There's no evidence that Ray Lahood's corrupt. It hasn't been proven in Congress or a court of law.
The same is true of Bill Daley and Rahm Emanuel. If Ray Lahood was corrupt, he would have been
brought either before the House Ethics Committee, or since he's in Obama's Cabinet, he would have had Articles of Impeachment voted against him. As for Bill Daley, the same thing. In his case, he would have been brought before a grand jury.

How can we expect anyone else to take Republicans seriously when our own leadership act like a bunch of girlie men?

Case in point, the Obama-as-chimp email cartoon. California's Orange County's Scott Baugh is now trying to force out a sweet little old lady that passed along the email without thinking it through.

Why, may I ask, is the first response of Mr. Baugh to turn on Marilyn Davenport without first pointing out all the insulting George W Bush as Chimp cartoons and the nickname "Chimpy" used regularly by Democrat bloggers.

I suggest Mr. Baugh, who is too cowardly to have a contact link on his website, should stand up for his own, like a man for a change, and insist that Democrats get fired for the insulting Bush cartoons before he goes after a faithful and decent public servant.

Orwellian??? Nice.

I ask a simple question and I am attacking G.W. Bush???

My major problem with a "fair tax", is that I just don't see the government stopping there. Wherever it starts out, they'll keep on increasing it. And, what about the "taxes" taken out for Social Security & Medicare. Don't forget property taxes; federal excise tax on cars, tires, etc; gasoline taxes, STATE sales tax; taxes charged on utilities, ETC! And, that doesn't even take into account city & state income taxes- UNLESS an AMENDMENT to the Constitution was passed, making it illegal to take anything over an agreed upon percentage, IT WILL JUST KEEP CLIMBING. The government has done it before!

That is why I support a Flat Tax.

Glenn Beck? Really? I don't think anyone of substance would question the credentials of the late William F Buckley, but I'm sure that if he were here today he would clean Glenn Beck's clock. Go back and watch some of his programs and judge for yourself.

Buckley was a Conservative...and a really good one. Beck is a Libertarian...and a really good one. There are differences. You give great advice, Richard. I think you should take it and then judge what Beck says a few weeks or months out. You might just find it is spot on but because it is being given by Beck...you refuse to believe. Could it be that your eyes and mind are "wide shut"? Alas, time will tell and you may just have to slap your forehead with the palm of your hand and say something profound, like "duh". Just sayin'.

I repeat, Buckley would clean Glenn Beck's clock. Are you implying that Buckley could not challenge a "Libertarian" ? I would guess that he was very capibil of taking on a wide range of political views. If ever in what time I have left on this planet I become convinced that Glenn Beck is/was a sage of the first order, I wil be glad to redistribute ten C-notes of my "wealth" to CPAC ! ! !

Many years ago I decided to prepare for retirement well ahead, but not knowing better I fell into the SS trap and factored that into my retirement as have almost all of the past 3 generations. Of course I had no choice but to pay into SS like all other wage earners. About 10 years before retirement, I realized how good a deal the Capitol Accumulation Plan (CAP) was and realized I should have been putting in every cent I could, but better late than never. At that point I realized I could make good money in the market with a bit of guidance and study. Now I would have been a long way from even being upper middle class as far as wages, but had the money I paid into SS been available for investments I could have retired in style and the government would be getting far more tax out of me now. However I am comfortable in a small home (of my own). Thing is that tax. SS took not only our wages, but money that would have helped the economy grow.

Our present SS and tax structure is playing on mankind's tendency to be selfish and jealous. The Progressives depend on that to build an imagined class warfare. The top 5% incomes pay over 53% of tax. Over half the families in the country pay no tax. No mater how you add the figures the tax base to support the current regime's spending isn't there, not even if you took all of the income of that top 5%. The only answer is to cut spending and that means entitlements, AND wars that aren't wars. The problem is we have been trained to expect SS and other entitlements for generations! Cut back on SS and Medicare! Would I be happy about it? No, but it must be done. Cut charitable deductions? Charities are far more efficient than the government at getting that money where it's needed.

Catch the Glenn Beck show for 4-22-2011 - it is now up on my blog and is commercial free - instead of one hour it is slightly less than 40 minutes.

"A few weeks ago Glenn announced that he would be leaving his 5:00 PM show on Fox News. He has been ringing the bell and doing his very best to wake America up every day for the last two years. Tonight, the final chapter of the Glenn Beck Program begins. So, what is next? Where does Glenn go from here? And where do we go from here? Joining Glenn and a studio audience tonight are Kevin Williamson of The National Review and Co-author of the book "Shadow Party", Richard Poe. Please note that tonight is NOT the last Glenn Beck Program. Still no word from Fox as to when the last show will air"

http://thpatriots.blogspot.com/2011/04/glenn-beck-final-chapter-begins.html

I'm wondering just how Bush "inherited" 9/11?

Don't argue over semantics. 9-11 was a nasty surprise whether inherited or just plain laid at George Bush's feet.

Gee, if you kept upon news from an objective media, you would know that Clinton blew not getting Osama but preferred playing golf, that he also disbanded the Mid-East intelligence department, and other such
goodies. So, when Bush comes along and the Demos in control for 40 years, he fought and tried to get things back to some rightness, but shot down each time. 9/11 was set up by previous president and Congress run by Demos (I belong to neither party, thank you), but I keep abreast of what is happening in my country when I am home and when I am abroad! You should do the same. Sad to say so many Americans are ill-educated, can't think and reason, and are so closed minded I wonder how they get through the day and a job (if Obama has left them a job!). Critical thinking is no longer a viable option in the education system and objectivity has no more space in any of the media. Sad and this is why we are in the mess we are in and then someone comes along continuing to try and blame Bush for everything. How unintelligent and childish, to say the least. Being informed is important if you are going to be a voter; otherwise stay home and let more knowledgeable people vote!

The only way to get rid of the income tax and the IRS is for Congress to pass another constitutional
amendment to abolish the IRS. (i.e., repeal the Seventeenth Amendment).

Hear, hear! I concur - repeal the Income Tax amendment.

Everyone (even teabaggers) want to "eat the bread", but no one wants to plant the wheat, harvest the wheat, grind the wheat, or bake the bread. Instead of wearing a flag pin, why not give something back to the country that you say you believe in - - - you know, the original Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and all that. Hmmmmmm. . .

Mr. Ransom,

suggest your Google the term "Fair Tax", review it, absorb the ideas, and if you see fit support it by every means possible.

The Fair Tax proposal, if I understand it correctly, would be one tax and a single rate at the point of retail sales.
* No tax on investment income.
* No business / corporate tax (consumers pay these taxes anyway in the form of higher retail prices, and sucking money from business is a drag on the economy."
* No death taxes either.
* No 71,000 page tax code (which is a stack of typing paper 29.66 feet high)
* No IRS, or IRS reduced to very few personnel.

Rich guys who spend big bucks buying lots of stuff would pay more. Guys like me who stick with the basics and don't buy very much pay less. Criminals would pay taxes. Illegal aliens would pay taxes.

This is a plan that would cause the economy to BOOM.

And, if coupled with a limit to federal government spending to.........say.........20% of the previous year GDP..................would keep our debt in line with revenue.

I'm showing my ignorance here, but would that tend to make people buy less, or buy in Canada?
In other words, how would that effect the marketplace?

How? People would not have a big chunk cut out of their pay checks by deductions. They would have more in their pockets when they head to the grocery store or mall.

Like it or not, people MUST buy necessities to survive. So a "fair" tax would be paid by everyone. This entire nonsensical issue of who pays more would be dead forever. EVERYONE would pay the same rate for what they purchase.

I like the idea. Of course the Liberals would whine about it but so what? They whine about everything else. If you live in this country you should pay to support it.

Right now taxes are a huge political lever wielded by politicians to coerce opposition to go along. They've had that big stick far too long.

Royal Palm Ballroom Wrote: 4 hours ago (6:43 AM)
In the world of John Ransom and Townhall.com, our present-day economic situation began on January 20th, 2009 at 12 noon. And of course, those evil Democrats took majorities in the House and Senate in January 2007.

And George W Bush was helpless to stop them.

Too bad the born-again, dry-drunk War Criminal wasn't paying attention to the pre-9/11 warnings, especially the Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001 - "bin Laden Determined to Attack in US".

But hey, the bin-Ladens were friends of the Bush family. Why would the Decider guy think he would do such a thing?

____________________________________________________________________________
Doesn't this jerk post like hal?? Who else uses the term "dry drunk"?
So, now, whoever you profess to be, we have a community organizer who likes nose candy. And, by his own admission, enjoys to tip back a glass.

Dry drunk comes from AA. The character that uses it must have had some experience with it. We had a relative that belabored all the sober members of the family witih the AA program. Since it did him a world of good we humored him and agreed with whatever he was talking about until he sobered up and started using English again. Perhaps our fellow post-ee will get past the alcoholic haze and rejoin the rest of us in polite discourse.

I doubt there are many Bush fans on here either. "The problem" started many years and generations ago and has gotten worse a bit more or a bit less a contribution from each successive administration.

One of the larges contributors to the present economic situation was the repeal of the Glass Steagall act. Others would be Barney Frank lying to the president about the status of Freddie and Fannie and the push for easy money so every one could have their own home resulting in toxic loans and the bursting of the housing bubble.

Read you for the first time. So happy to find another person who understands and shares the truth. Thank you.

Seeing that you are a reader, please check out "A People's History of the United States" , by Howard Zinn. There are a lot folks who would not be fatally harmed by learning more U.S. history.

Howard "I got clubbed during the '60's Columbia riots so I hate anything American" Zinn?
Radicalizing history pays well for college professors and writers, but he is so far left, he blames America for the acne and halitosis problems of illegal immigrants.

Try Johnson's "A History of the American People." Might actually learn some American History.

Blame is far easier and simpler - - no need for intelligent investigation seeking factual truth ! ! !
Sporting event mentality is easier and for more popular - - pick a team, buy their jersey and root for them to destroy competition - no need to recognize anything else - - that's the mentality of today - - ah, the fallacy of youth and it's lack of experience, knowledge, or skill (they've only inherited, never developed or built - including mindset) - - they teach each other and are disrepectful of those who've provided for them

It would be a mistake to blame one POTUS or another for the financial mess we have. The problem's roots takes us back to 1913 and the start of the Federal Reserve and the start of income tax and it's lack of apportionment. What we can hold every POTUS since is their lack of action to take care of the problem. When it come to the Federal Government, it is clearly an issue of "Us v. Them."

That's a good point Sugar,

No President starting with Wilson has ever reduced federal spending. It just that some increased it more than others.

And, the REAL issues lie with Congress................especially the House which is responsible for spending. So, all along Congress has supported increased rather than reduced spending.

If you change the POTUS to the House of (mis)Representatives (which is where all spending bills originate (by law)), I'll agree with you.

A little history, folks. When Social Security was first enacted, it was supposed to be only a supplement to a retiree's income- not the mainstay. But through the years, both parties- but, especially the Dems- found it very convenient to keep incresing the amounts paid to the retirees, so that they could show that they were "delivering services" to their people, and thus, get themselves re-elected. They did this, rather than encourage their constituents to become financially educated and be able to financially fend for themselves. So now we have SSI, which is a supplement to the original supplement. Then there are the COLA's (Cost-Of-Living_Adjustments). It's one thing to help out the genuinely disabled. But SSI has become a cesspool of the lazy. They aren't incentivized to work out there own problems, but instead, get on the government teat, and stay there. That's simply wrong- not just for the nation, but for themselves as well. And it's also become dangerous. Very dangerous. We face great financial peril- in terms of ongoing debasement of the dollar; in terms of a potential default on our debt; in terms of a potential rise in interest rates; in terms of the potential of hyper-inflation- because of these ever increasing financial liabilities. So both the demagoguery and stupidity must stop. We simply can't continue down this sure path to ruin. Generally speaking, we know that God will protect us. But He expects us to be wise. We ain't there yet.

Liberals ignore facts...it's a "touchy,,...feeley" kind of thing!!

Very interesting post. You neglected to say that WORKERS and thier employers are forced to pay into the ponzi scheme. We are are forced by law, well, most are, not timmy geithner. I digress. We are sent statements as retirement approaches reporting how much is in OUR fund, the fund we are foreced to pay into.
Perhaps you were speaking of SSD, the part of SS that pays those on alleged disability are paid.
Those on SS had no say in this scam yet were are forced to pay into the program taking monies from our earnings that could be put into a private fund. When Bush had the AUDACITY to even suggest that younger workers be able to put a small amount of the forced withholding into a private fund he was excoriated.
Now, this ponzi scheme is referred to as an entitlement program lumped in with medicaid. As for medicare, we are also forced to pay into that program having the money come out of our SS checks.
As for cola, there has not been and probably will not be a cola for SS in the forseeable future.
The answer, I don't really know. All I know is that money has been taken out of my earnings from the age of 17. I had no choice. To be lumped into those non-producers angers me to no end.
Then again, slamming us does fit into the whole class warfare thing.

Ransom states "We can point out to them that generally, only the rich do pay taxes, but facts are lost on them."

For a "Financial Columnist" you are pretty loose with your "facts". You equate "taxes" with Federal Income Tax.

Federal income tax is only part of the tax burden. Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90 percent of wage earners. That’s because, once you reach 106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages. So the higher your income the less you contribute to SS.

The income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government when you consider the complete tax burden (federal, SS, Med, State, sales, etc) .

When it comes to state and local taxes, the poor bear a heavier burden than the rich in every state except Vermont, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy calculated from official data. In Alabama, for example, the burden on the poor is more than twice that of the top 1 percent. The one-fifth of Alabama families making less than 13,000 pay almost 11 percent of their income in state and local taxes, compared with less than 4 percent for those who make 229,000 or more.

No, the higher your income, the more you contribute to SS, up to 106,000. The higher your income, above 106,000, the lower total percentage of your income you contribute to SS. Sorry, payroll taxes don't equate to income taxes. These payroll taxes are something like a prepayment for retirement income and medical care; the payer expects a full return on that money sometime in the future. It is not being used to run the Federal govt- pay soldiers, pay the heating bill, pay interest on the debt, etc. No, the money that runs the govt comes 70% from the top ten percent of taxpayers. The income tax may be ON AVERAGE 1/5 of the tax burden considering all levels but that is factoring in all taxpayers, even those that pay none and get the EITC. When you consider those that are paying for the lino's share of the Federal income tax burden, it is much, much higher. Federal income tax is about 60% of my tax burden, a far cry from your 20%. So the poor in Alabama, on average, pay one-tenth what the wealthy do to keep the state and local governments afloat? How disporportionate should it be? 100 to 1; 1000 to 1? This is a flimsy attempt to portray the wealthy as getting off easy in regards to taxation. The wealthy pay more in property taxes, state taxes, local taxes, medicare, social security, many pay into unemployment but can never make a claim, and they all pay much, much more into the Federal income tax total. It takes a special brand of liar to try to pass off half-truths as truthful. So the poor have less left over after they satisfy their very meager contribution to government? And the rich, even though they pay and pay and pay, still have enough to live comfortably? Tough. Enough with the petty jealousy and class warfare. Want to live comfortably? Work hard, save, better yourself, stay in on weekends, delay gratification and sacrifice. This is the land of opportunity, not the "Land of Free Sht".

"lion's share" not "lino's share"

royal palm seems to forget that clinton was offered bin up on a platter several times . either to stupid to take action or pc . It was the dems that put up the fire wall between the different intel. dep.s and therefore could not share intel. and that lead to the success of the terror acts accros the world.

Ah yes, jamie gorelick was the creator of those walls. And, as a bonus she got to serve on the 9/11 commission AND she had some real neat dealings with fannie mae & freddie mack getting a sweet deal when she left.

She is like a bad penny- she keeps turning up everywhere that the sht hits the fan.

Ransom states

"The actual GDP numbers don’t bear out what you are saying. I think Bush inherited at least as severe crisis with 9-11 as Obama did with the economy in 2009."

This is an absurd statement, even using his own evidence.

1. The GDP number he references show that the GDP never dipped from 2000 (9,951.5), 2001, (10,286.2), 2001 (10,642.3). Whereas from 2008 to 2009 the GDP dropped from 14,369.1 to 14,119.0. How are these conditions comparable?

2. When Bush took office The Dow Jones average had dropped the previous year in 2000 (-6.18%). It continued to decline in 2001 (-7.10), and dropped again in 2002 (-16.76). It rebounded in 2003 increasing 25.32%. When Obama took office the average had already dropped 33.84%--The worst drop since the great depression. By the end of his first year it had gained back 18.82 % in 2009 and 11.02% in 2010.

3. Bush inherited an unemployment rate (2000) of 4.0%, the lowest since 1969 and after his first year in office it had risen to 4.7%. Obama inherited an unemployment rate of 5.8% and it continued to rise to a historic high 0f 9.3%.

4. Bush did not “…inherited at least as severe crisis with 9-11”. That occurred on his watch, in September, after he had already instituted his first tax cut.

You can debate Obama's policies but to suggest that the economy the GWB inherited was comparable to the situation for Obama is demonstrably false.

LOL< LOL , so now the tax cuts caused 9/11, MMMMMM MMMMMM MMMMM praise oboama

That is not what I said. My point was that the Bush administration was well underway, he had already passed major legislation, before 9/11. So how can Ransom say he "inherited" it.

Perhaps you could answer that?

Of course, the USS Cole would have been fine if it hadn't been saber-rattling half-way across the planet.

How would you feel if a Chinese battle cruiser steamed into San Francisco Bay and parked itself there, threatening to invade if we didn't adopt the Chinese way of life?

You are a complete nitwit - - ! ! ! !
Move to some other nation and ply your ignorance - PLEASE !

Are you really that stupid? The Cole was in port to refuel, not to threaten invasion like your idiot analogy suggests.

Where is it written that we need to supply a safety net for the poor or elderly? I can understand and even support a safety net for the disabled and veterans. If individuals think that we need to supply a safety net, perhaps they should be the ones to shoulder the burden individually, instead of mandating that everyone one else should do so. Individual freedom is just that FREEDOM. If I do not want my tax dollars to go for this or that project, that is my business. Liberals and progressives could not remain in power without the entitlement class ( true slaves and serfs) . Slavery never ended, it is now the welfare and entitlement class. Promise the poor a crust of bread and they will vote for you. It is indeed a sad moment in the history of our nation when a person who struggles and builds a business that employees others, takes all the risks, invests their own money and sweat, ends up having the same vote that a entitlement supported crack addict that does nothing but take from society , has. Who is the crack addict going to vote for? Shame on the liberals and progressives for they are truly the ones that exploit the poor.

Well, Jim. You know what the answer is. The pols in DC will not give up power and will not cut spending. Look at the lies from Boehner last week. No, it appears that Atlas must shrug and there will be much privation and unnecessary death. Once it starts here, the effect will spread worldwide like a wildfire.

CVN65

The pols in DC will not give up power and cut spending. True, true. But they have been sent there by voters, and can still be replaced--and replaced--and replaced. There are always a few decent patriots. Previously, they get grossed out by the stench, and their own inability to make much difference as a small minority, and they leave, If the voters punish corruption and malfeasance, demand and reward decent representation, the situation can be changed in a few more elections like 2010. Its infuriating and frustrating that powerful CINOs like Boehner and McCain were kept in office, but quite a few CINOs were shot down, or narrowly dodged a voter bullet. So we are in a race between voter education and the system breakdown, privation and unnecesary death you describe.

There is a middle ground between restoration of American opportunity/greatness and collapse. Half measures which produce a stagnant retreat into irrelevance, as new boys on the block take over. This is the usual fate of dominant empires as they collapse under the weights of envy, stupidity and unpunished sloth.

Where was the hate mail? I gleefully turned to this thinking that it would be a reaction to the angry, hateful and sometimes vulgar commentary we get here everyday. He should have started his holiday a day early.

Put down the kool-ade and back away, DHE.

DHE isn't looking for discusson - - only looking for a fistfight !

Entitlements are illegal (unconstitutional) because they mandate slavery. Forcing A to pay B's bills forces A into slavery to B.

On the other hand, insurance companies and charities provide safety nets without creating a slave class, a parasite class, a criminal political class, rampant poverty, and massive public debt.

Poke a liberal and instead of screaming "ouch," they will say "George Bush," followed by "you want to starve the poor and senior citizens." Self satisfied and smug as they walk away before you can answer, confident that they have spoken truth to power.

Amen

I second that 'Amen'

@Lon the Loon, who wrote: "When Ransom describes entitlements and road building as a boondoggle, he is making clear that he considers providing a safety net for the poor, the elderly, and the disabled, the groups protected by those entitlements, to be things to be dismissed."

What Looney Lon fails to admit to, is that our government has no RIGHT to provide a safety net for any group.

The following should be required reading/memorization:

"Government is necessary because man is flawed; it is evil because it corrupts men and usurps liberty. That is why the American framers took such pains to limit and check its powers. Love and mercy are not bound by borders, but they are th...e attributes of people, not functions of government. Governments are restricted by national boundaries and national interests. It is the progressive project to aggrandize government by humanizing it. ... American government does not determine and effectuate our morality; it performs the minimum functions we need it to perform so that our liberty is maximized. That, in turn, maximizes our capacity to live compassionate, redemptive lives. ... Our government does not exist to care; it exists to promote the freedom and security of our body politic. The actions of our public officials are not supposed to be a reflection of how those officials, guided by their private religious and ethical principles, care about their fellow human beings the world over. Public officials must faithfully perform the tasks to which they are assigned in order to fulfill government's limited, necessary functions." -- columnist Andrew C. McCarthy

How dare you post facts to a moonbat Leftard?

John, understand this about Lon: he would argue with the guy who wrote the bus schedule.