by Clark Barrow
August 10, 2012
Despite all the talk about cutting spending and getting the U.S. federal government's fiscal house in order, conservatives have failed to establish any policy victories. Our debt is still growing. Yet, the slight reductions they have achieved in spending growth rates threaten to put millions out of work, highlighting the devastating economic quandary of either option.
U.S. Congressional Republicans have put up a fight against the runaway spending. But, they did not win the battle. Fearing that they would be blamed for a government shutdown, Republicans caved in summer of 2011 and agreed to a deal crafted by the Democrats that established a special committee to cut the budget. In case the group failed, the plan also included an across the board $1.2 trillion automatic budget cut over 10 years in discretionary defense and non-defense spending. Well, guess what? The group failed and the cuts are set to begin in January 2013.
While this sounds good at first, it is not the conservative victory that we all hoped for. Using the government's baseline budgeting technique, the cuts will only slow spending increases as they reduce budget increases, not the total funding levels. These cuts will just slow the growth of the spending, not the overall amount!
Even though these cuts only slow the rate of spending increases, the outcry and economic impact is expected to be tremendous. A 2012 study by the George Mason University found that the cuts to discretionary defense spending will cause the economy to shed more than 2 million jobs that are connected to U.S. Defense Department funding. While these jobs losses are unfortunate, the failure to make substantial spending cuts will send the U.S. federal debt to unsustainable levels, crippling the entire economy and shattering the dreams of millions of more Americans.
As Congress plays with budget cuts that do not reduce the budget, our real national debt is only increasing. To make matters worse, our real, true national debt is much higher than the frequently reported $15.9 trillion. After accounting for the U.S. government's public debt, federal employee pensions and other retirement benefits, current and expected obligations for Social Security and Medicare, the National Center for Policy Analysis said the U.S. federal government faces unfunded liabilities totaling $84 trillion. No budget tricks here. These are promises our government has made to its citizens.
Read more: http://goo.gl/Tkf1z
Gingrich: Obama Welfare Move 'Clearly Illegal'
By Jim Meyers and Kathleen Walter
August 9, 2012
The Obama administration’s decision to rescind some work requirements for Americans receiving welfare is “a clear violation of the law,” Former House Speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich told Newsmax.
The Georgia Republican also asserted that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s “dishonest” claim that Mitt Romney paid no taxes for 10 years is an act of desperation — and says the Romney campaign should serve Chick-fil-A meals at the Republican National Convention to show support for its president’s statements backing traditional marriage.
President Barack Obama's administration has announced that it is opening up waivers to states from the work requirements contained in the Welfare Reform Act that then-Speaker Gingrich helped craft during the Bill Clinton presidency in the 1990s.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV on Thursday, Gingrich commented on the administration’s move.
“And most Americans agree that’s a very bad idea.
“There’s long been a tradition on the left of wanting to give people money without doing anything. Marvin Olasky wrote a brilliant book, ‘The Tragedy of American Compassion,’ which outlined this.
“Barack Obama in 1996 as a state senator was opposed to the work requirements. Even after President Bill Clinton agreed to sign the welfare reform bill, half the Democrats in the House, 101 members, voted no.
“Section 407 is the key. It says no one, not the president, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the governors, no one can waive the work requirement. And we wrote it that strongly because we so deeply distrusted the liberals who run many of the social welfare programs and thought they would in fact absolutely be in favor of waiving the requirements.”
Asked if the president is doing something illegal with the waivers, Gingrich responded: “Well, certainly. There’s a briefing from the Heritage Foundation which suggests that it is illegal to waive this. It’s a clear violation of the law and many people who are more expert than I am on the legality side would generally agree he does not have the kind of authority that they’re exercising here.”
Read more: Gingrich: Obama Welfare Move 'Clearly Illegal'
See the Hilarious Responses From Obama Supporters When Asked Why the Gov’t Should Pay for Contraception
by Madeleine Morgenstern
August 9, 2012
The interviewees were all dead-set on the government not having any place in the bedroom. But following that up with why then should the government pay for the contraception used in the bedroom, they seemed to falter.
“The government has no place in our bedroom?” interviewer Caleb Bonham asked one woman.
“No,” she asserted.
“So you’re in support of contraception, government-funded contraception — why do you believe the government should pay for what goes on inside your bedroom?”
The woman paused before answering, “That’s a very good question.”
And then there was the interviewee who declared she was “like, all for abortion, all for birth control.”
“So, you don’t think the government should be involved in what goes on inside the bedroom, correct?” Bonham repeated.
“Oh exactly, oh not even close, no,” she replied.
“So then why do you expect the government to pay for what goes on inside the bedroom?”
Another pause. “Because…”
The woman in the next clip at least had an answer to that, stating, “if we had that more readily available then we wouldn’t have people out here starving, wouldn’t have–”
“So contraception solves hunger?” Bonham asked.
“Well I believe it has a big part in it, I really do,” she said.