Thursday, October 18, 2012

Hunt/Ellis debate emphasizes differences

The Cape Cod Times and League of Women Voters debate last night provided an opportunity for State Representative Randy Hunt and challenger R. Patrick Ellis to air out their differences.

You can watch the debate at the Sandwich Community TV website: By the way, the Therese Murray / Tom Keyes senate debate is the second half of the video at that link.

One weird situation came up during the debate when Patrick claimed that I had signed the Grover Norquist pledge and wanted me to explain why I would do this. I replied that I hadn't signed the pledge. This morning, I went back through my election file and found the two letters from Americans for Tax Reform (Norquist's organization) that I had received in 2010 and 2012. I had written on each that I did not submit the pledge, and the attached pledge from each letter is blank. See the scanned images here.

It's not the first time I've run into incorrect information posted on the Internet. I'm sure my opponent or someone on his campaign staff read my blog post about this issue (read it here) where, in the comment section, "Anonymous" asked if I signed the Norquist pledge and I responded that I had not. That should have been a clue.

Anyway, we had a good time and I look forward to any comments about the debate that you care to share.

Monday, October 1, 2012

Obama's deficit plan: Even he can't believe this stuff, can he?

I just blew a gasket watching an Obama commercial describing his four-point plan for America. I don't care if it comes from the "Right" or if it comes from the "Left," I hate insincerity and downright distortion of the facts. I'm constantly emailing back to my conservative friends that the 3.8% Medicare tax will not be levied on the sale of a $100,000 house. Stop sending me this ridiculous email.

In this case, President Obama's direct appeal to the voters, looking right into the camera, is second only to the "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" comment for its apparent sincerity and truthfulness. This guy is a master of making us believe things that are so obviously distortions... If we would only think about them for a minute.

I'll focus on Point 4 of his plan, which is so deep in male bovine manure that my boots started filling up while watching this ad.

Here it is:

"A balanced plan to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade. On top of the trillion in spending we've already cut, I'd ask the wealthy to pay a little more. And as we end the war in Afghanistan, let's apply half the savings to pay down our debt and use the rest for some nation building right here at home."

Let's start with the $4 trillion. The fact is that reducing the deficit by $4 trillion over a decade will not even overcome the amount of deficit spending this president has racked up in less than four years at the helm: $5.2 trillion, pushing the national debt to over $16 trillion.

The model for this $4 trillion deficit reduction effort comes from the Simpson Bowles Commission. Its report was released in December 2010 and has been gathering dust ever since, other than becoming the basis for baseless campaign fodder.

Here's the first gross distortion: "On top of the trillion in spending we've already cut, I'd ask the wealthy to pay a little more." Has $1 trillion already been cut? No. That's a lie. The so-called sequestrations ordered as a result of the failed "Super Committee" negotiations surrounding the debt ceiling deal last summer call for $1 trillion in reduced government spending over ten years.

Is that likely to happen? Apparently the President doesn't think so, because the White House issued a memorandum to government contractors advising them not to issue WARN (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification) Act notices to their employees. If the sequestrations do go into effect and there are mass layoffs, these contractors have been told that the taxpayers will pick up the tab for violating the WARN Act provisions; that is, the contractors will be able to pass the fines through as a reimbursable expense.

So the White House is betting on Congress doing something to stop or mitigate the sequestrations, meaning that they're hoping that the $1 trillion doesn't come to pass even though the President said, and I'll quote again: "On top of the $1 trillion in spending we've already cut."

Blown gasket number one.

Here's the second gross distortion: "And as we end the war in Afghanistan, let's apply half the savings to pay down our debt and use the rest for some nation building right here at home."

Ten more blown gaskets on that one.

How disingenuous can he be? The President and his ad writers are counting on us to be complete nincompoops to swallow this B.S.

How many times has President Obama and his surrogates pointed out that a big contributor to the national debt has been two unfunded wars? A hundred times? A thousand times? By the way, I agree with the statement.

Think this through with me here. Why would unfunded wars run up the national debt?

Perhaps because we're borrowing the money to pay for them?


Then how the (insert profane word here) are we going to use half the "savings" from not borrowing more money to pay down the national debt?

Blam! Another blown gasket.

Apparently, he must believe that we can borrow half as much and use it to pay down, well, what we just borrowed. Let me save you some time, Mr. President. Do nothing. There. Same result.


Now let's take the rest of the money we're not borrowing for the war in Afghanistan and borrow it to spend on rebuilding America. Over ten years, that would be about $500 million, essentially negating half of the $1 trillion in sequestrations.

Does any of this make sense to you?

I suppose it makes sense to people who accept anything as the truth as long as it's said over a New Age piano track.

Come on, America. Wake up!