Super Committee Not So Super

You know the old saying if you really want to mess something up appoint a committee. WELL FOLKS meet the latest, and “greatest” Obama committee. A dozen fools trying to fool the American people into believing any one of these 12 are serious about budget cuts.

Jesus had his 12 disciples now Congress has theirs. At least in Jesus’ band of twelve there was only one devil.

Amplify’d from

Members of the Congressional Super CommitteeBy Bill Wilson – Establishment elites are thrilled at the picks made for members of the so-called “Super Committee.” With all 12 members now public, detailed analysis has confirmed that these are “serious” men and women who can be counted on to produce a “reasonable” product that will meet the goal of reducing the national debt by at least $1.2 trillion over ten years.

And, if you believe that I have a bridge I’d love to sell to you.

What is becoming very clear is that the star-chamber known as the Super Committee is stacked, it is loaded with people dedicated to preserving the status quo of bloated government, reckless spending, faddish social policy, and corrupt insider dealing. I know this is a harsh view. And, there will be plenty of apologists and domesticated-conservatives rushing to defend the very existence of the committee and the members on it.

Just look at the membership and it will become obvious where this thing is heading.

The Senate GOP members are Jon Kyl of Arizona, Rob Portman of Ohio and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. Every conservative, free-market advocate in the country is happy to see Toomey on this tribunal. He is committed, right-thinking, tough, and incorruptible. But, he is one guy. The other two Republicans don’t offer as much hope. Senator Kyl is not seeking re-election, he is free to think about his future employment — not encouraging when the horde of rent seekers come pounding on his door. Senator Portman has the most knowledge of anyone from his time as George Bush’s budget director. But that is the worry — he was part of the “compassionate conservative” poison that is responsible in part for the crisis we face.

Being as kind and respectful as possible, there are two GOP Senate votes for accommodation with the Left. There can be no debate about the Senate Democrats — all three are sure to be bad. Beyond their ideological drive, the Chair — Patty Murray of Washington — is the Chair of the Democrat Senate campaign arm. Are we to believe she will not shakedown a wide variety of interests in her new role? I know nobody who thinks she will resist the urge.

Turning to the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi has named three reliable statists who never saw a government program or handout they didn’t think needed more money. Jim Clyburn has an absolutely horrible record of pushing wasteful, questionable spending. Chris Van Hollen is a tool of the union-dominated Maryland Democrat establishment, he can’t and won’t think for himself. And finally, Xavier Becerra has already tried to use his membership on the committee to shakedown Wall Street for campaign money. You can see where this guy is heading a mile away.

That leaves the three House Republicans selected by Speaker Boehner. Again, the names are far from encouraging. Jeb Hensarling is a conservative who has a strong record. There is fear, however, that as #4 in the House leadership he will not be a free agent. But give him and the Speaker the benefit of the doubt and call him a Toomey ally. The other two, however, are blood chilling.

Dave Camp is Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee. Far from a conservative, Camp is an odd pick. If this Super Committee is not going to accept tax increases, why has the Chairman of the tax writing committee been put on? Camp’s selection is a signal, one that portends “revenue enhancements” or whatever cute term the insider crowd wants to use today.

And the final pick is just plain wrong. Fred Upton, the liberal Republican Chairman of Energy & Commerce, is the worst selection of all. His record is horrible. His willingness to surrender to the Left is more of an obsession than a conscious choice. It was Upton who after the election of Obama went to a meeting with his good friend Rahm Emmanuel and plotted to deliver GOP votes for the Obama agenda. It is Upton who actively looks for ways to advance the mild socialist agenda of the trendy, chic, cool-kids. If all other fears are unfounded about the GOP members, there will always be Upton to provide the 7th vote for a pro-big government outcome.

So, the odds favor a mutant, ugly proposal coming from the Super Committee. And that leaves those who want to save America from the fate of decline, bankruptcy and social upheaval with only one option — defeat the proposal and trigger the automatic cuts. There is unlikely to be any other way.

When that time comes, the establishment propaganda machine will swing into high gear. “The markets will crash,” they will scream, if we don’t accept the decision of the unelected, unaccountable panel. But, we listened to them last time and the markets crashed anyway. Every bit of fear, envy, and hatred will be launched against those who refuse to accept a bogus deal.

And that will be the real battle, a real hand-to-hand combat fight right before Christmas. That is what America gets for falling for the lie that was the “debt ceiling deal.” It only gets more intense and dangerous from here.



Straining at Gnats Only to Swallow Camels

You blind guides, filtering out a gnat and gulping down a camel! Matthew 23:24 (AMP)

While congress squabbles over nickels and dimes the federal government hemorrhages billions of dollars a day. While we are forced to endure yet another debt-ceiling proposal the majority of the federal government continues to operate on auto-pilot. Federal programs continue to implement new regulations in the order of thousands a year. Thousands of pages of new federal guidelines continue to spew out of the multitude of bureaus and departments in the bowels of the federal government. As we are reduced to swatting at gnats by arguing over nickels and dimes in discretionary spending the federal entitlement programs continue to balloon out of control.

With deficits running over a trillion dollars, the latest budget cut proposals are ridiculous. Congress boasts about killing gnats while the American people are forced to swallow one federal camel after another.

Why should the American people continue to pony up for reckless federal spending? We have no say in how this money is spent, who is hired or fired, whether anyone should get a raise or not, which projects should or should not be funded but every year the federal government gets bigger and spends more money then the year before and "we the people" have to dig deeper to pay for it all. When we do say "no" we are called extremists or racists or other derogatory terms.

I for one have lost all patience and tolerance for politicians who continue to tell me that there is nowhere in the federal government they can cut. They have no problem cutting my pay by taking more of my hard-earned money through taxation or regulation. We the people have to keep doing without so that the federal government can continue to run full-speed ahead with all systems go. Does that make sense to anyone?

The American economy is being squeezed to death and the golden goose is being smothered by this huge leviathan of a federal government, and yet one politician after another spouts off that a measly 1-2% decrease in Federal spending is draconian. Give me a break! Until 20% of the federal work force is laid off and collecting unemployment like the rest of America there is plenty that can be cut from the fed’s coffers.

Start with a 20% reduction in all departments across the board. Eliminate the EPA, HHS, HLS, all the unconfirmed Tsars, and make public sector unions illegal. After you have done all that then come back to me and tell me there is nothing left to cut and I am sure by then I will come up with even more ideas and places you can cut before you ask me for one thin dime more. I have had enough of this spend-thrift congress!

At a time like this we need men of character and courage not men of cowardice and compromise. We need men like Milton Friedman , Adam Smith, William Bennett, Barry Goldwater and yes I am going to say it Ronald Reagan . As I close this rant let me leave you with the words of President Reagan:

"We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much."

"To sit back hoping that someday, someway, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will."

"Government is not a solution to our problem government is the problem."

"Government is like a baby: an alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."

"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!"

Thank you Mr. Reagan, to which I add Amen.

There I said it and I mean it. What say you?

Just another "View from the Nest".

Real Threat to Social Security Benefits is Government Spending

In his Friday night prime time media event, the President Obama spread the notion that he might be forced to delay the August Social Security payments.

Jessica Yellin was one of the pre-selected White House reporters to set the President up with a friendly question .

Standing here tonight, Mr. President, can you assure the American people they will get their Social Security checks on August 3rd?  And if not, who’s to blame?

With that question, Obama launched into a long discourse inferring that Social Security and more were in fact at risk and the Republican House of Representatives was to blame.  You can read the entire transcript courtesy of the Wall Street Journal here

This is an oft-repeated strategy used by government to intimidate opposition to budget cuts. The same mantra is used over and over again. If you cut the federal budget at all senior citizens. the sick and infirm, education of our children, and the middle class will suffer. How many times must we hear ‘the sky is falling’ before we realize all these threats are lies. Yes there is a real threat to future social security benefits and it is simply federal spending. The failure to raise the debt limit should not affect social security in any way since President Reagan signed into law the 1983 social security reform act .

Since the inception of Social Security, the government had administrated it as a pay-as-you-go program, paying benefits out of current receipts rather than building up a capital fund for each contributor. However, in the mid-1970s, expenditures for Social Security benefits began to exceed tax payments coming into the trust funds. This occurred because a serious recession reduced employment and trust-fund revenues while inflation simultaneously created a need to increase benefits. Public concern developed over the possibility that the Social Security system might become bankrupt over time. Since the funds had been accumulating for over 35 years, they had a reserve of more than $40 billion in 1976, so the system was in no immediate danger. Nevertheless, experts warned that in the long-term the reserve would eventually become depleted. In an effort to restore the financial integrity of Social Security , the government began to reform the system of contributions and benefits. source

This was part of a much larger package of program changes designed to address the financial solvency of the program. One might fairly say that cutting benefits and raising revenues was the purpose of the 1983 Amendments, and the adoption of Social Security benefit taxation was simply one provision among many to facilitate these aims. It is also important to note that funds raised under this provision does not go into the General Fund of the Treasury but into the Social Security Trust Funds. This emphasizes again that the purpose of introducing this provision was to raise revenue to help restore Social Security’s financial solvency. (The Committees estimated the six-year savings from this provision at $26.6 billion, and estimated that this provision would supply almost 30% of the total additional long-range funding provided by the Amendments.) source

The reality however is less rosy. Since the federal government sees all revenues coming into the treasury as "government money" the funds that should have been held in reserve in the social security trust fund have long since been raided to spend on other government programs, and as kick-backs to political cronies to garner votes and to gain constituent support. In other words the federal government is the enemy of Social Security. The federal government has long ago spent any ‘social security surplus’ and replaced it with worthless paper IOU’s.
Had the government actually invested the funds it collected from the separate FICA payroll deductions into tradable treasury notes, then the value of the ‘trust fund’ would have gained value, instead they spent all the money and ‘promised’ to repay it with other funds taken from the general fund. These funds of course need to be raised from the private sector through taxation and regulation or out right theft.

In simple terms, the federal government stole the money they forced you to pay into a retirement fund. These funds that should have been held in secure treasury bonds were spent on other government programs and wasted in federal largess. The Social Security trust fund now only contains worthless IOU’s. As the number of retirees continues to grow and the number of workers to support these retirees continues to decline the deficit created by this funding disparity continues to grow year after year.

But since the Supreme Court has declared that Social Security is not a contractual entitlement and that the congress can do with the fund as they see fit, there is no incentive to secure your Social Security by this or any other congress.

Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor .

Therefore it is reasonable to assume that unless you personally take control of your own retirement, congress has no obligation to honor Social Security payments to future generations. There is no law requiring this or any other congress to secure these FICA payments, in fact the law says this or any future congress can change the rules of Social Security or eliminate it altogether without any court remedy.

How secure do you feel now? So regardless of whether Social Security checks get issued on August 3 or not is not the question that should be asked. What should be asked is can we opt out of this gamble and select to use our own money to fund our own retirement accounts which congress can not eliminate with the stroke of a pen, and the funds are not made available to the federal government general fund.

money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.source

Private-sector trust funds invest in real assets ranging from stocks and bonds to mortgages and other financial instruments. However, the Social Security trust funds are only "invested" in a special type of Treasury bond that can only be issued to and redeemed by the Social Security Administration. As the Congressional Research Service noted in a report on May 5, 1998:

When the government issues a bond to one of its own accounts, it hasn’t purchased anything or established a claim against another entity or person. It is simply creating a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another.

According to the Office of Management and Budget under the Clinton Administration in 1999:

These [trust fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures–but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. [Emphasis added.]

In short, the Social Security trust fund is really only an accounting mechanism. The trust fund shows how much the government has borrowed from Social Security, but it does not provide any way to finance future benefits. The money to repay the IOUs will have to come from taxes that are being used today to pay for other government programs. For that reason, the most important date for Social Security is 2018, when taxpayers must begin to repay the IOUs, not 2042, when the trust fund is exhausted. Source

The Social Security System is now, forever has been, and forever will be a system where money is taken from people who work and given to people who do not work. It is also one of the most incredible cons ever perpetrated on a citizenry. So the only solutions to the so-called Social Security crisis are these:

Raise Taxes

Raise the Federal Debt

Reduce Benefits

Some combination of these three things will happen. There absolutely is no avoiding it. As it is very unfortunate for a person with a brain tumor to be told he has a headache, and to treat it with aspirin, so, to, would the Social Security situation benefit from an honest appraisal of what it is and what it is not. It is not a retirement program.

How secure do you feel now? So regardless of whether Social Security checks get issued on August 3 or not the question that should be asked is can we opt out of this gamble and select to use our own money to fund our own retirement accounts which congress can not eliminate with the stroke of a pen, and the funds are not made available to the federal government general fund. Only when you take control of your own future can your future be guarenteed. No government run program has your best interest at heart. They simply can not be trusted.

TEA Party is What is RIGHT in America

Although much alighned by the left-leaning news agencies, the tea party advocates have been right about what is wrong with America more so than the so-called experts. Take a look at a few examples:

Amplify’d from

Minimum wage.  One of the first things Democrats did after taking back Congress in 2007 was raise the federal minimum wage 41% from 2007 to 2009.  Result?  The unemployment rate went from 4.4% in May 2007 to 10.1% in 2009.  It is 9.2% even today — four years later.

As for teens, the unemployment rate went from 14.9% to 27.1%, the highest ever recorded, meaning since 1948.  Today it is still a high 24.5%.  And for blacks: from a low of 7.9% in 2007 to 16.5% in 2010.  It is still a high 16.2%.

The Democrat Congress also decided to apply the same minimum wages to American Samoa.  Results?  Near-decimation of its economy, one that had been based largely on low-cost tuna canning and textile work.

… employment fell 19 percent from 2008 to 2009 … tuna canning employment fell 55 percent from 2009 to 2010… Average inflation-adjusted earnings fell by 5 percent from 2008 to 2009 and by 11 percent from 2006 to 2009.

TARP.  Unless you were a politician or executive of a large bank, you were likely against the Troubled Asset Relief Program.  I would guess that most anyone now calling herself a member of the Tea Party was against TARP in 2008.  But Senator Barack Obama voted for it, along with most of his Democrat colleagues.  Also the top brains of the Stupid Party pushed it: Henry Paulson , George W. Bush, and John McCain .

Here’s the funny thing: while Paulson was lending out less than $0.3 trillion, the Federal Reserve was lending out over $16T to do about the same thing!  By my calculations, Paulson’s TARP slush fund was less than 2% the size of the Federal Reserve’s.

Do you think that 2% was critical to staving off financial apocalypse?  (FYI, over 3T of the Fed’s emergency loans were to subsidiaries of foreign-owned banks.)

When the dust cleared, the federal government owned two bankrupt car companies and the god-awful home mortgage portfolios of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — entities that had nothing to do with the original purpose of TARP.

Global markets were so enamored with TARP that there was an immediate sell-off of about 20% in global stock markets the moment it went into effect.  I also credit TARP, and McCain’s reaction to it, for McCain’s loss to Obama.  Ever since, all budget discussions have involved units of trillions instead of mere billions.  The world has not been the same since TARP.

Stimulus.  Opposition to Obama’s stimulus was the origin of the Tea Party.  Now we know the story.

How the stimulus was sold: It would create three million jobs or more.  It would keep the unemployment rate under 8%, instead of 9% without a stimulus.  It would cost $787B.  The jobs were shovel-ready.

What really happened: There are 1.2 million fewer jobs now than when the stimulus was passed.  Unemployment went over 10% (vs. prediction of 8%) and is still over 9% (vs. prediction of about 6.8% at this time).  It cost $814B or more.  Maybe 6% of it went to infrastructure projects.  Obama’s reaction?  A little joke: “Shovel ready was not as shovel ready as we expected.”

ObamaCare.  ObamaCare was sold as a way to bend the health “cost curve” down.  As it turned out, it is bending the cost curve up — health care will be more costly than it would have been without ObamaCare.  It’s so great that in its first year about 1,500 companies, states, and unions were granted waivers.

ObamaCare strangled the recovery in the crib.  The private sector has been generating only 6,400 jobs per month since it was passed, compared to 67,600 before.  We would never return to pre-recession unemployment levels at the current pace.  ObamaCare is costing us over 60,000 jobs per month.

Drilling moratorium.  According to a new study by IHS Global Insight, merely picking up the pace in granting oil drilling permits would go a long way in producing jobs throughout the US, adding to GDP and reducing dependency on foreign oil sources.  In 2012 alone it could mean 230,000 new jobs, $44B more in GDP, 150 million more barrels of oil, and $15B less in imported oil.

Budgets.  Now we find ourselves in another budget fight, with the Tea Party getting the blame from much of the media and liberal punditry.  The truth is that Democrats have not even written, much less passed, a budget of any kind in over two years; they simply kill everyone else’s.

  • The Republican-led House passed a budget on schedule in April.  Senate Democrats voted it down.
  • Obama proposed a budget in February.  The Congressional Budget Office scored it as having a 10-year cumulative deficit of $9.5 trillion.  The Democrat-led Senate voted that down too, 97-0.
  • The House proposed the only written plan for addressing the debt ceiling — the Cut, Cap and Balance plan.  Senate Democrats voted that down, too.



My Way by Obama

“my way or the highway” approach will not produce a deal. “I don’t see a path to a deal if they don’t budge. Period,” Obama said at a press conference Monday.

For two years Obama and the democrats did things their way and completely ignored the American people now he is attempting to smear the republicans who are trying to do what WE THE PEOPLE sent them to congress to do. We the people do not wish to compromise with those in congress who set a course of ruin for this country. We stand firmly behind those congressmen who are attempting to roll back this out-of-control government. We the people demand the Government credit card be cut up. We demand the check book be balanced. We demand that the government learn to live within its means. We the people demand that our government stop spending more money then they take in and we the people REFUSE to pay more into this bloated government.