Call To Action Radio Meeting, hosted by GAWTP Founder, George Stephenson ......Week 3/15/10
..... The Power of Unity in the Neighborhood Precinct: Jim Speiran, Precinct 41Chairman, Smith County, TX
..... The Power of the Senatorial Resolutions Committee: Hank Hering, temporary chairman of Senatorial District 1 Resolutions Committee, Smith County, TX, 7th time on this Committee
Grassroots America We the People ... Now on iTunes
www.grassrootsvote.com
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer - Mon Mar 15, 7:57 am ET
PARKERSBURG, W.Va. - The retirement nest egg of an entire generation is stashed away in this small town along the Ohio River: $2.5 trillion in IOUs from the federal government, payable to the Social Security Administration.
It's time to start cashing them in.
For more than two decades, Social Security collected more money in payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits - billions more each year.
Not anymore. This year, for the first time since the 1980s, when Congress last overhauled Social Security, the retirement program is projected to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes - nearly $29 billion more.
Sounds like a good time to start tapping the nest egg. Too bad the federal government already spent that money over the years on other programs, preferring to borrow from Social Security rather than foreign creditors. In return, the Treasury Department issued a stack of IOUs - in the form of Treasury bonds - which are kept in a nondescript office building just down the street from Parkersburg's municipal offices.
Now the government will have to borrow even more money, much of it abroad, to start paying back the IOUs, and the timing couldn't be worse. The government is projected to post a record $1.5 trillion budget deficit this year, followed by trillion dollar deficits for years to come.
Social Security's shortfall will not affect current benefits. As long as the IOUs last, benefits will keep flowing. But experts say it is a warning sign that the program's finances are deteriorating. Social Security is projected to drain its trust funds by 2037 unless Congress acts, and there's concern that the looming crisis will lead to reduced benefits.
"This is not just a wake-up call, this is it. We're here," said Mary Johnson, a policy analyst with The Senior Citizens League, an advocacy group. "We are not going to be able to put it off any more."
For more than two decades, regardless of which political party was in power, Congress has been accused of raiding the Social Security trust funds to pay for other programs, masking the size of the budget deficit.
Remember Al Gore's "lockbox," the one he was going to use to protect Social Security? The former vice president talked about it so much during the 2000 presidential campaign that he was parodied on "Saturday Night Live."
Gore lost the election and never got his lockbox. But to illustrate the government's commitment to repaying Social Security, the Treasury Department has been issuing special bonds that earn interest for the retirement program. The bonds are unique because they are actually printed on paper, while other government bonds exist only in electronic form.
They are stored in a three-ring binder, locked in the bottom drawer of a white metal filing cabinet in the Parkersburg offices of Bureau of Public Debt. The agency, which is part of the Treasury Department, opened offices in Parkersburg in the 1950s as part of a plan to locate important government functions away from Washington, D.C., in case of an attack during the Cold War.
One bond is worth a little more than $15.1 billion and another is valued at just under $10.7 billion. In all, the agency has about $2.5 trillion in bonds, all backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. But don't bother trying to steal them; they're nonnegotiable, which means they are worthless on the open market.
More than 52 million people receive old age or disability benefits from Social Security. The average benefit for retirees is a little under $1,200 a month. Disabled workers get an average of $1,100 a month.
Social Security is financed by payroll taxes - employers and employees must each pay a 6.2 percent tax on workers' earnings up to $106,800. Retirees can start getting early, reduced benefits at age 62. They get full benefits if they wait until they turn 66. Those born after 1960 will have to wait until they turn 67.
Social Security's financial problems have been looming for years as the nation's 78 million baby boomers approached retirement age. The oldest are already there. As that huge group of people starts collecting benefits - and stops paying payroll taxes - Social Security's trust funds will shrink, running out of money by 2037, according to the latest projection from the trustees who oversee the program.
The recession is making things worse, at least in the short term. Tax receipts are down from the loss of more than 8 million jobs, and applications for early retirement benefits have spiked from older workers who were laid off and forced to retire.
Stephen C. Goss, chief actuary for the Social Security Administration, says the crisis has been years in the making. "If this helps get people to look more seriously at that in the nearer term, that's probably a good thing. But it's only really a punctuation mark on the fact that we have longer-term financial issues that need to be addressed."
In the short term, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security will continue to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes for the next three years. It is projected to post small surpluses of $6 billion each in 2014 and 2015, before returning to indefinite deficits in 2016.
For the budget year that ends in September, Social Security is projected to collect $677 million in taxes and spend $706 million on benefits and expenses.
Social Security will also collect about $120 billion in interest on the trust funds, according to the CBO projections, meaning its overall balance sheet will continue to grow. The interest, however, is paid by the government, adding even more to the budget deficit.
While Congress must shore up the program, action is unlikely this year, said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., who just took over last week as chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees Social Security.
"The issues required to address the long-term solvency needs of Social Security can be done in a careful, thoughtful and orderly way and they don't need to be done in the next few months," Pomeroy said.
The national debt - the amount of money the government owes its creditors - is about $12.5 trillion, or nearly $42,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. About $8 trillion has been borrowed in public debt markets, much of it from foreign creditors. The rest came from various government trust funds, including retirement funds for civil servants and the military. About $2.5 trillion is owed to Social Security.
Good luck to the politician who reneges on that debt, said Barbara Kennelly, a former Democratic congresswoman from Connecticut who is now president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
"Those bonds are protected by the full faith and credit of the United States of America," Kennelly said. "They're as solid as what we owe China and Japan."
Link to Article
Politico.com by Glenn Thrush 3-8-10
Whatever he has done or not done, I will miss Eric Massa, for no other reason than his gift with a phrase.
In an amazing, far-ranging interview/monologue with a Rochester-area radio station, Massa admits making an off-color, sexual comment to a young staffer -- but still claims Democratic leadership ratted him out to kill a health care "no" vote.
That brought him to the subject of Rahm Emanuel and arm-twisting:
"Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn," Massa said, according to City Hall. "He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."
Later in the interview, Massa -- who sits down with Glenn Beck for a one-hour interview on Tuesday -- tells a bizarre story about Emanuel accosting him in the House gym -- in the buff:
"Let me tell you a story about Rahm Emanuel," Massa started. "I was a congressman in my first eight weeks, and I was in the congressional gym, and I went down and I worked out and I went into the showers...I'm sitting there showering, naked as a jaybird and here comes Rahm Emanuel not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me because I wasn't going to vote for the president's budget. Do you know how awkward it is to have a political argument with a naked man?"
Massa has never enjoyed a particualrly close relationship with Emanuel, who was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee when Massa first ran for unsuccessfully, without much DCCC support, in 2006.
Massa's near defeat of incumbent Randy Kuhl that year -- he lost by 6,033 votes -- attracted the attention of Emanuel's successor Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who helped Massa defeat Kuhl in a nail-biting rematch in '08.
The relationship between Massa and House leadership has been in the dumps for months, and only got worse after he bucked leadership on the health reform vote last fall -- earning him the enmity of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her ally Emanuel.
Few tears have been shed over Massa's departure on the Hill. Other member descibe him as volatile, argumentative and the antithesis of the a team player.
Link to Article
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times February 16, 2010
Reporting from Victoria, Texas - Debra Medina isn't calling for Texas to secede from the union. She thinks the state should simply ignore federal laws that Texans can't abide.
"You get [the Environmental Protection Agency] off the backs of Texas agriculture, energy and manufacturing, we won't have an economic crisis," the gubernatorial hopeful says.
She doesn't advocate bloodshed, though Medina believes it may be inevitable "if we don't stand up and start to defend this free, great nation and get it back to . . . constitutional principles."
At another time, in another place, Medina might be a mere curiosity, peddling unconventional ideas -- replacing property taxes with a bigger sales tax, encouraging every citizen to be armed -- from the political fringe. But as early voting starts Tuesday in the March 3 primary, Medina has emerged as a key factor in a Republican race once seen as a battle between two titans, Gov. Rick Perry and U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.
Although sparsely funded, Medina, a small business owner and "tea party" activist, could draw enough support to force an April runoff. (Former Houston Mayor Bill White is the likely Democratic nominee.)
Until a recent stumble -- during a radio interview, Medina wouldn't rule out the notion that the government was behind Sept. 11 -- she was well positioned to slip past Hutchison in the first round of balloting.
Very little, it seems, is far-fetched in this angry election season.
The grudge match between Perry and Hutchison has built for years, ever since the governor supposedly reneged on a private pledge to step down after 2010 to clear the way for Hutchison. Perry says he made no such promise.
Still, the candidates' mutual contempt is obvious. Between them, Perry and Hutchison are expected to spend about $50 million scratching and clawing, and more if there is a runoff. (Medina has raised less than $700,000, using her credit card for such expenses as air travel.)
Perry, the longest-serving governor in Texas history, relentlessly assails Hutchison as "a Washington-establishment type who has voted for bailouts, wild spending and skyrocketing debt." Hutchison, a three-term senator, portrays Perry as lazy and corrupt, saying he has rewarded his political cronies but done little else. "It's time we had a governor whose record is as good as the rhetoric," she says in one TV spot.
On most issues, they are closer than either lets on. Both take a tough stance on illegal immigration. (Each accuses the other of being all talk.) Both promise to keep taxes low and foster a business-friendly climate. Perry has backed off an unpopular toll road plan. Hutchison said she would make sure the plan is really, truly dead.
Perry, 59, is the better campaigner -- he is an avid gripper and grinner, where Hutchison is prim and aloof -- and she has suffered by dividing her time between Washington and Texas. Although Hutchison, 66, has spoken of stepping down to campaign full time, her failure to set a date has contributed to a less-than-decisive image. (Her convoluted stance on abortion hasn't helped. Hutchison said at one point that she opposed reversal of Roe vs. Wade because overturning the decision legalizing abortion could lead to more abortions.)
As often happens in three-way contests, Medina has been the beneficiary of all the mud-heaving.
"It seems the longer people are in office, whether it's Washington or Austin, the more out of touch they get," said Mannon Mints, 65, a retired state law officer, who came to see Medina last week at the Victoria Country Club. "They need to go up there and spend a few years and then come home."
Medina's breakthrough came in January, after two strong debate performances. "She was the one who came across, to judge from polls and reaction afterward, as more forthright, better prepared, quite calm and confident," said the University of Texas analyst Bruce Buchanan. "She was seemingly more gubernatorial than her opponents in some respects."
However, success has brought greater scrutiny, and Medina, 47, has not always handled it well. Last week, on Glenn Beck's radio show, she was asked whether she thought the federal government was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. "Some very good questions have been raised in that regard," she said, declining to take a position. (Medina also questions whether President Obama is an American citizen.)
She quickly issued a follow-up statement disavowing any 9/11 conspiracy, but Perry and Hutchison pounced. An "insult" to Americans who lost their lives, said Perry. An "affront" to America's soldiers, said Hutchison.
Still, Medina has already achieved far more than might have been expected. Failing a successful run for governor, she may be a strong candidate to replace her congressman, Republican Ron Paul, whenever he steps down. Paul, who built a strong anti-establishment following in his quixotic 2008 presidential run, is a Medina supporter.
mark.barabak@latimes.com
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
Link to Article
January 20, 10:36 AM
DC Independent ExaminerJames Simpson
Scott Brown's stunning electoral victory in Massachusetts yesterday confirms to the world what we have known all along: patriotism and common sense are alive and well. Real Americans remain a majority in this country, and the massively-funded, corrupt Democrat machine, engorged with our tax dollars, radical billionaire money and lock-step union support, cannot buy elections, even in hardcore Democrat states, once the sleeping giant has awoken.
And make no mistake about it: we are wide awake!
The Democrats were certainly hamstrung by choosing an impossibly bad candidate. Martha Coakley made a fool of herself repeatedly, yet throughout it all carried herself with an astonishing sense of conceited entitlement, seemingly contemptuous of even having to campaign at all. Meanwhile, her campaign took on an air of ugly thuggishness. Two scenes captured on video during this short campaign say it all. Everyone has seen the first one, where a reporter is pushed to the ground by a Coakley supporter while she does nothing. Remember, she is the Massachusetts attorney general. The second one, reproduced below, has received less attention, but is even more telling: a female reporter getting thrown out of a Coakley campaign office with shouts of "Nazi." Someone even used the "F" bomb. What class acts.
The real problem is that Coakley defines what the Democrat Party has become today: arrogant, boorish, incomprehensibly ignorant and downright thuggish. Former Vermont Governor and Presidential candidate Howard Dean, for example, reacted to Brown's victory by saying that now Democrats have to get tough, and not "deal with Republicans anymore." Stunning. So that's what we've been witnessing all year, with Democrats violating Senate rules, holding closed-door meetings, locking Republicans out of discussions, rejecting outright any Republican proposals and violating their own promises of "transparency." But they haven't been tough enough. Simply amazing.
Scott Brown's election was certainly about healthcare. Massachusetts already has its own expensive plan. They don't need or want even more government intrusion. It was also about national security. Brown's own internal polling convinced the campaign this was true. People feel insecure with this President and his administration, and with good reason.
But it was even more than that. People have had enough. We have had enough of bald-faced lies from Democrats. We have had enough of big spending bills being disingenuously presented as "deficit reducers." We have had enough of massive government programs guaranteed to cripple the economy and lose jobs. We have had enough of ever more intrusive government attempting to take over every aspect of our daily lives. We have had enough of blatant corruption and coddling of terrorists. We have had enough of radicals attempting to ram their virulently anti-American agenda down our throats and calling us "domestic terrorists" for objecting.
This election is a game changer. Make no mistake about it. Not only is the U.S. Senate in play for Republicans in November, but so is the House of Representatives, state legislatures and governor's mansions. Last night, Sarah Palin said to Greta Van Susteren on Fox News "We just witnessed a wicked political pivot... This is a tidal wave sweeping the country..." She is right.
Now, Republicans have an uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We have seen it time and again and that is a real danger here. So let me tell you what this victory is not. It is not about getting Republicans a seat at the Democrat table. Let me repeat that.
This election is not about getting Republicans a seat at the Democrat table.
If nothing else has become clear over the past year, Republicans have to have at least realized this: Democrats don't share. Any effort to use this victory to give Republicans a better "negotiating position" on Democrat-sponsored bills will simply make it easier for Democrats to pursue their reckless agenda, only now they will have "bipartisan" support. Come November, voter contempt for Republicans will be as palpable as it is now for Democrats. Republicans will lose.
Going along to get along is out. Compromise is out. And if Republicans don't get it they will be repeating the mistakes that put them back into the minority in the first place.
The reason We The People are in open revolt is because we finally clearly recognize that the entire Democrat agenda is willfully destructive. Republicans need to get this through their heads. We are not merely dealing with a Party of "opposing views." We are dealing with an international movement that will destroy our Republic by snatching our freedoms, our wealth and our independence, with the ultimate goal of, as Barack Obama said, "fundamentally transforming" our Constitutional Republic into a socialist dictatorship.
Republicans have no excuse to be supporting or even compromising with that agenda. Their job should be prevent Democrats from imposing this nation-wrecking agenda, while convincingly articulating their reasons for doing so and offering superior alternatives.
As for Martha Coakley, good riddance and don't let the door smack you on the rear on the way out.
Link to Article
The Atlantic Magazine
Jan 4 2010, 8:00AM by Andrew Cohen
In the middle of vicious debate over health care reform, one marked by cheap partisan tricks and apocalyptic warnings, the Office of Legal Counsel issued a legal memorandum for the Attorney General entitled: "Constitutionality of Health Care Reform."
The report's conclusions, offered by eminent Administration scholars, were up at the top of the very first page. In italics, they read: The proposed health care reform legislation "is well within the authority of the Congress under the Commerce Clause, and it does not violate Tenth Amendment or other principles of federalism. The proposal contains no unconstitutional takings of private property or infringement of liberty interests. The proposed delegation of administrative authority is not an impermissible delegation of legislative authority."
If you are a glutton for self-abuse and want to dive into the legal debate over health care reform, a debate which minimizes the substance of the legislation while focusing upon the constitutionality of its many moving parts, then the above memo, given to Attorney General Janet Reno on October 29, 1993, is as good a place as any to start. Written by Walter Dellinger and H. Jefferson Powell, the brief tracks in a broad way the legal arguments we are almost certain to see from White House and Justice Department lawyers as they discern the intent and defend the language of the federal statutes that will be altered by the new measure.
Many of the same Supreme Court cases Dellinger and company cited nearly two decades ago will be used by Eric Holder's attorney-soldiers as they march into federal courthouses all over the country to try to save health care reform. On the right, lawyers and "experts" of varying stripes of sanity are licking their chopsdo in court--perhaps at the Supreme Court--what they were unable to achieve either at the ballot box or through their Congressional representatives. In fact, the Internet is jammed with chatter about how the federal courts will save conservatives (or Republicans) by voiding the new health care laws.
waiting to
Look, there are a thousand unknowns about the efficacies of the looming new federal health care reform program. But one of them shouldn't be the coming litigation over its many nooks and crannies. The dozens (hundreds?) of lawsuits that are coming will take years to fully resolve. Some arguments from conservatives --say, the Commerce Clause one -- will be stronger than others -- say, the Tenth Amendment one. Judges in 2010 are almost certainly going to have to decide whether the new measures may be enforced during the pendency of litigation over their constitutionality or whether they must be blocked immediately.
I'd be surprised if vast portions of the new federal law ultimately are deemed unconstitutional. But I also said that about the Child Online Protection Act, which was initially passed in 1998 and which still hasn't been given the rubber-stamp by the federal judiciary. Born before my son, the COPA saga (at least from Congress' point of view) looks unlikely to be resolved by the time he reaches high school. Like it or not, the same can be said of the new health care legislation.
Link to Article
