Let us put aside reality for a bit. What reality, you say? The reality that the pending disaster that is Sequestration, or automatic spending cuts, are spending cuts at all. That reality.
Read my lips! No spending will be cut! How can I say that with such certainty? Easy. It’s called Baseline Budgeting.
What is Baseline Budgeting you ask?
Baseline Budgeting is how our government calculates the budget every year. All departments get automatic increases; sometimes as much as 10%. If the budget doesn’t increase by as much as originally intended, it’s considered a spending cut (usually draconian). So when you hear that those in Washington are going to cut the budget, you best believe it’s a lie. It doesn’t matter what they say or how they spin it. If you spend more than last year you haven’t cut your budget, and as our government spends more every year, the budget has not and will not be cut. Don’t be fooled by the lies.
Here’s a quick baseline budget cut scenario. This guy has a job (I know… What’s that?) He works hard and gets noticed by his boss. The boss comes to him and says he deserves a raise and he’ll make it happen within a few weeks. He is told the raise is likely to be 5%. That night he rushes home to tell his wife (or husband in some states) the good news. She says that additional 5% will sure come in handy. A few weeks pass and sure enough, he gets that raise. The boss however, says he could only afford 3%. The guy is still thankful that he received a raise at all and a 3% increase is still pretty good. He goes home and shows his wife his paycheck. Unfortunately the wife had already calculated and spent the equivalent of the expected 5% increase. She takes one look at his check and with great disappointment exclaims, “What is this? Your boss cut your pay by 2%?” And that folks is a baseline government budget cut.
Continuing with the suspension of reality. President Obama was the one who wanted and proposed the sequestration spending cuts in the first place. He even threatened those in Congress, to veto anyone tried to fight against the sequestration spending cuts. Now he wants to, in effect, veto himself. All of a sudden, the sky is going to fall if we have to cut $85 billion (and it’s actually $45 billion) from a $3.8 trillion budget. And remember, it’s just a decrease of the proposed increase.
To add insult to injury, Obama gets to choose what will be cut. Of course, no one is telling us this little factoid. He can choose to cut nonessential services and personnel, but he instead proclaims he will have to cut the most essential. If he didn’t want Headstart to be cut, he could choose something else, but the fact is, Obama wants to threaten to cut Headstart, air traffic controllers, first responders and any other high-profile public program that will further the damnation of the Republicans and hasten their extinction. After all, this kabuki dance is not about budget cuts. The end game of Obama and his minions is the total destruction of Republican opposition. As long as no one (or very few, e.g. Rand Paul) has the courage to stand up and proclaim that we are being lied to, he and the complicit media will just continue to push the envelope of deceit.
Regardless of party affiliation, government officials are always saying that they just can’t cut the budget. Politicians claim anyone that even suggests it must be the devil, a racist, Hitler and so on. Well I found a simple way to cut the budget tomorrow. Below is just a partial list of money the government throws away every year, due to waste, fraud and abuse (funny that they know it’s occurring, but it continues year after year):
Agriculture: $4.3 billion
Defense: $30 billion
Education: $4.7 billion
Health and Human Services: $55.1 billion
Homeland Security: $3 billion
Housing and Urban Development: $1.5 billion
Labor: $12.3 billion
Medicare: $44 billion
Treasury: $12.3 billion
Transportation: $1.5 billion
Veterans Affairs: $1.2 billion
Social Security Administration: $8 billion
In total, approximately 7% of all government spending is wasted. Just this partial list is more than $170 billion. I’ve seen reports as high as about $228 billion each year. Now let that sink in for a minute.
Okay, now tell me the bloated federal budget can’t truly be cut. I would opt for the Harding/Coolidge cut to the bone budget plan, but maybe a more reasonable approach is the Mac Penny Plan.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
As a result of the Newtown Connecticut shootings more and more Statists in local, state and federal government are not asking but demanding knee-jerk measures to control what they classify as “Gun Violence”.
As you read this or any article, listen to the radio or watch television; always remember the language shifts that the left employees. In this case it is no longer gun control, but is now gun violence, because no one could ever be in favor of gun violence.
Many states like New York have enacted far-reaching gun restrictions on their law-abiding citizens and by now most of heard or seen the ranting of that dopey police chief from Emeryville California, Ken James. In a recent press conference chief James exclaimed, “One issue that boggles my mind is that the idea that a gun is a defensive weapon. That is a myth. A gun is not a defensive weapon. A gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power. Police officers don’t carry a gun as a defensive weapon to defend themselves or their other officers. They carry a gun to be able to do their job in a safe and effective manner and face oppositions we may come upon.”
So chief James, when a police officer somehow finds him or herself in a threatening situation and he/she draws their weapon, it is not to defend themselves or others? That’s just inane on its face and you sir, are a moron. Is the California police Creed not to protect and serve but to intimidate and show power? Nice motto.
California has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation yet they are pushing a new massive gun control package. California Senate President pro tem, Democrat Darrell Steinberg said, “We can save lives” in defending the package. He continued, “If it was a defensive measure why did we lose 55 officers nationwide last year to gun violence? We are asking and have been asking for reasonable regulations, not that are going to impact the legal gun owner.”
First, notice the injection of the new buzzword “gun violence”. Second, who else would it “impact” you idiot; the criminals? Criminals don’t obey the law or regulations. That’s what makes them criminals.
Although it is completely misguided and anathema to the Constitution, I understand why states such as New York and California enact ridiculous laws and regulations to control their populations. These states are controlled and run by Statists and do-gooders. They don’t feel we citizens can live our lives without constant guidance and dictates from our overseers. I was surprised when hearing that Missouri was jumping onto the gun-grab train.
In the most brazen attempt yet, Missouri Democrats introduced a retroactive anti-gun bill. If passed Missouri residents will have 90 days to turn in their guns. The bill reads in part, “any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have 90 days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution. 1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri; 2) render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; 3) surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations. 4) Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine is a class C felony.”
I believe that national gun-grab legislation will be proposed, but will either be severely watered down or rejected outright. Both Congressman and Senators understand that most of the voting public won’t stand for it.
So, in will step Herr Obama and prove that the pen is mightier than the sword or the gun. With an executive order, he will begin the confiscation of all weapons. Yes I did say all weapons. Oh, it will begin with something similar to the Missouri proposal. You know, just turn in your scary guns. It will not; I repeat, will not end there.
How could he do such a thing? He could never think to get away with it, you say. Well, we haven’t been in the way back machine a while. Buckle up Sherman. Flipped the switch Mr. Peabody. Set it for the gold confiscation of 1933.
Just a few short months after winning election in 1932, Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6102 and an improved version in August of ‘33, order 6260, making it illegal, with few exceptions, for a private citizen to own or possess gold. Of course, they didn’t describe it as just innocuously owning gold. They called it “hoarding”. And of course, “hoarding” is bad and only bad people hoard things.
Franklin’s decree (Executive Order) power came from, he said: “by the authority vested in me” and another mandate, the “National Emergency in Banking Relief and Trading with the Enemy Act” or War Powers Act. That hero of the left and all around good guy, Woodrow Wilson, decreed the War Powers Act.
The 1917 act was to “define, regulate and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes”. I love the addition of “for other purposes” which was never defined. How convenient. The war Powers act of 1917 did at least exclude citizens of the United States. The Roosevelt gold confiscation order of 1933, however,chnged the language to include “any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Suddenly, any citizen owning gold became an enemy of the United States government.
As an aside, you may notice a common clause inserted in the text of essentially every PEO (Presidential Executive Order). That is “by the authority vested in me…”, whether the president actually has the authority is of no account, as long as he says he does. Neat trick, eh.
This is the type of regulatory statism that is born of fear and hubris. Remember, no matter what the era, a progressive will always think the same way. Don’t let a crisis go to waste. In times of crisis, either real or fabricated, fascists in government can accomplish what they could never think to do without. The worst legislation and decrees always involve some sort of national crisis.
In 1933, we were suffering through the worst depression in our history. Fear of economic collapse was on everybody’s mind. A perfect time for a progressive “Administrator ” to grab the reins from the people and lead them into… The Great Depression! By confiscating the one thing that citizens had of intrinsic value, Roosevelt blew out the only candle of economic survival available to ordinary Americans struggling mightily during the dark days of the Depression.
And back to today. The lefts push of gun control into crisis is all too predictable for those who understand their M.O. They cannot allow this opportunity to go cold. They are striking as quickly and as forcefully as they are able. They understand if the crisis wanes, they will lose that window.
This is why I believe Obama will simply sign a PEO to begin the process of control and then confiscation of our guns. I would also bet my life that the PEO was written long ago, probably by someone like Cass Sunstein, along with many others, just sitting in a drawer somewhere, to be pulled out at the opportune moment.
Speaking in the context of the sequester cuts that would have a measly effect on Congressional pay, Nancy Pelosi said that even though a pay cut wouldn’t effect her as much as it would others, she is still opposed to the idea:
”I don’t think we should do it; I think we should respect the work we do. I think it’s necessary for us to have the dignity of the job that we have rewarded.”
Politicians talk an awful lot about shared sacrifice and “fair share.” But they don’t want to be the ones sharing any sacrifice or giving up their fair share.
Pelosi’s opposed to doing the same thing to herself that she is in favor of doing to every American citizen. She thinks a congressional pay cut would make her office less “dignified.” I suppose she would argue that a citizen pay cut in the form of higher taxes would accentuate the dignity of those jobs. She would talk about how wonderful our jobs were and how great it was that we were all willing to sacrifice our income for the betterment of society later. Continue Reading
Missouri Democrats Introduce Bill to Confiscate Assault Weapons in 90 Days
While everyone’s attention is on President Obama and the federal government’s attempt to strip Americans of the Second Amendment rights, politicians at the state level are trying to enact their own anti-gun laws without the general public knowing it.
Missouri Democrats have proposed a bill that would require everyone in the state who owns an assault weapon and/or high capacity magazine to turn them in within 90 days of the passage of the bill.
Sponsored by first term Democrat Rep. Rory Ellinger, from part of St. Louis County, House Bill 545 is a direct violation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Like every other screaming frightened liberal, Ellinger and his co-sponsors have no concept of what an assault weapon really is. His bill reads in part: [emphasis mine]
“To amend chapter 571, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of any assault weapon or large capacity magazine, with a penalty provision.”
“1. As used in this section the following terms shall mean:
(1) “Assault weapon“, any:
(a) Semi-automatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:…Please continue Reading
by: the Common Constitutionalist
You think health care is expensive now; just wait til it’s free.
First came the new federal tax on medical devices. Then a shrinkage of Doctor own private practices. And now, more than a year away from full implementation, the largest state in the union claims it won’t have enough doctors.
The makers of medical devices, such as implants, have already been hit with the medical device tax to help pay for Obamacare. Because of the tax one such employer, Signus medical, a Minnesota based maker of spinal implants, has but nine employees left. Those still employed have taken a 40% pay cut and the company owner, Tom Hogbaug, no longer gets paid at all. He feels terrible having to let people go saying, “Sorry, I have to lay you off but I have to pay tax to the federal government. I look around and don’t know how to explain it to everybody.”
Minnesota Congressman Eric Paulsen explains, “There have already been thousands of layoffs across the country. That means fewer jobs. It means less innovation.”
As the act gets closer to full implementation sometime in 2014, more and more doctors will simply hang it up and stop practicing medicine. They may sell their practices, convert to fee-for-service, if they are able, or just retire altogether.
Dr. Richard Armstrong, a Michigan surgeon and anti-Obamacare advocate says, “every single day, colleagues are talking about retiring early, getting out of clinical medicine or going into hospital administration, where you don’t have to think about patient care anymore.”
Dermatologist, Dr. Tamzin Rosenwasser, who practiced medicine for 25 years has already gotten out. The doctor stop practicing in 2011 saying, “I’ve interrupted practicing medicine because of Obamacare. I read the bill… and didn’t want to go down that road with Obamacare.”
Now the L.A. Times is reporting that there will be a severe shortage of doctors in California due to the “Affordable Care Act”. Frankly, if it were just California, I’d say it couldn’t happen to a better state. But alas California is just the harbinger of things to come nationwide.
Michael Mishak of the Los Angeles Times writes, “There aren’t enough doctors to treat the crush of newly insured patients.”
Mr. Mishak reports that some lawmakers want to fill the gap by redefining who can provide healthcare.
Some California lawmakers are proposing that physician’s assistants and nurse practitioners set up independent primary care practices. Pharmacists and optometrists could also be primary care providers, diagnosing and managing some chronic illnesses such as diabetes and high blood pressure.
Yes Dr., I’ll take the bifocal lenses, that lovely pair of eyeglasses frames over there, and some insulin. Brilliant!
Doctors claim that this proposal could jeopardize patient safety. Could jeopardize safety?! Ya think?!
California state secretary of HHS told a group of healthcare advocates, “We’re are going to have to provide care at lower levels. I think a lot of people are trained to do work that licenses don’t allow them to do.”
It seems the reality of the nightmare that is Obamacare, that I’m quite certain they all supported, is starting to sink in. So a state like California, where you need a license to be a dog walker or give someone a manicure is proposing that those without proper credentials or licenses just be allowed to open medical practices and treat potentially life-threatening illnesses.
If that’s the case, why don’t we just let the guy at the auto body shop become a Chiropractor? Maybe the Roto-Rooter man can become a proctologist. The local barkeep can set up a psychiatrist practice and my plumber can moonlight as a gastroenterologist. Man, we will be swimming in doctors! This will be great!
My advice… Don’t get sick… Ever!
Attribution: Michelle Malkin, LA Times
Funds run low for health insurance in state ‘high-risk pools’
Tens of thousands of Americans who cannot get health insurance because of preexisting medical problems will be blocked from a program designed to help them because funding is running low.
Obama administration officials said Friday that the state-based “high-risk pools” set up under the 2010 health-care law will be closed to new applicants as soon as Saturday and no later than March 2, depending on the state.
But they stressed that coverage for about 100,000 people who are now enrolled in the high-risk pools will not be affected.
“We’re being very careful stewards of the money that has been appropriated to us and we wanted to balance our desire to maximize the number of people who can gain from this program while making sure people who are in the program have coverage,” said Gary Cohen, director of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight. “This was the most prudent step for us to take at this point in time.”
The program, which was launched in summer 2010, was always intended as a temporary bridge for the uninsured. But it was supposed to last until 2014. At that point, the health-care law will bar insurers from rejecting or otherwise discriminating against people who are already sick, enabling such people to buy plans through the private market.
From the start, analysts questioned whether the $5 billion that Congress appropriated for the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan — as the program is called — was sufficient. Please Continue Reading