You can find the post here.  The sad truth of this is that this mentality will continue to spread like a disease into other areas of life (You can’t take my car! I have a right to “own” a vehicle to drive to Wal-Mart in.) until two things happen in this country:

1. We have to stop punishing our citizens for working harder.  The harder you work in this country, the more we tax you and the more you are punished. So why should anyone be encouraged to work hard?
   
2. There must be a fundamental shift in the mentality and vision of the Federal government away from encouraging citizens to have their needs met to encouraging citizens to work hard to meet their own needs.

-nick

This is nowhere close to enough to even be a solid dent in the national debt (it averages out to $130 billion in annual savings- which is less than 1/10 of the deficit for this year alone), but at least it’s a start. The plan also, as Ed Morrissey pointed out, takes care of some of the major issues with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which are sucking tens of billions of dollars annually from the American taxpayer, and continue to be damaging to the economy and the possibility of an economic recovery.

Of course, Social Security, Medicare, defense cuts, Medicaid and subsidies to private companies (outside of TARP and the stimulus) are not addressed. This is disappointing, and may show a lack of reform seriousness on the part of Republicans. However, this plan is a start. Considering that House Democrats can’t even pass a budget, this is a great public relations step for Republicans, and a small bit of hope for those of us who want to see a functioning America 10 years.

The Republican press release can be seen here, and the specific cuts are outlined below, as posted by Morrissey:

• Cancel Unused TARP Funds. Prohibit the Treasury Secretary from entering into new commitments under the Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP]. Ending TARP would prevent up to $396 billion in additional disbursements; CBO estimates savings of $16 billion. H.R. 3140 introduced by Rep. Tom Price of Georgia.
• Cancel Unspent ‘Stimulus’ Funds. Rescind all unobligated budget authority authorized under the “stimulus” bill and dedicate to deficit reduction. Saves up to $266 billion. H.R. 3140 introduced by Rep. Tom Price of Georgia.
• Cut and Cap Discretionary Spending. Return non-defense discretionary spending to pre-Obama (fiscal year 2008) baseline levels. Saves up to $925 billion. Legislation introduced by Reps. Ryan and Hensarling (H.R. 3964) and Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio (H.R 3298) include caps on discretionary spending.
• Reduce Government Employment. Hire one person for every two who leaves civilian government service until the workforce is reduced to pre-Obama levels (exempting the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs). Saves an estimated $35 billion. H.R. 5348 introduced by Rep. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming.
• Freeze Government Pay. Freeze Federal civilian pay for 1 year. Saves an estimated $30 billion.
• Adopt the Legislative Line-Item Veto. Enact a constitutional line-item veto law. The President’s FY 2011 budget included terminations, reductions, and savings that would achieve $23 billion in one year. While Congress may not accept all these savings, the Line Item Veto can help reduce spending. H.R. 1294 introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.
• Reform and Bring Transparency to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Reform these companies by ending conservatorship, shrinking their portfolios, establishing minimum capital standards, reducing conforming loan limits, and bringing transparency to taxpayer exposure. According to CBO, the cost to taxpayers of putting government in control of Fannie and Freddie is $373 billion through 2020. Saves an estimated $30 billion. H.R. 4889 introduced by Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. H.R. 4653 introduced by Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey.
• Create a Sunset Commission. Establish a commission to conduct systematic reviews of Federal programs and agencies, and make recommendations for those that should be terminated; and provide for automatic sunset of programs unless expressly reauthorized by the Congress. H.R. 393 introduced by Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas.

I think it’s great that O’Relly is covering the cost of the family’s expenses, to the tune of over $16,000- whatever you want to say about the guy, he’s well-intentioned and when he supports you he does so by jumping in with both feet. Unfortunately for his view on the matter (that the Westboros should be arrested), as AllahPundit notes, the Snyder family will probably lose the case. That’s the price of free speech, even for the despicable Westboro family.

Of course, there is an argument that a) funeral plots are private property, and b) the funeral plots the Westboro family stands on and near are also private. I suppose it depends on the situation, though- the Snyder funeral had 1,500 people in it, according to NewsMax, and so the Westboros might have been standing on the sidewalk or something.

As a conservative, I am very much against governments playing favorites through subsidies, bailouts etc. However, we must accept the reality that TARP passed. As such, I would note the following: the big banks have paid back a large portion of their borrowed funds. It is the government-owned companies (General Motors, Chrysler, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) which are failing to pay back what they owe.

I managed to find the CBO letter, which was sent to Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) yesterday. According to the letter (Emphasis mine):

What is the overlap between firms that would pay the proposed fee and firms that generated losses for the TARP? For the most part, the firms paying the fee would not be those that are directly responsible for losses realized by the TARP. Some firms subject to the fee are expected to generate such losses, including the American International Group, GMAC Financial Services, and CIT Group (which filed for bankruptcy protection on November 1, 2009). However, the fee would not apply to firms in the automotive industry, which account for $47 billion of the program’s estimated total cost of $99 billion. Other firms that would be subject to the fee have either paid back all of the funds received from the TARP or are current on their repayment schedule and unlikely to generate losses from their participation in the program. However, all of the institutions that might be covered by the fee benefited to varying degrees from the program’s contribution toward stabilizing the nation’s financial system and overall economy.

In defending the tax, Think Progress- which had the link to the letter- made some excellent points rebutting conservative arguments cheering the CBO’s conclusions. They include, but are not limited to, the fact that the letter states smaller banks would have a leg up on their larger competitors because the tax does not go after them, and that the tax’s cost could be offset by lower employee compensation. (Read: executives could be paid less.) Additionally, something I noticed was that CBO said the economic impact would be minimal.

Think Progress and other liberal people and organizations will pounce upon the points noted above, and others, but when it comes down to it, the tax will not hurt the business’ executives, the “if we had to be honest” target of the tax-supporting Democrats. They will hurt, as the CBO said, consumers, investors and employees. It’s economics 101. Unfortunately, Democrats fail to understand this.

Ed Morrissey was kind enough to extrapolate this basic concept to other government policy proposals Democrats sometimes don’t understand- I’ll let him explain them:

Let’s make sure we extrapolate this for everyone onto other public policies, while we’re at it:

• Increasing the minimum wage forces businesses to pay more for labor.  Either they hire fewer people or they raise prices — which undermines the buying power of those who make the least amount of money.
• A carbon tax or cap-and-trade bill will force energy producers to either raise prices to its customers or scale back power production, which will force businesses to either raise prices or cut back production, which will mean more cost or more scarcity for consumers — both of which are inflationary.
• Higher fees on insurers, medical-device manufacturers, and other goods and services in the health-care industry mean higher prices for consumers in the form of increased premiums or in greater scarcity as suppliers fail to come to market.

Imposing higher costs on business means higher costs for consumers.  It means fewer jobs, less consumer choice, less innovation, and economic decline.  I’d be surprised if the CBO analysis itself doesn’t end with the word duh in the last sentence.

To summarize this post:

What Democrats should be saying after this letter was publicized:

What Republicans (and the CBO) are saying to Democrats about their intent regarding the tax after the CBO letter:

I wish the Supreme Court would do more than rule the Second Amendment applies to the states. It’s long past time the last, ridiculous cobwebs of ambiguity were cleared away from the right to keep and bear arms. Gun control has been simmering on low heat for a while, after boiling over in the Nineties. We should clear it off the Constitutional stove altogether. We have better things to do than slip into another bitter, tedious argument about whether the government can interfere with our right, and duty, to defend ourselves.

The very areas of privacy that allow us to relax with our friends and families will always be soft targets for criminals… unless we fortify them ourselves. The police arrived at my house several minutes too late to play a role in my attempted execution. They made excellent time – there happened to be a unit in the area. If things had gone a little different, they might have arrived just in time to avenge me.

Citizen access to firearms has reduced crime rates time and again, but this is more than a matter of practicality. It’s a question of principle. The people of an orderly nation surrender the business of vengeance to the government, replacing it with the rule of law. They cannot be expected to surrender the right of defense. The right to protect yourself, and your family, from injury and death is an essential part of your dignity as a free man or woman. Without the First Amendment, you are a slave. Without the Second, you are a child.

Losing the dignity of self-defense is part of the degeneration from master of the State to its client. As this dignity fades, the people and their government speak less of responsibilities, and more of entitlements.

The Second Amendment is a concrete expression of the American birthright of independence. With the right of self-defense bargained away, our rights to speak and vote give us modest influence in a collective. The Founders wanted more, and better, for us.

The New York Times article about the case before the Supreme Court ends this way:

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has made clear that it is very concerned about the right to bear arms. There is another right, however, that should not get lost: the right of people, through their elected representatives, to adopt carefully drawn laws that protect them against other people’s guns.

Carefully drawn laws will not protect you from other people’s guns.  Believe me.  None of the people carefully drawing those laws will rely upon them for their protection.

 Doctor Zero points out the many facets of supporting private ownership of guns. Those who say we need onerous regulations because of the high number of gun deaths per capita in America- at least, when compared to other countries- forget that it is not the weapon that causes harm, it is the person pulling the trigger. To paraphrase what a professor told me before class once, every male over 18 in Switzerland has a weapon. They are all deputized. The high gun deaths in America take place because we are a more violent country, not because we have a lot of guns.

My professor was correct. If you want fewer gun deaths, create a culture of responsibility. Do not put people at risk. After all, if we take guns away from the law-abiding citizens, who will have weapons? Only those are with the government or law-breakers. I don’t trust the latter to protect me, and in fact can guarantee they will use guns frequently in their crimes, which will happen with more and more frequency themselves. Too, while the vast majority of police and military members are hard-working, dedicated citizens, tyranny is not something I want to avoid through trust in government. Guns are a great political, physical and psychological deterrent to taking away the rights of a nation’s people.

I also met Ed Morrissey of Hot Air and gave him my business card.

Update: They called the first time I won a draw (the other guy went out, but they thought I did until I appealed, so instead of giving me a victory they called it a draw). Next time, the guy outmaneuvered me, so I pulled on his head to drag him out of bounds, but they said that was illegal. (I mean, come on- what is head gear for?) The last time, he got me with the same move about the second time. So…I lost. Darn.

You’d be surprised how easy it is to leave a soldier on deployment. You can do it with a letter. (He can’t argue with you. He doesn’t have a phone.) If you lay the groundwork early, saying to the soldier before he leaves, “This will be the end of us, we might as well admit it,” it’s that much easier. The letter won’t even come as a shock.

And if you have children with that soldier? You can handle all that with a letter, too. He’ll write it — because he cares about the kids, because he wants to work with you to do what’s best for them even though you’re leaving him — and you’ll give it to them. Here again, you will avoid a nasty confrontation. Who will they cry to? You? You’re just the teary-eyed bearer of the letter. Him? The one who’s sweating it out in the desert?

There will be no moving truck, no boxes, no house torn asunder. The soldier is peeing in a bucket as you pack. He doesn’t care who gets the couch.

Fiano does a very good job ripping this lady apart. I won’t excerpt her entire response, but below is part of what she said about Cook’s opening:

She presumably doesn’t care about the effect this has on soldiers while they’re deployed. They’re over there fighting for their lives, and she thinks it’s a smart move to saddle them with this while they’re in the middle of that? You’ve got to be a pretty damn low person to not care about the extra stress you’re putting on someone that’s fighting a war and risking their life, all because you don’t want to deal with telling them face-to-face that your marriage is over.

I find Cook’s piece terribly offensive. I have not been overseas thus far in my military career, but I have many friends and acquaintances who have, as well as a great-uncle who fought in Vietnam, and I am certain they would be as well. Cook shows herself to be self-centered, selfish, shallow, emotionally vapid and completely callous in general, but specifically towards her ex-husband. I am shocked that Salon, which I read from time to time when it’s linked to Hot Air or Real Clear Politics, would publish her take on- and this is the title of Cook’s piece- “How to leave a soldier” during a time of prolonged war and conflict. Furthermore, assuming Cook used her real name, her ex-husband and her children- including her son, who joined the military, something she expresses displeasure about- may very well face humiliation, shame and anger from their fellow service members, among other negative consequences, as a result of Cook’s vile “advice” to military spouses.

Fiano acknowledges what we all should- that being a military spouse is incredibly tough, and some people just aren’t made for that kind of life. Says Fiano:

Now, I know firsthand how difficult a relationship in the military is. I don’t begrudge someone who acknowledges that they can’t handle it. It takes a special kind of person to be able to endure this lifestyle. Camp Lejeune is full of women who make it through with grace, dignity, and class — and women who just couldn’t do it. There’s no shame in admitting that you just can’t handle it. A lot of people, especially 18-year-olds who don’t come from a military background, just don’t fully realize what they’re getting into when they marry someone who is active-duty military. I don’t personally believe it means they should take the easy way out and leave, but I don’t think it makes them a bad person, either

Cook, unfortunately, couldn’t take being a military spouse. Leaving her husband while he is overseas, while not recommended and something that says a bit about her timing and priorities, should not be held against her in the long run. However, the way she decided to leave, the attitude she held while doing so and her decision to write on a popular website about the experience…those are things we should soundly reject in a society that supposedly supports the troops as they fight overseas. If we do not, if we let people like Cook infect our society, we show ourselves unworthy of a military made up of patriotic men and women who voluntarily risk life and limb so the rest of us can care about Jon and Kate, the Balloon Boy and Tiger Woods’ affairs.

However, nobody in the general public had seen the real ad until the game. You know, the one feminists and pro-abortionists went crazy over because Tim and Pam Tebow, along with CBS, were allegedly pushing a radical pro-life agenda. So after seeing the pre-game ad, I was prepared for anything- you know, maybe a mention of God or perhaps even a a hug between a mother and her son?

Turns out I was wrong. Tebow actually tackles his mother- which is pretty funny, no matter what the fruitcakes say- while she is expressing concern about his safety and toughness. She then pops up before he does and “lectures” him about interrupting her sharing their story. He apologizes, stands to her left with one hand on each shoulder, and asks her if she still worries about him. She says that she does, because he’s “still not as tough as I am.”

All in all, this is a knockout, home run, touchdown, hat trick, whatever you want to call it, for Focus on the Family and the pro-life movement. Whether intentional or not, by not releasing the ad’s content until the Super Bowl, Focus on the Family let the crazies on the left run wild with speculation. The pro-life movement now looks kind, gentle and loving, if you even picked up on the sub-text of the ad. Focus on the Family, which has the background of the Tebow ad on its main page, in particular looked like a non-controversial organization to those who have never heard of it. The only mention of the organization is a few seconds at the end directing people to the Tebow’s story on Focus on the Family’s main page.

However, the victory does not end there. The Tebow ad has been discussed for some time on blogs, in articles, on The O’Reilly Factor, The View, The Laura Ingraham Show, Megyn Kelly’s “America Live” and of course on the websites of Life News and Planned Parenthood. Why? Because feminists and pro-abortionists went off the deep end to take the ad down. Had they waited for the commercial to come out before making a statement, they could have attacked from a base of knowledge. Had they ignored it, the ad might have caused a piffle of notice among Super Bowl watchers and been promptly ignored. However, by taking the path more traveled by attacking the ad with every weapon possible as soon as possible, they guaranteed the ad would be carefully observed by millions of Super Bowl commercial watchers.

When it comes down to it, the pro-life movement is increasingly in line with the views of Americans, especially young Americans. By making the Tebow ad a mainstream point of discussion for many days before the Super Bowl, pro-abortionists have made themselves look both the fools and out of touch with mainstream America, and placed the pro-life movement squarely in touch with the softer, kinder side of Americans, who by and large only want what’s best for everyone. This ad, or more precisely the pro-abortion reaction to it, will most certainly guide Americans to the side of the abortion debate that is truly about helping women and children, and helping families make the right decisions about life.

*This was originally published at Race42012.com

If you watch the video at the last link, you will see Bill O’Reilly destroy a pro-choice feminist who hates the ad. O’Reilly points out, time and time again, that the issue is about freedom of speech, not any false accusations that the ad violates CBS’ advocacy policy. Since the ad does not explicitly state any support for pro-life policy positions, it doesn’t violate even the initial CBS policy.

Other conservatives besides O’Reilly are taking up the cause for Tebow. Laura Ingraham demolished the same feminist O’Reilly tore apart today, and Ed Morrissey gives Tebow all sorts of compliments at Hot Air.

Oh, and nobody outside of CBS has seen the ad yet. So any accusations are jumping the gun, to say the least. The woman on O’Reilly admitted she had not seen the ad.