Does That Sound Like Capitalism Or Socialism

Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and five other Democrats want to set up a "Reasonable Profits Board" to control gas profits. These Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a "windfall profit tax" as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit.

The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding "a reasonable profit." It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress.

According to the bill, a windfall tax of 50 percent would be applied when the sale of oil or gas leads to a profit of between 100 percent and 102 percent of a reasonable profit. The windfall tax would jump to 75 percent when the profit is between 102 and 105 percent of a reasonable profit, and above that, the windfall tax would be 100 percent. The bill also specifies that the oil-and-gas companies, as the seller, would have to pay this tax.

Kucinich said these tax revenues would be used to fund alternative transportation programs when oil-and-gas prices spike.

"Gas prices continue to rise, creating a hardship for the American people," he said. "At the same time, oil companies are making record profits gouging their customers. This bill would tax only the excess profits and create forward-thinking transportation alternatives."

Co-sponsoring the bill are five other Democrats: Representatives John Conyers Jr. (MI), Bob Filner (CA), Marcia Fudge (OH), Jim Langevin (RI), and Lynn Woolsey (CA).

The gas companies are making less than 8% on their investment. Must companies make much more. This isn't capitalism or helping Americans. This is socialism. We have the largest oil reserves in the world. Drill baby drill and prices will come down.

Do you want Barack Obama picking a board to determine reasonable profits?

Comment here and email us at YourVoice@speaknowamerica.org.

Moms, Dads, Grandparents need a place to vent about the direction our government is taking? Go to MomsAndDadsBeHeard and speak out. Be part of bringing our Great country back.

     

They Want to choose Nominee Not Voters

The Republican establishment want s to pick the Republican nominee for President. They like their counterparts in the Democrat party don't think you and I are intelligent enough to make the right choice.

There are / were people running for president who terrify the establishment. They know they can't control them and build more power and control for themselves.

We saw the onslaught from the MSM, Democrats, and the Republican establishment against Herman Cain. Cain is a threat to them. As people heard him speak they liked him. So they destroyed him. Notice as soon as he pulled out of the race the attacks and innuendo stopped.

Now they are out full force against Newt Gingrich. They know they will never control him and people are listening to him. They tried with his ex-wife to do Newt in. That didn't work. Watch in Florida and beyond the attacks will get worse.

The Republican establishment doesn't understand two important things. One, after running for the last six years people aren't interested in Mitt Romney. He stays about 25%. He is not much improvement over Barack Obama. The establishment like him because he is a 'moderate' i.e. he is way to the left of most Americans.

Number two is that America wants real change. We want fire and brimstone. We don't want more of the same. The Republican establishment, the Democrats, nor the MSM has ever understood the Tea party and its popularity. We want smaller government and they want bigger government.

All the guns will be coming out for Newt Gingrich. He isn't perfect by any means but he is closer to what America wants and needs. He would be for smaller government and the establishment wants bigger more intrusive government.

Comment here and email us at YourVoice@speaknowamerica.org.

America do you need a place to vent about the direction our government is taking? Do you want to find ways to help make a change? Go to MomsAndDadsBeHeard a forum for you to speak out. Be part of bringing our Great country back.

     

The Unemployment Rate

Some of you may be too young too have a clue about the comedy routines of Abbott and Costello, but those that do may better understand the unemployed or out of work concept after reading this.

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good "subject". Terrible "times". It's about 9%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

COSTELLO: You just said 9%.

ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?

ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.

COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have

to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: But ... they are out of work!

ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.

COSTELLO: To who?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work... Those who are

out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment rolls, that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%. Otherwise it

would be 16%. You don't want to read about 16% unemployment do ya?

COSTELLO: That would be frightening.

ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means they're two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of

the two is to just stop looking for work.

Is this why Barack Obama's unemployment numbers are improving?

Comment here and email us at YourVoice@speaknowamerica.org.

Moms, Dads, Grandparents need a place to vent about the direction our government is taking? Go to MomsAndDadsBeHeard and speak out. Be part of bringing our Great country back.

    

The budget process forces Congress to set priorities to protect the people’s money and put it to its appropriate use. Instead, the Democrat-controlled Senate has abdicated its responsibility. The result? The deficit is soaring, causing a looming tax burden and injecting uncertainty into the economy, leaving jobs and economic growth on the table. It’s no wonder the U.S. economy’s growth is so tepid.

here are some facts about America’s budget and why the Senate must take action to be stewards of the people’s money as the Constitution requires:

•The last time the Senate passed a budget was on April 29, 2009.

•Since that date, the federal government has spent $9.4 trillion, adding $4.1 trillion in debt.

•As of January 20, the outstanding public debt stands at $15,240,174,635,409.

•Interest payments on the debt are now more than $200 billion per year.

•President Obama proposed a FY2012 budget last year, and the Senate voted it down 97–0. (And that budget was no prize—according to the Congressional Budget Office, that proposal never had an annual deficit of less than $748 billion, would double the national debt in 10 years and would see annual interest payments approach $1 trillion per year.)

•The Senate rejected House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R–WI) budget by 57–40 in May 2011, with no Democrats voting for it.

•In FY2011, Washington spent $3.6 trillion. Compare that to the last time the budget was balanced in 2001, when Washington spent $1.8 trillion ($2.1 trillion when you adjust for inflation).

•Entitlement spending will more than double by 2050 [2]. That includes spending on Medicare, Medicaid and the Obamacare subsidy program, and Social Security. Total spending on federal health care programs will triple.

•By 2050, the national debt is set to hit 344 percent of Gross Domestic Product [3].

•Taxes paid per household have risen dramatically, hitting $18,400 in 2010 [4] (compared with $11,295 in 1965). If the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire and more middle-class Americans are required to pay the alternative minimum tax (AMT), taxes will reach unprecedented levels.

•Federal spending per household is skyrocketing. [5] Since 1965, spending per household has grown by nearly 162 percent, from $11,431 in 1965 to $29,401 in 2010. From 2010 to 2021, it is projected to rise to $35,773, a 22 percent increase.

Barack Obama and Harry Reid want for Obama's reelection campaign to be about a do nothing Congress. Obama can't run on his dismal record. The do nothing though is Obama, Reid, and the Democrats.

Comment here and email us at YourVoice@speaknowamerica.org.

Moms, Dads, Grandparents need a place to vent about the direction our government is taking? Go to MomsAndDadsBeHeard and speak out. Be part of bringing our Great country back.

    

Middle America Is Speaking

No candidate has won the Republican nomination for President without winning South Carolina since Ronald Reagan in 1980. Will Newt Gingrich change that stat? The designated front runner, Mitt Romney, who got less votes in Iowa in 2012 than he got in 2008 and who lost South Carolina. His reason for being somehow remains that he is electable.

Gingrich's rise has a lot to do with Newt Gingrich's debate performance. But it has just as much to do with a party base in revolt against its thought and party leaders in Washington, DC. The base is revolting because they swept the GOP back into relevance in Washington just under two years ago and they have been thanked with contempt ever since."

The GOP elite and MSM have tried to foist on the base a milquetoast moderate from Massachusetts. Newt Gingrich can thank Mitt Romney and more for the second look he is getting. Base hostility will now be exacerbated by Mitt Romney's backers now undoubtedly making a conscious effort to prop up Rick Santorum to shut down Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich won in every category but one. Those making over $200,000 a year voted for Romney. Men, women, and Christians all voted for Gingrich.

'We the People' sent Washington and the Republican elites a message in the 2010 elections. They ignored us. It's time we ignore them. We in Florida need to do all we can for Newt Gingrich. Can we get the Tea Party to send the elites another message and make Newt the Republican nominee?

Comment here and email us at YourVoice@speaknowamerica.org.

Moms, Dads, Grandparents need a place to vent about the direction our government is taking? Go to MomsAndDadsBeHeard and speak out. Be part of bringing our Great country back.

     

Programs That Benefit Illegal Aliens

At times itis easy to dismiss individual programs that benefit non-citizens / illegal aliens until they're put together and this picture emerges. Someone did a lot of research to put all this together. Often these programs are buried within other programs making them difficult to sort.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.

Verify at www.fairus.org

2. $22 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

Verify at: www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

Verify at: www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!

Verify at: transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt..0.HTML

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

Verify at transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

Verify at: transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

<http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01..HTML>

http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

Verify at: transcripts.CNN..com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.

Verify at: premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML

<http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML>

9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

Verify at: transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI

<http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute..org/PDF/deportationPDF>

10. In 2006, illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin.

Verify at: www/rense.com/general75/niht.htm

11. The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration:

Nearly One million sex crimes committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .

Verify at: http: // www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

The total cost is an unbelievable:

$ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS or $338,300,000,000.00

Verify at:

Think about this: If you are found in Mexico illegally, you will face a 10 year prison term. I Don’t care that you want to come to the USA. Do it legally.

Comment here and email us at YourVoice@speaknowamerica.org.

Moms, Dads, Grandparents need a place to vent about the direction our government is taking? Go to MomsAndDadsBeHeard and speak out. Be part of bringing our Great country back.

     

Senators Are Warning

Both Republican and Democrat Senators are warning that looming EPA regulations on gasoline could impose billions of dollars in additional costs on the industry and end up adding up to 25 cents to every gallon of gas. The Senators, in a letter this week to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, urged the agency to back off the yet-to-be-released regulations. Though the EPA has not yet issued any proposal, they claimed the agency is planning to call for a new requirement to reduce the sulfur content in gasoline.

The Senators said it would be "expensive" for companies to meet the sulfur targets and cited a study that found it could add up to $17 billion in industry-wide, up-front expenses, in addition to another $13 billion in annual operating costs.

Citing the nearly $3.40-a-gallon average price of gas and the state of the economy, the senators said "now is not the time for new regulations that will raise the price of fuel even further." This could in turn add between 12 and 25 cents to an average gallon of gasoline "depending on the stringency of the proposed rule," they wrote.

"If the EPA does not proceed carefully with its regulations, the nationwide price of fuel could increase to the further detriment of consumers and businesses," the senators warned.

The current sulfur standard is 30 parts per million in gasoline -- that's down from a prior standard of 300 parts per million. The new proposal could bring the standard down to 10 parts per million, according to the senators who wrote to Jackson

The aide said there was a "bigger benefit" when the standard dropped from 300 to 30 parts per million. But squeezing that down to 10 parts per million, the aide said, might not offer as much bang for the buck.

The Senators on the letter were: James Inhofe, (R-OK) Lisa Murkowski, (R-AK); John Barrasso, (R-WY).; Mary Landrieu, (D-LA) ; David Vitter, (R-LA).; and Mark Begich, (D-AK).

Comment here and email us at YourVoice@speaknowamerica.org.

Moms, Dads, Grandparents need a place to vent about the direction our government is taking? Go to MomsAndDadsBeHeard and speak out. Be part of bringing our Great country back.

     

Obama Refuses Keystone XL Pipeline

Canada is now looking to Asian countries to market its abundance of oil, natural gas and minerals as plans to build the proposed Keystone XL pipeline have stalled with the Barack Obama administration. Prime Minister Stephen Harper will travel to China next month to discuss selling Canada's bounty to the rapidly growing nation.

The preferred initial plan was to build the $7 billion Keystone pipeline to deliver Alberta's oil sands crude to refineries in Texas on the Gulf of Mexico. Harper reasoned that the U.S. government would prefer to deal with a friendly neighbor to help meet its energy needs while creating thousands of jobs.

The new plan would market to China and Asian countries through the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline that would transport Alberta's oil and natural gas to British Columbia for shipment by tankers.

Obama is bending to extremist environmentalists who want no pipelines and no drilling. His own administration has said the pipeline is safe.

The Keystone XL pipeline could bring needed jobs to America. It would also mean a more stable supply of oil. Obama doesn't care. His agenda is green and oil doesn't fit.

Comment here and email us at YourVoice@speaknowamerica.org.

America do you need a place to vent about the direction our government is taking? Do you want to find ways to help make a change? Go to MomsAndDadsBeHeard a forum for you to speak out. Be part of bringing our Great country back.

     

Is Obama Above The Law?

Obama has nothing but scorn for our Constitution. That scorn has been expressed most recently in his "recess" appointments of members of the National Labor Relations Board and the chairmanship of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The quotation marks are appropriate because when he made the appointments the Senate was not in recess as the Constitution requires.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says that presidential appointments must be confirmed by the Senate unless Congress provides otherwise. But anticipating that the government may need officials when the Senate is unavailable, the section further provides that "the President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of the next session."

What constitutes a recess? Article I, Section 5 reads, "Neither house, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days." The House did not consent to the adjournment of the Senate this year, so there is no recess, and hence no constitutional authority to make recess appointments.

The White House has belatedly trotted out an opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (headed by a political appointee) saying that the president was justified in considering the Senate in recess, because the sessions it was holding every three days were just pro forma or, in the words of Obama defenders, "gimmicks."

Factually this is totally wrong. At one of those sessions the Senate passed the payroll-tax-cut extension, an important piece of legislation.

What gives Obama the authority to decide whether one house of the legislative branch is conducting serious business? Can the president decide that the quality of Senate debate is so poor on any particular day that he may deem it to be in recess?

The recess appointments Obama made are to very important offices. The National Labor Relations Board last year issued a complaint against Boeing for building a $1 billion aircraft plant in South Carolina. The complaint was withdrawn only after the union representing Boeing’s Washington state workers bludgeoned the company into promising more jobs there.

This looks uncomfortably close to the view taken by King Louis XIV. "L’etat, c’est moi," he is supposed to have said, and you don’t need John Kerry’s or Mitt Romney’s command of French to know that that means one-man rule.

Comment here and email us at YourVoice@speaknowamerica.org.

Moms, Dads, Grandparents need a place to vent about the direction our government is taking? Go to MomsAndDadsBeHeard and speak out. Be part of bringing our Great country back.

     

Economist Calls For Fairness

Anti-poverty spending is at record levels. The rich are shouldering more of the tax burden than ever. The federal budget is more redistributive than ever.

In 1980, the richest 20 percent financed 55 percent of all federal revenue. Today, they finance a record 69 percent. In that time, the portion of all taxes paid by the top 1 percent has doubled. The portion paid by the bottom 40 percent has dropped nearly in half.

At a time when the Obama administration should be desperate for jobs to be created, it is puzzling why his chief economist would suggest raising taxes on the very people who would create those jobs. Krueger says the Bush tax cuts should expire for the wealthy in order to shift income from the top 1% to the bottom 99%.

The Wall Street Journal addressed this idea of progressive outcomes in an article I talked about yesterday on the program: A Step Backward for Economic Freedom in 2012.

When you actually look at the performance data, it turns out that the "progressive" outcomes so highly touted by those favoring big government programs to address every societal ill are actually achieved more efficiently and dependably by the marketplace and the invisible hand of free economies.

The free market can do a better job than the government of addressing societal ills? Blasphemy! What do we need? More government. Bigger government. More spending. More redistribution. This will surely encourage economic growth because we know better what the people need. Right? Wrong. From the Wall Street Journal …

"Rapid expansion of government, more than any market factor, appears to be responsible for flagging economic dynamism. Government spending has not only failed to arrest the economic crisis, but also—in many countries—seems to be prolonging it. The big-government approach has led to bloated public debt, turning an economic slowdown into a fiscal crisis with economic stagnation fueling long-term unemployment."

Comment here and email us at YourVoice@speaknowamerica.org.

Moms, Dads, Grandparents need a place to vent about the direction our government is taking? Go to MomsAndDadsBeHeard and speak out. Be part of bringing our Great country back.