AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Currently the Republican leadership has neither rejected or accepted Ryan et al's proposal. That means they have not rejected it. That means they have not yet accepted it. That means they are continuing to consider it.

Surely if it was a workable document that they supported, it would be easily considered and adopted quickly. Or perhaps you have an explanation for why it has not been?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Surely if it was a workable document that they supported, it would be easily considered and adopted quickly. Or perhaps you have an explanation for why it has not been?

Do you consider the various versions of the Democrat's health care reform legislation to have been "workable documents"?

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19081&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
THE FIX IS IN: DANGEROUS HEALTH BILL COMING TO FINAL VOTE
After months of posturing, President Obama has made it clear: the Senate bill is the final bill. The bill that narrowly passed the Senate on Christmas Eve by a partisan vote (prior to the election of Republican Scott Brown from Massachusetts), will more or less be the final bill. The only way the massive 2,700-page health care bill will become law is if the House now passes the Senate-passed bill, says the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

If the Senate bill is passed into law with the President's reconciliation adjustments, the following dangerous policies will become law, says the Chamber:

=>You cannot keep the plan you have; all health insurance plans will be subject to numerous new mandates, requirements, regulations and bureaucratic oversight, which will force the plans to raise prices and change or eliminate plan offerings.

=>Your health care costs will increase; the bill will do very little to control costs, while simultaneously taxing the health industry -- taxes consumers will pay -- and forcing Americans to purchase more expensive health insurance.

=>Your taxes will increase; there will be a massive new payroll tax, a new tax on investments and 401(k)s, a new tax on "Cadillac" health benefits, new taxes on medical devices and prescription drugs, new taxes on all health insurance policies, and increased taxes in the form of cost-shifting through lower payments to hospitals and doctors.

Also:

=>The debt, the deficit and federal spending will increase; despite a number of accounting gimmicks, like starting the taxation before the program spending begins, and double-counting $500 billion in Medicare cuts, the bill's true cost will be trillions of dollars. The bill creates new entitlements that will increase forever, much like Social Security and Medicare.

=>Medicare will be cut by $500 billion; the Congressional Budget Office clearly stated: "20 percent of Part A providers would become unprofitable" and stop seeing Medicare patients.

=>Jobs will be lost, or never created; the bill creates a huge incentive not to hire low-wage workers or grow a business beyond 50 employees. Employers who hire a low-wage worker, even if they offer great health insurance, could be fined $3,000 per year.

Source: James Gelfand, "The Fix Is In: Dangerous Health Bill Coming to Final Vote," U.S. Chamber of Commerce, March 9, 2010.

Why should I or anyone else believe these people's analysis of Ryan's budget proposal is valid?

Your attempt at character assassination against them fails because you have no evidence showing any reason their analysis should not be trusted.

I oppose the so-called "fairtax" on purchases for two reasons:
(1) I do not want it to be adopted until the 16th Amendment is rescinded in order to avoid double taxation;

Rescinding the 16th amendment doesn't prevent income tax from being levied on wages. Your ignorance knows no bounds.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
Amendment XVI (1913)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article VI The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

You are right in one sense: members of our present government have already demonstrated they do not feel limited to the powers the Constitution grants the federal government. It would tax incomes even if the 16th Amendment were repealed. For that reason alone, the impeachment and removal of Obama, Biden, Pilosi, and Reid is justified.

It was decided almost 100 years ago that the income from wages could be taxed, prior to the passage of the 16th amendment.

We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.

As for nuclear power, Mr. Obama has promised an $8.3 billion loan guarantee to build two nuclear reactors in Georgia. However, Mike Morris, the CEO of American Electric Power, explained at a recent Wall Street Journal energy conference that while loan guarantees were a "nice thing," they were meaningless in the absence of regulatory certainty.

Only five of 50 states have what Mr. Morris calls nuclear-friendly "enabling" legislation that might convince corporate boards to commit capital to a long-term project. The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, despite adopting a streamlined licensing process in 2005, hasn't issued key rules.

The Administration also sent mixed signals last week by putting the kibosh on Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste disposal. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has convened yet another "blue ribbon" panel on nuclear waste, which will probably have the half-life of uranium. Companies are already suing the feds for failing to meet legal obligations to collect waste, and the end of Yucca is one more reason for utilities to avoid making large capital bets amid uncertain government policy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704784904575112144130306052.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion

Early in the campaign, in January 2007, a New York Times reporter wrote a story about Mr. Obama's time as president of the Harvard Law Review. It was there, the reporter noted, "he first became a political sensation."

Here's why: "Mr. Obama cast himself as an eager listener, sometimes giving warring classmates the impression that he agreed with all of them at once." Also: "People had a way of hearing what they wanted in Mr. Obama's words."

Harvard Law Prof. Charles Ogletree told how Mr. Obama spoke on one contentious issue at the law school, and each side thought he was endorsing their view. Mr. Ogletree said: "Everyone was nodding, Oh, he agrees with me." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124105013014171063.html