GOP Should Extract Major Concessions From Dems Before Raising Debt Ceiling

The U.S. Government will hit its Debt Ceiling of $14.3 trillion around March or April of this year. Given the Democrats’ reckless spending spree of $5 trillion over the past two years under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, it is clear that the Dems will want to raise the ceiling in the hopes of continuing their wasteful programs and passing the bill along to our grandchildren.

First, it is nonsense to think that one should pay off a credit card by using another credit card with a higher interest rate. Second, the “full faith and credit” of the United states government is in greater danger from ballooning deficits and higher national debts than it will ever be from a capped Debt Ceiling.

Thus, I have a proposal. The GOP should extract two concessions from the Dems before agreeing to raising the Ceiling.

1. Any legislation that raises the Debt Ceiling must include a Balanced Budget Amendment.

2. Any legislation that raises the Debt Ceiling must repeal and permanently defund Obamacare.

If the GOP was really listening last November, they will demand these consessions and not back down from them.

Advertisements

Tea Party Cartoons


Left-Leaning Washington Post Goes After Bob McDonnell

In an article for Human Events, Christian Toto remembers something that I also remember from last year’s election.

I remember a junior Senator from Illinois who admitted to smoking pot and snorting cocaine, broke bread with admitted domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, sat in a church pew for 20 years listening to the racial, bigoted, anti-semetic and anti-American hatred of Rev. Wright and admitted that his goal was to redistribute wealth, or as he put it, “spread the wealth.” What I don’t remember is the Washington Post or any other leftist news outlet ever bothering to cover these stories.

Washington Post Confesses To Biased Reporting During The 2008 Presidential Campaign
84rules
November 11, 2008

Ostensibly, the reason for the non-coverage is because the junior Senator is a Democrat and the the Post simply did not want to do anything that would hurt his chances to become president.

But, when the candidate is a Republican running for Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, then the Washington Post adopts a different, completely hypocritical set of standards.

From Toto’s article:

Now, the newspaper has unearthed a decades old college thesis from gubernatorial GOP hopeful Robert F. McDonnell. And – given the multiple stories it’s already run – the paper thinks McDonnell’s thesis – written 25 years ago — could affect the balance of the race.

McDonnell currently leads Democratic candidate Creigh Deeds by at least seven points in a recent poll.

Can the Post serve as a political kingmaker again for the Old Dominion State? Or will a feisty alternative media rise up to stop any attempts to turn a college assignment into a campaign killer? And if so, why didn’t the paper pull out all the stops regarding another candidate’s past?

Because just as it did last year, the Post has abandonded all pretenses of journalistic objectivity in the Virginia Governor’s race. The paper might as well rename itself the Left-Leaning Washington Post.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

WaPo Opens Jihad Against McDonnell
Christian Toto
Human Events
September 2, 2009

With Specter Defection, Dems Will Only Have Themselves To Blame For Any Negative Impacts Of Their Socialist Agenda

Arlen Specter left the GOP for the socialist Dems yesterday. I say, “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.” Specter has kicked the GOP in the teeth too many times for this to be anything other than a good happening.

But, let’s look at a few things Specter needs to iron out. Donors gave him $5.8 million to represent them as a Republican. If Specter really did leave on “principles,” then he should be principled enough to make sure that every last cent of those donations is returned to those whom he stabbed in the back.

We also need to look at why he did what he did. Far from being an attack of principles, it was a move of political self-preservation.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele had this to say:

“Let’s be honest-Senator Specter didn’t leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.

“Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don’t do it first.”

Specter is so far behind his GOP opponent in Pennsylvania that there was almost no way he was going to win the GOP primary. That was the motivation for the switch. He felt he could win the Dem primary rather than go through the fight of the GOP primary. His defection had nothing to do with principle. He sacrificed principle in the interest of self-promotion.

Specter is going to have a lot of explaining to do if he reverses position on things like card-check which he claims he opposes. If he suddenly comes out in favor of it, there should be a complete investigation into exactly what he was promised by Obama, Biden and others in the Dem leadership for his act of betrayal.

But the main thing this means now is that the Dems will no longer have anyone else to blame when their policies drive our economy to ruin and America’s security becomes non-existant. The only question that remians now is whether or not the Dems will have the integrity to admit when their policies fail that they were wrong.

Great News! Automaker Bailout Dies In The Senate!

This is good news for America. The proposed bailout for the Big Three in Detroit has died and for very good reasons. The remaining GOP Senators demanded that the United Auto Workers scale back their demands to be more on par with the compensation given to auto workers employed by Toyota and Honda.

That was a more than reasonable request given the current economic conditions, but the UAW wouldn’t budge and the Dems couldn’t do anything about it.

Associated Press has this to say via MSNBC:

Republicans, breaking sharply with President George W. Bush as his term draws to a close, refused to back federal aid for Detroit’s beleaguered Big Three without a guarantee that the United Auto Workers would agree by the end of next year to wage cuts to bring their pay into line with U.S. plants of Japanese carmakers. The UAW refused to do so before its current contract with the automakers expires in 2011.

Why is such a request meaningful? Because of this:

Congressional Republicans have been in open revolt against Bush over the auto bailout. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky joined other GOP lawmakers Thursday in announcing his opposition to the White House-backed bill, which passed the House on Wednesday. He and other Republicans insisted that the carmakers restructure their debt and bring wages and benefits in line with those paid by Toyota, Honda and Nissan in the United States.

Hourly wages for UAW workers at GM factories are about equal to those paid by Toyota Motor Corp. at its older U.S. factories, according to the companies. GM says the average UAW laborer makes $29.78 per hour, while Toyota says it pays about $30 per hour. But the unionized factories have far higher benefit costs.

GM says its total hourly labor costs are now $69, including wages, pensions and health care for active workers, plus the pension and health care costs of more than 432,000 retirees and spouses. Toyota says its total costs are around $48. The Japanese automaker has far fewer retirees and its pension and health care benefits are not as rich as those paid to UAW workers.

If the Japanese carmakers can produce cars for only three-quarters of the cost that American carmakers incur, then there is absolutely no reason why American carmakers can’t bring themselves in line with the lower costs.

But the unions are against this, mostly because it reduces their power and because the union bosses will no longer have any justification for their own high salaries nor for the massive donations they routinely make to the Democrat Party.

The GOP was absolutely right to make sure this deal is killed. It will be a day of reckoning for the UAW and for the Dems who have failed to pay them back for their support. Plus, it aims the spotlight exactly where it needs to be pointing.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Auto Industry Bailout Plan Dies In The Senate
Associated Press via MSNBC
December 12, 2008

Palin Saboteurs Want To Kill Her Career Now

In the current political climate here in the United States, it is pretty easy to see who the effective politicians are and who the potential movers and shakers may be. Given the attacks made against Sarah Palin in the days and weeks after the election, it is pretty clear the the Alaskan Governor is among the most effective politicians in the GOP and her potential to move and shake things is nothing short of awesome.

That is why some people are trying to kill her career right now. Mostly these attacks come from Democrats who simply cannot accept a strong, independent woman in politics. But some attacks do come from within the GOP from people who are afraid of losing their own power within the party.

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown have penned an excellent column about this over at Town Hall. Here are a few of their observations:

Attacks on Gov. Sarah Palin by McCain campaign staff at first appear to be a case of making her a convenient scapegoat, but the attacks have a more devious motive. This post-election barrage is the first volley of the campaign to choose the Republican nominee in 2012. The Washington, D.C. based establishment that rules the GOP wants her career over now. She threatens them.

Yes, I agree. Sarah Palin is a big threat to those put party before country, whether Democrat or Republican. That is one of the reasons we like her so much.

Sarah Palin brought a vibrant, fresh face to the Republican Party. The GOP elitists saw how she easily connected with voters. Palin drew huge crowds of up to 30,000 people anxious to see and hear her. The crowds flocking to see Gov. Palin bond with her culturally. She has the potential to garner Obama- or Reagan-like devotion.

The Republican Party needs this grassroots energy and her reform agenda after a decade of broken promises and the disappointing Bush presidency.

Looking back at history, you see resemblances of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in Palin. Both Thatcher and Reagan were dismissed and insulted by their own party stalwarts. “Useful idiot” was a term once leveled at President Reagan.

Sarah Palin is not an Ivy League lawyer nor is she anything like the elitists of either party who have completely lost touch with the American people. She is one of us; one of the common people; someone who knows what it is like to live in Main Street America.

That is why she is being attacked.

Remember the Shakespearean play Henry V? Henry actually disguised himself and walked among his troops in order to get a better understanding of what they were thinking and what they believed. Sarah Palin has not only walked among us, she has lived among us and that makes her the most influential politician in the GOP and America in general right now. That also makes her the biggest threat to the political elite.

That is why the Dems and certain Republicans are so scared.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Palin Saboteurs Want To Kill Her Career Now
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
TownHall.com
November 14, 2008

Fifteen Questions For People Who Think The GOP Should Be More Moderate

Over at Town Hall, John Hawkins has fifteen questions that he poses directly to those who think the GOP should move to the Center. But before we get to those questions, let’s all understand that the GOP tried moving to the Center in the last two elections and got its collective butt whipped both times. So, you have to wonder why, if that has been the proven outcome twice in a row, anyone would want to embrace such a losing strategy.

The questions:

#1) If both the GOP and the Democrats support bigger government, how does the country survive long term given the size of the debt we already have and the deficits we’re running right now? In other words, how can running massive deficits possibly be sustainable over the long haul?

#2) If the GOP were to officially become a big government party, wouldn’t there be a real danger of having a large third party spring up that would represent the considerable number (I’d say a majority, at least in the abstract) of Americans who do want smaller government and less spending?

#3) If the GOP becomes a big government party, how do you see us differentiating ourselves from the Democratic Party? Do we spend almost as much as they do, but not quite as much? Do we spend even more? Do we favor deficit spending, but just on different things? Isn’t there a real danger that Democrats — since their base tends to generally be OK with excessive spending — could simply outbid us on anything we offered to the American people?

#4) Since the majority of the GOP’s core supporters don’t agree with “moderate” positions like big spending or amnesty, feel very strongly about it, and feel those positions harm the party politically, how can the party continue to hew to those positions over the long term without being permanently at odds with the people who should be their strongest supporters?

#5) Let’s do the math on amnesty: there are roughly 12-20 million illegal immigrants, most of whom are Hispanics. Hispanics broke 70/30 for the Democrats in 2006 and 69/31 for the Dems in 2008 according to the latest exit poll data. If the split stayed at 70/30 and 12-20 million new illegals were made citizens, that would mean the Democrats would add another 4.8 to 8 million potential new voters as a result of amnesty. The top end of that scale is a larger margin than what Barack Obama won by in 2008.

Additionally, even if the GOP improved our numbers with Hispanics — which we certainly need to do — we’ve never come close to getting 50% of the Hispanic vote. With all that in mind, isn’t amnesty political suicide for the GOP?

#6) Some people tend to assume that Hispanics vote almost entirely on the illegal immigration issue, but I would assert that there is very little objective evidence for that. George Bush and John McCain are the two biggest proponents of amnesty in the Republican Party and neither of them is particularly popular with Hispanics today. In fact, according to exit polls, against a candidate who was thought to be weak with Hispanics, John McCain only got 31% of the Hispanic vote. So, what objective evidence convinces you that Hispanics vote largely on illegal immigration and that if the GOP supports amnesty, it will get us over the 50% threshold with Hispanics?

#7) Given that the mainstream media overwhelmingly supports the Democrats, it’s extremely important for the GOP to have the support of conservative talk radio hosts, magazines, and the RightRoots. Since the new media is overwhelmingly comprised of conservatives, how does a moderate GOP gain their genuine support over the long haul?

#8) Follow-up question to #7: If the GOP can’t get the new media back enthusiastically on its side — which is likely to be the case unless there are changes on spending and illegal immigration policies — how does the GOP get the base fired up? In other words, if Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, etc., etc., are telling everyone who’ll listen that the Republicans stink, how does the Republican Party work around that?

#9) Setting aside the conservative media, obviously the conservative movement is lacking energy and passion right now. Many people, myself included, would say that this has a lot to do with the position that the GOP has been taking on immigration and spending issues. How does the GOP get conservatives supporting the GOP again, instead of just opposing the Democrats, if the party continues to pursue big government policies and amnesty?

#10) If amnesty, big government, and deficit spending are winning issues for the Republican Party, why did we take such a huge beating in 2006 and 2008 despite pursuing those very policies?

#11) Over the last two elections, moderate Republicans haven’t quite been wiped out, but percentage wise, they’ve suffered much higher losses than conservative Republicans. If moderate Republicans can’t even win elections in moderate districts now, why would we want to adopt that losing philosophy across our whole party when conservatives are winning at a much, much higher clip across the country?

#12) As moderate columnist David Brooks has said,

There is not yet an effective Republican Leadership Council to nurture modernizing conservative ideas. There is no moderate Club for Growth, supporting centrist Republicans. The Public Interest, which used to publish an array of public policy ideas, has closed. Reformist Republican donors don’t seem to exist. Any publication or think tank that headed in an explicitly reformist direction would be pummeled by its financial backers. National candidates who begin with reformist records — Giuliani, Romney or McCain — immediately tack right to be acceptable to the power base.

So, there are no moderate think tanks, no moderate donors, the new media is overwhelmingly conservative, the Republican base and activists are overwhelmingly conservative — shouldn’t that tell people something about whether the idea of a moderate GOP is workable?

#13) Follow-up question to #12: If a moderate Republican Party is workable, how do you make it work without the new media, think tanks, money, or an excited base on your side?

#14) John McCain was the most moderate candidate the GOP has run since Richard Nixon. In fact, he’s the standard bearer of the “moderate Republican” wing of the party and yet the media trashed him, he had trouble raising money — and other moderates, including prominent moderate Republicans like Colin Powell and Christopher Buckley, voted for Obama. In the end, McCain received almost 4 million less votes than Bush did in 2006. Doesn’t that suggest that moderate Republican candidates may have trouble raising money, retaining moderates, and generating the enthusiasm from the Republican base that will be needed to win?

#15) When the Democratic Party was out of power, the party moved to the left, not to the center. They obstructed the GOP at every opportunity, put hard-core left-wingers in charge of everything, and ran an extremely liberal candidate in 2008. Granted, they also had moderate Democrats that they ran in states and districts that leaned red, but those people are almost completely locked out of power and their agenda is largely ignored. Since that strategy worked so well for the Democrats, doesn’t it make more sense for the GOP to pursue the same strategy instead of continuing the move to the center that has done so much damage to the party over the last two elections?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Fifteen Questions For People Who Say The GOP Should Become More Moderate
John Hawkins
TownHall.com
November 14, 2008