DEBT/DEFICIT

July 28, 2014

Barry’s Comet

My article as originally published in American Thinker:  

The  so-called “comet of the century,” a sungrazer named ISON, reached perihelion on Thanksgiving Day,  but didn’t live up to its expectations to wow the masses and just  fizzled out. Perhaps ISON’s name should be changed to ‘Barry’s  Comet’ as it appears to be the perfect metaphor for the Obama Administration’s  rise and fall.

While  comets put on a dazzling show with their brilliant comas and alluring tails that  extend for many thousands of miles, solar radiation slowly strips away most of  their mass (largely a loose conglomerate of dust, ice, rocks, and gases), eventually leaving just a dull, tiny, often misshapen  core. While the illusion from a distance can be quite spectacular, when exposed  to sunlight, comets are in reality just objects that are falling apart before  our eyes.

Instead  of maintaining the United States on solid, stable, constitutional ground, President Barack Obama is the latest  “politician of the century” to tempt us with a dazzling “progressive” display –  a loose conglomerate of hope, change, economic egalitarianism and “fairness” for  all, yet hiding a thinly veiled dull, misshapen, statist central planning core.  Despite years of media filtering, the recent exposure of ObamaCare,  NSA, Benghazi, IRS and other Obama scandals to intense ‘sunlight’ are finally  causing his Presidency to fizzle-out as the public can now see a portion of what  lies beneath the unsustainable promises surrounding the core of his  ideology.

Not  only did America fall for Obama’s awe-inspiring tale of “hope and change” and  twice elect him to the office of president, but Obama himself seemed even more  self-assured than the mythical Icarus as he delivered his nomination  victory speech back in 2008:

America,  this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies  of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for  the country we love.

The  journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with  profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with  limitless faith in the capacity of the American people… I am absolutely  certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our  children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and  good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began  to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war  and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on  Earth…

Not  all scientists were fully convinced of ISON’s “comet of the  century” hype:

Some  reporters have started calling ISON the “Comet of the Century,” but Don Yeomans  of NASA Near-Earth Object Program thinks that’s premature.

“I’m  old enough to remember the last ‘Comet of the Century’,” he says. In 1973, a  distant comet named Kohoutek looked like it would put on a great show, much like  ISON. The actual apparition was such a let-down that Johnny Carson made jokes  about it on the Tonight Show. “It fizzled,” says Yeomans. “Comets are  notoriously unpredictable.”

Many were of course skeptical of the promise of Obama  too, especially those old enough to remember another “politician of the century”  from the late 1970′s by the name of Jimmy Carter, and we shouldn’t need to be  reminded of how that dud of an event turned out for America. ‘Barry’s Comet,’ is  merely the same old statist core surrounded by a repackaged conglomerate of  utopian promises that history proves (as do the jokes on late night TV) has zero  chance of delivering on any of the hype.

While  it remains to be seen if President Obama will endure the same fate as Icarus,  just like Comet ISON, his “progressive” world view is predictably unable to  withstand the intense ‘sunlight’ of truth, and is rapidly falling apart. The only remaining question is whether or not the  United States will suffer the same fate.

 


Just a Few of the Reasons ObamaCare will Fail

Steven Plaut lays it out in Frontpage Mag:

There is a fundamental difference between economists and lawyers (or legal scholars) when it comes to resolving complex social and economic problems.  Economists believe that human behavior and the functioning of institutions are based upon incentives.  Lawyers and legal types believe that one can resolve complex problems by passing laws and imposing regulations.  The latter think one can legislate away the problem.

I like to describe the approach by lawyer-types to such problems as “rain laws.” They are like trying to resolve the problem of flooding from heavy rainfall by means of a law making it illegal for it to rain.

Read the ten reasons at Frontpage Mag    


Nothing ‘New’ About ObamaCare

Dr.  Thomas Sowell once again makes it real easy for us:

Like so many things that seem new, ObamaCare is in many ways old wine in new bottles.

For example, when confronted with the fact that millions of Americans stand to lose their existing medical insurance, as a result of ObamaCare, defenders of ObamaCare say that this is true only when those people have “substandard” insurance.

Who decides what is “substandard”? What is older than the idea that some exalted elite know what is good for us better than we know ourselves? Obama uses the rhetoric of going “forward,” but he is in fact going backward to an age when despots told everybody what they had better do and better not do.

Read the rest at Townhall


ObamaCare’s 93 Million Lies

From Frontpage Mag:

 

“The Obama administration has known for three years that when the employer mandate is enforced in 2015 up to 93 million Americans will be forced out of their employer-sponsored health insurance plans”

 

Read the rest at Frontpage Mag

 


A Few ObamaCare Questions for the President

Obama3My article as originally published in American Thinker:           

Hey  Mr. President — if ObamaCare (ironically named the “Affordable” Care Act) is  such a wonderful thing for the American people, why aren’t they treating it like  the perquisite you claim it to be?

I  ask this because you’ve been out there claiming that Republicans are willing to “harm” the American  people by defunding ObamaCare and are trying to do so only to “stick it” to you.  (Why do you always think everything is about you?) Also, your ally, Debbie  Wasserman Schultz, is saying that once Americans really start experiencing it  (the “Affordable” Care Act), they just won’t want to let it  go.

But  the American people are starting to experience ObamaCare and they surely just  want to regain the freedom to “let it go.” Due to this law’s costly  burdens, thousands are being laid off, having their work weeks  reduced to less than 30 hours or are being thrown out of their current health plans. And for the privilege  of all of this, Americans will be stuck paying much more than before this monstrosity was  enacted.

And  how do the politically-connected Americans you surround yourself with feel about  ObamaCare? Surely if your health care law  is so beneficial, those with the most political capital must be running to the front of the line to cut in front of everyone  else and climb on  board?

To  the contrary, your friends in high places are asking for (more like demanding)  protection from ObamaCare. You’ve exempted Congress and most of its staff from this law. You’ve given  thousands of waivers to a select few. Even some of your biggest  supporters, the labor unions, now realize how harmful this law is to its members  and are demanding special treatment — I’m sure they’ll get it even though they  haven’t as of yet.

So  let me see if I’ve got all this straight: you say that the Republicans in  Congress are trying to “harm” the American people by attempting to legally  exempt everyone from this law that they didn’t want in the first place. So does  this mean that you are intentionally “harming” or attempting to “harm” Congress,  unions and all of your favorite crony donors by illegally giving them exemptions  from ObamaCare? I didn’t think so.

So,  Mr. President, If ObamaCare is the panacea that you and your administration  claim it to be, I have one more question. If you had a son, would his health  plan look like ObamaCare?

 


Some Clown

My article as originally published in American Thinker:

Some  clown heads an administration plagued by numerous scandals including: IRSgate, Benghazigate, Fast and  Furiousgate, Pressgate and Pigfordgate to name just a few.

Some  clown claims the above mentioned are nothing but “phony  scandals.”

Some  clown fails to comprehend that raising the minimum wage would be a disaster.

Some clown claims the United States needs to be “fundamentally  transformed.”

Some  clown continues to do an end run around the Constitution in order to protect a chosen few from the  harmful effects of ObamaCare.

Some  clown’s economic policy is (predictably) failing.

Some  clown has overseen the lowest labor participation rate since  1979.

Some  clown has been charge while food stamp usage has reached an all time high, all  while the USDA attempts to recruit even more users into the system.

Some  clown continues to get a free pass from the mainstream media.

I  could go on and on because this clown’s resume contains even more  highlights.
Unfortunately, this happens to be this particular clown’s  first non-theoretical rodeo.

So does anyone  really give a rat’s behind what the skin color of the above mentioned clown is?

Meanwhile,  a rodeo clown has been banned for life for carrying on the comedic tradition of having a little bit of fun (even if in bad taste)  at the expense of a certain president.

 


Republicans Should ‘Raise’ Tax Rates Now

2+2=5My article as originally published in American Thinker:         

It turns out that the Obama Administration is deliberately making these sequestration “cuts” as painful as possible for the American people. And no matter what Bob Woodward says, Obama and the rest of the MSM will continue to blame the sequestration and any subsequent unrelated negative economic news on Republicans. So perhaps Republicans should just throw in the towel and hold a press conference to announce that they are now all in favor of Obama’s “balanced” approach which includes more tax revenue. Please hear me out before throwing the nearest heavy object at your computer screen.

Those who get their “news” from NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR and the rest of the administration’s propaganda wing may think (“feel” would be a better word) that sequestration has brought about actual cuts in government spending. But these so-called “cuts” are nothing more than reductions in the rate of spending growth. If some department was going to receive a 10% increase in spending but will now only get a 3% increase, this is called a 7% “cut” (by axe no less) in Washington-speak. In other words, all this “misery” is being manufactured over the government spending more money than was spent in the previous year but just not quite as much more as was originally anticipated.

By that same token, Republicans should first propose a plan amongst themselves for an across-the-board tax rate cut of 30% but then ultimately settle for just a 15% rate cut. This is where Republicans would need to grow a pair and use the Left’s own tactics against them. Using the very same logic as the Democrats, this plan would then be presented to the American people as a 15% tax rate increase and not a cut at all. If Republicans announced that they would be proposing a tax rate “increase,” with details to follow, they would surely have the full attention of an elated news media.

So how could anyone possibly present this kind of plan with a straight face as it would clearly constitute an actual tax rate cut? The truth is, thanks to the Democrat/media spin machine, much of America already believes the exact equivalent when it comes to these so-called budget “cuts,” so we already know it can be done. The very same people who believe what the Democrats and MSM are telling them about budget “cuts” would also believe the exact same thing about so-called tax “increases” if the Democrat Party and MSM were to suddenly change its tune on taxes. Of course I don’t really expect the Democrats or the MSM to do this.

The whole point of this exercise would be to place fictional budget “cuts” side by side with fictional tax rate “increases” in order to bring attention to the Left’s own demagoguery. If Republicans were really feeling brave they could even point out the enormous spending increases under Obama and the fact that 2013 is projected to yield a record bumper crop of tax revenue for the Treasury, proving that we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem.

And if the Republicans were really, really feeling brave, while they have the media’s attention, they could attempt to articulate the historical fact that real tax rate cuts coupled with real spending restraint (cuts) would create real prosperity for the American people. After all, Democrats do claim that they want more revenue.


Obama’s Pirate Politics

Continuing the plunder: 

Everything in this column will be established by logical proof, as in geometry. There will be no name calling, or mere assertion.

You probably heard again last night that President Obama still thinks “the rich,” a crass term implying low class social envy, do not pay their “fair share.” He has been barnstorming America saying precisely that for his more than four years in office now. But the indisputable facts from official government sources say otherwise.

[snip]

President Obama’s belief that “the rich” still do not pay their fair share can only be explained on the basis of Marxist principles. To a Marxist, the top 1% earning anything more than the middle class is not fair, no matter how they earned it, fairly or not. So “the rich” are not paying their fair share as long as they are left with more than they “need,” as in a true communist system. This is the only logical explanation of Obama’s rhetoric, and it is fully consistent with Obama’s entire background, and his own published writings.

Notice that Obama kept saying that “the rich” don’t need the Bush tax cuts. That rhetoric follows the most basic Marxist principle, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Read the rest at The American Spectator:         

Back to our Homepage


Obamacare Recession?

Should we all be surprised?

To the shock of many, U.S. GDP shrank in the fourth quarter of 2012 by 0.1%. Immediately, however, economists and commentators flooded the media with reassuring explanations. Super Storm Sandy reduced economic activity in the areas it ravaged; worries about the fiscal cliff and sequestration dampened business spending and government defense spending; businesses let inventory levels dwindle. Even the Federal Reserve commented that the GDP drop was the result of “weather-related disruptions and other transitory factors.” All this is true, to some extent. But none of the reporting I saw even mentioned the elephant in the room that not only depressed economic activity in the fourth quarter of 2012, but will continue to depress economic activity through 2013 and beyond. That elephant is the “Affordable Care Act,” aka “Obamacare.”

Read the rest at The American Spectator:         

Back to our Homepage


America Gets ‘Te’o’d’ by Obama

obama-forwardMy article as originally published in American Thinker:

It’s easy to understand why the mainstream media ran with the heart wrenching story about Notre Dame football player Manti Te’o’s “dead girlfriend” as well as the other conflicting stories about the couple’s “relationship” without engaging in actual journalism. The story happened to fit within the approved media template and didn’t require any further manufacturing. But with President Obama, the MSM must work overtime to positively spin everything he says or does before it is passed on to the public as objective “news.”

It finally took a member of the new media — Deadspin — to do some actual investigative reporting on the Te’o story.

The bottom line according to Deadspin:

There was no Lennay Kekua. Lennay Kekua did not meet Manti Te’o after the Stanford game in 2009. Lennay Kekua did not attend Stanford. Lennay Kekua never visited Manti Te’o in Hawaii. Lennay Kekua was not in a car accident. Lennay Kekua did not talk to Manti Te’o every night on the telephone. She was not diagnosed with cancer, did not spend time in the hospital, did not engage in a lengthy battle with leukemia. She never had a bone marrow transplant. She was not released from the hospital on Sept. 10, nor did Brian Te’o congratulate her for this over the telephone. She did not insist that Manti Te’o play in the Michigan State or Michigan games, and did not request he send white flowers to her funeral. Her favorite color was not white. Her brother, Koa, did not inform Manti Te’o that she was dead. Koa did not exist. Her funeral did not take place in Carson, Calif., and her casket was not closed at 9 a.m. exactly. She was not laid to rest.

Lennay Kekua’s last words to Manti Te’o were not “I love you.”

Te’o claims that he was a victim of this hoax as well:

This is incredibly embarrassing to talk about, but over an extended period of time, I developed an emotional relationship with a woman I met online. We maintained what I thought to be an authentic relationship by communicating frequently online and on the phone, and I grew to care deeply about her. To realize that I was the victim of what was apparently someone’s sick joke and constant lies was, and is, painful and humiliating.

When will the American people wake up to the incredible hoax that is currently being perpetrated upon them? Much like Te’o, Americans are involved in an emotional relationship with an individual despite most having never met him face to face. That individual is President Obama. But unlike Te’o’s relatively harmless “girlfriend” hoax, President Obama’s hoax, thanks to the help of the MSM, is a threat to every American and threatens the survival of the republic as we know it.

Fortunately, the new media is willing to step up and do the job the ideologically driven MSM refuses to do.

So just to be clear on a few of the crazy things we’ve been told:

Ambassador Stevens was not murdered because of a dim-witted amateur video. Food stamps are not economic stimulus. This current economic mess is not George Bush’s fault. Obama’s mother was not denied health insurance coverage as claimed. America is not safer under Obama. Raising tax rates does not create jobs. Disagreeing with President Obama does not make one a racist. The cost of health care will not be lowered under ObamaCare. President Obama is not suddenly a Second Amendment advocate.

The science of man-caused global warming is not settled. The economy is not getting better. The Tea Party is not an extremist hate group. Paying off crony donors with green energy loans does not lower energy prices. Reducing the rate of spending growth is not a spending cut. Beyoncé did not actually sing at Obama’s inauguration. Kids do not like Mrs. Obama’s new school lunch program. Trillion dollar deficits and skyrocketing debt does not create prosperity and is not sustainable.

QE 1-3 did not work. QE 4 will not work. The President does not have the power to bypass the Constitution. Rising unemployment is not positive economic news. Gun control does not control criminals. Freedom is not “preserved” by violating the First Amendment rights of religious institutions. Demonizing the rich does not put the poor and middle class back to work. The economy did not tank in the fourth quarter due to a lack of federal spending. So-called “assault weapons” are not more deadly than semi-auto hunting rifles. Just calling something a stimulus does not mean it will stimulate. The mainstream media is not interested in truthfully reporting any of this.

President Obama is definitely not to be compared with Ronald Reagan. .

How painful and humiliating does this hoax have to get before a majority of the American people finally take notice and do something?