Skip to content

Deficit Cutting Bill Maintains Status Quo – Scientists Gagged: Study Shows Sun Causes Warming – Tax Writeoffs on the Table – Thank You for Your Service?

July 20, 2011

Ron Paul: “Deficit Cutting” Bill Maintains Status Quo

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Statement on the Cut, Cap and Balance Act

Ron Paul
July 20, 2011

Ron Paul

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against HR 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. This bill only serves to sanction the status quo by putting forth a $1 trillion budget deficit and authorizing a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt limit.

When I say this bill sanctions the status quo, I mean it quite literally.

First, it purports to eventually balance the budget without cutting military spending, Social Security, or Medicare. This is impossible. These three budget items already cost nearly $1 trillion apiece annually. This means we can cut every other area of federal spending to zero and still have a $3 trillion budget. Since annual federal tax revenues almost certainly will not exceed $2.5 trillion for several years, this Act cannot balance the budget under any plausible scenario.

Second, it further entrenches the ludicrous beltway concept of discretionary vs. nondiscretionary spending. America faces a fiscal crisis, and we must seize the opportunity once and for all to slay Washington’s sacred cows– including defense contractors and entitlements. All spending must be deemed discretionary and reexamined by Congress each year. To allow otherwise is pure cowardice.

Third, the Act applies the nonsensical narrative about a “Global War on Terror” to justify exceptions to its spending caps. Since this war is undeclared, has no definite enemies, no clear objectives, and no metric to determine victory, it is by definition endless. Congress will never balance the budget until we reject the concept of endless wars.

Finally, and most egregiously, this Act ignores the real issue: total spending by government. As Milton Friedman famously argued, what we really need is a constitutional amendment to limit taxes and spending, not simply to balance the budget. What we need is a dramatically smaller federal government; if we achieve this a balanced budget will take care of itself.

We do need to cut spending, and by a significant amount. Going back to 2008 levels of spending is not enough. We need to cut back at least to where spending was a decade ago. A recent news article stated that we pay 35 percent more for our military today than we did 10 years ago, for the exact same capabilities. The same could be said for the rest of the government. Why has our budget doubled in 10 years? This country doesn’t have double the population, or double the land area, or double anything that would require the federal government to grow by such an obscene amount.

We need to cap spending, and then continue decreasing that cap so that the federal government grows smaller and smaller. Allowing government to spend up to a certain percentage of GDP is insufficient. It doesn’t matter that the recent historical average of government outlays is 18 percent of GDP, because in recent history the government has way overstepped its constitutional mandates. All we need to know about spending caps is that they need to decrease year after year.

We need to balance the budget, but a balanced budget amendment by itself will not do the trick. A $4 trillion balanced budget is most certainly worse than a $2 trillion unbalanced budget. Again, we should focus on the total size of the budget more than outlays vs. revenues.

What we have been asked to do here is support a budget that only cuts relative to the President’s proposed budget. It still maintains a $1 trillion budget deficit for FY 2012, and spends even more money over the next 10 years than the Paul Ryan budget which already passed the House.

By capping spending at a certain constant percentage of GDP, it allows for federal spending to continue to grow. Tying spending to GDP creates an incentive to manipulate the GDP figure, especially since the bill delegates the calculation of this figure to the Office of Management and Budget, an agency which is responsible to the President and not to Congress. In the worst case, it would even reward further inflation of the money supply, as increases in nominal GDP through pure inflation would allow for larger federal budgets.

Finally, this bill authorizes a $2.4 trillion rise in the debt limit. I have never voted for a debt ceiling increase and I never will. Increasing the debt ceiling is an endorsement of business as usual in Washington. It delays the inevitable, the day that one day will come when we cannot continue to run up enormous deficits and will be forced to pay our bills.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I sympathize with the aims of this bill’s sponsors, I must vote against HR 2560. It is my hope, however, that the looming debt ceiling deadline and the discussion surrounding the budget will further motivate us to consider legislation in the near future that will make meaningful cuts and long-lasting reforms.

—————————————————————————–

CERN Scientists Gagged On ‘Politically Incorrect’ Global Warming Data

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Physicists ordered not to draw conclusions from study which seeks to confirm that the sun drives climate change

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Wednesday, July 20, 2011


In a shocking illustration of how the man-made climate change establishment has seized control of the scientific process, physicists at the CERN lab in Geneva were gagged from drawing conclusions about data that seeks to replicate studies which prove the sun is the main driver of climate change, after their boss told them that such heresy was politically incorrect.

“The chief of the world’s leading physics lab at CERN in Geneva has prohibited scientists from drawing conclusions from a major experiment. The CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets”) experiment examines the role that energetic particles from deep space play in cloud formation. CLOUD uses CERN’s proton synchrotron to examine nucleation,” reports the Register.

The experiment is likely to confirm data from earlier studies which found cosmic rays are pivotal in the formation of clouds and that, “Tiny changes in the earth’s cloud cover could account for variations in temperature of several degrees,” an impact massively more significant than the comparatively minor level of warming caused by man-made CO2 emissions.

Suggesting that the data in the yet to be published study has validated this hypothesis, physicists involved in the project were gagged from making any interpretations of the data by their boss, not because of problems with accuracy, but because such a conclusion was not politically correct as it did not fit with the “consensus” that man is the main culprit behind climate change.

In an interview with Welt Online, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, Director General of CERN, stated, “I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them.”

Heuer’s reason for gagging his own scientists is that their conclusions would enter, “Immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate.”

In other words, Heuer doesn’t want the data to circulate freely in the public domain because it presumably contradicts the notion that man is the main driver of climate change.

It goes without saying that Heuer’s approach represents the antithesis of what science is supposed to be all about, impartial observation and following where the data leads, not following an artificial “consensus” manufactured by politicians for the purpose of legitimizing a global carbon tax system.

As physicist Nigel Calder writes, “The once illustrious CERN laboratory ceases to be a truly scientific institute when its Director General forbids its physicists and visiting experimenters to draw the obvious scientific conclusions from their results.”

Despite the fact that global warming alarmists have claimed there is no link between the huge raging fireball in space that is over 100 times bigger than the earth, drives the seasons and causes ice ages, and climate change, the data produced by Henrik Svensmark’s studies shows a clear historical correlation between cosmic ray penetration and temperature, as can be seen from the graph below.


Despite the sun’s obvious and significant impact on climate change, the IPCC refuses to include cosmic ray penetration as a factor in temperature change.

“CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis,” writes Calder. “It’s OK to enter ‘the highly political arena of the climate change debate’ provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark’s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation.”

As we reported in September last year, increasing public skepticism over claims that man significantly drives climate change has prompted alarmists to re-brand global warming as overpopulation.

A leaked UN blueprint for establishing global governance emphasized the need to adopt this new public relations ploy to combat the increasingly discredited foundation of the anthropogenic climate change myth in the aftermath of the 2009 Climategate scandal.

Efforts to cement a carbon tax in Australia are a litmus test for its planned global implementation, so the fact that a sizeable majority of the Australian electorate has vehemently rejected the proposals is a clear indication that the global warming hoax has largely failed.

“Political experts believe the battle to sell the carbon tax to the Australian public has been lost and the Prime Minister can do nothing to change voters’ minds on the issue,” reports the Brisbane Times.

That’s why the establishment is keen to use the threat of overpopulation, which amounts to little more than unscientific quackery, in addition to isolated weather events such as this year’s drought, as a means of forcing through a carbon tax via the backdoor.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.

——————————————————————————-

Comment: If you think the government is committed to reducing its size in a meaningful way, you might take a look at a good deal on oceanfront property in Kansas.   They will reduce the size of YOUR estate before they aggressively apply an axe to their bloated, suffocating system.  You can yell and scream all you want, but as long as you are willing to vote “R” in order to get rid of the Democrats, your voice is only howling at the moon.  Be willing to throw out all the bums, regardless of party, and we might have hope of accomplishing something.  Did I catch you believing what they said?  Ha, actions speak in this game.  Words can be meaningless.

A Few Years From Now You’re Going To Wake Up With A Bunch Of New Taxes

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Bruce Krasting,
My Take On Financial Events
July 20, 2011

We’re coming down to the wire on the debt limit. “Hard” deals are now being put on the table. The Republicans have said all along they don’t want any new taxes. But only a fool could think this can be done without a significant amount of revenue increase. So if we’re to get a deal what has to give? Easy. Rather than increase taxes the government can phase out deductions.

This data looks at individual deductions. This come to a whopping $950 billion. You tell me, are you on this list? Have a mortgage? Pay state or property taxes? School debt? Health care costs? Charity? Kids? Veterans? At one point or another every American is on this hit list.

image

image

Consider the deductions at the corporate level in America. It’s only $65b. Peanuts compared to the tax breaks of individuals.

image

Now think of yourself in a room trying to negotiate this big deal. It’s all well and good to say that the end result will be more taxes for corporations. But at a ratio of 15 to 1 you have to hit individuals pretty hard in order to raise any serious money. At this point everyone understands that. Cutting personal deductions in a very big way is the only possible outcome where all sides can save some face.

The way that these cuts in deductions will be phased out will hit high incomes the hardest. But don’t kid yourself; this will end up in three to four years as a very middle class tax increase. Should something like this come about you have to look askance at owning real estate. You’ll get hit with a tax from employer 401 contributions. You might think twice about having a child. Those charitable deductions are just that, charity.

I guess this is what has to happen when you need to raise a trillion in revenue to sell a deal. We’re going to hate it a few years from now when all this kicks in.

—————————————————————————–

Comment: I ask readers not to be so quickly offended by the article below.  What if our sentiments have been manipulated by propaganda, for the goal of obtaining support for wars that are not in our interest to defend against US invasion.   Sure, we love our young men and women and they may have had good intentions for joining the armed forces, but what if they have been duped?  Shall we lavish praise for the sole purpose of allowing them to save face?  Please read.

Thank You for Your Service?

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Laurence M. Vance
LewRockwell.com
July 19, 2011

It is without question that Americans are in love with the military. Even worse, though, is that their love is unqualified, unconditional, unrelenting, and unending.

I have seen signs praising the troops in front of all manner of businesses, including self-storage units, bike shops, and dog grooming.

Many businesses offer discounts to military personnel not available to doctors, nurses, and others who save lives instead of destroy them.

Special preference is usually given to veterans seeking employment, and not just for government jobs.

Many churches not only recognize veterans and active-duty military on the Sunday before holidays, they have special military appreciation days as well.

Even many of those who oppose an interventionist U.S. foreign policy and do not support foreign wars hold the military in high esteem.

All of these things are true no matter which country the military bombs, invades, or occupies. They are true no matter why the military does these things. They are true no matter what happens while the military does these things. They are true no matter which political party is in power.

The love affair that Americans have with the military – the reverence, the idolatry, the adoration, yea, the worship – was never on display like it was at the post office the other day.

While at the counter shipping some packages, a U.S. soldier, clearly of Vietnamese origin in name and appearance, dressed in his fatigues, was shipping something at the counter next to me. The postal clerk was beaming when he told the soldier how his daughter had been an MP in Iraq. Three times in as many minutes I heard the clerk tell the soldier – with a gleam in his eye and a solemn look on his face – “Thank you for your service.” The clerk even shook the soldier’s hand before he left.

I could not believe what I was seeing and hearing, and I am no stranger to accounts of military fetishes in action.

Aside from me not thanking that soldier for his service – verbally or otherwise – I immediately thought of four things.

One, what service did this soldier actually render to the United States? If merely drawing a paycheck from the government is rendering service, then we ought to thank every government bureaucrat for his service, including TSA goons. Did this soldier actually do anything to defend the United States, secure its borders, guard its shores, patrol its coasts, or enforce a no-fly zone over U.S. skies? How can someone blindly say “thank you for your service” when he doesn’t know what service was rendered?

Two, is there anything that U.S. soldiers could do to bring the military into disfavor? I can’t think of anything. Atrocities are dismissed as collateral damage in a moment of passion in the heat of battle by just a few bad apples. Unjust wars, we are told, are solely the fault of politicians not the soldiers that do the actual fighting. Paul Tibbets and his crew are seen as heroes for dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Before he died, Tibbets even said that he had no second thoughts and would do it again. I suspect that if the United States dropped an atomic bomb tomorrow on Afghanistan and Pakistan, killing everyone and everything, and declaring the war on terror over and won, a majority of Americans would applaud the Air Force crew that dropped the bomb and give them a ticker-tape parade.

Three, why is it that Americans only thank American military personnel for their service? Shouldn’t foreign military personnel be thanked for service to their country? What American military worshippers really believe is that foreign military personnel should only be thanked for service to their government when their government acts in the interests of the United States. Foreign soldiers are looked upon as heroic if they refuse to obey a military order to shoot or kill at the behest of their government as long as such an order is seen as not in the interests of the United States. U.S. soldiers, however, are always expected to obey orders, even if it means going to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, or Libya under false pretenses.

And four, what is a Vietnamese man – who most certainly has relatives, or friends or neighbors of relatives, that were killed or injured by U.S. bombs and bullets during the Vietnam War – doing joining the U.S. military where he can be sent to shoot and bomb foreigners like the U.S. military did to his people?

And aside from these four things, I’m afraid I must also say: Sorry, soldiers, I don’t thank you for your service.

– I don’t thank you for your service in fighting foreign wars.
– I don’t thank you for your service in fighting without a congressional declaration of war.
– I don’t thank you for your service in bombing and destroying Iraq and Afghanistan.
– I don’t thank you for your service in killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans.
– I don’t thank you for your service in expanding the war on terror to Pakistan and Yemen.
– I don’t thank you for your service in occupying over 150 countries around the world.
– I don’t thank you for your service in garrisoning the planet with over 1,000 military bases.
– I don’t thank you for your service in defending our freedoms when you do nothing of the kind.
– I don’t thank you for your service as part of the president’s personal attack force to bomb, invade, occupy, and otherwise bring death and destruction to any country he deems necessary.

Thank you for your service? I don’t think so.

——————————————————————————-

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: