Caffeinated Thoughts |
| The Approaching Fiscal Armageddon Posted: 09 Apr 2012 08:04 PM PDT
President Barack Obama recently proposed a new budget of $3.8 trillion, which includes tax increases as well as additional economic stimulus money. The Administration argues that this budget proposal will reduce the deficit by $4 trillion along with starting to put the nation on a path of fiscal restoration, while continuing the economic recovery. President Obama's budget largely reflects his class warfare view of taxation that the wealthy should "pay their fair share" as symbolized by the "Buffet Rule," but it is still unclear what percentage of taxation is considered a "fair share." In a February 14, 2012 editorial, Investor's Business Daily noted that "the proposed new 'Buffet Tax' will hit wealthy Americans with a marginal tax rate of 90 percent or higher." "Tax wise, this is a disastrous budget — one that sets the U.S. on a course for a decade of stagnation, meager job gains, and little or no real income growth," argued Investor's Business Daily. The national debt currently stands at over $15 trillion — and the nation is currently running trillion dollar deficits. Although it has been over 1,000 days since the Congress has passed a budget, it is uncertain that a compromise will occur over a budget because of the stark philosophical differences between Republicans and President Obama and the Democrats. Nevertheless, policymakers must seriously address the fiscal crisis that is facing the nation. The economy is still in a fragile recovery and the economic storm clouds over Europe may cross the Atlantic to create another recession. In order to resolve the fiscal crisis policymakers must reduce spending, and that is the only solution to avoid further economic decline. The economic recovery of the nation will not be helped by the continued policies of the current Administration. The level of debt being accumulated by the United States must be controlled and entitlement programs must be reformed in order to not only preserve them, but also avoid a European-style social welfare collapse. It is clear that in order to not only revive the national economy, but also to avoid a disastrous fiscal crisis, policymakers will have to cut spending. The problem is a spending problem and not a revenue problem. John Hendrickson is a Research Analyst with Public Interest Institute in Mt. Pleasant, IA. Link to this post!        |
| The Battle to Defund Planned Parenthood Among Iowa House Republicans Posted: 09 Apr 2012 06:15 PM PDT  State Representative Kim Pearson at Tea Party Rally in Des Moines last Spring Iowa State Representative Kim Pearson (R-Pleasant Hill) said on her Facebook wall that State Representative Annette Sweeney's (R-Alden) amendment to the Health and Human Services budget bill (HF 2435), entitled the "Whole Woman's Health Funding Priorities Act" (H-8213) will not end taxpayer-funded abortion. She wrote:
Last month I shared the primary text of State Representative Sweeney's amendment:
State Representative Tom Shaw's (R-Laurens) Amendment, H-8402, amends Sweeney's amendment to eliminate public funding of abortion and locations that perform abortions. State Representative Pearson's statement that the Sweeney amendment will not defund abortion is absolutely correct. It wasn't designed to do that nor have the groups, like The FAMiLY Leader who are behind the amendment have promoted it as such. Chuck Hurley of The FAMiLY Leader told Radio Iowa on Friday that the goal is to move money away from Planned Parenthood.
Pearson said that her Facebook message was in response to emails that she had received from constituents and others who falsely believed the Sweeney amendment was going to defund abortion. The money, however, that goes to Planned Parenthood from the state is not used for abortion, but it allows them to divert other funds toward abortion. Pearson also said she didn't know where the false information was coming from and wasn't trying to point fingers at any one group. She said she had doubts that the Sweeney Amendment would be successful in even cutting off Planned Parenthood believing that they would find a way around it. The Sweeney Amendment uses language that passed in nine other states, but with Pearson, Shaw and Massie not backing the amendment and lacking the support of a few moderate Republicans it is doubtful this amendment will even pass the House. While the Shaw amendment will gain the votes of Shaw, Massie and Pearson; it is uncertain what support will be lost and it is likely doomed to failure in the Senate. So we're faced with a similar question faced last year with the debate with the late-term abortion ban. Try to do something incrementally that will, in this case, impact Planned Parenthood's funding in Iowa or essentially doom a bill to failure by adding language that is likely to fail with the current make up of our Senate because it doesn't go far enough? Link to this post!      |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Caffeinated Thoughts To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
If you are interested in generating money from your websites/blogs by popunder advertisments - you can try one of the highest paying companies - Clickadu.
RăspundețiȘtergere