The following is from a press release from NC Congresswoman Virginia Foxx.
Foxx honors women veterans at Arlington Cemetery
Participates in Annual Women in the Military Wreath Laying Ceremony
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congresswoman Virginia Foxx today honored the women of America’s military at the 12th Annual Women in the Military Wreath Laying Ceremony which took place at the Arlington Cemetery Women’s Memorial. The wreath laying ceremony in advance of the Memorial Day holiday honored servicewomen who have died while serving the U.S.
“Women have served our nation from its birth to the present and have willingly laid down their lives for the cause of liberty,” Foxx said. “Today we give honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.”
In addition to memorializing those women who died in the line of duty, the ceremony also highlighted the service of women currently enlisted in the armed forces. Senior enlisted women from each service branch, including the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard, represented their fellow women service members.
During the Arlington Cemetery wreath laying Foxx acknowledged the sacrifices of enlisted women in each branch of the armed forces. Foxx specifically honored Army Master Sergeant Flora McKnight, Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant Min Sook Ellis, Navy Senior Chief Yeoman Dee Allen, Air Force Master Sergeant Dianna Kent and Coast Guard Master Chief Storekeeper Beth Dunn, each of whom were present at the ceremony.
“Enlisted women play a critical role in the professionalism and readiness of our military,” Foxx said. “The presence of the women here today testifies to the achievements of women in our armed forces.”
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Conservatives - Please Read This!
This was written by Governor Mike Huckabee and it really struck home with me. (I edited out some of it for space.) As a conservative voter, I need to be active and not sit on the sidelines hoping things go my way. Please read this and then get involved!
Enough already of the hand-wringing and night sweats about the demise of the conservative movement!
Conservatives aren't challenged because of the basic principles that define us, but by the failure of the principles being translated into policy and practice. Gandhi once said, "If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today."
I would be so brazen to say that if conservatives would really live according to the principles of classic conservatism, all of America would be conservative today. The crisis is not one over the precepts, but the practice. It's not that we've failed in our doctrine, but our "doing."
Conservatives believe that the best government is the most local government possible and that the 10th Amendment means something and should be followed. Yet, the supposedly conservative Republican Party has been a drum major for the expanded role of the federal government.
Our founders feared a highly centralized and endowed federal government, instead preferring a system of strong and virtually independent states so that no one person, party, or power broker would exercise a great deal of control. The inherent danger of allowing too much power in the hands of the few was the heart of the major dispute between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson won, believing that the dispersing of power among the states would by design keep the federal government from becoming too consuming and powerful in its approach to governing.
The genius of the 10th Amendment, as is true of all of the Bill of Rights, was that it deliberately limited what the government could do - not what the individual could do. The 10th Amendment defines the limits of the federal government in 28 words: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Over the past few years, Republicans have been either acquiescing in or encouraging the acquisition of more power and control by the federal government - in policy shifts in education, health care, and even how a driver's license looks.
Perhaps no other example is more glaring than having painfully watched so-called Washington conservatives abandon the most fundamental principle of conservatism - fiscal restraint. A Republican administration pushed for and got the authority to spend $700 billion that we had to borrow from our grandchildren's future so we could do what government has no business doing - picking out winners and losers in the private sector marketplace. It was especially disgusting to me to watch some of the very leaders who had smugly dismissed my candidacy for president because I had the audacity to speak out against the excesses of Wall Street and Washington as early as February 2007 now stand up and flop-sweat as they explained why they were about to support the government taking off the striped shirts of the referee and put on the jersey of a team to play the game for one team against another all in the name of "saving the markets." By abandoning our bedrock conservative principles, and those of our founding fathers, they risked ruining our country to save the markets.
What gives me hope is my belief that the party of Reagan will reunite behind the consistent conservative policies that have made our country great - policies that empower individuals, families, and entrepreneurs, not government, to shape our own destinies. If we do that, we will not fail.
We don't need so much to redefine conservatism. Just practice the real thing.
Enough already of the hand-wringing and night sweats about the demise of the conservative movement!
Conservatives aren't challenged because of the basic principles that define us, but by the failure of the principles being translated into policy and practice. Gandhi once said, "If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today."
I would be so brazen to say that if conservatives would really live according to the principles of classic conservatism, all of America would be conservative today. The crisis is not one over the precepts, but the practice. It's not that we've failed in our doctrine, but our "doing."
Conservatives believe that the best government is the most local government possible and that the 10th Amendment means something and should be followed. Yet, the supposedly conservative Republican Party has been a drum major for the expanded role of the federal government.
Our founders feared a highly centralized and endowed federal government, instead preferring a system of strong and virtually independent states so that no one person, party, or power broker would exercise a great deal of control. The inherent danger of allowing too much power in the hands of the few was the heart of the major dispute between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson won, believing that the dispersing of power among the states would by design keep the federal government from becoming too consuming and powerful in its approach to governing.
The genius of the 10th Amendment, as is true of all of the Bill of Rights, was that it deliberately limited what the government could do - not what the individual could do. The 10th Amendment defines the limits of the federal government in 28 words: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Over the past few years, Republicans have been either acquiescing in or encouraging the acquisition of more power and control by the federal government - in policy shifts in education, health care, and even how a driver's license looks.
Perhaps no other example is more glaring than having painfully watched so-called Washington conservatives abandon the most fundamental principle of conservatism - fiscal restraint. A Republican administration pushed for and got the authority to spend $700 billion that we had to borrow from our grandchildren's future so we could do what government has no business doing - picking out winners and losers in the private sector marketplace. It was especially disgusting to me to watch some of the very leaders who had smugly dismissed my candidacy for president because I had the audacity to speak out against the excesses of Wall Street and Washington as early as February 2007 now stand up and flop-sweat as they explained why they were about to support the government taking off the striped shirts of the referee and put on the jersey of a team to play the game for one team against another all in the name of "saving the markets." By abandoning our bedrock conservative principles, and those of our founding fathers, they risked ruining our country to save the markets.
What gives me hope is my belief that the party of Reagan will reunite behind the consistent conservative policies that have made our country great - policies that empower individuals, families, and entrepreneurs, not government, to shape our own destinies. If we do that, we will not fail.
We don't need so much to redefine conservatism. Just practice the real thing.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
NC State Budget - An Accident Waiting To Happen?
NC State Senator Peter Brunstetter (31st District) had the following to say about the upcoming NC state budget in a 4/2/09 newsletter: "The other ingredient for next week’s storm is most likely to be the Senate budget. We are hearing that the budget will be released to the public and the Senate early next week, although that information is second hand at best. One of the biggest sources of frustration to me, as a Senator, is my inability to participate meaningfully in the budget process. There has been a lot of work going on in the Senate, behind closed doors, but the activity has been restricted to only a handful of Senators.
The primary participants are what are called the “Big Chairs”. In other words the four co-chairs of the Appropriations/Base Budget Committee, the President Pro Tempore and the Majority Leader. There may be a few others who drift in and out of the process. Other than that, most of the Senate waits for the budget to be delivered to it...We will then have a very short time (often less than 24 hours) to review the massive document before the first vote is taken in Committee, with a floor vote shortly thereafter. The group that I mentioned above has been working on the budget for months, and yet the rest of us need to turn it over night. Something isn’t right about that picture.
I suppose that some centralization is necessary. With 50 people expected to vote, there does need to be reliance upon a core group of leaders at some point. The majority party has the privilege of leading that charge. In our Senate though, the centralization and secrecy almost borders on paranoia, shielding the budget from Republicans, the Press and the public until the last possible moment. In the ten years that I chaired the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners, I bent over backwards to make sure that Republicans and Democrats alike had a full voice in the budget process. I knew where the majority votes would come from, but the input from our Democrats was often very helpful and constructive and shaped a budget that was fairer and more reflective of the entire community’s priorities. Eight of the ten budget votes taken while I was Chairman were unanimous. I think that there would be many more Republicans who would vote affirmatively on state budget issues if there was a meaningful opportunity for participation and input. It’s hard to vote for, and place your stamp of approval on, a budget you have had less than 24 hours to review." (I put in bold print information I thought was important, they were not in bold print in the newsletter.)
I appreciate Senator Brunstetter's concerns with our state's budget. Didn't anyone in Raleigh pay attention to the budget fiasco in Washington, DC not long ago? Did they not see Senators tell us they voted on a budget they didn't read that authorized bonuses to AIG? With the economic issues we face in our state, it would be in our best interests to allow our elected officials the appropriate amount of time to review and vote on our state's budget.
The primary participants are what are called the “Big Chairs”. In other words the four co-chairs of the Appropriations/Base Budget Committee, the President Pro Tempore and the Majority Leader. There may be a few others who drift in and out of the process. Other than that, most of the Senate waits for the budget to be delivered to it...We will then have a very short time (often less than 24 hours) to review the massive document before the first vote is taken in Committee, with a floor vote shortly thereafter. The group that I mentioned above has been working on the budget for months, and yet the rest of us need to turn it over night. Something isn’t right about that picture.
I suppose that some centralization is necessary. With 50 people expected to vote, there does need to be reliance upon a core group of leaders at some point. The majority party has the privilege of leading that charge. In our Senate though, the centralization and secrecy almost borders on paranoia, shielding the budget from Republicans, the Press and the public until the last possible moment. In the ten years that I chaired the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners, I bent over backwards to make sure that Republicans and Democrats alike had a full voice in the budget process. I knew where the majority votes would come from, but the input from our Democrats was often very helpful and constructive and shaped a budget that was fairer and more reflective of the entire community’s priorities. Eight of the ten budget votes taken while I was Chairman were unanimous. I think that there would be many more Republicans who would vote affirmatively on state budget issues if there was a meaningful opportunity for participation and input. It’s hard to vote for, and place your stamp of approval on, a budget you have had less than 24 hours to review." (I put in bold print information I thought was important, they were not in bold print in the newsletter.)
I appreciate Senator Brunstetter's concerns with our state's budget. Didn't anyone in Raleigh pay attention to the budget fiasco in Washington, DC not long ago? Did they not see Senators tell us they voted on a budget they didn't read that authorized bonuses to AIG? With the economic issues we face in our state, it would be in our best interests to allow our elected officials the appropriate amount of time to review and vote on our state's budget.
Foxx Opposes Debt-Financed Budget
The following is from a press release from NC Congresswoman Virginia Foxx
Foxx opposes massive, debt-financed budget
Votes in favor of alternative budget that keeps spending in check
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Representative Virginia Foxx (NC-05) voted last night against the Democrat budget that produces more than $9 trillion in new debt over the next ten years, in addition to raising taxes by more than $1.4 trillion. She also voted in favor of the Republican alternative budget that puts a lid on runaway government spending and keeps taxes low for North Carolina families.
“The choice was clear,” Foxx said. “It was a choice between a budget that borrows and spends unprecedented amounts of money and a Republican alternative that recognizes that we cannot borrow and spend our way to prosperity—that’s what got us into this mess in the first place.”
The Democrat budget plan remakes the federal government, creating the largest federal government since World War II. In the process of growing the size of the federal government the Democrat budget creates a record-setting deficit—$1.75 trillion. In contrast, the Republican alternative budget would save the nation $3.6 trillion over the next ten years.
But the differences don’t stop with debt and spending. The Republican alternative also refrains from raising taxes—unlike the Democrats’ budget, which raises taxes by $1.4 trillion over ten years.
Another key difference is the approach to energy policy. The Democrats’ budget contains so-called “cap and trade” provisions that will put a cap on carbon emissions and by extension, economic growth. This plan will raise the cost of energy for every sector of the economy and, according to the National Association of Manufacturers, will ship 3-4 million jobs oversees where energy costs will be much lower.
Instead of punishing Americans with a new energy taxes, the Republican budget pursues energy independence with an innovative plan that aggressively focuses on alternative energy without creating new taxes and government mandates.
“Two budgets with two sets of priorities: one budget means more government, more debt and more taxes,” Foxx said. “The GOP alternative, on the other hand, means a return to a common-sense approach to government that emphasizes individual freedom and responsibility instead of a big-government, nanny state.”
Foxx opposes massive, debt-financed budget
Votes in favor of alternative budget that keeps spending in check
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Representative Virginia Foxx (NC-05) voted last night against the Democrat budget that produces more than $9 trillion in new debt over the next ten years, in addition to raising taxes by more than $1.4 trillion. She also voted in favor of the Republican alternative budget that puts a lid on runaway government spending and keeps taxes low for North Carolina families.
“The choice was clear,” Foxx said. “It was a choice between a budget that borrows and spends unprecedented amounts of money and a Republican alternative that recognizes that we cannot borrow and spend our way to prosperity—that’s what got us into this mess in the first place.”
The Democrat budget plan remakes the federal government, creating the largest federal government since World War II. In the process of growing the size of the federal government the Democrat budget creates a record-setting deficit—$1.75 trillion. In contrast, the Republican alternative budget would save the nation $3.6 trillion over the next ten years.
But the differences don’t stop with debt and spending. The Republican alternative also refrains from raising taxes—unlike the Democrats’ budget, which raises taxes by $1.4 trillion over ten years.
Another key difference is the approach to energy policy. The Democrats’ budget contains so-called “cap and trade” provisions that will put a cap on carbon emissions and by extension, economic growth. This plan will raise the cost of energy for every sector of the economy and, according to the National Association of Manufacturers, will ship 3-4 million jobs oversees where energy costs will be much lower.
Instead of punishing Americans with a new energy taxes, the Republican budget pursues energy independence with an innovative plan that aggressively focuses on alternative energy without creating new taxes and government mandates.
“Two budgets with two sets of priorities: one budget means more government, more debt and more taxes,” Foxx said. “The GOP alternative, on the other hand, means a return to a common-sense approach to government that emphasizes individual freedom and responsibility instead of a big-government, nanny state.”
Sunday, March 29, 2009
American Leadership - An Example From History
William Travis was the leader of the Alamo when it fell. On March 3, 1836 Travis addressed the men within the walls of the Alamo. As their leader he had to deliver the tough message and admit his mistakes. He had been requesting assistance from others to come and help defend the Alamo, and on March 3 he was informed that no one was coming. He called a meeting and said, "I have deceived you by the promise of help…" and then went on to explain that his calls for help will go unanswered. He went on to say, "Our fate is sealed. Within a very few days - perhaps a very few hours - we must all be in eternity. This is our destiny and we cannot avoid it…"
After his speech, he drew a line in the sand with his sword and asked, "I now want every man who is determined to stay here and die with me to come across this line." All but one soldier crossed that line in the sand.
This is an example from history of great American leadership in action. Travis did not willingly or knowingly deceive his men about help - he did let them know that he had requested it. But some may have felt he had deceived them to keep them from running away, so he accepted the blame for that. He told his followers the real deal, he didn't hide the truth from them.
That is what a good leader does - if it's perceived that you made a mistake or actually made a mistake, own up to it and let your people know. Always share the true picture with your people so they can make informed decisions. Travis' speech was true, for within 3 days he and his men gave their lives at the Alamo.
Cross-posted at Back to the Constitution
After his speech, he drew a line in the sand with his sword and asked, "I now want every man who is determined to stay here and die with me to come across this line." All but one soldier crossed that line in the sand.
This is an example from history of great American leadership in action. Travis did not willingly or knowingly deceive his men about help - he did let them know that he had requested it. But some may have felt he had deceived them to keep them from running away, so he accepted the blame for that. He told his followers the real deal, he didn't hide the truth from them.
That is what a good leader does - if it's perceived that you made a mistake or actually made a mistake, own up to it and let your people know. Always share the true picture with your people so they can make informed decisions. Travis' speech was true, for within 3 days he and his men gave their lives at the Alamo.
Cross-posted at Back to the Constitution
Monday, March 23, 2009
March 31 - Participate in Red Envelope Day
On March 31st I'm asking everyone who reads this to participate in Red Envelope Day. By participating you are taking a stand for life and taking a stand for what is right. Please participate and encourage everyone you know to participate as well. Thank you!
Cross-posted at Back To The Constitution
Cross-posted at Back To The Constitution
Friday, March 13, 2009
Foxx: A Dictionary of Spending
The following article by NC Congresswoman Virginia Foxx is from an email newsletter.
$5,700,000,000,000 tab rung up in six months
By Congresswoman Virginia Foxx
The approach of springtime is notable for two things in Washington: cherry blossoms and budget season. Washington’s famous cherry trees haven’t yet emerged from their winter hiatus, but the budget juggernaut is already in full swing. As you can probably imagine, it’s not a pretty picture.
Before we take a closer look at the budget it is important that we lay some groundwork. The past six months have witnessed an historic and unprecedented spending spree in Washington.
In the rush to bailout anything that moves, almost any fiscal context has been lost. Stimulus package, bailout, trillion dollar budget deficits. Each of these terms has steadily lost meaning over the course of our economic meltdown. For the sake of clarity here are a few definitions and please bear with me if you are one of those who have this all down pat.
TARP bailout: passed by Congress last fall and signed by President Bush. This program set aside $700 billion to buy the so-called toxic assets (mostly bad mortgage debt) held by America’s banks. Of this amount, $350 billion was made available immediately and the second half required Congressional sign-off. The second $350 billion was recently approved by the Senate for President Obama to use as he see’s fit. I joined a bipartisan group in voting against the TARP bailout in 2008 and 2009.
Stimulus package: passed by Congress in February. This package had a price tag of about $800 billion. Despite the promise of no earmarks, it was plagued from the start with pet projects and carve-outs for special interests. President Obama pushed for its passage as a job creation measure. Because it contained little in the way of job-creating tax cuts and instead was stuffed full of expensive big government programs that will do almost nothing to revive our economy, I voted against it.
Omnibus appropriations: nine separate budget bills totaling $410 billion that passed the House in late February. As a holdover from last year’s spending legislation this bill finishes the job of appropriating money to many federal agencies. It contains about 9,000 earmarks and represents an 8.3 percent increase over the previous year’s spending. This massive bill included spending gems such as money for tattoo removal programs in California and huge funding increases for UN programs that promote and provide abortions around the world.
Housing bailout: a plan proposed by President Obama in mid-February that will spend $275 billion in an effort to stabilize the housing market. The problem with this housing bailout plan lies in the simple fact that it rewards bad behavior—something called “moral hazard” by economists. This plan will use taxpayer money to lower the payments of homeowners who bought houses they can’t afford.
Of course more than 90 percent of American homeowners are current on their mortgages and are not in danger of losing their homes. This plan does not give those who played by the rules a fair shake. Instead it rewards bad behavior and risky lending practices. In turn it punishes hardworking families who are paying their mortgages on time and are trying to make ends meet in a troubled economy.
President Obama’s Budget Request: last but certainly not least, President Obama presented his proposed budget to Congress in the last week of February. It will serve as a guideline for next year’s federal spending. This year, federal spending will approach $4 trillion–a one-third increase in the size of government in a single year. His budget blueprint for next year totals $3.5 trillion and provides $750 billion for yet another bank bailout (see TARP bailout), $646 billion in taxes on energy and an overall increase in non-defense spending of 9.3 percent.
All told these proposals and programs total about $5,700,000,000,000 in federal spending—a number thought inconceivable until now.
I am sure that many of the loudest voices in favor of government bailouts in the banking sector, the housing market, and anywhere else that “needs” an infusion of your tax dollars sincerely believe runaway spending is the cure for what ails this economy.
The proponents of massive government spending claim that this money will stimulate the economy. That remains to be seen and with very little of the money going to actual job-creating projects, I’m convinced that it may simply inflate our debt and do more harm than good.
But even if these programs, from bank bailouts to bloated budgets, fail to achieve their purpose, America has an ace up its sleeve. America is a strong and resilient nation and I am confident that once again American ingenuity and hard-working Americans will bring us back—even if today’s policies are flawed and misguided.
$5,700,000,000,000 tab rung up in six months
By Congresswoman Virginia Foxx
The approach of springtime is notable for two things in Washington: cherry blossoms and budget season. Washington’s famous cherry trees haven’t yet emerged from their winter hiatus, but the budget juggernaut is already in full swing. As you can probably imagine, it’s not a pretty picture.
Before we take a closer look at the budget it is important that we lay some groundwork. The past six months have witnessed an historic and unprecedented spending spree in Washington.
In the rush to bailout anything that moves, almost any fiscal context has been lost. Stimulus package, bailout, trillion dollar budget deficits. Each of these terms has steadily lost meaning over the course of our economic meltdown. For the sake of clarity here are a few definitions and please bear with me if you are one of those who have this all down pat.
TARP bailout: passed by Congress last fall and signed by President Bush. This program set aside $700 billion to buy the so-called toxic assets (mostly bad mortgage debt) held by America’s banks. Of this amount, $350 billion was made available immediately and the second half required Congressional sign-off. The second $350 billion was recently approved by the Senate for President Obama to use as he see’s fit. I joined a bipartisan group in voting against the TARP bailout in 2008 and 2009.
Stimulus package: passed by Congress in February. This package had a price tag of about $800 billion. Despite the promise of no earmarks, it was plagued from the start with pet projects and carve-outs for special interests. President Obama pushed for its passage as a job creation measure. Because it contained little in the way of job-creating tax cuts and instead was stuffed full of expensive big government programs that will do almost nothing to revive our economy, I voted against it.
Omnibus appropriations: nine separate budget bills totaling $410 billion that passed the House in late February. As a holdover from last year’s spending legislation this bill finishes the job of appropriating money to many federal agencies. It contains about 9,000 earmarks and represents an 8.3 percent increase over the previous year’s spending. This massive bill included spending gems such as money for tattoo removal programs in California and huge funding increases for UN programs that promote and provide abortions around the world.
Housing bailout: a plan proposed by President Obama in mid-February that will spend $275 billion in an effort to stabilize the housing market. The problem with this housing bailout plan lies in the simple fact that it rewards bad behavior—something called “moral hazard” by economists. This plan will use taxpayer money to lower the payments of homeowners who bought houses they can’t afford.
Of course more than 90 percent of American homeowners are current on their mortgages and are not in danger of losing their homes. This plan does not give those who played by the rules a fair shake. Instead it rewards bad behavior and risky lending practices. In turn it punishes hardworking families who are paying their mortgages on time and are trying to make ends meet in a troubled economy.
President Obama’s Budget Request: last but certainly not least, President Obama presented his proposed budget to Congress in the last week of February. It will serve as a guideline for next year’s federal spending. This year, federal spending will approach $4 trillion–a one-third increase in the size of government in a single year. His budget blueprint for next year totals $3.5 trillion and provides $750 billion for yet another bank bailout (see TARP bailout), $646 billion in taxes on energy and an overall increase in non-defense spending of 9.3 percent.
All told these proposals and programs total about $5,700,000,000,000 in federal spending—a number thought inconceivable until now.
I am sure that many of the loudest voices in favor of government bailouts in the banking sector, the housing market, and anywhere else that “needs” an infusion of your tax dollars sincerely believe runaway spending is the cure for what ails this economy.
The proponents of massive government spending claim that this money will stimulate the economy. That remains to be seen and with very little of the money going to actual job-creating projects, I’m convinced that it may simply inflate our debt and do more harm than good.
But even if these programs, from bank bailouts to bloated budgets, fail to achieve their purpose, America has an ace up its sleeve. America is a strong and resilient nation and I am confident that once again American ingenuity and hard-working Americans will bring us back—even if today’s policies are flawed and misguided.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
