Never Forget
One
by Cheryl Sawyer
As the soot and dirt and ash rained down,
We became one color.
As we carried each other down the stairs of the burning building
We became one class.
As we lit candles of waiting and hope
We became one generation.
As the firefighters and police officers fought their way into the inferno
We became one gender.
As we fell to our knees in prayer for strength,
We became one faith.
As we whispered or shouted words of encouragement,
We spoke one language.
As we gave our blood in lines a mile long,
We became one body.
As we mourned together the great loss
We became one family.
As we cried tears of grief and loss
We became one soul.
As we retell with pride of the sacrifice of heros
We become one people.
We are
One color
One class
One generation
One gender
One faith
One language
One body
One family
One soul
One people
We are The Power of One.
We are United.
We are America.
———
Cheryl Sawyer is a professor at UH Clear Lake in the counseling department.
Exploring Ground Zero, Ten Years Later
Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment?
One of several provisions of a debt ceiling agreement floated by Republicans is that both houses of Congress pass a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) resolution. Not a new idea – all states but Vermont currently have balanced budget requirements. Germany and Switzerland both have balanced budget provisions in their constitutions. In a letter to John Taylor of Caroline on November 26, 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender. I know that to pay all proper expenses within the year would, in case of war, be hard on us. But not so hard as ten wars instead of one. For wars could be reduced in that proportion; besides that the State governments would be free to lend their credit in borrowing quotas.”
Since 1975, 32 states have petitioned Congress to consider a BBA. Should two additional states issue similar petitions, some contend Congress would then be required to call a Constitutional Convention, in accordance with Article 5 of the US Constitution, to consider the BBA.
There is currently a joint resolution in Congress to pass a BBA.
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to balancing the budget.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
Article
Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.
Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year may not exceed 20 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such 20 percent by a rollcall vote.
Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.
Section 4. No bill to increase Federal taxes shall become law unless approved by two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a rollcall vote.
Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress, which becomes law.
Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays, receipts, and gross domestic product.
Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.
Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with the fourth fiscal year beginning after its ratification.
There have been discussions of changes to the supermajority requirements, from two thirds to three quarters, as well as whether 20% of GDP is the appropriate limit. Amendments have also been proposed requiring state ratification of all increases to the debt ceiling, which would be intended to supplement rather than replace the BBA and would be of little effect if the BBA were properly enforced – a belt and suspenders approach.
Criticism of a BBA largely centers around the Keynesian argument that deficit spending is necessary in times of recession, though this particular argument seems to be dulled if not entirely refuted by recent attempts to dampen the recession with historic annual deficits. Given the clear propensity for members of the Executive and Legislative branches, including many who claim to fly the flag of fiscal conservatism, to consider prior year spending as the budget baseline, expecting a change to that approach absent a Constitutional requirement seems unrealistic at best.
With current debt exceeding $14 trillion, any agreement to allow an increase should come with passage of the joint resolution. The President is right……..enough is enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_Budget_Amendment
Is It Time For A Balanced Budget Amendment?
One of several provisions of a debt ceiling agreement floated by Republicans is that both houses of Congress pass a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) resolution. Not a new idea - all states but Vermont currently have balanced budget requirements. Germany and Switzerland both have balanced budget provisions in their constitutions. In a letter to John Taylor of Caroline on November 26, 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender. I know that to pay all proper expenses within the year would, in case of war, be hard on us. But not so hard as ten wars instead of one. For wars could be reduced in that proportion; besides that the State governments would be free to lend their credit in borrowing quotas.”
Since 1975, 32 states have petitioned Congress to consider a BBA. Should two additional states issue similar petitions, some contend Congress would then be required to call a Constitutional Convention, in accordance with Article 5 of the US Constitution, to consider the BBA.
There is currently a joint resolution in Congress to pass a BBA.
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to balancing the budget.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
Article
Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.
Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year may not exceed 20 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such 20 percent by a rollcall vote.
Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.
Section 4. No bill to increase Federal taxes shall become law unless approved by two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a rollcall vote.
Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress, which becomes law.
Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays, receipts, and gross domestic product.
Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.
Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with the fourth fiscal year beginning after its ratification.
There have been discussions of changes to the supermajority requirements, from two thirds to three quarters, as well as whether 20% of GDP is the appropriate limit. Amendments have also been proposed requiring state ratification of all increases to the debt ceiling, which would be intended to supplement rather than replace the BBA and would be of little effect if the BBA were properly enforced – a belt and suspenders approach.
Criticism of a BBA largely centers around the Keynesian argument that deficit spending is necessary in times of recession, though this particular argument seems to be dulled if not entirely refuted by recent attempts to dampen the recession with historic annual deficits. Given the clear propensity for members of the Executive and Legislative branches, including many who claim to fly the flag of fiscal conservatism, to consider prior year spending as the budget baseline, expecting a change to that approach absent a Constitutional requirement seems unrealistic at best.
With current debt exceeding $14 trillion, any agreement to allow an increase should come with passage of the joint resolution. The President is right……..enough is enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_Budget_Amendment
A Memorial Day Tribute
Thank you to Jim Nagle for this wonderful tribute, and thank you to R1 for forwarding it. Nothing more need be said.
Happy Memorial Day
Open Letter to House Republicans
Congressmen,
It is more than a bit distressing that I feel the need to communicate on this topic barely two months into the 112th Congress, but it would seem that Congress is not yet terribly serious about deficit reduction. One would think the message sent in November couldn’t have been more clear, but it would appear it has either already been forgotten, or has somehow become garbled since the election.
I fully understand that the Republicans only hold a majority in the House and as such getting budget cuts through the Senate and the Oval Office represent a significant challenge. In my opinion, President Obama has shown zero leadership in this regard, with his proposed $6.5 billion in cuts against a seriously inflated baseline. It would appear that once again he has abdicated his leadership role to the House.
However, now that the Republican party is in control of the House there is an opportunity to demonstrate that you are serious about reducing spending and the deficit, about reducing the size and intrusiveness of the Federal government. This was a major part of the Republican platform in 2010 and was a major reason for the historic turnover in the House of Representatives, in many cases with freshman members intent on executing on that platform. Yet now I find that execution to be sorely lacking, not because those freshmen have lost interest or become less vocal, but because House leadership apparently doesn’t have a willingness to make the more difficult political decisions. $61 billion is barely a down payment on the level of spending reductions we need to see at the Federal level and doesn’t even touch the entitlements that nearly everyone acknowledges are the biggest fiscal challenge we face as a country. The GAO report issued last week provided a map to $100-200 billion of low hanging fruit. The Deficit Recution Commission report was barely acknowledged by the President and both houses of Congress, despite bipartisan support but with a pathetic shortage of votes. Our federal deficit in the month of February alone was more than four times the House proposal. I expect a stronger commitment from the party that wants to lay claim to fiscal responsibility.
There is little doubt that neither the House proposal nor that of the President will get through the Senate, and I do understand that ultimately a resolution or bill needs to be negotiated that will receive more than lip service from President Obama. But in my view, if the President and the Democrats in Congress aren’t serious about getting our fiscal house in order, the Republicans need to at least demonstrate that they are. If that message continues to be sent, it will be up to the Democrats to join you in the effort or shut down Washington. I urge you to support stronger budget proposals for both the balance of this fiscal year and the 2012 year, as well as bills that will deal, once and for all, with the mess that is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and, now, Obamacare. I would hope the fiscal future of our country is worth the potential cost in political capital.
Obamacare, Round 2?
Yesterday Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana and possible contender for the GOP 2012 Presidential nomination, along with 20 other Republican Governors, sent the following letter:
The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius
Secretary
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20201Dear Secretary Sebelius;
Many of us believe the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) should be repealed by Congress if the courts do not strike it down first.
But, with no assurance of either outcome, we face the decision of whether to participate in the bill by operating state exchanges, or to let the federal government take on that task, if the bill remains in effect in 2014.
In addition to its constitutional infringements, we believe the system proposed by the PPACA is seriously flawed, favors dependency over personal responsibility, and will ultimately destroy the private insurance market.
Because of this, we do not wish to be the federal government’s agents in this policy in its present form.
We wish states had been given more opportunity to provide input when the PPACA was being drafted. We believe in its current form the law will force our health care system down a path sure to lead to higher costs and the disruption or discontinuation of millions of American’s insurance plans.
Though we still have grave concerns with other provisions of the PPACA, we suggest the following improvements:
- Provide states with complete flexibility on operating the exchange, most importantly the freedom to decide which licensed insurers are permitted to offer their products
- Waive the bill’s costly mandates and grant states the authority to choose benefit rules that meet the specific needs of their citizens.
- Waive the provisions that discriminate against consumer-driven health plans, such as health savings accounts (HSA’s)
- Provide blanket discretion to individual states if they chose to move non-disabled Medicaid beneficiaries into the exchanges for their insurance coverage without the need of further HHS approval.
- Deliver a comprehensive plan for verifying incomes and subsidy amounts for exchange participants that is not an unfunded mandate but rather fully funded by the federal government and is certified as workable by an independent auditor.
- Commission a new and objective assessment of how many people will end up in the exchanges and on Medicaid in every state as a result of the legislation (including those “offloaded” by employers), and at what potential cost to state governments. The study must be conducted by a neutral third-party research organization agreed to by the states represented in this letter.
We hope the Administration will accommodate our states’ individual circumstances and needs, as we believe the PPACA in its current form threatens to destroy our budgets and perpetuate and magnify the most costly aspects of our health care system.
While we hope for your endorsement, if you do not agree, we will move forward with our own efforts regardless and HHS should begin making plans to run exchanges under its own auspices.
Sincerely,
Governor Robert J. Bentley
AlabamaGovernor Nathan Deal
GeorgiaGovernor C.L. “Butch” Otter
IdahoGovernor Mitch Daniels
IndianaGovernor Terry E. Branstad
IowaGovernor Sam Brownback
KansasGovernor Bobby Jindal
LouisianaGovernor Paul R. LePage
MaineGovernor Haley Barbour
MississippiGovernor David Heineman
NebraskaGovernor Brian Sandoval
NevadaGovernor Susana Martinez
New MexicoGovernor John R. Kasich
OhioGovernor Mary Fallin
OklahomaGovernor Tom Corbett
PennsylvaniaGovernor Nikki Haley
South CarolinaGovernor Dennis Daugaard
South DakotaGovernor Bill Haslam
TennesseeGovernor Rick Perry
TexasGovernor Gary R. Herbert
UtahGovernor Scott Walker
Wisconsin
Governor Daniels also penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal describing in more detail the fiscal dilemma the PPACA places on states, stating, in part:
“…the law expects to conscript the states as its agents in its takeover of health care. It assumes that we will set up and operate its new insurance “exchanges” for it, using our current welfare apparatuses to do the numbingly complex work of figuring out who is eligible for its subsidies, how much each person or family is eligible for, redetermining this eligibility regularly, and more. Then, we are supposed to oversee all the insurance plans in the exchanges for compliance with Washington’s dictates about terms and prices.”
In addition to the various and sundry lawsuits filed by state Attorney’s General, two of which have been decided in favor of the states (the recent Florida ruling involving 26 of our 50 states), two of which have been decided in favor of the Federal government, and all of which have been appealed and will likely end up in the Supreme court; in addition to a handful of states like Missouri passing legislation rejecting participation in some or all of the provisions of Obamacare, we now have 21 states recommending specific improvements to the legislation. If the November 2010 elections did not send a message to Washington regarding public rejection of the PPACA and a desire for replacement of that heavy-handed legislation with something which deals with the real cost issues in our health care system, more recent events and the number of states involved should be getting their attention. As Governor Daniels states in reference to the recommendations made to Secretary Sebelius:
“Most fundamentally, the system we are proposing requires Washington to abandon most of the command-and-control aspects of the law as written. It steers away from nanny-state paternalism by assuming, recognizing and reinforcing the dignity of all our citizens and their right to make health care’s highly personal decisions for themselves. ”
It seems the Obama administration has a number of options available at this point:
- allow the various lawsuits to play out in the courts according to the routine appeals process, which could well move any Supreme Court action into the 2012 election season
- push for an accelerated appeals process, which could move the decision into the high court within the next few months
- consider recommendations made by the governors, as well as amending legislation being developed by both House and Senate Republicans designed to remove the more onerous provisions of Obamacare and enhance cost reform efforts
- support an outright repeal and rewrite of the legislation, which appears to be the option favored by most Americans.
An accelerated court solution could be the most expeditious route, but would also involve the greatest political risk to the administration, as a Supreme Court opinion in support of the Vinson ruling would invalidate the PPACA in its entirety. On the other hand, a legislative solution that returns power and authority to the states, while quite possibly the solution most Americans would prefer – elected officials working together to arrive at a truly bipartisan answer, would likely extend the ongoing health care and insurance debate into the 2012 election season and quite possibly beyond, setting up a race to the finish line between the legislative and judicial branches. Could the governors’ recommendations help to bring about an end to the debate, or only add fuel to the fire?
“If there’s to be a train wreck, we governors would rather be spectators than conductors. But if the federal government is willing to reroute the train to a different, more productive track, we are here to help.”
Virginia Ruling - Moon
Virginia Ruling - Hudson
Is the Electoral College in Jeopardy?
Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution says, in part:
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;
The Founders had two reasons to create the Electoral College. The first was out of concern that without a buffer between the population and the selection of the President, a tyrant could come to power through manipulation of public opinion. In Federalist 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote:
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
In short, Hamilton and other founders did not trust the public to make the right choice and felt that, as a group that met infrequently, the Electoral College was at lesser risk of being manipulated by forces either internal or external to the United States.
The second reason for the Electoral College was to provide smaller states with greater power in deciding Presidential elections than they might have with the popular vote. With the exception of Maine and Nebraska, both of which use the Congressional District Method of allocating their Electoral College votes, all states allocate their votes through the winner-take-all method. Without the Electoral College process, Presidential elections could and likely would be decided by the most populous states, and more specifically by those states with significant urban and suburban communities surrounding large cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. The Electoral College process marries the one-man-one-vote principle with the federal principle that the states created the federal government. If prevents the balkanization of the country that could occur with the most populous areas deciding all Presidential elections. It prevents the tyranny of the majority.
Yesterday, the Massachusetts legislature approved a bill that would give the state’s Electoral College votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote. If the bill is signed by Governor Deval Patrick as anticipated, Massachusetts will join New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, Washington and Hawaii, all of which have passed similar legislation, and bring the total number of Electoral College votes decided by this method to 73. If states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (or 270 of 538) enact such laws, the candidate winning the most popular votes nationally would be assured a majority of the Electoral College votes, no matter how the other states vote and how their electoral votes are distributed. This movement against the Electoral College is being led by a group called National Popular Vote, which has slowly built support for the idea since George W. Bush won the presidency in 2000 over Al Gore, despite Gore having won the popular vote.
Massachusetts’ House Speaker Robert DeLeo’s office issued this statement in support of the measure:
“The National Popular Vote measure will ensure that our presidential elections reflect the true will of the people. Speaker DeLeo is pleased that the House has enacted this measure to give each voter equal say in the election of our president.”
What this statement fails to acknowledge is the possibility that should the national popular vote go to the candidate not favored by Massachusetts voters, all of the state’s electoral votes would still go to that candidate, effectively nullifying the entire popular vote of the state. Under such a scenario, one can easily image that measures would quickly be introduced to reverse the NPV bill. This bill raises not only a constitutional question regarding equal protection, but also a logistical question regarding certification of the national popular vote, for which there is currently no process. Radio talk show host Mark Levin points out that the concept of protecting the varied and diverse interests of all states, which is behind the Electoral College process, was also behind creation of a Senate comprised of two representatives from each state. If we are to invalidate the Electoral College, should we also abolish the Senate and the protections that come with it?
Nullification of the Electoral College process through amendment of the Constitution is highly unlikely given the requirement for ratification by 3/4 of the states. Similarly, it would seem improbable that NPV laws could be passed in states representing 270 electoral votes, though improbable is not impossible. Each state has the right to decide how their electoral votes will be allocated, but do the citizens of Massachusetts and other states allocating their votes in this manner fully understand the implications of these changes passed by their state legislators? Do they recognize this as an attempt to effectively amend the United States Constitution without following the formal amendment process? Do the citizens of Maryland, Washington and Hawaii understand that they are abdicating their role in the Presidential election process to the ten to twelve most populous states in the union, a list they will likely never be on?
“If the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 68
The Brilliance of the Electoral College, Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe, July 16, 2008
Catching Wild Pigs
Here is a little parable which has made it’s way around the email circuit but is worth repeating:
There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class.
One day while the class was in the lab, the professor noticed one young man, an exchange student, who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country’s government and install a new communist regime. In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange question.
He asked: “Do you know how to catch wild pigs?”
The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line.
The young man said that it was no joke. “You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming.
“When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat that free corn again. You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.
“Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn . They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.”
The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening in America . The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of “free” programs while we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.
One should always remember two truths: 1) There is no such thing as a free lunch 2) and you can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.
The corn consumed to date has put us $13 trillion in debt, nearly equivalent to our GDP. The Treasury Department projects the debt to increase to nearly $20 trillion by 2015, five short years from now. Annual interest on the debt alone was nearly $400 billion in fiscal 2009 and will exceed that in fiscal 2010, even at historically low interest levels, making interest the third largest expenditure in the federal budget, only exceeded by Defense and Health and Human Services. That amounts to $1,300 for every man, woman and child in the US, $2,600 for every US tax filer (nearly half of whom pay no income tax) and $5,000 for every US taxpayer. That’s some mighty expensive corn!
At some point all of this debt is going to need to be repaid, to ourselves and to countries such as China and Japan who own it. In addition, there are over $100 trillion in unfunded entitlement obligations which can no longer be ignored. Based upon the last trustee’s actuarial report, Medicare and Social Security expenditures are projected to exceed tax revenues in 2012 and 2016, respectively. Even President Obama admits our current spending and debt levels are unsustainable, while he and Congress proceed to increase both on nearly a daily basis. Few in Washington have demonstrated any serious fiscal restraint – campaign pledges turn into broken promises and outright lies.
The feeding frenzy needs to stop, with real changes such as:
- A real balanced budget amendment……not everything is a national emergency that requires an exemption
- Term limits……the days of career politicians need to end
- Real campaign finance reform……take the power back from lobbyists and special interest groups
- Entitlement reform……phase these programs out over an extended period, as has been proposed by Paul Ryan and others
- Federal tax reform……institute the Fair Tax or a similar, common sense approach that is simpler, not fraught with loopholes and does not unfairly penalize success
- Lower corporate tax rates……our federal corporate tax rate is only exceeded by Japan’s and is a primary contributor to jobs exiting the US for more business-friendly environments
We can argue into the wee wee hours about whether Republicans or Democrats are to blame for our present financial situation, but the simple reality is that We the Pigs are to blame. Many continue to snarf down the free corn while the fence goes up around them. Some have shunned the free corn to date, but are standing outside the fence drooling and might be tempted with the next delivery. And some are determined to stop the deliveries altogether and put those presently feeding on a diet.
For the PIIGS of Europe (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain), their fences are complete and Greece has their gate, with those trapped inside squealing loudly. How much of our fence is complete, and when does our gate arrive? Many would like to think this could never happen in the US. I’m quite sure there are many of these European PIIGS who said the same thing not so long ago.
Fear Itself
Politics is a contact sport.
The originator of that statement is illusive, but at no time in recent history have we seen it’s truth demonstrated more than today. The year long debate over health care created an epic widening of the political divide in this nation, with our elected officials operating the heavy machinery. From Republican lawmaker Joe Wilson shouting “You Lie!” during a Presidential speech to Congress, to the President of the United States openly criticizing a Supreme Court ruling during his State of the Union Address, the ugly side of American politics is splashed across the media on a daily basis and distributed worldwide within seconds.
One aspect of this divide that is particularly troubling is the willingness of elected officials to launch direct attacks on the very populace they were presumably elected to represent. A portion of this frontal assault is somewhat justified as a result of the excessive public vitriol displayed at speaking engagements and town hall meetings. However, attacks by Democratic leadership on the Tea Party have taken on a tone and a degree of dishonesty that reflect a new and unsavory direction in national politics. One year ago the President claimed to be unaware of the Tax Day Tea Parties. Since then we have Nancy Pelosi calling the Tea Party movement “Astroturf”, unsubstantiated claims of spitting and shouting of racial epithets, and a concerted effort by the Democratic party to discredit and minimize those involved with the movement as a “fringe” element. Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) expressed concern about the Tea Party flag waving and their “hateful tone”, and Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) likens the Tea Party fight against the health care bill to attacks against the 60′s civil rights movement:
“I was involved in the civil rights marches in the ’60s. And I have been badgered, cursed at and spat at by groups in the South and I want you to know and your viewing audience to know that the group that were in Washington fighting against the health bill and fighting against the President, looked just like and sounded just like those groups that attacked the civil rights movement in the South.”
Where Do We Go From Here?
Sunday night, 219 House Democrats voted to approved the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that has been the subject of contentious political debate since the beginning of the Obama presidency, despite bipartisan efforts to kill the legislation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA) proclaimed the legislation an historic victory
“on a par with passing Social Security and Medicare“
while President Obama stated that
“this government — a government of the people and by the people — still works for the people.”
Yet support for this legislation by the people was sorely lacking, and states are lining up to file lawsuits challenging the legislation before the President’s signature is dry. Officials in at least eleven states already have plans to challenge the constitutionality of mandating that all Americans have some form of health insurance, including Virginia, Texas, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Utah and Washington. These state sovereignty claims will be met with Commerce Clause assertions by supporters of the legislation, though one has to wonder what interstate commerce is being conducted by those citizens who choose not to purchase health insurance. In addition, at least three dozen state legislatures are weighing possible challenges to the legislation, changes to state law and amendments to their constitutions.
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum said
“The health care reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives this last night clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state’s sovereignty.”
Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning said the measure
“tramples on individual liberty and dumps on the states the burden of an unfunded mandate that taxpayers cannot afford.”
So now we turn to the courts. Will the legislation survive state challenges, which are certain to increase over the coming weeks and months. While legal challenges are heard, will the courts stay implementation of the Act? How will states already on the verge of bankruptcy pay for the increase in their share of Medicare? And what will be the impact on the House and Senate come November? Will the American people soon forget those in Washington who chose to ignore them for the sake of another “We Won” moment?
