Isakson Named To Senate Finance Committee

January 3, 2013 12:29 pm

by Charlie · 61 comments

A well deserved committee appointment comes for Senator Johnny Isakson in the 113th Congress:

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., today was named to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, which will play a key role in the upcoming critical debate on cutting spending and reducing our nation’s debt.

Isakson’s 30-plus years as a small businessman who had to make a payroll and comply with federal tax regulations will serve him well on the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax policy that affects all American families and small businesses.

The Finance Committee also oversees trade policy, Social Security and health programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), as well as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).

“I am absolutely thrilled to serve on the Senate Finance Committee, and I thank Leader Mitch McConnell for allowing me the opportunity.

“My number one priority in the Senate is to rein in federal spending and restore fiscal soundness to our country so that our children’s and grandchildren’s futures are bright and prosperous. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I am committed to finding meaningful solutions and working with anyone who will sit down at the table to turn our country’s course to reduce our debt and deficits.

“I am also committed to reforming Social Security and Medicare in order to save these important programs for future generations who have worked to pay into the system. I will also work to ensure that America’s trade policies optimize the potential of American business and that our trading partners play by fair rules.”

Isakson also will continue to serve on these Senate committees:

  • Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (known as HELP)
  • Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
  • Select Committee on Ethics (Isakson will continue his role as Vice Chairman)

“I also am thrilled that these committee assignments will allow me to continue working on issues that are so important in Georgia, especially education, pensions and veterans,” Isakson said.

Isakson had this opportunity which he has wanted for some time during the last Congress.  But, because the opening was created due to the resignation from a member after a Senate Ethics Committee investigation – which Isakson served on – Isakson took his name out of the running.  He wanted to avoid any appearance that his work on the Ethics Committee – the most thankless job in DC – was geared toward clearing the way of an appointment that he wanted.  Glad a good thing has come to one who waited.

IndyInjun January 3, 2013 at 1:09 pm

Isakson voted for TARP that bailed out criminal bankers.

Isakson voted to repeal Glass Steagall which even now is enabling the Primary Dealer banks to shift $trillions in free money courtesy of their fee privileges with the FED into control of the necessities of life for all Americans.

Isakson pressured the accountants to change FASB 157 rules to permit the banks/financiers to continue to claim that toxic assets in folks 401(k) “stable value” funds were worth 100 cents on the dollar, when many of them had 20 to 60% losses according to the market.

Isakson voted for the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 that has put the US dollar on the same footing as a bad gambling debt.

Frankly that joker should not be allowed anywhere near finance.

Charlie January 3, 2013 at 1:34 pm

Still bitter, eh?

IndyInjun January 3, 2013 at 1:41 pm

He is the nicest politician I have ever met. I do give him credit for now admitting the error in his CFMA and GLB votes.

The operative word is vigilant. Isakson is the mortal enemy of frugality as defined by his voting record. I supported him when he ran for US Senate and have lived to regret it.

I totally understand your fondness for Johnny and I am only saddened that he made much ruinous choices that proved mine to be wrong.

seenbetrdayz January 5, 2013 at 10:02 am

Maybe he’s just paying attention. Rare breed of voter, that IndyInjun.

mpierce January 3, 2013 at 1:49 pm

I have to agree. He is a terrible choice.

Chris January 3, 2013 at 3:57 pm

I completely agree and would add that his vote in favor of the “Fiscal Cliff Bill” is yet another example of why he should be nowhere near finance.

It baffles me that the idiot voters keep putting guys like this in office.

SallyForth January 3, 2013 at 3:50 pm

What’s that loud thunderous applause and cheering we hear all across the country today? Must be all the realtors and mortgage bankers from sea to shining sea.

JamieRawls January 3, 2013 at 10:43 pm

Agreed, Johnny Isakson is one of the fundamentally nicest people I’ve encountered. I had occasion to see him at a Falcons game earlier this year and he was very kind to me and my family. I do question how effective he is though. I can’t find a single major piece of legislation that he’s introduced and passed (aside from the odd provision here or there added by amendment or inserted behind the scenes). And aside from the committee he announced he was joining today, he’s not on any other committee with any real clout, and with the gains the Dems made in the last election did he really have to give up his other major committee assignments? Other Senators, both GOP and Democrats, with less seniority sit on multiple powerful committees. It does make me scratch my head.

Like I said though, a really decent human being.

IndyInjun January 4, 2013 at 7:29 am

We are all Keynesians now.

One best not forget that.

Frugal savers were outnumbered 95:1. Might makes right. Now we just have to see whether it trumps basic laws of mathematics. If it doesn’t, being ‘nice’ won’t save Johnny Isakson when the monster turns.

He knows that and has made his bed.

saltycracker January 6, 2013 at 7:34 am

Indy,

Just saw this. Keynesians would not have come up with first time homeowner individual handouts, they would have four laned a busy road.

IndyInjun January 6, 2013 at 8:15 am

Darned it. The differences in the Keynesians and their MMT’er kin lose me sometimes. My point was better directed to the MMT crowd. However, wouldn’t Keynesians continue to pay college profs $150,000 per year to turn out grads with $10 an hour job prospects and wouldn’t Keynesians write off $1 trillion in student loans, as is being done right now, to ‘goose’ the economy. Isn’t paying kids and adults to go to school for skills for which there is no market demand pretty much the same as paving an unneeded road?

saltycracker January 6, 2013 at 9:16 am

Sometimes definitions morph – From my perspective of debating with the old school ones they would build universities but leave the opportunity to prosper or fail to the student. I could see them giving scholarships with conditions. Unconditional love is for momma and religion.

The universities provide the students what they demand. For too many it is an ideal that will not make them self-sufficient. We are the enemy.

saltycracker January 6, 2013 at 9:26 am

PS Education today is more about employees than students. Educators are productive for maybe 20% of the years we provide for them.

IndyInjun January 6, 2013 at 10:13 am

Yes. Your reply brings up an even better point. The ‘right’ wingers/GOP shills bemoan the “47%,” but reality is that there is something like 120% entitlements. EVERYBODY is government dependent and that is why there is a limited constituency for frugality. Most have more than one entitlement, hence the 120% figure I offered up.

This is why they will monetize to infinity with Isakson/Chambliss blessings or until the currency collapses. There are other reasons that are close to this one in strength, but universal government dependency is #1.

mpierce January 6, 2013 at 8:01 pm

Keynes – “Whilst, therefore, the enlargement of the functions of government, involved in the task of adjusting to one another the propensity to consume and the inducement to invest, would seem to a nineteenth-century publicist or to a contemporary American financier to be a terrific encroachment on individualism. I defend it, on the contrary, both as the only practicable means of avoiding the destruction of existing economic forms in their entirety and as the condition of the successful functioning of individual initiative.”

I think it would have been in keeping with his philosophy. It was also introduced and supported by the more Keynesian members of the Congress.

John Konop January 4, 2013 at 8:23 am

The budget on a macro comes down to healthcare spending and military. Unless we have real cuts in military and stop the growth of healthcare cost 2 to 3 times faster than GDP we are just talking BS…..btw SS can be fixed with minor tweaks and we can even start moving people toward an annuity model overtime.

On the revanue side as well as savings reforming crimilazing social behavior is another place to find money ie decriminalize pot, prostitution……..Finally as I said before we cannot fund entitlements via payroll taxes anymore with an aging population. It is illogical to think you can have a growing ratio of retries funded with less workers ie replace payroll taxes and Medicare tax with a VAT.

We also must invest into training people for the 3 million vocational job openings across the country ie end NCLB and start tracking students based on aptitude over one size fit all college prep or out approach.

Finally we must at the same time invest into infastructure ie growth. Our country growth has been based on this investment from our start ie Lewis and Clarke, railroads, airports, electronic grid, Internet…….Growth solves a lot of problems!

mpierce January 4, 2013 at 9:46 am
John Konop January 4, 2013 at 11:02 am

Interesting chart, the last time we had a balance budget is when military spending was under 4 % of GDP. Which is still a material part of the budget around 20 to 25% even if we got our act together. Do you not think between 1 and 4 to 5 dollars of tax revenue is not enough for defense?

mpierce January 4, 2013 at 12:03 pm

The last surplus I see was in 1957.

Defense:
1957 11.13% of GDP; 62.72% of federal spending.
FY12 5.78% of GDP; 23.77% of federal spending.

Healthcare
1957 0.22% of GDP; 1.26% of federal spending.
FY12 5.42% of GDP; 22.29% of federal spending.

Welfare
1957 0.46% of GDP; 2.57% of federal spending.
FY12 2.90% of GDP; 11.91% of federal spending.

Pension
1957 1.54% of GDP; 8.69% of federal spending.
FY12 5.25% of GDP; 21.60% of federal spending.

Education
1957 0.34% of GDP; 1.92% of federal spending.
FY12 0.98% of GDP; 4.03% of federal spending.

John Konop January 5, 2013 at 8:06 am

The problem with using numbers from 1957 is the top rate of income over 200k was at a 90 percent tax rate. Which in our global economy would be a disaster. Also your chart also points out that healthcare spending was about 12 times less of GDP. Making my point Healthcare and military are key to the budget. The budget is a simpe pie, healthcare and military consume a lot of the pie and are growing at the fastest amount in dollars. You do not solve the 2 it does not matter what you cut,Medicare and especially the Bush/Kennedy drug bill will burry us in red ink, combined at the current military spending levels.

mpierce January 5, 2013 at 1:47 pm

The 90% tax rate is irrelevant to the issue. There were a multitude of deductions/tax shelters so nobody paid that rate.

Federal spending was 17.74% of GDP in 1957 and is 24.33% of GDP today.

Also your chart also points out that healthcare spending was about 12 times less of GDP. Making my point Healthcare and military are key to the budget.

No, it makes the point that healthcare spending is out of control. 12x healthcare increase says nothing about defense spending.

The budget is a simpe pie, healthcare and military consume a lot of the pie and are growing at the fastest amount in dollars

We had a surplus when defense was 63% of that pie. We now have massive deficits with defense having drastically shrunk to 24% of that pie.

You do not solve the 2 it does not matter what you cut

Historic data shows otherwise.

combined at the current military spending levels.

Again current military spending levels are DOWN significantly.

IndyInjun January 5, 2013 at 2:19 pm

You cannot separate medical care from military personnel and retirement costs. 15 years ago military retirement was a half trillion unfunded liability.

Food costs are about to explode, precisely because of Isakson’s ruinous votes on CFMA and Glass Steagall.

John Konop January 5, 2013 at 2:26 pm

M,

What are you talking about we have way more lobbyist driven deduction today! We have hedge fund managers calling fees a capital gain……….. Face it you make my point how both sides refuse to deal with reality. No rational person who understands the budget and can do math will tell you medical and military are the focus. I give Ron Paul credit by calling out both sides hyprocracy on this issue during the debates……..

mpierce January 5, 2013 at 3:11 pm

What are you talking about

Hard time finding effective rates from the 50′s, but here is a graph of top rates from 1966. You can see how the gap between nominal rate and effective tax rate narrows significantly from closing of loopholes during the Reagan years.

John Konop January 5, 2013 at 6:20 pm

What. Dose that have to do with 1957?

mpierce January 5, 2013 at 10:36 pm

Simply to demonstrate there were more deductions/loopholes/tax shelters back then. Thus putting the 91% tax rate into more context. They didn’t pay that rate.

Have anything to back up your notion that there are more deductions today?

John Konop January 6, 2013 at 8:41 am

The biggest change is when we started treating dividends at the same rate of capital gains. And this does not make any sense, if you understand the concept behind capital gains. The reason why cap gains were lower is to creat incentive to invest ie create jobs. Dividends does the opposite, it is used to take money out of your business. Or for money mangers to avoid paying income taxes via their fees being taxed at a cap gains. Which is we should of let cap gains stay at 15 percent and raised dividend income to income tax levels over 400k. And eliminate the loophole for money mangers avoiding income tax.

Look it up yourself dividends were taxed at 90 percent during the years you backed the tax system. The lowering of dividends to cap gain levels I believe started in the Clinton years, the concept was put on steroids during Bush 2.

mpierce January 6, 2013 at 3:51 pm

Share holders own the corporation and the dividends are already taxed at the corporate level. Taxing dividends again on personal income is double taxation.

The rich got most of their income through capital gains, not through dividends or ordinary income.

John Konop January 6, 2013 at 4:08 pm

Not true about dividends, you do not pay federal income tax on them, it is subtracted like any other overhead from the company.

John Konop January 6, 2013 at 4:11 pm

The point is not how rich doe get their money, the concept is cap gains is reward for taking risk and creating jobs. Dividends is when you take the money out of the company ie investing less. Do you understand?

mpierce January 6, 2013 at 4:49 pm

From the IRS:
“The profit of a corporation is taxed to the corporation when earned, and then is taxed to the shareholders when distributed as dividends. This creates a double tax. The corporation does not get a tax deduction when it distributes dividends to shareholders. Shareholders cannot deduct any loss of the corporation.”

John Konop January 6, 2013 at 4:57 pm

M,

You get cap gains on your ownership of the company. To get on dividends above 400k is just striping the money out of the company or avoiding income tax. Do you get the difference?

mpierce January 6, 2013 at 5:02 pm

The point is not how rich doe get their money

It is the point when YOU continue to raise the 90% tax rate as an issue regarding federal spending. I have already (twice) said the tax rate is irrelevant to the topic at hand. But you continue to try to make it an issue, so I addressed it anyway.

the concept is cap gains is reward for taking risk and creating jobs.

Like the tax rate you brought up, the concept of cap gains is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. I am well aware of why cap gains are taxed at a lower rate and take no issue with that.

Do you understand?

Your attempt to be condescending is pathetic. I have raised no qualm with the cap gains rate. Perhaps you should learn more about basic math and dividends before making those issues in your discussions.

John Konop January 6, 2013 at 6:01 pm

We will agree to disagree. I make money playing the game and looking for angles. Like the last collapse I did ok…..while I dabated many like you……if you the fair tax passes I would go cash Waite and buy……

mpierce January 4, 2013 at 10:13 am

It is illogical to think you can have a growing ratio of retries funded with less workers ie replace payroll taxes and Medicare tax with a VAT.

Maybe we can raise the eligibility age, means test, or otherwise reform the system instead of increasing taxes.

Don’t just end NCLB; end Fed Dept of Education.

Finally we must at the same time invest into infastructure ie growth.

Transportation (as percent of GDP) went down under Reagan & Clinton, but went up under Bush 43 & Obama. Don’t know how relevant that is, but found it interesting.

John Konop January 4, 2013 at 10:53 am

…………Maybe we can raise the eligibility age, means test, or otherwise reform the system instead of increasing taxes……..

One I am not proposing any increase in taxes. For workers it would be a decrease in taxes. The difference is tourist, retires, black market would contribute into the system. As you know retires have been getting 3 dollars for every 1 dollar for Medicare for years. I do agree on top of it was must make cuts and adjustments like letting seniors and government workers buy drugs from the VA at a 60% savings, deregulating care from nurses, promoting dial a doc for non emergency care especially uninsured, co-op purchasing of healthcare products, …………to avoid raising taxes.

…….Transportation (as percent of GDP) went down under Reagan & Clinton, but went up under Bush 43 & Obama. Don’t know how relevant that is, but found it interesting…

Transportation is just one part of infrastructure. Investment into fracking technology from Bush and Obama is why we will be energy independent soon, a major economic driver for us. Also we could invest in upgrading the electronic grid, widening ports, nanotechnology……….. The future lies in technology investment for our economy. The rapid rate via human technology will change the world. We are learning so fast via being in the information age, technology solutions are coming fast and furious……….That is why I have said many times the best economic investment we have in Georgia is Georgia Tech!

bowersville January 4, 2013 at 11:09 am

Plus the Republicans will point to the cost of defense in it’s relation to GDP and the dangers in the world and the Democrats will point to defense spending in it’s relation to other countries and how much more we spend than they do. One will point to entitlement reform, the other will defend entitlements.

In reality, the President won re-election, the Democrats control the Senate and the Republicans the House. It’s all on the table. Compromise or punt the can down the road. That’s the choice.

mpierce January 4, 2013 at 1:53 pm

Compromise or punt the can down the road. That’s the choice.

Yet compromise has thus far led to the can being kicked down the road.

bowersville January 4, 2013 at 4:55 pm

No. Failure to deal with the tough spending cuts of the day kicked the can down the road.

mpierce January 4, 2013 at 1:44 pm

Investment into fracking technology from Bush and Obama is why we will be energy independent soon, a major economic driver for us.

And the internet, GPS, satellite communication, nuclear power, etc.. have NOT had major economic impacts?

IndyInjun January 4, 2013 at 10:30 am

“Growth” is not quadrupling the Fed’s balance sheet to supplant overarching, massive fraud in finance.

FIRE grew from something like 12% of the economy to something like 40% and the likes of Isakson are DETERMINED to keep it there, come hell or high water.

This isn’t “growth,” it is cannibalizing folks savings and incomes. The next smashing financial success will be crematories, funeral homes, and cemeteries, as the fruits of killing the Rule of Law are visited upon a nation with 350 million guns and trillions of rounds of ammo.

bowersville January 4, 2013 at 9:14 am

An article from 2008 on the funding for war on terror.

“The War on Terror is now more expensive than Vietnam or World War I—but the dishonest way Washington is paying for it may prove costliest of all.

To distract people from the real price tag of a two-front war, the president and Congress have used an unprecedented and fiscally irresponsible budgetary trick: a series of “emergency” supplemental spending bills totaling hundreds of billions of dollars. This scheme has allowed them not only to hide the costs of the conflicts but also to avoid painful budget choices…”

One costly war has ended, the other continues. The payment on the loan for the wars is due. The cost comes out of our hide. One party talks entitlement reform, the other defense cuts. It will take both. The sequestration can has been kicked down the road and is two months away. The same fiscal cliff. Again.

bowersville January 4, 2013 at 9:16 am

http://reason.com/archives/2008/04/07/the-trillion-dollar-war

This is the link to the article from 2008. Same can kicked down the road. Again, again & again.

John Konop January 4, 2013 at 11:25 am

If you look at the chart provided by MPierce you can see defense spending has doubled via GDP since the last balanced budget. Also when you add in healthcare cost rising at 2 to 3 times hire than GDP it does not take a Harvard MBA to figure out……….

IndyInjun January 4, 2013 at 11:40 am

‘ it does not take a Harvard MBA to figure out……”

That those troops maimed in Iraq, ostensibly to defend the USA, will be deemed unaffordable as the $US dollar they defended with life and limb, and which was to pay for their lifelong care, gets eroded to NOTHINGness by Benjamin S. Bernanke.

That will be the biggest travesty in what is happening.

mpierce January 4, 2013 at 12:34 pm

The last time defense was half of what it is today (% of GDP) was 1940. We ran a deficit that year.

John Konop January 4, 2013 at 8:35 pm

Not true look at your chart it was below 4 percent of GDP the last time we had a balance budget.

mpierce January 5, 2013 at 3:21 am

1957 11.13% of GDP
FY12 5.78% of GDP

1) 11.13 is not half of 5.78
2) 4 in not half of 5.78

What numbers are you looking at?

John Konop January 5, 2013 at 11:22 am

In the 90′ because you cannot compare 1957 with non global economy and a 90 percent tax rate on north of 200k in income…….Why do you think a 90 percent tax rate on high income would work today? I have only seen the 1957 arguement used by the most liberal democrats. And most economist on both sides do not think it would work in our current global economy. Also back than military spending had more commercial use ie jeeps, plans……..ie infasrtucture spending.

mpierce January 5, 2013 at 2:21 pm

1)We ran deficits throughout the 90′s.
2)When did I ever call for a 90% tax rate?
3)We had more deductions/loopholes/tax shelters then, so they didn’t pay that high rate.
4)Federal spending was 17.74% of GDP in 1957 (with defense at 11.13% of GDP). In 2007 federal revenue was 18.31% of GDP.
5)I’ve never seen a point to 1957 spending levels.

John Konop January 5, 2013 at 2:31 pm

But in 1957 they did not have the entitlement expense you supported via Medicare Part D ie drug bill and military medical………via the wars you supported.

mpierce January 5, 2013 at 3:20 pm

Really, MORE lies John!

Please point to my support of Medicare Part D and going to war. You pulled this same crap in the Charter school debate claiming I worked for CharterUSA.

Please try actually backing up some of you’re facts. And maybe you can teach me how 4 is half of 5.78 while you are at it.

John Konop January 5, 2013 at 6:22 pm

You keep pushing for more military sending read your comments. But hey if you are for liberal spending that is your right.

mpierce January 5, 2013 at 10:59 pm

1) I didn’t push for more spending. I’m merely dispelling your notion that we have to cut military to balance the budget. Whether the current spending levels are adequate, too high, or too low is an issue of merit and worthy of discussion. But the military slice of the federal pie, as you put it, is currently historically small.

2)Again, please point to my support of Medicare Part D and going to war.

3)Explain how 4 is half of 5.78

4)When did I ever call for a 90% tax rate?

5)Where did I call for liberal spending?

John Konop January 6, 2013 at 12:27 pm

M,

You are flat out wrong! We cannot balance the budget without cutting military. Do you understand that the future spending via the wars for veterans alone will have a major future impact on the budget?

The number we spent was closer to 3 percent of GDP not 4. The difference between us is I realize the future cost via veterans from the 2 wars you supported. That is why 4 is more realistic.

Finally you are the one who keeps using the year 1957 with a 90 percent tax rate not me. And you are the one who thinks we can afford being the policemen of the world not me. As I said Ron Paul was right about both sides on the spending issue……..you have done a great job of making his point……..face it you are liberal about spending if you feel good about it. Just like the liberal Dems you are blind to reality.

mpierce January 6, 2013 at 4:32 pm

You realize the money for veterans is included in the slice you are wanting to cut?

The lowest % since 1940 is 3.56 (1999 & 2001)
3.56 is NOT closer to 3 than 4
3.56 is NOT half of 5.78

from the 2 wars you supported.

For the 3rd time, please point to my support of Medicare Part D and going to war.

you are the one who keeps using the year 1957 with a 90 percent tax rate not me.

YOU are the one who introduced the 90% tax rate. I am the one who said that was irrelevant. And the only reason I brought up 1957 was because you referenced, “the last time we had a balance budget“. The last time we had a balanced budget was 1957 according to the treasury data which I provided a link to.

And you are the one who thinks we can afford being the policemen of the world not me.

No. I think we should be spending less money policing the world and more resources on defending our borders, cyber security, intelligence, research and development, upgrading equipment, and fixing problems within the VA.

face it you are liberal about spending

Continued lies and name-calling.

bowersville January 5, 2013 at 5:17 pm

Comparing the cost of military spending to it’s percentage of GDP from any era is too simplistic. Comparisons of 1957 and 2012 spending in relation to GDP is nice but in the scheme of current events, then and now, and the changing mission of the military and it’s capabilities basically renders the comparison useless.

If Chuck Hagel is nominated and confirmed or even if he isn’t the Democrats are about changing the mission and role of the military. Today in Politico:

Biden had disagreed with McChrystal’s strategy that called for more troops in Afghanistan. Biden preferred to send a smaller counterterrorism and training force — a policy the White House is now considering as it transitions troops from the Afghan war.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/mcchrystal-takes-blame-for-rolling-stone-article-85796.html#ixzz2H8nQOvbT

Two dictators were removed in the middle east. One in Iraq. The other in Libya. One by US invasion, the other by arming the opposition. With current events as they are in Syria, covert operations seem to be the wave of the future where possible. Comparing costs of the military to GDP without considering the potential for changing missions won’t prevail in the current political environment.

mpierce January 5, 2013 at 11:33 pm

I agree it’s simplistic and doesn’t speak to what level of spending is warranted based on needs. But the context in which it has been brought up, “The budget on a macro comes down to healthcare spending and military. Unless we have real cuts in military and stop the growth of healthcare cost 2 to 3 times faster than GDP we are just talking BS“, is not based on merit. The comparison of what we spend now to what we have spent historically is not useless.

Biden disagreed with the Iraq surge as well. I’m not sure how that is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Political environment today is about avoiding merit based decisions. Just look at the sequestration deal. Almost everyone in Washington knows that our entitlement programs are unsustainable, but yet they avoid fixing the problems.

IndyInjun January 6, 2013 at 12:11 am

Per the Fed, private debt stands at $53 trillion, whereas M1 cash stands at $2.5 trillion.

We are in danger of a debt collapse back into ‘cash’ irrespective of Government. What government has tried to do is to replace bad private debt with good public debt. Debt isn’t being cancelled, it is being doubled. When you add to the government support of the Ponzi of $16 trillion to the $20 trillion of government debt from its operations, the picture is one of even more stunning unsustainability.

Ponzi’s are all around and our US Senators want to feed them.

Dave Bearse January 6, 2013 at 12:07 pm

Chambliss and Isakson have blocked Jill Pryor’s nomination to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for years now. Will “up or down vote” Isakson bring that integrity to the Fiance Committee?

IndyInjun January 6, 2013 at 7:09 pm

Depends on whether he is “in” or “out” that day…

Comments on this entry are closed.