Budget Cuts? What Budget Cuts?

This information just received in an E-Mail from a friend helps to graphically explain why the financial position of the United States was recently downgraded.

The Best Summary Ever of why the U.S. was downgraded:

• U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000

• Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000

• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000

• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000

• Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:

• Annual family income: $21,700

• Money the family spent: $38,200

• New debt on the credit card: $16,500

• Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710

• Total budget cuts: $385

Got it?

OK, now Lesson # 2:

Here's another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:

Let's say you come home from work and find there has been a sewer

backup in your neighborhood, and your home has sewage all the way up

to your ceilings.

What do you think you should do?

   1. Raise the ceilings, or

   2. Pump out the sewage

Your choice is coming November 2012 for all incumbents.

H/T: llretired

Why We Need Term Limits

This is a new twist on an old tale, sent in by a friend. It certainly does seem that new senators and representatives often come riding into town on a white horse promising to "change" Washington as we know it. In almost no time most of those new hard chargers "adapt" to the Washington reality, and adopt their number one priority: re-election! To get re-elected, they need money - lots of money, and to get lots of money they have to return favors granted them (read money), by voting contrary to the best interests of the people who put them into office. It's always been that way, and probably will never change. Here's that old tale with the new twist.

If you start with a cage containing five monkeys and, inside the cage, hang a banana on a string from the top. Then you place a set of stairs under the banana. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and climb toward the banana.

As soon as he touches the stairs, you spray all the other monkeys with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result ... all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put the cold water away.

Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and attempts to climb the stairs. To his shock, all of the other monkeys beat the crap out of him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys, replacing it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment....with enthusiasm.

Then, replace a third original monkey with a new one, followed by a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs. Neither do they know why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

Finally, having replaced all of the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys will have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, none of the monkeys will try to climb the stairway for the banana.

Why, you ask? Because in their minds....that is the way it has always been!

This, my friends, is how Congress operates... and is why, from time to time, all of the monkeys need to be REPLACED ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

Trifecta: "Whittle's 6 Amendments to Fix America..."

Bill Whittle, Steve Green, and Scott Ott of PJTV give us their ideas to fix our declining country.

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=105&load=5329

Back on May 7, 2009, I posted on this Blog what I (stealing from Dean Swift) immodestly called a "Seven Step Modest Proposal to Improve Representation." Here they are again:

1. Members of the U. S. House of Representatives may serve only two (two year) terms in their lifetime, and those terms need not be served consecutively. They may thereafter serve in the U. S. Senate, but not in the term immediately succeeding their final term in the House.

2. Members of the U. S. Senate may serve only one six year term in their lifetime. They may thereafter serve two terms in the House of representatives but not in the term immediately succeeding their term in the Senate.

3. The House and the Senate will be modeled after the U. S. Military Reserve Force. Both Houses will meet in Washington D. C. one weekend each month, and for two weeks each summer. The weekend meetings, when possible, will be accomplished by way of telephone or video conferencing.

4. Each member of the House and Senate will have a full-time staff made up of two members in Washington D. C., and one in the home district. The Senate staff member may serve anywhere in the state, at the discretion of the Senator.

5. In order to be a candidate for either the House of Representatives or the Senate, the individual must have served in the U. S. Military. Those not eligible for active combat service must have served in some ancillary military capacity.

6. All candidates for seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate must pass an intelligence measuring test that demonstrates, at a minimum, competency in reading, writing, and balancing a checkbook.

7. All travel and living expenses of members of Congress in connection with their official duties will be reimbursed by the U. S. Treasury. Retirement and health insurance will not be provided, but a modest sum will be paid to each member, while serving, which can be used to contribute to any personal retirement or health insurance plan set up by the member.

They still sound good to me.

Jay Rockefeller: Case in Point for Term Limits

Jay Rockefeller, who has spent his last 25 years as a U. S. Senator from West Virginia (time to go, Jay), apparently does not even realize what he is advocating here. Controlling the news is one of the first things socialists want to do (after taking our guns and mocking our religion). Naturally, the first news outlet he would want to shut down is Fox News - certainly not NPR or PBS since those serve as the flagship of the Left Wing. Rockefeller's wife, by the way, is the C.E.O. of WETA-TV, the leading PBS station in the Washington D.C. area.

When an elected representative of a free people wants to control the choices of news media available to those people he supposedly represents, maybe it's time for him to leave.

Term Limits for Judges - Why Not?

If it's time for term limits on elected officials, why not impose them on judges who too often act like legislators? The voters in Iowa just imposed "term limits" on three of the judges on their supreme court for overturning the will of the people concerning traditional marriage.

I have always voted against the retention of every judge on every ballot even while knowing that it was a futile attempt by one person to impose a limit on the abuse of power so often exhibited by judges. A very good friend, during the last election, opined that she was voting to retain state supreme court judges appointed by a conservative past governor of our state, and against the retention of judges appointed by prior liberal governors. I immediately recalled the nomination of Earl Warren to SCOTUS by President Dwight Eisenhower, the nomination of David Souter to the same court by President George H. W. Bush, and the nomination of Anthony Kennedy by President Ronald Reagan. Those three appointments (and certainly many others through the years) should deconstruct the myth that judges appointed or nominated by certain politicians will perpetually issue rulings that reflect the interpretation of the constitution held by the politician making the appointment or nomination. In any case, it behooves us to remember the warning issued by Lord Acton concerning absolute power, and to understand that judges - especially those ensconced for life - enjoy absolute power.

Dr. Thomas Sowell, in his column today on National Review Online, makes the case for "Stopping Judicial Imperialism."

Here are some clips:

The runaway arrogance that politicians get when they have huge majorities in Congress is more or less common among federal judges with lifetime tenure or state judges who are seldom defeated in elections to confirm their appointments to the bench.

Those who believe in gay marriage are free to vote for it. But, when they lose that vote, it is not the role of judges to nullify the vote and legislate from the bench. Judges who become politicians in robes often lie like politicians as well, claiming that they are just applying the Constitution, when they are in fact exercising powers that the Constitution never gave them.

If they are going to act like politicians, then they should be voted out like politicians.

The time is long overdue to stop treating judges like sacred cows, especially when they have so much bull.

To read Dr. Sowell's entire column, click on the link below.
Stopping Judicial Imperialism - Thomas Sowell - National Review Online

Heritage Video: Obama Tax Hikes - The Spin

(Click twice in bottom right of video to watch on YouTube)

This is from The Heritage Foundation. You'll probably recognize the players from this prior post. That new guy (Smith) gets in trouble again for speaking the truth.

Heritage Video: Where's My Congressman?"

A Call For Term Limits Redux

We've called more than once for the imposition of term limits on members of Congress. Lord Acton had it exactly right when he said: "All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority."

The longer a politician stays in office, the greater the power and authority he will exert, which then all but assures "the certainty of corruption." The only way to protect the American people from that corruption is to make certain that no member of Congress can be in office long enough to become totally corrupted.

Here in the United States, Congressional efforts to limit the terms of members of the House and Senate lost their air in 1997, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be resuscitated. The Republican majority in Congress, in their 1994 “Contract With America,” initially declared term limits a priority, but that Congress failed to get the necessary votes for a constitutional amendment – which would be needed to mandate the limits.

As of May 2009, our House of Representatives had 62 members who had “served” for more than 20 years. Nineteen of them had “served” for over 30 years, and two (both Democrats) for more than 40 years. Almost 58 percent of the Members had been there for 10 years. Does that sound good?

James Madison wrote: legislators should be “called for the most part from pursuits of a private nature and continued in appointment for a short term of office.” Surely Madison would not have considered 40 years, 30 years, or even 20 years a “short term of office.”

We are now being governed by professional legislators - some of whom have never held a real job - and the only jobs they have ever created have been government jobs. This is not what our Founding Fathers intended, and we can do something about it.

Term limits is the answer, and not just term limits. Herewith some of our previously posted recommendations (call them modest proposals), along with term limits, to bring our elected officials back down off the perches we never put them on, and maybe even make them understand the meaning of "public service."

1. Members of the U. S. House of Representatives may serve only two (two year) terms in their lifetime, and those terms need not be served consecutively. They may thereafter serve in the U. S. Senate, but not in the term immediately succeeding their final term in the House.

2. Members of the U. S. Senate may serve only one six year term in their lifetime. They may thereafter serve two terms in the House of representatives but not in the term immediately succeeding their term in the Senate.

3. The House and the Senate will be modeled after the U. S. Military Reserve Force. Both Houses will meet in Washington D. C. one weekend each month, and for two weeks each summer. The weekend meetings, when possible, will be accomplished by way of telephone or video conferencing.

4. Each member of the House and Senate will have a full-time staff made up of two members in Washington D. C., and one in the home district. The Senate staff member may serve anywhere in the state, at the discretion of the Senator.

5. In order to be a candidate for either the House of Representatives or the Senate, the individual must have served in the U. S. Military. Those not eligible for active combat service must have served in some ancillary military capacity.

6. All candidates for seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate must pass an intelligence measuring test that demonstrates, at a minimum, competency in reading, writing, and balancing a checkbook. They will also be required to pass a rigid and thorough background investigation by the FBI before winning a place on the ballot.

7. All travel and living expenses of members of Congress in connection with their official duties will be reimbursed by the U. S. Treasury. Retirement and health insurance will not be provided, but a modest sum will be paid to each member, while serving, which can be used to contribute to any personal retirement or health insurance plan set up by the member.

Adoption of these modest proposals will, hopefully, lead to a new kind of legislator: one who will be motivated by service to country rather than by self aggrandizement. Their knowledge of the real world will serve them well as they legislate, and their legislative experience will make them even better citizens when they return to private life.

The only argument advanced against term limits, is that members of a term limited Congress would not have enough time to become experienced legislators. Is that a bad thing?

One more thing: every new member of Congress should be required to sign an oath affirming that every morning upon awakening he or she will look into a mirror and declare: "I work for the people; the people do not work for me."

Time to Start Over

With 57 percent of the American people expressing the desire to completely replace the U.S. Congress (one wonders whether the remaining 43 percent are paying attention), this is a good time to make a case for term limits.

This Blog addressed the issue on May 7, 2009. Here's a link to that post:
http://wwwpopblogger.blogspot.com/2009/05/citizen-legislators-vs-pros.html

Here's the "Seven Step Modest Proposal to Improve Representation," listed in that post:

1. Members of the U. S. House of Representatives may serve only two (two year) terms in their lifetime, and those terms need not be served consecutively. They may thereafter serve in the U. S. Senate, but not in the term immediately succeeding their final term in the House.
2. Members of the U. S. Senate may serve only one six year term in their lifetime. They may thereafter serve two terms in the House of representatives but not in the term immediately succeeding their term in the Senate.
3. The House and the Senate will be modeled after the U. S. Military Reserve Force. Both Houses will meet in Washington D. C. one weekend each month, and for two weeks each summer. The weekend meetings, when possible, will be accomplished by way of telephone or video conferencing.
4. Each member of the House and Senate will have a full-time staff made up of two members in Washington D. C., and one in the home district. The Senate staff member may serve anywhere in the state, at the discretion of the Senator.
5. In order to be a candidate for either the House of Representatives or the Senate, the individual must have served in the U. S. Military. Those not eligible for active combat service must have served in some ancillary military capacity.
6. All candidates for seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate must pass an intelligence measuring test that demonstrates, at a minimum, competency in reading, writing, and balancing a checkbook.
7. All travel and living expenses of members of Congress in connection with their official duties will be reimbursed by the U. S. Treasury. Retirement and health insurance will not be provided, but a modest sum will be paid to each member, while serving, which can be used to contribute to any personal retirement or health insurance plan set up by the member.

Adoption of this modest proposal will, hopefully, lead to a new kind of legislator: one who will be motivated by service to country rather than by self aggrandizement. Their knowledge of the real world will serve them well as they legislate, and their legislative experience will make them even better citizens when they return to private life.

One of the principal arguments advanced against term limits, even less draconian than the above modestly proposed steps, is that such a Congress would not have nearly enough time to legislate. I would answer that argument with one word: EXACTLY!

Citizen Legislators vs The Pros

This is Daniel Hannan, who, if the UK has any chance at survival, will be the next occupant of #10 Downing Street. He is currently a member of the European Parliament, representing South East England. He was first elected to that position in 1999, and was re-elected in 2004. In April 2008, he was elected to the top position of the Conservative list for the 2009 elections. He blogs regularly at:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan

Here’s a sample from one of his recent blogs that got me thinking about, and longing for, term limits.

“… MPs these days tend to mess about in para-political jobs before standing for Parliament, as think-tankers, researchers, trade union officials, NGO agitators, party apparatchiks or lobbyists. Look at the current Cabinet. As far as I can work out, not one of its members has ever been involved in making anything or selling anything. Almost all are creatures of the public sector

“There are lots of useful ways to clean up Parliament. But making MPs wholly dependent on state spending is not one of them. The idea that being an MP ought to be a full-time job sounds reasonable, but is specious.

“Ideally, I'd like to go further, and have citizen legislators: that is, parliamentarians who meet for relatively few days each year and who, although they are compensated for their time, cannot expect to make a living from it, but are assumed to be carrying on with whatever they did before. Something similar happens in Switzerland, and the Swiss seem to be doing pretty well….”

________________________________
Here in the United States, Congressional efforts to limit the terms of members of the House and Senate lost their air in 1997, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be resuscitated. The Republican majority in Congress, in their 1994 “Contract With America,” initially declared term limits a priority, but that Congress failed to get the necessary votes for a constitutional amendment – which would be needed to mandate the limits.

Our House of Representatives today has 62 members who have “served” for more than 20 years. Nineteen of them have “served” for over 30 years, and two (both Democrats) for more than 40 years. Almost 58 percent of the Members have been there for 10 years. Does that sound good?

James Madison wrote: legislators should be “called for the most part from pursuits of a private nature and continued in appointment for a short term of office.” I don’t think he meant by “short term of office,” 40 years, 30 years, or even 20.

It has not always been so. From 1798 to 1901, the average number of terms served by House members was 2.18. From 1901 to 2002, the average number of terms per House member increased to 4.86, and since 1947 that number has increased to 5.84. In short, we are living under the “guidance” of professional legislators some of whom have never held a real job – let alone create a real job.

Jack Kemp always said that the best way to argue against a bad idea was to offer a good idea. So here's my good idea, and borrowing from Jonathan Swift, I'll call it a "Seven Step Modest Proposal to Improve Representation."

1. Members of the U. S. House of Representatives may serve only two (two year) terms in their lifetime, and those terms need not be served consecutively. They may thereafter serve in the U. S. Senate, but not in the term immediately succeeding their final term in the House.
2. Members of the U. S. Senate may serve only one six year term in their lifetime. They may thereafter serve two terms in the House of representatives but not in the term immediately succeeding their term in the Senate.
3. The House and the Senate will be modeled after the U. S. Military Reserve Force. Both Houses will meet in Washington D. C. one weekend each month, and for two weeks each summer. The weekend meetings, when possible, will be accomplished by way of telephone or video conferencing.
4. Each member of the House and Senate will have a full-time staff made up of two members in Washington D. C., and one in the home district. The Senate staff member may serve anywhere in the state, at the discretion of the Senator.
5. In order to be a candidate for either the House of Representatives or the Senate, the individual must have served in the U. S. Military. Those not eligible for active combat service must have served in some ancillary military capacity.
6. All candidates for seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate must pass an intelligence measuring test that demonstrates, at a minimum, competency in reading, writing, and balancing a checkbook.
7. All travel and living expenses of members of Congress in connection with their official duties will be reimbursed by the U. S. Treasury. Retirement and health insurance will not be provided, but a modest sum will be paid to each member, while serving, which can be used to contribute to any personal retirement or health insurance plan set up by the member.

Adoption of this modest proposal will, hopefully, lead to a new kind of legislator: one who will be motivated by service to country rather than by self aggrandizement. Their knowledge of the real world will serve them well as they legislate, and their legislative experience will make them even better citizens when they return to private life.

One of the principal arguments advanced against term limits, even less draconian than the above modestly proposed steps, is that such a Congress would not have nearly enough time to legislate. I would answer that argument with one word: EXACTLY!