Tag Archives: Politics

Tale of Two Senate Jobs Bills

There’s been a lot of talk about the lack of a jobs bill to come out of Washington.  In the campaign of 2010, the mantra of “jobs, jobs, jobs” was heard from The Coast of Carolina to the coast of California.  Of course, we know how that election worked out.

Horribly for the Democrats.

Since then, any legislation by the Republican House that doesn’t deal directly with “jobs, jobs, jobs” has been derided by the Left as some sort of betrayal to the people.

Wanna pass a bill that talks about abortion?  Wanna discuss legislation that speaks to immigration?  All impossible under the chorus of mockery from the Left claiming that the Republicans haven’t passed a single jobs bill.

The Speaker of the House disagrees that his chamber has been silent:

 House Republicans have worked throughout the year to implement the Pledge to America, our governing agenda focused on removing government barriers to private-sector job creation, and later this year built on the Pledge by putting forth an expanded jobs agenda, our Plan for America’s Job Creators.  Our new majority has passed more than a dozen pro-growth measures to address the jobs crisis. Aside from repeal of the 1099 reporting requirement in the health care law, however, none of the jobs measures passed by the House to date have been taken up by the Democrat-controlled Senate.  

None have been taken up in the Senate.  More than a dozen bills.  None taken up in the Senate.


Very hard to blame the Republicans for the Democrats refusal even to consider such bills.  Much ado has been made about the Republicans use of the filibuster, but let’s not forget that the Democrats control the Senate.  And as such, only bring up legislation that they want to consider; a built in filibuster.

However, even with all of that aside, last night was illustrative:

Thursday night, there were a couple Democratic defections on Obama’s jobs measure. And despite a veto threat from the White House, 10 Democrats voted for a GOP alternative.’

The Democrats brought up a jobs bill in the Senate.

It was defeated 50-50.

Then the Republicans brought up a jobs bill.  Every single Republican voted for it.  AND 10 Democrats joined ’em.

It was defeated, 57-43, due to Democrat obstruction.

I find it fascinating that the Republicans garnered more bi-partisan support for a jobs bill in a Democrat Senate than the Democrat President was able to muster.

A tale of two jobs bills indeed.

Jesse Jackson Jr. Is Not Smart

Remember, that of which I speak also feels that a reason we have so many unemployed folks is because of the iPad relieved so many type-setters from their jobs.

Just know about who we’re talking about here.

Anyway, it seems that the Good Reverend’s Son feels the government should just hire the unemployed:

Illinois Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. told The Daily Caller on Wednesday that congressional opposition to the American Jobs Act is akin to the Confederate “states in rebellion.”

Jackson called for full government employment of the 15 million unemployed…

I suspect he wants them to assume a occupation in type-setting perhaps?

Anyway, so yeah.  Jesse wants the government to just hire the 15 million people.  And then what?

I believe … in the direct hiring of 15 million unemployed Americans at $40,000 a head…

Remember, I told you this guys isn’t smart.  iPads contributing to the unemployment rate.

So yes, Jesse wants to hire 15 million people at $40k a pop.  Guess what THAT does to the unemployment rate?  It SKY-rockets.  Everyone under $40,000, or even those at some marginal value higher than $40,000, will become unemployed over-night.

Every blessed one of ’em.

Now, what I would do instead of listening to the not-smart Rep from Illinois, is declare everyone on unemployment to be an employee.  And make ’em work.

There, problem solved.  Except my idea is better.

40,000 a head, really…….

Governor Purdue And Gay Marriage Amendment

I shouldn’t be surprised.  Democrats have long ago abandoned any hope of defending individual liberty.  In so far that the Liberal Left picks up any cause, it’s done simply to gather that group’s vote in future elections.  You think the Democrats support civil rights?  Look at their record on civil rights votes.  Think that Liberals defend folks who are discriminated because of who they are?  Consider the same Liberals who demand their music not be played at certain functions.

Public schools?  Look where Obama sends his kids.

And now we have one more example of a Leftist going out in public displaying her finest pandering colors:

RALEIGH, N.C. — Gov. Beverly Perdue announced Friday she’ll vote against a change to North Carolina’s constitution next May that would prohibit gay marriage…

See.  A hypocrite.

“But Pino”, you may claim, “she is voting against the amendment and FOR liberty!  Ahhh, but look closer:

Perdue said in a prepared statement she believes marriage is between one man and one woman and voted while in the Legislature for a 1996 law so that North Carolina couldn’t recognize same-sex marriages in other states.

“I continue to support that law today,” Perdue said.

So, how does the good Govna of the Great State of North by God Carolina explain her fllippy floppyness of her vote?

“But I’m going to vote against the amendment because I cannot in good conscience look an unemployed man or woman in the eye and tell them that this amendment is more important than finding them a job.”

This is crap.

But I shouldn’t be surprised.

Unemployment Benefits: To Be Clear

I think it’s important to clear a few things up.  And to explain the difference between personal charity and legislative responsibility.

On a human and personal level I get the fact that someone out of work is struggling.  Most likely with personal value issues, household income issues and perhaps larger life skills and career opportunity issues.

I get that.

And to that extent, I resonate with the personal heart string tugging concept of needing to provide relief.  I absolutely agree that helping when one can is the right thing to do.  Without a doubt.

On the governmental and legislative level I know that the best thing that can be done is to make sure that it is as easy as possible for people  looking for work can match up with people looking for workers.n  In short, for the removal of every possible obstacle.

The juxtaposition of those two very valid and noble positions seems to be taking place in our debate.

The fiscal conservatives want less unemployment benefits to be handed out.  Less as in fewer weeks and less money.  The social  liberals want to increase those benefits.  Increase as in extend benefits and with more money.

And they yell at each other.

But they aren’t arguing about the same topic.  The Left are advocating a position of personal charity.  The Right are advocating a position of economic modeling.  Both are right in their specific context, but that context isn’t the same.

So, I would suggest this:

  • My Liberal friends:  Form a non-profit foundation that provides relief to the unemployed.
  • My Conservative friends: Contribute to said foundation.
  • End government mandated charity.

Remember, there must be an incontrovertible condition for the government to relive a man of the fruits of his labor by threat of sword or gun.  And the simple fact that you feel more comfortable with this man having that man’s property does not meet that condition.

The Debt Limit, Budget, Deficit and Debt: Update

So, yesterday I posted about a possible solution to the deficit and the debt. In those plans I accommodated those on the right who insist on a plan that includes no new revenues due to tax increases.  Further, I accommodated those on the left who insist on a plan that doesn’t cut; in fact my plan GROWS government each and every single year.

As I ended my analysis I demonstrated a method by which both of those targets were met AND we backed away from the debt limit that we are struggling with today.  The solution began to reduce the the deficit in year 1.  And it balanced the budget in year 19.  It’s the perfect trifecta.

But what if we can do better?  What if we can reduce the amount of time in which we are free of the deficit?

I think we can:

Continue reading

The Debt Limit, Budget, Deficit and Debt: Framing the Picture

The talk of the town is the debt limit.  Raise it or not raise it; and what it would take TO raise it.

Reasonable people can agree on a couple of things:

  1. We are in debt and it’s getting worse.
  2. To balance the budget, there needs to be a combination of an increase in revenue and a decrease in spending.

I honestly feel that if you were to ask this question, hidden in such a way as to bypass the normal political partisanship, every single American would agree.  If the checking account is overdrawn, a second job becomes something to consider and a review of the household spending becomes a priority.

But, how do we agree on such a combination when the discussion changes from the household budget to the federal budget?  How can we get folks who demand that we raises taxes together with folks who demand we don’t?  How do we get people who refuse to cut spending to shake hands with those who feel we HAVE to cut spending?

I propose that we do it by doing neither.


Continue reading

Boehner and Obama Debt Limit Negotiations

The Hill is reporting that Boehner has ended negotiations with the White House over raising the debt limit ceiling:

House Republican leaders have called off negotiations with the White House over a broad deficit-reduction deal tied to an increase in the federal debt limit and will begin exclusive talks with Senate leaders to avert a government default on Aug. 2, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced Friday.

Boehner told House Republicans in a letter that President Obama is “adamant” about raising taxes and would not agree to “fundamental changes” to entitlement programs.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.  Obama’s time in the Oval office to date is nothing but speeches that say one thing followed by policy that does another.  To have thought that Obama was serious when he claimed he was willing to cut spending, reform medicare and social security is wishful thinking at best

There isn’t a bone in Barack’s body that’s willing to reduce government spending.  The whole of his life has been spent enlarging government for the benefit of the “less fortunate”.  I’m convinced Obama can’t envision a world where government shrinks.  And reforming the entitlement programs?  HA!  If he speaks about reforming ’em, he isn’t talking about it in the way that you and I would reform ’em.  In his mind those reforms take the shape of ADDING to the revenue side to reduce the deficit of the programs.  Again, there is simply no way this man will shrink that aspect of government either.

There is no way that Obama means “spending cut” in any way that resembles reality as it relates to the common everyday American.

So, the fact that Boehner walked on him is the most positive thing that’s happened in a week.  Or weeks, for that matter.

With only 1 week before the government shuts down, it looks like we’re facing exactly that; a shutdown.  And judging by the reaction in Minnesota, namely — who cares? — and the fact that the Democrat gave in and accepted the Republican’s deal, I say let ‘er go.

America is fed up with the spending and it’s time we address it.

Good Intentions: Where They Lead


Boy, talk about a word that conjurers up a ton of emotions.

On the one hand, we have stories of “Irish Need Not Apply”.  On the other, heroic remembrances of a time gone by when determined folks would walk off a ship with barely a nickel to their name.  And die rich.

And now…well, now we have newscasts of drug runners, cartels and coyotes.  Fences and tunnels, arms deals and drug wars.

Ugly stuff this.  To be sure.

But when the drama and the histrionics have past and we have boiled away all that isn’t really truly important, what are we left with?  To me, in it’s simplest form, we are left with one single human being wanting to make a better life for himself.  His family.

We are left with that most American story of boots and straps and pull.  We cheer for the individualist.  We build a culture that applauds that individual.  And rewards him with adoration and, perhaps, wealth.

To me, that’s the American Dream.

Continue reading

Dear Valued Employee, Thank You For “X” Years Of Service

We’ve all been on the receiving end of that letter.  The CEO of the company “sends” you the letter that officially congratulates you on the number of years of service to the company.  The big years fall on the “Fives”; 10-15-20 etc.

The whole idea of this is that of reward.  Recognition that you have been able to contribute to the viability of the company for those 15 or so years.  And the further up you go, the larger the recognition that you actually “survive”.  And, further, that the company “survived” as well.

See, each of us has a relationship with our employer.  We stay employed as long as these conditions are met:

  1. The burden of going to the office and giving up 40 hours a week is overcome by the amount of money and other benefits I get from the firm.
  2. The burden of compensating the employee is overcome by the productivity they give the firm.

That is, it has to be worth it to both the employee AND the employer.  When it no longer satisfies those criteria; separation occurs.

Continue reading

Superior Court Judge: I’ll Write The State Budget

The North Carolina legislature passed a budget.  This budget passed both house of  properly elected lawmakers.  Then, this budget was vetoed by the Good Govna’ of the Great State of North by God Carolina, herself properly elected.

Bev Purdue certainly can veto bills she doesn’t like.

After learning of said veto, the legislature convened and took up  vote to over-ride the veto.  And over-ride that veto the legislature did.  And so, the budget became law without the consent of the governor.

That, however, is not the end of the story.

Continue reading