Tag Archives: entitlements

Urine or u're out

paying taxes

I work. They pay me.
I pay my taxes, and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.
In order to get that paycheck, I am required a pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem.
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test.
So, here is my question:
Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. But I do have a problem with helping someone sit on their butt doing drugs while I work!
Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people have to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
We can call the program “Urine or You’re Out!”
One last thought:
All politicians, including the one in the White House who goes around passing out free Obama welfare phones, should have to pass a urine test too!
And while they’re at it, they should also have to pass an intelligence test, a common sense test, and an understanding the Constitution test as well, because by their actions they show they lack intelligence, have no common sense, and are bent on shredding the U.S. Constitution into pieces. 🙁
H/t my sis-in-law Shireen
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Why do they not see?

3 monkeys
A recent essay by a blogger who calls himself Monty Pelerin struck a chord in me. Monty Pelerin is the pseudonym of a former CFO in the corporate finance field, with a Ph.D. in economics.
Pelerin’s essay “Why Don’t People See?” asks a question I and many of us also have asked: Why is it that so many seem blind to the problems that we see so clearly?
Here’s Pelerin’s essay of Feb. 18, 2013:
I meet people that still believe that the world is fine. They believe things like:

  • The US government has plenty of money.
  • Government cares for its citizens.
  • The economy cannot crash.
  • We are not in a recession (Depression).
  • The lives of their children will be better than their own.
  • The government can continue to print money to fund promises they cannot afford.

Despite these untenable beliefs, these are not stupid people. Many are professionals who do quite well — doctors, lawyers, dentists, college professors, etc. They are not  zombies, our walking dead, who have no idea about what is happening around them no less  the way things work in an economy, society or the world. It is our educated who should care yet seem to be oblivious to what lies ahead.
The ignorance and/or lack of concern of this group is perplexing and maddening. They are certainly capable of understanding. It is also in their interests to comprehend, as they are the ones who will lose the most. How doe one open their eyes? What can they be shown to arouse them from their ignorance?
Sadly, I don’t have answers to these frustrating questions. It is not that others have not presented the information as much as these people refuse to acknowledge the implications. Are they all too busy? Are they idiot savants who are geniuses in their fields but not very smart away from it? Warnings come from many sources and from many different perspectives, yet they do not seem to penetrate the minds of those most capable of effecting change.
From a self-interest standpoint, this productive group should be the most concerned. After all, they are ground zero for the Socialist schemes that are destroying society. They are the ones that will be crushed in the redistribution dreams of our political class. Will they awaken too late? Or, will many of them just withdraw their productivity by retiring early, emigrating, etc.?
I don’t have answers to these questions, but I do know that this professional class is about to become prey for our predatory State. And, when that happens, they will hurt be but not nearly as much as the rest of us.
Indeed, why are so many oblivious to and in denial about America’s stark economic realities? — those of:

The only difference between Pelerin and me is his question is narrower in scope than mine. Pelerin’s concerns are mainly about America’s economic problems, whereas in my view, our country’s problems transcend the economic to include the political and especially the cultural.
Politically, the federal government under Obama has become one where, instead of a division of powers among three branches, the Executive is dominant, with Obama ruling by executive orders, like kings and emperors once ruled through edicts.
Congress, the legislative branch, seems unable to address our economic problems but only exacerbates them with the passage of Obamacare (that leads to higher insurance premiums, fewer doctors, death panels, and a greater burden for small businesses) and the reprehensible National Defense Authorization Act (that authorizes the arrest without charge and indefinite detention of U.S. citizens).
The Supreme Court is also adrift, too timid to even hear cases that concern Obama’s eligibility and his strange Connecticut-issued Social Security number. That is, assuming the Supreme Court justices even saw the documents concerning those cases to begin with.
Did you know that clerks of the Supreme Court never forwarded to the justices the pleadings and documents submitted by plaintiffs and attorneys? The faceless clerks also removed cases from the electronic docket, as well as reported conferences of justices which never took place.
French philosopher and statesman Count Joseph Marie Maistre (1763-1821) once said, “Every nation has the government it deserves.” Subtending the economy and government is America’s culture, now thoroughly corrupted from decades of moral relativism do-as-you-will narcissistic amorality. Patriotism has become a dirty word: As many as 33% in a 2010 poll said they wanted the American flag banned.
John Adams wrote that “The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families.” By that yardstick, the American family is in trouble.
Although every evidence we have points to marriage being good for not just the married, but for children and society as well, the percentage of married Americans is at a lowest recorded level. Between 2000 and 2009, the share of young adults ages 25 to 34 who are married dropped 10 percentage points, from 55% to 45%.
There is an epidemic of fatherless children — 30% of U.S. children live apart from their fathers. That 30% will account for 63% of teen suicides, 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions, 71% of high-school dropouts, 75% of children in chemical-abuse centers, 80% of rapists, 85% of youths in prison, 85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders, and 90% of homeless and runaway children.
So, how do we account for the blindness of so many? Why do they not see what you and I so clearly see?
Is it willful ignorance? Have they been brainwashed by the Establishment Media? (but how do we account for the media’s blindness?) Is it stupidity? Is it a narrow and short-sighted selfishness? Or is it the terrible darkness of spiritual blindness?
“…you are living among a rebellious people. They have eyes to see but do not see and ears to hear but do not hear, for they are a rebellious people.” -Ezekiel 12:2
“…because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” -2 Thessalonians 2:10b-11
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Road to Ruin – Cradle to Grave


H/T Kelleigh

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Bill Whittle Video: The Vote Pump


-Dave 
(h/t: boortz.com)

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Why Obama Will Win in 2012?

This essay is being circulated via e-mail. It is mistakenly attributed to conservative black economist Dr Walter Williams. But he did not write it.
The essay originated in April 2011 but is no less descriptive now. What the anonymous real author has to say is credible — and depressing. Our only hope is if the key Dem demographic groups not turn out to vote in the large numbers they did in 2008.
Note: In republishing this essay, I’ve done some tweaking and editing. Feel free to circulate the essay, but please, don’t attribute it to Dr. Williams!
H/t my dear friend Sol.
~Eowyn

Amerika in 2016

Why Obama can not lose the 2012 election

by Anonymous

Can President Obama be defeated in 2012?
No.
He can’t.
I am going on record as saying that President Barak Obama will win a second term.
The media won’t tell you this because a good election campaign means hundreds of millions (or in Obama’s case billions) of dollars to them in advertising.
But the truth is, there simply are no conditions under which Barak Obama can be defeated in 2012. The quality of the Republican candidate doesn’t matter. (Though the quality of the voters DOES matter!)

Obama gets reelected. Nine percent unemployment? No problem. Obama will win. Gas prices moving toward five dollars a gallon? He still wins. The economy soars or goes into the gutter. Obama wins. War in the Middle East? He wins a second term.
America’s role as the leading Superpower disappears? Hurrah for Barack Obama! The U.S. government rushes toward bankruptcy, the dollar continues to sink on world markets and the price of daily goods and services soars due to inflation fueled by Obama’s extraordinary deficit spending? Obama wins handily.
You are crazy. Don’t you understand how volatile politics can be when overall economic, government, and world conditions are declining? Sure I do.
And that’s why I know Obama will win. The American people are notoriously ignorant of economics. And economics is the key to why Obama should be defeated.
Even when Obama’s policies lead the nation to final ruin, the majority of the American people are going to believe the bait-and-switch tactics Obama and his supporters in the media will use to explain why it isn’t his fault. After all, things were much worse than understood when he took office.
Obama’s reelection is really a very, very simple math problem. Consider the following:
1) Blacks will vote for Obama blindly. Period. Doesn’t matter what he does. It’s a race thing. He’s one of us.
2) College educated women will vote for Obama. Though they will be offended by this, they swoon at his oratory. It’s really not more complex than that.
3) Liberals will vote for Obama. He is still their great hope.
4) Democrats will vote for Obama. He is the leader of their party and his coat tails will carry them to victory nationwide.
5) Hispanics will vote for Obama. He is the path to citizenship for those who are illegal and Hispanic leaders recognize the political clout they carry in the Democratic Party.
6) Union members will vote overwhelmingly for Obama. He is their key to money and power in business, state and local politics.
7) Big Business will support Obama. They already have. He has almost $1 Billion dollars in his reelection purse gained largely from his connections with Big Business and is gaining more everyday. Big Business loves Obama because he gives them access to taxpayer money so long as they support his social and political agenda.
8) The media love him. They may attack the people who work for him, but they love him. After all, to not love him would be racist.
9) Most other minorities and special interest groups will vote for him. Oddly, the overwhelming majority of Jews and Muslims will support him because they won’t vote Republican. American Indians will support him. Obviously homosexuals tend to vote Democratic.
10) Approximately half of independents will vote for Obama. And he doesn’t need anywhere near that number because he has all of the groups previously mentioned. And lastly….
11) There is one last group, and it’s a huge group. The group overlaps with some of the groups listed above. What’s this last group? I’ll call this group The Parasites. They are the nearly one-half (43% at last count) of all U.S. adults who do not pay any federal taxes, most of whom receive money from the government. These people will vote for Obama because they will not do anything that might jeopardize the flow of taxpayer dollars to themselves.
Obama will win an overwhelming victory in 2012.

Please follow and like us:
0
 

The Devil is in the Details of Obama's Debt Deal


The fine print of the hastily-put-together debt ceiling bill passed by Congress and signed into law by Obama yesterday is still hazy. But the details that are emerging are worrisome. Here are 3 bad things about the Budget Control Act of 2011:

No. 1: debt ceiling raised by $2+ trillion

The U.S. federal government’s debt limit is immediately increased $2.2 to 2.4 trillion, the biggest explosion of debt in American history. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), who voted against the bill, says the bill will add another $7 trillion to our national debt.
By this Christmas, 2011, US national debt will be $15 trillion — a sum that exceeds 20% of the entire world’s combined GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and 100% of America’s GDP. This is the same 100%+ debt-to-GDP ratio of the bankrupt European PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain). The only difference between the USA and the PIIGs is that there’ll be no European Union Germany to bail us out.

No. 2: Cuts to defense

The law calls for $917 billion in spending cuts over a span of 10 years. But in contrast to the Boehner-GOP proposal, the cuts are no longer restricted to non-defense discretionary spending!
Discretionary spending is that part of the U.S. federal budget that includes everything that is not in the mandatory budget. The latter, mandatory budget, refers to entitlement programs required by law to provide certain benefits, such as Social Security and Medicare.
Discretionary spending in FY 2010 was $1.3 trillion, or 38% of total spending. More than half ($815 billion) was security spending, which includes the Department of Defense, overseas contingency programs and Homeland Security. Non-security spending was $491 billion, which was spent on such departments as Health and Human Services ($84 billion), Education ($64.3 billion), Housing and Urban Development ($42.8 billion) Justice ($27.6 billion), and Agriculture ($25 billion).
According to a Reuters article by Linda Stearn, August 2, 2011, almost all discretionary federal spending will face some cuts over the next 10 years, with defense spending taking a comparatively heavy hit of about $350 billion of the projected cuts.

No. 3: Super Committee can raise taxes & cut entitlements

More ominously still, the deal sets up a bipartisan 12-member congressional committee to find another $1.5 trillion in cuts. But the Super Committee is not restricted to just discretionary spending cuts! Instead, its menu is wide open and can include Social Security reductions or tax increases. If that committee fails to come up with at least $1.2 trillion in savings – or Congress doesn’t approve its recommendations by December 23 – automated cuts begin to get triggered. Those cuts would be deep, hitting Medicare and the military but sparing Social Security, Medicaid and a handful of other programs.
Remember the Republicans who voted for this bill. I’ll find out who they are and post their names in a post to come.
H/t beloved fellow Anon.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

"Super Congress" of 12 Proposed As Solution to Debt Ceiling Impasse

The diabolically ingenious Congress-critters have come up with an ingeniously diabolical solution to the debt ceiling impasse — go outside of the Founders’ plan and the U.S. Constitution and create a new “Super Congress” comprised of 12 men/women from both parties and both chambers of Congress.
With just a simple majority vote, this Super Congress of 12 will have extraordinary powers to push legislation through the House and Senate — powers that are NOT in the Constitution!!!
Tell your representatives “No!!!!!”
~Eowyn

Excerpts from Ryan Grim, “super congress,” Huffington Post, July 23, 2011:

Debt ceiling negotiators think they’ve hit on a solution to address the debt ceiling impasse and the public’s unwillingness to let go of benefits such as Medicare and Social Security that have been earned over a lifetime of work: Create a new Congress.
This “Super Congress,” composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers — six from each chamber and six from each party.
Legislation approved by the Super Congress — which some on Capitol Hill are calling the “super committee” — would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn’t be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who’d have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has made a Super Congress a central part of his last-minute proposal, multiple news reports and people familiar with his plan say. A picture of Boehner’s proposal began to come into focus Saturday evening: The debt ceiling would be raised for a short-term period and coupled with an equal dollar figure of cuts, somewhere in the vicinity of a trillion dollars over ten years. A second increase in the debt ceiling would be tied to the creation of a Super Congress that would be required to find a minimum amount of spending cuts. Because the elevated panel would need at least one Democratic vote, its plan would presumably include at least some revenue […]
Democrats are open to a series of cuts as well as a Super Congress, but only if the debt ceiling is raised sufficiently so that it pushes past the election. […]
Boehner spokesman Michael Steel [So that’s where that RINO Steel went!!! -Eowyn] argued that the inability to come to a larger deal so far left a short-term extension as an “inevitable” option. “For months, we have laid out our principles to pass a bill that fulfills the president’s request to increase the debt limit beyond the next election. We have passed a debt limit increase with the reforms the American people demand, the ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance’ bill. The Democrats who run Washington have refused to offer a plan,” he said in a statement. “Now, as a result, a two-step process is inevitable. Like the president and the entire bipartisan, bicameral congressional leadership, we continue to believe that defaulting on the full faith and credit of the United States is not an option.” […]

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Why the Obama-GOP Debt Ceiling Debate is Kabuki Theater

ka·bu·ki

noun /kəˈbo͞okē/

A form of traditional Japanese drama with highly stylized song, mime, and dance, now performed only by male actors, using exaggerated gestures and body movements to express emotions, and including historical plays, domestic dramas, and dance pieces.

From Jim Quinn, “The Show Must Go On,” The Burning Platform, July 14, 2011:

The latest round of kabuki theatre performed by the corrupt lying thieves in Washington DC is being played out every night on the MSM. The volume of misinformation, lies, exaggerations, posturing, and propaganda is staggering.

These vile excuses for leaders know that 80% of the American
population wouldn’t know the difference between a debt ceiling
and a drop ceiling. They use this ignorance to their advantage, as Obama warns that old people won’t get their social security checks and government drones won’t be paid.

According to Gallup, Republicans and Independents don’t want the debt ceiling raised. The poll also indicates that at least one third of Americans don’t care. They are too outraged by the Casey Anthony verdict to focus on the economic future of our country.

I’ll let you in on a secret. The debt ceiling will be raised.

Sorry to ruin the surprise, but this entire sordid episode has nothing to do with our dire economic situation. It is solely about the 2012 elections. Both parties are conducting overnight polling on which talking points are working best in convincing the sheeple that their party is less likely to be blamed.

Posturing and polling are what passes for leadership in America. It is a disgusting display and will contribute to the ultimate collapse that is headed our way like a Japanese Bullet Train.

Here is a summary of where we stand according to the MSM and the political class in Washington DC:

The supposedly grand compromise that would have “cut” $4 trillion from future deficits fell apart last week. The Democarats wouldn’t “cut” entitlements and the Republicans wouldn’t “raise” taxes. The latest proposal was down to $2 trillion of future “cuts”, but neither side would agree to what and when. Now in the ultimate Washington kick the can move, Mitch McConnell has proposed that Obama increase the debt limit in three stages, while requiring him to propose offsetting spending cuts, offering a potential path out of the impasse.

Harry Reid loves the idea. I’m sure that gives you a nice warm feeling, like piss running down your leg.

This “solution” cuts nothing […] the $2 trillion or $4 trillion of supposed cuts in spending were not cuts at all. They were nothing but lower increases in future spending. They didn’t cut the national debt. Neither party has come close to presenting a plan to cut the national debt […] both of the corrupt political parties show ongoing deficits of $500 billion to $1 trillion per year forever.

Does that sound like cuts in spending? The proposed reductions in spending increases are like pissing in the Atlantic Ocean of debt.

And here is where the rubber meets the road. Both the Democrat and Republican budget plans insure economic collapse within the next ten years.

Again, using ridiculously optimistic assumptions, our National Debt would rise from $14.3 trillion today to between $23 and $26 trillion in ten years. Does that sound like cuts in spending to you? Luckily, we’ll never reach those levels. We will hit $20 trillion in debt by 2015. That is a lock.

Total Federal government revenue today is $2.175 trillion. We spend approximately $1 trillion per year on our military related adventures, or 46% of our total revenue. If interest rates are 5% in 2015, we will spend $1 trillion on interest. If rates are 10%, we will spend $2 trillion on interest.

Do you get the picture? An unsustainable trend will not be sustained.

We have two choices. We can proactively address the problem or
just wait for the collapse of our economic system. This debt ceiling reality show is all the proof I need. Our leaders will choose to wait. It won’t be long.

Since no one in Washington DC can be depended upon to do the right thing, the only solution is to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. Special interests across the land would mobilize all their forces to fight this idea. Deficit spending of $1.5 trillion per year enriches bankers, bomb makers, the AARP, mega-corporations, chain stores, restaurants, insurance companies, drug makers, etc.

They will fight for their right to suck the country dry.

H/t Tony Whitcomb.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

No Bailouts For Bankrupt Cities & States


The federal government is already nearly $14 trillion in debt (official figure). Tell the incoming 112th Congress to say no to bailouts of bankrupt cities and states, especially the still-in-denial state of California!
H/t my friend Bob W.
~Eowyn
Stop the State Bailouts Before They Start

By Conn Carroll – Conservative Policy News – Dec 27, 2010

Hamtramck, Michigan, is running out of money. City Manager William Cooper tells The New York Times [1]: “We can make it until March 1—maybe.” And Hamtramck is not alone. According to the Times, 15 municipalities have pursued bankruptcy in the past two years. And if the economy does not improve revenues, many other local governments will be in the same boat.
Many of these cities, like Hamtramck, have already cut spending on parks, senior centers, and road maintenance. But there is one area they can’t cut: salaries, benefits, and pensions of government workers. According to the Times, 60 percent of Hamtramck’s general fund goes to paying 75 current police officers and firefighters and about 240 worker and spouse pensions. “They kind of have the Cadillac plan,” Cooper tells the Times, “and we’d kind of like the Chevy.”
Reforming how police and fire workers are paid is an uphill climb politically, but polling shows that once voters are educated, they are open to change. A recent poll [2] by the Florida League of Cities on Police and Fire Benefits found that, initially, most respondents did believe police and fire benefits were “about right” or “too low.” But when told that police officers and firefighters can retire after 20 years of service and receive 80 percent of their salaries for the rest of their lives, 66 percent of respondents strongly opposed this policy. And when asked if they knew that the retirement pay for an average police officer was over $70,000 per year, 71 percent said that was too high.
The cumulative result of these pensions and benefit promises is staggering. A recent study [3] by Robert Novy-Marx of the University of Rochester and Joshua Rauh of Northwestern University found that major pension plans for city workers have a combined estimated under-funding of $574 billion. Heritage Foundation scholar David John details [4]: “For instance, Chicago has only about $22 billion in pension assets to pay for $66 billion in pension promises to its city workers, while New York City has $93 billion available to pay $215 billion in city pension promises, and Boston has only $3.5 billion available to pay $11 billion in promises. That means that every household in Chicago has a liability of about $42,000 just to pay pensions to city workers, while each household in New York City owes $39,000, and each in Boston owes about $31,000.”
The problem is even worse at the state level. An earlier Novy-Marx and Rauh study [3] of the 116 major pension plans sponsored by the 50 states found these plans had assets of about $1.8 trillion to pay pension promises of between $3.6 trillion and $5.2 trillion. This leaves a gap of between $1.8 trillion and $3.4 trillion [5]. Unsustainable public employee compensation is a major reason why large states like California, Illinois, and New York are teetering on the brink of insolvency [6].
Cities like Hamtramck may eventually be able to escape their government union contracts through bankruptcy. But that road is very difficult. About half the states have laws that allow for municipal bankruptcy filings. But many set limits, including Michigan, which appears ready to force Hamtramck to borrow money from an emergency loan board before it can file for bankruptcy. But what happens when the states run out of money bailing out their local governments? States currently do not have the ability to file for bankruptcy. So what will they do?
California already came to Washington asking for an $8 billion bailout [5] last year. The spendthrift 111th Congress said no. At a bare minimum the 112th Congress should hold the line and refuse to bailout any state government. Instead, Congress should consider a way for states to file for bankruptcy or its fiscal equivalent. While such a law would raise some serious federalism issues, as long as states are allowed to enter into bankruptcy voluntary [7], it could be constitutionally acceptable. But David John warns [8]:
“Such a process should not be part of a deal under which states can also receive a federal bailout. State and local governments made the mess of their finances, and they should have to clean them up. Congress should provide a mechanism to make the process more direct, giving the states the flexibility to address their fiscal problems consistent with federalism and the principles of limited constitutional government.”

Please follow and like us:
0
 

112th House to Begin With Reading of U.S. Constitution


Elections really do make a difference.
Last November 2nd, with the power of our vote, a Republican majority was voted into the House of Representatives. In the Senate, though not a majority, their numbers are increased. Not in office yet, the newly elected GOP representatives and senators are already flexing their muscle.
Fulfilling one of their most prominent campaign promises, House Republican leaders unveiled a new rule requiring each bill filed in the House “cite its specific constitutional authority.” Republicans have organized four staff briefings prior to the Jan. 5 start of the 112th Congress to provide guidance on compliance with the new rule. The first session will be Monday at 1 p.m. in the Capitol Visitor Center
Now we learn that Republicans have proposed another most excellent new rule — that the 112th House of Republicans will begin on January 6 with a full reading on the House floor of our country’s founding document!
As reported by Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times on Dec. 23, 2010, ‘We the people’ to open next Congress“:

The goal…is to underscore the limited-government rules the Founders imposed on Congress – and to try to bring some of those principles back into everyday legislating.
“It stems from the debate that we’ve had for the last two years about things like the exercise of authority in a whole host of different areas by the EPA, we’ve had this debate in relation to the health care bill, the cap-and-trade legislation,” said Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte, Virginia Republican, who proposed the reading. “This Congress has been very aggressive in expanding the power of the federal government, and there’s been a big backlash to that.”
The biggest changes would make it easier to cut spending and harder to create entitlement programs, while imposing restrictions that could keep leaders from jamming massive bills onto the House floor before lawmakers have had a chance to digest them.
“To begin to restore trust with the American people, Republicans have pledged to operate Congress differently: with real transparency, greater accountability and a renewed focus on the Constitution,” said Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon, who led the GOP’s transition team. “The sweeping reforms offered in this package make clear we intend to keep that promise.”

The Democrats, of course, are putting up a resistance. They’re not happy with House Republicans’ new rule requiring new spending to be offset by corresponding budget cuts.
In the Senate, where Demonrats will retain a majority by a much smaller margin, all returning Demonrats have signed a letter asking their Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) to change the chamber’s operating rules in order to rein in repeated Republican filibusters.
Liberal legal scholars praised the movement to curtail filibusters. Happily, it’s unclear how much room there is for major changes, since Republicans are likely to be united against anything that would constrain their rights as the minority party.
We the People must stay informed and engaged, and continue to watch Congress with an eagle eye! Remember these words of warning by Thomas Jefferson

“If once they [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves.” Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Carrington, 1787.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0