Frank discusses decline of moderate Republicans at Dem fundraiser

Obama's Spread The Wealth Program Is just Getting Started. It Only Took The Democratic Congressional Leadership 2 Short Years To Put Into place The First installment Of Their Spread The Wealth Program. The Result Has Been Destroyed Savings, Ruined Retirement Accounts, A Drastic Plunge In Your Home Equity, A Failing Home market For Those Who Need To Sell Their House, Higher Unemployment, Higher Gas Prices, And Higher Food Prices.

All Brought To You Courtesy Of The Fannie Mae Five: Their Campaign Contributions Spoke Louder Than Their Conscience:

Change is Coming When Obama, Pelosi And Reid Control Everything. If The Next Changes Are Anything Like The One's They Have brought Us So Far, Then Brace Yourself.

"from social conservatives to conservative socialists." -David Gergen

This "redistributing wealth" rhetoric is false. What Democrats will be doing is "unstacking the deck."

My wife and I work, always have, making just over 65K combined. With cost of living going up, we save nothing.

The war that the GOP wanted in Iraq costs us 10 Billion/month. Now taxpayers are being forced to take equity positions in banks.

The GOP is riding to the spa on my back.

My wife and I earn upwards of $250,000 per year, but I'm thinking that if today's Republicans feel it's appropriate to insult people because of the amount of money they make, it's no wonder they're looking at a mammoth loss this November. If this kind of thing is considered acceptable, we're looking at the Republicans going the way of the Whigs.

Is this the same Barney Frank that the U.S. House voted to reprimand in 1990 when it was revealed that a male escort whom he had befriended after hiring him through a personal advertisement conducted an escort service from his apartment? Is this the same Barney Frank that admitted that he had an affair with a prostitute? Is this the same Barney Frank whose lover was a big shot at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Is this the same Barney Frank who was chairman of House Financial Services Committee when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tanked? Is this the same Barney Frank who proclaimed that things were just dandy at Fannie and Freddie a few months before they collapsed? I just want to make sure I have my facts straight...

The Democrats have lectured us so often about the economy, ethics, and corruption that I'm shocked they would chose such an individual to headline their Jefferson-Jackson dinner...

Hey Huck...just wanted to make sure you got it!

The big blue wave to bankruptcy will knock us all over soon...

The state budget is in trouble
By CHARLES M. ARLINGHAUS
Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2008

If politicians are to be believed, the state is running both a surplus and a deficit at the same time. In the same week, Gov. John Lynch asked his department heads to cut millions of dollars from the budget, and the Senate president said on the radio that we're running a surplus. They can't both be right, can they? Well, actually they are, which is a good symbol of how difficult the budget is to understand.

The current two-year budget has a problem, but some of its individual components are fine. The first half of the budget turned out OK, but the second half is a disaster.

Overly optimistic revenue estimates created a large deficit. At the time, Republican revenue expert Rep. Norm Major warned that the revenue estimates used to balance this spending were at least $100 million too high. He was dismissed as a pessimist. Interestingly, time has proved him to be something of an optimist. First-year revenues ended up $71 million below budget projections. Second-year revenues are on track to be more than $200 million below projections.

So the budget problem is a tale of two years. The problem in the first year is much smaller, with most of the pain delayed until the second year. In addition, we started the budget with $61 million that should have been put in the state's savings account, the rainy day fund, but was kept available as a cushion in the budget.

Because we start the budget cycle with the cushion, the first budget year, which ended in June, ends up looking pretty good. Between the $61 million extra and some modest spending cuts, the state was able to spend $44 million more than it raised, leaving what counts as a surplus under state rules of about $17 million. So, fiscal year 2008 had a $44 million deficit, but because we had extra money for a cushion, it counts as a surplus.

For the 2008-2009 fiscal year, the one we're currently in, the situation is much worse. First, the budget called for spending $12 million more than it hoped to raise. Second, revenues are on track to be at least an additional $200 million below what the budget expected and needed. The governor had proposed $30 million of cuts and an additional $40 million of bonding to erase the deficit. He'll need to find an additional $140 million to $160 million.

The obvious place to turn is to the massive spending increase that had been described as mandatory. The budget increased general funding spending over the previous two-year budget by 17.5 percent, the largest spending increase in the last 20 years. Supporters of the budget agree that the increase was that high but insist that much of it was nondiscretionary spending. They say they could control only a little more than 3 percent a year, or 7 percent of the 17.5 percent two-year increase.

Yet every budget of the last 20 years faced similar decisions. If spending goes up here, something has to give there. Each of the previous budgets for two decades and six different governors made those decisions and came in with a smaller spending increase. Clearly the increases were never mandatory, as the governor is asking his department heads to cut those very same expenditures.

As bad as the current budget problem is, it looks easy compared to the next budget due after the election. Because each budget builds on the spending and revenue of the one that went before it, problems tend to grow exponentially. Weak revenue growth and an uncertain economy mean money will not be available to sustain normal levels of spending growth.

Next year, if spending were to grow at historical rates, likely revenues would be at least $500 million short. In an election cycle, politicians are most responsive to the people they hope will elect them. Each candidate should be asked if he or she will consider or rule out an income tax. In addition, candidates should be asked whether they would consider increasing other taxes or look to balance the budget during difficult economic times without any tax increases.

We know today that the problem will be as large as it has ever been. Some politicians will want to avoid all tax increases during difficult times. Others will rule out an income or sales tax but be open to other tax increases. Others, concerned about cutting spending levels, will want to consider an income tax. We need to know today what approach our would-be leaders will take. There's no need for a post-election surprise.

for the Army Infantry.

They weren't checking IQ's on D-Day+1 in Iraq.

Elitist much, yo?

Is taking the brunt of the assualt.