Our national debt has soared past $15 trillion- forcing a historic debate about the proper size and scope of our government. This debate is an enduring one in our great Republic. It will define who we are as a nation – about our future for our children and grandchildren.

The American people are demanding dramatic action. But standing in the way is a President who refuses to back away from his failed agenda of higher taxes and higher spending. This is a President who has presided over the single largest reduction in employment in modern times. This is a President who has tried to tax almost anything that moves. This is a President who has increased the national debt by 35 percent on his watch.

There is only one response to this President and to our spending-fueled debt crisis – that is a constitutional balanced budget amendment that would put a straightjacket on our nation’s addiction to spending money we simply do not have.

This week, the Senate will once again consider a balanced budget amendment, backed by all 47 Republicans in the Senate, to make sure we never face this level of debt again. It requires Washington to balance its budget every year like American families do, ensures that any tax increase only occurs with supermajority approval in Congress, limits Congress’ ability to raise the debt ceiling, and caps spending at 18 percent of our nation’s economy.

It will be a divisive debate, because the President and his liberal allies in Congress cannot allow a balanced budget amendment to succeed. They want to grow government, encroach on liberty, and expand our debt to levels we simply cannot sustain.

(more…)

Weiner-mania: if the story weren’t so infuriating and sad – and such a damning commentary on our society – it would be laughable. Alas, here we stand at a moment in time when a sitting US congressman – a newly married, sitting US congressman – felt it was “okay” to take pictures of his erect penis and send them – unsolicited – to much younger females. And if that weren’t bad enough, we are led to believe that it is appropriate to have a “discussion” as to whether this idiot should resign or not. Of course he should resign! To believe otherwise is to engage in moral relativism and – contrary to what the Progressive Movement believes – that is a bad thing.

All one has to do to divine whether Congressman Weiner’s actions were as unacceptable as I feel they were, is to consider this singular point. If your daughter was to receive an unsolicited photograph of an erect penis from a man more than twice her age, a photo accompanied by salacious and suggestive comments, would that be acceptable to you? If you say yes then you have some terribly troubling issues that you should seek help with immediately.

The simple fact of the matter is that Mr. Weiner has both an ego and a low self-esteem problem. Obviously (and I am not a psycho-therapist, just a witness of the human condition), Mr. Weiner craves attention and validation. I find it ironic, yet disturbingly appropriate, that Mr. Weiner has chosen a profession that thrives on opinion polling. In the end, however, these personal foibles are owned by Mr. Weiner. But where they affect his personal life – and the lives of those related to him in both familial and professional manners, they also affect the lives of those who depend on Congress to do right by the electorate; the citizenry. To this end, We the People should also hold accountable those who elected Mr. Weiner to office.

Two moments in time lead me to insist that the country hold the voters of New York’s 9th District accountable for their vote to place Mr. Weiner in a position of power: the 17th Amendment and advancing federalism.

(more…)

The man just doesn’t get it.

In his deficit reduction plan unveiled Wednesday, President Obama proposed a spending reduction of only $4 trillion over the next 12 years, a figure that falls significantly short of the spending cuts proposed by the President’s own debt commission. The speech is yet another reminder that Obama is not serious about cutting federal spending in practice, but rather in delivering platitudes in the midst of what is arguably our most serious budget crisis in history.

And so the spending debate rages on in Washington.

Many forward-thinking Congressional Republicans, particularly those who ascended to office on the wave of Tea Party victories, have cautioned that lawmakers ought not to accept a spending plan without making sure they get something in return—in the name of restoring fiscal accountability to Washington.

This is indeed a wise impulse: The national debt now looms at well over $14 trillion. The national deficit hurdles toward $1.4 trillion. Our country’s deficit has now reached such epic proportions that even if the federal government were to seize the total assets of every American billionaire, we could not cover the costs of this year’s deficit alone.

Judging from speech this week, either Obama has not internalized the enormity of our national debt, or he is simply not concerned with it. Whether that epiphany strikes him or not, though, we are teetering on the edge of budgetary meltdown, and something must be done if we wish to avoid a complete and utter national fiscal crisis.

(more…)

There is much talk of repealing socialized medicine, though the rhetoric has waffled a bit since passage.  The problem is that even if we gain majorities in Congress we still need 60 votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster, not to mention the 2/3 majorities we need in both houses to override a presidential veto.  Meet Article V of the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, SHALL call a convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. (emphasis added)

Dark thoughts are on American minds these days, despite the optimism in the American system.  It is not the first time, nor will it be the last.  Travel backwards to the Spring of 1786.  The Articles of Confederation were the “Supreme Law of the Land,” but one Charles Pinckney of South Carolina proposed a revision.  Congress represented the sole institution of our national government, and Congress was rather weak.  The states retained much of their sovereignty, and Congress, with the few powers it actually wielded, could only operate with unanimous consent.  Rebellion and credit issues abounded, not to mention the threat of foreign invasion, without effective centralized governance.  And so, the Constitutional Convention eventually convened in May 1787 to revise our system of government, and prevent disaster.

The Articles of Confederation were completely replaced by the Constitution when New Hampshire ratified it as the ninth state on June 21, 1788.  The United States of America under the Constitution came into existence without a bloody revolution or civil war.  And the Constitution provided a means to revision in Article V. (more…)