» July 20th, 2012
Conservatively Speaking is now on Twitter, Facebook as well as Blog and Radio show.. please join us and check us out
» December 20th, 2013
“Let’s have a new first party – a Republican Party – raising a banner of bold colors, no pale pastels. A banner instantly recognizable as standing for certain values which will not be compromised.” – Ronald Reagan, 1975
While I myself am a registered conservative, I look to the Republican Party as the closest representative of conservative values in American politics. Overtime, that appears to be fading. Sometimes I look at Washington lately and I wonder if it is possible to distinguish one party from the other. While many see the parties as becoming more partisan in their rhetoric, often we can look at their actions and find it nearly impossible to discern one from the other. It’s as if they are melting into the same pot of power, rather than standing firm on the principles that brought them there to begin with.
Reagan also stated in that speech quoted above that people at the time felt it no longer mattered which party won. Are we approaching a similar place in history? I think that conservatives have the chance to bring a similar vitality brought by Reagan if they listen to his idea that Republicans don’t need to act like a watered down version of the Democrats. Instead, they need to make the differences between the two parties bold, no pastels. Standing for principle will earn you respect, others will want to fight alongside you for shared principles and it will restore a renewed faith that we send conservatives to Washington who won’t bend at the fear of a Democrat-Media campaign.
This is what the fight over ObamaCare is truly all about. Like it or not, this is the issue where conservatives will rise to the top and Republicans who don’t act on conservative principles will sink. ObamaCare represents virtually every antithesis of conservative principles: Big government, lack of freedom, invasion of privacy, increased taxes, harms businesses, higher costs with worse results, more government dependency, less innovation, more regulations. Not only that, but you have the majority of Americans who despise the law AND you have the power in Congress to stop it if Republicans unite. If Republicans won’t stand up and fight against ObamaCare, then I seriously doubt their willingness to fight for any conservative principles in the future. They will become irrelevant. I don’t want to see that happen and neither do you. Those who are opposed to Mike Lee’s idea of how to fund ObamaCare need to hear from you and they need to know that this issue matters, these principles matter and you are counting on them to lead rather than to cower in the shadows of a potential Democrat PR smear campaign.
» December 20th, 2013
Dr Elaina George is a Board certified Otolaryngologist. She graduated from Princeton University with a degree in Biology. She received her Masters degree in Medical Microbiology from Long Island University, and received her medical degree from Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.
Dr George completed her residency at Manhattan, Eye Ear & Throat Hospital. Her training included general surgery at Lenox Hill Hospital, pediatric ENT at The NY-Presbyterian Hospital, and head and neck oncology at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.
You can hear Dr George in the later part of CS (Pod Cast 12.14.13)
» December 14th, 2013
Pope Francis has been named Time Magazine’s Man of the year
How do you practice humility from the most exalted throne on earth? Rarely has a new player on the world stage captured so much attention so quickly—young and old, faithful and cynical—as has Pope Francis. In his nine months in office, he has placed himself at the very center of the central conversations of our time: about wealth and poverty, fairness and justice, transparency, modernity, globalization, the role of women, the nature of marriage, the temptations of power.
The bench said: “In the light of plain meaning and legislative history of the section, we hold that Section 377 IPC would apply irrespective of age and consent.” It added that the section does not discriminate any group with a particular sexual preference, a stand that was diametrically opposite to that by the Delhi HC.”It is relevant to mention here that Section 377 IPC does not criminalize a particular people or identity or orientation. It merely identifies certain acts, which if committed, would constitute an offence. Such prohibition regulates sexual conduct regardless of gender identity and orientation,” Justices Singhvi said.
“Parliament, which is undisputedly the representative body of the people of India, has not thought it proper to delete the provision.” Parliament has not amended the law either, it added.
Given the slow pace of lawmaking in India, an upcoming election and polls suggesting the conservative Bharatiya Janata Party could unseat the ruling Congress Party in national elections, it’s likely the ban introduced under British colonial rule will remain in place for the foreseeable future.
The High Court unanimously ruled that the ACT’s law could not operate concurrently with the federal Marriage Act, which was amended in 2004 to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
“The Marriage Act does not now provide for the formation or recognition of marriage between same sex couples. The Marriage Act provides that a marriage can be solemnised in Australia only between a man and a woman,” the court said in a statement issued alongside its ruling. “That Act is a comprehensive and exhaustive statement of the law of marriage.”
Now, what I find hilarious here is that it never occurs to anyone that there might be some kind of technological work-around short of repeated sodomy. You know, maybe there’s a device or a technique, something that is a little less unpleasant, inconvenient or forbidden than straight-up buggery? Nope. Gotta go with the sodomy. The Saturday Night Live skit writes itself.
Jihadi: What if we make the bomb smaller?
Sheikh: What? That’s crazy. Sodomy is the only way.
Jihadi: Couldn’t I use replica of a male, well, you know. In private like . . .
Sheikh: Shh! Let’s not even discuss it.
Jihadi: What if I’m willing to tolerate a lot of discomfort when it comes time for the martyrdom operation? I mean, it’s my choice. I am blowing myself up after all. What’s a little discomfort?
Sheikh: You’re not hearing me. This is the way it has to be. Don’t you want to murder infidels?
House Speaker John Boehner went off on outside conservative groups Wednesday morning for pushing against the new budget deal.
“They’re using our members and they’re using the American people for their own goals,” he said. “This is ridiculous.”
Really Mr. Speaker, you’re going to use your face time to attack conservatives?
ESPN has reversed course and will now allow a Catholic charity to air a television ad heralding the birth of Christ during a college basketball game this weekend, officials said.
The Cardinal Glennon Children’s Foundation in St. Louis produced a 30-second spot asking viewers to write holiday messages to sick children. The ad seeks to “help us reveal God’s healing presence this Christmas” and notes that the SSM Cardinal Glennon Children’s Center “celebrate(s) the birth of Jesus and the season of giving.”
This type of thing always makes we laugh, there are a lot of people who really want to strike Christ out of Christmas in fact strike down Christmas itself, yet when they talk all I can hear is this passage from Dickens:
`You’ll want all day tomorrow, I suppose?” said Scrooge.
“If quite convenient, Sir.”
“It’s not convenient,” said Scrooge, “and it’s not fair. If I was to stop half-a-crown for it, you’d think yourself ill-used, I ‘ll be bound?”
The clerk smiled faintly.
“And yet,” said Scrooge, “you don’t think me ill-used, when I pay a day’s wages for no work.”
The clerk observed that it was only once a year.
“A poor excuse for picking a man’s pocket every twenty-fifth of December!” said Scrooge, buttoning his great-coat to the chin. “But I suppose you must have the whole day. Be here all the earlier next morning!”
The clerk promised that he would; and Scrooge walked out with a growl.
I’ve yet to see any of these people decide to open their business on the 25th and decline to take or pay the holiday time coming for working on December the 25th. But that’s no more surprising than big corporations funding the left
» November 28th, 2013
it’s a time of thanks and I’m thankful that I have most of the mobility and movement back in my thumb after the break, there are a lot of other people who are thanking too.
In Denver the Democrats are thankful that one of the recall target’s decided to play ball rather than fight.
State Sen. Evie Hudak has decided to resign rather than risk facing a recall election that, should she lose, would flip control of the senate to Republicans, FOX31 Denver was first to report Wednesday.
Later Wednesday morning, Hudak made her resignation letter public.
“In the interest of preserving the progress made over the last year, I am resigning as State Senator for District 19, effective immediately,” Hudak wrote.
Under Colorado rules her a Democrat committee will pick her replacement. I’m sure she’s be thankful for the job she will be get for it.
Nationally The Obama Administration also has reasons to be thankful, first of all thankful for the Thanksgiving Holiday to dump the news of their latest delay in the program they are so anxious to run on in 2014
The Obama administration today announced a one year delay of online enrollment for small businesses looking to purchase health coverage through federal Obamacare exchanges, another high-profile setback for HealthCare.gov.
It’s the second delay for online small business enrollment, which the administration had said would begin this month.
Oddly enough this delay puts off the enforcement till after the next election while the Ted Cruz delay would have been before. I’m sure Despite protests to the contrary Harry Reid & Debbie Wasserman Schultz will be very thankful for that.
The White House is certainly thankful for the people who support Obamacare, like the acolytes willing shill at the Thanksgiving Table:
Organizing for America – the Obama grass roots organization – has some helpful hints for those who want to ruin everyone’s Thanksgiving with political talk.
The tips including asking your family and guests coming over for the holiday to bring the information they’d need to sign up for Obamacare, because it’s absolutely not awkward at all to tell someone you’d like him to bring wine and oh, his social security number and annual salary, too. You’re advised to bring up Obamacare during “family time … downtime after meals or between holiday activities.”
Thankful for “nonpartisian” groups willing to give and take a Million to put out ads to support it
Families USA (FUSA) — an organization that describes itself as a “national nonprofit, non-partisan organization dedicated to the achievement of high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans” — was given a $1.1 million grant by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation on October 4, 2013, to gather “success stories” of Americans dealing with Obamacare and distribute them to the media who often refer to them as an “independent” group. This is part of a greater upcoming effort to bolster the perception of the lowly health care law.
“The purpose is to bridge the information gap for people who can significantly benefit from the Affordable Care Act,” Ron Pollack, the Co-founder and Executive Director of Families USA, told TIME on October 25, 2013.
However, the organization is a far cry from “non-partisan” and is extremely close to the Obama Administration and Enroll America – the group leading the efforts to sign people up for Obamacare.
Thankful that AARP is willing to play
AARP understands that without young, healthy Americans signing on in droves the whole thing will come crashing down. So they want moms to do their dirty work, according to the New York Times.
In one cheeky campaign, AARP is urging mothers to send e-cards to their children reminding them to sign up. One e-card reads, “As a reward for signing up for health insurance, I’ll defriend you on Facebook.” Another group, Organizing for Action, is seeking to steer holiday conversations toward health care by encouraging parents to have “the talk” with their adult children. And a Colorado group is promoting an adfeaturing a hapless young man who calls his mother from the golf course: “Yo, Mom, do I got insurance?”
It sure made me grateful that I had the good sense to tear up the cards AARP sent me when I turned 50.
But if there is one Obamacare the White House is most grateful for, it’s that the MSM doesn’t want to bother to report stories like this:
Less than 72 hours ago I posted on the new videos from Project Veritas along with my exclusive interview with Daniel Francisco the Executive Director showing Obamacare shenanigans in Texas
Well it didn’t take long for those caught on videos to become expendable:
The Urban League of Greater Dallas has reportedly fired one person and suspended three others after an undercover video from James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas caught Obamacare “navigators” advising a potential applicant to “lie”and provide false information to get a lower premium and more subsidies.
In a statement Tuesday, the Urban League said it “does not condone, nor would we ever sanction, misleading the public or any individual who seeks our assistance about any issue, and particularly in this case, an issue as critical as health care,” KDFW-TV reports.
As a person of the right who would like to see some coverage of this for a change I would push this video with one simple phrase:
“This conversation never happened”
Those words should be repeated over and over again by us, we should also stress that the media has totally bought into this phrase by their unwillingness to cover the story.
and are instead posting stuff like this:
A left-liberal magazine’s publication of an article titled “The Republican War on Competence” would have seemed unremarkable at just about any point in this columnist’s adult lifetime. But this article, by Jeff Shesol for The New Yorker, was published yesterday–with a Democrat in the White House presiding for the 51st day over the most stunning display of governmental incompetence since Prohibition, maybe since Nero. In that context, it’s like a dispatch from a different planet.
I can only conclude that the only difference between the Master Race in fiction and the Reporter race of reality are the faces.
about 1500 the G2, LTC Devan, came up to me and with a smile, asked me to come to dinner with him, to meet him in his office at 1600 and bring a camera. I didn’t really care about getting a picture with Sanchez or Bremer, but when the division’s senior intelligence officer asks you to go, you go. We were seated in the chow hall, fully decorated for thanksgiving when aaaaallllll kinds of secret service guys showed up.
That was my first clue, because Bremer’s been here before and his personal security detachment is not that big. Then BG Dempsey got up to speak, and he welcomed ambassador Bremer and LTG Sanchez. Bremer thanked us all and pulled out a piece of paper as if to give a speech. He mentioned that the President had given him this thanksgiving speech to give to the troops. He then paused and said that the senior man present should be the one to give it. He then looked at Sanchez, who just smiled.
Bremer then said that we should probably get someone more senior to read the speech. Then, from behind the camouflage netting, the President of the United States came around. The mess hall actually erupted with hollering. Troops bounded to their feet with shocked smiles and just began cheering with all their hearts. The building actually shook. It was just unreal. I was absolutely stunned. Not only for the obvious, but also because I was only two tables away from the podium. There he stood, less than thirty feet away from me! The cheering went on and on and on.
Yeah we’re thankful not to have a loser like that still in the White House.
One more thing, if you are thankful for the return of Under the Fedora, you might be thankful for this new addition to my own site:
Seven count them Seven Magnificent writers and bloggers joining this site as paid contributors discussing topics big and strong on a daily basis they are:as Chris: Linda Szugyi from the blog No One of any Import Posting Mondays
as Vin: Author and blogger Baldilocks Posting Tuesdays
as Harry: Steve Eggleston of No Runny Eggs posting Saturdays
as Bernardo: AP (Lady Liberty 1885) Dillon from Lady Liberty 1885 blog posting Thursdays
as Britt: Fausta Wertz of Fausta’s blog Posting on Wednesdays
as Lee: Marathon Pundit posting on Sunday
and finally as Chico: Georgia Pastor George Kelly making his debut on the internet Fridays.
I’m very proud to have all these excellent people on board.
Come to the site and check them out, I’m sure you’ll be thankful for it.
» November 22nd, 2013
Click Link to Listen to the Gettysburg Address:
Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
» November 22nd, 2013
Delivered December 14th, 1962
(Click Link to listen to JFK’s speech)
Mr. Trippe, Mr. Rockefeller, General Clay, gentlemen:
I feel tonight somewhat like I felt when I addressed in 1960 the Houston Ministers Conference on the separation of church and state. But I am glad to have a chance to talk to you tonight about the advantages of the free enterprise system.
Less than a month ago, this nation reminded the world that it possessed both the will and the weapons to meet any threat to the security of free men. The gains we have made will not be given up and the course that we have pursued will not be abandoned. But in the long run, that security will not be determined by military or diplomatic moves alone. It will be affected by the decisions of finance ministers, as well as by the decisions of Secretaries of State and Secretaries of Defense; by the deployment of fiscal and monetary weapons, as well as by military weapons; and, above all, by the strength of this nation’s economy, as well as by the strength of our defenses.
You will recall that Chairman Khrushchev has said that he believed that the hinge of world history would begin to move when the Soviet Union out-produced the United States. Therefore, the subject to which we address ourselves tonight concerns not merely our own well-being, but also very vitally the defense of the free world.
America’s rise to world leadership in the century since the Civil War has reflected more than anything else our unprecedented economic growth. Interrupted during the decade of the 30s, the vigorous expansion of our economy was resumed in 1940 and continued for more than 15 years thereafter. It demonstrated for all to see the power of freedom and the efficiency of free institutions. The economic health of this nation has been, and is now, fundamentally sound.
But a leading nation, a nation upon which all depend, not only in this country but around the world, cannot afford to be satisfied, to look back, or to pause. On our strength and growth depends the strength of others, the spread of free world trade and unity, and continued confidence in our leadership and our currency. The underdeveloped countries are dependent upon us for the sale of their primary commodities and for aid to their struggling economies. In short, a prosperous and growing America is important not only to Americans, it is — as the spokesman for 20 Western nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, as he stressed this week — of vital importance to the entire Western World.
In the last two years we have made significant strides. Our gross national product has risen eleven percent, while inflation has been arrested. Employment has been increased by one-point-three million jobs. Profits, personal income, living standards — all are setting new records. Most of the economic indicators for this quarter are up and the prospects are for further expansion in the next quarter. But we must look beyond the next quarter, or the last quarter, or even the last two years. For we can and must do better, much better than we’ve been doing for the last five-and-a-half years.
This economy is capable of producing, without strain, 30 to 40 billion [dollars] more than we are producing today. Business earnings could be seven to eight billion higher than they are today. Utilization of existing plant and equipment could be much higher — and, if it were, investment would rise. We need not accept an unemployment rate of five percent or more, such as we have had for 60 out of the last 61 months. There is no need for us to be satisfied with a rate of growth that keeps good men out of work and good capacity out of use.
The Economic Club of New York is, of course, familiar with these problems. For, in this state, the rate of insured unemployment has been persistently higher than the national average, and the increases in personal income and employment have been slower here than [in] the nation as a whole. You have seen the tragedy of chronically depressed areas upstate, of unemployed young people — and I think this might be one of our most serious national problems, unemployed young people, those under 20. One out of four are unemployed — particularly those in the minority groups, roaming the streets of New York and our other great cities — and others on relief at an early age, with the prospect that in this decade we will have between seven and eight million school dropouts, unskilled, coming into the labor market, at a time when the need for unskilled labor is steadily diminishing. And I know you share my conviction that, proud as we are of its progress, this nation’s economy can and must do even better than it has done in the last five years. Our choice, therefore, boils down to one of: doing nothing, and thereby risking a widening gap between our actual and potential growth in output, profits, and employment — or taking action, at the federal level, to raise our entire economy to a new and higher level of business activity.
If we do not take action, those who have the most reason to be dissatisfied with our present rate of growth will be tempted to seek shortsighted and narrow solutions — to resist automation, to reduce the work week to 35 hours or even lower, to shut out imports, or to raise prices in a vain effort to obtain full capacity profits on under-capacity operations. But these are all self-defeating expedients which can only restrict the economy, not expand it.
There are a number of ways by which the federal government can meet its responsibilities to aid economic growth. We can and must improve American education and technical training. We can and must expand civilian research and technology. One of the great bottlenecks for this country’s economic growth in this decade will be the shortages of doctorates in mathematics, engineering, and physics — a serious shortage with a great demand and an undersupply of highly trained manpower. We can and must step up the development of our natural resources.
But the most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand — to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past, this could be done in part by the increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payments situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the government and our economy. If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency. And I shall say more on this in a moment.
The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system — and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.
I’m not talking about a “quickie” or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incenitives [sic] for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government’s most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.
Under these circumstances, any new tax legislation — and you can understand that under the comity which exists in the United States Constitution whereby the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives have the responsibility of initiating this legislation, that the details of any proposal should wait on the meeting of the Congress in January. But you can understand that, under these circumstances, in general, that any new tax legislation enacted next year should meet the following three tests:
First, it should reduce the net taxes by a sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required. Early action could give us extra leverage, added results, and important insurance against recession. Too large a tax cut, of course, could result in inflation and insufficient future revenues — but the greater danger is a tax cut too little, or too late, to be effective.
Second, the new tax bill must increase private consumption, as well as investment. Consumers are still spending between 92 and 94 percent on their after-tax income, as they have every year since 1950. But that after-tax income could and should be greater, providing stronger markets for the products of American industry. When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid-off, investment increases, and profits are high.
Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment. We have done this through the 1962 investment tax credit and through the liberalization of depreciation allowances — two essential parts of our first step in tax revision — which amounted to a ten percent reduction in corporate income taxes worth 2.5 billion dollars. Now we need to increase consumer demand to make these measures fully effective — demand which will make more use of existing capacity and thus increase both profits and the incentive to invest. In fact, profits after taxes would be at least 15 percent higher today if we were operating at full employment.
For all these reasons, next year’s tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes: for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.
Third, the new tax bill should improve both the equity and the simplicity of our present tax system. This means the enactment of long-needed tax reforms, a broadening of the tax base, and the elimination or modification of many special tax privileges. These steps are not only needed to recover lost revenue and thus make possible a larger cut in present rates, they are also tied directly to our goal of greater growth. For the present patchwork of special provisions and preferences lightens the tax loads of some only at the cost of placing a heavier burden on others. It distorts economic judgments and channels undue amounts of energy into efforts to avoid tax liability. It makes certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings. All this inhibits our growth and efficiency, as well as considerably complicating the work of both the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service.
These various exclusions and concessions have been justified [in the past] as a means of overcoming oppressively high rates in the upper brackets, and a sharp reduction in those rates — accompanied by base-broadening, loophole-closing measures — would properly make the new rates not only lower, but also more widely applicable. Surely this is more equitable on both counts.
Those are the three tests which the right kind of bill must meet — and I am confident that the enactment of the right bill next year will in due course increase our gross national product by several times the amount of taxes actually cut. Profit margins will be improved, and both the incentive to invest and the supply of internal funds for investment will be increased. There will be new interest in taking risks, in increasing productivity, in creating new jobs and new products for long-term economic growth.
Other national problems, moreover, will be aided by full employment. It will encourage the location of new plants in areas of labor surplus — and provide new jobs for workers that we are retraining — and facilitate the adjustment which will be necessary under our new trade expansion bill, and reduce a number of government expenditures.
It will not, I’m confident, revive an inflationary spiral or adversely affect our balance of payments. If the economy today were operating close to capacity levels with little unemployment, or if a sudden change in our military requirements should cause a scramble for men and resources, then I would oppose tax reductions as irresponsible and inflationary — and I would not hesitate to recommend a tax increase, if that were necessary. But our resources and manpower are not being fully utilized, the general level of prices has been remarkably stable, and increased competition — both at home and abroad — along with increased productivity, will help keep both prices and wages within appropriate limits.
The same is true of our balance of payments. While rising demand will expand imports, new investment in more efficient productive facilities will aid exports, and a new economic climate could both draw capital from abroad and keep capital here at home. It will also put us in a better position, if necessary, to use monetary tools to help our international accounts. But most importantly, confidence in the dollar in the long run rests on confidence in America, in our ability to meet our economic commitments and reach our economic goals. In a worldwide conviction that we are not drifting from recession to recession with no answer, the substantial improvement in our balance of payments position in the last two years makes it clear that nothing could be more foolish than to restrict our growth merely to minimize that particular problem, because a slowdown in our economy will feed that problem rather than diminish it. On the contrary, European governmental and financial authorities with almost total unanimity, far from threatening to withdraw gold, have urged us to cut taxes in order to expand our economy, attract more capital, and increase confidence in our future.
But what concerns most Americans about a tax cut, I know, is not the deficit in our balance of payments but the deficit in our federal budget. When I announced in April of 1961 that this kind of comprehensive tax reform would follow the bill enacted this year, I had hoped to present it in an atmosphere of a balanced budget. But it has been necessary to augment sharply our nuclear and conventional forces, to step up our efforts in space, to meet the increased cost of servicing the national debt and meeting our obligations — established by law — to veterans. These expenditure increases, let me stress, constitute practically all of the increases which have occurred under this administration, the remainder having gone to fight the recession we found in industry — mostly through the Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Bill — and in agriculture.
We shall, therefore, neither postpone our tax cut plans nor cut into essential national security programs. This administration is determined to protect America’s security and survival, and we are also determined to step up its economic growth. And I think we must do both.
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget — just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records.
In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.
I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy, or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve, I believe — and I believe this can be done — a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.
Nevertheless, as Chairman Mills of the House Ways and Means Committee pointed out this week, the size of the deficit is to be regarded with concern, and tax reduction must be accompanied, in his words, by “increased control of the rises in expenditures.” This is precisely the course we intend to follow in 1963.
At the same time as our tax program is presented to the Congress in January, the federal budget for fiscal 1964 will also be presented. Defense and space expenditures will necessarily rise in order to carry out programs which are demanded and are necessary for our own security, and which have largely been authorized by Members in both parties of the Congress with overwhelming majorities. Fixed interest charges on the debt also rise slightly. But I can tell you now that the total of all other expenditures combined will be held at approximately its current level.
This is not an easy task. During the past nine years, domestic civilian expenditures in the national government have risen at an average rate of more than seven-and-one-half percent. State and local government expenditures have risen at an annual rate of nine percent. Expenditures by the New York State government, for example, have risen in recent years at the rate of roughly ten percent per year. At a time when government pay scales have necessarily risen — and I take New York just as an example — when our — when our population and pressures — when our population and pressures are growing and the demand for services and state aid is thus increasing, next year’s federal budget, which will hold domestic outlays at their present level, will represent a genuine effort in expenditure control. This budget will reflect, among other economies, a 750 million dollar reduction in the postal deficit. It will reflect a savings of over 300 million dollars in the storage costs of surplus feed grain stocks — and as a result of the feed grain bill of 1961, we will have two-thirds less in storage than we would otherwise have had in January 1963 — and a saving[s] of at least 600 million dollars from the cancellation of obsolete or unworkable weapons systems. Secretary McNamara is undertaking a cost reduction program expected to save three billion dollars a year in the Department of Defense, cutting down on duplication and closing down nonessential installations. Other agencies must do the same.
In addition, I have directed all heads of government departments and agencies to hold federal employment under the levels authorized by congressional appropriations, to absorb through greater efficiency a substantial part of this year’s federal pay increase, to achieve an increase in productivity which will enable the same amount of work to be done by less people, and to refrain from spending any unnecessary funds that were appropriated by the Congress.
It should also be noted that the federal debt, as a proportion of our gross national product, has been steadily reduced in the last years. Last year the total increase in the federal debt was two percent — compared to an eight percent increase in the gross debt of state and local governments. Taking a longer view, the federal debt today is 13 percent higher than it was in 1946, while state and local debt is 360 percent higher than it was in 1946 — and private debt by over 300 percent. In fact, if it were not for federal financial assistance to state and local governments, the federal cash budget would show a surplus. Federal civilian employment, for example, is actually lower today than it was in 1952, while state and local government employment over the same period has increased 67 percent.
It is this setting which makes federal tax reduction both possible and appropriate next year. I do not underestimate the obstacles which the Congress will face in enacting such legislation. No one will be satisfied. Everyone will have his own approach, his own bill, his own reductions. A high order of restraint and determination will be required if the “possible” is not to wait on the “perfect.” But a nation capable of marshaling these qualities in any dramatic threat to our security, is surely capable, as a great free society, of meeting a slower and more complex threat to our economic vitality. This nation can afford to reduce taxes, we can afford a temporary deficit — but we cannot afford to do nothing. For on the strength of our free economy rests the hope of all free nations. We shall not fail that hope — for free men and free nations must prosper and they must prevail. Thank you.
» November 13th, 2013
The United States ranks 3rd in Murders throughout the World.
But if you take out Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC and New Orleans, the United States is 4th from the Bottom for Murders.
These 4 Cities also have the toughest Gun Control Laws in the United States
All 4 are also controlled by Democrats.
It would be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data ………………. RIGHT
» October 28th, 2013
Commentary from Paul R. Beane on KFYO radio on 1/24/2013:
Good afternoon, I’m Paul R. Beane and I’m your right wing gun nut.
You know me and fellow gun owners are responsible for all the carnage in our streets and our schools.
Never mind that Ted Kennedy’s car has killed more people than my entire collection of firearms.
Most of which I have owned since childhood when I saved my pennies and nickels in order to purchase them and each and everyone is in perfect working order.
It is the responsible gun owners of today that is being blamed for all the shootings.
Obama calls us the right wing gun nuts, clinging to our guns and to our religion.
But lets take a little closer look. The Fort Hood shooter,
a Muslim, and a registered Democrat.
The Virginia Tech shooter, he wrote hate mail to George Bush and his staff and was
a registered Democrat.
Aurora Colorado shooter,
he was a staff worker on the Obama campaign and took part in Occupy Wall Street .
He was a progressive liberal and guess what?
A registered Democrat.
The Newtown , Conn shooter hated Christians and was a registered Democrat.
The Columbine high school shooters were too young to vote,
but both of their families were progressive liberals and registered Democrats.
And one more thing,
not a single one of these killers were members of the National Rifle Association.
So I have got it figured out how to make this country much safer;
leave the guns alone and lock up all the Democrats.
I’m Paul R. Beane and that’s the way I see it !
AMEN ! !
» October 25th, 2013
President Barack Hussein Obama is picking a fight with gun owners once again. As reported by The Blaze on Tuesday:
One day after a deadly middle school shooting in Nevada, President Barack Obama “remains committed” to pushing for stricter gun control laws and will “keep at it,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday.
This was the second conspicuous shooting in two months — although the shooting this week did not garner nearly the amount of press that the Navy Yard shooting did in September.
Regardless, the Nevada incident was truly tragic — especially given the fact that Congress has done nothing to let teachers come to the defense of students. The Blaze reports:
Police say a 12-year-old boy at Sparks Middle School near Reno, Nev., shot and injured two classmates and killed math teacher Mike Landsberry, a former Marine who served in Afghanistan and who had been trying to talk the shooter out of harming others. The 12-year-old boy also killed himself.
Okay, what’s wrong with this picture? Can you spot all the ridiculous scenarios that are presented in just that one sentence alone? This story raises several serious questions:
* Why is a former Marine like teacher Mike Landsberry “trying to talk” the shooter out harming others? Why can’t he have a gun?
* Why shouldn’t a Marine, who has been trained in weaponry, be able to protect himself and his students? Why can’t he have a gun?
* Moreover, why does Congress continue to ignore the 80% of police officers who favor “arming teachers and/or school administrators” who volunteer to carry at their schools? Why wasn’t Landsberry allowed to be armed?
* Finally, why isn’t Nevada following the example of its neighbors — in Utah and Idaho — which are arming teachers at schools?
While several schools in Idaho are now in the process of implementing this policy, Utah has been doing this for several years.
Thankfully, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) has an answer to this insanity — the kind of craziness that keeps our teachers unprotected at schools, or for that matter, that keeps our servicemen unprotected when they are at work.
That’s why Rep. Stockman has introduced:
* HR 35, which would repeal the gun ban that keeps teachers and school administrators defenseless. The bill would thus protect heroes like Assistant Principal Joel Myrick who have actually used a gun to stop a school shooter.
* And HR 3199, which would repeal the ban that keeps servicemen defenseless on military bases.
With ObamaCare “glitches” giving the President headaches, don’t be surprised if he tries to shift the debate at some point after the next shooting.
It’s time to start pushing back — proactively!
ACTION: Click here to urge your Representatives to cosponsor HR 35 and HR 3199. Let them know you don’t want to ban guns; you want to ban gun free zones!
» October 25th, 2013
In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the
University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the
Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: “A democracy is always
temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent
form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until
the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous
gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority
always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from
the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally
collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a
“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the
beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200
years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.”
The Obituary follows:
Born 1776, Died 2012
It doesn’t hurt to read this several times.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in
St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning
the last Presidential election:
Number of States won by:
Obama: 19 Romney: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Obama: 580,000 Romney: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Obama: 127 million Romney: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Obama: 13.2 Romney: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory
Romney won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low
income tenements and living off various forms of government
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the
“complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of
democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population
already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase..
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million
criminal invaders called illegal�s – and they vote – then we can say
goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.
If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how
much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our