AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

It doesn't HAVE to Cyclops. Okie laid out some good ideas that would still make the tax progressive and protect the poor. I'm sure you don't disagree that doing so is important.

Our country needs incentives to save more money; this is one way to help that.

Stand with Arizona!
Fellow Patriots,

We've all been hearing a lot about the Feds fighting the State over illegal immigration and Arizona's desire to enforce the laws already on the books.

Just yesterday, in fact, Jan Brewer pointed out that the Federal Government now sends more financial aid to MEXICO than it does for help on the border in the state of Arizona!

This is a very important issue, but it's not what I'm writing you about today.

Arizona has other issues as well. In 2010, there are four big Congressional races coming up in the state. In all four races, Democrats plan big pushes, and the Republicans in many cases have their favorites.

But we've identified four very strong tea party candidates and we've decided to endorse in all four primary battles.

As you know, the decisions made by an Arizona Representative effect the rest of the nation. Just because you might not live in Arizona in no way means we can just ignore it.

The Candidates we've endorsed are:
• Pamela Gorman AZ-CD3 (Sending out today)
• Janet Contreras AZ-CD4 (Sending out later tonight)
• David Schweikert AZ-CD5 (Sending out Thursday)
• Ruth McLung AZ-CD7 (Sending out Friday)
...
You've seen the success of the movement all across the country. In Arizona, though, there are FOUR winnable races for the movement.

But, as has been the case in all other tea party related races, it requires a big fight and a lot of national support.

The movement must continue fighting big government politicians in the primaries, and then follow it up with big wins in generals.

I say we stand with Arizona and help get these four patriots elected.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE THROUGH PAYAL

For Liberty.
-Eric Odom

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt

..................... Percent of the Civilian
........................ labor force that is
........................... Employed

2000 (1).................... 64.4
2001........................ 63.7
2002........................ 62.7
2003 (1).................... 62.3
2004 (1).................... 62.3
2005 (1).................... 62.7
2006 (1).................... 63.1
2007 (1).................... 63.0
2008 (1).................... 62.2
2009 (1).................... 59.3

2010:
January (3)................ 58.4
February................... 58.5
March...................... 58.6
April....................... 58.8
May........................ 58.7
June....................... 58.5

I would think it'd only eliminate the income tax. I'm fine with keeping (and raising) investment taxes.

There are still ways to make it progressive Cyclops.

Taxes on TV's less than $300 = 20%
Taxes on TV's between $301 - $500 = 25%
....
Taxes on TVs over $2000 = 40%


I think you get the idea.

Without an income tax, this country would have to lock its doors and put up a for sale sign.

I don't know how you think Competition will benefit our schools in the slightest. I wonder how much direct experience you have with modern schooling?Cycloptichorn

GOP Proposes Brave Budget
It makes the Bush tax cuts permanent and balances the budget by 2019

By STEPHEN MOORE
In one of the most fiscally inept stunts in many years on Capitol Hill, Congressional Democrats have taken a pass on enacting a budget this year. Legislators will just wing it and let the $3.6 trillion fall where it may and hope the public doesn't notice a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit. But the minority Republicans have just presented their own budget plan and it's a remarkably bold and honest document that involves big cuts in government spending over the next decade and a balanced budget by 2019. The GOP budget would be a Tea Partier's dream come true if it ever were enacted.

The plan, fashioned by Tom Price of Georgia, head of the conservative Republican Study Committee, reduces federal borrowing from the Obama baseline by a gargantuan $6.4 trillion over the next decade. Not bad considering that it also lowers taxes by $1.7 trillion more than the Obama budget by making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Spending reductions start with what Mr. Price calls a "reset" on spending for discretionary programs back to 2008 levels. That insures that "temporary" stimulus funding doesn't get continued year after year. The plan also instructs the President and Congress to dedicate every penny of bailout money repaid to the federal government by the banks to debt retirement.

"We think it's essential to show the American people we can cut spending enough to balance the budget even with the big hole Barack Obama has put us in," Mr. Price tells me. His budget is a Reaganite budget, calling for tax cuts, asset sales, repeal of hundreds of wasteful programs, and across-the-board cuts in virtually every program except Social Security. "Even some Republicans will flinch from the spending cuts required to get to a balanced budget," Mr. Price concedes.

Mr. Price and his RSC colleagues show that you can get from here ($1.5 trillion annual deficits) to there (a balanced budget) through spending discipline and economic growth. Can it be done the Democratic way, with higher taxes and lower growth? Not likely.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704913304575371402695945326.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLESecond

The Constitution is informative here. In Article IV, Section 4, the federal government is required to "protect each [state] against Invasion; and [on request of the state government] against domestic Violence." As St. George Tucker noted, this provision guards against "the possibility of an undue partiality in the federal government," for example a "sectional" president who might, for political reasons, decline to protect states in a certain region. Today the federal government, at the direction of the president, has declined to carry out its duty under Article IV. Leaving aside its other possible consequences, this intentional failure to protect Arizona raises the question of what action the state is now entitled to take under the Constitution.

HARTWELL: Obama lawsuit invites fortified state militia
Constitution leaves room for Arizona to secure border
By Ray Hartwell
7:08 p.m., Friday, July 16, 2010

Arizona has enacted a law that enables state and local police to support federal immigration enforcement, in a care- fully circumscribed manner. This moderate statute is under vicious attack by the Obama administration and assorted amnesty advocates. Yet Arizona and her sister states in the Southwest could take dramatically stronger actions to bring order to the border. And they would have both history and the Constitution on their side.

History first. In 1916, criminal gangs rivaled the authority of the Mexican government. Led by Pancho Villa, they launched attacks against Americans on both sides of the border. Following a bloody raid that killed American soldiers and civilians in New Mexico, President Woodrow Wilson dispatched 15,000 state militia to the border and sent Gen. John J. "Black Jack" Pershing and thousands more soldiers into Mexico after Villa and his bandits. Once Pershing's force clashed with the Mexican army, Wilson ordered another 75,000 National Guardsmen to the border region. Supported by an enraged American citizenry, Wilson reacted swiftly and with substantial force to secure our southern border and drive out what was, in effect, a marauding army of Mexican invaders.

Today, armed drug cartels openly challenge the Mexican government. Deadly battles occur frequently in Mexico, where more than 6,500 people were killed by cartel forces last year and more than 5,000 have been killed so far this year. Paramilitary bands have entered the United States illegally and set up sentry and command posts. Federal authorities have actually ceded control of public land in Arizona to these invaders. Cartels claim openly that Mexico's border with the United States has been moved northward to Interstate 8. Federal officials have even advised the public to avoid the Sonoran Desert National Monument, which is not on the border; it's 35 miles southwest of Phoenix.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu reports that attacks on police and American citizens have increased in the past several months, saying, "It is literally out of control." Mitch Ellis, federal manager of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in southern Arizona, warns that the area is "increasingly violent" because of "smugglers and border bandits." The police chief of Nogales, Ariz., has received threats that cartels may use snipers positioned just across the border to target law enforcement personnel in the U.S.

Of course, this is not just about trafficking in drugs and illegals. According to reports, "hundreds of Somalis" with ties to "terror cells" have infiltrated the United States from Mexico. Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and kindred groups are all reported to be actively moving their members across the border. Trust me, these folks are not entering the United States illegally in order to get work in your neighbor's backyard.

With Wilson's reaction to Pancho Villa's pistoleros as precedent, President Obama has declined to be Wilsonian. He has refused to step up border enforcement. He and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. have attacked the Arizona law, dishonestly claiming that it promotes racial profiling and is "anti-immigrant." They have filed one lawsuit to block enforcement of the law and have warned that if the initial litigation fails, they will likely bring another case on a different legal theory. The administration asserts, disingenuously, that reports of crime by illegals are exaggerated. Funding for a fence has been cut. The president has ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to the region, but only to perform "support functions."

Thus, Arizona's modest enforcement measures are under attack by the very federal government whose failure to secure the border precipitated their adoption. Is Arizona at the mercy of the Obama administration, or does it have some options here?

For one thing, Arizona can form and expand its own state militia. Such forces were common when our nation was founded, and the Second Amendment recognizes that a "well-regulated Militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State." In short, Arizona and other states can raise and arm their own military forces. But, for what purpose can such forces legally act?

The Constitution is informative here. In Article IV, Section 4, the federal government is required to "protect each [state] against Invasion; and [on request of the state government] against domestic Violence." As St. George Tucker noted, this provision guards against "the possibility of an undue partiality in the federal government," for example a "sectional" president who might, for political reasons, decline to protect states in a certain region. Today the federal government, at the direction of the president, has declined to carry out its duty under Article IV. Leaving aside its other possible consequences, this intentional failure to protect Arizona raises the question of what action the state is now entitled to take under the Constitution.

This brings us to Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, which provides that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

So, the militias organized and armed by a state may go to war when the state has been invaded or is in imminent danger. This is clear under Article I, and plainly justified when the federal government has deliberately failed to protect against invasion as required by Article IV. As Joseph Story explains in his treatise on the Constitution, the prohibition against states engaging in war is "wisely" limited by "exceptions sufficient for the safety of the states, and not justly open to the objection of being dangerous to the Union."

At the time of our nation's founding, the states surrendered certain limited powers to the federal government. Logically, foremost among the enumerated powers delegated to the new central authority were those relating to foreign affairs, including the war powers. But the states were prudent; they had a logical concern that if the federal government should fail in its duty to protect them from "invasion" or "imminent danger," perhaps for reasons of political "partiality," then the states should have a robust right to defend themselves, including by armed force. And so they do.

Ray Hartwell is a Navy veteran and a Washington lawyer.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/16/obama-lawsuit-invites-fortified-state-militia/print/

The budget proposed by Price can be found here

http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Fy11RSCBudget_FINAL.pdf

It is an interesting read if you take the time to compare to the actual budget numbers here
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf


Price somehow assumes that next year the interest paid on the US debt will drop from 250 billion to 206 trillion.
He also assumes that there will be no changes to SS and Medicare benefits but those costs will grow at a much slower rate than is listed in the Obama budget documents.


I guess anyone can balance the budget if they just make up magic numbers without any sense of reality.

1. How does Price think we will decrease the interest paid on the debt by 43 billion dollars next year? Does he not realize that debt is sold on the open market?

2. How does Price propose to keep Medicare and SS costs down without making any changes to those programs? Why should we believe his numbers?

"Some serious questions for everyone, besides national defense, what does the federal government provide that is absolutely essential? "