Tag Archives: Republicans

Is Obama Losing it?

734572_559734084059851_239557563_nHat tip to The Blaze for this report

WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — Seeking an elusive middle ground, President Barack Obama is proposing a 2014 budget that embraces tax increases abhorred by Republicans as well as reductions, loathed by liberals, in the growth of Social Security and other benefit programs.

However, White House press secretary Jay Carney on Friday said:

“It’s not what he would do if he were king.”

“What I will say is that this is not the president’s idealized budget,” Carney said. “It is not what he would do if he were king, or if only people who supported his proposals were in Congress. It was what he believes is a fair and balanced approach to our deficit challenges. One that allows us to invest, that protects seniors, that helps secure the middle class–and give ladders to those who want to get into the middle class.”

The plan, if ever enacted, could touch almost all Americans. The rich would see tax increases, the poor and the elderly would get smaller annual increases in their benefits, and middle income taxpayers would slip into higher tax brackets despite Obama’s repeated vows not to add to the tax burden of the middle class. His proposed changes, once phased in, would mean a cut in Social Security benefits of nearly $1,000 a year for an average 85-year-old, smaller cuts for younger retirees.

Obama proposed much the same without success to House Speaker John Boehner in December. The response Friday was dismissive from Republicans and hostile from liberals, labor and advocates for the elderly.

But the proposal aims to tackle worrisome deficits that are adding to the national debt and placing a long-term burden on the nation, prompting praise from independent deficit hawks. Obama’s budget also proposes new spending for public works projects, pre-school education and for job and benefit assistance for veterans.

The budget, which Obama will release Wednesday to cover the budget year beginning Oct. 1, proposes spending cuts and revenue increases that would result in $1.8 trillion in deficit reductions over 10 years. That figure would replace $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts that are poised to take effect over the next 10 years if Congress and the president don’t come up with an alternative, thus delivering a net increase in deficit reduction of $600 billion.

Counting reductions and higher taxes that Congress and Obama have approved since 2011, the 2014 budget would contribute to $4.3 trillion in total deficit reduction by 2023.

The budget wouldn’t affect the $85 billion in cuts that kicked in last month for this budget year

A key feature of Obama’s plan is a revised inflation adjustment called “chained CPI.” This new formula would effectively curb annual increases in a broad swath of government programs but would have its biggest impact on Social Security. By encompassing Obama’s offer to Boehner, R-Ohio, the plan would also include reductions in Medicare spending, much of it by targeting payments to health care providers and drug companies. The Medicare proposal also would require wealthier recipients to pay higher premiums or co-pays.

Obama’s budget proposal also calls for additional tax revenue, primarily by placing a 28 percent cap on deductions and other tax exclusions. That plan would affect wealthy taxpayers as would a new administration proposal to place limits on tax-preferred retirement accounts for millionaires and billionaires.

Obama made the same offer to Boehner in December when he and the speaker were negotiating ways of avoiding a steep, so-called fiscal cliff of combined across-the-board spending cuts and sweeping tax increases caused by the expiration of Bush-era tax rates. Boehner rejected that plan and ultimately Congress approved tax increases that were half of what Obama had sought.

“If you look at where the president’s final offer and Boehner were … they were extremely close to each other,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “We do think that it’s a very good sign that the president has included real entitlement reforms in the budget.”

Boehner, in a statement Friday, said House Republicans made clear to Obama last month that he should not make savings in entitlement programs that both sides agree on, contingent on more tax increases.

“If the president believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up these programs, there’s no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes,” Boehner said. “That’s no way to lead and move the country forward.”

The inflation adjustment would reduce federal spending on government programs over 10 years by about $130 billion, according to White House estimates. Because it also affects how tax brackets are adjusted, it would also generate about $100 billion in higher taxes and hit even middle income taxpayers.

Once the change is fully phased in, Social Security benefits for a typical middle-income 65-year-old would be about $136 less a year, according to an analysis of Social Security data. At age 75, annual benefits under the new index would be $560 less. At 85, the cut would be $984 a year.

The concept behind the chained CPI is that consumers substitute lower-priced alternatives for goods whose costs spike. So, for example, if the price of oranges goes too high for some consumers, they could buy alternatives like apples or strawberries if their prices were more affordable. This flexibility isn’t considered in the current system of gauging inflation, a calculation that determines how much benefits grow each year. Taking it into account means such benefits won’t grow by as much.

Advocates for the elderly say seniors pay a higher portion of their income for health care, where costs rise more quickly than inflation.

The White House has said the cost-of-living adjustments would include protections for “vulnerable” recipients.

“The president should drop these misguided cuts in benefits and focus instead on building support in Congress for investing in jobs,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement.

AARP’s legislative policy director said Obama’s budget proposal, while not a surprise, was a disappointment.

“The message seems to be that the president wants a deal and is willing to even sacrifice such important benefits as Social Security as part of that deal,” said David Certner. The seniors lobby argues that Social Security doesn’t belong in the budget talks because it isn’t contributing to the deficit and is separately financed with its own dedicated taxes.

Citing the effect on veterans, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, said he was “terribly disappointed” in the Obama plan and would “do everything in my power to block” it.

While Obama has proposed the slower cost of living adjustment plan during fiscal negotiations with Republican leaders, placing it in the budget would put the administration’s official imprint on the plan and mark a full shift from Obama’s stand in 2008, when he campaigned against Republican Party nominee John McCain.

In a Sept. 6, 2008, speech to AARP, Obama said: “John McCain’s campaign has suggested that the best answer for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut cost-of-living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let me be clear: I will not do either.”

Obama also proposes $305 billion in cuts to Medicare over a decade, including $156 billion through lower Medicare payments to drug companies and higher premiums or co-pays from wealthy recipients. That’s to the right of the conservative budget of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., which barely touches Medicare in the coming 10 years, cutting just $129 billion from the program. The huge Medicare savings from Ryan’s proposal, which transforms the system into a program in which the government subsidizes health insurance purchases on the private market, wouldn’t accrue until the following decade.

Obama’s budget comes after the Republican-controlled House and Democratic-run Senate passed separate and markedly different budget proposals. House Republicans achieved long-term deficit reductions by targeting safety net programs; Democrats instead protected those programs and called for $1 trillion in tax increases.

But Obama has been making a concerted effort to win Republican support, especially in the Senate. He has even scheduled a dinner with Republican lawmakers on the evening that his budget is released next week.

As described by the administration officials, the budget proposal would also end a loophole that permits people to obtain unemployment insurance and disability benefits at the same time.

Obama’s proposal, however, includes calls for increased spending. It proposes $50 billion for public works projects. It also would make preschool available to more children by increasing the tax on tobacco.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/05/obama-proposes-2014-budget-but-its-not-what-he-would-do-if-he-were-king/

The-King-And-His-Jester--78130

 

Senate Democrats Pass First Budget Bill in Four Years Raising Taxes One Trillion Dollars

208616_477809298939907_1575537406_n

WASHINGTON –  An exhausted Senate approved its first budget in four years early Saturday, calling for almost $1 trillion in tax increases over the coming decade while sheltering safety net programs targeted by House Republicans.

While their victory was by a razor-thin 50-49, the vote let Democrats tout their priorities. Yet it doesn’t resolve the deep differences the two parties have over deficits and the size of government.

The nonbinding but politically symbolic measure caters to party stalwarts on the liberal edge of the spectrum just as the House GOP measure is crafted to appeal to more recent tea party arrivals.

Late Friday afternoon, the Senate then began a marathon session of votes on dozens of amendments to the 2014 budget proposal. Many of the proposals were offered in hopes of inflicting political damage on Democratic senators up for re-election in GOP-leaning states like Alaska and Louisiana.

The two main budget proposals produced by Senate Democrats and House Republicans are miles apart. The Senate plan does not attempt to balance the budget at all, though it does claim to reduce the deficit by imposing nearly $1 trillion in tax increases on top of more than $600 billion in higher taxes on top earners enacted in January. It also includes $875 billion in spending cuts, generated by modest cuts to federal health care programs, domestic agencies and the Pentagon and reduced government borrowing costs.

The House plan — by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., his party’s vice presidential candidate last year — claims $4 trillion more in savings over the period than Senate Democrats by imposing major cuts in Medicaid, food stamps and other safety net programs for the needy. It would also transform the Medicare health care program for seniors into a voucher-like system for future recipients.

“We have presented very different visions for how our country should work and who it should work for,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who chairs the Senate Budget Committee. “But I am hopeful that we can bridge this divide.”

Congressional budgets are planning documents that leave actual changes in revenues and spending for later legislation, and this was the first the Democratic-run Senate has approved in four years. That is testament to the political and mathematical contortions needed to write fiscal plans in an era of record-breaking deficits that until this year exceeded an eye-popping $1 trillion annually, and to the parties’ profoundly conflicting views.

“I believe we’re in denial about the financial condition of our country,” Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, top Republican on the Budget panel, said of Democratic efforts to boost spending on some programs. “Trust me, we’ve got to have some spending reductions.”

Though the shortfalls have shown signs of easing slightly and temporarily, there is no easy path to the two parties finding compromise — which the first months of 2013 have amply illustrated.

Already this year, Congress has raised taxes on the rich after narrowly averting tax boosts on virtually everyone else, tolerated $85 billion in automatic spending cuts, temporarily sidestepped a federal default and prevented a potential government shutdown.

By sometime this summer, the government’s borrowing limit will have to be extended again — or a default will be at risk — and it is unclear what Republicans may demand for providing needed votes. It is also uncertain how the two parties will resolve the differences between their two budgets, something many believe simply won’t happen.

Both sides have expressed a desire to reduce federal deficits. But President Barack Obama is demanding a combination of tax increases and spending cuts to do so, while GOP leaders say they won’t consider higher revenues but want serious reductions in Medicare and other benefit programs that have rocketed deficits skyward.

Obama plans to release his own 2014 budget next month, an unveiling that will be studied for whether it signals a willingness to engage Republicans in negotiations or play political hardball.

In a long day that began Friday morning, senators plodded through scores of amendments — all of them non-binding but some delivering potent political messages.

They voted in favor of giving states more powers to collect sales taxes on online purchases their citizens make from out-of-state Internet companies, and to endorse the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that is to pump oil from Canada to Texas refineries.

They also approved amendments voicing support for eliminating the $2,500 annual cap on flexible spending account contributions imposed by Obama’s health care overhaul, and for charging regular postal rates for mailings by political parties, which currently qualify for the lower prices paid by non-profits.

In a rebuke to one of the Senate’s most conservative members, they overwhelmingly rejected a proposal by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to cut even deeper than the House GOP budget and eliminate deficits in just five years.

The Democratic budget envisions $975 billion in unspecified new taxes over the coming 10 years. There would be an equal amount of spending reductions coming chiefly from health programs, defense and reduced interest payments as deficits get smaller than previously anticipated.

This year’s projected deficit of nearly $900 billion would fall to around $700 billion next year and bottom out near $400 billion in 2016 before trending upward again.

Shoehorned into the package is $100 billion for public works projects and other programs aimed at creating jobs.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

426539_542470935793383_917714546_n

 

Sarah Palin Unchained at CPAC Conference: Calls Out the RHINOS and DEMOCRATS

628x471

Watch as Sarah Palin Unleashes the Truth about the Political Mob in Washington

Let us all Stand With Sarah and hold our Torches high

Palin-Liberty-Pose-1

America needs Sarah Palin and we need to Stand with her as

‘We the People’

begin the work of taking Back

‘Our Country’

fight-for-the-truth

 

 

A Warning to America from Our Founding Fathers

33944_454386641297582_302993133_n

ANY QUESTIONS AMERICA?

182444_459222414147338_2083904853_n

602749_459294940806752_244496612_n

 

America’s Last Rites

32146_604926856188930_1113971091_n377684_591830997498516_159737714_n488070_602656013082681_179773137_n882438_10151546402961753_440060793_o625476_219762528162186_1065756887_n59783_2961173724691_1630666347_n

ANY QUESTIONS?

395168_2595205695719_1699628544_n

482741_497796640256387_1319968178_n

The Sequstration Crisis is over and all is well

528217_10151475615206743_1169205444_n  After all the Hype and Fear Mongering by this White House it appears the Sun has risen yet another day in America.  The world did not come to an end and sadly we are still being lorded over by the same corrupt regime in DC

426539_542470935793383_917714546_n

Perhaps now we can move “Forward” and deal with the real Crisis here in America!

419188_346783602094110_687723511_n

*********************

The time has come to Discuss

IMPEACHMENT

 

62093_468281869893886_707235997_n

 

The Anti-Constitutional President

59488_548089261882312_55431519_nHat tip to The Blaze for this report

Court Rules Obama Actions Unconstitutional — Which Ones?

486091_493390994052597_621388507_n

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.

The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.

The ruling also throws into question Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray’s appointment, also made under the recess circumstance, has been challenged in a separate case.

Obama claims he acted properly in the case of the NLRB appointments because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. But the three-judge panel ruled that the Senate technically stayed in session when it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called “pro forma” sessions.

GOP lawmakers used the tactic – as Democrats have in the past as well – to specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power. GOP lawmakers contend the labor board has been too pro-union in its decisions. They had also vigorously opposed the nomination of Cordray.

The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year are invalid. It also would leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.

On Jan. 4, 2012, Obama appointed Deputy Labor Secretary Sharon Block, union lawyer Richard Griffin and NLRB counsel Terence Flynn to fill vacancies on the NLRB, giving it a full contingent for the first time in more than a year. Block and Griffin are Democrats, while Flynn is a Republican. Flynn stepped down from the board last year.

Obama also appointed Cordray on the same day.

The court’s decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation’s labor unions to organize new members.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/25/court-rules-obama-actions-unconstitutional-which-ones/

2046_10152450309855368_982792194_n

Martin Luther King Jr’s Dream was not about the Barack Obama Nightmare

king_flag

Reverend Martin Luther King Jr’s Dream was coming true in America. People of all Race’s, Ethnic Backgrounds and Religious Belief’s were all coming together and accomplishing great things to further Harmony amongst us.

Then came the…..

Nightmare logo

The Great Divider

During a Campaign Speech Candidate  Obama began his Divisive Rhetoric and continues on with it to this day.  The violence and Anger we have seen in America these past Four Years are a direct result of this man’s Agenda of Dividing and Conquering America

Obama Flashback:

If They Bring a Knife to the Fight,

We Bring a Gun…

Mobster wisdom tells us never to bring a knife to a gun fight. But what does political wisdom say about bringing a gun to a knife fight?

That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser.

“Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/10/obama-flashback-if-they-bring-knife-fight-we-bring-gun#ixzz1BJv8Vep9

nobama21

Sadly President Obama has taken us back Full Circle to the days of American Racism and Cultural Divide. We have become an Angry Country with Left against Right, Race against Race and now Class Warfare.  Where will it all end?

481796_512407512105040_398387590_n

Related articles

Barack Obama on Live Birth Abortion

578347_10151198458131047_972337783_n1

546350_10151204018810126_791645437_n1

bumper-baby-protection-abortion

ANY QUESTIONS?

ndyrc

 

Democrats Kick God to the Curb Removing Him from the Democratic National Convention 2012 Platform

Hat tip to The Blaze for this report

Dems Remove All References to ‘God’ From 2012 Party Platform

The Democratic Party may be getting a fair amount of attention this week — and not only because the political movement is hosting its national convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. Another point of focus has already been the contents — or the lack thereof — present in the 2012 Democratic Party Platform.

Earlier today, we told you that the document fails to mention Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a proclamation that was previously touted by the party. And now, in an even more shocking revelation, CBN News is reporting that the Democrats have removed mentions of “God” from the document as well.

(RELATED: ‘Godless’: Sen. Durbin Lashes Out at Fox Host Who Called Him Out Over Dems Removing ‘God’ From Platform)

This is a departure from the past. In 2008, the platform read (emphasis added), “We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”

With the words “God-given” removed, the 2012 platform sticks to a more secular script: “We gather to reclaim the basic bargain that built the largest middle class and the most prosperous nation on Earth – the simple principle that in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.”

In the end, the Democratic platform doesn’t mention the words “God” or “Lord” even one time. In contrast, the GOP platform mentions God 12 times. A simple comparison to past years’ platforms shows a disparity. In 2008, the Democrats had only one mention (the aforementioned ”God-given”), but in 2004, God was mentioned seven times.

But, as CBN’s David Brody notes, the Democratic document isn’t entirely devoid of religious sentiment. A portion discusses the notion that faith has always “been a central part of the American story, and it has been a driving force of progress and justice throughout our history.”

Below, read the remainder of the Democratic platform’s views on faith:

“We know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires. Faith-based organizations will always be critical allies in meeting the challenges that face our nation and our world – from domestic and global poverty, to climate change and human trafficking.

People of faith and religious organizations do amazing work in communities across this country and the world, and we believe in lifting up and valuing that good work, and finding ways to support it where possible. We believe in constitutionally sound, evidence-based partnerships with faith-based and other non-profit organizations to serve those in need and advance our shared interests. There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution, and a full commitment to both principles is essential for the continued flourishing of both faith and country.”

While faith communities being given credit for embracing “justice and mercy,” it’s quite odd to see that the word “God” — a central tenet in most areas of American life, including the political, is absent.

(H/T: CBN’s David Brody)

Carousel image courtesy of Shutterstock.com.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/dems-remove-all-references-to-god-from-2012-party-platform/

So there you have it!

The Democrats have replaced God with Obama’s Big Government

ANY QUESTIONS?