With the Clintons, Dishonesty Is Just Part of the Problem

By Eddie Howell

The documentary motion picture “Clinton Cash,” by Peter Schweizer, based on his book of that name is available for free viewing on YouTube

There's an old one-liner that goes, “I've read so much about the dangers of smoking that I've decided to give up reading.” That's sort of how I'm beginning to feel about politics in America these days – I've read so much about the fawning so-called “journalists” who love Hillary, and the lying liberals who seize on every opportunity, real or imagined, to demean Donald Trump, it's just disgusting.

Trump has a very good chance of becoming our next president if the left doesn't assassinate him.

I watched the documentary “Clinton Cash” on YouTube the other day, and I must say, it seemed very factual and well-sourced. I plan to read the book as soon as it arrives at my house from Amazon.

[I also plan to see Dinesh D'Souza's documentary “Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party,” currently in theaters. It is based on D'Souza's book of the same name.]

Based on the film “Clinton Cash,” and what has been reported over the years about the scandal-a-week Clintons, it seems to me that Hillary is like Al Capone, only on a much larger scale, and probably a lot meaner. She almost makes Capone seem like a philanthropist by comparison.

The scale of Clinton corruption and hypocrisy is breath-taking. By selling influence and virtually inviting bribes, directly, and through their “charitable” foundation, the Clintons have amassed great wealth for themselves and their friends through shady, and often taxpayer-funded, schemes. In Haiti, for example, with Bill representing the United Nations' and Hillary the United States' relief efforts after the devastating earthquake several years ago, great promises of rebuilding were made. Large contracts were awarded to Clinton cronies, but very little helpful rebuilding work was actually done. But the Clintons and their friends made a great deal of money at the expense of U.S. taxpayers, using the people of Haiti, then the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere.

Similarly in Africa and elsewhere, the Clintons have praised and propped up tyrannical dictators in order to get lucrative concessions awarded to their friends, friends who have directly paid them six-figure speaking fees and/or contributed millions to their foundation. And so it goes. As the film points out, they have often back-tracked (flip-flopped) on some of their cherished liberal principles to do some of these deals – things like environmental concerns, human rights abuses, and other issues. As is often said, “follow the money,” and Schweizer and friends have done that and it turns out that many millions of dollars have found their way to the Clintons personally and to their foundation in very questionable circumstances.

The Clintons are adept at saying the right things, but if one observes what they actually do, one must wonder how they get away with these things.

America has seen some rich, profit-making families, but never on this kind of scale, profiting from influence peddling on the basis of past and present government offices held. It is shocking and would be much more so if more people were paying attention.

But dishonest activities are not the only, and not even the main, thing that makes the Clintons a blight on America. Their political agenda is, I believe far more dangerous than their crooked money-making schemes. They are right in step with the globalist elites who are working toward a one-world government that holds tight control over everyone and everything. Agenda 21, anyone? Saul Alinsky?

Their kind of “progressivism” (Hillary's that is, not what President Bill Clinton practiced) threatens doom for the American ideal of liberty. The Bill of Rights would soon be out with the daily trash, starting with the Second Amendment, then the First, and so on, until our “rights” would be defined by a statement of political correctness, in line with what the United Nations, Bilderberg Group, etc., want.

Hillary, as president, would double down on Obama's policy failures (though from the Progressives' standpoint, successes) in health care, taxes, “social justice.” race-baiting, etc. She would continue to push onerous taxes (but ever-greater borrowing), reams of regulations, massive legislation that no one reads, all aiming at total control over the local neighborhoods from police to housing to land use. Their ideal would be a docile, government-dependent population living in small spaces, driving small cars that cannot go far or fast, or, better, no cars, just public transportation. Eventually the majority of people would be on food stamps and in poverty, maybe getting “free college,” but with nothing meaningful to use it for. The elites would be the exceptions, living like the Obamas live now in terms of luxury and a degree of freedom. Eventually, dissidents would be placed in re-education (FEMA?) camps or just eliminated entirely.

All that sounds (and is) extreme, but it would take place over several years and a few generations, little by little, as the government became able to neutralize opposition in order to implement it. At some point, even “elites” who were no longer helpful would be gotten rid of also. These things would happen gradually but methodically. “Progressives” have pursued their agenda since the days of Woodrow Wilson and before, and history shows that they flirted seriously with fascism and Soviet communism along the way, and have been enamored of collectivism in general, and great executive power in particular. As a present-day example, Obama, often and on many issues, shows his disdain for the government-limiting Constitution, bypassing Congress and ruling by decree.

Conservatives have complained and even sued, but Congress generally has shown little to no inclination to seriously stand up to Obama's usurpations. And Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan et al wonder why people are upset with the establishment, including the Republican establishment?

Personally, I say away from the GOP with those Republicans who will vote for Hillary. Their days of GOP influence will soon be over. Trump is not everyone's choice for president, but he is the only one with a chance to beat Hillary. The fate of the nation is at stake. The next election and the next few years will show whether America is willing to stand up for her principles, and whether Western Civilization is deemed by the people in all Western countries to be worth saving. To the extent that the globalists have their way here and in the West generally, there will be large Muslim population growth, greatly increased terrorism, much more racial strife and the obliteration of America as a sovereign nation. There will be more unconstitutional treaties and regulations, bad trade deals, crime, poverty, and general misery. That's if the globalists win. The Brexit vote and the Donald Trump presidential campaign represent a movement that is probably our last best chance to stop globalism and preserve America as America.

ADDENDUM: HOW THE GLOBALISTS' PLANS MIGHT FIT INTO

END-TIME BIBLE PROPHECY

Some people who might be labeled “conspiracy theorists” have said that the Bible-prophesied Antichrist (“The Beast”) and false prophet of Revelation have appeared already, and they name who they believe it is. I'm not prepared to think that, although things seem to be moving in such a manner, that if left unchecked, it will soon be feasible for these satanic characters to appear. See Revelation, Chapter 13. Consider: Technology is already in place that could be used to implement the “mark of the beast,” insofar as not allowing anyone to buy or sell unless he or she possessed some required physical or electronic “mark” is concerned. Two things pointing toward this are (1) the cashless society – everyone could buy or sell only through a universal banking system, with every transaction recorded, monitored, and fully traceable, and (2) negative interest rates, which would preclude earning anything from savings or checking deposits, with balances gradually and selectively dwindling, so as to reduce or eliminate economic power of account holders. Negative interest rates are currently being used in some places, and the idea of a cashless society is being talked up, and seems to appeal to some people. What's not in place yet is the religious aspect, whereby people will worship the Antichrist, which is what the “mark” would signify. Scripture says that those who refuse to take the mark will be put to death, and those who take the mark can never be saved, but would spend eternity in hell. Our secular-minded world would greatly be deceived into believing the Antichrist's lie. But this is how the Antichrist could come to power – through a one-world government, trying to take control over everyone and everything. Of course, they couldn't do it entirely, but great damage would be done and millions of souls forever lost, and many saved only by giving up their physical lives. Only the return of Jesus Christ will prevent all humanity from being wiped out. But He will return and prevent this total destruction, and set up His righteous kingdom.

Many Christians believe these things will happen soon. It may be fairly soon, or not for a considerable time. One thing certain is that no one knows when Christ will return. When He does, it will be unexpected. Another thing certain is that He will return. Therefore, Christians are advised to be ready.

Abused Organization Leaders Speak at Hearing on IRS Scandal; Rep. McDermott Not Impressed

On June 4, several leaders of organizations that were unfairly targeted by the Internal Revenue Service testified before the House Ways and Means Committee. They told of the abusive treatment they received, invasive and illegal questions, and long delays in processing their organizations’ applications for tax-exempt status.

Video of the session is available on C-SPAN’s website. Oral statements of the organization leaders start at about 00:15:40, including an emotional and compelling statement by Becky Gerritson, president of the Wetumpka, Alabama Tea Party at 00:47:00. Note that these people represent hundreds of groups who were unfairly targeted by the IRS as they requested tax-exempt status.

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), is a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, one of the committees investigating the IRS scandal. In case you missed it, he spoke at the June 4 hearing, responding to the members of these conservative groups. After these quite moving and no doubt sincere statement, McDermott made rather startling and odd remarks that included some misstatements of fact as well as seeming to expect the group members to tell him what questions the IRS should have asked them, instead of the obviously inappropriate, and in some cases criminal, questions and demands that the groups received.

While saying that the IRS made a mistake in targeting conservative groups, he as much as blamed the groups themselves for their troubles because they requested tax-exempt status.

 

I’m not terribly familiar with Mr. McDermott’s work, but here he sounds more like a McDoofus. A few observations about his statement:

1. Tax exemption is not a government subsidy.

2. Organizations with 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status are allowed to engage in political activity, provided it is not their main activity.

3. Determining the proper level of scrutiny of organizations seeking tax-exempt status is not the responsibility of the organization, but the Congress and the IRS. The IRS has standard means of determining such status, and the questions and demands made to the organizations targeted far exceeded the established norms, which properly should be applied to all organizations seeking this status, whether conservative, liberal, or whatever.

4. The IRS scandal is serious enough that “fixing the problem” must include a thorough investigation to find out precisely what happened, who ordered what, and who up the chain of authority knew about it and when.

5. What the IRS did was beyond “mistakes,” and resulted in material harm to hundreds of groups and individuals, for which the agency must be held accountable.

6. The groups represented by the witnesses did nothing wrong in applying for tax-exempt status.

7. Contrary to some excuse makers, there were not more such applications than usual during the time frame represented by this scandal.

McDermott appeared June 5 on Fox News’ “America Live with Megyn Kelly,” and rudely accused Kelly of “putting words in my mouth; stop it!” when she had merely asked him about his remarks.

After McDermott’s remarks at the hearing, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), 2012 GOP Vice-Presidential nominee, used his time to respond to McDermott’s ill-advised remarks instead of asking his planned questions:

As the many scandals of the Obama Administration continue to develop, McDermott has done nothing to help the crisis of trust in the government, and seems to exemplify the fortress mentality of Obama and his defenders. In their wisdom, America’s founding fathers warned that government cannot be trusted on the basis of good intentions, but must be restrained. Therefore, they gave us the Constitution, which, if followed, will do the job. But a determined, lawless administration will find ways to, at least temporarily, get around its wise restrictions.

Related articles

• JERKocrat Rep. McDermott blames victims of IRS scandal for targeting activity, gets smacked down by Paul Ryan
• Wetumpka Tea Party leader says what IRS did was 'un-American'
• Rep. McDermott: Why Did Tea Party Groups Want Tax Subsidies?
• The Five Slams 'Out Of Touch' 'Old White Guy' McDermott For 'Blaming' Tea Party Groups In IRS Scandal
• McDermott to Fox's Megyn Kelly: 'Stop it!'

Does Anyone in the Administration Know What To Do about This? Anyone?

For those paying attention, an outstanding recent example of Obama’s miserable foreign policy performance has been the September 11 bombing of the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing American Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others, the storming of the American embassy in Egypt, and violent demonstrations at other embassies, all on September 11.

Kirsten Powers talked with Megyn Kelly of Fox News about the Administration’s lame response to the violence, and the media’s worse response:

The security lapse alone is inexcusable, and, if intelligence had been received that violent demonstrations and/or terrorist attacks had been planned for 9/11 at Benghazi, it seems unforgivable. Given the low level of security at the consulate, why was the ambassador there on September 11? Someone will have to answer for it, starting at the top.

Beyond the security lapses, consider the Administration’s response. No one in authority could have really believed that the offending anti-Islam video caused all this – could they? Yet  that was the initial story. Plus the Egyptian embassy put on their website a virtual apology to the “demonstrators” for their hurt feelings. Although the Administration distanced itself from this, while the item was on the website it represented official U.S. policy and spoke for the president. In extreme circumstances, some errors can occur, but these items reveal a serious security issue as well as a bias against any expression of outrage at the violation of American sovereign soil.

Now we have the Egyptian president “promising” to put an end to “anti-Islamic slander,” supposedly including American free speech. Obama’s speech at the U.N. was apologetic in tone. Who knows what he’ll do to accommodate the jihadists he helped put in power.

When Obama says, “The future must not belong to those who slander Islam’s prophet.” Who does it belong to, rabid Islamic jihadists? People slander the Lord Jesus Christ, which is a far greater sin in the eyes of Christians, but it hardly sets off violent reactions. How much influence does the threat of “provoking” people who are looking for an excuse for violence and murder, have on exercising legitimate freedoms, or even government policy. Too much, it seems. America must resist being intimidated by these thugs.

I hope Congress will investigate these incidents and call those responsible to account. And I hope they continue to pursue the evil Fast-and-Furious debacle and cover-up. And while they’re at it, investigate the numerous offenses of Obama against the authority of Congress through executive orders. If no one in Congress can stop him, he won’t stop until he has something like absolute government power.

November 6 must signal the January 2013 stopping point for Barack Obama’s reign. Otherwise, well, we can’t say we haven’t been warned.

Related articles

• No, Obama Didn't Call Benghazi "Act of Terror" in Speech
• The Future Really Won't Belong to Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam. Because Obama Will Jail Them.
• WSJ: The more we learn, the more Benghazi looks like a gross security failure...
• Obama's Tragic Pander: 'The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Slander The Prophet Of Islam'
• US had early indications Libya attack tied to organized militants - Reuters
• Lethal Consequences of Obama's Appeasement

Debt Overshadows Other Urgent Problems

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)

The liberal establishment has embarked on a phony campaign about a made-up issue, the so-called GOP War on Women. Only those Rush calls feminazis, i.e. the feminists who want to assure that as many abortions as possible are performed, (and now want every woman to get “free” birth control pills, courtesy of the insurance companies, Catholic institutions, etc.), really think there’s any such “war.” This whole dreary mess has been drummed up to conceal President Obama’s colossal failure on the economy, failure which threatens to make most other political issues moot.

When the next collapse hits, and it will unless things are reversed soon, there will be more widespread financial failure, which will be much more difficult to remedy than it would be to fix these things now. But what does Obama propose? More spending and higher taxes. That’s his answer for the economy. Don’t bother with the Keystone XL pipeline, or opening up more drilling, ANWR, deep water, fracking, or anything else, other than heavy subsidies and guarantees for Chevy Volt and the Solyndras of our country and other Obama cronies, and more crippling regulations for everyone else.  There is no way this qualifies as anything better than bad judgment. Obama’s economic policies are indefensible, no matter what the Administration says.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu says they’re trying to get gas prices down now, instead of up to European levels as Chu recommended in 2008. Maybe that’s true, until after the election. As Rush Limbaugh says this in his program transcript for 03/13/2012:

So in 2008, Chu said, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”  That's what he said in 2008.  He was reminded of that comment today during his congressional testimony, and he backed away from it. “I no longer share that view,” said Chu to Senator Mike Lee, Republican, Utah.  Chu said, “When I became Secretary of Energy, I represented the United States government, and I think right now in this economic very slow return these prices could very well affect the comeback of our economy.” It sounds like he's not sure that gasoline prices might have a deleterious effect on the economy. 

So Chu is now saying his previous statements are no longer operational.  That's how the Democrats characterize their gaffes.

This just in – Rush Limbaugh site headline 03/15/2012: “Report: Obama to Release Oil from Strategic Reserve in Response to National Emergency of His Falling Poll Numbers.”

Mitt Romney has a great point about what we might receive from a re-elected Obama with no constraining concern about re-election. Of course, the global warming alarmists still want gas prices to increase so as to “force” development of “green” energy. (How’s that going lately? Hmm, Chevy Volt, Solyndra, and more recently, the Massachusetts state-aided -- by millions of dollars-- Evergreen Solar, which moved its manufacturing operations to China, and is now in federal bankruptcy court, as described by John Hayward at HumanEvents.)

Obama insists that oil is the “fuel of the past.”

Obama said that because the United States accounts for 20 percent of the world's consumption of oil but has only 2 percent of its petroleum reserves, “we're not going to be able to just drill our way out of the problem of high gas prices. Anybody who tells you otherwise either doesn't know what they're talking about or they aren't telling you the truth.”

Conservatives beg to differ. Just check Newt.org for an opposing view. Newt’s policy for getting gasoline to $2.50 per gallon or lower is certainly possible.

What Obama is saying is that he (Obama) is not going to be doing anything about it because in his view, nothing can be done. So don’t bother him with complaints about it.

Meanwhile, liberals are aghast at his drop in the polls, which can primarily be explained by the price of gasoline and the continuing high unemployment rate – about which nothing can be done either, apparently, other than vast increases in government spending, and stretching out unemployment payments even further.

According to Michael Barone, the president’s sinking numbers should not be surprising in spite of a temporary boost from the anti-Rush Limbaugh comments, etc.:

But the economic news has not been all that striking. We had a quarter in which economic growth reached 2.8%. We've had two months with job growth of better than 200,000.

Peachy. But in 1983, the year before Ronald Reagan's re-election, the gross domestic product rose 8.9% not just for one quarter but over the whole year. There were two months when job growth was 729,000 and 660,000.

That's the kind of economic recovery that enables an incumbent president's campaign to run a credible "Morning in America" ad. If the Obama campaign ran one now, it would be fodder for "Saturday Night Live" and Jon Stewart.

But as bad as the gas prices and unemployment numbers are, there’s an even bigger threat to our economy: the massive and increasing debt.

In February, the government posted its highest monthly deficit in history, $229 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

We are on track for another trillion-dollar-plus deficit this year, with no letup in sight. Our national debt now substantially exceeds our GDP. This cannot be sustained, and unless decisive and large measures are taken soon to correct it, we will face economic consequences which would be hard to believe. Many things would be at risk: national security, the dollar, and freedom, let alone Social Security and any general prosperity. Four more years of Obama would bring us to the very edge of the cliff, and most likely over it.

This is not intended to create fear, but simply to call attention to current realities that urgently need correction. When failing companies, banks, states, or countries are bailed out, it means debt is taken on by the government (i.e., taxpayers), debt which should have been liquidated through bankruptcy. Let failing entities fail, and the resources they misapplied can be reallocated to something more useful. When private businesses are subsidized by the government because they can’t make it in the marketplace, a serious error takes place. Everything the government subsidizes is a money-losing operation headed for failure unless the government continues to bail it out, throwing good money after bad. It’s like betting on a racehorse that has a bad leg. It’s unlikely to win no matter what you do.

Greece gives us something of an economic example in miniature. But there is no one to bail out the United States. Not Europe, Russia, China, India or Brazil. We need not experience the worst-case version of this, but we seriously need to stop all bailouts and government subsidies and stop this foolish spending. Only Republicans speak with any seriousness about cutting spending. With Democrats, it’s a little talk and no action. Any “cuts” they speak of are just slowing down the rate of growth, and even that never happens.

Until our fiscal house is in order, and some control is exercised over monetary policy, we should not expect great growth. Four more years of Obama practically guarantees more and worse economic decline.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) addresses the debt problem in this brief video from his CNN appearance prior to CPAC 2012:

His CPAC speech is here. Ryan’s budget proposal is perhaps the only serious attempt to address the problem. The Democrats are offering nothing but more debt.

Fear Not, GOP, You Have the Initiative on the Budget

Dreamstime.com

President Barack Obama, after dissing Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu, only to put himself in the position of receiving a stern and well-deserved lecture from said prime minister, is spending time traveling and seemingly trying to ignore the national debt and deficits.

It is to be hoped that Republican congressional leaders will stand firm on the idea of serious budget cuts, but this is far from certain. The best way forward, in my view, is to unite behind the Paul Ryan plan and not accept anything else, other than minor (and I mean minor) tweaking. This will require more political courage than some have seemed willing to show. And the Democrats are feverishly working to advance their weak position. Can the GOP rise to the challenge?

First, of course, the Democrats are already attacking the Medicare provisions of Ryan’s plan. Never mind that these provisions fall into the out years and won’t affect anyone who is now over 55 years of age. Even then, it will be a more efficient and means-tested plan that assures the likelihood that Medicare will still be around. If nothing is done, it will surprisingly soon be extremely difficult to fund Medicare and Social Security. The liberals would rather demagogue the issue and try to scare the recipients of these benefits, than face up to their responsibility to deal with reality.

The Democrats’ actions should be seen as a good political opportunity for the Republicans, assuming that the GOP doesn’t cower in fear of political risks. Whenever such challenges present themselves, there is going to be substantial risk to any person or group that attempts to responsibly take them on. Remember G. W. Bush’s Social Security proposals? He took extreme heat from the opposition, who couldn’t be bothered to suggest anything of their own. Here are some suggestions for the Republicans (which mostly they’ve already thought of, I hope).

1. Don’t fear a government shutdown. This may very well be the only way to effectively assert majority power in the House of Representatives, where the GOP has control of the purse strings.

2. Counter the Democrats’ fear tactics with the facts on the unsustainability of Medicare if changes aren’t made. The right changes will preserve it.

3. Understand that up to now there has been no serious proposal to effectively cut spending, other than Paul Ryan’s plan. Rep. Ryan seems to be the best defender of his work. GOP leaders should understand what he is proposing. They would do well to support it if they are actually serious about the deficit. Cutting a trillion dollars over ten years won’t help much when the debt is increasing well over $1 trillion per year. Someone should be doing the math.

4. Don’t allow any tax increases. This would stop the recovery. Point out the absurdity of raising taxes on the “rich” who earn $250,000 a year and still struggle to stay in business because of government over-regulation. Tax increases on the “rich” would hurt everyone.

5. Be aware that the Democrats want to increase the number of Americans who pay no income tax (currently about half), then count on them to support increasing taxes on everyone else. If possible, they will try to promote the entitlement mentality and encourage Wisconsin-type demonstrations by anyone who fears there may be a reduction in government benefits.

6. Help people to understand the problem: If serious measures aren’t undertaken now, there probably won’t be any, this side of a serious collapse that would make 2008’s financial crisis look like a minor downturn.

7. Understand the weakness of the Democrats’ position. They have offered little to nothing outside of demagoguery and scare tactics. But they can’t deny that there are serious fiscal problems.

It’s still possible to get on top of this debt problem. But it ultimately must include serious reform of entitlements if these programs are to be preserved at all. Paul Ryan has offered a credible approach. Certainly no Democrat has done that. The Democratic leadership sees no need to submit a budget proposal at all. They just demand tax increases.

Related articles

• Senate Shoots Down Paul Ryan Budget (blogs.abcnews.com)
• Paul Ryan Hits Back While Gaining An Unlikely Ally (virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com)

Paul Ryan-type Budget Plan Is Best Hope for Budget Sanity; Boehner Should Maintain His Strong Stand

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), official portrait

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio has said that there will be no raising of the debt limit unless serious budget cuts, involving “trillions, not billions,” accompany any such legislation. Here is one area the GOP must stand firm on. The hope that they would is the main thing that contributed to their 2010 election success.

The Democrats have shown that they really don’t want anything beyond simply nominal cuts, those being cuts that won’t matter in the actual spending situation. Republicans have, I think, been too shy about the idea of shutting down the government, if the need should arise.

As I mentioned recently, the House GOP majority must assert its power over the budget if any actual progress is to be made, shutdown or not. If the GOP doesn’t approve it, it can’t happen. If somehow a GOP budget is passed by Congress, it would still face a possible presidential veto. Boehner needs to maintain his position that there will be substantial cuts, or no debt limit increase will be approved. Period.

Americans for Limited Government posted the following video of remarks by Boehner to the Economic Club of New York, and added their own comments:


As reported by The Hill,

White House press secretary Jay Carney said Boehner was being inflexible by refusing to move from his opening position that the nation’s borrowing limit should only be raised with a deficit-reduction deal built on trillions in spending cuts and no new taxes…. “Maximalist positions do not produce compromise,” said Carney, who described Boehner as restating his “starting position” with his New York speech. [1]

It would be nice to get Democrats on board with the kind of cuts Boehner has in mind, but it will likely require a stand of inflexibility, at least no compromise on major points, to get any kind of budget that will keep our economy viable over the next few years, let alone growing. Democrats have very little in the way of ideas to grow anything except debt and government. They have demonstrated that they are unable to improve the employment picture to any significant degree.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has done admirable work in producing his “Plan for Prosperity,” and, while it may need some tweaking here and there, it currently represents one of the few, if not the only, serious plan to address the actual problems, including entitlements. Democrats are anxious to use his plan to scare seniors into thinking that Medicare is going away, when in fact, if the types of changes he proposes are not implemented, Medicare will have to go away, because it will not be possible to fund it. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security represent tens of trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities, which do not show up on the formal budget.

A Ryan-type plan that seriously and credibly addresses the entitlement issues, and seriously cuts current spending, even into the future, is probably the only route, at this point, to avoiding a disastrous collapse. Even if the plan became law, there are still deep concerns. One, a future Congress can repeal it; two, the Fed can so damage the dollar that the numbers may become meaningless in a currency collapse. But without a cut on the scale proposed by Ryan, or even greater, we are only greasing the skid to the edge of the cliff. And gravity will take over.

[1] Erik Wasson, “Carney: Boehner being inflexible on debt,” 05/10/2011, The Hill.

Illustration: Public domain.

“Pledge to America” Looks Like a Winner

House GOP Leader John Boehner

According to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the “Pledge to America,” unveiled September 23, 2010 by House Republican Leader John Boehner and other GOP Congressional leaders, is a non-exhaustive list of items that represent the first things that should be done if the GOP gains a majority in Congress. As he points out, the whole conservative agenda could not be accomplished while Barack Obama is president, but many things could be done.



I see the “Pledge to America” as a strong positive statement that GOP members of Congress should be evaluated by, and to which its supporters must be held accountable. For all the possible criticisms of it, it represents something far, far superior to the Obama agenda, and, if adhered to faithfully, it should save our country from a lot of misery and loss, and correct some glaring problems.

The document represents a governing philosophy that is very much different from that of the current Administration. It honors the words of the founding documents, and recognizes such common-sense things as the need to control spending and to stop tax increases.

From a draft of the document, found here, I have quoted from it (in bold) and made some comments (not in bold).

America is an inspiration to those who yearn to be free and have the ability and the dignity to determine their own destiny.


Whenever the agenda of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to institute a new governing agenda and set a different course.


These first principles were proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, enshrined in the Constitution, and have endured through hard sacrifice and commitment by generations of Americans.


In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the governed, and regarding the policies of the current government, the governed do not consent.

It should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention that the current regime is consciously ruling contrary to the wishes of the American people in many policies, notably proposed tax increases and Obamacare, as well as a foreign policy that disrespects America’s past and panders to dictatorial regimes that wish us no good.


An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many….


The need for urgent action to repair our economy and reclaim our government for the people cannot be overstated.

The situation is serious and getting worse daily. The so-called recovery has led to very little economic growth or job growth, and a second dip appears probable. Meanwhile, our Federal government is aggressively pursuing European-style socialist policies that will result in permanent double-digit unemployment and a poorer, weaker nation. However, the ruling elites will fit in better with their international counterparts.

A plan to create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive must be the first and most urgent domestic priority of our government. So first, we offer a plan to get people working again. We will end the attack on free enterprise by repealing job-killing policies and taking steps to assure current businesses and future entrepreneurs that the government will not stifle their ability to compete in the global marketplace.


By permanently stopping job-killing tax hikes, families will be able to keep more of their hard-earned money and small businesses will have the stability they need to invest in our economy and help grow our workforce. We will further encourage small businesses to create jobs by allowing them to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their income.

Americans view the economic issues as most urgent. The GOP could do a lot to get government out of the way and let the markets solve the problem. At any rate, the government must promote private sector economic activity. The Keynesian approach of recent years has grown government, deficits and debt on a massive scale, but that’s about all. Even that phony growth is bound for collapse unless fundamental changes are made.

We offer a plan to repeal and replace the government takeover of health care with common-sense solutions focused on lowering costs and protecting American jobs. We will enact real medical liability reform; allow Americans to purchase health coverage across state lines; empower small businesses with greater purchasing power; and create new incentives to save for future health needs. We will protect the doctor-patient relationship, and ensure that those with pre-existing conditions gain access to the coverage they need. We will permanently end taxpayer funding of abortion and codify the Hyde Amendment.

The GOP could do a lot, if in the majority, to repeal or at least de-fund the hated Obamacare program. The steps listed for replacing it are meritorious, but even doing nothing would have been better than Obamacare. While the document is not strong on details about social issues, it certainly represents a strong step in the right direction from the anti-life positions of Obama and company.

Why the Pledge Is Important
The “Pledge to America” stakes out positions and principles showing great contrast with the Obama agenda. This includes the idea of self-government as opposed to central planning. It promotes the responsibility of Congress, as the people’s representatives, to act as needed without having legislative powers usurped by the president and executive agencies.

Just these changes of philosophy -- limited government, more freedom, and low taxes, are light years from Obama’s ultimate design.

Some Responses
Michelle Malkin offered her thoughts on the “Pledge” on Fox News:



Politico reports:

In confronting Obama, Republicans make clear that a takeover of the House could lead to a contentious two years, and possibly gridlock, if both sides aren’t willing to compromise. Most of the ideas have little chance of becoming law in a divided government, but the “Pledge to America” is aimed at defining an agenda for a party that has been accused of not having one in the Obama era. [1]

Divided government is very likely, but that would be immensely preferable to an authoritarian president supported by a rubber-stamp Congress that's even more radical than himself, if that's possible. Too bad we didn't have enough gridlock to prevent Obamacare and other unread thousand-plus-page bills from being passed.

 The editors of National Review see the “Pledge” as a favorable development:

…The inevitable question will be: Is the pledge as bold as the Contract?

The answer is: The pledge is bolder. The Contract with America merely promised to hold votes on popular bills that had been bottled up during decades of Democratic control of the House. The pledge commits Republicans to working toward a broad conservative agenda that, if implemented, would make the federal government significantly smaller, Congress more accountable, and America more prosperous…. [2]

Eric Erickson of RedState ridicules the document as something that will very soon be forgotten by the GOP and everyone else.

There is no call for a Spending Limitation Amendment or a Balanced Budget Amendment. It is just meaningless stuff the Democrats can easily undo and that ultimately the Senate GOP will even turn its nose up at.

The entirety of this Promise is laughable. Why? It is an illusion that fixates on stuff the GOP already should be doing while not daring to touch on stuff that will have any meaningful longterm effects on the size and scope of the federal government. [3]

For me, the issue is not the document so much as the GOP maintaining a commitment to its content. Paul Ryan says there is specific legislation relating to the stated positions. The Pledge recognizes that Republicans have often failed to limit government and spending while they were in power.

It’s true that some enacted or became what they had campaigned against. That would demonstrate a problem with integrity, not with their stated goals. The dizzying cocktail-party circuit of the Beltway is said to pull people in, who then compromise their principles in order to gain popularity and maintain social standing. That represents human weakness, not weakness of the principles that had been claimed, then abandoned.

Conclusion
If the GOP would like to actually stay in power once they have gained it, they need to embrace their inner conservative and get on board with the Tea Party. Act boldly to fundamentally change the government’s attitude and the abuses in the way Congress operates. Place principle above self-promotion. Have more respect for the founding documents than for the New York Times’ latest comments.

Otherwise, after a short while in power, there’ll be another fascist-socialist-Marxist like Obama who will get his own party in power. The thing about liberals is that they never quit. They’re always there, ready to challenge. They must be held in check for the good of the country. With liberals in power, there will be no end of excessive spending until the currency is worthless, and no end to finding more “rights” and “victims” that taxpayers must support against their will.

But for now the “Pledge” appears to me to be a positive, timely, and possibly brilliant idea from the unfairly-maligned Republican Party. I hope it leads to a lot of success. Republicans need to regain power soon because our country is headed in exactly the wrong direction in too many ways. Democrats don’t have and won’t get the answers.

[1] Richard E. Cohen, Jake Sherman, and Jonathan Allen, “‘Pledge to America’ promises fight, gridlock” 09/23/2010, Politico.

[2] The Editors, “We’ll Take the Pledge,” 09/22/2010, National Review Online.

[3] Eric Erickson, “Perhaps the Most Ridiculous Thing to Come Out of Washington Since George McClellan,” 09/22/2010, RedState.com.

Photo: House Republican Leader John Boehner, official portrait, via Wikipedia.