Friday, July 29, 2011

Debt Ceiling, Smoke and Mirrors

Most of the information being given by the MSM isn't worth spit. Do these people actually believe that we will have a financial catastrophe if the debt ceiling isn't raised? Do they really believe our military won't be paid or that Seniors won't get their checks from Social Security? The U.S. has been in default for some time. Default means you can't pay the expenses with your current income. Borrowing more so you can continue to pay doesn't change that, it only prolongs the inevitable. Loans to cover expenses makes sense when it's justified by your projected future revenues being great enough to make up for up for it, but how long can you get by with nothing but more loans?

Some think an increase in revenue (Raised Taxes on the rich) is the anwser. but this doesn't work either. Taxes can't be raised high enough to cover the shortfall without also hitting the middle and lower income bracket with huge tax increses. The MSM would have us believe it's only the Republicans who are being stuborn on this issue but the democrats are being just as stuborn by not actually participating. President Obama has still not actually provided an actual plan. His Press Secrestary admitted this saying to do so would be too politcally charged. Really? Does anyone have any idea where this strategy comes from? Some would so the Frankfurt School of political theory others would say it's simply a way to deflect blame. Regardless the strategy is working exactly the way it seems it was intended.

Just tonight, John Boehner got many of the republicans to cave on their principles by allowing for a rise in the debt ceiling, even though the Senate would likely table this legislation. This is a sign the GOP will now go along with whatever Harry Reids sends them. If so, Obama will get his comprimise and the ablitity to spend another Trillion Dollars now, so we can work on a Trillion Dollars in future cuts over a period of years. Does this make any sense? At least I can be proud that my Congressman
Timothy V. Johnson IL-15 voted No and stuck to his guns.

Thank you Congressman Johnson and thank you to the twenty one other brave republicans who continue to fight. The list below are the Republicans who voted NO along side two of the Presidential Candidates Ron Paul and Michelle Bachman.

Ron Paul (Texas)
Michele Bachmann (Minn.)
Justin Amash (Mich.)
Chip Cravaack (Minn.)
Jason Chaffetz (Utah)
Scott Desjarlais (Tenn.)
Tom Graves (Ga.)
Tim Huelskamp (Kans.)
Steve King (Iowa)
Tim Johnson (Ill.)
Tom McClintock (Calif.)
Mick Mulvaney (S.C.)
Connie Mack (Fla.)
Jim Jordan (Ohio)
Tim Scott (S.C.)
Paul Broun (Ga.)
Tom Latham (Iowa)
Jeff Duncan (S.C.)
Trey Gowdy (S.C.)
Steve Southerland (Fla.)
Joe Walsh (Ill.)
Joe Wilson (S.C.)

Half of these folks are freshman!!!

Just moments ago the Senate did in fact reject the measure 59-41. I guess we'll see where it goes from here.

Cheers,

Mike

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Cut the Spending!!!

Spending needs to be cut. Plain and simple, It needs to be cut… The Debt ceiling does not need to be raised. Plain and simple, it does not need to be raised.

There will be no default if spending is cut. The Soldiers and all the seniors will still get paid.

I couldn’t care less about a balanced budget amendment, it will take years to get that done anyway and we don’t have time for that fight right now. We need to focus on the Spending.

SPENDING!!! The only thing I want Washington to be looking at is Spending. That’s it. Forget about the Amendment, forget about increased revenue. Cut the Spending. How much more simple can I make this?

I will be watching this very closely and plan to weight my voting decisions heavily on how this situation is handled.

Cut the Spending!!!

Thank you,

Mike Ortiz
Danville LiberTEA

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

I wrote the check even though the money isn't in the bank!!!


I added $161,650.00 dollars to by budget so I could purchase a new Porsche 911 Turbo S. It's really a sweet ride, I've always wanted a 911 for as long as I can remember and now I'm finally going to get it. I put it in my budget and I wrote a check for it, dated August 20th. I know the money isn't in the bank and I know the money will not be in the bank on August 20th but I've committed to buy the car anyway so I guess it can't be stopped now unless I go into default.

These things can't be helped. The bank will need to increase my debt limit so I can make good on the debts I've incurred.

Wish me luck..

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Monday, July 25, 2011

Update to my point of view on a balanced budget amendment

It has come to my attention that the use of this letter (From my previous post on 7-20) might not be having the effect I planned.  I hoped that using material from a left leaning source would help show the commonality between our points of view.   As I wrote this I assumed that most readers would understand the natural aversion to changing the Constitution that any Constitutionalists would have.  I understood that many of the economists who wrote this letter lean to the left, I figured it would show both sides of the argument which agree, but what I failed to calculate was the mass support such an amendment would have.  If your reading my blog you probably lean to the right and should realize I do as well.  I'd like to believe you don't support a balanced budget amendment just because some leftist economists disagree with the idea.  I don't make a habit of supporting something just because the left is against it. There are many reasons why I hold the view I do, some of the reasons coincide with the views of these economists and some do not.

I personally believe in a free market economic system which takes controls away the Federal Government.  This means in my personal view anything that puts more control on the economy is a bad idea.  Murry Rothbard once wrote, "balancing the budget by increasing taxes is like curing influenza by shooting the patient."  A balanced budget amendment would allow the Federal Government to use tax hikes to do just that.  He also agreed with one of my earlier points.  He believed a major flaw was treating "the budget" as a constitutional entity which would increase the tendency of the government to spend money on off book items that don't get included in official expenses.  There are all kinds of games that can be played depending on how such an amendment is written.  Do we really want to take the chance right now with the current climate?  My last aversion but certainly not least in my mind is the fact that spending is our problem. 

WE DON'T NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CUT SPENDING! 

Why people can't understand this is beyond me.   


Cheers,

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Super Congress, really???

What will they think of next? Every time John Boehner starts to reassure me he comes up with another idea that makes me cringe. Boehner supports a plan conceived by Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid. The legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers, six from each chamber and six from each party. Such a committee, which some have called a “Super Congress” or a “super committee”, reportedly would have special powers which currently are unconstitutional. In the plan the debt ceiling would be raised by one trillion dollars for a period coupled with an equal dollar figure of cuts over a ten year period. A second increase in the debt ceiling would be tied to the creation of this Super Congress that would be required to find a minimum amount of spending cuts.

The debt ceiling date is August 2 if Congress does not approve additional borrowing. Republicans have insisted the White House agree to deep spending cuts for long-term deficit reduction before they approve any increase in America's debt burden. Republican leaders would like to show progress before Monday and before 4pm ET on Sunday when the financial market trading begins in Asia.

The Balanced Budget amendment was bad enough, now they want to create another unconstitutional congressional body with unprecedented powers that go far beyond that are a regular member of Congress. Multiple news reports and people familiar with his plan say, House Speaker John Boehner has made this a central part of his last-minute proposal. What is John Boehner thinking, does this make any sense? I don't think so.

Cheers,

Mike

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Balanced Budget Amendment is a really bad idea!!!

The idea of changing the Constitution to require a balanced budget seems like a good idea right? It appears to force lawmakers to live within their means. How could that be a bad thing? Well, how is it that most U.S. states now requires a balanced budget from the governor and/or the legislature, Yet still find themselves in various types of financial messes?

At the state and local level it creates an incentive to create all sort of off-budget enterprises like housing authorities and hospital authorities, to avoid the implications of the balanced-budget amendment. Also a balanced-budget amendment would mandate action to counter recessions and economic downturns not to mention tax revenue shortfalls and unemployment benefits. This would essentially hard wire Keynesian Economics into the United States Constitution.

Below is the contents of a letter written to our leaders in Washington in regards to the idea of balanced budget amendment. The letter is written by 6 past Nobel Prize Economists and Laura Tyson from the University of California, Berkeley.


We, the undersigned economists, urge the rejection of proposals to add a balanced-budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. While the nation faces significant fiscal problems that need to be addressed through measures that start to take effect after the economy is strong enough to absorb them, writing a requirement into the Constitution that the budget be balanced each year would represent very unsound policy. Adding additional restrictions, as some balanced budget amendment proposals would do, such as an arbitrary cap on total federal expenditures, would make the balanced budget amendment even worse.

1. A balanced budget amendment would mandate perverse actions in the face of recessions. In economic downturns, tax revenues fall and some outlays, such as unemployment benefits, rise. These so-called built-in stabilizers increase the deficit but limit declines of after-tax income and purchasing power. To keep the budget balanced every year would aggravate recessions.

2. Unlike many state constitutions, which permit borrowing to finance capital expenditures, the federal budget makes no distinction between capital investments and current outlays. Private businesses and households borrow all the time to finance capital spending. A balanced budget amendment would prevent federal borrowing to finance expenditures for
infrastructure, education, research and development, environmental protection, and other investment vital to the nation's future well being.

3. A balanced budget amendment would invite Congress to enact unfunded mandates,
requiring states, localities, and private businesses to do what it cannot finance itself. It also invites dubious accounting maneuvers (such as selling more public lands and other assets and counting the proceeds as deficit-reducing revenues), and other budgetary gimmicks. Disputes on the meaning of budget balance would likely end up in the courts, resulting in judge-made economic policy. So would disputes about how to balance an unbalanced budget when Congress lacks the votes to inflict painful cuts.

4. Balanced budget amendment proposals typically contain escape hatches, but in peacetime they require super-majorities of each House to adopt an unbalanced budget or to raise the debt limit. These provisions are recipes for gridlock.

5. An overall spending cap, which is part of some proposed amendments, would further limit Congress’s ability to fight recessions through either the built-in automatic stabilizers or deliberate changes in fiscal policy. Even during expansions, a binding spending cap could harm economic growth because increases in high-return investments — even those fully paid for with additional revenue — would be deemed unconstitutional if not offset by other spending reductions. A binding spending cap also would mean that emergency spending (for example on natural disasters) would necessitate reductions elsewhere, leading to
increased volatility in the funding for non-emergency programs.

6. A Constitutional amendment is not needed to balance the budget. The budget not only attained balance, but actually recorded surpluses and reduced debt, for four consecutive years after Congress enacted budget plans in the 1990s that reduced spending growth and raised revenues. This was done under the existing Constitution, and it can be done again. No other major nation hobbles its economy with a balanced-budget mandate. There is no need to put the nation in an economic straitjacket. Let the President and Congress make fiscal policies in response to national needs and priorities as the authors of our Constitution wisely provided.

7. It is dangerous to try to balance the budget too quickly in today’s economy. The large spending cuts and/or tax increases that would be needed to do so would greatly damage an already-weak recovery.

You can see the complete letter here. 

Update 7-25-2011

It has come to my attention that the use of this letter (From my previous post on 7-20) might not be having the effect I planned.  I hoped that using material from a left leaning source would help show the commonality between our points of view.   As I wrote this I assumed that most readers would understand the natural aversion to changing the Constitution that any Constitutionalists would have.  I understood that many of the economists who wrote this letter lean to the left, I figured it would show both sides of the argument which agree, but what I failed to calculate was the mass support such an amendment would have.  If your reading my blog you probably lean to the right and should realize I do as well.  I'd like to believe you don't support a balanced budget amendment just because some leftist economists disagree with the idea.  I don't make a habit of supporting something just because the left is against it. There are many reasons why I hold the view I do, some of the reasons coincide with the views of these economists and some do not.

I personally believe in a free market economic system which takes controls away the Federal Government.  This means in my personal view anything that puts more control on the economy is a bad idea.  Murry Rothbard once wrote, "balancing the budget by increasing taxes is like curing influenza by shooting the patient."  A balanced budget amendment would allow the Federal Government to use tax hikes to do just that.  He also agreed with one of my earlier points.  He believed a major flaw was treating "the budget" as a constitutional entity which would increase the tendency of the government to spend money on off book items that don't get included in official expenses.  There are all kinds of games that can be played depending on how such an amendment is written.  Do we really want to take the chance right now with the current climate?  My last aversion but certainly not least in my mind is the fact that spending is our problem. 

WE DON'T NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CUT SPENDING! 

Why people can't understand this is beyond me.   

Cheers,

Mike

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

We already have the most progressive tax system in the developed world




That's according to the OECD-24 report back in 2008. Remember back then, when Candidate Obama was going around talking about spreading the wealth around? I guess he didn't realize that our wealth was already being spread around quite well. It looks like the leftist rhetoric about the rich not paying their fair share is a bunch of hooey after all?

I've already painted this picture several different ways, I'm not sure how many more are available. The top 1% in America pays more than the bottom 95% combined. Think about that. The top 50% combined pays 97% of all Federal revenues. If you take out the top 1%, the remaining 49% pays 59% of all Federal revenue. Now that 49% of people are the folks who earn between $30,000 and $400,000 per year. So who is going to pay more if taxes are increased? Do you make between 30K and 400k? If you do, it's highly likely you will help fund the situation.

Our current financial mess can not be solved by taxing, spending must be cut if there is any chance of avoiding a complete economic failure. We've simply ran out of other peoples money.

Cheers,

Mike


Stumble Upon Toolbar

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Can Obama use the 14th Amendment to ignore the Debt Ceiling?

It's been reported recently that the 14th Amendment could be used by the Obama administration to ignore the debt ceiling. It seems leftists are interested in the U.S. Constitution again, all of sudden. This after they smeared the Republicans for their new rules requiring a description of Constitutional authority on new legislation. The only problem is that as usual they have an incorrect view of what the measure actually means. Not only is their argument messed up but significant case law in regards to the matter is no longer clear, once again thanks to judicial activism. To make matters worse the misunderstanding of the 14th amendment is not only by Democrats but Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley has stated that he would relent if the Constitution was found to abrogate the concept.

In 1966 The Supreme Court case Katzenbach v. Morgan said that the section 5 of the 14th Amendment gave Congress the power to decide on how to implement the powers. but then in 1997 The court said no. Thirty-one years after Katzenbach, the Supreme Court revisited the "ratchet" interpretation, in the case of City of Boerne v. Flores. The Boerne Court stated, "This is not a necessary interpretation, however, or even the best one." This is way so many people tend to have the opinion that the U.S. Constitution is living and breathing, because the Supreme Court can change it's opinion so easily over time.

Will the Obama administration try to use the 14th Amendment? Nothing has stopped him so far from acting like a King, why does anyone think the Constitution will?

Cheers,

Mike

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Do not raise the debt ceiling, "Cut and Lower"

The debt ceiling in 1981 was 1 Trillion Dollars. ($1,000,000,000,000.00) It's Currently over 14 Trillion Dollars. (14,000,000,000,000.00)

Every President since has raised it. It has been raised 20 times in the last 30 years. Why are we arguing over whether we need to increase the debt limit again when the obvious answer is that we need to lower it. I propose we start pushing our legislators to form a new plan which I'll call, "Cut and Lower".

Cut the spending, cut the size of the Federal Monster and Lower the Debt Ceiling. Then we need a Cap that ties the future debt ceiling to some sort of percentage of GDP so it can't get out of control again. This is the only plan that makes any real sense given the severity of our situation.

Please vote on the Soda Head Poll below.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/why-are-we-arguing-over-whether-or-not-we-should-raise-the-debt-ceiling-cut-spending-then-lower-the/question-1952655/

Cheers,

Mike




Stumble Upon Toolbar

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Casey Anthony

Normally I would not even waste any time on this but so many people are talking about it, I might as well get my thoughts out on the trial.  Is she guilty?  Probably...  But Probably is not good enough. 

"It is better to risk letting a guilty man go free, than to condemn an innocent one."

-Voltaire

My grandfather once told me something just like this when I was a young boy. My grandfather was not a stupid man, he may not have been well read, and I'm pretty sure he never read anything by Voltaire but he once spelled this out albeit in a more graphic fashion. He told me "that it was better to allow a murderer to go free than a hang an innocent man.", he further explained to me that nothing could bring the dead back, no matter how angry you are and no matter how much better you feel when the murderer is laid to rest, the dead do not come back.

We now know that many innocent people have been hung for the crimes of others. As our technology improves, we continue to free people from the shackles of imprisonment. No amount of compensation can make up for time served, for lost life and lost time with family, and certainly no compensation can be made for innocent life taken in retribution.

Casey Anthony certainly is guilty of many crimes the least of which is being a horrible mother and possibly the worst is murder of her own daughter. But possibly is not good enough, many would argue that absolute certainty isn't good enough, to take a life in exchange for a life. One thing is for certain, no one is going to feel good about this in the end, that's why murder and death are so horrific.

In closing, I would like to ask all the people who are bent out of shape over the not guilty verdict if they feel this upset everyday when driving by a planned parenthood clinic? You do after all thirst for punishment of Casey Anthony for ending the life of her own daughter, does that thirst not extend to all mothers who commit the same crime? If not, how do you justify one and not the other, what right do you have to lay judgment for one life but not all life. Is it because this one is all over the T.V. and you can see pictures of the beautiful little girl?

Cheers,

Mike

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Drug War, It's time to end it now.

I last visited this topic 2 years ago and in that time I've become more familiar with the ins and outs of drug policy. Since then it has only strengthened my resolve.  I understand many conservatives support the war on the drugs which means by default many TEA Party people do as well.  This is slightly unnerving to me as the TEA Party filter takes no issue with the legalization of drugs.  Legalizing drugs, even the hard ones are fully supported by the ideas of less government, free market trade and fiscal responsibility.  What is a little weird now is suddenly the country is filled with discussion about legalizing marijuana and other drugs. Candidates, politicians, former presidents and special interest groups also believe that the War on Drugs needs to come to an end.

What's even more inspiring is that people are looking at Portugal and it's recent results. They were not winning the war on drugs, actually they were losing it handily. In desperation, they passed legislation with the effect of a de facto legalization of all drugs. The result was not rampant, widespread drug abuse. Drug use and addiction actually declined, as did violence and disease.

The economic crisis is helping the realization that the war on drugs has failed. Taxpayers have long been slow to recognize the economic burden of drug prohibition. For decades they've been told that we only need to spend a little more and remove a few more constitutional protections. With decades of broken promises, busted budgets with trillion-dollar holes, and a teetering economy in crisis, more and more people are saying no to the war on drugs. Even LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, recently released a report entitled "Ending the Drug War: A Dream Deferred" on the 40th anniversary of the War on Drugs.

It's time, why wait.

Cheers,

Mike

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Independence Day is not just the 4th of July, it should be everyday.

"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scare man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."

Remember that this day is only celebrated because approx. 1/3 of early Americans were brave enough to pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor in order to fight tyranny so they may be free to live and allowed to pursue liberty and happiness.

Back then there was no fighting over a debt ceiling, they simply knew they could not spend more then they could pay.

There was no argument over who our military should support, we needed to grow a military in order to gain our own freedom.

There was no expectation that the government was going to take care of anyone, everyone took care of themselves and their families.

There was no war on drugs.

There was no pledge of allegiance, only a love of God and freedom.

We choose leaders who had principles and a solid reputation, even if they didn't agree with them on everything, they would hold true to their word.

As you enjoy your day think about how different it was when life was more simple. When all people expected from the government was to be left alone to live their lives in peace.

Here is an excerpt from a Calvin Coolidge speech given on July 4th in 1926. Can you imagine an American president today giving this speech?

"It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."

Happy Independence Day.

Cheers,

Mike

Stumble Upon Toolbar