Thoughts on the Proposed Debt Limit Deal

We now have a proposed “bipartisan” debt deal hammered out by the people who have put us in the position of having unsustainable spending levels and unsustainable debt in the first place, and foisted upon the American people and Congressional rank-and-file sight unseen:
Spending levels are economically unsustainable now, and will be unsustainable after this debt deal.

The debt level is economically unsustainable now, and will be worse after this deal.

While raising the debt limit will allow the treasury to borrow money to continue the present unsustainable level of spending, it will not preserve the US’ AAA bond rating.

The US will not default on its debt obligations whether or not the debt deal passes.

The debt deal permits immediate access to the first tranche of borrowing, and will permit the entire amount to be borrowed in less than a year, yet the spending “cuts” are spread out over ten years. This gives Barak Obama a blank check for two years, and handcuffs the replacement President for the next eight.

The spending “cuts” are reductions in the baseline growth over government spending over the ten years, not actual cuts to the existing budget.  This deal actually cuts nothing, it only slows the growth of spending, and not even at a rate below inflation.

The deal exempts cuts to the greatest sources of budget busting in the future: Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare.

The debt deal will permit the balance of the fiscal year to be spent as set forth in the continuing budget resolution (remember, the Democrats have not passed a actual federal budget in more than 800 days).

If a budget deal is not passed, the US will not be able to borrow additional sums of money. It would be, therefore, a “poor man’s” balanced budget amendment, or better yet, a spending cannot exceed revenues cap. It is a back-door way to forced fiscal responsibility in spending.

If the US is not in the market for loanable funds, the demand for investment funds is therefore decreased, which has the effect of lowering interest rates on such investments.

Given all this, what is the benefit of this debt deal?

If a budget deal is not passed, the US’ bond rating will certainly be downgraded.

If the US’ bond rating is downgraded, interest rates might rise from 0.1 to 0.5 points, and they are already at near historical lows, however, this will be offset by the decrease in interest rates on investment funds. Given the Fed’s qualitative easing over the last several months, an small interest rate increase is likely in any event.

If a budget deal is not passed, the Obama administration would pick and choose which programs get paid and which programs will become prorated or impounded, that is, which are short-paid and which are not paid at all. In any event, there is adequate revenues coming into the Treasury to service all US debt and continue Defense, FAA, Social Security, and Medicare payments if Obama so chose. Senator Pat Toomey has proposed legislation directing the priority of payments, and Congress can certainly direct the Administration by law if it so chose.

If a budget deal is not passed, non-essential government workers would likely be furloughed. Thus, we will get to see how many people are on the government payroll that are not doing anything essential for taxpayers. One wonders why we have non-essential government workers in the first place. In years past, when this happens, the government workers get paid for the furloughed days anyway, which just provides these government workers yet another paid holiday at taxpayer expense.

Politically, Obama will blame Republicans and the Tea Party for a government shutdown. But, as all elements of government are held in extremely low regard by the people, what difference would it make? Since none of the GOP’s leading candidates for president in 2012 are involved in this budget and debt limit mess, but Obama is, a shutdown will hurt Obama’s reelection chances as much as anyone’s.

Lastly, it bears mentioning that every budgetary and economic government action has unforeseen economic consequences. These can be good or bad, and they are certainly hard to predict. So, the budget deal at least alleviates uncertainty, even as it simply postpones a real date of reckoning.

So, is it worth it to the taxpayers and for the rank-and-file of each party in Congress to accept this budget deal to possibly avoid a bond rating downgrade, in fact avoid forced government belt-tightening, and the political ramifications of a partial government shutdown?

Down Goes Murkowski!

First, let me concede that Lisa Murkowski has, so far, taking her loss with a fair amount of class, conceding before all the votes were counted, but knowing that she lost.

Now, let me celebrate another Tea Party truth - the Tea Party is against big spending/big government types of all parties, and Joe Miller's win proves it.

We should also mention that Sarah Palin is the biggest political force on the Right today. She just is. No other right wing politician has the weight of her endorsement.

More Thoughts on Sotomayor

We know that Republican appointments to the Supreme Court have been hit and miss - for every Scalia there is a Souter, for every Rehnquist there is an Earl Warren, for every Thomas there is a Stevens.

The Democrats, no disappointments -- all liberal appointments are liberals, through and through. Often, they reflect the liberal nuance of the liberal appointing them.

Enter former Constitutional Law instructor B. Hussein Obama. In 2001, the Marxist Obama held forth the following about the Supreme Court and obsession number one for him -- redistribution of wealth.

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. One of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

Now, we know the Anointed One wants a Supreme Court Justice that has "empathy" with the suffering from not enough Supreme Court redistribution of wealth. His perfect SCOTUS candidate was described as follows: "I will seek someone who understands that justice ... is about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families ... and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."

The concept of justice being blind is a fundamental requirement of justice, because it is not justice when the cards are stacked in favor of one party over another. A judge is not a judge if she applies empathy towards a party to strive for a "just outcome." At that point, the judge takes off the blind and becomes an unelected policy maker.

It is precisely in this judge as policymaker position which Sonia Sotomayor feels comfortable, if you look at her own words. One point of Sotomayor's now-famous La Raza speech was that the life experiences of women and minorities in the law often inform - nay, dictate - the ultimate outcome of a case, leading to some greater overall, racially- economically- or gender-sensitive "justice." In her speech, she rejects neutral application of the law to the facts, but instead supports some idea that a minority or female judge's"richness of life experiences" will ensure that they necessarily will not reach the same conclusion as a white male judge. In fact, she seems to indicate that female Hispanic judges would be the wisest of all. I assume she draws this conclusion from our rich history of famous and oft-quoted Latina judges.

Sotomayor also said that appeals courts are there to "make policy." Not judge the cases presented to them on the record -- make policy.

Sonia Sotomayor was hand-picked by Barak Obama to do on the Supreme Court what Barak Obama was disappointed that the Civil Rights movements of the 50s and 60s did not do -- press for equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity. They are both anti-Constitutionalist radicals cut from the same cloth.

If the GOP cannot muster a solid opposition to this anti-Equal Protection radical, there is little use left for the GOP.

Time to Leave the Bushes Behind

The latest incarnation of attempted elitist eastern political establishment takeover of the GOP has formed as the National Council for a New America (NCNA). A group composed of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and House Republican Whip Eric Cantor and former Gov. Jeb Bush. Advisers include establishment guy former Gov. and former GOP chair Haley Barbour, RINO Sen. John McCain, and the Brown and Oxford educated Gov. Bobby Jindal.

While claiming they are not interested in “recasting” the GOP, former Gov. Bush labeled the GOP rank-and-file’s belief in the Conservative principles as enunciated by Ronald Reagan as “nostalgic” and “irrelevant.” He further said that Ronald Reagan’s message “will not draw people” to his cause. He presumes incorrectly that his cause and the Conservative cause is the same thing.

I would argue after two Bush presidents that spent like drunken sailors and could not grasp the meaning of a small federal government, the "Bush League" is irrelevant, and nobody is nostalgic for it at all.

I hope the NCNA manages to come to my town on their “listening” tour. I would like the opportunity to let them hear me. Ronald Reagan is the last wildly popular Republican President folks can remember watching on TV. Reagan is real to most voters. Last time he stood for election, he won a 49 state landslide.

Compare this to RINO John McCain (multiple presidential campaign loser), RINO Mitt Romney (couldn’t get past the primaries, but he’s changed, really!), Jeb Bush (bravely did not run for the open Fla. Senate seat) and this other bunch of neophytes. These guys are SMART and Reagan was dumb, remember?

B. Hussein Obama will be the easiest sitting President to run against since Jimmy Carter – who, by the way, was vanquished by Ronald Reagan – and any Republican who can form complete sentences and campaign on bedrock Conservative principles will win.

However, if a candidate can’t find the good in Ronald Reagan, why do they want to seek a GOP leadership role if not to purge the GOP of the Conservative rank-and-file?

At its root, I think for starters both liberals and Conservatives can agree on one thing -- no more Bushes in the White House.

Senate Republicans who favor socialism

The following GOP Senators backed the socialists' attempt in the Senate to set the nation on a path to nationalize the oil companies:

Norm Coleman - RINO-MN
Susan Collins - RINO-ME
Charles Grassley - RINO-IA
Gordon Smith - RINO-OR
Olympia Snowe - RINO-ME
John Warner - RINO-VA

Idiots.

If the GOP is wondering why I trash its mailings asking for donations to the party, look no further than votes like these for the answer.