The president's position and mine:

Tuesday – July 19, 2011

The president’s position and mine:

Last week, I wrote that the next few weeks will be loaded with various positions. My actual words were: “In the next few weeks it will be all about position. It will be all about one party taking advantage of the other parties’ hard line positions. It will be all about who can demonize those positions most. It will be all about a president, who is hanging on by a thread. It will be about his position and his policies.”

There are many proposals that are being knocked around Washington today regarding the debt ceiling debate. One of them is the Cut, Cap and Balance approach, so that the debt ceiling can be raised. The Republicans offered this so that the President can have some breathing room. It’s okay that they would offer a proposal like this. It makes sense, but don’t let the president get away from taking any responsibility. I wouldn’t, but then again, that’s just me!

There was another offer by the Republican Senate Minority leader that would have given Obama the authority to raise the debt ceiling himself. Whether it would have solely given the president the approval or some kind of joint approval process with Congress is still somewhat unclear.

My position on this approach is this: why give in or cede this president or any president that kind of power with that kind of authority? Congress constitutionally is the only branch of Government that can approve any expenditures of the people’s money, so why give it up? Why even suggest that through crafty wording that we can violate any thing in the Constitution or the 14th amendment is beyond me? But then again, that’s just me!

My position is that the Cut, Cap and Balance approach is fine, if it is exclusive of any White House interference, if the President doesn’t offer any direction. He hasn’t up to this point - he has been AWOL with any real plan. It’s just the same as not voting. If you don’t vote or get involved and you hate the way things are going you shouldn’t complain. But then again, that’s just me!

The President said yesterday that he “would veto” any bill that has any balanced budget wording or a balanced budget amendment attached to it. The president can’t have it both ways. The American people can’t afford it if the president, if the congress and if the Senate cannot work within a balanced budget. 49 States have a balanced budget amendment in their Constitution; so why shouldn’t the Federal Government?

With a balanced budget amendment the Federal Government would be forced to live within their means. For instance, there is approximately 200 billion dollars coming into the federal coffers every month. That 200 Billion would be the budget that they would be allowed to spend. If they can’t live on that, then there certainly is something wrong.

The reason the president and many members of Congress and the Senate have always been shy of passing a balanced budget amendment is that they will loose power. Think about it. If they can’t spend, then they can’t secure the votes which insures them a job for life, while the tax payers pay them to do it. A balanced budget may be the only thing we need to cure the country’s financial ills.

Unfortunately, that would take time. So why not pass a Cut and Cap bill now and exclude a balanced budget amendment to the same bill. Force the Senate to pass it and force the president to sign it. This approach simply cuts spending and caps it now. Congress could then leave the balanced budget amendment for another separate bill to follow with nothing attached to that. I can guarantee that any Congressman, any Senator who would vote against a balanced budget amendment, would be in serious trouble back home.

If the president vetoed a separate bill like a balanced budget amendment he would sure have to answer for it. It is close to the election now the timing is right so let’s use the timing at hand for the benefit of the tax payer and to also call the presidents bluff. Remember, last week his position caused him to say “don’t call my bluff.” But then again, that’s just what I would do.

It’s ridiculous that every American and every American family and every American business has to live within their budget ; why shouldn’t the Federal Government?

What I fear is that history will repeat itself. Sixteen years ago, while Bill Clinton was President and the Republicans owned both Houses, there was a similar debate. The debate centered on out of control spending and raising the debt ceiling. It’s the same argument we are having today. The threat then, as it is today, was that the government would shut down, if the debt ceiling wasn’t raised. The Republicans passed a temporary spending bill that would have kept the government going. President Clinton vetoed it and the government shut down anyway. The Republicans were blamed for the shut down and Clinton came out of it smelling like a rose, even though his signature on the veto shut the government down.

I fear this president today will play the same trick and the same kind of game, even though he says he deplores those games, because the American people deserve better from the people who were elected to serve them. I think he doesn’t believe the words that he speaks, because his actions do not follow along the same path. But then again, that’s just my observation.

The question I have of you is this: are you willing to go along with the president and his position or are you willing to demand that the government cuts the spending and caps the spending? Are you willing to demand a balanced budget amendment and demand that your representatives do what they were elected to do? Maybe you have forgotten what a Representative’s job is. They are elected to vote your conscience, within the law and within all ethical standards. The way I see it, it’s not the conscience part that bothers me, because many of them don’t have one and we know the law doesn’t necessarily apply to them, but the ethical part is something they can’t run from nor should they be permitted to get a pass on. Something I read some time ago made a lot of sense: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.”

I feel that many of these thoughts all of these directions and certainly the regard for the intent of these words have become a fading memory to many that we have elected! We are seeing the results of when that happens.

The President’s position is that of a bigger government. He believes that government should ultimately control everything we eat, everything we buy and every thing we produce through the type of jobs we are permitted to have. And lastly, he would have the government control the amount of money we can keep for everything we do. I would only hope that your position is just the opposite of that. Remember, there is no law or amendment yet that gives the Federal Government or a president that kind of control over you.

That is the difference between the President’s position and mine!

Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives

A footnote: The president will only get control of our money through taxes and through who he taxes, if he is permitted to do so. Once the wealth of a nation is taken away, the liberty of the posterity that we were told to bless will no longer be able to promote its own general welfare.