Protecting the Constitution

I would hate to think that anyone was secretly wishing for the horrific tragedy last week in Sandy Hook, but the immediate response by a faithful cadre on the left leaves me wondering.  The reaction from liberals from the moments we first heard the story, has been to gleefully shriek that we must turn to the position they have been hoping for for decades - seize all firearms from private citizens.  Immediately!  For the children, of course.  The 2nd amendment be damned.  Their arguments go like this: our founding fathers could not possibly have intended for Americans to have handguns or assault rifles, they lived in the age of muskets and surely would want us limited to that option; madmen and criminals are able to get their hands on guns, so private citizens should not have them to "get them off the streets".  Some even claim we need to take them from the police as well.  Not only should we move quickly for a ban on the mysterious "assault weapons", we should seize them from every registered gun owner.  It's really been a disgusting display!

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - 2nd Amendment to the Constitution

The framers of the Bill of Rights saw the 2nd amendment as a basic right of a free citizenry and even as an obligation in order to defend against a oppressive government or external invasion.  The intent was not to just provide for people defending their homes against burglars   Remember. the Constitution was written for a newly free United States after a revolution against British rule.  An armed citizenry was responsible for the American Revolution.  That's what a militia is.  Would we be able to fight against a military insurrection or oppressive government using single-shot hunting rifles or shotguns?  Yes, but not very effectively given the state of today's military arsenals.  Citizens need to be able to have at least close-to-comparable firepower to that of the government.  That is the entire point of the 2nd amendment.  On the political talk shows we've heard the response, from conservatives even, that even with AR-15s we couldn't defend against the US military.  Really?  That's exactly what the British government thought about some farmers and merchants in the territories taking up arms against the renowned British army.  Every uprising against oppressive, tyrannical governments across the globe have been residents taking up arms against a much more powerful army.  


But what about the "public safety"?  Doesn't it trump our 2nd amendment rights?  Absolutely not!  The fact is that these incidents have been become less frequent, though with immediate, round-the-clock access to anything happening anywhere on earth it does not appear so.  While that does not in the least lessen the gravity of the act, we need to instead consider what contributed to the situation.  Why did the gunman's mother allow access to her legally obtained firearms by her mentally unstable son?  Why hadn't she received the support she needed to ensure he was properly treated?


Haven't we already given away too many of our rights in the name of "public safety"?  The government can tap our phones, indefinitely detain us, monitor our email, and assassinate us on foreign soil with no due process.  Presidents Obama has signed more "secret" Presidential Orders into effect than all other previous presidents combined, taking away more of our liberties with every stroke of the pen.  Haven't we given away enough without actually re-writing the Constitution?  As Benjamin Franklin so famously said,

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I think we deserve both. 

Guns and Schools

I think almost everyone out there can agree that the killing of children is one of the worst things that can ever happen in a civilized society, and the killing of 20 kids at a the Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday is one of the most heinous crimes this country has ever seen.  The question now is: what are we going to do about it?

It is extremely important to note that mass shootings occur almost exclusively in locations where guns are prohibited.  The Colorado movie theater shooter chose not the closest or largest theater to attack, he chose the one out of the four local theaters that specifically banned guns from the premises.  From schools to other "Gun free zone" locations, students and patrons are like fish in a barrel and easy marks.  

The Michigan legislature, in response to the mass murders in Connecticut Friday, passed a bill allowing conceal carry in schools that was vetoed by Governor Snyder today.  While the legislature was on the right track, I do not think that teachers or administrators should have to carry weapons if they are not comfortable doing so.  The best way we could protect our children is to provide each school with controlled entry and an armed guard.  Our children would no longer be sitting ducks, unarmed and defenseless, and cowardly madmen would not have the easy targets they have today.  The Connecticut shooter committed suicide as soon as he heard law enforcement responding to the scene.  Had there been a trained, armed guard at the door of the school, he would most likely not have even attempted the attack or would have been stopped before he could enter and do damage.

We pay to provide armed guards for Federal and State run facilities: courthouses, office buildings, even the Department of Motor Vehicles.  Don't our children deserve the same level of protection?  No matter what we do to law-abiding citizens, criminals and crazies are going to find away to get weapons, whether firearms or explosives or incendiary devices (the worst US school killings was in 1927 when 45 people were killed in a school bombing), so we need to have trained people on the ground able to address these situations if and when they arise.  We should all be contacting our state, local and federal government representatives and demand that every primary and secondary school building have an experienced, armed guard.  

A Crisis of Awareness

Where is the outrage from the American people over these ridiculous Fiscal Cliff "negotiations"?  Every conservative-leaning person in America should be writing their Senators and Representatives demanding that they cut spending and extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone. Or, we can continue to rack up even more massive debt than we have already. When our public debt has outpaced the growth of the private economy, we have a major problem. We have not been at this level of spending since WWII, and that spending immediately dropped post-war. For us, there is no end in sight, for the next four years at least, and the result is truly frightening.  

President Obama won't meet with Republican congressional members and we're not sure he's even been meeting with his own party members. He has met with Rachel Maddow and Al Sharpton however, so we know he's getting good advice on the economy. It's also interesting to note that in the Obama budget proposal Geitner was sent out to sell, Obama is freely spending the "savings" from bringing the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan and has proposed billions in new "stimulus" spending.  

The fact that people on the street are either unaware of these issues or think the government needs to "do more" http://bit.ly/YAjhtP is a sad commentary on the Republican party's inability to promote free market principles.  Republicans need to get their act together and inform the American people about the coming bankrupting of the country and why the current course is unsustainable.  This crisis is also a test for the current Republican members of congress.  They need to understand that they will be held accountable come 2014 or 2016 election time for the positions they take during the fiscal cliff negotiations their votes on the budget ultimately put forward.

You STILL didn't build that

Obama is still holding steadfast to his demand that tax rates be raised on the "rich" (and again I point out that "rich" in his mind means families earning $250K).  Why?  Republicans have given in and are open to raising the same level of revenue through the closing of loopholes rather than straight up changes in rates.  Because he wants to punish success.  Obama wants to clearly label successful people as evil and not deserving of their wealth - they didn't build that! 

This is a fundamental difference in philosophy from the country our founding fathers envisioned.  It is the same view that enabled the administration to portray Mitt Romney as explicitly morally inferior, and implicitly guilty of some crime or wrongdoing, because he is a successful man. This has been accepted and embraced by the Democratic congress in stark contrast to how John Kerry was received as the party's nominee for President, and his net worth was significantly higher.  Of course John Kerry wasn't guilty of earning his money, he married into it.  Maybe that's a forgivable sin. 

And the liberal guilt for making money must not be assuaged by voluntary charitable works, as the pitiable philanthropic efforts of the Obamas and Bidens can attest, they prefer to take wealth by force.

Are Republicans seeing the light?

You know you're in trouble when Nancy Pelosi says you now "see the light", as she said of Republicans in an interview Thursday.  

Asked if the GOP would buckle, Pelosi said, “I wouldn’t say buckle. See the light might be a better term.”

Yikes!  And to add insult to injury, the Democrats not only expect Republicans to cave on taxes in the Fiscal Cliff negotiations, they are demanding a massive new stimulus package!  The fact that Republicans have not just walked away from the table on this is outrageous.  

Democrats feel emboldened by Obama's win, the increase in Republican Governors and a strong Republican hold on the house, being cleverly ignored.  There has been a lot of discussion on blogs and Twitter about the ramifications in the next election cycle if Republicans don't hold firm on taxes and spending cuts.  If only that were true.  When have Republicans ever really had their feet held to the fire when they have voted against conservative fiscal principles?  We keep electing the same wishy-washy bunch over and over again.  We should be demanding accountability for the decisions they make in the name of "bipartisanship".  

Grover Norquist was on the right track with the tax pledge, but he did not go far enough - we need a similar pledge on spending - and we need to follow up at the fundraising dinners and voting booth to hold responsible those who choose to renege.

Should we just let the sequestration happen?

Watching the Sunday morning new shows over the weekend, I was stunned to see that while there was much discussion about whether taxes on millionaires, that now includes families making over $250,000 by the way, but none on what spending to cut.  Not one of the members of the House or Senate, or even the pundits for that matter, were calling on the President and Congress to cut spending.  

It seems that all the concern around the Fiscal Cliff negotiations is extended only to taxes, not the out of control spending that is driving the country toward bankruptcy.  All of the participants, regardless of party, spent their time lamenting how this tax rate increase or removing that loophole would increase revenues.  I heard plenty of Republican's willing to dishonor the Norquist pledge saying it doesn't matter in this time of trillion dollar deficits, but I did not hear Democrats pledging to play their part and reduce entitlements. This is the story we've heard from big government for far too long -- no matter how much revenue the Federal Government is able to collect, they will be able to easily spend it all.  Keynesian Democrats have been convinced they can spend their way out of the recession, and see where that's gotten us.  And no matter what lip-service we've heard over the years from Republicans on big spending, both parties are complicit, but we are in WAY over our heads with no end in sight.

1947-2012 Federal Government Tax Revenues vs. Spending

Federal Government Tax Revenues vs. Expenditures

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

October 4, 2012

We need to take a serious look at ALL spending, and right off the bat, begin means testing for Social Security and Medicare.  Is it theft to exclude payments to rich seniors who have paid into the system their whole working lives?  Yes, but it has to be done.  Frankly, social security is a drop in the bucket for wealthy people who can afford their retirement without it, and those same people should not be partaking of government sponsored healthcare.  I know they have paid into it, but they are screwing their grandchildren out of a lot more by expecting to receive it.  The current senior population is not "the Greatest Generation" for nothing; they would do what's right and accept the means testing.  Baby Boomers, on the other hand, are selfish enough to not care what kind of legacy they are leaving and would fight it, but again, it must be done as part of comprehensive cuts in all spending.

And what of the "sequestration" that is no longer generating discussion?  Let it happen. We are currently spending about $3.6T a year and bringing in $2.5T.  Sequestration is an idea that has been around for decades, but his statements in the 2nd presidential debate notwithstanding, was promoted by the Obama administration in order to serve as a "stick" during budget negotiations.  It will enforce an automatic, $1.2T cut to spending to both defense and non-defense spending in order to meet a balanced budget.  

However we do it, the people of this country need to fight for cuts, to force Congress to turn from the path we've been traveling and give back the promise of a strong America for our children, not a bankrupt one.

Liberal War on Women

Why do liberals see everyone as victims?  Could it be that this approach increases the number of people who need "protecting", thus those who are dependent on Big Brother for that "protection"?   It has also turned out to be an effective way of deflecting any criticism of the actions and positions of those on the left.  

This past week Republicans began to back off their critique of Susan Rice's refusal to speak truthfully in the weeks following the despicable terrorist strike on our consulate in Benghazi, having been accused of being racist and/or sexist for questioning Ms. Rice's testimony to Congress about the attack.  As a woman, I am deeply offended that liberals think Rice (and, by extension, all women) is too fragile to withstand criticism as she executes her role as US ambassador to the UN and Obama administration and foreign affairs spokesperson.  Susan Rice is an accomplished woman who has held a variety of national security and foreign policy roles in the US government; she is not some tittering sorority girl requiring protection from big bad bullies questioning her judgement.  

I do not believe Rice sees herself as a victim; however, this tactic has been used increasingly by those on the Left as a way to deflect attention away from actual policy matters.  Liberals will scream from the rooftops when the stated positions or job performance of anyone of color and/or women are questioned.  If you voted for Romney over Obama you're a racist.  If Congress questions why Susan Rice presented an inaccurate briefing, clearly intending to deflect acknowledgement of acts of terrorism before the election, then they are both racist and sexist.  Far from acknowledging that she was set out as a sacrificial lamb and put in that position then hung out to dry by the administration, they decry the questions as sexist.  Maybe Nancy Pelosi isn't woman enough to take criticism, but the rest of women in America certainly are.

Unfortunately, this tactic is working.  Over the weekend on the Sunday morning news shows, John McCain was definitely reacting to the Democratic name-calling when he clearly tempered his comments on Rice's potential nomination for Secretary of State.  If Republicans are going to give into this nonsense and back off, then off course it validates the Left's position and strengthens this line of attack.  Republicans need to man up and refudiate these claims for the outrageous and spurious accusations they are, and condemn Demorats for the scurrilous vagabonds they are.  

Say Hello to the Police State

I am hoping that Patrick Leahy's Senate bill allowing a plethora of federal agencies to have warrantless access to Americans' email is defeated, but given recent history, I am doubtful.  This would just be the latest violation of our civil liberties to be written into law by elected representatives with only the interests of the state and making the jobs of law enforcement easier.  Rather than forcing them to go through the process of collecting enough evidence to support a warrant, they'll have open access to our email accounts and Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter messages.

Do Americans understand that there are federal laws in place that enable the government to track your cell phone and the GPS in your car without a warrant?  Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled that warrantless GPS car tracking is unconstitutional.  We can expect the email access case to be, like that of warrantless cell phone tracking, challenged in the courts, and they may or may not be judged constitutional.  How chilling that these laws are passed with almost no objection or coverage by the mainstream press.  Are we that willing to give up our most basic privacy for the sake of "safety", or is it disinterest?  Either way, it is a disturbing step down the path opposed to anything our founding fathers envisioned for a free people

Walking the Obamacare plank

With Obama's re-election and a split Congress, Obamacare is now the law of the land and there is no chance of repeal.  Companies like Papa John's have already courted criticism for announcing they will lay off workers and/or cut workers' hours in response to the tax increases Obamacare will bring in 2013.  Many other business are or will be following suit.  

According to a list of of new 2013 taxes compiled by Americans for Tax Reform, the new taxes will include:

Investment Surcharge - What this has to do with healthcare has not been explained, but it will apply a 3.8% increase to capital gains and dividends for households making over $250,000.  This hits small business disproportionately hard as many small business owners fall in this category, and I'm not talking about Donald Trump. 

"Special Needs" Tax - Caps the amount that can be saved in Flexible Spending Accounts at $2500 per year.  It is called the "Special Needs" tax because it particularly hurts families with special needs children as they spend proportionally more on health care and tuition for special education.  

Medical Device Manufacturers Tax - A 2.3% excise tax on medical devices worth more than $100.  An excise tax is one that is imposed on a manufacture of goods rather than on the consumption of that item.  It is a "hidden" tax as most people don't see the tax, only an increase in costs.  This has already hit the devices industry hard and multiple employers have announced layoffs. 

Medical Spending Deductions Cap - The new tax increases the threshold for the amount of medical spending above which the spending can be deducted from 7.5% of their income to 10% of their income.  People with ongoing medical expenses that fall under the threshold can no longer file for the deduction, and people with higher expenses lose out on 2.5% of what they had previously been able to deduct.  

Medicare Payroll Tax - Employers already pay an existing payroll tax for each employee.  The rate employers must pay will increase.  With raises and bonuses already squeezed by the stagnant economy, employers will be even less able to offer raises when the cost of affected employee goes up. 

How is the economy supposed to recover when the cost of doing business increases like this?  Small businesses employing 49 people or fewer will be incentivized NOT to hire that 50th person as they will then fall under the Obamacare provisions.  And keep in mind penalty calculations for lack of compliance for companies with more than 50 employees are made using the number of full-time staff; part-time employees are not included.  This effectively incentivizes companies to maximize the number of employees working 30 hrs a week or fewer.  Underemployment is already a significant problem right now and Obamacare disincentives will make the situation even worse.  We've just seen the tip of the iceberg. 

These taxes will go into effect no matter what the results of the "Fiscal Cliff" negotiations are, as they are not part of the Bush era tax cuts, and the ones I've discussed above are only those slated to go into effect in 2013.  There is another set that will take effect in 2014 and 2015.  It appears that the last nail has ben driven into the coffin holding any hopes we may have had of reversing the economic downturn any time soon.  

Critical thinking anyone?

A friend of mine shared this image to her Facebook page, and I saw it in my news feed.  I assume many of you have seen this over the past few days as well.  What does it tell you about people who share it?  What has happened to the power of critical thinking?  The President is credited with things he had no part of, while ignoring the things for which he is actually responsible, many of which are contrary to "liberal" values, including killing American citizens with no due process using drone strikes, initiating military actions in foreign countries (like the drone strike bombings in Yemen the day after the election), and broadening the governments powers of surveillance and indefinite detention.  The states passed referenda on gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana.  In fact, the DEA, a federal agency accountable to the President, has already said they will be enforcing federal drug laws, thereby overriding the state laws.  I just don't get it.  

The Stimulus Slide

A fiscal stimulus package is the gift that keeps on giving!  It provides 1) a temporary bump in GDP 2) an equivalent drop in GDP when it's over and 3) a further drop in GDP later as it's paid for by higher taxes or by increasing the debt.  That's why the Congressional Budget Office warned that the Obama stimulus would hurt the economy in the long run.  It is essentially a parachute adding drag to an already labored system. The greater the stimulus, the greater the effects - both positive and negative - with the negative effects outweighing the positive.  The effect is magnified when stimulus money goes outside of the American economy to other countries as much of the Obama stimulus did; we get a smaller bump but still pay the full boat.

Are we so willing to close our eyes to the fate of other big spending countries, or is it selfishness and the growing "what's in it for me" culture?  I think about the future impacts of today's runaway spending and wonder of we're going to follow in Greece's footsteps with unemployment over 25% and people rioting in the streets as the government imposes unavoidable austerity measures?  Unless we get spending under control to the point where we can actually cut the debt, we are well along that road.  

The Fiscal Cliff

I'm sure many are thinking today that with the election having gone their way, all with be right with the world and President Obama will be free to continue with the policies he promoted during his first term.  The split government, however, will make both the president's and the congreses jobs more difficult, as the last two years have demonstrated.  We live in an age of intense partisanship, where the opposing parties really do have fundamental differences in the way they see the country and the role of government.  Yesterday's election resulted in a second term for Obama and maintained Democratic control of the Senate, but the House remains firmly in control by the Republicans. 

The term "Fiscal Cliff" is used to refer to the set of economic circumstances we currently face as we near the end of 2012 with the Bush-era and 2011 temporary tax cuts set to expire, automatic cuts in entitlement programs agreed to as part of the debt ceiling negotiations ready to take effect, and new taxes kicking in as part of Obamacare.  It is unlikely the President and lame duck Congress will be able to work out a compromise in the next month to stave off the impending hit to business and households in 2013.  In all likelihood more temporary stop-gap measures will be put into place and will just serve to keep the country sluggishly marching in place and the economy as stagnant as it has been the last four years. It is worth noting that the President has yet to get a budget passed by a split congress and the Democratically led Senate has vowed to block Republican proposals that cut taxes or actual spending.  

The other "Fiscal Cliff" we face is the long-term crisis looming as we grow our National Debt to unsustainable levels with ever-increasing budget deficits.  President Obama is seemingly disinterested in or lacking understanding of the implications to the nation's future economic growth if the current trend is not reversed.  Of course, the effects are relatively long-term, rather than the immediate time horizon the president and his constituency look to.  While it was  hoped we could spend our way out of the current recession (a la the "stimulus"), we have seen that this does not work, sustainable jobs are not created and our National Debt has grown to $16 trillion - larger than GDP - the measure of overall production for the entire country.  

As the debt grows, interests rates increase on the debt as the risk of default grows.  Anyone remember Latin American countries defaulting on their national debt?  But can't we just grow the economy to pay it back?  As anyone with increasing levels of personal debt knows, a greater percentage of your income goes to servicing your debt, squeezing house hold spending.  As the nations debt increases, taxes need to be raised to cover the debt burden while domestic spending gets squeezed putting the brakes on the economy even further.  Contrary to popular belief promoted during the election, we could seize the entire income of the top 1%, or 5% for that matter, and still not make a dent in the debt!  This then becomes the future we are saddling our children and children's children with while we refuse to reign in spending and refuse to learn the lessons of history and spending our way out of trouble.