FOX Business: Bulls & Bears- David Asman: ‘National Debt Surpasses $22 Trillion’

Source:FOX Business– Our national credit card debt.

Source:The New Democrat

“Bulls & Bears” panel on how the U.S. national debt surpassed $22 trillion and whether the drop in tax revenues will be blamed on President Trump.

FOX Business Network (FBN) is a financial news channel delivering real-time information across all platforms that impact both Main Street and Wall Street. Headquartered in New York — the business capital of the world — FBN launched in October 2007 and is the leading business network on television, topping CNBC in Business Day viewers for the second consecutive year. The network is available in more than 80 million homes in all markets across the United States. Owned by FOX, FBN has bureaus in Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and London.”

From FOX Business  

Replace Donald Trump with Barack Obama as President with 22 trillion national debt and a big tax cut from last year and have with this same panel on this show and let’s hear them talk about how the national debt is not that big of a deal or a real concern. You might think that you’re death trying to hear that conversation, simply because you would never hear them talking that way. Other than maybe Steve Forbes who never believed that the national debt and deficits are that big of a deal regardless of who the President is and the size of the deficit and debt, you wouldn’t hear that conversation at all.

You would instead hear things like: “those tax and spend Democrats are sending America into bankruptcy and borrowing and spending America’s future.” The old Tea Party arguments ( and they are old ) from 2011, 12, and 13 would come back again. My whole point here is when you have a national debt that’s 80-90% of your economy and it’s a big deal, then the national debt is even larger than that now especially when your economy is growing at 2-3% a year and you have unemployment at less than 4%, then it’s a big deal when the national debt is even bigger as it’s now. The national debt and deficits knows no political parties and isn’t interested in politics at all. If the national debt is a big deal, then it’s a big deal regardless of which party is in power at The White House.

The only difference here is that we have a Republican President instead of a Democratic President, with Republicans feeling no political advantage whatsoever in talking about the dangers of the national debt when their party is in The White House. Which is a bad thing because the national debt was a problem during the Obama Administration and probably had some affect on the lack of economic growth in the economy, even though job growth was very solid for most of the Obama Presidency, but economic growth tended to lag behind that job growth.

But it’s a bigger problem now especially with the economy growing now and with the Republican Congress and President Trump the last two years voluntarily raising the debt and deficit with new spending and tax cuts when they didn’t have to, when instead they could’ve started paying down the deficit and moving the country towards a balanced budget. Again, the national debt doesn’t know politics and political parties and is there regardless of who is in The White House and running Congress. So when politicians try to take advantage of it when they’re out-of-power, it can come back to bite them once they’re back in power and the national debt grows ever larger on their watch.

Read Full Post »

Peter G. Peterson Foundation: ‘Why The National Debt Matters’

Source:Peter G. Peterson Foundation– Americans who will  paying for the national debt for the rest of their lives. 

Source:The New Democrat 

“At $23 trillion and rising, the national debt threatens America’s economic future. Here are some of the reasons why the national debt matters. Learn more:Peterson Foundation.”

From the Peterson Foundation

For anyone who tries to tell you that deficits and the national debt don’t matter, whether there are  Socialists on the Left or supply Neoconservatives on the Right, ask them one question: “then why do we need taxes if we we have unlimited borrowing power?” If deficits and debt doesn’t matter and you have unlimited borrowing power, you wouldn’t need taxes. If you want government to do something or increase spending, since you have unlimited borrowing power like someone who has their own printing machine and just print money every time they want to spend money, you can just print the money you need and want to spend.

Source:Retirement Income Journal– You still think the national debt doesn’t matter? 

This is a ridiculous question, because of course deficits and debt matter. So don’t let the Dick Cheney’s of the world or these leftist Democrats ( whether they call themselves Socialists or not ) running for President who will promise any single new government program that they can think of in order to win the Democratic nomination and who’ll call their programs and services free, even though they’re at least smart enough to know that their services won’t be free and perhaps are just plain dishonest about it. Because they’ll either be paid for in new taxes on the middle class by the way and not people who live in Manhattan, or the Hamptons, or in Georgetown, or in Beverly Hills, but by people who work hard everyday and live in middle class communities in Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Chicago, and other places. Because the wealthy are smart enough to move their money oversees anytime they get wind of a new tax coming down the pike for them.

Source:Slide Player– As the photo says 

As it says in the video American taxpayers of all incomes every year pay about 390 billion dollars in interest payments on the debt. Which is just one example of what can happen when you have a national debt that’s the size of you’re entire gross national product. Just think of what Uncle Sam could do with 390 billion dollars a year that he doesn’t have to tax his nephews and nieces every year to raise that revenue. 390 billion would repair, replace, and create a helluva lot of public infrastructure in America. Lots of roads and new schools in middle class and low-income communities. Money that could also be used to for adult education so people who are struggling to pay their bills and don’t have enough education. We could be investing new funds for people who are uneducated and currently not working so they can finish and further their education, enter the workforce and join the middle class in America.

If you call yourself a Progressive, these are just some of the investments that America could be making for their people to improve their lives. But we can’t do these things and a country and do other public investments when we’re giving out 390 billion dollars a year ( and growing ) simply because we’re not adult and responsible enough as citizens and public officials to pay for the things that we want our government to do for us every year. Of course deficits and debt matters and they don’t go way simply by saying, “we’ll just tax the rich” especially when even if your IRS actually gets that money would just be spent on new programs or put into additional government programs.

Read Full Post »

Fix The Debt: 6 Things That Congress Should Do As It Considers The Federal Budget & Government Spending

Source: Fix The Debt

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

“The Fix the Debt Campaign is bringing together Americans from all walks of life and from across the country to get the national debt under control. Learn more and join us.”

What Fix The Debt really only offers here are goals that they would like to see accomplished in the next Federal budget that Congress passes and the President signs. Which may happen as soon as 2050 since Congress no longer passes budgets The the last budget that Congress passed was in 2006. What they do instead is pass some appropriations bills and generally its real just the House that passes any appropriations bills. And September comes along which shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone since September is an annual event in America and Congress realizes that the Federal Government funding is about to run out and decides to pass a short-term spending bill keeping the entire government running until the end of the year generally.

It use to be better than this when Congress would pass an omnibus bill generally in December that would fund the entire government until the following September. Omnibus bills are one appropriation bill passed by Congress instead of all 13 bills and passed instead of a budget. They’re not as good as a budget that comes with appropriations bills later on, but are certainly better than running a Federal Government with a four-trillion-dollar budget and without around five-million employees three or four months at a time. Better for the workers and better for the economy, because investors don’t have to worry about government shutdowns as much and the negative impact they have on the economy.

The only real solution that Fix The Debt offers here and I doubt the author of this article is actually named Fix The Debt, I mean that is no name for a real human being, but no name for the author is given here, but all they talk about is Congress should pass a budget. Pass a budget that puts us on path to reducing the national deb. And then they offer only one real solution in their article which is called PAYGO. Which is a wonky eggheaded term that in American English means pay as you go.

Makes sense right, is you’re going to purchase something pay for it instead of running up big credit card bills that you can’t pay back or writing checks that bounce like fully pumped basketballs that are slammed on a highway. But Congress doesn’t operate in the real world. They operate in the world of political bases and political contributions. And tend to see their number one job is to get reelected. Especially if they’re in the leadership of the major party in the House and Senate and don’t want to lose their majority during the next election. Or if they’re in the leadership in the minority party they tend to see their number one job is to not only get reelected but add to their membership and win back the House or Senate.

So as long as Congress functions on short-term spending bills and the only real deadline they care about are their primary elections and election days, we’ll never see any real solutions to addressing the big deficit of six-hundred-billion dollars and the national debt of twenty-trillion-dollars. Because addressing these issues will cost political capital and support. Because it will mean addressing entitlements, the defense budget, the tax code, emergency spending like disaster relief, and our public assistance anti-poverty programs so we have fewer Americans living and working in poverty and more Americans working and paying payroll and Federal income taxes.

But if you’re looking for real solutions that might happen at some point in the future, or more realistically could happen in the short-term, I believe PAYGO and disaster relief reform might be the only things that could pass both the House and Senate and get signed by President Trump. Applying PAYGO to disaster relief and the defense budget. No more waiting until the hurricane season in the late summer to realize that we may need a lot of money to pay for that cleanup and help people be able to get back to their lives. With Congress passing a disaster relief package of somewhere around 50-100 billion dollars that of course is put on the national credit card. (Another way of saying national debt)

But instead showing some common sense (almost as rare as July snow in Los Angeles, in Congress) and knowing that August and September are annual events in America and are hurricane season in the Southeast, as well as the Southwest in Texas with all the heat and humidity and that this is a region that will probably get hit by at least one storm and that it could be a major storm and that this region is probably going to need a lost of assistance to handle any recovery that might be needed. And again, to go back to the need for the Federal budget that the Administration and Congress should plan for these events upfront and pay for them upfront.

We need a natural disaster fund in America that should be paid for by the people who receive that assistance when their property is hit by one of these major storms and need financial assistance in order to recover from it. People who live in higher risk areas should pay more for this insurance because they’ll get more assistance when they are hit by a storm or some other natural disaster. This would save the Federal Government 20, 50, perhaps even 100 billion dollars or more each year, as well as taxpayers because the Feds would no longer have to borrow to pay for disaster relief and taxpayers would have less interest to pay back on the national debt when they make purchases.

A fully functioning PAYGO that is tied to the entire Federal budget whether its disaster relief, as well as the defense budget and increases to all parts of the Federal budget including invasions, humanitarian relief efforts that are Defense Department are involved in, repairing and building new bases, alone won’t fix the deficit and the national debt. We really need a comprehensive approach here that deals with the tax code, entitlements, poverty assistance, as well as defense and disaster relief. But it would be a good step forward and tell the markets and Wall Street that the U.S. Government is finally serious about the national debt and sees it as a national priority and at the very least will stop asking to the problem that it created.

Source: Crash Course 

Crash Course: Adrienne Hill & Jacob Clifford- Deficits a& Debt

Read Full Post »

The Dish: Opinion: Andrew Sullivan: Why Rand Paul Matters: Senator Paul’s Critique of President Reagan’s Fiscal Policy

U.S. Senator Rand Paul

The Dish: Opinion: Andrew Sullivan: Why Rand Paul Matters

The New Democrat on Facebook

The New Democrat on Twitter

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

For me, though, these clips make Paul’s candidacy more appealing, not less. What the GOP needs is an honest, stringent account of how it has ended up where it is – a party that has piled on more debt than was once thought imaginable and until recently, has done nothing much to curtail federal spending. Reagan was a great president in many ways, as Paul says explicitly in these clips.

But Reagan introduced something truly poisonous into American conservatism.

It was the notion that you can eat your cake and have it too, that tax cuts pay for themselves and that deficits don’t matter. This isn’t and wasn’t conservatism; it was a loopy utopian denial of math. And the damage it has done to this country’s fiscal standing has been deep and permanent. It is one of modern conservatism’s cardinal sins. And Paul is addressing it forthrightly – just as he is addressing the terrible, devastating consequences of neo-conservatism for America and the world in the 21st Century.

What we desperately need from the right is this kind of accounting. It’s what reformers on the left did in the 1990s – confronting the failures of their past in charting a new future. Taking on Reagan on fiscal matters may be short-term political death, as Corn suspects and maybe hopes, but it is vital if the GOP is to regain some long-term credibility on the core question of government solvency. Compared with the ideological bromides and slogans of so many others, Rand Paul is a tonic. And a courageous one at that.

The New Democrat

I really respect Senator Rand Paul and love Andrew Sullivan (you know platonically) because of their damned straight honesty and forthrightness.  Andrew, on his blog, The Dish, today compared the supply side economics of the Reagan and G.W. Bush administrations with the overreach of the Democratic Party at the time of the emergence of the New Left in America. The base of that party became so radical in the late 1960s and 1970s that it gave liberalism and Liberals a bad name.  It took Bill Clinton ,in the early 1990s, to bring the Democratic Party back to Earth, so to speak, and make it a center-left party again.

Senator Rand Paul was speaking the plain truth when he said that President Jimmy Carter had a better, more responsible and conservative fiscal record than President Ronald Reagan.  President Carter had a balanced budget as one of his goals and he pushed that throughout his presidency. He had a very rough economy and never got there but it wasn’t because of the overspending of his administration or the Congress.  It was because of the bad economy of the late 1970s and early 1980s.

President Reagan abandoned the goal of a balanced Federal budget by 1984 in late 1981 or early 1982 when his Economic Recovery Act became law.  He was getting intelligence reports about the U.S.S.R. and the mess its economy was in.  Perhaps he got the idea that this would be the time to end the Cold War and put the Soviet Union out of business.  That meant building up the Defense Department in an attempt to bring the Russians to their knees so that they had to negotiate with the U.S. in order to survive economically.

The fact is that our last fiscally conservative president was George H.W. Bush who was no radical,  right or left.  He had a pretty conservative fiscal policy and a tight monetary policy.  Without the 1990 Deficit Reduction Act that he negotiated with a Democratic Congress we wouldn’t have reached the balanced budget in 1998 that we did. President Gerald Ford is probably the most fiscally conservative president we’ve ever had as far limiting what the Federal Government would do and spend.  It is not Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.  They were both supply side borrowers and spenders.

Read Full Post »

President Ronald Reagan: On Taxes, Spending & Debt

Source:Ronald Reagan Foundation– President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) 1981-89

Ronald Reagan: “The problem isn’t that the people are taxed too little, the government spends too much.”

I wish that President Reagan had taken his own advice as President. And maybe he wouldn’t have run the debt so high with his supply side, borrow and spend, defense buildup at all costs, except for paying for it. Except other then borrowing money from other countries to pay for it.

Read Full Post »

Committee For a Responsible Budget: ‘Tax Reform and The Size of Government’

Source:Tax Foundation– I’m sorry I couldn’t make this photo any bigger. LOL

“As we begin to enter the dog days of summer, the weather is not the only thing that is heating up. The tax reform debate is beginning to escalate also as Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) begin their tour of the U.S. to drum up support for reforming the tax system.

There are many different reasons to take up tax reform including making the code simpler, fairer and more conducive to economic growth, but a recent paper by Donald Marron and Eric Toder of the Tax Policy Center makes another point: tax reform could shrink the government’s overall role in the economy even as it raises revenue. Marron and Toder argue that the true size of government may be hidden by traditional statistics, since most tax expenditures count as tax cuts in the budget instead of spending programs…

From CRFB 

Oh, yes tax reform, the time when Democrats and Republicans get to talk about what they would do, if they were the Washington Kings (which is not a sports franchise) and had all the power to do exactly what they wanted to do, if only that other party would just go way. Perhaps go down to Union Station or out to National Airport and get out-of-town and let them govern for a while. Which is exactly what tax reform debates tend to be like, especially in a divided Congress, in a divided government. Could 2013 be different? Potentially, since every new year is exactly that. But I’m more impressed with reason and the reasonable, as opposed to the potential and possible.

Read Full Post »

Only Waxing: Real Time With Bill Maher- The Paul Ryan Budget

Source:Only Waxing– Elliot Spitzer on Real Time With Bill Maher.

Source:The Daily Times 

“Andrew Sullivan Schools Maher and Spitzer on Paul Ryan and Budget. Very surprising.”

From Only Waxing

What Representative Paul Ryan (Chairman of the Budget Committee) tried to do in the last Congress and so far in this Congress, was an attempt at least on paper to balance the Federal budget. But by only concentrating on around 15-20% of the Federal budget.

And most of those cuts coming from non-Social Security and Medicare social-insurance programs. And if you saw Bill Maher in this video someone who I normally disagree with layout, Chairman Ryan attempts to balance the budget by going after the small appetizers or side dishes. Imagine a meal consisting of steak, mashed potatoes and lets say a caesar salad (good meal, right) instead of targeting the meat of the meal or even the potatoes the stuff that fills people up in the meal normally. What Chairman Ryan goes after a couple of leafs in the meal. “Big meal with too much food, we are going to take away a couple of leafs and call it fat reduction instead of deficit reduction.”

The meat and potatoes in the United States Government’s budget is defense, Social Security, Medicare and to a certain extent Medicaid. And then there are a bunch of public assistance programs of around 30 trillion-dollars or so that aids workers who do not make enough money, or are unemployed. Which is why I believe Paul Ryan and his followers are as interested in deficit reduction, as the typical career politician (lets say House or Senate) is interested in raising taxes or cutting Social Security during an election year when they are up for reelection, or getting a real job and earning their money. In others words: not at all.

If House Republicans were serious about deficit reduction, then they would write and pass a plan that solves the problem by going at the meat of the Federal budget. And not just picking away at salad leaves in it. Chairman Ryan is right I believe about the seriousness of the debt and deficit, but is not ready to solve the problems.

If I’m starving and its late at night and I haven’t had anything to eat all day, I don’t snack on a couple of crackers thinking my hunger will go away. I make myself a meal or buy one. The same thing with deficit reduction, that if you are serious about the budget you go where the meat is. Or in this case the money and you cut back in areas where you can afford to save money. That will help you solve the problem.

Read Full Post »

The Nation: George Zornick- ‘A Truly Progressive Budget Vision’

Source:The Nation– U.S. Representative Keith Eillison (Democrat, Minnesota) Co-Chair of the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus, in the House.

Source:The Daily Times

“Paul Ryan’s recently released budget will not become law—at least not any time soon. The Democratic Senate would never pass it, President Obama would never sign it. Ryan surely knows this, and his proposal is a fantasy budget: more an ideological argument than genuine attempt at legislating.

That hasn’t stopped widespread media coverage of Ryan’s proposal, and that’s fine: he’s a leading thinker of the conservative movement, with real power. But corresponding attention should also be paid to the opposite ideological vision sketched out by the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the “Back to Work” budget proposal, released on Wednesday.”

From The Nation

I’ll give the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) credit for once: they have moderated a little from 2011. Two years ago their budget plan called for eliminating all of the Bush tax cuts including those for the middle class. And using all of that money on infrastructure and creating new Federal Government New Deal era programs. But even some of their members now see how bad of an idea it is to pass middle class tax hikes in a struggling economy.

So now what the so-called CPC has done instead is put all of that new tax burden on wealthy individuals and business’s. Leaving our high corporate tax at 35% in place and closing a lot of corporate tax loopholes. So short-term that may sound fiscally responsible because you are attempting to pay for new government spending. But are the results instead, business’s move that money out of the country to avoid paying those high taxes.

The so called Back To Work Budget Plan from the CPC is as dead as disco or high-water pants. Or people dancing to disco in high-water pants. People dancing disco in the ocean, in high-water pants (If you can’t wear high-water pants in the ocean, where can you wear them?) Why, because very few people in Congress believe that government should have all of that power when it comes to job creation. That what we should be doing instead is freeing up capitol in the private sector so they have work to do and have a need to hire new employees.

What makes great economic sense when it comes to infrastructure investment, is government sets priorities and then rewards contracts to private companies to do the work. Rather than government or the private sector having most of the power and why its the ultimate private/public partnership.

Infrastructure investment that’s needed, especially in a sluggish economy, always makes great economic sense. The question is always how is it paid for. The CPC has their approach, but the reason why a lot of their ideas are usually dead as high-water pants and disco George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, is because they generally don’t have much if any power, even in their party and Congress, but they’re so far out in left field, even in the Democratic Party.

Read Full Post »

Chicago Tribune: ‘A Deficit of Ambition’

Source:Bloomberg News– with a look at budget deficits.

“There is no one alive more revered and beloved among Democrats than Bill Clinton, who showed at last year’s national convention what a rock star he is. One of his most historic achievements as president was something that eluded Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush: balancing the federal budget. He did it four straight years. For Democrats, it was cause for great pride.

But that was a long time ago. Last week, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, D-Wash., produced a budget plan — the first one to come from the Senate in four years. She did so shortly after House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., unveiled his.

The two blueprints have many differences, but the biggest of all is that Ryan’s aims at eliminating the annual federal deficit by 2023. Murray’s would balance the budget … well, never. In 2023, the Democratic budget’s deficit would be $566 billion. Over the coming decade, her plan would add $5.2 trillion to the total debt — more than four times the $1.2 trillion the Ryan version would add.”

From the Chicago Tribune

At least Senate Democrats are honest when they talk about their priorities (to sort of defend them against this Chicago Tribune editorial) when they say their number one priority right now is the economy. And they also acknowledge to have a strong economy deficit reduction needs to happen now and into the future.

But deficit reduction can’t be the only only goal right now because without a strong growing economy with more people working and out of poverty, you can forget about ever reaching a balance budget. Or achieving serious deficit reduction because the costs that comes from lack of economic growth and high unemployment will wipeout whatever savings you make from cutting spending which is something that. The House Republican Leadership simply doesn’t understand or won’t acknowledge.

The Republican Leadership economic policy is still built around increasing the defense budget at a time when the Defense Department doesn’t need anymore money, they just can’t afford to be cut further. And tax cuts in the trillions of dollars that most benefit the wealthy and aren’t paid for. Back to George W. Bush borrow and spend economic.

Democrats want a combination of spending cuts but doing it in a way that doesn’t hurt anyone who needs that assistance. And not just targeting areas where most of the money in the Federal budget isn’t like in infrastructure, research, poverty assistance. But targeting areas that need to be reformed like in entitlements and defense and the tax code. As well as investing in things that benefit the economy like infrastructure.

If both sides were serious about deficit reduction, then both sides would present a serious plan that goes where the money actually is. Entitlements, defense and the tax code and reforming those areas and looking for savings there. As well as presenting plans that would boost economic growth like in infrastructure and tax cuts that encourage economic development in America instead of sending that money oversees. But we are still in the early stages of this debate and both sides aren’t ready to do that yet.

Read Full Post »

Senate Republicans: ‘U.S. Senator Jeff Session- ‘If Republicans Get Senate Majority, We Will Pass A Budget’

Source:Senate Republicans– U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (Republican, Alabama) Ranking Member on the Budget Committee.

“WASHINGTON, March 20–Sen. Sessions, Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, jointed with Chairman Paul Ryan and members of the House Budget Comittee as they unveiled their FY13 budget plan to address America’s growing financial crisis. By contrast, the Democrat-run Senate has failed to deliver a budget plan for 1,056 days. This is the third year running that they will forego this fundamental obligation, even as America’s debt continues its dangerous ascent. In his remarks, Sessions addressed how things would be different were Republicans to have the privelege of a senate majority:

“We have never needed a budget more now than we need it today: we are facing a systemic threat to America’s financial health… Senate Democrats have abandoned their obligations, and have refused to offer a budget for now three straight years now…If the voters give the Republicans in the Senate the honor of having the majority [next year], we will work with the House to pass a congressional budget. It will be an honest budget. It will change the debt course of America.”

From the Senate Republicans

The U.S. Senate on Wednesday afternoon showed again that they are not ready to make a big decision on another key issue, the Federal budget. In a way this is good because the House GOP budget should never become law.

The House GOP plan transforms Medicare into a voucher system. It puts most if not all the budget deficit on our safety net. And doesn’t do a damn thing to reduce overall spending on defense. Or repeal the tax cuts for high- earners, or end corporate welfare. This House budget went down overwhelmingly 57-40.

Senate Minority Leader McConnell brought up what he called President Obama’s Federal budget plan. Which was more of a set of goals than anything and not a serious proposal. And that went down by a whopping 97-0.

But with Senate Democrats apparently incapable of offering a serious budget proposal that gets our deficit and debt under control in a responsible way, the Senate was left with a choice of two budget plans that will never become law.

Even though the Senate minority can’t block budget related items and the Senate Democrats have a three seat majority, they have been incapable so far of coming up with their own budget plan that they can pass and send to the House.

It would be both great politics and policy for Senate Democrats led by Senator Kent Conrad Chairman of the Budget Committee, to develop their own budget plan that’s responsible and pays down the deficit. Because they would have something to counter the House with and be able to take it on the campaign trail: “This is what we want to do and this is what House and Senate Republicans voted for.” And have a major campaign issue, meaning Medicare to use to retake the House in 2012 and keep control of the Senate.

Between the House and Senate roughly 280 Republicans members of Congress voted for the House GOP budget. That cost the GOP a House seat Tuesday night. This is something they could take nationally. (Just a thought)

Leadership is about choosing and governing. Not you can sit on your hands when you’re in the opposition and minority. This is a lesson that the White House and the Senate Democratic Leadership should learn. The House Democratic Leadership drafted its budget plan and they are in the minority as well.

Read Full Post »