Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is at it again. He has proved the partisan politics is more important than the financial health of our nation. First, we have been hearing the debt ceiling deadline is August 2; but now it looks like it may be a little later, like a week later. President Obama stood in front of the American people and blamed the republicans (nothing new) for refusing to sit down and talk. The republicans are holding this negotiation up? Seriously, Mr. President, the republican led house passed the Cut, Cap and Balance bill, the bill that Senator Reid voted to table instead of bringing it to the floor for a vote; the motion passed straight along party lines. While Cut, Cap and Balance may not be the perfect solution, it does not cut spending on entitlements, it allows for the raising of the debt ceiling and it only makes a promise to send a balanced budget amendment to the states for ratification, it is the best solution we have right now. It’s not only the best solution available; it’s the only one on the table. Harry Reid called the Cut, Cap and Balance bill one of the worst pieces of legislation in the history of the country, I guess he missed a couple of bills that passed over the last three years.
Senator Harry Reid and President have no plan for the debt ceiling deadline, well they have the same old plan that all democrats have, tax and spend, or as Obama likes to call it (because it polls better) revenues and investment. The only idea the President presented was that for an increase in the debt ceiling, he was willing to raise taxes in exchange for a promise that he would make future cuts in spending. The President even had the audacity to stand in front of the American people and scare with the thought of not paying social security or providing pay for the military families and veterans. What is left out is the fact that the US brings in enough money to cover our obligations. We do not have enough to cover all of our spending. What does that tell the average person, living in this economy? Tighten the belt, stop spending money on nonessential items. The executive branch decides what gets paid, so if social security, military pay or even interest on the debt does not get paid, the President has no one to blame but himself.
This debt ceiling debate is what is needed, what is not needed is the childish name calling, scare tactics and blatant non-truths. The truth of the matter is the United States is in serious financial trouble and drastic measures need to be taken, we cannot continue to borrow money from foreign countries, we cannot continue to devalue our currency and we cannot continue to spend recklessly. Serious reform is needed in discretionary spending and even more serious is the reform needed in non-discretionary spending. If we continue to kick the can down the road, we will continue on the road to ruin and soon wake up in a third world recreation of our great nation.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Sunday, July 17, 2011
A Broken System
Everyone knows that the current system of government is not working. Politicians in Washington are looking out for their own interests, not the people they are supposed to be representing. Their interests lay in the corporations, unions, lobbyists, PAC’s and other special interest groups that fund their campaigns. The current taxing and spending by our “representatives” in DC is in no way representing the people of the several states. Our federal government has transformed into a national government.
A federal government represents a limited central government based on a contract, which the several states signed, the Constitution. A national government on the other hand represents a central government which is directly responsible to the people. This is where are system went off track. The Constitution set up a federal government, not a national one. The several states created the federal government and limited it in its scope, see Article I section 8 of the United States Constitution. The limited nature of the federal government can be seen in several instances like the 10th Amendment and in Article V, allowing states to call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. It can also be found in the ratification debates, where delegates guaranteed the limited nature of the federal government to allow the states their own sovereignty. Some states even stressed their right to withdraw from the Union.
When several states decided to sever ties with the ever growing federal government usurpation of power, a war broke out between the several states. History has clouded the causes of the war, but at its root was the limited power of the Union vs. the unlimited power of a national government. They say the union was preserved, but several states had seceded before the War Between the States and had to be readmitted after bowing to the National government. The states lost a lot of their sovereignty following their war, and regardless of what anyone says it’s not a slavery issue. After the Union strengthened its position, it continued to take power away from the states and continued its transformation into the central government monster it is today.
The next major assault came during the height of the progressive era. First, the Union gave itself the right to directly tax the citizens on the fruits of their labor with the 16th Amendment. They eliminated the states check on the federal power by changing the Constitution on the election of Senators. People, not the states elected Senators after the adoption of the 17th Amendment.
This is where we got so off track. The states created a federal government and should fund it. The President presents a budget to run the federal government and Congress, which should represent the people and the states, approves the budget. The states should then send funding to the federal government. The federal government should not be allowed to tax the people or the states for funding. That’s the recipe for disaster, states created the fed, but the fed gets to control the money. To me that would be like putting my kids in charge of the family finances. I would be overrun with toys and candy but wouldn’t have groceries or power. Are they really going limit their spending to their allowance? Look at our national government now; are they staying limiting themselves to their allowance? The national government takes money from the states and then decides how much to give back to them after it takes their cut. How is that right, the states created the national government but it gets to decide how much money the states get to spend. The states, through Congress, needs to approve the budget and send only that money to the national government. Giving the government the legal authority to plunder the states and the residents living within those states just breaths more life into the national monster; couple that with removing the last state check in the Senate and the path was paved to transform our limited federal government, into an unstoppable central national government. We are so far gone, is there any hope for our country when the inmates are running the asylum?
A federal government represents a limited central government based on a contract, which the several states signed, the Constitution. A national government on the other hand represents a central government which is directly responsible to the people. This is where are system went off track. The Constitution set up a federal government, not a national one. The several states created the federal government and limited it in its scope, see Article I section 8 of the United States Constitution. The limited nature of the federal government can be seen in several instances like the 10th Amendment and in Article V, allowing states to call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. It can also be found in the ratification debates, where delegates guaranteed the limited nature of the federal government to allow the states their own sovereignty. Some states even stressed their right to withdraw from the Union.
When several states decided to sever ties with the ever growing federal government usurpation of power, a war broke out between the several states. History has clouded the causes of the war, but at its root was the limited power of the Union vs. the unlimited power of a national government. They say the union was preserved, but several states had seceded before the War Between the States and had to be readmitted after bowing to the National government. The states lost a lot of their sovereignty following their war, and regardless of what anyone says it’s not a slavery issue. After the Union strengthened its position, it continued to take power away from the states and continued its transformation into the central government monster it is today.
The next major assault came during the height of the progressive era. First, the Union gave itself the right to directly tax the citizens on the fruits of their labor with the 16th Amendment. They eliminated the states check on the federal power by changing the Constitution on the election of Senators. People, not the states elected Senators after the adoption of the 17th Amendment.
This is where we got so off track. The states created a federal government and should fund it. The President presents a budget to run the federal government and Congress, which should represent the people and the states, approves the budget. The states should then send funding to the federal government. The federal government should not be allowed to tax the people or the states for funding. That’s the recipe for disaster, states created the fed, but the fed gets to control the money. To me that would be like putting my kids in charge of the family finances. I would be overrun with toys and candy but wouldn’t have groceries or power. Are they really going limit their spending to their allowance? Look at our national government now; are they staying limiting themselves to their allowance? The national government takes money from the states and then decides how much to give back to them after it takes their cut. How is that right, the states created the national government but it gets to decide how much money the states get to spend. The states, through Congress, needs to approve the budget and send only that money to the national government. Giving the government the legal authority to plunder the states and the residents living within those states just breaths more life into the national monster; couple that with removing the last state check in the Senate and the path was paved to transform our limited federal government, into an unstoppable central national government. We are so far gone, is there any hope for our country when the inmates are running the asylum?
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Harry Reid at it again
In 2006, Senator Harry Reid was leading the charge against raising the debt ceiling under a republican administration; fast forward to present day and now Senator Reid is leading the charge to raise the debt ceiling under a democratic administration. What could possibly cause the Senate Majority Leader to change his position? Partisan politics, his flip flopping on the debt ceiling shows the hypocrisy of the left, that he will take the side that his party is supporting. At first, raising the debt ceiling was reckless, irresponsible and would create havoc throughout the economy. Now, not raising the debt ceiling is reckless, irresponsible and would create havoc throughout the economy. What has changed? Only who is in charge of the executive branch. Just to show that his ploy is nothing more than politics as usual, Senator Reid introduced SB 1323, the Shared Sacrifice Bill. This bill is nothing more than a token gesture, the bill has no legislative teeth and does nothing but make a recommendation that those who have more need to pay more. Last time I checked, our progressive tax system already placed a larger burden on wealthier people. Doesn’t that mean they are paying their fair share? Where is the sacrifice from the approximately 50% of Americans that pay no net federal taxes? Is that equal protection under the law?
What could be the purpose of proposing a bill that has little to no chance of passing? What would be the purpose of proposing a bill that makes no recommendations or no laws? The answer is simple; it’s simply a campaign stunt. Not for Reid, his term doesn’t end for a few more years, but for democrats in general. They are playing to the general public, trying to create someone to blame, someone to demonize. Not only do they want to demonize the rich, they also want to use the sham bill that Reid presented as a campaign trick to show the “common” people that they hate the rich and are looking out for the poor. We can’t fall for that trick.
What could be the purpose of proposing a bill that has little to no chance of passing? What would be the purpose of proposing a bill that makes no recommendations or no laws? The answer is simple; it’s simply a campaign stunt. Not for Reid, his term doesn’t end for a few more years, but for democrats in general. They are playing to the general public, trying to create someone to blame, someone to demonize. Not only do they want to demonize the rich, they also want to use the sham bill that Reid presented as a campaign trick to show the “common” people that they hate the rich and are looking out for the poor. We can’t fall for that trick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)