The Compromise Roundup

So, after watching and reading the professional pundits for a couple of days, what seems to be the consensus on the deal that went down late Friday night? I'd say that no one is very happy about it, except for the hard-working Americans who would have been forced to take time off without pay because the idiots in Congress couldn't get their crap together. While it's obviously a critical win for them, pretty much everyone else seems to feel like losers.

Republicans claim they're playing nice on this round in order to gear up for the 'real' fight over the next budget. They said that will be the key, and that will be a fight over 'trillions not billions'. Uh-huh. Right. Sure. We'll come back to this in a minute, but first...

The response from the Right is pretty mixed. Some think it's not a bad deal at all:

Rich Lowry at NRO

A lot depends on how you viewed the stakes and the risks. If you thought cutting a few tens of billions more in spending this fiscal year would make a major difference in the country’s future, and/or thought a shutdown would be a political winner for Republicans, you have to be disappointed that Boehner didn’t push it further.

Since I believed neither of those things to be true, I had low expectations. ... Overall, it looks like a very modest win in a very modest game.

Up next is the debate over the debt ceiling, which offers the possibility for imposing much more consequential, far-reaching restraints on spending. And it’s always worth remembering that the fundamental problem here really isn’t a lack of guts so much as a lack of the Senate and the White House. Get both of those things in 2012, and we’ll be talking trillions rather than billions in cuts and Planned Parenthood will not get another thin dime of federal money.

Andrew Stiles at NRO

I would argue that the actual number is less relevant than the question of who has the political advantage heading into the much larger fights over the debt limit and the Ryan budget. And when I see Harry Reid and Barack Obama boasting about how much spending they have just agreed to cut, I am inclined to view that as a considerable political achievement for Republicans, from which to build on moving forward.

I am also thoroughly unconvinced by the notion that somehow Republicans “blinked” by cutting a deal rather than shutting the government down. From what I can tell, there are two assumptions behind this line of thinking. One is that Republicans could have won a better deal, could have gotten more of what they wanted, refusing to move an inch off their original $61 billion and allowing the government shut down. ...

The second is that Republicans would have won the “hearts and minds” debate in the public over who caused the shutdown. Polls suggest that voters are split in that regard, but a majority of independent voters favored a compromise. If a shutdown had occurred, I can’t imagine a scenario in which independents would have overwhelmingly rallied to the Republican cause. In 2010, they voted against “extreme” Democrats, not for “extreme” Republicans ...

At the end of the day, Democrats still control the White House and the Senate for two more years. Regardless of what happens in these next two years, the 2012 election is the ultimate endgame. ...

This may sound like “promising to fight the next time,” but the truth is that the real fight, which goes beyond the discretionary portion of the budget, hasn’t even started yet. If Republicans wimp out on the debt limit and/or fail to give a full-throated defense of their 2012 budget, then we’re all in big trouble. ...

That part about Indies voting against Dems rather than for Reps in 2010 is unquestionably true, and is a major concern for Reps trying to stage a long-term comeback. They can't push too hard too fast, without the numbers to ensure the victory. We have to deal with reality, not what we'd like reality to be. Still, much of the commentary from the Right is skeptical of just how much was cut, and mirrors my initial reaction: the GOP caved again and are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Thomas Crown at RedState

To paraphrase Maggie Thatcher, the story of modern democracies is the left’s consistent turning of a screw into our collective gut, and when the right takes power, we don’t unscrew, we just hold the screw in place while we bleed to death. Each budgetary negotiation is not a discrete act, but is rather a process of setting the baseline for the next round. ...

So you say, but we’ll get them in FY2012! Let me ask you a serious question: Why on Earth would you think those negotiations will end differently? The House GOP just put a giant KICK ME sign on its collective rear. This negotiation is the baseline for the next, which unfortunately doesn’t mean bigger-and-better cuts, it means the Democrats know that they need only hold out until the next shutdown looms (or pick your crisis, really) and they know that the spineless weenies will cave in no time flat.

This is a war. We just ceded enormous ground in the first, pivotal battle because we were worried that we may lose other positions. Our troops are going to ask, not unreasonably, if our army couldn’t be bothered to advance the primary goal for which they were sent into the field, why we should think they’d bother with the others.

That is the hill on which we should be willing to die: Getting this monstrosity of a hole we’re leaving our children and grandchildren under control, even if it just means stopping the digging. Making the Democrats take ownership of funding with public money the murder of the unborn. Proving ourselves serious and committed and willing to take a knife in the chest to slice the other guy’s carotid (or femoral or whichever artery you prefer), knowing that knife will hurt but the other guy is gonna be on the edge of death for a long time after.

But: Blink.

Andrew McCarthy at NRO

With due respect, I think those who are praising the budget deal are deluding themselves. Under circumstances where we are trillions of dollars in debt, the GOP just caved on its promise to cut the relative pittance of $61 billion in spending because it’s just not worth fighting for more than the half-pittance of $40 billion Democrats claimed was their drop-dead number. “Drop dead” meant daring Republicans to shut the government down (which, as we know, doesn’t actually shut the government down). The Republicans blinked. ...

The only thing Boehner won is future assurance that GOP leadership can safely promise the moon but then settle for crumbs because their rah-rah corner will spin any paltry accomplishment, no matter how empty it shows the promise to have been, as a tremendous victory.

And what’s the rationale for settling? Why, that these numbers are so piddling — that the $21 billion difference is so meaningless in the context of $14 trillion — that it’s best just to settle, make believe the promise was never made, make believe we didn’t flinch, and put this episode behind us so we can begin the “real work” of the next promise, the Ryan Plan.

Regarding that plan, you’re to believe that the captains courageous who caved on $21 billion — and who got elected because of Obamacare but don’t even want to discuss holding out for a cancellation of $105 billion in Obamacare funding — are somehow going to fight to the death for $6 trillion in cuts. Right.

Erick Erickson at RedState

God knows if there is one lesson for the Republican leaders in this, it is that they can promise the moon, deliver dirt, and the sycophantic conservative media will pop fireworks, fly American flags, and proclaim that dirt the second coming of Jesus Christ.

It’s embarrassing really. ...

For perspective, the federal government spends $10.46 billion a day. The Democrats and Republicans have now come together to cut out just under 4 days worth of spending out of 365 days. ...

The Republicans absolutely caved on defunding Planned Parenthood. Sure, the GOP will get a vote in the United States Senate. They will lose that vote and even if they didn’t, the matter would get vetoed.

The GOP will also get a vote on defunding Obamacare in the Senate. They will lose that vote too. In fact, they already had that vote and lost once.

Both of these could be gotten at any time by Senate Republicans, so it is not as monumental as it seems.

For a year now the Republicans and Democrats have told us we have serious problems and need serious solutions. They’ve told us we have a serious budget deficit crisis. On Friday night the two parties came together and decided the crisis they’ve been telling us about really isn’t worth dealing with.

Sure, the Obamacare vote could be interesting to watch, but getting a vote on a hot button issue like this really isn't that impressive. I think that much of the Right feels betrayed yet again by elected politicians who promise one thing and consistently fail to deliver.

The one point that I think is extremely important but that has been vastly underreported is this (emphasis mine):

In the case of the punching bag that is the 2011 budget, avoiding a reversion to business as usual is the minimum the Congressional GOP had to achieve. It did that. There is an important sense in which this outcome has bought time: it almost certainly forestalls the decision of global finance planners to catastrophically disfavor the US economy and US securities.

That is a real possibility, if Republicans are decisively unable to halt the hurtling progress of our federal government toward fiscal insanity. The incremental success achieved by the GOP on Friday means that any assessment in that regard can – in fact should – be postponed. It’s an uneasy position for everyone, but it’s also better than any alternative. In terms of transparency, fairness, and public integrity, the United States and our fiscal management are still the best the world has got. Investment gurus love to maneuver against the dollar, but there is literally nothing that can do what it has done for the last 60 years.

That reality is based on the characteristics of American society and our political institutions, even more fundamentally than on our economy. Currency, fiscal accounting, and debt are all man-made constructs, not principles of the universe that operate, constant and indifferent, outside our conscious decisions. The mechanism that would render it impossible for us to manage our way out of our fiscal crisis is a loss of confidence in our character by the rest of the world. Other peoples stand to lose so much in their own right, if our character is judged to have imploded and our faith and credit to have become unreliable, that they are strongly motivated to postpone making that judgment.

The budget compromise on Friday gave them a reason to continue postponing it. There is another freighted confrontation coming up on 16 May, when money will run out if the debt ceiling is not raised. It’s important for Republicans to keep the trend going in the direction they’ve now established, however incremental the progress may be.

Trying to win the whole game on every play is a faulty approach, and one that has to be avoided. Republicans can force issues only in the House this year. It isn’t possible to override a presidential veto. Those are the constraints.

I've said this before, and I still believe it: we're teetering on the edge, economically speaking, and it won't take much more than a single massive event to push us off the cliff. A nuclear attack, another economic meltdown, or who knows what else could provide the catalyst for the world to turn away from the U.S. dollar and economy as the primary global driver of wealth creation. A number of nations are already pushing to eliminate the dollar as the standard for oil trading, and pushing for a single worldwide currency instead. The dollar itself is dropping in value as the Obama administration continues its policy of stacking debt upon debt and printing money to cover it. The assertion above about delaying that final catalyst event is very, very real, and something we need to keep in mind.

Of course, a friend of mine correctly points out that the liberal media isn't particularly happy with how Obama let this play out, so under the theory of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', things apparently could have been a lot worse.

In what has become a typical move, Barack Obama (after sitting out the entire process) stepped in at the 11.9th hour to take credit for bringing both sides together. Amazingly, he also suggested that cutting $38 billion out of government spending somehow puts America back into living within its means. This is after increasing the government vacuum by 30% in the past two years, an annual increase of roughly $1 trillion. But hey, liberals never let the facts get in the way of a good spin, right?

In reality, we don't have a revenue problem, we -- or, more accurately, the morons in Washington -- have a spending problem. Maybe we should use the word addiction. Or obsession. Spending to a Washington politician is like the purple buzzing light to a mosquito. The next hit to a meth addict. You get the point.

So, there's the roundup. Though there are a few details that provide some silver lining, I stand by my initial reaction that this was a failure of the GOP, and no reassurance of better fights to come. You can read the facts for yourself and make up your own mind, and I hope you do; ignorance has gotten this country in a heap of trouble, and while we can work our way through political disagreements, we simply cannot afford mass ignorance any longer.

I will close with some more brilliance from the cartoon master, Michael Ramirez:

The Only Real Question That Counts Over The Next 18 Months Is...

...this: Are you better off now than you were four years ago?  Here are some stats to help paint the picture:

        March '07 March '11

Unemployment Rate 4.40% 8.80%

Gas price (per gallon) $2.56 $3.60

National Debt 8.84 trillion 14.27 trillion

Monthly deficit 95 billion 189 billion

Median House Price* $262,600 $202,100

S&P 500 Index 1420.86 1332.31

Employment-Population Ratio 63.3% 58.5%

Consumer Price Index* 205.532 221.309

(Items with an * are using February 2011 data)

Seems like a pretty easy question to me.

The Epsilon E-mail Event

Chances are you've gotten at least one e-mail notification about in the past few days about a security breach at Epsilon (I've gotten three). PC World provides an explanation that I thought you might want to hear:

Names and e-mail addresses fell into the wrong hands last week, whenEpsilon suffered a data breach affecting at least 19 of its client companies. It may sound scary, but don't panic. Here's what you need to know about the Epsilon e-mail hack:

What is Epsilon?

Epsilon is the world's largest permission-based e-mail marketer. Other companies, such as Best Buy, use Epsilon to send promotions or other e-mails to their customers. Naturally, the company has access to a lot of e-mail addresses.

What happened?

On March 30, an unauthorized party gained entry into Epsilon's system and accessed e-mails and customer names for a subset of Epsilon clients. If you're a customer of one of these clients, there's a chance that some hacker now knows your name and e-mail address.

Who is affected?

Epsilon won't specify which of its 2,500 clients were affected, or how many customers' e-mails were stolen, but SecurityWeek has put together the following list: Kroger, TiVo, US Bank, JPMorgan Chase, Capital One, Citi, Home Shopping Network, Ameriprise Financial, LL Bean Visa Card, McKinsey & Company, Ritz-Carlton Rewards, Marriott Rewards, New York & Company, Brookstone, Walgreens, The College Board, Disney Destinations, Best Buy, and Robert Half Technologies.

What's the risk for people who use any of these services?

You may notice an increase in e-mail spam and phishing attacks, which aim to gather passwords and other sensitive information from their targets. Due to the nature of the Epsilon breach, these attacks may address their targets by name, making them more convincing.

Was any other information exposed? Should users change all their passwords and cancel their credit cards?

No. According to Epsilon, no other personal information was exposed besides e-mails and names. Law enforcement and individual companies are doing their own investigations, but unless you've got a really stupid password, your money should be safe.

What can customers do?

An extreme measure would be to get a new e-mail address, but it's probably better to just be vigilant about phishing attacks. Check out PCWorld's picture guide to spotting e-mail scams, avoid e-mail attachments from people you don't know, and never, ever, ever respond to an e-mail that asks you to verify passwords, credit card numbers,or other financial information.

So there you have it. No worries.

This does, however, bring up the topic of how to detect e-mail scams, so let's address it briefly. Here are some general rules of thumb when it comes to detecting phishing or other e-mail scams:

1. If you've won something, it's a scam (especially if you didn't enter in the first place).

2. If you see the word Nigeria, it's a scam (especially Nigerian royalty; it amazes me that scammers still use this one, but they do...apparently, there are a lot of people who still believe Nigerian royalty need cash to buy a plane ticket home and will be very grateful to anyone who helps them out).

3. If it talks about a currency that isn't U.S. dollars, it's a scam.

4. If they want you to click a link in that e-mail, it's a scam.

5. If it's too good to be true, it's a scam.

If you get something that looks official and entirely plausible, there are a couple things you can do to ensure safety. First, hover your mouse -- BUT DON'T CLICK -- over any links that the e-mail wants you to click. You should be able to see the full URL somewhere (depending on your browser, it may pop up in a floating bubble, it may appear on the bottom of the browser window, etc.). If it is not identical -- and I mean IDENTICAL -- to the real website that you use when you do business with that company, it's probably a scam. Anytime you see an IP address (123.45.678.910) rather than a domain name (www.businessname.com), that's a good indicator that the link will re-direct you to someplace that has nothing to do with the company. And of course, it goes without saying that you should never, ever, EVER open an attachment on an e-mail like this.

Finally, just contact the company outside the context of the e-mail. Open a new window or tab and go to the company's website, and login as you normally would. See if you can find anything on the website about the contents of the questionable e-mail. Call or e-mail customer service and describe the e-mail you received; they'll tell you if it's an official notification or not. Official company e-mail notifications (especially things like changing your passwords or other personal information) should never suggest you follow links in that e-mail; they should always tell you to use your normal method of contacting the company, not that particular e-mail.

Scammers have gotten pretty tricky, and can mock up some seriously authentic-looking stuff. Just be aware, use your common sense, and keep these general guidelines in mind. It'll make life easier for you and everyone in your address book, too.

A Titanic Moment

A deal was struck in the late hours of the day yesterday.  I'll have more details and analysis in the coming days, but the short version is that the government will not shut down in exchange for about $38 billion in cuts.  I have yet to go look at any professional commentary, but my initial reaction is:

Congrats, Republicans, you have done a great job of forcing the Dems to bend to your will on the question of precisely how the Titanic's deck chairs should be arranged.  Well done.  With you representing us, what could go wrong?

Shutdown Showdown Update, Friday Afternoon Edition

This is getting ridiculous.  Let's revisit the list of hysteria-inducing accusations the Democrats have thrown at the GOP in recent days regarding the potential shutdown of the federal government:

- the GOP is engaging in a war on women

- the GOP's actions are equivalent to the bombing of innocent civilians

- the GOP is causing a new civil war

- the GOP is creating a death trap for seniors

- the GOP is creating a tornado through nursing homes

- the GOP's budget plan would starve seniors to death

Now we can add preventing women from getting cancer screenings to the list, though none of these things are remotely true.  Pretty soon we'll see outright accusations of murder.  Oh wait, no, that's already been put out there, too.  In addition to that, DNC operatives are organizing a Facebook effort to have thousands of people dump trash on GOP Minority Leader John Boehner's yard if he holds firm.

And yet...somehow, they still have the gall to accuse the Republican party of being the ones who are extreme.  Um...okay.  

Just remember, in terms of willingness to compromise:

Steny Hoyer stood on the House floor yesterday and blasted the GOP for not "compromising" when they released their first CR with $100 billion in cuts. Then, when that wasn't good enough, they dropped it to $60 billion in cuts. Not we're down to $22 billion in cuts. And the Republicans are the ones unwilling to compromise?

Shockingly, RINO conservative-but-not-really New York Times writer David Brooks actually frames the core issue really, really well:

The best thing about the long-term budget proposal from Paul Ryan, the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee, is that it forces Americans to confront the implications of their choices. If voters want taxes that amount to roughly 18 percent of G.D.P., then they are going to have to accept a government that looks roughly like what Ryan is describing.

The Democrats are on defense because they are unwilling to ask voters to confront the implications of their choices. Democrats seem to believe that most Americans want to preserve the 20th-century welfare state programs. But they are unwilling to ask voters to pay for them, and they are unwilling to describe the tax increases that would be required to cover their exploding future costs.

Raising taxes on the rich will not do it. There aren't enough rich people to generate the tens of trillions of dollars required to pay for Medicare, let alone all the other programs.

He's not happy with the plan at large, of course, but he concludes the article with this:

Ryan has moved us off Unreality Island. He is forcing Americans to confront the implications of their choices. With a few straightforward changes, his budget could be transformed into a politically plausible center-right package that would produce a fiscally sustainable welfare state while addressing the country's structural economic problems. ...

Great journeys begin with one bold step. 

It's a good point, and dead-on, in my opinion.  Right now, we have one political party blindly refusing to leave Unreality Island because it would mean a reduction in their own power...even at the expense of future generations of Americans, including their own children and grandchildren.  The other party has at least stepped off the island and decided to tackle these problems head-on.  When you listen to the ridiculous hyperbole, just remember which party lives where.

As the debate continues, it looks like one of the primary sticking points is the Planned Parenthood funding, which really equates to funding for abortion.  Don't kid yourself...if you don't think Planned Parenthood equals abortion, you don't know Planned Parenthood.  And yes, federal tax dollars are used for abortions.  Exhibit 1:

From 2000 to 2009, Planned Parenthood saw an 80 percent increase in taxpayer funding, receiving $202 million in 2000 and $363 million in 2009.

Let's look at the results: In 2000, Planned Parenthood performed 197,070 abortions while making 2,486 adoption referrals. In 2009, they performed 332,278 abortions and made just 977 adoption referrals.

That means an 80 percent increase in taxpayer funding resulted in a 69 percent increase in the number of abortions and a 61 percent decrease in the number of adoption referrals.

Exhibit 2:

Planned Parenthood performs more than one out of every four abortions in the United States today. Its abortion revenues – based upon figures from its tax returns, annual reports and website – account for more than one third of all its medical services revenues.  In the past decade, increases in government funding of Planned Parenthood have regularly corresponded with its performing increasing numbers of abortions.

Planned Parenthood's stance on abortion is also fairly characterized as aggressive.  A review of every reported lawsuit in which Planned Parenthood has been a party over the last 50 years indicates that they hold legal and cultural opinions on abortion very far removed from what Americans understand to be the "common ground" shared between most pro-life and pro-choice citizens. Planned Parenthood has sued to stop laws securing parents' involvement in their minor girls' abortions, laws requiring full informed consent and waiting periods before abortion, laws banning "intact dilation and extraction" (a.k.a. "partial-birth") abortions, and safety regulations setting time-limits for the use of abortion-inducing drugs. They have also sued to limit the expansion of crisis pregnancy services offering free help to low-income, pregnant women who wish to give birth.

Planned Parenthood officials are even on record attacking the constitutionality of laws banning sex-selection abortion. They also seek to soften or avoid the impact of sex abuse reporting laws applicable to minor girls. ...

Presently, Planned Parenthood is fighting a bill in Illinois which would require its staff and volunteers to be mandatory reporters when they suspect the sexual abuse of minors. Planned Parenthood claims that the bill is unnecessary because medical personnel are already obliged to report; they also wanted to spare the relevant government office from reporting "overload." Interestingly, Planned Parenthood has removed this argument from its own website after various reports about it emerged. ...

There is, finally, recent video evidence that employees at more than a few Planned Parenthood clinics are willing to cooperate with sex-traffickers of minor girls.

It is certain that good-hearted and good-intentioned people work for Planned Parenthood, and it is true that PP provides services other than abortion, but there can be no doubt that abortion is a central aspect of this largely corrupt and immoral organization.  While the Right has long speculated on just how important abortion is to liberals, we now have pretty concrete evidence.  Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid indicated this in a press conference:

Reid said that in addition to agreeing on the spending cut, negotiators had worked out policy disputes, which involve environmental protection, implementing President Barack Obama's health care law, and regulating the Internet.

But Reid said Democrats are holding the line on a plan to cut off Planned Parenthood from federal money.

"That is an issue, as the president said last night, that we are not bending on," Reid said.

Case closed.  The bottom line is that the Democrat party is much more invested in government-funded abortions than in funding the U.S. military.  Pretty telling, don't you think?  Here's an example.  One Democrat Rep was asked by a veteran in a townhall meeting why he was there rather than in Washington DC figuring out a way to fund the troops.  His answer?  Sit down or leave.

Nevertheless, it appears that the negotiations between Reid and Boehner have again stalled out.  As the pressure gets cranked up, even Democrats are pretty disgusted with Obama's complete lack of leadership on the subject:

Obama could have closed the deal in September [when the White House and both houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats].  Instead, Democrats at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue ran away from their responsibilities out of fear of voter backlash if they revealed their true agenda, and in the Senate and the White House, they're still running away.  That may be many things, but leadership it is not.

So, to recap:

1. Democrats failed their Constitutional duty to pass a budget last year while they held control of the White House and both houses of Congress.

2. Republicans won an historic landslide election based on the promise of reigning in spending and controlling the budget.

3. Democrats are now refusing to cut anything out of the government, and fighting to protect funding for Planned Parenthood at the expense of paying the U.S. military while actively engaged in three wars.

4. Democrats' only plan right now is to throw hysterical, nonsensical, idiotic accusations at the GOP; they have nothing else since they are in direct opposition to the American people regarding the GOP plan.

5. Barack Obama has vowed to veto any bill to fund the military if the government shuts down.  But he wants this whole thing to hurry up and finish so he can go on vacation.

But the really interesting question is why.  One suggestion is that he's holding the military hostage for his agenda:

They need to change the message because right now they are losing. ...

Democrats are getting pasted in the budget debate generally. They can't beat the GOP on the argument that cuts are needed. The Democrats have no plan for cutting the deficit, and even liberals are calling Paul Ryan 'courageous.' They can't win, because they simply can't engage on cutting entitlements. So the GOP was winning on budget cutting, winning on the FY 2012 budget, and likely to win on the debt ceiling vote. The Democrats need a way to change the debate. ...

The only way the White House can do that is to get a shutdown. They want to put the blame on the GOP, but even more than that, they want a shutdown. So the argument will be that spending bills start in the House, and the House still hasn't passed anything that can get 60 votes in the Senate. And until they do, the fault for the shutdown lies with the GOP. And, in the meantime, our soldiers are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya and cannot get paid. ...

The Democrats will get their shutdown, and the debate will change to how to get the government open again. And when there is an agreement, Obama will take the credit for bringing the sides together. And he will be the hero.

But remember...the whole reason we're in this situation in the first place is because the Democrats failed to pass a budget last year when they controlled Congress and the White House.

Boehner's right to ask:

"When will the White House and Senate Democrats get serious about cutting spending?".

Clearly, the answer is: not yet, especially if it means reducing abortion funding.

Shutdown Showdown Update

After a day of fearfully anticipating the apocalypse the war on women the bombing of innocent civilians a new civil war the government 'shutdown', where do things stand now?

First off, it's a good thing the Democrats are being completely reasonable about this. Second, even the Chicago Tribune asks Democrats where their plan is:

“Paul Ryan and his allies aren’t waiting for a perfect moment that, in Washington, never comes. On Tuesday, they did what real leaders do. They risked their necks.”

Yep, that's leadership. Something Barack Obama and the Democrats aren't capable of right now. The rhetoric from Democrats becomes more and more obviously empty the longer they refuse to put forward their own alternate plan and instead insist upon a course of action that any reasonable person can plainly see is unsustainable.

So, the shutdown appears to be increasingly likely. Top Democrat Senator Harry Reid is expecting it, anyway. Remember, the Dems refuse to give up abortion and reckless overspending, but the GOP have so far matched their determination. But, in an attempt to buy some more time to protect Americans who would inevitably be harmed by such a shutdown, the GOP-led House passed yet another temporary (1-week) continuing resolution that would do the following:

1. fund governmental operations for 1 more week

2. fund the Department of Defense (including our troops overseas and their families here at home) through September

3. cut another $12 billion

The Democrats' response? Nah:

This bill is a distraction from the real work that would bring us closer to a reasonable compromise for funding the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011 and avert a disruptive Federal Government shutdown that would put the Nation’s economic recovery in jeopardy.

A distraction?! Funding U.S. troops overseas fighting three wars is a distraction?! Never mind the ludicrous assertion that there is any kind of economic recovery going on, or that the White House has done any kind of compromise on the budget.

Then Obama vowed to veto the bill.

And this incredible disregard for the men and women of the armed forces is completely deliberate and intentional. Just because the government shuts down doesn't mean the military can't get paid and their families taken care of. Just ask Bill Clinton, who did precisely that during the mid-90s shutdown. Barack Obama simply doesn't care enough to protect the military and provide for those families, and his disdain for American military power could not be more clear.

The bottom line here is that it is the Republican party that is trying to protect American citizens and members of the military; it is Democrats who have refused to present their own budget plan for the past year, and who have vowed to defeat any efforts to fund the military while the rest of the mess gets sorted out.

As of now, there is no deal, and the shutdown looms just a few hours away.

But, in a sign of their trademark style of 'leadership', the Obamas are really enjoying their vacation in Williamsburg, Virginia.

The Budget Shutdown Showdown

Let's start with an overview, and then we'll dive into the details.

Remember how the Democrats somehow failed to pass a budget last year? The House of Representatives has one Constitutionally mandated responsibility: to pass a budget every year. They failed to do that. I believe they did so deliberately because they didn't want to formalize just how horrendously they were overspending. Also, they knew the new Republican majority in 2011 would move to cut back the growth they have accomplished since 2008, and they wanted to tie the GOP's hands as much as possible.

So, there's been no formal budget for over a year, and normal operations have been funded through several temporary continuing resolutions. The House GOP finally drew a line in the sand and passed a new budget for the remainder of 2011. This was over a month ago, and the House passed it easily. The Senate has not yet taken a vote on it. They don't want to for two reasons. First, they still don't want to formalize their overspending. Second, they know that to lock in a budget with lower spending levels is a direct attack on their power.

Now, the GOP is fighting against yet another CR, and instead pushing for a real budget. The Democrats are doing everything they can to prevent that from happening. The media, being merely a Democrat propaganda machine nowadays, is dutifully pre-reporting that a government 'shutdown' would be akin to nuclear winter, and trying to scare as many people as possible as badly as possible in an attempt to cow the Republicans. One side or the other will have to blink, and only time will tell which side caves in first.

If you don't follow politics, that summary may seem overdramatic or a bit over the top, but I assure you I do not kid nor exaggerate. Take a look at the facts for yourself.

*****

It begins with the GOP budget proposal (called the Path to Prosperity) and its primary architect, economic conservative superstar Paul Ryan. While the big headlines cover the bickering over whether or not to cut $6 billion or $33 billion or $61 billion from the budget, that's really an irrelevant amount of cuts, a drop in the bucket, a piddly trifling amount of savings...and no real change in course. Ryan's proposal, on the other hand, recognizes that fundamental changes -- not just CRs that make slight reductions -- must occur NOW, or permanent damage will be done to this nation. It cuts to the bone, outlining how we can save $6 trillion over the course of the next decade, and balance the budget in a quarter century. The key points are:

- reducing spending

- welfare reform

- health and retirement reform

- tax reform

It won't be pretty, and it won't be easy, but it will put this nation back on the path toward smaller government and true prosperity. There is a load of commentary on the plan (here and here are two good ones), but it seems that much of the Right approves of most of it. The obvious problems are, of course, that we're in such a deep hole that we can't get out of it quickly or easily. For example:

The Democrats have worked indefatigably for a century to destroy the fabric of our free market, liberty seeking society. We will not restore our republic overnight. As such, Paul Ryan’s proposal provides us with the building blocks from which to bring about the restoration of our constitutional government. More importantly, it has spurred a much needed sagacious debate about the best way to fulfill those ideals-a debate that has been suppressed by the Democrat extremists in Washington.

The Democrats can no longer hide the fact that they have no desire to cut one red-cent from their sacrosanct $3.8 trillion annual plunder of the American worker and their $14.2 trillion foreclosure on the next generation. They will fight vociferously to keep every last poverty inducing, market-distorting, and price-hiking program. After all, the future dependency and impending poverty of the American worker is the mother’s milk of Democrats’ perennial power.

Republicans should stick to their guns and build upon Ryan’s innovations. A new pollshows that Americans align with the Tea Party against Congress on all major issues by a 48%-22% margin. There is nothing to fear, as the Tea Party agenda is good politics, and more importantly, good policy. Quite the contrary, it is the Democrats who should fear electoral reprisal. Their extremist policies have killed jobs; reduced income, raised the cost of food, energy, and vital needs; perpetuated poverty and corporate cronyism; depredated our energy productivity; and spawned a virtually immutable debt crisis.

And:

Worse, Paul Ryan’s budget balances in 26 years if and only if the Democrats agree to it. That will never happen. In other words, in the best case scenario Paul Ryan has proposed a budget that may or may not balance in 26 years. That is important not just because Democrats must go along with it, but also because the people projecting all the savings must be right. In the history of our grand Republic, those prognosticators are typically more wrong than right.

So don’t actually believe the budget will balance in 26 years. History is against that. The Democrats are against it too.

Still, it is the first (and only) serious plan to restore America's economic health on the table. One of its key components is to completely defund Obamacare. This statist takeover of the American health care system is one of the linchpins of transforming America into a permanent socialist nation. It is something that Leftist Dems are hyperventilating over, and Righty Tea Partiers (and 2/3 of the rest of the country) are salivating over. They've already passed a repeal of the notorious 1099 provision that would require excessively burdensome tax requirements, and the Path to Prosperity promises much, much more. In short, it's a true game changer, and will put America on a different road than we've been on for decades.

So, where are we today? The GOP has dug its heels in, saying there will be no more short-term continuing resolutions, not even ones that cut spending and debt. Instead, they're insisting on passing Ryan's budget proposal. Democrats have dug their heels in, too, refusing to even agree to a vote, let alone help pass the budget. The current CR runs out at the end of the week, and if new funding has not been put in place by then, a 'shutdown' will occur.

And, if liberals are to be believed, the end of the world will ensue.

But let's live in reality, shall we? First of all, even if the shutdown does occur, it's not like things will actually be 'shut down' for most of the country. How bad will it be? Well, have you ever heard of Easter? Christmas? President's Day? This 'shutdown' will be essentially the same as a federal holiday. There are approximately 3 million federal workers, and over 2 million of them will still be doing their jobs during the 'shutdown'. Those who are told to stay home will almost certainly be paid for their time off once things get back to normal. Congress can pass a budget in a matter of minutes if they're properly incented to do so. It's going to be painful for Americans who depend on the steady paycheck, but that just underscores the urgency of the high-stakes game of chicken both political parties are playing. On the other side is a couple generations of American children who will suffer for our poor political and economic decisions for the past century.

President Obama chastised Congress for the bickering, and suggested it was time to act like 'grown-ups'. Then he spent 3 minutes -- 3 whole minutes -- talking with GOP House Majority Leader John Boehner, pledged to bring together Reps and Dems until they reach some kind of agreement...and then he left town for a re-election meeting in Philadelphia. What fantastic leadership, and the Dems in the Senate seem to be following along. I like this description the best:

Honestly, I don’t know why Obama is running for re-election. He obviously hates the job, and resents the rest of us for expecting him to actually do it.

Sad but true.

Anyway, that's where things stand as of this writing. There's still a bit of time left for a deal to be struck, but it seems unlikely at this point.

Here is Ryan's own summary in a 3-minute video. If you do nothing else, watch this:

Of course, putting America on a path to genuine prosperity means cutting back government power and influence, and that is what liberal Democrats (both in government and out of it, like the media) fear more than anything else. That's why they're so desperate to stop it. Yes, desperate. In fact, if anything, desperate may not cover it - hysteria might be more accurate. Take a look.

The new Democrat National Chairman is calling Ryan's budget proposal a 'death trap' for seniors and a 'tornado through nursing homes'. The top Democrat in the House, Nancy Pelosi, said it would starve seniors to death. And that's just the initial reaction. The bottom line is that a bloated, over-reaching government is precisely what liberal Democrats want, and they'll do anything to achieve and retain it, even if it means demonizing those who are trying to save America's economic future for the children and grandchildren of everyone living today. And in the middle of it all, Democrats have also pledged to go fight to the death if the budget defunds Planned Parenthood.

Oh, and interestingly enough, Leftist unions -- which almost exclusively support Democrats and Democrat agenda -- are actively planning and carrying out a plan to cause as much economic chaos as possible. It's unbelievable stuff, completely shocking. And while FDR himself executed people decades ago for this same sort of economic terrorism, these Leftist union thugs actually have an ally in the White House itself.

If nothing else, this madness is forcing Democrats to go on record on some of the biggest issues of the day, and that's a very, very good thing. If we win...

And that is most certainly possible. Most Americans -- an incredible 57% -- would actually prefer the government shutdown to the continuation of such irresponsible and reckless spending by Congress and the White House. Probably because Americans aren't stupid, and we see things like Fannie and Freddie executives getting millions in bonuses from their buddies in the Obama administration while job losses mount.

You see, the Republicans are on the right side...the side of the American people. The side of American children and grandchildren, who deserve a future as bright as ours was when we were young. Democrats are standing in the way of that bright future, and it will take active involvement by millions of Americans to provide the backbone the GOP will need to stand up to the liberal PR assault, and to wear down those Democrats who may be wavering. There's no reason this can't be a bipartisan victory. Both Republicans and Democrats have a stake in the future, so both should be interested in reviving our economy. Normal, hard-working Americans all across the country realize the situation, and are willing to do what is necessary to make it happen. The question is: what about our elected representatives?

Do your part. Contact your Senators and Rep, and tell them to pass the Path to Prosperity.

Would Taking From The Rich Actually Solve Anything?

Okay, let's dig into the economy. We'll get to the budget battle in Washington soon enough, but we first must dispel the sheer idiocy of the notion that simply equalizing the unequal distribution of wealth in America would 'fix' anything. As usual, Bill Whittle provides a fantastic and illuminating illustration of just how wrong that notion is:

The amount of debt that years and years of irresponsible Congresses led to a $9 trillion debt. Four years of Democrat Congressional leadership and, after Barack Obama was elected President, two years of nothing but liberals in charge has accelerated that debt to a staggering $14 trillion. But, as you can see, even stealing 100% of the wealth from a vast array of both private and corporate 'rich' will barely cover the debt for one year, and there's no way it would provide sustainable economic viability for the future. Remember, you can only steal the wealth from the wealthy once.

Now that we've established the baseline, we'll move on to discussing the battle currently being fought in Washington. Stay tuned, it's a doozy...

Let The Ad Wars Begin!

The first campaign ad of the 2012 campaign was recently released by the Obama administration. Yeah, I know, it's crazy that we're already at that point...but it's the good kind of crazy! The sooner we vote again, the sooner we can actually fix and rebuild what's been broken and destroyed over the past couple of years. Anyway, in this day and age of streaming video, smartphones, and instant broadband Internet via wi-fi, video ads are becoming increasingly important, so let's check out the first one:

Hm. There seems to be something missing from this ad. Something pretty critical to any re-election campaign. You know, like, the candidate...? Why leave out the man who all of these people are going to be working to re-elect? Hmmm...

Also, what moron decided on the campaign name, "It begins with us"? Begins?! What do you call what they've been doing since November 2008? Warming up? (As a matter of fact, yes, I think they probably do - they've been laying as much ground work as possible for a permanent dependent, union-controlled, government-run socialist state, and once that's finished it's just a matter of letting it roll on down the road...!)

Anyway, here's the response:

I like it. It reminds the viewer of the effects of the past couple years, and places the cause squarely where it belongs: Barack Obama and his policies.

Of course, the parodies are never far behind the real thing, and often strike more willingly at the core truth:

Brilliantly done!

Much more on the economy coming up soon. There's a massive battle brewing, and it's one that every American should know about.