President Obama Doubles Down on Ignorant and Stupid

- In (Jacob) Lew of (William) Daly -

Like all socialist regimes, the Obama Administration does not tolerate dissent. William M. Daley, the brother and son of former Chicago mayors, has discovered this open secret for himself. Daley was brought into the Obama White House as President Obama's Chief of Staff. This move was hailed by brain-dead pundits as a sign that President Obama was sending a pro-business signal.

Daley lasted less than one year, which is far longer than Obama's furtive nod to what makes the nation work. This is not surprising. Daley's successor, Jacob Lew, will be Obama's fourth Chief of Staff in less than three years. It was not even that Daley was overly pro-business, it was that he was insufficiently anti-business.

Former Obama Chief of Staff William M. Daley
Image via Wikipedia

I have no idea why businessmen should have seen Daley's appointment as a positive sign. Daley was never a businessman; he has always been a mere appointee. Daley was appointed to: be the special counsel to President Clinton on NAFTA, the Advisory Council of Economic Opportunity, the Fannie Mae Board of Directors, US Secretary of Commerce, President of SBC Communications, Chairman of Al Gore's Presidential Campaign, Advisor to the Obama-Biden Transition Team and the Midwest Chairman of JPMorgan Chase.

Daley has not been an entrepreneur or a venture capitalist. He is a constantly recycled board member whose last name is Daley. But, if Daley did represent a positive turn toward business, then what does it mean that Daley "resigned" and why does the media ignore the continued anti-business moves of the Obama Administration?

Why The Supercommittee Was Doomed

It's confession time. The eventual outcome of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, also known as "the Supercommittee", was so obvious that I wrote most of this blog two weeks ago. There was no reason why there would be an outcome other than failure.

The Supercommittee was composed of twelve members, evenly divided among the bicameral Congress and evenly subdivided among the two major political parties. It was supposed to be a tool for getting around the stalemate between the Democrat-controlled US Senate and the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives.

Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA)
Image via Wikipedia

There is a non-profit, non-partisan, conservative organization called The Club for Growth. It measures the economic policy votes cast by members of Congress. Members favor low tax rates, free trade, limited spending, repeal of the inheritance tax and regulatory reform among other things. You may or may not agree with their positions, but they issue a scorecard that is a convenient measuring stick for the comparison of the Supercommittee members' approach to taxes and spending.

In the following paragraph is a list of members, their home state and their party affiliation. In parenthesis are their lifetime Club for Growth ratings. I've included this as a way for readers to see where members stand relative to each other. Two members have not been in office long enough to have a rating. You may wish to know that Senator Toomey, one of those two members, is a former head of Club for Growth. So though Toomey does not have a rating, if you pencil in 100%, you would likely be very close.

May You Live in Interesting Times

Georgia State Capitol Building
Image via Wikipedia

Let's start with what we know about the bond rating issue and how it might affect the state of Georgia. Frankly, at this moment, it's not much.

Standard & Poor's (S&P) had reduced the bond rating of the federal government from AAA to AA+ while Moody's Investors Service and Fitch Ratings, apparently satisfied with the recent budget agreement, have allowed the US to retain their highest debt ratings.

Georgia is one of only eight states to have earned the highest debt rating from all three services - at least for now. It remains to be seen if S&P will be willing to rate individual states higher than the federal government. It may depend upon how much of a state's AAA rating is based upon backing from the federal government.

It's Not Just The Budget

Almost anyone can tell you that the budget debate and the debate on the debt ceiling are complicated. Now that they are tied together, the complications multiply but that's only a part of the story. There are underlying concerns that affect all sides of the negotiations.

There are two additional issues that are less obvious. The first is that this debate is simply a proxy for the decades-old argument about the size and function of government. That philosophical disagreement will be the subject of a future blog.

The Lincoln Memorial
Image via Wikipedia

The second under-the-radar issue is the impact the negotiations will have on the 2012 federal elections. There will be some resolution in the budget and debt stand-off and it may or may not happen before August 2nd. Either way, it appears there will be a definite "winner"  and a definite "loser" among political parties. In this case it may not matter which side has the best ideas; the party that wins the showdown will almost certainly have a real advantage in the next elections.

Shared Sacrifice - Really? Let's Do It!

The calls from the Democrats such as President Barack Obama is for "shared sacrifice" and Harry Reid (D-Fantasyland) has introduced a resolution on the "Sense of the Senate" regarding Shared Sacrifice. In Harry's resolution he cherry picks some facts contrasting the middle class with the wealthiest one percent of Americans. It's typical class warfare and why I feel absolutely entitled to refer to Democrats as "socialists."

Sadly for poor Harry, he just doesn't understand that he's calling for what the TEA Party and other small-government conservatives want: Shared Sacrifice. The difference is that conservatives want shared sacrifice from the real fat cat in this country - the federal government.

One, Two, Many

The theory goes that early man had only three numbers: “one”, “two” and “many”. When I was younger, that was difficult to believe. If a person could count to “two” then he could count to “three” and if he could count to “three” he could add another, couldn't he? Now, I think I understand. Just how many is 14.3 trillion anyway?

When I look at the number of dollars associated with our current federal debt . . . and our current budget . . . and even our annual deficit, quite frankly it’s overwhelming. When numbers get that large, I believe we have a tendency to think of those numbers as “many”, shake our heads and think about something comprehensible – like string theory. We can’t afford to do that anymore.

Numbers, when left alone are honest reflections of something and we are confident that we are on solid ground with them. It is when people re-define and re-interpret numbers that we begin to be on shaky ground and when people with an agenda begin to manipulate numbers, we leave unstable footing and dive into the quicksand head first.

Those who either deny reality or wish to influence the public often use numbers to obfuscate truth. The gullible and naive often see numbers as absolute truth and pay no attention to what is actually measured, they only listen to an interpretation. As famed 19th Century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” It’s still true today.

Recently President Obama used a 12-year – rather than a 10-year – budget projection and incredible (in the truest sense of the word) growth numbers to “prove” his budget proposal was as good as that of Wisconsin GOP Representative Paul Ryan. It actually proved nothing other than the President is not attempting to solve a problem so much as build a fiction that sounds feasible to the feeble-minded and, where they occasionally differ from the feeble-minded, the media. These ignoble creatures will, in turn, trumpet these false facts to the ignorant, the uncaring and the foolish.

President Obama and his team have already persuaded the public to accept phony statistics before and done so successfully. Do you remember the “jobs created or saved” statistic? A “statistic” which cannot be defined, measured or debated because it is made of fluffy clouds, tissue paper, lies and conjecture. He got away with it then and he will continue in the same vein until someone points out that this emperor has no clothes, no plan and no understanding of capitalism. “One, two, many,” indeed. In the case of this president’s budget, it has become “one too many” and I cannot wait until next November.

Let's Just Lie

On April 13^th, President Barack Obama abandoned all pretense of being presidential. Not only was his response to Representative Paul Ryan’s budget proposal not reasonable, it was dishonest and childish.

President Obama Before a Joint Session of Congress
Image via Wikipedia

Agree or disagree with his ideas, Ryan (R-WI) has done the heavy lifting on the 2012 budget and he did so knowing that it would immediately make him a target for those on the left. This alone should bring to him some well-deserved respect. The President, rather than give a nod to Ryan’s work and then list where he disagrees simply attacked the character of Congressman Ryan and other Republicans and then pretended he has a legitimate budget proposal.

The President makes some pretty wild assumptions in his – well, we’ll call it a “budget” for lack of a better word. How likely are President Obama’s assumptions to become reality?

A Tiny Victory in a Long War

Now is not the time for back-slapping. This weekend, conservatives merely won a small, though significant, concession from Democrats. While $38 billion is only two percent of the projected 2011 deficit, it did change the focus of the American people. The emphasis is now on deficit reduction, not shifting funds from program to program.

As for the real budget debate, we are just beginning. Remember that the most recent conflict was because Democrats failed to pass – or to attempt to pass – a budget for 2011. The 2011 budget was due by October of 2010 when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. Rather than use their huge majorities to pass an overgrown budget that would outrage the American public, they simply passed a huge increase in the federal debt ceiling. There was no budget or responsibility but the spending binge continued.

The debate for 2012 will be even more contentious, partly because the Presidential election is in 2012. The 2012 budget is due by October of this year and the debt limit will have to be addressed even before then.

President Obama has already asked for “a clean bill” to authorize an increase in federal debt without any restrictions. This asks Congress to surrender its responsibility for oversight. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) has already stated that any increase in the federal debt would only be passed with significant changes that address the source of our debt. This illuminates two views of government.

The difference is that Democrats want to find a way to be more efficient while keeping – or even growing – the size of government. There have been no suggestions from Democrat leadership to reduce the size of the federal government. That’s not hyperbole; they have made zero proposals to reduce the size of government. This Republican-led House, while more timid than many would like, is striving to reduce the size of the federal government.

So, why are Democrats still seeking to spend more of our resources on government programs that we obviously cannot afford? I believe that some still have the mindset that the economy requires federal programs to prop up the economy. While this is neither logical nor reasonable, there are leftists who have no faith in individuals.

My concern is those who cynically grow the government to increase their own power and influence. You can usually tell them because they know they are wrong and can’t rely on facts to support their positions. They tell lies continually to denigrate their opponents instead of addressing issues. If you are thinking of President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi then we’re on the same page. I won’t begin listing the falsehoods knowingly told by this trio regarding the economy. That would fill a book and I don’t have the inclination or the space.

This budget debate will be a fight for our future, so do not let numbers frighten you away. Either continued government growth or rising debt will destroy our nation; our path has been to increase both. If we fail to stop this trend, our nation will sink into mediocrity weighed down by chains of debt while our children will grow into adulthood in a second-class country, ignorant of American exceptionalism. I see no alternative other than to win this fight.

You will be needed. The battle lines are drawn. Paul Ryan has authored the battle plan for conservatives and it is a good, bold plan. It’s not perfect, but adjustments should be made by applying additional cuts, not increased taxes.

An important note to conservatives in Congress: Please do not fall into the false concept that the government is the country. Shutting down the government is not shutting down the country. It’s better to rebel and crash the government than to fatally harm our country. If it’s necessary, you won’t be the first to make that courageous decision.

It’s time. Let’s roll.

Reid My Lips, Harry

If you’re right about something, why would you lie about it? That’s a question someone needs to ask Harry Reid. It’s no secret that Reid (D-NV) dislikes the TEA Party and accuses them of being dangerous to the country because they want to curtail federal spending, but Reid is going out of his way to misrepresent polls regarding the TEA Party.

Harry Reid is the symbol of everything that’s wrong with Washington. Reid cares more about maintaining power for the sake of maintaining power than he cares about his country. I say this because our federal government’s financial situation is in crisis and Reid is more concerned about remaining US Senate Majority Leader than he is in solving the problems.

Due in large part to Reid’s policies, our country is overwhelmed with debt and we are rapidly approaching the point where we can no longer remain solvent. Looking at rising oil and food prices and seeing the very real possibility of inflation, we may already be caught in a riptide of debt caused by overspending that will drown our economy.

Reid in incapable of helping solve our financial problems and Republicans need to learn this. In order to be an agent of change, Reid and his fellow leftists must first admit that our country has a problem and that they are its main cause. Reid is incapable of admitting he was wrong and keeping his power-base. By his actions and his false rhetoric, Reid has announced that he would rather be wrong and powerful than do what is best for his country.

Reid would deny all of this, I’m sure, but so what? If there was any doubt that Harry Reid will lie, just remember this: He is on record as blaming Republicans for the Democrat’s failure to pass a budget last year when they had the US Presidency and large majorities in both houses of the legislative branch.

Ask yourself what the TEA Party folks have to gain by their actions other than a reduction in the size of government and a reduction in federal spending. Then ask yourself what Senator Reid and his cronies have to gain by lying about the TEA Party. The only thing their statements might accomplish is a continuation of their power. Finally, ask yourself this: If Democrats could no longer give our tax dollars to special interests groups, could they ever again have a national majority?

Then, there is Reid’s latest statement that the TEA Party is dangerous and unpopular. He stated that most people disliked the TEA Parties. Yet, Scott Rasmussen’s latest poll shows that 48% of Americans consider their beliefs to be closer to the TEA Party than to Congress. Less than 30% of Americans stated their beliefs were closer to the average Congressman.

So why would Harry lie? He’s still attempting to convince the American people that the TEA Party movement is dangerous. Yet, I see the projected $1.65 trillion shortfall for 2011 and it’s pretty apparent that the TEA Party activists and their allies are wearing the white hats. Harry Reid is a dangerous, power-hungry demagogue without a conscience. 

I hope the rest of Senator Reid's time as Senate Majority Leader is very frustrating. Read my lips, Harry; it ends in January, 2013. 

14 Hours, 29 Minutes, 49 Seconds Of Democrat Sacrifice

Want to see a pale, frightened Democrat run screaming from a room? Forget about Dracula, tsunamis and rabid divorce attorneys. Just mention tax cuts or spending cuts or program cuts. That’s all you have to do. Honest.

In February alone, the US had a deficit of $222.5 billion. To put things in perspective, the Democrats could only suggest $4.8 billion in tax cuts for the entire year. If you do the math, these cuts would have balanced federal spending in February for just 14 hours, 29 minutes and 49 seconds. Let’s be clear, this is only the difference it would take to make up for the deficit, not actually pay for anything.

Even this miniscule spending reduction sent Democrats such as John Kerry (People’s Republic of Massachusetts) into a frenzy. If Kerry was a Southerner (perish the thought), then we would have said that he’d had a “hissy fit”.

Meanwhile other Democrats are saying that the only way to begin balancing the budget is to immediately attack entitlement spending. This is the same tactic the Left uses at the local level when it always suggests the most popular programs be reduced first: police, fire protection, garbage collection, etc. At the national level, the reductions that frighten the most people are entitlements. Same old Democrats, same old masculine bovine fecal material, different government level.

The time has come when it is no longer sufficient to laugh at the left’s demagoguery and wonder why anyone would elect these intellectually weak, pandering politicos. We must make the federal government more responsive and responsible. The longer we wait to take action, then the more severe the action and the consequences will be when we have no choice but to act. It’s our government and it must be brought to heel.

In the meantime, I suppose we should thank the liberals in the Congress for taking our debt crisis seriously enough to find those 14 hours, 29 minutes and 49 seconds of savings. What a laudatory sacrifice! Perhaps if the Democrat majority had actually passed a budget last year then more spending reductions could have been found. By the way, I hope you don’t believe that, because I certainly don’t.