The nepotism that put Lisa Murkowski in office made her voting record from the Legislature more concerning. On record, she was for increased government. In Washington, she carefully voted with former Senator Ted Stevens until after her first actual election. She won a close race against Tony Knowles (definitely not a conservative), suggesting voters had deep reservations about her.
Since becoming senior senator, she has voted with Republicans most of the time, but her voting record is telling. For: Medicare prescriptions; amnesty for illegal immigrants; hate crimes legislation that endangers freedom of speech, press and religion; TARP 1; and expansion of entitlement programs. She voted against Obamacare but opposed its repeal. She’s a top RINO who stopped spending when constituents said she’d better stop, but she has hinted that it’s only temporary, until people calm down. Spending is her guiding principle.
None of this makes Lisa a bad person, but it does make her bad for the country and bad for Alaska. History shows our country was far healthier fiscally, politically and socially when we followed the U.S. Constitution’s checks and balances and limits on the power of government both to infringe on the rights of citizens and to provide services that were not enumerated in the Constitution. Getting away from that since the 1920s has led us to the brink of multi-generational fiscal ruin and either political and societal transformation or restoration, depending on the decisions we start making in this next election.
That’s why I’m voting for Joe Miller against Lisa Murkowski in the primary. I don’t agree with him 100 percent, but he’s a constitutional conservative, which means his guiding principles are enumerated and solid, not based on special interests and or the money that comes with them. This country needs to get back to that. It will mean fewer government services, but it also will mean less government interference in the lives of citizens and our communities. That’s vitally important.
Even twain. Or just people that you disagree with.
"As long as you are only discussing the issues and not doing this it is fine to address me by my name."
What, are you some kind of royalty that can tell others whether they may or may not address you by name in a public forum?
How about this, instead? I address you, or whoever, by name. If you don't like it then either report abuse to the DNM or don't read it.
End of problem.
I believe that Obama should have remained in the Senate for at least two full terms so that he could better understand what America is, rather than his foolish "progressive" catastrophe of an understanding. He is cooking our golden goose.
Oldowl, you have re-stated your threat to me accurately and I may have overstated your threat to me, but it still sounds threatening to me.
As for reporting someone to Homeland Security I did not say that. I am one of those people who pretty much say what they mean and mean what they say. My meaning was that anyone with a total obsession with our president no matter what the subject and with such obvious hatred MAY be of interest to H.S.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2010/07/14/open-thread-greatest-10-minutes-television-ever
Oldowl hasn't threatened, or really even insulted me. It's true that oldowl goes along with twain's portrayal of me as always insulting and name calling, but that's OK. I'm a big boy.
Twain, on the other hand has escalated the hate rhetoric. In one comment he'll either insinuate, or outright call me, or you, or anyone that he disagrees with all sorts of names. In the next comment he flat out denies it, and in the comment after that he'll accuse us of calling him names.
His hatefulness and spite have grown old and predictable. Still, his constant revision of history needs to be corrected on a regular basis, lest some innocent be led astray. But that goes for all liberals who insist on rewriting history. Some are already rewriting the events of this year.
"Governor Pawlenty is no authority on balancing the budget. Minnesota is in the middle of a bad fiscal crisis and no balanced budget. He has lost popularity in MN and now thinks to run for president in 2012. They call him King Pawlenty there."
I googled a couple of articles to read about Minnesota's budget problems. You are correct, they do exist as they do in most in states, but they are not bankruptcy threatening. Minnesota, it appears, will meet it's legal obligation of a balanced budget. Most of the criticism of Pawlenty comes from the DFL Party. I expect that the DFL would like a return to the old days of unchallenged power in the state. Nothing like a 100 years of mostly uninterrupted power to whet the political appetite.
While Minnesota does have a budget problem, relative to Democrat run states they are in fair shape. They are prepared to borrow $600 million to replace reserve dollars from state funds that are being shifted and prioritized. Naturally, the critics charge that Pawlenty wants to balance the budget on the backs of orphans. Christie in NJ is running into similar resistance. Cuts are not popular, but they are necessary to avoid catastrophe in the states and the federal government.
The DFL naturally calls for higher taxes. That tactic hasn't worked very well in other states, such as NY, MA, CA, and MI. It invariably results in businesses relocating in lower taxed states, or, God forbid, leaving the country. And despite the insane theories of Speaker Pelosi, unemployment is not an effective economic stimulus.
I think that you're correct that Pawlenty might run for president. Without a solid record as governor he won't get too far.
I have talked to Canadians who are very happy with their system which is run through the provinces. Too bad our states didn't try to do more of that. MN is one state with a health care program for those who cannot get insurance through an employer or any other program, have preexisting conditions, etc. Pawlenty has tried to cut and get rid of that program at every opportunity. Health care is not on his list of priorities.
$66,000 average federal employee wage (included military personnel though)
2,732,000 Federal employees (includes postal workers and programs like JobCorp) for year 2003
If ALL federal employees were to "sacrifice" down to minimum wage it would save about 130 Billion dollars a year. This is a conservative estimate as the employment numbers include part-time workers and the average wage is drug up by military wages.
130 Billion = 3.5% of the budget
(note: this does not account for a whole slew of things, including the inevitable costs to the government when 3rd-world style corruption settles in for federal employees that can make more money working at McDonalds than at jobs that (mostly) require college degrees.
I didn't hear one mention of what should be cut exactly, other than the vague "By far, the biggest long-term driver of the federal debt is entitlement spending, including Social Security and Medicare." which, the president has ALREADY DONE. The healthcare bill is above all an attempt to bring the costs of medicine under control, which is by and far the only possible way medicare expenses will go down short of eliminating the program entirely.
The only other entitlement program of significant magnitude is Social Security. Cutting that would return to the era of poor homes for the elderly.
No word on cutting the biggest part of our spending, the military... or the trillion-a-year wars we're in.
Ohh, by the way, to cut entitlement programs for the sake of bringing the budget under control means not only cutting the program, but continuing to collect the taxes that were paying into it. In effect, a NEW TAX.
===============
So again I ask you, what is the GOP alternative other than to say "NO" to everything and throw a temper-tantrum over a refusal to EXTEND a temporary tax cut program? When taxes on the wealthy is already lower (and on average Americans, higher) than it was in the 60s and 70s?
Excerpt from Governor Pawlenty's column in today's Politico.com:
Washington under President Barack Obama is not just broken -- it's broke.
When Obama entered office, he inherited a budget deficit that reflected the toxic combination of recession, bailouts and runaway entitlement programs. But rather than getting the government's finances under control, Obama and his allies in Congress poured gasoline on the fire with trillion-dollar boondoggles.
To put the recent spending binge in context, consider this: At the end of 2008, just before Obama took office, the federal debt was about 40 percent of our nation's total economy. Now, according to a recent Congressional Budget Office report, the debt will explode to 62 percent of our economy by the end of this year. ...
In a bizarre development, the Democratic-controlled House won't even pass a budget for the first time in decades. Any family or business knows you can't live within your means without a budget. Congressional Democrats have now announced they won't even try.
As the governor of a state that, like most others, has been facing recession-driven budget shortfalls recently, I understand the challenges in front of the president. What I don't understand is his refusal to do anything about it.
During my two terms in Minnesota, we balanced every biennial budget without raising taxes. ...
Obama and Congress should:
1. Set clear priorities but cut almost everything else. Not everything government does is equally important. When faced with a budget shortfall in Minnesota, we considered the importance of programs. We decided to protect funding for the most important ones: the National Guard, veterans' support programs, public safety and K-12 schools.
Nearly everything else has been cut. Last year, we cut overall spending in real terms for the first time in the state's 150-year history. [Ed.: My emphasis. And with a legislature that was overwhelmingly Democratic.]
2. Reform out-of-control entitlements. By far, the biggest long-term driver of the federal debt is entitlement spending, including Social Security and Medicare. These programs are going to have to be changed. And despite Beltway rhetoric, it can be done.
For example, in Minnesota, our bus drivers in the Twin Cities had benefits that were completely unsustainable. The premise of our reform was simple: The status quo must change. We kept our commitment to current employees but changed the rules for new hires.
Reforming that entitlement program and others wasn't easy. The reforms for our bus drivers led to one of the longest transit strikes in recent history. But we did it. So must Washington.
3. Sacrifice. Americans have sacrificed enough; it's time for government to sacrifice for a change. When Washington Democrats talk about balancing the budget, they speak gravely about painful choices and sacrifice -- but what they mean is tax increases. In other words, we sacrifice so they can spend.
Before we ask taxpayers to make "painful choices," we need to ask the politicians and bureaucrats to make a few first. In Minnesota, we rejected tax increases every year I was governor, and even cut taxes overall, to make our state more competitive. Washington can -- and should -- do the same. ...
Washington politicians may say you can't solve the problem by simply cutting spending, protecting crucial priorities and balancing the budget without raising taxes.
But in Minnesota, we've proven: Yes, you can.