Connect with us

Economy

Convertible Congress

Published

on

Convertible Congress

What’s the point of a convertible?

It does nothing to improve the functionality of a car. If anything, it causes more grief because you have to worry about weather conditions, leaf-shedding trees, and presents from overhead birds. But is it worth it? In the words of Bob Hoskins, abso-floggin-lutely.

The father of my best friend since high school owns a beautiful convertible Porsche Boxster that we got to use occasionally back in the day. It was the most exhilarating driving experience imaginable. As far as I could tell, there were two reasons above all others why we wanted to use the Porsche any time we could: just to say we did, and to be seen by girls.

Convertibles are cool, affluent, and flashy. They’re a symbol of status. They have no function other than to exist.

The purpose of a convertible is to have one and for people to know you have one.

That’s fine if you’ve earned it and that’s how you choose to spend your hard-earned money. But what about those who attempt to maintain public status at the expense of others?

Our country is entering the age of a fully convertible Congress, in more ways than one. Trump’s Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced on Sunday that federal relief funds for Hurricane Harvey victims would be inextricably linked to a raise in the debt ceiling, allowing the federal government even more room for borrowing money to top off a $19 trillion national IOU. Trump appears to be in full support of this policy.

The Federalist Party responded on Wednesday by chiding Congress on Twitter, asking why they don’t just reset the ceiling at ∞.

According to reports, President Trump appears to be in league with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in an effort to do just that. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan allegedly disagrees with politicizing a national crisis, but even he has praised Trump’s bipartisan outreach.

So up, up, up the debt ceiling goes, and a debt ceiling set to infinity is essentially like having no ceiling at all — a convertible Congress.

Now we have a similar question to the one we started with: what’s the point of raising the debt ceiling?

There are no financial benefits, just prolonged devastation. Because, as we know from Mordo, Doctor Strange’s friend who turns evil because he’s too committed to being good (it still doesn’t make sense), the bill comes due. Always.

But the bill doesn’t have to come due to this administration if they just kick the can down the road. Not nearly enough Americans will vote out excessive spenders (only budget slicers), so there are no consequences for making Congress convertible in a financial sense.

So while they’re in power, they’ll do their best to keep it and flaunt it. The purpose of power is to have it and for people to know you have it. And that’s the second meaning of a convertible Congress: one that will do anything to retain its power and status, just to say that it has it and to be seen and admired of the public.

In that sense, Congress has been shedding its top for a long, long time.

And are there any consequences? Hardly ever, because once a congressman has gone convertible, he takes meticulous care not to get caught in the rain — to the tune of a 97% incumbent reelection rate in 2017 despite a dismal 18% approval rating.

My dad once ran for Congress and met a certain convertible congressman who’d been representing his district for 23 years. My dad asked him how he’d survived all those elections, and the man said, “It’s very simple: do nothing. Keep your head down and never take a position on anything.” Unfortunately, he wasn’t kidding, nor was his strategy unique.

If we want Congress to put its top back up, we need to show our representatives that there are consequences for filling their tenure with flashy nothingness. One congressman at a time (preferably your own), start demanding better.

Be the rain that ruins their custom leather seats.

Be the tree that drops those awful sticky red things.

Be the bird.

Or better yet, repossess the car. Congress doesn’t deserve a joy ride in a stolen convertible.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards, Co-Host of The New Guards Podcast, lifelong fan of the Anaheim Ducks, and proud Hufflepuff. He graduated Magna Cum Laude in English from Brigham Young University in 2017. One day later, his wife gave birth to a beautiful daughter. Richie is a constitutional conservative and doesn't see any compassion in violating other people's rights.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Video: You’re Not A Liberal!

Published

on

By

A Truth Revolt Original from Bill Whittle that succinctly explains why Leftists aren’t Liberal.

Published on Oct 10, 2014

The 4:20 minute mark in the 6 minute video has its most important point:

The founding fathers were the True Liberals because they believed in Liberty – with both words having the same origins.

They believed in individual Liberty, private property, limited government and the common sense civil rights of free-speech and armed self-defence. They believed in the freedom to be left alone.

The point of the video is that the collectivists of the nation’s Socialist-Left do not meet the definition of the word Liberal. They believe in collective rights, Collective ownership of property, unlimited government, limitations on speech and gun confiscation.

Those of that mindset (Leftists) are not Liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

Continue Reading

Economy

On corn dogs and continuing resolutions

Published

on

Confession: I was a fat kid.

You don’t need to know how fat, but it was enough that my mom had to establish strict limits on how much of any given food I could eat per meal, and I couldn’t surpass that amount without her express permission.

My family well remembers one such occasion when I was maybe seven years old where I got a little, shall we say, excessive.

I had maxed out for the day on my allotted two corn dogs — my favorite food at the time — but I was still hungry. My mom wasn’t home, so I asked my dad if I could have two more corn dogs.

He approved and I had two more, but I still wasn’t satisfied, so I asked my dad again if I could have two more corn dogs, which he authorized, and so on.

All told, I ended up consuming eight jumbo corn dogs in one meal. And I felt fantastic.

In fairness to my dad, given that each of my requests couldn’t have come more than five minutes apart (I tend to inhale my food), he probably thought I was referring to the same two additional corn dogs each of the three times I petitioned his consent.

Moreover, when my mom found out, there wasn’t much that could be done; I had clearly overeaten, but I hadn’t technically disobeyed procedure.

Believe it or not, congressional budgeting is a lot like an overweight seven-year-old downing corn dogs.

Periodically, despite gouging the American people trillions of dollars already, Congress runs out of money, maxing out on its corn dog limit, as it were. Congress is then faced with two options: 1) a continuing resolution, wherein the legislature passes an appropriations bill and thereby authorizes government funding at the same levels as previously established by that year’s budget until either a specified date or a regular appropriations bill is passed; or 2) a government shutdown until appropriations can be passed.

Since October, when the 2018 fiscal year began, we have seen four continuing resolutions from Congress, two of which materialized only after a government shutdown — the most recent one occurring early Friday morning for approximately eight hours.

This means that Congress has eaten its two corn dogs and gone back to ask for two more corn dogs four times in the last four months. They have now consumed ten corn dogs, which is even more than a certain hefty seven-year-old.

The latest continuing resolution, which put an end to Friday’s blink-and-you’ll-miss-it shutdown, outlines two years of spending and absolutely blows out the deficit to the tune of $1.2 trillion. And while it’s true that the continuing resolution only extends to March 23 in order to allow for time to iron out all the details, the legislature has bypassed any threat of government shutdown or continuing resolution in the near future.

You see, the traditional two options listed above — a resolution or a shutdown — only trigger due to the debt ceiling, which prohibits spending past a certain point without specific authorization from Congress, who holds the power of the purse. But what would happen if that limit didn’t exist? The government could spend whatever it wanted with or without a budget, with or without a deficit, and with or without any accountability to the American people. Essentially, it means Congress can write itself a blank check.

Unsurprisingly, Congress has vied for this third option, suspending the debt limit until March 2019 in order to free up legislators to focus on reelection in 2018 and avoid the negative publicity of a government shutdown. To avoid a shutdown, Congress has made itself too big to fail.

And that means that no matter which issues arise, be it DACA, welfare, military, education, or healthcare, Congress will undoubtedly take advantage of its liberty to spend-up the wazoo.

Where there is no accountability, there is no progress. After all, once you grant the obese seven-year-old inexhaustible access to unlimited Foster Farms jumbo corn dogs, he’s not getting any skinnier.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Continue Reading

Economy

The GOP: The Party of Fiscal Conservatives?

Published

on

The GOP, led by President Trump, recently passed the most massive tax reform bill in decades. One of the biggest pieces of that bill dropped the corporate tax rate down to 21% from 35%, which had previously given the United States the largest corporate tax in the industrialized world. So cutting this tax and cutting individual taxes was a job well done for fiscal responsibility. It was a CRITICAL first step, but it was only a first step.

The second step was to cut the bloated federal budget. Last night’s budget deal not only failed to do this but in fact increased spending to the deficit levels of the Obama and Bush eras. Liberals claim this is due to the tax cuts, but Senator Rand Paul demonstrated clearly that this has to do entirely with the expensive high Congress gets from spending taxpayer money as well as placing an unconscionable burden on our children.

Republicans made a big to do about deficits and the debt while Barack Obama’s was in power, even coming up with the sequester during the latter half of the Obama Presidency. However, now that they control both houses of Congress and with Trump in the White House, they suddenly have no inclination to cut spending.

“When the Democrats are in power, Republicans appear to be the conservative party, But when Republicans are in power, it seems there is no conservative party. The hypocrisy hangs in the air and chokes anyone with a sense of decency or intellectual honesty,” said Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) who attempted to block the bill last night.

Others in the party also demonstrated their displeasure at the lack of leadership by the GOP on this issue. Missouri Senate Candidate Austin Petersen’s campaign released this statement:

“The spending deal approved late last night, and supported by both Missouri Senators McCaskill and Blunt, was an absolute travesty. The American people are already $20 trillion in debt, and the deficit for the current fiscal year is estimated to be an additional $1 trillion. This is just plain nuts! And it’s a great example of why Austin is in this Senate race: because like many Missourians, he’s sick and tired of sending politicians to Washington who, break their promises. The truth is we don’t just need another Republican elected to the United States Senate — we need a true constitutional and FISCAL conservative — someone who’s going to stick to their guns, stick to their principles, and most importantly, keep their promises. “

Konstantinos Roditis, Republican candidate for California State Controller said, “Hope of a budget with a modicum of fiscal responsibility from D.C. is laughable. The likelihood a fiscally responsible budget will see the light of day in D.C. is as likely as Trump winning California in a landslide in 2020. Here is a perfect example why I say, I’m a Conservative that happens to be a Republican, instead of a Republican that happens to be a Conservative.”

California GOP Senator candidate Erin Cruz had this to say… Those in the House and Senate work for the American people and should put forth a fiscally responsible budget, one which does not put an undue burden on the taxpayer and future generations. Heavy cuts should be made in the area of foreign aid, as well as pet deals congressional members tuck into these bills known as pork. The taxpayer is the boss and they want big change in government, namely reduction in size and scope of government as well as cuts to unnecessary spending. The budget passed is not reflective of what the American people voted into office. Actual change is coming, patriots like myself are standing up to the call to serve the people, there will be a big turn in how D.C. operates. Americans live by budgets and within their means, Congress should as well. Midterms can’t come soon enough for all Americans. Americans must push for a high turn out at the polls this year.

A disappointment for many conservatives is that standard-bearer Ted Cruz (R-TX) “reluctantly” voted for the spending bill, giving away any credibility he might have in the future on this issue. It should be noted that Cruz has filibustered spending in the past, famously reading to his children from the Senate floor.

In stark contrast, there was no surprise that the other Texas Senator, John Cornyn, was vocal about his annoyance with Rand Paul’s efforts to derail the budget process, saying this was an “emergency” while failing to make mention Congress hasn’t had a non-emergency spending effort in years.

It would be easy for some to lay the blame for all this on the self-proclaimed “king of debt,” President Trump. However, those who have actually read the Constitution know the power of the budget comes from Congress. Sure, Trump could lead a bit more on this issue, but at no point has Trump ever made over-spending a priority.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), who is the former chairman of the House Budget Committee, seems most to blame. Of all people he should know how to cut spending, and yet has failed to do so.

The political fallout will likely be negligible. The average American, when asked, will say they are concerned about the debt, but often not enough to change their vote. And so both major parties keep passing this issue back and forth like a hot potato. The party that will be hurt by the debt is whoever is in power when the economy comes crashing down due to debt. Time will tell on that one.

A couple of months ago I wrote about how we can’t afford our sacred cows, including increased defense spending, and yet we’re increasing defense spending through the roof. You can refer back to it here.

The thing I can tell you for certain is we can’t keep doing what we’re doing. Spending on credit will eventually lead to default as more and more of our budget is eaten up by paying interest on our debt and it leases to Greek-style austerity. We need new leadership with ACTUAL fiscal conservatives.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.