Quote of the Day: Ted Cruz (R-Tx)

Let me be clear, I do not support default on the debt and we should never default on the debt and the only players who are threatening to default are President Obama and Harry Reid. This is an issue, and earlier in the show you played the President threatening default. In any given month tax revenue are 200 billion and interest is 30 or 40 billion. There is it plenty of revenue to service the debt and any responsible President would’ve stood at that podium and said ‘whatever happens with the debt ceiling, we will always pay our debt. We’ll never default on the debt’ and the reason the President isn’t doing that is he’s trying to scare people and raise the specter of financial apocalypse.” – Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Fox News Sunday 1/6/12

It’s good to hear some common sense coming from a politician.


Book Review: The Coming Revolution By Dr. Richard Lee

Today I am reviewing “The Coming Revolution: Signs from America’s Past That Signal Our Nation’s FutureBy Dr. Richard Lee”. Up front I will say that I have been a fan of several other books written by Dr Lee. He brings a strong biblical view to American history. So I was excited to read this book and see what Dr Lee had to say about current events.

From page one you get the sense that this book is a hand book for the modern conservative Tea Party movement that has swept across America since 2009. With the ever increasing national Debt and the increased feeling of being ignored by our leaders in Washington, the conservative majority in America has become active in our political process once again and this book shows how it parallels what happened during the first American Revolution.

I would recommend this book for anyone that would like to learn a little about American history, get a look into where the modern Tea Party movement gets it’s foundation and why many are worried that we are nearing a point that changing politicians may not be enough to right things. Thankfully it is not too late at this time to make change through our political process and this book explains why.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookSneeze.com <http://BookSneeze.com> book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Open Letter to PolitiFact:


On the White House website ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/fiscal ) it states:

Cut the deficit in half by the end of the President’s first term.
On January 20, 2009, the President inherited a $1.3 trillion budget deficit. The President has put forth a budget that will halve this deficit by the end of his first term, bring non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level as a share of GDP since 1962.

I have attached a screen print of the Website for your convenience.
All though it is a fact the President made this pledge, it is also true that he has not done this. In fact, the deficit during his time his office has gone up each year and his latest budget proposal only brings it down to where it was when he took office.
(I can’t wait to see if they acknowledge this email in anyway)

History repeating itself.

Let me introduce you to a man named Herbert Hoover. As the 31st President of the United States of America he is often listed as one of the worst our country has ever had. Why would he be looked at so poorly? Two words, Great Depression. 8 months after taking Wall street handed the new President the worst economic disaster our country has ever had and it was how he handled that disaster that made President Hoover known as one of our worst presidents.

So what did he do so wrong? There were several landmark policies that Hoover championed as the best solutions to end the depression.

First he believed in public works projects and infrastructure stimulus. Ever hear of the “Hoover Damn”? Hoover asked congress for millions of dollars (because they did not think in billions back then) to build the power generating damn. Yes that damn has provided Nevada and other states with electricity but the jobs created by that projected did nothing to end the great depression.

Secondly he raised taxes on the top tax bracket from 25% to 63%. Yes the top rate was at 25% during one of the largest economic booms in American history, the roaring 20s, so Hoover thought it would be a good idea to raise the top tax rate at the beginning of the great depression. How did that one work out?

Thirdly, if taxing the evil rich didn’t work maybe his plan to increase corporate taxes should have worked. Nope.

Wait a moment, I am having a sense of deja vu here. Hasn’t this been the DNC plan to deal with the current recession? Infrastructure, tax teh rich and tax corporation has been the campaign chants of the DNC. How is that working out? About as good as it did for Hoover.

Yes, there where other policies that did not help, the most obvious was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. Oh wait, President Obama has been championing “The Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act” that will impose a tariff on China, one of the top owners of US debt.

Will President Obama be remembered as Hoover 2.0? Of course not, because Hoover didn’t have support through out academia for his policies to the level Obama does. The media of the time did not give Hoover a free pass while doing nothing but going after anyone that opposes him. President Obama will be sugar coated for history.

Don’t let the truth be ignored. The DNC is repeating all the mistakes of pass presidents, we need to get on the right direction before it is too late.

The Free Market at Work.

Even inAmerica, where the free market has not been allowed in almost a century, we see glimpses of how it works. In a free market the public decides the fate of businesses, they decide the fate of fads and they decide what the best policies for businesses to have are. How does the public do this? With their wallets.

If you do not like the way Nike treats its workers, don’t buy their shoes. Unhappy with GE shipping jobs over seas, don’t buy their appliances. Disappointed with the coverage your insurance agency offers, go to a competitor. The free market is the only way you can have freedom of choice.

In a socialist Democracy, our progressive friends think it is better to have politicians step in and tell businesses what they can and can’t do. So how has that been working in the banking industry lately?

Most people have heard of the new debit card fee Bank of America was planning on charging their customers, I say was because yesterday they announced they where canceling their plans to implement the fee.

I would like to look at two questions. First, why did they consider charging the fee and secondly, why did they cancel.

The first part of the question is up for debate but I feel there is enough evidence to suggest that the fee was introduced to cover the loss of revenue when the Dodd-Frank bill limited the amount of money banks could charge merchants for the use of the debit card charging system. So government intervenes and we get left paying the bill.

The second question is much easier to answer, the free market dictated to the banks that the policy was not going to work. Customers of Bank of America told the bank that they rejected the new fee by pulling out their money and going to other banks and/or credit unions. BoA has since see the error of their policy and have made a change to benefit their customers, WITH OUT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. Of course there are politicians saying that “we need a law that restricts what fees banks can charge for debit card use”, but this is foolish. The free market can control those fees, we the people control those fees with out relinquishing power to a politician to do it for us.

I hope the junior socialists of the Democratic party and the progressives learn from this lesson. The free market is the only system that allows the people to have freedom.

WSJ: “The about-face represents a concession to customer sensitivities over fees. Banks have been adding charges in an attempt to make up for billions of dollars in revenue that is expected to vanish as a result of new restrictions on credit cards, debit cards and overdraft policies. A provision in last year’s Dodd-Frank financial-overhaul law halved the amount that banks can charge merchants for accepting debit cards.”

Progressives use jealousy as a political tool

I am getting sick and tired of the lunatic left using jealousy as a tool to motivate voters. The “class war” being waged by the left is sad and irrelevant.

So often we hear the rant that “The growth in the income of the rich far exceeds the middle class”. First notice that they always focus on the middle class and ignore the plite of the lower class. Second, who cares how much the “rich” are making. The progressives fail to understand that the American free market economy creates wealth. Those with money have opportunity to grow their wealth by creating new wealth, they do not need to take it from some mythical lower class. If you want to see an economic system that requires the wealthy to take from the poor to increase their wealth, look at communist Russia or Socialist Germany.

Anyways,  over at Reason.org Anthony Randazzo wrote a great article address Paul Krugman’s attempt at class warfare. Enjoy: (source)

Paul Krugman must have been channeling some Sun Tzu with his Art of War inspired feign of innocence at the start of his column last week, claiming that the Presidentially popularized phrasing of the rich paying their “fair share” in society today—an idea that Mr. Krugman strongly advocates—is not class warfare. After the diplomatic argument that really, there is no war being fought by his side, he then proceed to engage in a full on mortar strike in the class war that is raging right now and that progressives have been waging for decades.

Specifically, Krugman argues:

detailed estimates from the Congressional Budget Office — which only go up to 2005, but the basic picture surely hasn’t changed — show that between 1979 and 2005 the inflation-adjusted income of families in the middle of the income distribution rose 21 percent. That’s growth, but it’s slow, especially compared with the 100 percent rise in median income over a generation after World War II.

Meanwhile, over the same period, the income of the very rich, the top 100th of 1 percent of the income distribution, rose by 480 percent. No, that isn’t a misprint. In 2005 dollars, the average annual income of that group rose from $4.2 million to $24.3 million.

A simple question in response: So what? Is the growth of the middle class so slow that they are living in squalor or with poor living standards? Why should I care if the rich made such a dramatically higher amount of money than I do? It doesn’t take away from me, who is in the top 25 percent of income earners. There is not a fixed economic pie, it is constantly expending and we can all get a slice. My rich neighbor getting a bigger slice doesn’t impact the size or taste of my slice.

Even worse though is the contention towards the end of Mr. Krugman’s column that betrays the real value position which separates progressives from libertarians:

Now, I know how the right will respond to these facts: with misleading statistics and dubious moral claims…

On the other side, we have the claim that the rich have the right to keep their money — which misses the point that all of us live in and benefit from being part of a larger society.


Far be it for us to defend the rights of any and all taxpayers to keep what belongs to them. Property rights so often get in the way of a few elites trying to construct society in their own vision of it.

Backing down to earth, there is the fair point that in the midst of our national and global social contract we depend on each other for economic development. Few are the businessmen who manufacture everything necessary to run their companies. Everyone relies to some extent on others, as Leonard Read spelled out in his famous essay, “I, Pencil.”

So the businessman is dependent on suppliers and innovators of other technology to help his profit. And he is dependent on consumers to buy his product. The consumer is dependent on the businessman to provide a product in demand. And the suppliers are dependent on the businessman to buy their equipment. This is all easily observed.

What does not follow from this is the contention that, because a social contract binds all of this together, the collective have a claim on the resources of the wealthy few. By this logic, since we are all dependent on each other, why does the collective not have a claim on the resources of everyone else in society?  (If only such a system had a name.) Put another way, in Krugman’s social contract, how does one define the limits of the government’s claim on the resources of the wealthy to fund its activities?

Raising taxes on the “rich” will not solve the problem.

Recently President Obama dredged up his same old campaign speech about the “rich” needing to pay their fare share. Of course, after finding out that too many Americans that make over $250k/year vote, he is now looking to attack those that make over a million a year.

Ok, I throw in the towel. We should give the Democrats all the tax increase they are asking for and more. We should tax all income over $1million/year at 100%. I guess everything will be sunshine and roses after that, right? Wrong.

Lets look at the income tax numbers of 2009, mainly because that is the last year available. If we took every penny of income earned by Americans over $1million in 2009 the IRS would have collected almost $184 billion.

So let me ask all those brilliant Democrats, progressives, liberals, socialists or whatever you want to be called… what about the other $1,400,000,000 in deficit spending?

Now back to reality. First, it would be unAmerican to tax anyone at 100% no matter what FDR said when he tried it. Don’t forget the fact that if the Democrats raised the taxes as much as they wanted to people would leave America in droves and millions more would be unemployed.

Secondly, raising revenue through taxes will not solve the problem of our out of control federal budget. We need real significant cuts to spending if we want to ever see a growing economy in this country again.

So cut the spending, then we can raise revenue to meet the needs of a growing economy. Besides, if you cut spending and the economy starts to flourish, we will see increase revenue through economic growth… as it is intended to happen.

Today is Wednesday September 21st 2011 and it is not too late to fix it. I don’t know if I will be able to say that tomorrow so don’t wait.