Cut, Cap, and Balance

Senator Jim DeMint was on Hannity tonight promoting a new website - a movement, really - called  Cut, Cap, Balance Pledge.  It's a bold plan to set us back on the road to fiscal responsibility:

"We believe that the “Cut, Cap, Balance” plan for substantial spending cuts in FY 2012, a statutory spending cap, and Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution is the minimum necessary precondition to raising the debt limit. The ultimate goal is to get us back to a point where increases in the debt limit are no longer necessary."

The group hopes to make this the focus of a national debate during next year's election cycle.  It is asking legislators, candidates and ordinary citizens to take the pledge:

1. Cut - Substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter.
2. Cap - Enforceable spending caps that will put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget.
3. Balance - Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- but only if it includes both a spending limitation and a super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expenses.

So far three presidential candidates have signed on - Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty and Herman Cain,  as well as 15 House members and 11 Senators. [UPDATE: Rick Santorum has also signed]  I hope in the coming days that I will see Rep. Jim Renacci from my district and Ohio Senator Rob Portman added to the list.  Both campaigned as fiscal conservatives and stressed the need to cut federal spending.  Time to walk the talk, gentlemen. 

Also notable is the list of 2012 Congressional candidates.  On the U.S. Senate list we find both Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel and former OH State Senator Kevin Coughlin.  So....I guess it's official that Mandel is running for the Senate?  He's been evasive when questioned about it, but all signs have pointed to him running.  This is just one more indication that he's in.  That he's boldly jumping in with DeMint, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul at the outset of the race gives us an indication of how he might position himself as a candidate and if elected,  with whom he might align himself.  This is a GOOD development!  After years of suffering through Sherrod Brown, Ohio could use a Marco Rubio-style senator of our own, couldn't we?  

Let's be honest here.  A balanced budget amendment is a long shot.  Amending the Constitution is a very difficult process by design.  Either two-thirds of both houses of Congress or two-thirds of the state legislatures must propose the amendment.  Then, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve it.  But the 26th amendment, which gave 18-year-olds the right to vote,  only took four months, so it's not an impossible task.

And the first two parts of the pledge - cut and cap - are within reach if the Republicans will hold the line and stand on the promises they made when they were elected in 2010.

Take a few minutes to check out the website.  If your senator or representative has not signed on,  call, send an e-mail or Facebook message or tweet them.  It only takes a minute and a few dozen calls and messages can make a huge difference.  Also, share the website with all your Facebook and Twitter friends.

CNN GOP Debate

Monday's GOP debate, hosted by CNN, was largely an exercise in frustration and futility.  The format allowed each candidate 30 seconds to answer each question - hardly sufficient to say much more than, "Well, first, I'd like to say..." By the time the candidate would get those words out, moderator John King would start grunting and wouldn't stop until the candidate had concluded the answer.  It was irritating and distracting.  And weird.  King needs more training as a moderator.  I suggest a couple years on the spelling bee circuit before they let him anywhere near a high-profile debate again.  


I was also frustrated by the "11th Commandment" pact the candidates had apparently agreed to prior to the debate.  By that, I mean Reagan's famous 11th Commandment never to speak ill of a fellow Republican.   Aside from the fact that even Reagan didn't follow the Commandment religiously, this was a primary debate.  The idea is for candidates to convince voters to choose them and not their opponents.  While it's great to criticize Obama and his policies, it's also important to debate important issues within the Republican party.  There are important differences between the candidates, both in philosophy and governing history, and those issues need to be addressed and debated.  Ignoring the elephant (pun intended!) in the room just makes it highly likely that the candidate with the most money and the highest name recognition will win the nomination - Mitt Romney.  But by default, rather than on the merit of his ideas, beliefs, and record.    


Here's my assessment (in no particular order) of the candidates' performances on Monday night:


Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)  - Rep. Bachmann took the opportunity to announce that she had filed the paperwork to run for president.  Like Sarah Palin, some on the Left have made a sport of turning her into a bizarre caricature. In this debate, she was able to show 3.162 million viewers  (up 400% from CNN's normal audience) that she is warm, smart, determined,  and can play with the big boys.  Her story of five natural children and 23 foster kids shows that her lectures and policies relating to family values are more than cerebral ponderings and book knowledge.  She's walked the walk and has skin in the game.  I think she was a big winner, especially among those who had not heard of her and those who had only heard her taken out of context. 


Gov. Mitt Romney - Governor Romney was a winner in the sense that he didn't lose any ground.  He "looked" presidential and managed to stay above the fray.  The other candidates refused to attack or even engage him on his state-mandated healthcare program in MA and his flip-flop on abortion.  He must have breathed a huge sigh of relief.  I was irritated that he obfuscated on several answers, seeming to remain just vague enough that he could back away from his answer and later say, "That's not what I meant."  For example, moderator John King could not pin Romney down on whether or not the debt ceiling should be raised.  He said, 

"I believe we will not raise the debt ceiling unless the president is finally, finally willing to be a leader on the issue the American people care about."  

So, in other words, we won't raise the debt ceiling unless we will.  Got that?  



Gov. Tim Pawlenty - Gov. Pawlenty had some good moments, but much of it was overshadowed by the completely awkward confrontation with moderator John King.  King asked, cajoled, even BEGGED Pawlenty to criticize Romney about what Pawlenty had - just the night before - referred to as "Obamneycare."  As Romney looked on , Pawlenty punted.  He went after Obama instead, refusing to lay a hand, or even a sharp adjective on Romney.   Pawlenty has said over and over again on the talk show circuit that he can be nice, but as a former hockey player, is willing to "throw a sharp elbow" when needed.  It was needed at this debate and he came off as more of a figure skater than hockey player. Would he do the same in a debate with Obama staring him down?  He left me with that question. 


Rick Santorum -   I honestly don't know there is so little enthusiasm for this man.  He gets it.  He can articulate the values of the Tea Party and he voted that way consistently when he was in the Senate.  When he talks about foreign policy,  he sounds like the adult in the room. And no one in the race is a more solid social conservative.  During the debate, he was passionate about the Constitution and his love for this country and confidence in the American people.  I just don't agree with detractors who say he is "boring."  


Ron Paul - I didn't hear all of what he said, as I learned to tune out that frequency of whining when the boys were little.  Really, he didn't belong on that stage.  He's a Libertarian, not a Republican.  Oh, he runs on the Republican ticket and he often votes with the GOP, but you won't find the issues he's most passionate about and for which the loons flock to him  anywhere in the GOP platform (ending the Federal Reserve,  isolationist foreign policy, legalizing drugs).   During the debate, Paul alternated between populist (to a certain segment that he appeals to) slogans and monetary mumbo jumbo that almost no one understands:

"And when you have a reserve currency of the world and you abuse it, you export money. That becomes the main export so it goes with the money."

 I would venture to say that the vast majority of Americans have no idea what that means.  I have no idea what it means.  If you fail to communicate, you can't win.  That, in addition to his many other issues. 


Newt Gingrich - His demeanor was more "grumpy old man" than elder statesman.  In fact, he may have overtaken Ron Paul in this category.  I don't think he cracked a smile the entire evening.   He's clearly a very intelligent man, knows his facts, has been around a long time.  We know because he reminds us. Constantly.  He gave some of the best answers of the night, including those on immigration and appointing Muslims to his cabinet.  However, he's got so much baggage it's hard to discern what is fact and what is campaign fiction with this man. 


Herman Cain - I like Herman Cain.  I enjoy listening to him, I love his story of realizing the American Dream and I really want to like him more. But I fear there is little more to him than slogans, acronyms and 5-point plans.  Most of his answers in the debate started with, "We have to work on the right problem."  True enough, but not enough.  He usually followed up with a 3-point plan represented by an acronym.  To me, it came across as simplistic rather than studied.  He also has still not articulated a foreign policy, instead, continuing to insist that he cannot give his opinion until he has all the intelligence at his disposal.  This is a very amateurish policy and not one I wish to see in a presidential candidate.   I want to like him more, but I feel like it would be foolish to do so.  


So what did you think?

March 26, 2011

Rand Paul on Libyan rebels: Who are these people? - National Review Online

“Some people can debate and caterwaul and say that a no-fly zone is not war, but there will not be many people, in and around the country, who believe that putting U.S. troops on the ground is not war,” Paul says. “I can tell you, absolutely, that I will demand a declaration of war on the Senate floor before any troops set foot in Libya.”

Beyond his constitutional concerns, Paul argues that the Libyan conflict is being waged to support a mostly unknown rebel force. “The question is, who are these people?” he asks. “We know how bad the guy in power is, but do we know that these people are not in favor of radical sharia law? Do we know that they do not think that Israel should be wiped off the map? I am always concerned when we are in favor of people who we know nothing about.” George Will, Pat Buchanan, and Sen. Dick Lugar (R., Ind.), he says, have all raised this important point."

Top 10 names Obama didn't give Libyan action | Washington Examiner: (HT: Dan Phillips) 


10.Operation Nine Months In The Senate Didn't Prepare Me For This

9. Operation Organizing for Libya

8. Operation Double Standard

7. Operation FINE! I'll Do Something

6. Operation Enduring Narcissism

5. Operation So That's What the Red Button Does

4. Operation France Backed Me Into A Corner

3. Operation Start Without Me

2. Operation Unlike Bush Wars This One Is Justified Because Hey Look A Squirrel

1. Operation Aimless Fury


From the "religion of peace"....


 Thousands of Christians Displaced in Ethiopia After Muslim Extremists Torch Churches, Homes - FoxNews.com: 

"Thousands of Christians have been forced to flee their homes in Western Ethiopia after Muslim extremists set fire to roughly 50 churches and dozens of Christian homes.

At least one Christian has been killed, many more have been injured and anywhere from 3,000 to 10,000 have been displaced in the attacks that began March 2 after a Christian in the community of Asendabo was accused of desecrating the Koran."

 FreedomWorks launches ‘Diverse Tea’ | The Daily Caller :

"Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks organization rolled out its Diverse Tea campaign Monday at diverse-tea.com.

FreedomWorks President and CEO Matt Kibbe told The Daily Caller that the program is meant to showcase diversity in the Tea Party movement. The first four members of Diverse Tea highlighted are the Rev. C.L. Bryant, Deneen Borelli, Tito Munoz and Ryan Hecker."

This is an unnecessary distraction from Freedom Works' mission of fiscal responsibility.  The sooner we cease talking about racial divisions and obsessing about skin color, the sooner we will have a color-blind society.  Continuing to focus on it is just feeding the beast of the politics of race and giving fodder to the race baiters. 

Rep. Randy Forbes on our country's Judeo-Christian heritage.  ACLU types are running to their therapists to deal with the trauma of this 4-minute speech that mentions God dozens of times:

 Poll: Most in U.S., except evangelicals, see no divine sign in disasters - USATODAY.com: 

"Nearly six in 10 evangelicals believe God can use natural disasters to send messages — nearly twice the number of Catholics (31%) or mainline Protestants (34%). Evangelicals (53%) are also more than twice as likely as the one in five Catholics or mainline Protestants to believe God punishes nations for the sins of some citizens.

The poll found that a majority (56%) of Americans believe God is in control of the earth, but the idea of God employing Mother Nature to dispense judgment (38% of all Americans) or God punishing entire nations for the sins of a few (29%) has less support..

...Nearly half of Americans (44%) say the increased severity of recent natural disasters is evidence of biblical 'end times,' but a larger share (58%) believe it is evidence of climate change. The only religious group more likely to see natural disasters as evidence of 'end times' (67%) than climate change (52%) is white evangelicals...

The article includes this very wise insight:

...This is tragic, but if you ask (why God allows) earthquakes, you have to ask it anytime that people die. We would have to be prophets of God to know that.'

This is such a great point.  Often, when faced with a tragedy of the proportions we see in Japan, we fail to remember that (according to some estimates), 150,000 people die every single day - dwarfing the number killed in the tsunami in Japan.  So the question is not "Why did God send/allow/cause the earthquake?" but "Why do people die?"  The Bible tells us that it started with the first man, Adam: 

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12).

This discussion brought to mind a couple of videos I saw last month (HT: Justin Taylor).  Zac Miller went home to be with the Lord in May, 2010 after a short battle with cancer. He made a video about his journey before he died. His wife followed up with a video of her own journey after his death:

The Story of Zac Smith from NewSpring Media on Vimeo.

A Story | Tears of Hope from Adam Kring on Vimeo.

And finally, the inspirational story of a one-legged wrestler who won the national championship: