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!!*

Stop START Treaty

In from Senator Kyl’s office: Stop START:  Letter from Arizona Senator Jon Kyl regarding START, DREAM, and DADT

Dear Mrs. Blase:

Thank you for contacting me about Senate ratification of the New START treaty.

The Senate Majority Leader has had all year to bring important business before the Senate, but, instead of scheduling action months ago on some of the most consequential matters (like legislation to avert looming tax increases on January 1 and even legislation to fund basic government operations for the coming year), left it to a lame-duck session of Congress to resolve.

The Senate just completed work on the tax bill (yesterday), but now, with just days before the Senate is set to adjourn for Christmas (the Majority Leader initially set December 17 as the adjournment date), it is being asked to ratify New START, pass legislation to fund the entire federal government for the upcoming year, and approve the DREAM Act (which failed earlier today), repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (which passed), and a $7.4 billion 9/11 health fund.  Any one of these items would normally take a week or more for thoughtful and thorough debate, but the Majority Leader is trying to jam all of them through the Senate.

There is no way that the Senate can fulfill its responsibilities to the American people and carefully consider each of these measures in the short amount of time remaining in the current session of Congress.  That is why I have suggested that it would be better to deal with those that require the most immediate attention – like the legislation to give taxpayers certainty about the taxes they will have to pay after January 1, and the legislation to fund continuing government operations – and defer consideration of the others until next year.

The New START treaty, in particular, is too important to be rushed through the Senate without adequate time for review, debate, and consideration of amendments.  (I outlined just some of my concerns about the proposed treaty in remarks to the Senate on December 16.  To view a copy of my statement, click here.)  Taking up the treaty next year would allow Senators both the chance to thoroughly debate it and offer amendments to improve it.

It is important to ensure that the treaty serves U.S. interests, that its terms are verifiable, and that related issues, including modernization of our remaining deterrent and deployment of an effective missile defense system, are properly addressed.  If the Senate is denied the chance to do so, I will work to defeat the treaty in the lame-duck session.

Sincerely,

JON KYL

United States Senator

P.S. If you wish to share additional comments about this or any other matter, please visit my website at: http://www.kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm. Do not reply to this email.

The New START Treaty: President Obama is pushing for a monumental surrender to Russia

The Obama administration has an impeccable track record of caving in to Russian demands, as part of its controversial “reset” policy. Last year, it threw key US allies Poland and the Czech Republic under the bus, ditching plans for Third Site missile defenses in deference to Russian opposition. It is now planning another surrender to Moscow, by pressing for Senate ratification of the new START Treaty in the lame duck session of Congress.

Instead of allowing the newly elected Congress to vote on the treaty, the Obama administration is trying to ram New START through without proper debate. No major treaty has ever been forced through Congress in a lame duck session.

There is mounting opposition in Washington to the New START Treaty, which would significantly weaken US security by undermining America’s ability to deploy an effective global missile defense system. Dozens of senators, as well as several leading likely Republican presidential candidates are opposed to the Treaty, including Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. As Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina has warned:

The START Treaty could severely weaken America’s ability to defend our people and our allies against missile attacks from nations like Iran, and we need all of the facts on how this treaty was agreed to… The newly elected Republican senators have signed a letter asking our leadership to postpone debate on START until they take office in a few weeks and have ample time to review the details. Americans didn’t vote in November to ram through the Obama administration’s wish list this December.

As part of its campaign to woo opponents of the Treaty, the Democratic White House has claimed that Ronald Reagan would have backed it, a simply ludicrous assertion. As Reagan’s attorney general Ed Meese, and Assistant Secretary of Defense, Richard Perle noted in The Wall Street Journal, the Gipper would never have backed an arms control agreement that encumbered “the pursuit of advanced ballistic missile defense technology”:

There are many reasons why this treaty falls short of those negotiated by President Reagan. For one thing, its verification regime is inadequate. For another, it gives the Kremlin an unwarranted influence over the structure of our nuclear deterrent. Most important, it will almost certainly reduce our freedom to deploy vital defenses against ballistic missiles.

Moreover, the administration is asking a lame-duck Senate, dominated by a party that was rebuked at the polls by the electorate, to vote for this major arms-control treaty, in contravention of the settled traditions of our country—a tactic Reagan surely would have deplored.

Simply put, the New START Treaty is a staggeringly bad deal for the United States, and an extraordinarily good one for Vladimir Putin’s increasingly hostile and authoritarian Russia. President Obama needs to respect the will of the American electorate and allow the new Senate to vote on the Treaty, and fully scrutinize and debate the details of an agreement which, if ratified in its current form, will dramatically undercut America’s global missile defenses. The White House is pressing for another monumental surrender to Moscow which will only strengthen the hand of a key US adversary.

Source:  UK Telegragh Online

 

STOP START:  Venezuela acquires 1,800 antiaircraft missiles from Russia

The New START Treaty must NOT be ratified! Contact all Senators today!!  -  Senators from your State.  *   U.S. Government on Twitter *  United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121

Venezuela acquires 1,800 antiaircraft missiles from Russia  -  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/11/AR2010121102586.html

Excerpt:

Russia delivered at least 1,800 shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles to Venezuela in 2009, U.N. arms control data show, despite vigorous U.S. efforts to stop President Hugo Chavez's stridently anti-American government from acquiring the weapons...

By Juan Forero

Washington Post Staff Writer  -  Saturday, December 11, 2010; 6:19 PM

BOGOTA, COLOMBIA:

Russia delivered at least 1,800 shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles to Venezuela in 2009, U.N. arms control data show, despite vigorous U.S. efforts to stop President Hugo Chavez's stridently anti-American government from acquiring the weapons.

The United States feared that the missiles could be funneled to Marxist guerrillas fighting Colombia's pro-American government or Mexican drug cartels, concerns expressed in U.S. diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks and first reported in the Spanish newspaper El Pais.

It had been unclear how many of the Russian SA-24 missiles were delivered to Venezuela, though the transfer itself was not secret. Chavez showed off a few dozen at a military parade in April 2009, saying they could "deter whatever aerial aggression against our country." A high-level Russian delegation told American officials in Washington in July of that year that 100 of the missiles had been delivered in the first quarter of 2009.

Then earlier this year, Russia reported to the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms, which records the transnational sale of weaponry, that the deal totaled 1,800 missiles.

The U.N. registry did not reveal the model of the delivered weaponry. But the American commander for military forces in Latin America, Air Force Gen. Douglas Fraser, publicly expressed concern this year that Venezuela was purchasing as many as 2,400 of the missiles, also called the IGLA-S.

Matt Schroeder, a missile expert at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, said the missiles are among the most sophisticated in the world and can down aircraft from 19,000 feet.

"It's the largest recorded transfer in the U.N. arms registry database in five years, at least. There's no state in Latin America of greater concern regarding leakage that has purchased so many missiles," he said, referring to reports of Venezuelan arms flowing to Colombian guerrillas.

The database also shows that from 2006 through 2008, Russia delivered to Venezuela 472 missiles and launching mechanisms, 44 attack helicopters and 24 combat aircraft, purchases funded by Venezuelan oil sales.

A self-styled Socialist who claims that successive U.S. governments want to topple him, Chavez told his countrymen during the 2009 military parade that "we don't want war with anyone, but we are obligated to prepare." Months later, in December 2009, he said in a nationally televised address that "thousands of missiles are arriving" but did not say what kind.

Secret American cables said that the United States was concerned about the Chavez government's acquisition of Russian arms, which also included attack helicopters, Sukhoi fighter planes and 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles.

A State Department cable on Aug. 10, 2009, to embassies in Europe and South America said Russian sales to Venezuela total "over $5 billion last year and growing." There was also concern about Spain's plans to sell aircraft and coastal patrol boats to Venezuela.

The cables show how both the Bush and Obama administrations tried to stop the arms sales by highlighting the possibility that the weapons could end up with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, a rebel group that Colombian officials say has received material support from Chavez's government.

"In early March, Secretary Clinton raised the sale with Russian FM Sergey Lavrov," the August 2009 cable says, referring to Hillary Rodham Clinton and Russia's foreign minister.

A cable from Washington to Moscow dated Feb. 14, 2009, said FARC computer files seized by Colombia's army indicated that Venezuela tried to facilitate arms market deals for the rebels. It expressed fear that missiles acquired by the FARC, which is mired in the drug trade, could wind up with Mexican cartels that "are actively seeking to acquire powerful and highly sophisticated weapons."

Chavez has long denied that his government assists the FARC. A spokeswoman for the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington said diplomats there could not respond to the allegations by U.S. officials. The Venezuelan Foreign Ministry in Caracas did not respond to phone calls.

The August 2009 cable notes that Russian ammunition sold to Venezuela was found in FARC hands and that U.S. officials raised the issue with Russian diplomats visiting Washington.

The American efforts to derail Russian and Spanish arms sales to Venezuela appeared to strain U.S. relations with both countries.

In a meeting in Moscow in 2005, Anatoliy Antonov, who oversaw disarmament issues for the Russian foreign ministry, told a U.S. Embassy official that Washington was trying to restrict Russian access to the arms market.

The United States also urged Spain to halt the sales of patrol boats, ocean-going corvettes, C-295 transport planes and patrol aircraft to Venezuela, a deal the Spanish government said was worth $1.7 billion and would help revive the country's shipbuilding industry.

The Spanish cemented the sale of the vessels to Venezuela, but the United States blocked the sale of the aircraft because they used sophisticated American electronics.

Irked that Washington had halted the aircraft sale, the foreign minister at the time, Miguel Angel Moratinos, lamented that the United States "did not recognize Spain's positive steps but only focused on negative episodes in the relationship," according to a cable written by the ambassador in January 2006.

"We are the eighth-largest power in the world but the USG treats us like a fifth-rate power," Moratinos told the ambassador, referring to the U.S. government.

Source: Venezuela acquires 1,800 antiaircraft missiles from Russia  -  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/11/AR2010121102586.html

 

Problems with the START Treaty with Russia

After the Cold War was over, after the Berlin Wall came down, and Mikail Gorbachev started giving lectures in the United States, Americans stopped worrying about a surprise nuclear attack. However, Russia did not destroy its nuclear weapons. They are still there. And Russia continues to give priority to its nuclear warfighting capabilities.

President Barack Obama acts as though all this doesn't matter. This year he went to Prague in the Czech Republic and signed a treaty with Russia that is called START. Obama refers to this treaty as a "fundamental part" of realizing his goal of a "world without nuclear weapons." He is really talking about a world in which the United States is without nuclear weapons, while at the same time evil men in other countries continue to build and modernize them.

The START treaty reads as though it were written exclusively by the Russians. Provision after provision reflects Russian preferences, not America's interests. For example, the START treaty would require us to reduce U.S. forces to the levels Russia can afford rather than to the level that is safe for the United States. The treaty will require deep cuts in U.S. delivery systems and may endanger America's strategic nuclear Triad.

The START treaty allows Russia to manipulate how warheads and bombers are counted. Russia will be able to exercise a veto over the quality and quantity of U.S. missile defenses. There are serious problems associated with verifying the provisions of the treaty. Apparently Obama never heard of Ronald Reagan's rule, "Trust but verify." The new START treaty is cumbersome, unnecessary, and disadvantageous to the United States. Obama has decided not to maintain an effective U.S. deterrent. This poses enormous risks to our people as various enemies continue to build their weapons of mass destruction.

Listen to this commentary at: Eagle Forum

 

Tell the Lame Duck Senate:  NO  Start Treaty… and Time for Congress to go Home!!

Senators from your State.  *   U.S. Government on Twitter *  United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121

Senator Jon Kyl: GOP (and Most Americans) Opposes Democrats Approach to Healthcare – “Let’s Start Over!”

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said Tuesday that Republicans remain opposed to the Democratic approach on healthcare even when the legislation excludes a public insurance option, signaling the difficult road ahead for a bipartisan bill.

In a conference call with reporters, Kyl, a member of the Senate Finance Committee that is currently drafting a health bill, suggested Democrats start over in September with a “different approach” rather than continue debating ideas that are unlikely to win more than a handful of Republican votes.

The White House and congressional Democrats have signaled in recent days that they would drop the contentious public insurance option in favor of a plan creating co-operatives. But Kyl said Republicans still have too many problems with the bill's cost and scope.

"I think it's safe to say there are a huge number of big issues that people have," Kyl said. "Let's start with the cost of it. There's no way that Republicans are going to support a trillion-dollar-plus bill."

Kyl predicted the idea of a government co-operative plan wouldn't receive any significant Republican support because the party still objects to the premise behind it.

"As Democrats have said, it doesn't matter what you call it — they want it to accomplish something that Republicans are opposed to, and that is a step toward government-run healthcare in the country," Kyl said. "It's by another name, and it is a Trojan horse, and therefore no, I don't believe that Republicans will be inclined to support a bill because of that one relatively insignificant section in the House bill.”

Kyl said Republicans prefer a narrower approach that targets costs and the factors behind the costs, but that Democrats voted down those proposals in committee debates. The GOP would prefer to see ideas such as medical malpractice lawsuit limits, an expansion of private healthcare tax breaks and the abandonment of employer-mandated healthcare. The Democrat-led approach to healthcare also doesn't include enough allowances for states to experiment with their own healthcare ideas, Kyl said.

The Arizona senator rejected the suggestion that Republicans were to blame for any "scare campaigns" designed to derail healthcare, stating that the party instead is simply reflecting public sentiment. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) used her Facebook page last week to ignite a national charge that President Barack Obama's intentions for healthcare include government-run "death panels," based on a provision in a House bill that called for publicly funded doctor-family consultations on end-of-life care.

Kyl noted that many of the organizations that opposed health reform during the Clinton administration in the 1990s have now been "neutralized" by the Obama administration. The American Medical Association and AARP are among the groups that support the Democrat-led reform efforts. A House bill calls for voluntary consultations between a doctor and a family, although Kyl said the payment is compulsory if a doctor reports the counseling session.

“Because of public opposition to that provision, I think there's no question that it's going to be dropped,” he said. “I totally reject the notion that the only reason the American people oppose this is because somebody on the Republican side has deliberately spread misinformation about the plan.”

“let’s Start Over” seems to be the new Healthcare Battle cry from moderate and conservative politicians and the majority of Americans. Congressman Emanuel Cleaver – Democrat from Missouri's Fifth District said the same thing earlier today.

Americans want to fix what is wrong with the present healthcare system and keep what is good… not throw it out and start over!! Tort reform and fraud control, plus some sensible changes in the medical insurance rules like portable coverage, focus on prevention, inclusion of alternative and holistic medicine and supplements, no more exclusion for pre-existing conditions, allowing the self-employed and small businesses to form and buy insurance as consortiums, allowing inter-state sales of insurance and tighter regulation of Big Pharma and the AMA would pretty much take care of the uninsured and spiraling costs. Take out covering people who are in the U.S. illegally and paying for abortions and unnecessary elective surgeries and allowing ideas from the Republicans and any politicians and companies who have made positive changes in healthcare or learned from trial and error and we could reform American healthcare without destroying the best coverage in the world or giving up our freedoms.

The answer is throw out all 5-bills presently being considered and start over with focused reform instead of destroying a system that works for over 85% of Americans and Legal Residents. So “let’s Start Over” on this reform!

Posted: Daily Thought Pad