Monthly Archives: July 2011

Are Republicans the Party of ‘No” or Are Democrats the Party of “No-Can-Do”

Bookmark and Share   As many, or depending on how one looks at it, as few as 25 Republicans are refusing to support Speaker’s John Boehner’s deficit reduction plan. A late scheduled vote on the plan on Thursday was pulled after it became clear to the House Republican leadership that they did not have the 217 votes needed to pass the Boehner plan and it is not yet known when or if the vote will take place on Friday. This leaves the Senate and House with approximately only three days to cut a deal that would allow the federal government to raise the debt ceiling before it has the potential of defaulting on its current debt on Tuesday, August 2nd.

But on Thursday, financial institutions reported that based upon all of the deficit reduction plans that are being considered, no matter which one is passed, the markets are likely to downgrade the United States’ credit rating because none of the plans reduce the national debt sufficiently enough to sustain its current AAA rating. This fact has only helped to reinforce the position of the 25 or so House Republicans who have taken the position that they can support any of the plans out there, because they do not go far enough in cutting spending.

Given the new data, these approximately two dozen Republicans are right. If President Obama and Democrats are to be believed, we were going to default on our debt by August 2nd, if we did not raise the debt ceiling. Aside from bogus Democrat attempts to scare senior citizens by claiming that they would then not receive their Social Security checks, the main argument for the need to raise the debt ceiling was that a failure to do so would force a downgrade of our credit rating. This would produce a significant increase on interest that all Americans would have to pay. But now that it is clear that neither Boehner’s or the Democrat’s plans would cut spending enough to avoid a downgrade of our credit rating, it only makes sense to do what is necessary to avoid that form happening. As such, the position held by the Republican who are holding out for more spending cuts and a more significant deficit reduction plan, are right to oppose the existing plans.

With the facts as they are, to do anything other than come up with a bill which that significantly and quickly cuts our deficit and debt, would be meaningless. If the G.O.P. led House does now pass the Boehner plan, the only possible reason for it would be an obvious desire to avoid the political fallout from leftwing rhetoric designed to make the Republican Party look like the Party of “no” and as obstructionists unwilling to compromise. But the question is what are the compromises choices? Pass a hike in the debt ceiling by August and see our credit rating downgraded because our current debt obligations and future debt is unmanageable? Or default on our debt by not raising the debt ceiling and still see our our credit rating downgraded because our current debt obligations and future debt is unmanageable?

 That is not a compromise. It is insanity as described by Albert Einstein it is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. .

The only sincere political move here would be to hammer out a bill that cuts costs and reduces spending. Part of those spending reductions must include true entitlement reform. Entitlements are the largest portion of the existing and future debt. They are the elephant in the room and to ignore them or pretend that it is not there is not just stupid, it is lethal to our economy.

As for Speaker Boehner, I appreciate the direction he has been going in. His leadership has been pushing for less spending and more cuts. However, as we can see, he was not pushing for enough cuts in spending. Under pressure from President Obama and the Democrat led Senate, he has been encouraged to compromise. In his unique position, Boehner has tried to accommodate both his conservative caucus and the liberal President and Senate. But it is clear that in this case, compromise will not save our economy or our economic future. So speaker Boehner must ask himself this. Will he act on this issue as a politician or as a leader?

Currently the following 25 members are said to be voting Nay on Boehner’s bill.

Todd Akin (Mo.)
Justin Amash (Mich.)
Michele Bachmann (Minn.)
Paul Broun (Ga.)
Jason Chaffetz (Utah)
Jeff Duncan (S.C.)
Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
*Scott Garrett (N.J.) -as 0f 10:30 am, Rep. Garrett’s office tells POLITICS 24/7 that he has not announced his position
Phil Gingrey (Ga.)
Louie Gohmert (Texas)
Trey Gowdy (S.C.)
Tom Graves (Ga.)
Andy Harris (Md.)
Tim Huelskamp
Jim Jordan (Ohio)
Steve King (Iowa)
Raúl Labrador (Idaho)
Connie Mack (Fla.)
Mick Mulvaney (S.C.)
Ron Paul (Texas)
Dennis Ross (Fla.)
Tim Scott (S.C.)
Steve Southerland (Fla.)
Joe Walsh (Ill.)
Joe Wilson (S.C.)

These men and women understand that passing the Boehner plan would be nothing more than a purely political vote and they would rather lead than play politics. Hopefully, these 25 members can influence Speaker Boehner in a way that will force him to do the same.

In 2010, voters clearly and loudly called for leadership, not compromise. Much of the electorate is tired of political compromises that benefit the political careers of the political players but do great harm to the long term health of our nation. The 25 members holding out for more cuts understand this. They are also making this moment in time a pivotal one for the career of John Boehner.

Boehner promised to be a different kind of Speaker of the House. He promised those who put the G.O.P. in control of the House that he would not cave in to politics-as-usual, would not forget the need for fiscal responsibility, and would uphold a commitment to accountability. Now is his chance to prove that he was not lying. Now is the time for a political leader who will stop playing games and get the job done. Right now, that job is to come up with a plan that significantly reduces our debt and does not just move numbers around. John Boehner must be brave and willing to turn the tables around on the Democrats who live in a world of perpetual taxing and spending. Instead of being on the defensive and afraid that Democrats will paint Republicans as the Party of “no”, Boehner must be brave and demonstrate how Democrats are being the Party of “no can do”, the Party that can’t propose a budget, the Party that can’t cut spending, can’t avoid a downgrading of our credit rating, can’t stimulate our economy or create jobs, and that can’t reform the entitlement programs that will go broke if they are not reformed.

What it comes down to is who is the Party of “no-can-do”, and who is the Party that is willing to say no to the right things? John Boehner can make the answer to that question clear to the American people, but only if he is willing to side with those who are more concerned with solutions than they are with political perceptions.

Bookmark and Share

1 Comment

Filed under politics

Governor Chris Christie Hospitalized

Bookmark and Share New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, the man that many national polls show Republicans wish could be their presidential nominee was rushed to Somerset Medical Center by his security detail early on Thursday. While in route to a bill signing ceremony regarding open space legislation, the Governor experienced difficulty breathing. Early reports indicated that the detour to the hospital was simply an intentional “abundance of caution”.

Early reports from Governor Christie’s spokesman Michael Drewniak suggest that all indications are that “the governor will be OK.” Christie’s deputy chief of staff, Maria Comella, told The Associated Press that the Governor is “fine and in charge.”

Meanwhile Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno is reportedly in his office and Christie’s wife, Mary Pat, is at her husbands side in the hospital . So far everything on Christie’s schedule for Thursday has been cancelled. This includes his monthly appearance on NJ 101.5 for the “Ask the Governor Show”

Christie, who is 48, overweight, and suffers from asthma for which he uses an inhaler, is said to be undergoing a breathing examination, along with an EKG to rule out heart problems, as well as blood tests and chest X-rays to look for pneumonia or other infections. There is no word yet on any changes to his Friday schedule.

The Governor, who has been in office for only 18 months, has taken Republican circles by storm with his frank talk and bold leadership on spending cuts, entitlement reforms, and an unusually courageous approach to unions which have historically run the show in New Jersey. While Christie has repeatedly declared that he is not ready to run for the White House, Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney recently went public with his desire to seriously consider Christie as a running mate in 2012.

As for the rest of the Republican presidential field, there has not yet been any reaction to the news of the Governor’s hospitalization, but Texas Governor Rick Perry, a potential candidate for President did offer the following tweet in his Twitter feed:

Our prayers are with Governor Christie.”

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Who’s Really Trying to Keep Their Promises to the Voters in the Debt Ceiling debate?

Bookmark and Share“Boehner Plan is not a perfect bill. However, the fact Pelosi, Reid and Obama hate it doggone makes it perfect enough- where is their plan?”

That was Florida Congressman Allan West’s tweet today on Twitter.

I find myself always appreciating the 140 or less character comments that Rep. West leaves on Twitter. They are short but powerful, sharp but honest, and unlike some of the innocuous statements that many of his congressional colleagues often leave on Twitter, West’s twitter feed expresses honest emotions that I sympathize with. In the banner of this blog, is a quote from British politician R.A. Butler which states “Politics is largely a matter of heart”.  I believe that.  While our legilsation must be based on law and not emotion, I find that one’s heart must be true to the cause they undertake in politics, for without the passion that comes with such truth, other temptations can achieve the worst results.  I believe that Allan West’s heart is really in the game and I appreciate his passion.  In the case of his recent Twitter comment,  Congressman West demonstrated a sarcastic but frank assessment of the all consuming budget ceiling debate.

He suggests that if leading liberals like President Obama, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid oppose Speaker Boehner’s approach to the debate over raising the budget ceiling, than it must be good.

I agree.

The left represents a continuation of the same tax and spend policies that have gotten us into this mess. Not that Republicans haven’t helped. They have.

In the past, while many Republicans held firmly in favor of tax cuts and against tax hikes, they have not exhibited the same type of vigilance against spending. But in 2006, and again in 2008 Republicans paid a price for their lack of fiscal responsibility. First they lost control of the House and then they also lost control of the Senate and the White House. But in 2010, with the aide of conservatives who were more concerned with policy than politics, and a TEA Party movement that held conservatives accountable, a new crop of Republicans helped take back control of the House. These new Republicans, of which Allan West is one of, accept the fact that a reform agenda must take hold in Washington, D.C. It is an agenda that must reform the way Washington, D.C. does business, how it spends our money, and reforms the entitlement programs that will soon become the largest part of our ever growing national debt.

That is why, while in the past, there was little to no debate over raising the debt ceiling today it is a debate that is front and center. In the past Democrats, including President Obama when he was in the Senate, voted against raising the debt ceiling when we had a Republican President.  And Republicans voted against doing the same when we had a Democrat President. Each Party played politics with the issue and participated in a blame game that allowed the Party out of power to claim that the Party in power supports a larger national debt.

This time though, the new crop of Republican figures who make up the balance of power in the House, are not willing to play politics. These new members are dead serious about doing exactly what they said they would and what voters elected them to do. As a result, the same old sleights of hand that allowed politicians to avoid making the hard decision and to avoid dealing with what creates our debt, are not being tolerated. This time around, the new, true Republicans in the House are holding the Party leadership’s feet to the fire. That accountability has forced Speaker Boehner to hold firm on a plan which offers spending cuts that are greater than the debt hike……… the chief goal of new era Republicans.

According to the Congressional Budget Office in a report released early this evening, the House Republican proposal will:

  • Cut and cap spending by $917 billion over 10 years – that’s more than the $900 billion debt hike;
  • Cut $22 billion in spending for FY2012
  • and hold spending below FY2010 levels until FY2016;
  • Continue reducing discretionary spending each year compared to President Obama’s budget (by $96 billion in 2012, $118 billion in 2013, $115 billion in 2014, $117 billion in 2015, and so on); and
  • Require Congress to draft proposals that produce reductions of at least $1.8 trillion that help protect programs like Medicare and Social Security from bankruptcy.

To this, Senate Democrats and President Obama say no. They instead want Republicans to go along with a plan that is filled with gimmicks and which the Congressional Budget Office verifies will increase the debt limit by more than it cuts spending while also imposing “caps” that actually increase spending. The CBO report also suggests that the Democrat backed plan is a collection of gimmicks and “mostly fake” cuts.

The discoveries in the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the liberal plan find that “savings from the Democratic plan come in at $500 billion less than advertised, lowering the deficit by $2.2 trillion while giving the president an up-front debt limit increase of $2.7 trillion. It also reveals that of the $2.2 trillion, more than $1 trillion comes from “saving” money that wasn’t going to be spent anyway on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The rest comes from slashing defense spending in a way that would hurt our men and women in uniform, and from what the Wall Street Journal calls “mostly fake spending cuts like less government ‘waste, fraud and abuse’”.

Additionally, the report suggests that the liberal sponsored debt ceiling bill imposes what they call “program integrity” caps that actually spend $18 billion more than they save.

Neither the Republican nor the Democrat plan solves the problem to our mounting debt. That is not something which can really be solved in a debate over the debt ceiling alone. It is a problem which requires a national debate over the federal government’s role in our lives. However; unlike the Obama Reid, Pelosi plan, the G.O.P. plan actually cuts more than the President wants us to spend with another raise in the debt ceiling. While that is in truth, only a drop in the bucket, it is still steering us in the right direction. Whereas the Democrat plan simply amounts to another spend-more-than-we-have act that simply exacerbates a debt problem which a former Secretary of Defense considered so severe that it is a national security issue.

In 2010 one of the key reasons Republicans were elected was based upon a promise to reduce our deficit. In 2008 President Obama was also elected in part based upon his promise to “get serious” about reducing debt.

Now in 2011, the question is, who is trying to keep their promise to the voters?

The answer is pretty clear. The people with a plan that proposes to cut more than we want to spend on increased debt are adhering to the mandate given to them. Those people are the House Republicans like Allan Wes,t who are not leaving any room for politicians to hide from the need to finally confront our debt crisis. And so, under these circumstances, it is time for Democrats to stop telling the American people one thing and banks another. It is time for them to stop lying to, and scaring, senior citizens about their Social Security benefits and checks. It’s time for Democrats to either agree to less spending as opposed to more debt and say yes to the Republican plan which does just that. If they don’t, who will really be the Party of “no”?

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Republicans are Fascists? That’s like the Dictator Calling the Communist a Marxist

Bookmark and Share    I recently stumbled upon a link on Facebook that led to an article published on an online, liberal, advocacy publication called The site is about as addicting as a car wreck. You just can’t help but take a look at the mess. One of its main stated goals is to “stand Against” the Koch Brothers. Now I know that the Koch brothers are hated by liberals as supporters of the G.O.P.. At the same time, being a politically involved Republican, I must state that it is my daily experience that the influence of the Kochs is not quite as pervasive and ever-present as the left claims. But I guess the left’s desire to exaggerate the Kochs is a manifestation of their need to counter the influence offered to their Party from such liberal activists and supporters as George “I Can’t Give Enough Money” Soros. But in this liberal groups attempt to counter the rich supporter of their ideology with a rich supporter of the opposing ideology, they published an article written by Stephen D. Foster, Jr., a leftwing radical whose legitimacy is based solely on the fact that he is the braggadocios holder of a Bachelor’s Degree in History and Political Science from Missouri University of Science and Technology and is….surprise…… a teacher, in Pennsylvania and Missouri. Most of his ramblings are found on a site called the Proud Progressive Forum.

But on, Foster posted an article that claims Republican’s are fascists.

By definition, a fascist is any one who is part of any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism.

By that definition, it is my most sincere opinion that it is the liberal ideology and the Democrat Party, not the conservative ideology and Republican Party, which is most closely connected to fascism. Part…….just part of this belief ……….. is based on such things as the Democrat Party’s takeover of General Motors, their standing policy to force people to become dues paying union members if they want to be employed, their initiatives dictating how much a private company or corporation can pay its CEO’s, their desire to redistribute wealth and penalize success, and their centralized control and nationalization of healthcare, not to mention their suppression of Republican opposition to Obamacare by excluding Republicans from the process that created the healthcare reform bill behind closed, partisan doors, and passed strictly by a partisan vote.

The fascist Foster goes on to state that “fascism is the ultimate manifestation of social change and moral revolution,”.

He then asks…..“Sound familiar?”

It sure as hell does!

The liberal ideology that dominates the Democrat Party has consistently touted social change as their main mission. They often call it social justice.

This has especially been the case since the days of FDR and then again LBJ.

Are liberal Democrats now claiming that all social change is evil, wrong, and fascist?

Are they now claiming that federal attempts to acquire equal rights, and end discrimination were fascists acts? Are they now suddenly wanting to repeal such things as the 1964 voting rights act? All of these items (and many more) are examples of social and moral change. And in many cases they were achieved with equal credit having to be given to both Republicans and Democrats. Perhaps liberal minds forget that during the Obamacare debate, the leading liberal fascists in their Party argued that healthcare reform was “a moral issue”. From Louise Slaughter, to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Anthony Weiner, Chuck Schumer, Bob Menendez, and John Lewis, to President Obama and all the rest of Democrat Party, they all claimed Obamacare to be morally right. Yet suddenly, it is the G.O.P. who are fascists whom are trying to consolidate central government power to create social change based on morals? Such a view is maintained only through a double standard that is the hypocritical hallmark of liberal thinking.

Now liberals may consider me an extremist. At the same time, some conservatives…..”some conservatives” ….. don’t consider me extreme enough. I however; consider myself to be a common sense conservative. As such I am not so extreme as to believe that all social change is bad. I am also not so extreme as to believe that our government and governance is not based on a certain degree of morals. However, I am also independent enough to possess an innate and experiential understanding of principles and simple facts such as increased government size and spending is out of control and that like the housing bubble, the big-government bubble will have to burst at some point. And if such innate and experential understandings force me to address these issues by limiting government, cutting our budget and yes, “bringing about moral change” by weaning our society off of the unsustainable culture of dependency which the liberal ideology has been the chief proliferators of, than I guess I am what a liberal would call a fascist. But the way I see it, the governmental model as erected by the American Founders through our constitution, gave the federal government only 20 specific powers and left the rest to the states and people. As a Republican I believe in maintaining the federal government’s constitutional jurisdiction over only those twenty powers. Among them include the defense of our national sovereignty, something which Mr. Foster suggests in his article that we should relinquish to the United Nations.

However; liberals believe that all injustices must be resolved by legislative action and that all inequities must be balanced through federal fiat. In doing so, they claim moral justification for their unconstitutional federal intervention and like Mr. Foster, they expertly use unhealthy political hyperbole to denigrate opposing view points and to advance their own fascist viewpoint. Need proof? Check out the fear mongering exhibited by this following liberal-progressive ad.

Could you imagine the outcry that would have stemmed from a similar ad sponsored by Republican interests showing President Obama pushing that old lady off the same cliff? Not that President Obama wouldn’t. After all, during the 2008 presidential election, he threw his own Grandmother under the bus by trying to claim that she had racist tendencies.

Other examples of Mr. Foster’s own political hyperbole are exhibited in his own account as he tries to claim Republicans are fascist because they want to insure voter integrity. He accuses Republicans of fixing elections and never once touts the preponderance of evidence that has proven widespread liberal election tampering. Mr. Foster also tries to claim a deep rooted, Republican hatred for gays. This is a point which I particularly like. As a gay Republican it has been my experience that those who hate me the most are fellow homosexuals. Despite their cries for acceptance and tolerance, many gay men and women are the least accepting and least tolerant of differences of opinion. I have been spat upon by be gay men because I am a Republican. At the same time, I have been embraced by Republicans and hired as a chief of staff to Republican state senators in New York, Republican assemblymen in New Jersey, as the campaign manager to countless Republican candidates on the state and local levels, and elected and appointed by Republicans to leadership positions within the Party.

In the end, Mr. Foster’s charges are nothing but political propaganda that are used by him and his fellow liberal fascists, as a means to hold on to their last vestiges of liberal legitimacy in modern politics. When it comes to contemporary politics, the liberal numbers just don’t add up. Their policies have led to an unsustainable federal behemoth that can only be propped up through rhetoric, the proliferation of ignorance, and much like the popularity of unhealthy narcotics, through a continued dependence on something that is not good for you.

Ultimately, I believe the most contrarian approach to fascism that one could take is to oppose a centralized government that seizes the assets earned by individual Americans through excessive taxation that funds social engineering and programs that exceed the twenty constitutional powers given to the federal government. For that Mr. Foster considers me a fascist. Yet ironically he considers his belief in more government intervention, more social engineering and greater centralized powers in the federal government make him a defender of liberty?

Cleary, Mr. Foster and anyone who is inclined to hold his writings up for consideration are either living in denial about their own fascist inclinations or totally unaware of what liberty truly is.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics