Earlier this week, America’s entitlement problem came into full view as millions of Americans, the main stream media and a million talking heads on cable news lambasted Senator Jim Bunning for daring to refuse unanimous consent for a bill extending unemployment and COBRA benefits and Medicare reimbursements among other things.  Senator Bunning sought to highlight our debt problem and ensure that the Senate enforced their previously passed Pay-Go bill by blocking the vote.  While the mainstream media was busy lambasting Senator Bunning for filibustering (side note: He was not filibustering, he was refusing unanimous consent. If you are going to talk about it, get it right MSM) against millions of Americans who rely on those benefits because of the difficult economic situation, they ignored that this bill has a price tag of approximately $10 billion.  Senator Bunning’s sin was daring to ask “How are we going to pay for this?”  After being hammered by both sides of the aisle, the press, cable news, late night talk shows and the blogosphere, Senator Bunning finally relented last night and allowed the vote to proceed with it passing 78-19.

While it is certain that many people are relying on this money to help them get through this hard time, the American reaction to this is a microcosm of what would happen if more politicians would dare ask the question, “How are we going to pay for this?”  Anyone who has been paying attention to the meltdown that is currently in play in Greece knows that people don’t like their benefits being taken away, whether they can pay for them or not.  What needs to occur in this country before we can address our debt problem is to acknowledge that we have an entitlement problem. For decades unions, politicians, teachers, parents and the media have been telling us that we deserve everything that the government hands us and that it is our right to take as much as we can get.  All the while, our debt has been silently growing while we gorged ourselves on all the benefits we can’t pay for.  As evidenced by the riots that have spilled into the streets in Greece after their government “announced a fresh austerity package that includes an immediate freeze on pensions, further salary cuts for public sector workers and sharp increases in excise and value added taxes,” taking away people’s “rightful” benefits does not go over well.  The outpouring of hatred directed at Senator Bunning over the past couple of days for denying Americans the money they are “entitled” to begs the question, what would happen if the government really did start cutting programs, benefits and subsidies?

While I would love more politicians to begin to ask the “How are we going to pay for it?” question and begin massive cuts of government programs, it is not easy and that it is rarely attempted.  People don’t like being told no, especially after being told yes for so long.  I am warning you, unless Americans have a dramatic change in the way they look at what they are entitled to, the day cuts begin, bust out your rubber bullet guns and face shields and riot gear because it is going to be a bumpy riotous road to defeating the debt.

Again Congressman Burton standing up to Big Government and looking out for the Constituents in the 5th Congressional District! He pretty much tells it like it is!!

You can have your own take on this….I have not seen that kind of transparency yet…and I am not going to hold my breath waiting for it either!

So our economy is not in good shape, were in a War, and we are debating Health Care reform and they are talking about another Stimulus package.

So then this comes out…. we are worried about the Volume of our Commercials? That is correct folks the Government is worried about the volume of our commercials while we watch T.V…….just when I thought I have seen it all……..

From The Hill

House lawmakers want the Federal Communications Commission to help bring down the volume of television commercials.

The House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet on Thursday approved a bill that would prohibit television commercials from being excessively loud. The FCC would be required to come up with recommended volume levels for commercials. Broadcasters, TV stations and cable and satellite providers would then have one year to purchase the necessary equipment to temper noisy ads.

“All of us have had the experience of enjoying a favorite program only to find ourselves scrambling for the remote control at the commercial break,” said Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), chairman of the subcommittee.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), includes waivers for smaller stations and programming operators that can show they cannot afford the equipment. Some Republican members of the panel, including ranking member Cliff Stearns of Florida, say it is difficult to regulate volumes, since commercials are produced by a number of studios and companies that use different technologies and volume standards.

“Shows and movies have a dynamic sound range to cover everything from a quiet scene to an explosion,” he said. “Commercials, meanwhile, tend to have a narrow sound range. Volume levels are typically set for the programming, which can throw off the volume levels for commercials.”

It was one of four bills the panel moved easily by voice vote in less than an hour.

The committee also approved a bill that would make it illegal for telephone fraudsters to misrepresent their identities on caller ID functions.

A third bill, introduced by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) and Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.), amends existing laws to allow new low-power radio stations to operate within a closer range of full-power stations. Currently, low-power stations are restricted from operating too close to a full-power station due to interference concerns. As a result, there are few low-power stations to provide local content to listeners.

The final bill approved by the panel would extend by two years access to federal grants for public safety agencies to deploy interoperable communications systems. This is intended to give first responders more time to comply with the grant program requirements.

The government is currently authorized to grant up to $1 billion to public safety agencies by Sept. 30, 2010.

Check out this new website: The Obama Experiment

In response to 56,000 emergency room visits each year and 200 deaths caused by accidental overdoses of acetaminophen, a federal government panel has proposed “limiting the maximum single dose of the drug to 650 milligrams.” The current 1,000-milligram dose is two tablets of Extra Strength Tylenol. The panel also endorsed restrictions on drugs that combine acetaminophen with other drugs.

While the numbers may seem big at first, it is important to put those numbers into perspective. We live in a nation of about 300 million people. 56,000 emergency room visits is 0.0187% (less than 2/100 of one percent) of the population. 200 deaths is 0.00007% (less than 1/10,000 of one percent) of the population. The 56,000 emergency room visits is statistically insignificant, and 200 deaths is statistically nonexistant. The FDA panel is looking for a solution where no problem exists.

(Read more after the leap)

Congressman Dan Burton did a question and answer session with 300 employees of Sallie Mae in Fishers this afternoon.  He addressed them in response to President Obama’s budget, which just passed the House, and includes language that proposes changing the student loan program which, depending upon the details of the plan, could threaten the jobs at Sallie Mae’s Fishers office and more than 2,300 Sallie Mae jobs across the state.

The Congressman encouraged them by saying he was a firm believer in that the private sector can do a better job in dealing in the area of student loans than the government does citing inefficiency in government controlled entities.  He ended his opening remarks, which didn’t last for more than a few minutes before devoting the rest of the time to Q&A, by saying that he will do everything in his power that he can to make sure that the student loan program remains with Sallie Mae as a main participant.

Just for a little background into all of this, student loan providers who participate in the Family Federal Education Loan (FFEL) program are worried that a single federal system that services everyone will not be able to meet student lending needs.

(Read more after the leap)

In the coming months-and certainly in the next Congressional election and Presidential election-will use the FY 2009 Federal budget numbers and attribute those numbers to President Bush as the budget that President Obama inherited. But here is something that we will have to pay attention to: as of today, only 3 of 12 appropriations bills for FY 2009 (which started in October 2008) have been passed. Specifically, the three that have been passed are Homeland Security, Defense, and Military Construction-Veterans. The remainder have been operating on continuing resolutions.

Well, the rest of the core appropriations bill (HR-1105) has been introduced on Monday by Representative Obey (D-WI). The Republican Study Committee has released a legislative bulletin on this bill. They note a couple of things that shouldn’t surprise us:

1. It requests $19.2 billion (4.9%)  more than President Bush requested for FY 2009
2. It requests $31.6 billion (8.4%) more than FY 2008’s actual budget
3. The overall budget (including the other 3 appropriations bills) results in a 7.7% increase of FY 2008
4. The majority of HR 1 (the $787 billion stimulus bill, signed by President Obama) includes appropriations that would normally have gone into this budget–$185 billion will hit the FY 2009 budget
   

While President Bush was by no means a fiscal conservative, there will be a major effort to shift blame for these number to the Republicans for the next two election cycles which we must not leave undefended.

Say you’ve got a salesman trying to sell you on a product, or package of products and services, that will cost you $825 billion (give or take a few billion of course), wouldn’t you want to know what you’re getting for that amount of money?  I know that when I go to purchase something I want to know what I am getting for what I am paying.  It is probably safe to say that this type of reasonable thinking is common to millions of Americans.  It is common sense, if you will.

Although the scarcity of common sense in Washington, D.C. is a spectical many of us are familiar with, it was on display in a very real way recently during a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on the proposed federal stimulus package being pushed through Congress by the Democratic majorities in both chambers.  When probed about the number of jobs that the stimulus would create, and the type of economic growth we could expect as a result of spending $825 billion, a committee staffer who was supposed to know these kinds of things was unable to say how many jobs would be created or what kind of growth would occur.

Take a look at the exchange:

So we are going to spend $825 billion and we don’t know what we are going to get.  This is not hope, it is recklessness.   This is not change, it is irresponsibility.