Home
 

Archive July 2010

All of the articles archived for the month that you have specified are displayed below.

Smears Against Tea Parties Contrived Political Strategy

By Bill Wilson

The attacks on the tea party movement and other citizen activists are continuing. This time, the DNC has unveiled its latest effort to portray tea parties, and Republicans, as radicals and extremists.

This effort, www.republicanteapartycontract.com, is nothing more than a series of misrepresentations of popular ideas like repealing ObamaCare and the financial takeover, eliminating whole departments and agencies in the federal government, keeping taxes low, etc. but it is occurring in a highly charged media climate where the NAACP has accused the movement of being racist.

The DNC is attempting to ride the wave of coverage that resulted from the NAACP’s charge to discredit the movement once and for all. It has all of the appearances of a coordinated attack, but there is an even wider context than has been widely reported by the mainstream media that shows a clear pattern to sabotage, infiltrate, and to otherwise destroy the movement, which has been chronicled by conservative blogger Michelle Malkin.

For example, there’s the quite obvious effort by http://theteapartyisover.org whose express mission is to portray tea parties as extremists intent on inciting violence. According to the group’s mission statement, the tea parties represent “dangerous extremism that threatens to tear the country apart.” Of course, the group is actually nothing more than a Democrat-labor union front group that operates out of the offices of Joseph Sandler, a longtime general counsel to the Democratic National Committee, as reported by FNC’s Joseph Abrams.

But that’s not all. Michigan Capitol Confidential is reporting that the political director of the Oakland County Democrat Party was behind an effort to register candidates to run under a fake “Tea Party” in Michigan, ostensibly to take away votes from Republican candidates and to confuse voters. It turns out that the petition drive necessary to create the party on the ballot was operated by Progressive Campaigns, Inc. out of California, which has run ballot initiatives supported by left-wing activist-financier George Soros.

This mirrors a prior effort in Nevada by Scott Ashjian to run for Senate against Harry Reid under the banner, “Tea Party of Nevada.” Again, the apparent intent was to siphon votes away from Republican candidates who might benefit from the popular tea party movement.

Then there’s the case of Jason Levin, who ran an effort to actively infiltrate tea party rallies on April 15th, and who was dedicated to “dismantling and demolishing” the movement and to portray them as “racists, morons, and homophobes.” A similar effort was waged by an anarchist group to “[o]rganize counter-protests against the tea party demonstrations, same time, same place.”

Other sabotage and intimidation efforts include the violent assault of activist Kenneth Gladney by SEIU thugs out of a St. Louis town hall meeting, where activists spoke out against ObamaCare. Also, at least one pro-Reid union member attempted to misdirect tea partiers from a large rally that was being held in Searchlight, NV.

All of this, however, is overshadowed by what Democrat congressional leadership has said publicly about the tea parties from almost the very beginning. House Majority Whip James Clyburn’s has claimed that tea parties are a “kind of terrorism.” Others have alleged that activists shouted racial epithets at members of Congress on March 20th at a protest against the health care bill, as reported by the American Thinker. Others have attested that acts of vandalism were linked to the tea parties.

Majority Whip Clyburn's attack followed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer wrote an oped in USA Today calling opponents “un-American”. Congressman Steve Kagen called opponents “uncivilized,” and Congressman Baron Hill called them “political terrorists.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proudly called them “evil mongers.”

Congressman Brian Baird called opponents of ObamaCare “Brown Shirts” and compared them to domestic terrorists, “Some of the rhetoric that we’re hearing is… eerily reminiscent of the kind of things that drove Tim McVeigh to bomb the federal building in Oklahoma.”

See a pattern here? It has all of the appearances of a coordinated smear campaign against tea parties and other citizen activists, which even the leadership of Congress has participated in. But where is the major media coverage of this? It’s so obviously a political theater that to report the NAACP’s smear without taking into account the above facts is dishonest. It becomes complicity in the myth’s perpetuation.

The fact is, if there were this many pieces showing Republican Party efforts to sabotage, infiltrate, and discredit an entire political movement and falsely portray it as extremist, you can bet it would be portrayed as a grand conspiracy.

It’s time to start putting these pieces together. Hundreds of thousands well-meaning, activist Americans are being besmirched and smeared as part of a contrived political strategy by Democrats to keep Congress. These citizens want nothing more than less government control over the lives of individual Americans, and for that, they are pariahs and must be destroyed.

Bill Wilson is the President of Americans of Limited Government.

Other Views


Democrats: The Party of "O"

By Chris Slavens

Throughout 2010, Democrats have attempted to deceive the public with a number of mudslinging strategies, ranging from the feeble “blame Bush” tactic to the slightly more successful (but utterly despicable) ploy of race-baiting. Finally, they resorted to calling the minority party the “Party of No,” claiming that Republicans have no ideas of their own. Republicans have responded to these attacks with facts and figures, but who really wants to listen to those? Not the liberal media, that’s for sure.

The GOP can continue to refute the label “Party of No,” as it should, but conservative candidates must also make it clear that they are running against the “Party of O” — a fitting nickname for the Obama-worshipping Democrats of the day.

“O” can refer to a number of things, most obviously the president himself. Various polls indicate that the majority of Americans are consistently opposed to Obama’s agenda, yet Democrats have gone far out of their way — risking their seats to mid-term challengers in many cases — to make his Marxist vision for the United States a reality.

Conservatives should tie each and every Democrat to the party’s chosen deity, Barack Hussein Obama, who is on his way to being the most unpopular leader in the history of Western democracy. In the ongoing battle of liberty versus tyranny, there is no neutral territory. Lawmakers stand either with us — the American people — or with the Obama administration.

In the past, the Democratic Party was said to have a large tent, because it tolerated a wide range of viewpoints with the goal of representing blue-collar voters. The South produced conservative Democrats that would put wishy-washy moderates like Michael Castle (R-DE) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to shame. No longer.

Time and time again, Democrats thought to be conservative have showed their true colors (various hues of yellow, mostly) and bent under pressure from Pelosi and Reid, who have taken upon themselves the task of legislating the president’s radical agenda. Years ago, Democrats would have resisted the demands that are handed down from these shady characters. But not today. Not the lock-step “Party of O.”

Democrats at the state and local levels are just as guilty. A number of states are in the process of nullifying ObamaCare, as every state should. Other states, controlled by Democrats, have refused to stand up for their own citizens’ constitutional rights. These accomplices — spineless members of the “Party of O” — must be removed from office along with their federal chums if there is to be a chance of restoring constitutional government.

There are good Democrats, to be sure, but if they aren’t alert enough to recognize that their party is in the hands of anti-American radicals, then government is not the place for them. At this point, simply having a “D” after one’s name contributes to the oft-misused power of the Obama regime, and the country’s downward spiral.

The letter “O” is also suggestive of zero — the number of real jobs (private sector jobs, that is) that Democratic policies have created. More likely, it’s a negative number. Hiring census takers and additional IRS agents (as if there weren’t enough already) might help to offset the unemployment rate, but it’s not particularly helpful to the employed among us who are paying for these unneeded positions.

If all goes well, and the American people clean house in Washington, as it seems they will, “O” is the shape that many Democrats’ mouths will form as they clean out their offices and head home to reality.

Chris Slavens, former contributor to the Wilmington News Journal, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Too Hot Not to Note: Grayson bills taxpayers for DVD of term's highlights

ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured report from the Orlando Sentinel, Florida Congressman Alan Grayson is using tax dollars to send DVD’s to 100,000 district households featuring his tenure in Congress:

Grayson bills taxpayers for DVD of term's highlights

By Mark K. Matthews and Mark Schlueb

WASHINGTON — If U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson were a rock star, his latest PR blitz — a DVD sent to tens of thousands of Central Florida residents — would be called Grayson's Greatest Hits.

The 90-minute disc features video highlights from his first term in office, including one of him grilling Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and another in which the Orlando Democrat preaches on the need to teach schoolchildren about the U.S. Constitution.

The DVD comes wrapped inside a mailer covered with promotional slogans: "Congressman Alan Grayson, Hard at Work for You," "He works hard. He pays attention. He gets things done," and "Video DVD Inside: Watch Congressman Grayson in Action!"

In many ways, it's the perfect campaign video — with one key difference.

Thanks to perks given to all members of Congress, it's not Grayson's campaign but taxpayers who footed the nearly $73,000 bill to produce and mail the DVD to 100,000 homes in Grayson's district of Lake, Marion, Orange and Osceola counties.

It's a stunt that drew howls from Republicans, who complained that Grayson was abusing the congressional privilege of franking that allows lawmakers to send taxpayer-paid newsletters and other mail to residents.

"This is an outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars, and it goes to show that Alan Grayson is completely out of touch with Central Florida," said state Rep. Kurt Kelly of Ocala, one of seven Republicans looking to unseat Grayson this fall.

"This is just ridiculous behavior. What congressman would do this in the face of a huge budget deficit?" he asked.

Grayson said he doesn't see the video as self-promotional and that its intent was to show residents how the sausage is made in Washington.

"Unless you glom onto C-SPAN, you don't have sense of what congressmen do on a day-to-day basis," Grayson said. "I told people in my district that I would try to be a watchdog, and I think they have a right to know whether I have kept that promise."

When pressed, however, Grayson did acknowledge that his office selected clips that make him look good.

"I'm an elected official. Do you think it's my job to put out misinformation or negative information about myself?" he asked.

The silver disc features clips of Grayson questioning witnesses testifying before the House Financial Services committee, including his well-publicized interrogation of Bernanke. A YouTube version posted on Grayson's website has drawn more than 216,000 hits.

And, like the director's cut of a Hollywood movie release, the DVD is sprinkled with narration from Grayson. Of the 31 separate clips on the DVD, 10 feature Grayson wearing an American flag tie and seated in front of a photo of the U.S. Capitol, telling viewers what they're about to see or criticizing the Fed, bank bailouts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Hello, I'm your congressman, Alan Grayson," the video begins. "I've put together this DVD so you do not have to sit through hours of hearings or read thousands of pages of transcripts to find out what your representative is doing to combat waste, fraud and abuse in government spending."

His narration doesn't shy away from a few pats on the back.

"Of the 53 freshman members of the House, I was the first one to get a bill passed," he says. And, "Before coming to Congress, I spent many years prosecuting defense contractors who ripped off the government and put our troops in danger just to pad their wallets. When I came to Congress, I wasted no time in using that experience to combat waste, fraud and abuse in defense spending."

Though Grayson isn't the first lawmaker to use taxpayer money to send a DVD, aides with the House administration committee — which oversees franking requests and approved Grayson's DVD — could recall only a handful of other examples.

But bucking the norm has been Grayson's trademark since 2008, when he beat then-U.S. Rep. Ric Keller, an Orlando Republican also known for sending puffy pieces of franked mail.

Last year, Grayson spent about $108,000 on franked mail in 2009 — 40 percent more than the $81,623 spent by his fellow Democratic freshman Suzanne Kosmas of New Smyrna Beach. Among Central Florida veteran incumbents, U.S. Rep. John Mica, R- Winter Park, spent $14,000 — and U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Brooksville, spent $138,801, records show.

Grayson aides said that the DVD was targeted at senior citizens, who may have trouble using a computer and seeing the long list of YouTube clips that Grayson has put online.

Spokesman Todd Jurkowski said the office also took pains to find a Central Florida company, Horizon Media Express, to produce the video and insisted the company "rely on American subcontractors [because] many companies will use offshore companies to duplicate DVDs."

Since taking office, Grayson has used speeches and hearings to loudly attack everything that he sees as wrong with America — including giant corporations, financial leaders and Republicans.

He's best known for a floor speech in which he says the Republican health-care plan was for sick patients to "die quickly," although Grayson aides were quick to note that the health-care quip was not included on the DVD.

Michael Steele, Call Me Irresponsible

ALG Editor’s Note: In the following oped featured on the Daily Caller, ALG Director of Research Don Todd uncovers the personal fiscal mismanagement of Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee:

 

Michael Steele, Call Me Irresponsible

By Don Todd

According to public documents obtained by Americans for Limited Government (ALG), Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), is as fiscally irresponsible in his personal life as he has been in the management of the RNC. A rough estimate indicates that Steele is obligated to pay 117 percent of his take-home pay in mortgages and taxes on his $1.7 million home in Upper Marlboro, Maryland.

This is no ordinary home, but is a 6,440 square foot mansion with 6.5 bathrooms set on an almost four-acre lot.

On January 23, 2008 when Steele purchased the property, there was a mortgage recorded in the amount of $1,909,000. This was later converted to another mortgage on November 5, 2008. There is a first mortgage of $1,537,500 at 6.75 percent (5/1 ARM) and a second mortgage of $195,000 as of that date. This comes to a total of $1,732,500.

The monthly payment on the first mortgage is $9,972.20. The payment on the second would be around $1,200 for a total of around $11,236.20.

The current property tax assessment for this home is $17,468.76 per year, which comes to $1,455.73 a month. Adding the mortgage payments and tax payments suggests that the monthly liability for the house comes to around $12,691.93 (not to mention homeowner’s insurance and utilities.) So how much money would you need to make to pay for an estate of this magnitude? The short answer is a lot. The general rule for mortgage qualification is that your house payment plus property tax and insurance shouldn’t exceed 28 percent of your gross income. Using the 28 percent figure, a person would need a gross annual income of approximately $544,000 to qualify for this type of loan ($544,000* .28 /12 = $12,693.33).

As of 2009, Steele’s salary at the RNC was $223,500 a year.

His listed salary disbursements in the last three months of RNC reports to the FEC are as follows:

Steele’s Take-Home Pay

6/30/2010 $5,634.55
6/15/2010 $5,414.48
5/28/2010 $5,380.16
5/14/2010 $5,414.48
4/30/2010 $5,380.17
4/15/2010 $5,414.48

This is an average of $10,879.44 a month. So how does Steele, who only takes home $10,879. 48 a month, make a monthly house payment of at least $12,691.93? Clearly he can’t afford the mortgage on this house with his normal RNC salary.

Late last year, reports surfaced that Chairman Steele had engaged in the unusual practice of making paid speeches and asking between $8,000 and $20,000 plus first-class travel and accommodations to do so. Steele was criticized at the time for “taking time out to speak for the benefit of one’s own bank account,” a practice called “not appropriate.” Given the massive personal debt that Chairman Steele has racked up his practice makes perfect sense. His lack of personal fiscal restraint has made it impossible for him to be a full time Chairman because his house payment alone consumes all of his take-home pay from the RNC.

Other records give no indication of additional sources of sizable family income. Mr. Steele’s book, “Right Now: A 12-Step Program For Defeating The Obama Agenda,” was published by Regnery, a publisher where large advances are not likely. The book is currently listed on Amazon as its 495,199th best seller, meaning nearly half a million books in their inventory are selling better than his tome.

In recent days RNC Treasurer Randy Pullen claimed that Chairman Steele had concealed large amounts of debt from him and the public. Hiding this amount, over $7 million, made the cash-on-hand situation of the RNC appear much better than it actually was.

This is not the first time that Chairman Steele and the RNC have been accused of financial improprieties. Earlier this year the RNC reimbursed an individual for almost $2,300 for expenses incurred at a sex-themed club in West Hollywood named Voyeur. Last year the RNC’s finance reports revealed that the RNC had spent almost $22,000 on an interior decorator, $18,500 of which was for “improvements to the chairman’s office.” Why did the Chairman’s office need to be redecorated? Apparently, among other things, Steele thought it was “way too male for me.”

So it appears that the Chairman is just as bad at managing the finances of the RNC as he is at managing his personal finances. And this isn’t the first time that Steele has made personal financial decisions that raise questions either. In 2001, foreclosure proceedings were begun against Steele on another house he owned (Burson v. Steele, No. CAE01-13753, Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, 2001). In 2002, another civil action was filed against Steele seeking $11,846.88. That case was voluntarily dismissed later (Citibank South Dakota NA v. Steele, No. 050200362982002, District Court for Prince George’s County, 2002).

All of this reveals a pattern of financial mismanagement going back many years. Either Steele is living beyond his means or cannot keep his accounts in order, or both, and he seems to have infected the RNC with these bad fiscal habits. These are not sought after qualities for the head of the National Committee of the party of fiscal discipline. It’s time for Steele to move on and let someone who can handle finances step into the job.

Don Todd is Director of Research for Americans for Limited Government. He previously served as Director of Research for the Republican National Committee under Chairman Frank J. Fahrenkoph, Jr., Chairman Lee Atwater, and Chairman Haley Barbour.

Video: Reagan vs. Obama

ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured video by Americans for Limited Government’s Andrius Vaitekunas, the ideological polar opposites, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, square off on the issue of government-run health care:


 

Holding Politicians to the Fire

By Adam Bitely

In an election year, it is far too common for political parties and certain loyal followers to chastise those that align along similar ideological lines when they criticize policy positions of candidates and elected officials that contradict their campaign rhetoric. While they are trying to protect their brand and their candidates, they sweep information that voters need under the rug.

Only after a new crop of politicians are in office that promised one thing and then do another, do Americans discover that in Washington, D.C., everything is politics as usual.

But, by then, it’s too late.

Consider that in 1994, the year of the Republican Revolution in the monumental mid-term elections during Bill Clinton’s first term as President, the GOP had a platform that was widely composed of hot issues for conservatives. Once in Congress though, the platform known as the “Contract with America” slowly fell to the wayside. Within twelve years, the class of 1994 was unrecognizable — devoid of the conservative ideals that they came to power to champion.

With 2010 potentially shaping up to be a landslide year for the GOP again, it is more important than ever that the mistakes of ’94 not repeat themselves. This means making sure that politicians that come to Congress on promises of fiscal responsibility actually carry out their stated mission.

When the GOP gained control of Congress in ’94, they quickly became enchanted with the power that had led to the demise of the Democrats. Instead of being good stewards of taxpayer money, they chose to side with “Bridge to Nowhere” policies. Government growth was unhindered, contrary to their campaign promises that brought them to power.

In 2008, Obama and the Democrats promised policies of Big Government. While they shaded their agenda with rosy rhetoric promising fixes to everyone’s problems, they have now fallen far short of the expectations that voters held them to. With deficits running amuck and legislation passing that large majorities of Americans oppose, the Democrats seem to be closer than ever to meeting a fate that they themselves determined. Americans have seen Big Government and they do not like it.

With Republicans poised to make a comeback, now more than ever before voters should hold the politicians’ feet to the fire. The problems the country faces are not in need of bipartisan compromise, rather, the country needs politicians that are willing to make the right decisions. After all, that is what Americans are looking for.

Efforts such as those of the tea party movement are doing the exact right thing in shining a bright light on what candidates and politicians are saying and doing. But once the campaign season is done, these efforts should be increased, not lessened. The real work of holding politicians accountable comes once they go to Congress more so than when they run for office.

After all, Obama himself promised a bigger and larger government when he campaigned in 2008. But after Americans have seen what he meant, they are rejecting him and the current Congress outright. Now that the spell Obama cast has worn off, America does not like what it sees.

And the same thing can happen to the GOP. If they promise reductions to the deficit, they should do so. Not just say so. Americans will reject them faster than it took to gain power if they fail to follow up with success on their promises.

The difference between the ’94 Republican Revolution and the ’08 Obama election is that Obama told us he would grow government. Republicans learned what happens when you say one thing and do another. Obama and his fellow Democrats are now learning what happens when you go against a majority of Americans.

If Republicans win in 2010 and fail to do what they were elected for they may face permanent consequences. Politicians will be held to the fire on every decision they face. Americans simply want politicians that listen to the people, not the other way around.

Adam Bitely is the Editor-in-Chief of NetRightDaily.com.

Union Bosses Seek Monopoly of Construction Industry Through Green Job Subsidies

By Kevin Mooney

So now it’s called a “clean energy jobs” bill, replete with government inducements for contractors operating on pre-approved “efficiency” projects. Concerns over global warming and/or climate change are “so 2009” and are no longer in vogue.

A draft version of the anti-energy legislation Senate Democrats are expected to roll out next week omits politically unpopular “cap and trade” policies, but includes rebates under the “Home Star” and “Silver Star” programs that deserve careful scrutiny. Union bosses who have received very little legislative return on their substantial investments into the Democratic Party view green jobs as an angle into monopolizing the construction industry.

After losing out on “card check” and binding arbitration, the idea now is for congressional leaders to secure union favors through more obscure legislation that escapes media attention. For example, under Section 3003 of the pending anti-energy bill, “The Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),” are authorized “to create a Federal Rebate Processing System with a database and information technology system for submitting reimbursement claims by rebate aggregators (RAs).”

This part of the bill, which provides for the “Home Star Retrofit Rebate Program,” appears to create an opening for government subsidies. This is very much in step with President Obama’s rhetorical shift away from “overwhelming scientific evidence” in deference to clean energy initiatives that has been evident since January. Some explanation is in order.

As “climategate” continues to overwhelm the “overwhelming science,” the political class must adapt and adjusts its marketing techniques. So the rationale changes, but the motivation for expanded unionization of the construction sector remains in effect.

In the 2008 election cycle, labor union political action committees (PACS) contributed over $66 million dollars to congressional candidates with 92 percent of those contributions going to Democrats, according to OpenSecrets.org. With the mid-term elections now looming, labor leaders are going for broke.

But what is a green job?

Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst for energy and environmental policy with the Heritage Foundation, has explored this question in his research.

“Generally, jobs related to renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, battery-powered or other alternatively fueled vehicles, and public transportation comprise most of what are currently considered green jobs,” he has observed previously. “But there is no clear definition of a green job…The definition is further complicated by the fact that some jobs are only occasionally green. For example, workers who produce steel or cement are counted as having green jobs to the extent their products go into making wind turbines — but not when they go into coal-fired power plants… In truth, the definition of a green job is highly subjective and can depend every bit as much on fads and fashions and political correctness as on any objective criteria.”

When federal funds are thrown into the mix, the definition tends to become more elastic. Organized labor has made every effort to define “green jobs” in terms of positions held by workers that receive special green training through union-only apprenticeship programs, representatives with private industry have warned.

“Organized labor and certain special interest groups claim that only union apprenticeship programs can properly train workers to build green projects,” Stephen Worth, President and CEO of Worth and Company, told House members in testimony earlier this year. “However these claims are nothing more than an effort to monopolize the construction workforce on green building and other construction projects. Most green building techniques involve simple architectural changes or the use of environmentally friendly building materials, which requires workers to learn skills that can be taught through both union and nonunion training programs.”

But there is also good cause to question the economic feasibility of green jobs.

President Obama has in the past cited Spain as a model for the clean energy economy of the future. Not so much anymore in light of objective facts that complicate the administration’s policy ambitions. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Spain, has produced a recent study that shows green jobs are mostly temporary, heavily subsidized and subtract away from economic performance.

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) has also published its own detailed assessment of green jobs that concludes government intrusion into the energy sector will most likely boost consumer prices.

“..It is highly questionable whether a government campaign to spur “green jobs” would have net economic benefits,” the IER report says. “Indeed, the distortionary impacts of government intrusion into energy markets could prematurely force business to abandon current production technologies for more expensive ones. Furthermore, there would likely be negative economic consequences from forcing higher-cost alternative energy sources upon the economy.”

Free market organizations that have organized effective and successful campaign against “cap and trade” regulations should make every effort to focus public attention on economically unsound political paybacks that sabotage the private sector and the American consumer.

Kevin Mooney is a contributing editor to Americans for Limited Government (ALG) News Bureau and the Executive Editor of TimesCheck.com.

That Giant Sucking Sound You Hear...

By Robert Romano

Last week, the Obama Administration released its Friday afternoon surprise: another $1.47 trillion in debt for the year of 2010. The news comes in the context of imminent tax increases due to occur on January 1st, 2011 as the Bush tax cuts expire.

As reported by Art Laffer in the Wall Street Journal, “the highest federal personal income tax rate will go 39.6% from 35%, the highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate tax rate to 55% from zero.”

The Obama Administration is okay with that. So are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who have no plans to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Democrats are telling the American people that rather than cutting unsustainable spending and balancing the budget the way families balance theirs, that instead they want taxpayers to finance Washington’s increasingly indefensible spending habits.

Today, spending reflects revenues as the political class wishes them to be, not as they actually are.

If the $1.47 trillion budget deficit were closed solely with tax increases, ignoring the flight of capital overseas that would occur because of the tax increases, the effect would logically have to be to shrink the private sector by $1.47 trillion. Taking into account that flight of capital, the effect will be much more costly.

These impending tax increases are jobs killers, as are the anticipated accelerating costs of government and debt financing. Interest owed alone on the debt today is $188 billion annual, but by 2020 it will be $912 billion, according to the White House Office of Budget and Management (OMB). The budget itself will grow from $3.643 trillion to $5.746 trillion. Interest will therefore go from constituting 5.1 percent of the budget to 15.8 percent.

Overall, the debt will grow on average $1.092 trillion every year from 2010 until 2020, when it will total $25.777 trillion. But the economy will only grow an average of $868 billion annually during that same period, if the White House’s rosy projections come true. If the OMB is wrong, it will be much, much worse.

But even if they are right, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, which the OMB factors in, will not at all pay for the unbridled growth of government that Obama plans over this coming decade — by the government’s own estimates.

Therefore, the built-in, accelerating costs of government will outpace any growth (i.e. our ability to pay for it all). If that doesn’t change, we are doomed to a future of less growth, less jobs, higher taxes, higher interest rates, and eventual inflation.

Currently, annual deficits require the Treasury to perpetually go around the world and beg for money to borrow, and the Federal Reserve to print whatever the Treasury fails to raise via debt auctions. Already, the Fed owns $777 billion of U.S. treasuries, calling into question the nation’s ability to finance its obligations.

There is another way.

Government can be scaled down to eliminate this structural deficit. The federal government must begin to divest itself of things that rightly and provably can be provided for by the private sector, and use that money for debt reduction while the economy recovers and can grow at a faster pace than the debt.

Examples of things that can be done immediately include:

1) selling off and opening up the 650 million acres of federal land for extraction and development by the private sector,

2) unwinding the $5 trillion Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and bringing an end to government-induced housing finance,

3) selling off the shares of bailed-out companies like GM and Chrysler,

4) eliminating whole departments and agencies that are unproductive,

5) scaling back the federal workforce by 50 percent as the Baby Boomer generation retires,

6) ending worthless “stimulus” programs,

7) abolishing federal subsidies of sectors like agriculture,

8) bringing an end to the bailouts once and for all, and

9) repealing government takeovers like ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank financial legislation.

That’s just for starters. Structurally, the greatest problem the nation faces fiscally is the unchecked growth of entitlement spending. These programs need to be phased out over time by allowing younger workers to invest in their own retirements and health savings, while guaranteeing the obligations of the Baby Boomers. This would automatically limit the universe of liabilities owed to these programs.

On the other hand, allowing these programs — and the government as a whole — to continue to grow unabated will only leave a much greater problem down the road in the not-so-distant future.

Taxing and thus shrinking the private sector will not make this problem go away. The only solution to the sovereign debt crisis is to grow the private sector economy and to scale back the government. That cannot occur while government plans to increasingly impose itself on future potential growth with higher taxes and gargantuan spending.

Instead, Congress should leave tax rates where they are by making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and commit itself to mandatory spending reductions. That would immediately restore confidence to markets, and help create jobs.

An alternative is to ignore the problem, and to allow these events, with the rapid growth of government and increased taxes, to play out. But don’t be surprised, however, as to what transpires as a result. That giant sucking sound you hear will be your job being eliminated, and your wealth being confiscated by a debt that can never, ever be paid back.

Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of Americans for Limited Government (ALG) News Bureau.

Reid's War on Dissent

By Robert Romano

Harry Reid just does not like dissent. Yesterday, the Senate Majority Leader failed to muster the votes necessary to proceed to the so-called DISCLOSE Act, which would impose burdensome restrictions on corporations and nonprofits that choose to engage in advertising for or against candidates for federal office.

In arguing for the bill, Reid blasted Senate Republicans for dissenting against major Democrat policy initiatives, in particular the $2.5 trillion ObamaCare, the government takeover of the nation’s financial sector, the $862 billion “stimulus,” and the $34 billion extension of unemployment welfare benefits.

What Reid failed to acknowledge is that Senate Republicans were unable stop a single one of those measures. They merely dissented against legislation that ultimately passed.

Perhaps that was the problem. Perhaps he would prefer unanimity in support of his legislative agenda. Or a one party system.

Nonetheless, that did not prevent Reid from labeling Senate Republicans who blocked the bill as being in the pockets of corporations and special interests. Only, the DISCLOSE Act, which Reid supports, is laced with special interest exemptions. The NRA, AARP, the Sierra Club, unions and others have all achieved privileged carve-outs that will allow them to make independent expenditures without any disclosure at all.

Media, too, maintained its decades-long exemption from federal election law. According to 2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i), the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act: “The term ‘expenditure’ does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication”. This media exemption to campaign regulation is reinforced in the DISCLOSE Act’s language on page 24.

To add insult to injury, Reid said, “Why would we let those who go through such great lengths to conceal their names, and those who try to protect them by blocking this bill, dilute or manipulate our voices?” What about the NRA, AARP, Sierra Club, unions, and media? Why does their protection from disclosure yield the excessive regulation of everyone else?

The mere presence of exemptions for anybody in this bill discredits the premise for disclosure — that there is something inherently corrupt about political speech. Never mind that that the freedom of speech and of the press is explicitly protected by the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Never mind that the Supreme Court struck down disclosure requirements in 1958 in NAACP v. Alabama.

The same Senators who keep quoting former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” are the same Senators who are supporting legislation with disclosure exemptions for the privileged few. How is it that the possibility for corruption from anonymous speech exists for everybody except those so exempted?

It would merely be a theater of the absurd if its ramifications were not so far-reaching. Corruption is not prevented under the DISCLOSE Act. It is being institutionalized. In fact, Congress is giving out privileged speech licenses to the highest bidder.

Reid revealed his true motivation when he said, “Whenever the voice of the corporation is the loudest, the voice of the citizen is harder to hear.” He’s okay with businesses and nonprofits criticizing him when he runs for reelection, he says, he just wants to know who they are.

Perhaps businesses and other groups are afraid to speak out in the open for fear of federal intervention into their affairs. In fact, under the bill, express advocacy for a candidate running for federal office is an open invitation to opening up the books of even the minutest details of a business or nonprofit’s activities.

The Act’s disclosure requirements includes any expenditures in excess of $10,000 of express advocacy for or against a candidate up to 20 days before an election and in excess of $1,000 within 20 days before an election, which must be reported to the FEC within 24 hours. The disclosure requirements extend to 120 days prior to the first presidential primary or caucus, and 90 days before the first Congressional primary or caucus, and extend through general election day.

Anyone who invests or donates in excess of $600 to a company or organization that engages in express advocacy of a candidate, except for media organizations and other exempt entities, would have their names submitted to the FEC. The bill also requires that the highest ranking official of a business or nonprofit appear on camera to say that he or she is approving the message on the organization’s political communication, and they must list the top funder of the ad and the top five donors of the organization.

The effect on political speech will be a chilling one. The message is, “Don’t you speak out against candidates running for office, or we’ll come after you. We’ll show your books to the public. We’ll destroy you.” The intent here is to intimidate by making the costs of speaking out outweigh the benefits, all under the guise of disclosure.

Americans don’t let the government spy on individuals in the ballot box, so why should they let government officials necessarily know who is criticizing them?

Dissent against government is supposed to be one of the highest forms of patriotism. But under Reid’s regime, it will be a marker, a scarlet letter by which dissidents can be weeded out for government discrimination. This should be greatly alarming for all who value any legitimate, credible opposition in our political system.

Robert Romano is the Senior Editor for Americans for Limited Government (ALG) News Bureau.

<< [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>
 
© 2008 GETLIBERTY.ORG, AMERICANS FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT