News – Politics – Opinion – Podcasts
Castration? You would think so to hear the rhetoric and demagoguery, but no. (Did you happen to notice ‘Dem’ at the beginning of Demagoguery?) Uh-huh, It’s true.
Give back a few pennies on the dollar and the Left insists the world could end. Sounds like lousy management to me. Well, OK
But why is the Federal Government still hiring people for these job
A picture is worth 85 billion words
President Obama and the fawning mainstream media want you to think that the “sequester” and the harsh “sequester” cuts are being forced on him by others. These are deliberate falsehoods.
The “sequester” was President Obama’s idea to pretend concern, in anticipation of his re-election campaign, for our huge deficits by agreeing to future (small, less than 3%) spending cuts.
Are the drastic cuts that President Obama chooses to make today the ones he envisioned when he proposed the “sequester”? Or, when he promised to veto any attempt to avoid it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crt5J3XM_zk)? If yes, then the “sequester” was a bad idea. If he envisioned less severe cuts, he should implement those cuts now.
Every businessman and family can handle a 3 percent budget cut without cutting essential services, why can’t President Obama? Just eliminating the $125 billion that Obama’s GAO says is WASTED annually exceeds the “sequester’s” savings. Or, Obama could reduce the $50 to $100 billion in annual Medicare and Medicaid fraud. He could cut less important services and rein in excessively expensive programs. President Obama refuses to do any of these.
More than a few folks in Merrimack probably had heart attacks when they saw the front page article “Council OKs 23.5 million budget” in the Merrimack Telegraph Journal. In the second paragraph, right below the front page fold, it claimed this new budget would mean a $5.25 increase per $1000.00 of assessed value.
That would be an increase of approximately $1,312.00 per year for a home valued at $250,000.00 and a new town rate of $10.50/1000 –the sorts of numbers typically reserved as the low end of a school budget that still can’t manage to teach math adequately.
Those are torch and pitchfork numbers.
The speculation about why the US Department of Homeland Security would want to buy another 1.6 billion (with a b) rounds of ammunition over the next few years as been ‘enthusiastic’-if not just creepy at times, but worry not, they have put the issue to rest.
The Homeland Security Department wants to buy more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition in the next four or five years. It says it needs them — roughly the equivalent of five bullets for every person in the United States — for law enforcement agents in training and on duty.
The article goes on to tell us that they spend about 15 million rounds annually on training. Just for perspective during the Iraq war the US military used about 70 million if the rumors are true. It looks like the pre-Obama military (in response to the needs of the global war on terror) were placing its orders in the 100 million rounds a year range, though I suspect that figure is a bit soft. And if you want more perspective, even if DHS and its associated agencies used up 20 million rounds a year on practice fun and friends it would take them 80 years to use up the 1.6 billion rounds they’ve requested.
Democrats can’t even write a budget for the next 12 months, why is Obama’s DHS contracting ammo purchases to cover the rest of the century?
Is this the equivalent of threatening local police, firemen, and teachers?
I showed the overall impact of what the Sequester will have on our current Federal budget here. As you see, the answer is almost negligible. Today on Fox was a snippet of Secretary of Defense Leon Pannetta testifying to Congress on what the Sequester will have on the Military:
Instead of being a first rate power in the world, we’d turn into a second rate power. That would be the result of sequester.
And we have seen the first “results” of that with the news of delayed refueling of the USS Abraham Lincoln with trickle down effects from there (including Pannetta threatening to cut Military pay). So, how drastic is THAT drastic? Really, can you see it?
The actual numbers?
“Why are we not working on the budget and new jobs for NH. No the first thing they (NH Democrats) do is gun control for NH, raise the beer tax, vehicle registration fee increase of $30.00 to $50.00 per vehicle in your driveway, gas tax increase of 20%…”
If you ignore all the marketing and PR that surrounds the fiscal cliff and just boil it all down to the bones, what happens on January first is what Democrats wanted. Ace Gets it right Here.
Remember, the deal that got us to this point was agreed to by House Republicans, Senate Democrats and signed by Obama. That’s as bi-partisan as it gets. I’ve heard from squishy low information voters, Obama and the media that “bi-partisan problem solving” is the Holy Grail of politics. Well, here it is.
The Cliff is a Democrat plan. It was passed by a Democrat Senate, signed by a Democrat President, and as Ace points out, is precisely the kind of compromise the left insists Republicans engage in over and over again.
Skip broke the news (on the Grok) about New Hampshire State Government’s department heads making budget requests that would increase state spending by 26% in 2013. If you had any delusions about who or what state agencies represent, you just got your answer.
It ain’t you. It’s them.
In the current economy, with no regard for whose money they are spending, incoming governor Maggie Hassan would have to raise taxes and fees by at least 19% to fill all the requests. AFP-NH estimates that this would extract around 700 million dollars from the people of New Hampshire to pay for new spending that would never go away. So that’s 700 million from every budget henceforth and anon, plus new new spending each budget there after….these are Democrats if you recall, there is no enough when it comes to spending your money.
And that $700, 000,000.00 (million) is ironically close to another sum we readily associate with New Hampshire Democrats.
Is this a sucker’s bet? That Maggie is already set to ratchet up the spending (and the taxes to support them) – and this is the excuse she’ll use (emphasis mine)?
CONCORD – Gov.-elect Maggie Hassan issued an upbeat but sobering call for agency heads to lower their expectations as hearings on a new, two-year state budget commenced Monday.
In their initial budget requests, state administrators asked for a 26 percent increase in total spending to a record $11.97 billion for the cycle that begins June 30.
Spending from state tax and fee sources alone would go up 19 percent, to $3.3 billion, if those who run state departments get their way.
Earlier this month, Hassan won election to replace retiring Gov. John Lynch vowing to undo deep cuts in state aid for higher education and acute care hospitals.
That rise in spending will pretty much erase the downsizing of the State’s budget during Speaker O’Brien’s tenure.
It occurs to me that the Obama Administration has a huge problem ahead of it. With Republicans retaining the US House, the various investigations will proceed unhindered. New ones will begin. And the idea of asking uncomfortable questions about the scope of Executive power should be brought to the fore. The US House has significant … Read more
They say, “If you’re taking flak, you’re over the target.” Thus the TEA Party, whose common sense demands for fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited government are shared by most Americans, is attacked by people who most likely never attended a TEA Party meeting or understood TEA Party documentation.
Thousands of TEA Party groups and millions of members agree that passing debt to our children and grandchildren is immoral and un-acceptable, and that government spending must be limited to government revenue.
Four years ago, President Obama said, “… I’m pledging to cut the deficit, we inherited, by half by the end of my first term in office”. (See for yourself, at about 1:30 in.) Reported today: “The Congressional Budget Office made it official today, projecting a $1 trillion-plus budget deficit for the fourth straight year”. What … Read more
When I say “Medicare Fraud,” I’m not referring to the corrupt practices of people and professionals who are milking taxpayers by running fast circles around the bureaucratic behemoth that is Medicare. I am referring to the left-wing Democrat lie-factory that has nothing in its barren campaign quiver but fear tactics. That is the fraud I am referring to. That and the fraud they will perpetrate on every aspect of the Ryan Budget.
I just hope Harry Reid has nothing to say about the Ryan budget…you know…that might get awkward.
Here’s a short clip from CBS news c/o Hot Air on Romney/Ryan and Medicare…
[Update(s) on the jump]
Suppose you fall in love with someone who is good looking, well groomed, and has lots of potential. Let’s say you two lovebirds decide to get married. Giddiness and joy all around…congratulations.
One day, you are at the supermarket, casually buying grapes (so you can feed them to your love, like they do in the old-timey movies), when a shadowy person comes up behind you and hands you a sealed folder. The mystery person whispers in your ear and says…
Two issues that have been at the forefront of the present Legislative session were pension reform (where NH has among the highest per capita public pension costs in the nation going forward) and perhaps unsustainable, and whether or not having the State of New Hampshire would participate in Obamacare via setting up a health insurance exchange and that huge cost upon NH citizens vs the resurgence of States’ sovereign Rights.
Question 11: Pension reform for NH Public Sector Unions?
Question 12: Obamacare – insurance exchanges. Outlook on the use of the 10th Amendment / States Rights?
I am willing to bet that almost every New Hampshire Democrat supports the national agenda on taxing corporations and “the rich.” To paraphrase Kyle Reese from the original Terminator movie, in regard to Democrats raising taxes… “That’s what they do. That’s all they do.”
The real problem is, of course, spending, which Democrats deny. “It’s not about spending,” they say, “we need the rich to pay ‘Their fair share®.'” But all you have to do to prove they are wrong (again) is to look at what would happen if Democrats actually got those taxes they say we have to have on corporations and the wealthy.
Well, it has been a wee bit of time since the last post of our interview series with Jane Cormier (running for the NH House in Belknap 8 – Alton, Barnstead, and Gilmanton) as we spent half of last week / weekend in Washington DC at the Americans for Prosperity’s Defending the American Dream event. Thus, time to ramp it up again and finish up.
Question 9: can the NH Budget be further trimmed? How much if yes?
Question 10: Right To Know – For or Against?
Also after the jump, it turns out that Jane was also in DC for the AFP event (I did not know that she was going), so when she strolled by in Radio Row, I invited her to sit.
I know… New Hampshire Democrats were losing sleep in hopes of some politically-beneficial revenue numbers, and guess what? They were politically beneficial….To TEA Party Republicans.
The Union Leader is reporting that New Hampshire state revenues were slightly above estimates in July, with solid performances that suggest we are budgeting wisely so that the working families and small business owners in New Hampshire can continuing to drag us out of the economic quick sand in which Democrat tax and spend polices have had us trapped.
So How well did the TEA Party Republicans manage your money for July 2012?