Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on the Sequester.
The is a result of a 2011 law, which was a compromise to allow an increase in the federal debt in exchange for a process to obtain reductions in federal spending. However, the reductions, known as the Sequester, only represent a smaller increase in future spending rather than real cuts.
While the Sequester has been helpful, we are still on an unsustainable spending program and debt increase that continues to harm our economy and will eventually lead to destruction of the US as an economic and political entity. You are hopeful that Congress will set politics aside and seriously address this unsustainable economic program
While I agree completely with your position, I see that you have no recommendations of how we can reverse this unsustainability nor do I. As long as the Democrats retain control of the Senate and we have a Democratic President, it seems to me there is no hope for change, and there is nothing we can do about it. The people will decide in 2014 whether to continue this unsustainable program or not.
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Funding the Federal Government
Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on funding the federal government.
In October, the House proposed funding the federal government piece by piece. The Democratic Senate disagreed, which led to a partial 13-day shutdown of the federal government. Funding Obamacare became an integral part of the discussion. The government was reopened, without any progress in funding government operations piece by piece, and with no limitation on funding Obamacare.
You voted against ending the shutdown, because the "deal" to end it did nothing to give relief to the millions of Americans who are hurting because of Obamacare.
Because of inept rhetoric capability of Republicans, they have been saddled with a negative impression of having caused an undesirable shutdown. I don't accept that position. During the 13-day shutdown, no one seemed to be especially damaged, and it was proven that life could still go on quite well in the US without full government operation. However, these were all ancillary to what appears to be the main point, which was to defund Obamacare.
I suggest you may want to no longer look at these abstract ways to inactivate an already passed law. It is not that Obamacare is a good thing. It is terrible and will lead to the destruction of the United States as a significant economic and political entity, unless that law is repealed. However, it will be up to the will of the people in the 2014 election. The people will either vote for continued Democratic liberalism, which is in effect socialism leading to destruction, or do an about-face and allow for the repeal of such disastrous laws as Obamacare.
However, referring to the real title of this message, which is Funding the Federal Government, there will be another controversy on extending the federal debt and approving the present program of federal expenditures. As you know, annual federal expenditures strongly exceed revenues, which involves continued borrowing. This is also an indirect part of the Socialist program, which puts us on the road to destruction. It is this area, where I suggest you apply your greatest attention and resolve.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on funding the federal government.
In October, the House proposed funding the federal government piece by piece. The Democratic Senate disagreed, which led to a partial 13-day shutdown of the federal government. Funding Obamacare became an integral part of the discussion. The government was reopened, without any progress in funding government operations piece by piece, and with no limitation on funding Obamacare.
You voted against ending the shutdown, because the "deal" to end it did nothing to give relief to the millions of Americans who are hurting because of Obamacare.
Because of inept rhetoric capability of Republicans, they have been saddled with a negative impression of having caused an undesirable shutdown. I don't accept that position. During the 13-day shutdown, no one seemed to be especially damaged, and it was proven that life could still go on quite well in the US without full government operation. However, these were all ancillary to what appears to be the main point, which was to defund Obamacare.
I suggest you may want to no longer look at these abstract ways to inactivate an already passed law. It is not that Obamacare is a good thing. It is terrible and will lead to the destruction of the United States as a significant economic and political entity, unless that law is repealed. However, it will be up to the will of the people in the 2014 election. The people will either vote for continued Democratic liberalism, which is in effect socialism leading to destruction, or do an about-face and allow for the repeal of such disastrous laws as Obamacare.
However, referring to the real title of this message, which is Funding the Federal Government, there will be another controversy on extending the federal debt and approving the present program of federal expenditures. As you know, annual federal expenditures strongly exceed revenues, which involves continued borrowing. This is also an indirect part of the Socialist program, which puts us on the road to destruction. It is this area, where I suggest you apply your greatest attention and resolve.
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Obamacare Will Destroy US Economy
Open Email to Speaker Boehner:
Dear Speaker Boehner,
I've just read your newsletter in which you say the problem with Obamacare is not just a website, it's the whole law. You mention not keeping previous premiums, not keeping previous doctors, and higher premiums.
Unfortunately, you missed the two major problems, which work together to create disaster.
It Is a socialistic program which takes assets from higher income people and gives it to low income people. It is also a grandiose entitlement program covering everybody. For those reasons, it will destroy the US economy as high come people find ways to avoid paying into the system and as the huge payouts of the entitlement bankrupt the country.
Dear Speaker Boehner,
I've just read your newsletter in which you say the problem with Obamacare is not just a website, it's the whole law. You mention not keeping previous premiums, not keeping previous doctors, and higher premiums.
Unfortunately, you missed the two major problems, which work together to create disaster.
It Is a socialistic program which takes assets from higher income people and gives it to low income people. It is also a grandiose entitlement program covering everybody. For those reasons, it will destroy the US economy as high come people find ways to avoid paying into the system and as the huge payouts of the entitlement bankrupt the country.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Deceptive Reporting
The Washington Times said today, "Senate
leaders announce agreement to end shutdown, raise debt", giving the impression
that it's a done deal to end the government shutdown and increase the debt
limit.
Not true! As one looks further into the article, one sees that this is a unilateral Senate action, which is no surprise. The Senate has had a preponderance of Communist/Democrats all along, and it has been clear from the start that they want to give Pres. Obama a blank check.
The reason we have had a partial government shutdown of 17% and no action on raising the debt limit for government borrowing is because of the House. The House is responsible for initiating all government funding. Contrary to the Senate, it has a majority of Republicans, who see the handwriting on the wall. That is, the United States is destined to become a third world country, unless it reduces its spending and controls its borrowing limit. House Speaker Boehner has done a good job of keeping the Senate and President at bay until recently. He then started to cave, but fortunately there were enough brave Republicans to stiffen his backbone, and as of this writing it appears that the House will not give Obama the blank check he and the Treasury Department say they need.
To resolve this conflict to the longer term advantage of the country, the House merely needs to say "no" to almost any Senate proposal that comes to it. Up until now, the reverse has been true in that the House has made many offers to which the Senate has said "no". That puts the Treasury Department and the President on the spot. They can scream and holler, which they will, but they will have to decide to allocate available funds to bond debt payment, for which the House can claim a semblance of victory with government finance. Alternatively, the Treasury Department and the Pres. may decide to default on the interest, which will lower the US credit rating. That credit rating reduction will only then be the fault of the Administration providing the Republicans give up their practice of mostly remaining silent, and instead scream and holler at the Administration for not paying the debt, even though it had the money.
Not true! As one looks further into the article, one sees that this is a unilateral Senate action, which is no surprise. The Senate has had a preponderance of Communist/Democrats all along, and it has been clear from the start that they want to give Pres. Obama a blank check.
The reason we have had a partial government shutdown of 17% and no action on raising the debt limit for government borrowing is because of the House. The House is responsible for initiating all government funding. Contrary to the Senate, it has a majority of Republicans, who see the handwriting on the wall. That is, the United States is destined to become a third world country, unless it reduces its spending and controls its borrowing limit. House Speaker Boehner has done a good job of keeping the Senate and President at bay until recently. He then started to cave, but fortunately there were enough brave Republicans to stiffen his backbone, and as of this writing it appears that the House will not give Obama the blank check he and the Treasury Department say they need.
To resolve this conflict to the longer term advantage of the country, the House merely needs to say "no" to almost any Senate proposal that comes to it. Up until now, the reverse has been true in that the House has made many offers to which the Senate has said "no". That puts the Treasury Department and the President on the spot. They can scream and holler, which they will, but they will have to decide to allocate available funds to bond debt payment, for which the House can claim a semblance of victory with government finance. Alternatively, the Treasury Department and the Pres. may decide to default on the interest, which will lower the US credit rating. That credit rating reduction will only then be the fault of the Administration providing the Republicans give up their practice of mostly remaining silent, and instead scream and holler at the Administration for not paying the debt, even though it had the money.
Do Not Raise the Debt Limit
Open Email to Rep. Tim Huelskamp (KS):
Dear Rep. Huelskamp,
Dear Rep. Huelskamp,
Congratulations for what I'm about to
explain!
According to the Washington Times, House Speaker Boehner proposed an increase in the government debt limit and approval of government spending while attaching a few strings. The general interpretation of this offer was considered very favorable to the Democrats and the President. In spite of that, Pres. Obama said that he would veto the bill. Simultaneously, it is said that a group of conservative Republicans in the House registered such strong objection, that the bill was not developed. The conservative Republicans were not named in the Washington Times article, but by implication, you are one of them. It is reported that you told CNN news that the bill was going to raise the debt ceiling hundreds of billions of dollars with no change in spending.
Not raising the debt limit should have no effect on ability to pay current interest on government bond debt, since there is adequate tax revenue to cover this. However, the option to pay lies with the Treasury Department, and it could arbitrarily decide not to pay the interest, which is doubtful.
However, other government debt obligations might be adversely affected, for which reason one of the three existing credit rating agencies has said that not raising the debt limit could be a precursor for downgrading the credit worthiness of the government, which would increase required interest rates for new government bond issues. It should also be noted that the other two credit rating agencies have so far been noncommittal. The obvious reason is that it is clear to any financial analyst that a continual raising of a credit limit, without some plan of repaying the debt, will eventually end in disaster, at which time the credit worthiness of the borrower will be essentially zero and interest required on any future issues of government bonds will be sky high. For example, the insolvency problem in Greece caused new government bond interest to rise to 18%. It is now down to 8%, because of European Union support., But if the US follows the same pattern who will there be to support the US?
Net conclusion. Thank you, Rep.Huelskamp and your conservative associates, for trying to bite the bullet now, in order to avoid future real default with sky-high interest rates equivalent to what Germany suffered after World War I.
According to the Washington Times, House Speaker Boehner proposed an increase in the government debt limit and approval of government spending while attaching a few strings. The general interpretation of this offer was considered very favorable to the Democrats and the President. In spite of that, Pres. Obama said that he would veto the bill. Simultaneously, it is said that a group of conservative Republicans in the House registered such strong objection, that the bill was not developed. The conservative Republicans were not named in the Washington Times article, but by implication, you are one of them. It is reported that you told CNN news that the bill was going to raise the debt ceiling hundreds of billions of dollars with no change in spending.
Not raising the debt limit should have no effect on ability to pay current interest on government bond debt, since there is adequate tax revenue to cover this. However, the option to pay lies with the Treasury Department, and it could arbitrarily decide not to pay the interest, which is doubtful.
However, other government debt obligations might be adversely affected, for which reason one of the three existing credit rating agencies has said that not raising the debt limit could be a precursor for downgrading the credit worthiness of the government, which would increase required interest rates for new government bond issues. It should also be noted that the other two credit rating agencies have so far been noncommittal. The obvious reason is that it is clear to any financial analyst that a continual raising of a credit limit, without some plan of repaying the debt, will eventually end in disaster, at which time the credit worthiness of the borrower will be essentially zero and interest required on any future issues of government bonds will be sky high. For example, the insolvency problem in Greece caused new government bond interest to rise to 18%. It is now down to 8%, because of European Union support., But if the US follows the same pattern who will there be to support the US?
Net conclusion. Thank you, Rep.Huelskamp and your conservative associates, for trying to bite the bullet now, in order to avoid future real default with sky-high interest rates equivalent to what Germany suffered after World War I.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Lies about Debt Default
Open
Email to House Speaker Boehner:Dear Speaker Boehner,
The Washington Times says, "Senate leaders explored the outlines of a deal Monday that would end the two-week-old government shutdown and give the Treasury Department enough borrowing room to stave off a potential default this month, but all sides cautioned that the specifics are all still up for negotiation".
The question is who is doing the lying? Is it the Washington Times, the Senate mouthpieces, the Treasury Department, or all three?
We have enough data on tax revenues and the amount of the payable bond interest to know that the interest can be easily paid. If it is not paid, it would be because of an option on the part of the Pres. Obama and his Administration. In other words any debt default on government issued securities would be caused by the President.
Are you going to let these people get away with the basic lie that an extension of the debt limit is necessary to avoid default on interest payment of government issued securities or do you want to scream the truth?
Friday, October 11, 2013
Government Startup versus Reduced Spending
Open
Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):Dear Sen. Cornyn,
I refer to your recent form letter on the government shutdown. In that letter you said excessive government spending dampens job creation and stalls economic growth. Congress and the President need to implement the spending cuts and structural entitlement reforms necessary to strengthen the long-term fiscal integrity of our country. I agree completely.
You also said a government shutdown creates further uncertainty and instability in the economy. I am eager to end the shutdown and move ahead with the fiscal and economic reforms our country so urgently needs.
It is in this second statement, that we may have a problem. The question is how eager are you to end the shutdown? You must have noticed that Speaker Boehner has made substantial progress against the principles of funding big government advocated by the Senate Democrats and the President. By standing firm in his beliefs and using the strategy of piecemeal funding of government, Speaker Boehner has already achieved some success in government fund reduction and has both Democrats and the President in a state of panic.
I hope that your eagerness to end the shutdown will not destroy all of the good work that Speaker Boehner has put into his workable program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
