I have been sitting by watching the political discourse in the country for the last few months over the debt ceiling. Today the Republican party decided they would rather see a depression in this country with more lost jobs, a lower standard of living, and a US, if not global economic melt down.
When the president is willing to cut 3 dollars for every dollar of new revenue (see here), and Republicans will not even accept that as a plan to live with, there is something wrong. The Republicans (and 4 democrats) signed the pledge to not raise taxes and not remove loopholes without also lowering the tax rate. Pledges are all fine and good. But is a pledge more important than the oath taken when entering office? Here is that oath....
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
The Constitution sets out rules for taxation of the citizens in the 16th amendment. To make our obligations and pay our debt the government must raise revenue. How is walking away from a table for meeting our government obligations not turning your back on the American public and the Constitution? By adhering to a pledge, they are putting that ahead of their sworn oath to their constituents. How does that not invalidate them for office when taking the oath "freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion?"
As a fiscal conservative, I want less spending, I want less publicly held debt. Which means a balanced budget and excess revenue to pay down that debt. Which means cuts to everything, including entitlements and defense spending. When we spend 3.45 Billion in 2010 and take in only 2.12 Billion, there is a huge discrepancy. There are those that call for killing all 'foreign aid' and all regulation...that's all fine and good, however, since that's all discretionary spending, we could remove all discretionary spending from the budget (meaning things like the EPA, national parks, SEC, FBI, CIA, UDSA, DOE, State Department, etc) you would still have a hole of 670 BILLION dollars.
Where do you think that money will come from? New jobs? Who is going to create them? Taxes on corporations and the well to do in this country are the lowest they have been in the last 40 years....and we have higher unemployment now than at the beginning of the last presidency when tax rates were higher.
The Republican party has shown their hand. They are no longer interested in serious governing. They are no longer interested in the future of their constituents' financial security and the financial security of the entire nation.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Is that the smell of Cordite? Nope, just hypocrisy....
Preface: I love guns. I love to shoot for target practice, to learn patience, and hand eye coordination. I believe in the right to protect one's home and family from anyone that would try to do harm. I stand behind our military (brother included - Semper Fi!) and want them to have any firearm / equipment they need to get the job done and get home safe.
So, according to the NRA-ILA website it's primary function states:
'... efforts include enacting laws that recognize the right of honest citizens to carry firearms for self-protection; preemption bills to prevent attacks on gun owner rights by local anti-gun politicians, and fighting for legislation to prevent the bankrupting of America’s firearms industry through reckless lawsuits. '
Right of honest citizens to carry firearms for self-protection. I'm cool with that. In fact I only have two "beefs" with the NRA-ILA.
1) The the primary reason to form the NRA was to 'promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis' according to Col. William C. Church , not to focus on gun rights. (If you refute the current focus is gun rights. Look at the first line of the 'about' section of the NRA-ILA's website, it specifically talks about the 'lobbying' arm of the NRA, you don't lobby for marksmanship, you lobby for gun rights)
2)I don't believe they are in any way related, but is it just a wee bit crass to hold your meeting in Denver only eleven days after the Columbine shootings? I understand the majority of the events were canceled, however, you can't delay meetings for even 30 days after? I find it difficult to believe that couldn't be possible.
However, the subject of tonight's hypocrisy is the NRA's meeting in Charlotte North Carolina this past weekend. Why, oh why! I ask, do you hold an event for your organization that professes to fight for a citizen's right to carry firearms either concealed or openly, would you hold an event where FIREARMS ARE BANNED?
The NRA was fighting for the right for people in the great state of Tennessee to carry guns in to bars, where people drink. Sometimes those people drink in one of the following ways:
a) to excess
b) to get drunk
c) to fight off depression.
Is that a person you want sitting next to you with a loaded weapon in a bar?
However an NRA member can't walk into the organizations national conference with a gun.
Sorry, I find that hypocritical. The NRA is trying to make a law to make sure bar owners can't keep an armed person from coming on their property, but holds it's national conference in a location that says you can't exercise your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. Oh, I'm sure it was a coincidence that guest speakers were...Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich & Oliver North. Another day, speakers are former governors Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, current governor (and Pappy O'Daniel impersonator) Haley Barbour and former 1/2 term governor Sarah Palin. Oh, and musical guests Charlie Daniels and Ted Nugent.
But it couldn't be that MANY former politicians (with some still looking to further cash in on political careers) would take issue with talking to a crowd of armed citizens. It couldn't be that.....or could it?
So, according to the NRA-ILA website it's primary function states:
'... efforts include enacting laws that recognize the right of honest citizens to carry firearms for self-protection; preemption bills to prevent attacks on gun owner rights by local anti-gun politicians, and fighting for legislation to prevent the bankrupting of America’s firearms industry through reckless lawsuits. '
Right of honest citizens to carry firearms for self-protection. I'm cool with that. In fact I only have two "beefs" with the NRA-ILA.
1) The the primary reason to form the NRA was to 'promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis' according to Col. William C. Church , not to focus on gun rights. (If you refute the current focus is gun rights. Look at the first line of the 'about' section of the NRA-ILA's website, it specifically talks about the 'lobbying' arm of the NRA, you don't lobby for marksmanship, you lobby for gun rights)
2)I don't believe they are in any way related, but is it just a wee bit crass to hold your meeting in Denver only eleven days after the Columbine shootings? I understand the majority of the events were canceled, however, you can't delay meetings for even 30 days after? I find it difficult to believe that couldn't be possible.
However, the subject of tonight's hypocrisy is the NRA's meeting in Charlotte North Carolina this past weekend. Why, oh why! I ask, do you hold an event for your organization that professes to fight for a citizen's right to carry firearms either concealed or openly, would you hold an event where FIREARMS ARE BANNED?
The NRA was fighting for the right for people in the great state of Tennessee to carry guns in to bars, where people drink. Sometimes those people drink in one of the following ways:
a) to excess
b) to get drunk
c) to fight off depression.
Is that a person you want sitting next to you with a loaded weapon in a bar?
However an NRA member can't walk into the organizations national conference with a gun.
Sorry, I find that hypocritical. The NRA is trying to make a law to make sure bar owners can't keep an armed person from coming on their property, but holds it's national conference in a location that says you can't exercise your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. Oh, I'm sure it was a coincidence that guest speakers were...Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich & Oliver North. Another day, speakers are former governors Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, current governor (and Pappy O'Daniel impersonator) Haley Barbour and former 1/2 term governor Sarah Palin. Oh, and musical guests Charlie Daniels and Ted Nugent.
But it couldn't be that MANY former politicians (with some still looking to further cash in on political careers) would take issue with talking to a crowd of armed citizens. It couldn't be that.....or could it?
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
About the blog...
If anyone reading this really knows me, there are things that I don't tolerate well. Hypocrisy is one of them. I'm dedicating this blog to call out the hypocrites in our society.
Beyond that, you should know that I don't have a specific political group I follow. I consider myself a fiscal conservative and social moderate / progressive. So when reading that description, let's explore that a little. I want LESS government spending. I hate that we have empty trust funds for Social Security and Medicare simply because our representatives have taken the monies sitting in those trust funds to pay for day to day operations of our government.
I believe that the government should stay out of my personal life and shouldn't legislate what I can do in the privacy of my own home. I believe that the representatives should regulate business to the point that the citizens, as the consumer, is protected. I do NOT believe in de-regulation so the political donor class in this country can enrich themselves at the expense of the middle class or citizens struggling to get ahead. Representatives are there for all citizens, not a select few who can donate to political campaigns. Other things I believe in are: Term limits for all elected members of the US Government. 25 year terms for Supreme Court Justices instead of lifetime appointments. I think that would be a good start.
Getting back to hypocrisy, I'm going to be writing about people I see every day in the media, in government, or public life. I will even be writing about my own hypocrisy when my wonderful wife points it out. As part of these entries, I'll be providing information sources so I can point you, the reader, to those sites to read and make your own conclusions. So wish me luck, if you agree or not, please feel free to leave a message with your thoughts. Oh one other thing, I believe people can agree to disagree. Keep that in mind, and we should be good!
Beyond that, you should know that I don't have a specific political group I follow. I consider myself a fiscal conservative and social moderate / progressive. So when reading that description, let's explore that a little. I want LESS government spending. I hate that we have empty trust funds for Social Security and Medicare simply because our representatives have taken the monies sitting in those trust funds to pay for day to day operations of our government.
I believe that the government should stay out of my personal life and shouldn't legislate what I can do in the privacy of my own home. I believe that the representatives should regulate business to the point that the citizens, as the consumer, is protected. I do NOT believe in de-regulation so the political donor class in this country can enrich themselves at the expense of the middle class or citizens struggling to get ahead. Representatives are there for all citizens, not a select few who can donate to political campaigns. Other things I believe in are: Term limits for all elected members of the US Government. 25 year terms for Supreme Court Justices instead of lifetime appointments. I think that would be a good start.
Getting back to hypocrisy, I'm going to be writing about people I see every day in the media, in government, or public life. I will even be writing about my own hypocrisy when my wonderful wife points it out. As part of these entries, I'll be providing information sources so I can point you, the reader, to those sites to read and make your own conclusions. So wish me luck, if you agree or not, please feel free to leave a message with your thoughts. Oh one other thing, I believe people can agree to disagree. Keep that in mind, and we should be good!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)