Resistance to Kasich Medicaid Expansion Grows

A number of things pop out at you in this Columbus Dispatch article that are worthy of further commentary, but let's start with the fact that conservatives in the GOP caucus have stated -- in open testimony -- that they oppose the governor on this issue. That, in and of itself, is a HUGE accomplishment.

During more than six hours of testimony before a House committee, Republicans made it clear that their opposition to President Barack Obama’s health-care law trumps the Kasich administration’s stance that the expansion will save Ohio taxpayers $404 million over the next two years.

“Clearly, this is an unsustainable position for the federal government, and there will be a day of reckoning,” said Rep. Robert Sprague, R-Findlay. “We will either have higher tax rates as American citizens or our borrowing power will be reduced as a nation.”

The federal government's problems are a concern and I am pleased to hear that some state legislators understand that when the federal government is in trouble eventually those dilemmas will reach down to the state level.

But I think focusing too much on this is a trap that should be avoided. Expanding Medicaid while relying on federal taxpayer dollars to do it is BAD for Ohio, not good as Team Kasich suggests here:

Greg Moody, director of the Governor’s Office of Health Transformation, told the House Finance Committee that Kasich supports a balanced federal budget but that expanding Medicaid is a good deal for Ohio.

“Would I rather take the money and not spend it and drive down the deficit? Absolutely, but that’s not a choice,” Moody told lawmakers.

Under Obama’s health-care law, the federal government for three years would pay all costs to expand Medicaid to those with incomes up to 138 percent of the poverty level — about $23,000 a year for a family of four. The federal match decreases over the next several years to 90 percent of the cost.

The expansion would provide coverage to more low-income uninsured, allowing them to meet the requirement beginning in 2014 that most Americans have health insurance or face a penalty. In addition, it would free up local money for mental-health and addiction services, shift some state costs for prison health care to Medicaid and generate other savings.

Let's start with Moody's dodge. Of course, using that money to pay off some national debt isn't an option. Mentioning that here is simply a diversion from the issue at hand. Ohio can't afford even a 10% increase in spending on Medicaid even in the long term. We are just now beginning to see a recovery from the Taft and Strickland eras and we're going to risk that progress on some scheme from Obama? That just doesn't sound like a good play to me.

Moving on to the "politics as usual" portion of this article:

Moody said Kasich, like many of his fellow Republicans, opposes much of Obama’s Affordable Care Act, but he’s pushing to expand Medicaid because “it’s making the most of a hand we’ve been dealt."

the thing about most card games is that you also have the option of "passing" or "folding" until you get better odds. Team Kasich has a way of playing bad hands in worse situations and just hoping for the best. That simply won't do...

Here's more politics as usual:

“If we don’t do this, we are subsidizing other states,” said Rep. Mike Foley, D-Cleveland.

Moody concurred, noting that Ohioans pay taxes to the federal government that will finance Medicaid expansions in states that decide to increase program eligibility.

“If we don’t spend it, it’s not like that money will be saved. We are still paying it in our federal taxes,” he said. “The question is: Is the money coming back to Ohio, or is it going somewhere else?”

The 527 Media and low information voters might buy this argument, but it is NOT a reason to put your own state finances in jeopardy. Should we just do whatever California does? How about New York? Why not just abdicate the governance of our state to Illinois? This sort of thinking is just passing the buck. Ohio deserves better from its leaders.

But the truly insulting thing about this argument is that it is the same tired Washington DC thinking that we have heard from virtually every Congressman we've ever sent there. I am reminded of a local politician saying at a Tea Party rally that he was against pork, unless it was coming to his district because that money was going to be spent anyway. He didn't say it in those exact words, but the meaning was clear as day.

Fiscal responsibility begins at home, people.

Here is another position that I find lacking:

Rep. Gerald Stebelton, R-Lancaster, suggested that Ohio hold out to “negotiate a better deal” with the federal government.

“The best leverage we have with the federal government is to opt out.”

We don't want to deal with the federal government at all. All 88 counties in this state voted to reject all forms of Obamacare with the Health Care Freedom Amendment. Allowing a backdoor entry in to that dreaded program is not only unacceptable it is against our state's constitution.

But, if that is an argument that will sway a politician to vote NO, I'll take it for now.

The bottom line is this: Team Kasich is going to need every single Democrat vote in order to get this passed. What else will Team Kasich have to give Chris Redfern in order to make that happen?

The Medicaid expansion proposal should be removed from the budget and buried in whatever hole it originated never to be heard from again.

Shocker: Columbus Dispatch Gets that Debt Deal a Solution Only for Obama

From the Columbus Dispatch:

This resolution is a relief, but no one deserves much credit for the outcome, least of all the president of the United States. While Democratic and Republican members of Congress can at least claim to have been defending principles — Republicans taking a stand against runaway deficit spending, Democrats protecting programs for the elderly and poor — President Barack Obama was protecting only himself and his 2012 re-election prospects.

He was willing to push the nation to the brink of insolvency in order to get a debt-ceiling deal — virtually any debt-ceiling deal — that would ensure that this messy issue wouldn’t arise again until after the next presidential election. Mission accomplished. But it was hardly a display of leadership.

Exactly. This was all about improving Obama's reelection chances and taking this issue off the front burner, however briefly. Sadly, John Boehner and B**ch McConnell and the GOP went for it and helped Obama. Bad form! Bad form! Shocking, though, that the Dispatch takes this position in its editorial....GO read the whole thing....

Senator Jim DeMint on Debt Ceiling 'Deal'

From the ole email mailbag:

Fellow Conservatives:



The debt deal has been made and now Congress has adjourned for the August recess. I wish I could tell you that our principles prevailed, but they didn't and there's no honest way to put a happy face on the outcome.



The final agreement, which the President signed into law yesterday:

Raises the debt limit by as much as $2.4 trillion;
Allows the debt to continue to grow by $7 trillion over the next decade;
Creates a new, 12-member "super-committee" with the power to force major tax increases through Congress;
Threatens our AAA bond rating; and
Never balances the budget

Washington is addicted to spending and it's a bipartisan addiction. The debt deal passed the Senate with 74 votes -- 46 Democrats and 28 Republicans. You can see the full results at SenateConservatives.com.



Some of you are outraged. Many are discouraged. In fact, a number of you have emailed me asking what this means for our cause, where we go from here, and what we should do next.



I believe it confirms that many of our elected leaders in Washington are the problem, and the only effective strategy to solve it is to elect new senators who truly share our values and have the courage to fight for them.



You helped us do exactly this last year and I'm proud to report that all five of our 2010 winners voted against the debt agreement. These men stood shoulder-to-shoulder throughout this debate and fought for a balanced budget.



If you have time, please take a few minutes today to call their offices to thank them for their courage and to urge them to keep fighting. Taking a stand like they did can be isolating at times and it's critical they know patriots like you are standing with them.

Pat Toomey (R-PA) -- (202) 224-4254
Marco Rubio (R-FL) -- (202) 224-3041
Rand Paul (R-KY) -- (202) 224-4343
Mike Lee (R-UT) -- (202) 224-5444
Ron Johnson (R-WI) -- (202) 224-5323

I am also happy to report that both of the U.S. Senate candidates we have endorsed for 2012 -- Ohio State Treasurer Josh Mandel (R-OH) and former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz (R-TX) -- publicly opposed the debt deal.



Conservatives fought for the right policies throughout this debate and forced the President and the entire Washington establishment to respond to our arguments. Our opponents even felt compelled to parrot our message of less spending.



Our strategy of electing rock-solid leaders to the Senate is working. Now we need to expand it so the policies enacted in Washington actually match the rhetoric coming out of it.



The awful outcome of this debate is discouraging, but it makes me want to work harder than ever to elect more leaders who have the courage to balance the budget. We can bring real change to Washington but it means changing the people we send there.



I hope you will continue to be a part of our team and help us recruit more Americans who will help us take our country back.



Respectfully,



Jim DeMint

United States Senator

Herman Cain on Debt Ceiling Issue

From the Cain Campaign:

The American people are not so easily fooled. They have seen the president as a man who has clung to bitter partisanship instead of earnest cooperation and whose speechifying has replaced mature leadership. This failure to lead has further impaired the financial markets and, as one source put it, 'chipped away at the global authority of President Obama.'

Despite knowledge of this deadline for more than a year, the Obama Administration continued to blow taxpayer money like spending addicts, focusing their attention on Obamacare, bailouts and stimulus packages, all of which have not produced the type of results the American people need and deserve. Instead of cutting up the nation's credit card and supporting programs to stimulate private sector growth through encouraging production and trade and relaxing regulations, the President and his Democratic colleagues are simply asking for a credit line increase. And they wonder why we're broke?

While both parties can claim some political victory in this compromise, the American people got short-changed. The debt ceiling will be raised, opening the door for further debt ceiling and tax increases with no sign of treatment for the addiction to spending in Washington.

I would like to congratulate the concerned Americans who through their unified voice were able to prevent tax hikes from being passed, despite the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats' wishes. The consideration of a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution is also a step in the right direction to restoring fiscal sanity to government.

Unfortunately, as we have seen with the handling of the 'debt ceiling crisis,' America is on the wrong track with this leadership.

HealthCare Strangles Obama, Democrats and The Country Into Higher Taxes

There is no escaping this deficit crisis. This "deal" that BONER and B**ch McConnell allowed to happen does nothing. Even the NY Times says so, as does this article from the Washington Examiner:

One expects House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to write, as he does in today’s Wall Street Journal, “We are already seeing evidence that its maze of mandates, dictates, controls and tax hikes will actually push costs even further in the wrong direction.” And it is not that surprising to read National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson write, “If we can’t find a way to slow the rapid rise of health care costs, they will drive this country to bankruptcy.” But what is noteworthy is to see The New York Times admit, “Indeed, both the government and its debts will continue to grow faster than the American economy, primarily because the new [debt limt] law does not address federal spending on health care.”

Obamacare has completely trapped the Democrats on fiscal policy. In order to pay for Obamacare’s trillions of dollars in new spending, they had to raise taxes by $500 and raid Medicare by another $500 billion. As a result, all the low-hanging revenue and spending fruit are already gone. As even The Washington Post's Ezra Klein admits, the Democrats must now argue for higher taxes, and not just on the wealthy. In order to pay for all their entitlement programs, the middle class is going to have to pay more, too. But Ezra can admit this because he doesn’t have to win elections; Democrats in public offices do. That is the reason you haven’t seen a Democratic budget since Obamacare became law and it is the reason you will not see another one till at least 2013.

Yes, and thanks to BONER and McConnell, the can has been kicked. The issue has been given cover. And Obama's reelection just got easier. And if that happens, you won't see a budget until 2017. If there is still a government to budget funds for....

Re: Boehner and Debt Ceiling....etc.

Here is how I think many of us (except Matt) feel about Boehner and the so-called leadership of the Republican Party in Washington:







This "deal" has done nothing really substantive. All it has done is given Obama a large check (and today's speech shows he intends to use it) and the Dems cover. Spending and the debt is now off the table, thanks to Mr. BONER having less of a spine than I thought, guess he has more in common with Barry than just golf and smoking. Taxes ARE going to be raised, or the triggers in this travesty get turned on. Harry Reid said it, many people have said it. Yet BONER and B**** McConnell go out there trumpeting the triumph. The more I look at this "deal", the angrier I get. But I will not slander BONER as Mark Levin has done, accusing him of trying to influence redistricting to get Jim Jordan out. I won't do that. I will say this: Sir, you have shown yourself to be nothing more than a typical ruling class republican, thinking you can fool us with accounting tricks. For shame sir, we expected better. This will be remembered when you are up for House Speaker again, and we will let our Reps know you cannot be trusted.

Welcome to the Double Dip!

I am calling it right now...we are in a double dip recession. In fact, I don't think we ever left the one from 2008-09. Why is that? Check out this first headline:
Manufacturing growth hits lowest level ihttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifn 2 years:

Manufacturers had their weakest growth in two years in July, a sign that the economy could weaken this summer.The disappointing report on manufacturing is the first major reading on how the economy performed in July. It suggests the dismal economic growth in the first half of the year could extend into the July-September quarter.

"The ISM manufacturing report for July is a shocker and strongly suggests that the disappointing performance of the economy in the first half of the year was not just temporary," said Paul Dales, a senior U.S. economist for Capital Economics.

But wait, there is more...check this out--
10 Signs The Double-Dip Recession Has Begun: Many Americans Believe The 2008-2009 Recession Never Ended:

1. Inflation
There is almost nothing that damages consumer confidence as badly as a rapid rise in prices. Starbucks recently increased the price of a bag of coffee by 17 percent because wholesale prices have risen by almost twice that rate in the last year. Cotton prices nearly doubled in 2010 but have fallen this year. But, apparel is made months in advance of when they reach store shelves. Summer clothing prices are up as much as 20 percent. That may change in the fall, but for the time being, the consumer’s ability to buy even the most basic clothing has been undermined. Consumers today pay more for sugar, meat, and corn-based products as well.

2. Investments have begun to yield less
Part of the recovery was driven by the stock market surge which began when the DJIA bottomed below 7,000 in March 2009. The index has risen above 12,000 and the prices of many stocks have doubled from their lows. As result, American household nest eggs that were decimated by the collapse of the market have rebounded and enabled people to splurge on themselves. However, the market has stumbled in the last quarter. The DJIA is up only 1 percent during the last three months and the S&P 500 is down slightly.
3. The auto industry
The auto industry has staged an impressive comeback, although its profitability is based as much on the layoffs it has made over the last five years as generating new sales. GM and Chrysler have emerged from bankruptcy. Year-over-year monthly sales improved late last year and through April. May sales stalled. GM’s revenue dropped by 1 percent compared to May of 2010. Ford’s sales were down about as much. 4. Oil prices
Oil prices are supposed to drop as the economy slows as they did in 2008 and early 2009 when crude fell from over $140 to under $50. That drop at least allowed consumers and businesses like airlines to more easily afford fuel. Recently, crude has moved back above $100 and appears to be stuck there regardless of the economic situation. American budgets have been hurt by the rising cost of gas. Americans of more modest means have been particularly affected. A slowdown in driving usually also leads to a decline in the retail sector as consumers reduce unnecessary travel to stores. The impact on other businesses is just as great. Airlines suffer and so do firms which rely on petrochemicals. OPEC, for now, has signaled it will not increase production.

5. The federal budget
The federal budget deficit has decimated any chance for another economic stimulus package which many prominent economists like Nobel Prize-winner Paul Krugman say is essential to create a full recovery. His theory has become more of an issue as GDP growth slows to a rate of 2 percent. The first $787 billion Obama stimulus package may have saved some American jobs, but it is long over and did not work if a drop in unemployment and a sharp improvement in GDP were its primary goals. The deficit has caused a call for severe austerity measures which have already become part of the economics policies of countries from Greece to the U.K. to Japan. Job cuts in the U.S. will not be restricted to the federal level. A recent UBS Investment Research analysis predicted that state and local governments will cut 450,000 jobs this year and next. That process is already well underway. States like California and New York currently run massive deficits and the rates they must pay on bonds has risen accordingly. Newspaper headlines almost daily report on battles between state unions and governors over employment and benefits.

6. China economy slows
A slowdown in the Chinese economy is usually seen as a cause of global commodity price inflation, but the effects cut two ways. China’s appetite for energy and raw materials may fall. But, the demand for goods and services by its very large and growing middle class drops as well. Chinese purchaser manufacturing and export numbers have fallen as the central government has tightened the ability to borrow money. US exports to China are key to the health of many American businesses. John Frisbie, the president of The US-China Business Council, recently said, "Over the last decade we have seen exports to China rise from $16.2 billion to $91.9 billion — a 468 percent increase.” As that rate slows, it has a profound effect on tens of thousands of American companies and their employees. U.S. firms with large operations in China are also effected. GM is one of the two largest car firms in China along with VW. Large U.S. corporations like Wal-mart and Yum! Brands rely significantly on China to boost global sales. Without vibrant consumer spending in China, American companies will suffer.

7. Unemployment
Unemployment creates two immediate problems. People without jobs drastically curtail their spending, which will ultimately affect GDP growth. The second is the need for tens of billions of dollars every year in government aid to keep the unemployed from becoming destitute. That support has increased deficits and the domino effect is that cash-strapped governments need to make more spending cuts. It may be the biggest challenge the economy faces.

Unemployment has worsened because people over 65 to continue to work because the values of their homes — which they once counted on as the financial basis of their retirements — have dropped so sharply. Older Americans also fear that cuts in Medicare and perhaps Social Security are inevitable which increases the cost of their golden years. The jobs that older Americans have taken are often ones that younger Americans might have. People in their 20s must accept low wages to enter the workforce. This has delayed their prime consuming years well into their 30s which will damage GDP recovery now and for another decade.

The worst of the unemployment problem is the roughly 5 million Americans who have been unemployed for over a year. Their unemployment benefits have run out in many cases. The burden of their care falls to their families, friends, community organizations and non-profits. A family which has to support an unemployed person may be a family which cannot spend beyond its basic needs. To the extent that the federal or state governments can support the unemployed, the cost to run support programs increases.

8. Debt ceiling
The United States debt ceiling, currently at $14.294 trillion, will probably be raised before the government has to cut back essential services on Aug. 2. It might seem that the economic and employment effects of the debt cap are the same as the deficit, but they are actually more insidious and longer term. The first by-product of debt reduction, or at least a slowdown in its growth, is a combination of higher taxes and a lower level of government services. Higher taxes usually slow economic improvements, particularly when they are not coupled with stimulus measures.

A number of economists have pointed out the expense reduction alone will not sharply improve the United States balance sheet. The increase in Medicare and Social Securities costs, brought on by an aging population, are also likely to trigger a need for higher taxes. Tax increases could keep the economic growth of the US on hold for years. The taxation of companies decreases and often eliminates profits, particularly during an already troubled economic period. Profits which disappear usually cause cuts in purchasing and jobs. Taxes on wages and inheritance undermines consumer spending. And, a growth in national debt from already all-time highs will increase the borrowing costs of the U.S. That, in turn, drives up interest rates for everything from mortgages to credit cards.

9. Access To credit
The lack of access to credit has hurt the economic activity or both individuals and small businesses. Many very large companies can borrow money at rates as low as 2 percent because of their strong cash flows and balance sheets. Banks have been much less willing to loan money to companies with under 100 workers because these firms often rely on a few customers for revenue and usually have very little money on hand.

Early in June, the House Small Business Committee held hearings and among its findings were that concerns about risk and a slow economy has made financial institutions reluctant to lend to small businesses, the main driver of economic growth. Committee Chairman Sam Graves (R-Mo.) said Congress will need to “bridge the gap” between the two sides. There is no plan to accomplish that. Individual borrowers find themselves in a similar position. The cost of credit cards debt is still above 20 percent in many cases although the Federal Reserve loans money to large financial firms for interest rates close to zero.10. Housing
Housing is considered by many economists to be the single largest drag on the American economy, and the housing market has gotten much worse in the last two months. A report from The New York Federal Reserve published early this year said: “When home prices began to fall in 2007, owners’ equity in household real estate began to fall rapidly from almost $13.5 trillion in 1Q 2006 to a little under $5.3 trillion in 1Q 2009, a decline in total home equity of over 60 percent.”

Real estate research firm Zillow reported on more recent developments. “Negative equity in the first quarter reached new highs with 28.4 percent of all single-family homes with mortgages underwater, from 27 percent in Q4.” Many homeowners who want to sell their homes cannot do so because they cannot afford to pay their banks at closing. Whether for good or ill, the American home was the primary source for money used for retirements, college educations and the purchases of many expensive items such as cars.

So, thank you Mr. President. You have fundamentally changed America. You have made her have the worst recession since the Great Depression, and have brought back memories of a time we thought we had long passed. Congratulations, Mr. Obama!

Summarizing and Understanding the Budget Control Act 2011

Keith Hennessey has it covered for you here. This is the first of three http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifposts helping people to understand the debt deal. Check out all three.

Here are some excerpts:

Debt limit

The debt limit will be increased by $2.1 T no matter what Congress does.
The debt limit can be increased up to an additional $300 B depending on what Congress does on deficit reduction and a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA).
The debt limit increase will happen in three steps: $400 B immediately, then +$500 B, then the remainder after Congress tries to enact further deficit reduction and pass a BBA.
Assuming the economy doesn’t go into the tank, this should eliminate the risk of another cash flow crisis for about 18 months, into early 2013. (No, it was never a “default” crisis.)

Spending cuts, tax increases, and deficit reduction

Whether or not Congress successfully enacts another deficit reduction law in the fall, the total deficit reduction will exceed the debt limit increase available to the President. If Congress fails this fall, some of that deficit reduction will happen through automatically triggered spending cuts.
As soon as the Budget Control Act becomes law, discretionary spending (aka annual appropriations) will be cut and capped, with projected savings of $917 B over 10 years, more than the initial $900 B of debt limit increase allowed the President. This is measured relative to a traditional inflation baseline for discretionary spending, without using the “Iraq/Afghanistan war baseline gimmick.”
In addition to these immediately enacted spending cuts from the cut and spending caps, a complex process will lead to additional deficit reduction of $1.2 – $1.5 T (or in theory more) over the next 10 years. That additional deficit reduction will result either from a new law enacted by the end of 2011, or from automatically triggered spending cuts written into the Budget Control Act (or from a combination of the two). The last leg of the President’s debt limit increase is tied to this additional deficit reduction.
How that additional deficit reduction is achieved is uncertain:
The bill creates a new Joint Committee of 12 Members of Congress (6 R, 6 D), whose goal is to produce a bill that would reduce the deficit by $1.5 T over 10 years. If 7 or more Members of that Committee approve a bill by November 23rd, it is guaranteed a straight up-or-down vote in the House and Senate by December 23rd. No amendments and no Senate filibuster are allowed of this bill. It’s take-it-or-leave-it to everyone.
If this new Joint Committee legislative process fails to result in a law, then there will be no tax increases and there will be triggered $1.2 T of across-the-board spending cuts in discretionary spending, Medicare, farm subsidies, and a few smaller entitlements. These triggered spending cuts would hit defense more deeply than other types of spending.
The additional deficit reduction could include tax increases, but only if:
7 of 12 Members of a new Joint Committee of Congress agree to raise taxes, including at least one Republican Member of the Committee;
and a majority of the House and Senate vote for the Committee’s recommendations;
and the President signs the bill into law.
For more details on tax increases in the Joint Committee process, please see my other two posts today.

Assuming the language has been tightly drafted enough, this process should result in $1.2 T – $1.5 T of additional deficit reduction no matter what. There are four possible outcomes from this process to produce that deficit reduction:

across-the-board spending cuts automatically happen in defense and non-defense discretionary spending (deeper in defense), Medicare, farm and housing subsidies and a few smaller entitlements; or
a bill becomes law that cuts spending only, with the makeup of the spending cuts determined entirely by the new Joint Committee (and including any spending the Committee wants); or
a bill that cuts spending and raises taxes comes out of the Joint Committee and becomes law; or
some combination of (1) with (2) or (3).

Go check out his excellent work. It might help us make sense of things.

Debt Ceiling Omnibus of Stories Today...

I quite frankly don't know what to think about this whole debt ceiling thing. First, I don't like the deal, but I also don't like the way clowns like Erick Erikson have ginned up the Tea Party movement in such a way that they were expecting almost impossible results. So, here are some stories, and I may offer comment on each....

Bachmann: We Embrace Being Greece
Michelle is ticked about this, and is saying that the debt deal means we want to be Greece. Uh, no, Michelle. I disagree. I think we cannot think of this as so dire. Again, what this does is it buys us some short term time. Granted, it is not perfect, but I MUST REMIND YOU PEOPLE: we control 1/2 of 1/3 of the Government. As of right now, we have to embrace incrementalism.

Largest Debt Limit Increase....Again....From CNSnews:

In fact, according to records published by the Congressional Research Service, if the current bill is passed and the debt limit is increased by $2.4 trillion, the two largest debt-limit increases in U.S. history would come in back-to-back years, both during the presidency of Barack Obama.

Up until now, the largest increase in the debt limit was the $1.9 trillion increase passed by Congress and signed by President Obama on Feb. 12, 2010. That law increased the debt limit from $12.394 trillion to $14.294 trillion.

So, folks, this is the message. Obama and his 1/2 of 1/3 of the government, along with the current minority in the House have spent us to this point where we have to honor our commitments. However, this makes it all the more imperative to get a bigger majority in the House, take the Senate, and take the White House in 2012.

Debt Deal Costs 34 Billion a Page

The debt framework President Obama and congressional leaders reached Sunday night runs 74 pages long, and could authorize as much as $2.4 trillion in new debt — or $32.4 billion per page.

That debt increase will get the country through the 2012 election, both sides said, but it does not bring to an end the sea of red ink that will continue to wash over the federal government for the foreseeable future.

In the near term, the bill sets budget numbers for 2012 that would require a real cut of $7 billion in discretionary spending from 2011 levels, though that’s $25 billion less than projected spending would have been had it kept pace with inflation.

Over the long term, the deal could lead to as much as $2.4 trillion in lower-than-projected spending over the next decade, which also works out to about $32.4 billion per page in lower spending — if all of the conditions are met. But during those 10 years, that still means the country could pile up another $10.4 trillion in new debt, which would leave the government well more than $20 trillion in debt by the end of the decade.

The deal immediately imposes caps on discretionary spending for the next decade, including a total of $1.043 trillion in fiscal year 2012, which begins Oct. 1, rising to $1.047 trillion in 2013 and all the way to $1.234 trillion by 2021.

Yes, yes, I know, most of our spending is in entitlements. I get it. However, the American people are not educated enough on this issue. This is where the Tea Party and the GOP could come together. Instead of engaging in a circular firing squad, produce some media that informs people about real entitlement reform and how it doesn't have to send grandma eating dog food or kids naked in the streets. This could be a real point of alliance between the Tea party and GOP. However, right now, it cannot be touched as the libs have more power than we do. As long as they hold the Senate and the Presidency, we cannot effect those changes. And, I daresay, we cannot effect those changes until we educate the citizenry so that it is only the smallest minority of idiots that fall for the claims of Wasserman Shultz and others about entitlement reform.

Phantom Cuts?

The truth is that frightening rhetoric about default and full faith and credit of the United States is being carelessly thrown around to ram through a bigger budget than ever, in spite of stagnant revenues. If your family's income did not change year over year, would it be wise financial management to accelerate spending so you would feel richer? That is what our government is doing, with one side merely suggesting a different list of purchases than the other.

In reality, bringing our fiscal house into order is nothttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif that complicated or excruciatingly painful at all. If we simply kept spending at current levels, by their definition of "cuts" that would save nearly $400 billion in the next few years, versus the $25 billion the Budget Control Act claims to "cut". It would only take us 5 years to "cut" $1 trillion, in Washington math, just by holding the line on spending. That is hardly austere or catastrophic.In Washington terms, a simple freeze in spending would be a much bigger "cut" than any plan being discussed. If politicians simply cannot bear to implement actual cuts to actual spending, just freezing the budget would give the economy the best chance to catch its breath, recover and grow.

That was Ron Paul. If he wasn't such a whackjob on everything else, maybe someone would listen to him.

White House Trumpets Deal, Makes Obama Look Like Great Compromiser (yuck!)

Bipartisan Debt Deal: A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline

Removes the cloud of uncertainty over our economy at this critical time, by ensuring that no one will be able to use the threat of the nation’s first default now, or in only a few months, for political gain;
Locks in a down payment on significant deficit reduction, with savings from both domestic and Pentagon spending, and is designed to protect crucial investments like aid for college students;
Establishes a bipartisan process to seek a balanced approach to larger deficit reduction through entitlement and tax reform;
Deploys an enforcement mechanism that gives all sides an incentive to reach bipartisan compromise on historic deficit reduction, while protecting Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries and low-income programs;
Stays true to the President’s commitment to shared sacrifice by preventing the middle class, seniors and those who are most vulnerable from shouldering the burden of deficit reduction. The President did not agree to any entitlement reforms outside of the context of a bipartisan committee process where tax reform will be on the table and the President will insist on shared sacrifice from the most well-off and those with the most indefensible tax breaks.

Mechanics of the Debt Deal

Immediately enacted 10-year discretionary spending caps generating nearly $1 trillion in deficit reduction; balanced between defense and non-defense spending.
President authorized to increase the debt limit by at least $2.1 trillion, eliminating the need for further increases until 2013.
Bipartisan committee process tasked with identifying an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, including from entitlement and tax reform. Committee is required to report legislation by November 23, 2011, which receives fast-track protections. Congress is required to vote on Committee recommendations by December 23, 2011.
Enforcement mechanism established to force all parties – Republican and Democrat – to agree to balanced deficit reduction. If Committee fails, enforcement mechanism will trigger spending reductions beginning in 2013 – split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. Enforcement protects Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries, and low-income programs from any cuts.

OK, see, this is the problem. We are not talking about cutting SS or medicare. Neither was Paul Ryan. The only person who has cut medicare recently has been....Barack Obama. You can look it up. See, this is where the TP and GOP need to embark on massive education of the populace. Until more people see we have to split this "third rail" of politics, we are never going to get spending under control.

Obama Campaign Site Says Debate is Over...

Here is the problem with this deal and the manner in which it was done and reported. It makes the White House look like they did something. The reality is that this deal was in the works without Mr. Obama getting involved, and only got done because he wasn't as closely involved. This is what I don't like--it increases the chance Obama will get reelected. Because, the GOP has essentially said, "we like mroe debt" or at least that is how media will spin it. Until the GOP can actually do things with a good message behind it (this has been its problem ages, going back to Reagan) as well as PR, then it won't get done.

Mike Lee Threatens Filibuster!
Will this be anything more than a fruitless exercise? I mean, won't the Dems and Repubs come together and make things look even more cozy? Doe Lee want that portrayal to be given to the GOP?

Obama Holds Tax Card--Taxes Could Go up 800B

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House has one important tool in its arsenal to influence congressional talks over further deficit reduction measures in the coming months: the expiry of Bush-era tax cuts at the end of 2012.

After PresidentBarack Obama presented the outlines of a deficit-cutting deal on Sunday, White House officials stressed that he would veto any attempt to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans beyond next year unless other measures to reform the U.S. tax code were agreed.

That threat, which Obama has issued repeatedly since reluctantly agreeing to extend the cuts last year, is meant to mollify critics within his own Democratic party who are disappointed that measures to increase government revenues were not part of the deal reached on Sunday.

The agreement, which must still be approved by lawmakers, would cut about $2.4 trillion from the U.S. deficit over 10 years, with a congressional committee set up to find $1.5 trillion in cuts through tax reform and other deficit-reduction measures.

However, that flies in the face of what Boehner has told us that:

Boehner assures House GOP that debt deal is 'all spending cuts'

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) began selling his conference on the deal struck late Sunday during a call and slideshow presentation, assuring them "there's nothing in this framework that violates our principles."

In the presentation, which was provided by the Speaker's office, Boehner noted the framework has three main features: cutting government spending more than it increases the debt limit, implementing spending caps to restrain future spending and advancing the cause of a balanced-budget amendment.
"Now listen, this isn’t the greatest deal in the world," Boehner told his members, according to excepts provided by an aide. "But it shows how much we’ve changed the terms of the debate in this town.”

President Obama announced Sunday evening a deal had been reached. Minutes before the president made a statement to the press, Boehner called his conference to present the plan.

“There is nothing in this framework that violates our principles," he said. "It’s all spending cuts. The White House bid to raise taxes has been shut down. And as I vowed back in May – when everyone thought I was crazy for saying it – every dollar of debt limit increase will be matched by more than a dollar of spending cuts. And in doing this, we’ve stopping a job-killing national default that none of us wanted.”

I like John Boehner, I do. But he is wrong in this case. Taxes are still on the table. This commission can decide to raise taxes. Also, some of this stuff just doesn't add up. And to top all that off:

No real cuts until 2014:

The first phase of a deal to raise the government's borrowing limit would pose little threat to the economy in the short term because almost none of the spending cuts would occur before 2014.

Discretionary spending, which excludes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, would be cut by $21 billion in 2012 and $42 billion in 2013, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. That's a small fraction of the nation's $14 trillion economy.

"The immediate economic impact of the ... deal should be relatively minor," Brian Gardner, an analyst at Keefe, Bruyette and Woods, said in a research note. "As is usually the case, most of the cuts" have been put off for several years.

The first phase of cuts would reduce spending by $917 billion over 10 years. A congressional committee would decide on a second phase of cuts totaling $1.5 trillion.

Sounds like more can kicking to me. That is not good. However, if we are making some headway, it is not horrible. But, this deal may not help that much beyond philosophy:
Debt deal offers only small blessings for economy

"This will have minimal impact on the economy. The cuts are not there for the first couple of years, which really makes you wonder if they're really going to happen at all," said Peter Morici, an economics professor at the University of Maryland.

That is the problem with these deals and cutting over so long...they are not binding.

But, the media are all saying this is a BIG WIN (TM) FOR CONSERVATIVES! Makes some think:
I have the uneasy feeling that I’m hearing sales pressure. What a fabulous deal for you! Sign here!”

That's not to say lying and spinning become a thing of the past after the deal is closed. It just changes. Before, the effort is to get people to sign on. Those who most want the deal have a motivation to act like it's a big victory for whoever is most resistant — in this case, the Tea Party. Afterwards, everyone tries to find a way to gain — either by claiming they really extracted a lot out of the other side and/or by blaming anything that seems bad now on the terrible concessions their stupid/evil opponents insisted on.

This morning, reading these editorials, I suspect that the mainstream media think the Tea Party members of Congress are crazy — they're out there on the ledge. The idea is to talk them in.

Interesting point there. But maybe one good thing about this is:
Durbin Says Debt Deal Kills Keynesian Economics

The Republicans are killing Keynesian economics with their attempt to cut spending as the economy rebounds from a recession, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said in a floor speech on Sunday.

"I would say ... that symbolically, that agreement is moving us to the point where we are having the final interment of John Maynard Keynes," he said, referring to the British economist. "He nominally died in 1946 but it appears we are going to put him to his final rest with this agreement."

That would be worth even this crap sandwich. Plus, all those tears from liberals I am seeing. However, this is not the end, folks....this is but a tactical manuever in a larger battle. We have to think this is just the beginning. If we get caught in the 'dora downer' attitude of thinking this was our chance and blew it, then we can kiss 2012 goodbye along with our country. We have to lick our wounds, figure out what went right and what went wrong, and go and educate the populace for an electoral awakening resulting in the defeat of statism and Barry Obama!

5:38pm Update

Check out this site for Boehner's power point presentation embedded in scribd. It may be educational as well. Also check out the post.

Boehner on Senate Killing the House Debt Plan

Release:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) released the following statement today responding to Senate Democrats’ rejection of House-passed “Cut, Cap, and Balance” legislation:

 

          “Senate Democrats have defied the will of the American people who overwhelmingly support real spending cuts, caps on future spending, and a balanced budget to create a better environment for private-sector job growth. Republicans are standing with the American people and, as I’ve said before, will not pass a bill that fails to cut spending by more than it increases the debt limit, restrain future spending, or that raises taxes on families and job creators. To help avoid a default, I urge the Senate to rethink their decision and immediately approve the responsible, balanced, House-passed ‘Cut, Cap, & Balance’ proposal.”

 

          NOTE: A recent CNN survey showed that two-thirds of the American people support a plan that “would raise the debt ceiling only if a balanced budget amendment were passed by both houses of Congress and substantial spending cuts and caps on future spending were approved.”

Debt Crisis: Will the Contessa Ask Obama This Question?

The gall of the media. Contessa Brewer showed she must have earned an F in research or actual journalism when she decided to try to embarrass a Republican Congressman. From RCP:

Today, Contessa "educated" a conservative Representative that without the bailout, the country would be in "a depression." Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) said he disagreed which prompted the MSNBC host to ask him if he had a degree in economics.

"Yes ma'am, I do. Highest honors," Rep. Brooks responded.

According to his Congressional page: "Mo graduated from Duke University in three years with a double major in political science and economics, with highest honors in economics. In 1978, he graduated from the University of Alabama Law School."

However, she did earn an A in Gettin' Egg on Yer Face:

Paul Ryan Nails it .....Again

See the video at RCP:

"Here's the problem we have right now, Mr. Speaker. We have a leadership deficit. I keep hearing about the President's got a plan. The President's offering balance. The President hasn't offered a thing yet. Nothing on paper. Nothing in public. Leading on reporters at press conferences is not leadership. Giving speeches according to the CBO is not budgeting.

"The President did inherit a tough problem. No two ways about it. What did he do with this problem? He drove us deeper into debt. $1 trillion of borrowed money for a stimulus that was promised to keep unemployment below 8% and went up to 10% and now it's at 9.2%. A stalled economy. A budget the President gave us that doubles the debt in five years and triples it in 10 years. That's not leadership," Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said on the House floor.

Give Me Poverty In America Over Anywhere Else

The liberals make a lot of hay about the poor in this country. And while it is the duty of charitable groups in society to help the poor, the lies and misstatements regarding conditions of the poor in this country are finally being refuted. From National Review:

When Americans think of poverty, we tend to picture people who can’t adequately shelter, clothe, and feed themselves or their families.

When the Census Bureau defines “poverty,” though, it winds up painting more than 40 million Americans — one in seven — as “poor.”

Census officials continue to grossly exaggerate the numbers of the poor, creating a false picture in the public mind of widespread material deprivation, writes Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Robert Rector in a new paper.

“Most news stories on poverty feature homeless families, people living in crumbling shacks, or lines of the downtrodden eating in soup kitchens,” Rector says. “The actual living conditions of America’s poor are far different from these images.”

Politicians use these crafted images, which are sad, to try to create class warfare and further divide us into voting blocs. Also, it is an effort to get more people addicted to the drug of entitlements and welfare. The article continues:

Data from the Department of Energy and other agencies show that the average poor family, as defined by Census officials:

● Lives in a home that is in good repair, not crowded, and equipped with air conditioning, clothes washer and dryer, and cable or satellite TV service.

● Prepares meals in a kitchen with a refrigerator, coffee maker and microwave as well as oven and stove.

● Enjoys two color TVs, a DVD player, VCR and — if children are there — an Xbox, PlayStation, or other video game system.

● Had enough money in the past year to meet essential needs, including adequate food and medical care.

Rather than report such detailed surveys, Rector and co-author Rachel Sheffield write, the media “amplified” the Census Bureau’s annual misrepresentation of poverty over the past 40 years. News reports routinely suggest that poor Americans typically are homeless and hungry — and U.S. foes and rivals such as Iran, China, and Russia are delighted to report the same.

So, maybe some of those entitlement programs do need reformed whereby we can have some savings.

I know this, I would rather be in one of the so-called "Two Americas" than anywhere else. For more info, check out the full paper here.

Debt Ceiling Details: Clinton Would be a Dictator, Which is exactly What McConnell Plan Provides For

Just when you thought things couldn't get crazier, Bill Clinton wades into the debt ceiling debate. He says he would just say fiddlesticks to that ol' Constitution thing and take the power of the purse strings from Congress. He would raise the debt ceiling by 'hisself':

Former President Bill Clinton said he would raise the nation's legal borrowing limit on his own if he had to and "force the courts to stop me" in order to prevent the United States from defaulting on its debt obligations for the first time in history.

Clinton said he thinks President Obama and Republicans on Capitol Hill are going to cut a deal before August 2, "and that's smart."

But "if it came to that," he would raise the debt ceiling using powers granted under the 14th amendment of the Constitution. The amendment says that the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned.

Never mind that the 14th Amendment nor the often cited Perry v. US say anything about the President taking the power of the debt limit, even though liberals will argue til they are blue in the face that it does:

Section four of the Fourteenth Amendment provides, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” It also declares “illegal and void” “any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave.”

This clause simply means that Congress and the President cannot question the validity of debt that is already incurred, but it in no way requires the nation to incur more debt. Even if it precludes temporary default—which is far from clear—it could not authorize the President to incur additional debt.

The Fourteenth Amendment was among those proposed and ratified during Reconstruction, and section four was its least-debated provision. During the Civil War, the Union had taken on massive debt to fund the war effort and had promised pensions to wounded soldiers and soldiers’ widows and orphans. The Confederate states had done about the same. Members of the 39th Congress, which excluded representatives of the Confederate states, feared that a future Congress dominated by Southern Democrats would wipe out Union debt and possibly seek to have the federal government guarantee the Confederate debt—an appalling possibility that would reward those who had financed an insurrection and risk political disruption for years to come.[1]

Their solution was to amend the Constitution to declare Confederate debt unenforceable while barring subsequent Congresses from “question[ing]” “the public debt of the United States.” This formulation was somewhat narrower than that of earlier proposals, which stated that federal “obligations”—potentially a more expansive category than debts—would be “inviolable.”[2] But it was also broader than the specific question at hand: the vitality of Civil War debts. This was deliberate. Senator Benjamin Wade, a proponent of the amendment, set forth the rationale:

I believe that to do this will give great confidence to capitalists and will be of incalculable pecuniary benefit to the United States, for I have no doubt that every man who has property in the public funds will feel safer when he sees that the national debt is withdrawn from the power of a Congress to repudiate it and placed under the guardianship of the Constitution….[3]

The Supreme Court’s sole opportunity to interpret and apply section four was in a 1935 case, Perry v. United States, which challenged Congress’s attempt to pay off bonds subject to a gold clause in devalued legal tender. The Court stated:

In authorizing the Congress to borrow money, the Constitution empowers the Congress to fix the amount to be borrowed and the terms of payment. By virtue of the power to borrow money “on the credit of the United States,” the Congress is authorized to pledge that credit as an assurance of payment as stipulated, as the highest assurance the government can give, its plighted faith. To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise…. This Court has given no sanction to such a conception of the obligations of our government.[4]

This principle, said the Court, “applies [] to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress.”[5]

Constitutionality of the Statutory Debt Limit

Article I of the Constitution vests the power in Congress “to borrow money on the credit of the United States” and the power “to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” From 1789–1917, Congress authorized nearly all federal debt directly by approving specific loans or issuances of debt instruments to finance specific projects or activities. That changed with the nation’s entry into World War I, which immediately strained the federal budget and led Congress to take a different approach: authorizing the Treasury to issue debt of varying terms in response to market conditions and need while capping aggregate debt.[6] This is, in its essential features, the system in place today.

In this way, the federal government could incur debt at a lower cost without Congress abdicating its constitutionally assigned power and responsibility to authorize and oversee the amount. The debt limit also serves to force Congress “to consider the interests of the general public and future generations…to step back and consider the consequences of its deficit-spending decisions.”[7]

The Constitution vests exclusive power in Congress to raise revenue to fund the government’s obligations, whether by taxes or loans.[8] Congress could not entirely delegate that power to the President, even if it wanted to do so.

Thus, not only is the debt limit consistent with the Constitution’s separation of powers, but there is a colorable argument that it, or something like it, is constitutionally mandated.

An Unconstitutional Usurpation

The Constitution vests in Congress, and withholds from the Executive, the power to commit to spending, to raise revenue by enacting taxes, and to incur public debt. The Fourteenth Amendment does not alter this. Congressional control of borrowing, through the debt limit, and section four of the amendment are in unison, not tension.

First, debt limits do not repudiate existing debt. To “question” “the validity” of a debt is to cast doubt on the obligation itself, not other factors involving repayment. This is true as a matter of common law as well. Insolvency, in itself, does not impugn the validity of a debt, but only the debtor’s present ability to pay. Under federal bankruptcy law, repudiation occurs only with discharge of the bankruptcy petition—the “clean start” that bankruptcy promises. Indeed, a debtor may “affirm” a debt and commit to paying it despite a bankruptcy discharge; in that case, even where payments have lapsed for a time, the debt’s validity has never been questioned.

Second, the Fourteenth Amendment has no bearing at all on most federal spending, because most federal spending is not in service of a debt obligation and is not necessary to pay back existing debt. The Supreme Court has held specifically that Congress can alter government promises, as opposed to vested rights, at any time.[9] It has also held that even “entitlement” programs such as Social Security do not establish property or other rights that the government is constitutionally obliged to observe.[10] While the federal government is obliged to make good on its debts and contractual obligations that it has already incurred, it is not constitutionally committed to carry out other spending.

Even if additional borrowing were curtailed, the government’s revenues are more than sufficient to satisfy current debt payments and avoid a default. At present, debt repayment comprises only a small proportion of total federal spending. Less than 10 percent of total federal spending in the President’s 2012 budget would go to satisfying net interest on the national debt, and some additional percentage would go to satisfying other accrued debts.[11] Looked at another way, deficit spending constitutes about 43 cents of every dollar of federal spending. Thus, even with no deal to raise the debt ceiling, 57 cents of spending on the dollar could continue unimpeded—including all debt payments.[12]

Third, the Fourteenth Amendment does not specify any particular manner by which the obligation to honor the nation’s debt may be met. Congress may, for example, raise taxes, cut spending, or redirect funds to satisfy “public debt.” There is no constitutional requirement that it borrow. So if the President had the unilateral power to issue debt, why would he not also possess the power to raise taxes unilaterally or to sell off government assets?

The answer, as with borrowing, is that these powers are vested in Congress, not the President. No one seriously contends that the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to place the taxing or selling powers in the President’s hands, which would be a fundamental reorganization of the branches of government and demolish essential checks and balances. So it is with the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States.

Therefore, friends, Bubba's argument is unsound, and so is the McConnell plan. We would be ceding to Obama basically unilateral power when it comes to borrowing and debt and spending. That would make him, in essence, an unchecked dictator. He has already usurped many powers and gotten around the checks and balances system through executive agencies. Do not let this power be vested in him, either.

Speaker Boehner Statement on Veto Threat of Cut, Cap, & Balance Legislation

Release:

WASHINGTON, DC – House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement today after the Administration announced that the President would veto H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011. The House is expected to vote on this legislation tomorrow.

“It’s disappointing the White House would reject this common-sense plan to rein in the debt and deficits that are hurting job creation in America. While American families have to set priorities and balance their books, this White House obviously isn’t serious about making the same tough choices. While the House is once again acting responsibly, the Administration still won’t say what cuts it’s willing to make to end Washington’s spending binge and the economic uncertainty it’s creating. This unfortunate veto threat should make clear that the issue is not congressional inaction, but rather the President’s unwillingness to cut spending and restrain the future growth of our government. If we are going to raise the debt limit and avoid default, the White House must be willing to demonstrate more courage than we have seen to date. The House will proceed as planned with its vote on the Cut, Cap and Balance Act.”

Obama Holds Seniors and Dependents Hostage

President Obama is not only a liar, he is also a dedicated manipulator who plays on class, age, and race warfare. His latest: scaring seniors and dependents AGAIN regarding social security. This time, he is saying that debt deal that RAISES YOUR TAXES AND TAKES MORE MONEY OUT OF YOUR POCKET is not passed and the GOP House roll over and play dead, then maybe grandma won't get her ssi check. This is patently false. Here is the text and there is a video of the President saying this lie:

President Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3 if Democrats and Republicans in Washington do not reach an agreement on reducing the deficit in the coming weeks.

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.

Lots of people are refuting Obama's lie and threat:
Rush Limbaugh
Human Events

Pathetic. This is what it has come to. He truly is a thug in chief. Here is what he is doing:

If the Geithner Wants Out....

...then I say don't let the door hit you on the way out. The latest headline at Drudge says that Geithner wants to leave his position as Treasury Secretary:

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has signaled to White House officials that he’s considering leaving the administration after President Barack Obama reaches an agreement with Congress to raise the federal debt limit, according to three people familiar with the matter.

Geithner hasn’t made a final decision and won’t do so until the debt-ceiling issue has been resolved, according to one of the people. All spoke on condition of anonymity to talk about private discussions.

Why wait, I say.

That would leave Obama with two key posts to fill as Republicans are seeking to turn the 2012 election into a referendum on Obama’s handling of the economy and as the recovery is slowing. The unemployment rate rose to 9.1 percent in May, according to the Labor Department, and the economy grew at a 1.9 percent pace in the first quarter, according to Commerce Department figures released June 24.

Just as his fearless leader has led us astray, Tax Cheat Tim has done little to right the ship of the US Economy. In fact, Geithner oversaw the largest debt increase in US History:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner oversaw the largest increase in the national debt of any Treasury secretary in American history, presiding over a $3.7 trillion increase in the debt.

According to data from the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Public Debt, the national debt has increased $3,723,575,990,130.10 from Jan. 26, 2009 until June 30, 2011, Geithner’s entire tenure to date as Treasury secretary.

When Geithner took office the total national debt stood at $10.6 trillion. As of June 30, 2011, it had risen to $14.3 trillion.

In fact, the debt accrued under Geithner is greater than all federal debt accrued in the first 204 years of the nation’s history. The national debt did not reach $3.7 trillion until October 1991, according to historical Treasury data that reaches back to 1791.

Geithner, who reportedly may step down from his position soon, has overseen the accrual of more federal debt (in only 2.5 years) than every Treasury secretary combined from Alexander Hamilton to Nicholas Brady, who was Treasury secretary in October 1991 when the national debt reached $3.7 trillion.

Since then, the federal debt has increased by historically large amounts under each Treasury secretary since Brady but not to the level it is today under Geithner.

150 Economists (and most people with Common Sense) Say no Debt Limit Increase without Spending Cuts

150 Economists agree with Speaker of the House John Boehner and House Republicans when it comes to raising the debt limit. Democrats just want to spend spend spend. However, this cannot last. Here is the skinny:

Last night, the House stood with the American people and rejected the Obama Administration’s plan to raise the debt limit without spending cuts – a plan that would hurt our economy and destroy more jobs. Today Speaker Boehner released a statement signed by more than 150 economists who argue that – to help address our job-crushing, spending-driven debt crisis – budget reforms and spending cuts should be larger than any increase in the debt limit

Here is the gist of the statement:

A DEBT LIMIT INCREASE WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT SPENDING CUTS & BUDGET REFORMS WILL DESTROY AMERICAN JOBS
An increase in the national debt limit that is not accompanied by significant spending cuts and budget reforms to address our government’s spending addiction will harm private-sector job creation in America. It is criticalhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif that any debt limit legislation enacted by Congress include spending cuts and reforms that are greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority being granted to the president. We will not succeed in balancing the federal budget and overcoming the challenges of our debt until we succeed in committing ourselves to government policies that allow our economy to grow. An increase in the national debt limit that is not accompanied by significant spending cuts and budget reforms would harm private-sector job growth and represent a tremendous setback in the effort to deal with our national debt.

Check out the full text and signatories here.

More and more people are realizing just how disastrous the Obama-Pelosi-Reid economy and fiscal policy are. We cannot sustain this craziness. We have to make some hard decisions...and fast.

What Your Kids are Doing and Learning in College

Here is the hope and change Obama was looking for. Irresponsible little college punks who don't have any responsiblity or sense of pride or sense of ownership of society or to their fellow man. Disgusting jerks. Check out this video over at theblaze.com. Here is some commentary from the site:

If college students are opposed to the Republican plan to cut spending to reduce the national debt, might they be willing to reduce the deficit by paying their share of the national debt?

Would those college students sign a pledge vowing to pay their approximate $47,000 share? The answer?

Well, there was this: “I don’t contribute to the national debt.”

This: “I don’t have any debt.”

And this: “It’s not my debt.”

We’ll take that as a “no.” But those curious responses beg the question: Have these college students ever taken an economics class? “It’s not my debt.” Really?

But the real gems come in the second half of the video, when the students offer their suggestions on how to get rid of the national debt. You know, like “abolish the government” and “Fu** the military.”

OK, the geniuses at UC Berkeley who are part of the Democrats of UC Berkeley think we are the least taxed nation in the world????? WTF???? Where are they getting this? Ridiculous. And, these bonus babies, most of whom live off momma and poppa's teat and are either getting loads of student aid or are rich kids, say they don't want to pay the debt but we should tax the rich? Huh?
And this is supposedly a temple of reason and higher education......NOT!

Rep Latta Opposes National Debt Limit Hike --- Again

Statement:

WASHINGTON- Congressman Bob Latta (R-Bowling Green) made the following statement after voting against H. J. Res. 45, a bill that would increase the United States’ national debt limit to $14.29 trillion dollars. Congressman Latta also voted against a national debt limit hike on December 16, 2009, less than two months ago.

“This is the fifth debt limit increase under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and this Democrat controlled Congress, who continue to lay more debt at the feet of our future generations. Aside from the staggering dollar figure of over $14 trillion dollars, this vote highlights the underlying problem in Washington of a continued tax and spend policy from the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrat leadership. Just this week, President Obama submitted a budget proposal that will increase our national debt to $25.77 trillion dollars by 2020. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has stated that by 2020, at the current spending levels, taxpayers in the United States will pay $2 billion per day in interest payments alone.

In addition to this year’s budget proposal, the President continues to send legislation to Congress with trillion-dollar price tags – including the already passed ‘stimulus’ package, health care ‘reform,’ the largest ever national energy tax, cap and trade, and billions more in bailouts. These fiscally irresponsible practices must be stopped immediately.”

As of today, the current national debt stands at $12,357,792,719,324.2, leaving every American citizen responsible for $40,151.42.