Many people make resolutions to start the year, but I think a list of things that must be done to protect and preserve the Republic should be tallied…
President Obama must be defeated in 2012 and the obstructionist Democratic Party must lose power in the Senate to ensure both houses of Congress will be Republican and in a position to initiate real change.
The Environmental Protection Agency must be reined in with increased Congressional oversight and legislative limits on its rule-making capacity. Having fulfilled its 1970 mandate to clean the nation’s air and water, it should be scaled back to the maintenance of these functions.
Americans, despite the administration’s efforts to redefine and distract us, must keep clearly in mind the threat of Islam to the nation and the world. A Middle East in turmoil lays ahead for 2012.
To jump-start the economy, taxes and spending must be reduced across the board. A tax on consumption, rather than income would be a good start. Only 49% of Americans currently pay income taxes, the lowest in decades.
Obamacare must be repealed should the Supreme Court fail to rule that the Commerce Clause takes precedence over its requirement that Americans must purchase health insurance or be fined for not doing so.
A serious restructuring of Social Security and Medicare must be undertaken. Older Americans who have paid into the system—it is involuntary—must be ensured their benefits will be paid, but younger citizens should have the freedom and responsibility to structure their own retirement and health plans.
Access to the nation’s vast reserves of coal, natural gas, and oil should be increased and encouraged. Oil companies should be encouraged to build more refineries via tax credits and removal of “environmental” obstacles.
Congress needs to identify and fund the repair to the nation’s aging infrastructure.
Utilities should be encouraged via tax credits and other incentives to expand the national “grid” for the distribution of electricity.
Term limits for Senators and Representatives should be added to the U.S. Constitution in the same fashion the presidency is limited. Salaries, pensions, and perks should be capped. A permanent political class is a danger to citizens.
The Federal government should be downsized with the elimination of the Departments of Education, Labor, and Energy, along with the Environmental Protection Agency. These powers should be returned to the individual States. (10th Amendment)
The nation’s military which has been significantly reduced in size and structure should be expanded with attention to the upgrade and increase of its naval fleet and aircraft.
Congress should reject and rescind all legislation based on “global warming” or “climate change” as the former has been demonstrated to be a hoax and the latter is meaningless insofar as the climate is beyond the control of humans.
The United States should significantly reduce its contribution to the United Nations and refuse to ratify any of its treaties.
Tort reform should be instituted to reduce the costs of health care.
The corporate tax rate should be significantly reduced from its present rate, one of the highest in the world, to increase expansion, new jobs, and competitiveness.
Public service unions should be illegal. The federal government does not permit such unionization and neither should states.
National Public Radio should no longer be funded. The “government entities” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be eliminated.
The federal government should be restricted or significantly limited from the acquisition of more of the nation’s landmass.
Strenuous efforts must be undertaken to reduce the national debt and deficit. A devalued dollar impoverishes everyone.
These are just a few changes which, if implemented, would go a long way to reducing the ills associated with a federal government grown too large, subject to crony capitalism, and corruption.
As John Adams said, “Let us disappoint the men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country.”
Whether your read this entire document or not is not the issue. The issue is this-"Why does congress not pursue the illegality or legality of Obama's birth certificate or Social Security Number?"
Most obvious answer is that congress is complicit in Obama's illegality of holding office of the president of the United States of America. Obviously, congress shares Obama's views for the transition of the United States into a socialist nation.
How Did Obama Obtain a Social Security Number from Connecticut?
(Aug. 24, 2011) — Susan Daniels, a private investigator with almost 2 decades of experience has come to a very compelling conclusion – President Obama is using a Social Security number, issued to someone else. This is, as is the forgery of public documents, a crime.
The SS number Obama is illegally using will not be posted here, but it can be found easily enough if one wishes to verify these facts.
From the age of 15 to 25, there is no record of Obama using any Social Security number. While in school in Hawaii he may well have been able to get by without one. However, once he moved to California and began university schooling in Occidental College, he would need to provide one.
Conveniently, all of his college records have been sealed, so there is no way of knowing, at least for now, what SS number he used at that time. It is possible that the number he used may be at the heart of why he needed a new one. Maybe he was issued a foreign student SS number along with monetary aid for schooling. Not knowing the real reason, this of course is just the speculation of this writer, me. At this point only Obama knows why.
What is known, is that the SS number Obama is now using, does not show up on any data base as being used by anyone, until 1986 even though Social Security records show it was issued in the last two weeks of March, 1977. The number was issued to a person born in 1890 who apparently applied for it at age 87.
In 1935 when the Social Security System began, many people never applied because it was voluntary. This person most likely needed to get one very late in life in order to get some benefit or other. The number never shows up in data bases, so the person must have passed on very shortly after being assigned the number. This would make this number, a perfect candidate for criminal activity relating to false ID’s.
Enter Bill Ayers, the communist, revolutionary, terrorist that Obama claimed was just some guy living in his neighborhood, who’s children went to school with his, even though Ayers’ children are a half generation older than Obama’s. Later it was discovered that Bill Ayers, more than likely, wrote much of Obama’s book,’ Dreams From My Father’, as well as holding one of the first Obama fundraisers in his home.
Ayers has said, and proudly so, that a lot of what they did as terrorist bombers and murderers, was producing and falsifying identifications for their criminal activities. The most effective method was through the use of fraudulent Social Security numbers. A minimally used SS number issued to an 87 year old would some how seem to be a great candidate for that illegal SS number file.
Even though Ayers was just a “guy in the neighborhood,” if Obama needed to dump his legal SS number, for whatever reason, Professor Ayers may have taken a break from indoctrinating our youth and reached into his false ID vault and issued him one.
A few final facts about Social Security numbers. 1. No SS number is ever reused, even after the death of the user. 2. SS numbers are issued by state location. One must live in the state where it is issued. 3. Obama’s natural father, adopted father, mother or grand parents never lived in Connecticut. 4. When the SS number Obama is using was issued by Connecticut, Obama was 15 and living in Hawaii.
The question here is obvious. Is there no one one in Congress or the media with the backbone to stand up and ask, – What the heck is going on in my country?
Of course, there may well be a very honest and reasonable explanation for this, the forged birth certificate and the very suspicious Selective Service documents.
Someone has “a lot of splainin’ to do.” Will our Congress and media ever step up to the plate and demand it?
On Tuesday evening, President Obama was being interviewed by Scott Pelley, who asked the President whether he could guarantee that Americans would get their Social Security checks if the debt ceiling weren't raised:
Can you tell the folks at home that, no matter what happens, the[ir] Social Security checks are going to go out on August the 3rd?
Obama: Well, this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out each month.
Pelley: Can you guarantee, as president, that those checks will go out on August the 3rd?
Obama: I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved the [debt] issue, because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.
A howl of protests that the President was being disingenuous, at best, went up immediately. On Wednesday morning, Terence Jeffrey, writing for CNSNews.com, noted that according to the Daily Treasury Statement for June 30 there was plenty of income to cover all the government’s expenses for the month, with a little left over. Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland, said, “You do not have to default and you don’t have to shut down the government if you choose not to.” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) was quick to point out that the President’s doubts about being able to pay the country’s bills and consequently being forced to default were a “misnomer:”
This is a misnomer that I believe the president and the treasury secretary have been trying to pass off on the American people, and it’s this: That if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion, that somehow the United States will go into default and we will lose the ‘full faith and credit’ of the United States. That is simply not true.
Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) charged the President with bullying: “My concern is that we have a president who is not willing to do his job, and that is to prioritize the spending, that he is digging in his heels, being very intransigent, and he’s being a rigid ideologue.” Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) came close to suggesting that the President was lying:
We know from the House rules that the president never lies, but he is taking advice and information from somebody apparently who is willing to lie, because it’s just not true. The fear mongering needs to stop.
In the event that the debt ceiling debate is not resolved by Friday, July 22, there would be no time to avoid the drop dead date of August 3, and the Treasury would appear to face some daunting decisions. Jay Powell, former Undersecretary of the Treasury under President George H.W. Bush, has published an analysis of the options facing the Treasury on August 3 without a debt ceiling resolution. According to Powell, August revenues to the government will be $172 billion, while payments are expected to total $306 billion, with a shortfall of $134 billion. At least three interactive tools have been developed for those willing to make the decisions of who to pay and who to stiff have been developed here, here, and here.
No matter which one is selected, the numbers, if they are to be believed, are grim, and the choices limited. The Treasury could spend all of its revenue on just six bills that are due in August: interest on the national debt ($29 billion), Medicare ($28.6 billion), Medicaid ($21.4 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), defense vendor payments ($31.7 billion), and unemployment insurance ($12.8 billion). That would leave unpaid Active Military Duty pay ($2.9 billion), Veterans Affairs programs ($2.9 billion), IRS tax refunds ($3.0 billion), food stamps ($7.1 billion), federal government employees’ salaries ($14.2 billion), Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, and Environmental Protection ($31.3 billion), the Federal Highway Administration ($4.5 billion), the General Services Administration ($41.7 billion), the Justice Department ($1.4 billion), and “other spending” ($42 billion). In addition there would be no funds for the Small Business Administration, the Department of Labor, the Federal Transit Administration, Health and Human Services grants, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, NASA, or the Centers for Disease Control.
Credit rating agencies Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s have stated that the United States faces a possible credit downgrade if the government is allowed to default. As the White House Press Secretary put it: “You would have to make heinous choices about which bills you would pay.”
In an effort to inform about (some would say lend support for) raising the debt ceiling, Powell’s study was presented to several Republican Senators on Wednesday evening.
A careful reader should take note of three points. First, the numbers in the Powell study have not been vetted and are merely informed estimates of revenue flow for August. Second, in the perspective of an economy that is generating nearly $15 trillion of goods and services annually ($1.25 trillion a month), the alleged estimated shortfall of $134 billion for the month of August is small change). And remember that June numbers showed revenues exceeding expenses. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the government finds itself in the same position as a family whose primary breadwinner has just lost his job, and they now have to cut their standard of living by 40 percent overnight. It seems somehow just, proper, and right that the profligate government would now be faced with the same situation if the debt ceiling weren’t raised. The adjustment, long overdue, would be painful, but necessary. Extending additional credit to the family (or the government) to “get over the hump” merely pushes the day of reckoning off into the very near future, when the financial difficulty will be even more painful to resolve.
Video: (you gotta see this one!) Juan Williams Pwned: Sean Hannity Makes Williams Look Like Complete A$$ - Sean Hannity completely pawned Juan Williams last night on Hannity. Sean asked Williams to respond to Eric Cantor's comments on raising the debt ceiling. When Juan got through trashing Cantor, Hannity told him that actually those were Obama's comments from 2006. Watch Juan Williams' expression when he finds out he got totally pawned.
We Need Leadership… What We Got Was: The Tantrum in a High Chair (and Then Fear Mongering to Seniors)
Every mom who has ever been at her wit’s end recognizes Barack Obama. The president who earlier nagged Congress that it was time for Americans to “eat our peas” finally threw his own peas to the floor and banged his spoon on his supper dish. Such a tantrum in a high chair is a familiar sight in a lot of kitchens.
“Enough is enough,” the president cried, frustrated by the tense budget talks at the White House. “Don’t call my bluff,” he told his Republican tormentors. “I’m going to the American people.”
If a pout and a sulk is familiar to Mom, every 2-year-old in town can understand the president’s angry frustration. Throwing your peas on the floor, particularly if they’re of the English variety, tasting of copy paper and sliding down a tiny throat like un-lubricated ball bearings, is the instant gratification every tantrum-thrower yearns for. But it’s a presidential strategy we haven’t seen before
These are not the cheers and hosannas the prince of Hyde Park imagined for himself when he agreed to step down from on high to assume the presidential purple. It’s going on three years and the natives are restless. They keep asking impertinent questions. Rep. Eric Cantor, the leader of the Republican House majority, ignited the president’s ire when he suggested the president and the Democrats take a smaller budget deal than His Excellency wants. The president—“he got very agitated,” in the telling of Mr. Cantor, who was there—did not appreciate such lack of respect for royalty.
Harry Reid, the president’s liege man in the Senate, wanted to boot Mr. Cantor from the talks. “He shouldn’t even be at the table,” the majority leader said. No tea and cookies for him. Some Democrats disputed the details in the Republican account, but there was general agreement that Mr. Obama lost his celebrated cool. And why not? So far the budget talks have been a classic standoff between the president, who is determined to raise taxes to make the welfare state grow, and the Republicans, who are determined to cut the bipartisan spending that threatens to spin the economy into an abyss of unknown depth.
The president’s tantrum can have a positive effect, however, if it captures the full attention of the public. Talk of the economy makes the average voter’s head hurt, his teeth itch, and his Jockey shorts bunch up under his belt. The economy has always been like algebra, difficult to grasp, and voters have been willing to leave the algebra to the advocates for the tax-eaters. That may be changing, as one and all begin to recognize that the good life is at risk—the car, the boat, college for the kids, tropical vacations in Maui. The exceptional nation may be at risk of becoming like the toy nations of Europe.
President Obama plays the empty threat to withhold Grandma’s Social Security check. Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, warns of “a huge financial calamity” if Congress refuses to raise the debt limit. This echoes the lamentations of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner as well as the new chairman of the International Monetary Fund. Moody’s, the financial service that measures such things, piles on, with the dire threat that U.S. bonds could be downgraded. Maybe. It all smells like a contrived campaign to put pressure on the Republicans to cave, just as they have the attention of the president and his frightened Democrats.
The scheme of Sen. Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Republicans in the Senate, to give the president the authority to raise the debt limit without serious cuts and bear the consequences, looks better to the Republicans than it did when he introduced it and for his trouble was scorched by some conservatives as the usual Republican sell-out artist. Democrats squealed like stuck pigs. They naturally don’t want this responsibility because they understand the eventual consequences of continuing to live it up like pigs in the slop-house. Mr. Obama wants Republicans to share the “credit” for his incompetent management of the economy.
The verdict of history, though on the way, is not quite at hand. The verdict of 2012 soon will be, and looms over everything. It’s enough to make a president, swaddled with a bad situation he made much worse, bang his supper dish with his spoon and throw his peas on the floor.
Life, Health, Prosperity, Diane G.
h/t to Deonia Copeland and Jean Stoner
And Here is the Latest The latest demagoguery from AARP… The Senior Group That Sold Out Their Members for Profit…
Right now, President Obama and Congress are considering a deal to pay the nation's bills that could cut the Social Security and Medicare benefits seniors have earned through a lifetime of hard work.
Seniors may not get cost of living raises anymore and have their SS checks withheld, but Omuslim is going to take care of his muzzie bros and throw himself a big 50th B-Day party!
THIS is the sh*t that should be cut!
BILLIONS FOR JIHAD!
Obama’s 2009 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Pandemic Flu was revised and “passed by the full committee.” It gives billions http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/obamas-supplemental-bill-passes-gives-billions-to-enemies/ of U.S. taxpayer dollars to countries and entities that support Sharia law and/or harbor, hide and support those who want to destroy the U.S. and our allies.
Read the summary from David Obey’s office that was quietly released last week with nary a word from any media.
• $3.6 billion, matching the request, to expand and improve capabilities of the Afghan security forces
• $400 million, as requested, to build the counterinsurgency capabilities of the Pakistani security forces
• Afghanistan: $1.52 billion, $86 million above the request
• West Bank and Gaza: $665 million in bilateral economic, humanitarian, and security assistance for the West Bank and Gaza
• Jordan: $250 million, $250 million above the request, including $100 million for economic and $150 million for security assistance
• Egypt: $360 million, $310 million above the request, including $50 million for economic assistance, $50 million for border security, and $260 million for security assistance
• Pakistan: $1.9 billion, $591 million above the request
• Iraq: $968 million, $336 million above the request
• Oversight: $20 million, $13 million above the request, to expand oversight capacity of the State Department, USAID, and the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan to review programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq
• Lebanon: $74 million
• International Food Assistance: $500 million, $200 million above the request, for PL 480 international food assistance to alleviate suffering during the global economic crisis… for people who hate us
• Refugee Assistance: $343 million, $50 million above the request, …including humanitarian assistance for Gaza. Funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency programs in the West Bank and Gaza is limited to $119 million (Note: Gaza = Hamas)
• Disaster Assistance: $200 million to avert famines and provide life-saving assistance during natural disasters and for internally displaced people around the world, including Somalia, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, the Middle East and South Asia
•Peacekeeping: $837 million for United Nations peacekeeping operations, including an expanded mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and a new mission in Chad and the Central African Republic
If America defaults on its debts come Aug. 2 -- as the Obama folks warn, absent a deal by then -- what will President Obama do on Aug. 3? Why, host a big birthday bash for himself, of course, to raise cash for his re-election.
That's his plan right now, anyway. (He turns 50 on Aug. 4.) Tickets for a private birthday dinner with the prez will go for as much as $35,800 a couple.
We, too, want to wish the president a joyous birthday. But how can anyone take seriously his threats of default -- and those of underlings like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner -- when Obama himself doesn't seem terribly concerned?
We, too, want to wish the president a joyous birthday. But how can anyone take seriously his threats of default -- and those of underlings like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner -- when Obama himself doesn't seem terribly concerned?
Indeed, the president and his fellow Democrats haven't seemed particularly worried about the nation's fiscal state for some time now:
* Obama has yet to produce any detailed proposal for a debt-ceiling deal, including what budget cuts he'd make. So what is it, exactly, that negotiators are supposed to agree on before Aug. 2?
* Since the president's $3.7 trillion baloney budget -- with its monstrous $9.5 trillion in deficits over 10 years -- was nixed in May by every voting Democrat and Republican in the Senate, he's yet to offer a new one.
* In 2010, House Dems failed their most basic responsibility: to pass a budget. It was Congress' first such failure in 36 years.
* House Republicans, by contrast, passed a long-range budget this year, addressing both short-term spending and long-term woes like Medicare. But the Democratic-controlled Senate voted that down -- without offering an alternative.
No wonder the warnings from Obama and Geithner have become more ominous: This week they said even Grandma might not get her Social Security check if no deal is reached by Aug. 2.
Their credibility is shot -- forcing them to heighten their threats.
Meanwhile, though, the prez has big plans for Default Day +1.
President Obama seems to have a little trouble keeping track of birthdays, even his own. During a press conference in late June he incorrectly identified his daughter Malia as being 13 years old. She was 12 at the time and her birthday wasn’t for another five days.
Then in another presser on Friday, Obama said he would be turning 50 “in a week.” Actually, he won’t hit his half-a-century mark for almost another three weeks, according to USA Today. His birthday is on Aug. 4.
We hope, for his sake, his memory doesn’t fail him when it comes to his and Mrs. Obama’s anniversary. Just in case, it’s Oct. 3.
Being the Secretary of State is no walk in the park and Hillary Clinton says those closest to her have noticed. In an extensive interview with BBC on Thursday, Clinton spoke about the toll her job has taken:
[S]ince I am perpetually tired, I figure make up for the lost hours of sleep while flying. Also, I know very simple things – drink a lot of water, deep breathing, try to get a little bit of sunshine if you can every day. But I don’t know that there’s any magic formula. Because I, too, often am tired; there’s no doubt about it. But I’m exhilarated at the same time. I love what we’re doing…
She continued, saying her friends often chime in on how burned out she appears in the news media:
I won’t lie to you. I’m tired. My friends call and email saying, “Oh, my gosh, I saw you on television. You looked so tired.” (Laughter.) Which I send back saying, “Gee, thanks a lot.” But I know, because if you work around the clock like we do, that’s just inevitable.
Clinton said to keep her stamina up, she does breathing exercises as well as yoga.
In March, the 63-year-old political veteran announced she would not return for a second term as Secretary of State. What does she have planned once she exits the playing field?
…I am very interested in spending time with my friends and my family and not being on the merry-go-round all the time, which is one of the reasons why I have decided that I will move on and return to private life at the end of what will be a very intense period of activity and work in the next 18 months.
President Obama is demanding a big long-term budget deal. He won’t sign anything less, he warns, asking, “If not now, when?”
How about last December, when he ignored his own debt commission’s recommendations? How about February, when he presented a budget that increases debt by $10 trillion over the next decade? How about April, when he sought a debt-ceiling increase with zero debt reduction attached?
All of a sudden he’s a born-again budget balancer prepared to bravely take on his own party by making deep cuts in entitlements. Really? Name one. He’s been saying forever that he’s prepared to discuss, engage, converse about entitlement cuts. But never once has he publicly proposed a single structural change to any entitlement.
Anonymous talk is cheap. Leaks are designed to manipulate. Offers are floated and disappear.
Say it, Mr. President. Give us one single structural change in entitlements. In public.
As part of the pose as the forward- looking grown-up rising above all the others who play politics, Obama insists upon a long-term deal. And what is Obama’s definition of long-term? Surprise: An agreement that gets him past Nov. 6, 2012.
Nothing could be more political. It’s like his Afghan surge wind-down date. September 2012 has no relation to any military reality on the ground. It is designed solely to position Obama favorably going into the last weeks of his reelection campaign.
Yet the Olympian above-the-fray no-politics-here pose is succeeding. A pliant press swallows the White House story line: the great compromiser (“clearly exasperated,” sympathized a Post news story) being stymied by Republican “intransigence” (the noun actually used in another front-page Post news story to describe the Republican position on taxes).
The meme having been established, Republicans have been neatly set up to take the fall if a deal is not reached by Aug. 2. Obama is already waving the red flag,warning ominously that Social Security, disabled veterans’ benefits, “critical” medical research, food inspection — without which agriculture shuts down — are in jeopardy.
The Republicans are being totally outmaneuvered. The House speaker appears disoriented. It’s time to act. Time to call Obama’s bluff.
A long-term deal or nothing? The Republican House should immediately pass a short-term debt-ceiling hike of $500 billion containing $500 billion in budget cuts. That would give us about five months to work on something larger.
The fat-cat tax breaks (those corporate jets) that Obama’s talking points endlessly recycle? Republicans should call for urgent negotiations on tax reform along the lines of the Simpson-Bowles commission that, in one option, strips out annually $1.1 trillion of deductions, credits and loopholes while lowering tax rates across the board to a top rate of 23 percent. The president says he wants tax reform, doesn’t he? Well, Mr. President, here are five months to do so.
Will the Democratic Senate or the Democratic president refuse this offer and allow the country to default — with all the cataclysmic consequences that the Democrats have been warning about for months — because Obama insists on a deal that is 10 months and seven days longer?
That’s indefensible and transparently self-serving. Dare the president to make that case. Dare him to veto — or the Democratic Senate to block — a short-term debt-limit increase.
This is certainly better than the McConnell plan, which would simply throw debt reduction back to the president. But if the House cannot do Plan A, McConnell is the fallback Plan B.
After all, by what crazy calculation should Republicans allow themselves to be blamed for a debt crisis that could destabilize the economy and even precipitate a double-dip recession? Right now, Obama owns the economy and its 9.2 percent unemployment, 1.9 percent GDP growth and exploding debt about which he’s done nothing. Why bail him out by sharing ownership?
You cannot govern this country from one house. Republicans should have learned that from the 1995-96 Gingrich-Clinton fight when the GOP controlled both houses and still lost.
If conservatives really want to get the nation’s spending under control, the only way is to win the presidency. Put the question to the country and let the people decide. To seriously jeopardize the election now in pursuit of a long-term, small-government, Ryan-like reform that is inherently unreachable without control of the White House may be good for the soul. But it could very well wreck the cause.
The Petulant Teleprompter: Obama "Abruptly" Walks Out Of Debt Negotiations
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 07/13/2011 19:20 -0400
Update: OBAMA: "THIS MAY BRING MY PRESIDENCY DOWN BUT I WILL NOT YIELD ON THIS" -- REPUBLICAN AIDE; Perhaps Obama may want to put the country ahead of his own interests this one time...
Here is the relevant section in the 14th Amendment that the Constitutional scholar is likely about to invoke. The bolded section is what is largely being ignored.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
Odd how the debt incurred for payment of pensions is being nicely trampled to make way for debt incurred for payment of Federal worker bonuses...
Original:
So far the Moody's threat is having precisely zero impact on the debt ceiling farce, with just 8 days left until July 22. But the latest development is certain to jar both S&P and Fitch, not to mention Dagong, out of hibernation. Reuters reports that President Barack Obama abruptly ended a tense budget meeting on Wednesday with Republican leaders by walking out of the room, a Republican aide familiar with the talks said. The aide said the session, the fourth in a row, was the most tense of the week as House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, dismissed spending cuts offered by the White House as "gimmicks and accounting tricks." Either Congress has become the best orchestrated reality TV show in history or, and this is a big or, the market should really consider panicking soon.
Cantor relayed this quote: "Eric, don't call my bluff," Obama said. "I'm going to take this to the American people."
More Cantor: Obama said that the group has until Friday to figure out "which way we're going." They'll meet tomorrow.
Odd. Last time we checked far more Americans didn't want a debt ceiling hike than did:
Overall, voters oppose raising the debt ceiling by a strong 45 percent to 32 percent margin, with the remainder undecided. But the real eye-opener in the poll is the stiff Republican and swing-voter opposition to a deal. Sixty-seven percent of GOP voters and 51 percent of independents think raising the debt ceiling is a bad idea. Democratic voters, by comparison favored raising the debt ceiling by a 44 to 21 percent margin. Interestingly, 35 percent of Democrats say they are either undecided on the question, or don’t know enough to have an opinion.
Perhaps Obama believes GM union members are a representative segment of the broad US population...
Why the "Balanced Budget Amendment" is a Hoax and a Deadly Trap
By Publius Huldah
You can not responsibly support a proposed Amendment to Our Constitution unless you have read and understand the proposal and how it would change our Constitution. You must look behind the nice sounding name! Will the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) really "reign in" the federal government? Will it really "show them" that they have to balance their budget the same as we do?
Or does it actually legalize spending which is now unconstitutional? Is it actually a massive grant of new constitutional powers to the President and the federal courts - a grant which will cut the Heart out of The Constitution our Framers gave us?
Amending the Constitution is serious business - and you are morally bound to get informed before you jump on The Amendment Bandwagon.
So, lay aside your giddy joy at the fact that all 47 U.S. Senate Republicans are co-sponsoring the Balanced Budget Amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 10 (March 31, 2011). Let's go through it. What you believe the BBA will do, and what it will actually do, are two very different things indeed.
But First: How Did We Get a National Debt of $14.4 Trillion?
Congress gave us a debt of $14.4 trillion which increases at the rate of $4 billion a day. Let us look at a few of the items which comprise this $14.4 trillion debt: Congress spent $2.6 million to teach Chinese prostitutes how to drink responsibly. Congress appropriates $147 million a year to subsidize Brazilian cotton farmers. Congress spent $3.6 million to fund a study of the sex lives of dope-smoking, menstruating monkeys. Congress paid $500,000 to paint a salmon on an Alaska Airlines passenger jet. Congress appropriates $6.9 billion a year for the National Science Foundation where they fund such research as that which revealed the amazing fact that sick shrimp do not perform as well on stamina tests as do healthy shrimp.1 Citizens Against Government Waste's pig book shows Congress spent $16,547,558,748. on pork projects last year. In Sen. Tom Coburn's Waste Book 2010, which lists 100 spending projects, he shows that $1.5 million was spent to spruce up apartments in Shreveport, La. before they were torn down.
All this spending - every penny of it - and trillions more which is not here listed - has one thing in common: It is all unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated to Congress in the Constitution.Congress has no constitutional authority to spend money on these projects.
So! It was Congress' unconstitutional spending which put us in the mess we are in today.
What Does Our Constitution Permit Congress To Spend Money On?
WE THE PEOPLE ordained and established a Constitution wherein the powers WE delegated to the federal government are limited and defined - "enumerated". Read the list at Art. I, Sec. 8! Basically, all WE gave Congress authority to do for the Country at large is international relations, commerce & war; and domestically, the creation of an uniform commercial system (weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a money system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & road building.) Some Amendments authorize Congress to make laws protecting civil rights. That's about it, Folks! The list of objects on which Congress may lawfully appropriate funds is short. The only significant authorized expense is the military. James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution, said in Federalist No. 45 (9th para):
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." [boldface added]
Note that Madison contemplated that the federal government would be financed in large part by taxation on foreign commerce. That is because the constitutional powers of the federal government are so limited & defined! The States and the People are to handle everything else.
Do you now see that Our Constitution does not authorize Congress to pay for a museum for neon signs ($5.2 million), to archive memorabilia for a rock group ($615,000), or to post poems in zoos ($997,766.)? [See Sen. Coburn's Waste Book 2010]. Congress has no lawful authority to do most of what they do. They just do it because they want to, they have been doing it for a long time, and WE haven't known enough to stop them. Our $14.4 trillion debt was caused by Congress' spending in thousands of areas where they have no constitutional authority to spend.
Is the BBA Really the Solution?
So! These 47 Senate Republicans (and some in the House) are showing you how much they now "care" about fiscal responsibility by supporting the BBA. But think: Why don't they control their spending now? The Republicans control the House - NOspending can get through the House unless the Republicans approve it. So if the Republicans really wanted to control spending and balance the budget, they could do it now. Why don't they do it? Because they don't want to.
Furthermore, the BBA they support with such broad smiles and glib promises of future fiscal responsibility, doesn't make them control their spending. Instead, it would legalize spending which is now unlawful and would markedly increase the powers of the federal government. And it would do nothing to reduce spending. In short, the BBA is a Scam and a Terrible Trick.
What Would We Get From the BBA ?
In plain English, this is what the 10 Sections of the BBA mean [but read it yourself - it's very short]:
Section 1: They won't spend more than they take in unless they vote to spend more than they take in.
Section 2: They won't spend more than 18% of the GDP unless they vote to spend more than 18% of the GDP.
Section 3: The President will write the budget: He will designate the taxes, and what the money will be spent on. He won't spend more than he decides to tax you for, and he won't spend more than 18% of the GDP. The GDP is a computation made by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Department of Commerce, an agency under the control of the President. [Do you see? The President controls the agency which computes the number which limits his spending.]
Section 4: Congress won't make a law raising your taxes unless they vote to raise your taxes.
Section 5: Congress won't raise the debt limit unless they vote to raise the debt limit.
Sections 6 & 7: Congress can waive the above provisions of the BBA (except for Sec. 4 which says they can't raise your taxes unless they vote to raise your taxes) when there is a declared war or a "military conflict" which they think justifies their waiving the above provisions of the BBA.
Section 8: Courts can't order your taxes to be raised. [But you can bet your life that this section, together with section 3, will be seen to authorize the President to order that your taxes be raised.]
Section 9: I leave this to others to explain. But be assured the President's minions will define stuff however he wants; make stuff "off-budget" or "on-budget" to fit his agenda.
Section 10: Congress can make laws to enforce the BBA, and can rely on numbers provided by the President who is to be given constitutional authority to order tax increases & decide how to spend the money.
So! Do you see? You get no benefit from the BBA. But it will cause us irreparable harm.
How Would the BBA Cut the Heart Out of Our Constitution?
1. It would Transform Our Constitution From One of Enumerated Spending Powers To One of General ("Unlimited") Spending Powers.
Congress' Powers are Enumerated. Thus, the objects on which Congress may lawfully appropriate funds are limited to those listed in the Constitution. Congress has ignored the limitations on its powers for many decades - but at least the limitations are still in the Constitution, to be invoked if We The People ever repent. 2
But the BBA, by ignoring the unconstitutionalobjects of Congress' spending, and by merely limiting the amount of such spending to 18% of the GDP & the taxes the President assesses, repeals the enumerated powers aspect of our Constitution. Furthermore, if Congress limited its appropriations to its enumerated powers, they could not possibly spend a sum as vast as 18% of the GDP. Thus, the BBA is clear intention to repeal the enumerated powers, and transform the federal government into one of general and unlimited powers.
Congress' idiotic spending is now unlawful & unconstitutional. But with the BBA, it would become lawful & constitutional,as long as the total spending doesn't exceed the limits (unless they waive the limits). With the BBA, it will become lawful for them to appropriate funds for whatever the President (who will write the budget) says! 3
2. The BBA Transfers Control of the "Purse" from Congress to the President.
The federal government didn't even have a budget until Congress passed the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. That "law" purported to grant budget making power (taxes & appropriations) to the President.
But the Budget Act of 1921 is unconstitutional: The Constitution places the taxing & appropriations powers squarely in the hands of Congress - not the Executive Branch; and contrary to the beliefs of indoctrinated lawyers, Congress may not "amend" the Constitution by making a law. 4
Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 1, grants to Congress the Power to lay and collect Taxes; and Art. I, Sec. 9, next to last clause, grants to Congress the Power to make the appropriations:
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."
Accordingly, for most of our history, Congress made appropriations as the need arose; determined the taxes, and kept records of both. [See Bruce Bartlett's excellent history of the appropriations process.]
Our Framers gave us an elegant system of separated powers, where Congress commands the purse - not the Executive Branch and not the Judicial Branch! In Federalist No. 78 (6th para), Alexander Hamilton outlines this separation of powers:
"...The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules ... The judiciary ... has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society..." 5
In Federalist No. 58 (4th para from end) Madison explains why the House aloneis granted power to propose taxes (Art. I, Sec. 7, cl. 1): To protect The People from overreaching by the other branches of the federal government:
"...The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing ... all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may ... be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance..."
Ponder Hamilton's and Madison's words. You must understand what they are saying if we are to restore our Constitutional Republic. Otherwise, the BBA will usher in a totalitarian dictatorship.
Pursuant to the unconstitutional Budget Act of 1921, the President has been preparing the budget. Since the Budget Act is unconstitutional, the President's preparation of the budget has been likewise unconstitutional. Section 3 of the BBA would legalize what is now unconstitutional and unlawful.
But Section 3 of the BBA does more than merely legalize the unlawful. It actually transfers the constitutional power to make the appropriations and to determine taxes to the President. Congress will become a rubber stamp.
Now look at this pretty little snare: Section 8 of the proposed BBA says:
"No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article." [emphasis added]
Our Constitution does not grant to courts any power to "order" tax increases. So why does Sec. 8 of the BBA say they can't do it?
"An implied exclusion argument lies whenever there is reason to believe that if the legislature had meant to include a particular thing within the ambit of its legislation, it would have referred to that thing expressly. Because of this expectation,the legislature's failure to mention the thing becomes grounds for inferring that it was deliberately excluded. Although there is no express exclusion, exclusion is implied. ..." [emphasis added]
Why does Sec. 8 of the BBA exclude the President? From this exclusion, one may reasonably infer that the intent of Sec. 8 is to permit the President to order tax increases. If the BBA is ratified, you can be sure that Presidents will claim power under Sec. 8 of the BBA to order tax increases. That inference is strengthened by the fact that Sec. 3 of the BBA transfers constitutional power over the Budget to the President.
So! The BBA surrenders the purse to the President!Our Framers understood the danger of having the sword & the purse held by one person. That is why our Constitution provides for Congress to make the decisions on taxes & appropriations; and, as pointed out in Federalist No. 72 (1st para), the President is to apply and disburse "the public moneys in conformity to the general appropriations of the legislature".
With the BBA, Congress' sole remaining constitutional function over taxing & spending will be to rubberstamp the dictates of the President.
3. The BBA grants judicial power over taxing & spending to the federal courts.
Article III, Sec. 2, cl. 1 states: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases...arising under this Constitution."
If the BBA is ratified, it will become an Amendment to the Constitution which is subject to the judicial authority of the federal courts.
You say the BBA won't transfer power over the purse to the President? You say Congress won't become a mere rubberstamp whose sole remaining function over taxing & appropriations is to enact into law the dictates of the President?
Who will decide? Since this would be an issue "arising under the Constitution", the supreme Court will decide. The Judicial Branch - a branch which Hamilton took care to point out should have no power whatsoever over The Purse.
And so five (5) people on the supreme Court will decide an issue which goes to the heart of our Constitution - an issue which the People clamoring for the BBA don't even know exists. And remember: Our supreme Court is filled with fallen people who looked at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment and said it means that women may kill their babies. They looked at the 1stAmendment and said it means that Congress may regulate political speech, and courts may ban Christian speech in the public square, but it gives Westboro "baptists" a "right" to spew their filth & hate at private funerals of dead American heroes.
If the BBA is ratified, do you really want five (5) of those judges deciding this issue? 6
What is the Solution to The Financial Plight Congress has put us in?
We have 47 Republican U.S. Senators who don't understand [or do they?] the ramifications of the BBA which some of them (most notably Senators Jim De Mint & Mike Lee) are determined to cram down our throats. Many supposedly conservative talk show hosts & pundits (most notably Redstate.com) are carrying their water. Whether these people are fools or tyrants, I do not know. But you must learn that you can not trust anybody. You must insist that people prove what they say!
WE THE PEOPLE must reclaim our glorious Heritage. We must find & support candidates who understand the Constitution, obey it, and agree to work to dismantle the unconstitutional federal apparatus. We can eliminate the trillions of dollars of unconstitutional spending by restoring constitutional government. In an orderly fashion, we can dismantle the multitude of offices and agencies and departments of the last 100 years which harass us and eat out our sustenance.
Oh my People! The grinning politicians who promise you "fiscal responsibility" with their BBA will actually strip you of the protections of Our Constitution. Their BBA will legalize a totalitarian dictatorship. Do not be deceived by them - they are leading you astray, and their BBA will destroy us.
Oh you Proponents of this thoroughly Evil Scheme: I throw my glove in your face: Show me, if you can, where I am wrong. Or rethink it. PH
End Notes:
1 Our Constitution does not authorize Congress to fund scientific research. Congress' only power in the areas of the arts and sciences is to issue patents and copyrights (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 8). If Congress obeyed Our Constitution and stopped funding "scientific" research, the proponents of these idiotic studies would have to do something useful instead of sucking at the taxpayers' teat.
2 We must repent of our desire to live at other peoples' expense. This is the contradiction which undermines the Tea Party. Many don't want a constitutional government of limited & enumerated powers. They just want to eliminate funding for programs they don't like. They want their social security, their Medicare, their government retirement pensions, their perks. I beg each of you who is now living at other peoples' expense: Are you willing to sacrifice your grandchildren so that you can keep your handouts? Or will you accept an orderly & gradual dismantlement of the unconstitutional "entitlement" programs?
3 Are you aware that federal executive agencies are forming their own SWAT teams? Are you aware that DHS is federalizing our local police and using their fusion centers to turn them into a national secret police - America's version of the STAZI? Building Obama's "civilian national security force" which is "just as powerful just as strong just as well funded as the military" takes money. Lots of it! The BBA will permit the President to write into the Budget the funding needed to build this armed force; and it will be under his sole & personal control.
4 Article V sets forth the exclusive methods of amending The Constitution.
5In Federalist No. 26, Hamilton addresses how Congress is to determine (after public deliberations) the appropriations for the military; and warns that the President must never be given power over the purse respecting armed forces:
"The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision [Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 12], once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence...." (9th para) [capitals are Hamilton's; boldface mine]
"It has been said that the provision which limits the appropriation of money for the support of an army to the period of two years would be unavailing, because the Executive, when once possessed of a force large enough to awe the people into submission, would find resources in that very force sufficient to enable him to dispense with supplies from the acts of the legislature...." (12th para)
Do you seethat Hamilton warned us not to trust the President with power to determine the funding for the armed forces? Learn from Hamilton & Madison. Or perish.
6 If the President disagrees with the supreme Court's decision, he - who would, thanks to the BBA, hold both the sword & the purse - could ignore it with impunity. PH~
Voice: The Glenn Beck program presents more truth behind America's march to socialism.
Glenn: Yesterday, I told how you how the socialized health system in the UK was letting the last survivor of the Titanic go bankrupt because they weren't covering her health costs. Mark my words, they're going to start selling us universal healthcare as a solution to our Social Security and Medicare costs, Medicaid, it's all going under. They're going to revamp it. This is really dangerous. Why is it dangerous?
Because look how it's happening and how it's working so wonderfully anywhere it's being tried. Hollywood, it kills me. Hollywood actually had step in. Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet bailed this 97 year old woman out to save her from healthcare despite endless examples of healthcare rationing in the healthcare system, Obama still full speed ahead on pursuing universal healthcare. He actually said that, you know, we all got to have the top flight medical care. It's not good enough that some people in our country have the best medical care. Excuse me?
How are you going to be able to afford everyone having top flight medical care?
You won't. You'll level the playing field which means we'll all have crappy healthcare. Don't worry, old people, though, it's going to be great. You're going to love it. When I say you're going to love it, I don't mean healthcare. I mean, heaven. You should see it especially this time of year. You can't get there fast enough. Let me tell you universal healthcare will help you do it. Why?
Because of the cost benefit analysis. At the Senate finance committee hearings on healthcare reform, Professor Stuart Altman of Brandeis University said that resources get wasted in the American healthcare system. Wasted. Well, what does that mean?
He means that it gets wasted specifically in one segment of the population. Old people, if you think I'm hyping it, his tonight to his words himself. Here's the audio record.
Voice: Remember, our population is aging and at the very, very elderly, the costs go down so that percentage should be falling and it's not. Second, the cost of care is growing by so much so at the same percentage it's worth a lot more. So let's go back to the issue of comparative effectiveness which we're supporting. That's where that can have a big impact. It's not the only place. But that's where the waste is. That's where people are using technologies that really either don't work at all or keep people alive for very limited and very high costs. Hospice is one option, but we do need to take account of the?? you know, I hate to say it, the cost benefit of some of the things we do and either we can do it directly or we can do it by bundling payments and let the delivery system deal with it. So it's a combination of the delivery system dealing with it or?? and/or you providing more information for people that make the right decisions, both for themselves and for their care.
Glenn: Do you understand what he just said?
What he said?? this should terrify people. He's saying you can either let the delivery system do it, in other words, the healthcare system can just say, yeah, you're not going to get that. You're too old. You're a drain on society. I'm sorry, no kidney dialysis for people over 70. What is it in the UK?
60. Some the things they cut off once you outlived your usefulness.
This is Nazi Germany stuff.
This is the kind of stuff that is progressive in its nature. It is eugenics. It is survival of the fittist. It is the reason why the abortion argument makes so much difference. You can't devalue life at either end because these people are waiting to swoop in and say it's just not worth doing these things. Don't waste the money on old people. They're not going to live long anyway. Spend it on someone who meets the requirements of our cost benefit analysis. So old people, thanks for all the contributions you made to society during your better years but now we're sorry to say it's time to send you to a better place, heaven.
By: The Glenn Beck Program - May 13, 2009 - 12:07 ET
Recession hurts latest forecast for two biggest benefit programs
updated 2 hours, 31 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Social Security and Medicare are fading even faster under the weight of the recession, heading for insolvency years sooner than previously expected, the government warned Tuesday.
Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, a year sooner than projected last year, and the giant trust fund will be depleted by 2037, four years sooner, trustees reported.
Medicare is in even worse shape. The trustees said the program for hospital expenses will pay out more in benefits than it collects this year, just as it did for the first time in 2008. The trustees project that the Medicare fund will be depleted by 2017, two years earlier than the date projected in last year's report.
Social Security, Medicare finances worsen | Video May 12: The government's two biggest benefit programs, Social Security and Medicare, will start paying out more in benefits than they collect in taxes sooner than experts previously predicted. NBC's Brian Williams reports.
Nightly News
The trust funds — which exist in paper form in a filing cabinet in Parkersburg, W.Va. — are bonds that are backed by the government's "full faith and credit" but not by any actual assets. That money has been spent over the years to fund other parts of government. To redeem the trust fund bonds, the government would have to borrow in public debt markets or raise taxes.
'The harder the options will be' Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the head of the trustees group, said the new reports were a reminder that "the longer we wait to address the long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security, the sooner those challenges will be upon us and the harder the options will be."
Geithner said that President Barack Obama was committed to working with Congress to find ways to control runaway growth in both public and private health care expenditures, noting the promise Monday by major health care providers to trim costs by $2 trillion over the next decade.
However, Republicans pointed to the newly dire assessments as evidence the Obama administration has failed to come forward with actual entitlement reform to close the funding gaps.
"Instead of getting existing public programs in order right now, some are saying we should create a new government-run health insurance plan," Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, said in a reference to the administration's health care proposals. "When we can't afford the public health plan we have already, does it make sense to add more?"
House Republican leader John Boehner said the trustees report "confirms what we already knew: Our nation cannot afford to continue this reckless borrowing and spending spree."
The findings in the trustees report, the annual checkup given the two benefit programs, did not come as a surprise. Private economists had been predicting that the dates the programs would begin to pay out more than they take in and the dates the trust funds would be insolvent would occur sooner given the economic recession.
The deep recession, the worst the country has endured in decades, has resulted in a loss of 5.7 million jobs since it began in December 2007. The unemployment rate hit a 25-year high of 8.9 percent in April.
Less being paid into funds Fewer people working means less being paid into the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare.
The Congressional Budget Office recently projected that Social Security will collect just $3 billion more in 2010 than it will pay out in benefits. A year ago, the CBO had projected that Social Security would have a much higher $86 billion cash surplus for the 2010 budget year, which begins Oct. 1.
The trustees report projected that Social Security's annual surpluses would "fall sharply this year," then remain at a reduced level in 2010 and be lower in the following years than last year's projections. The report said that the Social Security annual surplus would be eliminated entirely in 2016, reflecting increased demands from the wave of 78 million baby boomers retiring.
That means Social Security will have to turn to its trust fund to make up the difference between Social Security taxes and the benefits being paid out beginning in 2016. The trustees projected the trust fund would be depleted in 2037, four years earlier than the 2041 date in last year's report.
At that point, the annual Social Security taxes collected would be enough to pay for three-fourths of current benefits through 2083. To tap the trust fund, the government would have to increase borrowing or raise taxes because Social Security bonds exist only as bookkeeping entries.
While the smaller surpluses that will begin this year will not have any impact on Social Security benefit payments, the government will need to borrow more at a time when the federal deficit is already exploding because of the recession and the billions of dollars being spent to prop up a shaky banking system.
Medicare's condition is more precarious Medicare's condition is more precarious, reflecting the pressures from soaring health care costs as well as the drop in tax collections.
The options available to deal with the Social Security shortfall include raising the payroll tax that funds Social Security, such as removing the cap on income subject to the tax, or cutting benefits in some fashion such as raising the retirement age.
he administration is pushing Congress to pass legislation this year to extend health care coverage to some 50 million uninsured Americans, preferring to tackle health care before Social Security.
The trustees report is likely to set off renewed debate over Social Security and Medicare. Critics have charged that the Obama administration has failed to tackle the most serious problems in the budget — soaring entitlement spending.
The administration on Monday revised its federal deficit forecasts upward to project an imbalance this year of $1.84 trillion, four times last year's record, and said the deficits will remain above $500 billion every year over the next decade.
Posted: MSNBC
And the sad truth is that everyone… both parties and any American that wanted to take the time to think about it has known for at least 15-years that both social security and Medicare was going to run out of money and bankrupt us when the huge Baby-Boomer retirement time came, if the those programs weren’t addressed and if the government didn’t stop borrowing money as quick as it was put in for everything but related needs… without ever paying a penny back.
This is a huge ‘shame on us issue’ for which we all need to take some responsibility. Now the recession, depression, U.S. and World financial crisis or whatever you choose to call it has hit to make it even worse. Or perhaps it was always part of ‘the’ bigger plan. But however you want to see it… senior citizens and Americans in general are in big trouble!!!
Unified theory of Obamaism, fifth (final?) installment:
In the service of his ultimate mission -- the leveling of social inequalities -- President Obama offers a tripartite social democratic agenda: nationalized health care, federalized education (ultimately guaranteed through college) and a cash-cow carbon tax (or its equivalent) to subsidize the other two.
Problem is, the math doesn't add up. Not even a carbon tax would pay for Obama's vastly expanded welfare state. Nor will Midwest Democrats stand for a tax that would devastate their already crumbling region.
What is obviously required is entitlement reform, meaning Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. That's where the real money is -- trillions saved that could not only fund hugely expensive health and education programs but also restore budgetary balance.
Except that Obama has offered no real entitlement reform. His universal health-care proposal would increase costs by perhaps $1 trillion. Medicare/Medicaid reform is supposed to decrease costs.
Obama's own budget projections show staggering budget deficits going out to 2019. If he knows his social agenda is going to drown us in debt, what's he up to?
He has an idea. But he dare not speak of it yet. He has only hinted. When asked in his March 24 news conference about the huge debt he's incurring, Obama spoke vaguely of "additional adjustments" that will be unfolding in future budgets.
Rarely have two more anodyne words carried such import. "Additional adjustments" equals major cuts in Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.
Social Security is relatively easy. A bipartisan commission (like the 1983 Alan Greenspan commission) recommends some combination of means testing for richer people, increasing the retirement age and a technical change in the inflation measure (indexing benefits to prices instead of wages). The proposal is brought to Congress for a no-amendment up-or-down vote. Done.
The hard part is Medicare and Medicaid. In an aging population, how do you keep them from blowing up the budget? There is only one answer: rationing.
Why do you think the stimulus package pours $1.1 billion into medical "comparative effectiveness research"? It is the perfect setup for rationing. Once you establish what is "best practice" for expensive operations, medical tests and aggressive therapies, you've laid the premise for funding some and denying others.
It is estimated that a third to a half of one's lifetime health costs are consumed in the last six months of life. Accordingly, Britain's National Health Service can deny treatments it deems not cost-effective -- and if you're old and infirm, the cost-effectiveness of treating you plummets. In Canada, they ration by queuing. You can wait forever for so-called elective procedures like hip replacements.
Rationing is not quite as alien to America as we think. We already ration kidneys and hearts for transplant according to survivability criteria as well as by queuing. A nationalized health insurance system would ration everything from MRIs to intensive care by myriad similar criteria.
The more acute thinkers on the left can see rationing coming, provoking Slate blogger Mickey Kaus to warn of the political danger. "Isn't it an epic mistake to try to sell Democratic health care reform on this basis? Possible sales pitch: 'Our plan will deny you unnecessary treatments!' . . . Is that really why the middle class will sign on to a revolutionary multitrillion-dollar shift in spending -- so the government can decide their life or health 'is not worth the price'?"
My own preference is for a highly competitive, privatized health insurance system with a government-subsidized transition to portability, breaking the absurd and ruinous link between health insurance and employment. But if you believe that health care is a public good to be guaranteed by the state, then a single-payer system is the next best alternative. Unfortunately, it is fiscally unsustainable without rationing.
Social Security used to be the third rail of American politics. Not anymore. Health-care rationing is taking its place -- which is why Obama, the consummate politician, knows to offer the candy (universality) today before serving the spinach (rationing) tomorrow.
Taken as a whole, Obama's social democratic agenda is breathtaking. And the rollout has thus far been brilliant. It follows Kaus's advice to "give pandering a chance" and adheres to the Democratic tradition of being the party that gives things away, while leaving the green-eyeshade stinginess to those heartless Republicans.
It will work for a while, but there is no escaping rationing. In the end, the spinach must be served.
By Charles Krauthammer – Washington Post Friday, April 24, 2009
On Tuesday evening, President Obama 
Submitted by 
