Category Archives: Speaker of the House John Boehner

Open letter to President Obama (Part 444) Antony Davies’ video “Will Higher Tax Rates Balance the Budget?” (includes editorial cartoon)

(Emailed to White House on 3-20-13.)

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

Will Higher Tax Rates Balance the Budget?

Published on Apr 11, 2012

As the U.S. debt and deficit grows, some politicians and economist have called for higher tax rates in order to balance the budget. The question becomes: when the government raises taxes, does it actually collect a larger portion of the US economy?

Professor Antony Davies examines 50 years of economic data and finds that regardless of tax rates, the percentage of GDP that the government collects has remained relatively constant. In other words, no matter how high government sets tax rates, the government gets about the same portion. According to Davies, if we’re concerned about balancing the budget, we should worry less about raising tax revenue and more about growing the economy. The recipe for growth? Lower tax rates and a simplified tax code.

______________

Obama’s position on tax policy made simple below:

I’ve already posted on Obama’s class-warfare approach to tax policy, and I’ve also posted about the pitfalls of a tax system that exempts 50 percent of the population.

Well, here’s a cartoon that cleverly combines both themes.

Not too smart on this.

___________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

Open letter to President Obama (Part 364)

(This letter was emailed to White House on 12-20-12.)

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

I truly do wonder how smart our elected representatives are in Washington. Mr President I know you are a Harvard graduate and these comments I guess are really aimed at my Republican friends mostly. I got up on 12-20-12 and read this article below from the Heritage Foundation with the reference to Charlie Brown getting fooled by Lucy again when he runs up and tries  to kick the football and of course she moves it again.

Liberals in Congress have always tried to fool conservatives by promising future cuts if they provide higher taxes now. (This article below appeared on www.heritage.org on 12-20-12.)

Obama’s “Lucy Move the Football” Fiscal Cliff Plan Still Not Balanced

Alison Acosta Fraser

December 18, 2012 at 3:25 pm

Volleys of negotiating counter-offers are coming in faster now that Christmas break and the looming fiscal cliff are just around the corner.

While there is much unsatisfactory with Speaker of the House John Boehner’s (R–OH) Sunday night proposal, let us not forget that the reason we are watching this needless, high stakes drama unfold is due to President Obama’s intractable insistence on tax increases on America’s high earners. After all, he and Congress could simply and quickly pass a bill to extend all current policies and avoid the fiscal cliff entirely—if he wanted to. No, this is really about hiking taxes on high earners. Thus the charade of deficit reduction continues.

Obama’s latest counteroffer is no more acceptable than his first offer. Short on details concerning actual spending reductions, especially on entitlements, it is replete with his requisite tax hikes and (we are shocked) new stimulus spending. The cherry on top is an extension of the debt limit for two years, essentially handing over authority to raise it to the President.

Right.

The President originally called for around $800 billion in tax hikes on America’s “highest” earners—those earning $250,000 and up. A ridiculous demand when the economy is still struggling under his big spending and regulatory policies, and one which would squarely hit smaller businesses. You know, the ones who actually create jobs.

Yet, just like Lucy and the football, when Boehner and company offered up $800 billion in tax hikes, Obama quickly doubled his demand to $1.5 trillion in tax hikes—again, all from the highest earners. They, he tells us, can afford to pay a little more. Never mind, of course, that the top 1 percent of earners already pay 37 percent of all income taxes. Somehow we are to believe this is a “balanced approach.”

Obama pitches all this on the pretext that we can simply go back to the tax rates we had under Clinton. Wrong! His dirty little tax secret is that he has already hiked taxes on high earners under Obamacare. First the law added a surtax of 0.9 percent in addition to the Medicare payroll tax on those earning over $250,000. For the first time ever, Obamacare will apply this higher rate of 3.8 percent to investment income on January 1. Obama won’t tell you that going back to Clinton-era tax rates will actually result in higher taxes on wages, dividends, and capital gains.

They say if you want less of something, then tax it. For Obama, this works fine on financial transactions, carbon emissions, driving, and junk food. But evidently, for him, not so much on a strong vibrant economy. And those Clinton boom years? They weren’t ushered in after the Clinton tax hikeonly after the Clinton–Gingrich tax cut!

Rather than working with Republicans on tax proposals that will actually grow the economy, Obama is now simply fighting over his definition of “high income” while we are left to wonder how much this $1.2 trillion tax hike will slow the economy.

As for the $1.2 trillion spending reductions, the only reason they are there is because Boehner insisted on them. But $100 billion in cuts would whack the defense budget, which is already reeling from earlier budget cuts. Yet the real spending and debt crisis comes from unaffordable entitlement programs. While Obama is insisting on balance on the tax side, he is sorely lacking in leadership here. As a recent Washington Post editorial opined:

Elections do have consequences, and Mr. Obama ran on a clear platform of increasing taxes on the wealthy. But he was clear on something else, too: Deficit reduction must be “balanced,” including spending cuts as well as tax increases. Since 60 percent of the federal budget goes to entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, there’s no way to achieve balance without slowing the rate of increase of those programs.

We know Obama is open to changing the inflation calculation and slowing the benefit growth in Social Security. But what else? What about the proposals in his own budget, which would increase premiums on Medicare? He could easily broaden his proposals with additional uncontroversial steps to begin the process of strengthening and reining in Social Security and Medicare. All he needs to do is lead.

Some polls may show that Americans think taxes should be part of a deficit deal; but what the polls do not always show is their utter distrust that Washington would use new revenues to actually reduce the deficit. Here, Obama does not let them down. He reportedly wants $80 billion in new spending on infrastructure and unemployment benefits.

In exchange for all of this, he wants to raise the debt limit by enough to fuel his big spending goals for two years. This is utterly unacceptable. Americans know you cannot reduce the deficit when you plan to actually spend more. Americans also know that when Washington lifts the debt limit, it will not control spending. The debt limit puts the very pressure lawmakers need to account for out-of-control spending and make vital course corrections to bring spending under control, lest we face a Euro-style debt crisis in the future.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is actually insisting that “[t]he President’s proposal is the only proposal we have seen that achieves the balance that is so necessary.” Balance, evidently, is in the eyes of the beholder. As the Post noted, 60 percent of the budget stems from entitlements.

In just 13 short years—by the time today’s kindergarteners enter college—entitlements and interest on the debt will eat up all tax revenues. A truly balanced approach must start where the problem starts—with substantive reforms to entitlements. While the President maintains that you cannot cut your way to prosperity, you certainly cannot tax your way there.

_______________

Below is a speech by George W. Bush honoring Milton Friedman:

Milton Friedman Honored for Lifetime Achievements 2002/5/9

Milton Friedman said that getting George Bush I to be his vice president was his biggest mistake because he knew that Bush was not a true conservative and sure enough George Bush did raise taxes when he later became President. I wonder if Jeb Bush has the same genes as his father.

What we need is some people in Washington that are brave enough to say that we have taken too much of the american people’s money and we have to make the painful spending cuts in order to balance the budget and not ask for any more tax increases!!!! Arkansas’ congressman Rick Crawford has also made the Charlie Brown mistake.

Even though America’s fiscal problem is entirely the result of too much government spending, I wrote earlier this year that there were all sorts of scenarios where I would agree to a tax increase.

But I then pointed out that all of those scenarios were total fantasies and that it would be more realistic to envision me playing center field for the New York Yankees.

The fundamental problem is that politicians never follow through on promises to reduce spending – even if you use the dishonest Washington definition that a spending cut occurs whenever the budget doesn’t rise as fast as previously planned.

And to make matters worse, they always seem to want class-warfare tax hikes that do heavy economic damage rather than the loophole closers that at least get rid of some of the inefficient corruption in the tax code.

That’s why I like the anti-tax pledge of Americans for Tax Reform. You don’t solve America’s fiscal problems by saying no to all tax increases, but at least you don’t move in the wrong direction at a faster rate.

Notwithstanding the principled and pragmatic arguments against putting tax increases on the table, some Republicans – in a triumph of hope over experience – are preemptively acquiescing to tax hikes.

Here’s what Jeb Bush said.

Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, said Friday that he could back a broad deficit plan that increased taxes, a stance that puts him at odds with other prominent Republicans. Bush told a House panel he could get behind a plan that combined 10 dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of new revenue… “The problem is the 10 never materializes,” [Congressman Paul] Ryan said after Bush said he could support a revenue-increasing deficit deal. Norquist also has criticized deficit deals crafted in 1982 and 1990 – the latter agreed to by then-President George H.W. Bush, Jeb’s father – for failing to deliver on the spending side.

Kudos to Paul Ryan for making the obvious point about make-believe spending cuts. And Grover is correct about the failure of previous budget deals.

Indeed, I cited a New York Times column that inadvertently revealed that the only budget deal that worked was the 1997 pact that cut taxes rather than raised them.

Jeb Bush isn’t the only apostate. Here’s what Senator Graham had to say.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Tuesday he believed Republicans should consider eliminating loopholes in the tax code even if they aren’t replaced by additional tax cuts, a move that would break with an anti-tax pledge many GOP lawmakers have signed with activist Grover Norquist. “When you eliminate a deduction, it’s OK with me to use some of that money to get us out of debt. That’s where I disagree with the pledge,” Graham told ABC News. …”I’m willing to move my party, or try to, on the tax issue. I need someone on the Democratic side being willing to move their party on structural changes to entitlements.” Graham said, for instance, he would support a plan that included $4 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. During a Republican debate last August, all eight Republican candidates in attendance said they would reject a proposal to trade $10 in spending cuts for even $1 in tax increases.

In some sense, Senator Graham’s comments are reasonable. With real spending cuts and less-damaging forms of tax hikes, an acceptable deal is possible. But only in Fantasia, not in Washington.

In the real world, all that Senator Graham has done is to move the debate slightly to the left.

I’ve noted that tax increases are political poison for the Republican Party, but I don’t lose sleep worrying about the GOP.

But I do have nightmares about government getting even bigger, and that’s why I don’t want tax increases on the table. I don’t even want them in the room. Or the house. Or the neighborhood.

That’s why Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham are the newest winners of the Charlie Brown Award. They’ve put blood in the water. I wonder if they’ll act surprised when hungry sharks show up looking for a meal?

_____________

In 1982 the Democrats promised future spending cuts if Ronald Reagan would agree to a tax increase, but you guessed it, the taxes were increased and the spending cuts never came. THE REAL PROBLEM IS NOT THAT WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH TAXES BUT WE DON’T WANT TO CUT SPENDING!!!

Washington Could Learn a Lot from a Drug Addict

Concerning spending cuts Reagan believed, that members of Congress “wouldn’t lie to him when he should have known better.” However, can you believe a drug addict when he tells you he is not ever going to do his habit again? Congress is addicted to spending too much money.  Lee Edwards wrote in his article “Golden Years” about Ronald Reagan:

Sometimes Reagan went along with a pragamatist like chief of staff James Baker, who persuaded the president to accept the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), which turned out to be the great tax increase of 1982 — $98 billion over the next three years. That was too much for eighty-nine House Republicans (including second-term Congressman Newt Gingrich of Georgia) or for prominent conservative organizations from the American Conservative Union like the Conservative Caucus and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which all opposed the measure.

Baker assured his boss that Congress would approve three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. To Reagan, TEFRA looked like a pretty good “70 percent” deal. But Congress wound up cutting less than twenty-seven cents for every new tax dollar. What had seemed to be an acceptable 70-30 compromise turned out to be a 30-70 surrender. Ed Meese described TEFRA as “the greatest domestic error of the Reagan administration,” although it did leave untouched the individual tax rate reductions approved the previous year. (TEFRA was built on a series of business and excise taxes plus the removal of business tax deductions.)[xxx]

The basic problem was that Reagan believed, as Lyn Nofziger put it, that members of Congress “wouldn’t lie to him when he should have known better.”[xxxi] As a result of TEFRA, Reagan learned to “trust but verify,” whether he was dealing with a Speaker of the House or a president of the Soviet Union.

______________

_____________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

Lessons from Canada:CUT SPENDING AND LOWER TAXES AND GIVE MORE CONTROL BACK TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS!!!!

When Governments Cut Spending

Uploaded on Sep 28, 2011

Do governments ever cut spending? According to Dr. Stephen Davies, there are historical examples of government spending cuts in Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, and America. In these cases, despite popular belief, the government spending cuts did not cause economic stagnation. In fact, the spending cuts often accelerated economic growth by freeing up resources for the private sector.

DEBT LIMIT – A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT MADE EASY.

Uploaded by on Nov 4, 2011

A satirical short film taking a look at the national debt and how it applies to just one family. Watch the guy from the Ferris Bueller Superbowl Spot! Produced by Seth William Meier, DP/Edited by Craig Evans, 1st AC Brian Andrews, Sound Mixer Gus Salazar, Written and Directed by Brian Stepanek. Help us spread the word by clicking ads or at http://www.debtlimitusa.org.

________

Is Canada moving in a conservative direction to tackle their fiscal problems while the USA is going over the fiscal cliff? I was impressed by this statement below from this article from www.heritage.org :

In Canada, federal spending has been trending downward since 1993, according to Cato’s Chris Edwards. Canadians have cut spending in virtually every area except health care. The federal government now accounts for only 38 percent of total government spending. In the U.S., by contrast, the federal government accounts for 71 percent of total government spending.

It seems to me that we need to learn this important lesson from our neighbor from the north: CUT SPENDING AND LOWER TAXES AND GIVE MORE CONTROL BACK TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS!!!!

Paul Bremmer

November 26, 2012 at 10:30 am

Congressional lawmakers met last week to try to hammer out a deal to avert the fiscal cliff. Democrats insist on revenue increases as part of such a deal, saying new revenue is the only way to significantly reduce the national debt. However, it is not a lack of revenue that is driving U.S. debt; it is unrestrained federal spending. American lawmakers looking to solve America’s looming fiscal crisis need not look further than Canada.

Highlighted at a recent Cato Institute conference, our neighbor—and competitor—to the north serves as a good example of what it takes to return to a strong economy. The Great White North has turned around its fiscal situation and is now experiencing financial stability and economic growth.

In Canada, federal spending has been trending downward since 1993, according to Cato’s Chris Edwards. Canadians have cut spending in virtually every area except health care. The federal government now accounts for only 38 percent of total government spending. In the U.S., by contrast, the federal government accounts for 71 percent of total government spending.

The Canadian government, among other changes, altered benefit schedules for the Canadian Pension Plan to reduce the total amount of benefits paid.

In a similar vein, The Heritage Foundation suggests a variety of benefit changes to Social Security that would strengthen the program’s finances, for example, by raising the eligibility age slightly and replacing cost of living adjustments with the Chained Consumer Price Index for a more targeted measure of inflation in consumer goods. Bolder changes include gradually introducing a flat benefit that targets scarce resources to those seniors who need them the most and provides all seniors with protection from poverty in retirement.

Canada also cut corporate income tax rates. The U.S. has the highest rate among its competitors in the industrialized world. The combined federal and state corporate rate in the U.S. is over 39 percent. Canada now has a combined rate of only 25 percent.

Contrary to popular expectations, lower corporate tax rates have not resulted in significantly reduced corporate tax revenue in Canada. Instead, corporations based in Canada have reported more income since lower tax rates went into place. And Canada is experiencing low unemployment and a strong Canadian dollar.

The Heritage Foundation’s New Flat Tax would replace today’s complex tax system for individuals and business with a simple, neutral, and transparent tax system that would allow America to achieve its full economic potential.

Europe has not followed Canada’s example, and the resulting severe debt crises are sending people to the streets in an outbreak of violent protests. Out-of-control government spending and deficits have resulted in massive borrowing, which has led to bailouts for many European countries.

High levels of spending on social welfare programs are at the heart of the problem. Greece, for example, spent 42 percent of its federal budget on social benefits in 2009, according to Aristides Hatzis from the University of Athens. Spain is slated to spend 63 percent of its budget on social expenditures in fiscal year 2013, according to Pedro Schwartz from Universidad San Pablo CEU.

Here in the United States, we have all the ingredients necessary to create a similar debt crisis in the not-so-distant future. Over the past four decades, federal spending has increased 288 percent, nearly quadrupling in real terms. Thirty-two cents out of every dollar spent was borrowed in 2012. Debt held by the public is a staggering 73 percent of GDP, and our government has run trillion-dollar budget deficits four years in a row.

In less than 10 years, the U.S.’s publicly held debt will surpass the size of the entire U.S. economy and is projected to continue skyrocketing from there. (continues below chart)

To make matters worse, there is a dark demographic cloud on the horizon. In all Western nations, the proportion of older people as a share of the population is increasing. In the U.S., baby boomers are increasingly reaching retirement age, and in Europe, fertility rates are well below replacement level. As the populations of these countries age, entitlements will eat up an ever-increasing share of federal spending and place a greater strain on a smaller share of working-age taxpayers.

Solving America’s spending and debt challenges is possible. Canada’s example illustrates some of the steps this will take—including major cuts to federal spending, tax reform, and entitlement reform. If our leaders can find the courage to pursue this path, we can avoid an economic collapse and Save the American Dream.

Paul Bremmer is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm.

Open letter to President Obama (Part 348)

Does Government Have a Revenue or Spending Problem?

People say the government has a debt problem. Debt is caused by deficits, which is the difference between what the government collects in tax revenue and the amount of government spending. Every time the government runs a deficit, the government debt increases. So what’s to blame: too much spending, or too little tax revenue? Economics professor Antony Davies examines the data and concludes that the root cause of the debt is too much government spending.

Ronald Reagan on our ability to solve our problems

_________

(This letter was emailed to White House on 12-12-12.)

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

Great article on what has happened in the past fiscal cliff deals. Patrick Louis Knudsen rightly points out, “… history shows that broad bipartisan compromises between the White House and Congress have typically just yielded higher taxes, while … deficit reduction have failed to materialize.”

It seems to me that we need to cut spending and avoid slowing the economy with tax increases. In the past we just raised taxes most of the time and never got around to cuttng spending.

The Fiscal Cliff and the Perils of Grand Budget Deals

By
December 10, 2012

One of the major complications in the current fiscal cliff debate is that both sides are overreaching, trying to tie a near-term resolution to a sweeping deficit reduction plan that would address the longer-term budgetary crisis looming in the years ahead. They see the cliff negotiations as a stage for a “grand bargain” on the budget between the President and Congress.

The tight time frame of the cliff’s approach makes such an aim increasingly impractical. Furthermore, history shows that broad bipartisan compromises between the White House and Congress have typically just yielded higher taxes, while the promised spending restraint (except in national defense) and deficit reduction have failed to materialize. Given the current state of divided government, these risks prevail today. More broadly, they also offer a warning to budget process reformers who seek to institutionalize regular budget negotiations between Capitol Hill and the President.

Experience of the Reagan Administration

After his inauguration in January 1981, President Ronald Reagan moved assertively to enact his budget plan, cutting taxes, boosting defense spending, and seeking to gain control of entitlements. With the economy still reeling from the prior years’ stagflation, however, deficits widened initially, leading Congress to push for a series of budget “summits,” as they were called then, to close the gap.

First came the 1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, “a $98 billion tax increase which supporters claimed would reduce the deficit from $128 billion in 1982 to $104 billion in 1983.” It did not. “Spending restraints never materialized…and the actual deficit jumped to $208 billion.”[1] (In today’s dollars, that tax hike would have totaled $204 billion and the deficit $432 billion—roughly a third of this year’s red ink.)

In 1984, the President agreed to yet another tax hike totaling $49 billion, which was supposed to reduce the deficit from $185 billion to $181 billion. Once again, however, the deficit increased—to $212 billion.[2]

The 1987 budget summit repeated the pattern. President Reagan swallowed a tax hike of $28 billion, but the result was the same: “The deficit, which was supposed to remain at $150 billion, jumped to $155 billion in 1988.”[3]

The 1990 Budget Agreement

Despite these failures, 1990 produced another major exercise in budget summitry. With deficits having swollen well beyond target amounts written in law at the time, the government by mid-year faced automatic spending cuts (called “sequestration”) that would slash defense spending by 42 percent and non-defense spending by 38 percent.[4] So President George H. W. Bush and the Democratic Congress agreed to a plan that was estimated to reduce deficits by $482 billion over five years.

Though the President had famously pledged never to raise taxes, his Administration by mid-1990 conceded to adding “revenue” as part of the deficit reduction plan. Predictably, this crack in the door widened during the arduous negotiations at Andrews Air Force Base. In the end, fully one-third of the package—$158 billion—consisted of tax hikes. The next largest savings came from cutting national defense by $91 billion over five years, which proponents rationalized by arguing that the Cold War had ended. Meanwhile, non-defense discretionary spending in the plan actually increased by $45 billion, offset by an empty promise of $144 billion in additional, unspecified discretionary cuts.[5]

The plan’s outcomes were no more satisfying. Even after the defense cuts, total outlays (excluding interest payments) increased by 13 percent from 1990 through 1993, and even with the tax hikes, the deficit worsened by 17 percent in the first two years of the plan.[6] When President Bill Clinton took office in January 1993, he promptly called for another deficit reduction plan, this one with $241 billion in tax increases over five years.[7]

The 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement

Even genuinely successful deficit reduction can lead to expanded government, allowing both parties to declare victory. Such was the case with the 1997 balanced budget agreement between a Republican Congress and President Clinton.

Although it cut taxes by $80 billion over five years—or perhaps because it did—the plan produced surpluses within a year of enactment. This was largely due to real growth in gross domestic product (GDP) that was greater than 4 percent per year from 1997 through 2000, which boosted tax revenue to 20.6 percent of GDP.

The problem was that the plan also increased spending. Though officially estimated to reduce outlays by $198 billion over five years,[8] the legislation contained a number of entitlement spending increases sought by President Clinton, including the creation of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and expansions of food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, and welfare. Consequently, total “programmatic” spending (excluding interest) grew by nearly 3 percent to 4 percent per year faster than inflation and exploded by a total of nearly 14 percent from 1997 through 2001.[9] The effect was hidden because with the government running budget surpluses, interest payments declined, reducing the total spending increases.

Learn from History

The background outlined above should give pause to advocates of a grand budget deal between the President and Congress—especially those who are seeking to limit the size and scope of government. Such agreements tend to produce higher taxes and higher spending with little or no deficit reduction. Congress and the President should dispel any visions of a “grand bargain” and focus on the task at hand: avoiding the fiscal cliff.

This history also warns against budget process reforms that would institutionalize summitry by requiring the President to sign or veto the congressional budget resolution. Advocates argue that this change would create a forum for regular, early White House–congressional negotiations on broad budget levels, presumably making it easier to settle on specific spending and tax legislation later.

Some analysts, however, doubt whether the practice would actually produce agreements as often as its advocates think.[10] Equally important, the process could produce higher spending and higher taxes even more often. Thus, a reform aimed at budgeting more “efficiently” might only be more efficient at expanding government.

Patrick Louis Knudsen is the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Kaitlyn Evans and Paul Bremmer, members of the Young Leaders Program at Heritage, contributed to this report.

____________

___________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

The 66 brave Tea Party Republicans who voted against the debt ceiling increase last time back in August of 2011!!!

President Ronald Reagan once said, “I have only one thing to say to the tax increasers: Go ahead, make my day.”

____________

Here below is a list of those 66 brave Republicans that voted against the debt ceiling increase listed below in August of 2011. The ones in blue are the ones that I have done posts on. Instead of giving in to President Obama and going for the deal that John Boehner put together in August of 2011 these Republicans truly believe in limited government  like the founding fathers intended.

When the debt ceiling debate starts soon again I am hopeful that these same Tea Party favorites will stand up against President Obama because they know the founding fathers favored limited government and they did not want government spending 42% of GDP. Socialist Europe is at 48%. DO WE WANT TO END UP LIKE GREECE?

Full House roll call
By: Associated Press
August 1, 2011 08:46 PM EDT

The 269-161 roll call Monday by which the House passed the compromise bill to raise the debt ceiling and prevent a government default.

A “yes” vote is a vote to pass the measure.

Voting yes were 95 Democrats and 174 Republicans.

Voting no were 95 Democrats and 66 Republicans.

X denotes those not voting.

There are 2 vacancies in the 435-member House.

ALABAMA

Democrats – Sewell, Y.

Republicans – Aderholt, Y; Bachus, Y; Bonner, Y; Brooks, N; Roby, N; Rogers, Y.

ALASKA

Republicans – Young, Y.

ARIZONA

Democrats – Giffords, Y; Grijalva, N; Pastor, N.

Republicans – Flake, N; Franks, N; Gosar, Y; Quayle, N; Schweikert, N.

ARKANSAS

Democrats – Ross, Y.

Republicans – Crawford, Y; Griffin, Y; Womack, Y.

CALIFORNIA

Democrats – Baca, X; Bass, Y; Becerra, N; Berman, Y; Capps, Y; Cardoza, N; Chu, N; Costa, Y; Davis, Y; Eshoo, Y; Farr, N; Filner, N; Garamendi, Y; Hahn, N; Honda, N; Lee, N; Lofgren, Zoe, N; Matsui, N; McNerney, N; Miller, George, N; Napolitano, N; Pelosi, Y; Richardson, N; Roybal-Allard, N; Sanchez, Linda T., N; Sanchez, Loretta, Y; Schiff, Y; Sherman, Y; Speier, Y; Stark, N; Thompson, Y; Waters, N; Waxman, N; Woolsey, N.

Republicans – Bilbray, Y; Bono Mack, Y; Calvert, Y; Campbell, Y; Denham, Y; Dreier, Y; Gallegly, Y; Herger, Y; Hunter, N; Issa, Y; Lewis, Y; Lungren, Daniel E., Y; McCarthy, Y; McClintock, N; McKeon, Y; Miller, Gary, Y; Nunes, N; Rohrabacher, Y; Royce, Y.

COLORADO

Democrats – DeGette, N; Perlmutter, Y; Polis, Y.

Republicans – Coffman, Y; Gardner, Y; Lamborn, N; Tipton, N.

CONNECTICUT

Democrats – Courtney, Y; DeLauro, N; Himes, Y; Larson, N; Murphy, N.

DELAWARE

Democrats – Carney, Y.

FLORIDA

Democrats – Brown, N; Castor, Y; Deutch, Y; Hastings, N; Wasserman Schultz, Y; Wilson, Y.

Republicans – Adams, Y; Bilirakis, Y; Buchanan, Y; Crenshaw, Y; Diaz-Balart, Y; Mack, N; Mica, Y; Miller, Y; Nugent, Y; Posey, N; Rivera, Y; Rooney, Y; Ros-Lehtinen, Y; Ross, N; Southerland, N; Stearns, N; Webster, Y; West, Y; Young, Y.

GEORGIA

Democrats – Barrow, Y; Bishop, Y; Johnson, Y; Lewis, N; Scott, David, Y.

Republicans – Broun, N; Gingrey, N; Graves, N; Kingston, N; Price, Y; Scott, Austin, N; Westmoreland, N; Woodall, Y.

HAWAII

Democrats – Hanabusa, Y; Hirono, Y.

IDAHO

Republicans – Labrador, N; Simpson, Y.

ILLINOIS

Democrats – Costello, Y; Davis, Y; Gutierrez, Y; Jackson, N; Lipinski, Y; Quigley, Y; Rush, Y; Schakowsky, N.

Republicans – Biggert, Y; Dold, Y; Hultgren, N; Johnson, N; Kinzinger, Y; Manzullo, Y; Roskam, Y; Schilling, Y; Schock, Y; Shimkus, Y; Walsh, N.

INDIANA

Democrats – Carson, N; Donnelly, Y; Visclosky, N.

Republicans – Bucshon, Y; Burton, N; Pence, Y; Rokita, N; Stutzman, N; Young, Y.

IOWA

Democrats – Boswell, N; Braley, N; Loebsack, N.

Republicans – King, N; Latham, N.

KANSAS

Republicans – Huelskamp, N; Jenkins, Y; Pompeo, Y; Yoder, N.

KENTUCKY

Democrats – Chandler, Y; Yarmuth, N.

Republicans – Davis, N; Guthrie, Y; Rogers, Y; Whitfield, Y.

LOUISIANA

Democrats – Richmond, Y.

Republicans – Alexander, Y; Boustany, Y; Cassidy, Y; Fleming, N; Landry, N; Scalise, N.

MAINE

Democrats – Michaud, Y; Pingree, N.

MARYLAND

Democrats – Cummings, N; Edwards, N; Hoyer, Y; Ruppersberger, Y; Sarbanes, N; Van Hollen, Y.

Republicans – Bartlett, Y; Harris, N.

MASSACHUSETTS

Democrats – Capuano, N; Frank, N; Keating, Y; Lynch, Y; Markey, N; McGovern, N; Neal, N; Olver, N; Tierney, N; Tsongas, Y.

MICHIGAN

Democrats – Clarke, N; Conyers, N; Dingell, Y; Kildee, Y; Levin, Y; Peters, N.

Republicans – Amash, N; Benishek, Y; Camp, Y; Huizenga, Y; McCotter, Y; Miller, Y; Rogers, Y; Upton, Y; Walberg, Y.

MINNESOTA

Democrats – Ellison, N; McCollum, N; Peterson, Y; Walz, Y.

Republicans – Bachmann, N; Cravaack, N; Kline, Y; Paulsen, Y.

MISSISSIPPI

Democrats – Thompson, N.

Republicans – Harper, Y; Nunnelee, Y; Palazzo, Y.

MISSOURI

Democrats – Carnahan, Y; Clay, Y; Cleaver, N.

Republicans – Akin, N; Emerson, Y; Graves, Y; Hartzler, N; Long, Y; Luetkemeyer, Y.

MONTANA

Republicans – Rehberg, N.

NEBRASKA

Republicans – Fortenberry, Y; Smith, Y; Terry, Y.

NEVADA

Democrats – Berkley, Y.

Republicans – Heck, Y.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Republicans – Bass, Y; Guinta, Y.

NEW JERSEY

Democrats – Andrews, Y; Holt, N; Pallone, N; Pascrell, Y; Payne, N; Rothman, Y; Sires, Y.

Republicans – Frelinghuysen, Y; Garrett, N; Lance, Y; LoBiondo, Y; Runyan, Y; Smith, Y.

NEW MEXICO

Democrats – Heinrich, Y; Lujan, N.

Republicans – Pearce, N.

NEW YORK

Democrats – Ackerman, N; Bishop, Y; Clarke, N; Crowley, N; Engel, N; Higgins, Y; Hinchey, X; Hochul, Y; Israel, Y; Lowey, Y; Maloney, N; McCarthy, Y; Meeks, Y; Nadler, N; Owens, Y; Rangel, N; Serrano, N; Slaughter, N; Tonko, N; Towns, N; Velazquez, N.

Republicans – Buerkle, N; Gibson, Y; Grimm, Y; Hanna, Y; Hayworth, Y; King, Y; Reed, Y.

NORTH CAROLINA

Democrats – Butterfield, N; Kissell, N; McIntyre, N; Miller, N; Price, N; Shuler, Y; Watt, N.

Republicans – Coble, Y; Ellmers, Y; Foxx, Y; Jones, N; McHenry, Y; Myrick, Y.

NORTH DAKOTA

Republicans – Berg, Y.

OHIO

Democrats – Fudge, N; Kaptur, N; Kucinich, N; Ryan, N; Sutton, N.

Republicans – Austria, Y; Boehner, Y; Chabot, Y; Gibbs, Y; Johnson, Y; Jordan, N; LaTourette, Y; Latta, Y; Renacci, Y; Schmidt, Y; Stivers, Y; Tiberi, Y; Turner, N.

OKLAHOMA

Democrats – Boren, Y.

Republicans – Cole, Y; Lankford, Y; Lucas, Y; Sullivan, Y.

OREGON

Democrats – Blumenauer, N; DeFazio, N; Schrader, Y; Wu, Y.

Republicans – Walden, Y.

PENNSYLVANIA

Democrats – Altmire, Y; Brady, Y; Critz, Y; Doyle, N; Fattah, Y; Holden, Y; Schwartz, Y.

Republicans – Barletta, Y; Dent, Y; Fitzpatrick, Y; Gerlach, Y; Kelly, Y; Marino, Y; Meehan, Y; Murphy, Y; Pitts, Y; Platts, Y; Shuster, Y; Thompson, Y.

RHODE ISLAND

Democrats – Cicilline, Y; Langevin, Y.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Democrats – Clyburn, Y.

Republicans – Duncan, N; Gowdy, N; Mulvaney, N; Scott, N; Wilson, N.

SOUTH DAKOTA

Republicans – Noem, Y.

TENNESSEE

Democrats – Cohen, N; Cooper, Y.

Republicans – Black, Y; Blackburn, Y; DesJarlais, N; Duncan, Y; Fincher, Y; Fleischmann, N; Roe, Y.

TEXAS

Democrats – Cuellar, Y; Doggett, Y; Gonzalez, N; Green, Al, N; Green, Gene, Y; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson Lee, Y; Johnson, E. B., Y; Reyes, N.

Republicans – Barton, Y; Brady, Y; Burgess, Y; Canseco, Y; Carter, Y; Conaway, Y; Culberson, Y; Farenthold, Y; Flores, Y; Gohmert, N; Granger, Y; Hall, N; Hensarling, Y; Johnson, Sam, Y; Marchant, Y; McCaul, Y; Neugebauer, N; Olson, Y; Paul, N; Poe, N; Sessions, Y; Smith, Y; Thornberry, Y.

UTAH

Democrats – Matheson, Y.

Republicans – Bishop, N; Chaffetz, N.

VERMONT

Democrats – Welch, N.

VIRGINIA

Democrats – Connolly, Y; Moran, N; Scott, N.

Republicans – Cantor, Y; Forbes, N; Goodlatte, Y; Griffith, N; Hurt, Y; Rigell, Y; Wittman, Y; Wolf, Y.

WASHINGTON

Democrats – Dicks, Y; Inslee, Y; Larsen, Y; McDermott, N; Smith, N.

Republicans – Hastings, Y; Herrera Beutler, Y; McMorris Rodgers, Y; Reichert, Y.

WEST VIRGINIA

Democrats – Rahall, Y.

Republicans – Capito, Y; McKinley, Y.

WISCONSIN

Democrats – Baldwin, N; Kind, Y; Moore, X.

Republicans – Duffy, Y; Petri, Y; Ribble, Y; Ryan, Y; Sensenbrenner, Y.

WYOMING

Republicans – Lummis, Y.

___________

Here is how the House of Representatives voted on Jan 1, 2012:

House Roll Call: On deal to avoid ‘fiscal cliff’

The 257-167 roll call Tuesday by which the House passed the agreement that avoided the so-called fiscal cliff of middle-class tax increases and spending cuts and sent the measure to President Barack Obama.

A “yes” vote is a vote to pass the bill.

Voting yes were 172 Democrats and 85 Republicans.

Voting no were 16 Democrats and 151 Republicans.

X denotes those not voting.

There are 3 vacancies in the 435-member House.

ALABAMA

Democrats – Sewell, Y.

Republicans – Aderholt, N; Bachus, N; Bonner, N; Brooks, N; Roby, N; Rogers, N.

ALASKA

Republicans – Young, Y.

ARIZONA

Democrats – Barber, Y; Grijalva, Y; Pastor, Y.

Republicans – Flake, N; Franks, N; Gosar, N; Quayle, N; Schweikert, N.

ARKANSAS

Democrats – Ross, Y.

Republicans – Crawford, N; Griffin, N; Womack, Y.

CALIFORNIA

Democrats – Baca, Y; Bass, Y; Becerra, N; Berman, Y; Capps, Y; Chu, Y; Costa, Y; Davis, Y; Eshoo, Y; Farr, Y; Garamendi, Y; Hahn, Y; Honda, Y; Lee, Y; Lofgren, Zoe, Y; Matsui, Y; McNerney, Y; Miller, George, Y; Napolitano, Y; Pelosi, Y; Richardson, Y; Roybal-Allard, Y; Sanchez, Linda T., Y; Sanchez, Loretta, Y; Schiff, Y; Sherman, Y; Speier, Y; Stark, X; Thompson, Y; Waters, Y; Waxman, Y; Woolsey, X.

Republicans – Bilbray, Y; Bono Mack, Y; Calvert, Y; Campbell, N; Denham, Y; Dreier, Y; Gallegly, Y; Herger, Y; Hunter, N; Issa, N; Lewis, X; Lungren, Daniel E., Y; McCarthy, N; McClintock, N; McKeon, Y; Miller, Gary, Y; Nunes, N; Rohrabacher, N; Royce, Y.

COLORADO

Democrats – DeGette, Y; Perlmutter, Y; Polis, Y.

Republicans – Coffman, N; Gardner, N; Lamborn, N; Tipton, N.

CONNECTICUT

Democrats – Courtney, Y; DeLauro, N; Himes, Y; Larson, Y; Murphy, Y.

DELAWARE

Democrats – Carney, Y.

FLORIDA

Democrats – Brown, Y; Castor, Y; Deutch, Y; Hastings, Y; Wasserman Schultz, Y; Wilson, Y.

Republicans – Adams, N; Bilirakis, N; Buchanan, Y; Crenshaw, Y; Diaz-Balart, Y; Mack, N; Mica, N; Miller, N; Nugent, N; Posey, N; Rivera, N; Rooney, N; Ros-Lehtinen, Y; Ross, N; Southerland, N; Stearns, N; Webster, N; West, N; Young, Y.

GEORGIA

Democrats – Barrow, N; Bishop, Y; Johnson, Y; Lewis, X; Scott, David, Y.

Republicans – Broun, N; Gingrey, N; Graves, N; Kingston, N; Price, N; Scott, Austin, N; Westmoreland, N; Woodall, N.

HAWAII

Democrats – Hanabusa, Y; Hirono, Y.

IDAHO

Republicans – Labrador, N; Simpson, Y.

ILLINOIS

Democrats – Costello, Y; Davis, Y; Gutierrez, Y; Lipinski, Y; Quigley, Y; Rush, Y; Schakowsky, Y.

Republicans – Biggert, Y; Dold, Y; Hultgren, N; Johnson, Y; Kinzinger, Y; Manzullo, Y; Roskam, N; Schilling, N; Schock, Y; Shimkus, Y; Walsh, N.

INDIANA

Democrats – Carson, Y; Donnelly, Y; Visclosky, N.

Republicans – Bucshon, N; Burton, X; Pence, N; Rokita, N; Stutzman, N; Young, N.

IOWA

Democrats – Boswell, Y; Braley, Y; Loebsack, Y.

Republicans – King, N; Latham, N.

KANSAS

Republicans – Huelskamp, N; Jenkins, N; Pompeo, N; Yoder, N.

KENTUCKY

Democrats – Chandler, Y; Yarmuth, Y.

Republicans – Guthrie, N; Massie, N; Rogers, Y; Whitfield, N.

LOUISIANA

Democrats – Richmond, Y.

Republicans – Alexander, Y; Boustany, N; Cassidy, N; Fleming, N; Landry, N; Scalise, N.

MAINE

Democrats – Michaud, Y; Pingree, Y.

MARYLAND

Democrats – Cummings, Y; Edwards, Y; Hoyer, Y; Ruppersberger, Y; Sarbanes, Y; Van Hollen, Y.

Republicans – Bartlett, N; Harris, N.

MASSACHUSETTS

Democrats – Capuano, Y; Frank, Y; Keating, Y; Lynch, Y; Markey, Y; McGovern, Y; Neal, Y; Olver, Y; Tierney, Y; Tsongas, Y.

MICHIGAN

Democrats – Clarke, Y; Conyers, Y; Curson, Y; Dingell, Y; Kildee, Y; Levin, Y; Peters, Y.

Republicans – Amash, N; Benishek, Y; Camp, Y; Huizenga, N; Miller, Y; Rogers, Y; Upton, Y; Walberg, N.

MINNESOTA

Democrats – Ellison, Y; McCollum, Y; Peterson, N; Walz, Y.

Republicans – Bachmann, N; Cravaack, N; Kline, Y; Paulsen, N.

MISSISSIPPI

Democrats – Thompson, Y.

Republicans – Harper, N; Nunnelee, N; Palazzo, N.

MISSOURI

Democrats – Carnahan, Y; Clay, Y; Cleaver, Y.

Republicans – Akin, N; Emerson, Y; Graves, X; Hartzler, N; Long, N; Luetkemeyer, Y.

MONTANA

Republicans – Rehberg, N.

NEBRASKA

Republicans – Fortenberry, Y; Smith, N; Terry, N.

NEVADA

Democrats – Berkley, Y.

Republicans – Amodei, N; Heck, Y.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Republicans – Bass, Y; Guinta, N.

NEW JERSEY

Democrats – Andrews, Y; Holt, Y; Pallone, Y; Pascrell, Y; Payne, Y; Rothman, Y; Sires, Y.

Republicans – Frelinghuysen, Y; Garrett, N; Lance, Y; LoBiondo, Y; Runyan, Y; Smith, Y.

NEW MEXICO

Democrats – Heinrich, Y; Lujan, Y.

Republicans – Pearce, N.

NEW YORK

Democrats – Ackerman, Y; Bishop, Y; Clarke, Y; Crowley, Y; Engel, Y; Higgins, Y; Hinchey, Y; Hochul, Y; Israel, Y; Lowey, Y; Maloney, Y; McCarthy, Y; Meeks, Y; Nadler, Y; Owens, Y; Rangel, Y; Serrano, Y; Slaughter, Y; Tonko, Y; Towns, Y; Velazquez, Y.

Republicans – Buerkle, X; Gibson, Y; Grimm, Y; Hanna, Y; Hayworth, Y; King, Y; Reed, Y; Turner, Y.

NORTH CAROLINA

Democrats – Butterfield, Y; Kissell, Y; McIntyre, N; Miller, N; Price, Y; Shuler, Y; Watt, Y.

Republicans – Coble, Y; Ellmers, N; Foxx, N; Jones, N; McHenry, N; Myrick, N.

NORTH DAKOTA

Republicans – Berg, N.

OHIO

Democrats – Fudge, Y; Kaptur, Y; Kucinich, Y; Ryan, Y; Sutton, Y.

Republicans – Austria, N; Boehner, Y; Chabot, N; Gibbs, N; Johnson, Y; Jordan, N; LaTourette, Y; Latta, Y; Renacci, N; Schmidt, N; Stivers, Y; Tiberi, Y; Turner, N.

OKLAHOMA

Democrats – Boren, Y.

Republicans – Cole, Y; Lankford, N; Lucas, Y; Sullivan, Y.

OREGON

Democrats – Blumenauer, N; Bonamici, Y; DeFazio, N; Schrader, N.

Republicans – Walden, Y.

PENNSYLVANIA

Democrats – Altmire, Y; Brady, Y; Critz, Y; Doyle, Y; Fattah, Y; Holden, Y; Schwartz, Y.

Republicans – Barletta, Y; Dent, Y; Fitzpatrick, Y; Gerlach, Y; Kelly, Y; Marino, Y; Meehan, Y; Murphy, Y; Pitts, Y; Platts, Y; Shuster, Y; Thompson, Y.

RHODE ISLAND

Democrats – Cicilline, Y; Langevin, Y.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Democrats – Clyburn, Y.

Republicans – Duncan, N; Gowdy, N; Mulvaney, N; Scott, N; Wilson, N.

SOUTH DAKOTA

Republicans – Noem, Y.

TENNESSEE

Democrats – Cohen, Y; Cooper, N.

Republicans – Black, N; Blackburn, N; DesJarlais, N; Duncan, N; Fincher, N; Fleischmann, N; Roe, N.

TEXAS

Democrats – Cuellar, Y; Doggett, Y; Gonzalez, Y; Green, Al, Y; Green, Gene, Y; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson Lee, Y; Johnson, E. B., Y; Reyes, Y.

Republicans – Barton, N; Brady, Y; Burgess, N; Canseco, N; Carter, N; Conaway, N; Culberson, N; Farenthold, N; Flores, N; Gohmert, N; Granger, N; Hall, N; Hensarling, N; Johnson, Sam, N; Marchant, N; McCaul, N; Neugebauer, N; Olson, N; Paul, X; Poe, N; Sessions, Y; Smith, Y; Thornberry, Y.

UTAH

Democrats – Matheson, N.

Republicans – Bishop, N; Chaffetz, N.

VERMONT

Democrats – Welch, Y.

VIRGINIA

Democrats – Connolly, Y; Moran, N; Scott, N.

Republicans – Cantor, N; Forbes, N; Goodlatte, N; Griffith, N; Hurt, N; Rigell, N; Wittman, N; Wolf, N.

WASHINGTON

Democrats – DelBene, Y; Dicks, Y; Larsen, Y; McDermott, N; Smith, N.

Republicans – Hastings, Y; Herrera Beutler, Y; McMorris Rodgers, Y; Reichert, Y.

WEST VIRGINIA

Democrats – Rahall, Y.

Republicans – Capito, N; McKinley, N.

WISCONSIN

Democrats – Baldwin, Y; Kind, Y; Moore, Y.

Republicans – Duffy, N; Petri, N; Ribble, Y; Ryan, Y; Sensenbrenner, N.

WYOMING

Republicans – Lummis, N.

Here is one of my favorite videos on this subject below:

What Is The Debt Ceiling?

Published on May 19, 2013

What is the debt ceiling and why does it matter? Find out:http://BankruptingAmerica.org/DebtCei…

Congress’s dance with the debt limit can be confusing and, frankly, the details can be a real snooze fest for many Americans. Sometimes a little humor clarifies the absurdities of Washington antics better than flow charts and talk of trillions.

The 31-second video and accompanying infographic “The Debt Ceiling Explained” by Bankrupting America offers the facts, leavened with a dose of levity. The conclusion is serious, however: The country’s debt threatens economic growth, and spending cuts are the answer.

_________________________

It is obvious to me that if President Obama gets his hands on more money then he will continue to spend away our children’s future. He has already taken the national debt from 11 trillion to 16 trillion in just 4 years. Over, and over, and over, and over, and over and over I have written Speaker Boehner and written every Republican that represents Arkansans in Arkansas before (Griffin, Womack, Crawford, and only Senator Boozman got a chance to respond) concerning this. I am hoping they will stand up against this reckless spending that our federal government has done and will continue to do if given the chance.

Why don’t the Republicans  just vote no on the next increase to the debt ceiling limit. I have praised over and over and over the 66 House Republicans that voted no on that before. If they did not raise the debt ceiling then we would have a balanced budget instantly.  I agree that the Tea Party has made a difference and I have personally posted 49 posts on my blog on different Tea Party heroes of mine.

What would happen if the debt ceiling was not increased? Yes President Obama would probably cancel White House tours and he would try to stop mail service or something else to get on our nerves but that is what the Republicans need to do.

I have written and emailed Senator Pryor over, and over again with spending cut suggestions but he has ignored all of these good ideas in favor of keeping the printing presses going as we plunge our future generations further in debt. I am convinced if he does not change his liberal voting record that he will no longer be our senator in 2014.

I have written hundreds of letters and emails to President Obama and I must say that I have been impressed that he has had the White House staff answer so many of my letters. The White House answered concerning Social Security (two times), Green Technologies, welfare, small businesses, Obamacare (twice),  federal overspending, expanding unemployment benefits to 99 weeks,  gun control, national debt, abortion, jumpstarting the economy, and various other  issues.   However, his policies have not changed, and by the way the White House after answering over 50 of my letters before November of 2012 has not answered one since.   President Obama is committed to cutting nothing from the budget that I can tell.

 I have praised over and over and over the 66 House Republicans that voted no on that before. If they did not raise the debt ceiling then we would have a balanced budget instantly.  I agree that the Tea Party has made a difference and I have personally posted 49 posts on my blog on different Tea Party heroes of mine.

_________________________

Related posts:

The 66 brave Tea Party Republicans who voted against the debt ceiling increase last time back in August of 2011!!!

President Ronald Reagan once said, “I have only one thing to say to the tax increasers: Go ahead, make my day.” ____________ Here below is a list of those 66 brave Republicans that voted against the debt ceiling increase listed below in August of 2011. The ones in blue are the ones that I have […]

Mission accomplished!!! Rick Crawford joins Tea Party Republicans and votes against kick the can down the road “fiscal cliff deal”

  _________________ President Ronald Reagan wisely said: “The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people, too much authority from the states, and too much liberty with the Constitution.” You would think that the Republicans who talk so much of cutting spending would try to get a plan that cuts spending 3 […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 201)Tea Party favorite Representative links article “Prescott and Ohanian: Taxes Are Much Higher Than You Think”

    (Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.2)Tea Party Republican Representative takes on the President concerning fiscal cliff

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.1)Tea Party favorite Representative shares link on facebook

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 199) Tea Party favorite takes on President

  The federal government has a spending problem and Milton Friedman came up with the negative income tax to help poor people get out of the welfare trap. It seems that the government screws up about everything. Then why is President Obama wanting more taxes? _______________ Milton Friedman – The Negative Income Tax Published on […]

Tea Party Heroes Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) have been punished by Boehner

I was sad to read that the Speaker John Boehner has been involved in punishing tea  party republicans. Actually I have written letters to several of these same tea party heroes telling them that I have emailed Boehner encouraging him to listen to them. Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). have been contacted […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 10)

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 9)

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]

49 posts on Tea Party heroes of mine

Some of the heroes are Mo Brooks, Martha Roby, Jeff Flake, Trent Franks, Duncan Hunter, Tom Mcclintock, Devin Nunes, Scott Tipton, Bill Posey, Steve Southerland and those others below in the following posts. THEY VOTED AGAINST THE DEBT CEILING INCREASE IN 2011 AND WE NEED THAT TYPE OF LEADERSHIP NOW SINCE PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BEEN […]

Some Tea Party Republicans win and some lose

I hated to see that Allen West may be on the way out. ABC News reported: Nov 7, 2012 7:20am What Happened to the Tea Party (and the Blue Dogs?) Some of the Republican Party‘s most controversial House members are clinging to narrow leads in races where only a few votes are left to count. […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 8)

Rep Himes and Rep Schweikert Discuss the Debt and Budget Deal Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 7)

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]

Who are the Tea Party Heroes from the 87 Freshmen Republicans?

Here is a study done on the votes of the 87 incoming freshman republicans frm the Club for Growth. Freshman Vote Study In the 2010 election, 87 freshmen House Republicans came to Washington pledging fealty to the Tea Party movement and the ideals of limited government and economic freedom. The mainstream media likes to say […]

Max Brantley of Arkansas Times upset at Tea Party’s success

Stimulating the economy comes from giving the private sector incentive to grow or in other words cutting taxes for job creators and not class warfare. Sadly we have had too many RINOS out there. The Tea Party is the answer for that. The liberal Arkansas Times blog runned by Max Brantley is upset that the Tea […]

Tea Party Conservative Senator Mike Lee interview

Tea Party Conservative Senator Mike Lee interview Here is an excellent interview above with Senator Lee with a fine article below from the Heritage Foundation. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) came to Washington as the a tea-party conservative with the goal of fixing the economy, addressing the debt crisis and curbing the growth of the federal […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 6)

I feel so strongly about the evil practice of running up our national debt. I was so proud of Rep. Todd Rokita who voted against the Budget Control Act of 2011 on August 11, 2011. He made this comment:   For decades now, we have spent too much money on ourselves and have intentionally allowed our […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 5)

Rep. Quayle on Fox News with Neil Cavuto __________________ We have to get people realize that the most important issue is the debt!!! Recently I read a comment by Congressman Ben Quayle (R-AZ) made  after voting against the amended Budget Control Act on August 1, 2011. He said it was important to compel “Congressional Democrats and […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 4)

What future does our country have if we never even attempt to balance our budget. I read some wise words by Congressman Jeff Landry (R, LA-03) regarding the  debt ceiling deal that was passed on August 1, 2011:”Throughout this debate, the American people have demanded a real cure to America’s spending addiction – a Balanced Budget […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 3)

I read some wise comments by Idaho First District Congressman Raúl R. Labrador concerning the passage of the Budget Control Act on August 1, 2011 and I wanted to point them out: “The legislation  lacks a rock solid commitment to passage of a balanced budget amendment, which I believe is necessary to saving our nation.” I just […]

Mission accomplished!!! Rick Crawford joins Tea Party Republicans and votes against kick the can down the road “fiscal cliff deal”

 
_________________

You would think that the Republicans who talk so much of cutting spending would try to get a plan that cuts spending 3 to 1 over tax increases at least. Instead, they go for a plan that raises taxes 41 to 1 over spending cuts. The government is spending 42% of our GDP while in socialist Europe most countries are at 48%. Soon we will be where they are and probably will looking at the same fate as Greece. Our problem is spending. Over and over you hear Republicans say that but they do nothing about it. At least Rick Crawford and Tim Griffin from Arkansas voted against the plan Obama laid out. The only good thing about this deal is that it did not raise the debt ceiling. We will soon another fight over that.

During the month of December I contacted our three Republican Congressman and our one Republican Senator several times concerning this fiscal cliff deal that was coming down the pike and the debt ceiling debate. I also contacted over 40 Tea Party Republican Representatives around 1/2 dozen times concerning these same issues. I am happy to report that according to my records all 40 voted against this latest deal. I have some more verifying to do on that but it appears now that is the case.

Below is an earlier post of mine concerning Rick Crawford:

 

RAISE TAXES: Report says Rick Crawford will break from GOP and back millionaires tax.

I recently wrote an open letter to Congressman Rick Crawford and I put it on his facebook page. I personally do not have a facebook page so I used my son Wilson’s facebook page and here is what Congressman Crawford said:

Wilson- I agree with you that we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem in this country. As you might know I have been a strong advocate for permanent spending controls, like a Balanced Budget Amendment, that will ensure we do not continue spending money that we do not have. Thank you for your thoughts and know that I am fighting everyday to rein in federal spending and to pay down our crushing national debt.

I am very impressed that Congressman Crawford got back to me so soon. I am hopeful that he will join the 66 brave Tea Party Republicans who voted against the debt ceiling increase back in August of 2011,  Tea Party heroes like Rep. Todd Rokita,  Ben Quayle (R-AZ), Jeff Landry (R, LA-03),  Raúl R. Labrador , Tim HuelskampRep. Justin Amash (R-MI),  , Brooks, Mo (AL – 5), Buerkle, Ann Marie (NY – 25),Chabot, Steven (OH – 1),Duncan, Jeff (SC – 3), Fleischmann, Chuck (TN – 3) ,Gowdy, Trey (SC – 4) ,Griffith, H. Morgan (VA – 9) , Harris, Andy (MD – 1) ,Huizenga, Bill (MI – 2) , Mulvaney, Mick (SC – 5) , Pompeo, Mike (KS – 4) , Ribble, Reid (WI – 8), Rigell, E. Scott (VA – 2) , Ross, Dennis (FL – 12) ,Schweikert, David (AZ – 5), Scott, Austin (GA – 8) , Scott, Tim (SC – 1) , Southerland, Steve (FL – 2) , Stutzman, Marlin (IN – 3) , Walberg, Timothy (MI – 7) , Walsh, Joe (IL – 8),and Woodall, Rob (GA – 7) .

I have written about these Tea Party heroes over and over and over. They are the only hope that we have to stopping this federal government spending problem that we have. I like John Boehner a lot but if he keeps trying to give in to the Democratic demands to raise taxes and raise the debt limit then we need to do something about getting more conservative representation in the speaker chair. Newt didn’t put up with this kind of thing in the 1990’s when he worked with Clinton. As a result we had 4 balanced budgets in a row. DO YOU THINK THAT CLINTON WOULD HAVE DONE THAT WITHOUT NEWT STANDING UP TO HIM?

I was sad to read that the Speaker John Boehner has been involved in punishing tea  party republicans. Actually I have written letters to several of these same tea party heroes telling them that I have emailed Boehner encouraging him to listen to them. Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). have been contacted by me before and I have posted things about them too.

With Purge, House GOP Leadership Reaches New Low

Posted by Tad DeHaven

In December 2010, I wrote that “An indicator of the incoming House Republican majority’s seriousness about cutting spending will be which members the party selects to head the various committees.” The final roster ended up leaving a lot to be desired from a limited government perspective. For example, the House Republican leadership and its allies went with Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY), aka “The Prince of Pork,” to head up the Appropriations Committee.

Two years later, the committee situation is about to get even worse now that the House Republican leadership has decided to send a message that casting a vote according to one’s beliefs instead of one’s instructions is a punishable offense. On Monday, four congressmen were booted from “plum” committee assignments for failing to sufficiently toe the leadership line. I suspect that the purge was motivated, at least in part, by Team Boehner’s desire to have the rest of the rank and file think twice before casting a “no” vote on whatever lousy deal is struck with the White House to avoid the “fiscal cliff.”

Three of the purged Republicans are returning members of the 2010 freshmen “Tea Party Class”: Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ), Justin Amash (R-MI), and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). Over the past year, I have been keeping a loose record of how the freshmen voted on opportunities to eliminate programs and prevent spending increases. On seven particularly telling votes*, Schweikert and Amash voted in favor of limited government every time. Out of 87 freshmen, only Schweikert, Amash, and five others had a perfect record. Huelskamp was six for seven. He also was one of only four Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee to vote against the bloated farm bill that passed out of the committee in July. The fourth outcast, Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), had become an irritant to the Republican establishment after turning against the Iraq War and associating himself with more libertarian Republicans like Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

The best that can be said for Team Boehner thus far is that it isn’t Team Pelosi. A common excuse is that House Republicans have been constrained by Democratic control of the Senate and White House. While there is an element of truth to that claim, we’re talking about a House Republican majority that wouldn’t even vote to get rid of the loan guarantee program that led to the Solyndra debacle. The reality is that most Republicans were only ever interested in using Solyndra to score political points against the White House. Ditto pretty much every other White House spending endeavor that House Republicans claim to oppose.

*Votes were to terminate the Economic Development Administration, Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia, Essential Air Service program, Title 17 Energy Loan Guarantees, Community Block Development Grant program, against reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, and against the Continuing Appropriations Act in September.

Related posts:

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 53)

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 53) John Boehner, Speaker of the House H-232, The Capital, Washington, DC 20515 Dear Mr. Speaker, I know that you will have to meet with newly re-elected President Obama soon and he will probably be anxious for you to raise taxes and  federal spending, but […]

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 52)

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 52) John Boehner, Speaker of the House H-232, The Capital, Washington, DC 20515 Dear Mr. Speaker, I know that you will have to meet with newly re-elected President Obama soon and he will probably be anxious for you to raise taxes and  federal spending, but […]

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 51)

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 51) John Boehner, Speaker of the House H-232, The Capital, Washington, DC 20515 Dear Mr. Speaker, I know that you will have to meet with newly re-elected President Obama soon and he will probably be anxious for you to raise taxes and  federal spending, but […]

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 50)

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 50) John Boehner, Speaker of the House H-232, The Capital, Washington, DC 20515 Dear Mr. Speaker, I know that you will have to meet with newly re-elected President Obama soon and he will probably be anxious for you to raise taxes and  federal spending, but […]

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 49)

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 49) John Boehner, Speaker of the House H-232, The Capital, Washington, DC 20515 Dear Mr. Speaker, I know that you will have to meet with newly re-elected President Obama soon and he will probably be anxious for you to raise taxes and  federal spending, but […]

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 48)

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 48) John Boehner, Speaker of the House H-232, The Capital, Washington, DC 20515 Dear Mr. Speaker, I know that you will have to meet with newly re-elected President Obama soon and he will probably be anxious for you to raise taxes and  federal spending, but […]

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 47)

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 47) John Boehner, Speaker of the House H-232, The Capital, Washington, DC 20515 Dear Mr. Speaker, I know that you will have to meet with newly re-elected President Obama soon and he will probably be anxious for you to raise taxes and  federal spending, but […]

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 46)

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 46) John Boehner, Speaker of the House H-232, The Capital, Washington, DC 20515 Dear Mr. Speaker, I know that you will have to meet with newly re-elected President Obama soon and he will probably be anxious for you to raise taxes and  federal spending, but […]

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 45)

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 45) John Boehner, Speaker of the House H-232, The Capital, Washington, DC 20515 Dear Mr. Speaker, I know that you will have to meet with newly re-elected President Obama soon and he will probably be anxious for you to raise taxes and  federal spending, but […]

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 44)

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 44) John Boehner, Speaker of the House H-232, The Capital, Washington, DC 20515 Dear Mr. Speaker, I know that you will have to meet with newly re-elected President Obama soon and he will probably be anxious for you to raise taxes and  federal spending, but […]

Reagan: “When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.”

__________________

_____________

Sometimes you just have to turn it over to the people and let them put the heat on the lawmakers. That is what Ronald Reagan meant when he said, “When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.”

I am glad that the Republicans have not given into Obama’s demands yet. I think he will hear from the people and fold like a cheap deck of cards.

Rob Bluey

December 21, 2012 at 9:00 am

“When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.”

President Ronald Reagan’s sound advice rang true yesterday. Grassroots activists and conservative groups, led by Heritage Action for America, derailed a plan to raise taxes on some Americans and small businesses.

Lacking votes from his own party, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) called off consideration of “Plan B” last night, sending lawmakers home for Christmas instead. When the dust settled, conservatives stuck to their principles: to cut spending without raising taxes.

When they return to work, all eyes will be on President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Their failure to act has left the nation on the brink of the fiscal cliff.

It didn’t have to come to this. Nearly five months ago, on August 1, the House of Representatives voted to prevent a tax hike on all Americans. The measure passed on a 256-to-171 vote, winning the support of 19 Democrats.

Meanwhile, as Obama divided the country with his class-warfare campaign, Reid sat idle.

Heritage’s Patrick Louis Knudsen, the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs, wrote last month about the Senate’s failure to act:

Although the House passed legislation this year replacing the across-the-board cuts with specific policy changes, the Senate refused to act, forcing any resolution to wait until after this year’s election. Now this large problem joins with other unresolved issues, such as the “doc fix” (extending Medicare physicians’ payment rates) and extended unemployment benefits—and another debt-ceiling increase looms early next year as well.

Now there are just 11 days left before Americans face a massive slate of tax hikes and reckless defense cuts. The fiscal cliff will affect all American taxpayers, with an average increase of more than $4,100 in taxes.

This is unacceptable.

Reid could have brought the House-passed measure to the Senate for an open debate and vote. He could have instructed Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) to produce a budget. Instead, Reid did neither. The Senate has now gone 3 years, 7 months, and 22 days without a budget.

Boehner, who oversaw passage of Republican-drafted budgets in 2011 and 2012, was right to place blame on the Senate for failing to act:

Now it is up to the president to work with Senator Reid on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff. The House has already passed legislation to stop all of the January 1 tax rate increases and replace the sequester with responsible spending cuts that will begin to address our nation’s crippling debt. The Senate must now act.

Heritage Action, our sister organization, has urged lawmakers to remain true to their principles. Earlier this week at a Capitol Hill press conference, Heritage Action chief executive Michael Needham led a group of conservative leaders, including Representative Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), to voice opposition to a tax increase.

>>> VIDEO: Conservative Leaders on the Fiscal Cliff

In a statement last night, Needham commended the House for acting months ago and urged Obama and Reid to “reject the political gimmicks and demonstrate that same level of seriousness.”

Throughout the fiscal cliff negotiations, Obama has demonstrated a lack of seriousness. Heritage’s Alison Acosta Fraser recounted earlier this week that Obama initially wanted an $800 billion tax increase, only to later double that demand to $1.5 trillion. His plan lacks any substantive spending cuts, insisting on tax hikes first. And to top it off, the more concessions Republicans have made, the more Obama wants to take from the American people.

Enough is enough.

Conservatives stood their ground last night and sent a powerful message. Now it’s time for lawmakers to take the “least repugnant remaining resolution to the fiscal cliff,” as Heritage’s J.D. Foster wrote earlier this week, and pass a temporary measure that extends all tax rates and all spending policy without sequestration cuts through March 31, 2013.

That’s the best possible outcome in this unfortunate situation.

__________

It is obvious to me that if President Obama gets his hands on more money then he will continue to spend away our children’s future. He has already taken the national debt from 11 trillion to 16 trillion in just 4 years. Over, and over, and over, and over, and over and over I have written Speaker Boehner and the Congressmen (Griffin, Womack, Crawford) in Arkansas concerning this. I am hoping they will stand up against this reckless spending that our federal government has done and will continue to do if given the chance.

I have written and emailed Senator Pryor over, and over again with spending cut suggestions but he has ignored all of these good ideas in favor of keeping the printing presses going as we plunge our future generations further in debt. I am convinced if he does not change his liberal voting record that he will no longer be our senator in 2014.

I have written hundreds of letters and emails to President Obama and I must say that I have been impressed that he has had the White House staff answer so many of my letters. However, his policies have not changed. He is committed to cutting nothing from the budget that I can tell.

Back in 1980 Ronald Reagan was elected during a time where the economy of the USA was about what it is now. How did he get the economy to grow? He listened to his old friend Milton Friedman and he put in conservative principles to slow the growth of spending and he cut taxes.

We need to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment!!!! It is obvious to me that if President Obama gets his hands on more money then he will continue to spend away our children’s future. He has already taken the national debt from 11 trillion to 20 trillion in just 7 years. Over, and over, and over, and over, and over and over I have written Speaker Boehner and the Congressmen (Griffin, Womack, Crawford) in Arkansas concerning this. I am hoping they will stand up against this reckless spending that our federal government has done and will continue to do if given the chance.

I have written and emailed Senator Pryor over, and over again with spending cut suggestions but he has ignored all of these good ideas in favor of keeping the printing presses going as we plunge our future generations further in debt. I am convinced if he does not change his liberal voting record that he will no longer be our senator in 2014.

I have written hundreds of letters and emails to President Obama and I must say that I have been impressed that he has had the White House staff answer so many of my letters. However, his policies have not changed. He is committed to cutting nothing from the budget that I can tell.

_______________

Uploaded by on Mar 26, 2011

Mark Levin “I feel that we can do great things.” Mark is excited by the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment. He states that this would be a great thing for America to pass. He believes the Balanced Budget Amendment will help bring the nation back to it’s Constitutional roots. Mark explains what the amendment is and how it will work. In his February 1983 classic essay, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman gives his opinion on a balanced budget amendment that requires a super majority to raise taxes. Friedman states, “The purpose of the balanced-budget-and-tax-limitation amendment is to limit the government in order to free the people—this time from excessive taxation. Its passage would go a long way to remedy the defect that has developed in our budgetary process.” Part #1 3-25-2011

___________________

______________

Mark Levin and Senator Hatch discuss the balanced budget amendment and it’s importance.

Uploaded by on Jan 28, 2011

Mark Levin interviews Senator Hatch 1/27/2011 about the balanced budget amendment. Mark is very excited about the balanced budget amendment being proposed by Senator Orin Hatch and John Cornyn and he discusses the amendment with Senator Hatch. Senator Hatch explains the bill it’s ramifications and limitations. Senator Hatch actually worked on this bill with renowned economist Milton Friedman. This ammendment is the first big step in saving our country.

_______________

Joe Walsh on Balanced Budget Amendment

Sadly Senator Pryor has voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment over and over in his long time in the Senate. Senator Pryor: “There are a lot of people who think a balanced-budget amendment solves all the fiscal problems. I completely disagree.” (Peter Urban, Pryor Tilts Balanced Budget, Southwest Times Record, 11/17/11)

________________

Office of the Majority Whip | Balanced Budget Amendment Video

In 1995, Congress nearly passed a constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget. The Balanced Budget Amendment would have forced the federal government to live within its means. This Balanced Budget Amendment failed by one vote. 16 years later, Congress has the chance to get it right. Our time is now.

_____________

(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) will not vote for a balanced budget amendment proposal unless it includes a cap on federal spending.

______________

________________

_______________

_________________

______________

____________________

________________

Related posts:

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Dan Mitchell quotes from Milton Friedman video on his blog!!!

________ Dan Mitchell quotes from Milton Friedman video on his blog!!! Wise Words on Regulation and Consumer Freedom from Milton Friedman December 26, 2014 by Dan Mitchell It’s time to correct a sin of omission. In five-plus years of blogging, I haven’t given nearly enough attention to the wisdom of the late (and great) Milton Friedman. […]

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE “How to Stay Free,” Transcript and Video (60 Minutes)

Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE “How to Stay Free,” Transcript and Video (60 Minutes) In 1980 I read the book FREE TO CHOOSE by Milton Friedman and it really enlightened me a tremendous amount.  I suggest checking out these episodes and transcripts of Milton Friedman’s film series FREE TO CHOOSE: “The Failure of Socialism” and “The Anatomy […]

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE “How to cure inflation” Transcript and Video (60 Minutes)

Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE “How to cure inflation” Transcript and Video (60 Minutes) In 1980 I read the book FREE TO CHOOSE by Milton Friedman and it really enlightened me a tremendous amount.  I suggest checking out these episodes and transcripts of Milton Friedman’s film series FREE TO CHOOSE: “The Failure of Socialism” and “What is wrong […]

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE “Who protects the consumer?” Transcript and Video (60 Minutes)

Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE “Who protects the consumer?” Transcript and Video (60 Minutes) In 1980 I read the book FREE TO CHOOSE by Milton Friedman and it really enlightened me a tremendous amount.  I suggest checking out these episodes and transcripts of Milton Friedman’s film series FREE TO CHOOSE: “The Failure of Socialism” and “What is wrong […]

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE “The Tyranny of Control” Transcript and Video (60 Minutes)

Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE “The Tyranny of Control” Transcript and Video (60 Minutes) In 1980 I read the book FREE TO CHOOSE by Milton Friedman and it really enlightened me a tremendous amount.  I suggest checking out these episodes and transcripts of Milton Friedman’s film series FREE TO CHOOSE: “The Failure of Socialism” and […]

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY We got to give Milton Friedman’s voucher system a chance!!!

We got to give Milton Friedman’s voucher system a chance!!! Happy Birthday, Milton Friedman: Champion of Educational Freedom Brittany Corona July 31, 2013 at 11:30 am Newscom On the late, great, Nobel Prize–winning economist Milton Friedman’s 101st birthday, it is fitting to remember his legacy of school choice and continue the fight for educational opportunity […]

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY We should listen to Milton Friedman!!!!

Milton Friedman – School Choice Professor Friedman spells out his recipe for fixing America’s broken educational system. http://www.LibertyPen.com Milton Friedman at 101: We Need His Ideas Now More Than Ever Anthony B. Kim July 31, 2013 at 3:49 pm Anthony B. Kim July 31, 2013 at 3:49 pm Free-market economics meets free-market policies at The […]

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY I never thought I would say that U2’s Bono would agree with Milton Friedman but recently he did say that capitalism gives the poor of the world the best chance for a better life!!!

U2’s Bono Speaks at GU Global Social Enterprise Event Published on Nov 13, 2012 Musician and activist Bono spoke to more than 700 Georgetown students and leaders in the corporate, nonprofit and political sectors on Nov. 12 at an event hosted by the Global Social Enterprise Initiative (GSEI) at Georgetown’s McDonough School of Business. ______________________________ […]

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY “How to Cure Inflation” in Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE Part 7 of 7 “The crucial thing is to cut down total government spending from the point of view of inflation, from the point of view of productivity, some of the other measures you were talking about are far more important”

In 1980 I read the book FREE TO CHOOSE by Milton Friedman and it really enlightened me a tremendous amount.  I suggest checking out these episodes and transcripts of Milton Friedman’s film series FREE TO CHOOSE: “The Failure of Socialism” and “What is wrong with our schools?”  and “Created Equal”  and  From Cradle to Grave, […]

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY “How to Cure Inflation” in Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE Part 6 of 7 “Here we go into a period of still higher unemployment later on and have it to do all over again. That’s the only choice we face. And when the public at large recognizes that, they will then elect people to Congress, and a President to office who is committed to less government spending and to less government printing of money and until that happens we will not cure inflation”

In 1980 I read the book FREE TO CHOOSE by Milton Friedman and it really enlightened me a tremendous amount.  I suggest checking out these episodes and transcripts of Milton Friedman’s film series FREE TO CHOOSE: “The Failure of Socialism” and “What is wrong with our schools?”  and “Created Equal”  and  From Cradle to Grave, […]

Republicans need to stand up to President Obama on fiscal cliff

 

No one could communicate better than Milton Friedman the principles of freedom and liberty. When taxes are raised then it cuts down our freedom. I am hoping the Republicans will stand up to President Obama on this issue of the fiscal cliff and raising the debt limit.

There’s No Good Outcome to the Fiscal Cliff Fight

December 26, 2012 by Dan Mitchell

We’ve opened all our presents, spent time with family, and enjoyed some tasty food.

Notwithstanding all this good cheer, there’s a a cloud of doom on the horizon. And that horizon is Washington, DC, America’s work-free drug city.

It appears that there’s no way of avoiding a tax increase. Either we go over the cliff, meaning across-the-board hikes for those who pay federal income tax, or Republicans acquiesce to Obama’s class-warfare tax agenda.

No wonder Santa left one unwanted present.

Santa Higher Taxes

I explain the grim outlook for Fox Business News, though my display of sartorial Christmas splendor somewhat offsets the dour topic.

In the interview, I don’t say what should happen, though I’ve previously argued that it’s better to go over the cliff rather than give Obama a victory that will set the stage for further defeats over the next two years.

Better to have a bigger tax hike now, in other words, than to create a precedent that will lead to even larger losses in 2013 and 2014.

Besides, it’s quite possible that Obama is bluffing and this is the right way to get all the tax cuts extended.

But I admit there’s lots of guessing and speculation in those sentences.

There is one thing, however, that I can say with complete confidence. We don’t need a tax increase to balance the budget. We can get rid of red ink in just 10 years simply restraining spending so that it grows by only 2.5 percent per year.

P.S. Notwithstanding the last sentence, our main fiscal goal should be smaller government, not a balanced budget.

P.P.S. I was glad to have an opportunity in the interview to defend Robin Hood’s reputation. As I’ve explained, he was a Tea Party guy, helping to reclaim and return money that was taken by the tax collectors of Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham. Here’s another Ken Catalino cartoon that sort of makes this point.

Obama Reverse Robin Hood

I’ve also had to correct Cal Thomas on Robin Hood’s philosophical bona fides, so this is a very common mistake.

P.P.P.S. This is my second attempt at creating a video in the absence of the Cato expert. There’s a hiccup around the 2:25 mark, but I think the picture quality is much better than my first effort.

P.P.P.P.S. If you like the red jacket, previous attempts to be on the cutting edge of fashion can be seen here and here.

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200) Rep Womack of Arkansas shares link “Spending is the problem”

 

Milton Friedman said that getting George Bush I to be his vice president was Reagan’s biggest mistake because he knew that Bush was not a true conservative and sure enough George Bush did raise taxes when he later became President. I HOPE THE REPUBLICANS DON’T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE THAT BUSH DID!!!Below is a speech by George W. Bush honoring Milton Friedman:

Milton Friedman Honored for Lifetime Achievements 2002/5/9

Milton Friedman had a big influence on Ronald Reagan and what did Reagan do when he found the economy sluggish? He cut taxes!!! What does President Obama do? He wants to raise taxes!!

(This letter was emailed to White House on 12-20-12.)

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

Fiscal Cliff Common Ground

Published on Dec 17, 2012

Senator Boozman discusses the common ground in fiscal cliff negotations.

______________

Rep Womack of Arkansas shared a link on facebook for a story that was posted on the Speaker of the House Boehner’s website. I wish the Speaker would follow his own advice!!!!

Posted by Don Seymour
December 13, 2012
General
 

In the debate over avoiding the “fiscal cliff,” an important point has been forgotten: when it comes to solving our debt, government spending is the problem that must be addressed.

Republicans have offered a balanced, pro-growth solution that would avert the fiscal cliff by making needed spending cuts and reforming our tax code in ways the president previously supported. This kind of plan – backed by a majority of the American people in survey after survey – would help address our debt and pave the way for long-term job growth.

President Obama and Democrats, on the other hand, want to punish small businesses with higher tax rates while increasing spending. The president has demanded as much as four times in tax hikes versus spending cuts, which are dwarfed by new ‘stimulus.’ This isn’t balanced. And it won’t do any good.

The chart above – prepared by Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and the House Budget Committee – shows what happens to projected levels of tax revenue (green) if President Obama’s tax increases kick in (blue), and compares that with recent and projected spending trajectory (red). As you can see, if the president gets his tax hikes, we still face a mountain of spending-driven debt.

Even Democrats like Erskine Bowles admit, “We have to cut spending.” As said on CBS Face the Nation, “Even if you raise the top rates back to the Clinton rates, that only creates about $400 billion over 10 years. That’s $40 billion a year. We have a trillion dollar a year deficit.”

Spending is the problem. Republicans want to make needed spending cuts; Democrats are silent. And that’s why there’s still no agreement on averting the fiscal cliff.

________

_____________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 201)Tea Party favorite Representative links article “Prescott and Ohanian: Taxes Are Much Higher Than You Think”

    (Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.2)Tea Party Republican Representative takes on the President concerning fiscal cliff

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.1)Tea Party favorite Representative shares link on facebook

 (Emailed to White House on 12-21-12) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 199) Tea Party favorite takes on President

  The federal government has a spending problem and Milton Friedman came up with the negative income tax to help poor people get out of the welfare trap. It seems that the government screws up about everything. Then why is President Obama wanting more taxes? _______________ Milton Friedman – The Negative Income Tax Published on […]

Tea Party Heroes Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) have been punished by Boehner

I was sad to read that the Speaker John Boehner has been involved in punishing tea  party republicans. Actually I have written letters to several of these same tea party heroes telling them that I have emailed Boehner encouraging him to listen to them. Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). have been contacted […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 10)

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]

Why does the “Lucy move the football” reference apply to Republicans on the fiscal cliff?

I truly do wonder how smart our elected representatives are in Washington. I got up on 12-20-12 and read this article below from the Heritage Foundation with the reference to Charlie Brown getting fooled by Lucy again when he runs up and tries  to kick the football and of course she moves it again.

Liberals in Congress have always tried to fool conservatives by promising future cuts if they provide higher taxes now. (This article below appeared on www.heritage.org on 12-20-12.)

Obama’s “Lucy Move the Football” Fiscal Cliff Plan Still Not Balanced

Alison Acosta Fraser

December 18, 2012 at 3:25 pm

Volleys of negotiating counter-offers are coming in faster now that Christmas break and the looming fiscal cliff are just around the corner.

While there is much unsatisfactory with Speaker of the House John Boehner’s (R–OH) Sunday night proposal, let us not forget that the reason we are watching this needless, high stakes drama unfold is due to President Obama’s intractable insistence on tax increases on America’s high earners. After all, he and Congress could simply and quickly pass a bill to extend all current policies and avoid the fiscal cliff entirely—if he wanted to. No, this is really about hiking taxes on high earners. Thus the charade of deficit reduction continues.

Obama’s latest counteroffer is no more acceptable than his first offer. Short on details concerning actual spending reductions, especially on entitlements, it is replete with his requisite tax hikes and (we are shocked) new stimulus spending. The cherry on top is an extension of the debt limit for two years, essentially handing over authority to raise it to the President.

Right.

The President originally called for around $800 billion in tax hikes on America’s “highest” earners—those earning $250,000 and up. A ridiculous demand when the economy is still struggling under his big spending and regulatory policies, and one which would squarely hit smaller businesses. You know, the ones who actually create jobs.

Yet, just like Lucy and the football, when Boehner and company offered up $800 billion in tax hikes, Obama quickly doubled his demand to $1.5 trillion in tax hikes—again, all from the highest earners. They, he tells us, can afford to pay a little more. Never mind, of course, that the top 1 percent of earners already pay 37 percent of all income taxes. Somehow we are to believe this is a “balanced approach.”

Obama pitches all this on the pretext that we can simply go back to the tax rates we had under Clinton. Wrong! His dirty little tax secret is that he has already hiked taxes on high earners under Obamacare. First the law added a surtax of 0.9 percent in addition to the Medicare payroll tax on those earning over $250,000. For the first time ever, Obamacare will apply this higher rate of 3.8 percent to investment income on January 1. Obama won’t tell you that going back to Clinton-era tax rates will actually result in higher taxes on wages, dividends, and capital gains.

They say if you want less of something, then tax it. For Obama, this works fine on financial transactions, carbon emissions, driving, and junk food. But evidently, for him, not so much on a strong vibrant economy. And those Clinton boom years? They weren’t ushered in after the Clinton tax hikeonly after the Clinton–Gingrich tax cut!

Rather than working with Republicans on tax proposals that will actually grow the economy, Obama is now simply fighting over his definition of “high income” while we are left to wonder how much this $1.2 trillion tax hike will slow the economy.

As for the $1.2 trillion spending reductions, the only reason they are there is because Boehner insisted on them. But $100 billion in cuts would whack the defense budget, which is already reeling from earlier budget cuts. Yet the real spending and debt crisis comes from unaffordable entitlement programs. While Obama is insisting on balance on the tax side, he is sorely lacking in leadership here. As a recent Washington Post editorial opined:

Elections do have consequences, and Mr. Obama ran on a clear platform of increasing taxes on the wealthy. But he was clear on something else, too: Deficit reduction must be “balanced,” including spending cuts as well as tax increases. Since 60 percent of the federal budget goes to entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, there’s no way to achieve balance without slowing the rate of increase of those programs.

We know Obama is open to changing the inflation calculation and slowing the benefit growth in Social Security. But what else? What about the proposals in his own budget, which would increase premiums on Medicare? He could easily broaden his proposals with additional uncontroversial steps to begin the process of strengthening and reining in Social Security and Medicare. All he needs to do is lead.

Some polls may show that Americans think taxes should be part of a deficit deal; but what the polls do not always show is their utter distrust that Washington would use new revenues to actually reduce the deficit. Here, Obama does not let them down. He reportedly wants $80 billion in new spending on infrastructure and unemployment benefits.

In exchange for all of this, he wants to raise the debt limit by enough to fuel his big spending goals for two years. This is utterly unacceptable. Americans know you cannot reduce the deficit when you plan to actually spend more. Americans also know that when Washington lifts the debt limit, it will not control spending. The debt limit puts the very pressure lawmakers need to account for out-of-control spending and make vital course corrections to bring spending under control, lest we face a Euro-style debt crisis in the future.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is actually insisting that “[t]he President’s proposal is the only proposal we have seen that achieves the balance that is so necessary.” Balance, evidently, is in the eyes of the beholder. As the Post noted, 60 percent of the budget stems from entitlements.

In just 13 short years—by the time today’s kindergarteners enter college—entitlements and interest on the debt will eat up all tax revenues. A truly balanced approach must start where the problem starts—with substantive reforms to entitlements. While the President maintains that you cannot cut your way to prosperity, you certainly cannot tax your way there.

_______________

Below is a speech by George W. Bush honoring Milton Friedman:

Milton Friedman Honored for Lifetime Achievements 2002/5/9

Milton Friedman said that getting George Bush I to be his vice president was his biggest mistake because he knew that Bush was not a true conservative and sure enough George Bush did raise taxes when he later became President. I wonder if Jeb Bush has the same genes as his father.

What we need is some people in Washington that are brave enough to say that we have taken too much of the american people’s money and we have to make the painful spending cuts in order to balance the budget and not ask for any more tax increases!!!! Arkansas’ congressman Rick Crawford has also made the Charlie Brown mistake but he has backed off it since.

Even though America’s fiscal problem is entirely the result of too much government spending, I wrote earlier this year that there were all sorts of scenarios where I would agree to a tax increase.

But I then pointed out that all of those scenarios were total fantasies and that it would be more realistic to envision me playing center field for the New York Yankees.

The fundamental problem is that politicians never follow through on promises to reduce spending – even if you use the dishonest Washington definition that a spending cut occurs whenever the budget doesn’t rise as fast as previously planned.

And to make matters worse, they always seem to want class-warfare tax hikes that do heavy economic damage rather than the loophole closers that at least get rid of some of the inefficient corruption in the tax code.

That’s why I like the anti-tax pledge of Americans for Tax Reform. You don’t solve America’s fiscal problems by saying no to all tax increases, but at least you don’t move in the wrong direction at a faster rate.

Notwithstanding the principled and pragmatic arguments against putting tax increases on the table, some Republicans – in a triumph of hope over experience – are preemptively acquiescing to tax hikes.

Here’s what Jeb Bush said.

Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, said Friday that he could back a broad deficit plan that increased taxes, a stance that puts him at odds with other prominent Republicans. Bush told a House panel he could get behind a plan that combined 10 dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of new revenue… “The problem is the 10 never materializes,” [Congressman Paul] Ryan said after Bush said he could support a revenue-increasing deficit deal. Norquist also has criticized deficit deals crafted in 1982 and 1990 – the latter agreed to by then-President George H.W. Bush, Jeb’s father – for failing to deliver on the spending side.

Kudos to Paul Ryan for making the obvious point about make-believe spending cuts. And Grover is correct about the failure of previous budget deals.

Indeed, I cited a New York Times column that inadvertently revealed that the only budget deal that worked was the 1997 pact that cut taxes rather than raised them.

Jeb Bush isn’t the only apostate. Here’s what Senator Graham had to say.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Tuesday he believed Republicans should consider eliminating loopholes in the tax code even if they aren’t replaced by additional tax cuts, a move that would break with an anti-tax pledge many GOP lawmakers have signed with activist Grover Norquist. “When you eliminate a deduction, it’s OK with me to use some of that money to get us out of debt. That’s where I disagree with the pledge,” Graham told ABC News. …”I’m willing to move my party, or try to, on the tax issue. I need someone on the Democratic side being willing to move their party on structural changes to entitlements.” Graham said, for instance, he would support a plan that included $4 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. During a Republican debate last August, all eight Republican candidates in attendance said they would reject a proposal to trade $10 in spending cuts for even $1 in tax increases.

In some sense, Senator Graham’s comments are reasonable. With real spending cuts and less-damaging forms of tax hikes, an acceptable deal is possible. But only in Fantasia, not in Washington.

In the real world, all that Senator Graham has done is to move the debate slightly to the left.

I’ve noted that tax increases are political poison for the Republican Party, but I don’t lose sleep worrying about the GOP.

But I do have nightmares about government getting even bigger, and that’s why I don’t want tax increases on the table. I don’t even want them in the room. Or the house. Or the neighborhood.

That’s why Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham are the newest winners of the Charlie Brown Award. They’ve put blood in the water. I wonder if they’ll act surprised when hungry sharks show up looking for a meal?

_____________

In 1982 the Democrats promised future spending cuts if Ronald Reagan would agree to a tax increase, but you guessed it, the taxes were increased and the spending cuts never came. THE REAL PROBLEM IS NOT THAT WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH TAXES BUT WE DON’T WANT TO CUT SPENDING!!!

Washington Could Learn a Lot from a Drug Addict

Concerning spending cuts Reagan believed, that members of Congress “wouldn’t lie to him when he should have known better.” However, can you believe a drug addict when he tells you he is not ever going to do his habit again? Congress is addicted to spending too much money.  Lee Edwards wrote in his article “Golden Years” about Ronald Reagan:

Sometimes Reagan went along with a pragamatist like chief of staff James Baker, who persuaded the president to accept the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), which turned out to be the great tax increase of 1982 — $98 billion over the next three years. That was too much for eighty-nine House Republicans (including second-term Congressman Newt Gingrich of Georgia) or for prominent conservative organizations from the American Conservative Union like the Conservative Caucus and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which all opposed the measure.

Baker assured his boss that Congress would approve three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. To Reagan, TEFRA looked like a pretty good “70 percent” deal. But Congress wound up cutting less than twenty-seven cents for every new tax dollar. What had seemed to be an acceptable 70-30 compromise turned out to be a 30-70 surrender. Ed Meese described TEFRA as “the greatest domestic error of the Reagan administration,” although it did leave untouched the individual tax rate reductions approved the previous year. (TEFRA was built on a series of business and excise taxes plus the removal of business tax deductions.)[xxx]

The basic problem was that Reagan believed, as Lyn Nofziger put it, that members of Congress “wouldn’t lie to him when he should have known better.”[xxxi] As a result of TEFRA, Reagan learned to “trust but verify,” whether he was dealing with a Speaker of the House or a president of the Soviet Union.

_________

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 201)Tea Party favorite Representative links article “Prescott and Ohanian: Taxes Are Much Higher Than You Think”

    (Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.2)Tea Party Republican Representative takes on the President concerning fiscal cliff

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.1)Tea Party favorite Representative shares link on facebook

 (Emailed to White House on 12-21-12) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 199) Tea Party favorite takes on President

  The federal government has a spending problem and Milton Friedman came up with the negative income tax to help poor people get out of the welfare trap. It seems that the government screws up about everything. Then why is President Obama wanting more taxes? _______________ Milton Friedman – The Negative Income Tax Published on […]

Tea Party Heroes Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) have been punished by Boehner

I was sad to read that the Speaker John Boehner has been involved in punishing tea  party republicans. Actually I have written letters to several of these same tea party heroes telling them that I have emailed Boehner encouraging him to listen to them. Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). have been contacted […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 10)

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]