Archive for December, 2010

Do ask, do tell

December 9, 2010

From the Patriot Post we have;

Do Ask, Do Tell?

The only legitimate DADT survey is…

“A good moral character is the first essential in a man…” –George Washington

New Unit Service Patch

Now that Republicans have temporarily halted Barack Hussein Obama’s effort to increase income taxes, let’s see what they can do to stop his effort to undermine the moral character of military combat units.

By way of defining the so-called “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) debate, let me say that it is not about the sexual habits of consenting adults. This debate is about making the normalization of homosexuality a matter of law in regard to Defense Department personnel, practices and policy.

In order to provide context for this debacle, here is a brief background.

One of Obama’s earliest campaign coming-out pledges was his promise to “end discrimination against gays and lesbians” who want military jobs. That “discrimination” was enacted by the Clinton administration and codified as law in Section 654 U.S. Code Title 10, which states, “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”

On 12 October this year, DADT policy was subject to an injunction by U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips in California. Phillips, a Clinton appointee, ordered the Department of Defense “immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced” under Section 654.

However, because the Obama administration wants full faith and credit for ending the policy, they actually asked Phillips for a stay of her injunction, which she denied. Obama then appealed to the San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which agreed to enter a stay so Obama could reclaim his political turf. U.S. appellate courts have consistently upheld this law.

In response, a homosexual advocacy group, Log Cabin Republicans, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate (overrule) the stay. In mid-November, SCotUS refused to lift the Ninth Circuit’s stay.

In the meantime, trying to beat the courts to the punch so Obama could curry favor with one of his most fervent constituencies, his DoD appointees released a “survey” which they claim justifies lame-duck Senate action to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” before the 112th Congress (with a strong House Republican majority and six more Senate Republicans) is seated. (Soon-to-be-Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House had already voted to repeal on 27 May of this year.)

“Today I call on the Senate to act as soon as possible so I can sign this repeal into law this year and ensure that Americans who are willing to risk their lives for their country are treated fairly and equally,” Obama said this week.

There is no question that Obama, given the beating he’s taken from his heretofore stalwart Leftist cadres on his broken promise to raise taxes, desperately wants to “win” the DADT debate, even though less than one percent of forced military discharges are related to sexual orientation, and the majority of those are, according to DoD, “uncontested and processed administratively.”

Defense Secretary Robert Gates lamented that there is a “very real possibility that this change would be imposed immediately by judicial fiat” and noted that such a “disruptive and damaging scenario” would be “most hazardous to military morale, readiness, and battlefield performance.”

So if the courts, instead of Obama, lift Section 654, it would be “hazardous to military morale, readiness, and battlefield performance”?

That is quite a revelation from an administration, which, in the Leftist tradition, seeks to use judicial diktat to amend the so-called “living constitution” and wholly subvert Rule of Law as established by our Founders.

For the record, the reliability of that voluntary DoD survey as a catalyst for revoking Section 654 is, at best, highly questionable. Of the 400,000 surveys that were distributed to military personnel and their families, only 115,000 were returned. That does not constitute an authentic statistical study with a genuine margin of error.

Questionable reliability notwithstanding, the Leftmedia’s reports implied that 70 percent of respondents answered that open homosexuality would either have a positive or mixed effect on morale. However, those same results could just as accurately have been reported as 70 percent of respondents answered that open homosexuality would either have a negative or mixed effect on morale. In fact, 30 percent answered “positive” and 30 percent answered “negative,” while a plurality answered “mixed.”

Gates did, however, admit that there was a much higher level of “discontent, discomfort and resistance to changing the current policy” among combat specialty units and the Service Chiefs, and added, “These findings do lead me to conclude that an abundance of care and preparation is required if we are to avoid a disruptive and potentially dangerous impact on the performance of those serving at the tip of the spear in America’s wars.”

To that end, I would argue that the only legitimate DADT survey that matters would be a scientific survey of frontline combat forces, warfighters, not rear echelon support personnel. Indeed, if our fighting forces exist for the purpose of winning wars, then unit cohesion and combat readiness must be sacrosanct. Any new policy that would be a “disruptive and potentially dangerous impact” on those essential attributes must be opposed.

By no means am I suggesting that Uniformed Service in a National Guard Armory in Kansas is any less honorable than serving in the Korengal Valley in eastern Afghanistan, but it is much less dangerous.

Complicating matters for Obama is the little-reported fact that, while he is advocating for homosexuals in the military, one who made it through the screening process, PFC Bradley Manning, is facing charges for unauthorized use and disclosure of classified information (UCMJ Articles 92 and 134). Manning will likely face charges of treason after taking it upon himself (with the “moral support” of his “self-described drag queen” partner) to release volumes of classified reports to WikiLeaks info anarchist Julian Assange, who himself may also face charges of espionage if he is extradited to the U.S.

George Washington, Commander of the Continental Army and our first Commander in Chief, offered this timeless observance: “The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality.”

Unfortunately, our current CINC’s national policy positions are a reflection of his corrupt, capricious and unprincipled private morality.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post

 

And let us not forget the Ballad of the Pink berets!

Remember ObamaCare?

December 8, 2010

GOA had managed to win some minor victories in the fight over this legislation last year.  At that time, the very-liberal Slate magazine lamented that GOA had won a skirmish over ObamaCare:

Score one for the Gun Owners of America, a lobby group positioned well to the right of the National Rifle Association…. [T]o pacify GOA, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [has inserted into the health care bill] a section titled “Protecting 2nd Amendment Gun Rights” [which prevents the] disclosure or collection of any information relating to gun ownership.  (Slate, December 20, 2009.)

But even after being “cleaned up” for some of its anti-gun problems, the ATF can still use ObamaCare to troll a federal database for your medical information.  It can identify people with common ailments such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) — and take away their guns by sending their names to the FBI as “prohibited persons.”

For these and other reasons, GOA is still committed to repealing the anti-gun ObamaCare law.

So GOA was not particularly thrilled when Republican leaders went on the Sunday talk shows right before the election to explain why they could not repeal ObamaCare because of the threat of a presidential veto.

In fact, some have speculated that these cowardly pronouncements could have cost Republicans control of the Senate.

But, never mind, say the Republicans.  If they can’t repeal it, they can just “defund” ObamaCare.

So it came as a bit of a shock to us that Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl appeared on the Greta Van Susteren program December 2 to announce that he would prefer to pass a stripped-down funding bill (a so-called Continuing Resolution) to fund the government until October 1, 2011.

In other words, money would flow for the next ten months — without ANY EFFORT WHATSOEVER TO DEFUND OBAMACARE.  This would take the pressure off Congress to act on ObamaCare for almost a year.

Do you want proof that Congress doesn’t like to act unless they have a “gun” put to their collective heads?  Consider a hot topic that’s been in the news lately:  tax cuts.  Congress has had almost 10 years to deal with this issue, but they’re only dealing with it now — as the time limit on the Bush tax cuts are about to expire on December 31.

We don’t want this to happen in our efforts to repeal the anti-gun health care law.  Putting off this issue would undermine the efforts of incoming congressmen who campaigned on getting rid of ObamaCare!  The will of the American people was made clear in the November elections.  If Congress extends the funding of the government beyond the first few weeks of 2011, it will pull the rug out from under the newly elected members and be a slap in the face to millions of voters.

Moreover, if Congress puts off dealing with ObamaCare until next fall, momentum for repeal will wane and the President will have won a significant public relations battle.  This may all sound a little like “inside baseball,” but if Congress passes another Continuing Resolution next October 1 — as they probably will — then it’s very possible that there will be no impetus to deal with repealing or defunding ObamaCare until after the 2012 elections.

This would allow Obama to run for reelection without the stain of public repudiation for his socialist policies.

The time to act is sooner, rather than later.  If Senate Republicans are serious about defunding ObamaCare, they need to fight to prevent a bill that funds the government beyond January or February.  If the funding measure is only for the short-term, then the new Congress can come to town and deal with nixing ObamaCare right away.

ACTION: Please urge your Senators to take action on repealing ObamaCare sooner, rather than later!  There are two different pre-written letters for this alert — one for Republicans and one for Democrats.

If you go to GOA’s Legislative Action Center to contact your Senators, the correct pre-written letter will AUTOMATICALLY be chosen.  If you choose to contact your Senators without going through the GOA website, then please make sure you choose the correct letter below for the correct Senator.

—– Pre-written letter to Republican Senators —–

Dear Senator:

Without question, repealing the anti-gun and anti-freedom ObamaCare legislation should be one of Congress’ top priorities next year.

Polls continue to show that an overwhelming percentage of the American people want to see this law repealed.

And this is why I was shocked to learn that Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl appeared on the Greta Van Susteren program December 2 to announce that he would prefer to pass a stripped-down Continuing Resolution to fund the government until October 1, 2011.

Even worse, it would undermine the efforts of incoming congressmen who campaigned on getting rid of ObamaCare!  The will of the American people was made clear in the November elections.  If Congress extends the funding of the government beyond the first few weeks of 2011, it will pull the rug out from under the newly elected members and be a slap in the face to millions of voters.

Furthermore, if Congress puts off dealing with ObamaCare until next fall, momentum for repeal will wane and the President will have won a significant public relations battle.  And, if Congress passes another Continuing Resolution next October 1 — as they probably will — then it’s very possible that there will be no impetus to deal with repealing or defunding ObamaCare until after the 2012 elections.

This would allow Obama to run for reelection without the stain of public repudiation for his socialist policies.

The time to act is sooner, rather than later.  If Senate Republicans are serious about defunding ObamaCare, they need to fight to prevent a bill that funds the government beyond January or February.  If the funding measure is only for the short-term, then the new Congress can come to town and deal with nixing ObamaCare right away.

Sincerely,

—– Pre-written letter to Democrat and Independent Senators —–

Dear Senator:

Without question, repealing the anti-gun and anti-freedom ObamaCare legislation should be one of Congress’ top priorities next year.

Polls continue to show that an overwhelming percentage of the American people want to see this law repealed.

Please do everything in your power to defund or repeal this law.

Sincerely,


Sign the Petition!

Please remember to stop by http://readtheusconstitution.org to encourage Congress to read the U.S. Constitution, out loud, upon convening in January.  Way too often our elected officials act without even considering the source of their authority.

http://gunowners.org

PETA VS. BIKERS

December 8, 2010

What a wonderful coming together of two diverse groups! We need more gatherings where the idiot activists are given warm, moist, aromatic welcomes like this one. This is why PETA usually protests women wearing fur rather than bikers wearing leather. Sounds to me like the old saying, “you mess with the bull, and you get the horns”. Gee, I guess these characters thought that Bikers where going to be politically correct like the rest of the wimpy world. HERE’S HOW POLICE FOUND ONE OF THEM.


Johnstown, PA (GlossyNews) – Local and state police scoured the hills outside rural Johnstown, Pennsylvania, after reports of three animal rights activists going missing after attempting to protest the wearing of leather at a large motorcycle gang rally this weekend. Two others, previously reported missing, were discovered by fast food workers “duct taped inside fast food restaurant dumpsters,” according to police officials.

“Something just went wrong,”said a still visibly shaken organizer of the protest. “Something just went horribly, horribly, wrong.”The organizer said a group of concerned animal rights activist groups, “growing tired of throwing fake blood and shouting profanities at older women wearing leather or fur coats,” decided to protest the annual motorcycle club event “in a hope to show them our outrage at their wanton use of leather in their clothing and motor bike seats.” “In fact,” said the organizer, “motorcycle gangs are one of the biggest abusers of wearing leather, and we decided it was high time that we let them know that we disagree with them using it. ergo, they should stop.”

According to witnesses, protesters arrived at the event in a vintage 1960’s era Volkswagen van and began to pelt the gang members with balloons filled with red colored water, simulating blood, and shouting “you’re murderers” to passers by.  This, evidently, is when the brouhaha began.

“They peed on me!!!” charged one activist. “They grabbed me, said I looked like I was French, started calling me ‘La Trene’ and duct taped me to a tree so they could pee on me all day!”

Still others claimed they were forced to eat hamburgers and hot dogs under duress.  Those who resisted were allegedly held down while several bikers “farted on their heads.”

Police officials declined comments on any leads or arrests due to the ongoing nature of the investigation; however, organizers for the motorcycle club rally expressed “surprise” at the allegations.

“That’s preposterous,”said one high-ranking member of the biker organizing committee.  “We were having a party, and these people showed up and were very rude to us.  They threw things at us, called us names, and tried to ruin the entire event.  So, what did we do?  We invited them to the party!  What could be more friendly than that?  You know, just because we are all members of motorcycle clubs does not mean we do not care about inclusiveness. Personally, I think it shows a lack of character for them to be saying such nasty things about us after we bent over backwards to make them feel welcome.”

When confronted with the allegations of force-feeding the activist’s meat, using them as ad hoc latrines, leaving them incapacitated in fast food restaurant dumpsters, and ‘farting on their heads,’ the organizer declined to comment in detail. “That’s just our secret handshake,”assured the organizer.

H/T to Neil, original source unknown.

Lessons learned: Not much… December Seventh

December 7, 2010

As I perused the main news pages this morning one thing was painfully apparent. The “Day of Infamy” seems lost in the forgotten past. Google had a single story on the subject.

So then, what have we done. We allowed a President to gut our intelligence services. Then spent a period of national despondency while a nation that allowed itself to be taken over by a bunch of religious radicals held us hostage. That lasted until a new President was elected. One that made no secret that we would take them to the wood shed upon his being sworn in.

Later, we elected yet another “Great appeaser” that took apart what had been rebuilding, and we got smacked again, and the end results of that fiasco are not all in and we are coming up on the tenth anniversary of that failure to “read the tea leaves.”

Now, we have a Commander in Chief in name only that bows to kings and other assorted despots. Not to mention that Iran, and South Korea are more dangerous than ever along with various assorted groups of terrorists around the world…

Let’s take a cursory look at our recent history, and see what things may be found that seem to occur when things like this go haywire.

There appears to be a pattern. Apply Keynesian type economics during an economic down turn. The Great Depression, the economic tragedy of the seventies, and our current Great Recession. The Viet Nam War spawned it’s own sort of turmoil of a different type, Hyperinflation, and guess what? We are headed in that direction again. Now, I can’t blame that particular situation on John Kennedy, but I sure as hell can on his successor. So then in summery;

  • Socialist Economic Policy during hard economic times.
  • Cut backs in Military / Intelligence Services because of said times.
  • Weak Presidents; Either in foreign/ domestic policy, or both.
  • In each case it was a Democrat President.

So what will we Americans do? More of the same..? More appeasement and negotiation from a position of despair and weakness?

I submit that we should learn from the hard won lessons of our Fathers and Mothers. From the mistakes as well as from the victories. From strength of conviction as well as actual military / physical strength. From things that have happened in the past. The day of infamy being just one.

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Benjamin Franklin

So much for “openness.”

December 6, 2010

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is poised to add the Internet to its portfolio of regulated industries. The agency’s chairman, Julius Genachowski, announced Wednesday that he circulated draft rules he says will “preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet.” No statement could better reflect the gulf between the rhetoric and the reality of Obama administration policies.

With a straight face, Mr. Genachowski suggested that government red tape will increase the “freedom” of online services that have flourished because bureaucratic busybodies have been blocked from tinkering with the Web. Ordinarily, it would be appropriate at this point to supply an example from the proposed regulations illustrating the problem. Mr. Genachowski‘s draft document has over 550 footnotes and is stamped “non-public, for internal use only” to ensure nobody outside the agency sees it until the rules are approved in a scheduled Dec. 21 vote. So much for “openness.”

Full Story

It’s back: Court to hear arguments over Ariz. immigration law

December 4, 2010

When the Federale’s refuse to enforce their own laws a state needs to do what it has to in order to protect itself, and it’s lawful citizen’s.

PHOENIX – The impassioned debate over the nation’s immigration policy takes center stage at the Supreme Court Wednesday in a dispute over an Arizona law that punishes employers who knowingly hire workers illegally in the U.S.

Arizona’s employer sanctions law has been used just three times in three years, but business interests and civil rights groups, backed by the Obama administration, have banded together to argue that only the federal government may enforce immigration laws.

The outcome in this case also could signal how the court would handle the controversial and more expansive Arizona immigration enforcement law, known as SB1070, that the administration challenged and a federal judge blocked key components this summer.

“It could take this less visible case and do something that impacts substantially on the SB1070 litigation by making some broader observations,” said Peter Spiro, who teaches immigration law at Temple University’s law school.

Full Story

ObamaCare Challenge Tossed

December 4, 2010

U.S. District Judge Norman Moon, a Clinton appointee, tossed out a challenge to ObamaCare in Virginia this week. This is the second victory for the Obama administration in a wave of lawsuits. Liberty University, the plaintiff in the case, has already decided to appeal in hopes of eclipsing Moon’s decision. “Congress does not have the authority to force every American to purchase a particular kind of health insurance product,” said Mathew Staver, dean of Liberty’s School of Law and an attorney on the case. Liberty argued that the law abuses the Commerce Clause of the Constitution in an attempt to provide the government strict control over the health care market. Their constitutional exegesis is completely sound, but Moon was blinded to that reality.

According to Moon, the law requiring individuals and employers to purchase health insurance falls legally under the Commerce Clause because the lack of the law would drive up costs, “precisely the harms that Congress sought to address with the Act’s regulatory measures.” To this we would ask, if the Commerce Clause can be melded to the whims of the backers of ObamaCare, what powers doesn’t Congress have to continue to shackle the American people?

Along the same lines…

A recent Investor’s Business Daily editorial calls it “the ultimate form of taxation without representation”: the continuing attempts by eco-fascists to force wealth redistribution upon the United States and other “rich” countries. This is all under the guise, of course, of saving the world from the scourge of global warming.

After its abysmal failure in wintry Copenhagen last year, the UN is holding another climate change conference in balmy Cancun, Mexico. There, surrounded by sun and sand, it will once again attempt to convince delegates from 193 countries that, a) the world is in peril and therefore we must drastically reduce emissions; and b) the U.S. and other developed nations must pay poor countries billions of dollars in retribution for the “damage” they caused in becoming, well, developed. The conference will feature the usual fanfare, including 250 presentations about the effects of climate change and proclamations that 2010 is tied for the hottest year since we began keeping records 131 years ago.

This is all smoke and mirrors. German economist Ottmar Edenhofer, who also serves as the pretentiously titled Co-chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change, has openly admitted that “climate change policy is redistributing the world’s wealth.” This would be accomplished in the U.S. with cap-n-trade policies being pushed by Obama and his “progressive” pals in Congress.

Despite the sunny weather, the climate at this conference probably won’t be any friendlier than it was in Denmark. Even before the Republican landslide in last month’s elections, many lawmakers were leery of saddling Americans with more taxes during the recession, especially given the fact that China — the world’s biggest polluter — refuses to make any binding promises about emissions. In addition, in the wake of the Climategate scandal, emerging studies have shot more holes in climate change “science” than in Swiss cheese. Only time will tell, but it looks as if leftists will have to find another way to siphon America’s wealth to other nations.

In related news, House Republicans are set to eliminate the climate change committee created by soon-to-be-ex-Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In Congress at least, the climate has changed.

And yet more commentary on epic fail obama’s choice of czar for BATFE

In another example of the “Chicago Way,” last week Barack Obama tabbed Andrew Traver, currently special agent in charge of the Chicago division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (better known by the ATF acronym), as the bureau’s permanent head. “You might as well put an arsonist in charge of the fire department,” quipped NRA spokesman Chris Cox.

While the gun grabbers at the Brady Center applaud the choice, Second Amendment advocates are predictably aghast. They criticize Traver because of his ties to the gun-control advocating Joyce Foundation and work during a 2007 conference on reducing gun violence sponsored by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, another fervently anti-gun organization. The IACP report includes a call for legislation to allow federal health and safety oversight of the firearms industry. What Second Amendment?

Others question Traver’s lack of senior-level executive experience, but when has that ever stopped anyone in Washington? The Senate may get a chance to question and confirm Traver, who would take over an agency laboring under acting leaders since 2006, unless Obama decides to use him as yet another recess appointment. Certainly Traver would fit right in with the rest of Executive Branch Washington in an era where the president relies on regulation, as opposed to legislation, to enact his agenda.

SOURCE

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

December 4, 2010

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) is due out in 2013. Psychiatrists use the manual to diagnose mental illness. Among the changes in this edition will be the exclusion of five of the 10 personality disorders listed in the current edition. One of those five is narcissistic personality disorder. According to The New York Times, “The central requirement for N.P.D. is a special kind of self-absorption: a grandiose sense of self, a serious miscalculation of one’s abilities and potential that is often accompanied by fantasies of greatness.”

Many psychiatrists aren’t happy about the change. Dr. John Gunderson of Harvard calls the removal “unenlightened” and says, “They have little appreciation for the damage they could be doing.” But for some N.P.D. sufferers, the change brings hope. In two short years, for example, one particular occupant of a majestic white house at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will likely be seeking new employment and new living quarters. Better, then, that he’s free to do so without the stigma of this dreadful disorder.

SOURCE

Congress is in session: Rut roh!

December 4, 2010

Our intrepid Congress returned from its Thanksgiving break Monday to take on several important items facing the nation, such as the looming tax increase for all Americans, fixes for some provisions of ObamaCare, the nuclear weapons treaty known as START and funding for the federal government itself. But before our elected representatives could tackle those important chores, they turned their attention to school lunches, a food “safety” bill and regulating volume for television commercials. Ain’t our republic grand?

First Lady Michelle Obama has made it her cause to fight childhood obesity. A fine goal, but not if it includes the $4.5 billion child nutrition bill headed to her husband’s desk. The legislation will supposedly improve the nutritional value of school lunches and take sugary snacks and drinks out of vending machines in schools. To pay for it, future funding for food stamps will take a hit. We’re sure that money will never actually be cut, but it looks good on paper.

The Senate, meanwhile, passed the Food Safety Bill, which would merely saddle the nation’s 2.2 million farms and 28,000 food producers with even more regulations and taxes. As The Wall Street Journal aptly put it, “maybe the bill won the votes of 13 Republicans because there was hardly any public controversy. These days, the government needs to take over entire industries to get anyone to notice.” However, House Democrats may block the bill — because it violates the Constitution. The legislation includes fees (a.k.a. taxes), and according to Article I, Section 7, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” Don’t be fooled, though. House Democrats aren’t concerned for the Constitution per se, only their own power to get this ball rolling.

Democrats are also set to vote on the quaintly named Commercial Advertising Loudness Mitigation, or CALM, Act, which will regulate the volume of ads on TV. The FCC received tens of thousands of complaints about blaring ads in the first quarter alone this year, but to those who say, “There oughta be a law,” be careful what you wish for — Congress is always willing to oblige.

In the meantime, a massive tax increase awaits all Americans if action isn’t taken to preserve current rates that expire on Dec. 31. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) engineered a rule-making vote that prevents Republicans from offering amendments to stop all of the Democrats’ tax increases from kicking in, and the House voted to extend rates for those earning less than $250,000 a year. Those earning more, i.e. small businesses, will be saddled with a job-killing tax hike. The White House and congressional Republicans are still trying to make a deal.

Senate Republicans have vowed to block legislation of any kind until bills dealing with taxes and funding the government are passed. It’s likely that a temporary extension of all tax rates will garner enough support from both parties to pass, but that merely kicks the can down the road. Rates should be lowered again and permanently, not raised, even if the economy improves. Congress should be focused on reducing taxes and cutting spending, not monkeying around in the school lunch room.

SOURCE

Who Got Stimulated?

December 3, 2010

(This shakedown has nothing to do with the TSA)

“The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. … They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding.” –James Madison

Barack Hussein Obama, intent on increasing your taxes in January by way of letting the Bush-era tax reductions expire (ostensibly to reduce the deficits Democrats created), has launched a ruse to steal the budget-cutting thunder of his Republican opponents.

First, Obama ordered a freeze on bonuses for some 3,000 of his high-paid political appointees. Then he announced a freeze on the wages of all federal workers for the next two years.

One Social Security administrator summed up the reaction of her fellow federal union workers: “That’s why Obama’s ratings are below Bush’s, and that’s hard to be unless you’re Osama bin Laden. I can’t wait until I retire.”

Well, given the fact that federal bureaucrats are now endowed with grossly disproportionate wages and benefits, one can understand why retirement remains attractive for them. On the other hand, millions of private sector citizens will be working well beyond retirement age in order to make ends meet, especially given the increased tax burdens they’ll likely incur in the future to pay off Obama’s deficit.

Let’s review the most recent data.

Compared to more productive private sector employees, whose income is confiscated to pay government wages and benefits, hourly government workers are paid 57 percent more than those in the private sector for comparable jobs ($28.64/hour vs. $18.27/hour). Salaried bureaucrats enjoy average annual wages of $78,901, while those in the private sector average $50,111, and the number of bureaucrats collecting more than $150,000 a year has doubled since Obama took office.

When benefits such as taxpayer-funded contributions to pensions are included, government bureaucrats end up with 85 percent more compensation than their private sector comparables.

On top of that disparity, bureaucrat jobs are virtually tenured, both recession proof and unaffected by a dearth of productivity. Benjamin Franklin once famously said, “Nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” Today, however, you can add government jobs to the short list of guarantees.

Notably, Obama did not order a freeze on government hiring, and I can assure you that the number of exemptions for government agency wage freezes will eventually equal the number of government agencies. Additionally, Obama didn’t freeze promotions, meaning that any federal worker can receive a de facto pay raise by “promotion” into the next incremental GSA scale.

Since the beginning of the current recession, private sector employment is down 6.8 percent. On the other hand, Obama has used taxpayer funds and debt on future generations, his so-called “recovery program,” to grow the ranks of central government bureaucrats by more than 10 percent in the same time period.

Of course, Obama’s wage-freeze charade fails to put any noticeable dent into his accumulating $1,000,000,000,000-plus deficits. Taxes, he says, must be increased to do that.

Once again, let’s review.

Like any devoted Socialist, Obama’s objective is to break the back of free enterprise, in this case, with unbearable deficits. When challenged about his motives, Obama invariably claims that he “inherited this mess” from the Bush administration.

However, the Executive Branch does not set the budget. Congress does. And from the ’09 budget forward, budget deficits have increased greatly.

For the record, Democrats have controlled Congress since January 2007, about the time the housing market collapse began. Thus, Democrats controlled the budgets for FY2008 and FY2009 as they did with FY2010 and FY2011.

Obama Deficits Chart

For FY2008 Democrats compromised with President Bush on spending. However, for FY2009 Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed the Bush administration by way of continuing resolutions until Barack Obama took office.

Again, for the record, Obama was a member of the Senate majority in 2007 and 2008, and he voted for those spending bills.

The last budget deficit that Democrats “inherited” was FY 2007, the last of the Republican congressional budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and it was the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. Thus, the only deficit Obama has inherited is that which he and his Democrat majorities generated.

Those pesky facts notwithstanding, a Republican majority is about to take over the House, and Republicans in the Senate seem to have found a spine.

If Republicans are serious about budget and deficit control, they should start by cutting their own bloated salaries and budgets. There is no greater sweetheart deal than being elected to our national legislature, where members of Congress are paid exorbitantly, and are eligible for lifetime benefits after “serving” for just five years — one term for Senators. If they are perpetually elected, as is the case with many members, they are eligible for almost 80 percent of their salary as a guaranteed annual pension.

Membership certainly has its privileges.

If members of Congress don’t like the pay cuts, perhaps we can cut their time accordingly. Send them home more often, and see if a little of the reality outside the Beltway sinks in.

As my colleague Cal Thomas opined this week, “The Founders were keenly aware of the danger of a Congress divorced from the realities of the rest of the country. During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Roger Sherman of Connecticut wrote, ‘Representatives ought to return home and mix with the people. By remaining at the seat of government, they would acquire the habits of the place, which might differ from those of their constituents.'”

If Republicans are really serious about the constitutional role of government, they should identify any and all taxes and expenditures not expressly authorized by our Constitution, and schedule them for termination. While they are at it, they should revoke congressional exemptions, and make themselves subject to the same laws and regulations they impose upon the rest of us. (Oh, and Mr. Speaker-to-be, sell Pelosi’s opulent Boeing 757, and refund the treasury.)

For his part, poor Barry Obama lamented this week that he might have to delay his “holiday vacation” to Hawaii in order to get his tax-and-spend agenda through Congress. (How many golf outings and exotic vacations must our nouveau riche lotto winner take?)

Perhaps Obama should take a tax lesson from John Kennedy, the father of the modern Democrat party: “A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget…. As the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues. Prosperity is the real way to balance our budget. By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and income, we can expand tax revenues and finally bring our budget into balance.”

Indeed, tax reductions in each of the last five administrations have resulted in tax revenue increases to the fed’s coffers.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post