Gay Patriot Header Image

He will propose spending cuts?

A few weeks ago, I took a dim view of President Trump’s tax proposal:

The true level of taxation is the government’s spending level. All spending must be paid for, one way or another. There are 3 possibilities.

1. Overt taxes.
2. Borrowing. This is a covert tax, a tax on the future (when either the debt must be repudiated, or more and more government revenues must be diverted to servicing it).
3. Money-printing. Another hidden tax, this time on the real value (the purchasing power) of everyone’s wages and savings. Also known as “inflation”.

So really, it isn’t a tax cut unless it’s a spending cut also. Trump wants to cut the overt taxes. So, what? Without spending cuts, it’s only a corresponding increase in the hidden taxes: borrowing and/or money-printing.

I gotta give credit where it’s due. It looks like Trump is going to propose spending cuts?

More details from President Donald Trump’s first budget proposal are trickling out via a flurry of overnight reports from The Washington Post, Associated Press and Bloomberg News…

The budget will slash $1.7 trillion in spending on entitlement programs, according to Bloomberg.
Trump’s budget will include a massive nearly $200 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the modern version of food stamps, over the next 10 years – what amounts to a 25% reduction, according to The Washington Post.
The food stamp cuts are part of a broader $274 billion welfare-reform effort, according to a report by The Associated Press.
The budget calls for about $800 billion in cuts to Medicaid for fiscal year 2018, WaPo reported.
The budget is also expected to propose major domestic discretionary spending cuts – an earlier version of the budget called for $54 billion in such cuts next year alone.

Whether the Republicans in Congress will tolerate any cuts, is another matter.

Note that these cuts are hardly draconian. OK, the numbers sound large. But only because:

  1. some of the numbers are totals across many fiscal years, and
  2. the government IS large. Spending and promises (entitlements) skyrocketed under Bush 43 and Obama.

But the Controlled Media is sure to make them sound like the Entropic Heat Death of the Universe.

America’s Best Congressman Explains the Budget Deal

Posted by V the K at 9:34 am - May 5, 2017.
Filed under: Congress (general),Conservative Ideas

Justin Amash takes fiscal responsibility and the Constitution of the United States seriously. Naturally, the Republican Establishment absolutely hates him and is, once again, financing a Chamber-of-Commerce-friendly, crony-corporatist opponent to primary him.

Democrats Lament Resignation of Key Congressional Ally

Posted by V the K at 7:50 pm - September 25, 2015.
Filed under: Congress (general)

Several Democrats today expressed their sadness over the resignation of Speaker of the House John Boehner, and their gratitude for his work in ensuring that so much of Obama’s immigration, health care, regulatory, and trade agenda was not obstructed by fiscal constraint or concerns over the abuse of Constitutional authority.

Barack Obama

“John Boehner is a good man. He is a patriot. He cares deeply about the House,” Obama said. “He cares about his constituents and he cares about America.”

Harry Reid

“By ousting a good man like Speaker Boehner — someone who understood the art of compromise — the party of Eisenhower and Reagan is no more.”

Compromise is, of course, a Democrat word meaning “giving Democrats everything they want,” which is apparently something Boehner is going to be working on during his last month in office. Then, it’s off to K Street for a plush job with a lobbying firm; where he can make sure that wealthy, well-connected cronies continue to receive corporate welfare and favorable tax treatment and have potentially innovative competitors stifled by regulations.

The take on the left is that Boehner lost because of “the crazies;” and they define “the crazies” as Republican congressman who were elected on promises of fiscal responsibility and undoing some of the damage Obama has done to the country through Obamacare, a permissive attitude toward illegal immigration, out-of-control spending, and abuse of executive authority. It says a lot about the left that fiscal responsibility and realistic ideas about the practical limits of Government are their definition of “crazy.”

Democrat-Controlled Senate Rubber Stamps Corrupt, Lawless Obama AG

Posted by V the K at 3:05 pm - April 23, 2015.
Filed under: Congress (general)

Ten Republicans joined with the Controlling Minority Democrats to approve Loretta Lynch as Attorney General; a woman who testified that Obama’s bustage of the Constitution was A-OK. They are Ayotte, Cochran, Collins, Flake, Graham, Hatch, Johnson, Kirk, McConnell and Portman.

Do you still really think it makes any difference which party is elected?

Trey Gowdy Offers Republicans an Opportunity for Redemption After #ExecutiveAmnesty Surrender

Posted by V the K at 1:20 pm - March 6, 2015.
Filed under: Congress (general)

75 Republicans, including speaker John Boehner and his lieutenants, joined with every House Democrat to support full funding for Obama’s Executive Amnesty program; a program that circumvents US Law by offering illegal immigrants legal status, work permits, social security numbers and… oh yeah… $1.7 Billion in tax benefits.

The excuse offered by the Amnesty Caucus is that even though … pinky swear… they don’t agree with Obama’s Executive Amnesty, they had to vote to fund it fully because otherwise the Department of Homeland Security would have been unfunded the Democrats’ media allies would have said mean things about them. But really… really, pinky swear… they want to secure the border even though their big money donors in the Chamber of Commerce want it left wide open.

Well, House Republicans have a chance to step up and prove they are serious about Border Security by supporting Trey Gowdy’s Border Enforcement Bill.

YouTube Preview Image

So, House Republicans, do you really care about Border Security? Or is that just empty rhetoric… like your promise to repeal Obamacare.

Democrats’ “Reality Based” Rationale for Killing the Keystone XL Pipeline

How is it that if Canadian oil is shipped to the southern USA via pipeline it causes Global Warming, but if the same oil is sent to the southern USA by train, or to China by ship… it doesn’t cause Global Warming? Because that is apparently what the radical environmental left and their idiotic Democrat Senators believe.

Tom Harkin on why he’s no on keystone: Says every dollar on fossil fuel is “dollar we spend digging the graves of our grandchildren”

One thoroughly deranged woman took to the Senate floor and declared, ““XL stands for Xtra Lethal and misery follows the tar sands!

Isn’t there a frozen chicken funeral she should be attending?

So, This Happened

Posted by V the K at 5:05 pm - June 24, 2014.
Filed under: Congress (general)

Democrats and Republicans holding hands and singing. I figure this has either got to be about Amnesty or some new massive pork-laden stimulus bill.

YouTube Preview Image

Democrat Benghazi Hysteria

The Democrats are really, really upset that the Party of Opposition is trying to get to the truth of the events of 11 September 2012 in which four Americans were brutally killed by Islamic terrorists, the Obama Administration refused to send help while they were under attack, and subsequently lied about what happened.

Harry Reid will weigh in as soon as he finds a way to blame Benghazi on the Koch Brothers.

They aren’t happy about this. They definitely don’t want to Republicans looking into this. If this is, as Democrats claim, “a phony scandal,” why all the screeching and obstruction? If Obama and Hillary did everything right on Benghazi, and never lied about any of it … then turning over all their documents and fully cooperating would prove it.

Am I right?

Mitch McConnell Supports President Obama’s Spending Policies

Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell is going to extraordinary lengths to write President Obama a blank check to spend as much as he wants.

The vote started late, as Senate Republicans huddled behind closed doors. After meeting for roughly an hour in private, the conference still did not know whether it could conjure up the needed votes.

On the floor, the procedural vote ran on for another hour, with Republicans slow to offer support.

Cornyn and McConnell, who is the most vulnerable Senate Republican up for reelection in 2014, then voted to end the debate, making it clear the procedural motion would be approved.

After their dramatic votes, another group of Republicans met in a room off the Senate floor. They returned, and several switched their votes from no to yes.

Some members said they switched their votes to give cover to McConnell and Cornyn.

Remind me how we would be any better off with Mitch McConnell running a narrow Republican senate majority.

Gheys Need to Stop Pretending They’re Just Like Black Folk

One may have noticed a propensity among gay rights advocates to compare their “civil rights” struggle to the civil rights struggles of the descendents of slaves. Mr. Adam Thomason provides five reasons why the comparison of the struggle is invalid. The article is worth a full read and thoughtful consideration… which is more than many of those in the comments section have given it… but the short version is this:

  1. Laws have never mandated “heterosexual only” and “gay only” water fountains, diners, buses, schools,
  2. Homosexuals have never been snatched away from their families at birth for the purpose of division and dehumanization.
  3. Homosexual men/women have never been targeted for slavery  because of their sexual orientation
  4. Homosexuals have never been denied their citizenship by laws of the United States  because of their sexual orientation.
  5. Homosexuals have never been as a matter of law treated as property because of their sexual orientation

And the takeaway…

To compare the struggle of homosexual men/women to that of African Americans is more than offensive. It’s wiping out 300 years of historical fortitude that saw a people fight to maintain the identity-legacy that was stolen from them on day one.

(more…)

Didn’t House Republicans attach this to a “Continuing Resolution”?
(And didn’t Democrats find it unacceptable?)

Just caught this on Yahoo!:

The Obama administration may give Americans extra time to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, postponing when penalties for failing to buy coverage will go into effect, MarketWatch has learned.

The health care law requires most people to have health insurance by Jan. 1, 2014, but allows for “short coverage gaps” of up to three months before imposing the penalty, which is $95 or 1% of an individual’s income (whichever is greater) next year. That means someone must be covered by March 31, an official with the Department of Health and Human Services confirmed, which is the final day that people will be able to purchase health insurance on the public exchanges, or marketplaces, created by the ACA.

Thomas Roberts of MSNBC Dresses Up as Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Well, almost.

Golfing while a government shutdown looms

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:02 pm - September 29, 2013.
Filed under: Congress (general),Media Bias,Obama Watch

While House Republicans have been burning the midnight oil trying to reach a compromise on the continuing resolution to keep the government funded, President Obama yesterday “went golfing for four hours at Fort Belvoir“.

Via Instapundit.

Do wonder how many news outlets (besides Pjmedia) are reporting this fact.

Reconsidering Ted Cruz’s Filibuster

No, I don’t like Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s plan to filibuster the House resolution to keep the government open. I would like to see the Senate vote of the legislation, forcing Democratic Senators to choose between their party’s priorities (an increasingly unpopular law) and their constituents’ concerns (the growing cost of healthcare and their diminishing options caused by said legislation).

I wish that the government could defund Obamacare, but, as Thomas Sowell and Tom Coburn have pointed out, it’s not going to happen.

Still, for all the Texas Senator’s posturing, he has done something the legacy media fail to do–bring the unpopular health care law into the news. It does seem our broadcast media are downplaying (or outright ignoring) the problems with the president’s signature achievement.

Like John Hinderaker,

I am not crazy about Cruz’s plan to block cloture on the House resolution, but I applaud his speech. Obamacare is unpopular, and Republicans should pound away at it non-stop. Within the last few hours, reports have surfaced that House Republicans may attach a one-year delay in Obamacare’s individual mandate to the Senate’s “clean” continuing resolution. Obamacare may also feature in upcoming debates over raising the debt ceiling.

Via Instapundit.  If the compromise continuing resolution forces the Democrats to sign on to anything scaling back Obamacare, that may be due in part to Cruz’s grandstanding.

RELATED:  Glenn notes the different coverage the media accords to filibusters by Texas politicians:

DYLAN BYERS IN POLITICO: Ted Cruz, Wendy Davis and media bias. “When a Democrat like Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis filibusters against abortion restrictions, she is elevated to hero status, her tennis shoes become totems. When Cruz grandstands against Obamacare, he is a laughingstock in the eyes of many journalists on Twitter, an ‘embarrassment’ in the eyes of The New York Times editorial board. . . . Davis wasn’t viewed through a critical lens at all. Her willingness to stand for 11 hours was evidence of the American dream in action. Period.”

Once you understand that the trad-media are, in Scott Johnson’s words, “a Democratic protection racket,” it all makes sense.

UPDATE: Well, maybe our friends in the legacy media will continue to ignore the issue. As Jim Geraghty reports, they are making Cruz the issue and not Obamacare’s implementation: (more…)

Obama upset by House vote to prevent government shutdown

Surprised that the left-leaning Huffington Post chose a picture wherein their man look like a petulant child.

Screen shot 2013-09-20 at 2.40.16 PM

Given all that we heard (in the 2008 campaign) about Mr. Obama’s temperament and his ability to bridge the partisan divide, shouldn’t he know be putting those skills to use in keeping the government open instead of lashing out at the House majority supporting a bill consistent with the views of its constituents?

RELATED: You mad, bro? @BarackObama throws snicker-worthy tantrum over defund Obamacare vote

The Obamacare implosion

A number of conservative commentators and writers have been speculating for some time how long it will be from the time it is implemented until Obamacare collapses under the weight of its own poorly-conceived structure.  I think few have anticipated the situation we’ve been witnessing in the past two weeks, where first the administration announces that businesses won’t have to comply with the “employer mandate” until January 2015, and more recently, that the administration won’t be investigating eligibility for Obamacare subsidies, thereby opening the door to massive fraud and abuse.

Although the reasons that the Obama administration is making these changes are cynically transparent to anyone who realizes that the Democrats don’t want to lose big in the 2014 election cycle when voters will have a chance to express their displeasure with Obamacare at the ballot box once again, the more interesting question at the moment concerns the meaning and implications of the administration’s latest maneuvers for its ability to enact policies and govern going forward.

I think some people believe the public is paying closer attention to all this than is most likely the case, but that doesn’t mean I’m not enjoying the triumphalism and mockery of the administration’s opponents.  After the last election, it’s refreshing to see the administration increasingly on the defensive over the actions it has taken with regard to its signature piece of legislation.  Even better is getting to watch the likes of Dick Durbin (D-IL) admit that the disastrous bill “needs changes and improvements.”

But beyond getting to see and hear the bill’s defenders feel the heat, it is gratifying to see pieces like this one speculating that the Republicans in Congress may wise up enough about the administration’s actions to finally kill “immigration reform”:

“They have shown no respect for traditional Constitutional separation of powers,” Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., told National Review‘s John Fund about the impact of the Obamacare delays on the immigration debate, “and that makes it difficult to pass laws where the fear is that they will simply ignore the parts they don’t like.”

Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, who is on the House Judiciary Committee and had been a member of a bipartisan group working on immigration reform, echoed Roe’s concerns on Meet the Press. “In fact, if you look at this Obamacare debacle that they have right now, this administration is actually deciding when and where to actually enforce the law. And that’s what some of us in the House are concerned about. If you give to this administration the authority to decide when they’re going to enforce the law, how they’re going to enforce the law … what’s going to happen is that we’re going to give legalization to 11 million people and Janet Napolitano is going to come to Congress and tell us that the border is already secure and nothing else needs to happen.”

Even the Wall Street Journal is writing about the administration’s actions in language reminiscent of that we saw with the rise of the Tea Party four years ago:

President Obama’s decision last week to suspend the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act may be welcome relief to businesses affected by this provision, but it raises grave concerns about his understanding of the role of the executive in our system of government

Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This is a duty, not a discretionary power. While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so.

This matter—the limits of executive power—has deep historical roots. During the period of royal absolutism, English monarchs asserted a right to dispense with parliamentary statutes they disliked. King James II’s use of the prerogative was a key grievance that lead to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The very first provision of the English Bill of Rights of 1689—the most important precursor to the U.S. Constitution—declared that “the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.”

Needless to say we can certainly hope that this lively piece by Tony Katz on Townhall.com is more than just a humorous reflection on the administration’s latest foibles:

For years the Right has said that the Obama Administration was thuggish, was hell bent on revenge, and was vindictive.

The IRS scandal was perhaps the tipping point. At first, The Left tried claimed that not just conservative and tea party groups, but progressives as well had been targeted. But, as the Inspector General’s report showed, that was not the case. Obama’s minions attacked Americans who disagreed with him. The Left knows they voted for hate.

Obama is not the man (messiah) they thought he was. The Left was blinded by his skin color and duped by mainstream media.

But now they know he lies. And now they know he surrounds himself with sycophants, ready and willing to lie for him, in poetry and prose.

Lets not let them ever forget it.

Is Obama’s Press Secretary a “paid liar”?
(or does he just not know the truth about the IRS scandal)

I tend to admire House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa. He is a smart and (normally) savvy California Republican determined to oversee the executive branch. Yet, he went too far in calling White House Press Secretary Jay Carney a “paid liar“.* A political leaders should be more circumspect in his public statements.  Not just that, with the accusation, he gives Democrats another means to attempt to discredit his investigations.

And as we know, they will use whatever means they can to attack their Republican critics.

But, the question which I put to you, my readers, is this: Is Issa Right? Is the president’s Press Secretary a liar?

Is he just making things up?  Or is he repeating things his White House superiors told him to be true, but aren’t?  (That is, is someone a liar if he says something he believes to be true, but is, in fact, not?**)

* (more…)

On the retirement of the media face of the GOP

Take a gander at this screen capture from the Washington Post web=site (taken at 7:32 PM GayPatriot blog time on 05/30/13):

Screen shot 2013-05-30 at 4.32.36 PM

The editors of the left-of-center Washington Post and its readership are all abuzz about the retirement of a four-term Republican Congressman from Minnesota, a woman who withdrew from the only race for House leadership she entered and came in sixth place (with only 5% of the vote) in the one presidential caucus she contested. During her congressional tenure, Mrs. Bachmann neither moved a major piece of legislation nor  spearheaded efforts to promote conservative legislative initiatives.

Like other charismatic former legislator from the Midwest, she won her prominence not based on her work product, but on her public appearances. She is an effective speaker who can move a partisan crowd.

Her departure should not generate this much media attention.  Her charisma notwithstanding, she is not a leader of the GOP.  Yet, despite the failure of her congressional colleagues to support her bid for leadership and of Republican voters to embrace her, manyliberal activists (just check your Facebook feed) as well as their allies in the media have tried to portray her as the face of the GOP.

And in so doing, they have unfairly maligned and otherwise mocked her — and have failed to fault crazy left-wing activists from publicly insulting her. With her outlandish claims, Mrs. Bachmann has a great deal in common with such Democrats as California’s Barbara Boxer, Iowa’s Tom Harkin and Florida’s Alan Grayson, the primary difference being that the media downplay rather than highlight those Democrats’ odd statements and don’t pretend they are the leaders of their party. (more…)

This seems more of an Obama than a Ryan Problem

Just caught this on AOL. Isn’t it the president’s job to reach out to the leaders of the opposition:

Screen shot 2013-03-10 at 5.05.43 PM

Why Don’t Bush-Haters LOVE! Rand Paul?

Perhaps like me, you’re enjoying this great new TV show I just found on C-SPAN2 called Mr. Paul Goes to Washington where my favorite Senator is currently filibustering President Obama’s nominee to head the CIA, John Brennan. As I write this, he’s currently about to ring in his sixth hour. The goal of Senator Paul’s soliloquy is, as he has stated several times since I’ve been watching, simply to elicit one thing: A straight-forward answer to the question, (to paraphrase) ‘Does the president believe he has the legal authority to execute through drone strike non-combatant citizens on American soil?’

Brings up a very interesting point: For eight solid years, we heard screeching and gnashing of teeth from the Left about how George W. Bush wants to kill us all and eat our babies and of course shred the Constitution through wars based on lies and the horrible PATRIOT Act. But in the end, who is it who’s actually standing up for these ideals? Well, so far I’ve seen Senator Paul in exchanges with Senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Pat Toomey. Odd, don’t you think, that it’d be these ‘Tea Party right-winger knuckle-draggers’ who are actually doing the work that the Bush-haters allegedly wanted done while the leaders of their nominative party are lining up with their president in his expansion of Bush’s ‘unitary executive’ policies?

Clearly it’d be expecting waaay too much for the addlepated adherents to the Bush-is-Satan school of political thought to recognize the irony of the situation, let alone find that realization a great opportunity for self-reflection. Sad, that.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HHQ)

NB: I had originally written the paraphrase of Sen Paul’s question as “power” to execute. Clearly that’s within the president’s power, but I’ve clarified (I hope) by changing my original post to read “legal authority”, which I think is likely more to his point.