This is quite a story and I am sure will be coming before the next election(Read More)
A few days ago we noted that, much as we like Republican House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and some of the ideas in his budget, such as new private options for Medicare and a simplified Tax Code, for many reasons his proposed budget fails the test of conservative government.
The Ryan budget passed the House 228-191 on Thursday, but we doubt the present House Republican leaders have the political will, let alone commitment to conservative principles, to make it work.
The Republican Study Committee (RSC) Cut, Cap and Balance budget is a much better approach
The last paragraph of this story should be implemented by the members of the House Republicans (Read More)
Limbaugh beats his critics(Read More)
There’s a lot to like about Paul Ryan’s budget proposal. It cuts some spending. It flattens the tax code down to just two individual marginal tax rates. It also includes some innovative policies designed to halt the unsustainable growth of health care entitlement spending. However, on balance, the budget is disappointing for fiscal conservatives for two main reasons: It waives the spending restraint that was agreed to in last year’s debt limit deal, and it doesn’t balance the budget until 2040. Broken promises and unbalanced budgets as far as the eye can see are neither good policy nor a good campaign rallying cry(Read More)
Read Para 6. Where does our Congressman stand?
Now, folks, the Wall Street Journal today called yesterday “a constitutional awakening.” And at first glance you might say, “Yeah, yeah. Okay.” Because what happened yesterday? What happened yesterday was a bunch of people thought that this was a slam-dunk that it would be declared constitutional, including the mandate. And the court went the way it did during oral arguments and all of the “learned” people were shocked and stunned and couldn’t believe it and sunk into immediate depression. The Wall Street Journal says: Well, we had a “constitutional awakening.” I would beg to differ. The “constitutional awakening” is the Tea Party. The Tea Party was the “constitutional awakening” in 2009 and 2010.
The Tea Party voting in the midterms in 2010, that’s the “constitutional awakening.” The election was a “constitutional awakening.” The fact that we hang by a thread here in the Supreme Court is not a “constitutional awakening.” What this is… And this is my point of the whole show so far. This oral argument — these hearings, whatever you want to call ’em — is evidence of the deterioration of the rule of law in this country. We are hanging by a thread! More than likely we’re hanging by the vote of one man, one Supreme Court justice. I don’t care if it’s Kennedy or whoever. Just the fact that one person out of 311 million decides this? That’s not a “constitutional awakening.” This is evidence of how far we have sunk if you ask me. No, I’m still glad it happened. Don’t misunderstand. I’m just still in a state of shock that we have gotten here. I’m still in a state of utter disbelief that we have arrived at this point.
But we have, and we are here.
So it must be dealt with accordingly.