Saturday, July 30, 2011

The Wisdom of Nancy Pelosi Re This Debt Problem Leaves Me Speechless:"We're trying to save life on this planet as we know it today"

That (title above) is what passes for sane and useful thinking among Democratic leadership these days? Democrats view themselves as ... saviors ... of the entire planet? They've been thinking of themselves quite highly in recent years but messianic-like now? That's so over-the-top ridiculous that it leaves me speechless trying to find words to express how utterly stupid that comment is.

And then there's Senator Reid, leader of the senate where Democrats haven't produced any solutions to date, much less even a budget that's constitutionally required.

What's up with Democrat leadership these days? Are they capable of doing anything other than complain about Republicans and talk/act like complete loons?

Friday, July 29, 2011

Debt Fix "Must Be Bipartisan"

Actually I agree with the title. However I find it amusing and more than a tad irritating.

The past several(!) times we've had debt/spending challenges, Republicans supported bipartisan deals quite fully without significant resistance. Nearly every time, however, Republicans were the ONLY ones who honored their part of the bargains reached.

Now we have a Democratic president acting all bipartisan as if it's a concession to Republicans when 1) it should be the normal course to take on matters of national importance rather than a major concession and 2) we Republicans have NO reason to believe that it's anything more than expedient rhetoric AND no reason whatsoever to believe that Democrats will follow through on THEIR part of the bargain (because history proves they most likely will not).

I'm sick of all this posturing by Democrats as if bipartisanship is a grand concession by them. Historically(!) they use it like a club to get Republicans to enter into another deal they have no intention of honoring. In the end their version of bipartisanship will most likely result in Republicans getting nothing and Democrats getting pretty much what they want. Their history of dishonoring their 'commitments' has everything to do with why we're in this situation and it has everything to do with our resistance to their version of compromise.

We compromised on sub-prime mortgages and look where that got us. We wanted it more limited and better regulated and they promised they'd take care of it. But they didn't and look where that got us: broken promise = recession. And then they have the audacity to blame the recession on Republicans. Good Grief! Can you understand why we're beginning to feel too uncomfortable with Democratic versions of 'compromise'?

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Are We Going To Only Stop The Bleeding But Not Go For A Cure ... AGAIN?!?!

Fellow Americans, I'm worried.

There is a bit of a fresh breeze blowing in Congress and we're all feeling a bit relieved that they appear to actually accept the fact that something must be done about debt and their complete lack of self-control over spending. But I'm worried that they'll first just stop the bleeding and when the bleeding's stopped, they'll sit back, take a big cleansing breath, congratulate themselves on saving the country, and then not pursue an actual cure of the underlying disease of irresponsibility and incompetence at conducting The People's business.

I don't mind having this debate again and I realize how difficult it will be if done resolutely to achieve a real, lasting fix. It's too complicated a problem to require an actual fix in the short time before an increase in the borrowing limit is needed. So, we will have to return to the table to get down to the difficult business of a real fix. If you think what we've been doing so far has been difficult, divisive and rancorous just wait until we move on to discussing an actual fix!

Stopping the bleeding and the difficulty of an actual fix will(!) tend to make our representatives go into avoidance mode and make all kinds of excuses for not making real progress on a real fix. Therefore, We The People must provide them with the motivation to do it anyway. It's their job and they OWE it to us after getting us into this mess in the first place. It's time they earned their pay by doing the hard work they've been putting off for far too long.

Monday, July 25, 2011

The Irrationality Of Dismissing Republicans' Approach To Things

Six weeks after 80% of Bush's tax cuts for the rich cut in (May 28, 2003), the unemployment rate turned around and headed steadily downward to a Clinton level of 4.4%. About two months after that federal revenue turned around and increased steadily to a record $2.5 Trillion. I'd call those basically immediate and significant results. Historical records prove it worked. Or do you prefer ignoring actual facts?

We're now two years past Obama's fixes for our economic troubles and where are we? Unemployment high and going up. Still low federal revenue compared with the months following Bush's fix. Which approach worked and which didn't? According to actual data/facts?

Republicans created $3 Trillion of debt under Bush. So how come Republicans get the blame for our current debt of $14.3 Trillion.

If results matter, how is the Obama presidency working out for you?

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Republicans Alone Responsible? Wait A Minute. What About Historical Facts?

Today I heard that most Americans hold Republicans most responsible for this debt problem by a significant margin. While they clearly made the problem worse under Bush by their irrational spending, there is plenty of blame to go around.

Republicans are responsible for only about $4.0 Trillion of debt this century.

I know, that's not what The Media and Democrats have led you to believe but here are the facts, assuming you're interested in truth (Ref: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm):
  • $5.7 Trillion ... accumulated by both parties' congresses prior to Bush taking office.
  • $3.0 Trillion ... accumulated by Republican congresses 2001 through 2006.
  • $1.6 Trillion ... accumulated by Democrat congress in 2007 and 2008.
  • $4.0 Trillion ... accumulated, by Democrat congress since Obama took office in Jan 2009.*
  • Current total debt= $14.3 Trillion.
*: Indeed, some of this $4.0 Trillion is directly attributable to the recession that Obama was handed. It's arguably true however that Democrats did more to cause the sub-prime mortgage mess than Republicans. Not only were they the primary drivers of the sub-prime mortgage mess but they were also in charge of oversight of that, Fannie and Freddie for two years prior to the collapse. They should have seen it coming and prevented it or softened its impact. To say that all the bailouts and stimuli were caused by Republicans alone is nonsense because none of their policies pushed the sub-prime mortgage business which led to that collapse and most Republicans opposed the various stimuli. To be generous to those on the left, however, I'd accept crediting $1.0 Trillion of that $4.0 Trillion to the GOP.

So, of the $8.6 Trillion of debt created this century, approximately $4.0 Trillion can be attributable to Republicans and $4.6 Trillion to Democrats. To take 'fairness' one step farther and not split hairs, let's just agree that Republicans and Democrats share approximately EQUAL blame for the debt we have. There's more than enough blame to go around so let's just stop whining about the past for which both parties share responsibility more or less equally and move on.

It is unfair and inappropriate to achieving the best solution for one side to get all the blame when it's factually untrue. It is also very counter-productive to spend so much energy and time playing the blame game. Let's behave like grownups for a change and agree:
  • We have a HUGE PROBLEM facing us.
  • The problem is VERY COMPLEX both to understand and to solve.
  • There's BLAME ENOUGH ON BOTH PARTIES who share responsibility for this mess.
  • It'll REQUIRE THE BEST EFFORTS OF EVERYONE to arrive at a solution that ACTUALLY solves it. We need all oars in the water on this or we'll just paddle around in circles and go nowhere.
  • A vigorous and often heated debate is natural for something this big and complex and we shouldn't be affraid of it. (If we didn't get heated over it, that would mean we really don't understand the seriousness of the problem nor are we really interested achieving the best solution.)
Other points to understand and consider:
  • CONGRESS has TOTAL ULTIMATE control over spending , taxes and debt per the constitution. The president has zero constitutional bottom-line authority to make the call on any of those that cannot be overturned by congress. So congress, NOT ANY PRESIDENT, has primary and ultimate authority and control over those items. Therefore all spending, debt and taxes is the ultimate responsibility of congress.
  • Republicans have had control of ONE house for only 7 months over the past 4 1/2 years ... ie, during Bush's last 2 years and Obama's 2 1/2 years in office.
  • Last year there was no budget from Democrats who controlled the House, Senate and White House.
  • This year the only budget from congress was passed by the Republican House. The Democratic Senate didn't pass one. The president sent one to congress but it was so unacceptable (irresponsibly doubling(!) the debt over ten years) that it got ZERO votes; not even a single Democrat voted for it.
So, the only branch of government to pass a budget in the past two years was the Republican House this year. Republicans are 1 for 1 (in the House) on opportunities to pass budgets. Democrats are 0 for 3 (Both houses last year and the Senate this year). How do Democrats rate on fiscal responsibility there? What's interesting is that an annual budget is a constitutional responsibility!

Which party has actually put details to debt control/reductions, passed a budget and passed a debt reduction package? The Republican House of Representatives. No package was even voted on in the Democratic Senate.

For the sake of honesty and progress, I wouldn't say it's mostly either party's fault that we're in this predicament. Considering all the above, doesn't it look to you like BOTH parties share the responsibility for this mess approximately equally? [But only one party has made an HONEST attempt to deal with it (Republican)]. Let's all 'get over ourselves' and work hard on an honest solution minus all the 'agenda' politics. Stick to facts, truth and honest debate as much as possible so we can generate a solution that works.

Friday, July 15, 2011

So Much For Bipartisanship Mr. President!

THAT (the president's press conference this morning) was NOT leadership! He said that both sides need to drop the partisan/political rancor and work together Then HE went on a partisan rampage against Republicans ... again(!) ... ON NATIONAL TV!!! The hypocrisy of this man is amazing. Bush tax cuts, Bush wars, blah, blah, blah, same-o, same-o, same-o. He wouldn't last 10 minutes leading a large for-profit company this way.

He regurgitated one of his favorite lines AGAIN! Bush implemented his tax cuts "without paying for them". It's only about the thousandth time he's demonstrated this astounding lack of understanding of basic economics.

Bush's tax cuts DID pay for themselves folks ... by boosting employment. Yes each individual's tax payment was reduced but when the action puts more people at work the net, I SAY NET, result is INCREASED revenue which more than compensates for the loss of per-person tax payments. I'll say it again. Just over ONE MONTH AFTER BUSH's biggest tax cut for the rich in 2003 the unemployment rate started back down to 4.4% and a couple months later federal revenue started back up and reached a RECORD $2.5 Trillion. Both of those happened DIRECTLY AFTER Bush's tax cuts. How can one logically argue that his tax cuts hurt both employment and federal revenue when, as a matter of RECORD(!), BOTH went up immediately after ... and went up strongly!!!

Yes, each individual's tax payment decreased under Bush's tax cuts. But those tax cuts put many more people to work. The math is so simple even a Harvard grad should be able to understand it: more people paying taxes = HIGHER(!) federal revenue. How on earth can one argue that the tax cuts didn't pay for themselves or that they hurt federal revenue when federal revenue proceeded to set a record shortly after??? Good Grief!!! Here's an analogy that perhaps President Obama could understand.

When companies have serious competetion eating into sales they often try reducing the prices of their products in hopes that it'll attract more buyers. If they attract a great enough number of additional customers, that will MORE than compensate for the price reductions and they will make MORE profit via the INCREASED NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS ... even though product prices were reduced. Obama's equivalent argument to such a business if he were the CEO would be: "no, we must not reduce prices because it'll reduce revenue." [That's the SAME as telling us "no, we must not reduce the tax each person pays because that'll reduce revenue."] THAT'S ONLY TRUE IF THE PRICE REDUCTION DOES NOT LEAD TO MORE CUSTOMERS BUYING THEIR PRODUCTS. The corollary argument for taxes would be REDUCED REVENUE IS ONLY TRUE IF THE TAX REDUCTION DOES NOT LEAD TO MORE CITIZENS PAYING TAXES.

So, there's the president on national TV today 'leading' cooperative efforts by spending most of his time criticizing the side he disagrees with. IN PUBLIC NO LESS!!! THAT is NOT effective leadership. THAT is PARTISAN RANCOR that he himself criticized just minutes earlier.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Democrats' HISTORICAL Refusal To Control Entitlement Spending Is Why We're In This Debt Predicament!!!

Let's examine the actual history behind our current predicament. It's not what most of you (especially liberals) think! Five points: 1) Nearly everyone who understands economics believes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will bankrupt us at the national and state level unless we either increase taxes or rein in the costs of those three programs, 2) when they created them, Democrats promised that Social Security and Medicare would be SELF-SUSTAINING (via FICA taxes withheld), 3) Democrats created and over-sold the sub-prime mortgage program that was the primary cause of our current recession, 4) ALL these "ENTITLEMENT" programs were created by Democrats, and 5) ALL these "ENTITLEMENT" programs were mismanaged primarily by Democrats.

Think about those for a moment. We're about to be driven into bankruptcy at the national and state level by programs that were ALL created by Democrats. Hmmmmm. Doesn't creating them mean they've had primary responsibility to keep them solvent and well-regulated? Don't they owe it to the country to control their own creations? Apparently, they cannot control their progressive impulses to create unaffordable programs any more than they can manage them responsibly. All their progressive impulses are getting us where exactly? Wouldn't it be a good idea to plan farther ahead than until the next election? For the sake of the country I mean? Or isn't that really all that important?

Democrats historically have refused to do the responsible thing and keep their programs solvent and then they have the audacity to complain about Republican legislators' efforts to establish the appropriate boundaries and regulations that will keep them solvent without bankrupting our country. Democrats have steadfastly refused to responsibly manage ANY of these programs and then they complain loudly when Republicans try to do what they should have been doing all along. Isn't that more than a tad irresponsible and hypocrical?

The Democratic approach to social programs is interesting isn't it? They promise that every new program will pay for itself but they NEVER do! Then, AFTER they've gotten us committed to these expensive programs, they keep telling us they have to keep raising taxes to pay for them. It's the same as if you went out and bought a house you couldn't afford and then told your employer that he HAD to give you a raise for YOUR BAD DECISION! Oh, wait, that's how Democrats got us into our current problem! They got people into houses, the mortgages for which they couldn't afford, then (after the mortgages weren't committed to) Democratic legislators told the rest of the country WE have to pay for those people's bad decisions! How many times do we have to experience this scenario before we wake up to the fact that we're being duped?

The sub-prime mortgage program was ALSO an "entitlement" program. Democrats decided that poorer people who couldn't afford to buy a house were entitled to have one at OTHERS' risk. "The American Dream" used to be working hard and/or increasing one's education so you could eventually afford a house of your own. Now "The American Dream" is getting a house at others' risk and/or expense. Living in an apartment like I, my wife, our kids and everyone else in my generation have much of our lives until we could afford a house isn't good enough for people who aren't motivated like we were to get enough education or to start a business so we could afford it by way of our own hard work. WE believed that anything worth having is worth working for and saving for until we could afford to buy it. We believed in self-sacrifice, not only for our own benefit but for the benefit of our neighbors, community and country. So much for the sense of responsibility and a strong work ethic that built this country and made it successful.

And don't forget! Democrats also had the greatest ability by far to control ALL these programs than did Republicans. After all, Democrats have held a veto-proof majority in the House or Senate or both(!) for about half of the past 60 years while Republicans have had a veto-proof majority in either house exactly ZERO times! Those who had the greatest responsibility AND the greatest ability to lead our country in a fiscally responsible way have totally failed to do so.

Oh, you say, we need bailouts and we have to increase taxes on 'the rich' to pay for all those entitlements. Wait just a minute! Those 'rich folks' already pay half of their income to taxes and fully half of Americans pay NO federal tax at all! The rich paying half their income to taxes is unfair (because they're not paying more!?!?) but half of Americans living off the other half IS fair? HALF of Americans get a free ride? R U Kidding Me? No wonder so many people don't have a problem NOT working and letting the rest of us just hand them enough to live on. It's because we're stupid enough to swallow that nonsense.

Maybe you haven't noticed but increasing federal personal income tax rates on the wealthy like Democrats want to do or on anyone else does NOT put more money into making either Social Security OR Medicare stable. The money for those comes from the FICA tax, not personal income taxes. At least that's what Democrats promised us all these years since they created them! Explain to me again please how increasing the personal tax rate on the rich puts more money into FICA and, therefore, stabilize Social Security and Medicare because I don't get it.

Such programs are more examples how unchecked progressivism (socialism) is not such a good thing over the long haul. Why isn't it good enough for today's progressives and most Democrats that history has proven 100% of the time that this path leads to national problems if not complete ruin? Why must we prove it again? Aren't we indeed in the process of doing exactly that? At what point do we say we've (re-)proven it sufficiently and we should stop it ... preferably BEFORE it's too late for our country!?!?!?

Monday, July 11, 2011

The Debt Negotiations Resistance Is NOT About The Tea Party. Experience Has Taught ALL Republicans That Democrats Don't Hold Up Their End Of Such Bargains.

WE REPUBLICANS ARE FED UP WITH DEMOCRATS' BROKEN PROMISES ABOUT SPENDING REDUCTIONS! THAT IS WHY WE'RE RELUCTANT TO AGREE TO TAX INCREASES IN RETURN FOR SPENDING DECREASES.

If Democrats don't like our stubborness about compromising with Democrats on tax increases they have no one to blame but congressional Democrats because they didn't keep their word in the past even though congressional Republicans did. Democrats' actions prove that they compromise on taxes/spending only in empty words, not action.

Reagan didn't want to increase taxes but he and Republicans in congress agreed to when DEMOCRATS PROMISED two dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. Republicans passed the tax increase but Democrats refused to support any subsequent spending reductions, much less do it two for one.

H. W. Bush famously said "Read my lips; no new taxes!". In fact, that was a primary reason he was elected. Because of mismanagement by the Fed there was increasing pressure from Democrats to raise taxes anyway so Bush Sr agreed to a tax increase (in spite of fierce Republican opposition) but only after DEMOCRATS PROMISED at least equal spending cuts. Democrats got the tax increase they wanted but steadfastly refused to honor their promise to rein in spending.

OBAMA PROMISED when he was running for the office of president to control spending and reduce the national debt. Do I REALLY have to explain to you how that has gone? He has increased the national debt by nearly $5 Trillion in his brief 2 1/2 years and as of this very moment it is STILL increasing at a historical rate!!! It took 8 years under Bush for the debt to increase $5 Trillion. Pardon us Republicans (ALL of us, not just Tea Party folks) if we no longer believe Democrats' promises to reduce spending in return for tax increases. Pardon us if we also don't believe Obama is even capable of reducing spending based on his broken promises to date.

Friday, July 8, 2011

Unemployment Rate Headed ... UP!?!? Hmmmmm. What Do You Suppose That Implies About Dems' Belief That We Can Spend Our Way To Economic Health?

Unemployment Rate is now 9.2%. "Dismal Jobs Report" per MSNBC.

At some point, Democrats need to fess up that federal spending and printing money like crazy DOES NOT WORK. But they won't. They'll blame it on something else. It certainly cannot be due to this administration's economic policies.

We cannot try something else though can we? Like lowering taxes, especially for businesses, and eliminating regulations that impede small businesses' success. Why? Because it goes against the grain of progressives who NEED government to get bigger and more controlling which means bigger taxes, not smaller; more regulation, not less. After all, by definition, citizens and small business owners are too incompetent to take care of themselves and their own business(es) so government needs to unilaterally and heavy-handedly take it upon itself to do it for them! Nanny state is the correct state of things y'know. (Sounds like socialism to me.)

Never mind that when the biggest percentage of the Bush tax cuts kicked in on May 28, 2003 the economy IMMEDIATELY AND SHARPLY turned around and then continued getting better steadily. Remember that unemployment reached 4.4% after the Bush tax cuts? Remember that federal revenue reached a record level of $2.5 Trillion after the Bush tax cuts? Inconvenient facts for most Democrats, especially progressives.

Mr. President, we tried it your way. For 2 1/2 years!!! (Compare with one month after Bush's big tax cuts!) It's proved itself ineffective hasn't it? How about we try something that in 2003 we proved DOES WORK? Hmmmmmm?

Nope! Not gonna do THAT in spite of proving(!) it does work because that goes against liberal beliefs. Nothing should stand in the way of their agenda even if it leads to ruining our economy by sticking to those beliefs.

Monday, July 4, 2011

HAPPY BIRTHDAY AMERICA!!!

I'm grateful, happy and humbled to be so fortunate to live in this country where we have the greatest freedom to live the way we choose. God Bless America!

Friday, July 1, 2011

There Are Good Reasons Why The Founders Didn't Give War Powers To Presidents

We American citizens have been allowing presidents and congress to assume too much power to carry out acts of war without their recognizing it as such or properly authorizing it. Consider the following six points.

First, we ought to consider the founder's intent when they gave war declaration powers solely(!) to congress. At the time they had no idea we'd be able to wage wars in ways other than 'boots on the ground' (jet aircraft, cruise missiles, etc). Attacking a sovereign country, to them, MEANT boots on the ground. That doesn't mean it's not a war if we have no boots on the ground when we attack by other means. I think the WPA may properly reframe the founders' intentions regarding the ways in which we can now conduct military actions. Would the founders believe that what we're doing in Libya is a 'war' and is a serious enough action to demand congress' involvement (as the peoples' representation in it) BEFORE attacking them? Clearly FDR thought so regarding Japan!

Second, another reasonable question is, is what we did in Libya an 'act of war'? Of course it is. Regardless of our reasons for doing so, we in fact attacked a sovereign country. I think that makes it a defacto war whether declared one or not. The founders understood that and so did FDR. That presidents can conduct acts of war without congress' input (and therefore in total disregard of the peoples' interest) is an affront to congress, the constitution and the American People who will pay the price of any 'unexpected' consequences.

Third, the reason Americans (via congress, the people's house) need and deserve more thoughtful consideration by the president (that includes congress) is that REAL wars start over much less than what we're doing in Libya. In fact world wars have begun over much less. Because of the potential for FAR worse consequences that the American people and congress could have to deal with, presidents should consult with congress, not even just 'advise' either. The WPA seems geared toward ensuring such consultation, not just advisement.

Libya is perfectly capable, for instance, of sending terrorists to America, England and France as retribution and to destroy our will to fight Libya further. Former Libyan Justice Minister Galil who recently resigned his post there said in February this year that Gadhafi has chemical and biological weapons and has no qualms about using them. The possibility that President Obama's attack on Libya could result in mass destruction actions on our homeland DEMANDS more careful consideration in consultation with congress BEFORE attacking them in the first place. American citizens could pay a heavy price in blood and money for what the president did in Libya. Considering we citizens could suffer serious consequences, wasn't it appropriate for the president to consult us via our representatives in The House BEFORE attacking Libya?

Fourth, such actions as President Obama's in Libya are in total opposition to historical precedence and interpretation of the constitution. Take WWII for example. Japan 'only' attacked part of our navy, they had no "boots on the ground" against us at that point and their attack wasn't even on our homeland (Hawaii wasn't a state yet). What was Roosevelt's response? He declared the lesser attack by Japan was "a day that shall live in infamy!" He declared before congress, "since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire". He said that we were in fact at war with each other from the moment they attacked our navy at Pearl Harbor and he asked congress to declare it officially (per constitutional requirements) so that he could respond with our military. What Japan did to us WAS AN ACT OF WAR which meant it WAS A WAR and Roosevelt knew it. So did the rest of the country. Certainly our more serious attack on Libya is an act of war and it is a war whether the president or congress want to call it that or not.

What we did to Libya was much worse than Japan's attack on us but our Libya attack isn't a war? We destroyed their air force and military communications ability. We bombed their government buildings, tanks, artillery, and troop formations engaging Libyan rebels. And we did it ON their homeland. How is this not a war but Japan's lesser attack on us was? The president has the audacity to say that because we didn't have "boots on the ground" in Libya, he doesn't need to consult with congress and it certainly isn't a war. My point, in consideration of the rest of this blog, is that Roosevelt was correct and President Obama was very, very wrong.

Fifth, the founders desired there to be a balance of powers among the branches of government for a reason. They believed that a balance of views AND intelligent consideration is necessary to keep powerful branches/people from doing something not in our best national interest and pursuing it without putting our best minds into the effort. The president is one man. Congress is full of very bright people some of whom have actually served and honored themselves in war.

For something that serious and potentially dangerous to our country, doesn't it make sense for the president to avail himself of the knowledge and judgment of congress before single-handedly and single-mindedly engaging the peoples'(!) resources in such a venture as Libya? Isn’t it just the smart thing to do to involve others who may have considerable expertise and wisdom? Why wouldn't he WANT to in order to give him cover for unintended consequences if for no other reason? In this context what he did seems insane. Is it okay for you to do something that has potentially serious consequences for your family without discussing it with your wife?


By the way, that was a lame excuse from the president that since NATO decided an attack on Libya was necessary he had to do it anyway which rendered consultation with congress moot. Huh? There is NO SUCH exception expressed anywhere in the constitution, the WPA or anywhere else. Our recent history is FULL of examples of NATO member countries NOT engaging in a war simply because NATO decided to do it. Some are even refusing to participate in the Libyan attacks. NO OTHER COUNTRY should ever control whether attacking a sovereign nation is required by us, much less acceptable or in our national interest.

Presidents who assume they don't need to consult congress before attacking a sovereign country are acting against the best interests of American citizens and against the constitution literally and in principle. Therefore, I think a strong case can be made that what President Obama did was not only a violation of the constitution and the WPA, it was a violation of his oath of office as well. And that would be an impeachable offense would it not?