The debt crisis for dummies 3


By Tom Quiner

Liberals, the media, and even some moderates and conservatives are beginning to pile on the Republicans for the debt limit crisis. They are falling for the liberal mantra that we’ve got a tax problem, not a spending problem.

A quick recap is in order.

Democrats controlled both houses of Congress from 2006 until last year. During that time, they increased government spending to record levels.

During that time, they added a new health insurance entitlement which will increase America’s debt load over the decades to come according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Republicans unanimously voted against the new entitlement. Democrats bear full responsibility (or credit, depending on your perspective) for the consequences (benefits) of this expansion in government.

Fearful of the consequences of out-of-control government spending, voters threw Democrats out of office in record numbers in last Fall’s midterm elections.

Sensing voter concern on this issue, President Obama tried to dodge the issue by forming a bi-partisan “Deficit Commission” to come up with solutions to fix the spending mess.

Guess what? The commission said we need to cut spending and implement tax reform. They were adamant:

“The era of debt denial is over, and there can be no turning back. We keep kicking the can down the road and splashing the soup all over our grandchildren.”

The President’s response? He ignored them.

Nancy Pelosi’s response? “Simply unacceptable.” End of story.

Republican’s response?  “This is a provocative proposal, and while we have concerns with some of their specifics, we commend the co-chairs for advancing the debate.”

Republicans took the commission seriously, Democrats didn’t.

Since the midterm elections, one would have thought Congress and the President would take the voter’s mandate for fiscal sustainability seriously.

The President didn’t. His budget in February didn’t begin to address the structural cracks in our entitlement programs. The Democratically-controlled Senate voted it down 97-0. That’s how serious his budget was.

But the Senate didn’t take the mandate seriously either. Democrats there haven’t produced a budget in two years.

The Republican-controlled House did take it seriously and passed a detailed budget that would get us back on track. There’s something in the Republican budget for everyone to hate, but they did the job they were elected to do by taking the political heat with a serious budget.

The Deficit Commission characterized the Republican budget as “a serious, honest, straight-forward approach.” On the other hand, they said the President’s budget “goes nowhere close.”

Now the President is talking about “budget frameworks.” His office is leaking possible fixes for Medicare. So what does the CBO have to say about it?

“We don’t estimate speeches. We need much more specificity than was provided in that speech for us to do our analysis.”

Republicans have laid their plan out there for all the world to see.

Now it’s time for the President and his party to get serious with a specific plan of their own to fix the structural flaws in our entitlement programs and national indebtedness.

Advertisements

Would you trust the President with your political career? 1


By Tom Quiner

The President said:

“This is part of the problem with a political process where folks are rewarded for saying irresponsible things to win elections or obtain short-term political gain, when we actually are in a position to try to do something hard we haven’t always laid the groundwork for.”

So the President is critical of short-sighted politicians (Republicans) trying to game the system for political gain.

The next day, the President said he can’t guarantee that there will be enough money in the treasure to pay social security recipients if Congress (Republicans) can’t find ways (increase taxes) to decrease the deficit.

He said that the next day!

The National Review reveals, though, that the Treasury has a cash balance of $74 billion.

The amount need to pay social security recipients on August 3rd is $22 billion.

The money is there.

The President didn’t shoot straight with us for the purpose of extracting short term political gain, the very thing he derided on Monday.

Republicans have put their political career on the line to honor their mandate from last election to reduce spending without raising taxes. Voters put Republicans back in office because we fear we are on the brink of financial collapse if we don’t live within our means by reducing government spending.

The President is playing politics with our country’s future while America is burning. His fear mongering with Granny poisons the well in these delicate negotiations.

Republicans have done the honorable thing. They produced a budget. The House passed their budget. Democrats in the Senate, on the other hand, have refused to produce their own budget.

They’d prefer to demagogue the issue, even if it means throwing the U.S. into bankruptcy.

Some moderates are railing against Republicans for not accepting the President’s deal to increase some taxes and implement a little spending restraint down the road.

The problem is, the President can’t be trusted.

Would you trust the President with your political career?

Does an abortion hurt? Reply


By Tom Quiner

Does an abortion hurt?

Does it matter if it hurts?  After all, the Iowa legislature refused to stop abortions after 20 weeks of conception even though the we now know that the fetus feels pain at 20 weeks.

For a unique perspective on the pain of abortion, you have a chance to hear from someone who is an abortion survivor, Melissa Ohden. She is the keynote speaker at Iowan’s for Life Dinner this Saturday at St. Pius Catholic Church beginning at 6:30 PM.  Here is the bio on Ms. Ohden as provided by Iowans for Life:

“Melissa is the survivor of a failed saline infusion abortion in 1977. Despite the initial concerns regarding Melissa’s future after surviving the attempt to end her life and being born at approximately six months gestation, she has not only survived but thrived.

With a Master’s Degree in Social work, she has worked in the fields of substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence/sexual assault counseling and child welfare. Melissa is the Founder and Director of “For Olivia’s Sake”, an organization which seeks to peacefully raise awareness of the intergenerational impact of abortion on men, women, children, families, and communities. Fulfilling the  purpose that she believes God set out for her when He saved her from the certain death of the abortion attempt, Melissa is truly a voice for the voiceless.”

What strikes me about Ms. Ohden is how she survived and rose above the pain of abortion to make a profound difference in the world.

Imagine what this world would be like if only the 50 million aborted babies (since Roe v Wade) had lived. Imagine the medicines, the music, the poetry, the inventions. Imagine the love.

Contact Iowans for Life at 515-255-4113 if you’d like to attend.  Or e-mail them at iowansforlife@msn.com. The price is $20 per person, and seating is limited.

In the meantime, watch the video above for Melissa’s story.

Human life is precious. Melissa Ohden is living proof.

Are people the problem or the solution? Reply


By Tom Quiner

Someone I know once said only partially in jest, “I hate strangers.”

I continued the banter by responding “I love strangers, because they represent opportunity.” I meant it.

I have benefited profoundly from strangers.  So have you. Strangers have invented things that make our lives better. They developed new medicines and cured diseases. They’ve prayed for you and me. They have cheered for the same team and laughed at the same jokes as you and I have. They have donated money to charities I respect.  And they have paid taxes to help support government services.

Strangers are people we don’t know. We need more of them.

In other words, I think people are the solution to our problems. Not everyone agrees. Some folks think there are too many people in the world. They think people pollute the environment. That they consume too many of the world’s resources. They they exploit their neighbor.

There are people who do just that.

The American system has a way of bringing out the best in people. I think we need more Americans. This has been THE most innovative country in the history of the world. Innovation tends to flow from our youth.  Studies tell us that innovation peaks in thirty-somethings and then begins to decline.

Innovators come up with solutions to our problems. They create jobs.

We need more of them.

How can we get more? I propose we start with a ban on abortion. We’re killing off the people who will make our country and the world better.

The preborn represent opportunity. They represent hope.

Let us begin protecting and nurturing them as America used to do.

People are the solution.

 

Will the President’s deficit reduction plan work? Reply


By Tom Quiner

The cornerstone of the President’s plan to reduce our deficit is to take away corporate tax breaks for corporate jets.

Charles Krauthammer did an analyses to calculate the net effect:

“I did the math. If you collect that tax for the next 5,000 years — that is not a typo — it would equal the new debt Obama racked up last year alone. To put it another way, if we had levied this tax at the time of John the Baptist and collected it every year since — first in shekels, then in dollars — we would have 500 years to go before we could offset half of the debt added by Obama last year alone.”

Okay, let’s cut the President a little slack, because he has another good idea, namely to take away an oil company tax break. Mr. Krauthammer made an extrapolation on how this would affect the deficit:

“Obama’s other favorite debt reduction refrain is canceling an oil company tax break. Well, if you collect that oil tax and the corporate jet tax for the next 50 years, you will not yet have offset Obama’s deficit spending for February 2011.”

The President’s premise is that we’ve got a tax problem. Charles Krauthmammer shows that tax increases just won’t cut it.

We need spending restraint.