Congress needs a Brain

British Parliament Debates War With Syria, U.S. Congress Vacations

August 29, 2013 by Sam Rolley

As chatter about the prospect of the United States going maverick in Syria continues, the Nation’s international peers are receiving praise from some U.S. lawmakers for taking a more thoughtful approach to intervening in the Middle Eastern conflict.
Representative Scott Rigell (R-Va.) lauded the British Parliament on Thursday, noting that U.S. lawmakers are still on recess— despite the President’s war rhetoric— while the Brit lawmakers have robustly debated a resolution on military intervention in Syria.
The Parliament, he said, is having a debate, while the United States is not. “Given the history our two Nations,’ he continued, “there is a bit of irony here.”
Rigell said that he is happy to see that the evident slowing in British momentum towards military action has made the White House pull back “just a bit.” The lawmaker also noted that Congressional approval prior to intervention would be a sign of strength for the U.S.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also noted the absence of Congressional debate on the matter.
Cruz tweeted:

NY Times: Putin Incensed by Obama's 'Bored Kid' Remark

A comment by President Obama that Vladimir Putin looked "like the bored kid in the back of the classroom" apparently "infuriated" the Russian president, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

The comment came Aug. 9 at a news conference concerning a showdown with Putin over Edward Snowden, the former defense contractor who leaked top-secret details of the National Security Agency's surveillance programs.

Putin ultimately gave Snowden temporary asylum over the objections of Obama, and the president was asked about his working relationship with the Russian leader.

Editor's Note: 22 Hidden Taxes and Fees Set to Hit You With Obamacare. Read the Guide to Protect Yourself.

"I know the press likes to focus on body language, and he's got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom. But the truth is that when we're in conversations together, oftentimes it's very productive," Obama said.

The president went on to say that he didn't have "a bad personal relationship with Putin," and that "when we have conversations, they’re candid, they’re blunt; oftentimes, they’re constructive."

But Putin was not amused — and the remark just "intensified" Putin's suspicion of Obama, as did his abrupt cancellation of a meeting scheduled for next week in Moscow, The Times reported.

"The comment infuriated" Putin, The Times said, citing an unnamed Russian official.




© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-infuriated-Putin-bored/2013/08/28/id/522798?s=al&promo_code=14B1C-1#ixzz2dP4BDXxm
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Biden Said He Will Impeach The President For War Not Approved By Congress… In 2007

August 28, 2013 by Sam Rolley

If President Barack Obama launches an attack on Syria without full Congressional approval, do you think Vice President Joe Biden will attempt to have him impeached?
On Tuesday, we brought you Constitution-friendly Obama, circa 2007; today, we will revisit a Biden of the same vintage.
In 2007, Senator Biden said that he would absolutely do everything possible to impeach President George W. Bush if he attacked Iran without first gaining Congressional approval.
Via Seacoast Online, November 29, 2007:

Presidential hopeful Delaware Sen. Joe Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval.
Biden spoke in front of a crowd of approximately 100 at a candidate forum held Thursday at Seacoast Media Group. The forum focused on the Iraq war and foreign policy. When an audience member expressed fear of a war with Iran, Biden said he does not typically engage in threats, but had no qualms about issuing a direct warning to the Oval Office.
“The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach,” said Biden, whose words were followed by a raucous applause from the local audience.
Biden said he is in the process of meeting with constitutional law experts to prepare a legal memorandum saying as much and intends to send it to the president.

Biden spent a great deal of time talking about illegal wars and impeaching President Bush around that time.
Chris Matthews: “You said that if the President of the United States had launched an attack on Iran without congressional approval that would have been an impeachable offense. Do you want to review that comment you made? Well how do you stand on that now?”
Biden: “Yes I do. I want to stand by the comment I made. The reason I made the comment was as a warning. I don’t say those things lightly, Chris, you’ve known me for a long time. I was chairman of the judiciary committee for 17 years or its ranking member. I teach separation of powers and constitutional law. This is something I know. So I got together and brought a group of constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I’m going to deliver to the whole United State Senate pointing out the President has no constitutional authority…to take this nation to war against a county of 70 million people unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that, I don’t say it lightly, I don’t say it lightly. I say it because they should understand that what they were threatening, what they were saying, what it was adding up to be, what it looked like to the rest of the world we were about to do would be the most disastrous thing that could be done in this moment in our history that I could think of.”

Syria

Jesse Jackson and the Tea Party

By Katherine Connell, The National Review
Jesse Jackson has no doubt that on the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, Republican opposition to President Obama’s policies is motivated by racial animus reminiscent of the Civil War-era South. “The tea party is the resurrection of the Confederacy, it’s the Fort Sumter tea party,” Jackson told Politico’s Glenn Thrush.
Jackson, who Thrush describes as the man “who more than anyone occupies the no man’s land between his mentor King and Obama,” is “absolutely” convinced that attempts to thwart the president’s agenda are motivated by his race.
The question “To what degree is the partisan gridlock that is frustrating his attempts to govern racially driven?” is one that President Obama himself is “begging to ask,” according to Pulitzer Prize–winning author Taylor Branch. The president can’t broach the topic, Branch said, because “the slightest mention of race could alienate the millions of white Americans who voted for him.”
The half-dozen aides Thrush interviewed for the article disagree with this assessment, saying that they have never heard Obama suggest that race is a factor in the opposition he faces from the GOP.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/08/27/unreal-jesse-jackson-says-tea-party-resurrection-confederacy%E2%80%99#ixzz2dD1Kehfw

Obama Flag Resurfaces at March on Washington

Yesterday a U.S Flag whose stars were replaced with a picture of President Obama resurfaced at the March On Washington.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/08/26/obama-flag-resurfaces-march-washington?cmpid=NL_foxnation#ixzz2dA3VfM55

Short Answers to Common Questions about Social Security

Published: May 2013

Developed to accompany
Social Security Finances: Findings of the 2013 Trustees Report
Social Security Brief #42, May 2013

1. Who are Social Security’s trustees and why do they issue an annual report? Social Security has six trustees: the Secretaries of the Treasury, of Labor, of Health and Human Services; the Social Security Commissioner; and two public trustees, who by law must be from different political parties, are appointed by the President, and must be confirmed by the Senate. They issue an annual report on Social Security’s finances to give Congress and the public ample time to consider any changes that may be warranted to keep the program’s income and outgo in balance over the entire 75-year period for which Social Security’s financial estimates are made.
2. How can the trustees know what’s going to happen 75 years from now? They can’t; no one can. Still, they provide essential guidance to policymakers responsible for ensuring that Social Security can pay all scheduled benefits. So the trustees make three long-range financial forecasts — high-cost, low-cost, and intermediate — and use the intermediate estimate as the basis for projecting income, outgo, and possible imbalances. The one sure thing is that the trustees’ 75-year estimates can never be precisely accurate and will change from year to year.
3. The trustees talk about a projected 75-year shortfall as a “percent of payroll.” What do they mean? Why not just talk about dollars? Workers’ earnings — employers’ payrolls — are the main source of Social Security financing. Calculating program costs as a percentage of the payrolls covered by Social Security avoids the complications that would arise from using dollar figures to measure the cost of one set of benefits in one time period versus another set of benefits in another time period when the value of a dollar is different.
4. Last year the trustees projected that the 75-year shortfall would average 2.67 percent of payroll. This year they’re projecting 2.72 percent of payroll. Why the difference? The main reason for the change is the one-year advance in the 75-year projection period, which is now 2013-2087. The substitution of a relatively high-cost year (2087) for a lower-cost year (2012) inevitably increases the projected shortfall somewhat, unless offset by other factors. The trustees noted that the projected date when Social Security’s reserves will be depleted (if Congress takes no action in the meantime) remains unchanged: 2033.
5. How have the Great Recession and slow recovery affected Social Security? Because of high unemployment and stagnant wages, income from workers’ earnings has been somewhat lower than expected. And because many laid-off workers find themselves forced to claim Social Security as soon as they can, outgo for benefits has been somewhat higher than expected.
6. So do economic downturns doom Social Security? On the contrary, Social Security’s long-term financing enables the program to ride out even sustained downturns in a volatile market economy, just as it was designed to do. During rough times Social Security functions as a giant economic shock absorber. In 2012 Social Security pumped nearly $775 billion into the economy in the form of benefit payments that maintained the purchasing power of more than 56 million beneficiaries and their families.
7. But isn’t Social Security contributing to the national debt? Social Security cannot contribute to the debt because by law it cannot borrow money. Since 1935 Social Security has collected $16.3 trillion and paid out $13.6 trillion, leaving a balance of $2.7 trillion in the trust funds at the end of 2012.
8. But last year the program spent more on benefits than it collected in payroll taxes. So is it going broke? No. Social Security has three sources of income: payroll taxes, income taxes on benefits paid to higher-income recipients, and interest earned on its reserves. Social Security is still accumulating reserves through interest earned on the money in its trust funds. The reserves are projected to increase from $2.7 trillion at the end of 2012 to $2.9 trillion at the end of 2020. After that, if Congress has not acted in the meantime to increase revenues or lower benefits, the reserves would start to be drawn down to help pay benefits.
9. But the media sometimes refer to Social Security’s “cash-flow imbalance.” Is it running out of cash? No. The term “cash flow” as used in the unified federal budget refers to the program’s annual income and outgo without counting interest earned by the trust fund reserves. If interest is ignored, income was less than outgo in 2012. But interest is part of Social Security’s total income, and the U.S. Treasury is firmly obligated to pay the interest due to the trust funds – an obligation just as firm as the commitment of the United States to any other holder of U.S. Treasury bonds. With interest income included, Social Security had a $54 billion surplus in 2012.
10. If the reserves are used up to help pay benefits, will Social Security be bankrupt? No. “Bankruptcy” means having no funds. Although the trustees estimate that the reserves will be depleted in 2033 (but only if Congress has not acted in the meantime), revenue continuing to come into Social Security from payroll taxes and income taxes on benefits paid to higher-income recipients would cover about 75% of scheduled benefits. It is this shortfall — not bankruptcy — that lawmakers need to address.
11. Are there ways to fix Social Security’s shortfall without cutting benefits? Yes. Many public opinion surveys, including a recent NASI study,[1] have found that most Americans would rather pay somewhat more to keep Social Security strong than cut benefits for current or future beneficiaries. For example, gradually increasing the contribution rate from 6.2% to 7.2% and gradually removing the cap on earnings taxable for Social Security could address the shortfall and pay for modest benefit improvements.
12. Social Security’s Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund will soon be depleted. What can be done? Social Security pays benefits from two legally separate trust funds: Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI). Of the 6.2% of earnings that workers and employers each pay to Social Security, 5.3% goes to OASI and 0.9% goes to DI. Policymakers could keep DI in balance for the next 75 years by raising the DI rate from 0.9% to 1.1%. Alternatively, they could temporarily reallocate part of the OASI tax rate to the DI fund to equalize the two funds over the next 20 years. Congress has reallocated the tax rate between DI and OASI many times in the past without controversy and could do so again.[2]
13. Will the retirement of the baby boomers overwhelm Social Security? No. The baby boomers’ retirement did not catch Social Security by surprise. Benefit reductions that were enacted 30 years ago, including gradually raising the age of eligibility for full benefits from 65 to 67, are still phasing in and have slowed spending for future benefits. In addition, the boomers’ tax contributions throughout their working years have helped cover the cost of their retirement.
14. Some commentators claim that Social Security is simply unaffordable. Is this true? A widely accepted way to evaluate the affordability of Social Security — or other major systems such as health care, education, or defense — is as a share of the entire economy, or gross domestic product (GDP). Social Security was 5.0% of GDP in 2012 and is expected to increase to 6.2% of GDP by 2035, when all of the baby boomers will have retired; then it is expected to decline slightly and level off at 6.0% to 6.2% thereafter. By way of comparison, the projected increase until 2035 is smaller than the increase in national spending for public education when the baby boomers were children. Social Security is affordable, and surveys show that Americans are willing to pay for it.