I am not pursuing this work in order to enrich myself. For the last twelve years, I have gone without food for days at a time, eliminated anything except free recreational activities (sorry Disney), struggled to find cheap rent and then struggled to pay it each month. I have eliminated the cost of a vehicle, and thereby sacrificed the joy of being able to travel to see my own family on a regular basis. The cost of airfare is not an option. I have, in essence, eliminated any personal spending that might take money away from the organization. I consider it to be putting my lack of money where my mouth is. But the sacrifices probably won’t make me famous. When you read of a new public outreach project or partnership from NASA, Space Florida, the KSC Visitor Center or other companies and organizations, you will probably not find the organization where I work. Most likely, we weren’t contacted about it or reached out to for support or contribution. They pretty much ignore us, even when we reach out to them. But, that also is okay since we’re constantly engaged in successful outreach and helping kids directly.

Many of you are probably surprised to learn that there has been an established STEM education and space advocacy organization based in Melbourne for more than a decade already, engaged in a variety of projects and helping inspire youth around the country. You probably don’t realize that we endeavor to help talented individuals who have the drive to find work and better their lives. I have not been worried about that. I understand that if we do good work, in the long run the results will speak for themselves. That’s the “profit” we seek. Now, I am a good old Reagan conservative. That may be surprising to some considering what I’ve just described. It may seem like I’m more liberal than I claim. I assure you that I am not.

I am not satisfied by merely complaining and pronouncing righteous indignation – but doing nothing to solve the problem. I don’t consider it a sincere effort to just pay membership dues to an organization and claim I’m helping the cause. I think it’s hypocritical to claim moral superiority and accuse others of not sacrificing for others if I’m not sacrificing my own personal comfort. I have never joined a cause in order to make me feel better about myself, cleanse my own self-loathing and guilt, or for show around my friends. I won’t pitch a tent and protest signs in a city park and demand other people give me, or anyone else, free stuff. I’m not entitled to anything I haven’t earned, especially not someone else’s property. I prefer staying in my home office actually working to make the world a better place. I call it “Occupy Myself”. In other words, I am not a liberal. In fact, I’m just an average citizen, sacrificing a bit for something I believe in – specifically, the welfare of future generations – and working tirelessly but happily in relative anonymity. And I’m quite proud of it. Actually, I am a hero.

Therefore let us declare that we still hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But with those rights come responsibilities.

In order to continually experience life, liberty and happiness as promised, nature’s God demands obedience to His law to protect those rights. This is where we have fallen short and therefore, in order not to lose the blessings of freedom, the people of the world must turn from the sole focus on rights, and recognize the inherent and required responsibilities that we have.

Among the responsibilities to which we must adhere to maintain our God given rights are honor, courage and vigilance.

Over time, we believe that these basic human responsibilities have been trampled, and replaced with degradation, fear and apathy.

But when a long train of abuses of the people and conscience by the media and by other segments of society, pursuing the same path of reducing them to ridicule, scorn and even sub-human status, it is their right, it is their DUTY, to peacefully, but vehemently take a stand.

Men want to be king, and the more we concentrate on our rights and the more we are told not to worry about our responsibilities, the more we lose our rights.

Just as physics show, for every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction. The time has come to declare that at least for the western world human rights are generally accepted and moving in the right direction however a new movement is required a movement of human responsibility.

The media, politicians and large institutions both academic and political have been lying to us, and we must demand the truth be told.

With that demand, comes the responsibility that we tell the truth first, in ourselves. Too many of us delegate our responsibility to the media…and too many believe there is no personal responsibility at all.

Political correctness has polluted our language and clouds our every discussion.

What was once accepted as good and right, is now considered bad and evil, and that which was bad and evil is now presented to the world as good and decent.

Opposing thoughts or opinions are referred to as crazy, insane, non-factual and utterly without merit. Furthermore, we are told, they should not even be heard.

Now, the time has come to take a stand by exhibiting the traits – honor, courage and vigilance.

What is honor? It is being honest in all of our dealings. It is showing loyalty and fairness, and being a beacon of integrity in all our beliefs and actions. It is showing respect for others.

Ruth honored Naomi when she told her that she would not leave her. That she would go wherever Naomi went, that she would live where Naomi lived and die where Naomi died. Her God would be Naomi’s God.

Courage is the ability to face danger, criticism or scorn – not without fear, but while overcoming fear to deal with that which comes our way.

When no one else in the Kingdom wanted to face the mighty giant, Goliath, young David was willing. David must have felt fear at the sight of his foe, but overcame it, and courageously vanquished his enemy.

Vigilance is being watchful for all forms of treachery and tyranny, lies and deceit. The person in the watchtower, waiting all night, suddenly sounding the alarm that the enemy is coming. The careful observer of the markets and economies who proclaims to the world, all is not well, there is trouble ahead and the outspoken critic of the powerful, going against societies’ grain, warning that all is not as we’re being told. These are the vigilant.

We implore all people to stand with these characteristics – honor, courage and vigilance.

To that end, we must restore honor in our own lives. Seek after the truth. Declare right now, that no longer will we simply accept what is told us by the media or anyone else.

The media has the responsibility to tell the truth, we have the responsibility to learn it.

Stand with courage, even if it means the end of our jobs, the end of our positions in life…or even the end of our very lives.

We must have the courage to be peaceful, while recognizing the courage to defend and respond to threats and/or attacks when necessary.

Turn the other cheek when possible.

We must be vigilant. We must think the unthinkable. The holocaust occurred because no one could imagine it, but evil never sleeps, and neither must we.

As Edmund Burke said, “all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” We must DO something. Stand watch. Speak up. Become involved.

Thus, we the people do hereby declare not only our rights, but do now establish this bill of responsibilities.

1. Because I have the right to choose, I recognize that I am accountable to God and have the responsibility to keep the 10 commandments in my own life.

10. Because I have a right to the truth, I will not bear false witness nor will I stand idly by as others do.

Unconditionally, while maintaining my responsibility to compassionately yet fiercely stand against those things that decay the natural rights of all men. And for the support of this declaration, and with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence we mutually pledge to each other our lives, fortunes and sacred honor.

(words courtesy Glenn Beck)

With the acceptance of my God-given rights and my personal duty to protect these rights—not only for myself, but also for my family, my neighbors, and even my enemies— I acknowledge my obligation to observe this set of principles to which I will unfalteringly commit myself and from which I shall not stray so as to never allow my fellow man to be deprived of the rights granted to him by God; for we do not grant men these rights nor are they ours to take away.

By these principles, never again will the whole existence of a people be imperiled by the inhumanity and blind hatred of a society. Never again will the rights of man be curtailed under racial segregation or institutionalized inequality.

Never again will we allow political differences to divide us or turn us against each other.

That all men are created equal in the image of God has long been established in the West. For centuries we have known it to be true that man is endowed by God with the most absolute and basic rights. Still, since the very establishment of these rights, our ability to safeguard them has been unproductive and feeble.

Today, quarters of the Earth are endangered by tyranny, discrimination, barbarism, and subjugation by fellow man. With an understanding of basic rights and equal justice, we must remain loyal to God and deliver the rights which His benevolence has bestowed upon us to those who have been denied the blessings of liberty, justice, and equality. More importantly, we must protect them from being robbed in the future, so that forever the world may be safe, and her people free from malevolence. Together, we must be prepared to do our duty no matter the cost and we must do so inexorably. We must march forth steadfast and unconquerable and defeat the forces of evil not by sword, but through our love for mankind and his creator.

Martin Luther King stood before the Lincoln Memorial over four decades ago and proclaimed during his most famous speech: “We must not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.” Therefore, let us carry forth Dr. King’s mission to future generations so that our children and our grandchildren may defend it in the years to come. Let us persistently oppose evil just as much as the person who uses violence, but let our methods always be nonaggressive. We must always be passive in body but active in spirit and we must always be peaceful in our fight for justice.

Let us aim our attack against the forces of evil, not against the individuals propelling those forces. Let us do our utmost to carry out His eternal will and pledge ourselves—in person and in body— to these nonviolent principles.

I sign this pledge, Matthew Travis

(words courtesy Glenn Beck)

DOWNLOAD PDF VERSION HERE

[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio]

Program Announcer: Ladies and gentlemen, we take pride in presenting a thoughtful address by Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan:

Reagan: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn’t been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, “We’ve never had it so good.”

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn’t something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven’t balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We’ve raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don’t own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we’ve just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it’s been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.” And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down: [up] man’s old — old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the “Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they’ve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, “The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says, “The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.” Or, “Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.” Senator Fulbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as “our moral teacher and our leader,” and he says he is “hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.” He must “be freed,” so that he “can do for us” what he knows “is best.” And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.”

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government” — this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than government’s involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming — that’s regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we’ve spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don’t grow.

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he’ll find out that we’ve had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He’ll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He’ll find that they’ve also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn’t keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

At the same time, there’s been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There’s now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can’t tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how — who are farmers to know what’s best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a “more compatible use of the land.” The President tells us he’s now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we’ve only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they’ve taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we’ve sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.

They’ve just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you’re depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer — and they’ve had almost 30 years of it — shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we’re told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We’re spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you’ll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we’d be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now — so now we declare “war on poverty,” or “You, too, can be a Bobby Baker.” Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we’re spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have — and remember, this new program doesn’t replace any, it just duplicates existing programs — do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn’t duplicated. This is the youth feature. We’re now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we’re going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we’re going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who’d come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She’s eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who’d already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we’re always “against” things — we’re never “for” anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

Now — we’re for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we’ve accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we’re against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They’ve called it “insurance” to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term “insurance” to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they’re doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary — his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he’s 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can’t put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they’re due — that the cupboard isn’t bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can’t we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn’t you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we’re for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we’re against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They’ve come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar’s worth, and not 45 cents worth?

I think we’re for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we’re against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world’s population. I think we’re against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.

I think we’re for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we’re against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We’re helping 107. We’ve spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.

Federal employees — federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation’s work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man’s property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.

Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, “If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States.” I think that’s exactly what he will do.

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn’t the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died — because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the — or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men — that we’re to choose just between two personalities.

Well what of this man that they would destroy — and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I’ve been privileged to know him “when.” I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I’ve never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn’t work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, “Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such,” and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he’d load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, “There aren’t many left who care what happens to her. I’d like her to know I care.” This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, “There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start.” This is not a man who could carelessly send other people’s sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I’ve discussed academic, unless we realize we’re in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy “accommodation.” And they say if we’ll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he’ll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer — not an easy answer — but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace — and you can have it in the next second — surrender.

Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face — that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand — the ultimatum. And what then — when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin — just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this — this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits — not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Thank you very much.

mmmm

If you look at the writings of socialists and communists, beginning with Marx, through Kruschev and especially including the American communists in the early 20th Century, you’ll see a theme that is alarming, at least to me.

They recognized that crucial to establishing true socialism (social justice) was bringing up succeeding generations in the Marxist belief system. Lenin and Trotsky realized that communism couldn’t simply be imposed on Russia. It was too much of a societal and cultural change. Similarly, the American contemporaries realized that socialism would never take root in the United States by fiat or overnight. They all understood that, like most social change, it would take years and multiple generations to achieve it.

Side Note: That fact was lost in Russia when Stalin came to power, and used the police, party and military to impose his communist beliefs (a perversion of true communism) on Russia and forcibly formed the Soviet Union (which was his brainchild).

What happened in the U.S. is that those socialist activists knew they had to use the education system as a vehicle to achieve their goals. In reality, that should be obvious when it comes to any social change that’s being sought, which is why there is a move in California to teach gay history in school as a mechanism for the LGBT community to achieve greater acceptance and equality in succeeding years when those school kids grow up and become parents themselves.

So, beginning in the 1920′s – except for a break in the 1930′s to early 1960′s when the “Reds” were our death enemies – the socialist “movement” worked hard to recruit teachers, get like-minded people into school to become teachers, get on school boards, create curricula, etc. The aim was to get their concepts into the schools and being taught to children.

At this point, I am usually called a Tea Party conspiracy theorist. So, to refute that, a little history from “Chronology of the NEA” http://www.crossroad.to/Excerpts/chronologies/nea.htm:

“It happened slowly — largely through stealth and deception. Today’s educational establishment, birthed over a century ago by John Dewey and his associates, learned early the tactics of social transformation: infiltration, propaganda, secret councils and continual multiplication through networks of influential new organizations. New York city Mayor John Hylan described it well back in 1922,”

“… the real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, State and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of self-created screen. It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.” D. L. Cuddy.

Then, in 1935, this….

“From the beginning, they were determined to destroy the old education system in order to build the collective world of their dreams. Reporting to the annual  NEA meeting in 1935, Willard Givens (soon-to-be executive secretary) wrote: “…many drastic changes must be made…. A dying ‘laissez-faire’ must be completely destroyed and all of us, including the ‘owners’, must be subjected to a large degree of social control…. The major function of the school is the social orientation of the individual. It must seek to give him understanding of the transition to a new social order.” Samuel Blumenfeld.”

The NEA was, from its beginning, an organization created and controlled by those who ascribed to socialist beliefs. Again, it was part of the effort to use the education system to indoctrinate, over time, social change by changing the children – since adults already had made up their minds on things and most of them would not want their property and income “taken” for a greater social good. Children aren’t bound by preconceived notions or the shackles of power and money.

One can also find similar socialistic statement by leaders in the education industry today. It was very prevalent in the “liberating” times of the latter 1960′s and early 1970′s, a time when the NEA was arguably at its peak power: power used as an instrument of the socialist movement.

Central to the effort of creating and guiding social change was the control of information and, therefore, the control of knowledge and learning. Children had to be taught facts and ideas that agreed with the social agenda. History and facts that departed from or ran counter to the socialists goals had to be eliminated from curricula. For example, the concept of “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” to “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” had to be either not taught at all or at least re-interpreted. This is also where the birth of the concept of the Constitution being a “living document” originated. That is completely against what the Founding Fathers intended, but who cares since the children aren’t taught that fact at all?

So the “Creator” was re-interpreted to mean nature, i.e. a humanistic concept of having a right by virtue of nature creating the individual. “Liberty” was re-interpreted to mean “Freedom”. That’s a critical difference since liberty implies that an individual has the right and opportunity to do things to make life better while freedom implies that an individual can be given things by the government to make life (seem) better. What that does is instill a sense of legitimacy to making citizens dependent upon the government – legalized slavery of a different sort.

“Pursuit of Happiness” was re-interpreted to mean its literal translation: a right to be happy. That’s a ridiculous notion. Nobody is happy all the time. If there’s a right to be happy, then jails should be banned, parents punishing their kids should be banned, etc. No, what the Founders meant was a pursuit of PROPERTY. Their writings use that phrase instead. But when the negotiations at the Constitutional Convention were taking place, some delegates thought “Pursuit of Property” (or prosperity) was too limiting. Some groups, for example, the Amish, didn’t value property as much and, in fact, believed that property and money were anathema to true happiness that comes from following God (i.e. “money is the root of all evil”). So, to accommodate all the interest groups, the generic phrase “pursuit of happiness” was chosen. That phrase encompasses pursuit of property and other means of pursuing a prosperous, fulfilled life, whether it be through business and finance or religious practices. That phrase encapsulates the rights of property and religion.

All those re-interpretations were made in order to make them relevant to socialism and lend a sense of legitimacy to socialism. It’s intended to make schoolchildren open to the idea that the Founding Fathers had socialist beliefs when, in fact, they did not. However, if they did… then wouldn’t it be true that to be a loyal, patriotic American the rest of us should also have socialist beliefs? That’s the message of the education system.

So there is an example of how the education system is being used to re-invent history, re-interpret it and pervert it for the purposes of achieving the goals of the socialist movement. It has been going on for over 80 years. It’s a slow process to change a society through and through. The early socialists realized it would be, and organized themselves for the long haul, including controlling the NEA, the curricula of public schools and all the teachers who work in the public schools.

How effective has it been? In 1920 Ameicans would never, ever have accepted the proposal for Social Security. Less than 20 years later, Social Security was law. In 1920, Americans would never have accepted or EVEN COMPREHENDED the idea of Medicare or Medicaid. Fifty years later, we had both. There are more examples as well. Such as the creation of the Departments of Energy, Education, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services and others – all of which were created to more efficiently carry out socialist agendas and concepts. Today, we accept them as “necessary”. In 1920, it wouldn’t have been so. Here some people would insert the argument that the problems of the country today are somehow worse, greater, bigger or more complex than 1920. I say rubbish. IF the agencies were created to solve those “problems”, then why are the problems only getting worse every year? It’s simple. Those agencies aren’t charged with solving problems, but, rather, they exist to manage the problems and use them as leverage against the citizenry. Again, with socialistic agendas behind them.

Then there’s the whole concept, accepted as necessary today, of the Welfare State, which the U.S. has become. That is nothing but blatant over-reaching re-distributive socialism at work and ingrained in our laws and society. After all, if one dares speak out against welfare, they are immediately demonized and vilified as being hateful, heartless, racist and want the poor and grandmothers to die miserable, sick and poor. That despite the fact that most who decry the Welfare State do so because they see it for what it is: an enslavement of formerly free people to dependency upon government money for sustenance and shelter. Therefore, those people will never rise up against the government that controls them and provides them with what they live on. That’s not freedom, liberty or the pursuit of happiness and it’s life only one step above a household pet. It is, in short, a form of slavery. That’s why many people decry welfare. They would rather help people to get OFF welfare, learn and get jobs to provide for themselves and families and achieve the “pursuit of happiness”. Rather than being mean and heartless, those who decry socialistic welfare actually respect and care about the poor and elderly far far more than those who are satisfied with just giving them a check and making them dependent upon politicians to stay alive – never being productive, never making their lives any better than the next welfare check and never contributing to the greatness of the American society. Rather, they are segregated, isolated and kept OUT of this great American society. Lyndon Johnson’s euphemisms aside, the Great Society created nothing of the sort. It took the poor OUT of the great society and created a new class of Americans: 20th (now 21st) Century variations of indentured servants and slaves. To those who decry the Welfare State, this is one of the greatest evils the U.S. government, with the consent of the population, has ever subjected the citizens to.

And, yes, it is true, the utilization (some would say hijacking) of the public education system was essential to the formation of the socialist state and continues to be vital as, one by one, social issues (e.g. pre-choice, pro same-sex marriage, elimination of religion from all places outside the home or church) are taken up by the movement and pushed further and further to fruition.

As an historical note, in 1920 legalized abortion would not have been tolerated. In 1973, it became law. The biggest proponent of abortion has always been Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was founded by a Democrat, avowed socialist, progressive racist who intended to use the organization to promote eugenics as a means of breeding out the African American population. Her name was Margaret Sanger. http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

The Republicans gave Johnson the winning majority in passing the Civil Rights Act. Nixon championed lowering the voting age and expanding the Civil Rights Act and voting rights to ensure greater access to the political arena for African-Americans. He was opposed by Democrats, many of them from Southern, still predominantly Democrat-controlled, states.

Woodrow Wilson is considered in contemporary textbooks and history as being one of our greatest, most democratic and wise presidents ever. That’s ALL progressive and socialist baloney. As a last fact of history, one which many teachers don’t teach, is that after the Civil War, the U.S. armed forces were NOT segregated. President Woodrow Wilson, again a Democrat, progressive racist, re-segregated the armed forces in 1913. http://www.academia.org/progressive-segregation/. Check it out and you might be surprised to discover what a truly horrible, evil person Wilson really was.

Those are just a couple anecdotal facts to chew on for those who claim that “all” liberals believe in equality and “all” conservatives are racist.

Download Speaker John Boehner’s debt deal overview presentation

First, let’s take a look at what the 14th Amendment says. As follows:

AMENDMENT XIV (Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.)

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

The progressives claim that this clause means that Congress cannot refuse to raise the debt limit because the validity of the debt can’t be questioned. Therefore, according to them, if Congress refuses, the President has the authority to unilaterally raise the limit in order to pay public debts. However, this is a grotesque perversion of the 14th Amendment.

First, the validity of public debt can’t be questioned. Period. What that actually means is that CREDITORS and U.S. citizens may not challenge public debts in court. It doesn’t mean that the debtor isn’t allowed to question its own debt, because that’s not possible anyway. Public debt is only incurred as a result of congressionally authorized spending in the first place and, therefore, there can’t be an issue of Congress questioning its validity. Rather, the clause refers to people or foreign entities to which the U.S. owes money, e.g. bondholders. So, the first premise of the progressive argument is incorrect.

Second, and more importantly, progressives conveniently ignore the part of the clause they don’t like – as is their normal practice in constitutional interpretation. The 14th Amendment refers to public debt that is “authorized by law”. What does that mean? It refers to debt that is the result of spending that is authorized by law and passed by Congress. This is debt that cannot be questioned. To understand this, we need understand the meaning of “authorized by law”.

For that, we look at Article I of the Constitution. Specifically, let’s examine Sections 8 and 9 of the Article. As follows:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section. 9.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

It is plainly clear in Sections 8 and 9, that ONLY Congress has the authority to spend money, borrow money and pay the public debt. Additionally, as read in Section 9, the federal government, including the Executive Branch, may not draw money (i.e. spend) unless it has been appropriated by law.

While it may come as a surprise to progressives who live in an imaginary world where Obama both can make and execute laws, the truth is that only Congress has the authority to propose and create legislation. That includes legislation appropriating money, authorizing spending, incurring public debt or paying the public debt. The President’s duty is to execute the fiscal legislation in accordance with statues passed by Congress. The President’s power is limited to that role.

In fact, the President is REQUIRED to follow the laws passed by Congress. In other words, if Congress passes a spending bill (and the President signs it into law), the President is required by law to discharge all of the appropriations. He may not withhold money that’s been appropriated (this is one aspect that leads to waste in government). The constitutional rationale for this is partially found in the very same 14th Amendment that the progressives seek to pervert. It is derived from the clause that states, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

In other words, the President may not challenge the validity of public debts that have been lawfully authorized by Congress. He must execute the law, not ignore it.

There has been legislation passed since 1787, under Congress’ authority in Article I, Section 8, to further clarify this. Earlier in the history of the country, presidents attempted to subvert the authority of Congress by not spending money that had been appropriated for programs they didn’t like. The intent was to prevent Congress from enacting a program or initiative by refusing to execute the laws that funded them.

Today, the President is restricted from engaging in that kind of violation of the Separation of Powers.

I’m sure my liberal and progressive friends will disagree with me on this because they’re stuck in a fantasy-land of constitutional re-interpretations. However, a look at some real world examples should prove the wisdom behind the Separation of Powers.

Here’s one example. The Left hates George Bush, of course. We’ve all heard “Bush lied, people died!” one too many time (as in, at least once). Well, before we went to Afghanistan and Iraq, not only did Bush seek, and get, congressional authorization for use of force, but he also got congressionally authorized appropriations to fund military action. He actually asked for the money. Then once or twice a year, he requested a continuation of the funding.

Congress approved funding every time. BUT THEY DIDN’T HAVE TO. There was serious debate among the left at that time, especially people such as Rep. Dennis Kucinich, about withholding funding for the war in Iraq in order to force the President to withdraw troops and end the conflict.

They were correct in their interpretation of the Constitution at the time. That is, if Congress didn’t fund the war, the President could not have unilaterally appropriate funds by himself in order to continue it.

But today some of those same leftists have taken a 180-degree turn. According to their rationale now, President Bush COULD have bypassed Congress, not asked for the funding, spent the money anyway and Congress would have been constitutionally bound to appropriate the funds after the fact. That is exactly what they’re claiming regarding raising the debt limit.

Unfortunately for them, again, that would be unconstitutional. Now let’s look at another example.

Who knows how the United States’ involvement in Vietnam ended? The U.S. didn’t just tuck its tail between its legs and retreat in shame. In reality, the Vietnam War ended (for us) in large part because Congress de-funded it. Congress stopped authorizing and appropriating the funds Presidents Johnson and Nixon needed to continue the war. Without adequate funding, Nixon was eventually forced to draw down our troop levels and sign a peace agreement, ending the formal conflict for the United States.

Nixon didn’t have the power, and didn’t attempt to claim it, to continue the conflict and force Congress into spending the money to fund it. By claming that Obama has the authority to unilaterally raise the debt limit, they are also saying that Nixon had the authority to defy Congress and continue our involvement in Vietnam.

The progressives will argue that they are not making that claim. But the truth is the truth and if Congress has a specific power vested by the Constitution, then it is reserved to Congress under all circumstances and does not devolve to the President just because he might want it. To say otherwise is merely being hypocritical and that is something the left has raised to an art form.

I will guess that when the presidents being referenced are Republican, the claim by the Left doesn’t sound quite so appealing to them.

The beauty of the way Article I and the 14th Amendment play off each other is that it is exactly how the process of Separation of Powers is supposed to work.

The Founding Fathers recognized the need to firmly separate the legislative, executive and judicial functions of government. They knew that this was essential in keeping the government from becoming tyrannical. The people who make the laws are not the people who enforce and execute the laws and neither of them are the people who judge litigation based on those laws.

Key to the separation of powers between the Legislative and Executive branches of government is what’s called the “power of the purse”.

Only Congress can appropriate funds for the functions of government. Only the Executive may dispose of those appropriations and is required to do so. There is no grey area. The check and balance to that authority is that the President may veto legislation, including appropriations – or debt limit changes – if he doesn’t want to spend the money for an activity he opposes. Furthermore, since the Founders wanted a body of representatives of the people to have a measure of superiority over the President (in order to keep him from becoming a king), Congress has the power to override the President’s veto if there are enough votes.

So, the Constitution grants sole power of the purse to Congress. If President Obama attempted to unilaterally raise the debt limit, he would be committing a gross violation of the Separation of Powers and a massive usurpation of unconstitutional authority. In point of fact, it would render Congress completely impotent to fulfill its constitutional duties. The constitutional crisis would be worse than even Watergate or Iran-Contra and possibly constitute an impeachable offense as well.

Of course, the leftists want Obama to usurp power from Congress and bypass the influence of conservative stalwarts such as Rand Paul and Michelle Bachmann. They dream of making Obama a virtual benevolent dictator. The question I have for them is this: would you support a Republican president attempt to assume the exact same authority? I’m sure the answer is “no”, but pose that question because there will be another Republican president someday. I’m sure the left would scream and holler across the land if he (or she) ever dared to usurp Congress’ constitutional authorities. But they’d love it if Obama did it because they’re hypocrites. The bottom line for them is that a liberal can do whatever he wants and it is okay same standard will never apply to those on the right.

• Removes the cloud of uncertainty over our economy at this critical time, by ensuring that no one will be able to use the threat of the nation’s first default now, or in only a few months, for political gain;
• Locks in a down payment on significant deficit reduction, with savings from both domestic and Pentagon spending, and is designed to protect crucial investments like aid for college students;
• Establishes a bipartisan process to seek a balanced approach to larger deficit reduction through entitlement and tax reform;
• Deploys an enforcement mechanism that gives all sides an incentive to reach bipartisan compromise on historic deficit reduction, while protecting Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries and low-income programs;
• Stays true to the President’s commitment to shared sacrifice by preventing the middle class, seniors and those who are most vulnerable from shouldering the burden of deficit reduction. The President did not agree to any entitlement reforms outside of the context of a bipartisan committee process where tax reform will be on the table and the President will insist on shared sacrifice from the most well-off and those with the most indefensible tax breaks.

• Immediately enacted 10-year discretionary spending caps generating nearly $1 trillion in deficit reduction; balanced between defense and non-defense spending.
• President authorized to increase the debt limit by at least $2.1 trillion, eliminating the need for further increases until 2013.
• Bipartisan committee process tasked with identifying an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, including from entitlement and tax reform. Committee is required to report legislation by November 23, 2011, which receives fast-track protections. Congress is required to vote on Committee recommendations by December 23, 2011.
• Enforcement mechanism established to force all parties – Republican and Democrat – to agree to balanced deficit reduction. If Committee fails, enforcement mechanism will trigger spending reductions beginning in 2013 – split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. Enforcement protects Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries, and low-income programs from any cuts.

• Deal Removes Cloud of Uncertainty Until 2013, Eliminating Key Headwind on the Economy: Independent analysts, economists, and ratings agencies have all made clear that a short-term debt limit increase would create unacceptable economic uncertainty by risking default again within only a matter of months and as S&P stated, increase the chance of a downgrade. By ensuring a debt limit increase of at least $2.1 trillion, this deal removes the specter of default, providing important certainty to our economy at a fragile moment.
• Mechanism to Ensure Further Deficit Reduction is Designed to Phase-In Beginning in 2013 to Avoid Harming the Recovery: The deal includes a mechanism to ensure additional deficit reduction, consistent with the economic recovery. The enforcement mechanism would not be made effective until 2013, avoiding any immediate contraction that could harm the recovery. And savings from the down payment will be enacted over 10 years, consistent with supporting the economic recovery.

• More than $900 Billion in Savings over 10 Years By Capping Discretionary Spending: The deal includes caps on discretionary spending that will produce more than $900 billion in savings over the next 10 years compared to the CBO March baseline, even as it protects core investments from deep and economically damaging cuts.
• Includes Savings of $350 Billion from the Base Defense Budget – the First Defense Cut Since the 1990s: The deal puts us on track to cut $350 billion from the defense budget over 10 years. These reductions will be implemented based on the outcome of a review of our missions, roles, and capabilities that will reflect the President’s commitment to protecting our national security.
• Reduces Domestic Discretionary Spending to the Lowest Level Since Eisenhower: These discretionary caps will put us on track to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower was President.
• Includes Funding to Protect the President’s Historic Investment in Pell Grants: Since taking office, the President has increased the maximum Pell award by $819 to a maximum award $5,550, helping over 9 million students pay for college tuition bills. The deal provides specific protection in the discretionary budget to ensure that the there will be sufficient funding for the President’s historic investment in Pell Grants without undermining other critical investments.

• The Deal Locks in a Process to Enact $1.5 Trillion in Additional Deficit Reduction Through a Bipartisan, Bicameral Congressional Committee: The deal creates a bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Committee that is charged with enacting $1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction by the end of the year. This Committee will work without the looming specter of default, ensuring time to carefully consider essential reforms without the disruption and brinksmanship of the past few months.
• This Committee is Empowered Beyond Previous Bipartisan Attempts at Deficit Reduction: Any recommendation of the Committee would be given fast-track privilege in the House and Senate, assuring it of an up or down vote and preventing some from using procedural gimmicks to block action.
• To Meet This Target, the Committee Will Consider Responsible Entitlement and Tax Reform. This means putting all the priorities of both parties on the table – including both entitlement reform and revenue-raising tax reform.

• The Deal Includes An Automatic Sequester to Ensure That At Least $1.2 Trillion in Deficit Reduction Is Achieved By 2013 Beyond the Discretionary Caps: The deal includes an automatic sequester on certain spending programs to ensure that—between the Committee and the trigger—we at least put in place an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction by 2013.
• Consistent With Past Practice, Sequester Would Be Divided Equally Between Defense and Non-Defense Programs and Exempt Social Security, Medicaid, and Low-Income Programs: Consistent with the bipartisan precedents established in the 1980s and 1990s, the sequester would be divided equally between defense and non-defense program, and it would exempt Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement. Likewise, any cuts to Medicare would be capped and limited to the provider side.
• Sequester Would Provide a Strong Incentive for Both Sides to Come to the Table:  If the fiscal committee took no action, the deal would automatically add nearly $500 billion in defense cuts on top of cuts already made, and, at the same time, it would cut critical programs like infrastructure or education.  That outcome would be unacceptable to many Republicans and Democrats alike – creating pressure for a bipartisan agreement without requiring the threat of a default with unthinkable consequences for our economy.

• The Deal Sets the Stage for Balanced Deficit Reduction, Consistent with the President’s Values: The deal is designed to achieve balanced deficit reduction, consistent with the values the President articulated in his April Fiscal Framework. The discretionary savings are spread between both domestic and defense spending. And the President will demand that the Committee pursue a balanced deficit reduction package, where any entitlement reforms are coupled with revenue-raising tax reform that asks for the most fortunate Americans to sacrifice.
• The Enforcement Mechanism Complements the Forcing Event Already In Law – the Expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts – To Create Pressure for a Balanced Deal: The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester would go into effect. These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts.
• In Securing this Bipartisan Deal, the President Rejected Proposals that Would Have Placed the Sole Burden of Deficit Reduction on Low-Income or Middle-Class Families: The President stood firmly against proposals that would have placed the sole burden of deficit reduction on lower-income and middle-class families. This includes not only proposals in the House Republican Budget that would have undermined the core commitments of Medicare to our seniors and forced tens of millions of low-income Americans to go without health insurance, but also enforcement mechanisms that would have forced automatic cuts to low-income programs. The enforcement mechanism in the deal exempts Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare benefits, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement.

In order to receive the support from both parties — as the President has consistently stressed — the agreement has a few important elements: