Taxes & Spending

No Taxation without Representation

More than five thousand five hundred of you responded last week to my letter on the Super Committee disaster. Of those responding, 96 percent said they expected that the Super Committee would fail to make real spending cuts but would raise taxes. Almost 93 percent said its proceedings should be open to the public.

The idea of twelve people controlling massive debt reduction is so foolish that everywhere I go, Americans are cheering each time I condemn the concept. They understand instinctively that the Super Committee is designed to shut Americans and their
elected representatives out of the process while concentrating power in the hands of a few.

This week, I want to follow up with a few images that make the truth about the Super Committee even clearer. I encourage you to share them with your friends and family through Facebook, Twitter, and email, because everyone should see what a terrible deal this is for the American people. (You can also go to to download free full size, printable posters to share.)

We are being taxed to support an enormous government while citizens of 39 states have no representation at all in these critical decisions about its size and scope.

Our map shows what the United States would look like based on the makeup of the Super Committee. Most Americans aren’t on this map at all. The whole state of New York is lost in the crease between Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. The middle and southern states are missing almost completely. The thin line below South Carolina is where Florida and my home state, Georgia, should be. Texas and California combined have the same representation as Michigan.

The only good thing about the map is that Washington, D.C., has shrunk so small, you can’t even see it.

Americans living in Virginia or Florida, New York or Nevada, New Hampshire or Georgia should ask why not a single member of Congress from their state is allowed to represent them. Texans should be equally incredulous that only one of their 35 members is part of the discussions.

It’s taxation without representation.

While the Super Committee gives a select few enormous power and denies most states a place in the discussions at all, Americans from every state have lost overall representation in Congress under the plan.

Texans and Californians each have less than three percent of their Congressional delegations included in making decisions. Pennsylvanians and Ohioans have five percent.

The state with the highest portion of its delegation involved still has just one of three members making decisions, and that is one of the least populated states in the country–Montana with fewer than a million people.

In debates this important, government should strive to involve and to represent the American people, not to exclude them and make decisions in secret.

There is a better alternative. Americans have sent 535 of their fellow citizens to Congress to speak on their behalf, and Congress has 217 committees and subcommittees in place to tackle the complexities of balancing the budget.

Appointing one committee of 12 people behind closed doors to “fix” our spending crisis, while excluding 523 of our elected representatives, isn’t just dumb. In America, it’s wrong.

Sign Up
  • Rick_Kalifornication

    Is it just me, or does the first chart look like a weirdly shaped butterfly, designed by a Super Committee?

  • Rick_Kalifornication

    The Super Committee is unconstitutional and is nothing more than over 500 members of Congress shirking their Constitutional duties to represent all of us. Looks like the Tea Party will have to work even harder to fire even more members of Congress before they get it!

  • Reno Rivera

    If all the members of congress representing it’s districts in every state were actually representing, then the super committee created by Obama, Boehner, Reid and McConnell last month would not have been created.

    What we have is a travesty in congress. Not 535 votes but two votes. One Democrat and one Republican most of the time. Both parties outnumber Conservatives. Each representative sells out when in DC.

    There are exceptions that does not make a difference when they do act like individual representatives. Last month’s budget compromise for example.

    They are similar to the Borg, drones of the liberal machine of both parties.

    The population was against raising the debt ceiling and against the creation of the super committee when it was made public.

    Boehner made sure Republican placed their asses in line and of course the Democrats votes in unison.

    All but 22 Conservatives did not vote in unison with the Republican establishment.

    In reality there are only two votes in congress. The country is not being represented, so what difference does it make having the same crap we have now with this comical super committee?

    Same two votes there unless Conservatives united against the establishment since Republicans and Democrats have tainted the function of the congress.

    The founders knew this will happen. Congress is ruin and the states is the safety net for what has happened to the US congress with these two corrupt parties. Our founding fathers made sure the states remained in place.

    Our representatives do not represent us in the federal government created by the states.

  • AgTrotter

    This article is a perfect example of why Newt Gingrich should be sitting in a think tank conference room somewhere, and not engaged in running for President. While the article is technically sound, it is so incredibly wonkish as to cause an insomniac to fall asleep.

    Our current President already spends too much time bloviating to the American public, albeit in monosyllabic incomplete sentences. The thought of our next President engaging in professorial lectures makes me cringe.

  • Jim Clancy

        There is a painless solution to this outrageous and vexing problem and it’s a simple one………The creation of a national lottery with the proceeds going to pay down the debt only………The Post Office can be the point of sale……They need the revenue and we American’s love the lottery………….No new taxes, job creation and some happy new millionaires ………..What could be better then that ?  

  • NB_Harry1

    You are ‘spot on’. After finishing this article, I need yet another dose of caffeine to remain awake.

  • aposematic

    This equal R and D member committee negates the 2010 election where the people voted to put the R’s in  control over the House. In short, the R’s have punted on first down. Did anyone really expect any of their fictional representation to make any difference in Washington DC? The leadership controlling American politics is intentioned to thwart the will of the people at every opportunity. The majority of the American people have been against better than 90% of all major legislation passed over the past 3+ years but we must remember that our “representatives” think we are too stupid to know what’s good for us. But then why wouldn’t the politicians think that, we keep voting them back into office.

  • kthomas8

    This is still only a tiny part of the big story. There is no way that New York is not represented. That is where the super elite of the establishment behind the government is based and we know they are the ones pulling the strings. Newt, tell us more about the establishment and their role in all of this. The heads of the CFR and related organizations. Tell us what you know, lets get down to the real reasons this country is intentionally being driven into the ground. This super committee is just another step in their plan.

  • kthomas8

    I like the idea but have no faith in its ability to do much more than make the rich richer. Here in Georgia the lottery has been so mismanaged that they had to make cuts in the area that got the thing passed in the first place – education. And they created great degrees of separation from the government, so much that there is no accountability, just great excuses and finger pointing. The ridiculous amount of money the program brings in and they are ‘under funded’. Its corruption at the most basic level and its bullsh!t. To think the national government could do any better, very doubtful.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    No Rubio in that committee. No West either. Speaking as a Floridian that worked hard to get Tea Party types elected here, we have no Florida representation and no Tea Party Representation. Unconstitutional mess. Newt is right on . . .

  • 1BG

    What is incredulous is that only a few members of the 500+ of Congress saw fit to say “no” to the idea of the super committee!  That should have been a “no brainer!”  We are electing fools that for $30 of silver betray everything that they should be standing for.  The Tea Party appear to be our only hope.  I hope Newt and the others get that…. and Newt best retract his support for AGW, especially since CERN’s impecable published findings that it is the Sun that controls the climate, all other variables proving negliable…. A politician’s stance on AGW is just another tell-tale sign of who is and who isn’t drinking the Kool-Aid…. it’s a litmus test of group-think…. like who voted for the Super Committee! 

  • GeorgeStGeorge

    A super-committee made up of screaming liberal Democrats and RINOs.  Yeah.  A lot of serious budget cutting will get done.

    Can you say, “oligarchy”?

  • Islandguy19652011

    I’m not advocating violence here, but does it seem to anyone else that we might be heading in the direction of an actual second revolution?  I mean it’s bad enough that I, in NY, am not properly represented (thanks to Chuckie, Kirsten, Hilary, and an overwhelming number of others), but now the Feds want to shut even these individuals from the process for which they have been hired?  This is LUDICROUS!  I wish we had bouncers in the halls of congress – Oh, your not doing the job you’re supposed to be doing; you’re actually harming people as opposed to helping them, then out you go and don’t let the door smack you on the way out!
    Just a thought…………. ; – )

  • Keith1941

    Congress is just LAZY!  Our schools are creating lazy citizens, so what can we expect.  Maybe if we had term limits, maybe they’d spend more time working instead of campaigning.  Having said that, where is the love of country?  Do they not understand what made this country great?  The answer is “no”!  Many of them sat in those college classes, like Obama, listened to professors tell them all the bad things about America.

    There are times, I’d like to go back to college, take a class from some Marxist professor—never mind, I wouldn’t last.

  • Guest

    It just shows that the Republican Party is now a Newt party, limp wristed cowards trying to banter for power. You were there Newt, now you are trying to be an outsider—Here is an idea–to get you into the national press and talk shows—

    I truly believe that we should have the following;


    And it should start with Michelle Obama’s BUDGET. I bet, that if that budget was exposed and detailed, it might have the same effect with the POOR of this country, that the diamond necklace of Marie Antoinette had with the poor before the FRENCH REVOLUTION. Do you have the balls to expose this subject to the country?


    The larger issue is that Washington keeps finding ways to dismantle the constitutionally defined method of governance in which the people have represenntation.

    Back when Boehner was leading the debt ceiling “negotiations” it became clear that we had abandoned the real use of a Congress and had, instead, moved to a back-room dealing system.

    Republicans should have refused to work this way!

    They should simply have stated that they will not abdicate their responsibilities as elected representatives, and all “negotiations” forthwith will be conducted in the way the Constitution prescribes: The introduction of, and subsequent vote upon, Bills in Congress.

    No back-room deals, no nomination of a few members to represent the rest of the body, and no tacit acceptence of the judgement made by other Congressmen as binding upon themselves.

    Gingrich is right – this is patently un-democratic and a shameful display of irresponsibility by our elected lawmakers.

  • AgTrotter

    The day we started placing “group rights” above individual rights and freedoms, that was the actual start of the 2nd revolution. Insidious incrementalism has always been a key strategy of the left.

  • texasrox

    It’s almost as if you go to Washington and you get to trade in your brain for a dunce cap.  This super committee is outrageous.  I went to an East Dallas Chamber of Commerce business awards luncheon last week where Jed Hensarling was the key note speaker.  I was very intersted in what he had to say about co-chairing on the joint select committee on deficit reduction.  He talked a good game, I’m so skeptical of everyone…he is in favor of cut, cap and balance, is working to rein in DC spending and wants to creat jobs.  The committee is tasked with finding at least 1.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade.  Over the next DECADE?  It will take that long – why?  Newt you are right, why are 12 people representing all of us?  This is setting the stage for corruption to the max.  I see the special interests groups, lobbyist, cronies and elite lining up now with greased palms.  As conerced and active citizens, w hat can we do now?

  • Concerned4America

    I am not sure it really matters because just because your state representative is there does not mean your states citizens interests/opinions are being represented. Even if all 535 set everything aside to work this issue I am still not convinced that the voice of the American citizens will be considered.

  • Florin S.

    And I wonder why conservative publications/tv programs continue to give this guy coverage…is he paying them? Are they paying him??? What will it take to get newt out of the spotlight?

  • Ed_USA

    “What will it take to get newt out of the spotlight?”

    Two things. One is a cure for his Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The other is for Americans to start ignoring attention whores like Newt, Palin, Christine O’Donnell, Ann Coulter, Ariana Huffington, etc.

  • Bob Townsend

    Question ? how did the states ( 12 ) vote in the 2008 and then in the 2010 elections.  R or D any ties there???
    and # 2 of the people ofthe board where are they from and are they R or D folks?
    # 3 How many are in Muslin thinking ??( MI ) how many are of the ileagl is OK thinking?? ( TX, CA )

  • Telescoping You

    This is simply an abdication of congressional obligations and I personally hold Boehner and McConnell responsible for not seeing what this whole game is all about; a coup d’état.

    I hear and agree with Gingrich, but what, exactly, are the conservatives who were elected last November saying and doing about this?  Why aren’t they pounding on Boehner and McConnell’s doors demanding that this sham cease immediately.

    After all, what we are being asked to do is contact our representatives so they, hopefully, will pound on those doors.

    Get on with the pounding, Congress.  Use a telephone pole if you have to.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    Obama is at -25 today. 2nd worst of his entire time in office and August was by far his worst month in polls. Speaking of narcissism. Now wounded and dangerous.

    Check out this photo’s of Obama in this piece:

    The Poll:

  • Telescoping You

    Yes, you are absolutely correct, a “…shameful display of irresponsibility by our elected lawmakers.”

    This is the kind of politics you would expect in Afghanistan, or the Mafia.

    Hope you didn’t get wet last week.  Great to see you here and still glad you have Christie.  Lucky you!

  • gregio

    It appears to the average person that the logic of having a supercommittee  is to reduce the resolution time to find solutions to our deficit.  So the two parties have come up with a “streamlined” method of solving a rather complicated tax problem.  Why not come up with a streamlined process for presenting new bills and amendments that applies to both houses.  Why do they allow an unlimited parade of amendments or an unlimited parade of “point of orders” and the resulting time consuming votes.  Why don’t they just decide on the number of new spending bill for each session for each side and then what bills appear would be decided by party committee, same with the amendments, by limiting the quantity of bills and amendments the legislation “time” could be cut dramatically and the process would be more efficient.  Also why don’t they allot a fixed quantity of bills that their sole purpose is REDUCING the cost of government by closing useless agencies or trimming bloated staffs in various agencies.  The spending bills would have to be connected to an adjoining bill that would reduce spending somewhere in the government, that actually REDUCES spending not just reduce the rate of increase,

  • Patriot41

    This is their way of getting out of being held responsible for the dirty deals that are coming from the super committees.  Those members who agreed to a super committee formation should be held accountable for shirking their legislative responsibilities.  

  • Niniane

    Methinks King George III tried this and got a bunch of really cranky colonists a  riled up. And now we have King Obama, who has probably never read history, trying to pull the same crap. I suppose Obama telling us to share the sacrifice and shut up and eat our peas is supposed to keep us cowering.

  • Patriot41

    This is what you get when you have moderate, establishment representatives leading your party.  Both Boehner and McConnell are responsible for this deliberate, unconstitutional agreement.  They could have very well refused to allow such a deplorable aberration of our Congressional procedures.  In the process, they willingly cut out the elected representation of the people.  Here they both criticized the Democrat majority of doing this over the last two years and then turn around and do the very same thing to their own people.  What stinking hypocrites they are!

    Interesting to note, Newt was the only one to bring this to the nation’s attention.  This is one of the reasons that we need Newt to stay in the race and go on the attack against the Washington establishment.  

  • Patriot41

    Were Newt sitting in a think tank somewhere, no one would be talking about this Ag.  There is nothing wonkish about citizens losing the representation in Congress.  Perhaps too many have already fallen asleep to realize what is going on in D.C.  Newt and all of the other candidates needs to be out ringing the bell and waking the citizens up before they lose what little representation that they have left.

  • Patriot41

    No, they are giving him attention Florin because he knows what he is talking about.  If you would get rid of your obvious bias toward Newt and listen, you too might learn something.

  • Patriot41

    Obvious liberal response.

  • Patriot41

    Jim, the problem would remain as this Congress would use the extra income for more spending, they are not concerned with cutting the deficit one little bit.  If they were, they would have passed the cut, cap and balanced budget amendment, enough said.

  • Niniane

    Only one member of the super-committee seems to have reached out to the American public for deficit reduction ideas. Sen. Rob Portman (R) from Ohio still has a link on his website where folks can submit ideas:  so at least there is one guy willing to gather answers from all those not represented.

  • Walter_Peterson

    I must agree.  What does it mean if I vote for someone for Congress, and that person looses?  Am I truly represented? 
    Maybe, we need to rethink the whole idea of representation.  How about this:  Let’s have each state’s delegation in the House of Representatives chosen by proxy, instead of voting on election day.  Each candidate would have to collect proxies from the voters in his or her state to get elected.  A certain minimum number of proxies would be necessary to get elected.  Furthermore, each Representative would have to maintain that number of proxies throughout his or her term.  If enough voters withdrew their proxies, and transferred them to some other candidate who then held more proxies, the holder of the lesser number would loose his or her seat, and be replaced by the holder of the greater number.  How’s that for representation?

  • Ed_USA

    And the most amazing part is that the GOP is still likely to lose.

    It’s quite true that Obama’s base, myself included, is disgusted with him. He neglected the economy and blew all his political capital on the health care bill, which he allowed to be emasculated in Congress. Likewise, he didn’t ensure that the stimulus money was adequate and well spent. Now he’s hurtin’.

    But… the GOP race has been a freak parade of unelectable nut-bags, each more ridiculous than the one before. Obama polls worse than the “generic Republican”, but in every poll Obama beats every actual GOP candidate.

    So, I hope you enjoy the 2nd term of the president you love to hate. I hope I enjoy it too. I hope that Obama will grow a pair and stop trying to appease the GOP. But even with that faint spark of hope, I can’t vote for him because of his reprehensible record on “state secrets”.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    but in every poll Obama beats every actual GOP candidate

    Uh, no. He’s been losing for at least a week or two in those polls and the Republicans have barely even started to campaign or to select a candidate. Keep hope and change alive! (He changed lower unemployment under Bush into 3 years of 16% unemployment). And why ARE we in 3 wars with Gitmo open? And why DID Obama give all those trillions to banks and corporations? You dumbasses on the left don’t even know what you are voting for. But it’s not the people that are being looked out for . . . never has been by the left and never will be . . . u is a “useful idiot.” Google it and learn.

  • Ed_USA

    Vintage Le-roy, ignorant and dishonest as always. Here’s a link to a run-down of the polls.

    I DO have to take back the “every”. In JUST ONE poll, Romney beats Obama. Just one.

    As for “useful idiot”s, let’s look at the guy who started the wars, especially the completely unnecessary one in Iraq. Interestingly, the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression occurred on his watch. Who elected GW Bush? Were you part of that fine bit of political choosing?

    I’m kind of hoping that Palin joins the race, just to add to the already farcical circus. She can’t win, but neither can any of the others, except maybe, just maybe, Romney? So what about Romney? You like Romney? You’d better, ’cause he’s your only hope to beat Obama.

  • Florin S.

    If I would listen to newt maybe I would learn something? Yes – I would probably learn that it’s okay to go after someone (Clinton) for behavior that I mayself was engaged in. I would learn that it’s okay to divorce my wives when I found out they had serious diseases…wife number one and wife number two. I would learn that’s it’s okay to commit adultery and then have the audacity to expect the public to put my former mistress into the White House with me. I would learn that it’s okay to have no core principles except those that advance my own personal agenda: ME!!! I would learn to say and do anything that would advance my agenda making me a RINO…I would learn that there are those who won’t even realize this and I could take full advantage of this in order to keep my puffy face out there and bring in more money….

  • Florin S.

    Florin S. 0 minutes ago in reply to Patriot41 If I would listen to newt maybe I would learn something? Yes – I would probably learn that it’s okay to go after someone (Clinton) for behavior that I mayself was engaged in. I would learn that it’s okay to divorce my wives when I found out they had serious diseases…wife number one and wife number two. I would learn that’s it’s okay to commit adultery and then have the audacity to expect the public to put my former mistress into the White House with me. I would learn that it’s okay to have no core principles except those that advance my own personal agenda: ME!!! I would learn to say and do anything that would advance my agenda making me a RINO…I would learn that there are those who won’t even realize this and I could take full advantage of this in order to keep my puffy face out there and bring in more money…. you are ‘biased’ in favor of Newt…I wonder why?

  • Florin S.

    I am an Independent voter and will vote for anyone who comes up against Obama…except for newt – who treated his wives so shabbily, who treats women shabbily, who is committed only to himself and his personal agenda…

  • Leroy_Whitby

    Well, Gallup was the poll I saw Ed. Your link shows Quinnepac and PPP with a tie, etc. But you CAN remain confident based on one recent poll showing Obama ahead of Romney./sarc

    And by your comment above that you do have to “take back the ‘EVERY’ poll showing Obama ahead of EVERY DECLARED GOP CANDIDATE” . . . you mean, “yes, I was wrong and you caught me in it an untruth.” But you still have to try to insult don’t you!? Insult away. That’s all liberals have left in their arsenal now that their policies are historic failures. Liberals are mainly driven by hatred anyway.

    You are the useful idiot that voted in the President who now has the worst economic record since FDR, thinking he was on your side. Google useful idiot. It is YOU!

    You thought you were voting for a guy that would help the common man . . . but instead the nation got . . . 16% Unemployment . . . 33% for blacks . . . 40% for black teens. Was that the hope and change you wanted? You thought you were voting for a guy that would stop the encroachments on our liberties because of war. Instead you got another war added to the other two, a troop surge in Afghanistan, and the TSA body scanners and groping, and Gitmo still going. Obama is for big government and big corporations. You got used, like the dumb ass that you are.

    “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” YOU BELIEVED THAT DIDN’T YOU?

  • Florin S.

    What lens are you looking through????  If you want Newt…you can have him.  Boehner and McConnell may not do everything you want them to do (and I am not completely happy with them) – but Gingrich is a dishonorable man…a dishonest, manipulative man…and if you think he has any chance of winning the nomination, you must be on a different planet…

  • Florin S.

    And – again, Romney is not the perfect candidate but he has never had any scandal attached to his name…unlike Newt…who served his first wife divorce papers while she was in hospital seriously…when asked about this, he replied that he can’t remember – can’t remember such a significant occurence?  And he is supposed to be such a brainiac? Or he can’t remember because it’s just one of many sleazy things he’s done?

  • Telescoping You

    I agree that Gingrich should stay in this race.  Combined, he and Palin are the only two who have the moxie, gravitas and insight to lead this country on a productive and prosperous course.  Both share a common love for our Constitutional Republic unlike anyone since Reagan or our Founding Fathers.

    These two, of course, are mega-targets of the worthless left and will constantly be dragged into the pit of putrid slim liberals live.  But, it would seem that these two are exactly what this country needs to elevate us from the scourge of worthless liberalism, pushing them back fifty years, maybe one hundred.

    At this time in our history we certainly need divine providence to intervene, just as our founders needed 250 years ago.

    May GOD bless America, again.

  • Walter_Peterson

    Back room deals have been going on for quite a while.  As I recall, a back room deal decided the election of 1876.  How would you stop them?  What can do do besides just hope that the member of Congress will just be up front with the people?

  • Patriot41

    Must be nice to be as pure as the win driven snow.  I was talking politics when I made that statement but apparently you are so self righteous that you never picked up on it.  If one were to dig around in your closet I would bet they could come up with some things to hammer you with, what about it.

  • Walter_Peterson

    Newt’s distorted, little map looks like a flying insect.  We could call it a “Newt gnat,” a new form of gerrymander.

  • Ed_USA

    “He’s been losing for at least a week or two in those polls”

    I believe that’s what you said, isn’t it, you lying swine. What I said was much closer to the facts than what you said. The vast majority of the polls have Obama winning. That’s what you need to get used to.

    But yes, Obama has been quite disappointing. At times I wish that the Dems had just let McCain win. That way the GOP would have been saddled with Bush’s mess.

    To be fair, (though there’s not much reason to be fair with the likes of you), Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which was perhaps the biggest factor in letting the banks go on a gambling binge with OTC derivatives. So it’s not just GOP at fault. But Bush let it go unchecked for 8 years and also presided over the gov’t relaxing the Net Capital Rule in ’04 for five investment banks, all of which went under as a consequence. Try to blame it on Obama all you want, the facts say that Bush fiddled while Wall St. spent years piling up kindling and then burned to the ground.

    Get used to Obama. You’re very likely to get 4 more years of him. Enjoy, Le-roy.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    You don’t even believe the spew you are putting out now. Bush was for big government. Obama is for big government. Bush was for endless war. Obama is for endless war. The only change is the Tea Party. You and your type are going to get passed by, God willing.

  • Ed_USA

    “The only change is the Tea Party.”

    The Tea Party? You mean those confused old codgers who seem to support everybody except Ron Paul, the one guy in the GOP who’s been consistently making the case for small gov’t for years?

    Um, right. Good luck with that. I predict that the new “Tea Party” will be just as much history as the old Tea Party in a few short years. Either they’ll all die off, or they’ll fall inline behind a big gov’t GOP pres, just like they fell in line behind Bush. Where was the outrage when Bush created Medicare Part D and started the war in Iraq? Where was your Tea Party then? Oh yeah, they were lined up behind Bush and behind Cheney and his NeoCons.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    Thank you for your pretend good wishes. I don’t know why you aren’t rooting for the people, but you have whatever you give allegience to . . . I assume some sort of utopian leftwing quasi religious fantasy. We took the Congress in 2010 and we’ll take the Senate and the Presidency in 2012. If we get a big government Republican President next year or Obama kiss your ass goodbye and your childrens, if you have them, because the nation is doomed. And if you don’t know that the Republicans are taking the Senate and the Presidency next year, you are not a good analyst. The Tea Party is the biggest social movement since the anti-war movement . . . but it is made up of families, “codgers,” students, women, men, intellectuals, blue collar people. Know who they are? Americans.

    Regarding Bush the conservatives fought him and didn’t win on the big government stuff, and the Tea Party movement hadn’t formed yet. It’s a new thing. We’ll see if we get Bush / McCain types again. I hope not. Regarding Ron Paul, he got on the wrong side of the scotts irish/Reagan Democrat vote by being against wars while troops are in the field and he isn’t coming back from it that likely. But he is winning the day on his ideas which is what he is for anyway . . . and he knows it. He isn’t dumb. Hopefully he will give a serious endorsement this go round.

    You see the pain that big government is causing but hope for the small government activists in the Tea Party to lose. That is just awful.

  • texasrox

    good grief, are you for real?

  • Ed_USA

    Earlier you cited a Gallup poll. Suck on this one

    Be sure to look near the bottom, where it shows that Tea Party support has fallen to 25%. What was Obama’s approval at again? Oh yeah, Gallup’s most recent number has it at 39%.

    Also, why don’t you have a go at taking away Social Security and Medicare from all of those “small gov’t” Tea Partiers? See how far that gets you. Or just watch how Perry will crash and burn when people learn where he stands on Social Security.

    I would like, however, to see where the “conservatives” opposed Bush on Medicare Part D and on the wars.

  • Ed_USA

    “are you for real?”

    Very much so. What about you? Do you have anything substantive to say, or do you just ask stupid questions?

  • RandyReichert

    you were incredible on the last FOX news debate. Loved when you nailed Wallace on the “gotcha” questions! But you have to step up the powerful language and use your considerable knowledge to bludgeon  the competition out. Many of the GOP are fine people, however are not thoughtful or experienced enough to lead this country out of the crisis’ we currently face. Between the security issues we face as well as the severe economic disaster we have all created, we need someone like you to lead us. KICK IT IN GEAR BUDDY!
    A FAN

  • Leroy_Whitby

    LOL! So 67% of the country is a strong supporter of the Tea Party, a supporter of the Tea Party, or neither for or against! I’m still laughing. Thank you.

    Here’s a Gallup poll showing that female approval of Obama has fallen to 41%. He got 56% of the female vote in 2008.

    Regarding Bush’s big government conservatism and the wars I recommend you look at Buchanan, Paul, Reason Magazine and the libertarian wing of the party, and a gazillion bloggers as the internet took off. The neo-cons were in charge under Bush. They suck if you are a small government rights oriented conservative. Obama is the flip side of that same coin. Fascist to the core. Big government, big business, foreign wars. You are always looking for a bullshit argument rather than the reality. Conservatives haven’t been in charge of the Republican Party since Coolidge. Reagan was a conservative but he didn’t have Congress as Republican, much less with a strong conservative group.

    But we conservatives aren’t going away and we are fighting now (finally) for dominance. We win or this nation (you and yours included) lose their freedom. And I guarantee you that you will not be in the handful of lords over the people if the Obama type fascists triumph.

    It’s like the housewives in the 70′s that wanted to be Victorian era British because of what they’d seen on Masterpiece Theatre. . . they were never the old scullery maid in their fantasies, but were the lady of the manor or the young daughter of the prominent family. You going to be our fascist overlord Ed? I don’t think so.

  • Ed_USA

    “67% of the country is a strong supporter of the Tea Party, a supporter of the Tea Party, or neither for or against!”

    Better stated, 46% are either neutral or have no opinion. In other words, they don’t care much about a band of angry old white people in tri-cornered hats.

    “You going to be our fascist overlord Ed? I don’t think so.”

    Neither do I. I expect that I’ll be a citizen in a country with a mixed economy – capitalist but with gov’t services and regulation to handle the many known ways that markets fail. I don’t suppose that you’d like to place a very substantial wager on whether my expectation will be met? What do you suppose are the odds that the USA will NOT have a mixed economy in 20 years?

    You, on the other hand, seem to think you’ll be rich enough to live w/o gov’t services. That’s unlikely, and even if you are, the Tea Partiers aren’t. You’ll take Medicare and Social Security, just like they do. If you get hit by a hurricane you’ll thank FEMA for rescuing you. Even Ayn Rand took Social Security and Medicare. Do you think your Tea Partiers are more committed to small gov’t than Ayn Rand was?

    Hell, you should be thanking the gov’t right now for heading off a total banking collapse that was brought on by TOTALLY UNREGULATED trading in OTC derivatives.

  • Ed_USA

    “We win or this nation (you and yours included) lose their freedom.”

    You won’t win. People value gov’t services, Social Security, Medicare, etc. far too much to give them up to mollify delusional ideologues like you. You should note that the Medicare Part D bill was passed by the GOP, with only 9 Dems voting for it in the House. Do you actually think that ANY Congress is going to scrap Medicare?

    But the freedom pendulum will swing back from our current post 9/11 surveillance state when people get tired of getting groped at the airport.

    Let’s get to your man Coolidge. If you like Coolidge then you must love Romney. Both served as Governor of Massachusetts, where both supported liberal causes. Coolidge supported wage and hours legislation, child labor laws, safety measures in factories, civil rights for blacks and Catholics, and worker representation on corporate boards. Romney, of course, put in place universal heath care in MA.

    As pres. Coolidge did lower taxes and limit the federal gov’t, but that sure didn’t help with the Mississippi flood of 1927. It also produced the 1920′s stock bubble that caused the Great Depression. I doubt that Romney would make those mistakes. He seems like more of a big gov’t type Republican. But Romney is the only GOP candidate with any hope of being elected, so you’d best get behind him if you want Obama out.

  • pcmanary3756

    You are absolutely correct in that a great deal of our problems begin in the classroom.  The remainder of the problerms are with parents who have not taught their children  a sense of  responsibility for their
    their own behavior and to  expect the same from others.  The morality of this nation is at an all time low.

    P.S. I have read each article printed here with interest…until I reached the Ed/Leroy show…please do not make this site into a forum to trade personal insults. I hear enough of that on TV, etc.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    Ah yes, the old false choice. We need to have massive tax increases OR massive deficits. We need to have a huge Federal government of unlimited powers OR no government services and regulations. Federalism and a limited and Constitutionally bounded Federal government resolves BOTH of those issues.

    And the banking collapse was the result of a Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government entities, running amuck and politicians and bankers colluding to open up the mortgage markets to fraud and poor lending practices. Pure government/business corruption BASED on regulation and political action.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    Well I’m glad you are a Coolidge fan. Let’s emulate his policies again. I’m tired of socialist failure. And you do realize the people here have access to search engines and have brains right? I love the pretense of you left trolls that any response is a rebuttal, any slant or mischaracterization will do, and no point actually deserves to be considered. So the stock market bubble in 1929 caused the 15% unemployment under Franklin Roosevelt in 1940. Doesn’t pass any test, smell, laugh or otherwise. Stop making false arguments. Stupid waste of time even for a socialist.

  • Ed_USA

    “Doesn’t pass any test, smell, laugh or otherwise.”

    For some ideologues who won’t face facts, perhaps. Had there been no 1929 crash, do you really believe that FDR would have faced such an employment crisis? How many banks failed under Nixon, who imposed socialist wage and price controls vs. under Reagan, who deregulated? You don’t know? No surprise there. Here’s a handy chart

    How about bank failures in the late 1800s during the laissez faire period in the US? As it happens, bank failures were quite routine in those years. In 1893 4.2% of banks failed, almost the same as the high point for the Great Depression in 1931.

    The only thing that doesn’t pass the laugh test here is your grasp of history. Your ideas of unregulated capitalism have been tried, and they failed spectacularly. As a result, there is NOT ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE ON THE PLANET of a country with a laissez faire economy today. ALL of the most advanced and richest nations have mixed capitalist/socialist economies. That’s reality, and you should try to face up to it.

    Maybe you can explain the Long Depression of 1873-9. The US was on a species standard (gold and silver) then. The US economy was as laissez faire as it’s ever been in its history.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    So I take it your answer is “Yes, Franklin Roosevelt’s 15% unemployment in 1940 was due to the stock market bubble in 1929.” Raw, unadulterated, foolishness.

    And I lived through the ’80′s. We did great.

    And I think attempting to deflect the conversation to a depression 140 years ago is also raw, unadulterated foolishness, with a dash of sophistry and avoidance thrown in.

  • Ed_USA

    “the old false choice.”

    Yup, that’s what the Tea Party offers. Who was it that was unwilling to compromise in the debt ceiling debate? The Tea Party, if you can manage to remember what happened just a few weeks ago. And the public opinion of the Tea Party declined because of their intransigence.

    The false choice is on your side. I know of nobody on the left who favors “a huge Federal government of unlimited powers”, while I can point to many on the Right who want the gov’t to provide only military, police, and courts. Many in the Libertarian wing of the GOP favor NO environmental regulations, NO SEC, NO Fed.

    Strangely, it’s the Left who favor limited changes to the current system while “conservatives” favor radical changes.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    You don’t really believe all that do you?

  • Ed_USA

    “the banking collapse was the result of a Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government entities”

    That is simply false. Get these facts to see if they support your claim.

    1) What percentage of sub-prime mortgages were securitized as MBS and/or CDO derivatives?

    2) What percentage of the derivatives were issued by Fannie/Freddie vs private investment banks?

    3) What percentage of the derivatives were purchased by gov’t vs. private buyers?

    I’ll assert this right now, and call you a damned liar if you cannot disprove it. THE VAST MAJORITY OF SUB-PRIME MORTGAGES WERE ISSUED BY, SECURITIZED BY, SOLD BY, AND PURCHASED BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR. I call you out right now, swine. TRY TO DISPROVE IT, if you can. Otherwise, stop with your infernal lying.

    Your Fannie/Freddie canard is believed only by ignorant and dishonest ideologues trying to somehow blame a market failure on the gov’t. And by the way, Fannie/Freddie were privatized years ago. They got into the derivatives biz late only to mollify their private shareholders who saw the private sector spinning money and wanted a piece of it.

    Read this and learn, bozo.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    Foolishness. Fannie and Freddie and Ginnie insure, buy and guarantee those “private” mortgages. Fannie / Freddie were not privatized years ago. They have always been quasi-governmental. They were taken off the books by LBJ but they are always backed by the govt whenever they get in trouble with huge bailouts and everyone in finance knows it. People call them GSE or somesuch. It is very disingenuous of you to not fairly account for the nature of them. And it’s you who isn’t looking at the housing bubble fairly.

  • Ed_USA

    Of course I do. Show me ONE Lefty who’s calling for a gov’t with “unlimited powers”. Just one.

    As I say, I can show you plenty who favor NO federal regulation of environment, education, etc. I’ll start with Ron Paul.

  • Ed_USA

    Almost everything you said in this post is just plain wrong. Freddie Mac was created in 1970 as part of the privatization of Fannie Mae. Fannie/Freddie had implied, but no explicit, guarantee of federal backing. In the end the gov’t bailed out both Fannie/Freddie AND the private investment banks, plus AIG. How, exactly, were Fannie/Freddie special in the end?

    Finally, you have not even tried to address the FACT that the Fannie/Freddie share of securitized sub-prime FELL during the sub-prime boom. It was the private sector that dominated it. At their peak, Fannie/Freddie purchased less than 40% of sub-prime securities. That leaves more than 60% of the problem elsewhere. Again, JUST TRY TO PROVE THAT WRONG. I predict that you won’t even try, because you know that you are lying.

    I don’t hold Fannie/Freddie blameless. They were clearly part of the problem. But they came late into a sub-prime securities market that was created and dominated by private companies. That is simply a fact, and one that your cartoonish world view is too fragile to face up to.

    Frankly I don’t see how you have the gall to comment on issues that you clearly know nothing about.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    I don’t necessarily trust your figures, but I’ll use them. Give me 40% of a market and I’ll be the dominant player in it. I don’t think you understand markets. Or that the defacto guaranteed government bailouts were a massive moral hazard . . . that played out and sunk the economy.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    Obama is a fascist who is growing government everywhere and every opportunity he gets, with much of the spending being massive transfers to the giant corporations and banks that are his friends, and you are posting this nonsense about what is said. Look at what is being DONE.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    Ed, to be honest I sometimes don’t pay much attention to the details of your posts because your thinking is not valuable in my estimation except as a foil. That said, I did just google the whole Fannie / Freddie claim that Freddie was created as “part of the spin off.” I was right there. Johnson took Fannie off the books in 1968. Freddie was started (by the Federal Government) in ’70 under Nixon. Separate. You just flummox around doing random google searches. I doubt you have ever dealt with Fannie or Freddie in school or in your professional life but you blither as if though you actually know something.

    Here’s the Google I did:

    For the first thirty years following its inception, Fannie Mae held a veritable monopoly over the secondary mortgage market. In 1968, due to fiscal pressures created by the Vietnam War, Lyndon B. Johnson privatized Fannie Mae in order to remove it from the national budget. At this point, Fannie Mae began operating as a GSE, generating profits for stock holders while enjoying the benefits of exemption from taxation and oversight as well as implied government backing. In order to prevent any further monopolization of the market, a second GSE known as Freddie Mac was created in 1970. Currently, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac control about 90 percent of the nation’s secondary mortgage market.

    Notice also the “90%” figure of control over the secondary mortgage market there. Sort of makes me feel good about my earlier post saying I didn’t trust your figures but would use them to respond.

    Now please go away. You don’t know anything worth my time here, and if you aren’t being intentionally misleading, you are just arguing in order to avoid facing up to the horrific failure of big government, Keynesian policies under Bush and Obama.

  • Ed_USA

    “Sort of makes me feel good about my earlier post saying I didn’t trust your figures but would use them to respond.”

    That’s because you are an idiot and you don’t understand what you are reading. You seem to have finally noticed that Fannie Mae was privatized and that Freddie Mac was created specifically to be a competitor to the privatized Fannie Mae. Your “LBJ took it off the books” crap is totally irrelevant.

    Likewise, your 90% of the market figure is meaningless. You need to distinguish between prime and sub-prime mortgages. Prime mortgages, of which Fannie/Freddie guarantee essentially all, have never been a problem. The problem was sub-prime mortgages.

    Normally sub-prime has been a tiny part of the market, except for an explosion in the mid-2000s. Here’s a graph that shows it. Prior to 1990 subprime was almost non-existent. Since sub-prime is generally well below 10% of mortgages, it’s rather obvious that Fannie/Freddie could guarantee 90% of mortgages without touching a single sub-prime. Obvious, that is, if you are not an innumerate bozo with an ideological axe to grind.

    Note how that burst of subprime corresponds with the creation of the first mortgage-backed CDO derivative by Credit Suisse in 2000 and the change to the Net Captial Rule in 2004. Note also how it DOES NOT correspond to the much blamed CRA, which was enacted in 1977 and worked fine for 25 years.

    Fannie/Freddie did, in fact, start buying Alt-A and interest-only loans as their market share FELL, and they lost big on this, as did the private investors who bought over 60% of sub-primes. Here’s a detailed explanation It’s only BECAUSE Fannie Mae was privatized that it faced any pressure at all to fight for market share when the private banks started securitizing sub-primes. A pure gov’t agency could have just stuck to primes and let the private sector have sub-prime. But the privatized Fannie had to compete with the banks for profits.

    The other factor in the 2008 collapse was credit default swaps, which took down AIG. What caused that? The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 did. It declares credit default swaps (and other derivatives) to be unregulated, banning the SEC, Fed, CTFC, state insurance companies, and others from meaningful oversight. CDS eventually destroyed AIG and others. How’s that for the results of your unregulated capitalism? Even that Ayn Rand disciple Alan Greenspan admitted the “flaw” in his theories over that one. Have you admitted it yet?

    You quite obviously know nothing about this subject. You should STFU and stop making yourself look stupid.

  • Ed_USA

    “Obama is a fascist”

    ‘Nuff said right there. You are obviously a delusional moron who can speak only in wild exaggerations and ignorant nonsense.

  • Guest

    The simple fact that you need to get through your head is that most mortgages, generally 90%+, are prime. Every mortgage loan I’ve ever got was a prime fixed rate, and every one went to Fannie or Freddie. But like most homeowners, I’ve never missed a payment. I’ve never even been late on a payment. Yet you seem to think that Fannie/Freddie backing mortgages like mine is a problem.

    Do you make up your own nonsense, or do you get it from the Fox propaganda machine? How’s Glenn Beck been lately, now that he’s gone too crazy even for Fox?

  • Ed_USA

    Here is a very detailed explanation of the Fannie/Freddie role in the sub-prime collapse.

    Read it and learn. Start with the graphs on page 20 that show the F/F market share. They show that F/F WERE NOT the major drivers of the sub-prime market. In fact most sub-primes were issued, securitized, sold, and purchased by PRIVATE institutions.

    In addition it should be noted that the CDO derivatives that drove those sub-primes were insured by CDS issued by PRIVATE insurers like AIG.

    If you read this document then you might just begin to know something about the 2008 sub-prime crash. What you’ve posted thus far has shown that you are utterly and completely ignorant about it. Again, that you have the gall to make your ridiculous pronouncements about it is truly astonishing.

    Read the paper. I guarantee that the professors of finance who wrote it know more than you do, ’cause you don’t know much of anything.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    Yah, he’s just persecuting his political enemies using the power of the state and giving tax dollars to his allies. Nothing fascist there.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    Unfortunately I don’t have time today to go down the rabbit hole with you Ed. It can be informative because I discover the core error of the left’s talking points on a subject with you and it’s great. Regardless, realize that trying to get away from the huge and malignant influence of Federal policies on mortgages, coming from the big government, “race” and “everyone should have a home” pressure on the banks and the crazy guarantees from the GSE’s is a dishonest enterprise on your part. Recognize that Federal policy was screwed up in mortgages (duh) and that the GSE’s played a huge role, as did the accusations of racism etc., and move on. And you went down this path to avoid another point! Always deflection, never grappling with the core of the other person’s argument with you.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    I’m not sure why your post matters in this context. When the prime loans are made with false docs and the housing market has inflated prices due to the willy nilly guarantees, and Fannie and Freddie needed massive bailouts, so the loan guarantees and purchases weren’t safe. The securitization process blew up and was a contagion to the rest of the financial world and Fannie/Freddie was involved in 90% of that. I think you are equating subprime with secondary. They are not the same at all.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    Heh. Curse away. It doesn’t change the waste of your time or your deflection to avoid the role of the Feds in this debacle.

  • Ed_USA

    “I don’t have time today to go down the rabbit hole”

    You mean that you are too ideological or lazy to read serious articles that specifically address the point under discussion and that demonstrate that you don’t know what you are talking about.

    That’s fine. Maintain your willful ignorance. It suits you. But anyone who reads those links will know, as I do, that you are full of crap.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    No I mean I don’t have time to review your random google results on a topic. This whole deflection of a conversation was based on your response to me teasing you with Obama’s failure in the eyes of the public. Can’t face that can we? : )

    Regarding what started this . . . The bottom has fallen out for Obama but the Democrats are stuck with him, no primary challenge, because of his ego and his race. The black vote will go crazy if he gets primaried. Enjoy.

  • Ed_USA

    If you ever stop being too lazy and dogmatic to bother with the facts, look at this

    Maybe if you learn the actual facts then your opinions won’t be so ridiculous.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    Thanks for the google search Ed! Man, I value that. /sarc

  • Ed_USA

    Since you are too lazy to do your own research, I thought I’d spoon feed it for you. Evidently you are too lazy even for that.

    It’s quite lucky for you that ignorance is bliss. You must be just ecstatic all the time.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    No, I’m just too busy for your desire to chat in depth on a deflection. I already know that the causes of the 2008 downturn are legion. I also know Fannie and Freddie played a big role in it. So I know that your attempt to say not is silly. Tracking down your misreadings, misunderstandings, straw men, logical errors, deflections, and general avoidance techniques or the errors of your sources doesn’t entice me today. Big government = Economic Failure. We see it in the USA today. Obama is hideously unpopular and will almost certainly lose the election. If he does not we can all kiss our nation and our freedom goodbye.

    Bottom line: It’s been 3 years of Obama since 2008. It’s Obama’s failure now.

  • Ed_USA

    “Big government = Economic Failure”

    I like the way you boil things down to such simplistic statements. It certainly eliminates a lot of the troublesome complexities that get introduced when you consider the actual facts.

    I’m sure we’re all hoping that small, unintrusive governments like that of China will keep lending us money until we can bust our big government down to a small enough size that we won’t fail economically.

    Boiling everything down to five-word maxims must save you lots of time, since you don’t have to read papers by economics professors examining the real-world data. Maybe I’ll try your approach sometime. Or not.