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.

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?”

Media Says Obama is “Like GOD”

Are you still clinging to that fantasy that the media is an unbiased neutral entity just providing the country with the facts and letting the citizenry make up its own mind? I hate to burst your bubble, but check out this clip from MSNBC’s Hardball (yeah, hard ball, right!)  in which Evan Thomas, Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek magazine says that, “Obama is like God”. As if that weren’t enough, listen carefully as Chris Matthews gets in a quick, “uh-huh” in agreement.

That’s some hard hitting journalism there Chris. Someone just came on your “news” program and called the President “God” and all you could muster was  a grunt of agreement. I’m just speculating here, but had someone come on the program and said the same thing about President Bush, I can almost guarantee you’d have had a coronary on the spot!

Often when the subject of media bias comes up, the left will bring up Fox News as if one right leaning media entity outweighs every other television station, newspaper, magazine, etc. First, one can’t possibly offset hundreds, and perhaps more to the point, I dare someone to say with a straight face that a Fox News anchor would have allowed a guest to go unchallenged if he/she had been juvenille enough to come on the air and call a Republican President “God”.

Media bias is clearly present and if anything becoming more extreme today. When you’re looking for it (on the right or the left) keep this in mind… A good journalist tells you the story without you being able to determine what they think about it. When’s the last time that happened?

Is There a Journalist In the House?

For those who don’t know “Teabagging” is a relatively disgusting sexual expression that conveniently for the comedians impersonating journalists at CNN and MSNBC doesn’t happen to be banned by the FCC, although most people would find the act it describes more repugnant than many sexual innuendos the FCC does restrict. You’ll have to Google it for more information; my mother occasionally reads this blog.

On Wednesday both “news” networks chose to use this off-color humor (CNN example, MSNBC example) to insult a group of citizens expressing their political views, something I was under the impression we encouraged in this country. When you repeatedly insinuate that tens of thousands of your fellow citizens have genitalia in their mouths, you irrefutably demonstrate your complete disregard for anyone with a conservative perspective and exactly why calling yourself a journalist is out of the question, not to mention your complete lack of class!

These hacks went on to insinuate, as Nancy Pelosi did yesterday, that the entire Tea Party concept and events were organized and promoted by Fox News and/or America’s wealthy to keep the conversation on taxes. What they failed to do (heck, they failed to even attempt to do it) was to support this claim with any actual reporting. They didn’t interview anyone who could validate the claim. They didn’t produce any emails or letters from an organizer to support the claim. No, they didn’t even pretend to have an unnamed source that could corroborate their version of reality. Just throw it out there – some people will fall for it, right.

Meanwhile, in a slightly subtler but significantly more deceptive tact, both networks talked repeatedly about the events as if they were protests of high federal income taxes and how ridiculous that is because the President just lowered everyone’s taxes. Of course, they knew better than this, but the truth doesn’t fit their agenda. The truth is these were protests about out-of-control government spending first and foremost. They were protests of Congressional earmarks and bank bailouts and illegal immigration. And yes, they were protests of higher taxes; maybe not today, but in the years to come. Is there anyone out there so delusional as to think all this spending will get paid for by taxing just the “rich”? This is a simple bait and switch by the Obama administration – it’s the “offer” from the credit card company to skip your next 3 payments, meanwhile the interest keeps accruing. Average Americans will pay for this spending in the end!

CNN and MSNBC know this. At least I don’t think their so stupid as to not know it. But, it doesn’t fit the agenda. So they’ll keep insulting conservative minded Americans, giving a major nationwide political rally limited coverage and dropping perverted sexual innuendos; anything to distract you from the glaring lack of actual journalism.