Richard Barnes

A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. – Thomas Jefferson

Email: lildog@comcast.net

Entries in Paul Hodes (7)

Thursday
Sep162010

This is a good thing?

In the feedback to an article on the Nashua Telegraph website this week I found the following user post:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/budget-deficit-in-u-s-narrows-13-to-90-5-billion-on-rising-tax-receipts.html

they won't know - this is neither on Fox or the MSN

"Budget Deficit in U.S. Narrows 13% to $90.5 Billion on Rising Tax Receipts"


If these guys knew this - and understood this - their heads would explode.

Posted by "JanLive", highlighting as posted by user.

Now I read this and thought, something can't be right here.  Last year we had nearly a $1 and a half Trillion deficit and that's far more then 13% difference if it dropped to just $90.5 Billion.  So I, like any thinking person would do, followed the link given and read the article the quote was taken from.  The first thing that jumped out at me was the following quote:

The excess of spending over revenue totaled $90.5 billion last month

Notice the part in bold that wasn't given in the original posters quote from the article.  I looked closer at the details of the article.

The U.S. government posted a smaller budget deficit in August compared with the same month last year, helped by rising tax receipts.

Let me get this straight... we've dropped 13% in deficit comparing this August to August of last year because of more taxes coming into the federal government.  Is this supposed to excite me?  That in a single month we're spending $90.5 billion more then we actually have.  And that the only reason we aren't seeing the debt level climb even higher is because they are taxing along with spending?

Reading on.

The gap for the fiscal year that started in October was $1.26 trillion compared with $1.37 trillion last year at the same time.

The economic recovery has helped generate more tax revenue for the Treasury, even as the Congressional Budget Office forecasts the deficit this fiscal year will reach $1.34 trillion, the second-largest on record.

We're on track to hit the second largest deficit in US history with last years being the largest and somehow Obama should be viewed in positive light here?

Janlive is right about something, my head is about to explode but not because of the reasoning he(she) thinks it would.

When I compare the $1.33 trillion deficit we're looking at this year and the even higher deficit from the year before and I listen to Democrats like Paul Hodes saying without them we'd be "going back" to the Bush levels of deficit spending and I look at the fact that the average deficit under Bush with Republicans in control was $400 billion per year I have to say that yes I would like to see us "go back" to that.  Who in their right mind wouldn't?

Tuesday
Aug032010

What's up with Democrats Lately?

As I've been scanning through letters to the editors I find myself asking the question, what is up with Democrats lately?  It's as if they are totally ignoring what their own party is doing or living in an alternative reality or something.  I wish I could understand their thinking because I find it puzzling.

Here are some examples of what I'm talking about.

The first is a letter to the editor entitled "Republicans  facing a credibility problem".  The first three paragraphs all go on to attack Bush who I agree was a bad president but let's not forget Bush is out of office and isn't running for anything that I'm aware of.

The letter by Stephen D. Clark starts off attacking Bush for his credibility on the war in Iraq, which for the record we are still fighting and Obama has so far stuck to the withdraw plan Bush drafted.  One quick question on this is why if Bush and "rightist supporters" lack such credibility then why did Obama pick General "Betray Us" when he had to replace an existing general?  Patraeus is the same person who left wingers over at MoveOn.org claimed was constantly at war with the facts" in his support of Bush's war.

Stephen then goes on with the following statement:

They say spending is out of control, and only Republicans will bring fiscal responsibility to tame the deficit. We’re expected forget that, before the current economic crisis, three consecutive Republican presidents decreased tax revenue while increasing spending to run up historical deficits. Former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, curbed the deficit.

Fair statement, however Clinton isn't the president nor is he running for president again.  Obama is the president and what we are seeing now with Obama and full Democrat control of both houses is spending at rates far beyond anything we saw under the past three Republican presidents.

His statement also ignores the fact that the budget is created within the house before it makes it the president's desk and much of the time under those three Republican presidents we had Democrats holding the purse strings.

Given the choice of a bad republican who spends $10 billion wastefully or a bad Democrat spending $100 billion wastefully, I'd take the bad republican any day but I'd prefer someone who didn't waste anything.

Also if you look at facts such as voting records, you do stand a much higher chance of seeing a Republican vote for cutting spending then you do a Democrats despite the recent bad habits of the republicans who were voted out of office in 2006 and 2008.

So ok, we have one Democrat who's always writing the paper with left wing slanted letters ignoring Obama's spending while attempting to blast Republicans for it.  Then I get to a comment attacking a young first time voter who came out supporting Frank Guinta for Congress.

The commenter going by the name "Nashuan" claims he was once a libertarian but refused to acknowledge what he considers himself now.  He goes on to claim that Frank's ideas would not pass a "Constitutionality Test" and goes on to quote the ideas listed on Frank's website:

Here is a list of Franks pledges:

Enact a National Spending Cap Constitutional Amendment

Enact a Balanced Budget Amendment

Enact a simplified tax system that scraps the internal revenue code

End the "Stimulus" era of endless bailouts, wasteful spending and government ownership of private industry

Enact a Sunset Clause on all federal legislation

Open Up developing energy resources and removing roadblocks and barriers to resposible energy exploration on our soil and off our shores

Institute a complete audit of all federal agencies and programs to assess their Constitutionality, identify duplication, waste and inefficiencies

Encourage Job Growth through a series of permanent tax cuts and remove over-berdensome regulations

Repeal The Health Care and Education Reconcilliation Act of 2010 and reeplace it with free market solutions

Apply a Constitutionality Test to each bill brought before Congress

I asked Nashuan to explain to me which of those items listed would be bad ideas and why he (or she) thought they would not pass a Constitutionality test but so far the only response I received to the question was "Guinta is a piece of crap".  Typical when you have no real response.

That brings us to the letter I saw printed today, "GOP refuses to credit Obama's accomplishments".  Right from the get go I found myself shaking my head because it is the GOP after all blasting Obama for those "accomplishments".  But it gets better.  Evan Fulmer wrote the following:

Real tax cuts for the middle class, six straight months of job growth, health care reform, real/enforceable regulation on the greed of Wall Street – this is just a small list of promises kept.

So far, the president has made good on 120 campaign promises, according to PolitiFact.com.

PolitiFact.com is owned and operated by the St. Petersburg Times who described themselves in 2004 as "the more liberal voice of Tampa Bay" and who proudly admitted they have never once endorsed a Republican for president in any general election.  Good source of fair and balanced information?

If you want a real laugh go over to PolitiFact.com and read through the list of 120 "accomplishments" that the GOP aren't crediting Obama with.

Get his Daughters a puppy

"The pledge is (Sasha and Malia) will get their dog, win or lose."

There's a major point, how on earth could the GOP not credit Obama for that one?  (Rolls eyes)

Appoint at least one Republican to the cabinet

Interview with Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes": Question: "Will there be Republicans in the Cabinet?" Obama: "Yes." Question: "More than one?" Obama: "You're not getting any more out of me."

 

Wow, one Republican?  Again how can the GOP not grovel and bow before Obama for that accomplishment?

But let's move on to the "accomplishments" that Evan points out that the GOP are refusing to credit Obama with...

"Real tax cuts for the middle class" No one's buying this any more except the extremely gullible. Even Obama himself has said he will be increasing taxes not cutting them. Obama and Democrats have already made the money your company spends on your health insurance taxable as part of your income. That alone is going to increase taxes on nearly everyone. Then there's the expiration of the Bush tax cuts which Democrats spin claiming it's not a tax increase because taxes are going back to what they were before.  Want more then read THIS.

"six straight months of job growth" - Unemployment remains stagnant. Jan to March remained flat at 9.7%, it went up in April to 9.9% then back to 9.7% in may and June came in at 9.5% When you factor in the BILLIONS spent from the stimulus package that created temporary make work summer construction jobs that will eventually dry up you see a major failure, not the "accomplishment" you attempt to claim here.

"health care reform" -As I already pointed out the GOP has done nothing but talked about what Obama did to our health care industry with his "reform".

"real/enforceable regulation on the greed of Wall Street"- Bigger government, higher taxes and government audits of financial companies to assure they have the correct mix of races working there otherwise they'll be punished with fines.  You can read the content of the bill HERE.  Trust me on this one folks, just like the Housing Act of 1993 came back to bite us years later this bill will resurface for years to come and you can book mark this article mark my words because Democrats will turn around and attempt to claim Republicans created the problems just as they did with Bush and the Banking and housing problems that surfaced while he was president ignoring of course that they were being discussed even before Bush took office.

Evan doesn't even stop there though, continuing on with this gem:

We voted for change, and we have gotten a great deal of change – not socialism, not communism, but real action based on the will of the people.

I'm going to ignore the obvious here about Evan apparently not knowing what Socialism and Communism is but the will of the people?  Obama continues to drop every day in favoribility polls and his Health Care Reform is as unpopular as ever.  People wanted change but they didn't want they type of change Obama has forced on them.

But hey, if you agree with Evan and you see what Obama has done as "accomplishments" worth bragging about then I'm sure you'll agree with his last statement:

We need Paul Hodes, Carol Shea-Porter, John Lynch and all other Democrats now more then ever.

Sorry but no thanks, I'll take less government, lower taxes and more personal freedom and if I can't find that I'll at least settled for a lower case 'r' republican.

Friday
Jun182010

Spending, Spending and More Spending

The National Taxpayers Union released their report this month detailing the bill tally of the 111th congress.

Here are the relevant highlights:

Representatives authored 981 bills to raise federal spending and 63 bills to reduce spending. Senators drafted 620 increase bills and 34 savings bills. This comprised the largest number of savings bills introduced in the House since the 105th Congress, and the most in the Senate since the 106th.

FYI, the 106th would have been January 3, 1999 to January 3, 2001 and 105th would be January 3, 1997 to January 3, 1999.

Each bill in the House to cut spending was outnumbered by 16 bills to increase spending. The ratio of increases to cuts was 18:1 in the Senate.

Excluding overlapping legislation, if each bill in the House were to become law, spending would increase by $1.845 trillion, or $15,802 per household. If each bill in the Senate were to become law, spending would increase by $1.064 trillion, $9,115 per household.

Where is this money coming from?  Think about that... if every bill they put up were to pass the average household is in debt for $15,802 for the house bills and $9,115 for the senate bills, that's $24,917 on top of what the government was already spending.

The typical House Democrat backed increases totaling $502.5 billion, 0.46 percent of which would be offset by savings of $2.3 billion, for a net agenda of $500.2 billion. This amount had been gradually declining since the 109th Congress.

FYI, the 109th Congress was January 3, 2005 to January 3, 2007.

Think about this.  $502.5 Billion in new spending is DOWN from the level of spending they were previously pushing for.  What can you say other then WOW!

For the first time since the 106th Congress, the typical House Republican sponsored more spending cuts than increases. If this average spending agenda were enacted, outlays would decrease by $45.3 billion.

106th was January 3, 1999 to January 3, 2001.

What's interesting here is if you look at the chart they provide on THIS page, you can see that Republicans in the 103rd, 104th, 105th, and 106th pushed for more cuts then increases and that Democrats since the 102nd which is as far as the NTU reports have never pushed for more cuts then increases.  The 103rd to 106th span from January 3, 1993 to January 3, 2001 which interestingly corresponds to when the budget was balanced under Clinton.  A feat Democrats are very quick to take credit for, facts however show which party pushed for the cuts and which party at that same time was pushing for a total of $564 Billion in new spending.  The 104th Senate is the only time you see Democrats pushing for more in cuts then spending increases.

Republicans meanwhile on average pushed for a total of $45 billion in cuts on average.

The net agenda of the typical Senate Democrat grew from $59.2 billion in the 110th Congress to $133.7 billion this Congress. On average, Senate Democrats proposed spending cuts of $3.3 billion, which would offset 2.4 percent of their sponsored increases.

Republican Senators, on average, supported spending hikes of $76.3 billion, a third of which would be offset by $25.4 billion in savings. This comprises a net spending agenda of $50.9 billion – the highest amount seen over the past ten Congresses.

Senate is clearly the area both parts need to be changed out.

So how do our New Hampshire elected officials square off?

Only Paul Hodes put up more bills calling for cuts then spending increases.

It's actually Judd Gregg the Republican right now holding the worst record putting up bills calling for $531 billion in new spending offset by only around $4 billion in bills supporting cuts.

Carol Shea Porter is currently our second biggest spender pushing for $160 billion more in spending then in cuts.  Jeanne Shaheen pushed for just $45 billion in spending increases.  Jeanne however put up the fewest bills pushing for spending cuts of all four elected officials, calling for just $705 million in cutting.

 

Wednesday
Jun162010

Numbers Speak for Themselves

I've pointed out several times already that as bad as spending was under Bush it began to increase dramatically after Democrats took control after the 2006 elections and since Obama took over it has turned into a spending frenzy.

In a press release from the Ayotte camp it sums up perfectly just how bad the spending has gotten:

Since Hodes was elected to Congress in 2006, the annual budget has grown from $2.65 trillion to $3.99 trillion, an eye popping 50 percent increase in three years. During his time in office, the annual deficit has gone from $248 billion to $1.56 trillion, a staggering 525 percent increase. And our national debt has climbed from $8.4 trillion to more than $13 trillion.

Hodes and Carol Shea Porter have supported this level of increased spending.  The numbers speak for themselves.

What amazes me the most is Democrats still play the Bush deficit card every chance they get.  That's like a crack head living in an alley and giving sexual favors to support their habit turning to someone who gets falling down drunk on weekends and saying "You've got a problem".

And what are Democrats pushing while Republicans are point out the cold hard truth about their spending?  Playing Mad Libs games on Blue Hampshire.

Tuesday
Jun082010

Where In The World Is Carol Shea Porter

Interesting editorial in today's Union Leader.

Two years ago, Reps. Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes held telephone town hall meetings during the Memorial Day recess. This year they held none, deliberately avoiding interactions with the public.

...

"With images of overheated, finger-waving crowds still seared into their minds from the discontent of last August, many Democrats heeded the advice of party leaders and tried to avoid unscripted question-and-answer sessions. The recommendations were clear: hold events in controlled settings -- a bank or credit union, for example -- or tour local businesses or participate in community service projects."

People of New Hampshire, this is a bloody outrage.

After assuring us that they would be independent voices for New Hampshire down in Washington, Hodes and Shea-Porter have spent the past three years voting as Nancy Pelosi has told them to vote. (According to The Washington Post, Paul Hodes votes with the Democratic majority 95.3 percent of the time, and Shea-Porter does 97.9 percent of the time.)

Considering Carol ran around from town meeting to town meeting when first running for office calling Bass a rubber stamp for Bush despite having a in line voting percentage far less then either Shea-Porter or Hodes and she claimed he never listed to the people, how can she in good faith live with her own actions?

Democrats right now have nothing to run on.  They push a trillion dollar spending plan claiming it would keep unemployment from going past 8%, now we're at 9.9%.  They pushed through a health care plan claiming it would lower costs which we now see is a lie, the plan begins to tax people now but does not offer any services for the first few years giving an impression of a revenue that doesn't exist.

And let's not forget Carol's main campaigning point in 2006 when she first ran for office, she would end Bush's war in Iraq.  Well it's 2010 now and the Democrats who claimed they'd end the war are in full control of both houses (have been since 2006) and control the presidency and we're still in Iraq.  Democrats continue to claim they are removing "Combat troops" but at the same time they are replacing them with "peace keeping troops", do they think people are that stupid to think these are somehow different troops?

Public meetings would allow the same people who believed in Carol and Paul to ask questions which would expose the lies and unfulfilled promises.  The best chance Democrats think they have in the November elections is to hide out and hope they can ride out one more term from the anti Bush wave they captured in 2006 and 2008.