Obama to Republicans - Eliminate the Debt Limit Now, Spending Cuts Later, Maybe

In an earlier post I covered Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's proposal/demand that Congress simply eliminate the debt limit.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the U.S. “absolutely” should get rid of the debt ceiling as soon as possible.

“It would have been time a long time ago to eliminate it,” Geithner told Bloomberg TV on Friday. “The sooner the better.” - HuffPo (Found at Hot Air)

As it turns out, this is the demand that was made today to the Republican members of Congress as part of the fiscal cliff solution talks.

House Republicans said on Thursday that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner presented the House speaker, John A. Boehner, a detailed proposal to avert the year-end fiscal crisis with $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, an immediate new round of stimulus spending, home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits. - NY Times

The 'deal' includes no cuts to Government spending. Only a suggestion to discuss cuts sometime next year. The offer is so ridiculous that Republican Senator Mitch McConnell burst into laughter. Unfortunately, this meeting confirms my belief that the Democrats have no intention of dealing with the Nation's debt problem.

Geithner’s visit to his office left McConnell discouraged about reaching a “balanced” deal on tax hikes and spending reductions designed to prevent a shock to the economy in January. “Nothing good is happening” in the negotiations, McConnell says, because of Obama’s insistence on tax rate hikes for the wealthy but unwillingness to embrace serious spending cuts. - Weekly Standard

So there you have it, Obama and the Democrats are unwilling to commit to any real spending cuts, outside of cutting spending for the Military. They have already run the country for four years with no budget. Now they are demanding to be able to run the country with no limit on spending.

Like I said before, they have no intention of solving the debt and deficit crisis. If they did, they would know how high the debt would grow before a plan of increased revenue and decreased spending would eliminate the deficit. Of course they might have even more plans for increasing spending. Perhaps legalizing the illegal aliens and giving them Obamacare benefits. That would surely increase Government spending.

Keep in mind that raising taxes on the richest 2% will only solve about 8% of the deficit problem.  This demand is confirmation that President Obama and the Democrats have no intention of solving the debt problem. 

They plan to run up the debt as far as it can go.

 

-------------------- --------------------

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Lies: 'Social Security does not add one penny to the debt. Not one penny.'

So the latest story concerning the fiscal cliff the US is facing is news that some Republicans in Congress are thinking of being flexible when it comes to their 'Grover Norquist' no tax increase pledge. However, I think this issue brought out a huge lie pushed by Democrats in general but said by Illinois Democrat Senator Dick Durbin. He said that

 'Social Security does not add one penny to the debt. Not one penny.' 

His statement was in response to Republican demands that entitlement spending reform be on the table . Basically Senator Durbin is claiming that there is no need to reform Social Security Entitlements because Social Security is not a part of this nation's spending/deficit crisis. Unfortunately, this is not the case and Senator Durbin for sure knows that this is a lie. Zero Hedge explains:

This statement is a lie that is covered over by a dopy accounting system called the Unified Budget. In this magical world, the deficits driven by entitlements are hidden. The reliance on this accounting fiction is a dangerous path for liberals to take. The fact is, SS (and the other government retirement programs for Federal workers and the Military) are running billion dollar cash deficits today and will run Mega-Trillion dollar cash deficits for the next seventy-five years. Every penny of those deficits will result in more borrowing from the public.

These deficits may be “Off Budget” in the magical world of Unified Accounting, but they do add to the publicly held debt on a dollar-for-dollar basis. The Rating Agencies are part of the Cliff discussion (like it or not); those folks are no dopes and they fully understand that Senator Durbin is all wet with his talk of Off Balance sheet debt. - Zero Hedge

If a publicly traded company did this sort of accounting gimmickry, shareholders would eventually lose their investments and people would go to jail. Ironically, Democrat politicians would then be crowing to every TV camera how we need even more laws to prevent this kind of criminal behavior, all the time committing a much larger theft right out in the open.

Worse, the Social Security Trustee report notes that Social Security will run out of money around 2033, unless Social Security taxes are raised (or benefit rules reformed).

Finally, the Trillions of dollars in assets that the Social Security Trust fund has are currently held in the form of US Treasury Bonds. In short, the money was given to the Government and spent. The Government will then have to redeem the bonds as the money is needed to pay Social Security recipients. This means that they will have to get the money from somewhere. Given that the Government plans to run a deficit into the sunset, that means that they will either have to print or borrow the money.

Graphs pictured above were taken from the US Government's own Government Accountability Office. The article is titled 'Federal Debt Basics'. Clearly, this is a topic Senator Durbin and many of his follow Democrats would fail if a grade was given. Unfortunately, it is we who suffer as a result of their incompetence and criminal behavior if they had to be judged the same way that they demand businesses be held to account.

-------------------- --------------------

'Pro-Oil' Obama Administration Now Closing Western Lands To Oil Drilling

During this last election, President Obama proclaimed that oil drilling in the US has never been greater, implying that he was responsible for this oil drilling boon. In reality, the increase in oil drilling had been taking place on private lands that the Government had little ability to stop.

Now, that President Obama has won re-election, his pro-oil Administration is planning to close off Western Government land from oil exploration.

The Interior Department on Friday issued a final plan to close 1.6 million acres of federal land in the West originally slated for oil shale development.

The proposed plan would fence off a majority of the initial blueprint laid out in the final days of the George W. Bush administration. It faces a 30-day protest period and a 60-day process to ensure it is consistent with local and state policies. After that, the department would render a decision for implementation.

The move is sure to rankle Republicans, who say President Obama’s grip on fossil fuel drilling in federal lands is too tight. - The Hill

The Obama Presidency, redefining 'Pro-Oil'. Then again, his 'All-of-the-Above' energy policy seems to mean 'None of the below'.

-------------------- --------------------

Romney is the Right Man for the Time

Keep in mind that the race for President is now down to two choices:

• Sticking with President Obama for four more years 
• Electing Romney as they new President 

We have all experienced four years of Obama and there is no reason to expect any dramatic improvement in how he and his team (Biden-VP, Geithner-Treasury, Holder-'Justice', Solis-'Labor', Sebelius-HHS, Chu-Energy, Napolitano-Homeland Security, Jackson-EPA and Rice-UN) are running this country.

Perhaps President Obama's term would have been much better if he assumed office during good times. Then perhaps with nothing to fix, he could have run after his liberal agenda without the rest of the country suffering. As it so happens, his supporters blame the poor economy for the President's poor performance. However, Obama applied for the job of president knowing that the economy was a mess and that he was the man to fix it. Unfortunately for all of us, he was not.

So what can we expect with having Romney as President? How about a President with experience in fixing messes and turning around and transforming unprofitable businesses and events.

Take the Salt Lake City Olympics. The Olympics was setting up for a huge disaster. Mitt Romney was brought in to save the event, which went from being a huge money pit to actually turning a profit. Mitt Romney took control of the Olympic Games and turned them around from a disaster into a success.

Now picture Obama being put into the same situation. Might we have seen the same result. Or perhaps might he have turned a bad situation worse? Obama's experience has no examples of him doing anything similar. In fact, President Obama has little if any business experience. Instead, his presidency is full of examples where businesses have been targeted as the enemy. And remember that Obama and the Democrats Hate Your Job and your coal job.

Take his role in Bain Capital. He is being attacked for running a company that took businesses in trouble and either turned them around, restructured them to make a profit or closed them down if they were doomed.

Obama and the Democrats will have you think that the actions of Bain were somewhat bad. But lets think about this for a second. It is not like Bain was dismantling successful businesses. Let's face it businesses come and go, even successful ones. Remember Blockbuster Video? Borders Books? Reader's Digest? KB Toys? Bennigan's? Circuit City? Bethlehem Steel, Kodak? Polaroid? Sometimes it is nothing more than changing technology and a corporation's inability to adapt fast enough.

Take Polaroid and Kodak. they were experts at what they did, but have not been able to transition fast enough to survive the coming of digital cameras. Should the Government step in and save these companies? Should the Government save the jobs in these companies? Well what about all the new jobs being created as the new technology takes over from the old? Oh, you say that these new jobs are being created in China? Many are, but there is nothing that we can do about it. At least not until the living standards on those countries catches up to ours. Until then, companies are going to have to keep their manufacturing expenses as low as possible to ensure that the greatest number of people can afford their products. People in China need cars. Very few of them can afford any car made in the US or elsewhere in the first world. So they are going to have to be made in China and other low wage countries. But that fine because most Americans are not going to want to buy such a car. We are a different target market. This leaves room for other manufacturers to meet that demand.

As for jobs, I expect a Romney Administration to do the following to stimulate job creation:

• Stabilize the business and personal tax rates
• Replace all of Obama's political appointees
• 'Green light' the Keystone pipeline
• Open of more Government lands and offshore areas to drilling
• Ensure that new power plant applications are approved
• Stop attacking the:
• Banking Sector
• Insurance sector
• Medical sector

• End mandatory healthcare coverage

Ah, that last point. Stop forcing companies to pay for employee medical care. This requirement along with increasing the minimum wage are killing all sorts of jobs. One group (among many) that has suffered are the young. Raising of wages and increasing the expense of employing people, such as through forced benefits, has both eliminated jobs for teens and other young as well as displace young workers with older workers who now find those jobs more appealing. Take supermarkets. You used to see young people working in those jobs. Now the supermarkets are full of employees who are working these jobs as full-time workers. Partly because these jobs have been forced to compensate them better and partly because there are less jobs of other kinds out there. Unfortunatly, there are even less supermarket jobs because companies are replacing some of these workers with automatic checkout. Simply because you do not have to pay for medical coverage for a machine.

Many Obama supporters are claiming that they do not want to take a risk on Romney. Well the country took a risk on Obama and we are all worse off. Will some people be worse off four years from now because of Romney? Sure. But we should not flush the whole country down the drain in defense of giving some people an ever-increasing basket of freebees. And this brings about the last important item - Benefit reform and passing a sustainable budget and budget plan. Romney and Ryan will be able to present a path forward. Obama has proven that he cannot and will not tackle the debt issue by failing to pass a budget in the last four years.

I understand that there are many reasons to vote for Obama, such as sticking it to rich people. Unfortunately, there are not enough rich people around to pay for our current spending and certainly not enough to pay for Obama's promise of 'FREE HEALTHCARE'. Things need to be paid for. In order to pay for as much as possible, more people need to be working. Romney will accomplish that. The first step is getting the Government's boot off the necks of the more prosperous half of the country.

Vote Romney. 

-------------------- --------------------

Where is my Nokia Lumia?

My current Nokia phone is just over two years old.

All of my Finnish friends (at least those who have not been laid off by Nokia) have given up on Nokia. That was pretty shocking revelation from my summer trip to Finland.

I do not want an iPhone.

So, here I am waiting for the Nokia Lumia to come out. I signed up at Nokia's website for news on when the phone will be available and have not heard a word.

Worse, I am a T-Mobile customer and I understand that they will not be offering the Lumia 920. Pretty odd strategy Nokia has in only offering their newest phone via the cellphone carriers that carry the iPhone.

This phone better not be a failure....

-------------------- --------------------

'Congressman' Gerry Connolly: "Vets Unqualified to Serve in Congress"

I just don't like my Congressman Gerry Connolly. He is a Liberal tool right behind Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. So I will be voting for the man seeking to replace him as my Congressman, Colonel Chris Perkins.

Here is a statement and video by Chris PErkins responding to comments made by Congressman Connolly, both touting his accomplishments in the district, which sounds lots like taking credit for securing Government funding for local projects in which he expects to be rewarded with being re-elected to his spot in Congress. Well, if that is how we should vote, then why not vote in the most corrupt people we can find. That will surely get the money flowing. Anyway, here is Chris Perkins statement:

I was forewarned that politics can be an ugly thing, but I was unprepared for the latest development in my congressional race to represent the 11th District of Virginia.

Incumbent Congressman Gerry Connolly has shocked many of his constituents by suggesting that career military veterans, like myself, are unqualified to serve in Congress – implying that their service to the nation at-large does not amount to sufficient “sweat equity” in the district they seek to serve in Congress.

While speaking to a local Chamber of Commerce and touting his own accomplishments during his 16 years in local politics, Mr. Connolly recently asked the audience: "Where has my opponent been?" Many in the room who were aware of my military career, including those wearing lapel stickers listing the Democratic Party ticket, were visibly taken aback and later distanced themselves from Mr. Connolly’s attack. Unrepentant, the congressman subsequently pressed his line of attack when he spoke to a local neighborhood civic association. Once again describing the work he did as a Fairfax County Supervisor in the building of schools and sidewalks for his community, Mr. Connolly again dismissed my more than 24 years of military experience, saying "I expect a candidate to have demonstrated some sweat equity!"

I am happy to answer the congressman's question. I was in Iraq trying to rescue American fighter pilots who had been shot down. I was hunting down war criminals in Bosnia, and I was evacuating U.S. Embassy personnel in Africa from armed mobs that would do them harm. I was at Arlington National Cemetery 17 times paying my last respects to brave men that I had the privilege and honor to serve with.

I am profoundly disappointed that Congressman Connolly believes career military men and women are unqualified to serve in Congress simply because they chose to serve and protect their country rather than enter local politics. Mr. Connolly’s statements are outrageous and demonstrate an out-of-touch career politician who thinks that only those who climb the ladder of local politics can graduate to higher office. By Mr. Connolly’s standard, many of our forefathers, including George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower, were unqualified to hold federal office. His statements are offensive to our service members and their families who have sacrificed so much for the country they love.

This country’s military veterans, professional intelligence officers and career first responders don’t just have sweat equity in their communities, they have blood equity in America. I believe the voters in Virginia's 11th District appreciate that.

Chris Perkins is a retired U.S. Army officer and congressional candidate for Virginia's 11th District. - Washington Times

-------------------- --------------------