Tag Archives: morality

Never His Fault

Posted on by
Reply

Once again, President Barack Obama is scuttling away from his responsibility.  This time, he’s throwing his Secret Service under the bus.

You’re all aware that Obama cancelled for the duration all White House tours by the public, and that he did it because of Evil Republicans and their Satanic Sequester.  After the hoo-raw over his cancellation and the sheer pettiness of it, he’s started crawfishing.

He now is insisting “that the Secret Service was behind the…suspension of White House tours.”  When he passed on this little tidbit to the Republican caucus with whom he was meeting, the response he got was a round of “ahaaaaas.”

Obama, in response, told the lawmakers: “Hold on guys, we just talked about respect.”

Sorry, Ace.  You get respect the same way any American does: through actual deeds.  You certainly don’t get it because you think you’re special.

The Secret Service works for Obama; he doesn’t work for them.  They may have made their recommendation, they may have told him their “decision.”  But it was his—overriding—decision to accept their position.  He could have overruled them; it was entirely his choice not to.

This is just cowardice.

Freedom and Morality

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Jeff Sessions (R, AL) had a few words to say on this [emphasis added].

The Department of Agriculture proudly declares: “Each $5 in new [food stamp] benefits generates almost twice that amount in economic activity for the community.”  Our government is running food stamp promotions at foreign embassies.  One worker was given an award for overcoming “mountain pride” and getting more people to sign up.  Where I grew up in Alabama, all honest work, even the hardest, was honored.  And pride, self-respect, and a desire to be independent was valued, not a thing to be overcome.

And

People are being hurt every day by the Washington establishment the Democrats are determined to shield from accountability.  Government has never been bigger or more out of control.  They say there is no problem with waste, fraud, and abuse; they say the problem is you; they say you are not sending them enough money; they say they have wisely spent every penny.  So, you must just send them more.  And, if you don’t?  Well, they won’t stop spending, they’ll just borrow more.

Here is Sessions’ suggestion for an economically effective and morally sound budget outline:

Instead, we must act to create more jobs and better pay.  And we can do it without adding to the debt.  Here’s how:

  • Make welfare temporary and the welfare office an employment and job training office.

  • Unlock America’s vast energy resources to create millions of good-paying jobs.

  • Defend American workers from unfair foreign trade practices.

  • Reform the tax code to make America globally competitive, creating more jobs here.

  • Make government leaner, less wasteful so it produces greater results for the money you earned and sent here.

  • Enforce an immigration policy that protects legal US workers from unlawful competition.

  • Eliminate every burdensome federal rule or regulation that isn’t needed and that destroys jobs.

  • And, finally, we must balance the federal budget.

These are steps that reduce government, they allow Americans to regain responsibility for our own actions, regain our ability to work toward our own goals, and these steps leave more of our hard-earned money in our hands.  All of this enhances our—and our country’s—freedom and morality.

We saw with Wednesday’s Senate budget proposal the Democrats’…freedom and morality.

Magical Thinking

Posted on by
1

Well, that didn’t take long.  President Barack Obama already has failed his test.

The Progressives’ idea of a budget is out of the Senate Budget Committee, now, and on the Senate floor, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) will do his best to thrust it home with as little debate allowed as he can achieve.  Here’s the summary table (and scroll down a bit to this table; sorry you have to crane your neck); the whole thing can be viewed, in piecemeal form, on the Senate’s site:

Notice that.  Aside from continuing to gut Defense, overall spending continues apace, President Barack ObamaSenator Patty Murray (D, WA), the Budget Committee’s Chair, demands even more taxes from working Americans than he got in January, and our national debt explodes.

The Democrats want, with an absolutely straight face, to increase spending every year–$3.6 trillion in FY 2014, $4.05 trillion in FY 2016, and so on to $5.7 trillion in FY 2023, a 62% increase over the current level for FY 2013.

Reading the fine print in one of those piecemeal parts at the Senate site, we see that the Progressives want to create a(nother) $100 billion program aimed at generating new jobs, again by funding infrastructure work.  Of course, we know Obama already tried this, repeatedly, throughout his first term.  As he’s already confessed, “Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected,” and as those earlier programs demonstrated, the jobs aren’t there at any time in his government programs.  This is magical thinking.

And it turns out Murray lied about those taxes, too, cynically understating them at “only” an additional $975 billion.  The Weekly Standard has this table, provided by a staffer for the Senate Budget Committee’s (Murray’s committee) minority membership:

Murray cynically understated Obama’s tax demands by fully one-third.  These $1.5 trillion in new taxes, combined with the $600 billion in new taxes Obama got at the start of the year, adds up to $2.1 trillion in new taxes being demanded in just these two and a half months.

Progressives just can’t stand to not raise taxes.  Their addiction to OPM is palpable.

And that debt.  The Progressives fully intend to explode it to $24 trillion by 2023, with annual interest payments running nearly to $800 billion.  This also assumes the market would be willing to buy such risky debt at those rates.  But then Obama denies, ostrich-like, that there’s any urgency to our debt fiasco.  This is more magical thinking.

All of this is predicated, too, on Obama’s/Murray’s pipedream of a GDP annual growth rate over the next 10 years of 4.2%-6.6% each year—rates we’ve never sustained in any 10 year period in our history.  With all of this taxing and spending taking money out of the private economy—the economy in which Americans actually live, work, and die—positing such rates is…wrong.

Matched with the $975 billion in claimed spending cuts, this isn’t even the balance about which he’s been yammering.  This is more…magical thinking.

This proposal is a disaster waiting to happen.

War, Politics, and Power

Posted on by
Reply

Karl von Clausewitz noted that war is an extension of politics.  President Barack Obama, with his reliance on drones and seeming decision utterly to eschew capture (with its attendant intelligence value), is making simple killing an extension of politics.

What is the impact on political power of this evolution?

After Attorney General Eric Holder’s evasive testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee about drone use, Senator Rand Paul (R, KY) filibustered John Brennan’s confirmation as Director CIA, and this finally convinced Obama to have Holder write a letter to Paul, which says in its entirety:

It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’  The answer to that question is no.

But what does it mean to be “engaged in combat?” It means whatever the President needs it to mean.

As Richard Fernandez noted in an aptly titled post [emphasis added],

Lawyers have rarely been able to contain power.  As practical matter power is constrained only by politics, which as Clausewitz once observed can be another name for another thing….

He went on:

Power is limited by the degree to which an executive authority can enforce obedience.  It is constrained by the extent to which authority can expect an order to be followed.  It is bounded by the fear of political repercussions; by the dread of losing office and ultimately, by the apprehension that having lost office a person might face jail.

Obama has assured us through his pressman, Jay Carney, that neither he nor his Justice Department would never abuse such power.  And Obama is an honorable man; So are they all, all honorable men.

But with an expansive and expanding government, and Obama’s apparent extension of the tools of politics, our hold on government is growing tenuous.  We cannot allow this to continue.  As a man once said, elections have consequences.  We’re seeing some of those consequences.  It’s time to have different election outcomes.

Progressive Policies and the Middle and Poorer Classes

Posted on by
Reply

I’m picking on California here, but only for concreteness’ sake—there’s nothing unique about California’s Progressivism.

  • [California’s] zoning laws, which liberals favor to control “suburban sprawl,” have constrained California’s housing supply and ratcheted up prices.  …land restrictions became common in high-income enclaves during the 1970s—coinciding with the burgeoning of California’s real-estate bubble—and have increased income-based segregation and inequality.
  • California’s staggering labor and energy costs—it has the nation’s most stringent fuel and renewable standards—have helped kill hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs in California’s interior.  Note: Those are jobs that traditionally served as entry points to the middle class. The Golden State has shed a third of its manufacturing base over the past decade.
  • California’s non-manufacturing businesses are also moving or expanding operations where labor, land, energy, and capital are cheaper.  Comcast announced in the fall that it is moving 1,000 call-center jobs out of California because of the “high cost of doing business.”  Facebook, eBay, and LegalZoom have opened up Texas offices in the past few years, while PayPal, Yelp, and Maxwell Technologies have pushed into Phoenix.
  • California’s small businesses that can’t leave…so easily have been slow to invest because they are financially squeezed.  Rents are prohibitive, and Sacramento takes 9.3% of every dollar over $49,000—and 13.3% over $1 million—that an individual or small business owner earns.

There’s more.

Suppose that the Fed raises interest rates to 5% over the next few years.  This is a reversion to normal, not a big tightening.  Yet with $18 trillion of debt outstanding, the federal government will have to pay $900 billion more in annual interest.

That’s money that could have been committed to actually paying down the debt Progressives have saddled our middle and poorer class grandchildren with: of those $18 trillion, nearly a third was added in the last four+ years.  That’s money that could have been committed to lower tax rates so our middle and poorer class families could keep more of what they earned for their own purposes.  That’s money that could have been committed to transitioning our Social Security and Medicare programs to defined contribution plans rather than defined benefit ones, so that our middle and poorer class families could have more control over their own families’ future and their own families’ retirement and health expenses.

But wait—there’s still more: consider our Social Security and Medicare programs.  They’re going broke—Social Security will be forced to reduce benefit payouts to 75% of current levels by 2035 because the Social Security Trust Fund will run out of money by then, and payouts will come entirely from then-current payroll taxes.  Or the government will borrow more (and so raise future taxes) to cover the difference.  Or it will raise taxes currently to cover that difference.  Either way, those taxes are money taken away from the middle and poorer classes, thereby preventing them from seeing to their own goals and needs as fully as they could.  And those future taxes, to cover present borrowing, will rob our children and grandchildren similarly.

Medicare’s Hospital Trust Fund will run dry by 2024, reducing hospital payments to 87% of their current level since these will be entirely dependent on current payroll taxes.  Unless the government borrows or raises taxes, with the same deleterious impact on our middle and poorer classes as with Social Security.

Progressives, though, won’t allow any reform for these programs, other than raising taxes on an already overtaxed American citizenry.