Promoted from the diaries. “The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled.” - Cicero. 106-43 B.C. Our nation is in economic turmoil, and American families are focused on what matters the most: putting food on the table and keeping the lights on.With economic growth stagnating and over 13 million Americans still jobless, it is clear that our priorities now, more than ever, cannot be frivolous. Our government spending cannot grow further out of control, and our politicians cannot lose sight of what is most important to the hardworking American people. Knowing this, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich chose to blatantly pander to a Florida crowd on the space coast (known for its support for NASA) when he told them that as President, he would use taxpayer dollars to expand the role of the federal government in manned space exploration, with the goal of building a colony on the moon by the end of his second term. After this announcement, many Americans were left scratching their heads especially since Newt is more prone to quoting George Washington rather than George Jetson. And when you factor in that our free enterprise system is at stake, how can we afford for anyone to lose sight of what matters most to the American people and heedlessly pursue more wasteful government programs? Building a federally-funded moon colony would inevitably cost—at the very least—billions of dollars. In addition to our current overspending, this would ultimately saddle our children with the price tag for another one of Speaker Gingrich’s grandiose ideas. The idea of a moon colony is purely pandering to a crowd for a few votes. And it takes away from the more immediate, important, and realistic goals of the space program; encouraging partnerships between the space program and private businesses to grow the technology, engineering, and manufacturing sectors of our economy. We can and should embrace the value of science and space exploration but we must maintain fiscal sanity by using tax dollars more strategically and leveraging them more effectively. The pioneers of flight and space exploration are inspiring to millions and the advancements that result are beneficial to our quality of life and also critical to our national security – particularly as China ramps up aggressively in this area. But I am less concerned about creating a government program to build a colony on the moon and more concerned about reducing government to build a strong economy here on earth. Encouraging these private sectors to partner with the space program puts the focus on where we need it now, stimulating our economy and putting people back to work. Quite frankly, it’s hard to take the Speaker seriously as a fiscal conservative when he puts these extravagant expensive ideas over the economic well being of the next generation. Already, the debt of the U.S. federal government threatens to engulf the next generation of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. Each American citizen’s share of the United States’ public debt is over $48,000, but let’s be honest for a minute. This burden won’t fall on our shoulders: it will fall on our children’s. There is over $200,000 in government debt for every American child. My goal is to shrink this number, and we can if we pursue policies that make life better for American households — unlike Speaker Gingrich’s moon colony. Our children are far too precious to be saddled with growing debt for a government that doesn’t keep its promises. This money is better spent on earth – or kept in the pockets of American families, where it truly belongs. Mr. Gingrich has a history and habit of pandering with hope of gaining instant inspiration – and not just on intergalactic relations either. In a debate last month, he touted his plan for personal savings accounts for social security. I’m a strong supporter of that when our nation can afford it, but Speaker Gingrich couldn’t give a credible answer as to how he could actually accomplish this. The American people know better – and they realize our country has reached record deficits. Remember, we heard the same type of over-the-top costly promises from President Obama two speeches ago when he pledged a nation-wide train system. A good sounding idea, but with where our finances are right now, not a practical one. At least the President’s idea dealt with infrastructure on earth and not the moon. As president, I would have my priorities in order and focus on the things that matter most for American households: creating jobs, economic growth, protecting the family, and ensuring a prosperous and free future for our most precious assets, our children. I will work to ensure that every American has the chance to build his or her own dream – and that starts with fiscal sanity from the White House. Our top priority should be ensuring the economic freedom and well being of all Americans, who already live in the greatest nation, on the greatest planet, Earth. Rick Santorum, a former representative and senator from Pennsylvania, is a candidate for the Republican nomination for president.
A struggling soap-opera actor has reportedly taken his own life following regret after euthanizing his dog due to pressure from his Upper West Side condo management. The New York Post reports that friends of 47-year-old Nick Santino say that the actor wrote in his suicide note “Today I betrayed my best friend and put down my best friend.” “Rocco trusted me and I failed him. He didn’t deserve this.” US Weekly reports that Santino had appeared on seven episodes of All My Children and six episodes of Guiding Light , and had been feeling “harassed” by his building management company, according to his neighbor Lia Pettigrew. US reports on the sad turn of events: “He was allegedly threatened with a $250 fine for having a barking dog, but according to neighbor Kevan Cleary, ‘the dog was not a barker, but somebody complained that the dog would bark.’ Santino phoned a former girlfriend at 2 a.m. Wednesday. Police found Santino’s body in his bedroom later that afternoon. The actor had overdosed on pills.” Rocco was Euthanized on Santino’s birthday. The Post reports that Santino was born in Brooklyn and raised in an orphanage and foster homes. The actor adopted Rocco from a shelter several years ago, and often mentioned his pet on Facebook, writing “I did not rescue Rocco, Rocco rescued me.” The Post reports that Rocco has been cremated, and friends said Santino’s remains will be too, and they will be reunited. NY Post : A member of the condo board that soap actor Nick Santino said pressured him to euthanize his pit bull — a “betrayal” that drove him to suicide — refused to accept any responsibility for the double tragedy yesterday. “I’m sorry the man is dead,” board member Marilyn Fireman barked to The Post, “But it has nothing to do with the pet policy.” “You just assumed that [his suicide] was a result of a board’s decision,” Fireman said, even though Santino routinely griped about the building’s anti-dog policies. Heartbroken relatives of the actor — who had stints on “All My Children” and “Guiding Light” — have retrieved the ashes of Rocco and plan to place them beside Santino’s body when he is laid to rest. More: Soap Actor Commits Suicide After Having to Put Down His Own Dog
More here:
Soap Actor Commits Suicide After Having to Put Down His Own Dog
Putting aside politics for a moment, I hope we can send our collective thoughts and prayers to the Santorum family. Rick Santorum’s 3 ½ year old daughter, Isabella, is seriously ill — she suffers from the genetic disorder Trisomy 18, also known as “Edwards Syndrome.” I understand very little about the malady, but it’s caused by a chromosomal anomaly and she exists “on the margins of life.” Santorum has been incredibly candid about young Bella’s illness, but his decision to temporarily suspend his campaign in Florida speaks to the gravity of her condition. She’s been admitted to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia for treatment — arguably the best pediatric hospital in the country, and I’m not just saying that because I was born there. Like I said, I don’t know bupkis about extra chromosomes or autosomal disorders, but I know this little girl has already put up one heck of a fight. The median lifespan for this condition is 5-15 days, and only 8% of infants born with this syndrome live to see their first birthday. One percent of children make it to ten years old, but that small percentage who survive birth and infancy often live to adulthood. Fingers crossed for the latter. I don’t have kids, and I can’t begin to imagine how difficult this must be for the Santorum family. All I know is, I hope this little girl gets better, and soon.
Go here to read the rest:
A Prayer for Isabella
This week President Obama handed down what may prove to be one of the most fateful decisions of his entire administration when he rejected the plan to build the Keystone XL Pipeline carrying oil from the tar sands of Canada to the refineries of Houston. The decision did not win him one new vote but was crucial in protecting his environmental flank. The movie stars and Sierra Club contributors were getting restless and had drawn the line in the sand. In turning down Keystone, however, the President has uncovered an ugly little secret that has always lurked beneath the surface of environmentalism. Its basic appeal is to the affluent. Despite all the professions of being “liberal” and “against big business,” environmentalism’s main appeal is that it promises to slow the progress of industrial progress. People who are already comfortable with the present state of affairs — who are established in the environment, so to speak — are happy to go along with this. It is not that they have any greater insight into the mysteries and workings of nature. They are happier with the way things are. In fact, environmentalism works to their advantage. The main danger to the affluent is not that they will be denied from improving their estate but that too many other people will achieve what they already have. As the Forest Service used to say, the person who built his mountain cabin last year is an environmentalist. The person who wants to build one this year is a developer. Environmentalism has spent three decades trying to hide this simple truth. How can environmentalists be motivated by self-interest when they are anti-business? Doesn’t that align them with the working classes? Well, not quite. You can be anti-business as a union member trying to claim higher wages but you can also be anti-business as a member of the aristocracy who believes “trade” and “commercialism” are crass and not attuned to the higher things in life. Environmentalism is born from the latter, not the former. It has spent decades trying to pretend it has common cause with the working people. With the defeat of the Keystone Pipeline, this is no longer possible. Too many blue-collar and middle-class jobs have been sacrificed on the altar of carbon emissions and global warming. In 1977, I wrote a cover story for Harper’s called “Environmentalism and the Leisure Class,” my first story for a national magazine. Environmentalism was very young at the time — born supposedly on Earth Day in 1970 — but had already achieved a seat in the upper echelons of the Carter Administration. These freshly appointed bureaucrats began canceling dams, preaching the sins of fossil fuels, and raising obstacles to nuclear power. In its place they promised distant, over-the-horizon technologies of wind and solar energy. I remember one iconic photograph of Andrew Young, Carter’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, holding a pyramid over his head on Earth Day in the fashionable superstition that pyramids had mysterious powers to concentrate the sun’s rays. My story in Harper’s was built around the devastating 1977 New York City blackout (the subject of the book The Bronx is Burning ) and the almost forgotten fact that Con Edison had been trying for 15 years to construct an upstate power plant designed to prevent blackouts. The Storm King Mountain facility was a pumped storage plant 40 miles up the Hudson that stored power overnight by pumping water uphill and then releasing it the next day to generate hydroelectricity. The idea was to avoid building more coal plants in New York City. As an added attraction, the utility never failed to mention, the floodgates could be opened in an instant to provide power in the event of an emergency, while ordinary generators took the better part of an hour to get up to speed. Pumped storage was considered an engineering marvel of the time and many were built. There are now about 30 around the country. In the Hudson Highlands, however, Con Ed had unwittingly disturbed a nest of New York aristocrats who had escaped from the city in the 19th century. As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (who now lives in the area) would write 30 years later without a trace of irony: The committee [the Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference] quickly found support among the well-heeled residents of the Hudson Highlands. Many of its founding members were the children and grandchildren of the Osborns, Stillmans, and Harrimans, the robber barons who had laid out great estates amid the Highlands’ spectacular scenery and whose descendants had fought fiercely since the turn of the century to preserve the views for themselves and the public. [John Cronin and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., The Riverkeepers , Scribner, 1997.] Well-connected both in New York society and the editorial pages of the New York Times, Scenic Hudson began an opposition campaign that eventually engulfed the entire city. The battle to “Save Storm King” was the nation’s first great environmental crusade, becoming a legal landmark when the Federal District Court allowed Scenic Hudson to intervene on environmental grounds for the first time in history. The case is still cited. Several Scenic Hudson members went on to found the Natural Resources Defense Council. Throughout the campaign Scenic Hudson insisted they were not opposed to electricity but only this particular way of generating it. There were plenty of alternatives — fuel cells, mine-mouth coal generation, gas turbines and even nuclear power, which they supported briefly before turning against it. What became obvious, however, was that at bottom they were opposed to everything. Industrial progress itself was the enemy. This was a useless undertaking that only tore at the fabric of nature in order to produce “common kilowatts.” The attitude was fairly new at that time in America. What finally focused my attention on the aristocratic roots of environmentalism, however, was a chapter in Thorstein Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class. Although the book is justly famous for coining “conspicuous consumption” and “conspicuous waste,” there is a lesser-known chapter entitled “Industrial Exemption” that perfectly describes the environmental zeitgeist. Veblen posed the question, why is it that people who are the greatest beneficiaries of industrial society are often the most passionate in condemning it? He provided a simple answer. People in the leisure class have become so accustomed affluence as the natural state of things that they no longer feel compelled to embrace any further industrial progress : The leisure class is in great measure sheltered from the stress of those economic exigencies which prevail in any modern, highly organized industrial community.… [A]s a consequence of this privileged position we should expect to find it one of the least responsive of the classes of society to the demands which the situation makes for a further growth of institutions and a readjustment to an altered industrial situation. The leisure class is the conservative class. My article generated 150 letters, including a response from a member of the Federal Power Commission who said that construction of new power plants wasn’t necessary. I was often criticized, however, for claiming only affluent people are concerned about the environment. The one response I ever got from the press was in the middle of Three Mile Island when National Public Radio called to ask, “What do you say about all those farmers worried about radiation? They’re not aristocrats, are they?” But that was not the point. It is not that the average person is not concerned about the environment. Everyone weighs the balance of economic gain against a respect for nature. It is only the truly affluent, however, who can be concerned about the environment to the exclusion of everything else. Most people see the benefits of pipelines and power plants and admit they have to be built somewhere. Only in the highest echelons do we hear people say, “We don’t need to build any pipelines. We’ve already got enough energy. We can all sit around awaiting the day we live off wind and sunshine.” Environmentalists have spent decades trying to disguise these aristocratic roots, even from themselves. They work desperately to form alliances with labor unions and cast themselves as purveyors of “green jobs.” But the Keystone Pipeline has brought all this into focus. As Joel Kotkin writes in Forbes, Keystone is the dividing line of the “two Americas,” the knowledge-based elites of the East and West Coasts in their media, non-profit and academic homelands (where Obama learned his environmentalism) and the blue-collar workers of the Great In- Between laboring in agriculture, mining, manufacturing, power production and the exigencies of material life. It’s going to be very difficult to erase that line during the election.
Everybody is talking about fixing earmarks as if they are the sole source of today’s deficit woes, despite the fact that all of my opponents enthusiastically participated in the process, and that earmarks have now been halted. But what I’m talking about is how to fix America’s economy so that entrepreneurs can create jobs and we as a nation can once again live within our means. My plan to cut spending and taxes will help hard-working Americans, and by one estimate, create ten million jobs within three years and move unemployment to below 6%. I will do this with your help by cutting $5 trillion in five years of federal spending we cannot afford, and passing a Balanced Budget Amendment so that we don’t do this again to future generations. More important to our fiscal health than a smokescreen on earmarks, I will reform Medicare and Social Security and end other entitlements for the able-bodied just as I have already done with welfare reform. Some specific spending cuts I will make include eliminating all energy subsidies while unleashing America’s domestic energy sources, eliminating at least half of the U.S. funding contribution to the United Nations while standing for America’s interests and values around the world, and downsizing the federal bureaucracy by eliminating at least 10% of non-defense related workers. The only government jobs President Obama is willing to cut are military jobs, the men and women who have served our nation in harm’s way, undermining our core constitutional responsibility to defend America. The one thing I will not cut is defense; the top responsibility of the federal government is to keep America safe. The real fiscal challenge that we face as a nation is the fact that President Obama and Congress are spending more than 40% more than we take in each year; racking up deficits of more than a trillion dollars a year on top of our 15-trillion plus debt which holds back our economy and undermines our future. The federal expansion of entitlements under ObamaCare significantly worsens this problem. President Obama thinks he can tax his way to growth to cover up his extreme over indulgence of hard earned taxpayer money. His theory and practice is to “spread the wealth” which actually spreads poverty and economic decline. In 2008, John McCain, whose impressive military service to the nation, one I greatly respect, based an entire presidential campaign attacking the earmarking process. Apparently he is bringing this back again as attempted cover for Governor Mitt Romney’s big-government ways such as the freedom-undermining insurance mandate in RomneyCare embraced in ObamaCare. Senator McCain, a moderate in many areas, did that in part in 2008 to shift the focus from his weak record on addressing the financial burden of growing entitlements, the real challenge to our long-term economic viability. I don’t recall Senator McCain joining me in leading the fight to reform entitlements on Welfare Reform, or arguing around the country for Social Security reform, or successfully embedding fundamental health-care reforms in Medicare, later undermined by ObamaCare. Having said that, Senator McCain is right about at least two things; Mitt Romney was significantly more moderate and big government than he, and, the earmarking process was being abused and had to be stopped. Just listen to Mitt Romney on earmarks: “I’d be embarrassed it I didn’t always ask for federal money whenever I get a chance.” That’s why I supported a moratorium on earmarks. The real straight-talk express on fiscal issues is the message I’ve been delivering: the need for sustainable entitlement reform. I have been riding around in a truck telling seniors in nursing homes in Iowa, and retirees in South Carolina, of the need to reform Medicare and Social Security, in particular. Entitlement programs represent nearly 60% of government spending, growing further on an unsustainable path as more people are in poverty under Obamanomics and more of our citizens become seniors. Let’s clear the record on earmarks with the help of Congressman Ron Paul whose passion I admire but who captures well the Massachusetts big-government flip- flopping on earmarks and spending, and Texas-sized grandstanding of my fellow candidates on this issue. During an interview with Neil Cavuto, after his second run for the presidency, Congressman Paul pointed out that eliminating earmarks wouldn’t cut one penny from the federal budget. Cavuto asked: “But would you argue, then sir, that, when John McCain was here saying the whole earmark thing itself is what’s out of control?” Paul: “Oh, no, no. He – he – totally misunderstands that. That’s grandstanding. If you cut off all the earmarks, it would be 1% of the budget. But if you vote against all the earmarks, you don’t cut one penny.” Here in 2009 Congressman Paul is telling it straight. Properly done, earmarks don’t add to total spending numbers, they take a percentage of dollars from the control of Washington bureaucrats and let local officials decide what is most important for their community instead, like those in South Carolina did in support of improving Charleston Harbor. You may not have heard that in 2009 Congressman Paul had more earmarks in a spending bill than any other Republican that same year. Paul, representing a single district, made over $157 million in earmark requests for 2011, one of only four House Republicans to request any earmarks. Additionally, he made over $398 million in earmark requests for 2010, again one of the leading Republican House members. I’m sure Governor Rick Perry, many of whose values I share, also agrees that his 1,180 plus special requests for funding from the federal government and his 26 years of Texas government service doesn’t mean that he no longer supports the 10 th Amendment. This adds up to about one federal funding letter request to Washington every four days. To say it’s OK to lobby for local projects — just not vote for them, or to ask for special projects but not to support the constitutional role of the legislature to provide them — doesn’t pass the test. While I share cowboy boots and many values with Texans, that’s not straight shootin’ where I come from in Pennsylvania. This is Texas-sized grandstanding to quote Congressman Paul. The real gateway drugs and the real challenge to America are not earmarks but exploding overall spending and rapidly growing entitlement liabilities which grow government, dependency, and economic decline. I’m not ashamed that I fought to have local officials and county commissioners in Pennsylvania decide the best use of their tax dollars rather than Washington bureaucrats. The question of who decides where to spend federal taxpayer dollars has already been decided by the Constitution — it’s the Congress. Abuse should be stopped and corruption should be prosecuted. I raised my hand and swore to uphold the Constitution for 16 years as a member of Congress, and I still passionately support it and thank God for the wisdom of our founders to let the representatives of the people decide rather than bureaucrats. The real question for our nation is who will lead us back to fiscal and economic strength. My focus is not on debating 1% of our fiscal challenges but on facing 100% of them. This abdication of leadership and smokescreens rather than telling the truth will only increase insecurity for seniors, limit the opportunities of young people, and put our nation’s security at risk. I have held more than 380 public events and town hall meetings in Iowa, more than 100 in New Hampshire, and I’ve already held nearly 150 public events in South Carolina. In every meeting, the American people are responding to real answers because they know the truth and they want the games to stop. They want the real challenges to be addressed head on. They want problem solving and a brighter future for their children. As far back as 1995 I was taking heat from the establishment for “rocking the boat” when I called on the Republican Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee to resign after he switched his vote to defeat the Balanced Budget Amendment by just one vote. Had he joined me and those who voted for it, we could have worked together to take away the credit card and put America on a budget. I can promise you this: nothing has changed since then except our growing debt. I am prepared to take the heat in order to lead our country once again to fiscal health and to restore America’s greatness for the future. Let’s keep our focus on the real spending problem: entitlements that need to be modernized, restrained, and made sustainable, the real need for a Balanced Budget Amendment, and the real goal which is defeating Barack Obama and restoring America’s future together. Game on. Rick Santorum, a former representative and senator from Pennsylvania, is a candidate for the Republican nomination for president.
Read more here:
Shootin’ Straight on Our Fiscal Challenges
