Working for logical immigation reform based on a stable population, a recognition of the finite nature of our natural resources and the adverse impact of continued growth on our quality of life, standard of living, national interest, character, language, sovereignty and the rule of law. Pushing back and countering the disloyal elements in American society and the anti-American rhetoric of the leftwing illegal alien lobbies. In a debate, when your opponents turn to name calling, it's a good sign you've already won.

Saturday, July 9, 2011

Dee Perez-Scott is out of her depth on budget matters

Dee Perez-Scott wrote,”As Republicans continue to pander to the Rich and demand more cuts (Medicare, Social Security) for the Middle Class, IF they continue to stonewall the President and push our country into a deeper Recession/Depression and refuse to Raise the Debt Ceiling, then the President should invoke the 14th Amendment and pay our Country's bills. True Americans stand behind our President.”

She uses the phrase "true Americans" but her readers will remember vividly how critical she was of those who used the term "real Americans. She doesn't get to decide who is and who is not a true or real American. Dee Perez-Scott, if she had any sense, would know that America will pay the interest on the national debt as its first priority. Everyone but she knows that. Next in line are Social Security and Medicare and Armed Services pay. Moreover, as Obama has already stated, he does not plan to resort to any sort of tricks such as invoking the 14th amendment. He understands that he has no basis for doing so as long as we have the resources to pay the interest on the national debt. Even if he did, only the House has the constitutional authority to appropriate money. If Obama tried to operate solely on the basis of more debt, that would surely seal his fate in 2012 as everyone begins to realize that every dollar of such debt has Obama written all over it.

It really takes two parties to stonewall anything. If the president and the democrats weren’t stonewalling, there would be no crisis. It makes no sense to raise the limit on a credit card when one is already deep in hock. In fact, ethical credit card companies would refuse to do so. China should let it be known that if the U.S. does not undertake austerity measures like those being imposed on Greece, it will cash in its U.S. bonds and refuse to buy any more. The who will finance the national debt?
If Dee understood the budget deficit and national debt, she would realize that even if the super rich were taxed at 100% that would not be enough to cure the problem. We have to cut expenditures and Medicare and Social Security are the only major budget items that have the capability of solving the problem. I am not in favor of drastic cuts in either of them but there will have to be some contribution from that quarter if there is to be any chance for our country to return to solvency. The proposed changes are modest: a small adjustment in the cost of living formula and an increase of the age for a full annuity to 67. I don’t like either one but, unlike Dee, I am being realistic.

In a recent article, ultra-liberal-progressive, Katrina vanden Heuvel said: "Invoking the 14th Amendment defuses the bomb Republicans have strapped to the hostage." By doing so, the President would end the debt ceiling negotiations and create another basis for his impeachment. The 14th Amendment says: “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned.” vanden Heuvel and others of her ilk should understand that no one is questioning the “validity of the public debt” and that includes the intra-governmental debt (like all the borrowing from the Social Security trust fund) which the Obama Administration and the Congress often conveniently overlook because it runs the national debt up to $120 trillion.

Katrina continued: In Freytag v. Commissioner (1991), the Supreme Court held that the president has "the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or to disregard them when they are unconstitutional." The Supreme, the final arbiter of constitutionality, will have the final word.. "As a simple matter of constitutional logic, the president can refuse to enforce a statute he believes violates the Constitution," said Professor Barry Friedman of NYU Law School in a telephone interview with me. It is also unlikely that the action would be successfully challenged in court. Only Congress would have standing to sue, but doing so would require a joint resolution, something a Democratic-controlled Senate would almost certainly block." In other words, vanden Heuvel is suggesting that the President rather than the Supreme Court should determine the constitutionality of a statute. That would inflict such heavy damage to the concept of separation of powers that even the Democrats in the senate would hesitate to take that route. Instead the statesmen in both Houses should expedite the resolution and ask the court to give it immediate priority.

I do think the Republicans would be making a PR mistake by continuing to insist on no tax increases of any kind, direct or indirect. However, any tax increases should be limited to individuals rather than the businesses that we depend upon to create jobs. If they do so , we will stand behind the Republicans and toss Obama out of office next year.

No comments: