Geithner Travels Globe Essentially Begging For Money To Finance U.S. Debt

I know. The actual headline of the referenced article reads "pitching U.S. debt" but we all know what this really amounts to. It is a vindication of Margaret Thatcher when she said: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

Unfortunately for Obama and his Democrat cronies, it happened much sooner than they expected. So now, Secretary Geithner must go abroad and seek new infusions of funds to support what amounts to a socialist agenda.

From the Associated Press:

Timothy Geithner, architect of bank, auto and economic rescue plans, has another high-stakes job these days: traveling bond salesman. ... Geithner, who traveled last week to the Middle East and Europe, has to convince foreign investors to keep buying Treasury bills, notes and bonds; they hold nearly half of the government's roughly $7 trillion in publicly traded debt.

But all of this comes with very grave dangers to the U.S. economy. Not just selling the debt but the deficit spending which drives the debt up even further.

Read on:

If foreign demand for U.S. debt sags, that could drive up interest rates and spell big trouble for an economy hobbled by 9.5 percent unemployment. Higher rates would make it more expensive for consumers to buy homes and cars, and for businesses to finance their operations. In the worst case scenario, a rush by foreigners to sell their U.S. debt could send the dollar crashing and inflation soaring.

Although some analysts say that this would never happen, don't pretend that the possibility isn't there. After all, the analysts were convinced that the Japanese would never be able to attack Pearl Harbor.

But there are some very telling signs about how the rest of the world feels about our government's current spending spree:

Last month, [Geithner] visited China, the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasuries. That trip was marked by an extra dose of drama. In March, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said his country was concerned about the "safety" of the large amounts of money it had lent to the United States. ... The deficit-cutting proposals the administration has so far revealed would fall far short of what is needed. "If the Obama administration has a credible plan to bring the deficits down, they are keeping it a deep secret at the moment," said Michael Mussa, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. With nearly three months left in the budget year, the Obama administration forecasts that this year's deficit will total $1.84 trillion, more than four times the size of last year's record tally. ... When Geithner told a packed auditorium at Peking University that Chinese investments in the U.S. were safe, his comment was greeted by laughter.

That should have been a huge eye-opener to Geithner, Obama and the Democrats who continue to call for spending like drunken sailors.

It should be a huge eye-opener for the rest of us as well.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Geithner Travels Globe, Pitching U.S. Debt
Associated Press via MSNBC
July 19, 2009

For The First Time In History, We Have A $1 Trillion Deficit

For all of you libs out there who are constantly repeating like trained parrots that George W. Bush brought us a $1 trillion deficit, the truth has come out. The honor of the first $1 trillion deficit goes to Barack Obama.

From Martin Crutsinger of the Associated Press:

Nine months into the fiscal year, the federal deficit has topped $1 trillion for the first time. The imbalance is intensifying fears about higher interest rates and inflation, and pressuring the value of the dollar. There’s also concern about trying to reverse the deficit — by reducing government spending or raising taxes — in the midst of a harsh recession. The Treasury Department said Monday that the deficit in June was $94.3 billion, pushing the total since the budget year started in October to nearly $1.1 trillion.

The Dems and Obama could have prevented this by cutting spending, but they didn't.

The deficit has been propelled by the huge sum the government has spent to combat the recession and financial crisis, combined with a sharp decline in tax revenues.

I learned back in the 4th grade that one cannot spend more money than one makes. Companies go bankrupt, families lose homes and businesses close when that type of money mismanagement occurs. But the danger here is that the dollar might very well collapse and cause our entire economy to crash down around us.

You have to wonder if the Dems realize this, or do they live in a fantasy world where they believe that spending like drunken sailors is a good thing?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Budget Deficit Tops $1 Trillion For First Time
Martin Crutsinger
Associated Press via KansasCity.com
July 13, 2009

Book Review: COMMON SENSE By Glenn Beck

The out-of-control government spending we are witnessing right now began under George W. Bush. That much is true. But, just because Bush did it does that mean that it is okay for Obama and the Dems to accelerate it? No, absolutely not. If Bush was wrong for running up a $2 trillion debt, then Obama is five and a half times as wrong for wanting to run up an $11 trillion debt. (For those of you who don't understand the math, here is the equation: 11/2 = 5 1/2.)

That basically sums up Glenn Beck's thesis in his #1 bestseller Common Sense. Taking some inspiration from Thomas Paine, the author of the original Common Sense, Glenn has built up an argument that shows us why we, as a nation, are on the wrong path, what will likely happen as a result of going down this path and why we should hold those in power (both Democrat and Republican) accountable for what they've done.

The Founding Fathers who wrote the U.S. Constitution knew what dangers there were in a government that over-reaches its powers. Glenn reminds us of this throughout the book with passages such as the following:

Thomas Jefferson knew that government debt was not only bad economic policy but also morally unacceptable because it effectively makes your children responsible to pay for what you bought. He said, "The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." If that wasn't clear enough, he also said that politicians should consider themselves "unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves ..."

I am not aware of any other commentator who even knows about that quote from Jefferson much less actually reminds us of it. But, since most of us don't know the numbers or don't seem to care enough about what those numbers mean, we simply let it go and expect someone else to handle the problem for us.

That is not possible in the current situation. Here's why: Our interest payment to service our debt stands at $26 billion per month. That's right, per month. That's money that is sent to our creditors rather than going to upgrade schools or roads here in the U.S. Multiply that by 12 and you get $312 billion per year. If the government taxed away the total profits of Exxon-Mobil, General Electric, Wal-Mart and IBM, we wouldn't even have enough to pay one-third of the interest payment on the debt much less pay down the debt! Where is the rest of this money going to come from? Small businesses? Higher taxes on the middle class? (As I write this, the Dems in Congress are already working on several new plans that will raise taxes and depress our economy even further which means even less ability to pay down the debt.)

With this type of insanity going on in Washington D.C., Glenn asks another very important question: "Why do we keep sending these bozos back to Congress?" Therein lies the crux of the title of this book. Sending the current crop of politicians back to D.C. defies common sense.

And here is another good excerpt:

President Obama announced that his 2009 budget was projected to produce a $1,700,000,000,000 deficit. If you break that down you find that we're spending $4,657 billion every day for a year, which breaks down to $53,906.64 per second.

Our government is spending in one second what most Americans don't even make in a year! How sustainable is that? It isn't, which is why all of this fiscal madness is only going to bring us to economic disaster and ruin.

And this brings us to one of the most poignant questions any commentator has ever asked:

Borrowed money has to be paid back - but it won't be us who will have to do it. Our children will question our sanity for spending money we did not have on "bridges to nowhere," skateboard parks, tattoo removel, and other pork-laden projects that politicians stuffed into "must pass" legislation. They will wonder why we tolerated such reckless behavior from our elected leaders instead of holding them accountable. How will we respond?

Indeed, how will we respond? More specifically, how will you respond if your child or grand-child comes up to you after they've turned 18 and asks why they are working to pay off a debt that they didn't vote to incur and from which they are getting no benefit at all?

I doubt anyone will have a good answer to that question. I know I don't.

I highly recommend this book to all Americans whether Democrat, Republican, Lbertarian or otherwise. The issues brought up by Glenn Beck are not political so much as they are national concerns that will touch every single one of us in very negative ways.

Each of us has a choice. Either a) stand up and finally tell Congress to bring spending under control or risk losing their next elections, or b) just sit back, do nothing and wait until the dollar collapses and our children wake up to find themselves up to their foreheads in a debt that they did not incur but will be held responsible for.

I'm sure that you can see choosing the latter will mean that you waited too long to become active.

The First 100 Days: What Did You Do To Celebrate It?

Me? I was working my butt off at my job. Why? Because in addition to taking care of my wife and 4-month-old son, Obama and the other socialists in Washington have decreed that I also have to work to take care of various Peggy the Moochers out there who think that a life is owed to them and they can just sit back and sponge off of the tax dollars that come from hard working people like me.

But, it is important to look at how the leftists celbrated it and how they twisted the truth for Obama's benifit. Those twists are nothing more than insults to the intelligence of those of us who do our own research and try to verify our information before putting it out there.

Let's look at some of Obama's 100 Days quotes that don't pass the smell test:

We began by passing a recovery act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs and provided a tax cut to 95 percent of all working families.

Well, the unemployement figures show that more jobs are being lost than saved or created. I guess Obama believes that this is somehow a good thing.

As for that tax quote, it has long since been established that 43% of Americans effectively have a tax bill of $0 after their deductions and credits are factored in. That is, they either recoup their entire tax bill or get more money back than they paid in. So, how can you offer a tax break to someone who effectively doesn't even pay taxes?

On bipartisanship:

And if that is how bipartisanship is defined, a situation in which basically, wherever there are philosophical differences, I have to simply go along with ideas that have been rejected by the American people in a historic election, you know, we're probably not going to make progress. If, on the other hand, the definition is that we're open to each other's ideas, there are going to be differences, the majority will probably be determinative when it comes to resolving just hard, core differences that we can't resolve, but there is a whole host of other areas where we can work together, then I think we can make progress.

In that first sentence, Obama is basically saying that it is his way or the highway. But his way is a hell of a lot more radical than he let onto during the campaign.

As for that second paragraph, well, perhaps Obama should have spent a few minutes explaining how locking the Republicans out of various meetings and discussions on the Porkulus/Spendulus package amounted to "bipartisanship."

On the economy:

I didn't anticipate the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

I don't know if Obama is aware of this or not, but we have not reached that point yet. The economic crisis that resulted from Jimmy Carter's disastrous presidency was worse than what we are experiencing now. If the current crisis does reach the proportions of the Great Depression, it will be because of Obama's socialist policies, not because of the previous eight years.

On the Auto industry:

I don't think that we should micromanage ...

Unless you want to push out the CEO of GM, then micomanaging is just fine in his opinion.

And of course, Obama tried to re-write history with some of his comments. Take for example the following:

I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, "We don't torture," when the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat. And then the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.

If Obama actually believes this, then he has been drinking the kool-aid of some historical revisionist who outright changed the facts. The British most definitely did use torture techniques, even to the point of drugging prisoners, in order to get information out of Nazi captives during World War II. Why Obama would make such a glaringly false statement, I don't know.

Every single question thrown at Obama was a soft-ball and seemed a part of a love-fest that the media was having at the time. No one asked a serious question or any of the hard questions that the American people want answered.

For example, here is a question that should have been asked: "Mr. President, if the Democrats hold that a $1 trillion deficit is irresponsible, then shouldn't the Democrats consider your budget plan to quadruple the deficit as being five times as irresponsible?"

But then, a media that is so deep in the tank for a socialist president would never have the courage nor the integrity to ask such pertinent questions.

Obama's Deficit: His Gift To Future Generations

Can someone tell me why just a few days ago this guy was bitching about inheriting a budget deficit from the previous administration but then turns around and does this:

President Barack Obama is sending Congress a budget Thursday that projects the government's deficit for this year will soar to $1.75 trillion ...

He was complaining about the deficits left to him by the previous administration. Is he so ignorant that he does not realize that he will be passing along deficits that will be five to ten times larger to the next administration in 2012?

And here is what is going to send us into a new Great Depression:

A senior administration official told The Associated Press that Obama's $3 trillion-plus spending blueprint also asks Congress to raise taxes on the wealthy in 2011 and cut Medicare costs to provide health care for the uninsured. It would raise taxes on wealthy hedge fund managers and corporations ... Obama's budget proposal would effectively raise income taxes and curb tax deductions on couples making more than $250,000 a year, beginning in 2011.

Somehow, Obama and the socialists in Congress have convinced themselves that taking money away from those who provide investment and employment will magically result in more investment and employment. The exact opposite is going to happen and given Obama's track record in his recent speeches, he will come up with any lie to try and blame someone else.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Official: Budget Projects $1.75 Trillion Deficit
NBC News and News Services via MSNBC
February 26, 2009

Fact-Checking Obama's Speech: His Words Ring Hollow

A look at a few of Obama's statements from his speech last night. Clearly, as he did with his comments on the deficit, he is trying to lay blame at someone else's feet if the economy gets worse, which under his policies, it most certainly will.

Here they are:

OBAMA: "We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values." THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money only goes to those who got in honest trouble, it hasn't said so. Defending the program Tuesday at a Senate hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it's important to save those who made bad calls, for the greater good. He likened it to calling the fire department to put out a blaze caused by someone smoking in bed. "I think the smart way to deal with a situation like that is to put out the fire, save him from his own consequences of his own action but then, going forward, enact penalties and set tougher rules about smoking in bed." Similarly, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. suggested this month it's not likely aid will be denied to all homeowners who overstated their income or assets to get a mortgage they couldn't afford. "I think it's just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans," Sheila Bair told National Public Radio.

In other words, you and I will be working to pay off mortgages for people like Peggy The Moocher.

OBAMA: "And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it." THE FACTS: Depends what your definition of automobiles, is. According to the Library of Congress, the inventor of the first true automobile was probably Germany's Karl Benz, who created the first auto powered by an internal combustion gasoline engine, in 1885 or 1886. In the U.S., Charles Duryea tested what library researchers called the first successful gas-powered car in 1893. Nobody disputes that Henry Ford created the first assembly line that made cars affordable.

It's hard to believe that any Ivy League institution would be proud of an alumnus who can't get the facts of history straight.

OBAMA: "We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before." THE FACTS: Oil imports peaked in 2005 at just over 5 billion barrels, and have been declining slightly since. The figure in 2007 was 4.9 billion barrels, or about 58 percent of total consumption. The nation is on pace this year to import 4.7 billion barrels, and government projections are for imports to hold steady or decrease a bit over the next two decades.

Again, scare tactics from the One who wanted to give us "hope and change." What he is basically saying here is that he wants us all to pony up more money for unproven technologies and make his environmentalist friends and lobbyists rich in the process.

OBAMA: "We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade." THE FACTS: Although 10-year projections are common in government, they don't mean much. And at times, they are a way for a president to pass on the most painful steps to his successor, by putting off big tax increases or spending cuts until someone else is in the White House. Obama only has a real say on spending during the four years of his term. He may not be president after that and he certainly won't be 10 years from now.

And don't forget that the price tag of the porkulus package is over $1.3 trillion. If Obama's above statement were true, then there is no deficit right now and our children and grandchildren won't have to work to pay off our debt. I don't know of a single reputable economist who would agree with that. Certainly, the Congressional Budget Office does not agree with that assessment since they are predicting that our economy will shrink as a result of the porkulus/spendulus bill.

OBAMA: "Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day." THE FACTS: This may be so, but it isn't only Republicans who pushed for deregulation of the financial industries. The Clinton administration championed an easing of banking regulations, including legislation that ended the barrier between regular banks and Wall Street banks. That led to a deregulation that kept regular banks under tight federal regulation but extended lax regulation of Wall Street banks. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, later an economic adviser to candidate Obama, was in the forefront in pushing for this deregulation.

And here you have probably the most glaring example of Obama trying to pass the buck. I can tell you one set of regulations that wasn't gutted: those regulations in the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to make bad loans to risky home buyers and ultimately resulted in the credit crisis we are in today. Obama actually tells a bold-faced lie here by making it seem like lenders did this voluntarily. Sorry, but it was the 1977 CRA (passed and signed into law by Democrats) that is to blame, not the Republicans.

OBAMA: "In this budget, we will end education programs that don't work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them. We'll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use. We will root out the waste, fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn't make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas." THE FACTS: First, his budget does not accomplish any of that. It only proposes those steps. That's all a president can do, because control over spending rests with Congress. Obama's proposals here are a wish list and some items, including corporate tax increases and cuts in agricultural aid, will be a tough sale in Congress. Second, waste, fraud and abuse are routinely targeted by presidents who later find that the savings realized seldom amount to significant sums. Programs that a president might consider wasteful have staunch defenders in Congress who have fought off similar efforts in the past.

This also shows Obama's ignorance on economic matters. Companies do not outsource jobs because the American tax system gives them a break, they outsource them because the tax system already makes it more expensive to hire American than it does to ship the jobs offshore. If our corporate tax code were not so suffocating, fewer jobs would get shipped overseas. Obama's plans will ensure that more jobs go outside of the United States.

OBAMA: "Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years." THE FACTS: While the president's stimulus package includes billions in aid for renewable energy and conservation, his goal is unlikely to be achieved through the recovery plan alone. In 2007, the U.S. produced 8.4 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, including hydroelectric dams, solar panels and windmills. Under the status quo, the Energy Department says, it will take more than two decades to boost that figure to 12.5 percent.

And it will cost more to implement and continue to run these energy production facilities than it costs to use the proven technologies we already have. Plus, you have hypocrits like Ted Kennedy opposing windmills near their vacation homes because it somehow disrupts their view.

OBAMA: "Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs." THE FACTS: This is a recurrent Obama formulation. But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers. The president's own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, "It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error."

It also means they will have wiggle room to blame others when their own policies come up severely short.

Obama's entire speech was nothing more than window dressing. He and the Democrats are looking for a pipe dream that simply will not come true. Government cannot magically create jobs and energy sources have these nagging little things like the laws of physics to contend with. Further, taxpayers will not appreciate having to bail out people like Peggy the Moocher and other malcontents waiting for a welfare handout while the rest of us actually get off of our rears and at least try to do work.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

FACT CHECK: Obama's Words On Home Aid Ring Hollow
Calvin Woodward and Jim Kuhnhenn (Tom Raum, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Dina Cappiello also contributed)
Associated press via TownHall.com
February 25, 2009

Obama's Lies About Deficits

Okay, how many of you were doubled over with laughter after President Obama made the following remark yesterday:

"We're not going to be able to fall back into the same old habits," Mr. Obama said. "The casual dishonesty of hiding irresponsible spending with clever accounting tricks, the costly overruns, the fraud and abuse, the endless excuses."

This, coming from a President who forced a piece of legislation, crafted behind closed doors and without the input of the opposition party, through Congress and even broke his own promise of openess, transparency and a five-day window for the public to review legislation before he signs it into law.

And how about that "fraud and abuse" part. Did he not see the earmarks going to ACORN, the notorius voter fraud organization? Did he not notice other pork and wasteful spending in his porkulus package? And now, he expects us to believe that he is fiscally responsible? His next spending plan has over 9,000 earmarks in it!

How dumb does Barack Obama think were are? Only the most brain-washed partisan Democrats would believe Obama's remarks.

Here's some more idoicy from a man who graduated from an Ivy League school:

"If we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it, we risk sinking into another crisis down the road," the president warned, promising to cut the yearly deficit in half by the end of his four-year term. "We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences."

And yet, he had no problem signing into law a package that will have to be paid off by our children and grandchildren. Again, how stupid does he think we are?

More:

"We are paying the price for these deficits right now," Obama said, estimating the country spends $250 billion — one in every ten dollars of taxpayer money — in interest on the national debt. "I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay."

But that is precisely what the President is doing. He is simply trying to lay the blame at someone else's feet. I don't buy it. After that porkulus/spendulus bill passed, the Dems now own this economy. They have no one to blame but themsleves and they know it. That is why Obama and the Dems are scrambling to pass the buck so that their popularity doesn't take too much of a hit.

They say that actions speak louder than words. Right now, Obama's words are being drowned out by his actions and the actions of his socialist allies in Congress. He is lying to us and the Dems are hoping that you and I will buy it hook, line and sinker.

I'm not that blind. I see what is really happening and no amount of spin or lies from the Oval Office and the Democrat controlled Congress will ever change the truth.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Pledges Decrease In Deficit — After Increase (More Than Doubling It)
Associated Press via NewsMax.com
February 23, 2009

Appropriate Cartoons Today

Our children and grandchildren may never forgive us for what Barack Obama is about to sign, nor should they.

Democrats At The Trough: Your Taxpayer Dollars Feeding The Pigs

If only all journalists in the United States had as much integrity and courage as Cal Thomas does to write what is overwhelmingly obvious and write it with so much clarity. Take, for example, government spending, why it has become so bloated and what effect such spending has on you and I, the American taxpayers.

Cal's latest column is about overspending by governments: Federal, State and Local. And he explains clearly why such overspending occurred and what the (mostly Democrat) elected leaders in these governments want to do by way of a "solution."

From his column:

Democratic governors from overspending states like New York, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Ohio are among those seeking financial deliverance. The governors want Washington to pony up $1 trillion for their absolutely-essential-non-negotiable-if-we-don't-get-the-money-people-will-starve programs.

But why should we, the taxpayers, fund this bailout? Who among us would not be held responsible, as individual citizens, for spending more than we take in?

Read on:

New York Governor David Paterson claims that, because tax revenues have plunged, 43 states now have budget deficits totaling around $100 billion. No, those states have deficits because when times were good and the money was rolling in they thought they could get away with endless new programs, while putting little or no money aside for the inevitable rainy day. Neither did they consider which programs were necessary and which ones were just politically beneficial. Or, maybe they did and they opted for politically beneficial, thus creating their problem, and ours. Notice the sleight of hand about to be perpetrated on hardworking taxpayers. In the end, it is we who pay for the plans of politicians who are unable, or unwilling, to control themselves when it comes to other peoples' money. When Republicans cut taxes, Democrats scream about growing deficits. But Democrats never worry about the deficit when they spend more than what the government takes in. So it really isn't about the deficit at all. It is about how much of our hard-earned money the Democrats, mostly, will allow us to keep.

Bingo! Look at that simplicity of comparison. Conservatives cut taxes and the libs complain about not enough money to spend. Libs spend more money than they have and then delude themselves into believing that our grand-children will be happy to pay for the libs non-sense appropriations. What would happen to you if you ran your household budget like this? You would, at the very least, recieve a very low credit rating and not be able to get new loans, or at worst, go to jail.

And what is even better is that the comparison between the libs and Conservatives is valid and absolutely true.

More:

The incoming Obama administration wants to spend gobs of money on "infrastructure," creating government jobs that will end when the work is completed. Isn't infrastructure primarily supposed to be the work of state and local governments? Isn't the gasoline tax supposed to go to build and repair local roads and bridges? The federal responsibility should begin and end with the interstate highway system. The governors' request for more money from Washington is also about unfunded mandates, the rising cost of Medicare and Medicaid and a lot of other "entitlement" programs that could have been made solvent during the Bush administration, which tried, but was unable to succeed due to opposition from Democrats who preferred to have an issue rather than a solution.

And there is the reason the Dems don't want any real solutions to the overspending problem. They need wasteful programs in order to buy votes and they need a way to keep people dependent on the government for their livelihood.

This is a most excellent column and everyone should read it:

Pigs At The Trough
Cal Thomas
TownHall.com
January 6, 2009

Should Congress Get A Pay Raise Next Year? I Say: No!!!

Congress should not get a pay raise until we, the people, say it should be so. This is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue, it is an ethical issue.

Right now, the economy is such that workers are not getting very big raises and the cost-of-living has gone up for all of us. As such, Congress, should show some solidarity with the American people and not only refuse a pay raise but should also give up many of the costly perks they take for themselves (taxpayer funded health care, taxpayer funded retirement plan, taxpayer funded travel, etc.) while leaving Joe and Jane Average American to fend for themselves.

The following is a letter penned by Kristina Rasmussen of the National Taxpayer's Union. Please feel free to copy it and send it to everyone you know.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 362,000 members of the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), I urge you to cosponsor bipartisan legislation (H.R. 5087 or H.R. 6417) that would prevent an automatic pay increase for Members of Congress in 2009. Rank-and-file Members of Congress currently make an annual salary of $169,300 (more than double the median household income of $78,978 for the Washington, D.C. metro area, including wealthy suburbs). This sum doesn't include taxpayer funds used for lavish pensions, health plans, and generous allowances for travel, staff, and office expenses. In light of mixed economic indicators, Congress should reject an automatic pay hike that would pad a sizeable Congressional compensation package. How did this auto-pilot pay raise system come about? As explained by Pete Sepp in the NTU Foundation Policy Paper "Congressional Perks: How the Trappings of Office Trap Taxpayers," it didn’t start out this way: According to Article I of the U.S. Constitution, compensation paid to Members of Congress "shall be ascertained by law." The Founding Fathers intended Congress to set its own pay through the appropriations process, on the supposition that Members would be guided by their own sense of honor. In fact, lawmakers lived without a yearly salary up until 1854, having contented themselves prior to that time with a per-diem system that paid a flat rate for each day Congress was in session. But thanks to a series of post-war measures, culminating in a 1989 "ethics" law, Members of Congress have sought to avoid accountability for salary hikes. Annual pay raises are now tied to the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index: COLAs [Cost of Living Adjustments] now take effect once the TTHUD bill becomes law, although taxpayers would never be able to identify any language in the bill that appears to authorize these pay grabs. Members of Congress would need to specifically vote on, or insert, language blocking the raise if they do not want the increase to occur. Taxpayers are thus condemned to fight a bizarre annual battle over a COLA whose existence is only recognized when Congress opts to block it. Even though Members of Congress received automatic pay increases each year between 2000 and 2006, taxpayers were enthused to see the House reject a pay hike for 2007. Our members strongly believe this action should be repeated in 2008. We're counting on you to make a stand against automatic Congressional pay increases by cosponsoring H.R. 5087 (or H.R. 6417) and directing the resulting savings toward reducing the deficit. Sincerely, Kristina Rasmussen Director of Government Affairs

I know that Congress is going to accept the pay raise even though they don't deserve it. But we need to be aware that they are doing it and that they are screwing us in the process. We need to put pressure on them to act responsibly.

How can they criticize corporate executives for have golden parachutes when Congress has platinum parachutes?

To read more about H.R. 6417, click the following link:

To Prevent Members Of Congress From Receiving The Automatic Pay Adjustment Scheduled To Take Effect In 2009
Washington Watch

The last activity on this bill is that it was referred to committee, most likely to let it die.

You can access the original letter on-line here:

Stop Congress's Automatic Pay Hike
National Taxpayers Union
February 01, 2008