Boehner And McConnell, Two Of The Worst Leaders In US History!

IS OBAMA BLACKMAILING BOEHNER?

Drudge tweets: Spending bill passed because NSA has 'dirt' on speaker

Published: 11 hours ago

• 
• Text smaller
• Text bigger

     375

House Speaker John Boehner

WASHINGTON – He drinks a bit. That is well-chronicled.

The tabloids have splashed headlines about torrid affairs, including one with a lobbyist.

And, of course, he cries in public.

But is there more to the personal story of House Speaker John Boehner that would explain his funding of Obamacare and the president’s executive action providing amnesty for millions of illegal aliens in his budget accommodation with Democrats?

Enter the ubiquitous Matt Drudge who tweeted Friday: “Obama got EVERYTHING. NSA dirt on Boehner must be incredible. Chicago wins.”

Matt Drudge is not some blogger. He’s the man who told the world about the “blue dress” that ultimately got Bill Clinton impeached.

Earlier this year, Boehner hinted about retirement, saying: “Listen, I can’t predict what’s going to happen. I’m going to be 65 years old in November. I never thought I’d live to be 60 so I’m living on borrowed time.”

WND EXCLUSIVE: Boehner and McConnell must go: Joseph Farah asks, ‘Are you ready to start the Republican revolution?’

Some members of his caucus predicted with near-certainty he would not seek to remain as speaker in 2015. In February he bought a condo in Florida, adding to the speculation about leaving office.

But Boehner doesn’t appear to be going anywhere soon – not willingly anyway.

More to the point, why is Boehner enabling Obama after Republicans won more seats in the House and took control of the Senate?

Is it blackmail, as Drudge suggests?

Republican officeholders are especially vulnerable to moral lapses, while it seems to have little effect on Democrats unless, like Anthony Weiner, they become a political distraction and embarrassment.

Lisbeth Lyons

In September 2010, the Huffington Post promised the New York Times was preparing a bombshell exposé on a reported Boehner affair with Lisbeth Lyons, the lobbyist for the American Printing Association.

“Insiders on Capitol Hill are buzzing about an upcoming New York Times exposé that will detail an alleged Boehner affair,” the HuffPost story said. “Sources say the Times is looking for the right time to drop the story in October to sway the election, similar to how the Times reported during the 2008 presidential campaign on an alleged John McCain affair that supposedly had taken place many years before and that was flatly denied by the woman in question.”

When a blogger asked Boehner about the story, he ignored it. Lyons, too, was tight-lipped, saying: “As you can imagine, I was stunned by such a question. I found it to be highly insulting, particularly as a female political professional, as well as unfounded. Beyond that, I have no further comment on the matter.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/is-obama-blackmailing-boehner/#omSg3LKEPuFkhocE.99

Only When Live In "Funny Farm" Washington D.C. Can Spending Increases Be Called Decreases.

Ron Paul Straight Talk: Another Phony Budget Debate

April 14, 2014 by Ron Paul 

 6 1

 

 0 17

Anyone watching last week’s debate over the Republican budget resolution would have experienced déjà vu, as the debate bore a depressing similarity to those of previous years. Once again, the Republicans claimed their budget would cut spending in a responsible manner, while Democratic opponents claimed the plan’s spending cuts would shred the safety net and leave vital programs unfunded. Of course, neither claim is true.

The budget does not cut spending at all, and in fact actually increases spending by $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The Republicans are using the old D.C. trick of spending less than originally planned and calling that reduced spending increase a $5.1 trillion cut in spending. Only in D.C. could a budget that increases spending by 3.5 percent per year instead of by 5.2 percent per year be attacked as a “slash-and-burn” plan.

The budget also relies on “dynamic scoring.” This trick is where the budget numbers account for increased government revenue generated by economic growth the budget will supposedly unleash. The claims are dubious at best. Of course, reducing government spending will lead to economic growth. But real growth requires real cuts, not this budget’s phony cuts.

As important as reducing spending and balancing the budget is, focusing solely on budget numbers ignores the root of the problem. The real problem is that too many in Washington — and the nation as a whole — refuse to consider any serious reductions in the welfare-warfare state.

I have always maintained that the logical place to start reducing spending is the trillions wasted on our interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, there are still too many in Congress who claim to be fiscal hawks when it comes to welfare spending, but turn into Keynesian “doves” when it comes to spending on the military-industrial complex.

These members cling to the mistaken belief that the government can balance it budget, keep taxes low and even have a growing economy, while spending trillions of dollars policing the world and while propping up some governments and changing others overtly or covertly. Thus, President Barack Obama is attacked as soft on defense because he wants to spend only $5.9 trillion over 10 years on the military. In contrast, the Republican budget spends $6.2 trillion over the next decade. That is almost a trillion dollars more than the budget’s total so-called spending cuts.

If there are too many fiscal conservatives who refuse to abandon the warfare state, there are too many liberals who act as if any reduction in welfare or entitlement spending leaves children starving. I agree it is unrealistic to simply end programs that people are currently dependent on. However, isn’t it inhumane to not take steps to unwind the welfare system before government overspending causes a bigger financial crisis and drags millions more into poverty?

Far from abandoning those in need of help, returning the responsibility for caring for the needy to private charities, churches and local communities will improve the welfare system. At the very least, young people should have the freedom to choose to pay a lower tax rate in exchange for promising to never participate in a government welfare or entitlement program.

Last week’s budget debate showed how little difference there lies between the parties when it comes to preserving the warfare-welfare state. One side may prefer more warfare while the other prefers more welfare, but neither side actually wants to significantly reduce the size and scope of government. Until Congress stops trying to run the world, run the economy and run our lives, there will never be a real debate about cutting spending and limiting government.

Obama's Budget--Funny Numbers Based On Faulty Assumptions

OBAMA'S BUDGET EXPLODING WITH EYE-POPPING TAX HIKES

Calls for $5 of higher revenue for every $1 of spending cuts

Published: 16 hours ago

 GREG COROMBOS About | Email | Archive

 Subscribe to feed

• 
• Text smaller
• Text bigger

     179

President Obama’s budget is short on specifics, fudges America’s current economic state and is long on higher spending and higher taxes to pay for his political agenda, a taxpayer advocate warns.

National Taxpayers Union Executive Vice President Pete Sepp said Republicans offered more fiscally responsible budget proposals than Obama in recent years, but their blueprints were also far from what America needs to deal effectively with huge annual deficits and a massive national debt.

On Tuesday, the White House released the president’s budget blueprint for fiscal year 2015. It carries a price tag of nearly $4 trillion, billions more in new spending and higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for it.

Much of Obama’s additional spending would be for infrastructure upgrades and ramping up for universal pre-kindergarten.

“Our budget is about choices, it’s about our values,” Obama said.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan dismissed the plan as nothing more than a campaign brochure.

So who is right?

“It is hard to call this a serious document if you are indeed serious about reducing the deficit through spending restraint. The message here is more spending and much higher revenues to pay for that spending, along with a lot of other rosy economic assumptions,” said Sepp, who listed several of what he considers flawed assumptions in the budget proposal.

“The assumptions for inflation – that it will be lower than what the Congressional Budget Office just projected, that entitlement payments will be lower than what the Congressional Budget Office projected and that Gross Domestic Product will be a whole lot higher – the differences here add up to a lot over the 10-year budget window,” Sepp said.

“It explains why the Congressional Budget Office just last month was projecting a budget deficit of over a $1 trillion 10 years from now. The Obama administration is projecting less than half that amount,” he said.

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with National Taxpayers Union Executive Vice President Pete Sepp:

Sepp is also frustrated that the budget plan is lacking important components that make it nearly impossible to project what Obama’s blueprint would do.

“Even though it is once again late, it is also, for the first time, incomplete for this administration. There are two key documents in the whole set of budget items that are missing so far. These are the analytical perspectives and the historical tables of the budget.

“Without those, you can’t necessarily understand the assumptions for things like projections of beneficiary populations for the changes in entitlements they’re proposing. For an administration that prides itself on transparency, this is just basic managerial negligence,” Sepp said.

The Obama administration claims the new revenues needed to pay for the proposed spending will come from closing tax loopholes for the rich.

Sepp provided some insight on what officials mean by “rich” and “loopholes.”

“By ‘loopholes,’ they mean things like imposing the so-called Buffett Rule on wealthy taxpayers. That’s been a staple of Obama’s budgets year after year. They want to propose a shift in rules regarding what’s called carried-interest income. That has a great deal of controversy over how it would impact risk-taking fund managers and their investors,” Sepp said.

“They also want to take a serious bite out of the value of itemized deductions, limiting them to what somebody in the 28 percent, as opposed to the 39.6 percent tax bracket would take,” he said.

Sepp warned that Americans should also remember these tax changes would be on top of the tax hikes that came early last year as part of the deal to avert the so-called fiscal cliff.

House Republicans are expected to unveil their budget blueprint in the coming weeks. While Sepp is highly critical of Obama’s fiscal stewardship and record-setting deficits, he said Republicans do not often propose budgets that would make much of a dent in the losing battle against the debt.

“There have been some problems with Republican budgets in the past. If we were to grade them, many might wind up in the ‘B-’ and even the ‘C’ range because many of them fail to address the primary drivers of cost growth, which is Social Security and Medicare in the federal budget. They’ve done some work on voucherization of Medicare and things like premium support. That’s encouraging,” Sepp said.

“But reforming Social Security remains something that neither political party seems to want to touch,” he said. “Of course, Republicans have not been forthright about the need to restrain military expenditures in the past. That is an important task that both parties have to undertake.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/obamas-budget-exploding-with-eye-popping-tax-hikes/#aFpzY76bgSQVJZSs.99