Kirsten Powers Continues Anti-GOP Narrative, but Without Mentioning Starving Seniors

I don't know why I keep coming back to the Daily Beast. Perhaps it's because most of the articles I read are linked from Hot Air, who doesn't tell you their source before you actually click on the link itself to find out what the article in question says. I've had to put up with reading articles by Meghan "Mean Girl" McCain, among others that make me grind my teeth whenever I see the ubiquitous phrases "tea party racism" or "tax the rich". Kirsten Powers's latest writing for the Beast is of the latter variety. I know Hannity allows her on his show to provide an alternate point of view during his Great American Panel, but come on. Surely you can find SOMEONE on the left who can actually make a coherent argument, or at least a truthful one.

Oh, I forgot. We're talking about the left here, who use sites like Wonkette to demonize down syndrome children in a shameless attack on conservative families. Never mind. I thought I was dealing with rational adults for a second there. Must have been temporary insanity. At any rate, to the meat and mead of the article:

It is tellingly headlined "The GOP's Budget Backfire". Right away you know this is not going to be a favorable or even objective piece on the budget deal  passed by the House of Representatives last week. It only gets better (worse?) as you go. Example:

Not only are Republicans wasting time with the Paul Ryan proposal, their cynical gambit on the even more drastic House Republican Study Committee came back to bite them. They may be under pressure to keep campaign promises about balancing the budget—but they're running a huge risk of electoral disaster with their overreach.


Overreach? You, Kirsten, want to talk to us, Conservatives, about overreach? Are you forgetting the years of 2007-2010, when Democrats had full control (minus Bush's veto power, of course, which he never used) of the purse strings and could have put the kibosh on any of this discretionary spending at any time during their tenure as the 111th congress? Seriously? Oy...


To be fair, at least Kirsten tries to use polls to justify her rehashed and recycled arguments. According to a gallup poll she cites for us, more people now support taxing the so-called "rich" in order to balance the budget for 2012. But look closely at the poll she uses. If you take a closer look and actually do a little math, you'll realize that the majority of those that support taxing those who make over 250k a year are democrats, as opposed to the majority of those who oppose that measure being Republicans. Nice try Kirsten, but that little lie of omission about a partisan split couldn't escape my eagle eye for journalistic integrity, and I'm just an amateur blogger. Do you really think that people smarter than me won't get it enough to realize your smoke and mirrors are just that? 


Gallup's bottom line about the poll shows:


Bottom Line

Americans mostly approve of Friday's budget agreement that will keep the federal government running through September, but few say it was a victory for either party. Whether this is because of the messy politics involved in reaching it, or because the $38.5 million in spending cuts was not, in fact, a complete victory for either party, is not clear.

Republican and Democratic leaders are making considerable noise about the federal debt, and Americans share this concern. President Obama is expected to spell out his vision for reducing the national debt in a White House speech Wednesday afternoon, and Republicans are expected to press for dramatic deficit reduction in the looming negotiations over raising the debt ceiling. With a divided Congress, the challenge will be, once again, to strike a compromise between Democrats' calls for higher taxes on the wealthy and Republicans' calls for deeper domestic spending cuts. At this stage, the Democrats' position seems to have the greater public appeal.

What's that you say? American's share this concern about the debt? Of course they do. That's not the question Kirsten answers with her article, however. Kirsten skirts that question by falling back into her "tax the rich" talking point delivered to her COD by the DNC. She also makes some noise about an alternative budget that would have cut spending even more drastically than the Ryan plan, but that budget didn't pass because at the last minute a few Republican voters switched from yes to no. What she doesn't tell you, but what the article does say, is that the more conservative RSC budget only has a few differences that make it more conservative than the Ryan plan. Via Right Wing News Watch, These are:


Discretionary Spending: The RSC proposal would trim FY 2012 total discretionary spending down to 2006 levels-a $141 billion cut from the last budget passed in 2010.  The subsequent 9 years of total discretionary spending would be frozen at 2008 levels-$933 billion annually.


Medicaid:  The RSC plan adopts the same laudable block grant and mandatory cap program for Medicaid that is proposed in the House budget.  The difference is that the RSC pegs its spending level to 2006, providing increases only for inflation.  Ryan’s budget increases the spending level slightly more every year.  Consequently, Honest Solutions achieves an extra $712 billion in Medicaid savings over 10 years.


Medicare: Again, the RSC plan takes Ryan’s premium support proposal and accelerates it in order to achieve more front loaded savings.  Their plan fundamentally differs from the House plan in three ways.  First, their premium support plan would only be optional, thus offering the Medicare recipient the option to stay on the current system or opt for the more free market oriented plan.  On the other hand, unlike the House plan, this plan would allow even current Medicare recipients to opt for the premium support program any time after 2017.   More importantly, the premium support option begins in 2017, well within the 10 year budget frame.  Ryan’s version would delay the reforms for an extra four years.


Our friend Ms. Powers, however, is more concerned with the fake "gotcha" moment that the democrats managed to pull on the Republicans at the last minute by organizing a unified "present" vote, which would have allowed that budget to pass. however, for reasons I personally have not been made aware of as yet, they decided not to pass that budget and instead went along with the Ryan plan. 


"I find the RSC budget draconian and counterproductive, but the difference between the House Republicans and me is I won't lie to you and tell you that I support it just to get credit for doing something I never wanted to happen."


No, Ms. Powers, you'll just use Gallup polls to distort the reality of what the public wants as an excuse to raise taxes on small businesses and upper middle class households; and on the two budget plans, to Ms. Powers I say...so what? Either way the reforms happen, and either way the reforms are drastic. The only difference between these two plans is HOW DRASTIC THE REFORMS ACTUALLY ARE! Also, either way the reforms are NECESSARY! Ryan's plan will have the same effect as the RSC plan, albeit on a slightly smaller and more drawn out scale, but the result will be the same: a balanced budget and a U.S. economy brought back from the brink of insolvency, which is what both sides claim that they want! 

My Take on the Budget Deal, and Other Musings

John Boehner is getting a lot of flak for avoiding a government shutdown and striking a less than perfect deal to pass a budget that should have been passed months ago by the then Democratic majority. I think people are missing the point on this. Boehner has just cleaned up a huge mess left behind by his colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I admit, I'm not so happy about the budget deal as I would like to be, given that we had to give crucial ground in order to make substantial gains, but isn't that what compromise really is? Boehner and the Repubs fought tooth and nail to get this deal, did they not?

I have to say that I'm in agreement with JACG on this one. She has gone into some detail about how this amounts to a win for Speaker Boehner and the Republicans, but some just won't let it go. That said, I admire the sand of the ones who stuck by their principals and voted no in the hopes of getting a better deal. It's those kind of people we need to keep things on the right track. Mark Levin calls the budget deal a scam, but I'm not so sure. The fact that he seems to be the only one doing so seems to lend a little less credibility to the idea that we're being scammed. I don't know, as I don't know the full extent of the budget deal, but if Fuzzy has her head on straight (and I'm sure she does) then we won tonight, and we should be celebrating the fact that we got ANY kind of deal out of the jackasses and averted a government shutdown. Not that the world would have ended, but I honestly can't abide our troops not getting their due pay for putting their lives at risk day in and day out. Politico also reports that, in the words of Charlie the Clown, the GOP is "Duh, WINNING!".

The budget deal wasn't the only occurrence of note, however. Apparently protest god-of-the-left Bob Dylan doesn't like the fact that he's been named protest god of the left. Maureen Dowd apparently doesn't like the fact that he doesn't like it. All in all, if ol' Bobby Boy is pissing off Lefties, then I have a whole new respect for the guy. But what's even better is the method by which he's pissing them off. Apparently he's doing well and making money doing the thing that he's famous for. Horrors. Such a blatantly honest class enemy should be immediately strung up and sent to the gallows. Grab your torch and pitchforks!

And finally, the most absurd act in this three act play: China. Apparently the Reds aren't too happy with our Human Rights record. Why? Apparently because it outshines their own dismal chronicling of the very same subject. In light of U.S. disapproval of China's actions (cracking down on protesters, blogs, and others) in response to the recent catastrophe that the Middle East has become, the Red Chinese have dared reach down and find a pair, and asked We the People to step down as a judge on the Human Rights council. Right. Because China is SO MUCH BETTER at treating prisoners and dissidents well than we are *cough*bullshit*cough*. Tienemen Square ring a bell, anyone? Feh.

And that, dear readers, is my rant. Hope you enjoyed it, many more to come in the future.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has a more balanced approach to the budget deal than my other sources. He calls the budget deal a truce, rather than a victory, but acknowledges that the GOP has gained both credibility and ground in the fight to cut spending and reduce the size of government.

Sounds like a win to me.

End the Fed Becoming a Rallying Cry?

This is a decent article. Definitely worth the read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/12/AR2011021202409.html

A Letter

AN OPEN LETTER TO STATISTS EVERYWHERE

by Capitalism on Monday, January 17, 2011 at 10:23am

Dear Statist Friends:

I know, I know. You’re already objecting to my letter. You don’t like the label “statist.” You don’t think of yourselves as worshipping government; rather, you think of yourselves as simply wanting to help people, with government being your preferred means to achieve what is usually a very worthy end. “Statist,” you say, is a loaded term—a pejorative that suggests an over-the-top affinity for the state.

Well, let’s wait and see how the term stacks up after you’ve read my whole letter and answered its questions. Meantime, if you have any doubt about whether this missive is directed at you, let me clarify to whom I am writing. If you’re among those many people who spend most of their time and energy advocating a litany of proposals for expanded government action, and little or no time recommending offsetting reductions in state power, then this letter has indeed found its mark.

You clever guys are always coming up with new schemes for government to do this or that, to address this issue or solve that problem, or fill some need somewhere. You get us limited-government people bogged down in the minutiae of how your proposed programs are likely to work (or not work), and while we’re doing the technical homework you seldom do, you demonize us as heartless number crunchers who don’t care about people.

Sometimes we all get so caught up in the particulars that we ignore the big picture. I propose that we step back for a moment. Put aside your endless list of things for government to do and focus on the whole package. I need some thoughtful answers to some questions that maybe, just maybe, you’ve never thought much about because you’ve been too wrapped up in the program du jour.

At the start of the 1900s, government at all levels in America claimed about 5 percent of personal income. A hundred years later, it takes something approaching 40 percent—up by a factor of eight. So my first questions to you are these: Why is this not enough? How much do you want? Fifty percent? Seventy percent? Do you want all of it? To what extent do you believe a person is entitled to what he (or she) has earned?

I want specifics. Like millions of Americans planning for their retirement or their children’s college education, I need to know. I’ve already sacrificed a lot of plans to pay your bills, but if you’re aiming for more, I’m going to have to significantly curtail my charitable giving, my discretionary spending, my saving for a rainy day, my future vacations, and perhaps some other worthwhile things.

I know what you’re thinking: “There you go again, you selfish character. We’re concerned about all the people’s needs and you’re only interested in your own bank account.” But who is really focused on dollars and cents here, you or me?

Why is it that if I disagree with your means, you almost always assume I oppose your ends? I want people to eat well, live long and healthy lives, get the prescription drugs and health care they need, etc., etc., just like you. But I happen to think there are more creative and voluntary ways to get the job done than robbing Peter to pay Paul through the force of government. Why don’t you show some confidence in your fellow citizens and assume that they can solve problems without you?

We’re not ignorant and helpless, in spite of your many poorly performing government schools and our having to scrape by with a little more than half of what we earn. In fact, give us credit for managing to do some pretty amazing things even after you take your 40 percent cut—things like feeding and clothing and housing more people at higher levels than any socialized society has ever even dreamed of.

This raises a whole series of related questions about how you see the nature of government and what you’ve learned, if anything, from our collective experiences with it. I see the ideal government as America’s founders did—in Washington’s words, a “dangerous servant” employing legalized force for the purpose of preserving individual liberties. As such, it is charged with deterring violence and fraud and keeping itself small, limited, and efficient. How can you profess allegiance to peace and nonviolence and at the same time call for so much forcible redistribution?

Don’t invoke democracy, unless you’re prepared to explain why might—in the form of superior numbers—makes right. Of course, I want the governed to have a big say in whatever government we have, but unlike you I have no illusions about any act’s being a legitimate function of government if its political supporters are blessed by 50 percent plus one of those who bother to show up at the polls. Give me something deeper than that, or I’ll round up a majority posse to come and rightfully claim whatever we want of yours.

Why is it that you statists never seem to learn anything about government? You see almost any shortcoming in the marketplace as a reason for government to get bigger but you rarely see any shortcoming in government as a reason for it to get smaller. In fact, I wonder at times if you are honestly capable of identifying shortcomings of government at all! Do we really have to give you an encyclopedia of broken promises, failed programs, and wasted billions to get your attention? Do we have to recite all the workers’ paradises that never materialized, the flashy programs that fizzled, the problems government was supposed to solve but only managed into expensive perpetuity?

Where, by the way, do you think wealth comes from in the first place? I know you’re fond of collecting it and laundering it through bureaucracies—“feeding the sparrows through the horses” as my grandfather once put it—but tell me honestly how you think it initially comes into being. Come on, now. You can say it: private initiative.

I’ve asked a lot of questions here, I know. But you have to understand that you’re asking an awful lot more in blood, sweat, tears, and treasure from the rest of us every time you pile on more government without lightening any of the previous load. If anything I’ve asked prompts you to rethink your premises and place some new restraints on the reach of the state, then maybe the statist label doesn’t apply to you. In which case, you can look forward to devoting more of your energies to actually solving problems instead of just talking about them, and liberating people instead of enslaving them.

Sincerely,
Lawrence W. Reed
President, Foundation for Economic Education (www.fee.org)
(Based on an essay originally published in FEE's journal, "The Freeman," in December 2000

This was originally posted by the Facebook page "Capitalism" on Facebook

We Shall Overcome...

Never more than today have I believed those three words. Throughout my short 29 years on this planet as an American citizen,I have always admired the underdog. You know, the guy who no one thinks can win the big race/fight/contest or whatever, but ends up staging a huge come from behind victory? Yeah, that guy.

I have recently been having a bit of financial trouble, with the latest incident being having my credit card suspended due to a low credit score because, I admit, I was a complete moron with the money and wasn't able to pay it all back in a timely manner. Both my cards (I've only ever had two, and thank God for that) are unavailable for use, one being maxed out and the other having a 0$ spending limit. Needless to say, this had put me in a funk for quite a while.

In addition, because I was struggling to find a balance between spend and save in recent years, I've racked up my share of bank fees, which hindered my efforts to stay in the black as far as my savings and checking accounts go. Sometimes it was even necessary to PURPOSEFULLY go overdrawn just so I could pay a bill on time.

It's been a good three years now since I've had these troubles, and at long last, I see the light at the end of the tunnel. After cutting just about everything fun out of my spending, and living primarily off of Carnation Instant Breakfast and PBJ sandwiches, I've managed to reduce my own personal debt and deficit to negative fiftysome dollars. I don't know the exact amount, but just seeing a two digit number there instead of a three digit makes me absolutely giddy. With two more days till pay day, where the next paycheck will bring me above ground enough to make minimum payments on those two pesky credit cards, I still have less than a hundred dollars of debt owed to the bank. I'm floored.

If anyone ever needs proof that conservative principals work, this is it. Cut spending, tighten your belt, and bring in more income. THAT is how you create wealth and prosper in a Capitalist society. Hear that Barack? I HAVE EVIDENCE THAT PROVES YOU WRONG! Suck it!