House Republicans are staking themselves out as considerably more conservative than their duplicitous invertebrate counterparts in the Senate. The GOP in the Senate recently passed a “compromise” bill that would see Americans chuck out another trillion for left-wing goodies, including increases or only slight cuts in numerous federal programs. But the House has since denied the Senators their holiday stocking stuffers.
Rumors abound that former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may be interested in getting back in the “political game,” as the Washington Times put it. Republicans should be very wary of reports that the academic and civil servant would seek a makeover into a sloganeering politician.
Although Ms. Rice has the capability of wielding a fierce and feisty intellect in debates against the left, she also values her privacy and integrity. Despite vicious attacks on everything from her race to her sexuality (GOP opposition would be sure to exploit these baseless rumors as well to chill the Evangelical vote), Rice has tended to stay out of the limelight, addressing her character assassination through books, rather than public appearances.
The looming question is if conservatives are itching to turn to an associate of the Bush administration, a relationship that the left is sure to demonize and fear-monger to the utmost, for strong and sure leadership or if people desire fresh faces to deal with seemingly unprecedented problems. Newt Gingrich‘s sudden popularity shows that the conservative base has no problem turning to the past, but the former Speaker is associated more with the relatively positive 1990s than the media-tainted War on Terror.
Regardless, I am doubtful she would remake herself to run for office, or put herself through the grinding mill of the left-wing screech machine. Conservatives have been disappointed time and time again by the lack of GOP candidates to step forward and take our national crisis seriously, and I presume that we are going to be disappointed once again with this flimsy hearsay.
Former Michigan Governor George W. Romney and his son former Massachusetts Governor Willard “Mitt” Romney are two separate individuals. But a comparison of the two as presidential candidates brings up an all-too-familiar pattern of “moderate” Republican policies, growth of state government as governors, a track record of budget cuts while in office but budget shortfalls following afterwards, and flip-flopping on key issues.
As curious asides before examining their records, we find that Governor George Romney made the original “brainwashing” gaffe in presidential politics, and was involved in his own “natural born citizen” controversy, due to him being born in Mexico.
George Romney was a businessman, leading American Motors Corporation to success before becoming governor of Michigan. Mitt Romney was a businessman, leading Bain Capital to success before becoming governor of Massachusetts.
Both were considered “moderate” Republicans who sought a third way between both parties. George Romney condemned the influence of big labor in the Democrat Party, and the influence of big business in the Republican Party. Mitt Romney once said, “I’m not running as the Republican view or a continuation of Republican values.”
As a public entry on George Romney states while citing a number of sources, the “tall, square-jawed, handsome, graying Romney matched what the public thought a president should look like.” This almost matches exactly what many think of his son Mitt Romney, that he “just looks presidential.”
Both swelled the size and role of state government as governor. The public entry above-quoted states George Romney did as much and later sources how. For example:
Romney led the way for a large increase in state spending on education, and Michigan began to develop one of the nation’s most comprehensive systems of higher education. There was a significant increase in funding support for local governments and there were generous benefits for the poor and unemployed. Romney’s spending was enabled by generally prosperous economic conditions that allowed continued government surpluses and by a consensus of both parties in Michigan to maintain and administer extensive state bureaucracies and to expand public sector services.
The Massachusetts state budget was $22.7 billion a year when he took office in January of 2003. When he left office four years later, it was over $25.7 billion – plus another $2.2 billion in spending that the legislature took “off budget.” (Romney never reminds us of this fact.) The net effect of budgets proposed and signed into law by Mitt Romney? An additional $5.2 billion in state spending – and a similar increase in new taxes. Every year.
After adjusting for inflation, the numbers aren’t so dramatic, an increase of a few percent. Still an increase, by any measure. But that’s not the key point: Mitt Romney signed onto and defended Massachusetts’ healthcare law, which shot a gaping hole in the budgets after him. More on that below.
Here is George W. Romney’s record on deficits:
Romney’s first state budget in office came in at $550 million for fiscal year 1963, a $20 million increase over that of his predecessor Swainson. Romney had also inherited a $85 million budget deficit, but got the state to where it had a surplus. In the following fiscal years, the state budget increased to $684 million for 1964, $820 million for 1965, $1 billion for 1966, $1.1 billion for 1967, and was proposed as $1.3 billion for 1968.
How does George Romney’s record compare with Mitt’s? Let’s see:
So under Mr. Romney, state spending went from $22.3 billion to $28.1 billion, an annual increase of 6.5 percent. Adjusted for inflation, spending went from $20.7 billion to $21.6 billion, or a 1.1 percent increase.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Massachusetts budget shortfalls were: $1.2 billion in 2008, or 4.2% of the General Fund; $5.2 billion in 2009, or 18.5% of the General Fund; $5.6 billion in 2010, or 20.4% of the General Fund; and $2.7 billion in 2011, or 8.6% of the General Fund.
Just to recap, that’s a pattern of claiming to cut budgets while in office, but leaving massive budget shortfalls after leaving office. And just to back this up, MassHealth has been specifically blamed as a leading contributor to the state’s budget gaps.
We’ve established that neither Romney was a conservative Republican. But were they both flip-floppers?
Perhaps the most famous gaffe in George Romney’s career came during his presidential bid in 1968. At first, he had unequivocally supported the Vietnam War. Then, in what might be called the “other” brainwashing gaffe, referencing Herman Cain’s more or less accurate observation that blacks have been “brainwashed” into supporting Democrats, he said the following while trying to distinguish himself from the “pro-war” Nixon:
When I came back from Viet Nam [in November 1965], I’d just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get.
George Romney meant in the diplomatic corps, since he visited the country in 1965. Then he completely reversed his position:
“I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop Communist aggression in Southeast Asia.”
The flip-flop cost George Romney the nomination, and he gradually drifted off into political obscurity ever since.
And what of Mitt Romney? It is impossible to document in a short space all the flip-flops – on the second amendment, on abortion, on his own healthcare plan for Massachusetts – but fortunately, there’s an ingenious video online that does it for me, using Governor Romney’s own words.
Will Mitt Romney fade off into the political sunset like his father, not having attained the Republican nomination or the presidency? Let’s hope in that case, it will be like son, like father.
As posted on Political Crush.
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a notorious flamethrower who has made a number of incredible vitriolic comments about conservatives, recently appeared on MSNBC to complain about the “demonization” of Democrats and especially President Obama. If the DNC wants to send out someone to fabricate a “new tone” of civility for Democrats to hide behind, they might not want to select someone with a history of grenade-throwing.
It is impossible for a conservative to imagine a more uncivil spokesperson for the left than Wasserman-Schultz. She called Paul Ryan’s plan a “death trap” for seniors, global warming a “death knell,” and asked through her daughter’s voice after the Gabriel Giffords shooting, “Mommy, are you going to get shot?”
But that’s not all. Wasserman-Schultz, representing the party that has thrown in lot with the anarchists and socialists at Occupy Wall Street rallies across the country, once claimed that Republicans wanted to “spark panic and chaos” and instate a “dictatorship.” And President Obama, the chief executive who would hypothetically accrue martial law powers, is sitting in the White House cheering the occupiers on.
Not only incendiary, but illogical.
If the Democrats want to feign like they are being victimized by extreme right-wing rhetoric, that’s not going to fly with most Americans. It has been jaw-dropping the last few years to watch anyone who disagrees with the Democrats’ big government agenda get labeled a “racist,” “extremist,” “terrorist,” “fascist,” and “Nazi,” not only by the left-wing media, but by Democrat politicians themselves!
Shameful doesn’t even begin to cover it.
The Democrats are the ones who have made it impossible to have a rational and civil discussion about politics, with their Alinsky tactics of ridicule, for far too long. Conservatives have gotten wise to the game, and now are starting to give as good as they get. That’s why Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s is on air complaining about being victimized by heated right-wing rhetoric.
Leftists are not used to being verbally attacked in the culture, and they don’t like it one bit. Many on the left see themselves as compassionate class warriors who mean well even when they make mistakes. Redefining their self-images to a bunch of vicious, power-hungry screw-ups is making some of them squirm. Which is why we need to keep the pressure on them.
They’ll eventually implode. And when they do, it is going to get uglier than Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’ hairdo. [Continued on Political Crush]
Sometimes I wonder why Republicans bother going on cable news stations like CNN and MSNBC for their debates.There are rumors circulating that the moderator of CNN’s Las Vegas debate intentionally stoked animosity between Romney and Perry to watch the fireworks fly. Heated exchanges between the two hurt both candidates, and the frontrunner Herman Cain benefited from the kerfuffle.
There is something to be said for going into hostile ideological territory, but the candidates are supposed to be debating each other and not the moderator. Besides, do Democrats ever go on Fox News to debate? I think not. They treat FoxNews like an ideological enemy because it doesn’t toe the left-wing line on all issues.
It’s one thing to go on to a left-wing news outfit for an interview or two, it’s another thing to place the framing, presentation, and potential manipulation of your party’s candidates in a hostile entity’s hands. The mainstream media has shown time and time again that is has even less concern for ratings and decency than it does for advancing the Democrats’ radical agenda.
Rush Limbaugh endorsed Ron Paul’s Restore America economic plan, which the conservative talk grand poobah touted as showing the Republican presidential field what a “serious fiscal reform plan” looks like. The plan includes freezing government agency budgets at 2006 levels, the EPA cut by 30%, the FDA by 40%, foreign aid zeroed out, and the Pentagon budget slashed. Much federal welfare would be block granted to the states, while the federal workforce would be reduced by 10%.
Rush claimed that Ron Paul doesn’t really own these ideas, which is laughable. For the record, Ron Paul is a libertarian Republican.
But the tea party wants to pick up the rocks and smack the Republican Party elites over the head with them in order to vainly try to knock some sense into their power-hungry skulls.
When it comes to the Republican Party, the elites seem content to play musical chairs around the big government table, trading spots with the Democrats whenever “We Don’t Get Fooled Again” stops playing, while getting drunk on power and feasting on suckling pork. But the tea party is trying its utmost to put an end to the perennial political games-playing. Regular tax-paying and hard-working citizens are desperately trying to hold the United States government accountable by holding the Republican Party accountable. The Republicans, in turn, are supposed to hold the Democrat Party in check. The GOP apparently wants none of it.
The tea party arrived on the scene with a flurry and a bang, turning up to crash the wild stimulus and bailouts party. It immediately came under attack by the government, the media, the Democrats, even the Republicans. It has been constantly demonized, villainized, and now the GOP wants it neutralized.
Along with its typical shilling for government cheese, the NY Times Magazine will be offering up some salami tactics for all us tea party crackers. In an upcoming piece, reportedly totaling 24 pages, the left will seek to drive a wedge between the tea party conservatives, the GOP establishment, and so-called moderates. [Continued on Political Crush]
From Lori Drummer of Big Government (commentary below):
Remember when we used to have a legislative process? Lately, the Obama Administration has me wondering if Congress even has a job to do anymore. Between Obamacare, card check, cap and trade, net neutrality, and massive financial regulations, among many others, it’s crystal clear that the Administration would prefer to ignore the limits of the Constitution than abide by it.
With No Child Left Behind (NCLB) “waivers,” the President has topped even his own high bar. The “waivers” plan is a misnomer because it does not give states more freedom. Rather, the plan forces states to comply with nearly 40 new government mandates. This is the nationalization of education policy, which will affect all 50 states and tens of millions of students.
In announcing the waiver scheme, the President explicitly said “given that Congress cannot act, I am acting.” The President must have missed the memo that it’s not his job to make laws, which is, of course, exclusively Congress’ responsibility. Yet Congress did not even hold one hearing on the waiver scheme, let alone actually pass legislation to authorize this move. The Obama Administration continues to legislate through regulations in every aspect of policy, regardless of whether or not the federal government has authorized authority to do so by either the Constitution or Congress.
[Continued on Big Government]
Indeed, it is not just the big legislative actions of Obamacare, the nationalization of General Motors, or the ignorance of due process in the BP oil spill that are examples of President Obama violating his oath of office to uphold The Constitution. It’s the thousands of regulatory violations, the abuse of the EPA, the Department of Education, the National Labor Relations Board, and the actions of his unaccountable, unconfirmed “czars” that has this president operating well outside the bounds of The Constitution.
Most perplexingly, Congress, and specifically, the Republicans seem very unconcerned about it, and have not taken any serious concerted action to put a stop to it.
In America, we don’t elect kings. Someone should tell that to the president and the Republican Party.
Who knew the Hopenchangenfuhrer would follow up the “Hitleresque” Bush regime with extra-juridical assassinations, drone bombings galore, and even more undeclared war? The recent high-level decision to terminate a problematic American without trial ends any and all debate that the new boss is any different than the old boss, at least when it comes to foreign policy.
The interminable wailing and gnashing of teeth over such Bush-era policies as extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo Bay detention, waterboarding, and overly aggressive romps like Abu Ghraib have been thrown by the wayside to accommodate a fundamentally transformational president with unimpeachably radical credentials.
But it is getting more than a little glaring that all the fervor for “anti-war” demonstrations characterizing the leftwing agit-prop machine under the former president has now fizzled down to such a murmuring grumble it makes one wonder if all the previous hub-bub amounted to no more than anti-Republican demonstrations. If so, this lay bears the absolutely cynical, vicious, and remorseless nature of the organized left for all to see. So much for marking out the moral high ground. [Continued on Political Crush]
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s repeated refusal to consider the possibility of running for president has left a giant void in the GOP field. Not for establishment Republicans like Bill Kristol, or for inexplicable reasons, “right-wing extremists” like Ann Coulter, but for those whom the cocktail circuit left affectionately refer to as “Joe Lunchbox.”
Though Christie has some glaring flaws for the right – his positions regarding Muslims and “manmade” climate change – he was a straight shooting hombre who knew how to make a union goons’ legs turn to jelly. His YouTube-friendly quips are so delicious they are salaciously referred to as “Chris Christie porn,” which for right-wingers provide much-needed verbal pushback to a brazen left-wing media.
But all that is gone now, leaving a gaping donut hole in the field that desperately needs filled.
The nascent tea party is witnessing the professed members of its movement dwindle, and massive national protests and rallies are diminishing in number and intensity. There are a few good reasons that the tea party is less at the forefront of national politics, and none of them should concern those of a patriotic persuasion. Instead of dissipating into thin air, the tea party has simply moved out of the spotlight and is focusing its energies in different directions.
After the 2010 elections, the tea party appeared to be sated, having wiped out the Democrat majority in the House and having made substantive inroads into the Senate. The Republicans subsequently took their new clout in the House and frittered it away – in budget resolution and debt ceiling negotiations, which did little if nothing to change the big picture disjuncture between projected government intake and spending. The people who comprised the once very visible tea party are currently not blowing a gasket, but they are seething below the public surface.
A series of two Gallup polls taken in August 2011 show that while tea party self-identification has steadily declined, the identifier “conservative” has held rock steady. Liberals are at the same old twenty percent they have been for years, while “very conservative” outnumbers “very liberal” nearly two-to-one. [Continued on Political Crush]
Obama’s poll numbers have hit the skids. Disapproval is up, employment is down, and the president is going nowhere fast.
What’s changed? Hope-and-change sizzle has turned to fizzle. This president was supposed to be above the fray, a refreshing breath of fresh air after the dark days of 5% unemployment, Haliburton no-bid contracts, and “girls gone wild” like misadventures at Abu Ghraib.
In the context of the nefarious Bush administration, Obama floated above it all. The ignorant masses projected their hopes onto the present-voting messiah, who was a tabula rasa whose race was an ablation for past national sins. The candidate was so pristine he couldn’t even sully his hands with voting half the time. And when he did vote, he was unimpeachably socialist – a true humanitarian (if supporting an ideology that at the very least impoverishes peoples counts as humane).
Now a trifecta of scandals threatens to tarnish President Obama and the Democrats in much the same way as the “culture of corruption” narrative smeared Republicans before the 2006 elections – as if the entire GOP was as corrupt as Tom DeLay. And coming from a Democrat party that at the time was receiving Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac campaign contributions on behalf of prominent party members, particularly Obama, the allegations were a very bad joke. But half the country didn’t get it.
The fools who saw Barack Obama descending from the heavens should have been keen to his Chicago politics roots, his street thug shakedown artist credentials, and his admitted associations with Alinskyite ends-justify-the-means-radicals. His affiliation with the sawed-off bully Rahm Emanuel, who is still highly suspected of partaking in a pay-to-play arrangement for Obama’s old Senate seat, should have been another clue. But for the clueless, there are no clues; not even puzzles.
Another hint that Obama was actually very corrupt was his connection to bagman Tony Rezko, who the state senate candidate admitted raised $250,000 for him. Adding to the obscurity of Obama’s shady receipt of an estate from Rezko, was an oil-for-food connection, rarely reported in the American media.
Turnabout is fair play, and the Democrats are about to play tilt-a-whirl fending off a flurry of scandals, as citizen journalists and the blogosphere get hip to what the Democrats have been doing with the misappropriated trillions of our taxpayer dollars.
Fast and Furious is the bloodiest of the three scandals, and the one that should most likely see administration heads roll. The facts surrounding the case are disturbing, and involve the ATF allowing gun show weapons to be channeled to Mexican drug cartels, which subsequently and unsurprisingly committed violent crimes with them. The manner in which the crimes were committed is enough to provide ample grist for the mill for black helicopter conspiracy theorists everywhere:
Quite a few of the guns have since turned up — at crime scenes. Authorities in Mexico say they have linked 200 crimes to Fast and Furious guns, and three guns have turned up at murder scenes here in the US — including the killing of US Border Patrol Officer Brian Terry. And it must be noted that these are all cases where the guns were recovered at the crime scene — a very rare occurrence. Most criminals don’t just leave their guns behind; they either keep them or dispose of them in some way that would make it difficult to link it to either the criminal or the crime. So for the guns to be simply left behind at a crime scene is extremely rare — and, to me, indicative that quite a few more guns were involved in crimes, but not left behind.
The scandal that has the clearest administration fingerprints on it is Light Squared. In this Capitol Hill drama, powerful witnesses, including General William Shelton, claim that the White House influenced them to award a contract to big Democrat Party donor Light Squared, who was a broadband service provider in Virginia petitioning for a license to go nationwide. Apparently, LS got face time with administration big shots in exchange for five figure campaign donations days before the alleged meetings.
Last but not least of the big three is Solyndra, which looks to be a half-billion dollar green energy boondoggle on the taxpayer dime. Loan guarantees for the Democrat donor and solar panel producer came directly out of the $859 billion non-stimulus package. The plant shut down suspiciously quickly, bringing a quick close to a government-funded fly-by-night operation.
But wait, there’s more. As the Washington Examiner reports in the process of unwrapping the Solyndra story:
Ultimately, Solyndra may prove to be the only Energy Department loan guarantee that explodes into a scandal rivaling Teapot Dome or Credit Mobilier for venality and abuse of the public trust. However, there are at least 16 more such loan guarantees worth in excess of $10 billion, all approved by the same cast of characters at the White House and the U.S. Department of Energy responsible for the current mess. And many other federal departments and agencies have provided billions of dollars’ worth of loan guarantees, so nobody should be surprised if Solyndra is only the first of many similar outrages under the Obama economic stimulus regime.
And if the Obama campaign re-election team didn’t think the wind was in their face enough, there comes a potential fourth blow to their image. President Obama is slated to fundraise with a big Democrat campaign donor that benefited from a $107 million tax credit to build a windpower facility in the state of Missouri.
If the president thinks he will be able to get away with this kind of corruption and still have a decent chance at re-election, he truly is tilting at windmills. The American people have had enough of the quixotic boy-king, who has been literally untouchable in the mainstream media. But that’s okay. If left-wing journalists won’t keep the heat on the administration for these scandals, citizen journalists and the blogosphere will.
There’s a new godfather in town, and it’s high time for the big payback.
Fresh off a no-nonsense performance in last week’s GOP debate, Hermann Cain is poised to shake up the field and debunk the outright lies that tea partiers care more about skin color than they do about their country. Never was about that, and mush-minded moderates will soon figure that out.
And there’s nothing the lamestream media can do about it.
Sure, there’ll still be what I call the loony 20%, the hardcore lefties who think in such warped terms there’s no sense even talking with them. But race-baiting for much of the nation is about to be rendered obsolete.
Speaking with Larry OConnor, Ben Shapiro, and Kurt Schlichter on the StageRightShow after the debate, I plainly endorsed Herman Cain, even as Larry OConnor subsequently dismissed him. But it was apparent that between the four of us, none of us was satisfied with the GOP field.
The palpable discontent in the party no doubt promoted new rumors about a Chris Christie run, if that’s the appropriate descriptor. Meanwhile, Sarah Palin is playing footsie with the American public, and not everyone is turned on.
But with Cain winning decisively in a key Florida straw poll, and Perry and Romney sinking way down, many other conservatives apparently concur that it is time for some fresh blood. And there’s no time like the present. Conservatives are ready to shift to Cain to make sure that they don’t wind up getting McCained.
Politico, unsurprisingly, took away nothing from the debate to suggest that there could be a rising Cain, which says a lot either about the quality of their analysis or their intellectual honesty. Regardless, they’re not to be trusted. CBS is running smokescreen for the Alinskyites who brazenly smeared the tea party as racist, the selfsame tea party that is now starting to support a very black candidate. Thus the lamestreamers have seeded the narrative that there is no way Cain can win anyway.
But once again, the tea party has proven they are willing to back a black, a woman, hell, even a martian, as long that being can get us back to fiscal sanity. This is not about Obama. This is not about picking a candidate based on gender or race. This is about selecting the best person for the job of president who represents the majority of Americans’ views: on repealing Obamacare, opposing environmentalism, taking action on illegal immigration, and victoriously ending the wars overseas.
Backing Cain as the best available candidate for the job would put a bloody, miserable end to the braindead zombie narrative that tea partiers are racists – with a double-tap headshot if he were somehow elected president. The southern strategy mythology, the ridiculous arguments like conservatives want to bring back slavery, all manner of lefty race-based lies would come to an abrupt halt, lest the mockers become the ones mocked.
If it is one thing the left has shown repeatedly, however, is that left-wingers don’t let old narratives die easy. In the interim, it will be fun to watch the liars squirm over a Herman Cain-led GOP field. Come on, Cain. Pay the cost to be the Boss.
With Rick Perry entering the race, Republicans should be extremely suspicious and not fall for any new “hope and change.” Each candidate that arises should be thoroughly vetted, including tea party favorites Rick Perry and Sarah Palin.
Since Obama likes to quote Abraham Lincoln, he might want to try this Goldie Oldie on for size: “You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”
The same maxim applies to Boehner and the old guard GOP. Neither party trusts the American people to rule themselves, and neither are willing to relinquish control over millions of people’s fates.
The motley crew of narcissists, pathological liars, and common criminals known as government is pushing the country to the brink of insolvency, all in the pursuit of vain glory. The plans the politicians have set forth are hardly serious.
Boehner’s plan is to cut spending by $1 trillion, while promising to cut spending by $1.6 trillion in the future, ‘cross his heart, and hope to die.’ Harry Reid’s plan is almost as risible, as it proposes $1 trillion on fake savings from an already-planned military drawdown in the Middle East, along with an additional $1.7 trillion.
Reid and Boehner – almost seeing sleepy eye to weepy eye? Not a good sign, given that the cryptkeeper Reid is one of the Unholy Triumvirate of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi who exacerbated our debt issues at least four-fold. Just to clarify, Obama QUADRUPLED the deficit of Bush’s last year. Drones need to repeat the word QUADRUPLE to themselves over and over until their Bush hatred fever breaks. Bush is gone. Good riddance. We have other problems to worry about.
But all plans seem ridiculous in light of the coming “ultimate debt crisis.” Below are some Congressional Budget Office (CBO) graphics to make the numbers a little more poignant. By the way, the CBO usually make Congress look good by only adhering to static models of growth that do not take into account negative effects of government intervention and resultant uncertainty.
Above is a comparison of CBO’s Extended Baseline Scenario (EBS) and Alternative Fiscal Scenario (AFS). The bottom dashed line is the EBS, and the top dashed line is the AFS. As CBO explains:
[EBS] – The “extended-baseline scenario” adheres most closely to current law, following CBO’s 10-year baseline budget projections for the next decade and then extending the baseline concept beyond that 10-year window.The scenario’s assumption of current law implies that many policy adjustments that lawmakers have routinely made in the past will not occur.
[AFS] – The “alternative fiscal scenario” represents one interpretation of what it would mean to continue today’s underlying fiscal policy. This scenario deviates from CBO’s baseline even during the next 10 years because it incorporates some policy changes that are widely expected to occur and that policymakers have regularly made in the past. Different analysts might perceive the underlying intention of current policy differently, however, and other interpretations are possible.
As I suspected, the AFS is more realistic because it does not appear to factor in any presumed Obamacare savings, as Reason magazine concludes.
Thus, when Obama explains to college Democrats the meaning of the Emancipation Proclamation [video] (h/t Blue Voice), and effectively damns it with faint praise for not going far enough to free slaves, we have to keep in mind that we are listening to a man who is threatening to tax-enslave our children to insurmountable debt.
If spending is not restrained now, we could be looking at tax levels of at least 70% across the board just to sustain government programs and interest on the debt, including if we would gut the military and leave ourselves defenseless to rising powers like China.
As Heritage explains, our tax rates would already need to soar to cover current deficit levels.
It should be apparent to anyone with two neurons to rub together that, pace House jester Barbara Lee, our debt problem is not imaginary. Deficits are racking up, and estimates of future government obligations range anywhere from $50 TRILLION to $100 TRILLION.
Paul Ryan’s graphics do an excellent job of showing how an avalanche of debt will crush this country, if something serious isn’t done about it. They also do not include Obamacare, as the program wasn’t scored by the CBO or OMB at the time the graphics were presented.
The politicians are not coming off unscathed with their shenanigans to present plans that will do very little to curb the kind of spending needed to restrain future debt, future taxes, future indebtedness to government. The costs come not just in dollars but in opportunities foregone and livelihoods diminished or lost altogether – and people are starting to get that. These are people’s lives we are talking about, not just dollars.
Politicians are paying a price for their lack of seriousness, particularly Obama himself. And people are paying attention, which is surprising for seemingly so esoteric an issue.
The bottom line is that the leftists will not be able to complete their stealth socialist coup without public support, and the levels currently are not there. The Republicans may keep up their feckless, half-hearted opposition, but sooner or later not only the Democrats, but they will also be replaced.
A Daily Caller article published today alleges that Republican presidential candidate and tea party favorite Michelle Bachmann suffers from debilitating migraines, referring to three unnamed staffers. For such a vile, sneaky attack on a female candidate in the running to be the first woman president in our nation’s history to be based on rumors about a medical condition is beyond the pale.
It was, according to three people who have worked closely with Bachmann, not an isolated event [a hospitalization for a migraine headache].
The Minnesota Republican frequently suffers from stress-induced medical episodes that she has characterized as severe headaches. These episodes, say witnesses, occur once a week on average and can “incapacitate” her for days at time. On at least three occasions, Bachmann has landed in the hospital as a result.
The professional left has attacked Bachmann’s qualifications, her sanity, her brains, her clinic (debunked), and her sexiness relentlessly, but it has barely laid a paw on her among those who seek a real alternative to the nightmare leftist regime of “president problem.” Even Republicans in her own state have back-stabbed her, including a Pawlenty staffer who said she had “sex appeal” and the former Minnesota GOP chair Ron Carey who said that she isn’t “electable” or “qualified.” Apparently, now it’s time to attack her health.
Where were these migraine headaches while the fiery Congresswoman was railing against the latest outrageous Democrat proposal, or pumping up the crowd at a tea party rally? Apparently she is “incapacitated,” but not too incapacitated to be a vital member of Congress, lead a caucus, bring legislation to the floor, or tour the country giving speeches at tea party rallies.
Regardless, most left-wingers would call the presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy “capable” leaders. However, each of these presidents suffered from afflictions while in office, and each admirably performed their duties, according to the left’s criteria.
Woodrow Wilson had atherosclerosis and several strokes before and during his presidency, which did seem to affect his performance at the end of his term. FDR acquired polio in 1921 and his illness was framed by his wife Eleanor as a “blessing in disguise” for it gave him “strength and courage he had not had before.” JFK suffered from numerous illnesses, including Addison’s, and possibly syphilis.
This is basically the holy Trinity of the left, and all of them afflicted with numerous diseases. Now a female presidential candidate who dares to run on the Republican ticket has some migraines, and I am supposed to question her ability to lead?
Michelle Bachmann is hated by the left and branded an “extremist” for no more than insisting we follow The Constitution and we live within a budget. But if there are no rules, that means anything goes in politics. Isn’t that attitude “extremist”?
But it is one thing to disagree over policy differences, and it is another thing to smear one’s opponents for dubious cause. That is why conservatives need to stop playing by Marquis de Queensbury rules, and give as good as they get, while pointing out the left’s lies and stupidity.
This migraine charge is flimsy and sounds far more serious than it actually is. Whether or not it is true, the charge will stick, so let’s assume for the sake of argument that it is true. I have had migraines and was hospitalized for one of them. The doctor gave me a Toradol injection for an extremely bad case and the migraine was resolved within the hour. I felt as good as new.
This migraine charge is a red herring thrown out by one of the following to damage the Congresswoman: a bunch of juvenile disgruntled staffers, left-wing infiltrators, or gutless wonders on the take.
Where are Barack Obama’s records, you investigative whizzes? We currently have one of the most inept presidents in American history not only presiding over economic disaster, but pushing it forward towards the brink, and we are supposed to care about Michelle Bachmann’s headaches?
I’ll take a migraine-riddled Michelle Bachmann over a golf-afflicted Barack Obama any time, you delusional, self-immolating lefties. We guarantee you that we will be your headache come November 2012, pals.
Defending the American way of life on “pragmatic” grounds is the surest way to undermine the individualist morality this nation was founded upon. When one counters the left’s argument for government intervention into the private economy as a matter of “who can run it better,” one is inevitably drawn into arguing over a morass of (government-manipulated) numbers and statistics, when one should be seeing the lives of the individuals whose destinies are being handed over to the government for manipulation and micro-management.
The left certainly isn’t destroying the greatest economic engine in the world, free market capitalism (do not read “economic anarchy”), on “pragmatic” grounds. The anti-capitalists are attacking the economic system on principle, or rather their warped conception of it, calling all people who value the right to work and exchange as they please “greedy,” and “selfish.” Long ago having lost the economic argument, the leftists have been forced to resort to aesthetics, decrying that the economy is “materialistic” (what other kind of economy is there?), and contriving ever-more shifting ethical appeals to “equality,” “social justice,” “tolerance,” “diversity” – whatever at the moment suits their purposes of diminishing or destroying capitalism.
When the left belies that it does not trust the market as an institution of economic accountability by concocting and implement a bevy of safety and environmental regulations, what they really mean to say is they they do not trust us to make our own decisions, and they do not trust the rule of law to preside over personal or property damages in an economically disinterested legal system. What they really mean to say is that we are not to be trusted to work where we want, when we want, for whom we want, and to buy goods and services we value in like fashion. Alternatively, we are not to hire and fire whom we want for reasons we perceive to be related to the functioning of our businesses.
No, no, no – the sages and masterminds off in Washington know better than we do what are our own interests.
No one is arguing the market is perfect, for it is comprised of imperfect individuals. But let no one be fooled that the supposedly invisible and impersonal government, aloft in that far-off capital named for our first founding father, is the aegis for perfect “fairness” and “redistributive justice.” The millionaire’s club known as the Congress, whose self-representatives enrich themselves at the expense of the citizenry, and the ever-more-authoritarian executive branch, are every bit as self-interested as any other organization or business in this country. Only difference is that government has a legal monopoly of coercion to extort what it wants from the people without the messy business of having to provide a good or service for the voluntary exchange of capital in the market.
What it all boils down to in the final analysis is: Whose life is it anyway? Does your life belong to the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, or does it belong to you? When the politicians and pundits drone on and on about who can “run the economy” better, about who can “put Americans back to work” (as if America were a plantation, and politicians are our owners), about “creating jobs,” we should all be alarmed about what that implies. It effectively means that the elites believe “the economy” belongs to the government, and therefore, we belong to the government. In other words, we belong to them.
But, no! The government is not our taskmaster, our overlord, our manager, our caretaker, our slave-driver, our paymaster, or our nanny. It is a security-guard in our pay – a very well-armed security guard. No more, no less.
With the private economy, that is, us, being increasingly yoked by a constantly expanding, incessantly taxing-and-spending regime merrily driving our country into bankruptcy, we have to wonder if the concept of the private economy is about to become obsolete. (I’m sure this notion makes wide-eyed and gullible leftists giddy with excitement.)
Soon, it may become necessary to take up a a collection from all those fascistic enterprises throwing in lot with the government, and particularly, from those state-adoring celebrities, in order to save their livelihoods. The bags may be over their heads as they are being led to the hangman’s plank, but they may yet hear the echoes of the past, and the screams of those who came before, as they fell to their deaths, hung with their own rope.
Perhaps it will become necessary to start our first pro-market telethon, as businessmen finally realize they’ve got it good in the free market economy, as opposed to trading temporary gains from corporate welfare for impending termination of their businesses by the gangsters in government, who seek to absorb us all into a truly fascist economy.
We are the world, we are the economy…
The argument for big government has been so wildly successful because it has been silent and omnipresent, kind of like carbon dioxide. But Robert Reich has broken a cardinal rule, kind of like that of the “we don’t talk about Fight Club” variety, and that is “we don’t talk about big government.” In Reich’s article, which was originally titled, “Big Government is Solution, Not the Problem,” Reich weaves a narrative that “trickle down economics” has failed to distribute the gains of our economic system more equitably. The solution for America’s economic problems is to give career bureaucrats and politicians the power to “do good.”
But as I have pointed out elsewhere, it is the intentional inflationary policies of the Fed that cause wealth to be accumulated more inordinately and unjustly than it would under a free market system. And being rewarded for adding value to the economic system is neither unjust, nor does it take away from those who do not add value. Instead, those in the economic system benefit from the value being added, usually in the form of mass-produced goods that can only profit their manufacturers if they are priced within the ability to pay of consumers in the market. But arguing with statists about economics is kind of like arguing with your reflection in the mirror; everything you do to argue on behalf of liberty will bring a response of its polar opposite, and it can go on forever. So we will skip the economic specifics, which have been hashed out elsewhere. If someone is receptive to the truth, his mind will find it.
The threat posed to the statists by the tea party is really what is remarkable about Reich’s article. The statists feel a need to respond intellectually to the limited government argument. This is a great victory for freedom lovers, because it means the statists are on the run. Normally, the elites wouldn’t even feel the need to address such an argument. Now we get to see their intellectually feeble attempts to justify tyranny. This should be good.
Conservatives have used many lines of attack when going after President Obama and his destructive agenda. There has been a tendency on the interwebs for people to argue that Obama is naive, lacks experience, is a tired or failed president, or is a man in over his head. Are these narratives on the mark, or are they simply rhetorical devices used to persuade Americans to oppose the Obama agenda?
I believe that many such arguments are presenting the fact that Obama is a dangerous president in a manner that is more palatable to the conservatives‘ ideological opponents. Conservatives may be watering down the argument out of fear of offending others or even of sounding racist by making Obama out to be a vicious partisan.
At the risk of sounding contrarian, I think Obama and the Democrats know exactly what they are doing. The Fabian socialists who are everywhere in the government have been incrementally pushing the U.S. toward the big power-grab for decades. Of course, it is going to be ugly. Of course, it is going to be messy. Will that stop the Democrats from carrying out their destructive agenda? Of course not.
The fallacious trap that most conservatives fall into is in believing that the great majority of Americans think the United States is a country worth preserving as it was founded. To conservatives, defending and advancing the institutions, traditions, and culture that once made America great is obviously the path towards restoring national greatness. Well, the problem is that progressives don’t see any such “national greatness,” only sins of the past, such as imperialism, neo-colonialism, slavery, what-have-you. From their idealistic totalitarian viewpoint (and it is quite totalitarian as an accurate descriptor), any evidence of wrong-doing is a sign that the entire system is corrupt and needs overhauled.
Another huge problem is that progressives see themselves as simply smarter than conservatives, and therefore they don’t need to take their warnings seriously. Their years of school and college indoctrination insulate them in a warm and fuzzy blanket of smugness, which is difficult, if not impossible, to get through. This narcissism is why they will burn the system down; they believe that they can build it back up: Bigger, better, and more just.
Progressives also adhere to a mentality that sees any objections to their “noble” dreams as inherently “reactionary.” Socialists, for example, predict that the “bourgeoisie” or middle class would bridle when the socialist revolution comes. This gives them the rationalization to proceed without any heed for objections from the ideologically dehumanized middle class.
In sum, the Democrats will move ahead, with healthcare, with climate change legislation, with immigration “reform,” with card-check, and with the inevitable censorship and the disregard for civil liberties that will necessarily follow.
The big question is, can the Democrats get away with it in a country that is majority conservative? Remember, the Nazis had the majority of Germans on their side with the scapegoating of the Jews and the Slavs, and the Bolsheviks captured Russia in a putsch after war had decimated the country, the Tsar had abdicated, and the provisional government had failed.
In the U.S., we now have a strong and vibrant opposition mounting, a bare majority of Americans sympathetic to the ideals of liberty and freedom, and a U.S. military that can hardly be characterized as an unthinking tool of the state. It is one thing for a military and secret police to take on a minority or to go after isolated peasants, or small partisan armies. It is quite another to take on hundreds of millions of people, tens of millions quite adequately armed and willing to defend themselves.
If Obama and the Democrats could crush the American people right now and take full control of the state in perpetuity, they would. Right now they are more than satisfied to continue demoralizing the nation, precipitating crises, destroying the currency, and waiting patiently for the conflagration that will ostensibly justify the declaration of martial law.
Convincing people that Obama is simply naive is not going to do much to turn this ship of state around. There is no time for playing rhetorical games while the sitting president is a radical hell-bent on “transforming” America into a totalitarian police state. I intend to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth while I still can.
The sunshine patriot nestles himself in the cozy and easily attainable blanket of “moderate” and “independent,” while deliberating if the road to redemption for America lay in “experimenting” with socialism, or if reclaiming national glory lay in re-establishing our founding.
But there is only one rational choice for the man who values his self-preservation and that of his countrymen. The time to side with liberty is now!
Those who would believe that the Democrats are the lesser of two evils because they purport to champion civil liberties are deluding themselves. The Democrats have used freedom as a facade to hide behind while they destroy all institutions resistant to their plans of total domination. Social justice is the smokescreen that masks the vision of the true believers, a fog of war behind which the nation is pillaged and plundered right in front of their eyes. The banner of altruism is waved by the ravaging armies of progressivism, and the unquestioning lead us to our Abaddon. Until the romanticism of the impossible is disabused from these dupes, no voice of reason, no clarion call will penetrate the haze that clouds their judgment.
Those who would pose that the Republicans are the natural antithesis of the Democrats, the opposition party that can put our country back on the sound pillars of freedom, justice, liberty, and property, are likewise politically confused. The Republicans are led by statists of a different sort: Nationalists and great power chauvinists who intend to foist their preferred brand of collectivism onto the American people.
Though not as brazen and open in their predilections for ever-expansive government, the Republicans are nearly as dangerous as the progressives because they refuse to take a stand. The dire situation we are faced with may have been inevitable, as lovers of liberty took a defensive position over time, yielding ground to the statists in a process of “deliberation” over Americans’ rights and freedoms. But as the Declaration of Independence makes clear, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (and more appropriately, property) are inalienable. They are not up for negotiation or deliberation.
We must steel ourselves for a long, protracted engagement with our statist enemies in both parties if we are to preserve and defend our nation as it was intended at the founding. Principled conservatives must reclaim the Republican mantle, and wield it as a weapon against the ever-expansive state. All Americans still able to exercise their judgment must throw in lot with with freedom, which requires the sustained reaffirmation of limited government under the Constitution, or the country could spin out of control in statist debauchery to our peril and that of our children. As the twentieth century makes painfully clear, in the struggle between liberty and tyranny, there must be liberty or there will be death.