WELCOME TO OPINIONS BASED ON FACTS (OBOF)
Name | Published |
OVERVIEW | Dec. 28, 2010 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 1 | Dec. 30, 2010 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 2 | Jan. 10, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 3 | Jan. 17, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 4 | Jan. 24, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 5 | Jan. 31, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 6 | Feb. 07, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 7 | Feb. 14, 2011 |
SPECIAL ISSUE | Feb. 18, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 8 | Feb. 21, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 9 | Mar. 01, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 10 | Mar. 07, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 1 | Mar. 14, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 1A | Mar. 21, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 2 | Mar. 25, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 3 | Mar. 29, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 4 | Apr. 04, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 5 | Apr. 11, 2011 |
SS & MORE PART 6 | Apr. 18, 2011 |
SOCIAL SECURITY & MORE PART 6
A GOOD TIME TO REMEMBER
DEMOCRACY IS A VERY POOR FORM OF GOVERNMENT, BUT I WOULD REMIND YOU NEVER TO FORGET THAT ALL THE OTHERS ARE SO MUCH WORSE. (Slattery's People TV-1964)
IN THIS ISSUE
1. Introduction
2. Social Security
3. 2012 Fed. Budget (Rep. Plan for Prosperity
Pres. Obama's 2012 Budget)
4. Senator Tom Coburn - - Taxes & Grover Norquist
5. The Tea Party - - What are they about?
6. Oklahoma
I N T R O D U C T I O N
WHAT A WEEK. My head is swimming, trying to sort out what to cover this week. In addition, as you know if you read last week's posting, I made a big mistake and erased 75% of what I had done. Well, we'll get started and see what we come up with.
SOCIAL SECURITY
I think there actually is good news. It isn't what we would like to have happen now, but it may very well lead to what we want.
In view of the give and take to arrive at the 2011 budget, Social Security is off the table for the rest of the 2011 fiscal year. It, of course, is going to BE debated during the development of the 2012 budget, but I think we have good reason to believe that it will not be touched in 2012. Why?
Number one, the Plan for Prosperity, also known as the Ryan plan, will never become law. It won't get passed the Senate and if it did, considering the statement made by the President in his budget speech, it would never be signed by him.
Number two. In the President's speech he made it very clear that the entitlements were not going to be dismantled. He did leave the door open for some reform of the Affordable Care Law.
WHAT SHOULD WE DO NOW
Really, more than ever, we need to 1.) Keep up a campaign to educate the public as to what has happened to the SS Trust Fund. Look back at some of the earlier postings and you'll find all the details. 2.) Keep hitting the fact that it is not an entitlement and why. 3.) Push for the President to appoint a Commission, similar to the one appointed in 1982, to study what should be done in the future relating to making the SS solvent for the next 50 years. If we could get that done, then we would have a specific body to lobby about what we think should be done.
In the meantime, talk, write do anything you can to get the message out. I think the time may come, before long, that we need to write letters again to our legislators. If we get to the point that I think we should or if any of you think we should make a concerted effort to do so, then I will put together another sample letter. We'll wait and see what develops.
2012 BUDGETS
WHAT IS A MANIFESTO?
Dictionary meaning - - A public declaration of policy &
aims.
My meaning - - Rep. Paul Ryan's "Plan for Prosperity" &
President Obama's 2012 Budget.
In my opinion, based on facts, both President Obama's 2012 Budget and Rep. Paul Ryan's "Plan for Prosperity" are true Manifestos. They are not budgets.
They are a statement of aims on which to build a budget. The detailed budget, in both cases, are yet to come. They are starting points. What and when does the next step take place? President Obama has said that they should work towards having a budget by the end of June. That, too, is a goal to try and meet, but, personally, I don't think it'll happen.
RYAN'S "PLAN FOR PROSPERITY"
I've been reading in the press about the "courage" of a Republican budget proposal that abolishes Medicare to pay for more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and slashes investments in energy, education, and infrastructure.
Last Wednesday, I heard President Obama say exactly what I've been thinking. There's nothing courageous about it.
The Republicans are pledging to cut investments to clean energy by 70 percent, education by 25 percent, and transportation by 30 percent. Their plan would see as many as 50 million people lose their health insurance in order to reduce the deficit.
It does away with Medicare, as we know it. Instead, it plans to provide vouchers that can be used to purchase health insurance. The Government would provide a list of certified insurance companies to choose from. Some would be cheaper than others.
If a person chooses a more expensive insurance they would have to pay more out of pocket. If they choose a less expensive insurance they might get a tax refund. That is supposed to be an incentive to buy cheaper insurance. This does nothing towards reducing medical costs.
It simply shifts money by pushing the difference between the size of the vouchers and the real cost of health-care insurance off of the federal books and onto beneficiary budgets. That’s not the market at work, and it’s not cost control. It’s cost shifting. Saving the federal government from bankruptcy by bankrupting millions and millions of families does not solve our fiscal problems.
There is much more and I have read all of it, but these are just some that really hit my hot button.
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S 2012 BUDGET
Keep in mind that this is a manifesto, not a final budget with figures. Eugene Robinson is an Opinion Writer who writes for the Washington
By Eugene Robinson, Thursday, April 14, 8:00 PM
It was refreshing to hear all those unambiguous declarations from President Obama on Wednesday. “I will not” let Medicare become a voucher program or deprive families with disabled children of needed benefits. “We will” reform government health-care programs without disavowing the social compact. “I refuse” to sign another renewal of the Bush tax cuts for millionaires. Republicans “want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that’s paid for by asking 33 seniors each to pay $6,000 more in health costs. . . . And it’s not going to happen as long as I’m president.”
Okay, there weren’t any lines with the simple heat of “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” or the terse power of “Make my day.” But Obama’s budget manifesto represented a significant warming of his usually cool rhetoric. He said he wanted to find common ground but instead devoted much of the speech to drawing lines in the sand.
And thank goodness. If ever there were a time when lines desperately needed to be drawn, it’s now.
Let’s also remember that those tax cuts for the rich were as unjust, outrageous and totally unacceptable last fall as they are today. Which many commentators noted (ahem). Before someone caved to Republican demands and signed legislation extending the millionaires’ tax break for two more years. That someone being Obama.
I want to insert my thoughts, at this point, regarding the President agreeing, last December, to extending the Bush tax cut of the wealthy, for another two years.
When the President did that, he had a good reason and a plan, in my opinion, not based on facts. At the time, if he had not extended those tax cuts he was going to be forced to cancel the tax cuts he had obtained for the Middle class and others.
He simply could not do that, so I think he realized that he would still be the president two years latter, when those Bush cuts would expire, whether he was re-elected or not. At that time, he would just let them expire. There would be nothing the Republicans could do about that. He just wouldn't sign the legislation and let it die on his desk. There would be no opportunity for a veto override.
In his speech last Wednesday, he made my thinking come true. So all of those that have been upset with him about that can now see that he was dumb, like a fox. He knew what he was doing and how he would handle it.
No-tax-hike pledge creates Republican rift, potential roadblock to deficit deal
I have said before, in case some of you missed it, that I am a Democrat. I am not a dyed in the wool extreme left Democrat. I am a Progressive, but again, not an extreme Progressive. I try hard to keep an open mind and look at all sides of an issue. Having said that, I also acknowledge, that I have become very upset, disappointed and, at times, outraged with the Republican Party, especially with the Tea Party Republicans.
At the same time, I have come to find a Republican that I have great respect for. I talked about him two or three issues back, when he talked about Social Security on the floor of the Senate. He is Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
I recently read about Senator Coburn's life. He is quite a man and I believe he truly cares about people. While he is a Republican and a conservative, I think he is a common sense, middle conservative. At any rate, I am sure impressed with him.
Mr. Grover Norquist is an ultra conservative that has been active in many, many conservative organizations and is the founder, in 1985, of Americans For Tax Reform.
The main reason I am including this item, is because of the work that Senator Coburn is doing and the strong stand he is taking. It seems to be along the lines that we should support.
By Peter Wallsten and Lori Montgomery, Friday, April 15, 8:45 AM of the Washington
The rift in the Republican ranks has surfaced in a bitter back-and-forth between two heroes of the conservative movement: Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who has been working with a bipartisan group of senators on a compromise to reduce government borrowing, and Grover Norquist, author of the no-tax-increase pledge that has become a rite of passage for GOP candidates.
At stake is a pillar of Republican orthodoxy that has for decades united every wing of the party in a quest to shrink government’s reach
As the battle over the federal deficit escalates in Washington
Coburn has been the most visible Republican to challenge Norquist, perhaps the country’s most influential anti-tax advocate, but other Republicans have been willing to discuss a budget deal that would include raising more money through taxes, along with making deep spending cuts, to help reduce the deficit.
These include stalwart conservatives such as Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho). And on the ethanol issue, Coburn has drawn support from such conservative-movement fixtures as the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal editorial board.
The tensions between Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform and Coburn’s office have intensified, with each side sending the other terse, accusatory letters claiming to be the true conservatives. Coburn charges that the tax pledge, as interpreted by Norquist, is inflexible, and Coburn’s spokesman now labels Norquist the “chief cleric of sharia tax law.”
“If we don’t do something, what we’ve done is put the country at risk,” Coburn said in an interview. “I agree we ought to cut spending, but will we ever get the spending cut to the level that we need to without some type of compromise."
WE REALLY NEED TO BE CONCERNED
ABOUT
THE TEA PARTY
Three years ago you had never heard the words "Tea Party." When you first heard those words you might have thought it had something to
do with Boston
There have been many attempts by others to start a third party, but none have succeeded. In less than three years, they have become a third party with a fairly large contingence in the House of Representatives.
They have an ultra conservative agenda and it was that agenda which led Republicans to a 63 seat gain in the House. If you think that they are to crazy to win the Senate, as well as the House, you need to think again. They are even trying hard to have a candidate for President.
These are true extremists that have a chance to capture the Senate in 2012. Of the 33 seats in the Senate that are up for grabs in 2012, 23 are Democrats and 2 Independents that vote with Democrats.
I can't go into detail in this issue about their agenda. Suffice it to say now, that they are dangerous to our American way and they are so radical that it is hard to believe. They have a large following and getting larger. They are a threat to our freedom and they talk about simple solutions to complex problems without knowing all the factors that have to be considered. They talk in generic terms.
I heard one of them interviewed the other day. I failed to get his name. Anyway, he voted against the 2011 budget, because it didn't cut $100 billion in spending. He said that was what he campaigned on. He didn't care about what it would do to the country or people. That's an example of the narrow thinking they represent.
They do what my wife told me once to do if I ran for office. She said "Tell them what they want to hear and do what you want to after you get there." I couldn't do that and for other reasons I never ran for office. THE POINT IS THEY WILL SAY ANYTHING NO MATTER HOW OUTRAGOUS IT MAY SOUND AND THERE ARE MANY WHO WILL BUY IT.
The Tea Party boosters, like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Armey and James Dobson all do not care if it is the truth or not. If a little lie along the way will sell it better then who cares about a little lie. As I have just said, there are plenty of people out there that will buy. I will be telling you more about the Tea Party in future issues.
INTERESTING FACTS
ABOUT
The point about this article that grabbed me, was the amount of Federal money that is received in the area and yet the people just don't think what the Federal Government does would have much of an effect on them. I think this is an attitude prevalent all across the nation. The Federal Government is too intrusive, they spend too much money, I don't get anything personally from all they spend and on and on. They simply do not realize all the things they use every day that wouldn't be there, if it wasn't for the Federal Government.
By Michael A. Fletcher, Sunday, April 10, 9:07 PM
As the budget battle moves into its next phase in the coming weeks, he hopes lawmakers will cut the federal budget by much more than the $38 billion trimmed in the current spending plan. The less federal government, he said, the better. “Centralized anything doesn’t really work,” Hager said, adding that he was unperturbed by the prospect of a federal shutdown. “I’m not sure what they do has a big impact on my life.’’
That jaundiced view of the federal government is common here, local leaders say, even though the region’s surging economy is built to a large degree on a foundation of federal spending. About 7 percent of the area’s workers are federal employees, more than double the U.S. average, according to a Washington
Meanwhile, federal spending on roads, a huge Federal Aviation Administration center and a sprawling Air Force base not only keeps more than 20,000 civilians employed but also is helping to nurture entire sectors of the area’s increasingly prosperous and diverse economy.
Overall, the state gets back $1.35 for every dollar its residents and businesses pay in federal taxes, according to the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax research group. That’s the 15th most generous return among the 50 states.
“There is no question that government jobs are great ones to have in a community,” Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett said. “They are stable, people have benefits, and there is little turnover. Losing a lot of them would hurt.
Cornett said that as federal lawmakers went back and forth in budget negotiations with a possible federal shutdown hanging in the balance, he never heard anyone talk about it. “I think the sense was that it would not affect them at all,” he said. Yet Cornett acknowledged the crucial federal role in the region’s growth, even if many voters do not see it
Oklahoma City’s image may be steeped in independence and energy, symbolized by the working oil wells that surround the state Capitol. Yet one of the fastest-growing sectors of the local economy is the aviation industry, which economists call an outgrowth of the work done at two large federal outposts: Tinker Air Force Base, which employees 14,400 civilians, and the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center
In addition, the city’s standing as a major transportation hub is due in no small part to its location as a crossroads for three major interstate highways, which were built with federal money. Currently, the city is rerouting a section of Interstate 40, opening up 750 acres of land for new development and a planned park — work being done with federal help. And the state’s booming energy sector as well as many of its farmers benefit mightily from federal subsidy
What a tremendous job it is to get people to see how much they personally get every day from Federal Government expenditures. We must try to help them see it every chance we get. One of the biggest federal expenditures that people use every day, is our highways. I wonder how they think those highways get there. They don't just drop out of the sky.
THIS MADE MY DAY
I am so proud of the President. I know he had not intended for his comment to be heard, but I'm glad it was. Good backbone.
QUOTE OF THE DAY
President Barack Obama had some of his comments caught in an open mic at a closed-door fundraiser in Chicago:
"I said, 'You want to repeal health care? Go at it. We'll have that debate. You're not going to be able to do that by nickel-and-diming me in the budget. You think we're stupid?"
See you next week.
Floyd
Floyd you did great this week, You have been vindicated for last week
ReplyDeleteHowell