https://cached-assets.patriotpost.us/images/2017-10-02-447ef317_large.jpg" width="454" height="227" />
by Nate Jackson:  Puerto Rico took a direct hit from Hurricane Maria when the Category 4 storm blew through on Sept. 20. Nearly two weeks later, most of the island’s three million citizens are still without power, water or reliable communication.

          The small U.S. territory was underwater in debt and saddled with poor infrastructure after decades of Democrat mismanagement before the hurricane, and the storm only made matters worse. The logistical challenges of bringing aid are formidable, and Carmen Yulín Cruz, Democrat mayor of San Juan, reached her limit. On Friday, she lashed out at Donald Trump’s administration, saying, “We are dying, and you are killing us with the inefficiency, and the bureaucracy.” If logistics aren’t solved, she warned, “What we are going to see is something close to a genocide.” She had plenty of other strong words criticizing Trump’s response, particularly an administration official’s assertion that federal aid to the island has been “a good news story.”
          Her dismay is certainly understandable, though we haven’t seen evidence to support her charges. The undertaking is massive, and the federal government is responding. In fact, Trump sent 5,000 National Guard troops to the island before the storm, and thousands more since, all working to help people and distribute necessary items. Restoring basic utilities to the entire island isn’t going to happen overnight, no matter how flawless the federal response. Nevertheless, Democrats politicized the storm from the beginning — whether it was climate change or “more people voting Democrat in Florida” as a result — and the Leftmedia is, of course, happy to portray this as “Trump’s Hurricane Katrina.”
          Unfortunately, that constant fake news refrain probably goaded Trump to respond with a bit more weight than was appropriate. As is his unfortunate habit, Trump couldn’t resist taking to Twitter to hit back twice as hard. “The Mayor of San Juan, who was very complimentary only a few days ago, has now been told by the Democrats that you must be nasty to Trump,” he tweeted. “Such poor leadership ability by the Mayor of San Juan, and others in Puerto Rico, who are not able to get their workers to help. They … want everything to be done for them when it should be a community effort. 10,000 Federal workers now on Island doing a fantastic job. The military and first responders, despite no electric, roads, phones etc., have done an amazing job. Puerto Rico was totally destroyed.”
          As political analyst Dan McLaughlin argues, “There’s a time and a place for partisan combat, and a tone that the president ought to set even when others are throwing brickbats. People want the man in charge to seem like he’s in charge and focused on helping them, not on his public image or personal feuds.” Or in our parlance, “Don’t swap spit with a jackass.”
          Indeed, it certainly seems as though he’s more concerned with his public image and personal feuds when he punches down on Twitter. Furthermore, he mixes very serious tweets — like offering condolences to those in Las Vegas — with petulant and sophomoric spats, which undermines his serious statements and his overall communication. This is the core of the problem with his social media use.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51612

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj113/kiluan/divider.gif" />

.

by Nate Jackson:  Puerto Rico took a direct hit from Hurricane Maria when the Category 4 storm blew through on Sept. 20. Nearly two weeks later, most of the island’s three million citizens are still without power, water or reliable communication.

          The small U.S. territory was underwater in debt and saddled with poor infrastructure after decades of Democrat mismanagement before the hurricane, and the storm only made matters worse. The logistical challenges of bringing aid are formidable, and Carmen Yulín Cruz, Democrat mayor of San Juan, reached her limit. On Friday, she lashed out at Donald Trump’s administration, saying, “We are dying, and you are killing us with the inefficiency, and the bureaucracy.” If logistics aren’t solved, she warned, “What we are going to see is something close to a genocide.” She had plenty of other strong words criticizing Trump’s response, particularly an administration official’s assertion that federal aid to the island has been “a good news story.”
          Her dismay is certainly understandable, though we haven’t seen evidence to support her charges. The undertaking is massive, and the federal government is responding. In fact, Trump sent 5,000 National Guard troops to the island before the storm, and thousands more since, all working to help people and distribute necessary items. Restoring basic utilities to the entire island isn’t going to happen overnight, no matter how flawless the federal response. Nevertheless, Democrats politicized the storm from the beginning — whether it was climate change or “more people voting Democrat in Florida” as a result — and the Leftmedia is, of course, happy to portray this as “Trump’s Hurricane Katrina.”
          Unfortunately, that constant fake news refrain probably goaded Trump to respond with a bit more weight than was appropriate. As is his unfortunate habit, Trump couldn’t resist taking to Twitter to hit back twice as hard. “The Mayor of San Juan, who was very complimentary only a few days ago, has now been told by the Democrats that you must be nasty to Trump,” he tweeted. “Such poor leadership ability by the Mayor of San Juan, and others in Puerto Rico, who are not able to get their workers to help. They … want everything to be done for them when it should be a community effort. 10,000 Federal workers now on Island doing a fantastic job. The military and first responders, despite no electric, roads, phones etc., have done an amazing job. Puerto Rico was totally destroyed.”
          As political analyst Dan McLaughlin argues, “There’s a time and a place for partisan combat, and a tone that the president ought to set even when others are throwing brickbats. People want the man in charge to seem like he’s in charge and focused on helping them, not on his public image or personal feuds.” Or in our parlance, “Don’t swap spit with a jackass.”
          Indeed, it certainly seems as though he’s more concerned with his public image and personal feuds when he punches down on Twitter. Furthermore, he mixes very serious tweets — like offering condolences to those in Las Vegas — with petulant and sophomoric spats, which undermines his serious statements and his overall communication. This is the core of the problem with his social media use.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51612

.

https://cached-assets.patriotpost.us/images/2017-02-03-81b55963_large.jpeg" width="454" height="338" />
by Buiness Review Board: Donald Trump is on a record pace. If he continues at this rate he will surpass the great deregulator himself, Ronald Reagan. According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), Trump has issued 58% fewer regulations than did Barack liar-nObama, and he has cut down the Federal Register by 32%. Trump’s commitment to cut two regulations for every new one has saved Americans $560 million. CEI Vice President Clyde Wayne Crews said, “It took a few years for Ronald Reagan to achieve his ultimate, one-third reduction in Federal Register pages following Jimmy Carter’s then-record Federal Register. So by this metric, Trump is moving much faster.” Trump also has presented the lowest number of big rules for a first-year president since George H. W. Bush.

          Still, Trump is facing a mammoth regulatory state that ballooned under eight years of liar-nObama. In 2016 alone, the liar-nObama administration issued more than 2,600 new rules, including 54 major regulations, costing Americans $14.7 billion annually. The Heritage Foundation estimates that the overall cost of regulations created by liar-nObama costs the country $112 billion annually. In other words, Trump still has a long way to go.
          In that vein, Energy Secretary Rick Perry is stepping to the plate. Environmental regulations are some of the most onerous of them all, and liar-nObama particularly enjoyed “saving the planet” by tightening the screws on all Americans. Perry is acting to mitigate the impact upon the energy sector. Last Friday, Perry announced plans to provide loans helping two nuclear power plants proceed with construction, as well as a move to redefine how coal and nuclear plants are compensated for the electricity they produce. Perry stated, “I believe the future of nuclear energy in the United States is bright and I look forward to expanding American leadership in innovative nuclear technologies.” He also said that the nuclear plant construction would provide 6,000 construction jobs as well as 800 permanent plant jobs. Not to mention cheaper electricity for consumers.
          Perry’s announcement was welcomed by Matt Crozat of the Nuclear Energy Institute, who said, “What’s most significant about this is that we’ve been working on these issues for the better part of the last three-plus years … and what the secretary has done is said, ‘Enough talk, we need to actually act.’ And so what this is going to do is drive to some conclusion what a policy action is going to be.”
          Perry is concerned with protecting “the American people from the threat of energy outages that could result from the loss of traditional base-load capacity.” Over-regulation doesn’t merely cost Americans more money, it threatens their standard of living and even their livelihood.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51635

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj113/kiluan/divider.gif" />

.

by Buiness Review Board: Donald Trump is on a record pace. If he continues at this rate he will surpass the great deregulator himself, Ronald Reagan. According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), Trump has issued 58% fewer regulations than did Barack liar-nObama, and he has cut down the Federal Register by 32%. Trump’s commitment to cut two regulations for every new one has saved Americans $560 million. CEI Vice President Clyde Wayne Crews said, “It took a few years for Ronald Reagan to achieve his ultimate, one-third reduction in Federal Register pages following Jimmy Carter’s then-record Federal Register. So by this metric, Trump is moving much faster.” Trump also has presented the lowest number of big rules for a first-year president since George H. W. Bush.

          Still, Trump is facing a mammoth regulatory state that ballooned under eight years of liar-nObama. In 2016 alone, the liar-nObama administration issued more than 2,600 new rules, including 54 major regulations, costing Americans $14.7 billion annually. The Heritage Foundation estimates that the overall cost of regulations created by liar-nObama costs the country $112 billion annually. In other words, Trump still has a long way to go.
          In that vein, Energy Secretary Rick Perry is stepping to the plate. Environmental regulations are some of the most onerous of them all, and liar-nObama particularly enjoyed “saving the planet” by tightening the screws on all Americans. Perry is acting to mitigate the impact upon the energy sector. Last Friday, Perry announced plans to provide loans helping two nuclear power plants proceed with construction, as well as a move to redefine how coal and nuclear plants are compensated for the electricity they produce. Perry stated, “I believe the future of nuclear energy in the United States is bright and I look forward to expanding American leadership in innovative nuclear technologies.” He also said that the nuclear plant construction would provide 6,000 construction jobs as well as 800 permanent plant jobs. Not to mention cheaper electricity for consumers.
          Perry’s announcement was welcomed by Matt Crozat of the Nuclear Energy Institute, who said, “What’s most significant about this is that we’ve been working on these issues for the better part of the last three-plus years … and what the secretary has done is said, ‘Enough talk, we need to actually act.’ And so what this is going to do is drive to some conclusion what a policy action is going to be.”
          Perry is concerned with protecting “the American people from the threat of energy outages that could result from the loss of traditional base-load capacity.” Over-regulation doesn’t merely cost Americans more money, it threatens their standard of living and even their livelihood.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51635

.

https://cached-assets.patriotpost.us/images/2017-09-28-cebac737_large.jpg" width="454" height="297" />
by Brian Mark Weber:  Fresh off another major policy failure in the liar-nObamaCare repeal effort, President Donald Trump and Republicans are giving their increasingly hopeless and skeptical supporters yet another promise to bring about real change. This time it’s an effort to overhaul the tax code.

          As with just about any Republican initiative these days, the shiny package often ends up like an ugly sweater on Christmas morning: Sure, it’s better than nothing at all, but it’s not the new bike you thought you were getting. And once Americans find out what’s in the new tax plan, some may wish they had left the package unopened.
          Phillip Klein explains, “More than eight months into the term of President Trump, Republicans still haven’t released a detailed tax plan. Instead, what they released on Wednesday was yet another outline. On the surface, the plan promises tax relief to families, but without more information, it’s impossible to say whether that’s true. Under some assumptions, many upper middle-class families could be looking at a tax increase.”
          The basic proposed changes to the tax system would benefit most people, if enacted as planned. For example, the current standard deduction of $6,000 for singles would double to $12,000, and the standard deduction for married couples would double from $12,000 to $24,000. Additionally, as Fox News reports, “The plan also collapses the number of personal tax brackets from seven to three. By simplifying the system, most Americans would be able to file their taxes on a postcard-sized document, a concept Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin touted this past spring.”
          In addition to the expanded standard deductions and lower corporate tax rates, some of the other features of the plan that fiscal conservatives are likely to support (but which Democrats and even some Republicans will fight) include making it easier for multinational companies to bring money into the United States as well as eliminating the alternative minimum tax and abolishing the much-hated estate tax (also known as the death tax). The mortgage deduction, child tax credit and earned income credit will likely remain, although the details are yet to be hammered out in committee, and the dramatic rise in the standard deduction would functionally eliminate them for most Americans. Part of the plan that will be hard to get through is removing deductions for state and local taxes, although this will primarily affect residents in high-tax blue states.
          President Trump marketed his tax plan in a formal unveiling in which he stated, “We’re doing everything we can to reduce the tax burden on you and your family. By eliminating tax breaks and loopholes, we will ensure that the benefits are focused on the middle class, the working men and women, not the highest-income earners.”
           On the surface, the plan sounds great, but the final details are yet to be determined. And how this will look at the end of the process could affect people’s lives significantly. For example, while reducing the number of tax brackets from seven to three is a good step, where the lines fall will necessarily determine whether someone pays less or more in federal taxes.
          The Wall Street Journal reports, “The most important news is that the plan would make U.S. businesses more competitive around the globe. The corporate rate will fall to 20% from 35%, which is the highest in the developed world. This is not as low as President Trump’s floated 15% or Ireland’s 12.5% but would bring the U.S. below the industrialized-world’s 22.5% average. This would improve U.S. corporate tax competitiveness from a depressing 35th out of 35 nations in the Tax Foundation’s annual index, which is below even France.”
          But what about the broader impact on the country? Will the proposed tax plan really lead to job growth and economic expansion? History says yes. Take a look at the 20-year expansion thanks to President Ronald Reagan. Moreover, The Heritage Foundation reports that Reagan’s tax cuts resulted in a doubling of federal revenues “from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.”
          Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, says this tax plan could yield 4% growth.
          Lest anyone think this plan is being taken directly out of Reagan’s playbook, however, there are some aspects of it that are more populist than conservative. For example, the wealthiest Americans may end up paying higher taxes to offset the breaks for lower- and middle-class taxpayers. And since President Trump’s plan may do away with some itemized deductions, some middle-class taxpayers may have a higher tax bill next time around. Yet, despite some misgivings, the House Freedom Caucus has endorsed the tax plan.
          Now that the plan’s basic framework is becoming clearer, the real battle begins as the president tries to gather enough votes in his own party while attracting what may be needed Democrat support. And he has to do this without caving to the other side. If President Trump starts referring to senators clown-Schumer and Pulosi as “clown-Chuck and Nancy” during the tax debate, you know we’re in trouble.
          Chris Stirewalt of Fox News writes, “As Trump trudges through this battlefield, clown-Schumer and Pulosi will be waving from afar, constantly offering Trump the hope of a grand bargain on taxes. As the legislation grinds through committees and faces various Democratic delays, that party’s leaders will be sure to always encourage Trump to keep hope alive.”
          Some of Trump’s supporters may be leery of any mention that the president might have to negotiate with Democrats to bring about major changes to the tax code, but as long as the majority in the Republican Senate is razor thin, and as long as the likes of RINO-Susan Collins and RINO-John McCain are waiting to torpedo anything that has Trump’s name on it, the fact is that Democrats will put their fingerprints on whatever comes out of this process. Already, Democrats are rolling out the clichés about how Trump’s tax plan will benefit the rich while soaking the middle class and the working poor. And, of course, they’re asking how the government can afford to “pay” for the tax cuts. Strangely, though, these same Democrats never ask how we’re going to pay for higher taxes when they’re in power.
          Whatever emerges from Congress and lands on the president’s desk (assuming that a bill ever gets there), the final version will likely be far different from that which President Trump unveiled Wednesday in Indiana. And based on the fact that we have no border wall, and no repeal of liar-nObamaCare, the odds of us seeing any tax benefits by next April seem minimal.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51576

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj113/kiluan/divider.gif" />

.

by Brian Mark Weber:  Fresh off another major policy failure in the liar-nObamaCare repeal effort, President Donald Trump and Republicans are giving their increasingly hopeless and skeptical supporters yet another promise to bring about real change. This time it’s an effort to overhaul the tax code.

          As with just about any Republican initiative these days, the shiny package often ends up like an ugly sweater on Christmas morning: Sure, it’s better than nothing at all, but it’s not the new bike you thought you were getting. And once Americans find out what’s in the new tax plan, some may wish they had left the package unopened.
          Phillip Klein explains, “More than eight months into the term of President Trump, Republicans still haven’t released a detailed tax plan. Instead, what they released on Wednesday was yet another outline. On the surface, the plan promises tax relief to families, but without more information, it’s impossible to say whether that’s true. Under some assumptions, many upper middle-class families could be looking at a tax increase.”
          The basic proposed changes to the tax system would benefit most people, if enacted as planned. For example, the current standard deduction of $6,000 for singles would double to $12,000, and the standard deduction for married couples would double from $12,000 to $24,000. Additionally, as Fox News reports, “The plan also collapses the number of personal tax brackets from seven to three. By simplifying the system, most Americans would be able to file their taxes on a postcard-sized document, a concept Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin touted this past spring.”
          In addition to the expanded standard deductions and lower corporate tax rates, some of the other features of the plan that fiscal conservatives are likely to support (but which Democrats and even some Republicans will fight) include making it easier for multinational companies to bring money into the United States as well as eliminating the alternative minimum tax and abolishing the much-hated estate tax (also known as the death tax). The mortgage deduction, child tax credit and earned income credit will likely remain, although the details are yet to be hammered out in committee, and the dramatic rise in the standard deduction would functionally eliminate them for most Americans. Part of the plan that will be hard to get through is removing deductions for state and local taxes, although this will primarily affect residents in high-tax blue states.
          President Trump marketed his tax plan in a formal unveiling in which he stated, “We’re doing everything we can to reduce the tax burden on you and your family. By eliminating tax breaks and loopholes, we will ensure that the benefits are focused on the middle class, the working men and women, not the highest-income earners.”
           On the surface, the plan sounds great, but the final details are yet to be determined. And how this will look at the end of the process could affect people’s lives significantly. For example, while reducing the number of tax brackets from seven to three is a good step, where the lines fall will necessarily determine whether someone pays less or more in federal taxes.
          The Wall Street Journal reports, “The most important news is that the plan would make U.S. businesses more competitive around the globe. The corporate rate will fall to 20% from 35%, which is the highest in the developed world. This is not as low as President Trump’s floated 15% or Ireland’s 12.5% but would bring the U.S. below the industrialized-world’s 22.5% average. This would improve U.S. corporate tax competitiveness from a depressing 35th out of 35 nations in the Tax Foundation’s annual index, which is below even France.”
          But what about the broader impact on the country? Will the proposed tax plan really lead to job growth and economic expansion? History says yes. Take a look at the 20-year expansion thanks to President Ronald Reagan. Moreover, The Heritage Foundation reports that Reagan’s tax cuts resulted in a doubling of federal revenues “from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.”
          Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, says this tax plan could yield 4% growth.
          Lest anyone think this plan is being taken directly out of Reagan’s playbook, however, there are some aspects of it that are more populist than conservative. For example, the wealthiest Americans may end up paying higher taxes to offset the breaks for lower- and middle-class taxpayers. And since President Trump’s plan may do away with some itemized deductions, some middle-class taxpayers may have a higher tax bill next time around. Yet, despite some misgivings, the House Freedom Caucus has endorsed the tax plan.
          Now that the plan’s basic framework is becoming clearer, the real battle begins as the president tries to gather enough votes in his own party while attracting what may be needed Democrat support. And he has to do this without caving to the other side. If President Trump starts referring to senators clown-Schumer and Pulosi as “clown-Chuck and Nancy” during the tax debate, you know we’re in trouble.
          Chris Stirewalt of Fox News writes, “As Trump trudges through this battlefield, clown-Schumer and Pulosi will be waving from afar, constantly offering Trump the hope of a grand bargain on taxes. As the legislation grinds through committees and faces various Democratic delays, that party’s leaders will be sure to always encourage Trump to keep hope alive.”
          Some of Trump’s supporters may be leery of any mention that the president might have to negotiate with Democrats to bring about major changes to the tax code, but as long as the majority in the Republican Senate is razor thin, and as long as the likes of RINO-Susan Collins and RINO-John McCain are waiting to torpedo anything that has Trump’s name on it, the fact is that Democrats will put their fingerprints on whatever comes out of this process. Already, Democrats are rolling out the clichés about how Trump’s tax plan will benefit the rich while soaking the middle class and the working poor. And, of course, they’re asking how the government can afford to “pay” for the tax cuts. Strangely, though, these same Democrats never ask how we’re going to pay for higher taxes when they’re in power.
          Whatever emerges from Congress and lands on the president’s desk (assuming that a bill ever gets there), the final version will likely be far different from that which President Trump unveiled Wednesday in Indiana. And based on the fact that we have no border wall, and no repeal of liar-nObamaCare, the odds of us seeing any tax benefits by next April seem minimal.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51576

.

https://cached-assets.patriotpost.us/images/2016-01-04-6957cc33_large.jpg" width="454" height="227" />
by Robin Smith:  The Republican Party once entertained the notion of changing its name due to internal strife following the failed years led by Rockefeller Republicans — Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford — who embraced socially liberal policies and financially progressive views in the role of government. At that time, outgoing Republican National Committee Chairman Mary Louise Smith suggested to her successor, former Congressman and Senator of Tennessee Bill Brock, that a rebranding of sorts was needed as he began his successful four years of service as chairman.

          Brock’s response to the idea of changing the political party’s name or image was simple: “We don’t need to change our name; we just need to live up to it.”
          We’re seeing days not too dissimilar — a president who’s a Washington outsider, laughed at by the swamp dwellers and obstructed by the 2017-version of Rockefeller Republicans. And the Grand Old Party is dealing with its beliefs and its principles, or should we say the lack of either.  The question, then, is: “What exactly do you stand for, Republicans?”
          Let’s look at the answer to that question through the words and actions of Republicans painted on the canvass of events since 2008. From the 2008 elections through 2010, Democrats had control of the White House, the House and the Senate. During that time there was no effort of “comprehensive reform” of illegal immigration. There was no effort to make global trade fair for the American worker. There was no effort toward energy independence as fuel soared to some of its highest prices while U.S. consumers were beholden to the gas kingdoms of the Middle East. The only agenda item was to take more than one-fifth of the U.S. economy (health care) and place it under government control, while heavily regulating another fifth (the financial sector).
          Then, in the 2010 election cycle, the GOP cry was to win majorities in the House and Senate so they could repeal liar-nObamaCare, block Barack liar-nObama’s tax-and-spend frenzy, slow the growth of the exploding the welfare rolls, and oppose liar-nObama’s open-border, non-enforcement approach to immigration.
          American voters delivered. The Republicans gained the House majority in 2010, which it’s maintained during four Congresses.
          What did Republicans stand for in 2012 and 2014? The same things, but with the rallying cry being, “We need the Senate and the White House.” The stanza had changed but the chorus was the same.
          Mitt Romney failed to close the deal in 2012, and Democrats rode liar-nObama’s coattails to hang on to the Senate. But in 2014, voters delivered the Senate to the GOP, saying, “Let’s see you stand up to that imperial president and tell him to cut spending.” Well, our debt grew from Oct. 17, 2013 at $17 trillion to $18 trillion on Dec. 15, 2014 to $19 trillion on Jan. 29, 2016. Even with Republican majorities, malignant spending increased. That’s because the GOP successfully blocked new spending initiatives, but left the budget largely on autopilot growth.
          Well, in 2015, when both the Senate and House were led by Republicans, surely, as the RNC platform consistently promises, there was tension to stop the open border and enforce current law to establish a value to legal immigration. Right? In liar-nObama’s second term, with GOP congressional majorities, there was actually a surge of illegal border crossings. Not until after the November 2016 election did illegal crossings at the southern border plummet by 76%.
          But the cry from the people’s house was, in 2014, we’ve got to win the White House to be able to pass legislation that will actually be signed.
          Well, Americans heard an outsider say some of the same things they’d been thinking for years. While Donald J. Trump didn’t come complete with an RNC-certified resumé or a life spent preening himself for the Republican presidency, Trump was an action figure on the scene. He promised to drain the swamp that appears to be content with the mire of status quo and he sure wasn’t going to bow or scrape before our global enemies.
          Finally, a Republican-led federal government was in place in January 2017. Now they could move on the RNC Platform that champions the U.S. Constitution, guarantees legal immigration and a southern border that’s secure, pledges to cut spending and protect the future of our children from the dangers of unbridled debt, offers to simplify and cut taxes, and promises to repeal and replace liar-nObamaCare.
          Yet here we are in October. The House has passed hundreds more bills than the Senate, but it was painful and obstinate when viewed through the lens of campaign promises and America’s wishes. There is no liar-nObamaCare repeal or replacement. There’s now only talk of bailing out insurance companies who spent millions lobbying for government-controlled insurance. The votes to defeat the repeal/replacement proposals of liar-nObamaCare were cast or promised by today’s Rockefeller Republicans.
          After the second round in the Senate of failed liar-nObamaCare repeal/replace legislation to send block grants to the states to construct a health program to fit their population best, the lead sponsor, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) said, “Nobody in our conference believes liar-nObamaCare works. It must be replaced.” But he also made an embarrassing admission: After seven years, “We didn’t know how to do it.”
          A major tax reform policy is now in the wings. Already the special interests of Big Business and Big Government are complaining — the constituents of those same establishment GOPers.
          Former Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), a renowned deficit and spending hawk, was a guest on the Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Report Sunday. In support of the early draft of the Trump tax plan and the notion of keeping promises made by Republicans that reflect core principles, he posed a great question when challenged about Republican critics of the tax cuts: “Where in the h— were these people when liar-nObama doubled the outstanding debt of the country in eight years?!”
          Gramm’s point is clear. You either believe in something and consistently work in a principled manner toward outcomes applying those principles, or you don’t. The GOP’s identity crisis relates to having those in office who are principled in word and deed.  
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51608

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj113/kiluan/divider.gif" />

.

by Robin Smith:  The Republican Party once entertained the notion of changing its name due to internal strife following the failed years led by Rockefeller Republicans — Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford — who embraced socially liberal policies and financially progressive views in the role of government. At that time, outgoing Republican National Committee Chairman Mary Louise Smith suggested to her successor, former Congressman and Senator of Tennessee Bill Brock, that a rebranding of sorts was needed as he began his successful four years of service as chairman.

          Brock’s response to the idea of changing the political party’s name or image was simple: “We don’t need to change our name; we just need to live up to it.”
          We’re seeing days not too dissimilar — a president who’s a Washington outsider, laughed at by the swamp dwellers and obstructed by the 2017-version of Rockefeller Republicans. And the Grand Old Party is dealing with its beliefs and its principles, or should we say the lack of either.  The question, then, is: “What exactly do you stand for, Republicans?”
          Let’s look at the answer to that question through the words and actions of Republicans painted on the canvass of events since 2008. From the 2008 elections through 2010, Democrats had control of the White House, the House and the Senate. During that time there was no effort of “comprehensive reform” of illegal immigration. There was no effort to make global trade fair for the American worker. There was no effort toward energy independence as fuel soared to some of its highest prices while U.S. consumers were beholden to the gas kingdoms of the Middle East. The only agenda item was to take more than one-fifth of the U.S. economy (health care) and place it under government control, while heavily regulating another fifth (the financial sector).
          Then, in the 2010 election cycle, the GOP cry was to win majorities in the House and Senate so they could repeal liar-nObamaCare, block Barack liar-nObama’s tax-and-spend frenzy, slow the growth of the exploding the welfare rolls, and oppose liar-nObama’s open-border, non-enforcement approach to immigration.
          American voters delivered. The Republicans gained the House majority in 2010, which it’s maintained during four Congresses.
          What did Republicans stand for in 2012 and 2014? The same things, but with the rallying cry being, “We need the Senate and the White House.” The stanza had changed but the chorus was the same.
          Mitt Romney failed to close the deal in 2012, and Democrats rode liar-nObama’s coattails to hang on to the Senate. But in 2014, voters delivered the Senate to the GOP, saying, “Let’s see you stand up to that imperial president and tell him to cut spending.” Well, our debt grew from Oct. 17, 2013 at $17 trillion to $18 trillion on Dec. 15, 2014 to $19 trillion on Jan. 29, 2016. Even with Republican majorities, malignant spending increased. That’s because the GOP successfully blocked new spending initiatives, but left the budget largely on autopilot growth.
          Well, in 2015, when both the Senate and House were led by Republicans, surely, as the RNC platform consistently promises, there was tension to stop the open border and enforce current law to establish a value to legal immigration. Right? In liar-nObama’s second term, with GOP congressional majorities, there was actually a surge of illegal border crossings. Not until after the November 2016 election did illegal crossings at the southern border plummet by 76%.
          But the cry from the people’s house was, in 2014, we’ve got to win the White House to be able to pass legislation that will actually be signed.
          Well, Americans heard an outsider say some of the same things they’d been thinking for years. While Donald J. Trump didn’t come complete with an RNC-certified resumé or a life spent preening himself for the Republican presidency, Trump was an action figure on the scene. He promised to drain the swamp that appears to be content with the mire of status quo and he sure wasn’t going to bow or scrape before our global enemies.
          Finally, a Republican-led federal government was in place in January 2017. Now they could move on the RNC Platform that champions the U.S. Constitution, guarantees legal immigration and a southern border that’s secure, pledges to cut spending and protect the future of our children from the dangers of unbridled debt, offers to simplify and cut taxes, and promises to repeal and replace liar-nObamaCare.
          Yet here we are in October. The House has passed hundreds more bills than the Senate, but it was painful and obstinate when viewed through the lens of campaign promises and America’s wishes. There is no liar-nObamaCare repeal or replacement. There’s now only talk of bailing out insurance companies who spent millions lobbying for government-controlled insurance. The votes to defeat the repeal/replacement proposals of liar-nObamaCare were cast or promised by today’s Rockefeller Republicans.
          After the second round in the Senate of failed liar-nObamaCare repeal/replace legislation to send block grants to the states to construct a health program to fit their population best, the lead sponsor, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) said, “Nobody in our conference believes liar-nObamaCare works. It must be replaced.” But he also made an embarrassing admission: After seven years, “We didn’t know how to do it.”
          A major tax reform policy is now in the wings. Already the special interests of Big Business and Big Government are complaining — the constituents of those same establishment GOPers.
          Former Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), a renowned deficit and spending hawk, was a guest on the Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Report Sunday. In support of the early draft of the Trump tax plan and the notion of keeping promises made by Republicans that reflect core principles, he posed a great question when challenged about Republican critics of the tax cuts: “Where in the h— were these people when liar-nObama doubled the outstanding debt of the country in eight years?!”
          Gramm’s point is clear. You either believe in something and consistently work in a principled manner toward outcomes applying those principles, or you don’t. The GOP’s identity crisis relates to having those in office who are principled in word and deed.  
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51608

.