Statehood for Puerto Rico?

Puerto Ricans ought to hold a referendum on whether to keep their island a commonwealth or consider statehood, independence or some other status, the U.S. House voted after an impassioned debate today.The island became a U.S. territory in 1898 after the Spanish-American War. Puerto Ricans are American citizens but cannot vote in presidential elections and have only a nonvoting representative in Congress. Puerto Rico's lone delegate to Congress, Pedro Pierluisi, argued that Puerto Ricans should have the right to decide their own destiny.

"Patience is a virtue, but my people have been patient enough," Pierluisi said."The fundamental justice of our cause -- to enable a fair and meaningful self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico after more than 110 years of inaction -- is beyond question," said Pierluisi, who favors statehood. But Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., said the Puerto Rican people have not requested Congress to intervene. "Instead of dealing first with the very real concerns of how the people of Puerto Rico survive day by day, we are telling them our priority is to debate a status bill that will not become law," she said. "This is a disgrace."The bill, which has not yet been voted on in the Senate, sets up a two-step process. Puerto Ricans would first vote on whether to keep the status quo. If they voted for change, they would then choose among statehood, independence and becoming an independent nation in "free association" with the United States. Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, for instance, have free-association relationships with the U.S. that make them independent but have agreements in place for U.S. defense and economic aid. Critics charged that the bill was unfairly weighted toward statehood. In past votes in Puerto Rico, statehood and commonwealth ran neck and neck, with less support for independence options. But the first vote in the bill's two-step process would pit the current status against all other options combined."It's spelled the same in English as in Spanish: No, no," said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., in voicing his opposition.Much of the controversy over what Puerto Rico should do focuses on how its options are defined. Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., said those who advocate keeping the island's commonwealth status overpromise that they will improve on the current situation by staying U.S. citizens, but picking and choosing among U.S. laws."I want that for the Bronx," he said. "That's a great deal."Lawmakers also voted on amendments dealing with who exactly gets to cast a ballot in the referendum and the issue of language on the island, where English and Spanish are official languages but Spanish is more widely spoken.The bill allows not only the 4 million residents of Puerto Rico to vote, but also people born on the island who live now on the mainland now -- something advocated by Gutierrez, who favors independence for Puerto Rico."The people of Puerto Rico are a nation," he said, adding, "They have a language and that language is Spanish."The bill doesn't bind Congress to accept Puerto Rico as a state. And it doesn't say how large a majority of Puerto Ricans are needed to choose a new political status. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said Congress ought to require that two-thirds of residents approve before statehood is allowed."You don't want to get married to someone who is only 51 percent sure, for goodness sakes," Chaffetz said. A Puerto Rican state would get two senators and probably about six seats in Congress, according to the Congressional Research Service, forcing Congress to decide whether to increase the size of the House or take those seats from other states. In the latter case, New York and Missouri likely would each lose a seat and four other states -- Arizona, South Carolina, Texas and Washington -- would miss out on seats they would have otherwise gained under the next round of reapportionment.Serrano said Puerto Ricans are ready to vote on an option that removes them from being a U.S. territory."From the time you're 10 years old, all you debate in Puerto Rico is status and baseball. And status is bigger," Serrano said.

It's official.... Scott's In!

The news is apparently in. Georgia state Rep. Austin Scott is planning to drop his campaign for governor and launch a challenge to Democratic Rep. Jim Marshall in the state’s 8th Congressional District. Scott, who was first elected to the Georgia Legislature at 26 and has served there since 1997, has failed to gain traction in a gubernatorial primary that includes multiple statewide Republican officials, but he’s regarded as an up-and-comer in his party.
“He’s got a base in the district,” the Republican source said. “He brings to the table the financial resources to give Marshall a tough fight. And he’s hungry.” Marshall won reelection against retired Gen. Rick Goddard by over 14 points in 2008, but his district broke for Sen. John McCain on the presidential level by a double-digit margin. Expect Scott’s announcement soon: Georgia’s filing deadline is Friday.

A drag queen in Congress?

Is it just me.... or does Cynthia McKinney look like Hank Johnson in drag? Take a look at they way the handle their job, and then you decide.

A real Democrat......

And just when we thought we had made an improvement over Cynthia McKinney, we find that her replacement is just as nutty, if not worse. Its bad enough for the voters of the district to have these two morons representing them in Washington, but it's downright embarrassing for the state of Georgia as a whole. I think our dear Mr. Johnson (I'm sorry but I can't seem to call him a Congressman), needs to take a basic course in geology. Now he thinks that Guam will capsize, I guess he'll next be afraid that Denver, the Mile-High city, will float away.... It's the perfect explanation of why the Democrat mascot is a jackass.

Healthcare Deform

Greetings comrades! Are you readers rejoicing, as I, the fact that we are now citizens of a new socialist republic? No longer must we labor and concern ourselves with providing for our own security, health, or welfare. We may now eat our fill of Big Mac's and pizzas, and the filthy rich will foot the bill to solve all our medical ills. May our great Comrade Obama have a memorial placed in Washington where we grateful masses may reflect on his triumphant reversal of over 230 years of American personal liberties. Do you agree?

President Abraham Lincoln once stated that if this country ever came undone, it would not be from without, but would be from within. My friends, that is what transpired in Congress over these past few weeks, our beloved country has been undone. Three generations have now fought and died to preserve our freedoms, and the freedoms of others, from socialism and communism. We won the Cold War abroad, only to sold out by aging hippies, bra burners, and new age liberals here at home. Yes, these are our current leaders in Washington who, like the old Merle Haggard song, "love our milk and honey, but preach about some better way of living". Now look, we can all agree that something had to be done to curb rising healthcare and insurance costs. But we screamed, I repeat, SCREAMED at the top of our lungs that this is NOT what we wanted. But yet, once again, the American majority went unheard and utterly ignored. We asked for limits on the malpractice suits that increase our insurance costs, the liberal courts struck them down. We asked for fewer government regulations and interference in healthcare, we received a new government bureaucracy. We asked to let competition between private insurance, healthcare providers, and drug companies drive down costs. Instead we get a government option that will put private companies out of business, drive up costs, and deliver poor services and results. We have enjoyed freedom of choice in planning our healthcare options as families and small-business, and now we'll be penalized and fined if we don't buy into a government run option. I know this plays like a broken record, but name one thing the federal government runs efficiently today.

The experts, if you can call them that, say Obamacare will only cost a mere $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Yeah right, since when has our federal government been good at budget predictions? As the screws tighten on families and small businesses, and as our government taxes the heck out of private insurers who compete with them, the number of uninsured will rise and be forced into the government plan. 30 million uninsured Americans will balloon to 60,70,80 million or more, and the costs will skyrocket to $500 billion a year. My generation suddenly has the prospect of not only having an insolvent Social Security program when we retire, but also a healthcare program that will tax us to death and be run like a VA. Retiring in the Caribbean is suddenly looking so much better for my family.

But perhaps the liberal plan is to let this pay for itself through attrition. How can it do that? It's simple adding and subtracting. Americans who work and pay income and social security taxes are between the ages of 18-65, right? You "add" more money from this group through new taxes on just about everything from their personal income, their employers income, heck even the hot dogs at a Braves game may have a new "fat" tax added. But after the age of 65 two things happen. First is the obvious fact that these Americans tend to retire and draw Social Security benefits, and the second is that their health tends to fail at a much quicker rate than younger age groups. It's the age where Americans cease to be "contributors" to the federal government and quickly become "users" of federal benefits. Therefore you "subtract" from this group by limiting the health care and services these seniors receive. Older Americans will be denied operations and treatments that would keep them with us, the life expectancy for this group falls, and the government stays in the black. Fewer people live long enough to draw social security and medical benefits they paid a lifetime for. Nice plan for all, except our senior citizens.

Then there are the comparisons between ourselves and Europe, "If they can do it, why can't we?" Here is why. The nations of Europe can afford socialism solely because we have protected their butts for 60 years with our armed forces. They've been creating a costly cradle to grave society because they spend but a tiny fraction of their budgets on defense, and we even help pay for what little they do spend. They know that you can't have both guns and butter, and so they chose the butter and let Uncle Sam provide the guns. You would think that we learned this little lesson in the 60's when President Johnson launched Medicare and other sweeping welfare programs, while trying to fight a war in Vietnam. The economy tanked, our budget ballooned, and only by dipping into Social Security was it able to balance out. Now we're fighting two wars, throwing money away on "stimulus" programs, and now this?

Now for the sweet secret to this madness. Most of these changes won't take effect until 2014, with the first major tax increases to be delivered only in 2013. Why do you suppose that is? It's to keep the most drastic portions of this legislation, those regarding YOUR care and how to fund this abomination from taking effect until our President, and his politburo, are safely re-elected in 2012. You will see little change until after these elections, and then WHAM! As the hangover from another inauguration wears off, your employer, your insurance, and your wallet are going to be hit by federal pickpockets, on a scale never seen before. They are hoping that your world will go on as it is now, and you will skip happily to the polls thinking that conservatives had healthcare reform pegged all wrong. Don't be played for a fool people. Hold fast against this so-called reform, and let your government officials know where YOU stand on the issue.

Our energy policy

My how the American public has a short attention span on important issues. It was just a short year ago that gas prices were at an all time high, ethanol was becoming the fashionable rage, and "drill here, drill now!" was the chant of the marching public. But isn't it interesting how when the prices get lowered, the public gets comfortable again, and all the protesting is put to rest. Yes readers, today I'd like to talk about the energy policy of our country; how we got here, and where we're going with it. Yes, we all know that this country seems hopelessly dependent on foreign oil, but did you know that this is the result of a well thought plan by our very own State Department?

You see, during the Second World War, the bean counters in Washington realized that this country was supplying 85% of all oil for the Allied war effort, and at that rate our natural resources would be depleted within 60 years. So they came up with a brilliant idea, and it was at the time. Develop and use oil resources from other nations, and thereby conserve ours. This would, and has, left us with a large natural supply for any forseeable national emergencies. This plan worked brilliantly for 30 years, until the arrival of the oil embargo in 1973 and the formation of OPEC. Unfortunately, it seems for us, the "other" nations got smart. They began to realize that oil gave them power, and when the prices shot up and severe shortages hit America in 1973, they realized just how much power we had given them. Our world has never been the same.

With the wealth received from oil revenues, small and unimportant tribal kingdoms suddenly became major players on the world stage. Half-pint, would be dictators built up large armies to terrorize their own people and neighbors, thanks to oil revenues. They also privately financed bands of forgettable Islamic terrorists to execute their vendettas on the West and Israel, and we are still reaping this whirlwind from groups like al-Queda. What does this mean? It means, dear friends, that our current energy policy could be considered "aiding and abetting" the enemy.

To change we must continue pressuring our leaders in Washington to reinvent our energy policy, and not get complacent when gas prices go back down, because they will eventually come back up. And never forget that high gas prices are the surest way to destroy a vibrant economy, and I consider it to be a huge factor in our current recession. But the answer is not returning to an era of bicycles and horses and candlelight, its called letting industry do what they do..... Innovate! American industries should be allowed to develop our own natural resources in fossil fuels, while continuing to fund and develop efficient alternatives. Instead of hamstringing our automakers with rules and regulations, why not offer liberal tax and financial grants to fund research in battery and fuel technologies, much like we do for defense contractors. The return on our investment would be staggering, and would carry over for another century perhaps. We may very well find ourselves eventually using gasoline for nothing more than powering classic cars. At the least, without a need for oil, it would turn the Arab world back into the impoverished wasteland it was, and take a major thorn out of our sides.

We need to also stop handicapping public utilities with guidelines that can't always be met. I'm sorry, but Georgia is not a choice candidate for renewable energy sources, and we must therefore rely upon coal and nuclear for our main power sources if you want cheap electricity. And cheap electricity is a must if you seek industrial growth and quality of life for your family. Perhaps one day, when our nation revamps its utility grid, vast solar farms in the deserts out west can light up Atlanta, but not today, nor in the next decade.

In short, the answer is to continue looking to the future and let industry lead the way, not government. Let energy conservation be gained through technological improvements, and not through government imposed rationing. Let the consumer dictate what kind of cars should be built, and not officials in Washington. Let cleaner air come through industrial innovations, and not "cap and trade" style legislation. This country has always been the greatest innovator thanks to our industry and a "hands off" approach by government. So let America be American, and let's solve our energy problems in an American way.

The President seeks to CUT the budget?

See I told ya. Never underestimate the politician Obama when it is an election. When your party loses an important election in Massachussetts, what do you do? You spin around a appear to stand for what your opponent does to win the next election. Apparently thats what President Obama is currently trying to do when it comes to the budget. After giving us record setting deficits, and running up a natgional debt that cannot be repaid any time soon, Obama is calling for budget "cuts". Yes, you heard me right.

But after you rule out spending freezes and big reductions to defense, Social Security, Medicare and other big-ticket "nondiscretionary" items, what is there left to cut from the federal budget? How about grants to manufacturers of worsted wool products? That's a savings of $5 million a year. Stop broadcasts in Croatian, Greek and Hindi on the government-run Voice of America and you save $3 million. And if every worker in the Department of Labor remembers to turn off their computer at the end of the day? That's a whopping $727,000 over five years. If those and $23 billion worth of other cost-saving measures detailed in President Barack Obama's 2011 budget proposal don't seem to add up to much in a $3.8 trillion spending package, just wait. Once our Congressmen get a hold of them, the actual spending cuts are likely to be smaller. Of the 121 programs the president sought to end or shrink in his 2010 budget, for a projected one-year savings of $17 billion, Congress only approved $11.5 billion, or 60 percent.

This year, Obama wants to terminate, reduce or find savings in 126 areas. Some of his ideas are virtually cut-and-paste items from last year's budget.Take the C-17. The Pentagon stopped requesting more of the cargo planes in 2007 because it had all it needed. That didn't go over well with lawmakers from the 43 states where the aircraft provided jobs, and every year since, Congress has insisted on buying more. Once again, the 2011 budget calls for an end to the program for a savings of $2.5 billion over the next 10 years. Smaller programs are just as difficult to kill. Last year, the administration tried to eliminate the Rural Community Facilities program within the Department of Health and Human Services, arguing that it duplicated wastewater treatment programs run by other federal agencies. Congress ignored the proposal and kept the $10 million program, which again is slated to end.
Still, the president has called for a three-year freeze on nonsecurity discretionary spending to save $250 billion over 10 years. To help achieve those savings, his budget identifies inefficient, redundant or outdated programs ripe for elimination. Some, like canceling NASA's $3.5 billion return mission to the moon, are big-ticket items. Others, like zeroing out a $1 million college scholarship program for Olympic athletes, are not. Here are other items on the chopping block or due for some paring, in no particular order:

......A long-discussed and controversial plan to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The proposal to eliminate $197 million for the project will have a powerful ally on Capitol Hill: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
.......Subsidies to wealthy farmers, a perennial budget target that has avoided getting hit in the past. The proposal would cut the cap on direct payments to wealthy farmers from $40,000 to $30,000 and reduce income eligibility to save nearly $2.3 billion over the next 10 years.
.......A program that pays states to clean up abandoned coal mines that have already been cleaned up. Savings: $115 million next year and $1.2 billion over 10 years.
.......A $5 million Forest Service economic development program that funded, among other things, "a water musical festival."
.......A planned $20 million refurbishment of the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center in New Mexico. The linear accelerator was built 30 years ago and no longer plays a critical role in weapons research.
.......A $120 million program that allows low-income people to get their Earned Income Tax Credit in advance. About 80 percent of those receiving early payments were later found ineligible.
.......An $18 million program to clean up and redevelop "brownfields" -- abandoned, idled and underused industrial and commercial facilities in urban areas.
.......A $761 million reduction in spending on construction of housing for low-income elderly and those with disabilities.
.......Pet congressional health service projects worth $383 million that are not subject to the usual competitive or merit-based process for funding. Included in the cuts would be proposed health care clinics in Alaska and Mississippi.
.......A $12 million program to give grants to improve security on inter-city buses.
Two National Park Service programs to restore historic buildings and promote heritage tourism, for a savings of $30 million.
.......An exchange program for Alaska Natives, native Hawaiians, children and families living in Massachusetts and members of Indian tribes in Mississippi that have historic links to whaling and trading.
.......Grants to art organizations in the nation's capital, including the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, for a savings of $5 million.The budget proposal includes around-the-edges savings culled from ideas submitted by federal employees through the SAVE Awards program. Among the ways federal agencies are proposing to do their part to reduce red ink:
.......The Social Security Administration could save $150,000 next year by allowing applicants to make appointments online.
.......The Air Force could save $2 million in 2011 by tailoring more than 12,000 cell phone plans to actual usage.
.......The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates $2 million in savings next year by allowing veterans to keep their medications instead of throwing away leftovers when they are discharged from the hospital.
.......The Treasury Department sees $2 million in annual savings by eliminating paper pay stubs for more than 100,000 workers.

Big or little, many of the reductions will be tough to push through a Congress that traditionally refuses to go on a no-pork diet when it comes to spending. In introducing his budget, the president alluded to the standard operating procedure when it comes to budget time."In order to meet this challenge, I welcome any idea, from Democrats and Republicans," he said. "What I will not welcome -- what I reject -- is the same old grandstanding when the cameras are on, and the same irresponsible budget policies when the cameras are off. It's time to hold Washington to the same standards families and businesses hold themselves. It's time to save what we can, spend what we must, and live within our means once again." Strange words indeed for a man as spend friendly as the President is.