When statists attack

Reagan in context

Addressing how the Democrat Party has now invoked Reagan in an effort to sell their debt deal, thus taking his message completely out of context, Levin professes, “Not a single Reagan proposed budget was ever adopted…and yet, the liberals talk about the Reagan deficits, as if Reagan’s budgets were instituted, his cuts…were blocked at every turn, and the liberals, as usual, spent more and more and more. And yet, they turn back to the Reagan era, as they do others, and they say, ‘look at all those Reagan deficits’. How come those aren’t Tip O’Neal deficits? Or Bob Michel deficits? How come they’re Reagan deficits, when Reagan sought to slash spending, and did a better job than most?” Mark similarly explained how the Democrats kept increasing George W. Bush’s deficits as well, “The Bush deficits, the Bush deficits…what about the Democrats standing on top of the Bush deficits? ‘Cause not a single one of his budgets were adopted either,” further pressing the point, “so let’s stop playing games. We know who the big spenders are, and we know where they want to take us: right into the drain.”

So, before taking the Democrat’s at their word, hook, line and sinker, let’s look at the full context of Reagan’s 9/26/87 radio address, shall we:

My fellow Americans:

There's good news. The Federal deficit for this year is expected to drop by some 30 percent compared to last year. That could be a whopping $65 billion reduction, and it happened without a tax increase. There's also some disappointing news. The Congress, once again, has passed a bill that puts me in the position of accepting legislation with which I fundamentally disagree.

The bill would continue the authority of the United States Government to borrow funds which we must do to avoid the default on our obligations. This legislation also includes a so-called fix of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction law, but it really is an attempt to force me eventually either to sign a tax bill or to accept massive cuts in national defense, or both. I would have no problem with signing an extension of the debt limit. But the choice is for the United States to default on its debts for the first time in our 200-year history, or to accept a bill that has been cluttered up. This is yet another example of Congress trying to force my hand, and it's one more reason why the President needs the lineitem veto to separate the good from the bad.

Unfortunately, Congress consistently brings the Government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility-two things that set us apart from much of the world.

Some in Congress will claim that if I reject this bill with its Gramm-Rudman-Hollings fix, then I'm against deficit reduction. But, of course, nothing is farther from the truth. Since 1980 when you first elected me to this office, I have led efforts to control Congress' appetite to spend in deficit. Over a 5-year period, while revenues went up 28 percent, congressional spending went up 46 percent. From 1982 to 1987, for every dollar Congress cut from our national defense, they added $2 for domestic spending. Now, that's not fiscal restraint. Two years ago, Congress took a first step to curb spending with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, and I agreed. Its purpose was to get on a track to lower deficits and eventually a balanced budget. Well, the ink was not even dry before Congress walked away from its own plan. Instead of facing the tough choices to reduce Federal spending, Congress attempted to shift the burden to our national security and to you, the American taxpayers, in the form of new taxes.

For those who say further responsible spending reductions are not possible, they are wrong. For those who say the only choice is undermining our national security at a time when the United States is close to an agreement with the Soviet Union on reducing nuclear weapons, they are wrong. For those who say more taxes will solve our deficit problem, they are wrong. Every time Congress increases taxes, the deficit does not decrease, spending increases. It's time for a clear and consistent policy to reduce the Federal budget deficit.

In the weeks ahead, Congress will have the opportunity to meet this commitment. So today, let's get some things clear. I will not hesitate to use my veto to hold down excess spending, and I will spell out the impact that defense cuts will have on our long-term security interests. You don't need more taxes to balance the budget. Congress needs the discipline to stop spending more, and that can be done with the passage of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Congress needs to reform its budget process, at least by breaking up those massive, catch-all spending bills into individual parts. That way, each part can stand on its own. And to meet the new deficit target in Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, if Congress insists on lowering defense spending, then I will certainly insist on lowering domestic spending as well.

This decision is not easy. I have no choice but to sign this bill to guarantee the United States Government's credit. But I also will not permit Congress to dismantle our national defense, to jeopardize arms reduction, or to increase your taxes. I am determined that will not happen.

Until next week, thank you, and God bless you.

Wow! They missed the whole point, even in the sound byte chosen for their propaganda ad. When Reagan was talking about a Congress that “consistently brings the Government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility,” he was talking about a Democrat-led Congress that was pinning him against the wall in order to force him to sign their legislation!

Furthermore, Ronald Reagan NEVER recklessly accumulated trillions in debt over two short years and NEVER piled on trillions more through the statist takeover of industry after industry, particularly that of healthcare. Quite the contrary, he spent the majority of his political career, even more so prior to his presidency, fighting against the forces of statism, especially in the area of healthcare. The circumstances and context under which Reagan pulled America from the brink under the Carter Administration contrast significantly from the deepened recession that Obama has led America, in effect, picking up from Carter’s destruction.

Also, Reagan did indeed raise the debt limit a number of times, while being strung along by Democrats who promised spending cuts multiplied, but never delivered, for every dollar in tax revenues raised, again, usually with forced and coercive measures. Sound familiar? This same tactic is now being applied towards congressional Republicans, when it should be forced on Obama. Instead, we see so-called leaders in the GOP Senate ready to capitulate in fear and panic.

Flexible deadlines and vows

Huh, what happened to that concrete August 2nd deadline, by the way? Or how about that vow to veto any short-term increase in the debt limit? All of a sudden, it’s not as important as seizing an opportunity to allow defeatist Senate Republicans to cave to the statists, is it? When we have tax-and-spend statist Democrats and tax-and-spend RINO enablers ready to sell this country down the river, vows and dates are suddenly flexible.

If Obama can retreat from his vow to veto any short-term increase in the debt ceiling in hopes that Senate RINOs will cave under increased pressure from not only Dems but their own party leaders, further proving that the concrete August 2nd debt limit deadline is a HOAX, then certainly one would presume Republicans were capable of learning a lesson, and developing a counter-strategy, on how one of our greatest presidents was not only bamboozled by statists and their enablers, but how to use that knowledge to effectively force the hand of the despot who now holds the Office. But I suppose it always comes easier for statists to stand in ideological solidarity, even at the nation’s peril, than for some who profess to oppose it, to stand on the shoulders of our Founders and practice conservative Principle, instead of consistently thwarting them while the People are swindled…

The leverage of Cut, Cap and Balance (UPDATE)

I think Ed Morrissey of Hot Air summed up the passage of the House GOP’s Cut, Cap & Balance Act quite thoroughly, pointing to the near-party-line vote (234-190), calling Obama’s bluff and setting a stark contrast to the backroom deals of Senate negotiations. The passage of this bill did not go without a few mentionable dissentions, particularly two of the House GOP’s presidential contenders, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul, who, as with most of the other dissenters, either didn’t believe the legislation went far enough in cutting spending, or, as with Paul Broun of Georgia voiced, were opposed to any deal that raised the debt ceiling. Nevertheless, the point of leverage was made by Pat Toomey’s emailed ‘applause’:

“Today, my House colleagues have shown a willingness to raise the debt limit, but only if the president puts us on a path to a balanced budget. I applaud the House’s passage of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act and hope that the Senate will send this bill to the president’s desk,” Sen. Toomey said. “I find it hard to believe that the president would be so opposed to a path to a balanced federal budget that he would veto this legislation and reject the debt ceiling increase he claims is absolutely vital for the country.”

Paul Ryan reinforced the sentiment stating, “The House of Representatives continues to advance serious solutions to get our budget on the path to balance and our economy on the path to prosperity. The Cut, Cap and Balance legislation passed today cuts $5.8 trillion in spending over the next decade, locks in those savings with enforceable caps on spending, and forces Washington to finally live within its means with a Balanced Budget Amendment.”

But Morrissey’s conclusion is where he nails the point:

Either way, Republicans have now passed their second bill this session that attempts to address the exploding deficits and the debt crisis, the first being Paul Ryan’s budget plan in April. Meanwhile, Democrats in the Senate haven’t bothered to pass any budget resolution in over 800 days, and the White House still refuses to offer any specific ideas.

And beside the obvious question of ‘where’s the Democrat proposals’, it begs the question, why is the pressure on Republicans to produce a plan in the Administration-imposed 11th hour debt limit decision? We know of the Obama Administration’s “never let a crisis go to waste” philosophy, but if it’s truly going to be left up to the GOP, then they should coalesce behind a singular plan, instead of creating opportunities in the Senate with the McConnell and Gang of Six plans to assist Democrats in undermining the responsible effort to cut spending and balance the budget, much less raising the debt ceiling, which is in reality a separate issue that has been tied into this debt debate. And Levin made the point on Monday, “Why are we negotiating with these people, and why are we coming up with plans? Do they act like they’re as concerned about August 2nd as these Republicans? No, they don’t.” Mark went on to ask, “Why should we encourage and embrace our own destruction,” pointing to the McConnell plan and the ‘half-hearted measures’, like Tuesday’s Gang of Six proposal, that seek the approval of the statists who have driven us to the precipice.

We’ll track how it goes from here. One thing’s for certain: if the Senate Repubic ‘leaders’ wouldn't have caved so soon by providing alternative plans and ammunition for Democrat Senators, the assuredness of the DOA status of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act wouldn’t be cemented as claimed. And yet even with the undermining, there still remains life within this bill. Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the sponsor of the Act, remains optimistic following its passage, particularly in his Greta van Susteren interview last night, as he should, and there are rumblings that Reid may actually allow a vote of the Act on the Senate floor in exchange for his part in the negotiations of these latest Senate plans…we’ll see.

All we’re asking for is to reduce our spending, pay off our debts, and balance our budget…

UPDATE: Sen. Jeff Sessions (AL) called into The Mark Levin Show, informing him that there should be a vote on the House bill this coming Saturday!  ABC confirms that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that a vote on the Cut, Cap & Balance Act will take place in a Saturday morning session.  Here we go...

Backroom deals with the Gang of Six (UPDATES)

Instead of focusing on the passage of the Cut, Cap & Balance Act in the House today (Update: Passed 234 - 190 this evening), Obama has blatantly attempted to turn the focus towards the grand compromise of the Gang of Six.



Yes, the bosom Gang of Six is back together, and Obama and Dems have played Coburn, Chambliss and Crapo today (once again), distracting from the ONLY responsible action taking place in the House. The Hill reports, “President Obama joined Democratic and Republican senators Tuesday in offering support for a $3.7 trillion deficit-reduction plan” that is said to “reduce the deficit by $3.7 trillion over the next 10 years and increase tax revenues by $1 trillion by closing a variety of special tax breaks and havens.”

Further into this report, you’ll see that “74 percent of the plan’s deficit-reduction goal would come from spending cuts and 26 percent from higher revenues.” Tax hikes, folks…there it is. That’s why Obama and Dems have signed on. Rest assured, the spending cuts will have contingencies that won’t hold any accountability for following through, while the tax hikes will be implemented immediately, as The American Spectator speculates:

“Perhaps the reason the Gang of Six plan is politically viable is that is mostly a promise to make cuts in the future, rather than a measure to cut spending now. The plan would only cut about $500 billion immediately, and most of that would be spending already agreed to by all sides…The plan is intended to increase revenues both by leading to higher economic growth and by cutting tax preferences and loopholes more than tax rates…The vast majority of the spending reductions would be left up to Democratic-chaired committees to determine, to be worked out after the debt ceiling is raised.”

And picking up from this, a Washington Examiner article further delves into how this plan could add up to over $3 trillion in tax hikes over the current rates!

This is the same old trick that Dems pulled on Reagan in the ‘80’s. And knowing that, many Senate Republicans who sign onto this are blatantly illustrating their desire to enable the statists rather than stand up for the People. Factoring into the deceit, The Spectator article illustrates how Coburn unsuccessfully attempts to cover himself by nonchalantly proposing a $9 trillion debt reduction plan just yesterday, then quickly rejoined the Gang of Six to sign onto this new plan today. Seriously?!  Apparently Coburn is more buddy-buddy with Obama than previously thought.

So, is this the compromise between Cut, Cap & Balance and the McConnell plan? If so, it’s weak, unserious, and as Moody’s reports to Reuters that the McConnell plan won’t save us from defaulting on our debt, neither will this Gang of Six proposal.

Perhaps this is just another distraction tactic to derail serious solutions, but we must reinforce the House Republicans' resilience by sending the message that they must remain united on the Cut, Cap & Balance approach as leverage now and not fall for new taxes proposed by the President or those who would undermine in the Senate.

ADDENDUM:  Levin condemns McConnell and Coburn!

"Gang of Schmucks!"

UPDATES: Rush recalls where the original 'Gang' came from: communism.  And Hot Air reminds us that the Gang of Six proposal won't even be ready for the administrative-imposed August 2nd deadline.

The only thing we have to fear is…living within our means?

Not really, but if you’ve watched politicians on Capitol Hill lately, they’re certainly fearful of this concept, along with something called ‘responsibility’. What should absolutely be feared is the crippling debt without a real balanced solution, and I’m not talking about Obama’s balance of meaningless cuts with guaranteed tax hikes! So we now see that the statists are in fits of rage over the very hint of such a proposal. Their paranoia is on full display, while the establishment teeters on as well.

Throughout the weekend we continued to hear Democrats’ resounding rejections of a responsible path in cutting and capping spending, accompanied by the initiation of a balanced budget amendment (going then to the states for ratification) that will require government to spend OUR MONEY within its means. The Hill reports that not only are congressional Democrats releasing dim-witted statements like, “Their proposal stinks” or “outrageous” or “a piece of crap” to describe the fiscally responsible Cut, Cap & Balance Act conservatives are striving to push through the House, but they also report that our Statist-in-Chief has officially threatened to veto the Act, referring to it as an “empty political promise”:

“Neither setting arbitrary spending levels nor amending the Constitution is necessary to restore fiscal responsibility,” the White House said in its statement. “Increasing the federal debt limit, which is needed to avoid a federal government default on its obligations and a severe blow to the economy, should not be conditioned on taking these actions. Instead of pursuing an empty political statement and unrealistic policy goals, it is necessary to move beyond politics as usual and find bipartisan common ground.”

The president's veto threat was followed by a full-on assault from administration officials who blasted the GOP proposal as "extreme, radical [and] unprecedented."

That last description rather perfectly captures the last 2-and-a-half years under the total control of the statist Democrats, don you think? Alinsky tactics are in full effect, led by the top Alinskyite himself. Vetoing a balanced budget? What does that say about this ideology? When taking a look at the above statement, and all the arguments throughout the past few weeks for that matter, it’s clear that there is a fundamental misrepresentation, and deliberately so, that the debt ceiling, whether raised or not, directly relates to debt payments. This couldn’t be more wrongheaded, as current tax revenues bring in enough money to pay towards debt interest, as well as the obligated benefits to seniors, military and the disabled. If there is a default, it will be because this administration, this president, has determined not to pay the debt with its existing revenues, period (and the same applies to payment of beneficiaries). The only reason that the conservative plan to cut, cap and balance could be deemed “empty” and “unrealistic” is solely because Obama’s statist and "extreme, radical [and] unprecedented" approach dubs it so. There is no substance to his argument; he has no plan, except to trudge along, infringing on more liberty, keeping more citizens ‘dumb and dependent’, while excessively spending more taxpayer dollars, and continuing to grow the government larger than ever before.

At the same time, we should not let the Republican establishment off the hook either. As conservative opposition grows against the McConnell plan, some beltway establishment Republicans are still showing that they’ll waffle to avoid any potential blame in the court of public opinion and polls driven by the liberal media, which they fall for every time (i.e., Hannity’s radio interview with McCain in which he all but guarantees the ‘last resort’ for Dems to pounce on). Blame for being responsible? How dastardly. But what’s really dastardly is handing over legislative power to the chief executive, particular our current one, because you not only won’t make a decision as THE precondition of your JOB, but you don’t want to be held responsible when the liberal media attacks (which it will assuredly do anyway). But the statist-enablers never cease to pull through; thus in appropriate context, Erick Erickson’s RedState article divulges more on McConnell's lack of leadership, “Mitch McConnell’s Pontius Pilate Act is a cover for tax increases”:

As Monday’s news cycle gets into full gear, we’re starting to see exactly what Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are cooking up for the American public — pretend spending cuts and very real tax increases.

Besides pointing to the allowance of Democrat-written legislation that leaves Republicans with the blame when it doesn’t work (like No Child Left Behind), or the creation of a filibuster proof deficit commission to dictate unamendable recommendations, Erickson also points to the inclusion of $1.5 trillion in cuts from the Biden-led negotiations, as summarized by an associate:

Only in Washington are spending increases called spending cuts. They will actually grow discretionary spending at 2/3 rate of inflation (spending increase) but call it $1 trillion in cuts below the baseline of full inflation. About $200 billion come from cuts to health care providers, something we stop every year with the doc fix — not sure how they’ll keep this promise. And another $165 billion come from increases in government fees (some call tax increases), not spending cuts. So at the end of the day, we are left with a $2 billion FY2012 cut, and $55 billion in promised actual spending cuts through yet unspecified policy changes. A whopping $57 billion in cuts over a decade, or less than $6 billion a year.

Real serious when we’re talking about a $14.3 trillion national debt, huh?

But backing up a bit to Obama’s comments earlier today against a balanced budget, using scare tactics as a stimulant to increase the debt limit lest we face a default, one ratings agency has beaten Moody’s and S&P to the punch. Examiner reports, “Egan-Jones Ratings Agency – who called the 2008 financial collapse and lead Moody’s and S&P in putting the U.S on credit watch – cut the U.S debt rating from AAA status over the weekend.” Yet another indicator that the debt ceiling is not the issue; it is the debt and the inability, or rather ‘unwillingness’ of this administration, to pay towards the debt if it doesn’t get its way that is in doubt with our AAA credit rating. And it actually becomes quite difficult to argue against a downgrade when we have a government that refuses to live within its means, even when it is perfectly capable of doing so by relinquishing its hold on dependency in America, as well as the seduction and addiction of its dependents.

No, our government tightening its fiscal belt and living within its means is not something to fear…but a government collapsing from the weight of its own unpayable debt is frightening.

A caller's message that must be heard

This is assuredly the best Levin Show caller of the week!  Just wanted to share Ken's message, because I think it not only grabbed the attention of the host, but also that of the audience, with a cohesiveness one feels when reading the thoughts of some of our great conservative philosophers of the past, as well as our contemporaries (definitely, including Levin!). This guy is so good, Mark has to slow him down a few times to keep him from stealing the show…HA! Here’s the link to Friday’s audio replay, and you can skip to 62:48 minutes in (transcript below)…enjoy!

Mark: “Let’s go to Ken, New York, the great WABC, go!”

Ken: “Hey, Mark. How you doing? I’m really looking forward to your book. I really appreciate everything you do.”

Mark: “Well, thank you, sir. We’ve got a ways to go, but thank you.”

Ken: “Well, what I want to talk about is when Obama said he couldn’t guarantee Social Security checks, it’s more than a lie, it’s a threat. And I think what this underscores is that in the hands of a tyrant or political opportunist, programs like Social Security or Obamacare have nothing to do with compassion and have everything to do with control, and that’s why Obamacare was passed without even being read.”

Mark: “You see, you, sir, are perceptive. You know exactly what all this crap is about. It’s not about healthcare, it’s not about education, and it’s not about welfare. It’s about destroying the individual and controlling the individual. You are exactly right.”

Ken: “And I’d like to make a larger point, and that is, socialism achieves its ends because it’s a perversion of human compassion and idealism. And that’s the reason why Reagan properly called socialism ‘evil’. And I think what a lot of people fail to realize is that liberalism isn’t just a political orientation or a political opponent, this is a secular religious cult with an agenda that’s not only directly opposed to liberty, but has no other means of being realized accept through tyranny.”

Mark: “You’re quite right. And how many times have I called what we’re living in a soft tyranny?"

Ken: “And liberty is just simply incompatible with the society that liberals tell us they want."

Mark: “That’s exactly right. You’re exactly right.”

Ken: “And if you look at…”

Mark: “Hold on, you’re on a roll. Go ahead.”

Ken: “If you look at the Soviet Union, and you study it from the impact it had on people’s lives, not just the starvation, not just the empty grocery stores, the psychological components of socialism. This is what you talk about, when you talk about perversion of language, is that this is a society in which you had to adhere to…"

Mark: “Alright, you’re saying too much. You’re saying too much.”

Ken: “But, in the Soviet Union, this was a society in which you had to adhere to the political thought, or else you were at best ostracizing…”

Mark: “I’m only saying ‘you’re saying too much’ because you’re too good. I want to save it.”

Ken: “Oh, ok.”

Mark: “But let me say this to you. You’re a very sharp guy, very, very sharp guy. And let me ask you this question, my friend. It seems to me that any society that outlaws lemonade stands can’t exactly be called a free society, can it?”

Ken: “No, not at all. And there are larger issues here. This isn’t just about the debt, this is about the nature of the society that we want to live under.”

Mark: “Well, you’re quite right, and…”

Ken: “You know, in some ways the debt is the symptom. I mean, when Obama made the threat about Social Security, he was using the existing Marxist apparatus to make a play for even more power and money.”

Mark: “That’s right.”

Ken: “So, I mean…”

Mark: “And by the way, where does this end?”

Ken: “Yeah, you already have lost and dependent people who they can’t live without government. So, when Obamacare gets passed, and you have a child who has cancer, and the President comes on television and says, ‘unless you pass my program, I’m gonna cut off cancer treatment,’ then at that point, everything’s lost."

Mark: “Alright, my friend. You make excellent, excellent points. Good to hear from you.”

Ken: “I appreciate everything you do.”

Mark: “There’s a good caller, right there. He’s right on. It’s all in Liberty and Tyranny, and he’s got it, he’s right.”

McConnell’s undermining

Despite the House Republicans move to push the responsible Cut, Cap & Balance bill, and despite his own tough talk throughout the week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is damned and determined to undermine his Republican colleagues by handing the whole kit-and-caboodle over to Reid and Obama, thus enabling the statists to raise the debt ceiling without virtually anything to leverage towards meaningful debt reduction.

The Hill writes, “A fall-back plan to avert a national default is under negotiation by Senate leaders and is on track to be unveiled by Wednesday or Thursday of next week, according to a Senate Democratic aide.” Besides the presumptive reporting of this plan as an aversion from defaulting, the underhandedness of handing over power to Obama so that he can raise the debt ceiling at will is grossly negligent and irresponsible.

Fortunately, Sen. Jim DeMint has pledged, along with several other conservative Senators, to use “every tool” available to block the McConnell/Reid compromise they're calling 'plan B', which was introduced by the Senate Republican Leader on Tuesday. However, as The Hill reports, we see that McConnell's proposal is backfiring and quickly becoming the Democrats' plan A, “McConnell is negotiating with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to modify the plan to make it more likely to pass the Senate,” and “under the plan, Obama would have to make three requests to Congress which lawmakers could block only through a resolution of disapproval” by a guaranteed unattainable 2/3 majority in the Senate (Yep, that’s only 34 Senators saying, ‘No, go right ahead a raise it some more, Mr. President!’).

So look what you’ve done, Mitch. Proud of yourself for being a statist enabler towards further indebting the nation? McConnell’s undermining is a betrayal of the conservative resurgence by the old establishment mentality that lost both the Senate and the White House in 2008. Along with Reid, he’s proving once again that old dogs insist on repeating their same old tricks.

GOP embraces Cut, Cap & Balance plan, while Obama politically postures

The Hill reports, "House Republican leaders have thrown their support behind the "Cut, Cap and Balance" plan that conservatives are demanding in return for an increase in the federal debt ceiling."  Bravo!

According to lawmakers who attended an 8 a.m. meeting of the Republican Conference, GOP House members rallied Friday behind an effort to cut spending, cap spending in future years and pass a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution — a package that has been pushed in the House by the Republican Study Committee (RSC).

The Daily Caller points out that not only has the leadership announced the introduction of the Act (which will be voted on next week), but that they're calling on the President to “put a real plan on the table” addressing real reform and real spending cuts:

In doing so, House Republicans put the spotlight on Democrats and the president for never putting any real plan to paper. The Republican message is, “We’ve done that.”

“Time and time again Republicans have offered serious proposals,” said Speaker Boehner, pointing to the budget proposal offered by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan. “I think it’s time to for Democrats to get serious as well.”



Immediately following this announcement by the Republican Conference, Obama holds a presser of his own, politically posturing while claiming Republicans are...you guessed it, 'politically posturing'...

Listen closely to his answer to Jake Tapper's question...

Obama gives non-specifics and shows an unwillingness to accept the dysfunction of the government's role in maintaining these systems, or restructuring them so that they might work for future generations. $6000 more...pulled that figure out of the air! Modest modifications saving trillions of dollars? Where's the plan? Just words...

Or check out this answer to Hans Nichols' question...

Political statements? Mirror, please. Identifying...Freezing...how about CUTTING? Inflation? That's where we're heading under his direction. He continues with more class warfare rhetoric (surprise).

One last example of Obama's political posturing, today alone, from The Hill:

President Obama on Friday kept up the pressure on Republicans to agree to revenue increases in a deal to raise the debt ceiling, claiming 80 percent of the public supports Democrats' demand for tax increases.

"The American people are sold," he said. "The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically."

The People are sold on tax hikes?  Don't think so, yet another Obama lie according to a Rasmussen poll.  Who's the ideologue?  Who's dug in and not budging?  Again, mirror, please!

So while conservatives persuade the Republican leadership into pursuing the responsible path back to fiscal sanity, Obama's blind ideology (and Reid's and others of the statist flavor) disables his ability to reach the reasonable conclusion that his tax and spend irrationalities cannot stabilize, nor sustain, America's economic prosperity, Moody's rating or otherwise.

The Democrat plan: keep spending more!

For all the talk and reports of Obama demanding congressional leaders come up with a plan by the weekend, the Republicans have come up with numerous plans: Paul Ryan’s Plan for Prosperity budget proposal and a more immediate Cut, Cap & Balance Act to deal with our debt and deficit, just to name a few. Where’s the Democrat plan?

Well, we found that out in one buried report by Andrew Stiles in the National Review yesterday. Their plan is to spend more, even as we burst through the debt ceiling, they can’t restrain the addiction!

In an interview with National Review Online, Senate minority whip Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) explains that even at the height of national concern over the country’s debt and deficit problem, Democratic negotiators are insisting that additional spending measures be included in a deal to increase the debt limit.

In discussions this week, Kyl says, Democrats proposed extending unemployment insurance for another 99 weeks at a cost of $43 billion. In addition, they requested another $10 billion to spend on research projects overseen by the National Institutes of Health. Democrats have not, Kyl says, offered to offset the new spending with additional cuts.

These measures come on top of the increased spending Democrats proposed in negotiations led by Vice President Joe Biden, which included a $33 billion increase in Pell Grant funding and $27 billion — a number Kyl says was never explained and is much higher than Republican estimations — for the so-called “doc fix” to restore Medicare payments to physicians.

Can you believe that?! This is another important piece of info you’re not hearing from the media at large, but thankfully, Levin also discussed this on Thursday’s program…

Levin discusses the crooks who’ve stolen your money

"This isn't a fight over the debt ceiling, it's a fight over the future of America." ~ Mark Levin

Picking up on the social security lie of previous discussions, but really extending to all entitlements that are taxed out of our paychecks every two weeks, here’s some great insight from the Great One that clearly describes how there is no ‘trust fund’ and how government crooks have stolen your money over and over again…

“If Social Security payments aren’t made in August, it’s because Barack Obama has ordered them not to be made under every single scenario. I repeat, because the media won’t, if Social Security payments aren’t made in August, it’s because Barack Obama has directed Timothy Geithner not to make them. The Social Security Administration does not automatically stop payment. In fact, the money’s not even with the Social Security Administration, because there is no trust fund. The money is with the Department of Treasury. So do we have all that straight now? It would be a purely political decision by the President of the United States to withhold the payments, because there is enough revenue to cover Social Security payments in August. I don’t know how much more clear I can be.”

Time to stand firm, Republican Leadership

We’ve seen these guys under pressure before; it’s not pretty. So certainly, NOW is the time to encourage, to demand, that these leaders stand firm and back up their tough talk with tough action and true conviction.

Yesterday, Speaker Boehner told reporters that “What the President is asking us to do just won’t pass,” in regards to the status of the debt talks. He insisted that dealing with the White House is ‘like dealing with Jell-O’ and that “the only thing they’ve been firm on is these damn tax increases.”



CNN reports, “The Speaker believes the broad set of options discussed during the daily White House meetings would not muster enough support within his caucus because they would raise taxes and demand smaller, less meaningful cuts than needed.”

Also, it’s reported that when Obama asked Congressional leaders this morning to join him in a weekend summit at Camp David, ultimately to coax the Speaker along, Boehner’s spokesperson properly delivered the statement that “The Speaker has told the White House he sees no need to go to Camp David this weekend.” Right on! Now stay on target; cast aside the panic.

More tough talk from McConnell, with some mixed messages…



This is the right thing to say, “[Obama] really gave us three bad choices: higher taxes, smoke and mirrors or default. And we refuse to accept any of them. Republicans will not be reduced to being the tax collectors for the Obama economy. We won’t be seduced into calling a bad deal an ‘good deal’. And we won’t let the White House fool around with the full faith and credit of the United States. If the President wants to threaten seniors or veterans, or rattle the world economy by pretending he can’t pay our bills, he of course can do that, but he’s not going to implicate Republicans in these efforts.” Right on, right on!

Here’s where McConnell goes wrong, “That’s why I propose as a last resort a plan that would force the White House to really show its hand.” Have we not learned, Sen. McConnell, that by giving this man an inch he’ll take it a statist mile?! But furthermore, It is not the executive body’s appropriate role to act as the legislature, nor is it the legislative branch’s role to take on faux executive veto responsibilities, outside the normal checks and balances. “If the President would rather default than cut back on the size and scope of government, let him explain that. If he’d rather preserve his vision of Washington than protect entitlements, let him explain that. If he and the Democratic Senate would rather borrow and spend us into oblivion, they can certainly do that.” NO! They should never be permitted to do so, and it’s your responsibility and role as Senate Minority Leader to use everything within your power to prevent that, not willingly hand him the power to further destroy! This position allows the very cover that you expressed you didn’t want to give them.

McConnell went on to get back on the right path by expressing that the “single, most effective way” to get our fiscal house back in order, is with a balanced budget amendment. So use that as leverage. Do NOT fall for the scare tactics…the administration is running on empty in the realm of responsible solutions.

Please, CALL HIS BLUFF!

Guys, here’s your theme song…now roll with it!



Note: when you tip your hat to the ‘new constitution’, understand that it’s the original text and not the progressive twists invoked throughout the 20th century!