A Pissed America

I know my article might not get too many views, but I really need to get this off my chest.

America is pissed and will likely do nothing about it. That's not to say some will want to make changes, but for the most part, the people are an empathetic and forgiving lot.

If the people are truly pissed that Congress has held the public hostage, then they would remember come election time and vote out those that refused to pass a "clean Bill" to end the shutdown and a "clean Bill" to raise the debt ceiling. It seems today that every bill has attachments clinging to them that help only those constituents of the proposing members of Congress.

Cuts to Social Security, Medicare, education, especially Head Start, defunding the Affordable Care Act that has already been made law, non-creation of jobs, cuts to the military and so on and so on. All of these and more to be held hostage and over the President's head is what a small but lethal group of politicians are doing. They say they have our best interest at heart, but yet Americans are pissed.

According to a "Public Policy Poll" and paid for by MoveOn.org, Republicans could be in trouble.

Polling in the districts, conducted by the liberal-leaning Public Policy Polling and paid for by MoveOn.org, follows similar polling that found voters hostile to lawmakers supporting the shutdown.

Democrats need a net increase of 17 seats to retake control of the lower chamber, and the prior polling found 17 Republicans trailing generic Democratic opponents before voters were told they had supported the shutdown. After they were told -- which a Democratic challenger would waste no time doing while campaigning -- another four Republicans fell behind.

In the latest survey, based on a dozen Republicans, five trail Democrats and another is tied. Once voters were told the Republican supported the shutdown, another three fell behind the Democrat.

Of the 36 Republican-controlled districts where voters were surveyed by PPP, 29 of them could flip -- more than enough to give control of the chamber to Democrats.

But will America really remember in 2014 or are the Republicans counting on America to be malaise about the recent past of 2013. After all, aren't we a forgiving nation? Did we learn our lesson in 2007? I think not! We should stand up and elect the person with the least "deep" pockets, and elect business people that will run our country like a business and not by a bunch of spoiled, entitled brats.

Created by Geniuses and run by Idiots

* If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally . . . you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

* If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion . . . you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

* If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book, but not to vote who runs the government . . . you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

* If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt . . . you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

* If, in the largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat . . . you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

* If an 80-year-old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched . . . you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

* If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more . . . you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

* If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable . . . you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

* If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested “homes”. . . you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

* If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing, and free cell phones . . . you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

* If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is incentive to NOT working with 99 weeks of Unemployment checks and no requirement to prove they applied but can’t find work . . . you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

* If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor buys iPhones, TV’s and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage . . . you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

* If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more “safe” according to the government . . . you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

What a country!

In Case You Didn't Know

Middle Class families are in for a big shock if the "Sequester" goes through March 1st. The impact of the Sequester will be felt by hundreds of thousands of middle class families in job cuts, cuts to vital services for children and seniors and most of all our military troops around the world.

Yes it's true, we need to cut the deficit, but it needs to be done in a responsible fashion and a balanced way that protects investments that the middle class relies on. Congress, in it's infamous dereliction of their elected duties, are playing a dangerous political maneuvering game that could result in a crippling economy and hundreds of thousands of job losses. 

Here are just a few of the consequences of the sequester:

Cuts to education by eliminating funds for the Head Start program that would cause 70,000 young children to lose access to Head Start and 10,000 teacher jobs would be cut. 

Small business would lose out as automatic cuts to loans guarantees would be reduced by approximately $900 million.

If sequestration takes effect, up to 2,100 fewer food inspectors could occur putting families at risk of outbreaks of foodborne illnesses creating a serious threat to public health.

The FBI and other law enforcement agencies would lose up 1,000 Federal agents which would greatly impact violent crimes, financial crimes and security of our borders and the protection of national security.

Veterans services would be cut by the reduction of staff, leaving 150,000 veterans a year without transitioning services as they move from active to private life. It would also reduce the capacity to serve tens of thousands of veterans assistance to find civilian work.

Many of the 398 National parks would either be closed or have shortened operating hours. There would be reduce maintenance and visitor services would be cut. As a result, surrounding small businesses and regional economies would suffer greatly.

Title I education funds would be eliminated for more than 2,700 schools and 1.2 million disadvantaged students. 10,000 teachers and aides would also feel the impact as they would be at risk of losing their jobs.

Federally assisted "Meals On Wheels" programs would be affected as there would be a reduction of 4 million fewer meals to seniors unable to get out on their own and prepare their own meals.

Approximately 600,000 women and children would be dropped form the Department of Agriculture's Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program from March through September. And again, job losses could amount to at least 1,600.

More than 100,000 formerly homeless people, including veterans, would lose their current housing and emergency shelter programs.

Emergency unemployment compensation would be cut by nearly 11% causing a reduction of nearly $450 in benefits that families count on while they search for employment and smaller unemployment checks will also have a negative impact on the local economies. 

These are certainly just a handful of sober impacts the sequester will have across the country and in many cases world wide if we include the cuts to military spending. Allowing the sequester to happen on March 1st. is a self-inflicted would the United States may not recover from. The sad thing is the Congress has known about the deadline since it's inception and once again it comes down to the last minute, but will anything really get done this time or is the US simply going to limp along with a severe affect in the economy.

Romney Accuses Obama of hiding Agenda

WASHINGTON—Mitt Romney, fresh off of three momentum-building wins in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, accused President Barack Obama on Wednesday of "rhetorical excess" and of muddling his second-term agenda in order to win re-election.

"He wants us to reelect him so we can find out what he will actually do," Mr. Romney told a gathering of newspaper reporters and editors at a Washington hotel. "With all the challenges the nation faces, this is not the time for President Obama's hide-and-seek campaign."

The former Massachusetts governor leveled his latest charges at the president from the stage where Mr. Obama slammed the GOP front-runner a day earlier for supporting a Republican budget blueprint that he called a "radical vision" and "thinly veiled social Darwinism."

Election 2012

• Romney Rolls Up Three Wins
• Santorum Prepares for Last Stand
• Obama Blasts 'Trojan Horse' GOP Plan

The back-and-forth comes as the president and Mr. Romney engage more directly ahead of an expected match-up in the general election, and amid signs that Mr. Romney has opened a nearly insurmountable lead in the GOP contest. Mr. Romney was addressing the Newspaper Association of America the day after his sweep of Maryland, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.

Mr. Romney draw new battle lines with the president by expanding on earlier criticism of Mr. Obama that came after the president was heard on a live microphone asking his Russian counterpart for more time and flexibility to negotiate a nuclear-arms treaty between the two countries.

"He is intent on hiding," Mr. Romney, seeking to extend the significance of the president's remark to areas beyond foreign policy. "You and I will have to do the seeking."

While Mr. Obama remains personally popular, Mr. Romney is seeking to raising doubts about the president's character. Such doubts have been less prominent in the primary campaign, with candidates instead unleashing repeated broadsides against unpopular policy measures, including the economic recovery package and the new health-care law.

Mr. Romney accused the president of shifting positions to curry favor with voters ahead of the election, saying that "Candidate Obama" has "experienced a series of election-year conversions." As evidence, he cited Mr. Obama's recent calls to lower corporate tax rates, reduce regulations and develop more domestic oil, coal and natural gas.

The Obama campaign quickly turned the obfuscation charge back on Mr. Romney.

"From completely rewriting his record of more debt, more spending, fewer jobs and bigger government in Massachusetts to misleading on the President's record of promoting economic security for the middle class, there was very little in Mitt Romney's speech today that bore any resemblance to reality," said Lis Smith, an Obama campaign spokeswoman.

Mr. Romney also blasted the president for, in his words, mischaracterizing the House-passed Republican budget, which seeks deep cuts in agency spending and proposes a revamp of Medicare for future retirees.

"President Obama came here yesterday and railed against arguments no one is making, and criticized policies no one is proposing," he said. "It's one of his favorite strategies—setting up straw men to distract from his record."

The president and Mr. Romney are both painting the race as a contest between two starkly different visions for the country. Mr. Obama criticizes Republicans for offering what are, in his view, draconian cuts to social safety nets while protecting tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans, in turn, criticize the president for failing to bolster employment while piling debt on an already fragile economy.

"The November election will have particular consequence," Mr. Romney said Wednesday. "It will be a defining event."

He used the rest of his speech to deliver familiar criticism of the president's stimulus plan, the new health-care law and his attacks on over-regulation.

Mr. Romney largely steered clear of his remaining rivals for the Republican presidential nomination. His only mention of the primary came in response to a question from the moderator of the event about whether he had asked any of his GOP opponents to exit the race.

"I hope that we're able to resolve our nomination process as soon as possible, of course, because I'd like to focus our time and attention on those key battleground states and raising the funds to be somewhat competitive with the president and his billion-dollar quest," Mr. Romney said. "We have a real challenging road ahead of us, but I believe we will rise to the occasion."

Mr. Romney also offered a pointed critique of the news business for trading speed and frivolity for substance and responsibility.

"In 2008, the coverage was about what I said in my speech," Mr. Romney said, referring to his initial White House bid. "These days, it's about what brand of jeans I am wearing and what I ate for lunch."

He added, "I find myself missing the presence of editors to exercise quality control. I miss the days of two or more sources for a story."

Write to Patrick O'Connor at patrick.oconnor@wsj.com

The Tea Party Making All The Right Moves?

Well, it didn’t take long for the Tea Party to wilt under the Special Interest Political pressure. All the promises of “fixing a broken Washington” has not become a “moot” point to 12 freshman congressional members who, during their first campaigns said there needed to be a “new” spirit in Washington, one that wouldn’t buckle to special interest groups and would keep their political interest with the needs of the people who elected them.


"Book your Key Largo getaway now," reads the invitation, obtained by CBS News. The hosts are veteran congressmen Spencer Bachus, of Alabama, Pete Sessions, of Texas, "and 12 of your favorite Republican freshmen!"


The 12: Sandy Adams (Fla.), Quico Canseco (Texas), Rick Crawford (Ark.), Bob Dold (Ill.), Sean Duffy (Wis.), Stephen Fincher (Tenn.), Mike Fitzpatrick (Penn.), Daniel Webster (Fla.), Mike Grimm (N.Y.), Nan Hayworth (N.Y.), Jim Renacci (Ohio) and Cory Gardner (Col).


I have several pairs of shoes that are older than the time they have “served” the constituents of their respective communities and still have given in to the status quo.


The sad part is that they succumbed to veteran senators who seem hell bent on turning these “idealist” to the dark side and certainly would make Darth Vader proud. Especially when you consider that these freshman are still two years away from their re-election campaigns.


There is a bright side to this story and that is, we the people really can’t say that the Republican congress is not hard at work. Unfortunately, it’s not the type of work we elected them to do. But don’t worry too much, the freshman will still get paid their $170,000 per annum from those that elected them.

Palin Heart Newt

Editor's note: S.E. Cupp is the author of "Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity" and co-author of "Why You're Wrong About the Right." She is a columnist at the New York Daily News and a political commentator for Glenn Beck's GBTV.

(CNN) -- Far be it for me to offer unsolicited advice to Sarah Palin. She's built a very successful career out of going rogue and certainly doesn't need any tips from me.

And, as an occasional pundit, a political influencer and a private citizen, she's free to throw her weight behind anyone she wants.

But I just have to say it: Newt Gingrich? Really?

Now, I'm not in the camp of conservative elites who think she's seen her best days and should politely retire to obscurity. If anything, the premiere of "Game Change" on HBO on Saturday is proof that she's still relevant; she's got considerable influence over a certain wing of the party.

S.E. Cupp

And so with great power comes great responsibility. Is Newton Leroy Gingrich the most responsible pick?

Of all the remaining candidates, in fact, the one that makes the least sense is Newt. Mitt Romney I could see, if she wanted to bring the party together. Rick Santorum I could see for his social conservatism, strong Christian faith and similar family stories. I could even see Ron Paul for his "throw the bums out" and "end the Fed" rogue-isms. But Newt?

When rumors first started swirling that Palin might back the former House speaker and self-appointed "cheerful" candidate, Gingrich was surging then. She said she'd vote for him in South Carolina if she could. She wanted to keep the primary alive, she said. And, playing to Newt's strength at the time, she urged "more debates" and "more vetting of candidates."

Julianne Moore's Palin '100% sourced'

Analysis: Gingrich not connecting

Palin leaves door open for 2012 run

Gingrich: 'I'm the tortoise'

But now, with Newt's ham-fisted campaign out of mojo, and no debates on the horizon, it would seem like a good time to jump off that train and get behind Romney or Santorum.

Instead, she doubled down Tuesday, telling Fox Business Network that she voted for Gingrich in the Alaska caucuses, where he finished dead last. And why? "I have appreciated what he has stood for," she said. "He has been the underdog in many of these primary races and these caucuses."

Again, Palin's free to like any candidate she wants, and those would be valid arguments, if they were true.

What Newt has stood for, both during his political career and during this campaign, sits in total contradiction to what Palin has stood for since becoming a public figure. She's for small government; he's shown a disturbing penchant for big government solutions. She champions Washington outsiders and rails against the establishment; he's the epitome of establishment, and has been firmly encamped inside the Beltway for decades. The very people who appreciate Palin should be the same people who despise Gingrich.

And he's hardly been an "underdog." With the backing of billionaire financier Sheldon Adelson and the benefit of serious name recognition, he's enjoyed the money, media attention and opportunity that other GOP candidates didn't. If Newt's been an underdog, I'm sure Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann would have been happy to switch places.

The truth is, Newt isn't the "little guy" in any sense of the word. And if that were truly Palin's criteria, there are actual little guys, such as Buddy Roemer and Gary Johnson to champion.

Or even better, she doesn't have to support any of them.

Maybe Palin's got a master plan in which she makes a late run at the presidency and puts Newt on her ticket. Still, it seems like an incongruous pick and waste of her considerable influence among far-right conservatives.

But I'm sure she knows what she's doing.

‘Stop-Newt’ Republicans Confront Base Unwilling to Take Orders

Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Two days after Newt Gingrich defeated Mitt Romney in the South Carolina presidential primary one of Romney’s big-name backers offered a grim prediction for his fellow Republicans.

“The possibility of Newt Gingrich being our nominee against Barack Obama I think is essentially handing the election over to Obama,” former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty told reporters on a Jan. 23 conference call. “I think that’s shared by a lot of folks in the Republican Party.”

Pawlenty’s comments echoed those being uttered publicly and behind the scenes by elected Republicans, party activists, fundraisers and pundits, who represent a portion of the party establishment -- a “stop-Newt” caucus -- populated largely by people who have known the former U.S. House speaker for decades.

The question is: Can they?

For two decades, the Republican Party has seen an erosion of its traditional, top-down hierarchy, a decline aided by Gingrich himself in 1990 when he led a House revolt against a budget agreement negotiated by President George H.W. Bush that raised taxes. The rise of the anti-tax Tea Party wing in 2009 splintered the internal levers of power further, making it even harder to impose a choice on the rank-and file.

“There really is no Republican establishment left that can control anything,” said Matthew Dowd, a onetime aide to President George W. Bush and now a Bloomberg Television contributor. “Some try to act like they are in charge, but the fraternity is now running the campus.”

South Carolina Dynamics

Those dynamics were on display in South Carolina. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, lost by 12 percentage points even after campaigning throughout the state with Governor Nikki Haley and just a day after receiving the endorsement of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, the chairman of the Republican Governors Association. Haley, who rose to power with Tea Party backing, didn’t deliver either her state or its grassroots activists.

Meanwhile, Gingrich’s campaign gained momentum after Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor who also has support from the Tea Party faction, said she’d vote for Gingrich in South Carolina if only to extend the length of the primary.

Similar signs of an insurgence came to light in the 2010 midterm elections, when Nevada voters tapped Sharron Angle -- a Tea Party-endorsed politician opposed by many of the state’s prominent Republicans -- to challenge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. And Delaware Republicans chose Christine O’Donnell over former governor and nine-term U.S. House Representative Mike Castle to seek an open Senate seat. Both Angle and O’Donnell lost.

‘Voters in Charge’

“The voters are now in charge, and Republican leaders need to come to terms with that,” Dowd said. “The media needs to drop the myth that there is a Republican establishment capable of orchestrating anything more than a one-float GOP parade.”

Romney’s campaign, backed by well-known party strategists and fundraisers, has kept up a steady rollout of endorsement announcements from Republican elected leaders that demonstrate his broad support among the insiders. As of Jan. 20, he had the nods of five governors, 14 senators and 59 U.S. House members. That compares with two governors and a dozen congressmen who have endorsed Gingrich, according to Democracy in Action, a political web site that tracks endorsements.

‘Terrified About Newt’

“There are a lot of major players in the Republican Party who are terrified about Newt,” said Gary Gerstle, a specialist on social and political movements a Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. “At a more conventional moment in American politics, the establishment would count for a lot more, but this is not a conventional moment. There are now big segments of the Republican Party that will not bow down to the establishment.”

Gingrich -- who served 20 years in Congress, four of them as speaker, and then began a lucrative career in Washington consulting on federal policy -- has been working to turn party leaders’ angst about his candidacy to his advantage, portraying himself as a candidate feared by the ruling class.

In a Jan. 24 message to supporters, he wrote, “The establishment is right to be worried about a Gingrich nomination because a Gingrich nomination means that we’re going to change things.”

The Romney-Gingrich face-off is bringing the simmering power struggle between the Republican grassroots and the party establishment to the fore, said Richard Viguerie, a veteran Republican direct-mail strategist and the chairman of ConservativeHQ.com.

Internal Power Struggle

“There is a war going on here between the grassroots and the establishment,” said Viguerie, who is backing former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. “People in the grassroots see the Republican establishment as part of the problem, not part of the solution, and Gingrich has the ability to go over the heads of the Republican leaders.”

At the root of the concern about Gingrich is whether he will be able to appeal to the broader U.S. electorate. Polls indicate that he has high unfavorability ratings and wouldn’t fare well in a head-to-head matchup against Obama. A January Gallup study found that all national political figures are viewed negatively. Still, “Americans have become more intensely negative in their evaluations of Newt Gingrich -- who now has the lowest score overall,” the study concluded.

Independent Voter Turn-off

Gingrich’s branding of Obama as a “food stamp president,” for example, may not play well with independent voters, whom a Republican nominee would have to win over to have a chance of ousting the president.

Some prominent Republicans say there’s not yet enough of a consensus that Gingrich is unelectable to give rise to a concerted effort among party operatives to thwart his ascent.

“I haven’t seen that there’s an all-hands-on-deck movement to try to block any candidate -- Newt or anyone else,” said Frank Donatelli, the chairman of GOPAC, a training organization for state and local Republican candidates once headed by Gingrich, and a former top party official.

The last time there was such an effort was in 1996, he added, after Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary and prominent Republicans quickly coalesced around Bob Dole, who ultimately claimed the nomination.

“I haven’t heard that kind of alarm emanating about Newt,” Donatelli said.

Former Pennsylvania Congressman Bob Walker, a senior adviser to Gingrich’s campaign, said each time Romney rolls out a new endorsement or dispatches a one-time colleague to criticize Gingrich’s record, it bolsters the former speaker’s argument to voters that he’s their ally against a party machine that doesn’t care about them.

“It took them a little bit of time to realize that Newt Gingrich is capable of beating Obama, but now, I don’t think that they’re going to listen to party bosses anymore,” Walker said. “Newt is basically channeling the people’s anger.”

--Editors: Jeanne Cummings, Mark McQuillan.

To contact the reporter on this story: Julie Hirschfeld Davis in Washington at jdavis159@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jeanne Cummings at jcummings21@bloomberg.net

A reprint from Bloomberg Businessweek

Same Old, Same Old

President Barack Obama has come under fire again as he is asking legislators to approve a $1.3 trillion hike in the debt-ceiling this past week. A request brought on not by failure of the president, but a failure, again, in the legislative standoff between the president and Congress.


Texas Governor, Rick Perry used his pursuit of the Republican Presidential campaign as a platform in the national spotlight to urge congress to reject the President's request telling a small audience in South Carolina that it would mean the government would have to print more money and that would devalue the dollar even further.


"The president again went to Congress to ask them to raise the debt ceiling. Than means they're going to print more money, they're going to spend more money. The dollars in your pocket are going to be devalued even more," Perry said. "I hope the members of Congress send a very clear message to the president. Not now, not again, absolutely not, Mr. President."


The request is part of an agreement reached in August between the White House and Congress to raise the debt limit to $15.2 trillion while creating a "super-committee" that unsuccessfully sought to reach a bipartisan deal last fall.


Perry says the president needs to trim his budget and cut spending, an idea that everyone seems to agree with. However, spending cuts alone is not the answer and no one wants to raise taxes or lose their entitlements. Billionaire Warren Buffett has gone so far as to challenge congressional Republicans a financial deal that could reap millions to the deficit. He, as reported to Time magazine, will match all donations to the deficit by the Republican congressional members and will triple match every dollar Senate Republican  leader Mitch McConnell.


Buffett has emphasized that his offer is a "firm offer".

Is John Boehner In Trouble?

The position of Speaker of the House of Representatives is normally a coveted and honored seat at the proverbial head of the table. But, as things in Washington, D.C. keep unfolding in disarray as it has for the past year, John Boehner may very well have a target on his back.

Several instances of flip-flopping have been apparent in 2011 and one wonders when will Eric Cantor, House Majority leader, make his move to attain the position he most covets. Boehner has not really shown the kind of leadership the junior members, mostly Tea Party members, want. When challenged by the freshmen representatives Boehner seems to re-position himself to satisfy the younger members of Congress.

If the House Republicans are responsible for raising taxes on the middle class and not close the loopholes for the most wealthy Americans, the message would be clear and resounding. Support for the millionaires and billionaires is, in their opinion, the way America should be led. And, if that is in fact the case, the "Super Pac's" will ultimately run this country while middle and lower class citizens could only run and hide and bury their heads in the sand.

America's businessmen and women understand, the best remedy for growth, hiring and most of all greater profits, is a healthy middle class that will purchase and use their products, not a over-taxed middle class that is scrounging to survive.

Boehner understands that raising taxes to the middle class while maintaining the huge loop-holes for the nation's wealthiest, will simply not fly. It becomes political suicide. Hiding behind a conference committee or talking about a one-year extension is simply crap piled upon crap. The Tea Party simply wants to kill it and claim victory as the "new" ideals for the american people.

Boehner is in real trouble and Cantor is all set to push him out of the way so he can ascend to the throne of power and crush all the dissenting members of the House. Boehner's political posturing has backfired and unfortunately he needs his democratic counterparts, he needs to strike a deal with them, and he needs to cut ties with the Tea Party members and take back control of the House. 

As the Deadline Approaches...

Congress is at it again. Another deadline is at it's critical point to keep the government funded and congress wants to hurry up and get it passed so they can go on yet another break. The problem is the territorial wars are back at it with Republicans controlling the House and Democrats controlling the Senate and White House, and this time it may just come down to a compromise. 


Republicans introduced a $915 billion spending bill in the House on Thursday trying to force the Democrats to pass the legislation that would keep the U.S. Government funded beyond this weekend when the "Holiday" break is set to occur.


And again it comes down to another deadline for the bill to be passed as the government shutdown would be in just two days. The temporary funding measure set to expire on Friday would, if not renewed or revised, shut down major services run by the departments of defense, education, health and labor.


But both Republicans and Democrats are arguing over how to extend an expiring payroll tax cut that would affect 160 million Americans and each side is attempting to use the bill as a bargaining chip. Included in the bill are funds that would provide crucial government functions such as patrolling the U.S. borders, but has little chance of passing unless the Democratic-controlled Senate can agree that the bill is complete. But at the White House request, the Senate Democrats are attempting to force the Republican "hands" to agree on payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits even if it means delaying their "vacation".


In other "news":


The House voted 283-136 for the $662 billion measure Wednesday night, a rare bipartisan vote the reflected the strong support for annual legislation that authorizes money for the men and women of the military as well as weapons systems and the millions of jobs they generate in lawmakers' districts.

The Senate was expected to clear the bill Thursday and send it to President Barack Obama.

The House vote came just hours after the administration abandoned a veto threat over provisions dealing with the handling of terrorism suspects.

Applying pressure on House and Senate negotiators working on the bill last week, Obama and senior members of his national security team, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, had sought modifications in the detainee provisions.

Negotiators announced the changes late Monday, clearing the way for White House acceptance.

In a statement, press secretary Jay Carney said the new bill "does not challenge the president's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people."

Specifically, the bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. There is an exemption for U.S. citizens.

November 23rd Deadline

Once again Senior Citizens and the military are coming under attack by Congressional members as the Super Committee wrangles with the fast closing deadline of November 23rd to make policy recommendations to their fellow members of  $1.2 trillion dollars in budget reductions. And once again it is becoming apparent that the wealthiest Americans are still off limits.


It baffles the minds of those of the middle and lower classes  as to why they are always the target of budget cuts and program reductions. Why is the military always thrown out as the bait to get us to understand the difficult decisions that lie before the policy makers? One must admit that while the middle and lower classes are the reason these politicians are in office, they are the one’s ignored. Remember, the middle and lower classes make up a majority of the voters, who by all counts, feel these members of congress are looking out for them and that’s why they vote they way they do. It is also important to realize that the military is doing all the dirty work and keeping us safe so we can continue to elect these misfits. But if the mainstream American is voting on emotion only without really looking closely at the policies of those running for reelection, I guess we shouldn’t complain when our taxes are increased and our entitlements are reduced.


Why doesn’t it anger the American people when a deadline, as important as this one, is once again ignored and congress can take a week off. Obviously they feel they can reach a consensus in ten short days and Americans should not worry. They are, after all, looking out for our best interest because they owe us for their elected position and everyone knows it’s the American people they care most about and not the “fat-cats” of Wall Street or the special interest groups or the richest of us all. No, they are only concerned with us mediocre and common citizens. Yeah, right. And oh by the way, they had better hurry so they aren’t late for their annual Thanksgiving break as well.


And, one more thing, no matter what happens in this vote or when these members of congress come up for reelection, one thing is certain, even if they are not reelected they still will have the healthcare insurance and retirement pension to count on. 

Myths and Truths About Social Security

Exploding 5 misconceptions that threaten the system

Reprint from AARP Bulletin of 11/1/11: by: Jane Bryant Quinn 

It happened during the stock boom of the 1990s, and it is happening again. Social Security is coming under attack. The first challenge arose from hope — that savers would get more retirement income for their money if they bought stocks. But the idea of privatization was not popular with the public.

See also: Social Security recipients welcome 3.6 percent COLA.

Now, the attack comes from fear ­ ­ — that Social Security has serious financial problems and can only fail. Younger people lean more toward change than older people do. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted a year ago found that 60 percent of adults who aren't retired expect to get nothing — zero — from Social Security in their older age.

Myth No. 1: Social Security is going bankrupt. No, it's not. Even in the unlikely event that nothing changes and the program's entire surplus runs out in 2036, as projected, checks would keep coming. Payroll taxes at current rates would cover 77 percent of all the future benefits promised. That's true for young and old alike, and includes inflation adjustments.

Myth No. 2: I'd be better off if I'd kept my Social Security taxes in my own investment account. Hmmm ­ ­ — you're saying that you'd faithfully put that money aside, every year of your working life, in a mix of stocks and bonds, without ever skipping a year, drawing on your nest egg or selling when the market dropped? Few such paragons exist.

You'd need to invest far more than you probably realize to match the benefits Social Security pays. As an example, take a 65-year-old couple with a single breadwinner who earned the average wage. At retirement, they'd currently get about $2,170 a month, plus inflation adjustments, for life, the Urban Institute reports.

To equal that sum in private savings, they'd need to have about $580,000, says Michael Kitces, director of research for Pinnacle Advisory Group, and the money might last only 30 years. How many average earners are likely to save that much?

Myth No. 3: In 1983, Congress made changes to Social Security to build a fund that would pay for boomers when they retire, so it's not fair to change benefits now. No, Congress did not intend to "advance fund" the boomers, according to a study of the record by Charles Blahous of Stanford University's Hoover Institution. It raised taxes and cut some future benefits to cure an imminent insolvency. The trust fund reserves — now $2.6 trillion — were a by-product of the decisions made. Congress never veered from its vision of intergenerational compact: Working people pay for those who don't, or can't, work anymore. On the flip side, the compact requires older people to make some concessions so that younger people can afford it.

Myth No. 4: You should get out of Social Security the amount you put in. No. Social Security is not an individual investment program (see Myth  No. 2). Your taxes paid for the earlier generation of retirees. Current workers are paying for you. The total amount of your benefit depends on how much you earned, whether you get a spousal benefit, when you retire and how long you live.

Myth No. 5: Social Security helps old people, not younger people like me. Wrong. It provides income support to qualified widows and widowers with young children, as well as orphans. Just as important, it saves young families from the cost of supporting older parents who, without Social Security, wouldn't have enough money to live on. It also provides benefits for workers who become disabled.

My final point … and it isn't a myth, it's a fact. If young people switched their payroll taxes into private accounts, the government would have to borrow $6.5 trillion or more (depending on the details) to keep paying out benefits to current retirees.

That means higher deficits, higher income taxes, further slashes in spending, or all three. It's smarter — and cheaper — to fix the current program and put everyone's mind at rest.