich have options the middle-class do not regarding wealth management (hint: there's a reason it's called the Income Tax).

Here's another one:

It also calls for $100 billion in new stimulus spending while cutting $1.85 trillion from the deficit over 10 years. The rest of the savings would come through spending cuts.

First, let's assume that they were serious about this (they're not: it's another lie).  Our deficit for last year alone was well over $1 Trillion.  They want to cut that over 10 years.  Yeah, that's serious budget management right there.  As for "spending cuts" they're crying over an approximate 2% cut to the rate of growth from the sequester.  They seriously expect us to believe they're going to cut spending?

Those both lead to this:

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray said the budget takes a balanced, “pro-middle-class” approach and argued the country’s economic problems started long before fellow Democrats entered the White House in 2009.

Yeah.  Not so much.  Another bald-faced lie.

And whose fault is all this, you ask?  I'd give you three guesses, but you'll only need one:

“Despite some of the rhetoric you may hear from my Republican colleagues, the Great Recession didn’t start the day President Obama was elected,” said Murray, D-Wash.

Ah, yes.  Boooooosh!  Good to know.

This is fundamentally unserious.  It is designed only to generate spin and run news cycles.  It continues running up the debt and making our situation yet worse.  But the Democrats now would have you believe we don't have a spending problem.  Nope, we're not spending too much, we're spending too little.

It is a fundamentally unserious proposal from a fundamentally unserious party.

Fithy Quislings

I don't know enough curse words to capture my sentiment upon reading this story.  It seems GOP Leadership (for whatever that is worth) has decided they "don't need no steenking Conservatives," and that they will be willing to pass Democrat Legislation, marginalizing the majority of their own caucus.

Once my immediate, word-stealing rage dies down (it flares back up every time I re-read the article), I have a couple of things to point out.

First: When grass-roots conservatives were calling to remove Boehner as speaker, we were pooh-poohed and told that of course Speaker Boehner was the best man for the job.  Often this pooh-poohing came from the same Conservative representatives now at risk of being frozen out. 

That is not to say that we expected this kind of betrayal.  Squishy "moderate" stances?  Sure.  Outright betrayal of principle?  Not so much.

Second: The current House Leadership is not Conservative.  Oh, I think a Conservative or two snuck into the upper echelons somehow, but the vast majority of them are not now, nor have they ever been Conservative.  They don't care about "We, the People."  They care about themselves, their own power, and their privilege. Anything which jeopardizes that must be dealt with.  Unfortunately, they seem to believe the best way to secure that power and privilege is to side with Democrats in making us serfs, or at least peasants (I don't think they quite view us as chattle.  Yet.)

Third: The House has fallen into the old trap.  It's one that grass-roots conservatives had hoped to avoid when we hoped to get rid of Boehner.  It goes like this: "We have to do something!  If we're not passing legislation, we're not doing our job!!!!"

In many ways this is the most important point.  Conservatives know that Congress can do its job best by doing nothing in most cases.  Pass a budget; confirm appropriations; oversee the Executive branch.  That's all Congress should be doing in most cases.  However, as full-time legislators, they believe their job is to write (well, vote on, I'm pretty sure none of them has written their own in quite some time) legislation.  That mindset is the only one that could have produced this quote:

“It is better if the House does their work,” said McCarthy. “We should be sending bills to the Senate.”

This, as Ben Shapiro notes, is tantamount to a declaration of War on Conservatives.  The Moderates in Congress want their power.  They want to be invited to the best parties.  They want yet more government expansion.  In fact, the only place Moderates disagree with Liberals is the pace.  Liberals want More Government Now! Moderates want More Government Slowly!

After the initial publication of the Big Government article, Rep. McCarthy's office contacted Breitbart News and whined:

In a statement to The Hill, McCarthy spokesperson Mike Long said: "Whip McCarthy strongly supports returning to regular order to bring legislation to the floor that has the support of a majority of the majority. Insinuation to the contrary is completely false."

Of course "Whip McCarthy strongly supports returning to the regular order."  "Strongly supports" is not "is committed to," and in no way is that statement a rejection of the original report.  Whether Boehner and Cantor agree is unclear, but it seems unlikely that the Majority Whip would have made such an inflammatory statement without the blessing of his bosses.

Oh, and if this finds its way into Rep. McCarthy's hands:  before you even think of "crossing the aisle" and enact gun control remember this: I'm a Texan.  Consider well the meaning of "come and take it."

Nice State You Got There...

Be a shame if something were to... happen... to it.

That is the not-so-subtle meaning of this letter from The White House to the Great State of Texas.  Yes, your State received a similar one as well.  It details the specific cuts the White House will have made if Sequester goes through.  Note that all of these cuts are from actual operations.  Somehow not one mention is made of fewer vacations for the President.  Somehow not one mention is made of fewer "fact finding missions" or reduced salaries rather than cut jobs.  Not one mention is made, in short, of cutting anything that isn't useful.  No, all the cuts will be targeted specifically to make the sequester as painful as possible, just so that the Traitor in Office can blame Republicans again.

I'm not going to review all the cuts, though you should do so to see what I mean.  What I am going to do is look at the introduction to the letter, so you can see how this is operating exactly like a protection racket.  If you don't want to click over, I'll be quoting the whole thing.

Impact of March 1st Cuts on Middle Class Families, Jobs and Economic Security: Texas

Okay, let's stop there.  I know, it's just the title, but it's important.  Note the tone the letter is already taking.  "Oh, these cuts will have an 'impact' on Middle Class Families!"  No scare-mongering there.  None. At. All.

Unless Congress acts by March 1st, a series of automatic cuts -- called the sequester -- will take effect that threaten hundreds of thousands of middle class jobs, and cut vital services for children, seniors, people with mental illnesses and our men and women in uniform.

Note the blame of congress here.  The President came up with the sequester.  He recommended the sequester.  He signed the bill that created the sequester into law.  Yet now Congress must act.  There's not a single thing he could do.  He's powerless!  Of course, he could target cuts at unnecessary expenditures.  But this is President Dumbo.  He's not going to do that.

There is no question that we need to cut the deficit, but the President believes it should be done in a balanced way that protects investments that the middle class relies on.  Already the President has worked with Congress to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion, but there's more to do.  The President has put forward a balanced plan to not only avoid the harmful effects of the sequester but also to reduce the deficit by more than $4 trillion in total.  The President's plan meets Republicans more than halfway and includes twice as many spending cuts as it does tax revenue from the wealthy.  For details on the President's plan click here [link not reproduced].

Note the wording here: "cut the deficit."  Democrats would have you believe, despite sixty-plus years' evidence to the contrary, that raising tax rates is a legitimate way to "cut the deficit."  It is not.  It does not work.  It has never worked.  It will not ever work.  The Government is spending more money in a year than you could get if you taxed every US Citizen into poverty and beyond.  The only thing we have not seriously tried in modern times are real spending cuts.

Note also two further obfuscations.  That "$2.5 Trillion" is partially projected savings from winding down military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and partly projected savings from ObamaCare.  However, the first is not "savings."  Not spending money you weren't planning to spend anyway is not "cutting."  The second is a lie.  It is a known lie.  Everyone who doesn't live under a rock knows it's a lie.

Then there's that last line: "The President's plan meets Republicans more than halfway and includes twice as many spending cuts as it does in tax revenue from the wealthy."  This single line is so chock-full of errors its almost deserves its own post.  I'll hit them quickly- 1) SCOAMT promised 3:1 spending cuts to tax increases during the election.  That he's now proposing 2:1 is not "meeting Republicans more than halfway," it is moving the goalposts.  2) Notice that tax rate hikes are called by their new Orwellian Name "tax revenue."  Never mind that they won't bring in any appreciable additional revenue.  3) The tax hikes the President are proposing don't hurt the wealthy.  He himself has admitted it.  His point in closing the supposed "loophole" for "corporate jets" (which is actually normal tax law anyone can use- if you buy a special uniform for work, you get exactly the same tax-cut.  It's a business expense that can be written off your taxes) is that it will prevent the rich from buying new jets.  That doesn't hurt the rich.  It does hurt the middle class workers whose livelihood depends on the rich buying those jets.

Unfortunately many Republicans in Congress refuse to ask the wealthy to pay a little more by closing tax loopholes so we can protect the investments that are helping grow our economy and keep our country safe.  By not asking the wealthy to pay a little more, Republicans are forcing our children, seniors, troops, military families, and the entire middle class to bear the burden of deficit reduction.  The President is determined to cut spending and reduce the deficit in a balanced way, but he won't stick the middle class with the bill.  The President is willing to compromise, but on behalf of the middle class he cannot accept a deal that undercuts their economic security.

How many lies can they pack in to one paragraph?  Let's see:
1) Republicans are not refusing "to ask the wealthy to pay a little more."  The know the wealthy- the working affluent, as I like to call them, are already paying nearly (and sometimes more) than 50 cents of every dollar to various levels of government.  If you ask them to pay more, they'll either just quit making money, or move elsewhere.  Don't believe me?  Ask California and New York. 

2) "Investments" is Democrat-ese for "spending," and "helping grow our economy and keep our country safe" is Democrat-ese for "F*ck you.  Pay me."  The sequester is a drop in the bucket.  It comes out to somewhere between 1 & 2% of current spending.  You cannot convince me that needed services have to be impacted.  That is a choice Democrats are making, not one Republicans are forcing.

3) "Republicans are forcing our children, seniors, troops, military families, and the entire middle class to bear the burden of deficit reduction."  "Everything he just said is Bullsh!t."  I've already gone over this- this is Democrats' choices, not Republicans.  One of the proposed cuts (by Republicans) was to cut congressional salaries.  Nancy Pelosi refused those because her high station deserved the money she's making, and how dare you look at the your Betters, peasant?

4) "but [the SCOAMT] won't stick the middle class with the bill."  Once again, this is a lie.  The President has already raised tax rates on the middle class.  He wants to do worse by raising the minimum wage (which will make everything more expensive and increase unemployment further).  And, again, those "tax loopholes" he wants to close are things the middle class use every year.  Every time you take the mileage deduction for your work car, or deduct the cost of your uniform from your taxes, you're using exactly the same "loophole" the "wealthy" are using for their corporate jets.

5) "The President is willing to compromise..." once again: moving the goalposts is not "compromise."  He promised 3:1 (which Republicans said they might reluctantly support depending on the details), now he's offering 2:1.  That's not compromise.  As for "a deal that undercuts their economic security," maybe he could look at his own economic policies before he tries to blame Republicans.  He might also look at his own (well documented) roll in the Mortgage Bubble.

Our economy is continuing to strengthen but we cannot afford a self-inflicted wound from Washington.  Republicans should compromise and meet the President in the middle.  We cannot simply cut our way to prosperity, and if Republicans continue to insist on an unreasonable, cuts-only approach, Texas risks paying the price.

There we have it.  First, a couple more lies: "Our economy is continuing to strengthen..." well, maybe if you work in Government.  It's still really freaking tough for the rest of us.  "We cannot simply cut our way to prosperity,"  yes, we can.  We've done it before.  See the late 19-teens and what became known as "the roaring 20s."  That was "cutting our way to prosperity."  It wasn't the first time we did it, either, though I'm pretty sure it was the last.

But then there's the clincher: "Texas risks paying the price."  See, the SCOAMT can't allow cuts that won't hurt, because this is a scam.  He- not Republicans- is holding the middle class hostage.  He- not they- can target cuts so that they trim "fat" instead of "muscle."  He- not they- can move back toward the middle- his original proposal which had already been accepted in principle- 3:1 cuts-to-taxes.  Most Republicans would have jumped on that in a second in January.  That's what the President said in the campaign, the President was re-elected, obviously the people supported that.  But now he has moved the goalposts to 2:1 cuts-to-taxes.  That's after we've already increased taxes on everyone who makes a paycheck, and already increased the top marginal tax rate.  The President would like you not to remember that those things happened at his insistence.

This is no different from a Mob Boss saying that if you don't pay your protection money, he "can't be held responsible for any damages," while his enforcers are right there ready to knock your display cases over and start a fire in your shop.  This is all the President's doing.  For him to attempt to blackmail Republicans this way is beyond outrageous. 

Don't lean on the Republicans.  Support them.  Tell them "more please."

Sequester: Just Do It

Much time and energy has been spent trying to explain to US Citizens why the Fiscal Sequester would be a Very Bad Thing(TM).  Once again, our feudal lords are holding our physical security and health hostage so that we will agree to give them yet more power, yet more money.  We're being told that money for USDA Inspectors will be cut, so either our food supply will be limited (because inspections can't be done) or will be less safe (because they're done but hurried).  We're being told that money for the TSA will be cut, so that it will take even longer at the Airport to get on your plane.  We're being told that money for the Military will be cut, so our national security will be weaker.

I say bring it on.  All of it.  Bring the pain.

If what it takes for the Federal Government to have less power over my life is to strangle the USDA, the TSA, and the Military (largely civilian contractors, but make no mistake- active duty military operations will be hampered), then so be it.  At this point, I am much more concerned about the power the Federal Government has over me than I am about whether or not my food has disease.

After all, what on earth did we do before the USDA?  What, you mean people weren't simply falling dead in the streets?  Food-borne disease was either mild or rare (and sometimes both)?

What on earth did we do before the TSA?  Oh, get on planes much more quickly, with less hassle?

The only one of these that concerns me is the US Military, and that's more of an abstract worry.  If we are weak enough long enough we can expect more attacks against the United States, our allies, or our interests.  But even that is a mid-to-long-term worry.  It won't happen immediately.

No one has an option which will cut the budget enough.  No one.  No one will confront the sacred cows of Entitlements, which are now more than 50% of US Federal Government spending.  No one will consider cutting the Federal Department of Education.  What business does the US Government have in educating kids in Santa Fe?  No one will consider cuts to the agencies which provide no useful service, but only expand Government power because the point is to keep the Government as powerful as possible.

So, go with the sequester.  It's the only plan on the board with real, substantive cuts.  And we're taxed enough already.

More Please

Politico has a story which is trying to highlight just how... uncouth Texas Senator Ted Cruz is.  Senators are positively dismayed that he's not "following the rules" and just playing the game of go along to get along.  Phrases like "unfair line of questioning" and "combative line of questioning."  Why, he's not playing like the Democrats are his friends!  How barbaric.

If I had any lingering qualms over electing Ted Cruz, this piece has gone a long way toward dispelling them.  It's about time Republicans quit pretending that Democrats were their friends.  Getting combative with Chuck Schumer on a Sunday TV Show?  More, please.  Strong questioning of cabinet nominees?  More please. 

“I made promises to the people of Texas that I would come to Washington to shake up the status quo, to fight for conservative principles and to lead a concerted and meaningful effort to end the unsustainable spending, deficits and debt that have been propagated, unfortunately, by members of both parties,” Cruz said.

More please.

“Of course comity is important, but comity does not mean avoiding the truth concerning a nominee’s policy record,” Cruz wrote in an email.

More please.

“Your continued anti-gun crusade may well cause some to wonder if the interests of the citizens of Chicago are being sacrificed in pursuit of a partisan agenda,” Cruz told Emanuel in an unusual letter, calling the mayor’s efforts a “bullying campaign.”

More please.

On Thursday, Graham argued Cruz wasn’t being unfair to Hagel but that he feared the Texas Republican’s questions about the sources of the former Nebraska GOP senator’s income would create a new and difficult standard for future nominees.

More.  Please.

If this is enough to give sitting senators the vapors, maybe it's time we got all new senators.

More please.

Rich White Folks: "Please pay for our failure to plan for disaster!"

So, now that the Fiscal Cliff has been solved*, it appears the next fight is over the funding of a Sandy Relief bill.  Apparently, the Northeastern United States (arguably one of the richest geographic regions, per capita, on the planet) cannot pay to clean up after Hurricane Sandy without the help of people in Topeka, Kansas.

Because of this, the Senate introduced a bill to pay for the cleanup and rebuilding of those portions of the NE that were smashed by the storm.  They then proceeded to load it with so much pork, Oscar Meyer was planning to sue.  Some of the money in the bill was going to go to such hard hit areas as... Alaskan fisheries.  Yes, really.

So, in one of their few laudable moves of the last two years, the Republican House blocked the bill.  They currently aren't even planning to bring it to a vote, as far as I can tell.

Immediately, the long knives came out.  From Republicans.  See, apparently it is completely verboten to even consider that individuals should have their own plans for possible disasters, let alone States.  So it shouldn't matter how much unnecessary spending is in the "relief" bill, it should just be passed without question.

Now, I'm not a fan of this federal disaster relief anyway.  I wasn't a fan of it for Hurricane Alex in the 90s.  I wasn't a fan of it for Katrina or Rita.  I'm not a fan of it for Sandy.  I'm sorry, but I simply cannot find the provision of the Constitution which empowers Congress to spend one red cent on "disaster relief."

For an example of what I do support, I point to Texas's "Rainy Day fund."  This is a special fund which we have set aside to pay for disasters in Texas.  We have been very, very good about not taking money out for purely budgetary concerns (well, as good as we can expect from politicians), and really using it as an emergency fund.  It served us well when cleaning up after Rita.  It served us well again when fighting massive wildfires in 2011.  In the case of the wildfires, it was the only money we had to pay for firefighters and cleanup, because the Federal Government (that is: the SCOAMT) refused to acknowledge the wildfires as a Natural Disaster (which would have opened the way for some federal loans, mostly).

It may seem harsh to say, "clean it up yourselves," but remember this: I think everyone should clean up their own disasters.  I don't think people from New York should be on the hook for tornadoes, wild fires, or even hurricanes in Texas.  I don't think people in Arizona should be on the hook for earthquakes in California.

Nevertheless, a relief bill will be passed.  My arguments have been voiced many times before, and the country has decided they're without merit.  But why is it out of line to ask for a few extra days so that a clean bill can be proposed and passed?  Why must it be done immediately, and full of pork?

*By which I mean: totally not solved, and only barely kicked down the road

Shocker!: Democrats Negotiating in Bad Faith

So, for weeks, if not months, we've heard nothing from Democrats on the "Fiscal Cliff" except for the need to "raise revenue" by which they mean tax rates.  This is such a thoroughly silly idea, that it doesn't even bear the most basic of scrutiny.  For one thing, we don't have a "revenue" problem, we have a spending problem.  For another, raising tax rates does not actually increase government revenue.  If anything, it has a depressive effect by also slowing growth.

Now, however, we finally have some movement on the Democrat side.  They've shifted positions!  Wait, no, that was the goal-posts they just moved.  See, now, it's not enough that we merely raise tax rates on actual job and wealth creators.  No, now we also have to further extend Unemployment Benefits past 99 weeks.  As though nearly 2 years of unemployment was not absurd enough, now it needs to be longer.

Let's assume that Democrats were negotiating, in the beginning, in good faith.  Let's say they really wanted to reduce the deficits and (eventually) start paying down the debt.  Let's further grant that they really believe that increasing tax rates will increase revenues this time, despite its utter failure every time it's been tried in the 40+ years.  Even assuming those things (which aren't true, but go with me here), does it make sense then to further increase spending?

Even if we did have a revenue problem, and not a spending problem, in what world does it make sense to increase spending further when our deficits are already about 10% of GDP, we're already spending nearly 150% of tax receipts, and our debt is over 100% of GDP? 

The short answer: none.  It doesn't make sense.  Increasing spending is the absolute wrong thing to do to close the deficits, even if you grant that increasing tax rates would increase revenue.

If that is the case; it if it is true that increasing spending is absolutely and obviously counter-productive, then it follows that the Democrats were never negotiating in good faith.  They want the Fiscal Cliff.  They want higher taxes on everyone.  They simply assume that the spending will continue.  Since we haven't had a budget in 4 years, but we've been spending anyway, I don't see how they're wrong, either.

Republicans must not budge on this.  Let's go over the fiscal cliff together.  And then, when it's time for another "continuing resolution" to keep spending money we don't have?  Don't do that either.  When it's time to increase the debt ceiling again?  Don't do that, either.

The American People voted for the Fiscal Cliff.  They also voted for deadlock, since they didn't see fit to give the Democrats the house back, or even a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  Give them what they asked for.

Let it burn.

Boehner Preparing to Sell Out

Hint to Congressional Republicans: if you let Speaker Boehner remain as speaker and continue his "leadership," you will succeed in doing something Democrats have been trying to accomplish for at least 30 years.  The complete destruction of the Republican party.

Breitbart is reporting that John Boehner and the House Republicans are considering a "Doomsday" plan to avoid the so-called "Fiscal Cliff."  Basically, they plan to roll over and give Barack Obama exactly what he wants- higher taxes on job and wealth creators, and nothing much else.  Yes, Obama is also calling to increase the debt limit, but we probably won't hit that until after the new congress is sworn in anyway, he knows that Boehner has plenty of time to capitulate on that, too.

Let us be very, very clear, here.  The United States Government does not have a revenue problem.  The US Government took in nearly $2.5 trillion dollars in 2012.  That is more than enough revenue to do everything the Federal Government should be doing, with some (a lot) left over.  To put it in perspective, 2.5 Trillion seconds ago was around 74,000 BC.  What the United States Government has is a spending problem.  Spending, especially on entitlements, must be cut.

Of course, spending cuts are politically difficult, and tax rate increases, especially on the "very wealthy" are politically easy.  Class warfare sells, after all.  Unfortunately for "politically easy" tax rate increases, of any variety, are not the answer.  This is true for a variety of reasons.  For one thing, even if we confiscated all the wealth from every person living in the United States, we couldn't pay our bills.  For another, tax rate increases traditionally reduce GDP, and therefore reduce revenue.  On the other hand, lowering tax rates increases GDP, growing the tax base, and increasing revenues.

Now, I understand we are not going to get tax rate cuts out of any deal.  We have, as the weenies in Congress are so fond of pointing out, "One half of one third of the Government."  So there is no way we "win" this fight.  However, perhaps we should be looking for a "lateral win."  That is, maybe we should change the goal we're pursuing.  We're not going to get tax rate cuts.  We can't even prevent tax hikes (if nothing happens, the old Clinton Rates go back into effect, and the Democrats in the Senate won't even consider something that doesn't allow the top marginal rate to go up).  So let's redefine "victory."

Obama and the Democrats are fond of pointing out to the balanced budgets and surpluses of the Clinton years.  Few realize that the US Government had virtually nothing to do with that.  The Clinton years were the rise of the Internet.  They were the "dot com" bubble which burst just before Clinton left office (people usually forget that part, too).  So, yes, the Federal Government was doing quite well in those years, but that was despite Clinton's economic policies, not because of them.  However, we should embrace their idea.  The Clinton economy was so good, let's go back to all of those tax rates.  All of them.  And, since we're now expecting a return to "Clinton's" (really Newt Gringrich's) balance budgets and even surpluses, we don't need to raise the debt ceiling, either.

In this case, the correct answer is to embrace the reversal of the Bush tax rates.  Don't merely "allow" the Bush rates to expire.  Push a bill fully embracing the return of the Clinton rates.  Push a bill explicitly refusing to raise the debt limit for, say, one year.  Let's really test the Democrat's economic theory.  If they're right, and raising tax rates will increase revenue and decrease the deficit, then it is every American's Patriotic duty to do their part to help, by working even more for the Government than they do already.

Give it one year, and then go back to the table.  One year of Clinton rates, and I'm guessing most of America will support Republican calls for reduced taxation and reduced spending.  And, if not-  Let it burn.

Are You Angry Yet?

The Government is stealing your private property.  Have you noticed?  Are you angry?

Private Property rights are the source from which all Liberty flows.  Private Property rights are based on the idea that you have a limited number of hours of life, and you should be able to spend them how you choose, and dispose of the produce of your labor as you choose.  The income tax is a tax on the produce of your Labor.  It is, in essence, the Government proclaiming that it, not you, owns your labor and that it, not you, gets first choice of how the produce of that labor is spent.

Are you angry yet?

One of the things one can do with the produce of his labor is accumulate private property, especially real property (that is: land).  When the government taxes your property, they are claiming that they own it, not you, and that they get first choice of how to dispose of it, not you.

Are you angry yet?

Between the income tax and the property tax, the Government is stealing hours of your life away.  Then, once you die, they again seize your property.  So-called "inheritance taxes" are ostensibly designed to prevent people from becoming "too" rich.  Even if such were possible it would be evil- I should be able to accumulate as much property as I am able, and then should be able to dispose of it as I choose- including willing it to my descendents upon my death.  In the real world, of course, the very rich find ways of avoiding the death tax, while it is the upwardly mobile who are most punished by it.

Are you angry yet?

If the President has his way with the Fiscal Cliff negotiations, more of your income will be seized by the state through your income taxes.  Spending will be cut drastically (generally a good thing, really) with no plan or design to guide the cuts (a bad thing).  One consequence of this will be States increasing their own taxes (income, property, or both) stealing yet more of your income to use in ways you might actively oppose.  Additionally, the death tax, currently in abayance, will return at 55%  More than half of the wealth of the moderately successful will be seized upon their deaths, while the truly rich will have already divested themselves of direct ownership of their assets- thus avoiding most of the brunt of such a tax.

Are you angry yet?

If you aren't, you should be.  If you are, what are you doing about it?

A Second Honeymoon?

Do you remember when George W Bush was re-elected in 2004 how the Democrats said, "Oh, the American People have spoken, we have to work with this man?"  Yeah, me neither.

Nevertheless, that seems to be what John Boenher and several other Republicans in leadership positions (I won't call them leaders) seem to be doing with Barack Obama, who remains a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant, and a traitor.  The two major issues on the plate right now are immigration (read: Amnesty) and The Fiscal Cliff (read: Tax cuts for the Rich!).

Obama wants, as he has maintained for the last several months, to keep the Bush Tax Rates, with the exception that he wants the top marginal rate to return to Clinton-era levels.  On immigration, of course, a full amnesty (excuse me, a "path to citizenship") is the goal.

I believe these require two different strategies.  Hopefully we won't just get sold out (note: I'm not holding my breath, though).

On taxation, I think Republicans need to say, "No, no, if the Clinton era tax rates are good enough for small business owners, they're good enough for everyone.  We'll act to stop sequestration, but tax rates all go back to Clinton era levels."  The American people have spoken, after all, and if Clinton rates are good for one group, they should be good enough for every group.

On immigration, I think we need to stick to our guns.  No compromise, no surrender.  We've granted amnesty-for-enforcement in the past, and we never got the enforcement part.  Require enforcement first.  Gain real control of the border, start checking immigration status.  Deport illegal aliens.  Only once that is done and is showing results do we talk about some kind of amnesty or path to citizenship.

Then, in negotiations, we can moderate that stance a little.  Offer this (again- start with the other, work toward this, anything past this is no deal): If an illegal alien can prove they've been here since X Date (call it Jan 1 of the year the law is passed.  So if they pass it in the next month, Jan 1, 2012), they will be temporarily exempt from deportation.  All other laws still apply (especially against employers who hire them), but they won't be subject to deportation.  In return, we get 4 years of full enforcement (including deportation on first pick-up) of illegals who cannot prove they were here prior to that date.  We get 4 years of full enforcement on the border, including more border patrol agents, better ROE for the border patrol, etc.  If, after those 4 years, we see that enforcement really has become a priority, then we will discuss some form of a "path to citizenship" for illegals already in the country.

Any attempt to force a national DREAM act, or path to citizenship (that is: amnesty) before enforcement has been proven should end negotiations immediately- we won't even discuss those issues until enforcement has been agreed upon and implemented.

I have three reasons for the positions.  First, I believe they are fairly practical and still conservative.  Neither is perfect, but we have a Democrat President and Senate, we're not going to get "perfect."  The best we can hope for is "not disastrous."  Second, I believe they should actually be obtainable.  These are opinions showing we're willing to "meet the President half-way."  Finally, I believe they'll show the grassroots- those of us who are licking our wounds from Tuesday and have (either permanently or temporarily) joined the side of "just let it burn"- that the GOP is serious about Conservative ideas, and that we won't be sold out "in the spirit of bipartisanship."

That last one is probably the most important.  If Boehner and the House sell out conservatives, the Republicans are done, and a new party will arise- probably giving Democrats the Presidency and Senate (at least) for the next 12 - 20 years.