FYI - From The Washington Times and Gov. Gary Johnson.

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

JOHNSON: Sequestration ignores the real spending problem

Entitlement reform is the only way out of the hole.

By Gary E. Johnson

Friday, March 1, 2013    

 

 

To listen to the parade of Obama administration officials warning of civilization-ending consequences from the measly $85 billion in spending “cuts” sequestration will bring, one can only reach one of two conclusions: Either they are just making stuff up to make the cuts as painful as possible, or the federal budget is so out of control that a mere 2.4 percent reduction in projected spending is more than the system can handle.

Frankly, it is both. Absolutely, in their zeal to make Republicans pay the maximum political price for what is actually both parties’ fault, it is almost comical to watch one Cabinet official after another step up to the microphone and tell us that a 2.4 percent reduction (that isn’t really a reduction) will cause airplanes to fall out of the sky, our national defense to be disabled and our children to starve. That game is among the oldest in Washington. Cut the Park Service budget, and suddenly they can’t find the money to keep the Lincoln Memorial or Yellowstone open.

This sideshow is entertaining, but it misses what may be the most important lesson to be learned from this sequester debacle. While there is certainly a heavy dose of Chicken Little falling-sky rhetoric coming out of the bureaucracy, it is probably true that the rather indiscriminate sequester formula is presenting some challenges for some agencies.

How can that be? How many governors, state legislatures, city councils, small businesses and families have had to absorb 2 percent cuts in their budgets over the past five years or so, and have done so because they didn’t have the luxury of simply borrowing or printing more cash? What’s the problem?

The real problem is that so much of the federal budget is not optional. While the $85 billion sequester for this year is only 2.4 percent of the $3.6 trillion the government is projected to spend, let us not overlook the fact that roughly 60 cents of every dollar the government spends is “mandatory,” as in entitlements. An additional 7 cents is interest on the debt. That leaves less than a third of federal spending that can actually be cut, and makes that $85 billion a little more significant.

If “cutting” discretionary spending by a lousy 2 or 3 cents on the dollar is enough to create dire consequences (for the sake of argument), imagine what would happen if we tried to reduce that spending by the 30 cents it will take to balance the budget and stop digging ourselves even deeper into unsustainable debt.

The moral of this ongoing story is clear: We can’t get to a balanced budget without doing some serious work on that 60 percent of spending that is “mandatory,” beginning with the 800-pound gorilla of Medicare. Any politician who claims to want to eliminate deficits but opposes meaningful entitlement reform is simply lying. It can’t be done, and if we needed proof, this sequester mess provides all we need.

In fact, do the rough math, and the only way to balance the budget without addressing mandatory entitlements is to almost shut down the rest of the government. While those of us on the small-government side of things might not be entirely heartbroken by that prospect, we probably need to have the government do some things, like national defense.

If you believe, as most Americans do, that we cannot continue to spend money we don’t have, and if you believe that there are some legitimate roles for government beyond paying Medicare bills and issuing Social Security checks, there is no getting around the simple fact that we have to bring all of that “mandatory” spending into the conversation.
Otherwise, it is just a big lie.

Gov. Gary E. Johnson, governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003 and the Libertarian candidate for president in 2012, is honorary chairman of the Our America Initiative.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/1/sequestration-ignores-the-real-spending-problem/#ixzz2MQzJ41P4
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Ron Paul and Gary Johnson’s supporters are not a “nonfactor” in this election!

FYI - From The Washington Times.

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Ron Paul and Gary Johnson’s supporters are not a “nonfactor” in this election.

America has fallen a long and terrible way from George Washington’s farewell address in which the first U.S. president warned “I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state … The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.”

Today, petty browbeating and factional elitism in Washington D.C. has replaced George Washington’s spirit of humility and wisdom. We have seen narcissism overtake nationalism and partisanship replace patriotism.

Today, if you don’t identify with the Democrat or Republican parties or don’t want to vote for Mitt Romney or Barack Obama in November, you’re despised as electoral ragamuffin, political flotsam and a “nonfactor” in the pages of history.
Now some would call that “pragmatism.” I call it electoral bigotry.

If America’s Founding Fathers could look from the balconies of heaven upon the Great Republic Experiment they birthed, their eyes would be shedding tears upon us like a squall of winter raindrops. The same nation that began with a Declaration of Independence that said “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” now is a nation controlled by politicians who insist they know best for us, that their plans are better than our plans and that all of us must sacrifice our unique values and history so that they can make history.

Like the Bible’s prophet Hosea of ancient antiquity bemoaned, “because your hostility is so great, the prophet is considered a fool, the inspired man a maniac.” No scholar or expert can have a serious discussion in this country anymore because the agenda setting power rests with people who refuse to accept rebuke from the very people – now awake – that in prior elections were lulled into voting for charlatans in gray suits and maroon ties.

No one can talk about real issues anymore because hyperbole and innuendo are now preferable to salt and light. Any attempt to address America’s debt crisis, her costly and losing commitment to meaningless military engagements abroad and the collapse of our government institutions at home is met with elitist sneers, ridicule and contempt. We are told that others, smarter and more competent know better than us and that we should simply know our place and vote for left or right.
This is a pattern that is happening not just in America, but the world over. If liberty is extinguished here in America, there is no other place for Americans to flee to or seek refuge in. Nigel Farage, a UKIP MEP, speaking of Europe’s bureaucratization warned of what he calls a “moral mutation” and says of the EU, “Money from taxpayers and consumers is channeled, by this system, into those parts of the civil infrastructure, which support the incumbent parties and for the last few decades, have ensured that these parties remain collectively in power and that they resolutely continue with the work of removing from society all concept of moral value, other than that defined by themselves.”

We would be wise to take heed to those words and to ensure that America does not fall into that same moral mutation, though she is already showing signs of massive political and social metastasis.

Now consider this: Gary Johnson and Ron Paul both are men whose movements have attracted people who are sick and tired of being sick and tired. They are people who are increasingly less interested in left and right and more concerned about right and wrong. For them, this election is a referendum not on personalities but on paradigms. They are tired of explanations, tired of excuses and tired of waiting for a false political tagline salvation that never comes.

There is good reason not to vote for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. On my ballot, I have a third party choice and I will vote for it. I am a Libertarian, and for president I am voting Libertarian! It has nothing to do with irrational disdain for either candidate and more to do with choosing to say that America needs to know that there are people who do not agree with the two parties and refuse – politely, yet firmly – to be peer pressured into voting for platforms and presidential candidates that do not represent their view of a government “as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Contrary to what you have been told, a third party vote isn’t a vote for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. It’s a vote for a future that though delayed today cannot be denied tomorrow if enough people have the faith to pursue it. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Faith calls those things which are not as though they are until they are. And in this election, there are those of us who will choose the third choice because we choose to believe in an America so much better than what we've been offered by the two party system.

Change begins with a courageous choice. You've heard it before: what is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right. Do not be moved by peer pressure or intellectual intimidation. The two parties may revel and glory that they hold majority today, but remember you still hold the vote. And as Shakespeare wrote, “Glory is like a circle in the water, which never ceaseth to enlarge itself, till, by broad spreading, it disperse to naught.”

Some of you reading this may be Republican. Then vote Republican. Some of you may be Democrats. Then vote Democrat. Good for you. But others of you are Americans committed only to the labels of liberty and justice for all, and to you I say this:

Your vote counts. Your opinion matters. If your heart feels led to vote third party, know that a vote for a third party is never a wasted vote, and this is your time to choose!


Read more: Ron Paul and Gary Johnson’s supporters are not a “nonfactor” in this election | Washington Times Communities
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

Why I Will Be Voting For Gary Johnson For President.

FYI - From Daniel de Gracia/The Washington Times and GaryJohnson2012.com

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

From the Washington Times

By Daniel de Gracia

Americans are living in what may very well be the most dangerous and troubling era of her 236 years since the Revolution. It takes little imagination for anyone more than twenty years of age to recognize that today’s America is in accelerating decline with a $16 trillion dollar national debt, Congress operating from one debt ceiling increase to another, and an ongoing, liberty-stripping, decade long global war on terrorism with no clearly defined conditions for victory.

While many argue that the problems of our time are an electoral question of left or right, it is really a matter of up or down: up to personal choice, private ownership and protection of individual liberties, or down to government control of all things political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. Today’s America of security checkpoints, individual mandates, and myriad taxes and fees is a place unrecognizable from her humble beginnings.

Many people across this great country are frustrated that indecision, gridlock and special interests have prevailed more often than not against the voice of the average citizen, who often has barely enough to pay his bills, support his family, and enjoy a modest lifestyle. This is not the America we were promised growing up, and this is not the kind of crisis that our children deserve to inherit.

In 1984 President Ronald Reagan, standing in front of the White House, said, “The kind of future our young people will have is something you never forget when you live here. Their security, their job opportunities, the dreams that they’ll take into the next century all begin with what we do today. When we work hard to ensure a strong economy with inflation and taxes under control, we’re taking care of tomorrow. And in this magnificent house, nothing could be more important than that.”

My generation never truly inherited or enjoyed the fulfillment of that promise. However, the wisdom of that statement compels me to make a choice at the voting booth not just for my future, but for the future of my children to come. For that reason, I will be voting for president the man who represents the clearest alternative and the best hope for change in this election, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. As a Libertarian, Johnson represents the core convictions of our Founding Fathers and the closest possible echo of their message of freedom.

Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, you too should vote for Gary Johnson. I’m reminded of something the Filipino philosopher Jose Rizal said: “The glory of saving a country is not for him who has contributed to its ruin.” Voting Libertarian isn’t a wasted vote, but voting for the same way every election is a wasted opportunity for change.

I believe with all my heart that change begins with a courageous choice. Faith itself is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen. If enough Americans are willing to believe that we deserve better, liberty can once again thrive in our land – and that would truly be a miracle worth voting for.

The FCC Pushes To End Internet Freedom. - TAKE ACTION!!!

FYI - Our Personal Freedoms and Civil Liberties are eroding more and more everyday.  People, we have a duty to stand up and speak out because, if not and before we know it, we'll all wake up without any rights!   

Do you know which other countries regulate their internet?...Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, and so did the Taliban when they were in power in Afghanistan. I don't know about you, but I don't think this is the kind of company we want to keep. Just saying...

 Call, write, or e-mail your Senators and Representative.  Ask that they NEVER support such a measure.  If not for yourself, remember the less fortunate, remember your children, remember your grand-children.  Because.....


"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
-Edmund Burke




-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
________________________________________________________________________________
*From The Washington Times:

FCC crosses the Rubicon into online regulation

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

-

The Washington Times

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is poised to add the Internet to its portfolio of regulated industries. The agency's chairman,Julius Genachowski, announced Wednesday that he circulated draft rules he says will "preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet." No statement could better reflect the gulf between the rhetoric and the reality of Obama administration policies.

With a straight face, Mr. Genachowski suggested that government red tape will increase the "freedom" of online services that have flourished because bureaucratic busybodies have been blocked from tinkering with the Web. Ordinarily, it would be appropriate at this point to supply an example from the proposed regulations illustrating the problem. Mr. Genachowski's draft document has over 550 footnotes and is stamped "non-public, for internal use only" to ensure nobody outside the agency sees it until the rules are approved in a scheduled Dec. 21 vote. So much for "openness."

The issue of "net neutrality" is nothing new, but the increasing popularity of online movie streaming services like Netflix have highlighted an area of potential concern. When someone watches a film over the Internet, especially in high definition, the maximum available capacity of the user's connection is used. Think, for example, of the problems that would arise at the water works if everyone decided to turn on their faucets and take a shower simultaneously. Internet providers are beginning to see the same strain on their networks.

In some cases, heavy use of this sort slows the Web experience for everyone sharing the same lines. That has prompted some cable Internet providers to consider either charging the heavy users more or limiting access to the "problematic" services. Of course, if cinema buffs find themselves cut off from their favorite service, they're going to be mad. If companies don't act, they're just as likely to find irate customers who don't want their experience bogged down by others.

It's not clear why the FCC thinks it needs to intervene in a situation with obvious market solutions. Companies that impose draconian tolls or block services will lose customers. Existing laws already offer a number of protections against anti-competitive behavior, but it's not clear under what law Mr. Genachowski thinks he can stick his nose into the businesses that comprise the Internet. The FCC regulates broadcast television and radio because the government granted each station exclusive access to a slice of the airwaves. Likewise when Ma Bell accepted a monopoly deal from Uncle Sam, it came with regulatory strings attached.

No such rationale applies online, especially because bipartisan majorities in Congress have insisted on maintaining a hands-off policy. A federal appeals court confirmed this in April by striking down the FCC's last attempt in this arena. "That was sort of like the quarterback being sacked for a 20-yard loss," FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell told The Washington Times. "And now the team is about to run the exact same play. ... In order for the FCC to do this, it needs for Congress to give it explicit statutory authority to do so."

Freedom and openness should continue to be the governing principles of the Internet. That's why Mr. Genachowski's proposal should be rejected and Congress should make it even more clear that the FCCshould stop trying to expand its regulatory empire.