Government of Principal, or Government of Power

"My Friends," we no longer have a two party system of government of Democrat vs Republican.

We have a two party system of Government of Power vs Government of Principal. This system has been semi balanced for a number of years, but this year it is reaching the "point of no return."

Anyone that has watched the Senate live on C-Span has observed the battle of Power vs Principal. When the Democrats or Republicans are in charge of the Senate, it is defined by the media to be the party that has 50+ votes. What is overlooked is the number of Senators of either Party voting to advance their Power over those that are voting for Principal.

In the past few years the Senate has been controlled by about 60 Moderate Power Broker Senators, and 40, or less, Senators who stand firm for Principal. This makeup also controls the quality of judges appointed to the courts, including the Supreme Court.

The House is similar, except it only needs a, Majority of Power or Principal, members; and control of the Speaker Position to totally control the House.

The President has the power of leadership and the power to appointing candidates to positions, but many have to be approved by the Senate which sometimes reduces the quality. And he has the Power of the Veto.

As many of you know, in the past we have had a "Balance of Power" which means the Power Brokers don't totally control the House, the Senate, and the President all at the same time.

This election is critical beyond anything you can imagine.

Power Brokers, from both parties, are expected to gain control of all three branches of Government in this next election, independent of whether Obama or McCain is elected President, or whether Democrats or Republicans are elected to the House and Senate.

As witnessed, when Clinton or Bush was President, both had to submit legislation that the Power Brokers would support, or at least accept, to accomplish anything during their administration.

It is this emphasis in Power Broker Control over the last few years, especially since 2006, that has threatened our Government as it was structured in the Constitution. We have a more Socialistic Government, and it's power is increasing so fast that it has become obvious. Power Brokers (Socialists) may be embolden entirely by the Voter in the 2008 election.

Some of the results of Government for Power over Government of Principal are listed below:

Judicial System Making Law without Congressional restraint, including the Supreme Court.
Budgets combined.
Earmarks (bribes) continuing to grow.
Wealth redistribution plans of rebates and bailouts.
Government acquisition of Financial Institutions.
Increased spending programs, without performance review.
Immigration expansion, both legal and illegal.
Congressional effort that support our common enemy.
Increasing decisions that have to be made by courts.
Increasing court intervention in war execution.
In general, personal responsibility replaced by government control.
More power to courts.

This election, as none before, isn't about Republican or Democrat, it's about governing for Power, or for Principal.

Just for the record, I'm not happy about either McCain or Obama for President in this struggle. But there are fewer Democrats for Principal than Republicans in our current Congress and courts.

The other contributing factors affecting the election this year are Media misinformation, Voter Corruption and fraud, and Voter awareness and apathy.

As for President Bush, I believe he has tried to do what's right for the country, as he sees it, but he was terribly wrong on immigration, spending, and the Bailout legislation.

But it is just as important, if not more important, is to determine which Judges, Senators, Congressional or other officials are running for Power or Principal, independent of their listed party. However, be aware in the 2006 election, several ran as Conservatives to get elected, but were whipped into the Party Power position after elected.

With regard to Sarah Palin, I believe she is a Principal player--if Washington politics doesn't corrupt her too.

Is your vote for a Government of Principal or Power? Do you really know where the Candidate stands?

Using panic to pass pork (Bribe)

Here are some of the special-interest provisions that are now part of the Wall Street bailout legislation. The bill started at 3 pages, grew to 106 pages, and is now 451 pages.

• Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
• Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
• 6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)
• Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
• American Samoa (Sec. 309)
• Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
• Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
• Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
• Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
• Railroads (Sec. 316)
• Auto Racing Tracks (317)
• District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
• Wool Research (Sec. 325)

Bailouts are bankrupting our country

Here’s a rundown of the recent government actions to help the economy, which have not worked and are driving our nation deeper and deeper into debt. Even a conservative estimate of these actions shows that at least $1.4 trillion in new debt has been imposed on American taxpayers.

We’ve also dug quotes from Treasury Secretary Paulson where he predicts these actions will help the economy and protect taxpayers. His predictions have been wildly off the mark and have rightly destroyed his credibility.

The Stimulus Plan
Cost: $152 billion in direct spending

“I talked with knowledgeable people in all parts of the economy and reviewed the data with our economic team…. the potential cost of not acting has become too high. We must act now to support our economy this year. The president laid out today clear principles that should guide the creation of an effective growth package. We are focused on working with Congress to quickly reach consensus on a plan that gets cash to consumers and gives businesses incentives to invest, to grow and to hire. We know from experience that these policies work to stimulate growth in the short term. The package should be robust enough to make an impact this year and should be temporary, so that it doesn’t significantly impact our long-term fiscal position.” – Secretary Paulson, January 18, 2008

Bear Stearns
Cost: $29 billion in Federal Reserve non-recourse loans

“For some months now, reduced access to short term funding and liquidity issues have created turmoil in our capital markets. In the midst of these conditions, Bear Stearns found itself facing bankruptcy. The Federal Reserve acted promptly to resolve the Bear Stearns situation and avoid a disorderly wind-down. It is the job of regulators to come together to address times such as this; and we did so. Our focus was the stability and orderliness of our financial markets.” – Secretary Paulson, March 26, 2008

Housing Bill (H.R. 3221)
Cost: $42.5 billion in direct spending

“I commend the Senate for moving swiftly to pass important GSE legislation that will provide temporary authorities to give confidence to markets and will create a strong, independent regulator better able to address the risks these enterprises pose. [I]t is of the utmost importance to our market and economic stability that the GSE portions of this bill become law. These components are orders of magnitude more important to turning the corner on the housing correction.” – Secretary Hank Paulson, July 26, 2008

Fannie and Freddie Takeover
Cost: $200 billion in stock warrants

“I strongly endorse both the decision by FHFA Director Lockhart to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship and the actions taken by Treasury Secretary Paulson to ensure the financial soundness of those two companies. These necessary steps will help to strengthen the U.S. housing market and promote stability in our financial markets. I also welcome the introduction of the Treasury’s new purchase facility for mortgage-backed securities, which will provide critical support for mortgage markets in this period of unusual credit-market uncertainty.” – Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, September 7, 2008

“Based on what we have learned about these institutions… I concluded that it would not have been in the best interest of the taxpayers for Treasury to simply make an equity investment in these enterprises…. And let me make clear what today’s actions mean for Americans and their families. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are so large and so interwoven in our financial system that a failure of either of them would cause great turmoil in our financial markets…. This turmoil would directly and negatively impact household wealth: from family budgets, to home values, to savings for college and retirement. A failure would affect the ability of Americans to get home loans, auto loans and other consumer credit and business finance. And a failure would be harmful to economic growth and job creation.” — Secretary Hank Paulson, September 7, 2008

Lehman Brothers
Cost: $87 billion in advances backed by the Federal Reserve
Other Costs: $70 billion (from Federal Reserve & FRBNY)

“I strongly support the actions announced tonight by SEC Chairman Chris Cox, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and market participants. These changes will strengthen and enhance our financial markets. These initiatives will be critical to facilitating liquid, smooth functioning markets, and addressing potential concerns in the credit markets.” The SEC action included requiring segregation of customer securities and case from those of Lehman. – Secretary Hank Paulson, September 14, 2008

AIG Bailout
Cost: $85 billion in loans

“We are working closely with the Federal Reserve, the SEC and other regulators to enhance the stability and orderliness of our financial markets and minimize the disruption to our economy. I support the steps taken by the Federal Reserve tonight to assist AIG in continuing to meet its obligations, mitigate broader disruptions and at the same time protect the taxpayers.” – Secretary Hank Paulson, September 16, 2008

Money Market Mutual Fund Backings
Cost: $50 billion in pledged assets

“The U.S. Treasury Department today announced the establishment of a temporary guaranty program for the U.S. money market mutual fund industry. For the next year, the U.S. Treasury will insure the holdings of any publicly offered eligible money market mutual fund - both retail and institutional - that pays a fee to participate in the program. President George W. Bush approved the use of existing authorities by Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. to make available as necessary the assets of the Exchange Stabilization Fund for up to $50 billion to guarantee the payment in the circumstances described below.” – Treasury Department Press Release, September 19, 2008

Latest Plan: Socializing Bad Loans
Cost: $700 billion for the latest proposal

“The federal government must implement a program to remove these illiquid assets that are weighing down our financial institutions and threatening our economy. This troubled asset relief program must be properly designed and sufficiently large to have maximum impact…. I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative - a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion. I believe many Members of Congress share my conviction. I will spend the weekend working with members of Congress of both parties to examine approaches to alleviate the pressure of these bad loans on our system, so credit can flow once again to American consumers and companies. Our economic health requires that we work together for prompt, bipartisan action.” – Secretary Hank Paulson, September 19, 2008

Total Paulson Bill to Date: $715.5 billion
New Requested Authority: $700 billion
Total Since January 2008: $1.416 TRILLION

What Caused our Economic Crisis?

And who tried to stop it?

Bush, McCain Warned of Banking Disaster, Democrats ignored

TaxFoundation--Who Pays & Who Receives

The following data from the Tax Foundation shows the progressive income distribution for different income levels:

Who Pays Taxes and Who Receives Government Spending?
An Analysis of Federal, State and Local Tax and Spending Distributions, 1991-2004
by Andrew Chamberlain and Gerald Prante

Working Paper No. 1

Abstract
While the U.S. tax system is progressive, the distribution of government spending makes the overall fiscal system more progressive than is apparent from tax distributions alone. Using a microdata model we estimate the distribution of federal, state and local taxes and spending between 1991 and 2004. We find households in the lowest quintile of income received roughly $8.21 in federal, state and local government spending for every dollar of taxes paid in 2004, while households in the middle quintile received $1.30, and households in the top quintile received $0.41. Overall, tax payments exceeded government spending received for the top two quintiles of income, resulting in a net fiscal transfer of between $1.031 trillion and $1.527 trillion between quintiles. Both taxes and spending appear to have large distributional effects on households, and these effects have grown since 1991. The results suggest tax distributions alone are an inadequate measure of progressivity, and policymakers should examine both tax and spending distributions when judging the overall fairness of policy toward income groups.

Read the PDF: Working Paper No. 1

An easy chart to understand is on page 30 of the Working Paper No. 1 above.