This is a must see video with Rep Cantor discussing how Obama negotiates and lends credence to Obama being 'my way or no way' and if challenged gets mad and throws a fit. This is an excellent interview!
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Rep Eric Cantor (R-VA) Interviewed by Wall Street Journal
House majority leader Eric Cantor and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan discuss the debt ceiling deal and the political fallout:
This is a must see video with Rep Cantor discussing how Obama negotiates and lends credence to Obama being 'my way or no way' and if challenged gets mad and throws a fit. This is an excellent interview!
This is a must see video with Rep Cantor discussing how Obama negotiates and lends credence to Obama being 'my way or no way' and if challenged gets mad and throws a fit. This is an excellent interview!
Karl Rove: The Debt-Ceiling Debate and 2012
This article talks about the debt ceiling outcome and how it is going to affect the political landscape going into the 2012 elections. So nice to read an article that is not 'the sky is falling' as I have been seeing in comments on articles. All kinds of name calling from the 'my way or no way' crowd of both parties. These people must have had an easy life getting everything they wanted the way they want everything with no compromises as adults. Acting like little kids starting with Obama who when they don't get all the want, picks up the ball and goes home.
The only difference I am seeing in the rhetoric is the ideology involved. It amazing to read some of the comments on Huffington Post AOL because you probably have the best cross section of right and left on that site. Some of the comments are humorous while others make you shake your head and wonder what planet these people are from. The one thing that is constant is that there are a lot more people on the site with common sense from both sides then either the far left or far right wants to admit.
There is another fact starting to enter into some posts and that is a general disgust with the way Obama has run the Government. Those comments are coming from both sides as they think he is failing miserably and is spending too much time campaigning. Some have even taken up he wastes too much money flying Air Force One around the Country so that is becoming a bi-partisan issue. It did not go unnoticed by the left that he didn't get involved until near the end and then grandstanded in the WH Press Office. You could have knocked me over with a feather when I started reading the left saying the same thing I was saying. When you throw in that the Democrats didn't wanted to pass it in December so the Republicans would have shared ownership, you stand back and watch the posters get even madder at their leadership.
While getting to the point of raising the debt ceiling was nerve wracking, the aftermath has made me laugh. You have people taking credit for what happened that opposed the debt ceiling threatening to primary people. Do they realize on both sides how dumb they look? Looks like some more from this article that can be tossed into the debate on some sites. It is so funny now to toss out something and watch both far right and left sides attack -- you know then that the agreement was good as the common sense people understand.
Libertarians and Paulbots need to find new mantra for their posts as you can spot them in a NY minute. Johnny Carson once described a NY minute as: "it's the interval between a Manhattan traffic light turning green and the guy behind you honking his horn."
Rove has some good insights and understands a lot of things like budget cuts cannot happen unless Republicans control the Senate and the White House. Democrats in the Senate won't even do a budget and Obama always has that phantom plan that is never seen. Read in another article in the Wall Street Journal today from Senator Portman who thinks Obamacare is the reason the Democrats are not doing a budget because it would out the cost and how bad it is. Looks the Wall Street Journal is getting back to where it was before Murdoch took it over -- back to a mix of business and their great editorial pages.
The only difference I am seeing in the rhetoric is the ideology involved. It amazing to read some of the comments on Huffington Post AOL because you probably have the best cross section of right and left on that site. Some of the comments are humorous while others make you shake your head and wonder what planet these people are from. The one thing that is constant is that there are a lot more people on the site with common sense from both sides then either the far left or far right wants to admit.
There is another fact starting to enter into some posts and that is a general disgust with the way Obama has run the Government. Those comments are coming from both sides as they think he is failing miserably and is spending too much time campaigning. Some have even taken up he wastes too much money flying Air Force One around the Country so that is becoming a bi-partisan issue. It did not go unnoticed by the left that he didn't get involved until near the end and then grandstanded in the WH Press Office. You could have knocked me over with a feather when I started reading the left saying the same thing I was saying. When you throw in that the Democrats didn't wanted to pass it in December so the Republicans would have shared ownership, you stand back and watch the posters get even madder at their leadership.
While getting to the point of raising the debt ceiling was nerve wracking, the aftermath has made me laugh. You have people taking credit for what happened that opposed the debt ceiling threatening to primary people. Do they realize on both sides how dumb they look? Looks like some more from this article that can be tossed into the debate on some sites. It is so funny now to toss out something and watch both far right and left sides attack -- you know then that the agreement was good as the common sense people understand.
Libertarians and Paulbots need to find new mantra for their posts as you can spot them in a NY minute. Johnny Carson once described a NY minute as: "it's the interval between a Manhattan traffic light turning green and the guy behind you honking his horn."
Rove has some good insights and understands a lot of things like budget cuts cannot happen unless Republicans control the Senate and the White House. Democrats in the Senate won't even do a budget and Obama always has that phantom plan that is never seen. Read in another article in the Wall Street Journal today from Senator Portman who thinks Obamacare is the reason the Democrats are not doing a budget because it would out the cost and how bad it is. Looks the Wall Street Journal is getting back to where it was before Murdoch took it over -- back to a mix of business and their great editorial pages.
By Karl Rove
August 4, 2011
The Debt-Ceiling Debate and 2012
Neither party really won, but the GOP has a better case to take to the public.
After big events like Tuesday's debt-ceiling vote, Washington goes into overdrive to declare who won and who lost. But politics is more complex and less binary than that. In this case, neither party helped itself with the public during this struggle.
But Democrats hurt themselves most of all. They made a huge strategic mistake by failing to raise the debt ceiling late last year when they still controlled Congress.
Instead, Democrats tried to make the GOP complicit in their spending excesses. On Dec. 8, for example, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid explained his decision not to tackle the debt ceiling until the new GOP House took office by saying he wanted to "let the Republicans have some buy-in on the debt." This ended up giving the GOP months to leverage the debt ceiling into a battle over spending cuts.
President Obama paid the highest price during this long confrontation. By the time he signed the debt ceiling, he had enraged his own party, issued demands that were routinely ignored, reinforced his reputation as being obsessed with raising taxes, and failed to produce a concrete plan of his own.
At the start of last December, Mr. Obama's job approval rating in the weekly Gallup poll was 47% approve and 45% disapprove. Last week, it was 40% approve and 52% disapprove. If the election were held today, Mr. Obama and his party would be swamped.
For Republicans, the outcome was far more positive. House Republicans adroitly shifted the debate's focus from how much to raise the debt ceiling to how much should spending be cut. They achieved this even while the other two centers of power in any legislative struggle—the Senate and the White House—remained in Democratic hands.
In doing so, Republicans achieved roughly two-thirds of the spending cuts sought in the budget the House passed in April, cuts which would have gone nowhere in the Senate without the debt-ceiling battle.
Both GOP congressional leaders emerged with enhanced reputations. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's weirdly convoluted proposal to allow the president to raise the debt ceiling by asking Congress for permission actually helped lubricate discussions at a critical moment. The House GOP needed the prospect of something worse to provoke greater unity in their ranks. And giving Senate Democrats the hope of a Republican proposal that provided a way out kept Democrats from solidifying behind their own proposal.
John Boehner had the even more difficult task of fashioning a consensus among potentially fractious House Republicans after voluntarily giving up two of any House speaker's most potent tools—the blandishments of earmarks and spending increases or thinly veiled threats to jerk committee assignments or deny campaign assistance. Instead, Mr. Boehner used patient explanation of his proposal's merits and the policy realities.
The main danger for Republicans is that while 76 of the 87 House GOP freshmen voted with Mr. Boehner, a substantial minority of GOP activists did not want the debt ceiling raised regardless of what the consequences were for the economy. A dispirited base could generate costly primaries and depress turnout.
(snip)
Entitlement reform in the current political context can be achieved only by having a Republican Senate and a Republican president join the Republican House. This is not ideal, since reforms of this magnitude are better done in a bipartisan manner. But there doesn't appear to be any alternative. The crisis is real and the need for action overwhelming.
And so the GOP must take its case to the people in 2012 in the hope of earning a mandate. The prospects for this are much better than they were before the debt-ceiling debate—a clash from which Mr. Obama and his party might not fully recover before the election.
Read more at the article on WSJ.com on Wednesday, August 3, 2011.If Republicans stay home because this debt ceiling was passed or are part of the faction led by DeMint and Palin who want to primary 'yes' voters, than those Republicans are just being stupid and hardheaded. We will take the Allen West's and the James Langford's of the Congress any day of the week over the 'my way or no way' attitude. Found it amusing that some members of the Republican Study Committee think it is too big now since a lot of people didn't vote their leadership position even though there was never a vote whether to support or not support the debt ceiling compromise. Guess they should put out a sign: No Common Sense wanted!
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Joint Committee on the Budget First Action: Cut the White House Budget
The White House's Top 20 Raises from KFSO.com:
We had heard earlier that Obama had given the White House personnel an 8% pay raise when the rest of the Government Civil Service has received no raises for two years along with Social Security. This shows the raises.
There are a few problems with this report that appeared on Huffington Post with salaries. They 21 officials in the Obama administration earn the maximum salary of $172,000 a year but that is not the administration as the Cabinet doesn't look to be listed. This is White House staff only -- no Cabinet secretaries, no CZARS who make the maximum with an office budget of $1M per Czar. Four CZARS of the 35 to 42 were cut in the budget deal in April because three duplicated efforts of Cabinet Secretaries and one was the Car CZAR. That still leaves 31 to 38 CZARS getting paid with our Tax Dollars. Hard to find a list of CZARs but there are any where from 35 to 42 with seven more planned. In January The Hill reported Republicans introduce bill to eliminate presidential ‘czars’ which looks to have died in the Senate like so many other bills. Guess you could tab the Senate as the place where good bills go to die!
You can see the full list of White House staff at the links below:
We need a full outside audit of the Government -- bet taxpayers would be appalled at what they find. Time to stop runaway spending the the White House should be front and center. Roll back those 8% raises as #1.
Will someone please explain how the Senate can go on a month long recess with no budget being passed and Obama can fly off to Chicago for his big fundraiser and then vacation with no budget for FY 12 in place? House has done their job, but not the Senate or Obama. Where is the outcry from the mainstream media or do they want a month-long vacation as well? This is no way to run Government!
We had heard earlier that Obama had given the White House personnel an 8% pay raise when the rest of the Government Civil Service has received no raises for two years along with Social Security. This shows the raises.
There are a few problems with this report that appeared on Huffington Post with salaries. They 21 officials in the Obama administration earn the maximum salary of $172,000 a year but that is not the administration as the Cabinet doesn't look to be listed. This is White House staff only -- no Cabinet secretaries, no CZARS who make the maximum with an office budget of $1M per Czar. Four CZARS of the 35 to 42 were cut in the budget deal in April because three duplicated efforts of Cabinet Secretaries and one was the Car CZAR. That still leaves 31 to 38 CZARS getting paid with our Tax Dollars. Hard to find a list of CZARs but there are any where from 35 to 42 with seven more planned. In January The Hill reported Republicans introduce bill to eliminate presidential ‘czars’ which looks to have died in the Senate like so many other bills. Guess you could tab the Senate as the place where good bills go to die!
You can see the full list of White House staff at the links below:
How much do White House staffers make? Twenty-one officials in the Obama administration earn the maximum salary, $172,000 a year, according to the White House's annual report to Congress, released Friday afternoon (30 June 2011)
The lowest salary is $41,000, and three White House advisers work for free: Patricia McGinnis, Jessica Schumer and Shale Wong.
President Obama takes home $400,000 per year.
The full report released by the White House is at Huffington Post AOLWhat is the full White House budget including transportation for the last two years? You cannot find it because the Democrat House/Senate in 2009-2010 never did have a budget. There is still not a budget for FY 2012 that starts 1 October 2011 so it is impossible to find what the White House or any other agency is actually spending. Yet some people wonder why the spending by Obama and the Democrats are out of control. Was a non-budget done on purpose so the Democrats could spend at will with no accountability? That seems to be the case.
We need a full outside audit of the Government -- bet taxpayers would be appalled at what they find. Time to stop runaway spending the the White House should be front and center. Roll back those 8% raises as #1.
Will someone please explain how the Senate can go on a month long recess with no budget being passed and Obama can fly off to Chicago for his big fundraiser and then vacation with no budget for FY 12 in place? House has done their job, but not the Senate or Obama. Where is the outcry from the mainstream media or do they want a month-long vacation as well? This is no way to run Government!
Gov. Perry Announces Creation of Western Governors University Texas
Online university to make a college degree more affordable and accessible for Texans
Wednesday, August 03, 2011 • Austin, Texas • Press Release
Gov. Rick Perry, with the support of Higher Education Chairs Sen. Judith Zaffirini and Rep. Dan Branch, today announced the creation of WGU Texas, a subsidiary of Western Governors University (WGU), which is an accredited, nationally-recognized, nonprofit university. WGU Texas will offer an affordable and flexible alternative for Texans seeking a higher education degree. The governor also signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to enhance the state's participation with and support of WGU, which was founded in 1997 by governors of 19 states, including Texas.
"Earning a college degree is one of the most effective ways for individuals to improve the quality of life for themselves and their families," Gov. Perry said. "By offering online, competency-based courses in key workforce areas, WGU Texas provides another flexible, affordable way for Texans to fulfill their potential and contribute their talents for years and decades to come, without any need for state funding. Our strengthened collaboration with WGU plays an important role in the effort to ensure Texas has an equipped workforce to meet the needs of job creators."
WGU is an online university that primarily serves working adults and offers bachelor's and master's degrees in key workforce areas of business, information technology, education and health professions, including nursing. More than 75 percent of students are low income, minority, first generation to attend college or rural students. WGU does not receive state funding, but is self-sustaining on tuition of about $5,780 per 12-month year. WGU was started through a memorandum of understanding and provision of $100,000 in start-up funding from each of the 19 founding states.
"Working Texans who cannot pursue their higher education goals on college campuses certainly should reap the benefits of WGU Texas' online, competency-based model," Sen. Judith Zaffirini said. "They also should benefit from the program's flexibility, which will allow them to meet family and work responsibilities while continuing their studies. Although WGU Texas does not receive state funding and is self-sustaining through tuition, it will help address our state's key workforce needs while offering affordable career and continuing education opportunities to Texans over 30."
WGU Texas is being created through Executive Order RP 75, which calls on state agencies to work cooperatively with WGU toward the creation and establishment of WGU Texas. It also directs agencies including the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), Texas Education Agency and Texas Workforce Commission to create appropriate data sharing processes as may be required by state or federal guidelines for higher education providers.
"Texas needs legions of new, sharp, credentialed minds to succeed in a knowledge-based economy," Rep. Dan Branch said. "The creation of WGU Texas will provide another low cost, flexible and tested option for Texans seeking to compete in a global marketplace."
This MOU is an addendum to the one executed by the state and WGU in 1997, and further enhances Texas' participation and support of WGU Texas, particularly through the creation of an advisory board whose members will be appointed in consultation with the governor.
"By establishing WGU Texas, Gov. Perry and the State of Texas are making quality higher education more accessible for working adults throughout the Lone Star State," said Dr. Robert W. Mendenhall, President of WGU. "We look forward to this partnership with the state, which will help thousands of Texans earn the college degrees they want and need, on a schedule they can manage, at a cost they can afford."
WGU degrees are competency-based, meaning students advance by demonstrating their knowledge and abilities, rather than accumulating credit hours. This model better serves adult learners who enroll with specific skill sets, allowing them to graduate faster. Additionally, this model particularly benefits veterans, who are able to apply the skills they learned in the military toward their degrees, which helps implement SB 1736 that created the College Credit for Heroes Program and was signed by Gov. Perry. More than 25,000 students from all 50 states, including 1,600 Texans, are enrolled at WGU, which has grown more than 30 percent annually.
"WGU Texas will significantly expand access to affordable, high quality education and training," said THECB Commissioner Raymund Paredes. "This initiative is yet another innovation that is making Texas a national role model for reinventing higher education."
To learn about other state initiatives to assist adult learners, please visit www.gradtx.org.
American Economy in the Tank as layoffs surge and job growth stalls
When the news hit that Lockheed Martin one of the companies listed in the article was laying off in Denver some of the people inside the company didn't believe it was happening. Looks like some of them have their heads buried in the sand because if rumors are true, this is only a tip of the iceberg for layoffs/early outs for Lockheed employees which will be moving to other facilities/programs in the future. The F-35 is fast destroying the company as money is still hemorrhaging in Fort Worth.
We are also hearing that they never solved the weight problem for the Navy version and now the Navy is pushing the US Senate to cancel their version as the Navy will be getting more F-18 Super Hornets with multi-year deliveries through 2015 which is what they wanted from the beginning. We are hearing the Marine Corps also wants out of the Stoval Version because of the high cost of the plane but so far the Navy and Marine Corps are still part of the F-35 team, but for how long? All three services are complaining about the high cost of maintenance for various F-35 versions. Why was Lockheed or any company given two fighters to bring into the inventory one right after the other?
Then we have the British who are considering pulling out of the F-35 for their carriers as the Stoval version has become too costly and are exploring three other options to include the F-18 Super Hornet.
Lockheed-Martin could be in real problems with the F-35 as several Senators McCain and Levin have asked the cost to kill the whole program but probably a better answer would be to have the F-35 for the Air Force only. Some defense people are advocating ordering more F-22's and killing the F-35. The F-35 has been a problem for sometime and cost continue to rise along with problems that still have not been fixed yet we have defense groups demanding we keep the F-35. That is why we have said all along that the DoD needs looked at their programs with a fine tooth comb to find the waste. We will take a more in-depth look at what is being said about the F-35 during the August Senate/House recess.
One thing is certain and that is lay offs/buy outs in other parts of Lockheed are a matter of when not if. As one person I talked with recently said "F-35 is sucking the life out of the company" -- just maybe Lockheed would have been smart to keep the old General Dynamics people happy in Fort Worth instead of playing games with their jobs. Now they are talking about how bad the F-35 really is which is not good for management who keeps saying everything is fine -- what a joke!
Boeing looks to be doing better now that they know they are going to be producing the F-18 Super Hornet over multi-years now instead of having to get a yearly approval since the F-35 is far from being ready for the carriers if it ever makes to to a carrier. We sure have our doubts from what we are hearing. Guess you could say the former General Dynamics employees who did such a great job on the F-16 are not happy campers today.
Borders is shutting down across the Country which most likely can be traced to bad management. Then everyone gets the word that it is 40% off -- not the first week -- it was 10% off and you couldn't use your Borders card to get 10% so why was that a deal. Borders never figured out to capture a portion of the changing market. I would rather go to Hastings than Borders any day. Still waiting for that 40% off to happen.
CISCO stock plunged more than 20% this year and in July announced they are laying off 9% of their workforce and transferring another 7% to one of their companies they are selling.
Boston Scientific plans to eliminate 1,200 to 1,400 jobs worldwide during the next 2 ½ years to free money for new investments, the Natick medical device maker’s second major round of cuts since last year.
How many other companies are going to add the total of layoffs for August. The economy is not getting better but seems to be getting worse as more people face layoffs. This is only five companies, what about others who are on the edge? Until the United States Government starts to get some fiscal responsibility we see more landmines ahead in the economic recovery.
We are also hearing that they never solved the weight problem for the Navy version and now the Navy is pushing the US Senate to cancel their version as the Navy will be getting more F-18 Super Hornets with multi-year deliveries through 2015 which is what they wanted from the beginning. We are hearing the Marine Corps also wants out of the Stoval Version because of the high cost of the plane but so far the Navy and Marine Corps are still part of the F-35 team, but for how long? All three services are complaining about the high cost of maintenance for various F-35 versions. Why was Lockheed or any company given two fighters to bring into the inventory one right after the other?
Then we have the British who are considering pulling out of the F-35 for their carriers as the Stoval version has become too costly and are exploring three other options to include the F-18 Super Hornet.
Lockheed-Martin could be in real problems with the F-35 as several Senators McCain and Levin have asked the cost to kill the whole program but probably a better answer would be to have the F-35 for the Air Force only. Some defense people are advocating ordering more F-22's and killing the F-35. The F-35 has been a problem for sometime and cost continue to rise along with problems that still have not been fixed yet we have defense groups demanding we keep the F-35. That is why we have said all along that the DoD needs looked at their programs with a fine tooth comb to find the waste. We will take a more in-depth look at what is being said about the F-35 during the August Senate/House recess.
One thing is certain and that is lay offs/buy outs in other parts of Lockheed are a matter of when not if. As one person I talked with recently said "F-35 is sucking the life out of the company" -- just maybe Lockheed would have been smart to keep the old General Dynamics people happy in Fort Worth instead of playing games with their jobs. Now they are talking about how bad the F-35 really is which is not good for management who keeps saying everything is fine -- what a joke!
Boeing looks to be doing better now that they know they are going to be producing the F-18 Super Hornet over multi-years now instead of having to get a yearly approval since the F-35 is far from being ready for the carriers if it ever makes to to a carrier. We sure have our doubts from what we are hearing. Guess you could say the former General Dynamics employees who did such a great job on the F-16 are not happy campers today.
Borders is shutting down across the Country which most likely can be traced to bad management. Then everyone gets the word that it is 40% off -- not the first week -- it was 10% off and you couldn't use your Borders card to get 10% so why was that a deal. Borders never figured out to capture a portion of the changing market. I would rather go to Hastings than Borders any day. Still waiting for that 40% off to happen.
CISCO stock plunged more than 20% this year and in July announced they are laying off 9% of their workforce and transferring another 7% to one of their companies they are selling.
The move is part of a previously announced plan to streamline Cisco's business in an attempt to clarify the company's role in the tech world. Cisco has struggled to grow in recent quarters, and CEO John Chambers' tone has grown increasingly pessimistic.Merck & Co to lay off 13,000 employees traced to the end of patents and generic drugs which benefit the consumer.
Profits on Merck's No. 1 seller, asthma drug Singulair, will be slashed next year when the company's patent expires.
Albert Wertheimer, a Temple University pharmacy professor, said many companies are laying off workers as big blockbuster drugs lose patent protection in the next few years.
"What that means is within six months, there'll be 10 or 12 or 15 companies making a generic version of those products,” Wertheimer said. “The originator company will lose probably close to 90 percent of the market on each one of those."
Boston Scientific plans to eliminate 1,200 to 1,400 jobs worldwide during the next 2 ½ years to free money for new investments, the Natick medical device maker’s second major round of cuts since last year.
How many other companies are going to add the total of layoffs for August. The economy is not getting better but seems to be getting worse as more people face layoffs. This is only five companies, what about others who are on the edge? Until the United States Government starts to get some fiscal responsibility we see more landmines ahead in the economic recovery.
Job growth stalls, layoffs surge
@CNNMoney
August 3, 2011: 9:34 AM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The jobs recovery slowed for a third month in a row, according to two reports out Wednesday.
Private sector employers added 114,000 workers in July, marking a decrease from the 145,000 jobs added in June, payroll processing firm ADP reported.
That number beat economists' forecasts for 100,000 additional jobs, but it is also taken with a grain of salt by some economists, since ADP's figures have differed wildly from government data this year. In June, ADP's initial numbers topped the government figures by 100,000.
Meanwhile, a separate report showed more firms are opting to downsize, rather than add to their payrolls.
The number of planned job cuts surged to a 16-month high in July -- rising 60% in July to 66,414 from June's 41,432, according to outplacement consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
The Challenger report characterized it as a "sudden and unexpected burst" in downsizing.
Job killing companies
The data was hardly a surprise though, given a flurry of mass layoffs announced in the last few weeks by Cisco Systems (CSCO, Fortune 500), Merck & Co., (MRK, Fortune 500) Borders, Lockheed Martin (LMT, Fortune 500) and Boston Scientific (BSX, Fortune 500). Those five companies alone accounted for 38,100 planned cuts in July.
"What may be most worrisome about the July surge is that the heaviest layoffs occurred in industries that, until now, have enjoyed relatively low job-cut levels, including pharmaceuticals, computer and retail," John A. Challenger, chief executive officer of Challenger, Gray & Christmas said in a statement.
The latest employment data, along with other weak reports, have economists questioning their earlier forecasts for the recovery.
High gas prices and Japan's earthquake were originally thought to be causing a temporary soft patch in the first half of 2011.
"If it was a temporary slowdown, they wouldn't actually fire people," said Paul Dales, senior U.S. economist with Capital Economics. "To actually fire people is, to me, a sign that companies believe there is a more permanent slowdown going on."
Both the Challenger report and the ADP report are known to set the tone for the government's closely watched monthly jobs report due out Friday.
Economists polled by CNNMoney are expecting 75,000 jobs were added to payrolls in the month. The unemployment rate is expected to stay at 9.2%.
Source: CNN Money
Next Up on the Agenda -- "What to do Next!"
The Senate missed the "What to do Next" at least when it comes to an FAA budget. If you have the money some airlines are offering tickets minus the taxes which cannot be collected, so you might want to buy your tickets now. Shame on the airlines who raised rates to fill the tax void: Airlines fill void of tax cut with fare hikes. What should have been a boon for passengers, most airlines have decided higher rates are in order on top of their huge add-on 'fee' for baggage.
As the Senate headed for recess leaving behind the unfinished FAA extension you are left wondering why. The only answer we can come up with his Senator Rockefeller is the stumbling block as the Republicans pulled back the union language. Why would he hold up this bill? Is he selfish enough that this is all about the small WV airports getting upgrades by the Federal taxpayers? Is this another West Virginia Senator putting himself first by bringing home the pork to small rural airports? How much money is poured into WV for these rural airports from our tax dollars? All legitimate questions but his answer that without air transportation the state couldn't function doesn't work. Has Rockefeller never heard of tractor trailer trucks to move goods? Would be a lot cheaper for the federal taxpayers then fixing up WV airports. We would like to say we can look at the budget to find out, but there has been no budget out of the Democrat Senate we thought for two years but the FAA lack of a budget goes back to the fall of 2007 when the Democrats were in charge of the House and Senate.
Where do we go from here with the 12 members of a bi-partisan committee yet to be named to do cuts? We have two sides, the Defense Department and entitlement sacred cows. This should be interesting to watch because anyone who says the Defense Department cannot be cut has never been around the Defense Department. Once you are involved with any portion, you see gigantic waste over and over again. That waste needs to go. The same is true of social security and medicare where fraud is rampant. People continuing to get checks when they are dead and people cashing them, doctors padding medicare bills, medicaid out of control and after five years can be used by non-Americans residents, but 50 cents over the limit as an American citizen and you out the door with nothing.
It would be nice if both groups would put the American taxpayer first and cut the deficit and quit worrying about whose sacred cow it is. In the next few weeks with the Senate in recess and the rhetoric starting to go down, we will take a look at some of those defense sacred cows -- F-35 comes to mind, a program that the Navy never wanted, but was forced on them is way over budget and will be a mechanic's nightmare. That's the tip of the iceberg as we look once again at Automatic Test Systems and their authoritarian you will buy our system even you need an upgrade only. That would be $110M versus $10M which is a savings of $100M right there. Why also is the Air Force adding civil service jobs now?
Then on the other side is social security, medicare, and medicaid. Will someone explain to me why raising the full retirement age to 70 when Americans live longer is going to hurt today's seniors? It makes the program more secure for the future which AARP seems to ignore. While we are talking retirement age -- why is Civil Service retirement still at 55 with 30 years? We are not talking deferred, we are talking full retirement with healthcare benefits which frankly are not cheap -- $400+ a month for Blue Cross/Blue Shied for a family plan, but still you are young enough to go get another job.
How can the military retire with 20 years of service from a desk job with full benefits. We are not talking combat but people who never leave the Country and in some cases go from base to base in a Command doing the same job as a civilian. There should be two categories for the military retirement like there are in the FBI, CIA and other agencies -- the military in combat/overseas positions and the desk people here in the States who never leave the States doing the same job as civil service. I know one instance of someone in the medical service corps who transferred offices at the same hospital to avoid transfers to another base and retired with 20 years. It is not like in earlier years where younger troops did not get paid well -- they pay has gone ahead of the private sector for what they do.
In a few short paragraph, I can save over a $1B without even looking at what else can be cut, yet we have the 'sky is falling' from both sides who say Defense and Entitlements cannot be cut. Time for Common Sense to take over and nothing be left off the table to at least take a look at to see where cuts can be made. My first recommendation is to pull back civil service positions to December 31, 2006, as a good start.
As the Senate headed for recess leaving behind the unfinished FAA extension you are left wondering why. The only answer we can come up with his Senator Rockefeller is the stumbling block as the Republicans pulled back the union language. Why would he hold up this bill? Is he selfish enough that this is all about the small WV airports getting upgrades by the Federal taxpayers? Is this another West Virginia Senator putting himself first by bringing home the pork to small rural airports? How much money is poured into WV for these rural airports from our tax dollars? All legitimate questions but his answer that without air transportation the state couldn't function doesn't work. Has Rockefeller never heard of tractor trailer trucks to move goods? Would be a lot cheaper for the federal taxpayers then fixing up WV airports. We would like to say we can look at the budget to find out, but there has been no budget out of the Democrat Senate we thought for two years but the FAA lack of a budget goes back to the fall of 2007 when the Democrats were in charge of the House and Senate.
Where do we go from here with the 12 members of a bi-partisan committee yet to be named to do cuts? We have two sides, the Defense Department and entitlement sacred cows. This should be interesting to watch because anyone who says the Defense Department cannot be cut has never been around the Defense Department. Once you are involved with any portion, you see gigantic waste over and over again. That waste needs to go. The same is true of social security and medicare where fraud is rampant. People continuing to get checks when they are dead and people cashing them, doctors padding medicare bills, medicaid out of control and after five years can be used by non-Americans residents, but 50 cents over the limit as an American citizen and you out the door with nothing.
It would be nice if both groups would put the American taxpayer first and cut the deficit and quit worrying about whose sacred cow it is. In the next few weeks with the Senate in recess and the rhetoric starting to go down, we will take a look at some of those defense sacred cows -- F-35 comes to mind, a program that the Navy never wanted, but was forced on them is way over budget and will be a mechanic's nightmare. That's the tip of the iceberg as we look once again at Automatic Test Systems and their authoritarian you will buy our system even you need an upgrade only. That would be $110M versus $10M which is a savings of $100M right there. Why also is the Air Force adding civil service jobs now?
Then on the other side is social security, medicare, and medicaid. Will someone explain to me why raising the full retirement age to 70 when Americans live longer is going to hurt today's seniors? It makes the program more secure for the future which AARP seems to ignore. While we are talking retirement age -- why is Civil Service retirement still at 55 with 30 years? We are not talking deferred, we are talking full retirement with healthcare benefits which frankly are not cheap -- $400+ a month for Blue Cross/Blue Shied for a family plan, but still you are young enough to go get another job.
How can the military retire with 20 years of service from a desk job with full benefits. We are not talking combat but people who never leave the Country and in some cases go from base to base in a Command doing the same job as a civilian. There should be two categories for the military retirement like there are in the FBI, CIA and other agencies -- the military in combat/overseas positions and the desk people here in the States who never leave the States doing the same job as civil service. I know one instance of someone in the medical service corps who transferred offices at the same hospital to avoid transfers to another base and retired with 20 years. It is not like in earlier years where younger troops did not get paid well -- they pay has gone ahead of the private sector for what they do.
In a few short paragraph, I can save over a $1B without even looking at what else can be cut, yet we have the 'sky is falling' from both sides who say Defense and Entitlements cannot be cut. Time for Common Sense to take over and nothing be left off the table to at least take a look at to see where cuts can be made. My first recommendation is to pull back civil service positions to December 31, 2006, as a good start.
What to Do NextAugust 2, 2011 1:01 P.M. By Ramesh Ponnuru
The supercommittee seems likely to deadlock, which means reductions in projected defense and domestic discretionary spending will automatically become law. If that happens, I assume that Republicans will try to increase defense and Democrats domestic spending — but in each case they will face the burden of getting both chambers of Congress and the president to go along with the change.
In the interim the obvious liberal strategy will be to set pro-defense and anti-tax activists against each other. The price of staving off cuts to defense, they will say to defense hawks, is a balanced deal from the supercommittee that includes net tax increases. The price of keeping taxes low, they will say to anti-taxers, is to accept cuts in defense. (Some of the anti-taxers will see this as a side-benefit rather than a price.) Either way conservatives, most of whom want to keep taxes down and defense spending up, lose something.
But it seems as though there is an obvious counter-strategy: Pit domestic discretionary spending against middle-class entitlement spending. Liberals know that middle-class entitlement spending is more valuable to them politically, but they care more about discretionary spending. So the Republicans could hold the line on taxes while also advancing entitlement reforms that (1) spare the poor as much as possible, (2) yield savings within the budget window, and (3) don’t cross any ideological red lines for the Democrats. I think the Coburn-Lieberman Medicare reforms, though not perfect, would be a good template for Republicans on the commission to work with.
In effect the Republicans would be saying: Accept these entitlement reforms, or we’ll let the automatic cuts to both defense and domestic discretionary spending become law and see which side is more likely to get those cuts reversed in the political process. Would it work? Probably not. But it could work, it seems like the best available strategy, and it would keep the focus of the debate off intra-Republican strife.
Source: National ReviewRepublicans need to be smart in their negotiations and no one who is an automatic "NO" needs anywhere close to them. Get the Common Sense people who understand cuts have to be made to the deficit and NOTHING should be left off the table.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Debt Battles Revealed Tea Party's Divisions
This is a well thought article and shows exactly what happened with the vote last night in the House. Decided to take a look at the Tea Party Caucus run by Bachmann. They voted 32-29 to pass the bill and when you look at some of the yes votes you see plenty of Freshman. The funniest thing I saw last night was Mike Pence being called a RINO -- Mr. Conservative himself who has a ton of common sense is now a RINO. When the opposition cannot get people like Mike Pence on their side, they take to calling names. Childish at best.
Next up I did those from Armed Services who voted with the Speaker: 25 Yes and 20 No votes. Guess the Tea Party and related organizations are now going to punish 174 Republicans in the House for voting for the compromise bill. The threats by Palin in her letter and these groups actually set off a firestorm in some offices with common sense Conservative Republicans calling to tell their members that they have their support and vote their conscience ignoring the threats.
Ponnuru does a great job of detailing what happened with the Tea Party and other groups who many Republican Reps turned their backs on to vote refusing be intimidated. It was one of the most disgusting displays I have ever seen out of some of these groups and that includes DeMint in the Senate who has threatened to primary any Republican voting for the Senate bill. This intimidation factor is going to destroy the credibility of the various groups and their leaders.
The last sentence of this article sums everything up:
Excuse me but who made these groups and people the judge and jury of Republicans? Do we we ever hear them talk about going after Democrats? NO! It is Republicans they want to punish. Do they ever have a plan? NO! Calling Colonel West a traitor did it for me. I will support him 100% and already made a donation. Who do these people think they are that every vote has to be for their agenda? That 'my way or no way attitude' has never worked.
Talked to people around this great Country and to a person not one of them thinks anyone should be primaried over this vote. We will see what happens in the days ahead but now it is time to get back to the business of the Country and for the Senate to actually pass a BUDGET. You want to be mad at someone how about the Democrats in the Senate who still do not have a BUDGET.
Next up I did those from Armed Services who voted with the Speaker: 25 Yes and 20 No votes. Guess the Tea Party and related organizations are now going to punish 174 Republicans in the House for voting for the compromise bill. The threats by Palin in her letter and these groups actually set off a firestorm in some offices with common sense Conservative Republicans calling to tell their members that they have their support and vote their conscience ignoring the threats.
Ponnuru does a great job of detailing what happened with the Tea Party and other groups who many Republican Reps turned their backs on to vote refusing be intimidated. It was one of the most disgusting displays I have ever seen out of some of these groups and that includes DeMint in the Senate who has threatened to primary any Republican voting for the Senate bill. This intimidation factor is going to destroy the credibility of the various groups and their leaders.
The last sentence of this article sums everything up:
To the extent that Tea Partiers devote their energies to attacking Republicans for not cutting government fast enough, they will just be an irritant, as splinters usually are.Most members of Congress on both sides had to cast their votes on what they thought was best for the Country. The ones who truly deliberated and voted NO I have a lot of respect for but I have zero respect for those who said they were NO on both sides of the aisle without reading because of their Agendas. The very idea that someone will vote NO until a Balanced Budget Amendment is passed is ludicrous when you have a Democrat Senate and a Democrat President and shows a total disregard for the position they were elected. Then we heard about the Tax increases that some pundits said were in the bill but according to Senator Kyl, they are not and you are left wonder why people need to use Talking Points on both sides to get their points across.
Excuse me but who made these groups and people the judge and jury of Republicans? Do we we ever hear them talk about going after Democrats? NO! It is Republicans they want to punish. Do they ever have a plan? NO! Calling Colonel West a traitor did it for me. I will support him 100% and already made a donation. Who do these people think they are that every vote has to be for their agenda? That 'my way or no way attitude' has never worked.
Talked to people around this great Country and to a person not one of them thinks anyone should be primaried over this vote. We will see what happens in the days ahead but now it is time to get back to the business of the Country and for the Senate to actually pass a BUDGET. You want to be mad at someone how about the Democrats in the Senate who still do not have a BUDGET.
Debt Battles Revealed Tea Party’s Divisions
By Ramesh Ponnuru Aug 1, 2011 7:00 PM CT
At first glance, it looks as if the Tea Partiers scored a big win over Speaker of the House John Boehner and the Republican Party establishment last week.
Boehner pleaded for Republican members of Congress to unite in support of a package of spending cuts and a debt-limit increase. He ran into vehement opposition from Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the head of the Republican Study Committee, a large group of conservatives in the House.
Prominent conservative organizations -- FreedomWorks, the Club for Growth, Heritage Action for America and various groups with the words “Tea Party” in their names -- opposed him, too, because his plan did not include a constitutional amendment limiting federal spending. And they beat him: He could not get enough votes for his original plan to pass.
Take another look, though, and the clout of this faction looks a lot less impressive. Its constituent organizations, which claim to speak for the populist insurgency that won the House for Republicans in 2010, were not able to persuade a majority of Republicans to side with them, or anything close to a majority. Roughly 88 percent of House Republicans sided with Boehner. They sided with him even when some of the groups warned that they were putting the vote on their scorecards -- planning, that is, to tell their followers that representatives who voted against them were not solid conservatives.
Support for Boehner
The vast majority of freshmen Republican representatives backed Boehner, not the activist groups. The vast majority of members of the Republican Study Committee aligned with the speaker, not their committee leader. Many members of Congress who are strongly associated with the Tea Parties backed the Boehner bill, too, among them Renee Ellmers of North Carolina, Allen West of Florida and James Lankford of Oklahoma.
The same thing happened this spring, when most House Republicans voted for a deal to keep the government open even though the activist groups said they would score that vote negatively. Only 59 Republicans voted no -- and again, most freshmen and most Republican Study Committee members sided with Boehner.
What happened last week was that about 12 percent of House Republicans thought that they could use the sheer force of their willpower as leverage to get a constitutional amendment. It was never going to work, of course. They may have thought it would because some activists, often described in the news media as “leaders” or “spokesmen” for a vast movement, said it would. But these activists do not speak for all or even a large fraction of the people who share their limited-government principles, especially on strategic or tactical questions.
Often Misunderstood
The freshmen Republicans associated with the Tea Parties have often been misunderstood by friend and foe alike. They have been seen as newcomers to politics who hate all compromise and seethe with hostility to party leaders. Some of them do, but many of them are practical conservatives with experience in state and local politics.
The Tea Party faction that has been in the news over the past week -- the group that sank Boehner’s plan -- demonstrated that it could deny Republicans a majority when its members make a tactical alliance with the Democrats, who unanimously opposed the plan. Similarly, the Tea Partiers can punish Republicans and help Democrats by sitting out general elections.
But the faction’s power in Republican primaries is overrated. In 2010, only two Republican incumbents lost their seats in primaries due to conservative opposition (carbon-tax proponent Representative Bob Inglis of South Carolina, and party-switching Representative Parker Griffith of Alabama). Senator Bob Bennett of Utah lost his seat in a caucus, which rewards purists. The other big Tea Party wins came in open seats. Sarah Palin is among those threatening Republican representatives with primaries from the right.
An Irritant
Unless the Tea Party tide is stronger in 2012 than it was in 2010, Republican incumbents are probably safe, at least if they’re in places that use primaries.
In 2010, “the Tea Party” was journalistic shorthand for a new influx of people and passion into conservatism. Allied with other conservatives, they moved the Republican Party rightward. Allied as well with a public alarmed by liberalism on the march, they won a lot of elections. To the extent that Tea Partiers devote their energies to attacking Republicans for not cutting government fast enough, they will just be an irritant, as splinters usually are.
(Ramesh Ponnuru is a Bloomberg View columnist and a senior editor at National Review. The opinions expressed are his own.) Source: Bloomberg
One Major Win with Debt Ceiling Bill: The End of Keynes
When I read this article this morning, a smile crossed my face because Lowry has nailed it -- for all its faults this debt ceiling bill signals the 'End of Keynes' which should leave fiscal conservatives cheering. Some of the speeches I have heard on the floor this morning from Republicans are all over the place -- there is nothing that brings the speech together like we heard in the House yesterday from some of the Freshman who frankly sounded like Mike Pence in getting their thoughts across. When I compare someone to Mike Pence who I believe will be the next Governor of Indiana, it is a high compliment.
Maybe we have House Members that should be promoted to the Senate. Wish the Congressman from Staten Island Michael Grimm would be representing New York instead of Schumer or Gillibrand. He is articulate, does not take forever to say something, and is well versed in what he is talking about. House Freshman members know how to get their point across while some of the Freshman Senators who are speaking this morning are all over the place, using talking point papers, spinning, and go on forever to the point you don't care what they are saying but just get off the stage.
Senator Kyl when he spoke : There is nothing in this bill that discusses tax increases. So much for Limbaugh and others saying there is. Who do I believe? Kyl or Limbaugh -- Senator Kyl all the way. Kyl is going to work to get the military draconian cuts portion taken out of this bill to restore our military security. We need to get 60 Senators to throw out the part against the military but Kyl is voting for bill as we cannot default and it is a first step.
How refreshing as he understands there are ways to get around these defense cuts by taking them direct to the American people and laying the full blame at the feet of Obama. Smart political move and gives ammunition to our Republican candidates. Senator Kyl got to the heart of the matter in short order while those Freshman droaned on forever. Thank you Senator Kyl for staying to fight against this draconian cut to defense and to ensure it will never happen while being smart enough to know that you don't default on the full credit of the United States. His approach is what we should have been hearing all morning -- we will fight Obama on the defense cuts but we will not default.
This is one vote that anyone voting yes or no should not be chastised by either side. Tough vote in a tough situation. Some of the NO's would by AYE's if they needed 60 votes to stop default. It is going to pass but there are going to need to changes and we don't default. So new is the time to get starting on repealing parts of this that don't work. It is bi-partisan yes and no.
Maybe we have House Members that should be promoted to the Senate. Wish the Congressman from Staten Island Michael Grimm would be representing New York instead of Schumer or Gillibrand. He is articulate, does not take forever to say something, and is well versed in what he is talking about. House Freshman members know how to get their point across while some of the Freshman Senators who are speaking this morning are all over the place, using talking point papers, spinning, and go on forever to the point you don't care what they are saying but just get off the stage.
Senator Kyl when he spoke : There is nothing in this bill that discusses tax increases. So much for Limbaugh and others saying there is. Who do I believe? Kyl or Limbaugh -- Senator Kyl all the way. Kyl is going to work to get the military draconian cuts portion taken out of this bill to restore our military security. We need to get 60 Senators to throw out the part against the military but Kyl is voting for bill as we cannot default and it is a first step.
How refreshing as he understands there are ways to get around these defense cuts by taking them direct to the American people and laying the full blame at the feet of Obama. Smart political move and gives ammunition to our Republican candidates. Senator Kyl got to the heart of the matter in short order while those Freshman droaned on forever. Thank you Senator Kyl for staying to fight against this draconian cut to defense and to ensure it will never happen while being smart enough to know that you don't default on the full credit of the United States. His approach is what we should have been hearing all morning -- we will fight Obama on the defense cuts but we will not default.
This is one vote that anyone voting yes or no should not be chastised by either side. Tough vote in a tough situation. Some of the NO's would by AYE's if they needed 60 votes to stop default. It is going to pass but there are going to need to changes and we don't default. So new is the time to get starting on repealing parts of this that don't work. It is bi-partisan yes and no.
The End of Keynes
Rich Lowry
The debt deal is the final nail in the coffin.
Sen. Dick Durbin, the liberal lion from Illinois, pronounces the debt deal “the final interment of John Maynard Keynes.”
The burial ceremony should be a nice, simple one after the violence done to the aged economist by the failure of the broad Obama stimulus program. The administration’s serial overpromising in his name did more to discredit Keynes than a century’s worth of broadsides by his intellectual enemies
Nearly three years into the Obama administration, the unemployment rate is more than 9 percent, a grassroots movement devoted to cutting government has the upper hand in the House of Representatives, and the debt of the United States could well be downgraded by Standard and Poor’s. If Durbin thought that in these circumstances Keynes was heading anywhere other than a pine box, he hasn’t been paying attention.
The debt deal is austerity designed by committee. It’s late. It’s needlessly complex. It’s inadequate to our challenges and may not prove particularly functional. But it’s austerity. That a Washington with a Democratic Senate and president has to go through the exercise of at least appearing to cut $2.1 trillion from the deficit with no guaranteed tax increases is a humiliating reversal for Keynes’s self-appointed heirs.
Every time Washington has a showdown, pundits and presidential historians gather on TV sets to lament the breakdown of our governing institutions and the end of compromise. But Congress is still perfectly capable of splitting differences. The debt deal gives a little something to all the major players in a jerry-built, two-part increase in the debt limit coupled with an initial $900 billion agreed-upon cut and at least a $1.2 trillion cut TBD.
House speaker John Boehner gets less spending. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell gets his cute trick of letting Congress disapprove a second debt extension while still giving it to Pres. Barack Obama. Senate majority leader Harry Reid and President Obama get a debt extension past the 2012 election and a special committee that could possibly recommend tax increases.
Washington doesn’t lack for the ability to cut such clever deals; it lacks the collective will to transform the entitlement state. So, it perpetually kicks the job over to a commission. Last year, the Bowles-Simpson commission released a report that President Obama promptly filed away in a drawer in the Resolute Desk. Now, the debt deal creates an all-new special committee to find the unidentified $1.2 trillion second round of cuts.
Realistically, it would have to find them in entitlements. Rarely, though, has a bipartisan committee been so primed for failure. The proposed committee will have 12 members, six from each party. It needs a majority of seven to make a recommendation that goes straight to a vote on the floors of the House and the Senate. Unless either party slips up in one of its appointments, the committee is very likely to deadlock.
As a spur to action, automatic spending cuts equal to $1.2 trillion kick in if the committee fails. The idea is to make these backstop cuts so ham-fisted and distasteful to both parties that they will have an incentive to agree. Democrats will have to stomach even deeper discretionary cuts than in the first round and some Medicare reductions, while Republicans take it on the chin on defense.
The automatic cuts are divided in half between security and non-security. They would amount to a roughly $500 billion cut in defense, on top of whatever is wrung from it in the first part of the deal. In the new politics of austerity, Democrats can’t spend more, but they can target the locus of the only spending to which they are reflexively opposed: the Pentagon. It is a sign of Republicans’ fiscal hawkishness overcoming their national-security hawkishness that the party’s leaders signed onto this deal.
The nation’s debate has fundamentally shifted onto the ground of what kinds of spending to cut, and how fast and far. Keynes would be appalled, but as even Dick Durbin realizes, he’s dead and gone.
— Rich Lowry is editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. © 2011 by King Features Syndicate.
Source: National Review
Monday, August 1, 2011
House Passed the Bi-Partisan Bill to Raise the Debt Ceiling
House passes debt-ceiling bill, 269-161 -- note those numbers -- 269 members of Congress realized how important it was to pass this debt ceiling bill. It was overwhelmingly bi-partisan with the greatest number of votes coming Republicans. On the nay side was the Progressive Caucus and the Tea Party Caucus joining together to try and defeat this bill. There were 174 Republicans who voted Yes and 66 No votes which is a lot more Yes votes than Sen Graham (R-SC) predicted when he said it would be 50-50 for Republicans -- not even close to that. Almost 2/3rd of the Republican Caucus voted for the bill while the Democrats were the ones who were 95 Yes and 95 No as they split evenly.
Congressman Gabrielle Giffords who was shot earlier this year returned to the Capitol to cast a yes vote to a round of applause.
Congressman Gabrielle Giffords who was shot earlier this year returned to the Capitol to cast a yes vote to a round of applause.
Watched the full debate on CSPAN. Starting with Mike Pence's comments, the Republicans have a done a great job of saying this bill is a step forward and we cannot allow the Country to default. Two young Congressman stood out in the debate today -- Michael Grimm from Staten Island and James Langford from Oklahoma City These two articulate Freshman laid out why they supported this bill and left no doubt that this was a first step and it had to be passed. Both were articulate and reasoned. Great traits in a Congressman.
The Progressive Caucus voted against this bill and think some people on the Republican side should have asked themselves why they would be on the side of the Progressive Democrats who were livid at this bill.
For those who voted against this bill on behalf of the Defense Department, they have obviously have not worked for any agency of Defense or they would know there is a lot that could be trimmed out of Defense that would not affect our men and women and their ability to fight.
It is not the best bill, but frankly is is better than most Republicans thought could happen when Speaker Boehner said in the spring that in order to raise the debt ceiling you had to cut the deficit by that same number and not raise taxes. He was right and deserves a tremendous amount of credit as do a lot of members of House Leadership who wouldn't be deterred in finding a solution in spite of some automatic 'no's' in the GOP Conference who actually got the head of the Republican Study Committee too attack leadership.
The Senate we predict will now pass this bill.
Romney coming out today against this bill was bad timing and grandstanding just like Sarah Palin did last week. Romney pandering was a joke.
Was going to post the votes, but the vote tally is still not up. Will update this post when they are posted.
"The Best We Could Get" is Most Likely True Unfortunately
This compromise bill is far from perfect but the Republican Leadership had very little bargaining power with the fact the last vote had just enough votes to pass. There are no taxes which is simply amazing and shows Obama and the Democrats caved on tax increases. Speaker Boehner has said all along that for every dollar in debt ceiling rise it had to be offset by more than that in cuts and he got that in the bill when his chances back in the spring were rated nil.
Must admit there are a lot of conservatives who want immediate cuts who don't understand government contracting where a lot of the waste comes or even civil service. Cuts are programmed over a period of years so not to impact an agency's ability to operate. You cannot go into an office and cut 50% without an impact on what they do in most instances. First they go by attrition on cut jobs, then offer early outs before ever laying off anyone. That takes time. There is also a penalty if you cancel a contract immediately unless the contractor is at fault. It is foolish to think you can take all those cuts at once and why their making fun of Dr. Coburn's 10-year plan for cuts makes them look foolish. There are things can be cut immediately like duplication of services but others who are going to take time. Common sense is missing from a lot of the discussion.
One area that I think Republicans and Democrats need to both give a little bit is Defense which has become a sacred cow along with social security/medicare/medicaid. Both need looked at for where there is waste. The fraud in social security/medicare/medicaid is huge and the first thing you need to look at finding the fraud. If I were the head of the social security, I would make every last recipient verify they were still alive. Know that sounds strange but the number of dead people drawing checks is legendary. How many claims do doctors pad the bill? The list goes on and on and is a program that needs a complete audit from top to bottom. Go after the people committing the fraud. The savings in that alone would be huge.
Having been around defense for most of my adult life the waste in the defense department is true and anyone who says they cannot take a cut is not facing reality. In fact under Obama the defense department has added civil service ending years of cuts. They have taken programs that were doing well in private industry bringing them in-house to add more civil service and build an empire.
You never cut what our men and women in the military need to do their job -- that is a #1 priority but there are so many programs in the Defense Department that have nothing to do with supporting our military that Dr. Coburn is correct they need a huge audit -- think the American people are going to be livid at the waste in the DoD that has been going on for years and years. It seems every General of Senior Executive Service person has their own pet project which shall not be touched which wastes tons of money.
As this site has already pointed out, Automatic Test Systems at Warner Robins is wasting millions of dollars on their better mousetrap which is worse. F-16 finally got a waiver not to use that better mousetrap and upgrade what they have. Dr. Coburn has all the details on how VDATS is worthless but been pushed in order to grow civil service at Robins AFB. Canceling VDATS would save millions and provide our weapons systems with a better product.
Canceling all but the Air Force version of the F-35 would save billions and billions of dollars as it is still too heavy to land on a carrier plus the Navy wanted more of the F-18 Super Hornets. The AF version is the one foreign military sales wants. Sole source contracting should go out the window.
Bring back the law that you cannot leave the military and go to work for a defense contractor right away and I would extend that to senior civilians. Also they should be banned from having anything to do with a contractor who deals with the weapon systems where their spouse works. Know of one instance where the spouse of a contractor was on source selection for a weapon system upgrade when her husband was the head of a local contractor office bidding on the contract. There is a whole list of items that could be cut from Defense -- Dr. Coburn is correct that defense cuts should not be off the table.
There you have several programs in defense that could be cut and there are tons more. Anyone saying cuts in defense should be a sacred cow, might cause you to look at their portfolio and see what contractors they are invested with or who they are connected with. In Defense, it is smart cuts not cuts across the board that you need. There may be as much waste in DoD as any agency.
The Democrats are screaming louder than those Republicans who want no debt ceiling rise and don't care if we go in default. They probably won't read this bill either. The Democrats are out screaming everyone as they think Obama threw them under the bus with no new taxes. If the volume of the rhetoric is any indication, the Republicans got the best of this crappy deal.
Will it pass and calm the markets and the bond rating people? We will know more tonight.
Must admit there are a lot of conservatives who want immediate cuts who don't understand government contracting where a lot of the waste comes or even civil service. Cuts are programmed over a period of years so not to impact an agency's ability to operate. You cannot go into an office and cut 50% without an impact on what they do in most instances. First they go by attrition on cut jobs, then offer early outs before ever laying off anyone. That takes time. There is also a penalty if you cancel a contract immediately unless the contractor is at fault. It is foolish to think you can take all those cuts at once and why their making fun of Dr. Coburn's 10-year plan for cuts makes them look foolish. There are things can be cut immediately like duplication of services but others who are going to take time. Common sense is missing from a lot of the discussion.
One area that I think Republicans and Democrats need to both give a little bit is Defense which has become a sacred cow along with social security/medicare/medicaid. Both need looked at for where there is waste. The fraud in social security/medicare/medicaid is huge and the first thing you need to look at finding the fraud. If I were the head of the social security, I would make every last recipient verify they were still alive. Know that sounds strange but the number of dead people drawing checks is legendary. How many claims do doctors pad the bill? The list goes on and on and is a program that needs a complete audit from top to bottom. Go after the people committing the fraud. The savings in that alone would be huge.
Having been around defense for most of my adult life the waste in the defense department is true and anyone who says they cannot take a cut is not facing reality. In fact under Obama the defense department has added civil service ending years of cuts. They have taken programs that were doing well in private industry bringing them in-house to add more civil service and build an empire.
You never cut what our men and women in the military need to do their job -- that is a #1 priority but there are so many programs in the Defense Department that have nothing to do with supporting our military that Dr. Coburn is correct they need a huge audit -- think the American people are going to be livid at the waste in the DoD that has been going on for years and years. It seems every General of Senior Executive Service person has their own pet project which shall not be touched which wastes tons of money.
As this site has already pointed out, Automatic Test Systems at Warner Robins is wasting millions of dollars on their better mousetrap which is worse. F-16 finally got a waiver not to use that better mousetrap and upgrade what they have. Dr. Coburn has all the details on how VDATS is worthless but been pushed in order to grow civil service at Robins AFB. Canceling VDATS would save millions and provide our weapons systems with a better product.
Canceling all but the Air Force version of the F-35 would save billions and billions of dollars as it is still too heavy to land on a carrier plus the Navy wanted more of the F-18 Super Hornets. The AF version is the one foreign military sales wants. Sole source contracting should go out the window.
Bring back the law that you cannot leave the military and go to work for a defense contractor right away and I would extend that to senior civilians. Also they should be banned from having anything to do with a contractor who deals with the weapon systems where their spouse works. Know of one instance where the spouse of a contractor was on source selection for a weapon system upgrade when her husband was the head of a local contractor office bidding on the contract. There is a whole list of items that could be cut from Defense -- Dr. Coburn is correct that defense cuts should not be off the table.
There you have several programs in defense that could be cut and there are tons more. Anyone saying cuts in defense should be a sacred cow, might cause you to look at their portfolio and see what contractors they are invested with or who they are connected with. In Defense, it is smart cuts not cuts across the board that you need. There may be as much waste in DoD as any agency.
The Democrats are screaming louder than those Republicans who want no debt ceiling rise and don't care if we go in default. They probably won't read this bill either. The Democrats are out screaming everyone as they think Obama threw them under the bus with no new taxes. If the volume of the rhetoric is any indication, the Republicans got the best of this crappy deal.
Will it pass and calm the markets and the bond rating people? We will know more tonight.
‘The Best We Could Get’July 31, 2011 10:49 P.M. By Andrew Stiles House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) told GOP members on a conference call Sunday evening that he had reached a deal with congressional leaders and the White House, but that it wouldn’t happen “unless we have membership on board.” It remains to be seen how many House Republicans will end up supporting the final package, but members on the call told National Review Online they thought it would ultimately pass with bipartisan support. “I’m not sure I’m going to support it but I think it will probably pass,” said freshman Rep. Dennis Ross (R., Fla.). Members described the tone of the call as overwhelmingly positive, with many praising Boehner’s efforts in the negotiations. Despite his concerns about the final deal, Ross said “leadership has done a very good job of getting it to this point,” and described a sense of relief among members, many of whom may not love the deal, but are nonetheless happy to be moving on to the next fight. According to sources, Boehner said the deal was “the best that we could get.” In particular, he thanked the 87 freshman members for their input, without which “we wouldn’t have gotten this far.” Ross concurred. “I think the freshman class has been very valuable to this process,” he said. “Without them, without us, I don’t believe we’d be where we are today.” Freshman Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R., Ind.) told NRO that with “the most liberal president we’ve ever had” occupying the White House, the Tea Party and the conservative movement have done all right for themselves. “I think the Tea Party needs to take credit for changing the dialogue in Washington to be about cutting spending,” he said. “But whether I vote for this plan or not, it’s not enough. This isn’t the end of the fight.” Stutzman said he is still reviewing the details of the plan, and is skeptical as to which elements may have finally convinced President Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) to sign on. “I’m definitely open-minded about it,” he said. “But I approach Washington very skeptically, and try to avoid getting the wool pulled over my eyes.” Boehner told members he would like to vote on the plan as early as Monday night, and apologized for the short notice. Leaders will meet with the entire conference Monday to further discuss the details of the plan. Source: National Review |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Raw Story 
Posts
