On the website of the U.S. Treasury Department, there is a little known page that describes how you too can help reduce the National Debt by making voluntary gift contributions!

You can pay as much in additional taxes as you want! Just write a check or in a really ironic twist, use your credit card to make your donation to the National Debt.

Here’s what the U.S. Treasury has to say:

The Bureau of the Public Debt may accept gifts donated to the United States Government to reduce debt held by the public. Acting for the Secretary of the Treasury, Public Debt may accept a gift of:

• Money, made only on the condition that it be used to reduce debt held by the public.
• An outstanding government obligation, made only on the condition that the obligation be retired and the redemption proceeds used to reduce debt held by the public.
• Other intangible personal property made only on the condition that the property is sold and the proceeds from the sale used to reduce the public debt.

Gifts to reduce debt held by the public may be inter vivos gifts or testamentary bequests.

Ain’t that just too cool!

Over the years there have been some courageous souls willing to make direct donations to help pay off the National Debt, but the donations have never grossed more than $3.1 Million in a single year. The 2011 U.S. Budget Deficit now exceeds $1.3 Trillion and even $3 Million in cash just isn’t going as far as it used to! I can only guess that Hollywood stars, George Soros, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and others are just not beating down the door to give a little more.

We need to remind liberals that it is ok to want to give more and then send them right here to MeridianTeaParty.com to get the low-down on how to make their dreams of higher taxes a reality before sunset today!!!

We even have Chuck Woolery on board to help sell this plan:

Click here to view the embedded video.

So when your liberal friends and relatives start talking about their desire for taxes to be raised, remind them that passing another law is unnecessary!

Send them to this page and explain to them how the National Debt could be paid off tomorrow if enough kind-hearted folks like themselves would make bigger, better donations more often to the U.S. Treasury!

Taxes are really just gifts anyway, aren’t they?

Remember:

There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:

• You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov
• You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it’s a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public.Mail your check to:Attn Dept G
  Bureau of the Public Debt
  P. O. Box 2188
  Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

The 74-26 roll call Tuesday by which the Senate passed emergency legislation to avoid a first-ever government default.

• Cochran (R), Yes
• Wicker (R), Yes

The 269-161 roll call Monday by which the House passed the compromise bill to raise the debt ceiling and prevent a government default. A “yes” vote is a vote to pass the measure. Voting yes were 95 Democrats and 174 Republicans. Voting no were 95 Democrats and 66 Republicans.

• Thompson (D), No
• Harper (R), Yes
• Nunnelee (R), Yes
• Palazzo (R), Yes

Sources:

• Senate Vote
• House Vote

H/T: Breitbart.tv

Rating Action

On Aug. 5, 2011, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to ‘AA+’ from ‘AAA’. The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. At the same time, Standard & Poor’s affirmed its ‘A-1+’ short-term rating on the U.S. In addition, Standard & Poor’s removed both ratings from CreditWatch, where they were placed on July 14, 2011, with negative implications.

The transfer and convertibility (T&C) assessment of the U.S.–our assessment of the likelihood of official interference in the ability of U.S.-based public- and private-sector issuers to secure foreign exchange for debt service–remains ‘AAA’.

Research Update:

United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To ‘AA+’ On Political Risks And Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative

Overview

• We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to ‘AA+’ from ‘AAA’ and affirmed the ‘A-1+’ short-term rating.
• We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from CreditWatch negative.
• The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.
• More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
• Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics any time soon.
• The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to ‘AA’ within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.

Rationale

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

Emphasis added.

 

Read the complete document…

Speaker Boehner claims this deal is a step in the right direction and I got an email from Representative Gregg Harper letting me know that he was proud of the work Congress did and that he didn’t feel like he compromised violated his conservative principles.

In fact, here’s the direct quote from his email:

The “Budget Control Act of 2011” would cut and cap spending by $917 billion over 10 years, exceeding the $900 billion debt limit increase. This legislation also creates mechanisms for additional budget savings of $1.5 trillion over the same time period and requires both houses of Congress to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment this year.

When debt increase discussions began, the White House initially demanded a clean debt limit hike with no spending reductions or budget reforms. The administration then shifted to a “balanced approach,” demanding equal parts spending cuts and tax hikes. Ultimately the agreement will cut government spending more than it increases the debt limit, implement spending caps to restrain future spending and advance the cause of a Balanced Budget Amendment, all without increasing taxes.

This Republican framework adopted by Democratic legislators does not violate my conservative principles and aligns with my commitment that Congress must act immediately to drive down spending and shrink the size of the federal government.

[Emphasis added by me.]

So, why don’t I feel better?

Where’s that warm fuzzy feeling that usually helps me believe that our best days are still ahead of us?

Instead, all I seem to be left with are questions.

• Why does the Vice President think that the people who try to stand up and argue against the conventional wisdom of tax, borrow and spend are terrorists? Does he really believe that common folk who stand up to protect liberty and freedom are the moral equivalent of suicide  bombers? I thought we were past all that.

• Why does Speaker Boehner believe that “a step in the right direction” is enough? This is not a game and yet every person on the big stage seems to think it is. Our economic ship is sinking and we need more than just a step toward getting a bucket, we need to start bailing as fast as we can. Boehner and the House of Representatives had the best leverage they will hold in the next 18 months and they accepted far less than they had to. I do not believe the predicted default was real nor do I believe the Government needed to close in order to get a better deal. The default deadline was arbitrary and yet when push came to shove, instead of forcing the President or the Democrats put some real offers on the table, the Republicans freaked out and started competing with themselves to see who could come up with the most Liberal-Lite plan they could.

• Does it surprise you that by this morning reports were coming out that the deal wasn’t as good as we were told it was? Remember when Pelosi said that we’d have to pass the Healthcare Reform Act to find out what was in it? What happened to the 3 day posting online pledge? For that matter, what happened to the Cut, Cap and Balance pledge? Is it any wonder why no one trusts politicians? Consider Rand Paul’s open letter that predicts this deal will still add an additional $7 Trillion to the debt because the cuts are to the baseline expenditures which are projected to grow by $10 Trillion over the next 10 years. Basically he argues that once again Congress and the President have come together to ‘slow the growth’ of spending and not actually cut spending itself. Exactly how can slowing the growth of spending be considered a cut?

• Why is it that no one seems to mention the fact that President Obama held out for one thing in this deal and ultimately got exactly what he wanted? President Obama wanted a long term deal. Well, not really that long, but longer than a short term deal. A short term deal would mean that the debt ceiling issue would be back on the table right smack in the middle of….wait for it…..wait for it…his Re-Election Campaign!!!! Why do you think that would be and why do you think Republicans would go along with that? Could it be that they think we are idiots with faulty short-term memories and that we’ll just forget about the National Debt by November of 2012? Did they think that if they just averted default we would all fall to our knees and thank the Washington Elite for saving us from such a terrible fate? Apparently, Obama believed that enough to risk everything to get what he wanted. What have any of them done to make us think that they are more interested in saving the Country than in saving their jobs?

• Why is Harry Reid still in the Senate at all? How can a Senator end up filibustering his own bill? I guess we should start calling him, Harry “DOA” Reid since that is the only type of bill the House can send to the Senate.

• Why did Rep. Harper use the word “would” instead of “will” in his description of the cut and cap spending benefits of the “Budget Control Act of 2011″? It seems to me that his choice of words is important and “would” is a lot more passive than the word “will”. We have been told that if they hadn’t passed the Stimulus Package things “would” be a lot worse. Is this the same kind of use of the word? Does the word “would” give everyone wiggle room so that if the situation on the ground changes in the next three years they can simply decide not to go through with the cuts that “would” have gone into effect. Additionally, what are “mechanisms” and how will they create savings? Are “mechanisms” budget tricks like we’ve seen before or are they real opportunities to try and cut more? Mechanisms is one of those words like infrastructure. These words are often used to describe something that sounds concrete, but may not actually be so. I really want to learn more about these mechanisms and how they work. The only mechanism that I’ve seen so far is the one that allows an additional automatic debt limit increase initiated by the President which can only be stopped by a 2/3 vote of Congress. How is abdicating any role of Congress to the President a good thing?

• Why are spending cuts spread over 10 years and the debt limit increases are immediate? According to Rep. Harper’s email, the difference between the “cuts” and the debt increase is an paltry $17 Billion. And, that does not take into account present and future values of money. If we assume a 2.77% interest rate, then the present value of the cuts over 10 years works out to about $697,759,519,713.19 ($698 Billion) which by my calculation is a lot less than the present value of the $900 Billion debt ceiling increase. Ultimately, it means that when you consider the time value of money, Congress traded $900 Billion of debt in today’s dollars for just $698 Billion of cuts in today’s dollars. And these number do not  include the automatic second increase in the debt ceiling. How can that be good? (I’m sure that someone else can do a much better job than me of estimating the actual present value of the cuts, but since we don’t know what the cuts will be nor do we actually know when they will take effect, this is sufficient for this discussion. And just for the record the 2.77% interest rate used is the current 10 year T-Bill Rate quoted by the U.S. Treasury today.)

• Why does this deal feel more like just another Continuing Resolution instead of real cuts? More to the point, it reminds me of an alcoholic who when confronted promised to “cut back” on his drinking. Both he and his family know he’s not going to stop, but the promise makes them all feel better and they can go back to their lives believing they have accomplished something important. The only accomplishment I can see coming from this debate is that we had the debate at all. My gut told me from the beginning that the results were going to be terrible; however, in fairness to some of the new members of Congress, we wouldn’t be having even the debate if they had not gone to Washington and stood up for the folks back home. When was the last time you even remember there being ANY debate about raising the debt ceiling? Most of the time it has been buried in procedural votes that no one even paid attention to. Now that at least the dirty secret of our debt crisis is on the kitchen table it will become a campaign issue that will lead to even more turnover in Washington. The question is: Can the economy or the Country wait that long?

If you listen to Dave Ramsey, you know that to get out of financial ruin, the first step is to cut up the credit cards and the second step is to start eating beans and rice and rice and beans until you can get back on your feet. Stepping back from the edge of financial ruin requires discipline and commitment both of which seem to be sorely missing in this debate. You cannot borrow your way into wealth and you definitely cannot borrow your way out of debt.

In the end, I’m left with a knot in my stomach, fear in my mind and one simple, burning question to which if I could get an honest answer, I’d probably be so shocked that I’d forget about all the other questions:

How can Washington with a straight face try to convince us that a bill that is supposed to hold the line on spending is a step in the right direction when it will increase the debt instead?

h/t: Ace Of Spades HQ

Click here to view the embedded video.

Happy Birthday, America!

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Based on the quality of the film, the attendance and audience reactions to the film, The Temple Theater has decided to have at least two encore performances!

The Encore Show Times will be:

• Monday, June 27th at 7:00pm
• Tuesday, June 28th at 7:00pm

If you were unable to see the film on Friday or Saturday, here’s two more chances to get to the Temple and SEE THIS FILM!

I can tell you for certain: The professional critics got this one very, very wrong! It is a great film and can be enjoyed by everyone who believes in the power of the individual to overcome overwhelming odds and succeed in spite of everything.

The Temple Theater will continue to honor any of the MeridianTeaParty.com passes that have been given away!

There will be three showings:

• Friday, June 24th at 7:00pm
• Saturday, June 25th at 4:00pm
• Saturday, June 25th at 7:00pm

Tickets will be $5.00 for adults and $3.00 for Students.

This film is rated PG-13.

Atlas Shrugged Movie: Part I Film Synopsis

Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schilling) runs Taggart Transcontinental, the largest remaining railroad company in America, with intelligence, courage and integrity, despite the systematic disappearance of her best and most competent workers.

She is drawn to industrialist Henry Rearden (Grant Bowler), one of the few men whose genius and commitment to his own ideas match her own. Rearden’s super-strength metal alloy, Rearden Metal, holds the promise that innovation can overcome the slide into anarchy.

Using the untested Rearden Metal, they rebuild the critical Taggart rail line in Colorado and pave the way for oil titan Ellis Wyatt (Graham Beckel) to feed the flame of a new American Renaissance.

Hope rises again, when Dagny and Rearden discover the design of a revolutionary motor based on static electricity – in an abandoned engine factory – more proof to the sinister theory that the “men of the mind” (thinkers, industrialists, scientists, artists, and other innovators) are “on strike” and vanishing from society.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Atlas Shrugged is a novel that has generated inspiration and controversy since its publication in 1957.

Its theme is the role of individual achievement in society and its goal is to demonstrate what can happen when individual achievement is undervalued, suppressed and demonized. Complex characters embody heroism and evil, in a plot that combines drama, mystery, romance, and science fiction – the result is ultimately inspirational, not apocalyptic.

Dagny Taggart is one of the finest female heroines in modern literature: intelligent, courageous, and as beautiful as she is strong. She is a rare screen example of life lived on one’s own terms, for one’s own values. Steel magnate Henry Rearden says, “My goal is to make money” with pride. He is an industrialist who improves the quality of life for all – and values his reward. Atlas Shrugged’s villains are evil, but as familiar as our local neighbor – as they undercut and subvert talent and achievement.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Relevance Today – Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged & Objectivism

Ask yourself: What would happen, if our producers disappear – Steve Jobs, Sergey Brin and other industrialists fall off the radar, their companies shuttered and their creative genius no longer powering America? The answer lies in Atlas Shrugged Part I.

For the millions around the world who have read Rand’s books, for those curious about her controversial philosophy, and for the uninitiated, and skeptical – the film, which only covers the first third of the book, is an opportunity to see a faithful adaptation.

Rand’s unique literary genius – which we hope to make accessible to a broader audience via film – is to show the price to be paid by the individual and society when the tragic words “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” are carried out.

Click here to view the embedded video.