Time for Some Economic Truth Telling

I have something to say to the politicians and the buffoons in the media. “Enough with the lies and the spin and the mis-information! The fraud you are perpetrating on the American people is (or should be) criminal.” For years now, we’ve been told that Reagan ran massive deficits unnecessarily; that Bill Clinton created a surplus; that the Bush tax cuts of 2003 caused the current debt crisis; and my least favorite, that all we need today is tax increases to get out of our current fiscal mess. Using the chart above, and in only 800 words, I will completely disprove each of these idiotic opinions. They are progressive myths perpetrated in an attempt to justify an ever larger U.S. government. So in order:

The deficits of the Reagan years aren’t pretty, but they pale in comparison to the sheer madness of today and more importantly, they had a purpose. When Mr. Reagan took office the Country was in a quagmire financially and militarily and the policies of his administration brought us out of both and to new heights never seen before in America. During his entire Presidency, Democrats held a death grip on Congress and its purse-strings. They could have stopped all that ‘horrible spending’ any time they wanted to – they didn’t. Trust me when I say, I hate deficits, but as deficits go, these had a usefulness at least. Things were accomplished. For the debt incurred, the country gained peace with its greatest-ever threat, the Soviet Union as well as new-found economic prosperity.

Bill Clinton is the luckiest President in U.S. history. He was a philanderer in the only moment in history when one might get away with it – that is after the country gave up its morals and before blogs, twitter, facebook etc. which might have led to a very different outcome (look at Anthony Weiner – his actions were nothing compared to Mr. Clinton’s and he was ridden out of town on a rail). On the financial front, he rode an economic boom driven by the internet to government financial nirvana and he and his progressive friends continue to take credit for something they had virtually nothing to do with. Look at the chart; it’s right there in red and blue. From 1984 to 2000 Federal revenue more than doubled. Tax cuts from the 80’s and the resulting economic crescendo capped by the tech-boom drove federal tax receipts through the roof. Did he pay down the debt? Nope. Instead, Washington spent more money than ever before in the nation’s history. Though they tried very hard, Mr. Clinton’s administration couldn’t spend it all and a small surplus was left over.

Along comes President Bush. He campaigns on returning the American people’s money (remember now, despite the progressives’ slight of hand tactics to make you forget this fact, it is our money)  to them via tax cuts. Coupled with the tech bubble bursting and 9/11, this leads to a drop in Federal revenue and a return to annual deficits. But, wait; look what happens next. Revenues explode upward starting in 2004 and reach the highest in our nation’s history in 2007. How can this be? I’ve been told repeatedly that the Bush tax cuts ruined this country. I’m sure it must be true; I mean, MSNBC says so. Sorry, liberals, wrong again. Mr. Bush is not blameless however. He presided over a federal spending bonanza that out-paced all the income gains created by the tax cuts. But, Progressives don’t argue against the ‘Bush spending’ however. That wouldn’t work with their agenda of always spending more; so they say the tax cuts are to blame. Think what they are actually saying – “We wanted to spend all the money we did spend, PLUS all the money Bush gave back in tax cuts”. Incredible!

Last lie, “Tax increases will get us out of this”. What?!?! The current tax code is virtually identical to that of 2007. That means we have a tax system in place today that produced the largest single year Federal revenue in American history. That isn’t enough for them? They need more? Look at the chart again. In the imaginary years to come, Mr. Obama is counting on Federal income reaching all new highs. And even if it does, he still expects to run $500 and $600 BILLION deficits EVERY YEAR!  He wants to increase taxes in the hopes of increasing revenue (despite all the evidence that it doesn’t work that way), not to get our budget balanced and pay down some debt. No, that would be far too sensible for Washington. These morons want to increase spending even more. They want to go to all-new record levels of spending. I guess they’ve never heard of the idea of cutting back when times are tough.

There you have it; four lies of the left debunked. Where does that leave us? I’ll leave that for another time, but there are some lessons here for those willing to see. How does 2007 revenues with 1999’s spending sound? The result is a $900 billion annual surplus. $450 billion per year of that could go to debt reduction and $450 billion to replacing the money Washington has robbed from Social Security. That sounds like a good place to start.

They Are For It, After They Were Against It?

To hear Democrats, and particularly the President, tell it, we must raise the debt ceiling immediately and to do anything other than raise it $2.4 trillion no questions asked, is “dangerous”, “irresponsible”, “risky”, “playing with fire”, etc. Mr. Obama went so far as to pull out the old liberal stand-by, i.e., scare the old people,  telling them Social Security checks may not go out if this isn’t done immediately.

Whoa, hold on a minute. Did the President of the United States just threaten citizens with taking away their own money? Haven’t we been told our whole lives that Social Security is a trust fund? You mean they can just not give our money back to us if they don’t want to? Hmmm, no conservative has ever warned you about that have they? Don’t worry, seniors, this is an idle threat. Social Security wouldn’t be the first, tenth or probably fiftieth thing cut if/when the government runs out of money. But the fact that he said it ought to really give America pause. That is if we were listening.

Back to the pending doom of not raising the debt ceiling. Interestingly, in 2006, all 45 Democratic Senators, including then Senator Obama, voted against raising the debt ceiling. The increase being discussed then was a paltry $780 billion, but today when raising it more than 3 times that amount is on the table, they would have you believe it is a mere formality and conservatives are being silly to hold it up. Heck, the President has gone so far as to say not raising it would be irresponsible. Really, Mr. President? Then what the hell were you and your cronies up to in 2006?

According to Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid in 2006:

“Any objective analysis of our country’s fiscal history would have to conclude this administration and this rubber-stamping Republican Congress are the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of our country. In fact, no other president or Congress even comes close.”

Here’s more of his rhetoric from way back… ooops, just five years ago:

Oh Harry, what’s that expression about the pot calling the kettle black? So, in 2006 Republicans were being irresponsible for raising the debt ceiling $800 billion, and today they are being irresponsible for not raising it TWO point FOUR TRILLION! I guess Democrats got their John Kerry impersonation mixed up and they are for it after they were against it.

The country is fiscally doomed and this kind of “leadership” is exactly why.

Vote Here – No ID Required

Yesterday the Governor of North Carolina vetoed a bill requiring photo IDs be shown in order to vote.  This is the fourth such veto this year (Missouri, Minnesota and Montana are the other states) all by governors who happen to be Democrats. Now I simply must ask, why would anyone be against people identifying themselves in order to vote? We show a photo ID to fly. We show a photo ID to pay for goods and services via credit card or check. We show a  photo ID to rent a video at Blockbuster for goodness sake! But to do the most important thing we do as citizens… Nope, no ID required!

For years now I’ve been telling my local polling place, and my town clerk, that the third name registered to vote and listed as residing at my wife’s and my address is not valid. For years I’ve been ignored and the name remains on the rolls. But for the fact that one of my neighbors volunteers at the polling place and might notice me voting twice, I could easily vote as both myself and the other name listed. I could certainly get a friend to come and say he’s that person – he’d get a ballot, no questions asked. For the record, I live in Massachusetts and if you want to get a scolding from a police officer, there’s no easier way to do so than to go to a Massachusetts polling place and ask why people don’t have to show their ID. For some reason the establishment gets very upset when confronted on this issue.

When asked about their reasons for opposing such common sense legislation, the left cites the possible disenfranchisement of potential voters. Really? How many people do you know who are 18 or older and don’t have any ID? They don’t drive? Don’t fly? Don’t apply for credit? Don’t go to a bar or buy alcohol or cigarettes? Don’t carry ID to show police if necessary? Who would fit that description? Illegal immigrants maybe? Oh, now I get it!

Courts Poised To Right the Obamacare Wrong?

Is it possible? Could a branch of our government still have the common sense to save us from this humongous over-stepping of governmental authority? As reported in the LA Times today, it appears that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals may just do that. All 3 judges seemed to have real concerns about the government “forcing” citizens to purchase something saying things like, “I can’t find any case telling a private person they are compelled to purchase a product in the open market…” and, “If we uphold this, are there any limits?”

The answer, your Honor, is NO, there would be no limits! If a government can compel citizens to spend private money irregardless of their personal wishes, it can compel anything; it can take anything. This is what reasonable people have been saying since this insane piece of legislation was proposed. Legislation that could only have been passed by the circus that was the 111th Congress; a circus led fittingly by a clown, Nancy Pelosi.

How fortunate that there are three branches of government. The Executive and the Legislative have already proven they have absolutely no idea what they are doing, no scruples with regard to molesting the Constitution, nor what it means that we are a Democratic Republic. Hopefully the Judicial will come to the rescue. In this case, law-making is like baseball; 1 for 3 is not too bad.

CNN, MSNBC Reject Ads Based Purely On Their Politics

I know many will say that by now this kind of thing should no longer surprise me, but I must admit, this story still caught me off-guard. Two major (well, perhaps “major” is a bit of hyperbole) news organizations refusing to air commercials, and in the process make money – the supposed purpose of their existence, simply because the movie Atlas Shrugged has a “conservative” bent. Actually all it really stands for, is men standing on their own two feet rather than suckling on the government tit, but somehow that’s become extreme conservatism in this day and age of rampant socialism.

Mind you, this movie contains no violence, that would be fine. No nudity, that would be okay too. It’s not a documentary purporting the benevolence and general greatness of Che Guevera or Stalin – they’d air those commercials for free and probably with glee. Nope, this movie contains none of those things a rational person might find inappropriate. So, what makes it so bad that CNN and MSNBC refuse to even air advertisements for it? Well, you tell me, because I literally can not imagine. Here’s how Wikipedia describes this great American novel…

The book explores a dystopian United States where leading innovators, ranging from industrialists to artists, refuse to be exploited by society. The protagonist, Dagny Taggart, sees society collapse around her as the government increasingly asserts control over all industry (including Taggart Transcontinental, the once mighty transcontinental railroad for which she serves as the Vice President of Operations), while society’s most productive citizens, led by the mysterious John Galt, progressively disappear. Galt describes the strike as “stopping the motor of the world” by withdrawing the “minds” that drive society’s growth and productivity. In their efforts, these people “of the mind” hope to demonstrate that a world in which the individual is not free to create is doomed, that civilization cannot exist where people are slaves to society and government, and that the destruction of the profit motive leads to the collapse of society.

Ooooh, scary stuff; let’s organize a book burning party quick before anyone else reads this thing! Of course, I kid. This amazing work should be on every reading list in every American Literature class in the country. It’s a compelling novel, and it’s an even more compelling look at the destructive force of government take-over of society and manipulation of free-markets. So, why then have most have never even heard of it, and why are CNN and MSNBC suppressing advertisements for a movie while claiming to present an unbiased look at news? Something seems queer, doesn’t it? Oh well, “Who is John Galt?”

Hoo-ah to the U.S. Military!

No politics. No negativity. No spin. Just a big “Hell yeah!” to our military and especially those insanely talented Navy Seals. Nine and a half years ago our last President made a promise that we would not stop until those responsible were brought to justice. Yesterday the military and our current President followed through on that promise. It took longer than we hoped back in 2001, but it was seen through, and today, that’s what I am most proud of. That the coward, bin Laden, showed his true colors by attempting to shield himself behind a woman at the end is just icing on the cake.

I believe this reiterates to those around the world who might have begun to doubt our resolve, that they do so at their own peril. That, coupled with some true justice being meted out, is something truly worth celebrating.

Uncle Sam Says No More On-line Poker

Friday, the FBI shut down the internet gaming sites FullTiltPoker.net, PokerStars.net and AbsolutePoker.com citing a 2006 law passed by Congress making internet gambling illegal.

Many may say that they don’t gamble or even that they believe gambling is wrong/harmful to people/etc. Perhaps, but a free country is not a free country when the government decides what its citizens can and can’t do with their own money for entertainment. To say nothing of the hypocrisy involved considering that EVERY state in the Union is already in the gaming business in the form of the state lotteries.

It’s ok for the states to take money from little old ladies, but it’s not ok for you to play poker on line, even if you want to and even if you pay taxes on your winnings. Glad to know my government which can’t balance its budget, can’t protect its borders and can’t pay its bills  is on top of the important stuff. We wouldn’t want Americans to be having any fun, would we.

What Do NBC News and Barack Obama Have in Common? Neither One Understands the Deficit

Last night I watched in utter disbelief as a news report on NBC Nightly News claimed the President was going to shave $4 trillion from the $14 trillion deficit over the next ten years. Why is this shocking? Because the $14 trillion isn’t a deficit (an annual shortfall in revenues compared to spending) but rather the nation’s debt (outstanding monies owed). Furthermore, the President’s campaign speech – I mean detail deficient “plan” – doesn’t cut one penny from the $14 trillion national debt. Instead it merely cuts $4 trillion from planned future spending over the next 12 years.

[Side note: this is the first time any Washington nitwit has gone out 12 years with a budget (it’s normally ten) and, of course, was done to pretty-up a very ugly picture.]

I can hear you now, “$4 trillion is nothing to sneeze at”. Well, look at it this way – that’s only $340 billion per year and when you’re going backwards $1.5 trillion per year as we are now, that’s not going to even make a dent in this crisis. Politician’s talk in these big numbers over many years because it obscures the truth and they know it. They do silly things like tell you they’ll fix this massive crisis by raising taxes on the rich as the President did yesterday.

Newsflash, Mr. Obama – According to the IRS, the entire income of all Americans earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.58 trillion. Even if  we taxed them all at 100%, it wouldn’t fix the problem. And, of course, taxing them at 100%, even 50% isn’t feasible as it will kill investment, economic growth and job creation; so please, I know it makes good campaign fodder, but can we drop that charade already? I’m begging you!

So, whether you’re NBC and are going to claim to be a national news service, or you are Barack Obama and claim to be qualified to be President, it would perhaps be good if you had ANY idea what you were talking about when it comes to the fiscal matters of this country. Feel free to call me if you need some help!

Four in Ten Americans on Welfare

If I tell you that this post is in response to an article entitled, “Immigrant Households Have Higher Usage Rates of Welfare Programs than Native Households, Report Finds”, you might expect that I was going to rant about immigration and the drain those who come here for free handouts put on the system. Today, you’d be wrong.

The stunner in this article is not that fifty-seven percent of immigrant headed households are on at least one welfare program. No, the flabbergasting, shocking, horrifying stat that comes out of this article is that THIRTY-NINE PERCENT of “native households” participate in at least one welfare program!!!!

There is no hope for a society where more than 40% of the population is on the take from a government who can only continue to win favor by “giving” more and more. Folks, if I’ve left any doubt, let me be clear; WE ARE SCREWED!

BofA Cuts Off Bankrupt Illinois

 

Don’t think government debt and insane continued spending in the face of huge un-payable deficits have consequences? Think conservatives are just scare-mongers exaggerating all this stuff so they can take entitlements away from poor people? Well, time to face facts. Here’s an email from an Illinois government employee discussing the impact of the state being cut off by Bank of America. That’s right, cut off! You see, BofA is sick and tired of not getting paid by a state  that is in arrears more than NINE months to most of its creditors. Why are they letting their bills go 270 days past due? It’s not just the normal government ineptitude. That would only result in 90 days past due. No, this is because they are flat dead broke people! (Please note the typos and poor spelling are this state worker’s, not mine).

Folks:

Not to send panic, but just a heads up to each of you as to what’s happening.

Bank of America is cancelling the contract with the State of Illinois effective April 22, 2011. They will not do another contract extension for the State of Illinos. So what does that mean? On April 23, 2011 at 12:01 a.m., the cards currently held by IDPH employees will no longer be valid. The State has been trying to finda new vendor, encourage BoA to give us a few more months, but as of this writing has been unsuccessful on all fronts. So what does this mean to our travelers? Most establishments will not direct bill especially conferences, prior approval needed by travel office for this process so persons required to travel will have to put charges on their personal charge cards or set aside personal funds on prepaid travel card, or pay cash out of pocket. For those who are non-GRF [General Revenue Fund] this should be not big deal, but to those traveling on GRF, this could have an impact.

One additional details are received. I will share that information with you so that you can share with our travelers.

Unti then . . . this is just a heads up!!!!

I have to laugh at the idea that state workers are supposed to start using their own credit cards and submitting for reimbursement. Would you run an expense report for an employer that couldn’t pay its bank (or anyone else) in less than 9 months?