And So I Go: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

Archive for the ‘The Mount Vernon Statement’ Category

Do the Republicans really have the guts to cut spending and reduce the size of government?

Posted by: on: July 22, 2010

Co-opting the Anti-Spenders | Cato @ Liberty.

This article says what I have been thinking and not wanting to believe about the options available to we who love our country and are still sane.  The Democrats are gone; they have been totally taken over by the Leftist Socialists.  That leaves us with the Republicans because to try to introduce a third party would merely ensure that the Democrats stay in power.  But  those who will be in leadership positions in a Republican Congress are of the old school of spend and grow.   Yes the Republicans can take back the House and the Senate with new people this November but how much power will these new people have to shape legislation?  None!  So unless the current Republican leadership has an epiphany  I am not sure Obamacare and Dodd-Frank will not continue  and Obama will continue to rule.  Hope I am wrong, but some smarter than me are feeling this way too.  BB

Co-opting the Anti-Spenders

Posted by Tad DeHaven

Voters who recognize the need to make major cuts to federal spending and think returning Republicans to power will accomplish this feat could be in for a big disappointment. Recent comments to the Washington Post made by former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-MS) make it clear that anti-spending candidates elected in November will be fighting against their own party — not just the Democrats.

From the article:

Former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), now a D.C. lobbyist, warned that a robust bloc of rabble-rousers spells further Senate dysfunction. “We don’t need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples,” Lott said in an interview. “As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.”

Lott actually provided one of the more memorable moments in my career as a Senate staffer. The scene took place in the office of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) at a regular meeting of “conservative” Republican senators to discuss politics and policy. The setting was several months before the 2006 fall elections in which voters sent the Republican majority packing.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who I was working for at the time, was pleading with his colleagues to make a last ditch effort to cut spending. Coburn argued, correctly, that voters were fed up with Republican profligacy. In the midst of the discussion, Trent Lott entered. Strolling about the office while chomping on snacks, Lott dismissed Coburn’s suggestion in his good-ole-boy southern style.

Instead, Lott said the Republicans needed to tell voters that putting the Democrats in charge of post-911 America would leave the country vulnerable to terrorist attacks. In other words, Lott’s solution was to scare voters into keeping the Republicans in charge.

Lott might be gone, but the current GOP leadership seems to share the same aversion to actually reforming government. They will attempt to “co-opt” candidates who come to Washington on an anti-spending platform. (See my post on Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)).

In a recent Washington Times piece, John Ellis makes a compelling case for why 2010 is not going to be a replay of 1994:

Nobody can doubt that House Minority Leader John A. Boehner and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell are good and loyal Republicans, but they lack everything that made Mr. Gingrich the author of success in 1994. Both are passive and timid and lack the drive and energy a real leader needs. Both are primarily managers rather than public voices of their caucuses. Neither can dominate a TV screen as Mr. Gingrich could, and neither is able to capture the public’s attention by focusing issues sharply and succinctly. Mr. Boehner is a wooden personality devoid of Mr. Gingrich’s charisma, and the slogan: “Boehner for Speaker,” which is beginning to appear, is hardly inspiring. Mr. McConnell is amiable but retiring, never arresting or incisive.

Indeed, the current Republican leadership bemoans the Obama administration’s reckless big spending and deficits. But other than complain and insist that the president should “pay for” additional spending, the GOP leadership has given no evidence that it recognizes — or even believes — that we actually need a smaller government.

Instead, the GOP has trotted out timid half-measures that they think will play well to the country’s anti-spending mood, but that would actually accomplish very little.

Tad DeHaven • July 22, 2010 @ 9:12 am
Filed under: Government and Politics; Tax and Budget Policy
Tags: , , , , , ,

// ShareThis Print This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

» Will Senate Democrats Stifle Free Speech? – Big Government

Posted by: on: July 12, 2010

» Will Senate Democrats Stifle Free Speech? – Big Government.

Will the Democrats stifle free speech before the November elections?  Maybe not  and maybe so.  But what ever the “Disclosure Act” sure sounds good doesn’t it?  These Lefties have a way with words and can make a skunk sound like a sweet little kitty cat!  The facts are the Disclosure Act doesn’t disclose it closes:

free_Speech

The DISCLOSE Act is a desperate attempt to influence the November elections, and minimize Democrat losses.  Senator Schumer and the legislation’s other sponsors aim to have a law on the books that will take effect prior to November regardless of whether a regulatory system is in place to enforce the burdensome new reporting requirements.  The Act, its reporting burdens, and penalties are set to take effect 30 days after it has been signed by President Obama.

  • The DISCLOSE Act will require small businesses, corporations, and non-profit organizations to electronically file burdensome financial disclosure reports within 24 hours of making an independent expenditure.  Without action by the FEC, these groups will have to electronically file a form that does not yet exist, and face a $10,000 penalty should their filing be found inadequate.
  • Radically expand the length of disclaimers on televised political advertisements.  The Act will compel the head of an organization to appear on screen in a “stand by your ad” disclaimer.  The top donor to an organization will also have to appear on camera to stand by the ad.  The names of additional top donors to the organization must be listed on screen for a period of six seconds.  These disclaimers will be the end of the 30 second advertisement, because over half of the time will be devoted to disclaimers.
  • Companies with as little as 20% foreign ownership will be prohibited from engaging in political speech under the DISCLOSE Act.  Verizon Wireless is a Delaware corporation with over 83,000 employees in the United States.  It has over 90 million customers in the United States, but because of a minority ownership by Vodafone, would be prohibited from speaking under the DISCLOSE Act.  On the other hand, unions with extensive foreign membership, such as the Service Employees International Union, are not subject to a similar foreign prohibition.
  • In an unprecedented step, the DISCLOSE Act will expand what political speech is regulated.  The DISCLOSE Act will drastically expand the definition of “electioneering communication” doubling the time period that speech is regulated.  It will also expand what speech is regulated, shifting from a bright line express advocacy test to a more subjective “functional equivalent” test.

The Democrats in the House of Representatives managed to pass a version of the DISCLOSE Act before the Fourth of July recess.  Senate Democrats have been unable to move their bill forward and are being remarkably tight-lipped regarding their plans to advance the bill.  Senator Schumer and Senator Harry Reid will probably take drastic action to force a floor vote on the DISCLOSE Act.  We must stay focused and ensure that they do not abridge First Amendment rights during this brief summer session.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Star Parker v. Radical, Ethically Challenged Maxine Waters Acolyte in California 37 – Big Government

Posted by: on: April 21, 2010

» Star Parker v. Radical, Ethically Challenged Maxine Waters Acolyte in California 37 – Big Government

This is an article to make your heart smile!  The thugs, liars, cheats and  just plain stupid are being challenged by Patriots all over the country.   You may recall that Star Parker is the author of “Back on Uncle Sam’s Plantation” where she describes how the welfare state has again made slaves of the Black community.  You may also recall that for cheaters and liars there is no one to top Maxine Waters.  BB

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

>>Barack Obama: Poverty Pimp (Need to read)

Posted by: on: March 11, 2010

As my readers know I am not above using someone else’s post when they have something to say I think is important.  That is the case today.  I just met Mr. Rob waterson, a fellow blogger and Patriot.  Rob emailed me today and  after a couple “back and forth” I  ask for his url and went to his site. I sincerely feel this is a post  you should read.  Glenn Beck spoke of  this topic yesterday and I was planning to do some research before writing,  but Rob has already done it and done it well.  You too should log onto: http://waronsocialism.com/
BB

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

[Hat tip to Mark Levin for this story]

Writing in NRO, the well respected Robert Rector describes fundamental changes to the way that the government will measure poverty in America.  The current method of measuring poverty deals with purchasing power (“how much steak and potatoes you can buy”) whereas the new measure will  “count comparative purchasing power — how much steak and potatoes you can buy relative to other people.”

The weird new poverty measure will produce very odd results. For example, if the real income of every single American were to magically triple over night, the new poverty measure would show there had been no drop in “poverty,” because the poverty income threshold would also triple. Under the Obama system, poverty can be reduced only if the incomes of the “poor” are rising faster than the incomes of everyone else.

Another paradox of the new poverty measure is that countries such as Bangladesh and Albania will have lower poverty rates than the United States, even though the actual living conditions in those countries are extremely bad. Haiti would probably have a very low poverty rate when measured by the Obama system because the earthquake reduced much of the population to a uniform penniless squalor.

This change is nothing less than a move to ensure that regardless of any economic realities or statistics there will always be a fixed percentage of Americans living in so-called poverty.  I argue that by world standards there is very little poverty in America.  I am reminded of an anecdotal story told by Dinesh D’Souza in his book What’s So Great About America.  He was listening to an immigrant talk about America, including some criticisms of racism and other problems.  D’Souza asked the individual why he wanted to come to America when he knew of all of these perceived problems and without missing a beat the guy said “I want to live in a country where the poor people are fat.”  Rector provides a similar argument:

What has the Obama measure to do with actual poverty? Not much. For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 40 million per­sons classified as poor under the government’s current poverty definition fit that description. Most of America’s poor live in material conditions that would have been judged comfortable, or even well-off, two generations ago.

The government’s own data show that the typical American defined as poor (according to the traditional, pre-Obama poverty measure) has two color televisions, cable or satellite service, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He also has a car, air conditioning, a refrig­erator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had suf­ficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is far from the stark images conveyed by the mainstream media and liberal politicians.

So if this is not about genuine poverty, what is this all about?  I think that you already know.  It is about justification for income redistribution, the main raison d’etre of the American Left.

In honest English, the new system will measure income inequality, not poverty. Why not just call it an “inequality” index? Answer: because the American voter is unwilling to support massive welfare increases, soaring deficits, and tax increases to equalize incomes. However, if the goal of income leveling is camouflaged as a desperate struggle against poverty, hunger, and dire deprivation, then the political prospects improve. The new measure is a public-relations Trojan horse, smuggling in a “spread the wealth” agenda under the ruse of fighting real material privation — a condition that is rare in our society.

Barack Obama is a poverty pimp, but because there is not enough poverty in America to justify his rhetoric he has to warp the measurement scale.  Rector correctly concludes that “the new poverty measure will use deception to promote a much larger welfare state.”

Would you expect anything less from an empty suit community activist?

Tags: , , , , , , ,

>>The Constitutional Case Against Progressives (a must read)

Posted by: on: March 11, 2010

I am posting this entire article here because we need to better know our Constitution.  we the People are calling for going back to the government our Founding Father’s gave us so we need to know what our rights are under that document.  then we can argue our points knowledgeably.  B

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

The Constitutional Case Against Progressives

by Josie Wales

[Do not read this article without a copy of the Constitution, and if you do not have one handy, shame on you (link here).]

A line is being drawn in the sand between the statists and Americans, and I use the term American in the grandest sense.  The United States of America represents one of the last bastions of traditional liberalism, which is why the Left should no longer be identified as liberal, but rather we should continue to identify its members as progressive statists.  The Left believes the precepts of our Constitution have failed society, and thus, we must look towards the “enlightened democracies” of socialized Europe for guidance in the progression of American society.

Picture 3

We hear the mantra of rights professed daily by the progressives: education, work, social security, health care, etc.  And since we do not live in a state of nature, the guarantor of those rights must be the government.  This is the definition of a statist, and adherence to these beliefs is inherently in opposition to the Constitution.  The Founders recognized that government could NEVER be the guarantor of rights which is why so much of the Constitution is written in terms of limiting powers conferred upon the government.

Take for example Article I § 1:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives (emphasis added).

Congress has no power outside the enumerated powers identified in the Constitution, and furthermore, Congress may not exercise any power that is not inherently legislative in nature.  Article I § 9 lists specific power limitations upon Congress, and Article I § 10 lists legislative power limitations upon the States.  Article III identifies the judicial power of the United States and limits it in much the same manner as in Article I.

Article II is a little different, but can only be understood in the context of the framing of the Constitution.  Article II § 1 begins:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

On its face, Article II seems to grant rather broad powers to the President.  One of the main reasons the Constitution was created was because of the impotence of the Articles of Confederation without a federal executive.  But even the President is confined to the boundaries identified in the Constitution through his Constitutional Oath as written in Article II § 1 cl. 8:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States (emphasis added).

All other Constitutional officers are “bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution,” in Article VI cl. 3, but the President is beholden to specific duties.

The only time “right” is mentioned in the original articles of the Constitution is in Congress’s duty to promote the ownership of Authors and Inventors to their respective creations (Article I § 8 cl. 8), but even that was only to be secured for a limited time.  The Bill of Rights is written in negative terms to prevent the government from infringing upon certain recognized rights of the people.  The only positive rights are identified in the 6th Amendment, but should really be read in the negative since the government prosecutes for alleged crimes committed.  In fact, the entire Constitution, articles and amendments, is written in terms of limiting government infringement upon existing rights, not creating rights.  For a discussion of this you must check out Federalist No. 84. Furthermore, many of the amendments to the Constitution forbade government infringement upon the people’s rights (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th).

Some would argue that “privileges and immunities,” as discussed in Article IV § 2, indicates positive rights, but rights are not privileges because privileges may be revoked.  Article I § 9 cl. 2 recognizes the “privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus,” but also recognizes that it may be revoked under certain circumstances.  Privileges are allowances granted to specified individuals in areas where government power prevails, which is limited to the powers granted by the Constitution.

Let us turn our attention to the most under-utilized provision of the Constitution as it exists today; the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people (emphasis added).

Essentially, any right not identified by the Constitution is retained by the people, not the government (state or national).  This is where progressive statists run astray of the Constitution.  Government cannot grant us the “right” to work or receive health care because government does not have that power, nor the power to force us to exercise any right (imagine the outcry if the government forced every person to exercise their 2nd Amendment right).  And the government does not equal “the people” because our government is only representative of an illusory majority.

Herein lays the danger of the progressive statist utopia.  It envisions a permanent government entity, exemplified in the bureaucracy.  People may come and go, but the government will always remain.  And our rights are beholden to that permanent entity.

Americans recognize that government is only an extension of the individuals that comprise it, and thus ethereal.  Bureaucracies are invasive upon the rights of the people.  And unless the people are vigilant in protecting their rights, all governments will attempt to seize them.

The United States of America was the first country to create a government wholly in terms of limitation.  This is what makes it the first and last bastion of traditional liberalism.  We often identify ourselves as conservatives or libertarians, but we are only as much because we understand the context of the Constitution striving to create a liberal utopia within the boundaries of our nation.  We understand and have fought against the horrors of the statist utopia, so we must not allow the progressive statists to hide behind concepts like liberalism.

And for those who espouse certain liberal social rights, you will not find salvation within the progressive statist agenda.  You will only find regulation and marginalization; at least until the government deems you oppressive to the progress of the state.

The Constitution cannot be a living, breathing document.  If it is then government can arbitrarily grant and take-away the people’s rights.  If it is then the government can arbitrarily create and seize powers.

Read your Constitution.  Study your Constitution.  Defend your Constitution.

The Constitution is your only protection from the progressive statist utopia.

Tags: , , ,

>>I told you before Big Labor is coming for you. (a must read)

Posted by: on: March 3, 2010

Unions: Forever War

Unions have been at war with the people since the 1960′s when they began to lose their membership and therefore the huge piles of money commonly called Union Dues.  Look up the unions and you will find they all have mob connections.  First the mobs extorted people and were into every sleazy crime imaginable, then they cleaned up their act and move into gaming  big time in the 1940′s and 1950′s taking over Nevada.  Not being happy with that huge pot of gold they looked around and saw the perfect take over of all the people:  labor unions.     Big Labor hasn’t but 5% of the population as members, but 70% of these are service related and government employees.  Big trouble for We the People if these government employee unions are not stopped dead in their tracks.  Look at California, New York and Greece!  Government employee unions have bankrupted these places and they are now coming after the rest of us.

Unions have big money from all these union dues behind them and since they certainly don’t spend this money on the members they can spend it trying to get your vote.  Wake up America and  don’t swallow the kool aid.  You did in 2008 and look what it has gotten you.  don’t let it happen again.

How influential are unions?  Well Andy Stern it president of the SEIU Service Employees International Union and he is the top visitor to the Obama White House!  You want to know who Andy Stern is and what he believes and what he wants to do to this country then just go to YouTube and listen to him.  He makes no bones about what he intends for We the people.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting:

The AFL-CIO plans to roll out its biggest political campaign ever, surpassing the $53 million spent in 2008 to help elect President Barack Obama, to try to avert a repeat of the 1994 midterm election when Democrats lost a majority in Congress.

If that sounds a bit aggressive, that’s nothing compared to the powerful head of the AFSCME public employee union, who is saying “The time has come to draw a line in the sand…Regardless of your party affiliation, if you’re not with us, you are against us.”

(We’re pretty sure we’ve seen other people get hammered for using the same language, but we digress…)

It’s certainly interesting that unions are doubling down on their failed bet. But anything can happen when you wish upon a star…

Tags: , , , , ,

>>Study of Tea Party Activists Reveals Motivations of Political Movement

Posted by: on: March 3, 2010

There has finally been a survey made of Tea Party Patriots themselves asking what changes they want.    This needed to be done so the various groups can coordinate their efforts.  I am proud to say I am a Tea Party Patriot and for the most part agree with the majority on all the questions asked.  BB

Study of Tea Party Activists Reveals Motivations of Political Movement

by Publius “The Early Adopters” Report uncovers that most oppose a third party, many are new to politics

CHICAGO, — A new study released today reveals that Tea Party activists are motivated by feelings of responsibility to future generations and belief in America’s founding principles, but still struggle with questions of leadership and identity. The study conducted by Sam Adams Alliance, The Early Adopters: Reading the Tea Leaves, also reveals that Tea Party activists are a diverse group trying – often for the first time – to change the political landscape by holding elected officials more accountable. The results of the full report can be found at www.activistinsightsreport.com.

The Sam Adams report offers the first-ever insights into the Tea Party movement that include a survey sample made up entirely of recognized Tea Party activists.

“A lot of surveys have focused on the Tea Party movement, but they’ve been about what others think of them, and don’t reveal the motives of actual Tea Partiers,” said Sam Adams Alliance chairman Eric O’Keefe. “We decided to learn what the Tea Party leaders are up to the old fashioned way: We asked them.”

The findings confirm that a large number of Tea Party activists are politically involved for the first time. 47 percent of activists surveyed said that they were “uninvolved” or “rarely involved” in politics before their participation in Tea Party groups.

Three political issues stood out as being the most important to Tea Party activists. When asked which issues were “very important” to them, 92 percent said “budget,” 85 percent said

“economy,” and 80 percent said “defense.” No respondents listed social issues as an “important direction” for the movement.

Other findings of the study include:

86 percent oppose the formation of a third-party.
36 percent support a 2012 Sarah Palin Presidential candidacy.
81 percent have a website for their organization.
90 percent cited “to stand up for my beliefs” when characterizing their initial reason for involvement.
62 percent identified as Republicans, 28 percent as Independents, 10 percent as “Tea Party”

Full story here.

Tags: ,

>>Politicians of both parties need to go. They have all gotten lazy, arrogant and feel entitled to the high life at our expense.

Posted by: on: February 26, 2010

We the People have our jobs cut out for us starting right now and preparing for a take over of both parties in the November elections.  No matter if you are a Republican or Democrat your elected officials are NOT looking out for your interests.  Every last incumbant in Washington needs to go as they have all become infected with the Washington Elititus.  Washington Elititus: Diseases which have one or more of the following characteristics: they are permanent, leave residual disability, are caused by non-reversible pathological alteration. The alteration is from humanity to humanoid.   Most often referred to as  Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the diagnostic classification system used in the United States, as “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy.” The narcissist is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, and prestige.Narcissistic personality disorder is closely linked to self-centeredness.”   (wikipedia)

This same disease can be found in all walks of life and all professions, but is most destructive to the welfare of others when found in politicians as they use your tax dollars to feed their needs.  It is unfortunate that all but a very small handful of our elected officials  has surcumed to this disease.  It is also rampant among non-elected officials in Washington also.  some estimate that as many as 70% of government employees suffer from excessive beliefs and  behaviors  of Washington Elititus.   The only cure is the drastic action of cutting the  diseased one from the population and returning them to an atmosphere where they are soon divested of the means to indulge themselves.

Nancy Matthis  explains in the following post what the effects of Washington Elititus are and how We the People must treat it.  BB

A Tale of Two Parties — Elitism

By Nancy Matthis |  Wednesday, February 24th, 2010 at 5:02 am

Both major US political parties are self-perpetuating power brokers, long divorced from the welfare of citizens. While ordinary folk struggle to make ends meet in a failing economy totally created by these same self-serving politicians, they live high on the hog.

You will recall the trip a bevy of Democrats made to the January climate conference in Copenhagen. Nancy Pelosi shepherded a large group abroad in private jets, where they stayed in five-star hotels eating caviar and lobster and riding in limousines. This luxury living was all at the taxpayers expense, of course.

Now we learn that the Republicans are also living large. Citizens who wanted to end the Democratic profligacy of the incumbents filled the Republican party coffers with political donations. In January the Republican National Committee took in about $10 million, which donors no doubt hoped would fuel victories in the mid-term elections. But the RNC spent most of the money holding their regular winter meeting in Hawaii, a conference that had previously been held in Washington DC where all the pols were already.

From Politico — Michael Steele’s spending spree angers donors:

Republican National Chairman Michael Steele is spending twice as much as his recent predecessors on private planes and paying more for limousines, catering and flowers – expenses that are infuriating the party’s major donors who say Republicans need every penny they can get for the fight to win back Congress.

Most recently, donors grumbled when Steele hired renowned chef Wolfgang Puck’s local crew to cater the RNC’s Christmas party inside the trendy Newseum on Pennsylvania Avenue, and then moved its annual winter meeting from Washington to Hawaii.

For some major GOP donors, both decisions were symbolic of the kind of wasteful spending habits they claim has become endemic to his tenure at the RNC. When Ken Mehlman served as the committee chairman during the critical 2006 midterm elections, the holiday party was held in a headquarters conference room and Chic-fil-A was the caterer….

The idea that they are somehow different from — read “better than” — the rest of us seems to be a disease that overtakes politicians after a few weeks in office or in the corridors of political party power. One can only hope that the developing force of the Tea Party movement will counterbalance the elitism of the two established political parties. An article in The American Interest expresses the potential:

When the system seems stuck or dysfunctional and the pressure builds up for change, this is when populists rise up against elites and the suspicion of elites and government that seems to be part of America’s DNA comes to the fore.

See Also:  from American Thinker  Worse than Awful

Hot Air — RNC burning through midterms money on planes, limos, meals, hotels

Hot Air — Michael Steele: My critics are racist

Los Angeles Times — Could living large hurt GOP chances in November?

Tags: , , , , ,

>> A No-Cost Stimulus That Can Create Real Jobs for the American People | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Posted by: on: February 19, 2010

Morning Bell: A No-Cost Stimulus That Can Create Real Jobs for the American People | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

If deficit spending were the path to real-world economic growth, then the Greek economy would be booming. It’s not. There is an alternative. There are some no-cost measures our federal government could take that could create the space for American entrepreneurship and private investment, resulting in real long-term job growth. Heritage fellow James Sherk identifies eight such measures, including:

  • Freezing all proposed tax hikes and costly regulations at least until unemployment falls below 7 percent;
  • Freezing spending and rescinding unspent stimulus funds;
  • Reforming regulations to reduce unnecessary business costs, such as repealing Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act;
  • Reforming the tort system to lower costs and uncertainty facing businesses;
  • Removing barriers to domestic energy production;
  • Suspending the job-killing Davis-Bacon Act (DBA);
  • Passing pending free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama; and
  • Reducing taxes on companies’ foreign earnings if they bring those earnings home.
  • The biggest job killer of all and the most costly to the tax payers  is a  give away to union workers.  Big Labor at its best!

  • The Davis Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) requires all contractors and subcontractors performing work on federal or District of Columbia construction contracts or federally assisted contracts in excess of $2,000 to pay their laborers and mechanics not less than the prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits for corresponding classes of laborers and mechanics employed on similar projects in the area. The prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits are determined by the Secretary of Labor for inclusion in covered contracts.

    In addition to the Davis Bacon Act itself, Congress added Davis-Bacon prevailing wage provisions to approximately 60 laws—”related Acts”—under which federal agencies assist construction projects through grants, loans, loan guarantees, and insurance. (Examples of the related Acts are the Federal-Aid Highway Acts, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.) Generally, the application of prevailing wage requirements to projects receiving federal assistance under any particular “related” Act depends on the provisions of that law.

    • Tags: , , , , , , , ,

    >>The Mount Vernon Statement

    Posted by: on: February 18, 2010

    The Mount Vernon Statement

    Yesterday, I joined a broad coalition of conservative leaders representing a wide spectrum of the movement including fiscal, social, cultural and national security conservatives, to sign The Mount Vernon Statement. In light of the challenges facing the country and the need for clarity, we needed to produce this defining statement of conservative beliefs, values and principles. It is the culmination of a thoughtful deliberation about our nation’s principles. I was proud to participate in that discussion, and to chair the committee that drafted the statement.

    Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century

    We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

    These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

    Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

    Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

    The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

    The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

    The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.
    A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.
    A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

    * It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
    * It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
    * It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
    * It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
    * It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

    If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

    We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.

    The Heritage Foundation was founded to uphold the very principles articulated in this document. Our mission statement reads: “To formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values and a strong national defense.” Our vision statement is “to build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.” That is the same mission, the same vision embraced by the founders and articulated in the Mount Vernon Statement. We’ve been bound, voluntarily and enthusiastically, to those ideals since Heritage’s founding in 1973. I hope you share these principles, and join me in supporting this framework and signing your name here.

    By Edwin J. Feulner, President of The Heritage Foundation

    Tags: ,

    See topic cloud at bottom of page for specific topics.

    BB’s file cabinet

    Blog at WordPress.com.

    Theme: Albeo by Design Disease.

    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 84 other followers