Tag Archives: Cut

Paul Ryan: cut current spending, cap future spending and balance the budget

Grown-up Paul Ryan explains the Republican plan to cut current spending, cap future spending, and pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

So what does Barack Obama want?

“I don’t think he wants to cut spending, and I think he wants to raise taxes.”

Would the Republican “cut, cap and balance” plan solve the debt crisis?

Let’s take a look at the Republican “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan, as reported by CBS News.


The House next week will take a vote to raise the debt ceiling and pass a balanced budget amendment, House Republican leaders said today.

The plan is unlikely to go anywhere, since a balanced budget amendment would likely fail in the Democrat-led Senate, but GOP leaders nevertheless called it a serious plan to raise the debt ceiling. They said President Obama and Democrats have failed to come up with an equally serious plan.

“We asked the president to lead,” House Speaker John Boehner said in a press conference today. “We asked him to put forward a plan — not a speech, a real plan — and he hasn’t. We will.”

The “cut, cap and balance” proposal would make raising the debt ceiling contingent on Congress sending a balanced budget amendment to the states. It would also cap government spending at 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years.

The plan would raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion, since that is the increase requested by the president. However, the plan would actually make even more in spending cuts — as much as $111 billion in 2012 alone.

[…]Boehner said the House would vote on the “cut, cap and balance” plan and then decide how to proceed from there.”I don’t want to preclude any chance of coming to an agreement, but [Democrats have] been unwilling to put a real plan on the table,” Boehner said. “Without serious spending cuts or real reform to entitlement programs, this problem is not going to be solved.”

That’s what the Republicans would do if they were in control. The balanced budget amendment would cap spending at 18% of GDP, so that we would never have a debt crisis ever again. That’s the right solution, except that the Democrats cannot give up the idea of buying votes with the money they steal from job creators. They just can control their addiction to spending.

Now, let’s take a look at who caused the debt crisis, with this House Budget Committee article by fiscal hawk Paul Ryan. (H/T Washington Post)


While President Obama has recently professed a newfound — and vague — desire to cut government spending, it’s useful to recall what the President has actually done since taking office in 2009. The President signed into law a massive spending spree that plunged us deeper into debt, and failed to deliver on its promise to create jobs.

  • 24% Increase in Base Spending. Non-defense discretionary spending grew by 24% for the first two years of the Obama Administration, adding $734 billion in spending over the next 10 years.
  • Record Government Spending. The Federal government will spend $3.6 trillion this year, 24% of gross domestic product (GDP) and the highest burden on the economy since World War II. Spending has historically averaged a little over 20% of GDP.
  • President’s Budget Makes Matter Worse. According to CBO, the President’s budget never spends less than 23% of GDP and by the end of the decade rises to 24% of GDP. His budget’s failure to address the drivers of our debt threatens the health and retirement security of America’s seniors, and the economic security of all Americans. The President’s budget seeks to spend $46 trillion in government spending over the next decade, and has subsequently fought against House Republican efforts to restrain his spending appetite down to $43.5 trillion.

During the four years when Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House, and Harry Reid was in control of the Senate, the Democrats packed 5.34 trillion dollars onto the national debt.

Are skirts or jeans more modest for women to wear?

My thoughts on summer clothes

For the ladies, I think the first concern is the functional scenario. If the woman is going to be exercising or playing a sport, then I recommend long just-above-the-knee dress shorts with pleats. Those are pretty modest but still provide full movement. Actually, there are these things called skorts that are actually shorts that look like skirts. Those are REALLY modest if you get them in a long enough length – like just above the knee.

For anything not active, then I think that loose-fitting slacks or below the knee length skirts are modest, but functional. Loose-fitting jeans are modest, but I  don’t like jeans because a woman cannot really express herself with colors – jeans are usually blue, and what does that say? Nothing. And jeans don’t look soft and feminine either. I like women to be different than me in the way they look and dress, but the same as me in the way they think and debate. I like slacks better than jeans – they are just as functional and look better.

That being said, jeans are probably the best for doing practical things in. I think the main thing is that a skirt can be immodest if the fit is too tight, just like jeans can be immodest if the fit is too tight. So a lot depends on the fit. I think a skirt is more modest because although it shows the lower leg, it hides the upper leg and behind better.

I was informed when I inquired that jeans can be “low-slung” and that those should be avoided in front of strangers in public. I also don’t think women can show cleavage to just anyone in public. I think the problem there is that it sends the wrong message to strangers. Trying to get attention the wrong way.

For swimwear, I recommend anything with a sarong on the bottom, and without a plunging neckline.

What should women try to communicate with their dress?

Well, I’ll just give my opinion.

If a woman really, really want to get a man’s attention, then wear a full length dress with a style and colors that express something. I like brilliant white, fire engine red and brilliant white, or midnight black and brilliant white in a striking design – something that you might see on a Honda motorcycle. But other colors that have patterns that range over a larger area with a nice contrast are also awesome. I think clothes should be stark and bold and that the colors should be chosen to communicate something about the woman’s character. Anyway, that works on me.

I think that in public with strangers that a woman can always show her neck and upper chest, arms below the shoulder, and the leg below the knee. I think that women can show more in an exercise/sport situation. I’m opposed to showing cleavage to strangers in public. It attracts the wrong kind of attention and in the wrong way. However, in private with people she knows, then the rules can be relaxed. Part of the fun of a relationship is for a woman to reveal herself to a man progressively and to get appropriate compliments and attention, especially if she is working out and dieting and needs encouragement.

Here – this one is perfect:

This is fine to wear in public

Modesty is actually really important. How can a woman attract a man without being too revealing? When can she show more rather than less? What is appropriate? How can a woman communicate to a man with the way she dresses?

Any thoughts from our readers?


You may be wondering how I even found out about all of this stuff since I know nothing at all about clothes. Well, I asked a bunch of women I respect, of course. Six of them! All of whom are either famous, or who have commented here, or both. I don’t want to say their names, except for Foxfier, who gave me her permission.

The Republicans want YOU to tell them how to cut wasteful spending!

Here’s what the new Republican program is all about:

YouCut – a first-of-its-kind project – is designed to defeat the permissive culture of runaway spending in Congress. It allows you to vote, both online and on your cell phone, on spending cuts that you want to see the House enact. Vote on this page today for your priorities and together we can begin to change Washington’s culture of spending into a culture of savings.

Here is the announcement for the new program:

And they announce what people vote to cut every week, and submit a bill to do it! Then they show the voting results.

Here’s week #1, announced by Tom Price:

Here’s week #2, announced by Michele Bachmann:

And you can suggest your own program to cut at the web site! I want them to abolish the Department of Education.

What did Reagan do when he inherited a recession?

Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan

Here is a piece from Bloomberg from Amity Shlaes. (H/T The Western Experience)


Double-digit unemployment looms. The country is in a funk. The federal budget deficit is widening to an extent not seen in decades.

This scenario isn’t new. It also describes the U.S. in 1982. Somehow, the 1980s and the 1990s turned out to be pretty good years. So it’s worthwhile to compare current policy to the one followed then.

…Today, taxes are on their way up. Whether it will be abolishing some of the tax deductibility of health care or increasing taxes on soda, President Barack Obama and Congress are clearly signaling the direction in which they want to move. Most tax increases under discussion would make the rich, or companies, the first to pay. The justification offered for this is that the federal government needs the money and may know how to spend it better than the private sector, anyhow.

…In the early 1980s, the view on taxes was the opposite: get them down. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, enacted by Ronald Reagan, pushed tax rates down for wealthy and non-wealthy alike. The capital gains tax rate dropped to 20 percent. When Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the top marginal rate on income taxes fell to 28 percent.

Is Obama right? Or was Reagan right?

The coming tax increases

The Wall Street Journal reports on some of the new taxes Obama wants to impose.

The [health care] bill’s main financing comes from another tax increase on top of the increase already scheduled for 2011 under Mr. Obama’s budget. The surtax starts at one percentage point for adjusted gross income above $350,000 in 2011, rising to two points in 2013; a 1.5 point surtax at incomes above $500,000, rising to three in 2013; and a whopping 5.4 percentage points in 2011 and beyond on incomes above $1 million.

And what happens when you tax the rich?

House Democrats… claim that this surtax would raise $544 billion in new revenue over 10 years. America’s millionaires aren’t that stupid; far fewer of them will pay these rates for very long, if at all. They will find ways to shelter income, either by investing differently or simply working less. Small businesses that pay at the individual rate will shift to pay the 35% corporate rate. When the revenue doesn’t materialize, Democrats will move to soak the middle class with a European-style value-added tax.

It should be noted that a value-added sales tax disproportionately hurts the poor.