…and Obama is still in denial. Anybody with half a brain knows that Obama will not move to the center. That will make the left wing of the Big Government Party very happy and will ensure more trash being taking out in 2012.
I have been fretting since I realized some three months ago that the Republicans are going to take control of the Senate as well as the House, and Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are going to be ‘the leadership’ for the country. How scary is it to know that the two branches of the same party (Big Government) are sparring so as to appear to be enemies? How scary is it to know that we are moving from the whips and electric cattle prods of Nancy and Harry’s regime to the velvet gloved iron fist of McConnell and Boehner?
McConnell’s comment to National Journal and Boehner’s ‘compromise’ on tax cuts only highlights what we all know to be true about the District of Criminals; it’s all about retaining power and control – not taking care of the country whose wealth has been drained and capital sent overseas.
If Americans want real change in Washington, Sen. Jim DeMint and Rep. Ron Paul should be the leadership team to push the agenda that demands a rollback of 100 years of progressive nudge and stops the ‘global governance’ crowd from delivering a fatal blow to America’s sovereignty through debt.
A McConnell/Boehner team is not written in stone; it’s just more District of Criminals ‘business as usual’.
Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff says U.S. government debt is not $13.5-trillion (U.S.), which is 60 per cent of current gross domestic product, as global investors and American taxpayers think, but rather 14-fold higher: $200-trillion – 840 per cent of current GDP. “Let’s get real,” Prof. Kotlikoff says. “The U.S. is bankrupt.”
Writing in the September issue of Finance and Development, a journal of the International Monetary Fund, Prof. Kotlikoff says the IMF itself has quietly confirmed that the U.S. is in terrible fiscal trouble – far worse than the Washington-based lender of last resort has previously acknowledged. “The U.S. fiscal gap is huge,” the IMF asserted in a June report. “Closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 per cent of U.S. GDP.”
McConnell and Boehner are creatures of Congress who are not driven by any desire to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
McConnell frets, however, about controlling expectations among tea party activists likely to want—and quite possibly demand—that bigger GOP numbers in Congress produce big things: a swift repeal of the health care reform law; a massive U-turn on federal spending; and immediate action to reduce the national debt. Tea party darling and likely freshman mover-and-shaker Marco Rubio of Florida, for instance, summed up the movement’s ax-wielding gusto in July: “Every day we postpone acting decisively to rein in wasteful spending and cut the debt, we pile even more on the backs of millions of young Americans.”
In one sign of conditional unity, Sen. Jim DeMint, the South Carolina Republican who backed many tea party candidates in open defiance of McConnell and other GOP leaders, says he isn’t spoiling for a leadership fight. But note the qualification. “I have no intention of challenging the leadership,” DeMint told National Journal. “What I have done over the last year has ruffled a lot of feathers in our conference. The chance of me getting the votes is not realistic at this point.” But DeMint says that Senate Republicans must change the way they approach spending and do it soon, or tea party activists will lose faith and rebel even more.
“We have to understand, this is not so much a Republican victory.… I see it more as a realignment of American politics,” DeMint said. “We’re going to have more Republicans, and the composition is going to be more of a limited-government idea. The biggest challenge we have is to change the idea that senators are here to do what is best for their states, to get all they can for their states and the interests operating in their states.”
And this is where DeMint is spoiling for a confrontation. He wants Republicans to cut spending no matter what effect those reductions have on their home-state constituents. He says this would be a “definitional” culture shift among Republicans, and he considers the pledge made by all the Senate GOP candidates—including relative moderates such as Mark Kirk of Illinois and Carly Fiorina of California—to adopt the no-earmarks policy the beginning of that change. DeMint sees earmarks as a symptom of a deeper problem: the structural bias for more discretionary spending and the clout that comes with it.
To reverse that trend, DeMint wants to upend generations of bipartisan logrolling. What’s his ask? That GOP leaders permanently exclude themselves from the Appropriations Committee, which allocates non-entitlement spending. If that rule had been in place during this Congress, three GOP leaders would have been kicked off Appropriations—McConnell, Tennessee’s Lamar Alexander, and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski. “If we are going to cut spending, we have to take the power away from those responsible for spending,” DeMint says. “We have to say no to a power base that can be corrupting over time, not in the sense of anything criminal, but in the sense that your focus is spending and not cutting.”
McConnell was icily noncommittal about DeMint’s idea: “We will debate any rule changes brought before the conference.” Kyl is downright opposed. “That suggests there’s something wrong with [the current system],” he said. DeMint’s point is that there is, in fact, something wrong with the current system. Thus, Senate Republicans may find themselves divided over their own rules even before they begin to grapple with Obama over spending, tax rates, or entitlements.
UPDATE: I’m even more worried now. Chuck Schumer as the Senate Leader?
We may actually be getting closer to an impeachable offense since Barack-Baby is getting tired of partisan wrangling and is planning on going off the reservation while using executive orders to make his liberal left, socialist agenda happen. At least he is predictable…
(As always, emphasis below is mine.)
WASHINGTON — With much of his legislative agenda stalled in Congress, President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities.
Mr. Obama has not given up hope of progress on Capitol Hill, aides said, and has scheduled a session with Republican leaders on health care later this month. But in the aftermath of a special election in Massachusetts that cost Democrats unilateral control of the Senate, the White House is getting ready to act on its own in the face of partisan gridlock heading into the midterm campaign.
What is the point of three branches of government that work as checks and balances if the president can just sign an executive order? I am so tired of this punk a** b*tch telling me how it is going to be in my country.
“We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff.
Any president has vast authority to influence policy even without legislation, through executive orders, agency rule-making and administrative fiat. And Mr. Obama’s success this week in pressuring the Senate to confirm 27 nominations by threatening to use his recess appointment power demonstrated that executive authority can also be leveraged to force action by Congress.
Mr. Obama has already decided to create a bipartisan budget commission under his own authority after Congress refused to do so. His administration has signaled that it plans to use its discretion to soften enforcement of the ban on openly gay men and lesbians serving in the military, even as Congress considers repealing the law. And the Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with possible regulations on heat-trapping gases blamed for climate change, while a bill to cap such emissions languishes in the Senate.
In an effort to demonstrate forward momentum, the White House is also drawing more attention to the sorts of actions taken regularly by cabinet departments without much fanfare. The White House heavily promoted an export initiative announced by Commerce Secretary Gary Locke last week and nearly $1 billion in health care technology grants announced on Friday by Kathleen Sebelius, the health and human services secretary, and Hilda L. Solis, the labor secretary.
Would those type of operations over the course of the last 60 years explain the mess we find ourselves in now?
White House officials said the increased focus on executive authority reflected a natural evolution from the first year to the second year of any presidency.
So what he is really saying is that once the honeymoon (dog and pony show) is over, the president just does whatever he pleases?
“The challenges we had to address in 2009 ensured that the center of action would be in Congress,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director. “In 2010, executive actions will also play a key role in advancing the agenda.”
SINCE WHEN DAN? Sheeple voted for this empty suit because they were tired of Bush’s heavy hand; change which might actually include following the Constitution and the law. I know those concepts are foreign to you, but allow me to lay another on you. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. That is probably the only reason why a certain sector of the population has not stepped in already. That would set one hell of a precedent, wouldn’t it?
When is somebody going to slap some sense into these people and remind them that as much as they may find it distasteful to have the two bodies of Congress make laws, that is whose job it is. Here let me remind you:
The use of executive authority during times of legislative inertia is hardly new; former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush turned to such powers at various moments in their presidencies, and Mr. Emanuel was in the thick of carrying out the strategy during his days as a top official in the Clinton White House.
Yeppers, two progressives setting the trend for a freakin’ dictator.
But Mr. Obama has to be careful how he proceeds because he has been critical of both Mr. Clinton’s penchant for expending presidential capital on small-bore initiatives, like school uniforms, and Mr. Bush’s expansive assertions of executive authority, like the secret program of wiretapping without warrants.
See above comment.
Already, Mr. Obama has had to reconcile his campaign-trail criticism of Mr. Bush for excessive use of so-called signing statements to bypass parts of legislation with his own use of such tactics. After a bipartisan furor in Congress last year, Mr. Obama stopped issuing such signing statements, but aides said last month that he still reserves the right to ignore sections of bills he considers unconstitutional if objections have been lodged previously by the executive branch.
A president ignoring sections of bills? Just don’t sign the damn thing! SEND IT BACK if you don’t like it. Do you have the American peoples’ back or not? Don’t answer that, we already know…
Go over and read the rest if you can stand it. As for Obama’s current maneuvering to push his anti-American agenda, no shock or awe there. I know the left is loving their dictator-wanna-be now because he might actually push some progressive crap through. The only thing that I am actually surprised about is that he kept up the charade for over a year before he decided to go sideways on the country.
I just found this video. Hold onto you hats: