General Pelosi

Pelosi clarified her concerns after Obama announced the plan at an event Friday at Camp Lejeune , North Carolina .

"As President Obama's Iraq policy is implemented, the remaining missions given to our remaining forces must be clearly defined and narrowly focused so that the number of troops needed to perform them is as small as possible," Pelosi said in a press release. "The president's decision means that the time has come at last for Iraq 's own security forces to have the prime responsibility for Iraq 's security."

On what basis does Pelosi claim to be a military expert? You don’t define a mission with a requirement to use as few troops as possible. You define your objectives, and then tailor your force to accomplish that objective. If you have insufficient resources, then you do risk analysis and control to figure out how to accomplish the mission with reduced resources. But it is putting the cart before the horse to say ‘You can have X troops in Iraq : now figure out what they are going to do since that’s all you get.’ We have a bit of a luxury of having more than enough resources for the missions we want to accomplish there, so why put an arbitrary limit on the resources? Only for political reasons I see. As evidenced by the planned drawdown already in effect, the mission requires fewer troops as the situation improves. But Pelosi should be asking the question ‘How many do you need?’ rather than dictating ‘this is what you are going to get’. That is just asking for disaster.

Or you can ask for disaster like Mr, Hopenchange himself, who has laid out a timetable for our withdrawal. That's called TIPPING YOUR HAND. Now Iran, Syria, and all the remaining Al Queda in Iraq folks know to just hang out until 2011 when we leave, then it's GAME ON! (on the poor Iraqi's that were just starting to believe we were there for the long haul and would see them through this).

Check out James Carville's article on CNN. He rants about Republican governors (Jindal, Barbour, Sanford) committing grave errors by refusing the expanded unemployment benefits in the Porkulus package. How dishonest can Carville get? He pointedly does not explain WHY they are refusing the offer from DC, so YOU will jump to the conclusion that they are just mean-spirited, evil Republicans who hate poor people and would be happy for them to just starve to death.

But NO, that is not why they are refusing them. Here's why, from the Governor's website:

"The Governor said the state will not use a portion of the stimulus package that requires the state to change its law to expand unemployment insurance (UI) coverage to qualify for up to $32.8 million of the federal stimulus funding because it ultimately would result in a tax increase on Louisiana businesses. Qualifying for the $32.8 million provision is a precondition for being considered for another $65.6 million of federal unemployment insurance funds in the federal package, which would also require permanent changes to Louisiana law and additional annual spending.

According to the Louisiana Workforce Commission (LWC), based on claims filed during 2008, the $32.8 million would run out in under three years and from that point on, the state would be required to pass along the cost of more than $12 million a year for supporting this expansion of benefits to Louisiana businesses.'

Why couldn't Carville be honest and just say that? It seems clear to me that increased taxes would be a bad thing, even three years hence. And even if you just said, 'Well, the state could just change it's laws back when the money runs out,' you KNOW everyone would scream and holler when the state tried to reduce eligibility for unemployment benefits.

Why is anyone entitled to money form the state when they are out of work anyway? Just asking...

From Political Punch, ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper's blog:

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion - tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"
$61 billion - repeal LIFO
$210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years

My questions: How is almost $1 TRILLION in new taxes going to help improve our economy? Who thinks the government can spend that money more wisely than the people that earned it? And do you know who is going to pay all those increased taxes on the oil companies (ie, making it more expensive to explore for and recover our oil assets)? You and Me in the form of higher gas prices at the pump. So that is like a huge tax on all of us making less than $250k a year. And where in the world did God appoint Obama the ONE to decide $250k is the break point between normal and rich???

OK, the next time I post I'm going to make a HUGE effort to edit things down. I want to try and get my point across in one screens-worth of text, or about 500 words. My wife is going to be my canary for this effort, because her eyes glaze over and she falls out of her chair when I wax political for too long. 500 words! My new watchword. Wish me luck...

Just had to write some more!

CNN had Obama front and center today, because of his address to Congress last night: Alan Silverleib's article "Analysis: Obama Takes 'Morning in America' Mantle". The article stated:

" 'Morning in America' was the theme of Ronald Reagan's 1984 re-election campaign,
and it was front and center in Obama's most critical event since Inauguration Day.

The president who has pledged to reverse much of Reagan's economic revolution
took a page from the 40th president's playbook in his 52-minute speech, striking
a defiantly optimistic tone that belied the nation's sour mood...

Obama's first speech to Congress amounted to a political tour de force. He proposed
what many claim is a complete overhaul of the country's economic foundation while
ripping his conservative predecessors for transferring 'wealth to the wealthy'..."

Oh, where to begin!? How can Obama be another Reagan if he pledges to 'reverse much of Reagan's economic revolution'? We've obviously had economic prosperity since Reagan's 'economic revolution', so if it was successful, why reverse it?

A good speech does not a great president make. Obama can talk nice, and I think he purposefully speaks in conservative terms. But look at his actions, for that is what makes the man. He wants to raise taxes, during a recession even! He thinks government action will turn the economy around, rather than the dynamic hard work of entrepreneurial spirit of Americans.

And how about the line 'transferring wealth to the wealthy'? We always hear that from liberals: 'Tax cuts for the wealthy is redistributing wealth'. How is a tax cut redistributing ANYTHING? That money is the earners, not the governments. If you give me a tax cut, I am keeping MY money. That has ZERO impact on you and your wealth. And besides, as Neal Boortz says, how many people work for a poor person? It's those wealthy people providing all those jobs. They should keep more of their money so they can keep creating jobs.

I think too many Americans think the government has a right to other people's money ('the wealthy'), that those wealthy people 'owe' others in the country something. Well, they don't owe anyone anything. They earned that money, it's theirs alone, and they can do with it as they choose. Put yourself in their shoes: we're all the same anyway, it's just a matter of scale. If you get a tax cut, that's not the government GIVING you money, you're KEEPING your money. Too many people have been bamboozled by the tax system, and think 'taxes' are the final number they owe or get back. They forget that through withholding they paid alot more than that final number. But either way, getting 'money back' isn't the government GIVING you new funds anymore than it is for a wealthy person. The government is just returning money they took from you earlier.

Oh, countering this kind of thinking gives me a headache sometimes. What do all these people have against success?

I am NOT going to be writing about Hope and Change. As we fondly said in the Navy, 'Hope is not a plan.' I'm going to try and lay out principled conservative plans and policies for a plethora (I've always wanted to use that word) of issues. My goal is to do so in clear and concise language, to educate and persuade. I would love for principled liberals (if that is not an oxymoron) to fire back. Let's not just hate each other from the get-go because we have different ideas about how our country should run. Provide some principled arguments for your positions, and I'll listen. Just because something would be Good to Do, doesn't mean the Federal government Should Do It, or is ALLOWED TO by the Constitution.

So let's get started! Nothing the government does is Free to anyone. All government funds have to come from somewhere else, like You and Me or Corporations in the form of taxes. Don't think everyone else is different from you. You could probably put your money to good use if the government didn't take it. Well, so can the so-called evil rich, or evil corporations. Rich people don't put money in mattresses. They invest it, which provides capital for corporations to expand, which provides You and your Friends and Family with JOBS. What would you do with $4000 more a year, or whatever your tax burden is? Unless you buried it in the backyard, whatever you did with it would benefit the economy: buy something, invest it, save it for emergencies so you wouldn't be a drag on society, etc! All those are Productive uses of Your money.

The government can only suck productivity out of the people and companies of this country in the form of taxes. Taxes take that money from production in the market place and for the most part waste it. I'll post later about what the Federal government should be doing, but it's definitely NOT what it is doing for the most part. Don't tell me the government doesn't waste Billions of your dollars. We'll talk later about all the government programs you will be telling me are Productive uses of Our money....

So what do you think? Can the Federal government provide You with FREE anything? Do you ever think about what those Billions of dollars could be doing in the Private sector vice being filtered through the government bureaucracy? Do you think, everytime a congressman says 'we need to do XYZ', that he's actually saying 'I (one of 535 congressmen) want to take YOUR money (that I will collect from some 100+million citizens) and do XYZ with it'?

Yow! Now I'm itching to talk about the Consitution, and what it says the Federal government CAN and CAN'T do. That's why it was written, you know. To lay out the form of our government, which includes the restrictions on the Federal government. It doesn't restrict CITIZENS liberties and freedoms, it explicitly restricts the government's ability to encroach on you freedoms.

The Constitution used to limit what the Federal government could do (and Federal revenues, pre-income tax, limited the Feds ambition as well). But the courts haven't done their job (either by omission or commission) pointing out the constitutionality (or lack there-of) of Federal programs. So that limit is severely eroded. And the income tax (and ability to increase those rates willy-nilly, and shift the burden to fewer and fewer citizens) started breaking limitations provided by limited funds. But then there was deficit spending, but at least we thought that couldn't get too big. But NOW, with the Spendulus bill just passed, even huge deficits are no limit. So I ask you: what is the limit on the Federal government? What says to those 535 yahoos, NO! You can't do that! It's not allowed (the Constitution)! It's too expensive (huge debts)! Not anymore. Neither of those even seem to be considered these days.

The only thing I see limiting those in Congress is the prospect of getting voted out of office. And the only way I see that happening is enough Citizens of this great nation getting educated in how our government is formed, what those limitations are, WHY there are limitations, HOW those limitations (and consequently OUR freedom) benefit ALL of us, and that if nothing else, WE just can't AFFORD to do all of these things. And I don't want to kick the can down to our children and grandchildren. They deserve as great a country as our grandparents gave us.

We haven't reached the point of no return. But I fear it is approaching fast. So get cracking! Read that Constitution! It's only 35 pages in the handy little pamphlet from the government: and for the record I think that is a GOOD use of MY money, to print the Constitution for EVERYONE to read. Value your FREEDOM! I've been lots of places in this world where people would literally die for a chance to get a fraction of what we have. Tell those Congressmen to quit spending your children's future!