Specter of 'earmarks' haunts GOP: House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., sidestepped a fight with outside conservative groups and fiscal hawks and avoided public backlash Wednesday when he resisted calls from some within his conference to bring back earmarks, those pet projects slipped into spending bills that can sweeten the pot for legislators and help get bills passed. But many Republicans admitted Wednesday was just about process and timing, and were confident that earmarks, which some call directed congressional spending, will come back in some form. It's about optics, Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., said before Ryan convinced sponsors of two amendments to partially roll back the 2011 earmark ban to pull their proposals.
The AUP responds.
1. Congress has no incentive to respect taxpayer dollars since they still only answer to the Special Interest Groups that fund their elections.
2. No government agency should have the authority to issue any regulation that serves as a law. Only Congress can enact laws. Agencies should only be permitted to recommend laws to Congress. But then Congress must approve the regulation and the President must sign before it becomes a law just like every other law.
3. Any project or funding for a project that can stand alone in a seperate bill must stand alone in a seperate bill.
4. Congress should only be able to spend when a majority of the states or a majority of the population would be impacted directly by the law (not the taxes needed to fund the law) or when 3/5 of both houses approve. Otherwise, the activity shall be left to the individual states to decide.
Open Letter to John Kasich
Dear Governor Kasich,
I have long been a supporter of yours and still believe you would make a superb president. But now I ask for your help.
I share your concerns about Donald Trump and as yet, I have not committed to vote for Mr. Trump. But, at this time I am fairly confident that I will not be voting for Mrs. Clinton.
I will not necessarily vote for the person I like the most, trust the most, respect the most or agree with the most. I will vote for the person who I believe will be the best for the long term health and values of my country.
That is why, if the vote were today, logic would force me to vote for Mr. Trump for the simple reason that not voting for him would help elect Mrs. Clinton and would help to hand the House and Senate over to the Democrats and the Supreme Court over to the Progressives. I believe that outcome would be far more harmful to the long term health of our country than my fear of what an unknown Donald Trump might try to do.
President Obama has been very successful in hobbling many of America’s greatest strengths because he is very smart, a gifted orator, knowledgeable about what he could and couldn't do as President, and was supported by an ideologically driven plan that was designed to do exactly what he did. Perhaps his greatest triumph from his perspective was to render Congress feckless as a check and balance against Executive overreach.
A President Trump will have no such gifts, plans or support. He will have to convince his own party in Congress not just to pass legislation but to make controversial Executive Orders stick.
In fact, a President Trump might be the best remedy to unify, strengthen and reaffirm the Constitutional role of Congress to restrain a rogue administration. Consider how different the Obama Presidency might have been if the Democrats in Congress had enforced their Constitutional role and not acted as a rubber stamp for anything Mr. Obama wanted to do.
At the time, I couldn't understand how my fellow Republicans could have nominated Mr. Trump when so many worthy alternatives were available. Now, as I consider my own arguments I'm struck by just how smart the voters may have been after all.
That is why I ask you to contact Mr. Trump personally with this letter in hand and commit your full support to get him elected and offer to serve, in a mutually agreeable capacity, in a Donald Trump administration.
I know that I and many other Americans would feel much better about our vote for Mr. Trump if we knew that you were a trusted insider within the Trump Administration who had once again taken the oath to protect and defend our Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I wish you good health and great success in whatever role you decide is best for our nation,
James Schneider
Concerned Citizen
I have long been a supporter of yours and still believe you would make a superb president. But now I ask for your help.
I share your concerns about Donald Trump and as yet, I have not committed to vote for Mr. Trump. But, at this time I am fairly confident that I will not be voting for Mrs. Clinton.
I will not necessarily vote for the person I like the most, trust the most, respect the most or agree with the most. I will vote for the person who I believe will be the best for the long term health and values of my country.
That is why, if the vote were today, logic would force me to vote for Mr. Trump for the simple reason that not voting for him would help elect Mrs. Clinton and would help to hand the House and Senate over to the Democrats and the Supreme Court over to the Progressives. I believe that outcome would be far more harmful to the long term health of our country than my fear of what an unknown Donald Trump might try to do.
President Obama has been very successful in hobbling many of America’s greatest strengths because he is very smart, a gifted orator, knowledgeable about what he could and couldn't do as President, and was supported by an ideologically driven plan that was designed to do exactly what he did. Perhaps his greatest triumph from his perspective was to render Congress feckless as a check and balance against Executive overreach.
A President Trump will have no such gifts, plans or support. He will have to convince his own party in Congress not just to pass legislation but to make controversial Executive Orders stick.
In fact, a President Trump might be the best remedy to unify, strengthen and reaffirm the Constitutional role of Congress to restrain a rogue administration. Consider how different the Obama Presidency might have been if the Democrats in Congress had enforced their Constitutional role and not acted as a rubber stamp for anything Mr. Obama wanted to do.
At the time, I couldn't understand how my fellow Republicans could have nominated Mr. Trump when so many worthy alternatives were available. Now, as I consider my own arguments I'm struck by just how smart the voters may have been after all.
That is why I ask you to contact Mr. Trump personally with this letter in hand and commit your full support to get him elected and offer to serve, in a mutually agreeable capacity, in a Donald Trump administration.
I know that I and many other Americans would feel much better about our vote for Mr. Trump if we knew that you were a trusted insider within the Trump Administration who had once again taken the oath to protect and defend our Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I wish you good health and great success in whatever role you decide is best for our nation,
James Schneider
Concerned Citizen
Terrorism: Words Matter
Enough already. Its time for Americans to convince our leaders to stop calling ISIS and their sympathizers “Terrorists”. I propose the adoption of a far more descriptive term.
I'm flipping between cable news channels listening to the talking heads argue whether the pressure cooker and pipe bomb explosions that occurred this weekend in New York City and Elizabeth New Jersey were acts of terror or not.
Americans are once again subjected to this endless, irrelevant argument because our leaders rely on one word and its derivatives to describe three distinct steps of an investigation.
1. What happened?
2. Who did it?
3. Why did they do it?
Republicans and Fox News conclude that when a bomb blows up, it’s terror.
Democrats and their media prefer to wait until all three investigative questions have been answered. To many Americans, the term terror is synonymous with Islamic Terrorism.
The colloquial definitions for terror, terrorist and terrorism have become ambiguous and a constant source of controversy and division. That is why we should adopt the following term to describe ISIS et al.
• Whereas ISIS and other Radical Islamic groups are armed but are not recognized as legitimate states by the United Nations, they are by definition paramilitary groups.
• Whereas these groups adhere to a version of Islam that is wholly intolerant of any other belief, they adhere to Intolerant Islam.
• Whereas their stated goal is the global domination of their intolerant Islamic belief, therefore the new term to describe ISIS et al shall be:
Paramilitary Intolerant Islamic Globalists – PIIGs.
Washington Examiner - FIX THAT
An Open Letter:
To the editors of the Washington Examiner.
From James W. Schneider July 1, 2016
In response to your June 30, 2016 editorial entitled:
“Trump brings heat, not light, to trade debate.”
I am not a Trump supporter and I agree with the bulk of your criticisms of his speech. But your US economic solution at the end of the article is overly simplistic and no longer true.
You state...
You imply that once the Federal Government passes these “freer trade” deals, the government will have no impact on America’s ability to “compete with the world as well as they always have”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
US business taxes and regulations have increasingly placed US based labor at a distinct disadvantage for decades. And our present course only promises to make our disadvantage worse.
Businesses do NOT pay taxes - ONLY PEOPLE PAY TAXES. The taxes that businesses remit must be recovered by increasing prices or reducing wages. Likewise, the cost of all business regulations must also be covered in the prices that a business charges.
Until the voters learn that government imposed business costs reduce the demand for US based labor, and increase the costs of US made goods, Congress will continue to hide taxes within US based businesses. This will force more of our best middle class jobs (tradeable manufacturing jobs) overseas.
The problem with our trade deals is not that they allow trading partners to specialize and export what they make best and cheapest - that's a good thing. The problem is the excessive costs that US based businesses must incur to comply with US regulations. These excessive costs have made offshoring and outsourcing, which the trade deals facilitate, the only logical economic choice for many businesses.
This is the main reason why Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and so many Americans on the left and right believe our trade deals are so bad. They have mistakenly concluded that the trade deals alone caused the loss of so many US jobs to foreign shores. When, in actuality, it was our Government’s failure to recognize how stupid it is to make US based businesses increasingly less competitive in the face of an ever expanding global economy.
You want America to “seek every new opportunity for freer trade”? Then you should demand that both parties FIX THAT!
The solution is simple. But the solution is only politically possible IF the voters learn that they, and they alone, pay for every business tax and every business regulation. But before voters would take action, they must be able to see how much these burdens actually cost them.
Imagine a new law that required every sales receipt include two numbers that totaled to the price the consumer pays. The first number includes the business price. The second number includes all the federal, state and local costs imposed on business and labor. Imagine the voter reaction when they see on every receipt for an American made product, that the total government business TAX is in excess of 30%?
Then the solution would be obvious. Transfer all non-safety related government imposed costs from US based businesses to a consumption tax, or some other non business tax. Some might argue that the price the consumer paid would remain the same, but they would be wrong.
Businesses would focus entirely on the best way to produce their goods and services and eliminate the 30% of unproductive, non-product related costs. This would make US labor cheaper - creating demand for more US based jobs. It would make US made goods cheaper to our trading partners - causing demand for more US exports.
Along the way, because of the tax visibility, a miracle would occur. The people would become aware and continuously question the cost vs. benefits of these programs with every receipt. Every consumer would demand their politicians optimize the efficiency of these programs, or get rid of them. The people would begin to unite on what the role of government should be.
Hiding taxes in business is a corrupt and sneaky way for politicians to hide taxes from the people. But the real calamity is how these burdens are killing America's greatest strength - the world's largest middle class with the world's highest standard of living.
Yes - the solution is simple - never allow politicians to hide the costs of their taxes and regulations in the prices that the people have to pay for the goods and services they receive. If we could do that, then we would end up with a government and an economy that works for all Americans.
To the editors of the Washington Examiner.
From James W. Schneider July 1, 2016
In response to your June 30, 2016 editorial entitled:
“Trump brings heat, not light, to trade debate.”
I am not a Trump supporter and I agree with the bulk of your criticisms of his speech. But your US economic solution at the end of the article is overly simplistic and no longer true.
You state...
"Over the last five decades, free trade has allowed Americans to buy more for each hour they work than they otherwise could have. The economic solution needed is one that neither major party's candidate is suggesting: America should open its doors, seek every new opportunity for freer trade (for example, with Great Britain), and have faith in its workers and businesses to compete with the world as well as they always have."
You imply that once the Federal Government passes these “freer trade” deals, the government will have no impact on America’s ability to “compete with the world as well as they always have”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
US business taxes and regulations have increasingly placed US based labor at a distinct disadvantage for decades. And our present course only promises to make our disadvantage worse.
Businesses do NOT pay taxes - ONLY PEOPLE PAY TAXES. The taxes that businesses remit must be recovered by increasing prices or reducing wages. Likewise, the cost of all business regulations must also be covered in the prices that a business charges.
Until the voters learn that government imposed business costs reduce the demand for US based labor, and increase the costs of US made goods, Congress will continue to hide taxes within US based businesses. This will force more of our best middle class jobs (tradeable manufacturing jobs) overseas.
The problem with our trade deals is not that they allow trading partners to specialize and export what they make best and cheapest - that's a good thing. The problem is the excessive costs that US based businesses must incur to comply with US regulations. These excessive costs have made offshoring and outsourcing, which the trade deals facilitate, the only logical economic choice for many businesses.
This is the main reason why Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and so many Americans on the left and right believe our trade deals are so bad. They have mistakenly concluded that the trade deals alone caused the loss of so many US jobs to foreign shores. When, in actuality, it was our Government’s failure to recognize how stupid it is to make US based businesses increasingly less competitive in the face of an ever expanding global economy.
You want America to “seek every new opportunity for freer trade”? Then you should demand that both parties FIX THAT!
The solution is simple. But the solution is only politically possible IF the voters learn that they, and they alone, pay for every business tax and every business regulation. But before voters would take action, they must be able to see how much these burdens actually cost them.
Imagine a new law that required every sales receipt include two numbers that totaled to the price the consumer pays. The first number includes the business price. The second number includes all the federal, state and local costs imposed on business and labor. Imagine the voter reaction when they see on every receipt for an American made product, that the total government business TAX is in excess of 30%?
Then the solution would be obvious. Transfer all non-safety related government imposed costs from US based businesses to a consumption tax, or some other non business tax. Some might argue that the price the consumer paid would remain the same, but they would be wrong.
Businesses would focus entirely on the best way to produce their goods and services and eliminate the 30% of unproductive, non-product related costs. This would make US labor cheaper - creating demand for more US based jobs. It would make US made goods cheaper to our trading partners - causing demand for more US exports.
Along the way, because of the tax visibility, a miracle would occur. The people would become aware and continuously question the cost vs. benefits of these programs with every receipt. Every consumer would demand their politicians optimize the efficiency of these programs, or get rid of them. The people would begin to unite on what the role of government should be.
Hiding taxes in business is a corrupt and sneaky way for politicians to hide taxes from the people. But the real calamity is how these burdens are killing America's greatest strength - the world's largest middle class with the world's highest standard of living.
Yes - the solution is simple - never allow politicians to hide the costs of their taxes and regulations in the prices that the people have to pay for the goods and services they receive. If we could do that, then we would end up with a government and an economy that works for all Americans.
Washington Examiner - FIX THAT
An Open Letter:
To the editors of the Washington Examiner.
From James W. Schneider July 1, 2016
In response to your June 30, 2016 editorial entitled:
“Trump brings heat, not light, to trade debate.”
I am not a Trump supporter. And your critiques of his speech are accurate. But your US economic solution at the end of the article is overly simplistic and no longer true.
You state...
You imply that once the Federal Government passes these “freer trade” deals, the government will have no impact on America’s ability to “compete with the world as well as they always have”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
US business taxes and regulations have increasingly placed US based labor at a distinct disadvantage for decades. And our present course only promises to make our disadvantage worse.
Businesses do NOT pay taxes - ONLY PEOPLE PAY TAXES. The taxes that businesses remit must be recovered by increasing prices or reducing wages. Likewise, the cost of all business regulations must also be covered in the prices that a business charges.
Until the voters learn that government imposed business costs reduce the demand for US based labor, and increase the costs of US made goods, Congress will continue to hide taxes within US based businesses. This will force more of our best middle class jobs (tradeable manufacturing jobs) overseas.
The problem with our trade deals is not that they allow trading partners to specialize and export what they make best and cheapest - that's a good thing. The problem is the excessive costs that US based businesses must incur to comply with US regulations. These excessive costs have made offshoring and outsourcing, which the trade deals facilitate, the only logical economic choice for many businesses.
This is the main reason why Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and so many Americans on the left and right believe our trade deals are so bad. They have mistakenly concluded that the trade deals alone caused the loss of so many US jobs to foreign shores. When, in actuality, it was our Government’s failure to recognize how stupid it is to make US based businesses increasingly less competitive in the face of an ever expanding global economy.
You want America to “seek every new opportunity for freer trade”? Then you should demand that both parties FIX THAT!
The solution is simple. But the solution is only politically possible IF the voters learn that they, and they alone, pay for every business tax and every business regulation. But before voters would take action, they must be able to see how much these burdens actually cost them.
Imagine a new law that required every sales receipt include two numbers that totaled to the price the consumer pays. The first number includes the business price. The second number includes all the federal, state and local costs imposed on business and labor. Imagine the voter reaction when they see on every receipt for an American made product, that the total government business TAX is in excess of 30%?
Then the solution would be obvious. Transfer all non-safety related government imposed costs from US based businesses to a consumption tax, or some other non business tax. Some might argue that the price the consumer paid would remain the same, but they would be wrong.
Businesses would focus entirely on the best way to produce their goods and services and eliminate the 30% of unproductive, non-product related costs. This would make US labor cheaper - creating demand for more US based jobs. It would make US made goods cheaper to our trading partners - causing demand for more US exports.
Along the way, because of the tax visibility, a miracle would occur. The people would become aware and continuously question the cost vs. benefits of these programs with every receipt. Every consumer would demand their politicians optimize the efficiency of these programs, or get rid of them. The people would begin to unite on what the role of government should be.
Hiding taxes in business is a corrupt and sneaky way for politicians to hide taxes from the people. But the real calamity is how these burdens are killing America's greatest strength - the world's largest middle class with the world's highest standard of living.
Yes - the solution is simple - never allow politicians to hide the costs of their taxes and regulations in the prices that the people have to pay for the goods and services they receive. If we could do that, then we would end up with a government and an economy that works for all Americans.
To the editors of the Washington Examiner.
From James W. Schneider July 1, 2016
In response to your June 30, 2016 editorial entitled:
“Trump brings heat, not light, to trade debate.”
I am not a Trump supporter. And your critiques of his speech are accurate. But your US economic solution at the end of the article is overly simplistic and no longer true.
You state...
"Over the last five decades, free trade has allowed Americans to buy more for each hour they work than they otherwise could have. The economic solution needed is one that neither major party's candidate is suggesting: America should open its doors, seek every new opportunity for freer trade (for example, with Great Britain), and have faith in its workers and businesses to compete with the world as well as they always have."
You imply that once the Federal Government passes these “freer trade” deals, the government will have no impact on America’s ability to “compete with the world as well as they always have”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
US business taxes and regulations have increasingly placed US based labor at a distinct disadvantage for decades. And our present course only promises to make our disadvantage worse.
Businesses do NOT pay taxes - ONLY PEOPLE PAY TAXES. The taxes that businesses remit must be recovered by increasing prices or reducing wages. Likewise, the cost of all business regulations must also be covered in the prices that a business charges.
Until the voters learn that government imposed business costs reduce the demand for US based labor, and increase the costs of US made goods, Congress will continue to hide taxes within US based businesses. This will force more of our best middle class jobs (tradeable manufacturing jobs) overseas.
The problem with our trade deals is not that they allow trading partners to specialize and export what they make best and cheapest - that's a good thing. The problem is the excessive costs that US based businesses must incur to comply with US regulations. These excessive costs have made offshoring and outsourcing, which the trade deals facilitate, the only logical economic choice for many businesses.
This is the main reason why Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and so many Americans on the left and right believe our trade deals are so bad. They have mistakenly concluded that the trade deals alone caused the loss of so many US jobs to foreign shores. When, in actuality, it was our Government’s failure to recognize how stupid it is to make US based businesses increasingly less competitive in the face of an ever expanding global economy.
You want America to “seek every new opportunity for freer trade”? Then you should demand that both parties FIX THAT!
The solution is simple. But the solution is only politically possible IF the voters learn that they, and they alone, pay for every business tax and every business regulation. But before voters would take action, they must be able to see how much these burdens actually cost them.
Imagine a new law that required every sales receipt include two numbers that totaled to the price the consumer pays. The first number includes the business price. The second number includes all the federal, state and local costs imposed on business and labor. Imagine the voter reaction when they see on every receipt for an American made product, that the total government business TAX is in excess of 30%?
Then the solution would be obvious. Transfer all non-safety related government imposed costs from US based businesses to a consumption tax, or some other non business tax. Some might argue that the price the consumer paid would remain the same, but they would be wrong.
Businesses would focus entirely on the best way to produce their goods and services and eliminate the 30% of unproductive, non-product related costs. This would make US labor cheaper - creating demand for more US based jobs. It would make US made goods cheaper to our trading partners - causing demand for more US exports.
Along the way, because of the tax visibility, a miracle would occur. The people would become aware and continuously question the cost vs. benefits of these programs with every receipt. Every consumer would demand their politicians optimize the efficiency of these programs, or get rid of them. The people would begin to unite on what the role of government should be.
Hiding taxes in business is a corrupt and sneaky way for politicians to hide taxes from the people. But the real calamity is how these burdens are killing America's greatest strength - the world's largest middle class with the world's highest standard of living.
Yes - the solution is simple - never allow politicians to hide the costs of their taxes and regulations in the prices that the people have to pay for the goods and services they receive. If we could do that, then we would end up with a government and an economy that works for all Americans.
Is Morning Joe unAmerican?
James W. Schneider
Thursday, June 9th, 2016
I have never been a Donald Trump supporter for President. In fact, I reluctantly voted for Marco Rubio over John Kasich in the Georgia Republican Primary because at the time, I believed that Rubio had a better chance to stop Trump.
But Like many Republicans, I have grown increasingly concerned with the news media abusing its Constitutional protections to surreptitiously promote one political party over another.
As an example:
Since Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President, the MSNBC Morning Joe program has covered him extensively. Before Mr. Trump became the Republican party’s presumptive nominee, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski went out of their way to show the positives of “The Donald’s” foibles and antics. They praised his populist campaign genius and his ability to remain focused on the task at hand as he surgically took out his opponents one by one.
Now that Mr Trump is the Republican nominee, Joe and Mika spend much of their three hours a day, five days a week demonizing the man and the things he does. They book the gamut of anti-Trump Republican sympathizers to give credence to their attacks. Once on camera, they insist those same Republicans denounce Mr. Trump further and proclaim that he is an unAmerican racist who is completely unfit for the Presidency.
Anyone who watched the Morning Joe transformation from objective Trump analysis to unrelenting demonization could only conclude that the fix was in from the beginning.
I’m not suggestion that there was a carefully orchestrated plan or a well rehearsed script. Rather, all that was needed was a simple two step understanding between the principals to
1. Look for Trump’s positives and then be fair and balanced in their portrayal of him.
2. Once nominated, do everything possible to discredit him.
From there, the cadre of sycophant program regulars would instinctively recognize the intent of the principles without any instructions and dutifully improvise their roles in the two act play.
Want proof? All you have to do is find the time to review the Morning Joe videos from the point where Donald Trump became the Republican front runner.
The Morning Joe program is entitled to present any political view they wish? What they are not entitled to do is intentionally deceive and manipulate their voting viewers in an effort to rig an election to promote their personal agenda. That Joe Scarborough is unAmerican.
Thursday, June 9th, 2016
I have never been a Donald Trump supporter for President. In fact, I reluctantly voted for Marco Rubio over John Kasich in the Georgia Republican Primary because at the time, I believed that Rubio had a better chance to stop Trump.
But Like many Republicans, I have grown increasingly concerned with the news media abusing its Constitutional protections to surreptitiously promote one political party over another.
As an example:
Since Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President, the MSNBC Morning Joe program has covered him extensively. Before Mr. Trump became the Republican party’s presumptive nominee, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski went out of their way to show the positives of “The Donald’s” foibles and antics. They praised his populist campaign genius and his ability to remain focused on the task at hand as he surgically took out his opponents one by one.
Now that Mr Trump is the Republican nominee, Joe and Mika spend much of their three hours a day, five days a week demonizing the man and the things he does. They book the gamut of anti-Trump Republican sympathizers to give credence to their attacks. Once on camera, they insist those same Republicans denounce Mr. Trump further and proclaim that he is an unAmerican racist who is completely unfit for the Presidency.
Anyone who watched the Morning Joe transformation from objective Trump analysis to unrelenting demonization could only conclude that the fix was in from the beginning.
I’m not suggestion that there was a carefully orchestrated plan or a well rehearsed script. Rather, all that was needed was a simple two step understanding between the principals to
1. Look for Trump’s positives and then be fair and balanced in their portrayal of him.
2. Once nominated, do everything possible to discredit him.
From there, the cadre of sycophant program regulars would instinctively recognize the intent of the principles without any instructions and dutifully improvise their roles in the two act play.
Want proof? All you have to do is find the time to review the Morning Joe videos from the point where Donald Trump became the Republican front runner.
The Morning Joe program is entitled to present any political view they wish? What they are not entitled to do is intentionally deceive and manipulate their voting viewers in an effort to rig an election to promote their personal agenda. That Joe Scarborough is unAmerican.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)