Agenda 21 - Part III, The Plan

*Please read October 2011 and November 2011 if you have not done so already - its time to find out whats going on around you.

We now have a basic overview of Agenda 21 and how it  came  about,  but we  don't know the strategy  to  implement  this  insidious  program  and  their  plan  to  do  it  without  the  public's knowledge.  Let's first summarize where we are:

1974 - UN General Assembly wrote new "International Economic Order"

1976 - UN "Conference on Human Settlements - Habit I"

It was with the above two actions the Concept of Agenda 21 was born.

1987 - Brundtland Commission Report - "Our Common Future"

1992 - UN Rio Earth Summit - "Agenda 21"

1993 - Clinton via decree creates "Presidents Council on Sustainable Development"

1997 - American Planning Association - $4 Million to promote sustainable ideas

            Sustainable Resources Council - $10 Million to promote sustainable ideas

             Institute for Sustainable Commissions - $66.5 Million to promote sustainable ideas

The next part of the Plan was to implement the "Vision Process" across America.  This process institutes the guts of Agenda 21 within the local community without anyone really knowing.  Below shows you the participants:

NGO

(Facilitator)

Environment  Agriculture  Business  Government  Education

Well vetted participants from each sector are selected who are on board with the desired outcomes.  Then the public is invited to participate in making the decisions and the "Consensus Process" is implemented.   Now, consensus is NOT agreement.  Consensus is the absence of expressed opposition. Let's look at the example below to explain:

            Goal:                             What do you think about Preserving Open Space?

            Typical Response:       Sure, we want to preserve open space.

            Facilitator Questions:  How much open space?

                                                   Where would it be?

                                                   How would it be acquired?

                                                   How much would it cost to maintain?

                                                   Etc.

            Consensus Stated Goal:  Does anyone think we should NOT Preserve Open Space?

            Typical Response:            NO, we think we should preserve open space.

            Facilitator Questions:       NONE and NO questions accepted from audience either

With Consensus the facilitator will write their findings to disseminate to the various political commissions that there was an overwhelming response by the all the participants that we should preserve open space.  Is that factual, well yes.  Does it really tell the whole story of what people think if other factors were presented?  Factors such as: the cost involved with acquisition; if grants utilized, what strings might be attached with that funding source: the amount of land being preserved; where it is located; the cost to maintain the land; the increase in property taxes as less land is available for private use and thus a source of property taxes; etc.  These questions and many more you might think of constitute an informed decision with possible opposition expressing counter points of view, a practice that has been typical in the public arena since our country's inception.  Not any more.

The next process was alluded too in the previous post in Part II - the implementation of (your town) Vision 20/20.  In Part II we referenced a SC political official who spoke against adopting this 20/20 plan as it dictated winners and losers and where you could and couldn't live and so much more - but many have other municipalities have not.  Again, as in consensus, Vision 20/20 gets the various segment representation and willing accomplices to create their plan for their future incorporating all these Agenda 21 ideas.  In each case above, whether a facilitator for the "Consensus" or "Vision" process, the answers to all the "how to" questions that are raised come right out of the Agenda 21 and Sustainable America publications.

Agenda 21 is 40 chapters with 4 sections:  Section I - Social & Economic Dimensions; Section II - Conservation and Management of Resources for Development; Section III - Strengthening the Role of Major Groups; and Section IV - Means of Implementation - read it with open eyes.

For America there is also a revised standard version called "Sustainable America" as alluded to above.  In it is stated that ALL decisions are to be worked through its social, economic and environmental impact with the environmental impact playing the deciding role. 

Control of Land:

*1976 UN Conference of Human Settlements where the US government endorsed the idea of government controlling the land: "D(I)(d) Governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty over land with a view to freely planning development of human settlements..."

*1992 UN Conference on Environment & Development US government signed Agenda 21 which states: "7.30(c) ...solutions for a more rational and environmentally sound use of limited land resources."

Land Use Control - Smart Growth:

American Planning Association received millions of dollars to develop plans for states to adopt to assure governmental control of the land.  "Growing Smart" was just such a plan that came with 3 model statutes and 2 model executive orders to exercise land use control.  These contained language that would control every facet of land use ignoring property rights and individual freedom.  They allowed them to collect fines for each day there was non-compliance with their laws.  It also instituted the right for the government to place a lien on property or condemn the property and take it.  Also hidden within the standards were unknown provisions such as "amortization of non-conforming uses" that allowed after a specified period of time, the government to take the property to correct the non-conformity.  Eminent Domain Constitutionally was only allowed for the "Public Use", these standards ignored it.

Land Use Restrictions:

New rules and regulations that designate a percentage of land that must remain in a "Natural Condition"; the height of the grass; has pages of sign regulations; types of materials to build; the colors you can use and even the types of landscaping allowed.

A woman in Utah was arrested for not watering her grass.  She was an older women on a fixed-income who was trying to sell her home after property taxes escalated to high for her to afford.  She was in such dire straights she couldn't afford the water bill but the government didn't care, she was not taking care of her personal environment as stated in the governmental regulations.

Another concept created was "Unjust Enrichment".  This is such a devious plan.  The government institutes new regulations that may, by shire luck benefit you by raising the value of your land, sorry, you don't get that.  The government will place a penalty tax on you as a result of its actions.  

Biodiversity:

The map above is a representation of where humans can live, work and play - yes, this is part of Agenda 21.  The red areas are "core areas" where no humans can go; the yellow areas are "buffer zones" and highly regulated with barely any humans allowed to enter; the light brown areas are areas with some allowable human activity - what you can barely see are small grey dots where humans can live in highly dense urban areas.  Its going to be great!   

The 1992 Earth Summit moved us a long way toward the above goals.  It gave us Agenda 21 (Non-Binding Treaty), the Framework Convention on Climate Change (Non-Binding Treaty), and the Convention on Biological Diversity (Binding Treaty - never ratified).  Also, in 1993 the UN Environmental Program (UNEP) gave us their "Global Biodiversity Assessment".  ALL geared to shut down the use of fossil fuels and transforming the countryside.

We have seen recently that 1.9 million acres in Utah were designated as the "Grand Staircase Escalante Monument" (no one knows what that is) with no mining allowed shutting us out of obtaining the 63.9 billion tons of low sulfur coal there.  We watched as the 19.6 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuse be declared off-limits by Presidential veto of a bill that would have allowed companies to use 1/10th of 1% of the land to drill for the 16 billion barrels of oil beneath it.

The Convention on Biodiversity in Article 8 of its charter requires every nation to create "...a system of protected areas" - ""...representative areas of all major ecosystems in a region need to be reserved, that blocks as large as possible, that buffer zones should be established around core areas, and that corridors should connect these areas.  This basic design is central to the recently proposed Wildlands Project (see map below) in the US" (pg 993).  

The Wildlands Project is the program to rid humans from the land.  On pg 13 of its charter it state, "...the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans."  Also, "...at least HALF of the 48 continuous states should be encompassed in core reserves and inner corridor zones" (pg 15).  Reed F. Noss is the author of the Wildlands Project and he is serious about this program - unfortunately, so are a lot of the NGO's out there.  Noss states that "eventually, a wilderness network would dominate a region and this would itself constitute the matrix with human habitations being the island." "These islands of human habitation" called for in the Convention of Biodiversity are the sustainable communities called for in Agenda 21.

This is getting to long, more to come in Part IV, The Plan Continued.

                                             (content primarily taken from www.sovereignty.net)

Agenda 21 - Part II, The Concept

If you have not read my earlier post on "Agenda 21 - The Basics" posted last month, October 2011, may I suggest you go back and read it first so you get a general understanding of what this movement is all about. In this post we build on that basic knowledge and begin to dig deeper into the weeds to discuss how this was established and who is taking this movement forward.

As stated in “Agenda 21 – The Basics” there are many names for these programs that are being pushed on you.  Rep Joseph Neal, Richard & Sumter County, SC preaches about one, Vision 20/20, a program as he states is there to "determine who will profit and who won't," and to "create high density villages of high value where everyone will live and outlands where no one lives and has land of little value..."  This is our future as designed by these programs that were born of Agenda 21.

Over the next many weeks we are going to look at the details of what got us to where we are and how we got wrapped in Agenda 21.  We will look at how it all began as well as the strategy and then the plan that ultimately resulted in what we know today as Agenda 21 and then finally ideas as to what we can do about it as it is assumed most everyone wants to retain their private property rights and individual liberty that this program intends to eliminate or at a minimum, severely restrict.

The Concept:

In 1974 the UN General Assembly wrote a new International Economic Order (UN 10/res/5-6/3201-197) that was authored exclusively by the developing nations.  The developed nations (the West) largely ignored it but an overwhelming number of delegates of the UN took these ideas and concepts with them as they went on to other UN conferences where they might be able to implement them under another name(s).  What were some of these "economic" ideas and concepts:

- Regulate & Control all multi-national corporations

- Authority to nationalize foreign property

- Authority to establish commodity monopolies exempt from international sanctions

- Transfer of technology and technical assistance with no strings attached

This document clearly showed that the UN General Assembly believed that government should completely control the economy and that equity was the primary objective.

In 1976 the United Nations had a Conference on Human Settlements - Habitat I.  From its Preamble one can get an understanding of where it wanted to go.

"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market.  Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, and therefore, contributes to social injustice..."

This clearly set the stage for an additional 65 pages of very specific land use recommendations such as:

A-1. Redistribute populations in accordance with resources

B-1. Government must control the use of land to achieve equitable distribution of resources

D-2. Control land use through zoning & land use planning

D-3. Excessive profits from land use must be recaptured by government

D-4. Public ownership of land should be used to exercise urban and rural land reform

D-5. Owner rights should be separated from development rights which should be held by a public authority

From just these few recommendations sighted above it is more then enough to establish the direction of the rest of the UN recommendations.  The US agreed with this program having Carla Hills, Sec HUD and William Riley, President of the Conservation Fund authorized as designated signers.  William Riley later became the administrator of the EPA.  Also attending this conference were nine other agencies of the federal government, the Sierra Club, National Audubon Society, National Resources Council, Friends of the Earth, Conservation Foundation (William Riley), League of Women Voters, and dozens of other environmental and social justice organizations. 

Notice that no where during this time has the term "Sustainable" been used.  The term "Sustainable Development" was first introduced to the world in the pages of a 1987 report (Our Common Future) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party.  Today, it is found and used in ever facet of US public policy.  We will speak more about this in Part III, The Strategy.

                                             (content primarily taken from www.sovereignty.net)

United Nations Agenda 21 - The Basics

More than 178 nations  adopted  Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceremony at the
Earth Summit.   Their signing was a pledge to adopt the goals of Agenda 21, as it is a voluntary program.  Various underpinnings of this program were being practiced under many names across the country in varying degrees but wasn’t "official" US policy until 1995 when President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12858 that created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in order to “harmonize” US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21.  The EO directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort to “reinvent” government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21.  As a result, with the assistance of groups like ICLEI, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation.

The term Sustainable Development was first introduced to the world in the pages a 1987 report (Our Common Future) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environmental and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party. The term was first offered as official UN policy in 1992, in a document called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21, issued at the UN’s Earth Summit, today referred to simply as Agenda 21.

The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) is behind the movement even though it is primarily known as Local Governments for Sustainability.  Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide “local” community plans, software, training, etc.  Additional groups involved include American Planning Council, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. Foundation and government grants drive the process.

However, they knew that this process would not go over well with the American public like it does in Europe in that Americans cherish their individual freedom and liberty.  So calling it Agenda 21 or exposing the UN roots were and are purposely hidden from the people.  “Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking UNA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development.

The following are revealing quotes from Planners across the country:

“Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced… ” Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993).

“The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained…Sustainable development, therefore is a program of action for local and global economic reform – a program that has yet to be fully defined.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.

“No one fully understands how or even, if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.

One of the primary efforts within Agenda 21 is to strip Americans of private land rights.  The U.S. is the only country, or one of very few, where the citizens can own their property outright.  All other countries have a caveat in their deeds, if they have one at all, that the government is the ultimate owner of the property.  Developers around the world have taken advantage of this aspect of ownership for years by convincing local politicians that a certain piece of land would be better suited for some project of theirs rather then its current use.  In 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court further placed their hat on the Agenda 21 bandwagon by moving us closer to the socialized world with their ruling in Kelo v New London.  Here they changed the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution by redefining  "public use" to mean "public benefit."  They took the private home of Ms. Kelo and gave it to a developer.  It marks the first time in American history a local government seized a newly renovated private property from an American citizen and gave it to a private developer for the welfare of the government.  Below are some quotes about land rights you may want to familiarize yourself with and let sink in:

“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” From the report from the 1976 UN’s Habitat I Conference.

“Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, page 112.

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.

As stated above it is the local government through consensus building that is prescribed with the task to introduce and pass the laws to start the process of limiting property rights by restricting what you can do on your own land.  The federal government will do their part by providing the money to initiate the studies and experts that show this is the viable way to go.  Through services provided to local governments that seemingly appear to be good (but only by the uninformed, and unfortunately this is the case with most of our local city and county commissions) the process takes root.  They are told this is good for their municipality, so unknowingly or knowingly they go along.  The following quotes are part of the plan to move it forward: 

“We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural and financial resources in achieving our goals.” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development

“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project

“We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.” Dave Foreman, Earth First.

As stated above, Sustainable Development was a term coined in 1987 within a UN report that was headed by a self-proclaimed and active socialist.  According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.  Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.  Please reread that last sentence and note it is all about global control and then the last insidious element of it, population control and reduction.  Reducing the population is a major goal as they look at people as the problem on the globe.  This is perfect post-modern thought in that the strong or the elite in this case, will decide for the benefit of the collective.  Truth is what you say truth is, so if you think people are the problem then just devise a program that whittles down their existence.  Agenda 21 does this.  Please read more on the development of post-modern thought in the world so you can understand how it is easy for these people to believe they can make decisions that in effect exterminate large populations without any remorse.  Europe and the rest of the world is well on there way to being fully post-modern in their thought, America is halfway there.  As an example, a decade ago the head of Ethics at Princeton University told the country that babies aren’t really self-aware their first 28 days after birth so if they have some abnormality you don’t like you may want to or need to kill them, that’s OK.  Our current President when he was an Illinois State Senator had no problem voting for a bill stating, ...babies that somehow survived the abortion process had no right to life and were best left to die.  So don’t delude yourself into thinking that depopulation can’t happen – with post-modern thought it can and has in the past (Hitler is an example – following Nietzsche and his uberman).  You may find it revolting but unfortunately you are in the world minority but thankfully, still the majority in America.  This is a big part of the culture war we are engaged in today where the post-modern thinkers say man is the ultimate and whatever man says is law – while others say there is something greater then man and that is where our individual rights come as clearly stated in our country’s founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Two differing views of man, one where man is the truth and another where “natures God” is the truth.

Another part within this process is the downplaying of the private business sector or capitalism, where any individual can prosper based on their own initiatives.  This too was an American invention and remains the apex in the world where anyone can achieve success, not just the upper class or elite.  America did away with the class system for prosperity at its inception but today, many of the world elite want to bring it back through Agenda 21.  The post-modern or sustainable thought is that the “collective” is all important and economic prosperity should be regulated by government.  Here you find the growing use of Public Private Partnerships (PPP).  These are special dealings between government and certain chosen corporations which get tax breaks, grants and the government’s power of Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy.  They are government sanctioned monopolies (To be transparent, this author worked within a PPP for several years.).  Coupled with the introduction of Social Equity or Social Justice, which is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment” you get the belief in redistribution of wealth. Now, we have all heard President Obama discuss this, several times.  You also get the growing belief that private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it and that national sovereignty is a social injustice but, universal health care is a social justice. All are part of Agenda 21 policy. 

Sustainable Development policies in your local market can be called many things.  Some of these programs are named: Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, Green jobs, Green Building Codes, “Going Green,” Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management, consensus.   Be aware of what is going on in your city or county and get involved to push back on this initiative that is designed to take away your rights, your freedom your liberty and most important, your freely elected representation.

(content primarily taken from www.sovereignty.net)

Obama vs. Bush - Aren't they the same?

Obama is smart.  I think he knows exactly what he is doing - he and his minions are taking this country exactly where they want it to go - AND I agree Bush is partially to blame as he too is a progressive, big government, one world guy just like Obama - he just went about it differently then Obama but if you didn't like Bush and blame him for the recession what did he do you didn't like?

You don't like Bush for getting us in two wars, is that his problem, did that cause the recession - well, Obama is in those same two wars, upped the fight in one (by adding 30,000 troops) and has now got us in two more wars (Libya and Yemen) – so is that the problem, did that cause the recession?

You didn't like Bush because of tax cuts, is that why you hate him, did that cause the recession? - But yet Obama extended those very same Tax rates, so is that the problem, did that cause the recession?

Bush spent to much and that caused the recession, yes he did - Again however, Obama's spending has quadrupled anything Bush did - so did that cause the recession?

So again I ask you, why do you hate Bush and yet love Obama?  They are doing the same thing.  You hate Bush for Guantanamo?  Why?  Obama has done nothing with it and it is still there and doing the same thing it was before.  What about rendition?  Obama is STILL doing rendition of prisoners.  OK, you hate Bush because he bombed people - well, Obama has upped the bombing since his taking over the Presidency - we are bombing and using drone bombers everywhere - Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, etc. - Oh and one more thing, black Americans have the highest unemployment rate since the great depression, so understand Obama is doing NOTHING for the black community he is just taking them and us down further and further, by design.

So again tell me more about the dumb Bush and the smart Obama, what makes them so different?  And tell me what things one did that caused the problem and what the other is doing to remedy it?  I don't think you can, well I know you can't.

Progressives of BOTH parties for the past 100 years have brought us to the brink and your hanging on to this President because he is black or Democrat is just going to add to the disaster we are heading into - time for a change.

The reality is politicians brought us this recession due to their policies and desires for power and money - we have been engaged in crony capitalism for the past 30/40 years - this recession we are in is not due to anything other then man - it is a man made disaster and not a cyclical recession we experience every 10 to 15 years as in the past (except during Reagan's policies that gave us the longest extended period without recession in our history - the most jobs, the most wealth creation and the biggest growth of the middle class except during the 1920's - where in fact the very same policies were enacted to stem and end a huge recession that we were in due to the same policies that got us in this one) - we changed the rules for banking and investing that were put in place after the depression to protect the people and the system - but we thought we were to smart and to skillful in managing the economy and wouldn't make the same mistakes - ha, men have always been greedy and power hungry that is why our founding fathers put the rules in place they did to protect the people from the government but the progressives slowly have nudged us away from our religion, our morals, our divided government and bought votes while corrupting the people and the system all to their advantage while making more and more people dependent on that very corrupt system they control.

TIME TO WAKE UP and quite making this a black vs. white thing, a rich vs. poor thing, a Republican vs. Democrat thing and make it what it is - us the common people vs. the political elite and super rich who see themselves as smarter and are due more then the rest of us - quite buying into their slogans and spin to pit us common people against one another and SEE the real culprit to our problems - the super rich and political elite!  Vote for free Americans to hold office and not the entrenched candidate - Vote for those who want the country to go back to abiding by the Constitution with the power lying in the hands of the people and the States - unfortunately today the Democratic party has been totally corrupted by the progressive left and at best may leave you only a very few if any to vote for other then the Republican candidate if we are to come back off the ledge and not fall in to the abyss - if it isn't already to late.

Now tell me something that I said is wrong because I can lay a lot more on you - history shows us everything that has been done and shows us where they are taking us, all of us - black, white, brown, rich, poor, democrat, republican, independent, Christian, Jew, Atheist, etc - and we will serve our masters once more - the super rich and political elite - like common men have for thousands of years of existence except for all but 230 years of history - again, it is time to wake up and see the truth - for truth has no agenda.

U.S. Federal Budget – Part VI, Which Budget? Which Vision?

An Overview:

First, the President and his Democratically controlled House and Senate, which could have passed anything they wanted (and did for the most part), didn’t or wouldn't pass a budget for FY2011, so that started us down the path of continuing resolution after continuing resolution before we could really discuss the FY2012 Budget, that finally got resolved a few weeks ago.  And just to add to  your knowledge base the democratically controlled Senate has not passed a budget in over 2 YEARS!  

The 2012 budget process was unofficially kicked-off with the President’s own National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility (Obama commissioned this group to give us a bi-partisan path to deficit reduction) that came out with their “Moment of Truth” in December of 2010; after which came Obama I on February 14, 2011, followed by the House Budget Committee in April (April 05, 2011), with their “Path to Prosperity,” after which was followed up by Obama II (April 13, 2011), and in between the House Budget and Obama II there were others offered up by a few caucuses and study groups that in various forms were ultimately voted down in the House. 

Unfortunately, the President did not seem to think too much of his own commission’s “Moment of Truth” as his initial FY2012 budget offering didn’t incorporate any of its components and in fact continued with nearly $1.7 Trillion in deficit spending with only a minimum reduction of the debt. The House seemed to take it more seriously in its “Pathway to Prosperity” as it incorporated some of the Fiscal Commissions recommendations by cutting spending and attempting to make real reform. The rest of the various groups/caucuses and ultimately even the President himself, decided that they might want to get involved in the federal ‘reduction” process, or at least pretend, as they offered various forms of spending cuts and deficit reduction plans. 

Before we go on, and just to bring this right up to date and keep you in the proper perspective, the first seven months of FY2011 is running at a deficit of $871 Billion – do you think we need to do something now or maybe wait another few years?  Once again, we have the President’s Bi-Partisan Fiscal Commission and his subsequent Budgets I & II, the House Budget, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, “The People’s Budget” (Democratic Socialists), the Congressional Black Caucus, and the Republican Study Committee, “Honest Solutions,” all vying to steer the spending and the country to their vision. 

Summary of Budget Offerings:

President’s Fiscal Commission (Dec 2010) - Achieve nearly $4 trillion in deficit reduction through 2020, more than any effort in the nation’s history - Reduce the deficit to 2.3% of GDP by 2015 (2.4% excluding Social Security reform), exceeding President’s goal of primary balance (about 3% of GDP) - Sharply reduce tax rates, abolish the AMT, and cut backdoor spending in the tax code - Cap revenue at 21% of GDP and get spending below 22% and eventually to 21% - Ensure lasting Social Security solvency, prevent the projected 22% cuts to come in 2037, reduce elderly poverty, and distribute the burden fairly - Stabilize debt by 2014 and reduce debt to 60% of GDP by 2023 and 40% by 2035.

The President I (Feb 14, 2011) - $3.78 Trillion in Spending - $1.7 Trillion in additional deficit spending – Claims $1.1 Trillion in Debt reduction but at its core is $780 Billion in unspecified “reductions” - Lowers Deficit Spending to $748B by 2015 then increases it back to $1.158 Trillion by 2021 - Increases Debt held by Public as a percentage of GDP to 87.4% - No Entitlement reform.

The House (Apl 5, 2011) - $2.94 Trillion in Spending - $1.08 Trillion in additional deficit spending - Reduces Debt by $6 Trillion over 10 years - Reduces Debt held by Public as a percentage of GDP to 67.5% - Balances the Budget by 2015 - Entitlement and Tax reform.

Deficits as a Percentage of GDP

Plan	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2012-2021
CBO March Baseline	9.8%	7.0%	4.6%	3.6%	3.2%	3.3%	3.0%	2.9%	3.0%	3.1%	3.1%	3.7%
President's Budget	9.5%	7.4%	5.5%	4.4%	4.1%	4.4%	4.3%	4.3%	4.7%	4.8%	4.9%	4.8%
House (Ryan)Budget	9.2%	6.3%	4.3%	2.9%	2.4%	2.5%	2.0%	1.8%	1.9%	1.8%	1.6%	2.7%

Rep. Paul Ryan's budget has significantly lower deficits than President Obama's budget under the same economic conditions with a deficit over 3.3 percentage points lower in 2021 and averages 2.1 percentage lower over the ten year window. As a result, the debt path is also on a better trajectory.

The Republican Study (Apl 7, 2011) - $3.318 Trillion in Spending - $1.3 Trillion in Debt – Balances the Budget by 2019

The President II (Apl 13, 2011)  In an unprecedented move never done before by an American President Obama offers up a second Budget since his first one was so pitiful and didn't even attempt to lower the defict - now his new Budget reduces over-all debt $4 Trillion over 12 years (the CBO and all other proposals are based on 10 year plans – this offering of the President showing reductions over 12 years has never been done before and is against CBO rules) – Calls for more reductions in defense and non-defense discretionary spending, health care and other mandatory programs then his first budget – he also is now calling for tax reform, reduce tax expenditures and cut tax rates – maintains a large federal government and still does not meet his own Fiscal Commission which many agree should be the minimum.

The key thing to know here is that although the CBO tells us the Presidents budget will stimulate the economy through 2016, however from 2017 to 2021 they “project that President Obama's policies would decrease economic output…”   We see the President doing something that works for him politically in the short run for re-election but in the long run (after he leaves office) it hurts the country and the American people.

The Progressive Caucus (Apl 13, 2011) Reduces Debt held by Public as a percentage of GDP to 64.7% - calls for a big, growing, controlling government that oversees the people and the economy.

The Black Caucus (Apl 14, 2011) Balances Budget by 2018 - again believes in a big government that redistributes from producers to non-producers, ultimately at the expense of the economy.

Which Budget?  Which Vision?:

What is important and what is really up for grabs in this budget process is the Vision we have for America – where do you want it to go, because that’s the big differences in these budgets.  Between the President's budget, the Progressive and the Black Caucus budgets they all want to spend more and redistribute money by taking it from and limiting the producers, de-incentivizing the private sector while expanding the public sector in hopes of stimulating the economy or at least, maintain the status quo.  The House budget and the Republican Study Group budget both want to limit spending and reward producers with incentives to spur the private sector thus increasing job formations, while shrinking the public sector resulting in a growing economy for all.  So, are your beliefs more like the Ryan's (House) Vision in his “Path to Prosperity” seeking less government spending, less government regulation and a overall smaller, less intrusive federal government much as our founders intended.  Or, is your Vision like the path the President and the liberals, socialists, progressives, etc. see for America, a big federal government that is involved in the peoples’ lives from cradle to grave and dictates most everything in it by controlling the private sector from top down and bottom up? 

Do you still champion individual rights, individual responsibility and liberty fostered by a private sector that creates jobs and economic growth with a small federal government like the House plan or something like the President’s plan or the “People’s Budget” that believes in the collective and big government stimulating the economy, providing jobs and primarily imposing programs and reforms on the people because well, we just aren't smart enough to know any better. 


What do you want from your government?  Is it there, in the background, taking care of the security of the country and offering a safety net for those individuals on the fringes of society allowing individuals to do as they best see fit for themselves and their families while keeping the vast majority of the money you earned or is it a behemoth that is everywhere taking and spending your money trying to provide services to everyone whether they want them or not?  Is it there to run you, to impose its values and its beliefs on you or are you free to live within your own set of morals, values and beliefs within the confines of our founding documents: The Declaration of Independence, proclaiming that the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God hold these truths to be self-evident, that All Men are Created Equal, that they are Endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights; the Constitution that lays out the laws of the land and how we the people are self ruled, not by elites within an authoritative government; and the Bill of Rights granting us free speech, freedom from an imposed religion and the free practice thereof, freedom of assembly, a free press, the right to petition the government, etc?

One Vision, my Vision, is that the American Dream is real, alive and available to all citizens that work hard while the other is one of denial in ones own worthiness and that there is no way to prosper without government intervention while those who have achieved have somehow done it at the expense of those who have not and thus, their wealth should be taken and redistributed.  Remember, throughout history and right through today, the bigger the government grows with continuing control at the top by an "elite" class the less freedom and prosperity for the people.

How do you see Yourself and Your Country?

Which Budget?  Which Vision? 

U.S. Federal Budget - Part V, House Republican Budget

The President started the budget process with his Budget of the U.S. Government FY 2012, published February 14.  Now via Constitutional authority, Congress must appropriate funds to pay for the obligations of the Federal Government and thus by law the House has to write its own budget to plan to carry out its Constitutional obligation.  So, now we have Rep Ryan (WI-R) the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, has published the House’s initial proposal, “Path To Prosperity – Restoring America’s Promise” at the beginning of April.  Ryan and his colleague’s ideas can be summed up by reading their opening salvo in the summary of their plan:

“Where the President has failed, House Republicans will lead. This budget helps spur job creation today, stops spending money the government doesn’t have, and lifts the crushing burden of debt. This plan puts the budget on the path to balance and the economy on the path to prosperity.”

Let the games begin.

The House FY 2012 Budget authorizes $2.858 Trillion with $2.948 Trillion in Budget Outlays and $1.081 Trillion in Deficits.  SPENDING: This budget cuts $6.2 Trillion in government spending over the next 10 years and $5.8 Trillion relative to current-policy baseline; Eliminates hundreds of duplicative programs; Reflects the ban on earmarks; Curbs corporate welfare bringing non-discretionary spending to below 2008 levels; it brings Government spending to below 20 percent of the economy (the President’s budget never falls below 23 percent of the GDP over the next decade.  DEBT AND DEFICITS:  Reduces deficits $4.4 Trillion over the next decade; Surpasses President’s low level of sustainability (which Obama’s fails to meet) reaching primary balance by 2015; it puts the budget on a path to balance and pays off the debt.  TAXES:  Keeps taxes low to grow the economy; Eliminates roughly $800 Billion in tax increases imposed by the President’s Health Care Law; Prevents the $1.5 Trillion tax increase called for in the President’s budget; Calls for a simpler less burdensome tax code for households and small business; Lowers tax rates for individuals, business and families; Sets top rate for individuals and businesses at 25%, and; improves incentives for growth, savings and investment.

The CBO has conducted a long-term analysis of the House proposal to substantially change federal payments under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, eliminate the subsidies to be provided through new insurance exchanges under last year’s major health care legislation, leave Social Security as it would be under current law, and set paths for all other federal spending (excluding interest) and federal tax revenues at specified growth rates or percentages of gross domestic product (GDP).  However, “this analysis does not represent a cost estimate for legislation that might implement the proposal. Rather, it is an assessment of the broad, long-term budgetary impacts of the proposal, with results spanning several decades and measured as a share of gross domestic product (GDP). It is therefore quite different from a cost estimate for legislation, which would require much more detailed analysis, focus on the first 10 years, and be based on more recent baseline projections.”

The House plans changes to Medicare and Medicaid with the repeal of key provisions of the President’s Health Care Plan will, as a result of those changes, lower the government’s mandatory spending for health care to about 6 percent of GDP in 2030 and 2040 and about 5 percent in 2050, as compared with more than 12 percent projected under current law.  It will also set “all other spending (excluding that for Social Security and interest) on a path that would cause such spending to decline sharply as a share of GDP—from 12 percent in 2010 to 6 percent in 2022 and 3½ percent by 2050; the proposal does not specify the changes to government programs that might be made in order to produce that path.  Set revenues on a path that would cause them to rise from 15 percent of GDP in 2010 to 18½ percent in 2022 and 19 percent in 2030 and beyond.”

The House passed this budget the day after the CR was settled – other budgets were offered, debated and voted down prior to this version being passed, primarily along party lines – 235 to 193 – although all know this version of the 2012 Fiscal Year Budget will not pass in this form – it will be negotiated between the House, Senate and President.  We can only hope and pray it contains major deficit reductions and changes to our costly entitlement programs.