Archive for the ‘Social Security’ Category

VIDEO – MICHELE BACHMANN AND BERNIE SANDERS SPAR ON CNN

Tuesday, January 28th, 2014

Share

TWO DIFFERING ARTICLES ON THE PRESIDENT’S NEW PROPOSED BUDGET

Thursday, April 11th, 2013

 

Two very differing articles regarding the President’s new budget proposal.  The first article is from the Wall Street Journal and gives detailed and concise reasons why the President’s proposed budget will not promote faster growth and a healthier economy.
The second article is from the New York Times regarding the President’s proposed budget which doesn’t miss the chance to blame Republicans for the budget impasse.   Nancy
The Wall Street Journal

  • April 110, 2013

The President’s Priorities

Debt in 2014 will hit 78.2% of the economy.

President Obama is pitching his new budget proposal as a fiscal peace offering to Republicans, but the details suggest everyone should expect more conflict. The fiscal 2014 plan he released Wednesday is a very slightly modified version of his previous budgets that reduces the deficit by raising taxes and trading defense cuts for more domestic spending.

The real news is that his budget ratifies much of the spending increase of the first term and tries to lock it in. He wants the feds to spend $3.78 trillion next year ($11,944 per American), which would still be 22.2% of national output nearly four years into an economic recovery. Before the financial panic in 2008, the government was spending about $1 trillion less, or closer to $2.7 trillion a year and an average of 20% of GDP—and President Bush was no slouch as a spender himself.

[image]

Mr. Obama wants federal spending to grow to $4.45 trillion by 2018 fueled mostly by the exploding costs of his Affordable Care Act. This spending surge appears smaller than it is only because the government will bank large reductions in military spending as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars wind down. But unlike in the 1990s, this peace dividend will be spent.

The budget’s supposed bow to Republicans is Mr. Obama’s proposal for a modest change in annual cost of living adjustments for Social Security. “Chain CPI,” as the change is called, would cut spending by about $130 billion and raises taxes by about $100 billion over the next year. We support the concept, but the White House also slips a mickey into that proposal (see below).

Even with this inflation change, federal spending would grow by more than if Mr. Obama simply let current law continue. This is because the President wants to eliminate the current caps on discretionary spending under the budget sequester that are set to save close to $1 trillion over the next decade. He wants to repeal the sequester that is providing the only spending cuts in at least a decade. (more…)

Share

ECONOMIC JUDGEMENT DAY

Tuesday, February 19th, 2013

 

Economic Judgment Day

Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE: The Departments of Defense, State and Justice are authorized by the Constitution and are generally accepted legitimate federal government functions. Most of the rest ought to be done at the state and local levels or by the private sector. The current spending and debt crisis eventually will force debate on the role of the federal government — which programs necessitate taxpayer funding and which can be eliminated. The time is closer than most think — just ask any Greek citizen or resident of Stockton, Calif.
.

The current debate about the debt vote is minor league compared to what will happen when the government literally cannot spend more than it is taking in. That time may be nearer than you think. It is true that the U.S. government can always “print” money to pay its bills, but at some point, printing more money becomes self-defeating because the resulting increase in the government bond interest rate and required interest payment will spiral out of control. At that point, the government will be forced to operate on a pay-as-you-go basis, as any individual or business is forced to do when they can no longer get credit. Several California cities are now in this situation.

The U.S. government now receives about $200 billion a month in revenue and spends about $320 billion a month. Any responsible business or individual faced with a situation where receipts are only 60 percent of expenditures would make changes before their credit was cut off or, at the very minimum, have a plan for which bills to pay first — but not the U.S. government.

It appears that President Obama is once again going to produce a budget that assumes very high levels of deficit spending can go on forever. It also appears that Senate Democrats will continue to not bother to pass a budget. Note that the purpose of a budget is to allocate scarce resources (your money) and to make sure that spending does not exceed the funds that are available. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is the ultimate spoiled child, accusing the taxpayers of engaging in child abuse by not giving him an unlimited allowance. (more…)

Share

VIDEO – MARK LEVIN – U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES BUYING VAST AMOUNTS OF AMMUNITION

Monday, February 18th, 2013

MARK LEVIN VIDEO – GOVERNMENT AGENCIES BUYING VAST AMOUNTS OF AMMUNITION PREPARING FOR SOCIETY COLLAPSE

Share

GENERATIONAL THEFT – OUT OF CONTROL GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Friday, February 15th, 2013

 

The Wall Street Journal

  •  February 15, 2013

Generational Theft Needs to Be Arrested

A Democrat, an independent and a Republican agree: Government spending levels are unsustainable.

We come from different backgrounds, parties and pursuits but are bound by a common belief in the promise and purpose of America. After all, each of us has been the beneficiary of the choices made—and opportunities created—by previous generations of Americans.

One of us grew up poor in the South Bronx of the 1960s and went on to lead a children’s antipoverty program in Harlem. Another grew up in a small town in South Jersey, and went on to be a leading money manager. The third grew up in a small suburb in upstate New York and found his way to serve in the government amid the financial crisis.

image

David Gothard

One of us is a Democrat; one, an independent; another, a Republican. Yet, together, we recognize several hard truths: Government spending levels are unsustainable. Higher taxes, however advisable or not, fail to come close to solving the problem. Discretionary spending must be reduced but without harming the safety net for our most vulnerable, or sacrificing future growth (e.g., research and education). Defense and homeland security spending should not be immune to reductions. Most consequentially, the growth in spending on entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare—must be curbed.

These truths are not born of some zeal for austerity or unkindness, but of arithmetic. The growing debt burden threatens to crush the next generation of Americans. (more…)

Share

YES, MR. PRESIDENT, WE ARE A NATION OF TAKERS

Sunday, January 27th, 2013

 

The Wall Street Journal

  • January 25, 2013

Nicholas Eberstadt: Yes, Mr. President, We

Are a Nation of Takers

Since 1960, entitlement transfers have grown twice as fast as personal income—to $2.3 trillion annually.

By NICHOLAS EBERSTADT

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  • In 1960, according to the Office of Management and Budget, social-welfare programs accounted for less than a third of all federal spending. Today, entitlement programs account for nearly two-thirds of federal spending. In other words, welfare spending is nearly twice as much as defense, justice and everything else Washington does—combined. In effect, the federal government has become an entitlements machine

In President Obama’s second inaugural address, he not only outlined an ambitious agenda for his second term but also seemed intent on shutting down debate about the social-welfare state and its impact on American life.

image

Getty ImagesPresident Obama during his inauguration speech on Monday.

“The commitments we make to each other—through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security—these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us,” Mr. Obama said. “They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.” In other words, the president is tired of listening to critics of America’s entitlement programs, and as far as he is concerned, the discussion is now over. (more…)

Share

OBAMA’S DISMAL BIPARTISANSHIP RECORD

Monday, November 5th, 2012

 

The Wall Street Journal

  •  November 2, 2012

Fred Barnes: Obama and the Back-to-

the-Future Campaign

If the president had practiced the bipartisanship he now promises, he might have been a shoo-in.

By FRED BARNES

President Obama is eyeing a new tax cut to boost the economy. He wants to “reduce the costs of our health care programs.” He’s eager to “meet” the deficit-reduction target of the Simpson-Bowles commission. He’s “confident” he can reach a “grand bargain” with Republicans on taxes and spending. To get it, he promises to be breathtakingly bipartisan. “I’ll wash John Boehner’s car,” he told a radio interviewer. “I’ll walk Mitch McConnell’s dog.”

This sounds like meaningless election-year chatter, but there’s more to it than even Mr. Obama might suspect. If he’d done in his first term what he now vows to accomplish in a second term, he’d be in a far stronger position to win re-election next Tuesday. He might have been a shoo-in. 

From the day he took office in January 2009, Mr. Obama hasn’t lacked for opportunities. His first initiative was an economic stimulus package. After he told Republicans that he wanted their input, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor personally handed him a one-page list of pro-growth proposals, including a 20% tax cut on small business income and a reduction in the two lowest income-tax rates. “Eric, there’s nothing too crazy in here,” Mr. Obama said after looking over the list.

But when the administration’s $831 billion stimulus bill was introduced three days later, it contained none of the Republican ideas. Would the pro-growth tax cuts have made the bill more stimulative? Yes. Would the economic recovery have been stronger? Most likely, but how much stronger is unknowable.

A compromise backed by congressional Republicans would have been a political windfall for the president. Instead, he made matters worse by accusing Republicans of spurning his offer of a bipartisan stimulus. In truth, he made the offer while addressing the House Republican Conference the day after Democrats had finalized the stimulus bill—without consulting Republicans.

The president’s next opening occurred in January 2010, when Republican Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat previously held by the late Edward Kennedy. Mr. Brown ran a single-issue campaign dedicated to stopping ObamaCare. His election gave Republicans the 41st vote they needed to block the bill by filibuster.

By then, the Senate and House had passed different versions of ObamaCare. The expectation in Washington was that Mr. Obama would seize the Brown moment to embrace a scaled-back, less-expensive measure that Republicans would support. Or that he’d give up on health-care reform for the time being. The president did neither. He adopted the most partisan, divisive approach conceivable.

image

AFP/Getty ImagesPresident Obama and House Speaker John Boehner at the White House, July 23, 2011. (more…)

Share

VIDEO – RONALD REAGAN SPEECH – A TIME FOR CHOOSING

Monday, February 27th, 2012

FROM THE RONALD REAGAN PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY

THIS IS THE COMPLETE SPEECH THAT WAS DELIVERED BY RONALD REAGAN DURING THE BARRY GOLDWATER PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ON OCTOBER 27, 1964.

Share

A FAIRNESS QUIZ FOR OBAMA

Tuesday, February 7th, 2012
The Wall Street Journal

  • FEBRUARY 7, 2012

A Fairness Quiz for the President

Is it fair that some of Mr. Obama’s largest campaign contributors received federal loan guarantees?

By STEPHEN MOORE

President Obama has frequently justified his policies—and judged their outcomes—in terms of equity, justice and fairness. That raises an obvious question: How does our existing system—and his own policy record—stack up according to those criteria?

Is it fair that the richest 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes, and the richest 10% pay two-thirds of the tax?

Is it fair that the richest 10% of Americans shoulder a higher share of their country’s income-tax burden than do the richest 10% in every other industrialized nation, including socialist Sweden?

Is it fair that American corporations pay the highest statutory corporate tax rate of all other industrialized nations but Japan, which cuts its rate on April 1?

Is it fair that President Obama sends his two daughters to elite private schools that are safer, better-run, and produce higher test scores than public schools in Washington, D.C.—but millions of other families across America are denied that free choice and forced to send their kids to rotten schools?

Is it fair that Americans who build a family business, hire workers, reinvest and save their money—paying a lifetime of federal, state and local taxes often climbing into the millions of dollars—must then pay an additional estate tax of 35% (and as much as 55% when the law changes next year) when they die, rather than passing that money onto their loved ones?

moore

Associated Press (more…)

Share

VIDEO – PAUL RYAN INTERVIEW ON CHRIS WALLACE

Monday, January 30th, 2012

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL RYAN, REPUBLICAN, SPEAKING ON OBAMA’S LEADERSHIP AND OUR NATIONAL DEBT, JANUARY 29, 2012

Share
Search All Posts
Categories