Now it’s Time to Address the Real Problem: Spending

By: Demian Brady / Townhall Columnist

 

Congress and the President may have reached a deal on averting the “fiscal cliff,” but taxpayers shouldn’t even think about popping champagne corks. Though the negotiated package prevented most tax increases from taking effect, it did nothing to help resolve the overspending problem that is burying our nation in debt.

Tax receipts to the Treasury will now increase. However, the mounting deficit problem is not caused by a lack of revenues. Even if Congress had extended the Bush-era taxpayer relief laws for everyone, the Congressional Budget Office projects the federal government would be on pace to bring in around 17 or 18 percent of GDP a year in tax revenue over the next decade, which is right around historical norms. The real problem is that spending over this period is projected to continue to be 23 to 24 percent of GDP - well above its historical averages. This is unsustainable.

Unfortunately, Congress and the President have shown little willingness of late to cut spending. In fact, part of the fiscal cliff deal scrapped existing laws that would have reduced spending -- passing a one-year Medicare “Doc Fix” at a cost of $25 billion and pushing back by two months the $109 billion budget sequester.

Prompt action will be required in the New Year. The federal government has again reached the debt ceiling.

The Treasury will no longer be able to borrow unless the President strikes a deal with Congress within the next two months. This is an excellent opportunity for serious spending reductions and entitlement reform that can bring the size of the government back to historical, sustainable, norms.

But the new 113^th Congress need not start from scratch. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation maintains a database called BillTally, which determines the bottom-line cost of nearly every significant piece of spending legislation. Early BillTally data for the 112^th Congress identifies almost 300 bills to shrink expenditures, nearly any of which could be easily rolled into the debt ceiling deal to help bring the size of government back to manageable levels.

Though no spending cuts bills were signed into law in 2012, a few passed the House. For example, H.R. 3835 would have limited pay increases for Members of Congress and federal employees, thus saving $12.5 billion. Rep. Jason Chaffetz’s (R-UT) “Cut, Cap and Balance” bill, which would have saved taxpayers $111 billion, passed the House in July by a vote of 234 to 190 but failed in the Senate.

Some spending cut legislation in BillTally would have had a relatively modest fiscal impact, like a bill authored by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to repeal a public awareness campaign highlighting preventive benefits under “Obamacare” – it would have reduced spending by just $2 million. Others like H.R. 4060 introduced by Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN), would have frozen spending and imposed strict budget caps that would have saved taxpayers an impressive $433 billion.

While $433 billion would have been a huge pare-back, the distinction for the bill that would have reduced spending the most belongs to one authored by Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA). His “Return to Responsible Fiscal Policies Act,” according to NTUF’s methodology, would have cut approximately $562 billion from the annual budget through a cap on federal spending at 18 percent of GDP.

Sometimes in Washington, it seems partisanship continuously wins out at the expense of taxpayers. But as BillTally shows, several Democratic Members of Congress introduced legislation to trim outlays. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) sponsored a bill that sought to cut $28 million in spending on Voice of America’s broadcasts to Cuba. Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) had a bill that would have consolidated functions at the defense stores system and saved taxpayers $200 million.

These represent small steps compared to the overall budget, but could be opportunities to make bi-partisan progress on this critical challenge.

Perhaps the raw material contained in these proposals can help President Obama and Congressional leaders forge a bipartisan compromise to cut spending and put our nation back on firm economic footing (and there are even more options available online). Taxpayers and future federal budgets cannot afford to see serious spending reductions cast aside while tax hikes take center stage.

The Food Stamp Economy

By: Larry Elder / Townhall Columnist

The New York Post headline read: "Could You Spend $500 on Food at This Bodega? A Welfare Recipient Claimed To!" A few days later, another headline: "Welfare Recipients Take Out Cash at Strip Clubs, Liquor Stores and X-Rated Shops." "They're on the dole -- and watching the pole," wrote the Post. "Welfare recipients took out cash at bars, liquor stores, X-rated video shops, hookah parlors and even strip clubs -- where they presumably spent their taxpayer money on lap dances rather than diapers."

Here's how it works.

Welfare recipients receive Electronic Benefit Transfer cards, preloaded with specified dollar amounts for food and for cash assistance. The EBT card can be used to purchase eligible food products at stores pre-approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Swipe the card, enter a PIN, and the amount of the food purchase is deducted from the welfare recipient's food allowance and is credited to the retailer. Some "welfare-ready" ATMs accept the EBT cards just like ATM or debit cards, dispensing cash.

But the Post exposed welfare recipients using the ATMs located inside businesses with names like Hank's Saloon in Brooklyn; an East Village porn shop called Blue Door Video; The Anchor, a SoHo lounge; TriBeCa's Patriot Saloon; a Bronx liquor distributor called Drinks Galore; and Club Eleven and Club Heat, both Bronx strip clubs.

In case welfare recipients want to know where they can find "welfare-ready" ATMs, the New York state's Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance lists some of these EBT-ready ATMs on its website.
The Post also disclosed a federal sting that found food stamp "purchases" of several hundred dollars per transaction made at low-end bodegas (aka mini-marts, corner stores, mom-and-pop stores), usually involving little or no foodstuffs actually changing hands.

Whenever there is a government program, there will be more waste, fraud and abuse than you find in the private sector. What a shock.

The real scandal is our tepid 2 percent growth in this fourth year of recovery. At 2 percent, the economy produces too few jobs to make a dent in the nearly 8 percent unemployment rate. Spending just on food stamps (now called SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) has gone from $37 billion in President George W. Bush's last year to over $78 billion for 2012, an increase of 210 percent.

Compare this recovery to any recovery since World War II. Based on past performances, the economy should be generating twice the number of jobs and the gross domestic product should be growing much, much faster.

Not only is unemployment still a high 8 percent, but the labor force participation rate is near a 30-year low. This means many able-bodied and able-minded work-age adults simply dropped out of the job market.

Look at the record number of Americans applying for and receiving disability benefits. The Congressional Budget Office blames this on the economy: "When jobs are plentiful, some people who could qualify for the DI program may choose instead to work. ... CBO projects that as a result of the most recent recession and slow recovery, the number of disabled worker beneficiaries will continue to rise over the next few years (although growth will slow as the economy improves)."

The EBT scandal also raises another issue: Is government welfare -- as opposed non-government charity -- the best way to help the needy and to encourage self-sufficiency?

When President Lyndon Johnson implemented the so-called "war on poverty," poverty in America in 1965 stood at about 15 percent -- nearly identical to today's rate. It had been trending downward for decades.

From an estimated 70 percent at the turn of the century, the poverty rate was 22.5 percent in 1959, 19 percent when Johnson announced his "war" in January 1964 and 17.3 percent by the time Congress enacted the Economic Opportunity Act in August 1964. It pretty much flat-lined from 1965 onward -- hitting a one-time low of 11.1 in the early '70s, but bouncing back to 15 percent or slightly higher several times.

Welfare spending -- after adjusting for inflation -- nearly tripled from 1965 to 1975. But the poverty rate barely budged. The number of long-term welfare recipients increased.

How do we know that government welfare took away incentive from able workers?

President Clinton signed the 1996 welfare reform act. It allowed "family caps" so that a welfare recipient received no additional money for having another child while on welfare. It also placed time limits on recipients. Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund, called the bill "the biggest betrayal of children and the poor since the CDF began."

But welfare rolls decreased by almost half -- a much steeper decline than even the most enthusiastic supporters of reform ever expected. "The latest government statistics reveal that welfare caseloads have dropped an astonishing 46 percent since 1993," wrote Cato economist Stephen Moore in 2000. "The explanation for this progress is that welfare reforms in Washington and in the states have had a profound impact in reversing the perverse incentives of the Great Society welfare state."

The question is not whether we help, but how to do so without incapacitating the needy.

NRA Calls Biden Meeting ‘Attack on Second Amendment’

By Todd Beamon / Newsmax

• 0
  inShare

“There isn’t on guns,” NRA President David Keene told CNN. “There is not on guns, not that I can see.”

Keene’s remarks came as Vice President Joseph Biden on Thursday said he saw a growing consensus for the federal government to seek universal background checks for gun buyers and a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines.

But the NRA president told CNN that the association could work with the White House in trying to get those who have been determined by law to be mentally ill into a national registry of those who are barred from purchasing firearms.

“That would make a difference, because the people who have been involved in these shootings have been people who are severely mentally ill,” Keene said, referring to the Dec. 14 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in which 20 children and six adults died.

“We don’t think you should demonize everybody who’s got a mental problem, but the fact is that there are people who are not in the gray area,” Keene told CNN. “They should not be allowed to buy firearms.”

Earlier on Thursday, the nation’s largest gun lobby said it was “disappointed” at a meeting a representative attended with Biden’s task force seeking solutions to end gun violence in the nation.

The NRA said the session, which included five other gun-rights organizations and other Obama administration officials, amounted to a strategy session on how to thwart the Second Amendment.

“We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment,” the NRA said in a statement after the session.

“While claiming that no policy proposals would be ‘prejudged,’ this task force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners — honest, taxpaying, hard-working Americans.”

In his CNN interview, Keene expanded on the NRA’s statement — characterizing many of the recommendations put forth in the session as “feel-good proposals.”

“We know, and we knew, going into this meeting, what the president’s position on the so-called assault-weapons ban is — the same position he’s had for years,” he said. “These are not new positions.

“The vice president had said that we would do this with an open mind, but at the meeting he said, ‘No, we’ve already made up our mind on that.’ No, there’s not going to be any agreement on that,” Keene said.

He told CNN that he believed that the Biden panel was “checking a box. They were able to say: ‘We’ve met with the NRA. We’ve met with the people who are strong Second Amendment supporters.’

“There are lots of areas that we can agree on, but we are not going to agree on these gun questions,” Keene said. “We don’t think, from either a constitutional standpoint or a policy standpoint, it works.”

Biden said on Thursday, however, that the consensus was growing for the background checks for gun buyers and for banning high-capacity ammunition magazines — in a preview of some of the policies he’ll recommend to President Barack Obama early next week.

“There is an emerging set of recommendations — not coming from me, but coming from the groups we’ve met,” Biden said before his session with groups representing hunters and wildlife organizations. “I have a real tight window to do this. The public wants us to act.”

Biden said that he and other administration officials, as they met with gun-control advocates and representatives of victims, repeatedly heard about the need for “near universal background checks” in firearms transactions, greater freedom for federal agencies to conduct research about gun crimes, and limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines.

"There is a surprising — so far — a surprising recurrence of suggestions that we have universal background checks, not just close the gun show loophole but totally universal background checks including private sales," Biden said.

But while Keene told the NRA that “background checks generally are a good thing,” he said there was a broader question surrounding them, since many gun sales are between private owners: “How would you enforce a law that would require me to check you out?”

It could be done at gun shows, Keene said, but the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives lacks a system for such checks. “You can talk theoretically, or you can talk about the real world,” he said.

“That doesn’t mean that there isn’t an area for agreement,” Keene added. “If question is: ‘Should we ban guns? Should we ban so-called assault weapons?’ There’s not going to be any agreement there.

“If the question, however, is, ‘How do we deal with the problem of these kinds of shootings?’ then there is an area for agreement.”

As for Keene’s overall take on the Biden session, he said: “We stated our position. They stated their position. Some things you can do by executive order. Some things you can’t do by executive order.

“And some things you do by executive order, you need money for it to be implemented — and that’s up to Congress.”

Wyoming Considers Law to Nullify a Federal Gun Ban

by Greg Campbell / TPNN Contributor


Tensions are mounting in the Equality State as Wyoming legislators have proposed a bill that would nullify any federal law that increased restrictions on firearms and jail anyone who tries to enforce such federal law- even federal agents.

The Wyoming legislation comes just days after the recent candor of Vice President Biden who alluded to the use of an executive order to circumvent Congress in his effort to curtail Second Amendment rights. He stated,

“The president is going to act. There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken.”

Wyoming is a frontier state and the second most unpopulated state in the union. HB0104 states that “any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on firearms in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming.”

According to the Washington Examiner,

“The bill is sponsored by eight Wyoming state representatives ad two state senators. If passed, the bill would declare any federal gun regulation created on or after January 1, 2013 to be unenforceable within the state.

In addition, the bill states would charge federal officials attempting to enforce a federal gun law within the state with a felony – ‘subject to imprisonment for not more less than one (1) year and one (1) day or more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both.’

The bill also allows the Attorney General of Wyoming to defend a state citizen from any prosecution by the United States Government.”

However, amidst calls from celebrities and politicians for stricter gun control laws, it seems that many Americans disagree- as illustrated by the fact that gun sales are smashing previous records, over 1 million so-called “high-capacity magazines” for the AR15 rifle from Magpul are on backorder from the company and the NRA has seen over 100,000 join their organization in the last 18 days.

“Rep. Kendell Kroeker, the lawmaker that spearheaded the bill, explained that he hoped that the federal government would recognize their constitutional rights based on the Tenth and Second Amendments.

‘I think that it’s necessary when the federal government violates our rights in the Constitution we have to act,’ he explained.”

The bill is expected to pass and has received a large outpouring of support from citizens of Wyoming as well as from all over the country.

The introduction of the possibility of an executive order to ban guns plays directly into the worst fears from the gun rights community. For decades, gun control advocates have scoffed at the notion of some sweeping federal crackdown coming from the executive branch; though now it seems like a serious possibility.

As President Obama has wielded his executive power to grant amnesty to millions of illegals, squash work requirements for welfare benefits, instruct the DOJ to not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act and has used his executive power to cloak Attorney General Eric Holder from scrutiny in the Fast and Furious scandal, it appears to be increasingly likely that the broad, overreaching enforcement of gun control or even gun confiscation might become a reality.

Op-ed:
Gun control...NO way!
By: Diane Sori

Using, for political expediency alone, the Newtown tragedy as a rallying cry, Uncle Joe 'Bite-Me' Biden has been bloviating whenever and wherever he can that Obama is considering implementing either an Executive Order or an Executive Action as a means to achieve gun control. And why... because Obama knows he can't get a gun control bill through Congress, as most Republicans, particularly those in the House, have made it clear that they intend to oppose most if NOT all of his gun control plans.

An Executive Action, meaning NO Congressional approval is needed for Obama's wanted gun control measures, would include actions by the Justice Department, who now would be able to prosecute people who lie on their background checks.  And who heads the Justice Department...none other than the biggest liar of all...AG Eric Holder.

Hide your guns folks...this is going to get nasty.

Saying Obama will do 'what needs to be done' (and we know this means trying to take away our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms), Uncle Joe made it clear that doing nothing about 'gun violence' was not an option as far as he and Obama were concerned.

'Gun violence'...how convenient that all forget that guns are NOT violent...a few nuts using them for nefarious purposes are the violent ones. Nothing like punishing the many (and an inanimate object) for the actions of a few...and a very few at that.

And to achieve his true objective of disarming 'We the People' (so we can never rise up against him and his traitorous administration), Obama wants, in NO uncertain terms, a more effective reinstatement of the lapsed assault weapons ban, limits on high-capacity magazines, stiffer penalties for carrying guns near schools, better enforcement measures, a gun-trafficking statute, improved databases for loophole-free background checks (such as strengthening the database the FBI uses to perform background checks on gun buyers)...and the banning of private gun sales.

Obama could also demand that the states share more information from their crime and mental-health databases...basically overriding state's rights.

And today, Uncle Joe and his group of gun-hating cronies will meet with representatives from the NRA, who oppose any new gun control measures.  But having this meeting is for show anyway as both Biden and Obama will turn a blind eye to anything the NRA has to say, especially in regards to semi-automatics, because they simply do NOT understand (or want to understand) that despite appearances, an AR-15-style rifle is NO more dangerous than any other gun.  And instead of gun control, the NRA wants to improve the quality of mental health care in hopes of avoiding another Newtown, as well as placing armed guards in schools...I mean Obama and his buddies all send their kids to schools with armed guards...our children should be afforded the same protection as theirs get.

These are logical, sensible steps that could be used to help stop violence, note I did NOT say gun violence as there is NO such thing, but Obama is NOT interested in stopping violence...all he wants to do is to disarm the citizenry...to leave us naked and vulnerable to his whims...to his wants...to his rules of law instead of abiding by the true law of this land...the Constitution.

So I say NO to any gun control measures...I say NO to any altering or amending of the Second Amendment...and NO to anything this traitorous, America-hating man and his minions want, for whatever they want is most assuredly NOT something 'We the People' want or need, and is most assuredly NOT in America's best interests.

This Is How a Secret Gun Provision Made its Way Into Obamacare Legislation
By: Billy Hallowell/ The Blaze

There’s a widely-unknown provision in the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) — legislative wording that is capturing attention in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Pushed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), a newly-noticed regulation that was placed deep within the bill back in 2010, among other things, bans doctors from documenting patients’ answers to questions that focus upon guns.

The Washington Post first reported on Dec. 30 about the presence of this controversial wording. Under a section with the headline “Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights,” the NRA-advocated wording is nestled deep within the law. The Post called the inclusion, “a largely overlooked but significant challenge to a movement in American medicine to treat firearms as a matter of public health.”

As the outlet also noted, it was in the final stretch of the debate over Obama’s health care legislation that the NRA successfully pushed to insert this language. Below, see the portions of the Affordable Care Act that include mentions of firearms and the parameters through which doctors must operate in questioning patients (read the entire health care bill here):




On Tuesday, CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta spoke on-air with “Situation Room” host Wolf Blitzer. The two discussed how the gun provision made its way into health care legislation, while also explaining portions of the text for viewers.

Gupta noted that the initiative to have the wording included during the contentious health care debate was rooted in the NRA’s stance that patients should not be penalized or discriminated against for owning firearms. As can be seen from the above portion of the legislation, while doctors are not banned from asking about guns, they are forbidden from documenting the information and using it for research purposes.

Watch Gupta explain the additive language:

In addition to gun-owner information and how it must be handled by doctors, the text also notes that the law cannot be used to keep and maintain records of individuals’ firearm possession, nor can it be used to track ammunition. Additionally, the language deals with the price of health care coverage, noting that cost cannot be impacted by the possession or ownership of guns, the Post also reported.

Following the tragedy at Sandy Hook, the presence of this provision has gained some press, with select politicians and medical groups taking a stand against it. Advocates are worried that research and medical care could suffer as a result of the wording; some are even pushing the Obama administration to consider changes to the text in light of recent events and an impending battle over new gun control legislation.

The Post has more about the ongoing battle between the NRA and physicians and advocates who stand opposed to the language inserted into the Affordable Care legislation:

NRA officials say they requested the provision out of concern that insurance companies could use such data to raise premiums on gun owners. The measure’s supporters in the Senate say they did not intend to interfere with the work of doctors or researchers.

But physician groups and researchers see the provision as part of a decades-long strategy by the gun lobby to choke off federal support for studies of firearms violence.

The research restrictions began in the 1990s, when the NRA urged Congress to cut funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division that studied gun violence. In 1996, Congress sharply limited the agency’s ability to fund that type of research.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi take part in a joint Senate and House session to count of the Electoral College votes for the 2012 presidential election at the Capitol Hill in Washington on January 4, 2013. US President Barack Obama was officially declared the winner of 2012 presidential election after the counting session– a quaint formality, perhaps, but constitutionally required. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

Just as interesting as the debate over the provision, itself, is the notion that it was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), an NRA-supporter, who added the wording to the bill back in 2010. While a spokesperson for Reid told the Post that the leader never spoke with the NRA about the wording and that he did not believe that “it changed gun laws in any way,” that hasn’t stopped critics from wondering why Reid so staunchly supported the measure.

The language was purportedly added to stem off criticism from the NRA that could have railroaded, delayed or prevented the controversial health care bill from passing. Also, the wording was placed deep within the bill in an effort to convince people not to embrace so-called conspiracy theories about Obamacare — mainly that the legislation would be used to keep and maintain a massive gun-ownership database. Once the langage was added, the NRA reportedly remained neutral regarding passage of the law.

While Reid has been a gun rights advocate for quite some time, the politician may be having a change of heart in the wake of recent shootings and controversy surrounding this language. An adviser who spoke off-the-record, recently told CNN that the senator is “in a different place than he was in 2010″ when it comes to firearms.

NOT good...NOT good at all...

Obama ends post-9/11 restrictions on Saudis entering U.S.

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

What could possibly go wrong?

Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. But not to worry. The Saudis have completely eradicated the beliefs and assumptions that led to those attacks, haven't they? After all, they were motivated by a twisted and hijacked version of Islam that is nowhere found on earth today, especially in Saudi Arabia, right?

"Obama administration ends post-9/11 restrictions on Saudis entering U.S.," from the World Tribune, January 6 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):

ABU DHABI — The United States, a decade after Al Qaida strikes in New York and Washington, has opened its doors to Saudi nationals. 

Diplomats said the administration of President Barack Obama has removed most restrictions on the entry of Saudis to the United States. They said the percentage of visa approvals for Saudis has reached unprecedented levels.

“The United States aims to raise the number of visas that it issues annually, particularly to Saudi nationals, who represent an important group,” Joseph Hood, U.S. consul-general in the Saudi city of Dhahran, said.

Hood cited economic reasons for the easing of restrictions on Saudis. He said Saudi businessmen and students have been allowed to enter the United States in record numbers, with a 60 percent increase since 2010.

“They form a large segment of travelers to the United States, while they also represent an important economic factor,” Hood said. “In addition, Saudi Arabia also sends a large number of students to the United States, and the number of Saudi students in the United States rivals those from India.”

The U.S. consulate in Dhahran reported issuing 100 visas per day to Saudis. In 2012, the total number of visas reached 21,000, nearly 30 percent of which went to Saudi students or their relatives. About 15,000 Americans were reported to be based in Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich Eastern Province.

The administration decision came amid a series of incidents in which Saudis were implicated in criminal and security offenses. In February 2011, a Saudi student was arrested on charges of plotting to bomb the home of former President George Bush in Texas. Diplomats said more than 70,000 Saudis were registered as studying in the United States.

Earlier this month, a sergeant in the Royal Saudi Air Force was arrested on charges of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy in Las Vegas. Mazen Alotaibi was identified as a member of a U.S. training program of Saudi military personnel at the Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland near San Antonio, Texas....