Sen. Reid Caught Red-Handed

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown

Tweet

Sen. Reid Caught Red-Handed

Click Here!

The RMC Pac's new advertisement focuses on the close relationship between Reid, Murren and Al Maktoum. Taxpayers and citizens of Nevada are paying a terrible price because of their collusion. Education and other essential services are being cut in Nevada while MGM and Al Maktoum lobby against reforms that would make gaming companies pay the cost of their own regulation. While at the same time they short-change Nevada's budget and citizens, the MGM leader and this Middle Eastern Sheikh are fighting to re-elect their favorite political protector, Reid.

These and a multitude of other odd connections explain why Harry Reid, the self proclaimed "poor public servant from Searchlight," is now a multi-millionaire.

The winds of change are blowing for Harry Reid. Nevadans have had enough. They are smart people --and will no longer stand for Reid's support of wealthy special interests as he ignores public opinion. Your gravy train is coming to an end, Mr. Reid.

Tags: Health Care

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown are both bestselling authors and speakers. In 1988, working from their kitchen table, they formed Citizens United.

TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Floyd and Mary Beth Brown's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

Breaking on TOWNHALL

Join the Debate

66 Comments So Far

Login in to Post Your Comments

olive5 Wrote: Mar 21, 2010 7:40 PM

"2. did the federal government collect social security"

If young people are not paying into the social security system, then there is less money in the social security system for people who are already retired and/or nearing retirement (all the baby boomers)

The benefits to our country of allowing young people to contribute to their own private social security accounts does not come to fruition until those young people retire and are not a burden to the government (40 years from now)

In the entire meantime, there is less money to pay retirees. This means higher taxes and less benefits for retired people or those people nearing retirement.

Allowing young people to opt out of social security aggravates the...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

olive5 Wrote: Mar 21, 2010 7:08 PM

"2. did the federal government collect social security"

Republicans often say, "At least Bush attempted to reform Social Security."

Can any Republican here explain to me how allowing young people to opt-out of social security into their own private plan helps relieve the coming entitlement crisis?

Allowing young people to opt-out means that there is less money to pay people who are retired or are nearing retirement. This opt-out change doesn't help to relieve the social security spending burden until the young people who have paid into it, retire, like 40 years from now. For those collecting social security cehecks the next 40 years, there is less money in the pay-out pool.

A 'realistic' way to put this...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

olive5 Wrote: Mar 21, 2010 6:36 PM

"did was to slide revenues from Social Security"

Republicans also say 'young people can opt out of social security and have their own private account.'

The other half of their sales pitch is to say 'and anyone retired or nearing retirement will not miss one single penny that is owed them and ....no one will see their taxes go up either.'

This is the Republican party line. It's a pile of manure that only flies chould be attracted to.

Allowing young people to opt out of social security means there is less money to pay the people retired or nearing retirement. Young people with private accounts will not be retiring for 40 years, that's FORTY YEARS. In that ENTIRE meantime, the shortfall of money needed to pay...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Roy in WV Wrote: Mar 21, 2010 5:36 PM

I feel relatively certain the Village of Brentwood is keeping an eye on their *Idiot* to insure he/she/it does not return..

Are U SURE Bush is NOT still president?? CHEERS

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

olive5 Wrote: Mar 21, 2010 4:02 PM

"Olive "

Conservatives should read Paul O'Neill's book called 'The Price of Loyalty.' Paul O'Neill was George W. Bush's first Secretary of the Treasury.

From, http://thepriceofloyalty.ronsuskind.com/thebushfiles/archi ves/cat_from_the_book.html

Page 261 - Inside the Debt Crisis of 2002 (11 pages) In the summer of 2002, below-forecast tax receipts forced the Bush administration to ask Congress to raise the federal government's debt ceiling. Without the leeway to borrow more, the government would run out of cash. A June 10, 2002, memo to O'Neill outlines the "state of play" on the request to raise the...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

olive5 Wrote: Mar 21, 2010 3:57 PM

"Olive "

Republicans in 2010 want to give cover to their own lack of fiscal consevatism often say Bubba Clinton had no surpluses. However, even conservative economists knew there were surpluses as far as the eye could see. Let's do an examination.

Originally published in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL- Tuesday, November 4, 1997- Don't Waste the Budget Surplus - By Martin Feldstein.

http://www.nber.org/feldstein/wj110797.html

Of course Republican ideologues will never acknowledge that the Republican party changed the fiscal course of the USA from surpluses forever, to deficits forever.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

olive5 Wrote: Mar 21, 2010 3:54 PM

"Part II Olive "

Proof positive of those Clintonian budget surpluses. The following is an excerpt from Governor George W. Bush's 2000 'American Dream' GOP Party Platform:

"Over a five year period, as surpluses continue to grow, we will return half a trillion dollars to the taxpayers who really own it, without touching the Social Security surplus. That's what we mean by our Lock-Box: The Social Security surplus is off limits, off budget and will not be touched. We will not stop there, for we are also determined to protect Medicare and to pay down the national debt. Reducing that debt is both a sound policy goal and a moral imperative. Our families and most states are required to balance their budgets; it is reasonable to...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

vahillbilly Wrote: Mar 21, 2010 7:47 AM

Too bad these threads have gotten so far from the point, what about Harry Reid and his shady deal with MGM and Dubai? Seems like nothing matters anymore with Chris Dodd getting a special mortgage, Tim Geithner not paying his taxes, Charlie Rangel oh well not enough room to list his baggage and lets not forget all the affairs and other sexscapades by both parties. Why don't we for once look at peoples ethics and morals and make a choice then.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

olive5 Wrote: Mar 21, 2010 12:31 AM

"support them in future years, while spending"

Should we conservatives be on-board with all the Republican spending programs like;

1.) ethanol mandates.

2.) paying for missile defense for Poland and Czech Republic.

3.) the 100 year social engineering project in Iraq.

4.) making Afghanistan a modern democratic state.

5.) increasing entitlement spending by passing Medicare Prescription, Part D.

6.) Expanding NATO to include Ukraine and the Republic of Georgia.

Once again, Republicans believe in HUGE government, they just can't be bothered to pay for it. Let's not forget that government expansion was two and a half times bigger under George W. Bush than under 'Bubba' Clinton.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

h20skier2 Wrote: Mar 20, 2010 11:18 PM

"When the Republican party wants to pay more for the defense of Europe than the Europeans do themselves."

I will agree with you here. We need to get other countries to pay at least our cost for their defense if not more than it cost us. I haven't seen the Democrats propose changing anything in this area.

"When the Republican party promoted the 'ownership society' that helped bring on the housing bubble and all of its subsequent bailouts."

I guess neither Carter nor Clinton did this either. It was just started when Bush got into office. All of those banks that pushed no doc loans and other scams should have been allowed to fail instead of bailing them out. Before you go shouting it was Bush that bailed them out what...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

h20skier2 Wrote: Mar 20, 2010 11:16 PM

You write:"
When the Republican party added another layer of entitlement spending. (Medicare Prescription)"

Now, the Democrats want to add an even bigger entitlement with HCR.

"When the Republican party ramped up pork barrel spending in a time of war."

Seems the pork barrel spending continued this year. Why haven't the Democrats stopped it?

"When the Republican party expanded farm subsidies and ethanol mandates."

What was the first thing the Democratic Congress did in 2006 when it took control. It passed the largest ethanol mandate ever that resulted in world wide food shortages and soaring gas prices. It was such a bad piece of legislation they had to finally repeal it. However, Obama has promised...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

olive5 Wrote: Mar 20, 2010 11:09 PM

"support them in future years, while spending"

You Republicans like to pass out the cake and ice cream but will whine when it comes to taking the medicine.

It was Republicans (2001-2007) who spent more than the previous set of Democrats . They increased pork barrel spending from 3,000 to 14,000 projects a year, billed to the national credit card.

They have engaged in a seven year social engineering project in the Middle East that costs $120 billion a year and may well last another 100 years, billed to the national credit card.

They have added another layer of entitlement spending that costs $50 billion a year called Medicare Prescription, billed to the national credit card.

Mandated $4 billion a year...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

olive5 Wrote: Mar 20, 2010 10:28 PM

"support them in future years, while spending"

Republicans now say "Abolish every U.S. Department except....."

The Republicans have come full circle. This is the exact same screed posted by Republicans when 'Bubba' Clinton was president. They said the Department of Education should be abolished. Guess what happened when George W. Bush became president, Denny Hastert(R) was speaker of the House and Trent Lott(R) was Senate Majority Leader? THEY DOUBLED IT!

They then concocted a story like "We came to Washington and Washington changed us."

What a crock! They came to Washington with their core values intact and engorged themselves on the teat of the government sow. Watch what people do, not what they...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

How High A Ridge Wrote: Mar 20, 2010 9:49 PM

The health care "reform" being proposed by the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate will forever change the relationship between the citizen and their govt forever. It is most certainly a point of "No Return" for a nation.

PLEASE read this incredible article on that very topic: http://rjmoeller.com/2010/03/battered-citizen-syndrome/

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

IllinoisJoe2 Wrote: Mar 20, 2010 9:06 PM

OK. Let us assume for the sake of argument that all of your whining about Republican "massive" spending is true.

All of it combined is a FRACTION of what your boy has spent SINCE HE TOOK OFFICE.

Explain that, please. If Republicans' "wild overspending" is a molehill compared to obama's MOUNTAIN of spending in the last 15 months alone... what is your point?

Oh, now you want to blame REAGAN for barry's blunders?!!!

BWWWWWWAHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAHAH!

You ARE a hoot, honey!

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

IllinoisJoe2 Wrote: Mar 20, 2010 8:55 PM

You know what is great?

Dubya was savaged by the entire news media in this Country 24/7 from before he became president to ... well, they still haven't stopped.

Conversely obama needs a crowbar to break the collective liplock the msm has on his anus. He is in serious danger from drowning in their drool as they slobber over him.

Here is the great part... you ready?...

obama's approval numbers are LOWER than Dubya's when he left office! Isn't that wonderful?

You scumbag hacks are going down, and down hard. My only regret is that there isn't a bounty on you.

Oh! BTW: You DO know, don't you, that Bush left office in 08, right? You might need to buy a calendar, dear, because it is 2010.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

olive5 Wrote: Mar 20, 2010 8:50 PM

"support them in future years, while spending"

"When would big government suit a Republican's needs?" many here have asked. Let me answer that question.

When the Republican party added another layer of entitlement spending. (Medicare Prescription)

When the Republican party ramped up pork barrel spending in a time of war.

When the Republican party expanded farm subsidies and ethanol mandates.

When the Republican party doubled the size of the Department of Education.

When the Republican party wants to pay more for the defense of Europe than the Europeans do themselves.

When the Republican party removed 'the evil Saddam Hussein who killed hundreds of thousands of his fellow Iraqis' and...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

h20skier2 Wrote: Mar 20, 2010 8:35 PM

You do know that the S.S. taxes are supposed to fund a worker's retirement (at least partially). It is not a tax in the sense that a tax you usually never see that money again. You are supposed to get that money back when you retire. However, the government treats those taxes as income to spend today thanks to the Unified Budget bill passed in the 60s. Up until this year there was a surplus every year in S.S. funds that Congress happily spent making the deficit appear smaller every year than it actually was. In three years, under Clinton, it actually made it appear there was a surplus in the budget. I guess this problem is going to fix itself as S.S. is forecast to run a deficit for the next 3 years before having a surplus for a couple...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Finn McCuill Wrote: Mar 20, 2010 8:06 PM

Harry Reid and his co-horts "up yours" pelosi, "I'm a liar" Holder, and "I'm your president" obama, are nothing more than congenital liars, wretchedly un-qualified for any political office in this country. They are not Americans, in any sense of the word. They all lie about anything and everything, their only interest is in gaining control of our government, sadly assisted by most of our elected "representatives", who seem to be well suited to continue their careers as totally shameless prostitutes, panderers, and liars, interested only in stuffing someone else's money in their pockets. That, they seem to be exceptionally well qualified for! Everything they espouse, support, condone, recommend, and promote, is self-serving fiction! ...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

A True Ronald Reagan Conservative Wrote: Mar 20, 2010 7:56 PM

I am an accountant and I can tell ya, it's true! What the Clinton administration did was to slide revenues from Social Security (that were recorded off-line) and record those funds in the General Fund, therefore giving the APPEARANCE of a balanced budget. You might say it was like being faced with a debt in your own house that you can't pay (at least so it appears) and busting your piggy bank (which nobody knew you had) and satisfying the debt with funds from the checking account and the once invisible piggy bank funds. Voila, instant balanced budget (of course, no-one ever saw the money from the piggy bank) and therefore no-one is any the wiser.

You might call it LEDGER-demain.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

h20skier2 Wrote: Mar 20, 2010 7:19 PM

S.S. is "only" 12.4% not 15.3%. Also, S.S. is not supposed to fund any government programs except S.S. However, since the 60s the politicians have taken the excess S.S. funds each year to spend on other programs. S.S. is an "investment" program to help provide for a person's retirement. Everyone that puts into S.S. is supposed to get that money returned with interest. It does not run the government except you believe you can spend the excess funds every year and have a balanced budget if you don't spend all of the excess S.S. funds.

You sure sound exactly like Zap with "my friend" and "..gas tax to pay for our military effort... War is not free." This is Zap word for word.

Did you copy the words from one of Zap's post,...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

olive5 Wrote: Mar 20, 2010 6:39 PM

"bill that counts adding increased S.S. taxes"

Republicans say, "The poor pay nothing for." It is another lie!

All Americans pay 15.3% of their income to the government on their first dollar earned up to a limit of about 95k dollars.

Warren Buffet has said that he pays a lower percentage on his income tax than his secretary does. He said his income was one billion U.S. dollars and his secretary made $40,000 per year. He's a capitalist and a truth teller my friend.

I support an additional wartime gas tax to pay for our military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. War is not free.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

olive5 Wrote: Mar 20, 2010 6:11 PM

"bill that counts adding increased S.S. taxes"

Republicans say, "The poor pay nothing for." It is lie.

I suggest you take a look at a document at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.PDF

On page 30 of the document (page 34 of 329 of the pdf file) look at Table 2.1 RECEIPTS BY SOURCE.

Let's look at the row for fiscal year 2009. You will see that income tax collections was $1.26 trillion and social security receipts were $981 billion.

Just because Republicans constantly tell the lie that only 50% of Americans pay taxes doesn't make it true. Wasn't it Adolf Hitler who said that a BIG lie is more believable than a small lie? Can't all my fellow conservative friends here at townhall.com...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Angel56 Wrote: Mar 20, 2010 5:19 PM

In the end, we will each be face-to-face with our Creator, God The Father. He will pick and choose who will spend Eternity with HIM. Those who looked like they 'had it all' while on Earth, may find themselves in the pit of Hell. Satan would have you believe that you can have it all and escape Hell-fire. If you believe that-- you don't know God, His One and Only Son Jesus Christ, nor the work of His Holy Spirit in your life. But, you really need to-- now-- because it appears that the End may be nearer than you think! Are you ready?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

olive5 Wrote: Mar 20, 2010 4:52 PM

"bill that counts adding increased S.S. taxes"

Many Republican frequently tell us that 50% of Americans pay NO taxes. That's a true statement, but a person making $20k pays $3060 every year in social security and medicare taxes. And these DO count!

Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2008 were $2.66 trillion. The top three sources are:

* $1.25 trillion - Individual income tax
* $927.2 billion - Social Security/payroll taxes
* $314.9 billion - Corporate income tax

You may casually dismiss Social Security taxes as not a "real" tax, but $927 billion is a real number, and EVERYONE pays that on their first dollar earned.

You'll notice that the taxes paid by individuals is nearly seven times what...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

New comments on this article - click to refresh