Debt Ceiling: Letter to Florida's Senator Bill Nelson

Senator Bill Nelson (Dem.-FL) sent an email asking for his constituents input regarding the debt ceiling issue. Below is a copy of the letter I sent in response:

Dear Senator Nelson:


The cycle of constant expansion of the nation's debt has to stop. It is bankrupting us and our children. It is unsustainable. I support these principles:

1. Every dollar of debt ceiling increase must be matched by spending cuts. These cuts must be made BEFORE additional dollars may be borrowed. The old trick of raising the ceiling on the promise of future cuts that never seem to come must be avoided. For this reason, I do not like either the Boehner or Reid plans. We do not need yet another commission. Congress needs to do its job and cut the red ink.

2. There should be no income tax increases on anyone, especially corporations, during a recession. Even President Kennedy knew tax cuts, not increases, promoted job growth and economic expansion. I support a Fair Tax, but only if the 16th Amendment is repealed. It is wrong that the top 2% of taxpayers pay 80% of taxes and that over 50%, including myself, owe none.

3. No debt ceiling increase should be granted until the President submits a balanced budget. It is dereliction of duty for him not to have submitted a budget for the current fiscal year. He insists we do not need a balanced budget amendment. I say, "Prove it!"

4. The current Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs are not sustainable and must be reformed. I support increasing or even removing the cap on income subject to FICA withholdings. The current $250,000 maximum is too low to keep the system solvent.

5. If a default is unavoidable because Congress continues to fail to act and the President continues to refuse to lead, then payments of our debts need to go out in this order:

a. active duty military
b. retired military
c. Social Security recipients (retirees, disabled, & children)
d. government contractors
e. government civil service workers
f. U.S. bondholders
g. foreign aid recipients
h. all other obligations
i. elected officials and their staff

Sincerely,
Susan M. Lamb

“We Don’t Need No Stinking Constitution”

“We don’t need no stinking Constitution. And we sure don’t need no advice and consent from Congress. National sovereignty? Oh, please! That’s so twentieth-century.” At least that seems to be Barack Obama’s position today.


Obama thumbed his nose at Congress and the American people when he authorized the use of American military assets to invoke a no-fly zone over Libya. If news reports are accurate, Obama called Congressional leaders to the White House Saturday, not to discuss with them the pros and cons of U.S. involvement in the Libyan civil war. No, he called them over to inform them of the decision he had already made to commit U.S. forces to enforce a no-fly zone for the United Nations.

Now, there is no question that Muammar el-Qaddafi is a bad guy. Undoubtedly, the Libyan people will suffer greatly if he remains in power after the recent rebellion against his dictatorial rule. He promised to kill his opponents, and we know his ruthlessness in the past. Many innocent civilians have and will die unless he is removed.

Nonetheless, the United Nations’ resolution to order a no-fly zone over Libya to protect the rebels is a dangerous precedent. Our involvement is militarily unwise, financially disastrous, a threat to our national sovereignty, and constitutionally questionable.

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich declared Obama’s decision an "impeachable offense” because of his failure to consult with Congress or get Congressional authorization beforehand. The Constitution in Article I, Section 8.11 is clear: Congress, not the President, holds the power “to declare war.”

Because of presidential abuses during the Vietnam era, Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973 to rein in the President. Under it, the President may engage U.S. troops only if the U.S. or its territories are under imminent threat of invasion by a foreign power or if U.S. citizens need to be extracted from an imminent threat in a foreign nation. Otherwise, the President must go to Congress to seek a declaration of war or a Congressional mandate prior to any military action involving U.S. troops. In no case, can the President use the U.S. military if “imminent hostilities” are expected to last for sixty days or more. Some exceptions allow the timeframe to be extended an additional thirty days.

Thus, technically, the President may have the right to engage U.S. forces without any Congressional consultation first under the War Powers Act. It should be noted, though, that many legal scholars consider the War Powers Act itself to be unconstitutional. It has yet to be fully tested in a Supreme Court case.

Obama is the first President to take military action without any consultation with Congress. Every other President, including the Left’s hated George W. Bush, has made his case to Congress and sought advice or a Congressional resolution before sending our military forces into harm’s way.

The irony is that Obama’s previous position was that it is unconstitutional for a President to go to war without Congressional approval. For example, in a December, 20, 2007 interview with Charlie Savage, a Boston Globe reporter, Obama said: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

Savage asked his question specifically in regards to bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, if needed to stop their development of nuclear weapons. Then-Senator Obama elaborated, “As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that ‘any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.’”

Today, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden enthusiastically support the sending of U.S. fighter pilots on the mission to ground Libya’s air defenses under the War Powers Act. They surely did not believe in it when Bush was President.

Savage asked Clinton the same question during her presidential campaign. Then-Senator Clinton gave a very similar answer to Obama’s regarding the War Powers Act. She supported Obama’s S.J. Res. 23 against bombing Iran without Congressional approval.

In 1998, then-Senator Joe Biden gave an impassioned speech on the Senate floor in opposition to “monarchist” Presidents who sent troops into military actions without Congressional approval. He fully outlined the history and intent of the Founding Fathers regarding the Constitution’s restrictions on presidential powers to make war. In this speech, Biden criticized fellow Democrats President Harry S. Truman for his “police action” in Korea and President Bill Clinton for bombing Iraq under United Nations resolutions.

What Would I Buy for $13?

Mike Huckabee asked on his FoxNews television show last weekend what viewers would buy for the additional $13 workers will receive in their paychecks under the recently passed stimulus plan. That is the amount employees will receive weekly in 2009 due to reductions in the payroll taxes. Next year, the amount is reduced to $7.75 per week.

Now, even though I am disabled and unable to work, I decided to answer the question. I googled "buy" and "$13." I received 3.6 million hits! I found several favorites, but one was absolutely perfect.

For $12.95, I would buy "Money to Burn Fire Starters." These are wax rolls of fake $100 bills. The description reads: "Impress friends and family with your phony wealth by starting a fire with these benjamins coated in slow-burning wax so they stay lit until the firewood catches. You can also light your fine hand-rolled Cuban cigar! Because money is nothing to a high roller like you, right?"

What would be more appropriate considering that Congress is burning through our money like there is no tomorrow with this stimulus package?

Voting Recommendations for Duval County [Florida] Residents

Below are my recommendations for Duval County residents. As you will see, I have split my ballot more than I usually do. Whomever you chose to support, what matters most is that you exercise your right to vote.

President: John McCain (REP)
Congressional District 4: Jay McGovern (DEM)
Public Defender: Bill White (DEM)
Clerk of Courts: Jim Fuller (REP)
City Council-at-large, Group 2: John R. Crescimbeni (DEM)
School Board, District 1: Stan Jordan
School Board, District 3: W. C. Gentry
Soil & Water Conservation Board, Group 2: Jonathan McGowan
Soil & Water Conservation Board, Group 3: Victor L. Wilhelm, Jr.
Soil & Water Conservation Board, Group 4: Katrina L. Finley

On the judges, I could find no agregious decisions, so I voted to retain all.

Here are my recommendations on the Amendments:

#1: No (A 'yes' vote would give "equal rights" to illegal aliens under Florida's Constitution and prohibit the Legislature from "discriminating" against those who are in the United States illegally.)
#2: Yes (This amendment puts the current definition of marriage under Florida statute in the Constitution to prevent activist judges from ordering Florida to allow homosexual marriages. Current law defines marriage as between a man and a woman. This amendment will have no other impact.)
#3: Yes (This gives homeowners the incentive to make hurricane protection and energy conservation improvements without penalizing them with higher property tax assessments.)
#4: Yes (It encourages property owners to maintain their undeveloped property for conservation purposes with tax breaks.)
#5: Removed from ballot by the Florida Supreme Court
#6: Yes (It requires property tax assessments on working waterfront properties to be assessed according to their current usage, not future or potential usage. It protects small businesses, such as marine repair, commercial fishers, and marinas, from being forced out of business by higher assessments because their properties could be used for condos or resorts, etc.)
#7: Withdrawn
#8: No (This amendment would allow an increase in sales' taxes. Although the purpose is good, increasing taxes on anything at this time of economic turmoil is bad.)

Again, I hope this helps you and please, get out and vote! Deo Vindice, Sue