Rep. Eric Cantor leads talks to raise the debt ceiling.

Republican negotiators have walked out of talks to increase the debt ceiling. Why? Let me summarize: Democrats don’t want to cut spending, and Republicans don’t want to raise taxes. To this point, some cuts have been agreed on, but no tax increases are being considered by the Republicans.

These talks are taking place because the debt ceiling needs to be raised in order to avoid a bond default on August 2nd. Ideally, both sides would develop some common sense and use this as an opportunity to set the budget straight, to truly fix it, rather than just make temporary repairs.

If I had my way, I would eliminate the income tax and shrink the size of government. Unfortunately, this can’t be done responsibly until we eliminate the deficit, then the National Debt. Once those two things occur, then proponents of small government can accomplish some truly great things. The problem is that such a solution would require a multifaceted approach that both sides are too incompetent to see.

Democrats need to realize that we need drastic spending cuts, and a fundamental change in how we view government and its responsibility to its citizens. Republicans need to realize that they too helped raid the piggy bank over the years, and now it’s time to buckle down and get the bills paid. It’s probably possible to eliminate the deficit and debt with just spending cuts or tax increases, but it certainly isn’t easier. A combined approach is necessary.

If our elected leaders would start thinking past the next election and were afraid to make a tough decision, perhaps they would grasp the opportunity at hand, avoiding this problem in the future. Unfortunately, I don’t think any of them have the ability or courage to work toward such a solution.

Increased borrowing, here we come!

In a recent Gallup poll, 53% of Americans support gay marriage in 2011, up from 44% in 2010.

For the first time, a Gallup poll indicates that a majority of Americans support gay marriage. 53% support gay marriage in this year’s Gallup poll, compared to just 44% last year.

As a registered Republican who supports gay marriage, I’m disappointed and a bit surprised that only 28% of those in the G.O.P. support same-sex marriage. For those who think of the Republican party as a bastion of social conservatism, it makes perfect sense. Still, I find troubling inconsistencies.

In recent years, groups like the Tea Party have pushed for small government and found many Americans who are sympathetic. I’m one of those people who support limited government, but unlike many Republicans, I go beyond taxation. I respect personal beliefs of what’s right and wrong, but I disagree with using those beliefs to limit individual liberty.

If you’re an advocate of small government, spend some time looking for inconsistencies in your thinking. Just like you might support restricting someone’s liberty today, someone else may try to do the same to you in the future.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner wants the United States to keep borrowing.

Let’s say you have an individual that is in deep financial trouble. This person constantly uses their credit cards, spends their money as soon as they get it, and are generally irresponsible. If this person is having trouble paying their mortgage, electric, and grocery bill, what should they do? If you have common sense, you would probably suggest that this person stop nonessential purchases. By doing this, they’ll have enough for their bills, and hopefully, some left over to pay off their credit card balances, which will increase their monthly cash flow.

That solution makes sense, but I have another suggestion. What if the person called up the credit card companies and asked for a credit limit increase? If the banks agreed, they could keep spending lots of money, then use the borrowed funds to take care of their monthly expenses. Eventually, they would reach their credit limit, but they could just make more calls to the credit card companies, and continue to have their credit limit increased. Problem solved!

Does this sound like a stupid idea? I think so, but the U.S. Government seems to think it’s a great idea. After reaching the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, the Obama Administration and many in Congress are trying to get the limit increased, so they can borrow more to spend more.

Proponents of an increase paint a gloom and doom scenario and insist it must be increased to avoid fiscal armageddon. Many Republicans are insisting on spending cuts in return for increasing the debt ceiling. Here’s what I don’t understand: If failing to raise the debt ceiling would be such a catastrophe, then why don’t the Democrats agree to the cuts that would ensure passage of a debt ceiling increase?

I’m also wondering why both parties approved a budget that relied on a level of borrowing that wasn’t legally permissible at the time. Is is because most members of Congress love to buy votes with the pet projects and programs their constituents, supporters, and donors want, without regard for the big picture?

I’m extremely pessimistic about things being “fixed” any time soon. All we are going to see are some short-term fixes that will get us through a few months, or a few years, if we’re lucky. The can will be kicked down the road to become someone else’s problem. This is what happens when people without courage common sense are elected.

Republicans Vs Democrats

Barack Obama is being criticized for a budget proposal that some see as being harsh toward low and middle-income Americans. Critics say it cuts too much from heating assistance, summer Pell Grants, and community block grants. Count me as a critic, but not because he cuts too much, but because he doesn’t cut enough.

I’m one of those people who believe we could completely eliminate the budget deficit in a year or two, not five, ten, or twenty. Of course, that would require massive cuts that go far beyond what President Obama, and even the G.O.P. are proposing. In addition to these cuts, the Bush tax cuts should have been allowed to lapse, at least temporarily. Ladies and gentlemen, we are drowning in debt, and the solutions aren’t pleasant.

Draconian steps are needed to immediately end the deficit. It can’t be done without whining and complaining by those who don’t want their taxes raised or their programs cut, but make no mistake, it can be done.

One of the things preventing the tough decisions from being made is fear among our elected officials. The majority of them know what needs to be done, but won’t do it because they are afraid of losing their next election. I’ve never been a supporter of term-limits, but a situation like this really shows their value.

In the grand scheme of things, it’s probably not a big deal, since it’s an opinion poll of conservative activists. Of course, it does get Ron Paul mentioned on newscasts, blogs, websites, and newspapers all over the country. If he can keep it up, it could create a buzz that slowly build into the primary/caucus season. Of course, I’m hoping that’s not necessary.

As I’ve written before, Ron Paul would have a much better chance of success if he chose to run as an independent, rather than a Republican. There are so many social conservatives in the GOP, that I doubt they would support someone with libertarian beliefs, even if those beliefs are in tune their own fiscal conservatism.

For Ron Paul, the road to victory includes a lengthy schedule of campaigning that will gain him enough support to gain entrance into the Presidential debates against the Republican and Democrat in the race. Once the typical American has the opportunity to hear Ron Paul share his ideas, I’m confident the number of supporters will increase exponentially.

I would like to see Obamacare repealed, and I’m glad to see that a vote was taken on the issue. What we have here is nothing more than politicians standing on a soap box and wasting time. Anyone following the issue knows that the GOP doesn’t have the votes in the Senate to make any meaningful changes, yet they push on.

My guess is that they continue because they want something they can point to when they run for re-election next year. The problem is that it is taking time away from important matters that they might actually be able to solve. Unfortunately, this type of thinking, and these types of actions are far too prevalent in Washington.

From the beginning, Scott Brown said he would vote against Obamacare, and would be the 61st Senator needed to stop the Democrats. The fact that this message resonated with one of the bluest states in the country illustrates the level of discontent with Congress and Barack Obama. This is just the latest loss for the Democrats. You might recall the huge losses for the Democrats in the November 2009 elections when both Virgina and New Jersey elected Republican governors. Some felt that those elections weren’t really much of a barometer for national sentiment. However, Scott Brown’s win leaves no doubt that the Republican party has the momentum.

Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi should look at this moment as a judgment of their leadership. A moment where a state that tends to support their ideas overwhelmingly, finally had enough. It’s one thing to have your political enemies criticize you, but when your methods receive a rebuke from your own, it’s time to reconsider your approach.

There’s no doubt that this momentum will carry forward into the November elections. It’s very likely that Republicans could pick up a half-dozen Senate seats and possibly gain control of the House. Hopefully, when they return to power, they will practice the fiscal conservatism that voters sought when they put them in office.

Maybe it’s me, but the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense seems to be inconsistent. The leader of the party, Malik Shabazz, defended Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to drop a voter intimidation suit involving one of its members. At first, Shabazz seems to dismiss the event, calling it, “a political witch hunt” by Republicans against Eric Holder. Shabazz also went on to say that the group does not condone voter intimidation, and it has suspended the member who was involved.

Here’s what I don’t understand: Malik Shabazz claims that the charges are false and nothing but a ploy to attack Eric Holder. Yet in the next breath, he talks about how the New Black Panthers do not condone voter intimidation and seems intent on proving it by bringing up the member’s suspension. If there was nothing to the complaint, then why was the member suspended? By suspending him, it certainly seems that the New Black Panthers thought he was guilty of something.

I’m sure the group won’t be called on this inconsistency. After all, it wouldn’t be politically correct. Instead, they will just take a page from the liberal playbook and blame everything that goes wrong on the vast right-wing conspiracy.