People can have many different perspectives when measuring time. If you’re watching a great ballgame, hours seem like minutes. If you’re holding your breath, seconds can seem like hours. If you’re a political figure even the briefest of moments can come under intense scrutiny. That is especially true of our presidents. It’s just that some chief executives come under much closer examination than others.

On the morning of September 11, 2001 President George W. Bush was visiting an elementary school class in Sarasota, Florida. While Bush and the class shared a reading of “The Pet Goat” he was informed by Chief of Staff, Andrew Card that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center. President Bush remained seated for the roughly 420 seconds it took to complete the book. That decision caused him to become the object of considerable scorn and ridicule.

On September 29, 1973, President Richard Nixon’s secretary, Rose Mary Woods, was transcribing a White House audio tape previously recorded June 20, 1972. During the process she made “a terrible mistake” that resulted in 18 ½ minutes of conversation being fully erased. Given the budding Watergate story, and possibility this erasure could have contained damning evidence against Nixon, Ms. Woods’ explanation was met with great skepticism. The questionable “gap” raised suspicions and commanded national attention. It helped light the fuse to what became an explosive scandal, ending with the one and only resignation of a U.S. president.

On September 11, 2012 the American consulate in Benghazi was attacked. In subsequent fighting United States Ambassador, Chris Stevens, and fellow countrymen Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods were murdered. Recent congressional testimony from top cabinet officials and President Obama’s Chief of Staff have shed little light on our Commander in Chief’s specific whereabouts or actions during 7 ½ hours of the 8 hour assault. We’ve learned he attended a previously arranged, 30 minute meeting, with Defense Secretary Panetta and Joint Chief’s Chair, General Dempsey. That half hour was the extent of their contact with the president. He did not so much as call them, even as the strike raged on. White House Chief, Jack Lew’s sworn statements shed no additional light on just what Obama was doing during those awful 8 hours. What we do know, however, is during approximately 450 minutes of a national security, life and death crisis, President Obama’s activities remain a complete mystery.

There’s no evidence President Bush’s very public extra 420 seconds in a Florida classroom changed an already tragic day for the worse or cost more American lives. Very soon after the attacks Bush made clear statements and began taking decisive, effective actions against the terrorists, yet derision over those few moments continued. President Nixon’s missing 18½ minutes of tape caused no great loss in U.S. lives or treasure. There was a bungled political break-in followed by a botched coverup….but the whole senseless affair forced the historic resignation of Richard Nixon.

By comparison, unaccounted for are the: 27,000 seconds/450 minutes/7 ½ hours of President Obama’s movements during a deadly, preplanned, terrorist onslaught. There are no unflattering images of say, Obama sleeping. There are no intrepid reporters (i.e. Woodward/Bernstein) investigating what the Commander in Chief was doing and when he was doing it. There are no late night comedians using this inexplicable “gap” as fodder for searing monologues.

Four, brave men slaughtered under President Obama’s detached watch, and he remains immune to anything like the political consequences suffered by predecessors Bush and Nixon. Hard to believe? Not really. Some U.S. chief executives, dead Americans not withstanding, come under much less scrutiny than others.

Who says President Obama has no policy regarding the difficult problems facing our nation?  That’s not so.  It’s just his policy  focuses on using distractions to avoid dealing with America’s most troubling issues.  Let’s call this plan the president’s “Serious Crisis Avoidance Management Strategy”, a.k.a. Obama’s SCAMS.

Have an ineffectual “Stimulus Program” and sluggish recovery?  Introduce  a sweeping, controversial, national healthcare plan.  When ObamaCare, despite all efforts remains unpopular, begin attributing dissent to racism.

The promises of plunging unemployment and 500,000 new jobs monthly during the “Summer of Recovery” miss their wildly optimistic mark?  Blame George Bush, and keep blaming him for the litany of Obama/Biden broken pledges.

Running into a fourth year of anemic economic growth?  Hey,  Mitt Romney crated his dog on top of the family station wagon, and could be a felon.  Then, there’s that poor woman who died because her cancer went unchecked….due to a lack of Bain-provided health insurance.

National Debt hits $16 Trillion?  How about that GOP War on Women.  Ladies need free contraception!  Just ask struggling, working girls like Sandra Fluke, Eva Longoria, and Caroline Kennedy.

A U.S. Ambassador and 3 other Americans are murdered after multiple requests for improved security were ignored?  Check out an obscure, internet video mocking Muhammad.

Fail to send military help while our four, fellow countrymen were being slaughtered? Throw the offending filmmaker in jail, and air a “Muslin outreach” apology tape featuring Secretary Clinton and Commander In Chief Obama.

The Arab Spring turns violently anti-American?  See above:  Trot out the blasphemous video, it’s jailed producer/director, and the Clinton/Obama mea culpa response.

Iran closing in on nukes and North Korea defiantly firing a multistage rocket?  Let’s talk about Gay Marriage.

Steadily rising unemployment?  Saturate the news cycle with endless stories on “assault rifles”, limiting magazine clips, and gun control.

A stunning Commerce Department report showing negative economic growth in 4^th Quarter?  Fire up the debate on immigration reform.

A mid-January Gallup Poll has the economy (21%), our federal budget deficit (20%), dissatisfaction with government (18%), and unemployment (16%) as the top four issues worrying Americans.  Racism, the Bush Administration, Romney’s pooch, free birth control for women, an anti-Muhammad video, and Gay Marriage didn’t make the list.  Gun control was mentioned by 4% of the respondents, immigration by 3%.

On the major, most disturbing, intractable issues of our time, Mr. Obama along with his political and media camp followers, continually attempt to focus the public’s attention on talking points more to the chief executive’s liking.

The aim is to distract and divert scrutiny from this administration’s many failures. Don’t look here. What’s that over there?  Why it’s the president’s “Serious Crisis Avoidance Management Strategy”…..Obama’s SCAMS for short.

The latest demographic group of young people needs a new nickname. Generation Y or the Millennials, don’t do justice to the millions of twenty-somethings living in America today.

Compare those two bland tags with “The Greatest Generation”, and “The Me Generation”. Those labels, flattering or not, offer a historic thumb nail review of Americans whose respective lifetimes have spanned approximately the last 90 years. The Greatest Generation perfectly describes the men and women who showed uncommon valor and heroic resilience in the face of a staggering depression and World War II . Their “Me First” offspring, as a bunch, have likely gotten the unbecoming title they deserved.

So what to call this crowd of adults born after the year 1981? Given their hyper interest in media, digital communication, and celebrities let’s classify them using the name of someone they identify with….Jon Stewart. “The Stewart Generation” would seem an excellent handle for this band of brothers and sisters. Jon’s hip, smart, brash, funny and has his own, very successful, TV show. He is also the guy, to whom many in their twenties have turned for the news.

Not withstanding Mr. Stewart’s disclaimers about his show being comedy, plenty of his audience see it as an accurate, if satirical reporting of the days’ events. And why wouldn’t they? He interviews famous politicians, pundits and newsmakers. Jon Stewart is a very influential man.

The diminutive host has made a terrific living poking fun at all kinds of people, but seems to find right leaning thinkers an especially target rich environment. Sticking it to those stick in the mud right wingers makes for a terrific time on the Daily Show. Their “old fashioned ideas” on cultural issues and limited government make for lots of laughs .

While more challenging to get giggles, it may be better for the long term interests of his devotees, if Stewart would use his clever satire to inform them of the genuine problems being discussed by those stuffy conservatives. Jon could use his monologues to expose how under/unemployment, federal overspending, and a combination of national and college debt are stealing “The Stewart Generation’s” future.

About 50% of recent college graduates, a large part of Jon’s audience, have been unable to find full time employment, while total student loan debt is sitting at a record $1trillion. That figures to about $26,500 a person. An analysis of a 2011 Current Population Survey showed roughly 1.5 million of grads under the age of 25 were jobless or underemployed.

A Rutgers’ study reported it’s three times harder for diploma holders to get a job now than it was in 2008, and the average starting salaries have dropped from $30,000 to $27,000. Their research also found 43% of those recently hired graduates said their work did not require a college degree. Maybe Jon could bring home this dispiriting bit of info with a grin and nod to Pink Floyd.

“We don’t need no education. We don’t need no thought control.
No dark sarcasm in the classroom.
Teachers leave them kids alone. Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone! All in all it’s just another brick in the wall.
All in all you’re just another brick in the wall.”

Then there’s the federal government’s promiscuous spending. The nation’s tab is now well north of $16 trillion and every American’s share of that bill is over $50,000. But that $50k figure doesn’t do justice to the plight of today’s 20 somethings hoping to enjoy successful, long term, financially rewarding careers. That’s because if they do achieve their goal they’ll join only one in three “rich” taxpayers, paying money towards that debt. Their individual slice of our massive IOU is now heading towards $145,000.

Let’s use these numbers to illustrate the kind of financial dilemma facing “Gen Stew”. If 25 year old Jane Doe took a $145,000, 40 year mortgage @ 4.25% on a house, she would satisfy the note by paying: $629 monthly, and almost $302,000 over the life of the loan. If Jane and all in her age group were forced to send $629 every month to the U.S. Treasury, with the hope of paying down the suffocating national debt, how many of them would be able to afford a house?

With apologies to Pink Floyd, given that fiscal albatross, any bricks in the wall are unlikely to be part of a home actually owned by persons in this demographic group. Tough to find any grins here.

The latest political struggle in Washington has clearly demonstrated Barack Obama, the “young people’s choice”, has no genuine interest in reducing federal spending in any meaningful way. The “fiscal cliff” debate was temporarily papered over with a “deal” getting only $1 in spending “cuts” for every $41 in new taxes. That, in this president’s view, is what passes for a “balanced approach”.

For men and women born after 1981 it amounts to unbalanced generational theft, and the generation being stolen from is them. The current employment outlook, growing student loan bills, and the $16.4 trillion federal indebtedness will likely create an economic perfect storm on the level of Hurricane Sandy…. drowning their prospects for a prosperous, comfortable life.

Jon has a wonderful opportunity to, in his unique, powerful way, alert the Daily Show audience to these real, ever growing threats clouding their future. It’ll be tough to make this cluster muck funny, but, given the current, dire circumstances, “The Stewart Generation” doesn’t have a whole lot to laugh about.

In the wake of our national ticket’s loss we’ve heard what we believe are some erratic and erroneous criticisms and suggestions from some Republicans, which if followed would be injurious to the conservative movement.

Too many are buying into the deception propagated by Liberal commentators: that Obama’s election represents an historic strategic shift in the electorate founded in a fundamental demographic change. Make no mistake; this was a tactical win. When the campaign itself credits multitudes of paid telemarketers in Chicago calling every conceivable ethnic, racial, and gender niche in only nine states, promising whatever each marketing niche desires, you are operating tactically, not strategically.

The Left wants us to believe it’s an historic strategic shift so that our response is that we either buy into their Liberal world-view and agenda or face political irrelevancy.

We should not take this path; it’s not who we are! Following the “advice” of both our external Leftwing enemies and the internal RINO appeasement wing of the Republican Party will lead us into the swamp and ruin us.

This is the same advice that was proffered to us by the RINO wing after the 2008 debacle. Ignoring the fact that the failed RINO “moderate” candidate was the one they insisted was the “only” one who could “reach across the aisle” and “capture in the Independent vote” led us to a massive defeat. Their solution after McCain’s defeat was even more of the same. The 2008 post-mortem offered by RINO leaders such as Mitch McConnell and Colin Powell insisted that the Party had become too conservative, too limited in its appeal and too “regional.”

They were proven wrong on all accounts in 2010 when the Conservative Base, fueled by the Tea Party Movement, resurrected their moribund party (as it did in 1980, 1984, and 1994) and led it to an historic national victory.

We Conservatives by nature live in, and practice in our daily lives, the color-blind society that Liberals are so fond of referencing but are at the same time so absent from the Liberal world-view, language and daily practices. To Liberals, everyone is part of some racial, ethnic, or gender group, (usually victimized) and their programs and policies are all tailored to secure and hold each of these groups thru government benefits. This insidious discriminating segmentation of society is endlessly analyzed by pollsters and happily amplified by the Liberals’ allies throughout the mainstream media. We Conservatives view people as individuals with life stories, values, talents, ambitions, and personalities without regard for surface aspects such as skin color and ethnicity etc.

As for the mainstream media, this election cycle has again proved the case that there can be no doubt they are completely invested in promoting the Liberal agenda, advocating for the Democrat leadership and most emphatically, for this particular president. They have slanted stories, printed and aired endless puff-pieces on Obama, spiked serious stories and finally straight-out lied to protect the president’s electoral chances. The most serious subterfuge was the mainstream media’s complete news blackout on the Benghazi story as it developed with government e-mails surfacing almost daily. When it all comes out, the suppression of this story could become a watershed moment and will hasten the ultimate irrelevance of the legacy press in our country. Until then we must recognize that our political activities will, to a significant degree, transpire within what amounts to a propaganda state.

That propaganda state and those who serve it must not be given any legitimacy and at every opportunity it must be directly confronted with the scorn and disrespect it deserves.

There are three erroneous suggestions currently emanating from too many high profile Republicans and supposedly right-leaning media organs that deserve special examination:

First, we’re told we must change our policies and “reach out to women” since Obama garnered the majority of the women’s vote. Wrong – our Movement doesn’t view women as a separate gender group requiring special benefits. Women benefit mightily from the free-market, limited government principles of conservative governance. The Left created a “war on women” out of thin air and accused Republicans of perpetrating it. The Liberal media compliantly amplified the attacks, which contaminated and distracted virtually every Republican federal race in the country and was clearly most prominently in the presidential race. Since the criticism is based entirely on a liberal canard, no change in conservative “policy” is required. However, effective messaging must be developed which demonstrates how the full spectrum of conservative principles and policies benefits women. Every Conservative candidate in the country needs to take the message to every woman’s group in their districts that their best interests lie with conservative solutions.

Second, we’re told to reach out to Black Americans. While we always have, our efforts have so far not borne much fruit. True, there are many prominent Black Republican and Conservative officeholders and party leaders; however, they’re ignored by the media and go unrecognized or disparaged by liberal politicians. Again, no change in our policy is required; but conservative solutions have to be fashioned around the insidious problems of the inner city so that Black Americans understand how such policy solutions can be utilized to resolve them. Our candidates must spend significant time communicating these policies within the cities during their campaigns and incorporating them into their governance. Conservatives must take make strong efforts to work within the Black Community in order to spread the messages of individual empowerment and free markets.

But before we can get the votes of the Black Community we must prove to them that we are courting their vote in the first place and that our Free Market policies will be more successful than the Entitlement State programs that have massively failed them, their children and their communities.

But we need to do this with more than words; we need to do this with direct, tangible actions.

We need to enter the Black Community and build relationships with them. We need to make contacts with local Church, Youth and Community organizations and offer them our services in terms of helping people who have been disadvantaged by the Welfare State. We need to demonstrate how working within the private sector can free them from the perpetual failure of government dependency.

We can approach these communities with offers to hold Job Fairs where inner city youth can learn about the proper preparation of resumes and interview technique; we need to have our small business men offer their expertise to inner city businesses by giving them quality business advice; we must prove to this community that we offer an alternative to the disaster that Big Government has delivered them into and that ours is the way out.

Third and most prominently, we are told we must alter our stance on immigration, which in essence is that we believe our federal immigration laws must be followed and our sovereignty protected thru orderly and secure borders. We are told we must reach out to the fastest growing ethnic group in the country – Hispanics. However, a 2011 poll in California indicated only 7% of Hispanic voters objected to Republican immigration stances. Instead, a generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation are cited by Hispanics as driving their attraction to the Democrat party. We may simply face the same education and messaging challenges about free-market economics we face elsewhere, but to win over this important voting block we must develop an effective strategy.

There is no reason why we can’t reach a community that Conservatives have so much in common with: a strong sense of traditional family values, a religious orientation, military service and a population that understands creating small businesses is a pathway to the middle class.

Incidentally, there are more Hispanic-Republican officeholders in the country than Hispanic-Democrat officeholders, so we at least have a place to start.

The Left has perfected demagogic messaging, regularly amplified by the media. We have to perfect messaging stressing the enlightening and liberating qualities of conservative solutions. Conservative candidates also must continually call out the disingenuous and biased mainstream media and must ceaselessly repeat the “biased media” mantra until it seeps deeply into the public consciousness.

Conservatives have the values and principles that will return the Republic to a sound financial footing. We just have to realize that suggestions we abandon our basic principles is a Leftist trap that must be avoided. To provide assurance that this is the right track to take, we should recognize that Republicans dominate the U.S. government bodies closest to the people: the Federal House of Representatives, state legislatures and 30 state governorships.

In the end, we must now accept that after two Presidential elections, the candidates preferred by the so-called Republican Party Professionals, faux conservative television pundits and witch doctors reading the polls as if they were tarot cards in order to produce predictions that are less accurate than the daily horoscope, have totally failed.

The same RINO Republicans who see the Conservative Base only as serfs to be frightened, pockets to be picked and tools to be used every election cycle brought this disaster upon us.

Despite the tremendous victory we provided to the Republican Party in 2010, the phrase “Tea Party” wasn’t even mentioned at the 2012 Republican Convention and many of its advocates, including Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and, Herman Cain, were all deprived speaking roles.

We must accept that the RINO Republicans are not our allies and have proven they are incapable of bringing us victory.

The Conservative Base preaches independence and self-reliance. The time has come for us to strictly practice that philosophy in relation to those RINOs who have betrayed us and whose weakness has once again led us into the abyss.

The time has come for us to declare our own independence from their failure to deliver.

The time is late but the time is NOW.

(end)

By James Soviero

WHO WOULD YOU PICK, TOUGH CHOICE

Our first thoughts offered before the convention will be followed by italicized, post-mortem, observations.

How’s this for an appropriate theme for the last 4 years? “Yes We Didn’t!” Democrats ignored our suggestion, and went with “Yes we did. No kidding. Honest!”

Not likely Democrat, grass roots, anti corporate activists are happy about President Obama’s big night being held in Bank of America Stadium.

They were so mad they prayed to a God they don’t believe in, to have bad weather, so the event would be cancelled. But then God wanted an offering so Antonio Villaraigosa heard voices no one else could and put God back into the Democrat Platform. And the activists were furious all over again.

Perhaps the Dems, displeased by the lack of old, angry white men at the RNC, have included a bunch onto their own roster. Speakers include such well known, aged cranks as Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Barney Frank, and Joe Biden.

This went off pretty much as we expected. Biden however was less cranky. More on this later.

Given the “outrage” over Republicans proceeding with an abbreviated convention during a Category 1 hurricane, do you think Democrats will pause for a moment of silent prayer in recognition of the “Category 4 Debt Storm” hitting a staggering $16 trillion during their powwow?

Not only did they not pause, the DNC pretty much fast forwarded past this looming fiscal calamity.

Wonder if Bill Clinton knew, when he was negotiating for a prime time speaking spot, his party put him in a Wednesday night rating’s war against the opening of the National Football League?

Bill tied in the ratings with “Honey Boo Boo.” It’s a reality show, we’ve never heard of… until last Thursday morning.

Making matters worse for Clinton….this game features the NY Giants vs. the Dallas Cowboys. They are big rivals from two huge media markets.

It was a close game. Huge viewership. The Red State Cowboys upset the Blue State Giants. Foreshadowing?

If that bad wasn’t enough, Democrat friendly NBC affiliates will be broadcasting football during the former president’s speech.

NBC’s got a lot of making up to do after that faux pas. Bet they’re plenty up to it.

When all is said and done, don’t be surprised if the DNC planners wind up wishing they’d buried Biden in that time slot.

Missed, big time on this. In retrospect, given Obama’s “flat” speech, (probably after he got a head’s up on the jobs numbers), they should have dropped the president into that time slot.

Question: How many chants of U.S.A.!, U.S.A.! U.S.A.! will be inspired by speakers Sandra Fluke, Eva Longoria, and faux Cherokee Elizabeth Warren? Answer: None.

That was too easy.

Nancy Pelosi has a better chance of hearing O.W.S.! O.W.S.! O.W.S.! Remember Occupy Wall Street? “God bless them.” said she as they raped, pillaged, and plundered cities throughout the nation.

No O.W.S. chants. They probably didn’t have the strength after all that fury, faux praying, and then return of genuine rage. See, God, above.

Suggestion: Have the Healthcare Bill enclosed under glass, right next to a true to scale recreation of the U.S. Constitution. Ask attendees why it took over 2,500 pages to manage one new law, while it took thousands fewer sheets to establish the basis for all our the laws.

The height of wishful thinking. In retrospect, this would have been a great feature during the RNC. It would have fit in nicely with the dual debt clocks.

Maybe the Democrat lawmakers who signed onto the healthcare bill can reenact their historic vote. It would be a wonderful reminder to all those viewing at home, of their legislator’s unprecedented achievement.

Actually this was the height of wishful thinking. But the Democrat delegates did the viewing audience, political pundits, You Tube, and Republicans one better when they shouted down God and Jerusalem.

Here’s another theme for consideration covering the next 4 years..“Yes, We Can’t!”

That didn’t fly. Seems like they kinda said, “Yes we will this time, if you give us more time, and absolutely forget what we said the last time. No kidding. Honest to God. Oooops. Honest. What’s that Antonio? O.K. Honest to God.”

###

Barack Obama’s campaign bus has had a pretty rough ride recently. Some of the jostling has been caused by a struggling economy, and some is courtesy of an aggressive, newly formed Romney/Ryan Ticket. But a few of those bumps are the result of the president driving that big, heavy vehicle over members of what were once his core constituencies.

Let’s start with senior citizens. Generally a solid Democrat voting bloc, word is now out the ironically named “Affordable Care Act” reduces funds to Medicare and hits Medicare Advantage very hard.

The amount of money cut from the federal program is over $700 billion dollars. Information about the Independent Payment Advisory Board having the power to make “cost saving” changes in Medicare policies without going through Congress first is beginning to filter into the discussion.

Wait until seniors learn that almost all the so called “savings” come at the expense of professionals providing them life sustaining services. Doctors and hospitals are projected to take reductions in their reimbursements. MD’s are scheduled for 30.9% cut in their Medicare payments by 2013. Medicaid could soon be paying more.

Golden-agers are not only getting screwed with their venerable health program they’re getting the short straw with Social Security. When Congress passed, and the president signed, a 2% reduction in the FICA Payroll Tax, they deliberately took desperately needed money from an ever shrinking “Trust Fund”.

Hundreds of billions of dollars has been funneled away from that retirement program and into the pockets of younger voters. This reduction in funds has not been “paid for”. In other words, the money is gone.

Perhaps treated even worse than Democrat, senior citizens, are the party’s most faithful constituency…..African Americans. The latter mentioned can be counted on for at least 90% of their vote, and President Obama got 95%. But, what did that get them?

For openers it got them a presidential change of heart and mind on gay marriage. This particular flip has been a big flop among Black Baptist ministers and many in their congregations.

The outrage was such a group of church leaders publicly and strongly rebuffed Mr. Obama on his new, conveniently discovered, position. Barack’s new friends in entertainment and the media cheered the switchero and, more importantly for him, sent the kind of money those church leaders and their considerable flocks could never match.

Much worse than a change in social policy is the effect Mr. Obama’s economic policies have had on the well-being of African Americans. They’ve suffered the highest rate of unemployment among all the ethnic groups and the numbers of their youth not working is astronomical.

In the midst of this kind of despair what did the president do?

He effectively granted working papers for hundreds of thousands of aliens, previously considered illegal. The distressed job market now can expect an influx of workers, many of whom will be in direct competition with African Americans either trying to hold on to a job or find one.

This “amnesty” will undoubtedly make things even tougher for the struggling black youth.

The trick for President Obama is to keep the people he’s rolled under the bus from feeling the weight of it’s wheels. Perhaps he can find some way to either anesthetize or hypnotize them. What he can’t afford, is to have senior citizens and African Americans gain a complete, objective, understanding of how badly his policies have hurt them. They’d make him a one termer.

Well meaning people feel they’re highlighting the threat of our nation’s exploding debt on coming generations by saying, “We’re mortgaging our kids future.”  If only that were true.

Most Americans understand a mortgage to be a lien against their property that must be satisfied over a period of time, usually through monthly payments. When the full amount of the loan is returned the property becomes theirs, free and clear.  Washington politicians have structured no such repayment schedule as it relates to our soon to be $16 trillion national debt.

No, the massive amount of red ink mounting daily, is not being rolled into some giant federal promissory note to be repaid over a number of years.  This huge sum of money is being put on our children’s credit cards. They’re being forced to, unknowingly,  take responsibility an unlimited line of credit.

Like most awful financial scams foisted on impressionable, naïve, youngsters, it seems rather appealing at first.  Like most awful financial scams foisted on impressionable, naïve, youngsters, it ends horribly.  This kind of arrangement generally results in one of two scenarios:

1. The borrower spends a lifetime, fruitlessly paying interest only on a ballooning principle.
2. The borrower, going broke, stops sending the checks.

To be clear, not a single penny of the $16 trillion borrowed by the U.S. government is being paid back.  That would be bad enough if the entire sum was frozen, but it’s not.  On the contrary, our indebtedness has been growing  by more than a trillion dollars each of the last several years. There is no genuine end in sight to this deficit spending.  Countless dollars will continue to be put on toddlers’ tabs.  Their outlay covering the interest will continue to rise, along with the base amount of money on loan.

How can this generational disaster go unaddressed by our president and members of Congress?  Perhaps they’re unable to grasp the menace of mounting, unsustainable, unlimited debt being paid on an interest only basis.

No.  Politicians demonstrated they understood very well the fundamental dangers of this kind of financing scheme.  Three years ago they came down very hard on these deceptive practices.  They even passed a law.  So what’s the problem?  The new rules simply do not apply to the federal government…. which holds the largest share of our youths’ debt.  Congress conveniently absolved themselves from their own legislation.

On May 22, 2009  President Obama signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act.  According to a fact sheet from the White House Press Secretary’s Office,transparency was a very big part of this law.  The legislation demanded those issuing debt, “….need to display, on periodic statements, how long it would take to pay off the existing balance – and the total interest cost – if the consumer paid only the minimum due.  Issuers will also have to display the payment amount and total interest cost to pay off the existing balance in 36 months.”

Imagine the feds being made to comply with the same dictates they put on those bogey man, credit card outfits.  The staggering results might look something like this:

John Doe, Federal Debt Disclosure Statement

Existing Balance=$52,000  Yearly Interest Cost @ 3.5%=$1,820

Paying the minimum amount due- Total Interest Cost= Incalculable.

Paying the minimum amount due- Date of Loan Satisfaction=Infinity

To repay the existing balance in 36 months @ 3.5% the breakout is:

Monthly payments-$1,523.71  Total Payments-$54,853.49  Total Interest Paid-$2,853.49

Is there any wonder why congress and the president both chose to exempt federal spending from such scrutiny? If they had to comply with the same standards they set for VISA, Master Card, et.al, their scam would be fully exposed.

Politicians are not mortgaging our kid’s future.  They’re stealing it.

Bob’s Response then Margret’s article

Bob’s Response

Margaret,

In reference to your article below, I bother to write this only so you know that while you mislead your uninformed audience you do not do so with impunity.  I’m in CT, so let me straighten you out about the Tea Party here and who they’ve supported.  There is no “purist wing” of the CT Republican Party – the Party here is run by RINOS, aka Liberal Republicans.  They perennially fail to offer the voters a choice at the polls.  They’re currently involved in an internecine struggle with themselves over two RINOs – Shays and McMahon.  The Tea Party has nothing to do with it – we have nothing to do with either of them.  And in 2010 the Tea Party endorsed Peter Schiff, not McMahon.  No one associated with Lowell Weicker, as she is, could possibly be supported by the Tea Party.  Any progress she has made in three years is due to her own resources, not Tea Party or conservative grassroots efforts.

As for Shays, he won’t even publically affirm the principles of the Republican Party – he declined to do so on my public-access TV show, LibertyLine, this spring – instead he says his votes come down to “common sense” – we interpret that as whichever way the wind is blowing when the vote comes up.  We seek candidates who publically affirm the principles which guide their thinking on the issues – the candidates owe that to their constituents.  In our case we seek candidates who will vote for limited government, fiscal responsibility and free-market solutions.  We find them here in CT but the Republican Party seems allergic to them and proceeds to subvert them; we’ve all observed the failure of that strategy at the ballot box.

As to the big picture in the House, reaching across the aisle in compromise is what raised the $16 trillion debt sword hanging over our heads.  You decry the inactivity or paralysis caused by the Tea Party caucus.  But your “analysis” assumes an overturn of the law of physics.  In order to manage a 180 degree turn in the trajectory of the federal government, the inertia must come to a stop before it can be reversed.  That is exactly what we sent them there to do.  And after this coming election we’ll have more conservatives in both chambers and the reversal should get underway.  But that will be just the beginning of the necessary work.  It took 60-80 years to create the federal mess that has delivered the Republic to the doorstep of bankruptcy.  It will probably take several decades of Conservative rule to set the Republic back on a solid Constitutional footing……….and that’s precisely what we intend to bring about!  A genuine citizen legislature will be a revelation for you beltway types.

In liberty,

Bob MacGuffie

Right Principles

http://www.rightprinciples.com/

203-727-7798

Margret’s article

The Tea Party’s Plan to Cripple Congress

By Margaret Carlson Aug 7, 2012 6:30 PM ET

Wave goodbye to members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Doing nothing has taken a lot out of them, so they have left Washington for five weeks of rest, relaxation and campaigning in the hope that voters will return them to office to do more of the same.

This is especially the case for the large Tea Party contingent among the several score first-term Republicans. They set out to change Washington but settled for simply paralyzing it.

About Margaret Carlson

Margaret Carlson is a Bloomberg View columnist appearing on Wednesdays. A former White House correspondent for TIME, she was also TIME’s first woman columnist. She appeared on CNN’s “Capital Gang” for 15 years. More about Margaret Carlson

They repealed Obama’s health-care law 33 times but didn’t change one word of its 2,700 or so pages. They stopped the Grand Bargain over the debt and deficit even at the cost of exposing Speaker John Boehner as a scaredy cat. They haven’t been able to curb the excesses of Wall Street, keep the debt ceiling from rising, or end government subsidies to NPR or Amtrak — but by God, they can bring the capital to its knees. Nearly everyone hates Congress (well, about 80 percent of Americans do) yet the Tea Party — fortified by Sarah Palin, Senator Jim DeMint and the Club for Growth — is about to do for the Senate what it did to the House.

Look at what has happened so far in the Republican primaries: Only the purest, most virginal conservatives are being chosen as the party’s standard bearers in November.

No Bipartisanship

Last week, former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz, who alerted reporters that he was visiting a Chick-fil-A the day before the election, overwhelmed Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, the veteran establishment candidate, to win the nomination to replace retiring Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Dewhurst’s sins? He was Governor Rick Perry’s right-hand man and an occasional sponsor of bipartisan legislation. The most effective ad against Dewhurst accused him of being a moderate.

Three months ago conservative Indiana State TreasurerRichard Mourdock beat six-term incumbent Senator Richard Lugar,the compromiser who’d forgotten his roots. Nebraska State Senator (and rancher) Deb Fischer beat Attorney General J on Bruning in Nebraska in an upset to go up against Bob Kerrey, the former governor and senator, on Election Day.

Each victor campaigned against Washington insiders who had impermissible contact with the enemy. Nominating your most conservative candidate in the primary is more satisfying than letting another weak one get in. And if these candidates do get elected, inactivity is preferable to approving legislation that even contemplates the possibility that any American could get so much as a food stamp he is not entitled to.

Take Connecticut , the Yankee bastion of village squares and town-hall meetings. In the race to replace retiring Senator Joe Lieberman, the purist wing of the Republican Party prefers entrepreneur Linda McMahon, who has never run anything but a soft-porn wrestling empire, over former Representative Chris Shays, who was close to former Speaker Newt Gingrich. Reaching across the aisle from time to time — he voted for campaign-finance reform, for instance — helped lead to Shays’s defeat in 2008.

At the time, the loss left the House without a single Republican from New England . McMahon first ran for Senate in 2010, when her primary victory over former Representative Rob Simmons, a respected moderate with two Bronze Stars, essentially ceded the race to the Democrats. Now, despite losing to Richard Blumenthal two years ago, McMahon is getting a second chance.

She won the party endorsement in May, but Shays managed to scrape together enough votes to challenge her for the nomination. The primary election is next Tuesday. It will take a miracle for Shays to defeat a self-funded candidate blanketing the state with softly lit ads that present McMahon as a job creator. Airbrushed out is the fact that she got wealthy in part by making professional wrestling even more vulgar. To the play-acting in the ring, she added storylines involving necrophilia and intrafamily violence starring her husband, Vince, and daughter, Stephanie.

Too Hot

All in all, it’s the type of program that used to get you investigated by Congress — not welcomed to it. The House looked into World Wrestling Entertainment after one wrestler killed his family and hanged himself in 2007, leaving a stash of steroids behind, because of concern that WWE had not taken adequate steps to address the use of drugs.

This is what the Grand Old Party has come to, as other primaries in Wisconsin and Missouri threaten to reward insurgents. In Connecticut , a poll in J une shows McMahon leading Shays, 59 percent to 30 percent. If McMahon and a few other candidates win in November, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell could become majority leader but actually lose power: Boehner, his weakened counterpart in the lower chamber, doesn’t lead his troops so much as try to keep from being run over by them.

The Senate, as George Washington is supposed to have toldThomas Jefferson, was designed in part to calm the tempers and passions of the House, just as a saucer is used to cool off hot tea. If the saucer itself is scalding, then the whole brew will be too hot to sip.

(Margaret Carlson is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

Read more opinion online from Bloomberg View. Subscribe to receive a daily e-mail highlighting new View columns, editorials and op-ed articles.

To contact the writer of this article:Margaret Carlson at mcarlson3@bloomberg.net.

The Democrats had complete control over all three branches of the federal government for two years.  The majorities were such they could, and did, write bills completely to their own liking. The  major pieces of legislation passed were the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Stimulus), and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare).   What’s in a name?  Given the real life aftermath from these two laws, the answer is nothing.

Least offensive, in relative terms, is American Recovery Act.  Democrats spent almost one trillion dollars in an effort to spark our economy and create employment opportunities here in the United States.  There was an emphasis on new, “green jobs”.   Indeed, by 2010, nearly $2 billion had been spent on wind power.  The problem is 79% of that money went outside our borders.  ABC News reported, “about 6,000 jobs have been created overseas, and maybe a couple hundred have been created in the U.S.”

Powerful Democrat Senator, Chuck Schumer  told ABC, “It makes people lose faith in government, and it frankly infuriates me.”  Mr. Schumer, he of the perfect SAT Score, along with his party members, failed to include a “Buy American provision” into a law primarily designed “to put Americans back to work”.  It’s the taxpayers who should be infuriated.  It was their hard earned dollars shipped out of the U.S., creating jobs  for Chinese and Spanish workers..

The complete inability to apply basic common sense while developing even a short term, billion dollar spending bill is very troubling.  What’s followed with healthcare is exponentially worse.

While politicians and the media have been spinning back and forth over ObamaCare being officially designated as a tax, there’s been little conversation focused on how lawmakers supporting the bill, could make such a colossal misjudgment regarding the statute’s core mandate.  Undiscussed is  Democrats failing in their most basic, constitutional task of properly drafting and comprehending a good bill.  If fallout for this kind of legislative incompetence, cynicism, or corruption, was limited to who lost an argument over the difference between a tax and penalty,  the American people could have considered themselves lucky. This will not be the case.

Lost in the Supreme Court’s momentous 5-4 decision was a 7-2 vote declaring the federal government could not force states to spend their money on a greatly expanded, ObamaCare, Medicaid Program.  Lots of people didn’t know the “Affordable Care Act” explodes the growth of Medicaid.  Democrats, understanding this kind of “reasoning” would be counter intuitive to most Americans, kept that part of the bill “on the down low”. With time running out on their little secret, bungling politicians, ill informed on a Constitution they’d sworn to uphold, crash passed ObamaCare.  This led to an overwhelming number of  justices finding a key funding element in the statute unconstitutional. It is a SIGNIFICANT LEGISLATIVE blunder.

In calculating costs, the feds were counting on states paying lots of money into a newly engorged Medicaid Program.  States opting out is no small matter, because those  dollars are going to have to either come from some other source, or people will be left without “insurance”.  Individual governors and their legislatures have good reason to avoid getting involved in a much bigger version of  Medicaid.

Consider the following: 1) The federal government’s own General Accounting Office (March 2011) has listed Medicaid as a high risk program “particularly vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and improper payments”.  2)  The same report estimates, between Medicare and Medicaid, some $70 billion have gone to those “improper payments”.  3) Government actuaries found ObamaCare will be adding an additional 20 million people to the Medicaid rolls.

Is this not the absolute height of Alice in Wonderland logic?  Let’s take an especially inefficient federal entitlement and grow it at a completely unprecedented rate.  If that wasn’t enough,  one of the key elements to the funding was so obviously unconstitutional seven of nine justices, on an often polarized court, saw what partisan pols couldn’t.

If you need any more reinforcement on this special brand of lunacy just google “politicians, quotes, medicaid, waste, fraud and abuse”.  You’ll get 15,200,000 results in less than a half second.  Many of those quoted are Democrats, including the president, who now think it would be just “peachy” to double down, with your money, on this horribly ill advised plan.  It brings to mind a family fast food joke we apply from time to time. “If there’s one thing I like better than bad food, it’s plenty of it.”  That is pretty much a perfect fit for what passes for reasoned thinking inside “the grow-government at any cost party”.

We are just beginning to see and understand some of the menacing ramifications of what is now looking more and more like the “Unaffordable Care Act”.   The elected officials who slapped this horror together were either incompetent, calculating, selfishly partisan, delusional, or corrupt.  Why would you return them to office?

We all know there was an aura of invincibility surrounding the RMS Titanic. The ship was “unsinkable”, until five days into it’s maiden voyage. For years, public sector employee unions have had a similar air of invulnerability. On April 15th, 1912, the magnificent luxury liner was swallowed up by the Atlantic Ocean. One hundred years later, springtime appears equally inhospitable to the branches of organized labor that are funded by taxpayers. While there should be no catastrophic loss of life, if union leaders don’t start redirecting their vessel, there will undoubtedly be a dramatic loss of livelihoods.

Circumstances marking the Titanic’s end were the stuff of a tragic, perfect storm. The ship’s captain, Edward Smith, was faulted for ignoring warnings of drifting ice. Smith stated he could not, “imagine any condition which would cause the ship to founder. Modern ship building has gone beyond that.” An iceberg, with the overwhelming part of it’s mass hidden from view, was spotted too late. What seemed a glancing blow at first, flooded five watertight compartments. The crew was not properly trained for an emergency, there were not enough life boats, and hundreds of lives were lost beneath the frigid ocean waves.

The loss of life was disproportionately higher among third-class passengers. They were left to fend for themselves, causing many of them to be trapped below decks. First-class travelers fared much better. We’d all like to believe, if Captain Smith could have had the benefit of today’s technology to measure the genuine size and threat of the frozen water, he would have discounted his idle boast, and dodged the deadly iceberg.

There is a perfect storm brewing for public sector employee unions and it’s not clear the leadership sees it coming. Even before 2012, voters began showing deep dissatisfaction with the level of salaries and benefits they were paying public service workers. In many cases those men and women were earning considerably more than taxpayers footing the bill. Key governorships in New Jersey, Virginia, Ohio, and Wisconsin switched to conservative Republicans. Nationwide, the Tea Party had a great 2010. Even Democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo passed a tax cap in bright blue New York. There was a warning of “drifting ice”.

Badger State, Chief Executive, Scott Walker was the most aggressive. He and his newly elected Republican majorities set out to keep their campaign promises by reducing state spending and shrinking the power of municipal employee unions. Democrat elected officials, along with their organized labor supporters turned the state into a political battleground. They tried recalling judges, senators, and eventually Walker himself. Their three, separate, very costly efforts were to no avail. In large numbers, voters from traditionally, a very liberal state, cast their ballots for a dramatic change in direction. The same evening Walker was winning handily in Wisconsin, two cities (San Jose’ and San Diego) in hard left leaning California, voted by landslide numbers, to rein in the cost of pensions for their municipal workers. Labor leaders were stunned. An iceberg, with the overwhelming part of it’s mass hidden from view, was spotted too late.

How the rest of this plays out is now mostly in the hands of the union bosses and their members. The warning signs are absolutely unmistakable. Taxpayers across the nation are voting to better control the salaries, pensions and benefits of public employees. It’s not that folks want to hurt teachers, firefighters, or county workers. They simply want them to make the kind of realistic accommodations that reflect the fiscal crises facing their local and state governments. There just isn’t enough money. If exorbitant contracts are not restructured to fit within mandated, balanced budgets, there will be layoff’s, probably in large numbers. What seemed a glancing blow at first, flooded five watertight compartments.

Organized labor leaders in the public sector might serve their constituents best by reminding them these jobs were originally defined by medium wages, decent benefits, and tons of security. Over the last few decades they have exceeded their own career expectations on every level, but this can only continue if they allow their numbers to be sharply reduced. The rule of thumb is those least senior would be fired first. The loss of life was disproportionately higher among third-class passengers. They were left to fend for themselves, causing many of them to be trapped below decks.

The membership will have to assess a labor situation mostly unseen in their lifetime, and decide how to proceed. They’ll need to begin by determining if they’re comfortable with the people at the top. Is the leadership so convinced of their ship’s invulnerability they refuse to alter course? Or will they accept the undeniable circumstances threatening their union’s sustainability and change direction? Members need to send smart, selfless people to the helm. For them there is an iceberg dead ahead. Their livelihoods, and the well being of their families, are going to be in the hands of whomever they chose to navigate them through these dangerous waters. A series of wrong choices now will cause irreparable damage to the public sector unions and all whom they claim to represent. The crew was not properly trained for an emergency, there were not enough life boats, and hundreds of lives were lost beneath the frigid ocean waves.