House Republicans: House Republican Chairman Jeb Hensarling- 'The Kudlow Report'

Source:House Republicans- Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Republican, Texas) on The Kudlow Report on CNBC.

"House Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling appeared on CNBC's The Kudlow Report to discuss our Plan for America's Job Creators." 

From the House Republicans

I saw an interview on the CNBC Kudlow Report, which is let's be honest, its not a report, its more like the Larry Kudlow Point of View, or POV with Larry Kudlow, would be a more accurate description of this show. I learn about as much or less from watching Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity. Which isn't saying anything. 

These shows are mostly commentary but I actually did hear some interesting on the Kudlow, Show (let's call it) where the guy guest-hosting this show was interviewing Jeb Henserling (Chairman of the House Republican Conference) who is basically the chief spokesperson for the House GOP Leadership. And Chairman Hensarling in this "interview" (more like a couple guys taking turns slapping each other on the back) that Congress at this point, has passed a lot less legislation than the previous Congress's at the same point in the Congress. Because the House and Senate haven't gotten together to agree on a lot of legislation, 

House Republicans and Senate Democrats are just very divided on almost everything. The Senate has had a hard time passing anything out of the Senate, because of how evenly divided the Senate is between Democrats and Republicans.

Chairman Hensarling said that its not about how much legislation that Congress passes but the quality of legislation that Congress passes. Which is an obvious statement but very true. Congress's tend to be judged by how much legislation they pass, instead of the quality of legislation it passes. Which is the wrong test. And here's why: me personally, I don't want to see Congress pass a lot of legislation. Especially anything that makes the Federal Government bigger or our taxes higher or takes away some of our freedom. 

I want Congress and the Federal Government as a whole to do the things that we need it to do, do the basic work that Congress needs to do. To keep Uncle Sam in business, which means at least passing appropriation bills, to avoid government shutdowns and defaults. And when there are problems in the country like with a weak economy, passing things that can help improve the economy, which is where Congress has overwhelmingly failed.

Congress can't fix the economy, nor can the rest of the Federal Government but it can pass legislation to encourage economic and job growth, which is what the country needs. Like with a long-term highway bill and further infrastructure investment, which would also be a boost for our construction and manufacturing industries who need the work. And we need the parts to do that work and for this to happen the House and Senate have to work together. Not trying to pass things that the other side won't approve.

Liberty Pen: John Stossel-Ann Coulter- War On Drugs Debate

Source:Liberty Pen- right-wing loudmouth Ann Coulter debating John Stossel on the so-called War On Drugs.

"After 40 years of futility, John Stossel wants to end the Drug War.  Ann Coulter does not.  A discussion of individual liberty ensues. Liberty Pen." 

Source:Liberty Pen

I hate to say this, because I see Ann Coulter as a sometimes crazy, but other times as a nasty, intolerant, person, who can barely stand the presence of being in the same room, as anyone who disagrees with her on anything (sort of like a fascist) but she actually makes a good point (for a change) about the War On Drugs. 

Don't get me wrong, I think she's not dead wrong, but definitely wrong about the War On Drugs. But arguing that we wouldn't need the War On Drugs, if we didn't have a welfare state (or as I call safety net) and forced to subsidized others bad decisions in life. My counterpoint is that we don't need the War On Drugs at all, because it's a complete failure and waste of hard-woking, taxpayer dollars, that the Ann Coulter's of the world say they care about. 

Anytime you punish someone for something that they do to themselves (which is what a big part of the War On Drugs is) you meaning the government becomes responsible for the welfare of that individual. Which costs a lot of money. It takes $50,000 dollars a year to house and take care of the average Federal prison inmate. So we end up being stuck with a safety net (as I prefer to call it) that we can't afford, on top of this so-called War On Drugs that we can't afford either. And that's just the taxpayer costs. 

Most people who are in prison for simple illegal drug usage or possession, gets out of prison while they're still fairly young, but but now they can't get themselves a decent job, because they have this felony convection on their records. Even though they were only convicted of illegal drug possession or usage and represent no actual threat to any innocent person and they're still addicted to illegal narcotics, because the only thing they got in prison was they're lost of freedom. And they become wards of the welfare state (or safety net) that taxpayers have to pay for. 

I mean, you can't be a fiscal conservative and be a fan of the War On Drugs, since the War On Drugs is a waste of tax dollars.

U.S. Senator Tom Coburn: 'On Reforming the Crop Insurance Subsidy, Amendment to the Farm Bill'

Source:U.S. Senator Tom Coburn- Republican, Oklahoma) one of the true fiscal conservatives left in the U.S. Congress, in either party or chamber.

"(Tuesday, June 12 2012) - Dr. Coburn talking about his amendment with Senator Durbin (D-IL) to 3240, a bill to reauthorize agriculture programs through 2017. The Coburn and Durbin amendment would reduce the level of federal premium support for crop insurance participants with an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) over $750,000 by 15 percentage points for all buy-up policies beyond catastrophic coverage. CBO has estimated this amendment would save more than $1.2 billion dollars over 10 years."

From Senator Tom Coburn

What Senator Tom Coburn is arguing here is that American taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize farmers who are already doing well and simply don't need that taxpayer funded government welfare, in order to not just survive, but to live well. Sounds like basic commonsense to anyone who lives outside of the Washington area, which is most of the country. 

But if you serve in Congress and you represent a lot of agriculture workers, commonsense doesn't always, actually in many cases, doesn't work for you politically. And if one of your top priorities, or your top priority, perhaps your only priority, is getting reelected or moving on to a higher office and if it's welfare and pork that you need to get reelected or to move on to your next political office, you are probably going to take it, even if its's a complete waste of tax dollars. 

Human Events: David Harsanyi- David Limbaugh: 'Liberalism is Like a Metastatic Cancer'

Source:Human Events- interviewing right-wing author David Limbaugh.

"Part one of Senior Reporter David Harsanyi's with NYT bestselling author David Limbaugh about his latest book "The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War On The Republic."

From Human Events 

Just to respond what David Limbaugh said about liberalism: 

"Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the American Revolutionary pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in Common Sense (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against the individual. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power." 

From Britannica 

So if you are someone who doesn't believe in protecting and enhancing the freedom is a bad thing, then you are illiberal, not liberal. If Barack Obama is what David Limbaugh believes he is, then President Obama is illiberal, not liberal. Someone who is illiberal, is someone who doesn't believe in advancing liberal values, like the freedom of the individual and our individual rights. Not the freedom of man or for men, but the freedom of individuals, which includes men and women. 

Some would argue what David Limbaugh is really talking about here (even though Limbaugh never says so) is what's called modern liberalism and what Barack Obama is what's called a Modern Liberal. Modern Liberal and modern liberalism, is what closeted Socialists call socialist and socialism, because they're terrified of people knowing what their real politics is, which is socialist. (Democratic or otherwise) 

Hearing David Limbaugh talk about liberalism, is like getting an opinion from an auto mechanic about what's the best diet for you. I would think any intelligent person would want a second opinion (like from a doctor or dietician) about what's the best diet for you, before you automatically take the word of an auto mechanic about what's the best diet for you. 

News One: Boyce Watkins- U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson Jr.: 'Leads The Charge on Increasing the Minimum Wage to $10/Hour'

Source:Wikipedia- News One reporter Boyce Watkins.

"Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. is leading the fight to increase the minimum wage.  The congressman would like to see every American get a wage of at least $10 per hour, which is an increase from the current rate of $7.25 per hour.  President Barack Obama promised that the minimum wage would be over $9 per hour by this year, but he has not been able to make it happen.

Jackson is citing President Obama’s campaign promise and is promoting his wage increase as the Catching Up Act of 2012.    Jackson notes, however, that even an increase to $10 per hour would not match the real wage that was paid in 1968 (adjusted for inflation).

“I’m calling on President Barack Obama to honor his campaign commitment of 2008 to stand behind legislation that raises the minimum wage for the American people a little more than he requested in 2008 because the numbers and the economy reflect that $10 is not an unreasonable starting point,” Jackson said at a June 6 news conference.

Ralph Nader, a former presidential candidate, has backed Congressman Jackson on the issue as well.

“The minimum wage increase used to be the signatory dynamic of the traditional Democratic Party since they got it in 1938. That’s how decayed they are,” Nader said. “You’re fighting their desire to win the election up against their inherent caution and cowardliness to do anything other than raise more money and put more insipid ads on TV.”

I spoke with Congressman Jackson this morning, along with his father, Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.  The only thing wrong with Congressman Jackson’s proposal is that it shouldn’t be a proposal at all.  The truth is that the minimum wage should have surpassed $10 per hour years ago, and we should be embarrassed to live in a nation that thinks that $400 per week is too much for someone to receive after working a full-time job.

Capitalism and free enterprise are powerful economic boosters.  America became the richest nation in the world because of our ability to inspire investment and innovation.  But the risk of adopting unfettered capitalism is that when it is unregulated, capitalism is designed to enslave a perpetual underclass.  Capitalism doesn’t care about the elderly, the sick, the poor or the handicapped.  It is only our collective conscience that creates a society that is beneficial to everyone, and that conscience is communicated through our legislators.

To the extent that our politicians have been kidnapped by corporate money, there is little hope that Congressman Jackson’s legislation will ever be passed.  At the same time, it can be successful if people take the power back from those who’ve become corrupted.  After we get the minimum wage up to $10, perhaps then we can start working to get a wage that actually allows families to survive." 

From News One 

I actually agree with Representative Jackson here, (perhaps for the first time in my life) the minimum wage should be increased. 

So-called economic Conservatives/Libertarians always argue that it should be the free market that should decide of wages and benefits of all American workers. But the fact is they don't want that. They want management to be able to decide how much they should be able to play their workers. 

Employers are at best 1/4 of the entire private market in any free society. The rest of the market is made up of labor, consumers, and the government. If you let the entire private market get to decide and have to work together to decide what workers would get paid, you probably wouldn't see low wags in any developed, free society in the world, including in America. 

American Enterprise Institute: Alan Viard- 'Income Tax's Penalty on Savings'

Source:American Enterprise Institute- Alan Viard speaking to AEI in Washington.

"Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset. 

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials."

Source:American Enterprise Institute 

"Alan Viard talked about proposals from Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) that called for changes on several tax fronts. The proposals were part of a larger effort on tax reform by both Senate Finance Committee Chair Baucus and House Ways and Means Committee Chair Dave Camp (R-MI). He responded to telephone calls and electronic communications." 

Source:CSPAN- Alan Viard speaking to CSPAN in Washington.

From CSPAN

In the United Sates, you can get taxed for basically anything that you do, including not spending money from one jurisdiction or another. You get taxed more making money, unless you live in Florida, where they don't have a state income tax, but you have to pay the Federal income tax. Plus whatever local income taxes you may have to pay, city or county. You get taxed for spending money, sales taxes across the country. 

Uncle Sam taxes tobacco as well, you get taxed for inheriting money, you get taxed for making money through investments, called capital gains, or selling property, business's get taxed for making money. It's not just Income Taxes that people have to pay, but we also have to pay taxes, incase in the future we are unemployed, don't have an adequate pension, can't afford health insurance as seniors. We get taxed just for being alive and living in a home. 

Yes, America's tax rates are low compared, basically with the rest of the developed world. Which I believe is one reason why we didn't get hit as hard by the global recession, even though we did get very hard, but we pay taxes on basically everything we do.

One of the reasons why I believe we have so many tax loopholes, including a lot of them just pure Welfare, for people who don't need it is because we have so many taxes. Fewer taxes than perhaps Britain, which isn't really saying anything.  We eliminate some of these taxes or at least lower the rates, we can eliminate a lot of the tax loopholes, expect  people to do more on their own, take less from them and not expect a big check from Uncle Sam every year. 

I'm not going to say we need tax reform in America, because that would be like saying we need air to breathe, but what I am going to do, is to lay out a plan, that would reform our tax code. That's based on not what people make or produce for society, but instead tax people or better yet bill them for what they take from society. Which would encourage people to be productive and smarter with their money, instead of penalizing them for it.

I'm for what I call a Progressive Consumption Tax. It's progressive and doesn't hit low-income people as hard because it would have lower rates on basic goods that people need in life to survive: groceries, clothing, non-luxury housing, non-luxury transportation. (To use as examples) And tax luxury items higher: luxury cars, yachts, fancy meals, parties, sporting events, alcohol and tobacco. (To use as examples) 

We should also eliminate the savings tax up to your first 10% of income so people are still encouraged to spend to drive economic growth. And even match lower-income people's savings up to a certain income level. So we can approve on our very low savings rate, instead of taxing people for producing, we would tax them for what they consume. Replace the income tax with a Progressive Consumption Tax, but not scrap the other taxes, at least not with this plan.

American Enterprise Institute: 'Ashton B. Carter: Pivoting U.S. Defense to Future Challenges & Opportunities'

"Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset. 

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials. 

AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees." 

From AEI