Showing posts with label Federal Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Government. Show all posts
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Never Underestimate the American People
Made by an Alabama teen after his mother requested a commerical for the local Tax Day Tea Party. If a 16 year old kid gets it, why doesn't Congress?
"Never underestimate the power of a small group of people to change the world. It's the only thing that ever has."
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Dodd Dominated in Apr. 2 Quinnipiac University Poll
Good Thing Chris Dodd already found a new job at Chilli's since his days left in Washington are severly numbered. April 2's Quinnipiac University Poll placed the disembodied and disenfranchised Senator from AIG at 16 points behind former US Congressman Rob Simmons, 8 points behind Former US Ambassador to Ireland Tom Foley, and 4 points behind State Senator Sam Caligiuri (Quinnipiac University Poll, April 2, 2009- If the election were held today).
Perhaps even more astonishing- 33% disapproval rating. Almost unheard of for a 30 year incumbent. The coffin has begun being built on the senatorial career of the once powerful and respected member of the Washington Community.
Rob Simmons, appearing on Fox News's Hannity earlier this evening put it best: It means Connecticut residents don't trust Chris Dodd anymore.
And why should they? Considering 27% of respondents blame Dodd himself for the AIG bonus scandal. He moved to Iowa. He said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were doing just fine, weeks before they would have collapsed (the $133,00 donated from these companies to his campaigns may have been an incentive). He wrote the amendment that allowed the AIG bonuses to go through. Then he lied about it (New Haven Register March 20, 2009). He took sweetheart mortgages and then never disclosed the documents. Bought an Irish "cottage" that makes Windsor Castle look like a cheap summer home.
Perhaps more than a vote of confidence in the Republican candidates, however, this may be a striking and resounding lack of confidence in Chris Dodd. With nearly 88% of respondents not knowing enough about Sam Caligiuri to form an opinion, and even 47% about Rob Simmons, these numbers really speak for themselves: Chris Dodd's days are over.
(The Quinnipiac University Poll conducts public opinion surveys in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio and the nation as a public service and for research. Its margin of error for the April 2 poll was +/- 2.9%)
Monday, March 30, 2009
The American Dream is Falling Down, Falling Down
There is a line. A fine line. One between functioning democracy, with government support and oversight, and a world with government control of a market, dictatorial in nature. No, Mr. President, you are not coming up on this line. No, Mr. President- look behind you.
In a shocking and daring move, the White House forced out the head of the General Motors Corporation, Rick Wagoner (Hartford Courant). There is a notion, one that assures me in my heart that small businesses can succeed and that the American Dream is still alive- the free and open market. If a small business owner has to be afraid that if his company is having an off quarter, he will be replaced at the will of the government, what incentive does he have to start his business and perform the truest act of economic stimulation?
Entrepeneurship, risk-taking in the business realm create jobs, create money. Not an Auto-Czar, an executive branch position with complete regulatory authority over one of our most suffering industries. Because we all know that government is the solution to our problems.
For years, Democrats have been saying that Republicans and George Bush and government caused the crisis we are in. Republicans have been saying that Democrats and Chris Dodd are responsible. When will either side smarten up and realize the simple issue at stake: government is responsible for the mess we're in.
Please, don't take this as an anarchal rant. I'm not anti-government. I'm just against more government than we can afford. Do we need a central, national authority? Yes. Does that central authority need to have the power to regulate everything that exists? No.
The economy goes up and down, much like a baseball team. Every once in a while, a manager is replaced because the team isn't doing so hot. We've all seen it. But that decision is up to each individual club, not the baseball comissioner. The comissioner's job is to ensure a level playing field (no pun intended) for each team in the league. Why can't government act the same way? If it had for the past 15 years, maybe none of this would have ever happened and we wouldn't be worried about government take overs of independent industries.
Director of Auto Communities. Seems like a fun job. I find it hard to believe, however, that individual freedom is not at stake. I find it hard to believe that the American Dream is not at stake. A dream that relies on independent risk. Only in failure can you know success. I sure hope success isn't too far off. But then again, maybe I'm just dreaming.
In a shocking and daring move, the White House forced out the head of the General Motors Corporation, Rick Wagoner (Hartford Courant). There is a notion, one that assures me in my heart that small businesses can succeed and that the American Dream is still alive- the free and open market. If a small business owner has to be afraid that if his company is having an off quarter, he will be replaced at the will of the government, what incentive does he have to start his business and perform the truest act of economic stimulation?
Entrepeneurship, risk-taking in the business realm create jobs, create money. Not an Auto-Czar, an executive branch position with complete regulatory authority over one of our most suffering industries. Because we all know that government is the solution to our problems.
For years, Democrats have been saying that Republicans and George Bush and government caused the crisis we are in. Republicans have been saying that Democrats and Chris Dodd are responsible. When will either side smarten up and realize the simple issue at stake: government is responsible for the mess we're in.
Please, don't take this as an anarchal rant. I'm not anti-government. I'm just against more government than we can afford. Do we need a central, national authority? Yes. Does that central authority need to have the power to regulate everything that exists? No.
The economy goes up and down, much like a baseball team. Every once in a while, a manager is replaced because the team isn't doing so hot. We've all seen it. But that decision is up to each individual club, not the baseball comissioner. The comissioner's job is to ensure a level playing field (no pun intended) for each team in the league. Why can't government act the same way? If it had for the past 15 years, maybe none of this would have ever happened and we wouldn't be worried about government take overs of independent industries.
Director of Auto Communities. Seems like a fun job. I find it hard to believe, however, that individual freedom is not at stake. I find it hard to believe that the American Dream is not at stake. A dream that relies on independent risk. Only in failure can you know success. I sure hope success isn't too far off. But then again, maybe I'm just dreaming.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
When Chris Dodd apologizes, so should Joe Lieberman
State Democratic Party Chairwoman Nancy Dinardo sent a letter to Sen. Joe Lieberman on Jan. 16 asking Senator Lieberman to apologize for supporting Sen. John McCain in the 2008 Presidential race. Ha. But where is the letter to Sen. Christopher Dodd, asking him to apologize for defrauding the people of Connecticut, sleeping while the banking industry he was supposed to oversee collapse, and taking a VIP mortgage deal while his constituents struggled to pay their own outrageous deals, only to see many of them forced out of there homes?
Hypocrisy can be a very interesting, especially when it is used to such great effect by the Connecticut Democratic Party. It is becoming more apparent every day, as the deficit continues to grow and the Legislative Dems continue to do nothing about it, that the Connecticut Democratic Party is more concerned about fixing the cosmetic problems than the actual problems.
During a vetting process in the United States Senate that Marilyn Manson could survive (as long as he's a liberal), issues take a second seat to political agendas. Hilary Clinton and the crew have some serious conflicts of interest. Timothy Geithner forgot to pay taxes. As Treasury Secretary, he is head of the IRS. Interesting combination.
Chris Dodd has sat on paperwork revealing what everyone already knows, the VIP mortgages for over 200 days. CTGOP's Everyday Republican and their Dodd Watch have kept tabs on the disgrace known as Senator Dodd, and have waited as patiently as the constituency of Connecticut for Dodd to reveal his wrongdoings. When Governor Roland was in office, Democrats were quick to jump on his back and take him for a ride. But when a Democrat is in trouble, heaven forbid anyone takes a stab at him. Strange, considering the right is about to be a lot more open to President Obama than the left ever was for President Bush.
How can the Connecticut Democratic Party harass a United States Senator for voicing an opinion, and ignore one who helped play a key role in the economic crisis we now face (or perhaps I should say ignored his own role). One of these days the Connecticut Democratic Party will wake up and realize that in order to be a good political committee, they need to hold their members accountable for real issues.
They need to call their members out for significant problems. And they need to ask for an apology when needed, like when a Senator screws his constituency by wasting their money in a useless bid for the White House, and not when he expresses support for an opposition idea. And Please all note, Republicans who supported Obama are not being thrown out of the Republican Party. But we're the party of exclusivity. Shocking.
Hypocrisy can be a very interesting, especially when it is used to such great effect by the Connecticut Democratic Party. It is becoming more apparent every day, as the deficit continues to grow and the Legislative Dems continue to do nothing about it, that the Connecticut Democratic Party is more concerned about fixing the cosmetic problems than the actual problems.
During a vetting process in the United States Senate that Marilyn Manson could survive (as long as he's a liberal), issues take a second seat to political agendas. Hilary Clinton and the crew have some serious conflicts of interest. Timothy Geithner forgot to pay taxes. As Treasury Secretary, he is head of the IRS. Interesting combination.
Chris Dodd has sat on paperwork revealing what everyone already knows, the VIP mortgages for over 200 days. CTGOP's Everyday Republican and their Dodd Watch have kept tabs on the disgrace known as Senator Dodd, and have waited as patiently as the constituency of Connecticut for Dodd to reveal his wrongdoings. When Governor Roland was in office, Democrats were quick to jump on his back and take him for a ride. But when a Democrat is in trouble, heaven forbid anyone takes a stab at him. Strange, considering the right is about to be a lot more open to President Obama than the left ever was for President Bush.
How can the Connecticut Democratic Party harass a United States Senator for voicing an opinion, and ignore one who helped play a key role in the economic crisis we now face (or perhaps I should say ignored his own role). One of these days the Connecticut Democratic Party will wake up and realize that in order to be a good political committee, they need to hold their members accountable for real issues.
They need to call their members out for significant problems. And they need to ask for an apology when needed, like when a Senator screws his constituency by wasting their money in a useless bid for the White House, and not when he expresses support for an opposition idea. And Please all note, Republicans who supported Obama are not being thrown out of the Republican Party. But we're the party of exclusivity. Shocking.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Have a Drink With Me, Raise Your Glasses for a Toast
Tomorrow is the last day in the Presidency of George Walker Bush. Like him, or hate him, he held the office of the President in one of the toughest times our nation has ever seen. Agree with his decisions or not, he made them, and they were not easy. They were not decisions that most American people could make. They were not for the fainthearted.
At his final press conference last week, it was time for W to look back on his eight tumultuous years in office and reflect on the decisions that he made. Defend a few, criticize a few, but more important than the fact that he used an adverb correctly, to announce to the world what some people have forgotten: he is human.
The office of the Presidency transcends any one individual. It is greater than any act a person holding the office can make. It has been there long before any modern-era president has taken office, and will more than likely be there far after. President-Elect Obama, like him or not, has fulfilled the dream that Martin Luther King spoke of forty years ago. Rather than being judged solely by the color of his skin, President-Elect Obama has been judged by the content of his character. And a plurality of Americans have seen that character fit to behold the office of President.
And so I offer two toasts. First, to President Barack Obama. You assume the office of the presidency at a time of unrest and uncertainty, perhaps unparalleled since the fledgling years of our nation. A weary people looks to you for leadership, for guidance, and for the reassurance that we will be strong again, we will be resilient. In the end, we will have disagreements. More significantly than policy, we have different philosophies of government. It is fair to say that you have more faith in it than I do. But no matter our differences, we both want what is best for this country, regardless of the different ways we want to go about it. I wish you luck, I wish you grace, and I wish you well, Mr. President.
Finally, to President George Walker Bush. History will, I believe, be much kinder to you than anyone today could envision. While not the most popular kid in the class, you stood your ground and held steadfast to your principles. Even if I cannot applaud all of your actions, I applaud your fidelity to yourself. When they go to write the chapter on you in American History, be prepared to be honored, rather than admonished. To be cherished, rather than disregarded. To be criticized, but still respected for the difficult choices you made. That your worth may be written in the rock of the earth, and your faults upon the sand. I wish you luck, I wish you grace, and I wish you well, Mr. President.
Farewell, Number 43, Farewell.
At his final press conference last week, it was time for W to look back on his eight tumultuous years in office and reflect on the decisions that he made. Defend a few, criticize a few, but more important than the fact that he used an adverb correctly, to announce to the world what some people have forgotten: he is human.
The office of the Presidency transcends any one individual. It is greater than any act a person holding the office can make. It has been there long before any modern-era president has taken office, and will more than likely be there far after. President-Elect Obama, like him or not, has fulfilled the dream that Martin Luther King spoke of forty years ago. Rather than being judged solely by the color of his skin, President-Elect Obama has been judged by the content of his character. And a plurality of Americans have seen that character fit to behold the office of President.
And so I offer two toasts. First, to President Barack Obama. You assume the office of the presidency at a time of unrest and uncertainty, perhaps unparalleled since the fledgling years of our nation. A weary people looks to you for leadership, for guidance, and for the reassurance that we will be strong again, we will be resilient. In the end, we will have disagreements. More significantly than policy, we have different philosophies of government. It is fair to say that you have more faith in it than I do. But no matter our differences, we both want what is best for this country, regardless of the different ways we want to go about it. I wish you luck, I wish you grace, and I wish you well, Mr. President.
Finally, to President George Walker Bush. History will, I believe, be much kinder to you than anyone today could envision. While not the most popular kid in the class, you stood your ground and held steadfast to your principles. Even if I cannot applaud all of your actions, I applaud your fidelity to yourself. When they go to write the chapter on you in American History, be prepared to be honored, rather than admonished. To be cherished, rather than disregarded. To be criticized, but still respected for the difficult choices you made. That your worth may be written in the rock of the earth, and your faults upon the sand. I wish you luck, I wish you grace, and I wish you well, Mr. President.
Farewell, Number 43, Farewell.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Democrats Take Action?!
In a breaking news bulletin from about an hour ago, we reported that Politico.com announced that an aide to Senate Democratic leadership said that Roland Burris's appointment to the Senate by Gov. Rod Blagojevich was unacceptable. It is now being confirmed by major news sources, and via the Wall Street Journal, we now bring you both the statment of today by Democratic Leadership, as well as their letter to Gov. Blagojevich from the day after he was arrested. See, it is possible for us all to be on the same side. As long as we aren't talking about tax policy.
December 30, 2008
December 30, 2008
“It is truly regrettable that despite requests from all 50 Democratic
Senators and public officials throughout Illinois, Gov. Blagojevich would take
the imprudent step of appointing someone to the United States Senate who would
serve under a shadow and be plagued by questions of impropriety. We say this
without prejudice toward Roland Burris’s ability, and we respect his years of
public service. But this is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a
governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat. Under
these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective
representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be
seated by the Democratic Caucus.
“Next week we will start one of the most
important debates of the year – outlining an economic recovery plan to create
jobs and invest in America. And in the coming weeks, we will be working to
protect homeowners and consumers, make America more energy independent,
strengthen our national security, and improve health care and educational
opportunities. There is much work to do and a lot at stake. It is thus critical
that Illinois and every other state have two seated Senators without
delay.
“We again urge Gov. Blagojevich to not make this appointment. It is
unfair to Mr. Burris, it is unfair to the people of Illinois and it will
ultimately not stand. The governor must put the interests of the people of
Illinois and all Americans first by stepping aside now and letting his successor
appoint someone who we will seat.”
* * *
December 10, 2008Dear
Governor Blagojevich:
We write to insist that you step down as Governor of
Illinois and under no circumstance make an appointment to fill
the vacant Illinois Senate seat. In light of your arrest yesterday on
alleged federal corruption charges related to that Senate seat, any
appointment by you would raise serious questions.It is within the authority of the Illinois legislature to remove your power to make this appointment by providing for a special election. But a decision by you to resign or to step aside under Article V of the Illinois Constitution would be the most expeditious way for a new Senator to be chosen and seated in a manner that would earn the confidence of the people of Illinois and all Americans. We consider it imperative that a new senator be seated as soon as possible so that Illinois is fully represented in the Senate as the important work of the 111th Congress moves forward.
Please understand that should you decide to ignore the request of the Senate Democratic Caucus and make an appointment we would be forced to exercise our Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated.
We do not prejudge the outcome of the criminal charges against you or question your constitutional right to contest those charges. But for the good of the Senate and our nation, we implore you to refrain from making an appointment to the Senate.
Sincerely,
Sen. Reid
Sen. Durbin
Sen. Schumer
Sen. Murray
Sen. Akaka
Sen. Baucus
Sen. Bayh
Sen. Biden
Sen. Bingaman
Sen. Boxer
Sen. Brown
Sen. Byrd
Sen. Cantwell
Sen. Cardin
Sen. Carper
Sen. Casey
Sen. Clinton
Sen. Conrad
Sen. Dodd
Sen. Dorgan
Sen. Feingold
Sen. Feinstein
Sen. Harkin
Sen. Inouye
Sen. Johnson
Sen. Kennedy
Sen. Kerry
Sen. Klobuchar
Sen. Kohl
Sen. Landrieu
Sen. Lautenberg
Sen. Leahy
Sen. Levin
Sen. Lieberman
Sen. Lincoln
Sen. McCaskill
Sen. Menendez
Sen. Mikulski
Sen. Ben Nelson
Sen. Bill Nelson
Sen. Pryor
Sen. Reed
Sen. Rockefeller
Sen. Salazar
Sen. Sanders
Sen. Stabenow
Sen. Tester
Sen. Webb
Sen. Whitehouse
Sen. Wyden
And the Dem Leadership does Something Right
BREAKING NEWS: According to Politico.com, Burris is "unacceptable" to Majority Leader Harry Reid. Good call Harry. http://tinyurl.com/9re7jk
Exactly What the Framers Had in Mind
I sure wouldn't want to be Harry Reid today. Actually, I can't imagine that I'd ever want to be Harry Reid, but today more so than usual. The Wall Street Journal reported today (along with I'm sure multiple other sources that I haven't read yet this morning) that defamed and fabled Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is going back on his word and naming someone to fill President-Elect Obama's vacant Illinois Senate Seat. And I thought the story couldn't get any richer.
Now nothing against Blagogate's nominee, former Illinois Attorney General Roland W. Burris. Burris, in addition to serving as Illinois Attorney General from 1991 to 1995, Burris was also the first African-American to hold statewide elected office in Illinois, when in 1978 he was elected to the office of State Comptroller. (So I suppose that within Democratic party circles in Illinois, he is a worthy candidate.) If only Blagojevich hadn't made Burris a sacrificial lamb of sorts.
In Article One, Section Five, The Constitution gives the United States Senate power to "be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members". Basically, if they don't like you, you don't get to join. It's the Washington version of Augusta National Golf Club. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said a few weeks back that the Senate would not seat anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich. I guess now we'll get to see whether or not He will live up to his word.
In the end, the Constitution wished for a legislature that was able to conduct business free of undue influences that would negatively affect them. I am sure they weren't counting on the New York Times editorial board when they wrote that. At any rate, the ability of Harry Reid to say no to Blagojevich's now tainted nominee (who if Blagojevich had any ethics, he would be neither tainted nor a nominee, but his lack of ethics was proven weeks ago), is exactly what the framers had in mind. The ability to avoid the Hollywood-esque drama of today is critical to the conduct of congressional business. If only we could get all the members of Congress to agree.
Now nothing against Blagogate's nominee, former Illinois Attorney General Roland W. Burris. Burris, in addition to serving as Illinois Attorney General from 1991 to 1995, Burris was also the first African-American to hold statewide elected office in Illinois, when in 1978 he was elected to the office of State Comptroller. (So I suppose that within Democratic party circles in Illinois, he is a worthy candidate.) If only Blagojevich hadn't made Burris a sacrificial lamb of sorts.
In Article One, Section Five, The Constitution gives the United States Senate power to "be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members". Basically, if they don't like you, you don't get to join. It's the Washington version of Augusta National Golf Club. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said a few weeks back that the Senate would not seat anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich. I guess now we'll get to see whether or not He will live up to his word.
In the end, the Constitution wished for a legislature that was able to conduct business free of undue influences that would negatively affect them. I am sure they weren't counting on the New York Times editorial board when they wrote that. At any rate, the ability of Harry Reid to say no to Blagojevich's now tainted nominee (who if Blagojevich had any ethics, he would be neither tainted nor a nominee, but his lack of ethics was proven weeks ago), is exactly what the framers had in mind. The ability to avoid the Hollywood-esque drama of today is critical to the conduct of congressional business. If only we could get all the members of Congress to agree.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Hypocrisy at its Best
So in the latest rounds of hearings at the United States House of Representatives, Lord Speaker Pelosi admonished the CEOs of the Big 3 (Ford, Chrysler and GM) for using taxpayer-footed private jets. In fact, Congress delayed the hearings on the auto bailout amid criticism of their use.
But alas, who could forget the head lines in early 2007, "Pentagon Rejects Spealer Pelosi's Request for Military Aircraft" (ABC news). Apparently, the plane used by the previous speaker, Dennis Hastert was not good enough for Pelosi who wanted a plane that could reach California without refueling. I know. Heaven forbid a Congresswomen must subject herself to the same tortures of a layover faced by everyday Americans.
So what exactly did Princess Pelosi want? A 45 passenger C-32 Aircraft. Features: A private stateroom, communications center, entertainment center, changing room, oh and a small, trifle of a $22,000 per day operating budget. Now that's what I call a private jet.
But let's hold up more deficit spending (which I know, may actually work according to leading economists) to admonish executives just for getting what we wanted and were denied. Double standards are wonderful aren't they?
But alas, who could forget the head lines in early 2007, "Pentagon Rejects Spealer Pelosi's Request for Military Aircraft" (ABC news). Apparently, the plane used by the previous speaker, Dennis Hastert was not good enough for Pelosi who wanted a plane that could reach California without refueling. I know. Heaven forbid a Congresswomen must subject herself to the same tortures of a layover faced by everyday Americans.
So what exactly did Princess Pelosi want? A 45 passenger C-32 Aircraft. Features: A private stateroom, communications center, entertainment center, changing room, oh and a small, trifle of a $22,000 per day operating budget. Now that's what I call a private jet.
But let's hold up more deficit spending (which I know, may actually work according to leading economists) to admonish executives just for getting what we wanted and were denied. Double standards are wonderful aren't they?
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Spend Money to Save Money?
28 States, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government are all facing enormous deficits, the likes of which have ne'er been seen before. Many of the states are attempting to do something, yet the federal government is not. Many Democratic congressmen won their seats on the promise of stopping the overspending in Washington DC, this grandiose deficit run up by George Bush (never mind the fact that Congress controls the budget).
For those of you who are scared of numbers or are hardly economists, here is a quick economics lesson for you: a deficit occurs when a body spends more money than it has. Simple enough. In reality, you have two options: raise revenue or cut spending. In the minds of many elected officials, apparently a third option is to reverse the two, and raise spending while cutting revenue.
But wait, what's that you say? You say that's insane? You say that can't work? Tell that to the democrats, who think that they can hand out 1.4 trillion dollars (700 billion last FY and the possibility of another 700 to come on Jan. 20), and still maintain their promise of middle class tax cuts.
Never mind the fact that the state governments will have no way to overcome their own deficits, if new federal programs require state monetary input. There is an old formula from way, way back in the early 1990s created by Father Bush and used to success by the Republican Congress under President Clinton, called PAYGO. It is simple, if you want to increase spending in an area of the budget, you have to offset it by raising revenue or cutting another area of spending by an equal amount.
PAYGO leads to something very scary: a balanced budget. So I guess I can't help but ask a question. In his campaign, President-Elect Obama promised a return to the PAYGO principle. But now he's promising another $700 billion dollar bailout. He promised a middle class tax cut. Where is the rest of the spending cut? Where is the revenue increase? Where is the balance?
Apparently he believes that spending money will lead to saving money. But that has never been, nor will it ever be true. There is something missing in our economic crises, and I'm not talking about everybody's money. I'm talking about accountability. Where is the government help when Doc Baker's Pharmacy on Main Street has to close his doors? Maybe if he opened up on Wall Street, he would have had a better shot.
For those of you who are scared of numbers or are hardly economists, here is a quick economics lesson for you: a deficit occurs when a body spends more money than it has. Simple enough. In reality, you have two options: raise revenue or cut spending. In the minds of many elected officials, apparently a third option is to reverse the two, and raise spending while cutting revenue.
But wait, what's that you say? You say that's insane? You say that can't work? Tell that to the democrats, who think that they can hand out 1.4 trillion dollars (700 billion last FY and the possibility of another 700 to come on Jan. 20), and still maintain their promise of middle class tax cuts.
Never mind the fact that the state governments will have no way to overcome their own deficits, if new federal programs require state monetary input. There is an old formula from way, way back in the early 1990s created by Father Bush and used to success by the Republican Congress under President Clinton, called PAYGO. It is simple, if you want to increase spending in an area of the budget, you have to offset it by raising revenue or cutting another area of spending by an equal amount.
PAYGO leads to something very scary: a balanced budget. So I guess I can't help but ask a question. In his campaign, President-Elect Obama promised a return to the PAYGO principle. But now he's promising another $700 billion dollar bailout. He promised a middle class tax cut. Where is the rest of the spending cut? Where is the revenue increase? Where is the balance?
Apparently he believes that spending money will lead to saving money. But that has never been, nor will it ever be true. There is something missing in our economic crises, and I'm not talking about everybody's money. I'm talking about accountability. Where is the government help when Doc Baker's Pharmacy on Main Street has to close his doors? Maybe if he opened up on Wall Street, he would have had a better shot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
