Allen West’s Weekly Update “America Has Crossed The ‘Red Line” on @Next_GenTV @PJTV

America Has Crossed The ‘Red Line’
It’s a millstone of debt, not a milestone to celebrate

AW NGTV

Greetings to all Americans, and here we are for another installment of the Next Generation weekly update.

We launched our “Next Generation Today” programming this week. Our pilot episode will give you a taste of the great content to come as we develop the show. Please watch it and share your feedback. Let us know what you like and what else you want to see in the future. Michelle, John and I appreciate your comments. Please keep them coming.

We also updated the Next Generation Data Card, which we encourage you to download here. We will update this card monthly to give you a quick snapshot of several key economic indicators.

Economic perspective from the CBO

Speaking of our economy, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released yet another alarming report this week. CBO’s forecast for America is bleak, as the office analyzed our growing debt and its relationship to our gross domestic product. America now finds herself with a greater debt than GDP. In other words, we owe more than we produce.Economists will tell you the figurative “red line” that marks excessive debt is around 90 percent of debt to GDP. We have eclipsed that threshold.

Even more alarming is that if we add our unfunded liabilities – the mandatory spending for programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security – we have far exceeded the threshold. And that was the crux of the CBO report – that we must reform mandatory spending programs and get them under control.

The CBO also found that 7 million to 8 million Americans could lose their employer-based healthcare benefits thanks to the president’s plan. Remember, the law was touted in 2010 as only costing American taxpayers $940 billion. CBO later revised that cost to $1.1 trillion and just this week revised the cost to $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years.

I suppose it was as then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

TO CONTINUE THE REST OF THE WEEKLY NEWSLETTER CLICK HERE: NEXT GENERATION TV

Rep. Allen West “Another False Obama Medicare Claim: The $6,400 Myth”

via Facebook by Allen West on Monday, August 20, 2012

It is quite obvious that truth and integrity have no place in President Obama’s reelection campaign. In 2008 he was able to run on empty words and hyperbole. Now in 2012 he is running as an empty suit unable to be honest about his failure and dismal record.

Wall Street Journal Editorial

“The $6,400 Myth”

Breaking down a false Obama Medicare claim.

One of President Obama’s regular attacks on Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform is that it would force seniors to pay $6,400 a year more for health care. But merely because he keeps repeating this doesn’t mean it’s in the same area code of accurate.

The claim is based on a now out-of-date Congressional Budget Office estimate of the gap between the cost of health care a decade from now, in 2022, and the size of the House budget’s premium-support subsidy for a typical 65-year-old in 2022.

In other words, the $6,400 has no relevance for any senior today. None. But it also is unlikely to have any relevance for any senior ever because CBO concedes that its number is highly uncertain and “will depend on the evolution of the health care and health insurance systems over time, which is hard to predict.” That’s for sure.

The more fundamental problem is that the CBO analysis has nothing to do with the current Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan plan. Nada. Over the last year Mr. Ryan has made major adjustments to his original proposal as he sought a compromise with Democrats. In its most up-to-date analysis, CBO admits that it “does not have the capability at this time to estimate such effects” in the new version. That is, it does not have the tools to make its $6,400 exaggeration again.

The reason CBO can’t model the 2013 House budget and the Romney-Ryan plan is that they harness markets with competitive bidding. Congress’s budget gnomes can’t handle these dynamic forces.

So how would Ryan 2.0 work in practice? Traditional Medicare and all private insurers in a region would make bids to cover seniors and compete for their business by offering the best value and prices. Then the government would give everyone a subsidy equal to the second-lowest bid.

If seniors chose that No. 2 option, whether it was Medicare or another plan, they’d break even and pay nothing extra out of pocket. If they picked the cheapest plan, they’d keep whatever was left over after the government subsidy—that is, they’d get a cash refund. If they instead picked the third-cheapest option, the fourth-cheapest, etc., they’d pay the difference above the government subsidy.

That structure ensures that seniors would have at least two choices (and likely far more) that they are guaranteed to do better than they do now. The amount of the premium-support subsidy would also be tied to underlying health-care costs, so it would not shift costs to beneficiaries, as Democrats also falsely claim. The very reasonable Romney-Ryan policy bet is that costs could nonetheless fall over time because seniors would have the incentive to switch to the most competitively priced Medicare plan.

COMPLETE THE REST OF THE ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE: WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE

Congressman Allen West’s Weekly Wrap Up – April 23, 2012

Dear Patriot,

Greetings to our constituents, fellow Floridians, and all Americans, I hope you all survived another Tax Day. I need to make you all aware of what will become the largest tax hike in the history of America. You can read about it here in our recent Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel editorial, “The American Tax Code: A Weapon of Mass Destruction”.

This past Friday, “The Hill” newspaper reported the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its assessment of President Barack Obama’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget. The CBO estimates the President’s budget would adversely affect economic growth and the higher deficits would reduce economic output between 0.5 percent and 2.2 percent after five years. In addition, this budget strategy will reduce the amount of capital available to businesses.

The President’s budget will add some $3.5 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years, according to the CBO. However, the baseline of smoke and mirrors promulgated by the Obama Administration tries to convince the American people that deficits will be reduced by $3.2 trillion. This is why America must have an ideological debate about the direction in which this country will head. It is a debate which the liberal progressive left would rather avoid.

As you may be aware, much has been made of my recent response to a question from a constituent and assertion regarding so-called “communists” in the Congressional Progressive Caucus. I am pleased it has inspired so much passionate debate, for that was precisely the point. When I was studying for my Masters degrees in political science at Kansas State University and at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff Officer College, the very best professors were those who would begin each lecture with a challenging assertion. It engaged discussion and analysis, and was the best way to uncover the essence of the particular subject of the day. As Americans, we must bring to the forefront a fundamental discussion of what we want our country to be like 10 years, 20 years, and 100 years from now. Do we veer from our Founders’ vision of a constitutional republic, which preserves and protects the individual sovereignty of its citizens, along with the free market and the rights of the several states? Or do we continue to slide down a path of expanding the secular welfare state, nationalizing production, and enforcing economic equality and achievement?

You may call this what you wish. The esteemed constitutional scholar and author, Mark Levin, calls it “statism.” In our lifetime, the unpalatable and pejorative brands “socialist” and “communist” have been replaced with the more user-friendly “progressive.” But this is not a discussion about labels. It is a discussion far more important and grave, for it affects our nation’s future, our security, and the lives of each and every one of us. The dialogue must be about the future and direction of these United States. It is about the choice between two futures: a constitutional republic or a bureaucratic nanny-state.

As a nation, we must directly confront those issues that are most critical. We must be able to openly and candidly discuss how we will move forward to preserve our nation’s greatness, reduce our debt and deficit, put Americans back to work, take full advantage of our domestic energy resources and ensure our security.

These are dangerous and critical times for our country. We must be unafraid to discuss and confront the challenges we face, and ensure we keep our focus on the fundamental issues, rather than become distracted by semantics. I gladly welcome this debate in the arena of political ideologies of governance.

Steadfast and Loyal