Why the funding of the military is fundamental to the US

Every once in a while when I get into a discussion about various issues that involve how DC is spending our money, the argument comes up that they don’t like the money going toward the military. I have decided to respond to this comment here. I admit I really didn’t know how to respond to it because I felt it was one of those things that we all have things that we wish the government didn’t pay for and we have to accept it for what it is. But, the problem with that argument about the government not funding the military goes back to one of the basic reasons we are the UNITED States of America. See, back then as we find continue to see now, the states wanted to keep as much decision making at that level rather than having someone in New Hampshire making decisions for Georgia (for instance.) I mean, unless you live in Wyoming, do you really think that the lawmakers from that state understand the needs for a state that has huge urban areas or a lot of farmland? It was the same then when the New England states were more industrialized than the states in the south. And while slavery was an issue it was the only issue that was up for debate as the founding fathers created our country. In fact, there really were only two reasons why they supported joining together the colonies. The two reasons were trade and defense. As you read the Bill of Rights, you can see how they limited the federal government in order to give the states the strength to make their own decisions. In fact, the whole reason for the 10th Amendment is to give the states all the rights not given to the Federal Government, which really were based on the need for a collective group to be able to defend the country from attacks from other countries, as happened with the War of 1812, and to be able to engage in trade with other countries, rather than having 13 colonies separately try to do so. So, isn’t it interesting that the one part of the budget that many on the left would like to not have is one of the few reasons we were formed as a country.

The other side to the argument about not funding the military came to me as I read something about pacifists and their desire to avoid World War II. I can understand that they don’t like the idea of fighting and don’t want to be around it. It reminds me of all the talk about trying to stop bullying. No matter what is said and done, bullying will exist. The most recent example of bullying I saw was a bird that would not allow other birds around the bird feeder. It is part of who we have been created to be. Sadly, sometimes I think the unspoken part of the message about not funding the military is that those who do want to have a strong military, do so because they want war and like the idea of going to war, thus the reason for wanting to fund the military.

Just as much as we would like to live in a crime free world, crime will exist. It was this idea that gave me the way I see the defense budget. I would love to live my life where I don’t have to worry about locking my house and that I could leave my keys in my car with it sitting in my driveway. Sadly, those days are over and we have to protect ourselves from those who would take a car with keys in it or go from house to house looking for an unlocked door. Women have to worry about being attacked and raped. Thus, the need for the military to protect us as a country as well as protect us as individuals in not something that we can avoid. It is something that allows us to have some degree of security that the door will stay locked at night when we go to bed and not be forced open by soldiers of another country.

So that is my two cents on why one of the few rights that the founding fathers gave to the Federal government was for the military.


Sen Schumer shuts down a meeting so citizens can’t meet with our elected officials

whose salaries we pay and are elected by WE THE PEOPLE to represent us in DC.

Well, a meeting is scheduled in a specific room in advance…and then Chuck Schumer decides that the meeting can’t have the room so they can’t meet…

From The Other McCain

Remember Chuck Schumer at one time held what had been Anthony Weiner’s seat and Anthony Weiner considered him to be his mentor and thought he would follow in his footsteps.

So why is it that the Occupy Wall Street group can act in civil disobedience and break the laws and are embraced by the Democrats but yet when a group of citizens arrange a meeting with members of Congress and ensure that everything is done to reserve the room, a Democrat decides to not allow them to meet. So, breaking the law is fine but following the rules is not?

Time Warp Picture time all the way back to 2004

Pictures of Sarah and Todd Palin eating at Panera in Pella reminded me of this event from 2004.  Sadly, it turned out to be just a really bad photo op.  (I know the same could be said about Sarah and Todd’s visit, but I do believe they enjoy eating at casual dining restaurants.

But, it was this part of the story that reminds us of how much a Democrat who says he is for the working man, is saying and doing one thing to the public and doing something else in private.

From Free Republic

When John Kerry, John Edwards and their wives descended on a Newburgh, N.Y., Wendy’s restaurant on Friday for a “light” lunch with the common people, it was all just a photo op.

Team Kerry-Edwards had already ordered their real lunches – consisting of five-star gourmet food from a tony local restaurant – with instructions to have the haute cuisine ready for pickup after the top Democrats ditched Wendy’s.

“A member of the Kerry advance team called Nikola’s Restaurant at the Newburgh Yacht Club the night before and ordered 19 five-star lunches to go that would be picked up at noon Friday,” MidHudsonNews.com reported on Sunday. “Management at the restaurant, which is operated by CIA graduate chef Michael Dederick, was told the meals would be for the Kerry and Edwards families and actor Ben Affleck who was with them on the tour.”

After tossing out their cheeseburgers and chili, Kerry and Edwards feasted on shrimp vindallo, grilled diver sea scallops, prosciutto, wrapped stuffed chicken and steak salad.

The meals came to about $200, MidHudson News said.

Let’s call them Sound Bite Bills

It has been interesting to me to read about a few bills that have either been passed or voted down lately.  The question began to form in my mind is whether it is better for a bill to pass because it appeals to the constituents or to vote it down and face the ire of the constituents.  Then, I realized what is going on.  I will call it sound bite bills.  These are bills that really serve no purpose other to sound like they are great bills, but there is no real meat to the bill. Or should I say that the bills if passed will eventually do more harm than good.  So, the regular ole representatives are stuck.  Here is a bill that has a great sound bite to it that the constituents want, but the explanation of why it is not the right bill to vote for is not something that can easily be explained.  Thus, many are stuck in a position of having to decide whether they should vote for a bad bill or vote against a bill that makes them look like they are not listening to their constituents.

The more I have thought about this, the more I keep coming back to the same place.  Who is bringing these bills forward for a vote before they make sure that all is in place by dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s?  And, why are they bringing it forward as an unfinished bill?  Do they want the bill to fail but without their fingerprints on it?  Do they want it to pass knowing that it could cause problems in the future?  Or are they so concerned with getting a bill forward that they really haven’t thought through the process to realize that they are introducing these bills that are best called Sound Bite Bills.

Finally, when are the representatives going to take the time to do due diligence on these bills and call out the problems with them so that a vote is not taken on a bill that needs to be improved before a vote is called?



Tax Breaks for all?

I read this post on Michelle Malkin All or nothing: Stop the Obama tax increases

This is what Obama has said about giving the tax breaks to all.

Obama said giving the tax break to people earning more than $250,000 a year will cost the country $700 billion over the next 10 years.

This is what Michelle Malkin replies to that part of what he said.

All or nothing: Stop the Obama tax increases
By Michelle Malkin • November 8, 2010 09:53 AM

I’m going to keep repeating it until they stop saying it.

Republicans, you are not fighting for the extension of the “Bush tax cuts.”


All of them.

As I noted on Friday, when voters got the chance to soak the rich in Washington state, they overwhelmingly rejected onerous, punitive taxes to redistribute wealth from private job creators and future private job creators to government schools and government health care programs.

Over the weekend, Obama said he is willing to have a “serious conversation” about temporary tax relief for all.

Yeah, we know how Obama’s Kabuki “conversations” end (reminder: smitten Smurfs).

The feint:

President Obama is not ready to cave in to Republican demands that Bush-era tax cuts must be extended to wealthy Americans.

Obama told “60 Minutes” that he is ready to work with Republicans on the hotly debated issue, but he stopped short of saying he is ready to compromise with the GOP.

“We’re gonna have to have a serious conversation about it,” he said in his first interview since Democrats were massacred at the polls on Election Day.

The dispute centers around whether to extend the tax cuts to families earning less than $250,000, which both parties want, or giving the cuts to all Americans, which the GOP wants.

Raising taxes for middle class Americans, the President said, “is the last thing we want right now.”

The cuts are set to expire by the end of this year.

Obama said giving the tax break to people earning more than $250,000 a year will cost the country $700 billion over the next 10 years.

Obama isn’t “giving” anything. He’s taking. And taking. And taking.

Obama and the Democrat ruling majority took trillions from wealth-creating Americans in the name of an “emergency situation”

He tripled the deficit.

Sold hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. debt to China.

And now he’s worried about fiscal responsibility?

Here is what I say about it. Umm, remember when Carter decided to raise taxes on luxury items. You know the items that the wealthy can afford and buy so as a way to tax the wealthy that can afford those items the democrats decided to put a special tax on those items. Sounds great doesn’t it? Let’s get some taxes on the wealthy by taxing items that only the can afford to pay. One word – Yachts. Yep, Carter and the Democratic controlled congress decided to tax Yachts. And guess what happened, people didn’t buy yachts so they wouldn’t have to pay the taxes. So, the country lost out on the tax revenue. But, what is even worse is that this luxury tax that was to hit that 1% that earns more money so they should pay more than their share to the country actually hit the middle class who made the yachts.

From hubpages

Even when taxes are carefully crafted to only include the real rich, there can be a nasty surprise for the middle class and the nation as happened with the Carter Administration’s tax on yachts. After whipping up the publics’ emotions with their usual class warfare rhetoric (remember Carter’s campaign against the so-called three martini lunch deduction?) President Carter and his Democrat controlled Congress enacted a stiff tax on the purchase of yachts. Given that only the super rich can afford a yacht, this should have been the ideal tax on the rich. But the Carter Administration overlooked two things. First, the rich, like everyone else, hates to waste money. Second, and more important, while only the rich buy yachts, it is middle class workers who build yachts. As a result of the tax, most rich people did one of two things in that they either made do with last year’s yacht or purchased a new one abroad where the tax did not apply. In doing so, the small American yacht industry was destroyed (one New Jersey town whose economy was totally dependent on yacht building faced economic disaster) and associated jobs and income tax revenues (unemployed people generally pay little or no income tax) were lost. This little episode only served to further weaken the nation’s economy which, as a result of the misguided Keynesian taxing and spending policies of the Nixon and Carter administrations, was struggling under the dual burden of double digit inflation AND double digit unemployment.

The yacht tax fiasco, which even if it had been successful, was never projected to generate significant revenue. It was instead, driven more by a desire to punish the rich for their success than to raise revenue. However, the yacht tax is a clear demonstration of the truth of former President Regan’s observation that Washington doesn’t solve our problems, it IS the problem.

This is what is going on right now. Companies are worried about what taxes they are going to have to pay so they are not trying to grow their businesses, instead they are just trying to exist. This is impacting their workforce, which is trickling down to the middle class workers who either have been laid off and are job searching or who are terrified they will be laid off. Everyone is in a holding pattern right now trying to figure out what to do as Congress keeps adding taxes without realizing that it isn’t about giving us our money it is about letting us keep our money, spend our money to help boost the economy! Besides, just remember that if they decide to only allow those who make under $250,000 to keep their tax breaks, when will rich become $200,000, and then $50,000.

Hey Jim Cooper, what have you accomplished?

I asked myself this question after I saw Cooper’s ad on the tv last night. I heard several people talking about how he helped them in regards to the flood. But, then a lot of people in the Nashville area helped those who had been affected by the flood. What I remember the most was when Kenny Chesney called Anderson Cooper to ask him why he wasn’t covering the flood damage in Middle Tennessee. I remember watching many people donate money at the telethons and concerts that were held. I remember hearing that he appeared at a few locations to “help” but it appeared to be more photo ops than anything else. And, these pictures are part of his ad But, he had a handful of people on his ad telling everyone that he helped them.

Wow, how many years in office and the only thing he can show on his ad is that he helped a few people after the flood, a few months before the election? Why isn’t he showing how he voted as Pelosi wanted him to vote? Why isn’t he showing how he supported Obamacare? Why isn’t he showing how he left to go on the fall break to campaign with all the democrats leaving tax cuts and the budget on the table so to say? You know the things that are in the Constitution for what Congress is supposed to do. Is he even showing that he is the democrat candidate?

It took a while and then I remembered a few things he has done. He stood up to the underfunded Corps of Engineers so that they would produce a report that reported things they had already reported to show what they had found in their reactions to the flood. I still wonder how much of this was to stay in the good graces of Gaylord. It is interesting the story doesn’t seem to be a story anymore after the Corps of Engineers reported that they told Gaylord a couple of times that their private levee was too low. I knowhe really did try to help Gaylord find tax money that would help them repair the damage that could have been prevented if they had followed the suggestions of the Corps of Engineers.

Then, there was the recent article in the Tennessean. You know the one that reports that Cooper would have gotten Nashville a new Federal Courthouse. But, gosh dern it, every time he tried, someone else would jump ahead of him in line so he just couldn’t get it. I guess this is his way of telling us he just doesn’t have the political clout to do anything for us. Even after he tried to stay in the good graces of Pelosi by voting the way she wanted him to vote.

So, once again I ask Jim Cooper, what have you done?

Why can’t we just realize war has been declared on us…by the democrats?

So, the House is going to be voting soon on the Disclose Act. I thought for about 30 seconds on whether to call Jim Cooper to tel him to vote NO. But, he is going to vote as Nancy Pelosi tells him. He thinks he will be part of the great new world that the Democrats are creating, but sadly I think the people will revolt when they realize what is going on. It is sad that Obamacorn has basically declared war on multiple states. The gulf states with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the Immigration Law in Arizona. It is sad that we have a president and a bunch of representatives that are more concerned about destroying this great country than actually supporting what makes it great – We the people.

I see pictures being posted by liberals on facebook talking about how horrible things are in the gulf states as oil washes up on the beaches. Yet, they seem to be clueless on the parts that Obama is playing in this. He has known since February that the oil rig had problems. The MMS allowed the oil rig to avoid an inspection about a week or so before the explosion occurred. Obama is doing everything to stop ALL deep sea drilling as a response. But, do you hear about Chavez nationalizing American oil rigs as in Venezuela now owns something without compensating company for them? Have you heard about Soros investing in oil rigs in Brazil? Have you heard about the almost 30 offers of help that Obama has either ignored or refused? Have you heard about the sand dreggers that were stopped because of safety issues (making sure they had life vests on board by the coast guard?) Have you heard about the company that had oil booms read to be used but they were refused because they were not good enough to use? Have you heard about the sand berms that finally Jindal decided to have built to try to defend his state, but he was stopped because they might not be good for the environment? Yet, oil spilling out and ruining the land is not an environmental issue?

And, of course, now taxes will have to be increased to pay for all the damage that has occurred.

As a reminder, remember that some of the men that Obama has quietly surrounded himself with are Bill Ayers, Wade Rathke, Van Jones, and George Soros.

Updated to add. Of course, the Democrats passed the Disclose Act with Jim Cooper Voting for it. Also, Bob Etheridge (D – North Carolina) supported the Disclose Act.

But of course, this post from Hot Air says it all Hank Johnson: We need to pass the DISCLOSE Act to stop Republicans from winning elections Check out the link to see the video it has.