Posts Tagged BarackObama

A Tax to Pay for War – NYTimes.com

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Opinion, Perspective on February 11, 2013


A Tax to Pay for War

 

By R. RUSSELL RUMBAUGH
Published: February 10, 2013

 

NOW that Congress has discarded the idea that taxes can never be raised, we must change how we pay for the wars we ask our military to fight. We should institute a war tax.

With leading officials calling for action in Syria, and the American military providing support for France’s intervention in Mali, the need for such a tax is urgent. And President Obama’s call for tax reform as the next round of budget negotiations begins offers a perfect opportunity to enact it.

Military spending has been declining since 2009, easing the conflict between pursuing our national security interests and solving our fiscal crisis. But if we undertake new military interventions, that tension will come roaring back.

Those who look at our military spending as a percent of gross domestic product and argue that we could spend more are right. At our current level of $646 billion, we are spending roughly 4 percent of G.D.P. on national defense, well below cold war averages. The missing part of their argument is whether we can afford to pay for it now or would have to borrow, adding to the national debt. After all, war spending — like all government spending — wrecks public finances only when more money is spent than is brought in.

This simple equation is nothing new. Three years ago, the Senate Budget Committee adopted a bipartisan amendment requiring that wars be paid for. The Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction commission and Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, both proposed doing much the same thing. None of these proposals resolved the question of whether to pay for future wars through spending cuts or raising more revenue. Now that Congress has finally passed legislation letting taxes increase, we must make a choice and require a tax surcharge to pay for any military operation.

War traditionally has motivated major changes in tax policy. The Civil War brought the first income tax. World War I made the federal income tax permanent. World War II brought tax withholding. In 1969, at the height of the Vietnam War, the United States ran a budget surplus because of a tax surcharge Congress forced President Lyndon B. Johnson to accept.

Today’s budget negotiations offer a similar opportunity to make a surcharge permanent. President Obama called for counting as savings the money that will not be spent as the war in Afghanistan winds down. Many decried the scheme as playing with funny money because he plans to exit Afghanistan in 2014 anyway; the savings only exist because of an accounting trick in Congressional budgeting. But if those savings were associated with an actual policy change, they would start looking more real.

Since the Budget Control Act already caps military spending, there is an easy way to implement the surcharge: any spending over the caps would require it. If we felt the need to use the military and could do so under the spending caps, as the Obama administration did in 2011 responding to the earthquake in Japan and the uprising in Libya, no surcharge would be necessary. But if military action required supplemental financing, any amount over the caps would be offset with new revenue raised by an automatic surcharge on taxes.

By tying military action to additional revenue, the president would actually have a freer hand in deciding when to use force. Every argument the Obama administration makes for military action would explicitly include a call for increased taxes, forcing the question of whether the stakes in the military situation are worth the cost. If the American people agree they are worth it, the president will get both the political support and financing he needs.

Syria is the most immediate example. We now know that some top officials have argued for arming the rebels, as the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did last year. Others argue for an even more robust military response, while detractors insist that we should learn from Iraq and not get involved at all.

Such decisions should not be divorced from economic considerations, but neither should we allow our finances to prevent us from pursuing vital American security interests. Putting in place a permanent tax surcharge to pay for wars would ensure that we could achieve our interests throughout the world without further worsening our finances.

If military action is worth our troops’ blood, it should be worth our treasure, too — not just in the abstract, but in the form of a specific ante by every American.

 A Tax to Pay for War – NYTimes.com.

Related articles

, , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Obama sends warning shot to Republicans on debt-ceiling increase – The Hill

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in GOP, Politics on January 5, 2013


The Hill Newspaper

Obama sends warning shot to Republicans on debt-ceiling increase

By Mike Lillis - 01/05/13 06:00 AM ET

  

President Obama on Saturday sent a cautionary note to GOP leaders ahead of the looming debt-ceiling debate, warning the Republicans that anything but a timely hike in the nation’s borrowing cap represents a “dangerous game” that threatens the economy both at home and abroad.

In his weekly radio address to the country, Obama urged GOP leaders to support a drama-free increase in the debt limit, and tackle the issues of spending, revenues and entitlements in a separate context.

“As I said earlier this week, one thing I will not compromise over is whether or not Congress should pay the tab for a bill they’ve already racked up,” Obama said from Honolulu, Hawaii, where he’s vacationing. “If Congress refuses to give the United States the ability to pay its bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy could be catastrophic.

“The last time Congress threatened this course of action, our entire economy suffered for it,” he added, referring to the protracted debt-ceiling debate in 2011. “Our families and our businesses cannot afford that dangerous game again.”

The debate over raising the nation’s debt ceiling is shaping up to be the next big, partisan fight in a string of high-stakes budget battles that are threatening to consume most of the political oxygen in the early stages of the 113th Congress. The Treasury Department reached its $16.4 trillion debt ceiling on Monday, but the agency has said it can shuffle funds to pay its obligations for roughly two months, setting the stage for a showdown as March approaches.

Behind Obama, the Democrats want a clean debt-ceiling hike without the burden of extraneous budget provisions that could prolong the debate and scare the markets. Republicans, on the other hand, view the debt-ceiling hike as a rare leverage point in their effort to win significant spending cuts from the Democrats.

In the summer of 2011, the GOP won $2.1 trillion in spending reductions in exchange for a debt-ceiling increase of the same amount, and they want this year’s package to contain a similar balance.

In a closed-door meeting Friday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told his conference that he’ll insist that a debt-limit hike be accompanied by spending cuts, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has sounded a similar note.

“Now that the House and Senate have acted in a bipartisan way to prevent tax increases on 99 percent of the American people, Democrats now have the opportunity — and the responsibility — to join Republicans in a serious effort to reduce Washington’s out-of-control spending,” McConnell said Wednesday.

Obama, meanwhile, says he also wants more spending cuts, just not as a part of the debt-ceiling bill. On Saturday, the president vowed to seek a grand bargain on deficit reduction that includes significant cuts – as the Republicans are demanding – but also new tax revenues.

“I believe we can find more places to cut spending without shortchanging things like education, job training, research and technology all which are critical to our prosperity in a 21st-century economy,” Obama said. “But spending cuts must be balanced with more reforms to our tax code. The wealthiest individuals and the biggest corporations shouldn’t be able to take advantage of loopholes and deductions that aren’t available to most Americans.”

Obama also hinted at some of the non-fiscal issues he’ll be pushing in the new Congress, including thorny matters like climate change, immigration reform and gun policy that foreshadow additional partisan battles this year.

“Fixing our infrastructure and our immigration system, promoting our energy independence while protecting our planet from the harmful effects of climate change, educating our children and shielding them from the horrors of gun violence – these aren’t just things we should do,” Obama said. “They’re things we must do.”


Obama sends warning shot to Republicans on debt-ceiling increase – The Hill.

Related articles

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

To Save Itself, the Republican Party Needs a Deal With Obama – NationalJournal.com

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in GOP on December 21, 2012


To Save Itself, the Republican Party Needs a Deal With Obama

The Republican brand is sinking. Can the party risk being blamed for paralysis and tax hikes?

 

By Jill Lawrence

Updated: December 21, 2012 | 11:39 a.m. 
December 21, 2012 | 11:16 a.m.

AP PHOTO/JULIE JACOBSON

Mitt Romney supporter Nathan White watches presidential returns during a GOP watch party, Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2012, in Las Vegas.

 

You’re John Boehner and you might have only two weeks left as speaker of the House. So what do you do? Your choices are: a), Negotiate the best deal you can with President Obama to avoid the huge fiscal-cliff tax hikes and spending cuts that could drive the country into another recession, put it before the House, and pray that enough Republicans join enough Democrats to get it passed; or b), in hopes of holding on to what has to be one of the most aggravating jobs in the country, continue to try to appease hardcore House Republicans who do not seem to understand the results of an election held just last month.

To recap: Obama won reelection by what looks to be nearly 5 million votes, 51 percent to 47 percent. Democrats netted two more seats in the Senate, which they will control 55-45 in January. Republicans lost eight House seats and the House popular vote.

You’d think those numbers would be clear enough. Conservatives can complain all they want about allegedly “skewed” polls that show majorities of people agree with Obama on issues like taxes and trust him more to look out for their interests. But as the cliché goes, the only poll that counts is on Election Day.

Republicans did, of course, keep their House majority, and that gives them a crucial seat at the table. Yet some are behaving as if their victories in districts shaped to ensure maximum security for conservatives constitute a mandate to impose their ideas on a country that just rejected them. That, and the House’s constitutional role as the chamber where tax bills must originate, has brought us to our current impasse.

Boehner’s best move may be to heed the song made famous by Tim McGraw, “Live Like You Were Dying” —that is, disregard the moment and focus on what really matters. Is it holding out for a conservative wish list, or averting a huge economic setback for the country and the millions of still-jobless people who were central to GOP promises during the 2012 campaign?

Before there was nominee Mitt Romney critiquing “the Obama economy,” there was Boehner’s constant refrain of “Where are the jobs?” If the jobless are not his primary concern right now, he could consider the business and financial communities that remain largely loyal to the GOP, even as its obstructionism has repeatedly disrupted and stalled the recovery in the past few years. They dread uncertainty, but that’s all they’ve been getting.

It would be consistent with Boehner’s legislative past for him to try to work things out. His record includes productive joint efforts with Democrats on health, education, and employment issues. Boehner did say on Friday that he would continue to pursue a deal with Obama, but he also said he was proud of the GOP conference, accused the president of intransigence, and didn’t inspire confidence about the outcome of talks (“How we get there, God only knows”).

The job of speaker is bifurcated. On the one hand, speakers are elected on party-line votes and are generally seen as leaders of their party. On the other, a speaker is second in line to be president, right after the vice president, in the event of a crisis. That suggests a responsibility loftier than party leader—and after all, there is a House majority leader to be the partisan point person.

That is, admittedly, an idealized view. So here’s one rooted in politics and self-interest: By resuming negotiations with the president and allowing the House to vote on the result, Boehner would do his party a favor by putting a reasonable, sensible face on its leadership. It’s possible he wouldn’t be doing himself a favor. But it’s just as possible that after watching this spectacle play out, nobody else will want his job.

 To Save Itself, the Republican Party Needs a Deal With Obama – NationalJournal.com.

Related articles

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Cagle Post – Political Cartoons & Commentary – » Quadriplegic Platypuses

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Opinion, Perspective, Politics on December 18, 2012


WILL DURST

Quadriplegic Platypuses

 

Raging Moderate, by Will Durst

And now let us speak of the current lame-duck session of the 112th Congress. Daily we witness the death throes of the final assemblage of this particular group of elected representatives on Capitol Hill, and of course they’re spending these last precious moments together marshaling all their skills to put the American ship in order. Hahahahahaha.

 

David Fitzsimmons / Arizona Daily Star

 

Yeah. Right. Dream on, big river. Mostly what’s happening is just your typical frantic running around with waving arms and high-pitched wailing about an impending catastrophe. Looming doom. Again. Specifically, this time, the imminent approach of that dastardly dreaded fiscal cliff. Congress has turned into the Little Boys & Girls Who Cried Ruin.

Calm yourselves, kiddies, it’s not really a cliff. More of a slim slope or bit of a ditch. A minor incline. Slight slant. Not even close to a chasm. Nor a gorge. Shall we say a term berm. A shallow gully beribboned with a multitude of dirt walking paths. Unlike what they’ve led us to believe, it’s less a screaming plunge off a sheer precipice and more of a stroll on a knoll with a coal-colored foal.

Do not be alarmed. America isn’t looking at a financial Thelma and Louise here. Although you can bet Grover Norquist would be willing to sit in the driver’s seat and steer straight for the bottom of the Grand Canyon as long as he could hold hands with his “no tax ever” pledgers. And all of America would bemoan the loss… of the ’66 Thunderbird.

You got to hand it our representatives. The way they make every calamity seem fresh and new and calamitous. Everybody in D.C. has memorized their moves in the Washington Waltz. John Boehner complains the president won’t budge. The president counters that Boehner is beholden to a radical fringe. Liberals wait for conservatives to put entitlements on the table so they won’t be the bad guys. Republicans man the barricades to protect their donors. One step forward. One step back. Cha-cha-cha.

It’s an artificial crisis. Something our country’s politicians specialize in. If the Bush tax cuts do expire on December 31, they can always be voted back in. Even if it takes till February, it can be done retroactively. For everybody. Or for those making less than 250k. Or a million. Whatever. Problem is, they’d rather be photographed slapping a baby than go on record voting for or against any sort of compromise, and are more than happy out in the yard playing kick the can until it gets too dark to see. Preferably, kick it through the open portal of a time machine into the distant future.

These folks are as useless as a Viagra dispenser at a eunuchs’ convention. Lame duck doesn’t do them justice. Comatose vultures perhaps. Brain-damaged geese. Biologically deformed Pterodactyl fossils encased in an amber pool of irrelevance, obsolescence and guilt. Whoa! OK. We’re done. Wait, one more. Quadriplegic platypuses.

Then, on January 3 a new Congress will swagger into town, and before they’re finished redecorating their offices, it’ll become patently obvious the onus is on their anus to put the deficit can back in play. And if they need some ideas of where to place that can, we, their constituents, have more than a couple of choice locations in mind.

 Cagle Post – Political Cartoons & Commentary – » Quadriplegic Platypuses.

Related articles

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

President Delivers a New Offer on the Fiscal Crisis to Boehner – NYTimes.com

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Economy, GOP, Government, Taxes on December 18, 2012


Obama’s New Offer on Fiscal Crisis Could Lead to Deal

Joshua Roberts/Reuters

Speaker John A. Boehner returned to his office on Monday after meeting with President Obama.

By JONATHAN WEISMAN

Published: December 17, 2012 

 

WASHINGTON — President Obama delivered to Speaker John A. Boehner a new offer on Monday to resolve the pending fiscal crisis, a deal that would raise revenues by $1.2 trillion over the next decade but keep in place the Bush-era tax rates for any household with earnings below $400,000.

The offer is close to a plan proposed by the speaker on Friday, and both sides expressed confidence that they were closing in on a major deficit-reduction plan that could be passed well before January, when more than a half-trillion dollars in automatic tax increases and spending cuts would kick in.

Senior Republican aides said the speaker was to meet with House Republicans on Tuesday morning to discuss the state of negotiations. But they cautioned that obstacles remained.

“Any movement away from the unrealistic offers the president has made previously is a step in the right direction,” said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner. “We hope to continue discussions with the president so we can reach an agreement that is truly balanced and begins to solve our spending problem.”

The two sides are now dickering over price, not philosophical differences, and the numbers are very close.

Mr. Boehner had offered the president a deficit framework that would raise $1 trillion over 10 years, with the details to be settled next year by Congress’s tax-writing committees and the Obama administration. In response, Mr. Obama reduced his proposal to $1.2 trillion from $1.4 trillion on Monday at a 45-minute meeting with the speaker at the White House. That was down from $1.6 trillion initially.

The White House plan would permanently extend Bush-era tax cuts on household incomes below $400,000, meaning that only the top tax bracket, 35 percent, would increase to 39.6 percent. The current cutoff between the top rate and the next highest rate, 33 percent, is $388,350.

On spending, the two sides are also converging.

The White House says the president’s plan would cut spending by $1.22 trillion over 10 years, compared with $1.2 trillion in cuts from the Republicans’ initial offer. Of that, $800 billion is cuts to programs, and $122 billion comes from adopting a new measure of inflation that slows the growth of government benefits, especially Social Security. The White House is also counting on $290 billion in savings from lower interest costs on a reduced national debt.

Of the $800 billion in straight cuts, the president said half would come from federal health care programs; $200 billion from other so-called mandatory programs, like farm price supports, not subject to Congress’s annual spending bills; $100 billion from military spending; and $100 billion from domestic programs under Congress’s annual discretion.

To make all this happen, Mr. Obama proposed fast-track procedures to help Congressional tax writers overhaul the individual and corporate tax code and make changes to other programs.

Senior Republican aides made it clear that differences remain. For instance, they say the president is still pressing for $1.3 trillion in higher taxes because the change in the way inflation is calculated would not only slow the growth of spending but also raise more revenue by slowing the rate at which tax brackets rise each year with the cost of living. That would mean that incomes would probably grow faster than the rise in tax brackets, pushing people more quickly into higher tax rates.

They also disagree with the president over counting lower interest payments on the national debt as savings.

“A proposal that includes $1.3 trillion in revenue for only $930 billion in spending cuts cannot be considered balanced,” said another spokesman for Mr. Boehner, Michael Steel, using the Republicans’ calculation for the president’s offer.

The president is also insisting on some protections for what he has called the “most vulnerable populations,” which Republican aides said they had not been expecting. The new inflation calculations, for instance, would probably not affect wounded veterans and disabled people on Supplemental Security Income.

And Mr. Obama is sticking by his request for additional upfront spending on infrastructure and an extension of expiring unemployment benefits.

He would also secure some tax and policy changes long sought by both parties but unattainable in the context of smaller budget deals. His proposal would permanently extend popular business tax breaks like the credit for corporate research and development, permanently stop the expansion of the alternative minimum tax so it does not affect more of the middle class, and stop a long-planned and deep cut to Medicare health providers, which Congress has never had the stomach to allow to kick in.

To keep the country from returning to fiscal showdowns, Mr. Obama wants the government’s borrowing limit to rise high enough to take the issue off the table for two years, although he said that Congress could periodically weigh in and try to override a presidential lifting of the debt ceiling, should it want to.

Senior Republican aides made it clear on Monday night that the plan was not what the speaker had wanted. He had proposed higher income tax rates on income over $1 million. That revenue would be supplemented by reinstating a provision in the tax code — phased out by the Bush-era tax cuts — that automatically limits tax deductions and credits for the affluent. The speaker was also ready to accept a White House proposal from Mr. Obama’s first days in office that would limit tax deductions to 28 percent, trimming back deductions for charitable giving and other activities from the top rate paid by the giver, 35 percent currently.

 President Delivers a New Offer on the Fiscal Crisis to Boehner – NYTimes.com.

Related articles

 

, , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Report: Boehner Caves Again, Offers Obama Year Delay on Debt Limit

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in GOP on December 17, 2012


by MATTHEW BOYLE 16 Dec 2012 

House Speaker John Boehner apparently broke from Republican Party principles yet again this weekend, this time with a reported agreement to give President Barack Obama a full year-long free ride that would give up all GOP leverage until early 2014 on the debt ceiling.

“House Speaker John A. Boehner has offered to push any fight over the federal debt limit off for a year, a major concession that would deprive Republicans of leverage in the budget battle but is breathing new life into stalled talks over the year-end ‘fiscal cliff,’” the Washington Post reported late Sunday evening. “The offer came Friday, according to people in both parties familiar with the talks, as part of the latest effort by Boehner (R-Ohio) to strike a deal with President Obama to replace more than $500 billion in painful deficit-reduction measures set to take effect in January.”

The most recent rise in the debt ceiling limit was to $16.4 trillion, as set by Congress last year. The national debt is creeping up on that $16.4 trillion now; the country is less than $20 billion away.

According to the Post, Boehner’s offer doesn’t go as far as what Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner wanted: absolute executive control over the federal debt limit indefinitely into the future. But the deal also leaves Republicans with little leverage with the White House in budget negotiations and other deals over the next year.

Boehner is now in an apparent rift with his Senate Republican counterparts. When Geithner asked congressional Republicans for leeway on the debt ceiling two weeks ago, McConnell reportedly “burst into laughter” in Geithner’s face. McConnell also disagreeswith Boehner on tax increases, and a spokesman says he won’t support any increases in tax rates on anyone.

This is Boehner’s second reported cave this weekend; earlier this weekend, he reportedly offered to increase tax rates on those earning more than $1 million per year. Obama reportedly rejected the offer, claiming Boehner hadn’t caved on Republican principles enough. Other media outlets confirmed Politico’s reporting shortly thereafter.

“Speaker John Boehner has proposed allowing tax rates to rise for the wealthiest Americans if President Barack Obama agrees to major entitlement cuts, according to several sources close to the talks,” Politico reported. “It is the first time Boehner has offered any boost in marginal tax rates for any income group, and it would represent a major concession for the Ohio Republican. Boehner suggested hiking the Bush-era tax rates for top wage earners, including those with annual incomes of $1 million or more annually, beginning Jan. 1, two sources said.”

Since Boehner’s and Obama’s fiscal cliff negotiations have been conducted in secret, behind closed doors, it’s unclear which team is leaking this information about the talks. It could be the president’s staff, or it could be the speaker’s staff. Either way, liberal media outlets are clearly getting the leaked reports first — a sign that whomever is doing the leaking knows the information is embarrassing for Boehner. 

 Report: Boehner Caves Again, Offers Obama Year Delay on Debt Limit.

Related articles

 

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Much Grief, but Little Action From Congress on Guns – NationalJournal.com

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Government, Humanitarian on December 14, 2012


Much Grief, but Little Action From Congress on Guns

 

By Fawn Johnson

Updated: December 14, 2012 | 4:07 p.m.
December 14, 2012 | 2:34 p.m.

AP PHOTO/JESSICA HILL

Parents leave a staging area after being reunited with their children following a mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., on Friday.

Thoughts and prayers. That’s what you get from members of Congress. They said it after the Aurora, Colo., shooting in July. They said it after the Trayvon Martin killing in Florida, the assassination attempt on former Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, and the massacre of 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007.

Now they are saying it after a gunman opened fire on Friday at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school in one of the nation’s worst mass killings.

This tragedy may hit a little harder, as policymakers are hinting at action on gun legislation. President Obama choked up during his statement on the incident. “We’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this.” That’s the closest he has come to saying he wants action on gun control legislation in the wake of other shootings.

On Capitol Hill, the reaction was mostly an outpouring of sympathy and grief. House Speaker John Boehner ordered the flags at half mast.

Sens. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., went further than most lawmakers in their reactions. Feinstein is important because she has already pledged to introduce legislation to bring back the ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004. Obama has said he supports reviving the ban, but there has been almost no activity from the White House to make it happen. That could change after Friday. Lautenberg is important because has also has called for an assault weapons ban and he sponsors legislation on that same topic.

Feinstein said “weapons of war don’t belong on our streets or in our theaters, shopping malls and, most of all, our schools. I hope and trust that in the next session of Congress there will be sustained and thoughtful debate about America’s gun culture and our responsibility to prevent more loss of life.”

Lautenberg said, “If we do not take action to address gun violence, shooting tragedies like this will continue.”

“The nation is ready for this conversation,” said Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chimed in.

Those statements went beyond the typical ones from Capitol Hill:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said, “The entire nation will continue to stand as a source of support to this community in the days and weeks to come.”

Rep. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said, “I am shocked and saddened by the horrific news from Sandy Hook Elementary School this morning, and I pray that kids, teachers, staff, and families reach safety as quickly as possible.”

Senate Republicans said in a tweet: “Our thoughts and prayers are with everyone affected by today’s tragic shooting in Connecticut. Please keep them in yours as well.”

Yes, anyone within range of a television or an Internet connection can’t help but think about the shootings, where the death toll has been estimated as high as 30 and parents are worried sick about their children.

You get much grief but precious little action on guns in Congress. The best shot at legislative action comes from Feinstein’s attempt to reinstate the assault weapons ban.

Another hope, but without a lot of momentum, is legislation by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., to tighten up state background-check laws. It has the advantage of piggy-backing on existing laws to improve the databases.

That’s cold comfort to gun-control advocates.

“If you don’t have the human decency at this point to speak up about this issue, you’ve lost your humanity. This has gone too far. Everybody literally should be sick right now,” said Ladd Everitt, communications director for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “It’s time for the president to speak about this. Not long ago we saw the power of the bully pulpit when he spoke out on gay marriage. It’s time for him to find his voice and stop cowering to the [National Rifle Association].”

His outrage echoes some of the people sounding off on Twitter.

“Please let this be a wake-up call for gun control if all of the other shootings haven’t been,” said one tweet.

“As much as I love Americans, today I would be ashamed to [be] a citizen of a nation whose lawmakers have yet to end this madness for good,” said another tweeter.

Gun-rights advocates tend to ride out these waves of turmoil in relative silence. They say that tragedies like the Connecticut shooting (and the Aurora shooting) are used as emotional wedges for gun-control groups to win political points.

Advocates on both sides of the gun issue say part of the problem with the public outcry in the wake of such tragedies is that the facts about each individual circumstance aren’t always known immediately. In some cases, an assault weapon was used. In other cases, a handgun was used. That makes it difficult for anyone lobbying on a specific gun issue to react quickly.

Generally, the lack of immediate facts helps the gun-rights advocates because they can keep their responses general without delving into the areas that they deem dangerous. After the Aurora shooting, an NRA spokesman gave a generic “thoughts and prayers” comment but declined further speculation until all the facts were known. By then, the story had gone cold.

 Much Grief, but Little Action From Congress on Guns – NationalJournal.com.

Related articles

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Cagle Post – Political Cartoons & Commentary – » John Boehner Leads Republicans Into Political Little Big Horn

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Opinion, Perspective on December 7, 2012


FLOYD & MARY BETH BROWN

John Boehner Leads Republicans Into Political Little Big Horn

 

In June of 1876, near Montana’s Little Big Horn River, five of the Seventh Cavalry’s companies were annihilated with 268 dead. Lt. Colonel Custer, their leader, was also killed, all at the hands of the Lakota Sioux, Northern Cheyenne, and Arapaho Tribes of America’s Great Plains. The Battle of Little Big Horn has been deemed one of the greatest battlefield blunders by an American Commander.

Daryl Cagle / Cagle Cartoons

Speaker of the House, John Boehner, the highest elected leader of the Republican Party, is headed for a similar annihilation at the hands of Barack Obama. It is a battle brought about by Boehner’s earlier unwillingness to fight a determined and deadly foe. Now John Boehner’s failed leadership may mortally wound the modern Republican Party.

How did we get here? John Boehner, at nearly every critical juncture has raised the white flag of capitulation.

The first capitulation was notfighting for a permanent extension of the Bush Tax Cuts in 2010. At that time, the Republicans had their greatest political leverage. They had just recaptured the US House and made huge gains in the US Senate. Obama was saddled with 10 percent unemployment and the prospects of an even greater economic downturn if he refused the Republican’s offer. Instead of going for a permanent fix, he accepted an Obama “compromise” of a two year extension.

Speaker Boehner blinked, as he bragged to the Washington Post that the bill was “a good first step.” It was a good first step toward Obama’s reelection and the defeat of the Republican agenda. This year after Romney losing and loses of Republican numbers in the House of Representatives, Obama has virtually no incentive to again compromise on tax cuts. He never has to run for re-election again.

The second great capitulation to Obama came in the battle over the debt ceiling. If the Congress had refused to give Obama a blank check of continued spending, we wouldn’t face the fiscal cliff now. By timing the spending cuts/ automatic sequestration with the Bush Tax cuts renewal, he single-handedly assured the tax cuts likely wouldn’t be extended.

House Republicans, riding the Tea Party movement, should have refused to increase the debt ceiling. Instead, we now have trillions more in debt, and America’s credit has been downgraded.

Liberals are giddy at the prospects of billions in increased tax revenue and dramatic cuts in discretionary defense spending. Boehner didn’t even have the foresight to tie entitlement reform to the fiscal cliff.

So now he faces a Little Big Horn of his own making. Taxes will go up and spending will be cut. And it’s likely Boehner and the Republicans will take all of the blame for the new recession that inevitably will result.

Boehner’s leadership has been so pathetic he hasn’t even attempted to defund Obamacare.

We are sick and tired of Boehner’s cowardice and Republican betrayals. It is time for Boehner to go. The so-called “Republican Leadership” is the problem.

It only took John Boehner a few hours after the Obama’s reelection to proclaim that he was ready to capitulate once more.

Marching in front of the television cameras the next morning, he said, in no uncertain terms, that he was ready, willing and able to wave the flag of surrender without firing a shot: “Mr. President, this is your moment,” he said. “We want you to lead. Let’s find the common ground that has eluded us.”

Hours later, Barack Obama marched in front of the television cameras as well with a message of his own, a message he has already delivered far too many times: I’m moving hard to the left. I’m going to bring the United States to its knees, and if Republicans cooperate… that’s ‘compromise.’

That’s not leadership, Mr. Boehner and you’re no leader. When are you going to learn that you’ll never find “common ground” with this man? When are you going to realize that Barack Obama doesn’t care that you want him “to lead?” Obama has come to fundamentally change the country.

 Cagle Post – Political Cartoons & Commentary – » John Boehner Leads Republicans Into Political Little Big Horn.

Related articles

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Free Wood Post – Romney Gracious In Defeat Due To Frequent Practice

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Free Wood Post, Humor/Parody on November 11, 2012


Romney Gracious In Defeat Due To Frequent Practice

November 7, 2012

By Eric Hetvile

The United States 2012 Presidential Election concluded with a gracious concession speech in which Mitt Romney passed well wishes on to President Obama and his family.

“It seemed really sincere, ” said Vice President Joe Biden. “Though can you really believe anything that lying bastard says, though?”

“Look guys, I’ve been losing elections for years. I’ve had great practice. I know what I’m doing. This is exactly how you lose. I have a 54 point plan for losing elections, ” declared Romney. “You say a bunch of bad stuff about the other guy. You change your positions frequently. And when people catch on and vote for the other guy, you wish him well.”

“Hey, losing is still pretty lucrative. I crashed a ton of companies at Bain and still got paid. No worries, my friends. And I assume after this, Fox News will be calling to sign me up for something. Heck, they gave that Palin lady a job. Though I hope they didn’t hear me say those nice things about the President. That might be a deal killer.”

No details existed for a Fox News job offer to Romney at the moment this piece went to press.

 Free Wood Post.

Related articles

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Free Wood Post – Comments Were Absolutely Wrong, Says 46.4 Percent More Accurate

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Free Wood Post, Humor/Parody on October 10, 2012


Mitt Romney Admits “47 Percent” Comments Were Absolutely Wrong, Says 46.4 Percent More Accurate

October 8, 2012

By Richard Spall

"Romney" "47" "percent" "46.4" "comments" "mistake" "election" "free" "wood" "post"

In an effort to capitalize on momentum gained in last week’s Presidential debate, Mitt Romney made an appearance on Fox News Thursday night and characterized his recent comments from a secretly taped video denigrating 47 percent of America as “completely wrong”.

A quote from the video that caused the earlier firestorm: “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what.  There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

Opponents pointed to the comments as evidence which paints Romney as an out of touch millionaire with an inability to sympathize with the plight of the poor, the retired, and the young.

“Just completely wrong of me to say. As you know, I’m a businessman, and we work with numbers and I understand that many of you don’t understand all of the ins and outs of these sorts of things,  and that’s how we create all of the jobs for everyone. So before I ever say anything which concerns anything verifiable, I make absolutely sure that what I’m saying is correct. I’d never say anything on camera and use figures that were anything but accurate, ” said a contrite Romney.

After repudiating his own comments, he went on to state that with the new job numbers published recently, the percentage of America consisting of societal parasites should have been more accurately be described as closer to 46.4%.

 Free Wood Post.

Related articles

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 263 other followers

%d bloggers like this: