1. Republicans will keep the U.S. House, albeit with their 25-seat majority slightly reduced. In the 10 presidential re-elections since 1936, the party in control of the White House has added House seats in seven contests and lost them in three. The average gain has been 12 seats. The largest pickup was 24 seats in 1944—but President Barack Obama is no FDR, despite what he said in his recent “60 Minutes” interview.
2. Republicans will take the U.S. Senate. Of the 23 Democratic seats up in 2012, there are at least five vulnerable incumbents (Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Pennsylvania): The GOP takes two or three of these. With the announcement on Tuesday that Nebraska’s Ben Nelson will retire, there are now seven open Democratic seats (Connecticut, Hawaii, North Dakota, New Mexico, Virginia, Wisconsin): The GOP takes three or four. Even if Republicans lose one of the 10 seats they have up, they will have a net pickup of four to six seats, for a majority of 51 to 53.
3. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Harry Reid or both will leave the Democratic leadership by the end of 2012. Speaker John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell will continue directing the GOP in their respective chambers.
4. This will be the fourth presidential election in a row in which turnout increases. This has happened just once since 1828, from 1928 through 1940.
5. In 2008, voters told the Pew Poll that they got more election information from the Internet than from daily newspapers. Next year, that advantage will grow as the Internet closes in on television as America’s principal source of campaign news.
6. After failing to win the GOP presidential nomination, Ron Paul will not run as a third-party candidate because that would put his son, Rand Paul, in an untenable position: Does the Republican senator from Kentucky support his father and effectively re-elect Mr. Obama, or back his party and defeat him?
7. Mr. Obama’s signature health-care overhaul, already deeply unpopular, will become even more so by Election Day. Women voters are particularly opposed to ObamaCare, feeling it threatens their family’s health.
8. Mr. Obama may propose tax reform, attempting to use it to appeal both to his liberal base (a question of fairness) and independents (a reform to spur economic growth). This will fail, but not before boosting Mr. Obama’s poll numbers.
9. The Obama campaign won’t corral high-profile Republican endorsements—as it did in 2008 with former Secretary of State Colin Powell—with the unimportant possible exception of former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel. It will also make a special effort to diminish the GOP’s advantage among military families, veterans and evangelicals, with the last a special target if Republicans nominate Mitt Romney.
10. Despite an extraordinary amount of presidential time and involvement, Team Obama will fall as much as $200 million short of its $1 billion combined fund-raising target for the campaign and Democratic National Committee. Even so, Mr. Obama and Democrats will outspend the GOP nominee and Republicans. This won’t necessarily translate into victory: John Kerry and Democrats outspent President George W. Bush and Republicans in 2004 by $124 million. Groups like American Crossroads (which I helped found) will narrow the Democratic money advantage.
11. Scandals surrounding the now-bankrupt Solyndra, Fannie and Freddie, MF Global and administration insider deals still to emerge will metastasize, demolishing the president’s image as a political outsider. By the election, the impression will harden that Mr. Obama is a modern Chicago-style patronage politician, using taxpayer dollars to reward political allies (like unions) and contributors (like Obama fund-raiser and Solyndra investor George Kaiser).
12. To intimidate critics and provoke higher black turnout, Democrats will play the race card more than in any election since 1948. Witness Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent charge that criticism of him and the president was “both due to the nature of our relationship and . . . the fact that we’re both African-Americans.”
13. The economic recovery will continue to be anemic, leaving both unemployment and concerns about whether the president is up to the job high on Election Day. Because of this, Mr. Obama will lose as his margins drop among five groups essential to his 2008 victory—independents, women, Latinos, young people and Jews. While he will win a majority from at least three of these groups, he won’t win them by as much as he did last time.

In the past we have honored a person or persons with this distinction. This year, we searched, wrestled and then performed a detailed statistical analysis to find a worthy candidate. You won’t be disappointed, as we discovered a host of individuals who fit the bill.

Our 6th Annual Big Turkey Award goes to The Debt Reduction Super-Committee in their endeavor to gobble up the nation’s debt. Patty Murray, Max Baucus and John Kerry we salute you! Jon Kyl, Rob Portman and Pat Toomey we salute you!

For Congress to abdicate its responsibility and put its faith in a supercommittee of twelve (go here for a complete list of committee members) was a bird brained idea from the beginning. The fact that the committee failed is just gravy for the goose.

It should be noted that this is now the 2nd time (Gobble Gobble) that John Kerry has appeared as at least a partial recipient of the Big Turkey Award. Mr. Kerry, we offer you a special Big Turkey salute! You are the gift that keeps on giving.

We at PoliticalDerby hope you have a safe and wonderful Thanksgiving!

I do not care what the issue is, the attitude and actions of legislating by executive order rather than by the process established by the Constitution is wrong. The President of the United States dictating laws from his desk are the actions of just that–a dictator.

Bank of America initiated the $5 debit card fee and you’d have thought they’d reinstated debtor’s prison. No sooner was the fee announced than Durbin pounced. 

Bank of America customer, vote with your feet. Get the heck out of that bank. Find yourself a bank or credit union that won’t gouge you for $5 a month and still will give you a debit card that you can use every single day. What Bank of America has done is an outrage. 

Did Durbin forget that Bank of America never charged a monthly debit card fee until he legislated “fairness” into the banking industry? No, he didn’t forget. He’s just a hypocrite. Then, to cover his trail, this dim bulb encouraged a bank run that would, if fulfilled, result in Bank of America’s insolvency. 

Yesterday the federal government bailed out “too big to fail” Bank of America with 45-billion taxpayer dollars. Today Dick Durbin has declared B of A expendable. I don’t know which is more insulting: the inconsistency, or Durbin’s belief that Bank of America customers need his prompt to seek a new bank if they find the debit card fee egregious. 

How can Durbin feign such self-righteous indignation over the debit card fee anyway? He created it. Durbin’s amendment to the Dodd-Frank banking reform legislation placed an artificial cease-and-desist order on the debit card fees banks once charged. Bank of America predictably sought new revenue streams to replace those Durbin’s amendment disallows. It’s the natural action for an institution whose revenue is disrupted. 

When a business is squeezed in one area it will redirect its quest for profits, a phenomenon clearly illustrated in my Water Balloon Theory. If you fill a long balloon with water and compress one area, the water will be forced to a new location. No matter how hard you squeeze, you can’t contain the water in one place. It will always move to a spot of lesser resistance. The only way to stop the process is to compress the balloon until it bursts. 

Sen. Durbin tried to disprove my Water Balloon Theory, but he failed. His attempt to constrain the bank’s fee structure simply forced those fees to a new location. At Bank of America the bulge appeared in the form of a $5 monthly charge for debit card use. 

The Water Balloon Theory remains intact. Exerting political pressure on businesses will push their hunt for profits in a new direction. Continually increasing said pressure will cause businesses to fail, just like a balloon. We should apply this theory whenever we’re tempted to demand congressional action on a perceived unfairness. Otherwise we, like Durbin, will end up all wet.

Click here to read the article by Joe Scarborough.

If you would like to read the article I wrote comparing Anthony Weiner to Lebron James, click the “Read More” link.

Enjoy your Wednesdays PD family!

Anthony Weiner: Politics’ Bron Bron

The past two summers have not been kind to these two public figures.

Lebron James and Anthony Weiner know all too well what it is like to fall in the eyes of the public.They had everything any man could ever want, but their arrogance took them down, way down. It was their pride that made it so easy for us to root against the Miami Heat and to celebrate when the Congressman finally resigned. If only Mr. Weiner had followed basketball a little more closely, he might still have his job.

When Weiner first became a Congressman in 1999, Lebron James had just turned into a high school phenom, dubbed the supposed successor to Michael Jordan. In DC, Weiner was an up and coming political star amongst Democrats and worked his way up in many liberal circles. Meanwhile in Cleveland, Lebron immediately turned the once last place Cavs into a contender collecting a few MVP trophies along the way. Both men were successful, popular, and media magnets for generally positive reasons. All that changed last summer and continued to worsen these summer months; both remained media magnets but for all the wrong reasons.

Anthony Weiner always reeked arrogance and baby Bron Bron was constantly told only what he wanted to hear as a superstar in Akron. In the summer of 2010 these two men revealed their true colors for all to see and it wasn’t pretty. We all know about the now infamous  “Decision” PR stink bomb James brought upon himself. His self absorption knew no limits as he celebrated in Miami the next day while claiming that the Heat would “Not only win one, not two, not three… NOT SEVEN,” championships.

Weiner did not learn from “Lebum’s” delusions – he thought that he was bigger than the game – big enough to get away with this kind of public showboating. In fact, he would not by outdone by Lebron. Just a few weeks later Weiner followed suit by refusing to yield to the gentleman. Crazy Right! He broke all sorts of House protocol in what was supposed to be a one minute address to the House about giving healthcare to 9/11 responders, a noble cause. His tirade distracted from the bill, hurting his own cause. This prolonged rant earned him scorn from fellow representatives and negative media attention. The problem with arrogance is that its not easy to get rid of, it usually roars its head back in say… a year?

A year passed, both these men were hit hard but certainly not down for the count. It didn’t have to end this way for dear old Anthony. He could have learned from his NBA equivalent. It takes a lot of cajones err confidence, to say that your not putting your head down; to proclaim your life is still better than 99.99% of the rest of the world’s right after yet another collapse in the playoffs. Likewise, I am amazed by the audacity to send photographs of yourself to multiple strange women as an already controversial public figure. You see, it wasn’t Weiner’s wiener (I couldn’t help it) that brought him down but his equally sized ego. A Proverb my mother always quoted to me is brought to mind – pride comes before the fall – she was right. Well, that and “accidentally” tweeting pictures of yourself… Can’t wait to see how these two fare next summer!

Republicans gained control of the federal government for the first time in memory. For conservatives the results were underwhelming. The hope was for Republicans to curtail government’s growth and influence. Instead, they expanded the federal role in education, healthcare, airport screening, and law enforcement. Budget deficits grew, partially due to wars fought for righteous reasons but with murky objectives, and partially due to tepid efforts at entitlement reform. 

Republicans performed so poorly in implementing the party’s traditional platform that Democrats campaigned against a spendthrift GOP in two successive elections. Democrats prevailed, quickly revealed their true nature, and exponentially expanded the Washington’s fiscal irresponsibility. No astute observer would’ve expected otherwise. 

Despite the constant media harangue over the supposed lack of bipartisan cooperation, politicians of both main parties are alarmingly close in their basic governing philosophies. Washington politicians increasingly, and regardless of party, depend on Washington solutions to validate their worth, secure their status, and increase their authority. But outside the legislative arena the contrast between Democrats and Republicans remains quite clear. 

Rasmussen polling indicates that 71-percent of Republicans, and 55-percent of unaffiliated and third party voters, oppose federal programs that create jobs from thin air. On the other end of the spectrum, 54-percent of Democrats think it’s a jim-dandy idea for Washington to spend money it doesn’t have on jobs the markets aren’t demanding. And how do we know the markets aren’t demanding those jobs? If they were, the jobs would be created with private wealth and investment. 

As the poll indicates, Republican voters still favor limited government and self-sufficiency. Democrat voters are identified by their support for bureaucracy and entitlement. This isn’t a problem for Democrats, whose leadership promotes a fast track to government intervention, perfectly reflecting the base’s innate liberalism. But GOP legislators too often favor a slow path to big government, directly contradicting the memberships’ allegiance to traditional Republican orthodoxies. 

The TEA Party was born precisely because the lines between Democrats and Republicans were blurred. The movement reflects the mood of conservatives who are shunned by a blueblood Republican leadership, a leadership that has opposed genuine conservatism at nearly every turn, even to the point of dismissing as archaic the venerable Reagan philosophy. 

There’s clear public support for traditional Republican concepts. The Republican candidate who best articulates self-reliance, limited government, and free market philosophies has a leg-up for the party’s presidential nomination. What’s more, he or she gives the GOP its best chance to unseat the highly vulnerable Barack Obama.

Rep. Frederica Wilson — Congress Clown — playing the race card (My apologies for using an external link rather than inserting the video. I can’t seem to make it work. AH)

Western wear isn’t unacceptable congressional dress, nor should it be. The cowboy look is an integral part of Americana. But the Technicolor edition of a dude ranch reject is a step too far. Even if Rep. Wilson offered substantive solutions to the obstacles facing this country, in particularly the black community, it would be difficult to take her serious when she looks like a Dodge City pimp. Not to worry, Wilson offers nothing in terms of discourse. 

Rep. Wilson blames racism for high unemployment among blacks, especially young males. The least she could do is spout rhetoric as flashy as her wardrobe. Instead she plays the race-card, excuses irresponsible behavior, and promotes big government solutions to undesirable circumstances. In fact, big government is a chief contributor to the condition she laments. 

Government decided it was a good idea to establish a minimum wage without regard to market realities. However, employers can’t retain employees who produce less benefit than the cost of their employment. Therefore businesses are forced to dismiss underproductive employees, who are typically young and inexperienced. This reality is especially evident among young black men. Cost verse benefit is a simple economic concept, yet it’s lost on Rep. Wilson. 

Governments at all levels have complicated the business climate, making entry difficult. For instance, operating a taxi cab in an urban area is a viable service young black men could offer. Yet cab license fees can reach six digits. How many young men, of any race, can afford such an initial outlay? Similar obstacles face other young, black entrepreneurs. It’s not racism that erects these obstacles, it’s big government. 

Rep. Wilson ignores other factors limiting black economic success as well. No one forced young black men to adopt a rap culture that degrades women, devalues academic success, mocks the rule of law, and dismisses family responsibilities. Racism isn’t the source of a 70-percent illegitimacy rate among Black Americans. It was big government that replaced the black father, leaving young black men rudderless. Liberal policy has released generations of black men from their parental duties. 

Finding common sense in modern government is yeoman’s work. Representatives like Frederica Wilson only complicate the task. There’s no reason to take someone serious when they make less sense than a pantomime presentation and dress like the Phantom of the Grand Ole Opry. 

South Florida voters sent in this clown. Here’s hoping they’ll send her out again.

That’s just Joe being Joe, right? He has a long history of uttering inanities at the worst possible moment. Sometimes his gaffes unintentionally reveal hidden truths. While Biden was merely blowing his usual hot air with his “terrorist” comment, Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) can’t make the same claim. He pulled a “Biden” in the same meeting, and inadvertently revealed a not-so-secret truth about Washington politics. 

Doyle also called congressional conservatives — unquestionably an endangered species — terrorists. But he went a step farther, revealing far more about the D.C. mindset, and the Democrat Party, than he intended. Opined Rep. Doyle, “This small group of terrorists have [sic] made it impossible to spend any money.” 

Impossible to spend any money? If that doesn’t summarize the bedrock problem in both Washington and the Democrat Party, what does? The United States faces annual budget deficits of more than $1.5 trillion, a national debt at 98-percent of GDP and growing, unfunded liabilities (SSI, Medicare, etc.) in excess of $114 trillion, and a reduction in our credit rating. Those realities should offend everyone. But a politician complains about the possibility of not spending the taxpayer’s money. No wonder America’s fiscal house is in such disarray. 

Of course, you can blame Republicans for overspending, too. And you’d be right. But for Republicans, overspending is born of cowardice. They’re afraid of being blamed for cutting a favored program, or of receiving unfavorable press. Therefore, they sacrifice genuine Republican principles on the altar of federal largess. For Democrats, spending doesn’t result from cowardice; it’s an addiction. 

Ironically, Doyle’s comment is completely bogus. Tea Party supporters aren’t terrorists and they haven’t made it impossible to spend money. In fact, the day hasn’t been invented when Washington experienced difficulty spending. Running a deficit? Spend some money. A recent debt ceiling increase? Spend more money. Demonize your enemies, perhaps by calling them terrorists? Spend still more money.

 Theoretically, Doyle’s intent was to demonize the few conservative Republicans that still remain in Washington. But he has committed a “Biden.” While attempting to slander a political opponent, Doyle exposed his party’s soul, and that of Washington overall. Politicians live to spend and spend to live. They are drawn to the next federal program like a heroine addict to the next injection. Mike Doyle has affirmed the obvious; being a Democrat is to scorn fiscal discipline and financial restraint. If only fewer Republicans shared his view.

After crying for the past month about the need to get more revenue into our budget, Democrats in the Senate decided not to vote on the bill to put 4,000 furloughed FAA employees back to work AND allow the government to collect revenue from flight taxes worth 200 million dollars a week. Meanwhile Obama says his priority now is jobs. Could this situation get any more disgusting? Oh yeah, Harry Reid told the media yesterday that he planned to have a vote before the August recess to resolve this situation. I guess he was too busy packing his sunscreen for the Nevada sun to get around to it.

Its just too easy… its not even fun anymore to point out all the flaws in this Senate.

Read more about this story here.

This argument assumes that government jobs have no negative effect on other employment, or the negative effect is offset by the positive effect of those employees having a job. It also assumes that all jobs are good because they provide the employee income, driving the multiplier effect, or are essentially Keynesian “stimulus”.

Both premises are wrong.

Outside of government, jobs exist for one reason alone.

Profit.

For governments to operate, they must have revenue. Revenue comes from various forms of taxes, with the most prevalent being on income, sales, and property. Generally when something is taxed, you get less of it.

Politicians love to tout their “job-creation record”. They always want to talk about all the jobs they have created. The current administration has taken this a step further reporting on the incalculable “jobs saved”.

However, in reality, politicians do not create jobs. They merely create an environment that affects job creation positively or negatively.

At present, the Obama administration has created an environment of high level of uncertainty with a constant stream of new, costly regulations and the prevailing threats of additional and higher taxes. This has caused many businesses to stall plans to expand and add new jobs.

While it is true that some taxes are necessary because a government must exist, the size of the government is the issue. Every dollar the government takes in taxes reduces the means of production of the economy, thereby reducing investment in business growth, which costs jobs.

Some may argue that the government “creates” jobs with new government positions funded by those taxes. However, most Americans agree that government is exceptionally inefficient and wasteful. There are several reasons for this. One of them is that government has no incentive to be efficient as it has no profit motive.

Businesses are always looking for ways to innovate and drive efficiency to be more profitable (or charitable in the case of a non-profit), thereby freeing up more capital, creating the means to grow the business and pay the owners who took the risk on the business, be they direct owners or shareholders.

However, government does no such thing. Using President Obama’s recent example, if the government had operated all banks, it surely would have never created the ATM because government has no incentive to innovate. Further, it is so difficult for the government to reduce its workforce; it would then be left with the problem of what to do with those employees.

One of the benefits of the economic downturn has been government tax revenues have decreased forcing government to pursue some innovation, driving it, especially at the state and local, level to find ways to do more with fewer employees. This is a constant pursuit in the private sector, as efficiency leads to profitability, which leads to business growth, which leads to more jobs. In much the same way, a leaner government will leave more of the means of production—capital–in the private sector, where the economy grows.

However, politicians like to claim direct “job creation” by naming new positions. This is the reality of how our country operates. Unfortunately, these jobs always come at the expense of the general economy, as its pool of capital is reduced and any benefits of the current leaning of government will be lost. This slows the economy down, as fewer private jobs are created which grow businesses which create additional self-funded jobs.

A job is not a right. If a politician wants to “create” government jobs for the sake of having more “jobs”, they might as well redistribute the producer’s wealth by any of the government’s various other means. There is no difference.

The best way a government can participate in job creation is to leave job creation to the private sector, where the true incentive for growth and real, additional job creation exists.

The major factor driving credit quality is the relatively high level of debt and the difficulty in significantly cutting spending. We are taking a negative action not based on the delay in raising the debt ceiling but rather our concern about the high level of debt to GDP in excess of 100%….

History has proven that defaults on domestic public debt do occur. In fact, seventy out of three
hundred twenty defaults since 1800 have been on domestic public debt

Think of our debt as charged to a credit card with a variable rate. If Moody’s and the other credit ratings agencies follow Egan-Jones’ lead, our variable rate just went up. Considering that servicing our debt ($213B) is currently about 6% of the federal spending ($3.6T) and 10% of total revenue ($2.2T), imagine the compounding effect of this cost, especially as we continue to add to the $14.6 trillion debt exponentially. For perspective, over the past two years, the debt has increased from about $8T to $14.6T. The annual budgets alone are scheduled to add over $1 trillion per year, less the average of $0.24 trillion per year to be removed with the new bill passed yesterday.

Debt will increase while interest rates simultaneously increase which could very well put us in a situation as illustrated by the chart at the left (click to enlarge the chart). This could become a hole that is impossible to dig out of.

Again, the reason our credit rating has dropped:

The major factor driving credit quality is the relatively high level of debt and the difficulty in significantly cutting spending. We are taking a negative action not based on the delay in raising the debt ceiling but rather our concern about the high level of debt to GDP in excess of 100%….

The debt ceiling debate was nothing but a distraction. The debt “ceiling” has never stopped the US from spending more, as we discussed previously. The real issues are “the difficulty in significantly cutting spending” and addressing the cumulative debt.

My favorite show is nearing its season finale and I am facing withdrawal issues. This crisis has captivated me, and the nation, for a month. Some days were encouraging while some were frustrating. Our leaders came so close to imploding our economy. This show had two rivals pitted against each other playing in a strategic game with America’s fiscal future and in doing so gave all who watched a few grey hairs along the way. Every day had a new headline, a new story that brought out new opinions and emotions.

America laughed when Pelosi accused the Speaker of “going over to the dark side.” We were insulted at Harry Reid’s plan full of gimmicks but even more furious at the Tea Party who seemed to be getting in the way of everything. The Gang of Six gave us hope and personally, Obama made me cry when he made my life so much more difficult after telling Americans to call their Congressman. (When you guys called to shout at your Congressman… yeah, that was me on the other side of all of those conversations)

The point is that we got hooked; this was a real life drama whose plot became more complex after each day. With just a few hours to go and the talks at a dire point, our worn and battered leaders finally mustered up a deal. What an epic climax to this story. While there are a couple more chapters still left, I can’t help but think about how boring next month will be compared to this one.

So…“What now?”

There are still a lot of story lines that we have ignored this past month. Just in case you think everything will be fine and dandy now allow me to remind you we still have an FAA that has 4,000 people out of work, another round of deficit reduction votes in November, a presidential primary no one seems to be winning in, unrest in Egypt and the rest of the Middle East, a conflict in Libya, and most important and horrifying of all… an NBA lockout. Seriously, what will we do if we all can’t cheer against Lebron – that’s something Republicans and Democrats can agree on!

I know we need to pass this first before looking ahead but I just want to see what happens next. I’m hooked!

I have been having nightmares. Nightmares about the debt ceiling debacle. Seriously. I’m not kidding. The pundits who keep saying that the American people are not tuned in to this debate are absolutely wrong. Heroes are emerging on each side of the aisle. Paul Ryan has for many months now been considered the lovable but slightly goofy republican mascot. This speech seals the deal, and probably moves him from mascot, to at the very least, sidekick. (Although, one could argue that full-on hero status will be forthcoming.)

This gives me flashbacks to the 1st grade when I kept asking my teacher to go to the bathroom during class and she kept denying me. One side kept offering up a solution to a problem and the other side kept saying no. The solution was for the best interest of both parties yet my teacher for some odd reason refused. Guess how the story ends; I did the only logical thing to do and went right there. Congress will share the same fate, no one wins.

Republicans have done their job; they have sat at the table and listened to daddy Obama lecture them on sacrifice (from a red carpet; if that’s not ironic I don’t know what is.) Why is the GOP looking like their party is splitting up faster than Lamar Odom and the fat Kardashian will when Lamar is traded from L.A. to Indiana? (Wouldn’t that make a great reality show though? I will be on the phone with MTV shortly after finishing this post.)

Why aren’t we focusing on the fact that the left has a bigger problem? Obama wants to eat peas, Harry Reid should be eating his own words from 2006, and the far left is eating… er, dust (this is a family friendly website) in the most recent polls.

So given all this, why is the tea party playing the game all wrong? I admire the zeal these activists show and I believe their protest against this bill is well intentioned, it’s just not smart. Their stand has actually weakened the Republicans leverage in these negotiations. You know how I know the Boehner bill is a good compromise? No one likes it. Everyone wants it their way, now no one will get that… but America wins. The Speaker has had to postpone voting on this bill twice to make sure he has enough votes FROM HIS OWN PARTY!

This obvious divide amongst our own party has made the GOP look foolish. It’s time for the GOP to put the pressure cooker on the other side for a change and see how quickly they wet the bed when they have to actually propose and pass a plan.

John Stossel, Chris Edwards from the Cato Institute, and Stuart Butler from the Heritage Foundation have put together a list of cuts that would balance the budget today and partially address social security and medicare for the future, which are the most significant long-term budget and deficit issues.

From John Stossel’s Take:

Defense cut by 2/3: $475 billion (Federal Budget, pg. 58)

Medicare/Medicaid*: $441 billion (Cato Institute)

Social Security*: $170 billion (Heritage Foundation)

Eliminate Dept. of Education (includes Pell Grants): $106.9 billion (Cato Institute)

Social Security Means Testing*: $85.7 billion (Cato Institute)

Eliminate Dept. of Transportation: $84.8 billion (Cato Institute)

Tax Amnesty: $80 billion (Rep. Jared Polis D-Co.)

Eliminate Dept. of Labor*: $78.6 billion (Department of Labor and White House)

Eliminate HUD: $60.8 billion (Cato Institute)

Eliminate Dept. of Agriculture*: $33 billion (Cato Institute)

Cut civilian employee compensation: $30 billion (Cato Institute)

Stop maintaining vacant federal property: $25 billion (Heritage Foundation)

Eliminate Foreign Aid: $21.2 billion (Cato Institute)

Eliminate Dept. of Energy*: $20.8 billion (Cato Institute)

Eliminate NASA: $19.6 billion (Cato Institute)

Federal Drug War: $15 billion (White House)

Earmark moratorium: $16 billion (Heritage Foundation)

Eliminate Fannie/Freddie Subsidies: $14 billion (Federal Housing Finance Agency (p. 10))

Eliminate Dept. of Commerce: $13.9 billion (Department of Commerce)

Eliminate Dept. of Interior: $12 billion (White House)

Legalize Pot, Online gambling, Immigrants: $12 billion (Rep. Jared Polis D-Co.)

Privatize Army Corps of Engineers: $10.6 billion (Cato Institute)

Cut federal employee travel budget: $10 billion (Heritage Foundation)

Eliminate National Science Foundation: $7.4 billion (National Science Foundation)

End EPA’s State and Local grants: $6.5 billion (Cato Institute)

Repeal Davis-Bacon: $6 billion (Republican Study Committee)

Privatize TSA: $5.7 billion (Federal Budget)

Cut Dept. of Justice’s State and Local grants: $5 billion (Heritage Foundation)

Privatize Post Office: $4 billion (White House)

Eliminate Small Business Administration: $1.8 billion (Small Business Administration)

Lease coastal plain of ANWR: $1.5 billion (Heritage Foundation)

Eliminate Federal Flood Insurance: $1.3 billion (CBO, pg. 3)

Abolish SEC: $1.3 billion (SEC)

Eliminate Corporation for National Community Service: $1 billion (Cato Institute)

Suspend acquisition of federal office space: $1 billion (Heritage Foundation)

End subsidies for public broadcasting: $500 million (Cato Institute)

Eliminate the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corp: $480 million (Heritage Foundation)

Eliminate the FCC: $439 million (FCC)

Eliminate the Endowments for Arts/Humanities: $332 million (NEA/NEH)

Total Cut: $1,882,619,000,000

Current deficit: $1,645,000,000,000

Surplus Achieved: $237,619,000,000

So what do you do? They call it compromise. It is also known as “the way things are done in Washington”.

However, in plain language, this practice is nothing more than buying votes. In still plainer language, this is bribery, illegal everywhere but in the halls of our lawmakers. Obamacare would not have passed without it and neither will John Boehner’s debt ceiling bill. Politico reports:

In the closing hours before a critical debt-limit vote, the speaker was pulling Republicans off the floor and meeting with them in his ceremonial office on the second floor of the Capitol as he tries to make sure he has at least 217 votes to pass his deficit package….

GOP aides said Boehner and the entire Republican leadership are pulling out all the stops for the debt vote. Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers of Kentucky is helping usher members into their meetings with Boehner. While Rogers can’t hand out bridge and road projects like his predecessors, he has a wide network of contacts after three decades in Congress, both in Washington and beyond. This network is being worked hard by Boehner and other top Republicans.

“We’re calling governors, donors, former senators, anyone we can to talk to these guys,” said a Republican staffer involved in the frantic arm-twisting effort….

I do not know of one person who served a term in Washington and came home as a better person. It seems every man, in Washington anyway, does have his price.

The allegations arose when an 18 year old woman sent a message to Wu’s district office accusing him of “aggressive and unwanted sexual behavior.” Even before these horrible allegations, Wu’s sanity has been questioned. During his close re-election campaign in 2010 Wu’s staff demanded the congressman seek psychiatric treatment because they were concerned about his odd, frantic, and erratic behavior. This erratic behavior includes dressing up as the world’s creepiest tiger for no apparent reason. Doesn’t this guy seem like the worst possible boss ever? Actually, it turns out that many of his staffers quit on him during the 2010 election.

Its as if America got into this bad relationship with its elected officials. These congressmen embarrass the American people, make us cynical about our political system, and even though we know we should break up with them, we keep coming back. So whether its an affair with an aide, Craiglist stalking, tweeting half naked pictures of yourself, or feeling up a campaign donor’s daughter, the basic fact is “Politicians and diapers have one thing in common; they should both be changed regularly and for the same reason.” Man oh man, I was always told that anyone could become a congressman but this is ridiculous.

Thankfully, these sad men have been disgraced for their actions. I hear that Mr. Wu has even found a new gig appearing in the new Winnie the Pooh movie out this summer.

Since I have only had a few moments to review the proposal, I have only formed an early opinion. My initial reaction is so far so good! The numbers are $3.7 trillion in total cuts and $500 billion in immediate cuts. This bipartisan measure seems to focus on spreading the tax base which allows us to increase revenue by $1 trillion yet lower marginal rates for everyone. The new highest income tax rate would be 29%. This bill sets up three tax brackets and abolishes the Alternative Minimum Tax (worth $1.7 trillion) The legislation also reforms enitlement spending and cuts from discretionary spending from every department.

I feel like this really is a fair and balanced compromise. (By this I do not mean a “Fox News compromise.”) Let me know what you guys think about this deficit plan. Judging from the comments on the last post I am sure we will have a number of varying views so go ahead and sound off on this!

Republicans get:
Spending cuts worth $2.4 trillion
Corporate tax reduction

Democrats get:
Debt ceiling increase by $2.4 trillion
Marginal tax rate increases

So here’s the deal, lets lower the corporate tax rate with modest increases to the tax base to offset revenue loss. This would increase economic activity for businesses and promote prosperity. Republicans have been complaining about our corporate tax rates,highest in the world, for a long time and many Democrats including Obama agree. This works for both sides. Republicans can say overall taxes weren’t raised and jobs will be added because corporations will be relieved. Democrats can say they also support job growth but will show their base that they did get those rich fat cats and jet owners to share in sacrifice.

Trade Scenario 2:

Republicans get:
Spending cuts worth $1.2 trillion
Balanced Budget Amendment

Democrats get:
Debt ceiling increase by $2.4 trillion
Tax loopholes closed

This one is very simple. Democrats get some tax loopholes and get a 2 to 1 dollar debt increase to spending cut ratio. That would make liberals giddy because entitlements would not be touched. The Republicans aren’t crying foul though. They get a new amendment (which most of Americans want) that would otherwise be impossible to get plus NO NEW TAXES!

My 3rd grade self would be proud…

On Monday President Obama told the nation that,

It’s time to “pull off the Band-Aid” and “eat our peas,” Obama told reporters of the need for both sides to make difficult choices to address the nation’s mounting federal deficits and debt. “Let’s step up. Let’s do it.”

Once again our Commander in Chief has taken the tone of ‘Parent in Chief’. This might work, as a leadership style, except for what happened last night. Storming out of the talks he reportedly said,

“Eric, don’t call my bluff. I’m going to the American people with this,”

Which sounds a lot like, “I’m telling.”

The parental tone might have worked, eventually, at least in the court of public opinion, but switching to tattling child midway through will, no doubt, negate what power that position achieved. Can any progress be made on grown up issues, when the grown ups are fighting like children?

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,  –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

Sen. Graham, hereafter the Prosecution, alleges free speech is invalid when it denigrates a national enemy. The Prosecution reserves belief in free speech, but also claims said speech must be approved in order to be free. In summary, Prosecution alleges, “free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war. During World War II, you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy.” 

Free Speech, hereafter the Defense, intends to prove that free speech indeed protected derogatory attitudes toward America’s World War II enemies. The Defense calls as its first witness Moe Howard, Curly Howard, and Larry Fine, a.k.a. the Three Stooges, in You Nazty Spy. 

The Three Stooges displayed no fear of inspiring der Fuhrer, his Nazi regime, or the Axis in general. In You Nazty Spy they satirized dictatorships, Hitler’s rise to power, and the gullibility of the entire population of “Moronica,” which represented pre-war Germany. 

Your Honor, the Defense contends that Moronica’s Dictator Moe Hailstone (Hitler), Field Marshal Curly Gallstone (Goering), and Propaganda Minister Larry Pebble (Geobbels) could’ve offended and thus inspired Nazi Germany. The Defense will also prove that You Nazty Spy wasn’t an isolated example of uncensored speech during World War II. 

The Defense calls as its second witness the same Three Stooges in I’ll Never Heil Again. 

Dictator Hailstone and his henchmen broke treaties and double-crossed allies, just as Hitler did to Chamberlain and Stalin. I’ll Never Heil Again bristles with jabs at the Nazi regime and “der Fuhrer” himself. Hailstone and Moronica’s allies fight over the world, with the Japanese representative taking frequent snapshots during the melee. 

Your Honor, the Defense submits Moronica as de facto Nazi Germany and Hailstone’s dictatorship as personifying the Hitler regime. The Defense argues the Three Stooges did willfully and with forethought mock and ridicule both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, that these entities were enemies of the United States, and that the Three Stooges’ actions could’ve inspired enemy forces. Furthermore, since the Three Stooges’ testimony was filmed, distributed, and viewed during the World War II era and remains available 70 years after the fact, free speech protects similar conduct today. Your Honor, the Defense also charges the Prosecution with intentionally misleading the public about the application of free speech during wartime, past and present. 

The Prosecution has maliciously revised history and perpetrated fraud to cause the public to doubt their memories. In summation, the Defense believes the Three Stooges’ testimony verifies the validity of Free Speech and the allegation of prosecutorial misconduct on the part of Sen. Graham. Defense requests that Graham answer perjury charges in the Court of Public Opinion. 

The Defense rests.

Now, over at Political Calculations, they have done the math to show that “the federal minimum wage hikes of 2007, 2008 and 2009 account for 41.8% of the total reduction in jobs seen since 2006″ or 2,234,383 total jobs lost.

Here is a graphical representation of the data from Political Calculations:

As you can see, while the minimum wage is sold as something to “help those in need”, in reality it destroys jobs, increases unemployment, and deprives the opportunity for many teens and young adults to work, as 49% of workers making minimum wage are 24 or younger.

This destructive policy should be eliminated.

Today in our country only 53% percent of all workers pay 100% of the federal income tax bill. Therefore 47% of workers pay no taxes. Additionally 40% of workers actually receive additional funds when filing their taxes redistributed from the group that pays all the taxes. I’ll even point you to that evil conservative news source NPR for this data (though it is widely available).

Further, in research released yesterday, “government social benefits . . . were equal to 35% of all private and public wages and salaries in the 12 months ended January, up from 10% in 1960 and 21% in 2000.”

Meanwhile, the government is working diligently to implement its takeover of an additional approximate 15% of the economy through the healthcare law. Yet, over 1,000 waivers to the law have been granted and now the entire state of Maine has been exempted for the time being.

When you also consider that the United States Department of Justice, whose role is to defend the laws of this land, is only selectively defending laws its leaders and likely the White House (for personal or political reasons, we do not know) agree with, as in the case of the Defense of Marriage Act*, you have to wonder, what is next.

We are creating a great block of voters, who will soon be the majority of voters, who pay no taxes. At the same time, our federal government grants broad exemptions to laws or chooses not to defend the law altogether.

As the federal government has never shown any signs of actual restraint, where does it all end?

*It is my view that marriage should be defined by the states, not the federal government. It is not a federal constitutional issue. Don’t get sidetracked on the nature of the law, the point is the DOJ not defending an existing law, which is their responsibility.

Since taking power, the party and administration of no personal responsibility has continually blamed the Bush administration while doing nothing to fix the real fiscal problems because (okay, one economics theory reference) “in the long run we’re all dead anyway” or whatever their reasons are. However, do not get me wrong here this is not a pro-Republican, anti-Democrat post, it is a “the problem with the federal government” post.

For purposes of simplicity, we’ll use data since 1980, though federal deficits have grown continually since 1970, with the exception of the Clinton years, who at least did bring us some fiscal sanity (the lack of which was probably Reagan’s greatest shortfall).

Since 2005 tax receipts have never been higher. Though there is some year to year variance, the fact is the federal government has never received as much annual tax revenue in any single year as it has each year since 2005. Meanwhile, since 2002, the deficit has increased annually. Therefore, Bush ran continual deficits that have been continued by the Obama administration, despite both have annual tax receipts higher than any other President in history. However, rather than balancing the budget with two years of a Democrat-controlled congress, President Obama only exaggerated the problem. With nearly the same annual revenues as in 2005 (revenues in trillions: 2005: $2.154, 2009: 2.105, 2010: 2.163) when federal expenditures were $2.472 trillion, the Obama budget led to federal expenditures of $3.518 trillion in 2009 and $3.456 trillion in 2010, or 42% and 40% more than in 2005 (source: The White House Office of Management and Budget, Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2016).

Now this does not mean Bush was a patron saint either. Although he had significantly higher revenues from 2006-2008, he continued to run a budget deficit. Additionally, as I said before, Reagan was not exactly fiscally responsible, rather Clinton set a better example (how often are you going to say that?).

However, if the past two years did not concern you, what is coming most definitely should. Again, per the White House Office of Management and Budget:

This government is drunk with spending which will destroy our country’s future. In your personal finances, if since 2002 you had spent between 6%-40% more than your income and put the rest on a credit card, where would you be? Would you keep spending money? This is the current state of our country. We cannot “spend money to keep from going bankrupt”, as Vice President Biden has proclaimed. However, every President’s actions for the past several decades have also espoused this nonsensical concept. Presidents from both parties are most definitely to blame, even the Republican’s sacred cow Ronald Reagan.

The time has come in this country to cut spending dramatically. We have already begun to see the effects of printing more and more money to cover these deficits. A prime example is the price of gasoline. Crude oil prices are pegged to the dollar. As the dollar is devalued by increasing supply, our dollars buy less.

The leaders of this country must have courage to take unpopular stances, because they are the right thing to do, much like Governors Walker and Christie. Social Security, Defense, and all federal handout programs cannot be protected. Salaries and benefits must be cut, as they have been overall in the private sector.

If we do not change, food may be the only currency of value left in this country.

By the way, this post was only about deficits. We didn’t even get into the national debt, which is even a bigger problem.

Update: this morning Allen sent a video message to his supporters announcing his 2012 candidacy for the US Senate.

One of the pivotal moments of that race, is of course the infamous “macaca moment,” where Allen was caught on camera using an ethnic slur to describe a Webb volunteer at a campaign stop. Allen apologized and maintained that he was not aware of the meaning of the word and said he never would have used it had he known its meaning.

Despite the apology, the incident had an impact on the race, which Allen eventually lost, ending any designs he had on a run for the White House in 2008.

Allen faces a potentially tough primary challenge from a Tea Party candidate, and given the environment, anything can happen.

Can George Allen become the latest political Lazarus and climb back into national prominence?

“The interchange issue has created unorthodox battle lines in Congress, with some Republicans who side with large merchants voting for the rules, and Democrats, unconvinced by the argument, voting against.”

Despite this, it seems to be a good sign that a few things could actually be accomplished in the House over the next two years. Especially since Frank, usually considered one of the most liberal (if not one of the loudest, most obnoxious) Representatives in the House, is actually going out of his way to announce his willingness to work Republicans.

My personal favorites are the alleged answer to a question on a chemical engineering on whether hell is endothermic or exothermic and the alleged response to Bill Gates’ criticism of how General Motors does business.

The latest one I received is from my uncle in Virginia Beach and presents a pretty solid, if idealistic, plan to reform Congress:

Of the 27 Amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one year or less to become the law of the land… all because of public pressure.

I’m asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011

1. Term Limits.

12 years only, one of the possible options below..

A. Two Six-year Senate terms

B. Six Two-year House terms

C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out
of office.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.

The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!! If you agree with the above, pass it on. If not, just delete

You are one of my 20+. Please keep it going.

Sounds pretty darn good to me!

Here’s a piece from Jeff Jacoby worth reading and debating.

With the release of the 2010 Census data, the decennial rejiggering of the nation’s political map has begun. Eight states will be gaining seats in the US House of Representatives, while 10 states’ House delegations will shrink. Among the winners are Texas, where the number of residents has soared by 4.3 million since the 2000 Census; Utah, whose population is up more than 530,000; and Washington, which has grown 14 percent, to 6.7 million.

It stands to reason that states with more people are allotted more House seats. That is exactly what the Framers intended, as James Madison made clear in Federalist No. 55. “I take for granted,’’ he wrote, “that the number of representatives will be augmented from time to time in the manner provided by the Constitution.’’

Read the rest.