Coming At You: "An Endless Series Of Hobgoblins, Most Of Them Imaginary"

Image via Wikipedia

by Ralph Benko, Contributing Author: As early as tomorrow, and certainly in the next fortnight, the Republican-led House and the Democratic-led Senate is delivering an announcement of their virtuous intention to hit us with a whopping tax increase coupled with patently inauthentic promises of some spending “cuts” someday. The fact that Republicans appear to be planning to connive at class “millionaire tax” warfare makes it worse, not better. It’s not a zero sum game. You don’t raise those at the bottom of society by fleecing those who have earned a place at the top. Jack Kennedy understood. A rising tide lifts all boats.

Big Government has become the grotesque man-devouring giant Gargantua, skewered by Rabelais half a millennium ago. Those who encourage a “shared sacrifices” compromise are “feed the beast” appeasers rather than responsible officials. In all likelihood, however, avowals of the tax-increasers, frightening and irresponsible as they are, are “weapons of mass hysteria,” rather than of mass destruction.

Republican officials who give aid and comfort to the tax collectors thereby conveniently provide confessions in the open court of public opinion of stupidity and dishonor. Thank you. We, the Tea Party, will (again) court martial and purge these from our national legislature.

Once the great goat rodeos and high melodrama (or, perhaps, farce) in which Washington excels die down the most likely result will be… nothing. Washington lives to preserve the status quo. It feels a need to theatricalize preserving that status quo by flamboyant gestures worthy of Tom Sawyer professing determination to mend his rascally ways. Not really. The Christian Science Monitor’s Gail Russell Chaddock shrewdly observes:

If the super committee fails, will there be any real consequences? Or will a future Congress take one look at the draconian automatic cuts set to take hold in 2013 – $600 billion to defense, $600 billion to entitlements – and say, no way. That’s the latest rumor in Washington this week, as the 12-member joint deficit reduction committee struggles to find a $1.2 trillion package of cuts that can pass the panel and the Congress.

So expect some Wagnerian opera from the “Other End” of Pennsylvania Avenue this week. But ... there is another way. Call it “The Pattison Plan.” The late Rep. Ned Pattison used to say “Don’t do something, just stand there!” What does “just standing there” represent? It represents letting the sequester happen: accepting the pre-programmed $1.2 trillion dollar spending cut.

Draconian? The Republicans are having mass hysterics at the prospect of defense cuts even of such modest proportion. The service chiefs, shrewd bureaucrats all, are calling such cuts “catastrophic.”

Catastrophic? $600 billion ... spread over 10 years, amounting to $60 billion a year .... The 2010 military budget, including the wars winding down in Iraq and Afghanistan, (but not including taking good care of our veterans, or maintaining our nuclear weapons arsenal) totaled around $700 billion. So, a $60 billion cut, very roughly speaking, represents something like an 8.5% reduction. A scaleback of this magnitude would leave America with a military budget very slightly smaller than that of the entire rest of the world, friends and foes, combined.

One is reminded of Mencken’s acid observation:

Civilization, in fact, grows more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.

The Washington Post fulminates that “Now it is time for Republicans to untangle themselves from their self-imposed straitjacket of anti-tax pledges and negotiate for the greater good.” Well, their “self-imposed straightjacket” was an unequivocal promise to those who sent them here not to set up permanent troughs from which to feed the voracious, Gargantuan, monster that the federal government has become. Not raising taxes was what they were sent to Washington to do. The Post just calls going native “the greater good.” Sure it’s the greater good for Washington, which gorges at this trough. And which sanctimoniously sticks us with the tab.

Yes, it is bad to borrow from our children to placate this beast’s gluttony. No, it isn’t any more virtuous to tax ourselves — and our prospects of economic recovery — into oblivion instead. What the Post seems incapable of grasping (itself representing Gargantua’s monstrous son, Pantagruel) is that the people of America are tired of insatiable, inept, privileged officials sucking their honest labor dry.

The Post’s way lies madness. As previously observed in this column Peter Drucker nailed it in The Effective Executive: “In every area of effectiveness within an organization, one feeds the opportunities and starves the problem.” Our permanent government is as fixated by the federal deficit as was Ahab by the White Whale.

Obsession comes to similar, tragic, ends. The solution is starving the problem — spending — and feeding the opportunity — instituting growth policies.

Washington again will finish its latest exercise in sound and fury signifying nothing. There’s still time to get down to business: feeding opportunity. If government policy had not strangled growth rates for two generations the U.S. GDP would be north of $20 trillion rather than around $15 trillion.

Each of us, on average, would have an income a third higher, and wealth a third greater, than we do. Federal tax revenues would be a third greater, the deficit non-existent, and the social insurance programs such as Social Security solvent. Cut? Certainly! But cut out of a healthy Engelsian impulse to speed the universally-desired “withering away of the State” – in a context of a thriving economy. The truly critical priority (for those who like Gargantua as well as for those of us who detest him) is to start making up for lost time on that growth.

Bring on the American Economic Miracle! How? One “miracle” was engineered in Germany, in 1948, by Ludwig Erhard; another, in 1958 France, by Jacques Rueff. The miraculous growth of the Reagan era (continuing through and ending with the Clinton administration) was founded in part on strengthening, rather than rubbishing, the dollar.

Reagan and Clinton bequeathed us a clear recipe: low tax rates, sensibly light regulation, liberal trade, work not welfare, and, the currently most neglected element, healthy money. Currency reform, adroitly done, is the common thread of all these economic miracles. Once a Representative comes to the end of histrionics and champions true monetary reform — as Jack Kemp, in his day, championed across-the-board marginal tax rate cuts — the real path to prosperity, on streets paved with gold, beckons.
------------
Ralph Benko is senior advisor, economics, to American Principles in Action’s Gold Standard 2012 Initiative, a lead participant in the Iowa Tea Party’s upcoming Bus Tour.  This article which first appeared in Forbes was submitted to the ARRA News Service editor for reprint by contributing author Ralph Benko.

---

Tags: Ralph Benko, Hobgoblins, taxes, republicans, democrats, tea party, Economic growth policy, gold standard; To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Calling Harry Reid! Small Businesses Waiting On A Senate Vote!

183 House Dems Joined All Republicans In Voting For The Small Company Capital Formation Act Arguing It Would ‘Grow And Create Jobs’

Sens. Toomey And Tester Are Waiting For A Senate Vote“The bipartisan Small Company Capital Formation Act [S. 1544] makes it easier for small startup companies to raise much-needed capital through public offerings… will help entrepreneurs raise more capital and create jobs.” (Sens. Toomey & Tester, Press Release, 9/12/11)

House Voted 421-1 In FavorHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 421 Congressmen, Including 183 Democrats voted for H.R.1070: “The Small Company Capital Formation Act.” (H.R.1070, Roll Call Vote #820, Bill Passed 421-1: R 238-0; D 183-1, 11/2/11)

REP. GARY PETERS (D-MI): “Mr. Speaker, it's clear that we must pass this bipartisan legislation to help our small companies grow and create jobs. I urge adoption of this bill.” (Rep. Peters, Congressional Record, H.7231, 11/2/11)

REP. ANNA ESHOO (D-CA): “I'm proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1070, to raise the regulation offering limit from $5 million to $50 million, once again creating a meaningful offering limit. What better time than now when our economy needs this important boost.” (Rep. Eshoo, Congressional Record, H.7231, 11/2/11)

President Obama Supports The IdeaPRESIDENT OBAMA: “We’re also planning to cut away the red tape that prevents too many rapidly growing startup companies from raising capital and going public.” (President Obama, Address To A Joint Session Of Congress, 9/8/11)

“The President’s jobs plan, specifically crafted to garner quick bipartisan support… This means reducing the disproportionately high costs that smaller companies face when going public, as well as raising the cap on “mini” public offerings (Regulation A) from $5 million to $50 million.” (“The American Jobs Act,” The White House, 9/09/11)

‘Increasing The Ability To Grow Jobs’PENNSYLVANIA JOB CREATOR, JEFF HATFIELD: “Changes to the offering threshold of Regulation A would significantly improve the funding opportunities… increasing the ability to grow jobs…” (Sens. Toomey & Tester, Press Release, 9/12/11)

MONTANA JOB CREATOR, DR. ROBERT BARGATZE: “In addition to the difficult financing landscape and struggling public markets, growing biotech companies also face regulatory burdens which further hinder capital formation in our industry…  Making changes to regulations which unintentionally harm the biotech industry would free companies to focus their efforts on their innovative scientific research rather than complex reporting and compliance.” (Sens. Toomey & Tester, Press Release, 9/12/11)

IT INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION: “CompTIA applauds the House's passage of the Small Company Capital Formation Act of 2011 and urges the Senate to follow suit… This is a clear bipartisan common sense tool that will help make our capital markets more vibrant and competitive at a time when so many small businesses are in need.” (“CompTIA Commends the House on Passage of the Small Business Capital Formation Act of 2011,” Business Wire, 11/3/11)

BIOTECH INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION: “The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) strongly supports the Small Company Capital Formation Act (HR 1070), sponsored by Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ), which passed the House today by a vote of 421-1.” (“BIO Praises Passage Of Small Company Capital Formation Act,” Business Wire, 11/2/11)

‘IPO’s And Hiring Sprees Go Hand In Hand’“Companies use the cash they raise to grow — and that means hiring people. And at a time when 14 million Americans are looking for work and the unemployment rate has been stuck near 9 percent for two years, the last thing the economy needs is for one engine of hiring to stall.” (“The IPO Market, An Engine Of Job Growth, Stalls, The Associated Press, 10/24/11)

“For upstart companies, IPOs and hiring sprees go hand in hand … For profitable businesses, an IPO can also unlock the door to corporate debt markets, another source of cash that helps a company grow.” (“The IPO Market, An Engine Of Job Growth, Stalls, The Associated Press, 10/24/11)

“A recent study by the National Venture Capital Association, a trade group, and IHS Global Insight, an economic forecasting firm, examined companies that went public from 1970 to 2010 and had been backed by venture capital before their IPO. It found that 92 percent of the people hired by those companies over the four decades came on after the IPO.” (“The IPO Market, An Engine Of Job Growth, Stalls, The Associated Press, 10/24/11)

“…Nasdaq OMX, which owns the Nasdaq Stock Market, examined companies that went public from 2001 to 2009 and found that they increased their collective work force by 70 percent.” (“The IPO Market, An Engine Of Job Growth, Stalls, The Associated Press, 10/24/11)

---

Tags: US Senate, small business, Senate, vote, Small Company Capital Formation Act, 2011 To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

A Little Perspective

Lt. Gov. Mark Darr

Arkansas Lt Gov. Mark Darr: Much attention has been given in the press lately to the spate of protests around the country sparked initially in New York by a group calling itself Occupy Wall Street. By their own account, they are protesting against the people they believe are responsible for economic inequality in this country, namely banks, the wealthy and big corporations. At its heart, however, this is mostly a reprise of the same anti-capitalist protest movements we’ve seen in this country for decades. Class warfare is the theme of the protest, attempting to pit one part of society against another.

The group says they are targeting the top 1% of wealth holders in the country. As such, they claim that they represent the other 99%. Though, they don’t represent most of the hard-working Arkansans that I know.

Now, these protesters certainly have a right to demonstrate. That’s one of the great things about our country is that we have the freedom to voice our opinions publicly. As long as the protests remain peaceful, I don’t begrudge them their right to say what they want. A group affiliated with this movement recently demonstrated on a Saturday morning at the Arkansas State Capitol and by all accounts, it was peaceful and orderly.

These protesters have set up tent cities, occupying urban areas as if they are some persecuted group of political refugees. I get that they are trying to make a statement, but this does not seem productive. We have places for tent cities already set aside. They’re called state parks (and aren’t you glad we’ve got ‘em?).

What I think is needed in the debate, however, is some perspective. A picture has been circulating on the internet recently showing the Occupy protesters with the label 1% and impoverished people from a third world country with the label 99%. The point of the picture is that we have people in our country, the greatest country in the world, complaining about seemingly everything, while millions of people the world over have so much less than most people considered poor in the United States.

Consider the following from a recent report from The Heritage Foundation: “Scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, ‘The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.’ In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation. In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.”

On my recent trip to China, we took a train ride for several hundred miles across the country. We saw some very rural, very poor areas, unlike anything I’ve seen in this country.

According to UNICEF, nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or write their names. Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries lack sufficient access to water. Millions of people around the world die every year from illnesses that are readily treatable here in this country.

Our nation is a giving nation, but the foundation of our economy is capitalism, not socialism. Protesting banks and corporations will not create jobs. Sowing division and unrest will not bring an end to the recession. It seems lost on the protesters that the federal government from which they seek solutions is the very entity that has made the problems they cite even worse through bailout after bailout. We need solutions that encourage job creation, not restrictions that hinder businesses and grow government and debt.

We are blessed to live in America. This is the month we celebrate how thankful we are for what we have. Let’s try to keep this all in perspective.

---

Tags: Mark Darr, Lieutenant Governor, Arkansas, perspective, protest, Occupy Wall Street, China,the economy To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Taking Executive Orders Too Far

Editor's Note: The running of this article is not an endorsement of Rep. Ron Paul as a candidate for President. Which can also be said for articles run on occasion by elected and non-elected officials who are also candidates for presidents. Having said the above does not diminish the need to head the words of in Rep. Ron Paul's article on presidential executive orders.

---

Rep. Ron Paul

Representative Ron Paul (R-TX-Dist. 14): These are frustrating times for the President. Having been swept into office with a seemingly strong mandate, he enjoyed a Congress controlled by members of his own party for the first two years of his term. However, midterm elections brought gridlock and a close division of power between the two parties. With a crucial re-election campaign coming up, there is desperation in the president’s desire to "do something" in spite of his severely weakened mandate.

Getting something done is proving to be a monumental task. This may be news to the supposed constitutional scholar who is now our president, but if the political process seems inconvenient to the implementation of his agenda, that is not a flaw in the system. It was designed that way. The drafters of the Constitution intended the default action of government to be inaction. Hopefully, this means actions taken by the government are necessary and proper. If federal laws or executive actions can’t be agreed upon constitutionally- which is to say legally- such laws or actions should be rejected.

The vision of the founders was to set up a government that would remain small and unobtrusive via a system of checks and balances. That it has taken our government so long to get this big speaks well of the original design. The founders also knew the overwhelming nature of governments was to amass power and grow. The Constitution was to serve as the brakes on the freight train of government.

But the Obama administration, like so many administrations in the 20th century, chooses to ignore the Constitution entirely. The increasingly broad use and scope of the Executive Orders is a prime example. Executive Orders are meant to be a way for the president to direct executive agencies on the implementation of congressionally approved legislation. It has become increasingly common for them to be misused in ways that are contradictory to congressional intent, or to bypass Congress altogether in enacting political agendas. The current administration has unabashedly stated that Congress's unwillingness to pass the president's jobs bill means that the president will act unilaterally to enact provisions of it piecemeal through Executive Order. Obama explicitly threatens to bypass Congress, thus aggregating the power to make and enforce laws in the executive. This clearly erodes the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. It brings the modern presidency dangerously close to an elective dictatorship.

Of course, the most dangerous and costly overstepping of executive authority is going to war without a congressional declaration. Congress has been sadly complicit in this usurpation by ceding much of its war-making authority to the executive because it wants to avoid taking responsibility for major war decisions, but that is part of our job in Congress! If the President cannot present to Congress and the people a convincingly strong case for going to war, then perhaps we should keep the nation at peace, rather than risk our men and women's lives for ill-defined reasons!

This administration certainly was not the first to behave in ways that have defied the Constitution to overstep its bounds. Sadly, previous administrations have set precedents that the current administration is only building upon. It is time for Congress to reassert itself and its constitutional role so that future administrations cannot continue on this dangerous path.

---

Tags: POTUS, president, executive orders, Ron Paul, warnings To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Senate Faced With Major Decisions: Do They Support More Gov't Control Or The Rights of A Free People

Today in Washington, D.C. - Nov. 7, 2011
This week the House is not in session. The Senate will reconvene at 2 PM today and be in a period of morning business.

ECONOMIC SNAPSHOT
Current Deficit: $1.234 trillion
Current National Debt: $14.978 trillion
Debt Per Household: $133,006
Debt Per Individual: $47,921
Unemployment Rate: 9%
Consecutive Months of Budget Deficit: 37

Congress's Average approval for early to late October was 12.7% according to RealClearPolitics. Average disapproval was 82.3%. (This was unchanged from last week.)

According to the Economist, 44% of adults say the economy is the most important issue to them - no issue received a higher percentage. 80% say the economy is a “very” important issue to them.

Right Track/Wrong Track: The RealClearPolitics right track average, which covered mid-October to early November was 20.4%. The wrong track average was 73.6%. (Last week’s right track average, which covered mid- to late October, was 19%. The wrong track average was 74.8%.)

At 5:30 PM, the Senate is scheduled to vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 674, the bipartisan, House-passed bill to repeal a requirement that government contractors have 3% of their payments withheld for taxes.

Later in the week, as the deadline approaches for Congress to disapprove of the FCC’s net neutrality regulations, the Senate is expected to consider a resolution of disapproval, S. J. Res. 6. This disapproval is critical. Let your Senator know that they need to vote Yes on this bill to rein back the FCC. More info follows. As explained by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) at Heritage’s Bloggers Briefing, Net Neutrality (FCC) regulations would set up the FCC as the Internet’s “gatekeeper”: many innovations in the way the Internet is accessed and used would have to be approved by the 5-member panel to ensure they would not “discriminate” against certain users. But it is precisely the lack of such government gatekeepers, Hutchison noted, that has spurred the Internet’s tremendous success – including as an engine of economic growth. “There is no need for us to mess around with that kind of success,” she added. “It is a success, and it doesn’t need fixing.”

Detailed background on the advancement of net neutrality has been offered in Phil Kerpen's new book: Democracy Denied. Kerpen details: ". . . in Washington, unfortunately, bad left-wing ideas never seem to die, and with the Obama election, advocates of regulating the Internet in the name of "net neutrality" had an ally all the way to the top. He would not disappoint them.

Obama and his transition team chairman [extreme progressive] John Podeesta hired Michigan law professor Susan Crawford - who openly called for reducing the Internet to a public utility - to oversee the transition at the FCC.

Ms. Crawfords oversaw Obama's selection of a close friend . . . Julius Genachowski, as the FCC's chairman. Obama then hired Crawford as a White house staffer and a member of the National Economic Council. She was the point person in the White house on Internet regulations - his Internet czar. The . . . marching orders from the top were clear: disregard public opinion, common sense, and the intentions of Congress -- and find some way to regulate the Internet in the name of Net neutrality."

On Dec.21, 2010, the FCC voted 3 to 2 to regulate the internet. Seton Motley, president of Less Government called the FCC's action a "worse power grab than ObamaCare." Motley said, "It was done without authority from the People's representatives. In fact, 302 of them (inlcuding more than 80 Democrats) told the FCC not to do it. Then there was the D.C. Circuit Court, which ruled unanimously that the FCC doesn't have the authority. More than 150 organizations, state representatives, and bloggers gave them the anti-Nike "Don't do it." So too did seventeen minority groups (that are usually almost always in Democrat lockstep) and many additional normally Democrat paragons - including several large unions, several racial grievance groups, and an anti-free market environmentalist groups."

In my opinion and the opinion of most Americans, this issue before the Senate is not left verses right (in the traditional sense) or Democrat verses Republican. It is progressive elitist socialism verses the rest of America. Unfortunately, it is within the Democrat Party that this movement is currently operating. But the same dangers could exist in the future with elitists in any political party whom believe they have the need to control the voice of the people.

It is patently obvious that net neutrality will result in reduced access and eventual suppression of freedom of speech. We can ill afford giving up any avenue of free speech which is used by both left and right minded citizens to freely address issues. Free speech is used by Americans to address and even mock actions government officials that walk away from the mainstream of America.

Consider Phil Kerpen's warning, "Once we accept that it's the role of the government to regulate the economics of the Internet and the way traffic is managed on the network, we'll start down a path in which government not only designs and manages but also builds and owns. As taxpayers, we'll pick up the tab of enormous costs of building broadband networks that are regulated so strictly they can't even earn a market return. And the government-owned and -controlled network will almost certainly be subject . . . to pervasive content restrictions."

The Senate is also expected to take up a resolution of disapproval of the EPA’s cross-border air pollution rule, S. J. Res. 27.

This afternoon, the Senate will finally have the opportunity to vote on one of the many jobs bills that have passed the House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis but have so far gone nowhere in the Democrat-run Senate. The bill would repeal a requirement that federal, state, and local governments withhold 3% of any payment to a contractor they do business with for taxes. Instead of investing in their business and hiring workers, these contractors have to send their money to the government, even if they wind up not owing that much in taxes.

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), who is sponsoring the bill in the Senate, explained the reasons for repealing this mandate in the Weekly Republican Address. “[A]ll the mandate will do is, is take more money out of our economy at a time when quite frankly we can least afford it. And as a result, businesses will have less money to hire and pay new workers. The costs of enforcing this unfunded mandate will actually be higher than the revenue it raises by almost eight to one; now only in Washington does this make sense; listen, it’s a job killer.”

This bill received 405 votes in the House, among those 170 Democrats. The Senate version is co-sponsored by a number of Democrats, as well. Further, the White House has signaled its support for this bill, as it was one of the few bipartisan proposals included in President Obama’s recommendation to Congress in September.

This legislation stands in stark contrast to the series of partisan bills Democrats have pushed in the last two months, clearly designed to fail and make a political point. They were stuffed with more temporary stimulus spending that has failed to live up to any of the promises of Democrats about turning the economy around or “saving or creating” jobs. Further, they all included permanent tax hikes in the middle of a recession. They attracted bipartisan opposition and failed.

So what will Democrats do? As Sen. Brown put it, “[T]he decision pretty much rests with Majority Leader Harry Reid. Are we going to do something for the American people, or are we going to let politics win out again? . . . This jobs bill comes at the right time, for the right reasons, and it deserves a prompt vote on the Senate floor, without any gimmicks that will delay or jeopardize passage, so the President can sign it into law right away.”

---

Tags: Washington. D.C., Us Senate, freedom, free speech, FCC, Net Neutrality, taxes To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Measure to Block Internet Regulation Is a Jobs Bill

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)

Lachlan Markay, Heritage Foundation: The Senate is slated to take up a resolution of disapproval next week that would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from regulating the Internet. With the economy still dominating the national political agenda, Senate Republicans are pointing to the measure’s expected impact on job growth.

Net Neutrality regulations, explained Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) at Heritage’s Bloggers Briefing, would set up the FCC as the Internet’s “gatekeeper”: many innovations in the way the Internet is accessed and used would have to be approved by the 5-member panel to ensure they would not “discriminate” against certain users.

But it is precisely the lack of such government gatekeepers, Hutchison noted, that has spurred the Internet’s tremendous success – including as an engine of economic growth. “There is no need for us to mess around with that kind of success,” she added. “It is a success, and it doesn’t need fixing.”

Hutchison couched her resolution as an economic measure: regulation will hold back job growth for America’s high-tech industries. “It’s definitely a jobs proposal,” Hutchison said of her resolution, “and it’s an international competition issue.”

A range of studies have suggested that Net Neutrality regulation could have a devastating impact on the tech sector. Heritage’s James Gattuso detailed some of the adverse economic effects likely to emerge from the FCC’s Internet regulatory scheme:

• By hindering  management of Internet traffic flow, scarce Internet capacity  would be used less efficiently.
• Neutrality regulation would hurt competition. If all providers were forced to act alike, network owners’ ability to distinguish their services from one another-and smaller networks’ abil­ity to challenge established rivals-would be reduced.
• Imposing a new, separate set of rules on the Internet would invite endless uncertainty and litigation. Inevitably, regulators would be drawn into years-long, lobbyist-driven policy quag­mires as to whether this or that action is allowed or banned and what prices can be charged. This would be a bonanza for lobbyists and lawyers but would hurt innovation, investment, and Internet users.

A 2010 study by Jared Faulhaber of UPenn’s Wharton school of business and David Farber, a computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon University, echoed those findings. Their study concluded that Net Neutrality regulations “are not only unnecessary; they would impose significant costs on broadband customers” and are “likely to permanently harm” the technology industry by stifling innovation and restricting new ventures through bureaucratic red tape.

Another 2010 report on the regulations was more explicit about the damage they might do: Net Neutrality could cost the country 500,000 jobs and $80 billion in economic activity.

“Today, according to the FCC, leading mobile carriers invest $20 billion or more each year in new infrastructure, representing 14% of total revenues as recently as 2009,” technology consultant Larry Downes wrote in September.  Like the Internet’s record generally, that is a record of economic success with which Hutchison and other opponents of Internet regulation would rather not tinker.

---

Tags: Us Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, net neutrality, Free Markets, Internet, Heritage Foundation To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

U.S. Debt on Track to Fuel Economic Crisis Like Greece

Greece continues to dominate the headlines as the country faces an increasingly dire economic situation and now political uncertainty as well. Prime Minister George Papandreou plans to resign once an interim government is formed, but there’s no telling if the political leadership will be able to avoid expulsion from the euro zone.

Greece’s troubles might seem a world away from what the United States is experiencing, but a new report and video from the Joint Economic Committee suggest the two countries have troubling similarities. (Click to watch.)

Here’s how Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) put it:

It is tempting for Americans to take comfort in the belief that the size and strength of the U.S. economy will protect us from the consequences now facing Greece, but no nation is exempt from the basic laws of mathematics and economics.  A closer inspection of the Greek crisis suggests that the United States may not be far behind on the road to ruin and we ignore the lessons of Greece at our own peril.

As the above chart from Heritage’s 2011 Budget Chart Book shows, the United States is rapidly increasing its share of publicly held debt as a percentage of the economy. Projections put the United States on a path to reach the same levels as other troubled countries in a matter of years.

---

Tags: budget chart book, Chart of the Week, debt, economy, euro, Greece, Jim Demint, Joint Economic Committee, United States, Robert Bluey, Scribe To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Protester Legitimacy

The below letter to the editor is by Robert "Bob" McDowell, Jr. He is a Professional Engineer and Geologist with over 50 years experience in creating drilling prospects, supervising drilling, well completion, production operation, and pipeline design for oil and gas including repair of problem wells. McDowell is a conservative and active in the Oklahoma Republican Assembly.

---

Bob McDowell

By Bob McDowell: We have been inundated for months now by the various media, and its commentators, with continuing coverage of the often violent taking to the streets of groups of 'protesters' around the World. First it was in Egypt, then Syria, followed by other middle eastern and North African nations. It would appear that these are not spontaneous uprisings, as we are told, but are stirred up, orchestrated, and financed by organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood. Thus they have been successful in overthrowing the existing governments, with some tacit as well as public support from President Obama.

From those successes, these agitators and others of the Socialist / Communist persuasion, the likes of George Soros and his "Moveon.org," have aroused, or sent in paid, agitators to disrupt the normal business activities in our Cities. Media interviews, some live on camera, of the participants have shown them to be totally clueless about why they are there.

Those shown have, for the most part, been young and employed looking for anything to raise an uproar about. From my standpoint is seems that they just do not have enough to keep them busy.  They do seem, however, to be dedicated enough to brave some discomfort and hardship by camping out in and on public property.

Whenever the police move in to stop them from law violations, they immediately raise the cry of "police brutality" and one woman was heard to say on the radio that she was "now totally dedicated to the protest movement."

These activities are in total violation of the law and of normal civility. It seems to be forgotten that the USA was founded on the principal of "the rule of law", where laws are established to be followed, instead of the whims of rulers. The present administration, however, has gone the route of "rulers" instead of following the established law and the provisions made to change improper or undesirable laws.

Those in it are taking advantage of the misuse of the law making duties of past, and present, Congresses that have allowed, and established, departments, agencies, bureaus, and commissions that make rules that then have the effect of laws. Thus one individual, or a small committee, can establish by rule making laws that we must all be subjected to, mostly to the detriment of the Nation and most of us.

The longer that these "protests" and "occupations" are allowed to go on unchecked by the established law enforcement departments the more vocal, and even violent, they are going to become. They are violating the sanctity of property, both public and private, and seem to be behaving much like the trashy hippy movement gatherings of the 1960's. They shout down speakers with whom they disagree and in general are acting like animals. This reminds me of the 'brown shirts' of the beginnings of the Nazi take-over in Germany in the 1930's that led up finally to World War II in Europe and the expansionist activities of Japan in the Pacific rim area.

Like then, these need to be stopped in the beginning. It should be remembered that the Nazi army was under orders, at the invasion of Poland, to terminate and retreat if there was any real military opposition by the allies, but there was none so the invasion continued until full blown war was declared. Dictators cannot be negotiated with because their promises are worthless.

---

Tags: Bob McDowell, Oklahoma, Protester Legitimacy To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

The High Costs of Marriage Absence

Phyllis Schlafly

by Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: Most Americans are unaware that about $700 Billion a year of federal taxpayers' money is handed out to non-taxpayers allegedly below a poverty line (in addition to $250 Billion a year given out by the states). After Barack Obama became President, he increased federal welfare spending by a third because, as he promised during his campaign, he wants to "spread the wealth," knowing that promotes dependence on government and votes for the Democrats.

This federal welfare apparatus consists of 69 means-tested programs: 12 programs providing food, 10 for housing assistance, 10 for social services, 9 for educational assistance, 8 programs giving cash, 8 for vocational training, 7 for medical assistance, 3 for energy and utility assistance, and 2 for child care and child development.

What is now called the hidden welfare state (because so few Americans know about its enormity) is the fastest growing component of government spending, and this does not include Social Security or Medicare payments. The total of these means-tested handouts is greater than what we are paying for our entire public school system and greater than what we are spending on national defense.

We have just learned, for example, that 2.3 million illegal aliens, who worked U.S. jobs in 2010, paid no federal income taxes but collected $4 Billion from the U.S. Treasury in tax credit money.

The number one reason people are below the poverty line is what a group in St. Louis labels "marriage absence," and so has created a new organization called the Center for Marriage Policy to make Missouri a model to deal with this problem. At a conference this October to launch its proposals, its founder David Usher said, "Marriage absence is driving America's greatest problems, including out-of-control spending, much of the home-loan foreclosure crisis, poverty, children who fail in school, lack of health care coverage, and personal bankruptcy."

The institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been fundamental to America ever since the founding of our nation. The famous French commentator Alexis de Toqueville wrote in the mid-19th century: "There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America."

Not only have our laws specifically recognized marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but many laws legislate special benefits. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified more than 1,000 federal laws that are based on the traditional definition of marriage, including the tax laws that permit married couples to file joint income tax returns and Social Security benefits awarded to fulltime homemakers (identified as dependent spouses).

The feminist movement started its attack on traditional marriage with Betty Friedan's 1963 book, which urged wives to leave their homes (called a "comfortable concentration camp"), join the workforce, and become independent of men. "Ozzie and Harriet," a traditional-couple sitcom of the 1950s, became an epithet, and it became de rigueur to speak of different kinds of "families" instead of "family."

Wikipedia now considers the traditional family a relic of the 1950s and defines it as "usually considered conservative or reactionary by its critics who argue that it is limited, outmoded and unproductive in modern Western society."

The first goal of the "women's liberation" movement was unilateral divorce, allowing one spouse (now usually the wife) to terminate a marriage without the consent of the other spouse. This drastic change in our social mores was marketed under the deceitful title "no fault."

Ronald Reagan called his signing of California's "no-fault" divorce the worst mistake he ever made, yet it was imitated by all other states. One of the first goals of the Center for Marriage Policy will be to correct Missouri's divorce law.

The anti-marriage network fanned out in state after state to repeal the laws designed to honor morality and preserve marriage, such as the laws against adultery, fornication, sodomy, alienation of affection, and even the laws that made it the duty of the husband to support his wife and children.

Government's definition of marriage is society's way of establishing the clear responsibility of the father as well as the mother for caring for those little bundles of helpless infants who appear when men and women do what comes naturally. That purpose was ignored by Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.

Beginning with LBJ's War on Poverty and its vast expansion of welfare, the system channeled all welfare money through mothers, making the husband and father irrelevant to the family's economic well-being. It should come as no surprise that this encouraged marriage absence and illegitimacy because, as Ronald Reagan said, if you subsidize something you get more of it.

The temptation to cheat is ever present. The Census Bureau just reported that one quarter of the single moms receiving generous taxpayer cash and benefits actually have a partner living in the house whom she doesn't marry because marriage would cut off her government handouts.

---

Tags: Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum, taxpayers, money, spread the wealth, democrats, marriage, marriage absence, poverty, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

If Israel Strikes . . .

Ken Blackwell, Contributing Author: The headlines are stark indeed. “Israel Readies a Pre-Emptive Strike.” Israeli Prime Minister is said to be working to persuade reluctant members of his coalition Cabinet to go along with such a military option against Islamist Iran. The Huffington Post’s British edition reports Netanyahu saying this:

"One of those regional powers is Iran, which is continuing its efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran would constitute a grave threat to the Middle East and the entire world, and of course it is a direct and grave threat on us." One day later, defence minister Ehud Barak, struck a similar tone."A situation could be created in the Middle East in which Israel must defend its vital interests in an independent fashion, without necessarily having to reply on other forces, regional or otherwise,” he said.

Ehud Barak’s comments are most interesting. He was the Labor Party Prime Minister in 2000 who offered the Palestinians 97% of the territory they claimed as theirs, reserving only those limited regions thought absolutely essential to Israeli security. The Palestinians balked and commenced yet another “intifada”uprising. The leaders of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) then would rather send stone-throwing teenagers to confront armed Israeli soldiers and tanks than engage in serious negotiations for peace.

Ehud Barak could qualify as an Israeli “dove,” but he is first and foremost a soldier and an Israeli patriot. It’s not so surprising that the hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu should be talking of a military strike against Iran.When Ehud Barak joins this conversation, you know it’s serious.

This is a most serious situation. No one knows what might happen if Israel strikes the Iranian nuclear weapons research stations. What is clear is that the efforts of the Obama administration to restrain Iran over the past three year shave been an utter failure.

After extending an “open hand instead of a clenched fist” to the Iranian mullahs, President Obama saw his proffered olive branch stomped into the dust. He even sent Persian New Year greetings to the Iranian people and their dictatorial rulers. When Iranians rose up in the streets following fraudulent elections in June, 2009, the Obama administration weakly claimed it did not want to “interfere” with an internal matter for Iran. The fact that Iran is daily interfering with internal affairs all over the Middle East seemed not to faze this administration.

The Obama administration invested precious time and resources in getting toothless sanctions voted by the UN. Russia and China made sure these sanctions didn’t bite. And Tehran has the active support of Venezuela’s anti-American Hugo Chavez in laundering its petro-dollars. Three U.S. administrations have said that a nuclear Iran is“unacceptable.” But beyond that, they have done little to make it unacceptable.

We in the U.S. are understandably focused on our stricken economy and our presidential elections. Distractions like “Occupy Wall Street” could not come at a better time to keep Americans from thinking long and hard about the gravest danger in the world: A nuclear Iran with intent to use those weapons for terror purposes.

The recent discovery of a bomb plot in Washington, D.C., should sober us all. The Shiite Muslim rulers of Iran were said to be preparing to set off a bomb in the favorite Georgetown restaurant of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. They were more than willing to kill hundreds of innocent Americans in their drive to murder a hated Sunni Muslim foe.

As terrifying as that prospect was, the mullahs’ real purpose in assassinating the Saudi envoy would have been to show us they could as readily place a nuclear weapon in our nation’s capital, raising the death toll from scores of innocents slaughtered to perhaps hundreds of thousands. And a national government crippled.

One thing should be clear: If Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities, it will not be a first strike. Iran has been waging war against Israel for decades. Iran’s Ahmadinejad has announced to the world that Israel will be “wiped off the map.”

Tehran has been arming Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza for years. These cats’ paw terror groups have been doing Iran’s bidding in murdering Israelis, kidnapping their soldiers, and raining rockets down on Israeli settlements.

Israel’s dovish Defense Minister Ehud Barak is giving fair warning to the Obama administration: Israel will act to defend itself whether other powers take part or not.

The right of self-defense is an inalienable right. The reason Israel was created was so that Jews would have a national home and would not have to rely on the kindness of strangers. If Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear weapons program, we cannot say we have not been warned. Not much this administration has done in the Middle East should give Israelis confidence that they can rely on their feckless friends in Washington to support them when push comes to shove.

---

J. Ken Blackwell is a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, member of the Council on Foreign Relations and is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and a visiting professor at Liberty University School of Law.

---

Tags: Ken Blackwell, Israel, Pre-Emptive Strike, self-defense, inalienable right, PLO, Hezbollah, Iran To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Blocked by OccupyDC Protesters

Eliza Vielma: The Occupy DC protesters blocked EVERY door of the
convention center so no one could get out (a clear fire code violation).
This was one blogger, Bill Smith, trying to open the doors.
They kept pushing it back so he couldn't leave.

Bill Smith: Eliza Vielma of AFP Texas took the above photo of me trying to convince OccupyDC protesters to allow several of us to leave the Washington Convention Center (D.C.) via a side entrance. Note that all the doors were blocked by the bodies of protesters. The cameraman with the long hair was also taking pictures but at this point in time, still do not know if he was a friendly or not.

---

Tags: Washington, D.C, AFP Defending the American Dream, Washington Convention Center, D.C., OccupyDC, protesters, doors, photo, Eliza Vielma, Bill Smith To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

An Open Letter to Washington, D.C.'s Mayor Vincent C. Gray

November 5, 2011

Mayor Vincent C. Gray
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 316
Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mayor Gray,

Yesterday and today, Americans For Prosperity, held its annual Defending the American Dream Summit, in Washington, D.C. at the Washington Convention Center. I have been to Washington, D.C. on many occasions in 65 years especially during my 22 years in the military. In the past, I have enjoyed my visits and felt safe. However, on this trip, I must ask what is going on in your city with services to protect individuals including obviously myself?

Having served in the defense of my country, I value the exercise of free speech and all other God given rights of individuals as long as they do not infringe on my rights including my right not to be "falsely imprisoned" by others. Last night, outside of your convention center, there was a group calling itself OccupyDC. They were physically and verbally protesting across the street from our meeting. Initially, they acted civilly; but later members of their group choose to invade our proceeding. Then later a majority of their numbers  choose to physically restrain our freedom to come and to go from the convention center.

While not relevant to my expectations for actions by you or your agencies, it is interesting that event attendees paid for travel, hotel accommodations and for the actual event at the Convention Center thus aiding your economy. We were lawfully advocating for the rights and liberties for all individuals including those assembled across the street. If the protesters had not been co-opted by the agenda of others, we could have shared our agreement with them regarding the massive Federal bailouts of big banks, Wall-Street, and certain corporations. We could have agreed on stopping federal programs that are driving  jobs overseas and thus denying these jobs to Americans.  We could have agreed  on stopping the government programs and agendas that are driving up the cost of education and forcing massive debt on students.  Unfortunately, the OccupyDC members missed a great opportunity when they flagrantly flaunted their words against large numbers of community leaders including many grandparents from across the nation who attended this event to discuss actions to advance the prosperity of future generations including the young protesters.

Returning your area of responsibility, several of the "OccupyDC" individuals invaded our functions and disrupted our events inside of the Washington Convention Center. Then they blocked traffic outside of the convention center and finally aggressively and physically restrained the free movement of people wishing to leave the Convention Center.

Sources revealed that 911 was called several times.  The people who called allegedly were told by the 911 operators that the problem was not theirs to handle or some similar responses and there were even hang-ups on some calls. As Mayor, you are responsible for the protection of people living in and visiting your city. I am asking you to review the 9-11 calls regarding this situations at and surrounding the Washington Convention Center last night. It seems appropriate for you to determine for future safety the appropriateness or lack thereof of any responses by the 9-11 operators.  I would be glad to publish your findings and response.

A major concern is that when I and others tried to depart the Washington Convention Center, the "OccupyDC" members physically blocked the outside of the exit doors with their bodies and would not us depart the Convention Center. At the recommendation of convention internal security, I and several others, including three women from Virginia, went to another set of exit doors on another side of the convention center. Many others were doing likewise. However, these exits were also by the protesters. While police were present in patrol cars on our side of the building, unlike the police on the front doors, none of these police would assist us.

I asked protesters repeatedly to be allowed to leave and even tried to explain to the protesters that they had crossed the line of falsely imprisoning us (as defined at the end of this letter). They continued to block our exits with their bodies and refused to allow us to leave even after the Convention Security insisted that they remove themselves from the doors to allow us to leave. The protesters repeatedly refused.

Most disappointingly, the Washington, D.C. police were outside of the building in their cars observing our situation but they would not assist us. When people sought to leave via doors in another wing of the convention center across the court yard from our doors, the ranks of OccupyDC became confused for a couple minutes as they several rushed to block the other exit doors with their bodies and they mistakenly left one of our doors unblocked. I slipped out with three ladies before they blocked these doors again. Other than shouting, the protesters did not physically assault us.

It was extremely disappointing that your city appeared unprepared. While some police officers were overloaded with responsibility, others on the scene remained in their cars and would not aid us. Maybe there was a good reason they did not but to us - sure would like to know what it was. 

For other readers of this letter and for you review, I have identified below the legal definition of false imprisonment.

In closing, as with any responsible city, the buck stops with the Mayor. Therefore as the Mayor, I would appreciate your review of the 911 responses and the non-response of certain on-site police to assist us. I would be remiss in not thanking those police who did their job at the main entrance or the convention center.

Sincerely,
Dr. Bill Smith (Arkansas)
Editor, ARRA News Service

---

According to US Legal:

"False imprisonment" is the unlawful restraint of a person without consent or legal justification. False imprisonment can be committed by words, acts, or by both[i]. The common law tort of false imprisonment is defined as an unlawful restraint of an individual’s personal liberty or freedom of movement[ii]. In order to constitute the wrong it is not necessary that the individual be actually confined or assaulted[iii].

It is to be noted that, there is no necessity in a false imprisonment case to prove that a person used physical violence or laid hands on another person. It is sufficient to show that at any time or place the person in any manner deprived another person of his/her liberty without sufficient legal authority[iv]. . . .

The principal element of damages in an action for false imprisonment is the loss of freedom. Sometimes, a court also takes into account the fear and nervousness suffered as a result of the detention[x]. The tort of false imprisonment involves an unlawful restraint on freedom of movement or personal liberty. Therefore, two essential elements to constitute false imprisonment are[xi]:

• Detention or restraint against a person’s will
• Unlawfulness of the detention or restraint.

. . . All persons who personally participate or cause an unlawful detention are held to be liable. Similarly, persons other than those who actually cause an imprisonment may be held jointly liable with others, as instigators or participants. . . .

[i] Dietz v. Finlay Fine Jewelry Corp., 754 N.E.2d 958 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
[ii] Pechulis v. City of Chicago, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11856 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 7, 1997).
[iii] Whitman v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 85 Kan. 150 (Kan. 1911).
[iv] Pechulis v. City of Chicago, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11856 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 7, 1997). . . .
[x] Pitts v. State, 51 Ill. Ct. Cl. 29 (Ill. Ct. Cl. 1999).
[xi] Ette v. Linn-Mar Cmty. Sch. Dist., 656 N.W.2d 62 (Iowa 2002). . . .

----------------

---

Tags: Americans for Prosperity, occupy dc, occupydc, Occupy Wall Street, false imprisonment, Washington, D.C. protesters, Vincent Gray To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Obama's Green Giveaway

President Obama spent $535 million of taxpayer stimulus money to prop up Solyndra, a solar panel company run by his political campaign contributors. Even though Department of Energy and White House staffers warned that the company's business model would never work, the loan was rushed out the door anyway. Now that Solyndra has gone belly up, taxpayers are left holding the bill. Learn more at http://americansforprosperity.org/green-energy-scam

Yesterday, a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee voted 14-9 along party lines to authorize subpoenas of top White House officials. GOP lawmakers say the subpoenas are necessary because the White House has denied or delayed requests for thousands of documents related to Solyndra. Today, in a sign of arrogance and opposition to the "People's House," the White House rejected the subpoenas.

Watch Americans For Prosperity TV ad demanding real answers from the White House and sign the petition here: Video / Ad

---

Tags: Barack Obama, Obama administration, Solyndra, green giveaway, video, Americans For Prosperity To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

“Occupy DC” Efforts To Protest AFP Defending the American Dream Summit

Bill Smith: Tonight found myself in the midst of protesting #OccupyDC while attending AFP's Defending the American Dream Summit at the Washington Convention Center. For the most part, was not concerned with the smelly crazies except for their blocking the exits with their bodies when we wished to leave. The Washington, D.C. police were in their cars but not assisting us. Due to some confusion for the #OccupyDC with people leaving by another wing, several rushed to block the other doors with their bodies and mistakenly left a door open. I slipped out with three ladies before they blocked these doors again. Other than shouting, the protesters did not physically assault us. However, a person with a camera taking pictures was intrusive into my and others' personal space. In fact, he was the roughest looking person in the crowd and I am not sure if he was part of their protest.  Tomorrow we begin again with more protests expected.

For insight into the activities of the #OccupyDC activities outside the Convention Center, Robert Stacy McCain has the following story -
#OWS Protesters Attempt to Storm AFP Defending the American Dream Summit
WASHINGTON, D.C. - “Occupy DC” protesters just attempted to force their way into the Washington Convention Center where the Americans for Prosperity Foundation is holding its Ronald Reagan tribute dinner for the “Defending the American Dream Summit.” I was in the middle of the scrum of smelly hippies when they stormed the doors and have multiple photos and video which I’m uploading now.
UPDATE: Smelly hippies chant “We are the 99%” while attempting to force their way into the building:#OWS Protesters Attempt to Storm AFP Defending the American Dream Summit

UPDATE II: A couple of AFP supporters who were attending the dinner and had stepped outside to watch the protesters marching, got caught in the mob when the protesters rushed the doors:

. . . [Full Story with more photos and videos] A final quote from McCain's article: "A Republican consultant (who shall not be named) said: “I’ve never seen so many losers in my life.” Truly, it was LoserFest 2011."

---

Tags: Occupy DC, protesters, AFP, Defending the American Dream, Robert Stacy McCain, videos, pictures To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Democracy Verse A Republic

A.F. "Tony" Bronco:

---

Tags: Libya, Democracy, Republic, United States, Al Qaeda, democracy, Hillary Clinton, Libyan missiles missing, Libyan rebels, Missing missiles in Libya, Obama incompetence, Republic, A.F. Branco, political cartoon To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Union Boss Wants More Violence

Occupy Oakland

Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Just when you think you've seen the worst from the  crowd (think Oakland), along comes Leo Gerard. Gerard was on the Ed Schultz radio show this week offering his advice to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Consider this excerpt:

GERARD: You're damn right Wall Street occupiers speak for us. They do in Pittsburgh, they do in Chicago, they do in Oakland, they do in San Francisco, they do all across the country. And I think what we need is, we need more militancy.

SCHULTZ: What does that mean, more militancy?

GERARD: I think we've got to start a resistance movement. If Wall Street occupation doesn't get the message, I think we've got to start blocking bridges and doing that kind of stuff. …We oughta be doing more than occupying parks. We oughta start occupying bridges. We oughta start occupying the banks' places themselves.

What is going on in Zuccotti Park is too timid for Gerard. Maybe he would prefer to see more cities going up in flames like Oakland. Normally you could dismiss such rantings from an overzealous supporter. But Gerard is not your average left-wing agitator -- he is president of the United Steelworkers union! In other words, he has the muscle to back up his threats.

Meanwhile, speaking in Florida last night, Sarah Palin ripped into the Occupy Wall Street movement with one of the best lines I have heard so far. Palin said, "They say 'Wall Street fat cats got a bailout so now I want one too.' And the correct answer is no one is entitled to a bailout. …The American dream, our foundation, is about work ethic and empowerment, not entitlement."

Palin is right. These so-called "occupiers" have a long list of demands from free housing to debt forgiveness. They want big government to bail them out with your hard-earned tax dollars!

And while they claim to be protesting joblessness, they're not interested in jobs. One conservative group went to the Occupy DC event in Washington and set up a "job booth," featuring dozens of job openings culled from the local papers all paying $40,000 or more. The reaction of the occupiers to these jobs was like a vampire to sunlight. Many indignantly refused to work for defense contractors and financial firms. Not one applied for a single job.
-------------
Gary Bauer is is a conservative family values advocate and serves as president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families.

---

Tags: OWS, Occupy Oakland, Union Boss, violence, Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

White House Reject Subpoena - Vote Pending on FCC's Overreach To Control of Internet

Today in Washington, D.C - Nov. 4, 2011:
Senate will reconvene on Monday. Vote is scheduled on cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 764, the bipartisan, House-passed bill to repeal a requirement that government contractors have 3% of their payments withheld for taxes.

Next week, as the deadline approaches for Congress to disapprove of the FCC’s net neutrality regulations, the Senate is expected to consider a resolution of disapproval, S. J. Res. 6.

Yesterday, Democrats failed to get 60 votes for their $60 billion infrastructure stimulus bill, which included $10 billion for an infrastructure bank and a tax hike on job creators and is opposed by jobs groups. The bill, S. 1769, attracted bipartisan opposition in a 51-49 vote. Following that vote, Democrats voted down a Republican alternative, S. 1786, which was paid for with unspent federal funds and included the REINS Act and other regulatory rollbacks to help employers. The bill failed 47-53. The Senate then voted 96-0 to confirm Scott Skavdahl to be a U.S. District Judge for the District of Wyoming.

The White House has considered itself above the rule of law and accountable to the constitutional oversight of Congress.  In response a subpoena to secure information on the Solyndra scandal, the White House refused compliance. CNN Reports, "The White House counsel refused Friday to comply with a subpoena as issued by a House panel regarding the failed solar energy company Solyndra, saying that the initiative 'was driven more by partisan politics than a legitimate effort to conduct a responsible investigation.'"

The Washington Post writes today, “The Senate shot down another piece of President Obama’s $447 billion jobs bill Thursday, as a stalemated Congress goes through the motions of attempting legislation to spur economic growth largely as a mechanism to allow each party to blame the other for the failure to act. The chamber failed to advance a measure to spend $50 billion on highway, rail, transit and airport improvements and another $10 billion as seed money for an infrastructure bank designed to spark private investment in construction.”

Politico reported yesterday, “The widely anticipated defeat of the Democrats’ Rebuild America Jobs Act, which would have provided $60 billion for transportation infrastructure projects, marked the third blow to President Barack Obama’s jobs agenda. His sweeping $447 billion jobs package was blocked by all Republicans and two Democrats last month, while a smaller piece of that legislation — $35 billion to pay the salaries of teachers, cops and firefighters — suffered the same fate.

Democrats’ latest stimulus bill was more of the same government spending that has failed to improve the economy paired with a job-killing tax hike. As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell explained earlier this week, “There is no denying the fact that the policies of the past two and a half years have made a bad situation worse. For two and a half years, Democrats dominated this town. They got everything they wanted.  And what happened? Unemployment has hovered above eight percent for 32 months. The so-called misery index is the worst it’s been in more than 25 years. Consumer confidence is at levels last seen during the height of the financial crisis. But if there’s one number that really stands out, it’s this: 1.5 million. That’s the number of fewer jobs we now have in this country since the day that President Obama signed his signature ‘jobs bill’ into law. . . . And what Republicans have been saying is that if we truly want to help improve the situation we’re in, if we really want to turn this ship around, then we need to learn from our mistakes and take a different approach. We know what policies haven’t worked. What sense does it make to try those same policies again? None.”

Those facts were only reinforced by today’s jobs report. CNBC writes, “The U.S. jobs market remained stuck in neutral during October, with the economy creating just 80,000 new jobs as the stubbornly high unemployment rate nudged lower. Amid few expectations that the employment picture has improved, government numbers Friday confirmed the obvious: The unemployment rate is stuck at 9.0 percent where it likely will be for many months to come. . . . The so-called real unemployment rate, which counts discouraged and underemployed workers, dropped to 16.2 percent from 16.5 percent. That's the same rate as in August. They were tepid gains, though, for a jobs market that remains a far cry from indicating growth.”

Next week, Senate Democrats will have the opportunity to take ‘yes’ for an answer, and support a bipartisan jobs bill. Instead of advancing the same stimulus spending bills designed for political messaging that attract bipartisan opposition, on Monday, the Senate will vote on a bill to help job creators that has bipartisan support. The bill, which would eliminate a burdensome requirement that government contractors have 3% of their payments withheld for taxes, passed the House with over 400 votes, and has support from President Obama. The bill is being sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA). Will Democrats vote for it or decide again that politics is more important?

---

Tags: Washington, D.C., Us Senate Us House, subpoena, FCC, Internet, jobs To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

One Year Later, Obama Still Isn’t Listening

Phil Kerpen, National Review Online: One of the largest landslide elections in the history of the United States took place one year ago today. Free-market Republicans, riding a wave of public anger at bailouts, stimulus, and big-government programs, swept into power, capturing 63 seats and control of the U.S. House of Representatives, not to mention six U.S. Senate seats and over 675 state-legislative seats all over the country — with control of 21 state legislative chambers shifting to GOP hands. It was a truly historic landslide that the American people rightly expected would put an end to the Obama agenda that had been fundamentally transforming America before our eyes. Politicians and pundits alike looked on in awe. But one man was unconvinced: Barack Obama.

The day after the election, Obama held a press conference to spin the meaning of the historic landslide. He explained: “I think we’d be misreading the election if we thought that the American people want to see us for the next two years relitigate arguments that we had over the last two years.”

Obama’s message: He would push forward undaunted, stretching the limits of federal power into every aspect of our private and commercial lives. Only now, having lost Congress, he would do so by sidestepping Congress and stretching executive authority beyond all limits. Ironically, Obama had been a frequent critic of Bush’s abuses of executive power on the 2008 campaign trail. Consider, from that same day-after press conference, how Obama answered a question about what would happen to cap-and-trade, his signature plan to bankrupt the coal industry and make energy prices skyrocket. This was the day after dozens of House Democrats had been defeated largely because of their support for the bill, which died without even being considered in the Senate. Obama said: “Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end. And I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem.”
Indeed, the EPA has moved forward with a multifaceted regulatory onslaught to accomplish the ends of cap-and-trade by different means. While some of that onslaught has slowed down to dissipate the political consequences of such economically painful policies, several regulations are poised to move forward imminently with devastating effects on energy prices and American competitiveness.

Many other alphabet-soup federal bureaucracies have gotten into the act as well, with the union agenda notoriously moving forward at the NLRB and the FCC poised — unless the Senate can step in and stop them — to begin regulating broadband Internet access later this month for the first time in a decade.

Worst of all, Obama spent much of the past week not using the anniversary of his electoral shellacking to reflect on what the American people actually want, but to push even farther in the direction of larger, more intrusive government.

He announced that he would move forward on the bailout-and-stimulus policies of his failed jobs bill despite the fact that it was rejected even by the Democrat-controlled Senate — and even though the U.S. Constitution is crystal clear that Congress possesses the power of the purse.

His latest mortgage bailout — not dissimilar from the one that inspired the Rick Santelli rant and sparked the tea-party movement — will cost taxpayers at least $600 million and punish bond-market investors. His latest student-loan bailout will provide minimal, largely symbolic relief as an apparent reward to the Occupy Wall Street protest crowd — also at taxpayer expense. Both do violence to our Constitution and to democratic principles.

Obama says: “We can no longer wait for Congress to do its job. So where Congress won’t act, I will.” Obama’s strategy is premised on the assertion that the American people want more government programs, more bailouts, and more stimulus spending — the opposite of what the historic 2010 landslide actually indicated. But stopping Obama’s reckless big-government schemes is precisely what the American people elected this current Congress to do.

It is Obama who insists on disregarding the will of the American people — and the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution — in his effort to keep shoving the country hard to the left. If he persists, 2012 may be an even bigger landslide than 2010 was.
----------
Phil Kerpen is vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity and author of Democracy Denied: How Obama is Ignoring You and Bypassing Congress to Radically Transform America — and How to Stop Him.

---

Tags: Phil Kerpen, AFP, VP, Democracy Denied To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!