The current debt ceiling crisis continues today, with the Congress (mainly the Republicans) sending plan after plan (especially their well-thought out plan to "Cut, Cap, and balance") up, only to be shot down by the Democrats and President Obama, who threatens to veto any bill the Republican-controlled House sends up, despite him whining on TV on Monday, 7/25 that both sides need to compromise.
Now, Obama is threatening not to pay out Social Security, Medicare, and military pay/benefits after the August 2 debt ceiling deadline, claiming the government doesn't have money to pay them. Let's debunk this scare tactic to grandma and grandpa as well as our soldiers right now. The President and Treasury Secretary (tax-cheat Geithner) have the power to make payouts from available funding. According to reports, the government takes in around $220 billion per month in tax revenues. They can pay out social security (around $80 billion), interest on the debt (another $80 billion) and the remainder (around $60 billion) will take care of Medicare/Medicaid and the military, but nothing for the "pet projects" and overseas aid. The actual amount of outlays per month for the government is in the neighborhood of $500 billion. Can you see a problem here?
The country is tired of all this debt that has been run up (and while both parties are responsible, Obama's debt has equaled that of his 43 predecessors combined and is more than double the debt when George W. Bush left office) and demands action, which is why the Democrats were routed in the 2010 mid-terms.
Seeing all this, I (borrowing a phrase from the show Big Brother), propose a "five-finger plan" to help this country get out of this mess. All of these are to be Constitutional Amendments to avoid the endless lawsuits by affected liberals that will come if these were just laws, and I know Congress would never consider it because it makes too much sense, but, here goes...
1) Amend Article I, Section 7 to require the country have a balanced budget each fiscal year, that a budget be proposed by April 1 of each year for the upcoming fiscal year (that starts in October), no loopholes be permitted to go 'round the requirement
Effect: This will prevent the country from continually racking up debt by balancing its' books--remember, 49 of 50 states (sorry, Washington State) require their state budgets be balanced, so why not the federal government? Further, this will require a budget be proposed early in the session so we don't have these government shutdowns because Congress failed to act on their requirement to have a budget in place.
2) Amend Article I, Section 7 to permit the President to have a line-item veto, to strike from budget bills items that are ridiculous and unnecessary, which would then require a two-thirds majority of both houses to override.
Effect: This will stop the pork-barrel spending cold. Can you imagine a congressman having to vote to override a veto for a project dealing with the lifespan of a tadpole or a "bridge to nowhere", then having to stand for re-election with that on their record?
3) Amend Article I, Section 7 to require the government maintain an emergency fund for genuine national emergencies (such as 9/11 or natural disasters such as hurricanes/tornadoes/floods) that would be set aside in the budget (1% of total anticipated revenues).
Effect: Most states already have a "rainy-day fund" that is used in the event of a state emergency, why can't the government have one?
4) Amend Article I, Section 8 to include in the clause dealing with the public debt that any budget surpluses incurred be used to pay down the debt first, then use for the emergency/rainy day fund.
Effect: This will ensure that any higher revenue will go to paying down the debt first instead of higher entitlement or pork-barrel spending.
5) Amend Article I, Section 7 to require a two-thirds majority of each congressional body be required to raise any taxes.
Effect: The two-thirds requirement will prevent Democrats from immediately wanting to start talking tax increases we don't need. For those who argue the wealthy should pay more, I submit that even if you tax them at 100% of income, that won't even scratch the surface of the $14 trillion debt we have. Where do you think the rest of it will come from?
By going the constitutional amendment route, this also takes Obama out of the equation, as the President has no say-so in constitutional amendments. The government can't seem to get a plan in place, how about this one? If these are passed by the requisite 2/3 majority and sent to the states, I'm sure we can get the 38 required states to allow this to happen. If not, there's always Article V that allows 34 states to propose a convention to consider amendments to the constitution.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Can the 14th Amendment be used to overrule Congress...
Numerous left-leaning blog and news sites have been reporting on a possible "out" for President Obama in the current debt impasse with the Republican-controlled House. First, I find it interesting that liberals actually read the Constitution much less agree and abide by it, but that's another matter.
First, let's read the section the liberals are referring to, it is Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868:
'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."
What the left is saying is that the President has the authority to use this clause of the amendment to indicate there is NO debt limit and that he can continue to run up the debt without congressional action, thereby avoiding a default (which is questionable in itself...) and a showdown with Congress.
But the left actually read the ENTIRE Constitution, they would have noticed the following clause in Article I, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have power To borrow Money on the credit of the United States."
Meaning that the Congress, NOT the President, has the authority over the country's debt limit. In fact, there is NOTHING in Article II that gives the President any authority over the "purse strings", as that authority lies solely in Congress. If the President attempts to go 'round Congress by using the 14th Amendment clause (which was actually intended to ensure the debt incurred by the United States during the Civil War was not questioned, while disavowing any debts ran up by the Confederate States Government or the slaveholders' claims of lost money due to the 13th Amendment) this would create a constitutional crisis that would be worse than any "default" of the United States, and cause a bitter division within the country as well as the Congress.
I would like to see the debt issue resolved, but I feel that until the country gets their fiscal house in order, the debt limit should NOT be raised "just because"; instead the country needs to cut back, just like any home would when their income is less than their expenses. The Republicans need to stand fast and not cave into the Democrats, as this would the repeat of the mistakes made by the Republicans of 1982 and 1990, who were promised more cuts than spending and it ended up being more spending than cuts, and cost George H.W. Bush his second term in 1992. If they cave, Obama will win a second term because the anger by the conservatives will result in a third-party candidate, which will split the Republican vote and guarantee an Obama win in 2012. So, for the GOP, hang tough, the people are behind you, regardless of what the MSM, the President, and Democrats in Congress will tell you.
First, let's read the section the liberals are referring to, it is Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868:
'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."
What the left is saying is that the President has the authority to use this clause of the amendment to indicate there is NO debt limit and that he can continue to run up the debt without congressional action, thereby avoiding a default (which is questionable in itself...) and a showdown with Congress.
But the left actually read the ENTIRE Constitution, they would have noticed the following clause in Article I, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have power To borrow Money on the credit of the United States."
Meaning that the Congress, NOT the President, has the authority over the country's debt limit. In fact, there is NOTHING in Article II that gives the President any authority over the "purse strings", as that authority lies solely in Congress. If the President attempts to go 'round Congress by using the 14th Amendment clause (which was actually intended to ensure the debt incurred by the United States during the Civil War was not questioned, while disavowing any debts ran up by the Confederate States Government or the slaveholders' claims of lost money due to the 13th Amendment) this would create a constitutional crisis that would be worse than any "default" of the United States, and cause a bitter division within the country as well as the Congress.
I would like to see the debt issue resolved, but I feel that until the country gets their fiscal house in order, the debt limit should NOT be raised "just because"; instead the country needs to cut back, just like any home would when their income is less than their expenses. The Republicans need to stand fast and not cave into the Democrats, as this would the repeat of the mistakes made by the Republicans of 1982 and 1990, who were promised more cuts than spending and it ended up being more spending than cuts, and cost George H.W. Bush his second term in 1992. If they cave, Obama will win a second term because the anger by the conservatives will result in a third-party candidate, which will split the Republican vote and guarantee an Obama win in 2012. So, for the GOP, hang tough, the people are behind you, regardless of what the MSM, the President, and Democrats in Congress will tell you.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Michelle Bachmann and the music industry..
Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) is running for President on the Republican ticket this year. Her rallies are attended by many people who are interested in her straight-talk and her "tea-party" beliefs in minimal government, low taxes, and reduced spending. Most politicians when they make appearances use background music to "set the tone" for her appearance and her speech.
But there is a troubling double-standard (just like others when Republicans are involved...), in two recent appearances Bachmann has used the song "American Girl" by Tom Petty and "Walking on Sunshine" by the 1980's one-hit wonder band Katrina and the Waves. In both cases the artists involved were unhappy with Bachmann using the songs and threatened legal action unless she stopped. Similar issues happened to John McCain in his 2008 campaign (Jackson Browne was the one in question here). Yet Barack Obama and Bill Clinton used pop songs (Clinton's campaign theme was "Don't Stop" by Fleetwood Mac) and nothing was said. No fees were paid by either Dems or Repubs for the use of these songs, so what's the big deal? The answer is quite simple: Most musicians are liberals (just like most of Hollywood) and do not believe in anything conservative. I guess Bachmann would want to use country songs (where most of them are conservative) or Ted Nugent's catalog (including "Little Miss Dangerous", which the media and the liberal left feel Bachmann is) for her campaigns in the future.
This is another example of the hypocrisy and the out-of-touch feeling most musicians and Hollywood actors/actresses are showing to the common American. They support all the liberal policies of "tax the rich" when they themselves are in that same category and will be paying the higher taxes along with other Americans of like-income levels. I will no longer be listening to any of these artists (exercising my right to choose) just as they have exercised their right to complain about who uses their recordings.
But there is a troubling double-standard (just like others when Republicans are involved...), in two recent appearances Bachmann has used the song "American Girl" by Tom Petty and "Walking on Sunshine" by the 1980's one-hit wonder band Katrina and the Waves. In both cases the artists involved were unhappy with Bachmann using the songs and threatened legal action unless she stopped. Similar issues happened to John McCain in his 2008 campaign (Jackson Browne was the one in question here). Yet Barack Obama and Bill Clinton used pop songs (Clinton's campaign theme was "Don't Stop" by Fleetwood Mac) and nothing was said. No fees were paid by either Dems or Repubs for the use of these songs, so what's the big deal? The answer is quite simple: Most musicians are liberals (just like most of Hollywood) and do not believe in anything conservative. I guess Bachmann would want to use country songs (where most of them are conservative) or Ted Nugent's catalog (including "Little Miss Dangerous", which the media and the liberal left feel Bachmann is) for her campaigns in the future.
This is another example of the hypocrisy and the out-of-touch feeling most musicians and Hollywood actors/actresses are showing to the common American. They support all the liberal policies of "tax the rich" when they themselves are in that same category and will be paying the higher taxes along with other Americans of like-income levels. I will no longer be listening to any of these artists (exercising my right to choose) just as they have exercised their right to complain about who uses their recordings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)