Comprehensive List of All 14 Tax Hikes in Obama's "Stimulus 2.0" Plan

National Debt: $14,683,910,471,706 - Increased by $4,057,033,422,793 since Obama’s Inauguration because of unbridled spending, bad decisions, and agenda to transform the U.S. into a second rate country and incompetence.  So now he wants more money to up the debt even further through another failed stimulus.  Call Congress and tell then NO!!

There are fourteen new or higher taxes in President Obama's "Stimulus 2.0" plan he wants Congress to pass. Permanent tax hikes for new spending.

President Obama has asked Congress to pass his “American Jobs Act,” a bill which is a series of permanent tax increases funding temporary tax relief and new spending programs.  The overall act is a net tax increase (score pending).  All tax hikes are scheduled to take effect in 2013.   Below is a comprehensive list of the 14 tax hikes in the bill (in order of appearance in Stimulus 2.0):

Spectrum Tax (Sec. 278): A new $4.8 billion hidden tax on wireless consumers. Levied on users of licensed spectrum, the tax will hit consumers who use mobile phones, tablets, and other wireless devices. Worst of all, the Federal Communications Commission could raise or punitively-target this Spectrum Tax at whim from this $4.8 billion floor.

28% Limit on Itemized Deductions and Employer-Provided Health Insurance (Sec. 401).  Under the Stimulus 2.0 tax hike, no matter what tax bracket you fall in, you can only benefit from deductions as if you are in the 28 percent bracket or less.  This denies taxpayers in the top two brackets the full deduction for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, and state taxes that other taxpayers can claim.  In addition, this tax increase limits most non-itemized deductions and exclusions for these taxpayers, in particular those for employer-provided health insurance, health savings accounts (HSAs) and self-employed health insurance premiums.  Moving expenses and the foreign earned income exclusion would also be limited.  For taxpayers in 2013’s top bracket of 39.6 percent, this would chop 30 percent of the value of all these exclusions and deductions.

“Carried Interest” (Sec. 411).  Under current law, capital gains earned by managers of investing partnerships are taxed (properly) as capital gains.  This bill would tax them instead as ordinary income, raising their tax rate from 15 percent today to 39.6 percent in 2013.

Airplane Tax Hike (Sec. 421).  Businesses should be able to expense all equipment in the year of purchase (President Obama would seem to agree, since he called for an extension of 100% “bonus depreciation” which does precisely that).  However, Stimulus 2.0 inconsistently also calls for a longer “depreciation” (slow deduction over time) of one business expense—airplane purchases.  The bill calls for the depreciable life of aircraft (not just “corporate jets”) to be extended from 7 to 12 years.  This is a tax hike that will kill jobs, just like the 1990 yacht tax killed that industry a generation ago.
Intangible Drilling Costs (Sec. 431).  Current law allows energy companies to deduct most (only 70% of these costs for the larger companies) of the costs associated with drilling.  All expenses should be deductible in the year they are incurred.  Stimulus 2.0 would repeal this and make companies deduct the costs very slowly over fifteen years.

Tertiary Injectants (Sec. 432).  Current law allows energy companies to deduct the cost of injecting materials into older energy reservoirs in order to keep them productive.  This is the proper tax treatment of this cost.  Stimulus 2.0 would replace this very ordinary deduction with precisely nothing.  Energy companies would simply have to eat the cost with after-tax dollars.

Percentage Depletion (Sec. 433).  This refers to a provision of law that allows taxpayers to recover their lease investment in a mineral interest through a percentage of gross income from a well.  Stimulus 2.0 would repeal this provision ONLY for investments in oil and gas wells.  Interestingly, the largest oil companies don’t benefit from this today, so this tax increase is targeted only at smaller energy companies and their investors.

Manufacturer Tax Deduction (aka “Section 199”) (Sec. 434).  All employers are today allowed to deduct up to 9% of the cost of domestic manufacturing—all employers, that is, except energy companies, who can only deduct 6% of such costs.  Stimulus 2.0 would deny this deduction entirely to energy companies, singling them out by picking winners and losers in the tax code.

Oil and Gas Passive Losses (Sec. 435).  In general, “passive” (trade or business activities without active participation) losses are not allowed to be claimed by taxpayers.  There is an exception for investment in oil and gas extraction.  Stimulus 2.0 repeals this exception, which will tend to hit small energy companies and their investors the hardest.

Geological and Geophysical Costs (Sec. 436).  Currently, small energy companies can deduct the costs of exploring for new sources of energy over two years (again, the proper treatment should be to expense in the first year).  Stimulus 2.0 would stretch this period to seven years.  This only affects small, independent energy employers as larger companies are ineligible for the two-year treatment under current law.

Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit (Sec. 437).  This credit, intended to spur oil production even when prices are low, can only be claimed when oil is less than $42 per barrel.  Oil is currently about $87 per barrel, so this credit is nowhere near claim-able.  Nonetheless, Stimulus 2.0 repeals the credit just to raise taxes while scoring cheap points against energy employers.

Marginal Well Production Credit (Sec. 438).  This credit is the same as the Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit in Sec. 437, but it is only use-able when oil prices drop to $27 per barrel.  Stimulus 2.0 repeals this credit for similar reasons.

Dual Capacity Rules (Sec. 441).  The U.S. is one of the only nations which attempts to tax on a “worldwide” basis—even on income which has already faced income taxation in other countries.  When combined with the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, “worldwide” taxation is an uncompetitive jobs killer.  In order to avoid international double taxation, employers can claim a tax credit for income taxes paid overseas.  Stimulus 2.0 makes it more difficult for energy companies to claim this tax credit, exposing their worldwide income to international double taxation—potentially shipping jobs overseas to avoid paying taxes twice.

Dual Capacity Discrimination Against Oil and Gas Employers (Sec. 442).  In addition to the dual capacity rule repeal of Sec. 441, this provision of Stimulus 2.0 makes it even more difficult for oil and gas employers to avoid double taxation than it does for all other taxpayers to avoid double taxation.  It adds insult to the injury of dual capacity rule repeal.

What do you think? 

Will any of these 14 tax hikes help create jobs?

Source:  Americans for Tax Reform

Related:

Obama Trapped in Keynesian Twilight Zone

See the: House Republican Plan for America’s Job Creators

Source:  Americans for Tax Reform

Related:

Obama Trapped in Keynesian Twilight Zone

American Infrastructure Is Being Built by Chinese Workers; NOT Americans

See the: House Republican Plan for America’s Job Creators

Memo on the President’s Job’s Proposal… - From Eric Cantor

SEC. 376. FEDERAL AND STATE IMMUNITY. (a) Abrogation of State Immunity- A State shall not be immune under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution from a suit brought in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this Act. (b) Waiver of State Immunity- (1) IN GENERAL- (A) WAIVER- A State's receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution or otherwise, to a suit brought by an employee or applicant for employment of that program or activity...

Go to the White House web link for the “American Jobs Act,” http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/reports/american-jobs-act.pdf

The Road to Serfdom

Don't Do That Debt Deal

For Anyone Who Missed it: The House Passed "Cut, Cap and Balance" on a 234-190 Vote Yesterday

On a largely party line vote, the House has passed a conservative deficit reduction plan known as "Cut, Cap and Balance" on a 234-190 vote. The bill includes caps on spending and a balanced budget amendment, but it has little chance of passing the Democratic-controlled Senate and faces a veto threat from President Barack Obama… The Dems still have no alternative plan (but all of a sudden Reid and McConnell and the gang of Six are trying to cobble something together) as Obama says he’ll veto this bill if if makes it through the Senate… So who are the obstructionists?

Don’t do that deal…

Over the past week there has been talk about Republican leaders in the House and the Senate coming up with a compromise that will allow President Obama to raise the debt ceiling without the approval of Congress.

Don’t do that deal

One of the things that drive conservative voters nuts is that in the final hour, when things really matter, the GOP tends to give away the high ground that activists won the hard way by doing that deal.

The public is tired of reckless and wasteful spending by the government. They want real, honest solutions; solutions that cut spending. What they don’t want is the deal that allows some to say it increases spending, while others can claim it cuts spending; a deal that cuts taxes by one method of accounting and raises it by another method; a deal where one side points at the other and says “You did it!”

The American people want honesty, a straight deal. 

Honestly? It wasn’t a brilliant masterstroke by the GOP leadership in the House or the Senate that suddenly has President Obama talking about cutting $4-5 trillion in spending. It wasn’t because House Speaker John Boehner made like Henry Clay with an impassioned speech that now has congressional Democrats in competitive districts puckering up their cheek muscles.

It wasn’t because the GOP came up with a nifty sounding plan, like Contract with America, that the GOP took back the majority in the House.   

More than anything else, it was the hard work and countless volunteer hours of grassroots conservative activist around the country that made it possible to have a real discussion about cutting the size of government. They knocked on doors, went to rallies, wrote checks, stuffed envelopes and did the job of real leadership that informed and educated voters about the core principles that make this country go.

And the GOP came along for the ride.  

If the Republican leadership in Congress abandons the moral advantage that those activists gave them, the sound they’ll hear in 2012 when voting starts is the sound of no hands clapping.

Make no mistake. There are more than a handful of Republicans in Congress who owe their seats to an unprecedented outpouring of support from Tea Party activists. 

Ask Rep. Joe Heck, who won his race by about 2000 votes, if he needs those activists to show up for him in 2012. Ask Rep. Scott Tipton, who won his race by about 10,000 votes whether he’ll need those activists next time around. Ask Rep. Blake Farenthold, who won his seat by less than 1000 votes if he needs those activists to show up.     

Obama and his friends have seriously miscalculated the public’s desire to have federal government intrude into their life. And the GOP will miscalculate if they think that the type of deal they cut in the spring to raise the debt limit will satisfy the base this time around.

It won’t. What they demand is that Congress does the job it was elected to do by taking the debt limit seriously.

The whole idea of having a debt limit was to act as a check against unbridled deficit spending, while allowing the Treasury Department some latitude in managing those debts. It was created for exactly the situation we face today.

While it’s true that Congress has already agreed to spend the money contemplated under an increase in the debt limit, it is wrong to say that Congress has approved borrowing more money in order to be able to spend that money.

Writing a check and cashing a check are two different things.

Right now, the account is empty. Congress can only approve putting more money in the account by a vote to increase the debt limit.

Congress has always had to approve the government’s ability to raise money via debt.

Always.

It should be no different now.

If they don’t approve it, the government is obligated to balance the budget at that point by whatever Draconian measures it has at its disposal. Only a liberal would conclude that the only option then is to default on obligations. 

The idea that Congress would turn over the management of the debt ceiling to any president, yet alone one who has not been able to present and pass a real budget over three years shows that there are still some in Washington who have been in Washington way too long.

Who the heck got us into this jam in the first place? On which alternate universe does Obama become the guy to manage us out of the crisis he created?   

There are a number of legitimate ways the GOP can approach the debt limit issue including balancing the budget.

But they must not, under any circumstances, do that debt deal.

By John Ransom

John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance. You can follow him on twitter @bamransom and on Facebook: bamransom

 

--> BTW:  In 2006 Every Democratic Senator (Including Obama) Voted Against Raising the Debt Ceiling  <--

Video: Jan Sarkowsky (and Obama) Says We are Too Dumb To Understand… When She Can’t Even Explain Her Lie…  -  Amazing!

Extreme Left Congressman Dennis Kucinich:  “It’s a Fake Crisis, Soc Sec Did NOT Create the Deficit. It Will Be Able to Pay 100% of Benefits Through 2037!

Kucinich Video: Soc Sec Didn’t Create the Deficit…

Congressional Video - July 12, 2011

Full transcript inside.  Runs 1 minute.  Outstanding clip from the House floor.  After the jump, there are three 1-minute clips - all from Kucinich this week on Social Security.

Transcript:

Social Security didn't create the deficit, but America's seniors are being presented with a fake Social Security crisis to try to trick them into accepting reduced benefits. Social Security will be able to pay 100% of its benefits through 2037 without any changes whatsoever. 
So, why the panic today? If seniors accept cuts to Social Security benefits today, a surplus cash flow will build in the Social Security trust fund. According to the Congressional Research Service, "Social Security's cash surpluses are borrowed by the U.S. Treasury and can be used for tax cuts, spending or repaying debt."
Social Security benefit cuts are increasing taxes paid to Social Security or extending retirement age will give more money for tax cuts spending or repaying the debt. Except for one thing: Social Security money belongs to those who have paid into the fund, it's not the government's money to use it; it shouldn't be the government's money to play with. 
Senior citizens should not have to accept a reduced standard of living to finance tax cuts for the rich. We must take a stand for senior citizens and protect Social Security and protect future generations from this raid on Social Security's funds.

Kucinich Video : Stop Playing Political Games with Social Security

July 13, 2011

Transcript:

Three months ago 276 experts on Social Security, the federal budget or the economy wrote to President Obama "to correct a commonly held misconception -- that Social Security somehow contributes to the federal government's deficit."
Despite the fact that Social Security has a $2.6 trillion dollar surplus and can pay 100% of its benefits through 2037 without any cuts or tax increases, President Obama declared yesterday that Social Security checks may not go out after August 2, presumably unless there is a deal on the federal deficit - - which has nothing to do with Social Security.
According to today's Washington Post, fifteen years ago Congress passed laws which stated Social Security did not count against the debt limit and gave Treasury clear authority to use Social Security trust funds to pay benefits and administration expenses in the event a debt ceiling is reached.
A fake Social Security crisis will do nothing to solve a real debt crisis, will undermine the public's faith in government and will create unnecessary anxiety among our elderly. 
Stop playing political games with Social Security.

Video:  "Social Security Has NOTHING To Do With The Debt Crisis!" Congressman Dennis Kucinich

No Matter How You Look at It… Obama Is Lying - There's Plenty of Money To Continue Paying Social Security If The Debt Ceiling Is Not Raised… Either Through the Revenue the Government Will Collect and Must Prioritize or From the Soc Sec Account That Should Be Full of Money (Per Obama and Kucinich)… But Seniors, You Are Being Played for Democratic Political Purposes! And Forget once ObamaCare goes into affect… you won’t get treatment for any major illness if are over 76… Wake up!

BlackListedNews

Related:

The Emperors New Balance Sheet

Big U.S. Banks Ate Everyone;s Lunch:  Strategist

A Good Debt Ceiling Deal 

Wynn CEO Goes On Epic Anti-Obama Rant On Company Conference Call

Who doesn't love a good rant?

We certainly do, and as usual, Steve Wynn, the CEO of casino company Wynn Resorts, delivered on his company's quarterly conference call today.

Via Seeking Alpha, here's the crux of it:

I believe in Las Vegas. I think its best days are ahead of it. But I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States. You watch television and see what's going on on this debt ceiling issue. And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President and nothing's going to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress. But everybody is so political, so focused on holding their job for the next year that the discussion in Washington is nauseating.

And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems, that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration.And it makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America.

You bet and until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it's not going to change. And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, their holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I'm telling you that the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs.

Later in the call, he rants again about how hard it is to visit America (due to Homeland Security and visa issues), and what that means for Chinese visitors.

Please call, fax and email your Senator(s) and tell the to pass Cut, Cap and Balance.  Then it will be up to Obama…

August 3: Day of Reckoning

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.

Related:

How about we start tightening our belt by skipping “O’s” Lavish B-day Party?

Krauthammer:  Call Obama’s Bluff

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund? (Madoff would be proud)

Republicans to Vote on $2.4 Trillion in Cut With Debt Ceiling Increase  -  Obama and Dems… Still No Plan Offered~

UN Reveals Its Master Plan for Destruction of Global Economy

Debt Crisis, Ron Paul, the Fed and the IMF  

Return of the Gold Standard as world order unravels (Gold has already replaced the dollar)

Boehner Verses the Freshmen:  Debt Ceiling Battle Lines Are Drawn

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.

Video:  Congressman Joe Walsh:  The Obama Movie – Stop Lying

And as usual there is Sheila Jackson Lee… playing the race card!:  Jackson Lee:  Congress Complicating Debt Ceiling Because… Obama IS Black  -  Am hearing a lot of gag reflexes out there!!

 

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… 

Wake up Seniors… Join One of the Other Groups!

I'm No Pushover

Congress Must Prevent Harmful Cuts to Social Security and Medicare

AARP ^ | 7/12/2011 | Government Affairs and Campaigns

Posted on Friday, July 15, 2011 9:42:50 PM by Mangia E Statti Zitto

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at aarp.org ...

Post #23
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2749323/posts?page=23#23

To: Mangia E Statti Zitto; All

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

• Department of Justice: $17 million, matching the request, for counter-terrorism activities and to provide training and assistance for the Iraqi criminal justice system
The mainstream media remains silent on this but the International News has now picked up the story http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=22164
— and then there is Obama’s $108 billion IMF bailout scheme http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/13/obamas-100-billion-imf-bailout-scheme/
in addition to the Supplemental.

And THIS is what Obama is doing to American taxpayers:

THE BIGGEST TAX HIKE IN AMERICAN HISTORY:
http://www.atr.org/days-thebr-largest-tax-hikes-history-a5370
PDF Version:
http://www.atr.org/files/files/090310pr-jan2011taxes.pdf
Obama gives your tax dollars to rebuild Muslim mosques around the world
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26990#

ACCORDING TO THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WILL GIVE AWAY NEARLY $6 MILLION OF AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS TO RESTORE 63 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL SITES, INCLUDING ISLAMIC MOSQUES AND MINARETS, IN 55 NATIONS. See the State Department document here.
http://exchanges.state.gov/media/pdfs/office-of-policy-and-evaluations/ambassadors-fund/afcp2010list.pdf

23 posted on Friday, July 15, 2011 10:14:11 PM by patriot08

Juan Williams Pwned: Sean Hannity Makes Williams Look Like Complete A$$

 

Video: Juan Williams Pwned: Sean Hannity Makes Williams Look Like Complete A$$

Sean Hannity completely pwned 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 pwned.

Call Obama’s Bluff

OBAMA WALKS OUT OF DEBT TALKS - Demands His Tax Hikes

Video:  OBAMA WALKS OUT OF DEBT TALKS- Demands His Tax Hikes

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.

Some additional color:

• 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...

Source:  Hedge Zero

• Barack Obama
• Debt Ceiling
• Fitch
• Reality
• Reuters
• White House

Agitated Obama Storms Out of Debt Meeting

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 - NO spending 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 unconstitutional objects 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 (6^th 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 (4^th para from end) Madison explains why the House alone is 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?

It's a trap!  There is an ancient maxim of  legal construction which goes like this:  "The Expression of One Thing is the Exclusion of Another":

"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 (1^st 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 1^stAmendment 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.

⁵ In 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...." (9^th 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 see that 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~

Posted by Publius Huldah on July 13, 2011 at 7:13am in Tea Party Nation Forum   Send Message View Discussions

Moody’s Warns it May Downgrade US Credit Rating

US Backing For World Currency Stuns Markets

Another Obama Record:  Deficit Top Trillion Dollars for a Third Year in a Row

McConnell Hates Democracy?  -  Video 

Russian Leader Slams US as Western Civilization Nears Collapse

POTUS:  This May Bring Down My Presidency But I Will Not Yield

100 Republican Votes May Be at Stake If Major Cuts Not Made in First of Debt Deal, GOP Freshman Warns

Confirmed by Actuary…  Says Obama Could Pay Social Security Checks During a Shutdown (Obama Caught Playing Politics… Again!)

Rubio:  Every Aspect of American Life Is Worse Since Obama Took Over!!

Obama:  Unneeded Income Belongs to the Government 

Video:  Ron Paul vs Bernanke: Is Gold Money? - July 13, 2011

Obama’s labor Department Phonied-Up June Employment Numbers  -  Economy Actually Lost Another 26,000 Jobs

My God People! Look at HIM!? He is enjoying it! He is enjoying!
The distraction he had orchestrated!

Correction - Senator Kyl: GOP Agrees to Up to $200B in New Revenues - NOT

Yesterday evening, Newsmax, who is usually accurate an on top of things, reported that Senator Kyl said the GOP had caved before even getting to the so-called bi-partisan meeting this morning.  Seems that is not the case~  M~

WASHINGTON - One day before a crucial U.S. budget meeting between the White House and congressional leaders, a high-ranking senator said Republicans have agreed to including significant revenue increases in a deficit-reduction framework.

"If you add up all of the revenues that we Republicans have agreed to, it's between $150 billion and $200 billion," said Senator Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate.

Kyl said two possible ways to bring additional revenue to the government would be through sales of government property and additional fees for government services.

Meanwhile, House of Representatives Majority Leader Eric Cantor floated a possible tax compromise, saying Republicans could agree to closing some tax breaks in a budget deal as long as they were offset with tax cuts elsewhere.

"Any discussion about loopholes must be accompanied by offsetting tax cuts," Cantor said at a news conference.

Republicans had been adamant about tax increases not being included in a deficit-reduction deal that President Barack Obama hopes clears the way for also increasing U.S. borrowing authority.
In a lengthy speech on the Senate floor, Kyl talked about increased revenues from the sale of government assets or higher user fees.

He criticized, however, Democratic proposals to get rid of tax breaks on corporate jets or tossing an accounting method known as "last in first out" that eases business tax burdens.

Democrats say they have offered up a "menu" of revenue increases of as much as $400 billion in the deficit-reduction and debt limit talks.

If the limit on U.S. borrowing authority, now at $14.3 trillion, is not raised by the Treasury Department's August 2 deadline, there are fears the United States could either miss some debt repayments or be forced into cutting off major government benefits including Social Security checks.

Obama said such an outcome could push the United States economy into a second recession or worse.

(But there are many experts who say there is plenty of money to pay out debts and survive without increasing the debt ceiling and the cuts that would have to be made, will have to made for America to survive, at some point anyway.  So why increase the debt ceiling so Washington can just put us even further into debt before the inevitable?  Giving Obama and company an increase is like giving an alcoholic more booze, neither has the will power nor the will not to use it.)

On Thursday, Obama is scheduled to meet at 11:15 EDT with a bipartisan group of congressional leaders. Obama will push for a big agreement that could target as much as $4 trillion in savings -- double the size of what had been under discussion, according to Democratic officials. They provided no details on how they would reach that target.

© 2011 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

Source: Newsmax.com

The Debt Ceiling Fiction

When asked why someone said something idiotic or some group is advocating something moronic, I am apt to wearily reply that there is no defense against stupidity.  There is a defense and it works over the long run. It is called the truth.

It is interesting to watch how “the truth will out” as they say in detective novels. In our society, so in thrall to the mainstream press and media, the truth circulates swiftly through that portion of the population that first suspects something is amiss and then outward to the general population that can no longer ignore it.

That long, slow process occurred with the Watergate scandal that ultimately forced President, Richard Nixon to resign in 1974. It began with a 1972 break-in at the Democrat headquarters in Washington, D.C. and then just unraveled a little bit each day. It enshrined two young reporters from The Washington Post in journalism’s pantheon of heroes and probably caused a goodly number of college kids to change their major to journalism.

The Founding Fathers who fashioned a federal government after the Articles of Confederacy proved a failure for the new nation not only knew history, they were an unusually brilliant collection of scholars; even if self-taught as was common at the time. What they knew well was human nature and they knew that men were inclined to criminality and stupidity. Thus, the Constitution deliberately divides the powers vested in the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive. It also deliberately slows down the legislative process.

The system largely worked until eleven southern slave states became so incensed over trade laws passed by northern states and the growing abolition movement that they decided to secede from the Union in 1860. Abraham Lincoln said no. Then he sent a huge army to back it up.

If they had had a crystal ball, all would have known that technology would replace slave labor in a remarkably short time. If they had any sense, they would have worked out a compromise, but the stupidity factor interfered. Even the Founding Fathers “four score and seven years” earlier knew that the issue of slavery would threaten the new republic.

Big problems and big issues cannot be ignored forever.

To give you an idea how big the problem is, a CNSnews story reported that “Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner oversaw the largest increase in the national debt of any Treasury secretary in American history, presiding over a $3.7 trillion increase in debt… In fact, the debt accrued under Geithner is greater than all federal debt accrued in the first 204 years of the nation’s history.”

The United States now finds itself less than a month away from defaulting on its loans because, in just two and a half years, the current President has allowed the debt to increase to $14.2 trillion, an amount that equals the entire annual Gross Domestic Product. That’s not break even. That’s broke.

The Republicans have put forward a plan to solve the debt problem. The Democrats have not even produced a budget in more than 800 days.

That’s why this goes way beyond mere partisan politics. This is a nation that has managed, mostly due to government “entitlement” programs to bankrupt itself. The Democrats refuse to discuss modifying them in any way. Instead, they want to raise taxes on people (40% do not even pay taxes) who need that money to pay mortgages, auto loans, and all the other demands of life. Raising taxes during a Recession or a Depression is well known to be a very dumb idea.

Democrats keep insisting on it, claiming that squeezing more out of “millionaires and billionaires” will solve the nation’s problems. No, it won’t. And everyone knows this, but Democrats will not admit it. Their base is made up of union members and the usual disaffected people waiting for a handout.

Largely unmentioned is the way neither the current, nor former chairmen of the Federal Reserve had the slightest idea why all the things the government tried to do, nor their own ability to raise or lower interest rates, was having any affect on high unemployment and a stagnating economy. And that was their job!

In the July 4 edition of Business Week, Zachary Karabell, an author, historian, money manager, and economist asked a very important question, Does Government Matter? “Today, the ability of any state to govern and control its own domestic economy is severely constrained,” said Karabell.

“A global market of buyers and sellers sets interest rates, and short-term rates (which are all the Fed can directly control) are only one factor”, adding that “the ecosystem of global capital, in which trillions of dollars, goods, and services are traded daily, transcends the reach of any one government.”

The argument, an old one, is which is better, big government or small? Fiddling with the economy has usually done more harm than good. Government has an obligation to govern prudently and to encourage the free market to perform. Ponzi schemes like Social Security and Medicare invariably suffer the fate of Bernie Madoff, they collapse.

While the rest of us watch from the sidelines, the two major political parties posture and bluster over a “debt ceiling.” The nation has hit that ceiling and raised it many times.

There is no ceiling left. There’s just a trap door that leads to a failed economy. We’re tapped out. No one is going to want to purchase our treasury notes if we don’t change course. The debt ceiling financial fiction will be raised.

There are men and women in Congress who want to resolve the current crisis and there is a man in the White House who was never eligible to be president and would much rather blame everyone else, play golf, increase taxes, and raise money to run again.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

*The GOP… the Republicans seem to be willing to compromise again, way beyond what they would like to.  The Democrats, who have produced no budget in more than 800 days and no plans to attack the entitlement program issues or reducing the debt are headed to the big bipartisan meeting at the White House tomorrow empty handed.  Yet, because independents are so enamored with compromise and like to forget the facts when the immediate problem is settled. If the GOP does compromise, even if it is the right thing to do, their hard work will end up helping Obama and the Democrats because they will be able to say they engineered a compromise and averted a major crisis while the Republicans who made it possible will lose a major issue to campaign on.  Wake up independents… anything that happens between now and the 2012 Election is all manipulation and smoke and mirrors to win you over.  Then if Obama is re-elected, the day after, the hammer and sickle will fall.  For those too young to remember… the hammer and sickle were the emblems of the USSR…  Please pay attention this time and remember, the stakes are too high not to!!*

Romney Speaks at the kickoff for National Council for a New America - Updated

Today Governor Romney is in Virginia with Eric Cantor and Jeb Bush speaking to a small group of citizens and the press about the launch of a new group the "National Council for a New America."

The group will send party leaders across the country for a series of town halls on health care, the economy, energy and national security.

Sarah Palin and other Republican leaders will be joining the campaign to revive their party and hear what Americans have to say.

Check out the website

Related Resources:

http://www.freestrongamerica.com/

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney joked about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s and Rush’s    place on Time’s list of influential people, saying, “But was that the issue on the most beautiful people or the most influential people?”

In an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” broadcast Sunday, Romney was responding to a question from the moderator as to whether Time’s inclusion of Palin and talk show host Rush Limbaugh on their list of “The World’s Most Influential People” was a positive or negative thing for the Republican Party.

Romney added, “I think there are a lot more influential Republicans than that would suggest.”  Since then that is all that is all that  anyone is reporting or  remembers hearing that Mitt said.

It was a joke… an off the cuff attempt at humor.  Have we really completely lost the ability to laugh??  If it was a political beauty contest Mitt would certainly have been in the running.

After his boss caught flak for his apparent dissing of Palin, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom spun the comment as just “a self-deprecating joke as to why there weren’t more Republicans on the list,” according to a report in Politico.

“I think there are 100 influential Republicans alone who have tremendous ideas and I hope that we can all work together to accomplish what we believe is best for America,” Palin said through a spokeswoman.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted recently among 429 Republicans showed Sarah Palin with a slight edge over Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney as the preferred GOP nominee for 2012: Palin 29 percent; former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee 26 percent; and Romney 21 percent.

According to the Politico report, Romney’s comments were unusually sharp – since these days GOP top officials ordinarily simply ignore Palin, leaving her off the rosters of the party’s rising stars – despite poll results such as the CNN survey cited above.

Romney let fly the zinger while appearing with House Minority Whip Eric Cantor. Both are part of a cabal of prominent Republicans seeking to enliven the GOP under the banner of the National Council for a New America.

Palin has thus far not been included on the Council -- reportedly because she didn’t respond to requests. However, her former running mate, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., went on the record recently saying that he hoped she would become active with the group.

Meanwhile, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush closed ranks with Romney and Cantor in presiding over the panel.

According to a Boston Globe report, Romney touted his service on the panel over the weekend, saying, “I’ve learned that when you sit in a position of responsibility as you do now and as we did once, you typically get the best ideas that really make a difference from people that you’re serving.” He cited his experience helping pass the Bay State’s universal healthcare plan.

But nothing Romney said at the conclave attracted the media attention more than his off-the- cuff Palin remarks to CNN.

As much as he and other GOP figures may want to deny it, Palin still attracts a strong following and remains the darling of the media – if not her own party.

“She’s bigger in the media than in reality,” commented GOP consultant Mike Murphy, a longtime adviser to John McCain.

“Palin,” he said, “is the only Republican politician right now who is interesting, a little different, connected to the last campaign and related to an occasional story in the National Enquirer,” according to the Politico report.

For his part, on the “State of the Union” show, Cantor was a whole lot kinder and gentler:

“You know, they [Palin and Limbaugh] are two individuals that have a lot of ideas, and our party should be about ideas. That’s what this effort is about and the National Council for a New America, and that is what they’re about. So I don't think any of us should have any monopoly on the ideas. And I know that there are some who like to make it all about personalities, but it’s about ideas. It’s about how we take this country forward.”

Source: Newsmax

When it comes to mainstream media coverage… the Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians and Independents just can’t catch a break…

In other coverage today the question raised was, “Is the Republican Party Just Too Far to the Right?”  What is with that??  The reason they lost the last election is because McCain wasn’t right enough and the party abandoned their principles.

Fox News is wondering if the GOP is "too conservative." Listen live to Senator Lindsey Graham's response @1:20pm ET on Fox News Radio right here: http://tinyurl.com/c8yxce

FOX News Talk

Source: tinyurl.com