Monday, June 20, 2011

OBOF SS & MORE PART 13

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
SS & MORE PART 7
 Apr. 25, 2011
SS & MORE PART 7A     
 Apr. 29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 8
 May 02, 2011
SS & MORE PART 9
 May 09, 2011
SS & MORE PART 10
 May 16, 2011
SS & MORE PART 11
 May 24, 2011
SS & MORE PART 12
 Jun. 06, 2011
SS & MORE PART 13
 Jun. 20, 2011


SOCIAL SECURITY & MORE PART 13
IN  THIS  ISSUE
1.  Opening thoughts - Money giveaway.
2.  This is the most important posting thus far.
3.  Hypocrisy.
4.  Republican Presidential Candidate Debate.
5.  Grover Norquist.
6.  Social Security.

O P E N I N G   T H O U G H T S

WANT TO WIN SOME POCKET CHANGE?  I offer you a challenge.  The third person who writes me a comment about this posting by e-mail, not comment at the end of the posting, but e-mail, I will send you $25.  You will never make $25 easier.  My e-mail address is  fab_80@cox.net 

The fifth person to write will receive $15.  I am sure you realize I will have to have a mailing address in order to send you your money.   Now, as I have said before, I promise you I will not give your e-mail address to anyone.

You don't have to agree with me, but agree or not, tell me why, in as few or as many words as you wish.  I will not list your name, your e-mail address or your mailing address in my posting.

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POSTING THUS FAR

This is the 28th posting, or message, that I have put on this blog, since I started it on Dec. 28, 2010.  What follows is truly historical from the standpoint of SAVING THIS COUNTRY.  Sound ridiculous? Mark my words, the greater portion of everything that happens to our country, in a positive manner from now on, will be because of the actions, now and in the future, of this Senator.  Due to the importance of this development this posting will be lengthy, but I promise you, it will be worth your time.

That's quite a statement and maybe you won't feel about it as I do, but the actions of one United States Senator has caused a crack in the GOP's adhering to a "no new taxes" orthodoxy, which has proven, up to now, to be more powerful, than the desire to balance the budget.

 

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.

 

Now again, having said that, I recognize that there are those in the Republican Party that are sincere thinkers and should be taken seriously.  I think that they do have the best interest of the country at heart.  

 

In my last posting I said that I would do some research regarding Grover Norquist and report more in this posting as to his background and how he has become so powerful to have all Republican legislators, House and Senate, sign a pledge not to raise taxes without corresponding tax cuts.  Thanks to my son, he has researched this for me and has come up with 28 pages about Mr. Norquist.  I will get to that later in this posting.  

 

That pledge is the one thing that is behind all of the stalemate between Congress and the Administration on all fronts of reducing the deficit and raising the Debt ceiling.

 

It is my belief that our country is truly in serious danger, if this pledge continues to control the Republican Party, so that nothing can get accomplished.  That is the reason that I have said that the actions of this one Senator may very well, as things progress, save this country from damage beyond repair.

 

What about this Senator and who is he?  He is Senator Thomas Coburn (R OK).  What has he done that makes me feel this way?  First, and without spending an hour trying to find which one of my postings I reported this, Senator Coburn has been having open words with Grover Norquist for many months about Norquist's rigid position regarding the raising of revenue. 

 

Senator Coburn has been calling for a cancellation of the Ethanol tax credit, which represents $6 billion per year.  This and Senator Coburn's disagreement with Norquist, came to a head starting on 6-14-11 when Senator Coburn, bravely and     successfully, pushed his amendment on Ethanol to a vote in the Senate. 

 

The amendment failed 40 to 59.  But, 34 Senate Republicans voted in favor of the amendment.  This in total defiance of Norquist previous notice that voting for this amendment would be considered a violation of their pledge. 

 

At this point, it should be noted that the amendment failed  by the Democrat vote, supposedly, based on a procedural maneuver that they did not like.  The following is an interview between Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC's "Last Word" show on 6-14-11 and Senator Coburn.

O'Donnell           "Is this vote today a break in the lock that Grover Norquist has had on Republican voting in the Congress on tax issues?"

Coburn               "Well, I think you all overstate the influence Grover Norquist has.  He certainly has some influence.  I think our greater roll is to do what we think is in the best interest of the country right now, given all the problems that are in front of us and I was pleased to see 34 Republicans join with me and say we are going to eliminate all ear marks, not just the appropriation ear marks, but the tax ear marks as well,  and so, if you will remember, the ear mark history came from an amendment I offered on the "Bridge To No Where."  That started the battle and hopefully this will start the battle to end tax ear marks."

O'Donnell           "Senator, I would love to discover that I have over estimated Grover Norquist's power on taxation in this country"  (Coburn interrupts.)

Coburn               "I think you are going to find that out. As we are told to fix the problems of this country, your going to find out that Republicans are going to wind up making the votes that will compromise and solve the problems, because the country has to have it.  We have to abandon Party and we have to do the principle thing, which is, how do we build a compromise that actually solves the problems in front of our country."

O'Donnell           "Grover Norquist has said about you and is prepared to say about other Senators.  About you he said "He lied his way into office." Because you offered an amendment that would close a tax loophole, that was, basically, a corporate tax loophole that, therefore, raised revenue on certain tax returns.  He's obviously going to use that technique on other Senators who are running for reelection.  In the Republican cloak room today, what was the talk about what Grover Norquist"  (Coburn interrupts)

Coburn               "There wasn't any talk!  There wasn't any talk!!  He's not going to do anything.  Between now and the next year, as we go to solve these problems, everybody knows there's going to have to be a compromise on some sort of revenue increases as we make the major cuts.  That's just facts. You can deny it.  Grover's old news.  It doesn't matter what he says, it doesn't matter what he wants, he's old news and we're going to fix the country.  Some of that is going to be revenue increase and that is the only way your going to build a compromise and get it signed by the President.  I understand that and everyone else does.  The fact is most people won't admit it."

O'Donnell           "Senator Coburn, you got 40 votes on the floor, but because you brought it up in a procedurally unusual way, that certain Senators voted the other way because of procedural reasons, not because of the substance of your amendment.  Is it your sense that if you had brought this up in a clean way, so that there was no procedural argument with Harry Reid, about how it was brought up, do you think more Democrats would have joined you with this vote." 

Coburn               "Oh, I think there is no question that we would have had 63 or 64.  But it brings up the question.  The Senate is suppose to be the body where you have the right to amend and we were shut out on the Small Business Innovation bill  and we were going to be shut out on this bill.  So the reason we used cloture to bring in this amendment, which is well within the rule 22 of the Senate, you've been around here, you know those rules."

"The reason we lost votes today was, because the Majority Leader broke arms to make people and they are scrambling to find another way to vote this so they don't look so bad.  So you'll see this vote or  similar vote that will come right back to the Senate in a week or ten days so they have a cover vote so they can say "I voted against this, but I voted for this." 

O'Donnell           "Are you going to continue to bring up other amendments on other vehicles where you think you can?"  ( I could not understand the word O'Donnell used where I have used the word "vehicles."  I have no idea what that means and I am not sure the word was vehicles.)

Coburn               "I am going to continue to bring up amendments that eliminate stupid policies by the Federal Government.  If I can bring up 100 I'll bring them up, because I've got 100 stupid examples." 

O'Donnell           "Senator Coburn, thanks for being with us tonight."           



The  next  development  really  upsets  me.


It turns out that the Democrats were not unhappy about a procedural matter, they were unhappy because the amendment wasn't a Democrat amendment. 

As Senator Coburn said would happen, the amendment came up for a vote again, two days later, on 6-16-11 and passed 73 to 27, again with 33 Republicans voting for the amendment.  What made the difference? 

The difference was that this was a Dianne Feinstein (D CA) amendment with Senator Tom Coburn a co- sponsor.  There is no question, but what the Democratic Senate Leadership got with Coburn and said, in essences, We will see to it that it passes if you will let it be a Democrat amendment. 

Senator Coburn, being the type of man he is and wanting to get the amendment passed, agreed.  It takes a big man to do that and it is shameful for the Democrats to do that.  This is exactly what Senator Coburn said would happen in his interview with Lawrence O'Donnell. 

H Y P O C R I S Y

I had not planned to get into this, but it seems I am going to have to.  I am sure that, by now, most of you are familiar with the Anthony Weiner, (D NY) scandal.  I, in no way shape or form, condone Congressman Weiner's action.  However, in light of the point I want to make, it must be kept in mind that Congressman Weiner never had any physical contact with any of the women involved and never met them face to face.  Also, so far, there is no evidence that he has broken any laws, unless you consider lying and if you consider that breaking the law there will be no congress.

Now, as of June 8 almost all of the leadership and others in the Republican Party have called for his resignation.  They are being very vocal about it.  They carry on about money he has donated to other Democrat candidates, that it is tainted money.  That is so ridiculous.  The money he has given has nothing whatsoever to do with the immoral action he has performed.  Now, whether or not he should resign is not up to me and I am not taking a position on it. 

My concern is the double standard set up by the Republican Party with regard to punishment for sex scandals.  They are even setting this up to hurt the entire Democratic Party.  BUT WHEN IT HAPPENS TO A REPUBLICAN IT IS A DIFFERENT STORY.

That's right, there are four Republican legislators that have done much worse and there has not been a cry for any of them to resign.  The worst example is Senator David Vitter

On Dec.19, 1998 Representative Livingston, who was next in line to be speaker of the House, resigned due to a sex scandal.  At the time, he called for Bill Clinton to also resign.  Since Livingston resigned, the then, Rep. David Vitter became speaker and also called for Clinton to resign.  Later David Vitter became a Senator.

All of this even though he had been exposed as being on the list of a DC madam who ran a prostitution ring.  Senator Vitter was exposed to have had sex with the upscale prostitute and paid money for it. 

He admitted to all this, but did not resign and is now having fundraisers for reelection.  No one in the Republican Party ever called for him to resign.  He actually broke the law by paying for sex to a prostitute and was not even asked to resign.

 Representative Weiner has not broken any laws, has never even met the women involved, face to face, but they are clammering for him to resign.  This simply personifies the many other things that are wrong and threatening to our country by the Republicans.  IT'S ALL WRONG IF ANYONE ELSE DOES IT, BUT IT IS ALRIGHT IF WE DO IT according to the Republican doctrine.  HYPOCRISY AT IT'S HIGHTEST.       

REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
DEBATE JUNE 13, 2011

I did not listen to the Republican Presidential candidates debate on June 13, 2011.  I have listen to a number of accounts relating to the debate. 

Everything that I heard were comments in generic terms.  A lot of it was the usual call for "repeal of Obamacare."  That is what we hear, in some form or other, every week. 

Maybe I have just missed it, but I have never heard any Republican tell specifically what is wrong with Obamacare.  They talk about the 2,700 pages, which I reported about in my last posting, that actually boils down to just 200 pages that refers to health care.  There wasn't one word about Education, Jobs, the Middle Class or any specifics about anything.  The entire debate had one theme and one only, tear down Obama.  

They even all nodded along when one called the Obama administrations "destructive force," and they said nothing when another said the President has "embraced our enemies."  That statement is darn near TREASON.  This shows us what we will be hearing from now to Nov. 2012.  We have to be ready and willing to fight back on stupid stuff like this. 

GROVER  NORQUIST
WHO IS HE ?
WHY HAS HE BEEN SO POWERFUL?

The following is a factual statement of his background. 

Grover G . Norquist, a native of Massachusetts, has been one of  the most effective issues management strategists in Washington for over two decades.

Mr. Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), a taxpayer advocacy group, he founded in 1985 at President Reagan’s request. ATR is a coalition of taxpayer groups, individuals and businesses opposed to higher taxes at the federal, state and local levels. ATR organizes the TAXPAYER PROTECTION PLEDGE, which asks all candidates for federal and state office to commit themselves in writing to oppose all tax increases. In the 112th Congress, 236 House members and 41 Senators have taken the pledge. On the state level, 13 governors and 1249 state legislators have taken the pledge.

Norquist chairs the Washington, DC - based “Wednesday Meeting,” a weekly gathering of more than 150 elected officials, political activists, and movement leaders. The meeting started in 1993 and takes place in ATR's conference room. There are now 61 similar "center-right" meetings in 47 states.

Mr. Norquist also:
  • Serves on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association of America.
  • Serves on the board of directors of the American Conservative Union.
  • Serves on the board of directors of The Nixon Center
  • Serves as a Contributing Editor to the American Spectator Magazine.
  • Serves as president of the American Society of Competitiveness.
  • Authored two books Rock the House and Leave Us Alone – Getting the Government’s Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives
In the past, Mr. Norquist served as:
  • A commissioner on the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce.
  • A commissioner on the National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service.
  • Economist and chief speech-writer, U.S. Chamber of Commerce (1983-1984.)
  • Campaign staff on the 1988, 1992, 1996 Republican Platform Committees.
  • Executive director of the National Taxpayers’ Union.
  • Executive director of the College Republicans
Mr. Norquist holds a Masters of Business Administration and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics, both from Harvard University. He lives in Washington, DC.

MY  THOUGHTS

Well, in view of the above, it's easy to see how he has gained so much power.  There no doubt are times when a strict approach to holding taxes from increases is appropriate.  Such is the case back in 1980s when the rate for the wealthy and corporations was 70%.  Conversely, there are times when increases are appropriate and needed.  Taxes and revenue are not always the same thing.  Revenue can involve matters other than taxes.

The point is YOU JUST CAN'T BE RIGID ABOUT ANYTHING.  Times change and needs change.  You have to be flexible.  This applies to Government or person.  A better way of life is what America is all about.  We all keep saying "I want it better for my kids." 

Government is suppose to do for it's people what they can't do for themselves.   What those things are can be argumentative, but as a nation progresses through it's various stages of development, things that people can't do for themselves also change.  What the needs were in 1960 or 1970 have very little bearing on what our needs are today.  WITH AN OPEN MIND AND FLEXIBILITY ALL THINGS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED.

If we had a little more open mindness and flexibility in Washington, these serious problems we have could be solved much easier.  Senator Coburn says that Norquist is old news.  Seeing what this man has been and is, it took a brave and courageous man to make him "Old News."  Paul Ryan is not the courageous Republican, Senator Thomas Coburn (R OK) is the brave and courageous Republican. 

I'm sure there are thoughts about which I will disagree with Senator Coburn, but whatever they are they will not change my respect for him.  I think he is quite a man.  There are exception to all rules and I have said, in the past, that I would not vote for a Republican.  However,  Senator Coburn is one for which I would consider an exception to my rule.

Norquist must be a brilliant man to have accomplished as much as he has, but I think he needs just two things more to his agenda.  OPEN MIND AND FLEXIBILITY.

S O C I A L  S E CU R I T Y
TWO  IMPORTANT  THINGS  TO  REMEMBER

The horizon is beginning to look like Social Security may be coming to the forefront again with a call for some changes.  We must keep a close eye on the developments.  Things have been real quiet about it for some time.  That's when you have to watch out for a boot to drop on you.  I'll certainly try to do that.  In the meantime keep these thoughts in mind and use them anytime you might get in a conversation about Social Security and entitlements.

1.      SOCIAL SECURITY HAS BEEN, AND IS, A SELF  SUPPORTING PROGRAM.  IT IS THE MOST SUCESSFUL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM THAT  HAS EVER BEEN
PUT IN PLACE
.

2.      GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR
 STEALING THIS $2.6 TRILLION AND SHOULD HAVE TO    REPLACE IT SOME WAY WITHOUT MAKING THE TAXPAYERS PAY AGAIN.  ONE WAY WOULD BE TO TAX THE WEALTHY, WHO GOT A GREAT BENEFIT, FROM THIS $2.6 TRILLION, TO BEGIN WITH.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

Keep in mind that I have some money in my pocket that's burning a hole there and I just got to get it out, so, write me at my e-mail address  fab_80@cox.net

I'll be talking to you again on Tuesday July 5th.

Floyd










Monday, June 6, 2011

OBOF SS & MORE PART 12

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
SS & MORE PART 7
 Apr. 25, 2011
SS & MORE PART 7A     
 Apr. 29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 8
 May 02, 2011
SS & MORE PART 9
 May 09, 2011
SS & MORE PART 10
 May 16, 2011
SS & MORE PART 11
 May 24, 2011
SS & MORE PART 12
 Jun. 06, 2011


SOCIAL SECURITY & MORE PART 12
IN  THIS  ISSUE
1.  Opening thoughts.
2.  Campaign rhetoric.
3.  Educated vote.
4.  Ideology.
5.  Items of interest.

OPENING  THOUGHTS

FRUSTRATION, FRUSTRATION, FRUSTRATION.  That word describes everything I have read and heard during the past two weeks.  It comes from both political parties, from both the House of Representatives and the Senate and from the White House.  Last, and far, far from the least, the citizens of this wonderful country, including me.

During these past two weeks, the only thing that I hear or read is not constructive.  No, no, instead, it always makes points bad about the opposite person or party.  We are certainly into the lying mode again also.  Everyone thinks they have the right answer and everyone else is wrong. 

I saw a rather large sign the other day that said "WAKE UP PEOPLE - - RE-ELECT NO ONE."  I don't subscribe to that thought, but I do think we should "WAKE UP PEOPLE - -ELECT WITH AN EDUCATED VOTE."  For good or bad, that is what I try to do for anyone who takes the time to read my blog.  There is no question, but that I write with a particular viewpoint and there is no question that that viewpoint is not the same as many of you.  I HAVE ASKED, MANY TIMES, FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT TO WRITE ME ABOUT IT.  EITHER AT THE COMMENT SECTION AT THE END OF EACH POSTING OR E-MAIL ME.  I HAVE IN THE PAST AND WILL AGAIN NOW, PROMISE YOU THAT I WLL NOT LET ANYONE HAVE YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS.  SHOULD YOU WISH TO E-MAIL ME, MY E-MAIL ADDRESS IS   fab_80@cox.net    There is a underscore between fab_ 80.

I have in the past and will in the future, try to point out positive and negative aspects of both parties.  At the same time, I will re-affirm that I am a Progressive Democrat, not a far left Progressive, but a Progressive never the less.  As far as my thoughts about the President are concerned, I think history will tell, and I won't be around that long to hear it, but history will tell that he was the strongest and most productive President we have had since F. D. Roosevelt and maybe more than FDR.

Accordingly, I will be putting forth a great deal about his actions including those that are not positive.  I won't, knowingly, print any lies about him or any other person regardless of their party affiliation.  I will be campaigning for the President and all Democrats.  I truly believe, that if the Republicans get control of all of Congress and the White House, we will go back into another crisis just like the one we are now trying to get out of, except, it will be worse and very well could dip into a DEPRESSION.  WE CAN'T LET THAT HAPPEN.

BIAS, BUT FAIR!  THESE ARE MY GROUND RULES FROM NOW UNTIL NOVEMEBER ELECTION IN 2012. 

CAMPAIGN  RHETROIC

Well, there has been a lot of talk now for sometime by Republicans that are going to run for President in 2012 and a lot of them that aren't.  To my way of thinking the only one that, at this point, worth paying attention to is Mitt Romney.  Why?  He has been in this before and really knows what it is all about and he is the only one, so far, who may have the charisma that it takes. 

HOWEVER, having said that, he has started off just like the campaign talk that I absolutely hate.  Why do I hate it?  Because it is just a bunch of words that says nothing.  For example, in his opening remarks announcing his candidacy he said "President Barack Obama has failed the United States and I am the alternative who can fix the nation's ailing economy." 

Now let's take a good look at that statement.  Can anyone tell me what he said that gives us any idea why we should vote for him?  He provided nothing to support his accusation that President Obama has failed the United States.  Anybody can make a statement like that and it has no meaning whatsoever.  That is an example of what I mean when I say make your vote an educated vote.  In addition, he didn't tell us any reason that he is the one that can fix our ailing economy.  He said nothing about how he would do that.  SUCH A STATEMENT IS PLAIN DUMB.

However, the real problem is that Republicans eat it up.  It is up to us Democrats to always point out, whenever we have the opportunity, what these type of statements really are.  They tell us nothing as how he will do, this or that, or why the President has failed the US.

 Frankly, I think that the Republican strategy is going to include anything they can do to get away from people recognizing what Geo. W. Bush did to our country.  We can't let them do that.  Eight years Bush squandered our country and they all think Obama should have completely fixed it in two and half years.  Particularly, when the Republicans have put up so many dubious blocks.

NOW HERE IS ANOTHER DANDY EXAMPLE.  Romney said "If I become president, I will repeal "Obamacare."  My bill (referring to his Massachusetts health care bill) was 70 pages.  His bill is 2,700 pages.  In those 2,630 pages he's doing a lot of stuff that is just devastating to the health care system in this country.  He's wrong."

The following information came from "The Fact Checker" with the Washington Post  6-5-11.

In the study, I referred to above, a number of things came to light.  First, the 2,700 page bill was actually two bills in one.  Due to the Republican filibuster ability, the bill became bulkier and because of the need to settle differences between the Senate and House, it also, added pages. 

Second, the bill included elements that had nothing to do with universal health care, such as an overhaul of student loans and new long-term care legislation.

Michael Cannon, director of health policy at the Cato Institute, provided a consolidated version of the two bills.  In other words this is what the law would have looked like if it had been written in the usual manner.

The bill that related to health care would have been 907 pages.  HOWEVER, when the 907 pages are compared to the same coverage that Romney's pages covered, the count is 200 pages.  Now 200 is more than 70, however, when Romney signed his bill the Boston Globe reported that it was 145 pages long.  It is suggested that maybe Romney was printing on both sides of the paper.  If so, but I doubt it, that would come real close to the 145. 

There are two other things to consider.  First, the Romney bill only covered one state, where "Obamacare", of course, covers the entire country, which, naturally, has to consider more items and conditions than for one state.  Second, there is the question of type size, printing on one or both sides of the paper and, well you can see that just comparing 70 pages to 2,700 pages is certainly giving the voters a wrong impression and actually boils down to not telling the truth, when you act like you are comparing apples to apples, when you really aren't. 

ALL OF THIS IS WHAT I MEAN ABOUT MAKING AN EDUCATED VOTE. 
 
Democrats may very well do the same and if they do I will call them out on it too.  I hope they will stay with facts that make sense.

SO  MANY  THINGS  HINGE  ON
IDEOLOGY

Most, not all, but most of what follows connects to the Republican NO TAX INCREASES IDEOLOGY and one man, Grover Norquist.  Who is this man that has so much power that he can tell Republicans how to vote and they bow and obey?  For one thing he is the founder of "Americans for Tax Reform."  However, there has to be more than that to become so powerful.  In my next posting, in two weeks, I will have researched him and will write more about him. 

Let's look at our present tax load.  We are paying the smallest share of our income for taxes since 1958 according to a USA TODAY analysis.  The total tax burden - for all federal, state and local taxes - dropped to 23.6% of income in the first quarter of this year. 

By contrast we spent roughly 27% for the same taxes in 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s.  This would mean an extra $500 billion annually today.  That would be one third of this years estimated deficit of $1.5 trillion.

Now, if we withdrew the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations and left their tax rate at 35%, instead of the 25%, that the Republicans want, and in accordance with the above, just raise all other American's rate by just 2%, we would still be under the amount of taxes paid in the 1970s. 80s and 90s. Doesn't it make sense to include some tax increase now when dealing with the debt and deficit?

Of course it does, but Norquist has tax increases all tied up with a pledge that all Republican legislators signed, not to increase taxes.  He is even blocking the cancelling of subsidies that should take place, calling it a tax increase.  The only single Republican that has stood up to Norquist, is Senator Tom Coburn (R. OK.). 

It has been said by a number of responsible legislators, that the only way we can bring the budget in balance is to not just consider spending alone, it takes tax increase too.

The above information was obtained from USA TODAY by Dennis Cauchon 5-6-11.

MISC.  ITEMS  OF  INTEREST

The GOP introduced a jobs plan.  It lowered the tax rate for wealthy individuals and corporations to 25% from 35%, as well as, increase domestic-energy production, new curbs on government regulations and an overhaul of U.S. patent and visa systems.  Darned if I can see anything about jobs in that and it is just the same old thinking that Republicans have come up with before.  No new thinking about creating jobs.

The House voted to delay funding for several rules relating to the $600 trillion derivatives market, which is a leading player in the financial crisis.  This bill would freeze crucial regulations stemming from the Dodd-Frank act until Sept. 2012, more than two years after the law was enacted and 14 months after it was suppose to be implemented.  The Dobb-Frank act had a number of regulations that would have the greatest deterrents to future financial crisis like what we have just gone through.  By holding up this funding till Sept. 2012, there may be some developments occur that would make the President look bad and would be bad for the country.  This is the height of hypocrisy.

Enough for this time.  Keep remembering that Social Security is not an entitlement program.  It is an insurance program, which you have paid for.

If the good Lord's willing and the creek don't rise, I'll talk to you again on June 20, 2011.

Floyd

P.S.  Just before I was ready to post this I saw a GOP report in which they refer to a Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll.  It has the American people strongly approving of President Obama's performance at 25% and strongly disapproval at 36% for a total performance index rating of minus -11%. 

Now, the important thing is that just this afternoon I saw another report, and right now I can't find it, showing his overall approval rating at 53%.  I WILL FIND THAT OTHER REPORT AND PROVIDE IT ON JUNE 20.        It just goes to show how meaningless polls are, particularly at 17 months out from an election.