Daily news sites

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Oops, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) selectively quoted President Abraham Lincoln when speaking of the imposing national debt. Lincoln, back in the days of a significantly more limited government, a much smaller economy, and a smaller population it seems had to deal with fiscal realities similar to those are facing today. Albeit certainly not on such a grand scale.

Although it is done all the time, selective quoting that is, the liberal biased media, in this case the Huffington Post, was quick to point out that Lincoln at the time also called for a tax increase or tariff (revenue enhancement) to balance the books and set the fiscal ship right.

The Huffington Post - House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) quotes Abraham Lincoln in a memo released Thursday as warning of debt, but ignores the former president's call for a tax or tariff.

The messaging to House Republicans quotes Lincoln expressing concern over debt:

"The book Congressman Lincoln by Chris DeRose, which I recently read, includes a chapter focused on Abraham Lincoln’s efforts to help craft a new national agenda. At one point in the book, young Lincoln warns that government debt is “growing with a rapidity fearful to contemplate.”

“[Government debt] is a system not only ruinous while it lasts, but one that must soon fail and leave us destitute,” Lincoln warns his countrymen in Congressman Lincoln. “An individual who undertakes to live by borrowing, soon finds his original means devoured by interest, and next no one left to borrow from –- so must it be with a government.”

Lincoln’s words ring true today, perhaps to a degree greater than ever before."

Lincoln, however, while warning of debt, also said that the debt had been created by the unwillingness to consider new revenue.

"By this means a new national debt has been created, and is still growing on us with a rapidity fearful to contemplate -- a rapidity only reasonably to be expected in time of war. This state of things has been produced by a prevailing unwillingness either to increase the tariff or resort to direct taxation. But the one or the other must come," Lincoln wrote in the Whig Circular in 1843.

Boehner and House Republicans are unwilling to consider revenue to solve the cuts put in place by sequestration. "The president got his tax hikes on January 1. The talk about raising revenue is over. It’s time to deal with the spending problem," the House speaker said in a recent interview with ABC News.

In his writing, Lincoln goes further, calling for a direct tax or tariff. "We repeat, then, that a tariff sufficient for revenue, or a direct tax, must soon be resorted to; and, indeed, we believe this alternative is now denied by no one," he wrote. Lincoln then goes onto debate the various merits and pitfalls of establishing a direct tax versus increasing tariffs. {Read More}

I remain a small government Classical Liberal (that what the founders were) that believe we must act in a fiscally responsible way to keep the fiscal ship solvent and afloat, with a course set to insure prosperity for future generations of United States Citizens.

The rEpublicans need to recognizes that the mess we find ourselves in is one of our own making. The size of the debt and the amount of the annual deficits cannot be reversed and the books balanced by budget cuts alone. Cuts are absolutely necessary, but alone will not carry the nation out of its bone crushing national debt.

Simpson-Bowles had it right, and they were ignored by both parties largely for political reasons. This is unfortunate for the fiscal health of the nations and ultimately for it's people.

Just one more thing. Size and scope of government is, as I've come to understand a relative state. Think about it rEpublicans.



Via: Memeorandum

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

The political games continue. Or should we say the political inability to talk across the table with sincerity and a willingness to find workable solutions continues? This nation, sooner or later will need to come to terms with its very real, and largest problem, fiscal instability and perhaps eventual insolvency. The reality is spending cuts are needed, both defense and domestic, the antiquated tax code needs to be overhauled and simplified, tax loopholes need to be closed, and yes, some degree of revenue increases needs to be implemented. If the nation is truly serious about debt reduction and achieving a balance budget it is only going to happen through spending cuts, revenue increases, tax reform, and regulatory overhaul.

The nation's lawmakers can continue acting as they have, which of course will only lead us further down the road to national fiscal destruction, or, they can take the alternative approach. Their choice really belongs to us, We the People.

Ideology is great when talking philosophy, and it is very possible to live ones philosophy as an individual throughout ones life. However, we are talking about a diverse, complex, and populous nation and  because of the different dynamics the rules of the game, out of necessity, change. Isn't it time lawmakers (and the constituents who sent them to Washington) begin acting like adults and consider what the best LONG TERM  interests of our country are?

It seems that compromise, as much as I find it distasteful in many ways, is the only course  prudent and reasonable citizens or lawmakers ought to take.

BuzzFeed - While lawmakers in Washington trade shots over the $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts, due to take effect Friday, there's a growing consensus among liberals across the country that the real threat to the social safety net isn't this fight, but the next one.

As originally designed in 2011, the deficit-reduction sequester splits cuts between defense and domestic spending, and explicitly exempted programs like Social Security and Medicaid. But no one in Washington believes the sequester cuts will be permanent, and liberals worry the deal Congress eventually reaches to replace it will slash funding to those programs — as Republicans and some Democrats have advocated.

"There's a broader concern about the fact that entitlements may get ensnared when we go to an alternative fix, [that] they won't escape," Rep. Jerry Nadler, a progressive Democrat from New York, told BuzzFeed. "I have heard that concern."

"Not only do we have the sequester, but we have to be thinking about the deal that replaces it as well," said Melissa Boteach, a director at the Center for American Progress. "Republicans have already begin to push hard for benefit cuts."

Although House Democrats signed a letter this month stating their opposition to entitlement cuts, President Barack Obama has signaled a willingness to bring such spending reductions to the table as part of a grand bargain with Republicans.

During the fiscal cliff talks last year, the president said he would consider implementing "chained CPI," a Social Security reform that would increase benefits more slowly over time... {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum