[Don't miss this week's : 1) "Truth That Transforms" [After the message by Dr. Kennedy, they will show excerpts from a new documentary on the nature of militant Islam.](Sunday; 5pm, ch. 55.1, Orlando); 2)"Cross Examine* (Mon., 52.2, Orlando,) and 3)Worldmag.com editorial cartoons.]
The Tale of Two Jobs Plans - Posted By Mike Brownfield On September 15, 2011; In Enterprise and Free Markets [Taken from:The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog, The Heritage Foundation - http://blog.heritage.org -http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/15/morning-bell-the-tale-of-two-jobs-plans/print/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
It’s been one week since President Barack Obama announced his latest “stimulus” plan, and despite a cross-country road show aimed at selling his proposals to the American people, the commander in chief is finding that his message of more taxes and spending isn’t hitting home. Meanwhile, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) has outlined [1] a markedly different way to help the U.S. economy get back on track.
According to a new National Journal/United Technologies poll, only one in six Americans [2] think that the President’s plan will decrease unemployment “a lot,” while one-quarter doubted that the plan would affect unemployment at all. Then there are the 39 percent who think that the President’s policies have made unemployment even worse (twice as many as those who say he’s made unemployment better). Now The New York Times is raining on the President’s parade, too, reporting [3] that Democrats are “balking at Obama’s jobs bill” and “say there is little chance they will be able to support the bill as a single entity, citing an array of elements they cannot abide.”
Though it might be surprising that the President is struggling even among his own party to garner support for the plan that he has demanded they pass, it’s no wonder that the country doubts his plan for job growth. After all, with its $447 billion sticker price and reliance on big government spending, it looks much like what he has tried and failed for the duration of his presidency. In short, it calls for more borrowing, spending and higher taxes–none of which is going to help America create more jobs.
Rather than take a stab at making government bigger, Ryan says in a new video [1] that there’s a better path forward–pro-growth tax reform that makes the tax code fairer, competitive, and simpler, all of which will help unleash the creative power of America’s private sector. In an exclusive interview with The Heritage Foundation, Ryan explained why the tax code is so desperately in need of reform:
'[The tax code] penalizes all those qualities that make us great and make our economy grow–saving, investing, risk taking. It penalizes those things. It’s basically a crony capitalist creation, where Congress has decided to put itself in the role of picking and choosing winners and losers in the economy through the tax code. When you carve out all these preferences to benefit one industry or business over others, you have to raise tax rates higher than you otherwise would have to, which makes it harder for the economy to grow, for businesses to become created.'
Ryan says that the tax code has become “an economic incumbent protection plan” that ultimately leads to higher taxes across the board, leaving the United States less competitive in the global economy. His solution? Level the tax code playing field:
'What we want to do is get all the social engineering and crony capitalism loopholes out, so we can lower the tax rates and let businesses keep their money in the first place–let people keep their money in the first place–and that way the determining factor of whether a business succeeds or fails will be based upon merit, will be based upon achievement, will be based about innovation, will be based upon whether they’re pleasing customers or not, and not whether they have access to people in Congress or the federal government.'
Don’t confuse Ryan’s call for fairness in the tax code with President Obama’s calls for “shared sacrifice” — which for him means higher taxes on America’s job creators. Ryan says there is an inherent difference in aspiration and philosophy about the role of government in the economy:
"I aspire to achieve a culture, an economy, a society where we promote equal opportunity, so people can prosper and make the most of their lives. I would argue with the President’s rhetoric and actions–he’s aspiring to a society where the government sees its role as equalizing the results of our lives. It’s a way of looking at the economy and the society as if the pie were fixed, and therefore the government has to have as its role redistributing the slices of the pie more equitably in the name of fairness or equality. That’s not how the world works. That’s not how the economy works. Our goal is to grow the pie, not have the government figure out how to redistribute slices from some to others–which ends up putting a penalty or a hurdle on growth and innovation and prosperity–but grow the pie itself. I will grant the President that class warfare can make for really good politics, but it doesn’t make for good economics."
Ryan is on the right track. Whereas President Obama wants to keep increasing spending and paying for it with higher taxes, Ryan is advocating a much-needed revamp of the tax code. Whereas the President’s policies would permanently increase taxes, increase the size of government, and make America’s unemployment picture even worse, Ryan looks to make government smarter and fairer, allowing businesses to grow, compete, and thrive. The former is a recipe for continued failure; the latter offers some much-needed hope to a country that has been struggling for too long.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
#122 > A Plan With No HOPE of Making CHANGE In Our Economy
What Does More Stimulus Mean for America? http://www.askheritage.org/what-does-more-stimulus-mean-for-america/?utm_source=AH_Weekly&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2011-09-09&utm_campaign=2011_Brand Sept. 9, 2011
By most accounts, President Obama’s $800 billion “stimulus” bill that was passed in February 2009 with the promise of keeping unemployment below 8 percent was an absolute failure. However, last night in a speech to a joint session of Congress, the President demanded that it spend another $450 billion on more of the same “stimulus” that has left America with zero job growth and continued economic stagnation. But don’t worry. His top economic adviser Gene Sperling told NBC that this one would likely get us down to 8 percent.
Despite Sperling’s predictions, there are a lot of problems with the broad outlines in the President’s proposal, not the least of which is the fact that President Obama is insisting Congress immediately pass a bill that doesn’t exist. No legislative details have been offered; nothing has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office; there has been no debate or negotiation; and there is no accompanying plan on how to pay for it. President Obama only promised he would talk about paying for it in the weeks to come, and that onus likely will fall on the congressional “super committee” that was supposed to be focused on reducing our debt.
“Minor” details such as ... money to pay for it aside (or the fact that $450 billion in one year is more than twice as costly as the annual sticker price of Obama’s last foray into stimulus spending), there are serious substantive problems with the ideas the President proposed. Last night, Heritage’s experts provided their reactions to some of those proposals:
Unemployment Benefits: President Obama wants to extend unemployment benefits yet again as a way to boost the economy. That just won’t work. Heritage’s James Sherk writes, “For welfare reasons Congress wants to help workers who cannot find jobs. This is understandable. That doesn’t mean it will help the economy, no matter how much the President wants it to.” The stimulus bill extended unemployment benefits, Congress has kept them in place several times since then, and the federal government has spent over $300 billion on unemployment benefits since Obama took office. It hasn’t stimulated the economy before. It’s not going to stimulate it now.
Reviving the Failed Hiring Tax Credit: In order to help businesses create new jobs, the President proposed a tax credit for businesses hiring new workers. The trouble is that he’s been there, done that, and it didn’t work. Why try it again? Heritage’s Curtis Dubay explains the problem with the proposal: “A credit of a few thousand dollars, a mere fraction of the cost of hiring a worker, does nothing to change that calculation. The only positive effect on hiring the credit could have would be on temporary positions if it makes adding a few new temps profitable in the short term. But once the credit expires businesses will let those workers go.”
Tax Hikes on Job Creators: Taxing those who create jobs as a way to help create jobs is entirely counterintuitive, but the President proposed it anyway. Even though he has agreed that tax hikes slow economic growth and deter job creation, last night he proposed raising taxes on investors, businesses, and entrepreneurs. Dubay says, “This is akin to bailing water into an already-sinking ship.” And with businesses looking for more certainty, continuing to threaten more tax hikes will only dampen America’s chances of real recovery.
Infrastructure Banks That Won’t Build the Economy: Throwing more money at building roads and bridges, President Obama tells us, will create new jobs. So he is proposing the creation of an infrastructure bank that would require a whole new bureaucracy. Heritage’s Patrick Knudsen says that increasing spending on these projects “simply moves resources from one place to another — it may employ construction workers, but only by reducing jobs in other sectors.” And taxpayers end up paying the price, all without creating net job growth or boosting the economy in the near term.
Going the Wrong Way on Education: America’s education system needs less federal involvement, not more. But the President used his jobs speech as a way to shoehorn the federal government further into the education business, proposing that Washington spend billions on school construction and new jobs for teachers. Never mind that since 1970, school enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools has increased just 7 percent, while staff hires have increased 83 percent. Heritage’s Lindsey Burke explains, “On a per-pupil basis, federal spending on education has nearly tripled since the 1970′s.” And for all that spending, Washington hasn’t improved results.
There’s more the President proposed, as well, but much more he didn’t mention, too. He demagogued his political opponents for favoring smaller government and the “rigid ideas” of what government can and cannot do.
He presented one false choice, among many, between reducing government regulations and protecting the American people. He also promised to “root out” unnecessary regulations, as he has for four straight years, while only adding more costly rules to the books. He proposed a puzzling plan to allow refinancing of mortgages without explaining the details or who pays for it. He proposed extending the payroll tax “holiday,” which won’t create jobs. He ignored serious ways to grow the economy, like pursuing domestic energy production, which he himself has stalled.
President Obama has spent two and a half years increasing federal spending, growing government, and punishing businesses with burdensome regulations, and today 14 million Americans remain unemployed. Now the President is demanding more of the same at an even higher price. That is not a plan to create new jobs–that is a politically motivated message that ignores the reality of America’s economic crisis.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
By most accounts, President Obama’s $800 billion “stimulus” bill that was passed in February 2009 with the promise of keeping unemployment below 8 percent was an absolute failure. However, last night in a speech to a joint session of Congress, the President demanded that it spend another $450 billion on more of the same “stimulus” that has left America with zero job growth and continued economic stagnation. But don’t worry. His top economic adviser Gene Sperling told NBC that this one would likely get us down to 8 percent.
Despite Sperling’s predictions, there are a lot of problems with the broad outlines in the President’s proposal, not the least of which is the fact that President Obama is insisting Congress immediately pass a bill that doesn’t exist. No legislative details have been offered; nothing has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office; there has been no debate or negotiation; and there is no accompanying plan on how to pay for it. President Obama only promised he would talk about paying for it in the weeks to come, and that onus likely will fall on the congressional “super committee” that was supposed to be focused on reducing our debt.
“Minor” details such as ... money to pay for it aside (or the fact that $450 billion in one year is more than twice as costly as the annual sticker price of Obama’s last foray into stimulus spending), there are serious substantive problems with the ideas the President proposed. Last night, Heritage’s experts provided their reactions to some of those proposals:
Unemployment Benefits: President Obama wants to extend unemployment benefits yet again as a way to boost the economy. That just won’t work. Heritage’s James Sherk writes, “For welfare reasons Congress wants to help workers who cannot find jobs. This is understandable. That doesn’t mean it will help the economy, no matter how much the President wants it to.” The stimulus bill extended unemployment benefits, Congress has kept them in place several times since then, and the federal government has spent over $300 billion on unemployment benefits since Obama took office. It hasn’t stimulated the economy before. It’s not going to stimulate it now.
Reviving the Failed Hiring Tax Credit: In order to help businesses create new jobs, the President proposed a tax credit for businesses hiring new workers. The trouble is that he’s been there, done that, and it didn’t work. Why try it again? Heritage’s Curtis Dubay explains the problem with the proposal: “A credit of a few thousand dollars, a mere fraction of the cost of hiring a worker, does nothing to change that calculation. The only positive effect on hiring the credit could have would be on temporary positions if it makes adding a few new temps profitable in the short term. But once the credit expires businesses will let those workers go.”
Tax Hikes on Job Creators: Taxing those who create jobs as a way to help create jobs is entirely counterintuitive, but the President proposed it anyway. Even though he has agreed that tax hikes slow economic growth and deter job creation, last night he proposed raising taxes on investors, businesses, and entrepreneurs. Dubay says, “This is akin to bailing water into an already-sinking ship.” And with businesses looking for more certainty, continuing to threaten more tax hikes will only dampen America’s chances of real recovery.
Infrastructure Banks That Won’t Build the Economy: Throwing more money at building roads and bridges, President Obama tells us, will create new jobs. So he is proposing the creation of an infrastructure bank that would require a whole new bureaucracy. Heritage’s Patrick Knudsen says that increasing spending on these projects “simply moves resources from one place to another — it may employ construction workers, but only by reducing jobs in other sectors.” And taxpayers end up paying the price, all without creating net job growth or boosting the economy in the near term.
Going the Wrong Way on Education: America’s education system needs less federal involvement, not more. But the President used his jobs speech as a way to shoehorn the federal government further into the education business, proposing that Washington spend billions on school construction and new jobs for teachers. Never mind that since 1970, school enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools has increased just 7 percent, while staff hires have increased 83 percent. Heritage’s Lindsey Burke explains, “On a per-pupil basis, federal spending on education has nearly tripled since the 1970′s.” And for all that spending, Washington hasn’t improved results.
There’s more the President proposed, as well, but much more he didn’t mention, too. He demagogued his political opponents for favoring smaller government and the “rigid ideas” of what government can and cannot do.
He presented one false choice, among many, between reducing government regulations and protecting the American people. He also promised to “root out” unnecessary regulations, as he has for four straight years, while only adding more costly rules to the books. He proposed a puzzling plan to allow refinancing of mortgages without explaining the details or who pays for it. He proposed extending the payroll tax “holiday,” which won’t create jobs. He ignored serious ways to grow the economy, like pursuing domestic energy production, which he himself has stalled.
President Obama has spent two and a half years increasing federal spending, growing government, and punishing businesses with burdensome regulations, and today 14 million Americans remain unemployed. Now the President is demanding more of the same at an even higher price. That is not a plan to create new jobs–that is a politically motivated message that ignores the reality of America’s economic crisis.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Sept.9, 2011 > #121 - Are We Really Safer Ten Years Later?
[Don't miss this week's : 1) "Truth That Transforms" [An expert speaks on the real history of the Islamic Jihad.](Sunday; 5pm, ch. 55.1, Orlando); 2)"Cross Examine* (Mon., 52.2, Orlando,) and 3)Worldmag.com editorial cartoons.]
What is the Right Strategy to Fight Terrorism? The Heritage Foundation [membership@heritage.org] Sept. 2, 2011
In what has been described as an ”act of international terrorism,” news agencies report that a suicide car bomb struck the United Nations building in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital, on [Sept. 26th]. Though details are sketchy and there is no immediate claim of responsibility, if the attack is, indeed, an act of terrorism, it reaffirms what we already know: The world continues to face an ongoing threat–and America must be prepared for the next wave of terrorist attacks.
Since September 11, 2001, at least 40 Islamist-inspired terror plots aimed at the United States have been thwarted. And though all categories of successful terrorist attacks against U.S. targets (both at home and overseas) have been on a downward trend since 2005, the number of disrupted plots has risen considerably since 2007. In a new paper by The Heritage Foundation Counterterrorism Task Force, “A Counterterrorism Strategy for the ‘Next Wave,’” Heritage lays out steps that America should take to ensure a successful end to the long war against terrorism.
Unfortunately today, the United States is not on a trajectory to adequately counter the terrorism threat. Though America has enjoyed success in thwarting al-Qaeda’s efforts against the United States, those victories have come as a result of a decade of taking the offensive in the war on terrorism. Now, though, the Obama Administration is changing course with its new National Strategy for Counterterrorism. Heritage explains:
"The Administration now seeks to treat terrorism under a law enforcement paradigm that failed to protect Americans from terrorism when it was adopted by the Clinton Administration before 9/11. In addition, the White House intends to follow a “small footprint” strategy for overseas operations, relying primarily on Special Forces operations, covert action, and strikes with unmanned aerial vehicles.' The President’s strategy cedes the initiative to America’s enemies and provides them the opportunity to reconstitute both their moral and physical assets.
According to the task force, the President’s strategy sets America on a course for failure because it fundamentally fails to appreciate that Islamist beliefs are rooted in a culture that equates honor with power–and that means that “by unilaterally withdrawing from the conflict, the Administration allows al-Qaeda to paint a narrative of the U.S. in retreat.” One successful major terrorist attack will allow al-Qaeda to claim a “victory” and regain its “honor,” further empowering their cause.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration offered an ambivalent response to the “Arab Spring,” failed to capitalize on the opportunity to build a plan for the future of U.S. engagement with the “new” Middle East, has allowed al-Qaeda to physically re-establish itself in the Afghanistan–Pakistan theater, has ignored what al-Qaeda has been doing on a global scale, and has paid insufficient attention to state-sponsored terrorism. The Heritage task force offers its recommendation of what America should do next:
The primary goal of the U.S. counterterrorism strategy must be to prevent the emergence of a global Islamist insurgency. The danger to the security, freedom, and prosperity of the U.S. and the Western world is far graver than what might be achieved by any individual terrorist act. An insurgency is a threat to the fundamental legitimacy of all free societies.
"The first element of the U.S. strategy should be persistence, the Heritage task force says, and the right way to conquer the terrorist threat is to divide and defeat the enemy. American can get there through “hard” power and strong bilateral cooperation between the U.S. and nations that share a commitment to defending free, just, and open societies."
Though the United States has had success since 9/11 in combating terrorism and averting attacks at home and abroad, that success did not come easily–and it was not accomplished without taking an aggressive stance against al-Qaeda. Continued terrorist attacks around the world should remind America that the threat to our homeland remains and that the right strategy is needed in order to ensure our continued security at home and abroad. [bold and italics emphasis mine]
P.S. - Also, don't forget the hundreds of billions of dollars that could be automartically cut if the "Super Committee" that has begun discussions of how to reduce our budget by $1.4 trillion fails to come to an agreement.
What is the Right Strategy to Fight Terrorism? The Heritage Foundation [membership@heritage.org] Sept. 2, 2011
In what has been described as an ”act of international terrorism,” news agencies report that a suicide car bomb struck the United Nations building in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital, on [Sept. 26th]. Though details are sketchy and there is no immediate claim of responsibility, if the attack is, indeed, an act of terrorism, it reaffirms what we already know: The world continues to face an ongoing threat–and America must be prepared for the next wave of terrorist attacks.
Since September 11, 2001, at least 40 Islamist-inspired terror plots aimed at the United States have been thwarted. And though all categories of successful terrorist attacks against U.S. targets (both at home and overseas) have been on a downward trend since 2005, the number of disrupted plots has risen considerably since 2007. In a new paper by The Heritage Foundation Counterterrorism Task Force, “A Counterterrorism Strategy for the ‘Next Wave,’” Heritage lays out steps that America should take to ensure a successful end to the long war against terrorism.
Unfortunately today, the United States is not on a trajectory to adequately counter the terrorism threat. Though America has enjoyed success in thwarting al-Qaeda’s efforts against the United States, those victories have come as a result of a decade of taking the offensive in the war on terrorism. Now, though, the Obama Administration is changing course with its new National Strategy for Counterterrorism. Heritage explains:
"The Administration now seeks to treat terrorism under a law enforcement paradigm that failed to protect Americans from terrorism when it was adopted by the Clinton Administration before 9/11. In addition, the White House intends to follow a “small footprint” strategy for overseas operations, relying primarily on Special Forces operations, covert action, and strikes with unmanned aerial vehicles.' The President’s strategy cedes the initiative to America’s enemies and provides them the opportunity to reconstitute both their moral and physical assets.
According to the task force, the President’s strategy sets America on a course for failure because it fundamentally fails to appreciate that Islamist beliefs are rooted in a culture that equates honor with power–and that means that “by unilaterally withdrawing from the conflict, the Administration allows al-Qaeda to paint a narrative of the U.S. in retreat.” One successful major terrorist attack will allow al-Qaeda to claim a “victory” and regain its “honor,” further empowering their cause.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration offered an ambivalent response to the “Arab Spring,” failed to capitalize on the opportunity to build a plan for the future of U.S. engagement with the “new” Middle East, has allowed al-Qaeda to physically re-establish itself in the Afghanistan–Pakistan theater, has ignored what al-Qaeda has been doing on a global scale, and has paid insufficient attention to state-sponsored terrorism. The Heritage task force offers its recommendation of what America should do next:
The primary goal of the U.S. counterterrorism strategy must be to prevent the emergence of a global Islamist insurgency. The danger to the security, freedom, and prosperity of the U.S. and the Western world is far graver than what might be achieved by any individual terrorist act. An insurgency is a threat to the fundamental legitimacy of all free societies.
"The first element of the U.S. strategy should be persistence, the Heritage task force says, and the right way to conquer the terrorist threat is to divide and defeat the enemy. American can get there through “hard” power and strong bilateral cooperation between the U.S. and nations that share a commitment to defending free, just, and open societies."
Though the United States has had success since 9/11 in combating terrorism and averting attacks at home and abroad, that success did not come easily–and it was not accomplished without taking an aggressive stance against al-Qaeda. Continued terrorist attacks around the world should remind America that the threat to our homeland remains and that the right strategy is needed in order to ensure our continued security at home and abroad. [bold and italics emphasis mine]
P.S. - Also, don't forget the hundreds of billions of dollars that could be automartically cut if the "Super Committee" that has begun discussions of how to reduce our budget by $1.4 trillion fails to come to an agreement.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Friday, Sept. 2 > #118 - No Matter How Low the Bar Is Set ...
[FYI: Did you ever wish that you could know about some of the wasteful spending taking place by our federal government WITH OUR TAX MONEY? Well, the Repuglicans in the House(who now control appropriations in the Congress]give you a chance to view such bills AND indicate your desire to cut them out of the budget. Please go to: http://majorityleader.gov/YouCut/]
P.S. - (Courtesy of MikeysFunnies.com)- I'm gonna miss Kadafi's outfits. He makes Lady Gaga look like Johnny Cash.
More Bad News for the Obama Economy
Posted By Mike Brownfield On August 25, 2011 - The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation - http://blog.heritage.org -
Americans’ confidence in the economy is sitting at its lowest point [1] since March 2009, and in every state in the country, a vast majority of Americans see the economy as getting worse. Meanwhile, the number of people claiming new jobless benefits rose again last week [2]. Under those circumstances, it’s no wonder the White House is doing everything it can to make even the most dismal economic news seem like a silver lining on a very dark cloud.
That shred of news came yesterday in the form of the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) mid-year assessment [3] of the budget and economic situation. In the report, the CBO lowered its projected 2011 economic growth rate from 3.1 percent in its January report [4] to only 2.3 percent–well below the growth rate needed to reduce the unemployment rate. The CBO also projects a deficit for 2011 of $1.284 trillion–slightly lower than the January deficit projection of $1.480 trillion. As for unemployment, the CBO didn’t have much good to say. In its estimation [5], the jobless rate will fall only to 8.9 percent by the end of this year but remain above 8 percent until 2014.
Economic growth that’s below what’s needed to reduce unemployment and a deficit still over a trillion dollars? How can that be good news? Well, it is if you set the bar for success low enough. And the White House has done just that. In a press briefing yesterday [8/24], White House spokesman Josh Earnest said [6] “the report sort of validates the progress that’s been made” while also crediting President Barack Obama’s policies for pulling America “back from the brink.”
While White House officials took the CBO’s report as a “validation” of their hard work, others have taken it as a warning–including House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI). Ryan’s office says [7] that the CBO’s report shows that 2011 is the third straight year that deficits will be in excess of $1 trillion, and the debt held by the public will equal about three-quarters of the economy in 2013. Ryan noted [7]:
The Congressional Budget Office has again warned policymakers of the urgent need to get Washington’s fiscal house in order. This reports confirms again that years of reckless overspending have not produced the economic growth or the jobs that the President promised and that American families need. And while the CBO report offers some relatively positive news about deficits, even those estimates seem extremely optimistic based on the data the projections rely on, according to The Heritage Foundation’s J.D. Foster [8]. And as Heritage’s James Sherk and Rea Hederman write, “The recovery will take a long time under any imaginable circumstances”:
Economists estimate that the natural rate of unemployment is 5.2 percent. If the economy began growing immediately at the same rate the payroll survey reported during the tech bubble (+265,000 jobs per month), unemployment would not return to this level until mid-2014. More realistically, if employers began hiring at the same average rate they did during the 2003–2007 expansion (+176,000 jobs per month), unemployment would not return to its natural rate until 2018.
In September, President Obama is due to give a speech in which he will unveil a new plan to create jobs and get America’s economy growing again. The trouble is that the plan will likely be baked in the same oven that produced the policies that have left America’s economy where it is today. If America doesn’t want continued deficits and unemployment as far as the eye can see, then a new agenda is in order.[emphasis mine; [] notations refer to endnotes, check original posting]
P.S. - (Courtesy of MikeysFunnies.com)- I'm gonna miss Kadafi's outfits. He makes Lady Gaga look like Johnny Cash.
More Bad News for the Obama Economy
Posted By Mike Brownfield On August 25, 2011 - The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation - http://blog.heritage.org -
Americans’ confidence in the economy is sitting at its lowest point [1] since March 2009, and in every state in the country, a vast majority of Americans see the economy as getting worse. Meanwhile, the number of people claiming new jobless benefits rose again last week [2]. Under those circumstances, it’s no wonder the White House is doing everything it can to make even the most dismal economic news seem like a silver lining on a very dark cloud.
That shred of news came yesterday in the form of the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) mid-year assessment [3] of the budget and economic situation. In the report, the CBO lowered its projected 2011 economic growth rate from 3.1 percent in its January report [4] to only 2.3 percent–well below the growth rate needed to reduce the unemployment rate. The CBO also projects a deficit for 2011 of $1.284 trillion–slightly lower than the January deficit projection of $1.480 trillion. As for unemployment, the CBO didn’t have much good to say. In its estimation [5], the jobless rate will fall only to 8.9 percent by the end of this year but remain above 8 percent until 2014.
Economic growth that’s below what’s needed to reduce unemployment and a deficit still over a trillion dollars? How can that be good news? Well, it is if you set the bar for success low enough. And the White House has done just that. In a press briefing yesterday [8/24], White House spokesman Josh Earnest said [6] “the report sort of validates the progress that’s been made” while also crediting President Barack Obama’s policies for pulling America “back from the brink.”
While White House officials took the CBO’s report as a “validation” of their hard work, others have taken it as a warning–including House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI). Ryan’s office says [7] that the CBO’s report shows that 2011 is the third straight year that deficits will be in excess of $1 trillion, and the debt held by the public will equal about three-quarters of the economy in 2013. Ryan noted [7]:
The Congressional Budget Office has again warned policymakers of the urgent need to get Washington’s fiscal house in order. This reports confirms again that years of reckless overspending have not produced the economic growth or the jobs that the President promised and that American families need. And while the CBO report offers some relatively positive news about deficits, even those estimates seem extremely optimistic based on the data the projections rely on, according to The Heritage Foundation’s J.D. Foster [8]. And as Heritage’s James Sherk and Rea Hederman write, “The recovery will take a long time under any imaginable circumstances”:
Economists estimate that the natural rate of unemployment is 5.2 percent. If the economy began growing immediately at the same rate the payroll survey reported during the tech bubble (+265,000 jobs per month), unemployment would not return to this level until mid-2014. More realistically, if employers began hiring at the same average rate they did during the 2003–2007 expansion (+176,000 jobs per month), unemployment would not return to its natural rate until 2018.
In September, President Obama is due to give a speech in which he will unveil a new plan to create jobs and get America’s economy growing again. The trouble is that the plan will likely be baked in the same oven that produced the policies that have left America’s economy where it is today. If America doesn’t want continued deficits and unemployment as far as the eye can see, then a new agenda is in order.[emphasis mine; [] notations refer to endnotes, check original posting]
Tues. Sept. 6, 2011 > # 120 - The Unemployment Empty Promise
[Did you ever wish that you could know about some of the wasteful spending taking place by our federal government WITH OUR TAX MONEY? Well, the Republicans in the House(who now control appropriations in the Congress]give you a chance to view such bills and indicate your desire to cut them out of the budget. You can get your opportunity to do so by going to> http://majorityleader.gov/YouCut/]
[NOTE: The following is a quote from Cal Thomas on President obama's latest choice to head his econonmic team: "Alan Krueger is the latest in a long line of professors and academics to populate this administration. Few, if any, have held real jobs in the private sector. They are mostly theorists, whose theories are often proved wrong. But in academia, as well as in government, being wrong rarely disqualifies one from a leadership post. Intentions are all that matter." For the complete article, go to: http://online.worldmag.com/2011/09/01/nightmare-on-pennsylvania-avenue/]
Posted By Mike Brownfield On August 30, 2011 // The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation - http://blog.heritage.org -
Sometime next week—we don’t quite know when—President Barack Obama is due to announce his latest jobs plan designed to lift America out of its unemployment doldrums. And though we also don’t know the exact details of the plan, there’s a pretty good chance it will include several key components we’ve heard before, one of which is the extension of unemployment benefits.
Much like the President’s other likely initiatives, this idea isn’t a new one, and the White House has made the argument before that unemployment benefits are the best thing since sliced bread when it comes to stimulating the economy. In a White House briefing earlier [last]month, press secretary Jay Carney explained the rationale :
["Extending unemployment benefits] is one of the most direct ways to infuse money into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren’t earning a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get. They’re not going to save it; they’re going to spend it. And unemployment insurance, that money goes directly back into the economy dollar for dollar virtually. So it is—and when it goes back in the economy, it means that everywhere that those people—everyplace that that money is spent has added business. And that creates growth and income for businesses that then lead them to making decisions about jobs—more hiring."]
But according to a report by Heritage’s James Sherk and Karen A. Campbell [3], unemployment insurance actually leads to longer periods of unemployment and does not provide the promised stimulative effect. In their paper, they address a 2004 study which concluded that each dollar in additional unemployment insurance increased gross domestic product by $1.73. But, they say, that just isn’t so. Research shows that unemployment spending does not result in workers consuming more, and workers with extended unemployment insurance benefits remain unemployed longer. “A 13-week extension of unemployment benefits results in the average worker remaining unemployed for an additional two weeks,” they report.
Funnily enough, President Obama’s new top economist agrees. Yesterday, the President announced that Princeton University economist Alan Krueger will replace Austan Goolsbee as the White House’s chief economic adviser. And though Krueger will play a prominent role in crafting the White House’s economic strategy, Heritage’s Lachlan Markay reports that Krueger’s past research doesn’t mesh with the White House’s stance on the supposed stimulative benefits of extending unemployment insurance:
Krueger co-authored a paper for the Handbook of Public Economics in 2002 that seems to undercut the economic argument for extending unemployment benefits. The paper found that those benefits tend to increase the length of unemployment by discouraging the search for a new job, and may actually encourage layoffs. Conversely, the paper also found that unemployed persons who are ineligible for benefits search harder for a job and are therefore unemployed for less time. It’s anyone’s guess whether Krueger will change his tune now that he’s on the President’s team, but no matter. When the President launches his new jobs plan, and should he call for an extension of unemployment benefits, as expected, the reality remains the same, regardless of how Krueger addresses his earlier body of work: Unemployment benefits don’t stimulate the economy.
There certainly can be other reasons for extending unemployment benefits. Under the Obama economy, the average length of unemployment hit a new record last month, surpassing 40 weeks for the first time ever. But no one—Congress, the President, or the American people—should be under the delusion that economic stimulus and new jobs will result. [emphasis mine]
[NOTE: The following is a quote from Cal Thomas on President obama's latest choice to head his econonmic team: "Alan Krueger is the latest in a long line of professors and academics to populate this administration. Few, if any, have held real jobs in the private sector. They are mostly theorists, whose theories are often proved wrong. But in academia, as well as in government, being wrong rarely disqualifies one from a leadership post. Intentions are all that matter." For the complete article, go to: http://online.worldmag.com/2011/09/01/nightmare-on-pennsylvania-avenue/]
Posted By Mike Brownfield On August 30, 2011 // The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation - http://blog.heritage.org -
Sometime next week—we don’t quite know when—President Barack Obama is due to announce his latest jobs plan designed to lift America out of its unemployment doldrums. And though we also don’t know the exact details of the plan, there’s a pretty good chance it will include several key components we’ve heard before, one of which is the extension of unemployment benefits.
Much like the President’s other likely initiatives, this idea isn’t a new one, and the White House has made the argument before that unemployment benefits are the best thing since sliced bread when it comes to stimulating the economy. In a White House briefing earlier [last]month, press secretary Jay Carney explained the rationale :
["Extending unemployment benefits] is one of the most direct ways to infuse money into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren’t earning a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get. They’re not going to save it; they’re going to spend it. And unemployment insurance, that money goes directly back into the economy dollar for dollar virtually. So it is—and when it goes back in the economy, it means that everywhere that those people—everyplace that that money is spent has added business. And that creates growth and income for businesses that then lead them to making decisions about jobs—more hiring."]
But according to a report by Heritage’s James Sherk and Karen A. Campbell [3], unemployment insurance actually leads to longer periods of unemployment and does not provide the promised stimulative effect. In their paper, they address a 2004 study which concluded that each dollar in additional unemployment insurance increased gross domestic product by $1.73. But, they say, that just isn’t so. Research shows that unemployment spending does not result in workers consuming more, and workers with extended unemployment insurance benefits remain unemployed longer. “A 13-week extension of unemployment benefits results in the average worker remaining unemployed for an additional two weeks,” they report.
Funnily enough, President Obama’s new top economist agrees. Yesterday, the President announced that Princeton University economist Alan Krueger will replace Austan Goolsbee as the White House’s chief economic adviser. And though Krueger will play a prominent role in crafting the White House’s economic strategy, Heritage’s Lachlan Markay reports that Krueger’s past research doesn’t mesh with the White House’s stance on the supposed stimulative benefits of extending unemployment insurance:
Krueger co-authored a paper for the Handbook of Public Economics in 2002 that seems to undercut the economic argument for extending unemployment benefits. The paper found that those benefits tend to increase the length of unemployment by discouraging the search for a new job, and may actually encourage layoffs. Conversely, the paper also found that unemployed persons who are ineligible for benefits search harder for a job and are therefore unemployed for less time. It’s anyone’s guess whether Krueger will change his tune now that he’s on the President’s team, but no matter. When the President launches his new jobs plan, and should he call for an extension of unemployment benefits, as expected, the reality remains the same, regardless of how Krueger addresses his earlier body of work: Unemployment benefits don’t stimulate the economy.
There certainly can be other reasons for extending unemployment benefits. Under the Obama economy, the average length of unemployment hit a new record last month, surpassing 40 weeks for the first time ever. But no one—Congress, the President, or the American people—should be under the delusion that economic stimulus and new jobs will result. [emphasis mine]
Sept. 4, 2011 - #119- Sunday Special > Why Orthodoxy Matters
[Dont miss this week's : 1) "Truth That Transforms" [An expert speaks on the real history of the Islamic Jihad.](Sunday; 5pm, ch. 55.1, Orlando); 2)"Cross Examine* (Mon., 52.2, Orlando,) and 3)Worldmag.com editorial cartoons.]
The Way or Not the Way; Orthodoxy and Why It Matters By: Chuck Colson| May 18, 2011 Breakpoint.com
Can we truly live out the Christian faith if we don’t understand its foundational tenets? According to the Pew Forum’s U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, 57 percent of self-identified Evangelical Christians agreed with this statement: “Many religions can lead to eternal life.” Think about the staggering implications of what you just heard: 57 percent of Evangelicals believe that many religions can lead to eternal life!
Yet Jesus Himself was very clear. "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Either Jesus was right, or he was wrong. What Christians, Muslims, and Jews say about the person and work of Jesus Christ can’t be reconciled. They may all be false, but they cannot all be true. It’s called the law of non-contradiction -- it goes back to Aristotle: If proposition A is true -- that is, if it conforms to reality -- then proposition B, making a contrary claim, cannot be true as well. If nearly six out of ten Evangelicals don’t believe the most basic tenets of the faith, it’s no wonder the Church is losing its influence over the culture. Because what we believe affects how we live.
Even a secular columnist for the New York Times understands this!... David Brooks recently wrote “The religions that thrive” historically have “communal theologies, doctrines and codes of conduct rooted in claims of absolute truth.” And those beliefs translate into acts of mercy and love: the kind that Brooks himself witnessed from conservative Christian missionaries reaching out to AIDS victims in Africa.
There is a remedy for this situation -- a remedy that an Augustinian monk by the name of Martin Luther discovered back in the sixteenth century. The Church in Luther’s day wallowed in its own corruption, sold indulgences, and refused to allow people to read the Bible in their own language. Luther compared the state of the Church to the Babylonian exile of the Israelites, when God punished Israel for disobeying God and worshiping false idols. So what did Luther do? He went back to the teaching of the apostles, the faith entrusted to the saints once for all. He studied the works of the ancient Church fathers, who wrote at a time when the Church’s faith was marked by unity. He studied the early councils of the Church. In short, he recovered the orthodox faith. This led to a Reformation that transformed not only the Church, but Western society and culture as well.
This is why I wrote my book, titled The Faith: Given Once, For All. It’s about the essentials of the faith that all true Christians have always believed -- the minimum, irreducible, non-negotiable tenets of Christianity, without which one cannot be a true Christian, and without which the Church cannot be the Church. I am convinced that this is what people need to defend and live the Christian faith these extraordinarily challenging times. So I urge you to purchase a copy of The Faith -- you can get it at BreakPoint.org. And by the way -- all the royalties go to the ministry of BreakPoint and Prison Fellowship.
The Church needs to know what it believes, why it believes it -- and why it matters.
Further Reading and Information
The Faith / Charles Colson & Harold Fickett | Colson Center Bookstore
Creed or Chaos/David Brooks | The New York Times | April 21, 2011
Pew US Religious Landscape Survey/Religions.PewForum.org
Sunday Funny (c/o MikeysFunnies.com) "Amazing! You hang something in your closet for a while and it shrinks 2 sizes!"
The Way or Not the Way; Orthodoxy and Why It Matters By: Chuck Colson| May 18, 2011 Breakpoint.com
Can we truly live out the Christian faith if we don’t understand its foundational tenets? According to the Pew Forum’s U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, 57 percent of self-identified Evangelical Christians agreed with this statement: “Many religions can lead to eternal life.” Think about the staggering implications of what you just heard: 57 percent of Evangelicals believe that many religions can lead to eternal life!
Yet Jesus Himself was very clear. "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Either Jesus was right, or he was wrong. What Christians, Muslims, and Jews say about the person and work of Jesus Christ can’t be reconciled. They may all be false, but they cannot all be true. It’s called the law of non-contradiction -- it goes back to Aristotle: If proposition A is true -- that is, if it conforms to reality -- then proposition B, making a contrary claim, cannot be true as well. If nearly six out of ten Evangelicals don’t believe the most basic tenets of the faith, it’s no wonder the Church is losing its influence over the culture. Because what we believe affects how we live.
Even a secular columnist for the New York Times understands this!... David Brooks recently wrote “The religions that thrive” historically have “communal theologies, doctrines and codes of conduct rooted in claims of absolute truth.” And those beliefs translate into acts of mercy and love: the kind that Brooks himself witnessed from conservative Christian missionaries reaching out to AIDS victims in Africa.
There is a remedy for this situation -- a remedy that an Augustinian monk by the name of Martin Luther discovered back in the sixteenth century. The Church in Luther’s day wallowed in its own corruption, sold indulgences, and refused to allow people to read the Bible in their own language. Luther compared the state of the Church to the Babylonian exile of the Israelites, when God punished Israel for disobeying God and worshiping false idols. So what did Luther do? He went back to the teaching of the apostles, the faith entrusted to the saints once for all. He studied the works of the ancient Church fathers, who wrote at a time when the Church’s faith was marked by unity. He studied the early councils of the Church. In short, he recovered the orthodox faith. This led to a Reformation that transformed not only the Church, but Western society and culture as well.
This is why I wrote my book, titled The Faith: Given Once, For All. It’s about the essentials of the faith that all true Christians have always believed -- the minimum, irreducible, non-negotiable tenets of Christianity, without which one cannot be a true Christian, and without which the Church cannot be the Church. I am convinced that this is what people need to defend and live the Christian faith these extraordinarily challenging times. So I urge you to purchase a copy of The Faith -- you can get it at BreakPoint.org. And by the way -- all the royalties go to the ministry of BreakPoint and Prison Fellowship.
The Church needs to know what it believes, why it believes it -- and why it matters.
Further Reading and Information
The Faith / Charles Colson & Harold Fickett | Colson Center Bookstore
Creed or Chaos/David Brooks | The New York Times | April 21, 2011
Pew US Religious Landscape Survey/Religions.PewForum.org
Sunday Funny (c/o MikeysFunnies.com) "Amazing! You hang something in your closet for a while and it shrinks 2 sizes!"
Monday, August 29, 2011
#117 - The Truth About Tea Parties /Enough Of the Baseless Attacks!
Note:<em> From the President's liberal surrogates calling them terrorists and racists, and with a leading African American Congresswoman recently even saying "The Tea Party can go to H--!", the venom and mischaracterization of these every day Amnericans, I felt it necessary to share the following perspective.
Tea Parties – Same Song, Second Verse David Barton [WallBuilders ]http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=69934
America’s first Tea Party in 1773 was not an act of wanton lawlessness but rather a deliberate protest against heavy-handed government and excessive taxation. 1 Its leaders took great care to ensure that nothing but tea was thrown overboard – no other items were damaged. The “Indians” even swept the decks of the ships before they left. 2
Tea Parties occurred not only in Boston but also in numerous other locales. 3 And those who participated were just ordinary citizens expressing their frustration over a government that had refused to listen to them for almost a decade. Their reasonable requests had fallen on deaf ears. Of course, the out-of-touch British claimed that the Tea Parties were lawless and violent, 4 but such was not the case.
Interestingly, in many ways, today’s Tea Parties parallel those of long ago. But rather than protesting a tax on tea, today they are protesting dozens of taxes represented by what they call the Porkulus/Generational Theft Act of 2009 (officially called the “American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act”). For Tea Party members (and for most Americans), that act and the way it was passed epitomizes a broken system whose arrogant leaders often scorn the concerns of the citizens they purport to represent.
Tea Party folks agree with the economic logic of our Founders.
“To contract new debts is not the way to pay off old ones.” 5 “Avoid occasions of expense…and avoid likewise the accumulation of debt not only by shunning occasions of expense but by vigorous exertions…to discharge the debts.” 6 GEORGE WASHINGTON
“Nothing can more [affect] national credit and prosperity than a constant and systematic attention to…extinguish the present debt and to avoid as much as possible the incurring of any new debt.” 7 ALEXANDER HAMILTON
“The maxim of buying nothing but what we have money in our pockets to pay for lays the broadest foundation for happiness.” 8 “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” 9 THOMAS JEFFERSON
These are not radical positions – nor are the others set forth in the Tea Party platform – that Congress should: (1) provide the constitutional basis for the bills it passes; 2) reduce intrusive government regulations; (3) balance the budget;(4) limit the increase of government spending to the rate of population growth; (5) and eliminate earmarks unless approved by 2/3rds of Congress. 10 Are these positions dangerous or extreme? Certainly not. In fact, polling shows that Americans support these Tea Party goals by a margin of two-to-one. 11
Citizens are angry about the current direction of government. As John Zubly, a member of the Continental Congress in 1775, reminded the British: “My Lord, the Americans are no idiots, and they appear determined not to be slaves. Oppression will make wise men mad.” 12 But does that anger automatically equate to violence? Of course not. It does equate to action, however; but instead of throwing tea overboard, modern Tea Parties are throwing out-of-touch politicians from both parties overboard.
The Tea Parties represent much of what is right in America – citizens reacquainting themselves with the Constitution and holding their elected officials accountable to its standards. Two centuries ago, Daniel Webster could have been talking to today’s Tea Party rallies when he said: “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution!” 13 [emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes
1. George Bancroft, History of the United States of America (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1888), Vol. III, pp. 443-447. (Return)
2. George Bancroft, History of the United States of America (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1888), Vol. III, pp. 456-457; “Facts You May Not Know about the Tea Party,” Boston Tea Party Historical Society (at: http://www.boston-tea-party.org/unknown-facts.html) (accessed on July 21, 2010). (Return)
3. George Bancroft, History of the United States of America (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1888), Vol. III, p. 457 (Philadelphia, NY, SC). (Return)
4. George Bancroft, History of the United States of America (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1888), Vol. III, p. 460. (Return)
5. George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1940), Vol. 37, p. 177, letter to James Welch, April 7, 1799. (Return)
6. George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1939), Vol. 35, p. 230, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796. (Return)
7. Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold C. Syrett, editor (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), Vol. XI, pp. 140-141. (Return)
8. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. VI, p. 188, letter to Mr. Skipwith, July 28, 1787. (Return)
9. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XV, p. 23, letter to John Taylor, May 28, 1816. (Return)
10. “Contract From America,” TeaParty365.com, April 10, 2010 (at: http://www.teaparty365.org/contract-from-america). (Return)
11. See, for example, “Tea Party 48%, Obama 44%,” Rasmussen Reports, April 5, 2010 (at: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/tea_party_48_obama_44); “Most Say Tea Party Has Better Understanding of Issues than Congress,” Rasmussen Reports, March 28, 2010 (at: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2010/most_say_tea_party_has_better_understanding_of_issues_than_congress). (Return)
12. William B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit; or Commemorative Notices of Distinguished American Clergymen or Various Denominations (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1858), Vol. 3, p. 221. (Return)
13. Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 108th Congress, Second Session (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 2004), Vol. 150, p. 17247, Representative Franks quoting Daniel Webster, July 22, 2004. (Return)
Tea Parties – Same Song, Second Verse David Barton [WallBuilders ]http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=69934
America’s first Tea Party in 1773 was not an act of wanton lawlessness but rather a deliberate protest against heavy-handed government and excessive taxation. 1 Its leaders took great care to ensure that nothing but tea was thrown overboard – no other items were damaged. The “Indians” even swept the decks of the ships before they left. 2
Tea Parties occurred not only in Boston but also in numerous other locales. 3 And those who participated were just ordinary citizens expressing their frustration over a government that had refused to listen to them for almost a decade. Their reasonable requests had fallen on deaf ears. Of course, the out-of-touch British claimed that the Tea Parties were lawless and violent, 4 but such was not the case.
Interestingly, in many ways, today’s Tea Parties parallel those of long ago. But rather than protesting a tax on tea, today they are protesting dozens of taxes represented by what they call the Porkulus/Generational Theft Act of 2009 (officially called the “American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act”). For Tea Party members (and for most Americans), that act and the way it was passed epitomizes a broken system whose arrogant leaders often scorn the concerns of the citizens they purport to represent.
Tea Party folks agree with the economic logic of our Founders.
“To contract new debts is not the way to pay off old ones.” 5 “Avoid occasions of expense…and avoid likewise the accumulation of debt not only by shunning occasions of expense but by vigorous exertions…to discharge the debts.” 6 GEORGE WASHINGTON
“Nothing can more [affect] national credit and prosperity than a constant and systematic attention to…extinguish the present debt and to avoid as much as possible the incurring of any new debt.” 7 ALEXANDER HAMILTON
“The maxim of buying nothing but what we have money in our pockets to pay for lays the broadest foundation for happiness.” 8 “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” 9 THOMAS JEFFERSON
These are not radical positions – nor are the others set forth in the Tea Party platform – that Congress should: (1) provide the constitutional basis for the bills it passes; 2) reduce intrusive government regulations; (3) balance the budget;(4) limit the increase of government spending to the rate of population growth; (5) and eliminate earmarks unless approved by 2/3rds of Congress. 10 Are these positions dangerous or extreme? Certainly not. In fact, polling shows that Americans support these Tea Party goals by a margin of two-to-one. 11
Citizens are angry about the current direction of government. As John Zubly, a member of the Continental Congress in 1775, reminded the British: “My Lord, the Americans are no idiots, and they appear determined not to be slaves. Oppression will make wise men mad.” 12 But does that anger automatically equate to violence? Of course not. It does equate to action, however; but instead of throwing tea overboard, modern Tea Parties are throwing out-of-touch politicians from both parties overboard.
The Tea Parties represent much of what is right in America – citizens reacquainting themselves with the Constitution and holding their elected officials accountable to its standards. Two centuries ago, Daniel Webster could have been talking to today’s Tea Party rallies when he said: “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution!” 13 [emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes
1. George Bancroft, History of the United States of America (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1888), Vol. III, pp. 443-447. (Return)
2. George Bancroft, History of the United States of America (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1888), Vol. III, pp. 456-457; “Facts You May Not Know about the Tea Party,” Boston Tea Party Historical Society (at: http://www.boston-tea-party.org/unknown-facts.html) (accessed on July 21, 2010). (Return)
3. George Bancroft, History of the United States of America (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1888), Vol. III, p. 457 (Philadelphia, NY, SC). (Return)
4. George Bancroft, History of the United States of America (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1888), Vol. III, p. 460. (Return)
5. George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1940), Vol. 37, p. 177, letter to James Welch, April 7, 1799. (Return)
6. George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1939), Vol. 35, p. 230, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796. (Return)
7. Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold C. Syrett, editor (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), Vol. XI, pp. 140-141. (Return)
8. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. VI, p. 188, letter to Mr. Skipwith, July 28, 1787. (Return)
9. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XV, p. 23, letter to John Taylor, May 28, 1816. (Return)
10. “Contract From America,” TeaParty365.com, April 10, 2010 (at: http://www.teaparty365.org/contract-from-america). (Return)
11. See, for example, “Tea Party 48%, Obama 44%,” Rasmussen Reports, April 5, 2010 (at: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/tea_party_48_obama_44); “Most Say Tea Party Has Better Understanding of Issues than Congress,” Rasmussen Reports, March 28, 2010 (at: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2010/most_say_tea_party_has_better_understanding_of_issues_than_congress). (Return)
12. William B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit; or Commemorative Notices of Distinguished American Clergymen or Various Denominations (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1858), Vol. 3, p. 221. (Return)
13. Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 108th Congress, Second Session (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 2004), Vol. 150, p. 17247, Representative Franks quoting Daniel Webster, July 22, 2004. (Return)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
