Tag Archives: spending

Typical

Posted on by
Reply

In an ambitious first budget plan, Governor Tom Wolf on Tuesday proposed more than $4 billion in higher taxes on income, sales and natural gas drilling to support new spending on schools and to cut property taxes as part of an effort to overhaul the way public education is funded.

Wolf, a Democrat, is also asking the Republican-controlled Legislature to cut corporate taxes by hundreds of millions of dollars, borrow more than $4 billion to refinance pension debt and inject new money into business loans, clean energy subsidies and water and sewer system projects.

Pennsylvania already is in the hole by some $2 billion, and it’s getting an increase in allegedly mandatory spending, for the upcoming fiscal year, of $1.6 billion.

So he wants to raise taxes overall and to borrow more. Because money grows on trees in the Democratic Orchard.

Wolf’s spending plan would increase overall state spending through the state’s main bank account by about 3% to $29.9 billion from the current year’s approved budget. Counting $1.75 billion in pension obligation payments to the Public School Employees Retirement System and $2.1 billion in school property tax relief receipts, the increase is about 16%….

“Pay” for tax cuts here by raising taxes there. Borrow to cover increased spending. But raise taxes overall, and increase spending. Mandatory spending? No. There is no such thing. Some spending is harder to cut, whether fiscally or morally, than other spending, but none of it is mandatory beyond the bare minimum needed to fund what the state’s constitution—the people’s instructions—mandates is the government’s purpose.

Covering the budget shortfall by cutting spending is anathema. Covering the budget shortfall by also cutting taxes and watching the economy grow from that increase in private sector money, yielding a net increase in revenue to the government, is utterly inconceivable.

How Democratic.

Who Should Run For What?

Posted on by
Reply

Of the Republican candidates, likely and unlikely, for President, who should run for what (I’m ignoring term limits in this little exercise)? I’m also doubling up on some positions because, primaries. Here’s my thumb nailed early list, alphabetically sorted.

Jeb Bush—President

Effective conservative governor. Regardless of his views on Common Core, the race should not be about one issue. Regardless of his views on legalization of illegal immigrants, immigration is a thing that needs to be settled—all three legs. Bush reduced taxes, while balancing Florida’s budgets, by some $19 billion over his time in office. That ain’t peanuts.

Ben Carson—US Senate

Strong Conservative, but he’s not ready for the White House. He wants political seasoning first—as our current President is demonstrating, in spades.

Chris Christie—Governor

Effective governor. He’s not suited for national level politics, though. He, and New Jersey, are better off if he stays home and finishes fixing New Jersey.

Ted Cruz—US Senator

Too polarizing, too much his way or the highway. He’s good for keeping Senate balanced and debating, though.

Carly Fiorina—Vice President

Not ready for the top of the White House; however, she understands and communicates effectively Conservative principles.

Mike Huckabee—Governor

Effective governor, not so effective on the national level. Alternatively, he can go back to being a vocal private citizen commenting on Conservative principles.

Bobby Jindal—President

Effective conservative policies, unafraid of a fight, vastly improved communicator since 2012. He may well not be fully checked out on national level politics, but he’s close enough to take very seriously.

Sarah Palin—US Senate

Strong Conservative, and she would be excellent Senator. She tried for Vice President once; she’s too damaged by McCain’s dysfunctional campaign to have a serious shot at either White House position.

Rand Paul—US Senator

Too polarizing, and his foreign policies views are evolving suspiciously (to my paranoid pea brain). Like Cruz, though, he’s good for keeping Senate balanced and debating.

Rick Perry—Vice President

Effective Conservative governor. I could not love Perry less, loved I not Walker, Jindal, and Bush more. He would be good President, but a President needs a strong Vice President, too. In fact, of these four, any would be good President, any of the other three would be a good Vice President.

Marco Rubio—Vice President

Not ready for the top of the White House, but he knows the Senate; he could elevate the Vice President’s role there very effectively.

Rick Santorum—US Senator

Too socially conservative, occasionally too shrill for national level success.

Donald Trump—Chairman, Sit Down and Shut Up Committee

Country needs an effective man/woman, not an egotistical blowhard. Considering egotistical blowhards, Trump is indistinguishable from Barack Obama.

Scott Walker—President

Strong Conservative, successful Conservative governor. Not afraid of a fight with the Left, knows how to win those fights.

This is Pretty Clear

Posted on by
Reply

Regarding DHS’ potential shutdown, here’s Speaker John Boehner (R, OH):

We want to get a conference with the Senate. Now, they’ve made clear that they don’t want to go to conference. But they’re going to have a vote.

And

A spokesman for [Senator Harry (D, NV)] Reid said Sunday there will be no negotiations with the House over Homeland Security funding and immigration.

That spokesman, Adam Jentleson, added:

Senator Reid has been clear for days on the fact that there will be no conference[.]

Finally, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA):

We want a clean bill. I see nothing else happening, other than a clean bill.

There you have it. The Democratic Party of No is intent on shutting down DHS in order to support President Barack Obama’s unconstitutional immigration-related “executive actions.”

Because, Veterans

Posted on by
Reply

President Obama’s 2016 budget blueprint proposes rolling back a program that gives veterans the right to receive faster care outside of the long waitlists at the troubled Veterans Affairs medical system.

Obama signed the Veterans Choice Program into law in August following months of partisan wrangling on Capitol Hill….

His 2016 budget “proposal” doesn’t zero out the program; instead, it achieves elimination of the funding by allowing the VA to reallocate that part of its budget to other purposes

to support essential investments in VA system priorities in a fiscally responsible, budget-neutral manner.

Apparently, veteran choice isn’t an essential investment, or it’s not a fiscally responsible use of the money, or both.

Because veterans are another group of Americans whom Obama and his Democrat minions don’t think are capable of making their own decisions.

On the other hand, it was a Republican addition to last year’s compromise and interim bill for reforming the Veterans Administration. Maybe because, Republicans.

The Party of No

Posted on by
Reply

Democratic Party obstructionism continues in the Senate. Recall that the Democrats refused to allow over 300 House-passed jobs-related bills even to come up for debate in the last session and how they shut down the Federal government over a House-passed spending bill that fully funded the government but that didn’t have an additional 2% of what the Democrats demanded.

They’re at it again. The House has passed a bill that fully funds the Department of Homeland Security for the year, which under the last session’s compromise passed in December, had only been funded through the end of this month. The bill also rolls back a number of President Barack Obama’s unconstitutional immigration “executive actions.” Obama’s minions in the Senate are vowing to block the bill, to filibuster it.

Obama has promised to veto the bill, should it make it past the Senate Democrats’ obstructionism. Obama and his minions are fully prepared to shut down HHS, to walk completely away from what little border security they’re willing to provide today, if they can’t have 100% of their way.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) has made the question clear:

It’s a debate that will challenge our colleagues on the other side with a simple proposition. Do they think presidents of either party should have the power to simply ignore laws that they don’t like? Well, will our Democratic colleagues work with us to defend key democratic ideals like separation of powers and the rule of law? Or will they stand tall for the idea that partisan exercises of raw power are good things? The House-passed bill we’ll consider would do two things. Fund the Department of Homeland Security and rein in executive overreach. That’s it. It’s simple….

Remember the Democrats’ behavior in 2016.