THE IMMOVABLE MOVER ...

HAS MOVED! AGAIN!!

Please visit me at IMMOVABLE (www.jameshenrybailey.com)

THE IMMOVABLE MOVER ...

Has moved!

Thank you to Gay Concervative Liberal for linking to me. It was his blog on Compassion, or lack thereof, that compelled me to start my own blog.

After a month of growing frustrations with Blogger, I have decided to head over to TypePad. I hope y'all follow me there.... http://immovablemover.typepad.com/

Hannity, We Have A Problem!

"I know how well Sandy Berger is regarded. I'm a fan of his, and I just want to understand this because — and I want Americans to understand how a good man would do something that, on the surface, doesn't look that good. Right?" - Alan Colmes

Alan Colmes, Miserablist

I do not envy Alan Colmes. He is Fox's resident token liberal who must spar with his intellectual superior, conservative co-host Sean Hannity, daily. I watch the Hannity & Colmes show regularly. I do not enjoy it. However, it is often the only chance to see conservative politicians given a fair chance to speak. It is clear to me that Alan Colmes was purposefully brought in as a lightweight "foil" to Sean Hannity. Instead of standing up as a serious debating partner to Mr. Hannity, Mr. Colmes often comes across as either dishonest or disingenuous.

Although my respect for Mr. Hannity is limited, any hint of respect that I had for Mr. Comes has disappeared with his recent support for Sandy Berger. No one debates the fact that the former National Security Advisor to Bill Clinton stole classified documents prior to his testimony with the 9-11 commission, preventing the group from ever gaining access to what could have been information vital to the defense of this country. He has admitted it himself. However, the question remains, what information was in the purloined documents? Mr. Berger claims he can't remember. If he is incapable of remembering, so be it. Some might say that it's frightening to think that a man who was partially responsible for the the safety of the U.S. had such a memory problem, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

The American public is left to speculate: what was so important in those documents that a man would risk embarrassment on a national level at the very least, and possibly a long prison term? A reasonable, I would suggest required, inquiry since the man can't answer it himself.

On his radio show and television show, Mr. Colmes has commented many times in the last several years regarding the Berger case. He has gone from defending the accused of absent mindedness, to trying to shut down any line of inquiry on his watch as host. Shameful!

In one instance, he suggests that Mr Berger removed the documents to study them at home. Can he truly believe that? Can anyone? Is Mr. Colmes simply extremely gullible? Later, he tries to shut down any real debate by introducing the idea that there is no evidence to support the prosecutions claim that the documents were vital to the 9-11 commission. Since Mr. Berger stole the documents, as he admits, then of course there is no evidence. All the more reason to question exactly what was in those papers that left the archive in Mr. Berger's pants.

We may never know, since he destroyed the documents!

As Alan Colmes finished his segment last night, he asserted that the prosecution was making a big deal out of nothing! It is clear, as my husband pointed out, that Mr. Colmes is incapable of the intellectual honesty required to step away from his political ideology and admit that there is a problem here!!

Alan Colmes, Miserablist.

Business as usual II

Last Wednesday, the Senate voted down the first real opportunity to reign in and expose wasteful spending via a line item veto.

Democrats overwhelmingly rejected the vote. Republicans overwhelmingly attempted to move the bill forward.

Again, I am waiting for the outcry from the left.

Business as Usual

"I have asked the Education and Labor Committee, as they go forward with the legislation, to make sure that all of the territories have to comply with U.S. law on the minimum wage" - Nancy Pelosi

So why has the American Samoan exemption remained in the bill through to its final version? Ms. Pelosi promised to include the impovrished state after Republicans exposed the dubious exemption. She also promissed to run the House with a higher standard for ethics.

If a higher minimu wage is good for all the other territories, then surely it would be good for one of the most poor.

I am waiting for the outcry from the left ...

A Tale of Two Budgets

"Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the federal government, and we can balance the federal budget." -- George W. Bush

"While tax revenues continue to rise, entitlement spending is projected to drive the budget deficit to $367 billion by 2012 and $704 billion by 2017." -- Brian M. Reidl, The Heritage Foundation

In an article published by The Heritage Foundation, Brian M. Reidl presents a sobering look at how fiscally responsible the government would need to act to balance the federal budget by the President's target in 2012. In short, after years a spending growth near 50% , the Government would need to limit spending growth for the next five years to 2%.

This outlook presents an interesting challenge to Mr. Bush's plea that Congress impose spending discipline in DC. Like anyone else, members of Congress have great difficulty voluntarily limiting the money they spend, especially when they have been on a spending spree.

Obviously, limiting spending growth by the Government to 2% is highly unlikely. It would require, I believe, that spending on current entitlement programs be limited to below inflationary rates.

However, this forecast presents a terrific opportunity, though I doubt the President will take advantage of it. Here is his chance, and that of the entire Republican party, to show exactly what kind of discipline is required to balance the federal budget. It will not happen by 2012, but he could propose a budget that provides a balanced budget by 2014, or 2016, or 2020 (I am not certain why he chose 2012 -- a balanced budget is worth waiting for, if it is an honest assessment) and still keep his tax cuts and fund the wars at a steady rate of inclination.

To do so, he would need to stand firm and show Congress that a balanced budget is only going to be possible if they re-visit and FIX the mess of entitlement programs that are forcing every American to be an agent in his own doom! Explain to Congress and the American public in clear and concise language that these programs are going to bankrupt this country unless something is done to correct it. Force Congress to limit spending growth, not to 2%, but to 5%, or 7%, or 8%.

Such resolve would also expose the tax-and-spenders. For years even liberals have gloated how President Clinton balanced the budget and left Mr. Bush with a surplus. Never mind that doing so required a Republican Congress. No doubt, all of those Liberals who have been gloating would not stand for any reduction in spending. They do not really want to limit spending and balance the budget. They want to extract the money from the American people.

However, we have seen how fiscal discipline leads to vilification in today's mains stream media and left wing blog-o-sphere. When President Bush vowed to limit the growth of spending on the Education Department (a middle-man organization that prevents millions of dollars from reaching the local schools) he was accused of sacrificing our children's education in favor of small government (of course than fact that spending actually increased was largely ignored- it did not grow at the rate his critics wanted it to, so they attacked him).

Hence, no doubt Mr. Bush will continue on with his rose colored glasses and attempt to leave a fiscally conservative legacy of no substance. He is handing the Republicans a tool so they can say to the next Democrat President: "We left you with a plan to balance the budget, but you ignored it" with no reference to how unrealistic the plan was.

New Glasses

Finally. I can see again.