What Would I Do?

            I'm no expert, but I know what I'd do.

            I would start with discretionary spending, since the blowhards in Congress have been arguing about it these last few months. I would cut it by 25% right now, and another 25% over the next five years. There have been umpteen proposals for eliminating unnecessary departments and federal programs. It will hurt, but it has to be done.

            I would go after Obama's legion of tsars. I would fire them all and wipe out their departments. Then I would go after the departments of Education, Energy, Interior, the EPA, and Homeland Security. These bloated, ineffective, counter-productive, and largely useless departments present enormous targets for reducing the cost of government.

            Next I'd  go after agriculture subsidies for billionaire farmers and rules that allow the super rich to own vast properties but avoid paying taxes by planting a cabbage patch and claiming they are farmers.

            This is a minor point, but I'd love to ground Air Force One. Harry Truman didn't spend his time flitting about the country making speeches to hand-picked audiences; he spent his time working at his desk. Obama could learn from his example.

            I would reduce our dependency on foreign oil by drilling everywhere oil and gas has been found. Obama's de facto moratorium on drilling offshore and in Alaska is insane. And I would build nuclear energy plants. Lots of them. They're the most efficient, clean, and safe (yes, safe) sources of energy.

            Now on to military spending. I have always been a supporter of national defense. But enough is enough. Our own survival comes first. I would bring our boys home from Iraq and Afghanistan; close most of the overseas bases; forgo any thoughts of playing the role of international policeman and nation builder; reassess the need for so many carrier task forces that are becoming increasingly irrelevant; spend the money on wounded warriors and their families, not on new weapons systems; and bring on BRAC Phase 2.

            Now the big one: entitlements. How did this country survive without Medicare, Medicare, and Social Security? Without reneging on our promises to seniors and without removing the safety net for the poorest among us, there is a lot we can do.

            First, I  would repeal Obamacare. It cannot be allowed to add a trillion dollars a year to our deficit.

            Second, I would revise the eligibility criteria for Medicaid, beginning with anyone above the poverty line. Thirty percent of Americans are on Medicaid, and none of them pay for their health care. That shouldn't be. No one should get totally free medical care; everyone should have to pay something, even if it's a small co-pay.

            Retirees are entitled to Medicare. This should not change. But why not adopt a form of privatization as recommended by Paul Ryan? And why wait until 2022?

            Retirees are also entitled to Social Security. But if someone chooses to retire early, it should be at his or her expense. Some rules should be revised, such as the one that awards social security benefits to the wife and children of early retirees even if they are millionaires who can afford to retire at age 55.

            Speaking of entitlements, illegal aliens should not be entitled to anything. Not free health care, not free education, not free food, not free housing. No free benefits of any kind.

            On the revenue side, I'd scrap the IRS and replace it with a Fair Tax, a consumption tax, or a combination of the two. This will ensure that everyone pays taxes, as opposed to the 45% of Americans who pay no income tax at all, and it will eliminate the onerous and costly income tax system we now have.

            And just to make everything fair, I'd make everyone subject to the same rules, conditions, benefits, and privileges. Members of Congress who pass our laws should be subject to them like the rest of us.

            I could go on, but the bozos in Washington aren't listening.

The Chinese Own Me

            All the talk these days is about the deficit and the debt. It almost sounds at times that the terms are interchangeable. They are not.

            The deficit is an annual thing. It's all about spending more money than we take in. When we overspend, we add to the debt.

            The debt is what this country owes, because we borrowed money to finance deficits. China owns most of our debt, the same China that stocks the shelves at Walmart, because we can't produce the same products at a competitive price. If we don't start to reduce our debt soon, China will end up owning US!

            Let's look at it this way. When we are in a deficit mode like the one we're in now, every time Obama, for example, gives Brazil $2 billion to develop its oil industry, we have to borrow that money from the Chinese. When we give the Libyan rebels $25 million to help them fight Qaddhafi, we have to borrow that money from the Chinese. When we shower Tripoli with half a billion dollars' worth of missiles, we have to borrow money from the Chinese to replace them in our arsenal. Every time we spend money we don't have, we have to borrow it from the Chinese.

            Our debt is nearly $15 trillion, a number that everyone agrees is unsustainable. Yet, Washington is crying that if we don't lift the debt ceiling, our creditworthiness will collapse and we won't be able to borrow more from the Chinese. So what should we do? Raise the debt ceiling, of course.

            Is that nuts, or what?

            The only way for Washington to reduce the debt is to stop spending more than it takes in. But Washington is addicted to spending. Whenever anyone proposes drastic action to balance the budget, the knee-jerk response is to accuse the proposer of kicking grandma out on the street and denying pregnant teenagers their reproductive health rights.

            What should Washington do, that is, if it had any guts?

            First, what it shouldn't do is raise the debt ceiling. Pay the interest first and then figure out how to live off the rest. But the rest isn't enough? It certainly was enough twenty years ago, wasn't it?  So what would I do? I'm no expert, but I know what I'd do.
             See my next blog.

The Debt Ceiling

            This is it. The moment has come. It is time to decide whether we will regain control of our government or continue our profligate ways to inevitable dissolution of our nation as we know it.

            Congress will soon vote on whether or not to lift the debt ceiling. Many have argued against doing so, and I agree with them. The government cannot, must not, continue to spend more than it takes in. The reality, however, is that there are not enough votes to defeat the bill. So what can we do?

            The Republican Party led by Eric Cantor is engaged in a battle with President Obama and his Democrat toadies to attach severe conditions to the raising of the debt ceiling, These are: 1) statutory spending caps, 2) a balanced budget amendment, and 3) a two-thirds vote requirement for raising taxes and increasing the debt limit.

            This is the real battleground, because the Democrats want a clean bill to reduce spending, but none of the conditions attached to it. Now we will see what the Republicans are made of. To prevent further spending insanity, all three conditions must be met.

            Spending caps must be real and drastic. They must be based on what funds are left after we have satisfied our obligations to pay the interest on the debt. Without these caps, the second condition becomes meaningless, because Democrats will force tax increases to feed their spending habits. The third condition will also be meaningless as long as Democrats control the presidency and the Senate: we've seen how the Administration has circumvented Congress again and again with regulations that are nothing but disguised taxes on businesses, health care and energy.

            For once the Republicans hold the key cards. The debt ceiling cannot go up without their consent. Will they have the moral courage to hold the line, or will they retreat from White House negotiations with their tails between their legs?  It's all about principles and convictions. And guts.

            Republican leaders have been very insistent that they will not cave, that they have heard the voters speak. Well, we're about to find out what kind of men we voters have put in control of the House of Representatives.

            God help us if they prove to be gutless.

Obama Speaks

            Furious. Disgusted. Sickened. It is difficult for me to find the right word to describe how I felt while watching President Obama's April 13th speech to the nation on the budget. Paul Ryan described it as "excessively partisan, dramatically inaccurate, and hopelessly inadequate." I think Ryan was much too kind. I would have preferred gratuitously insulting, scandalously mendacious, and incredibly incompetent. It was demagoguery at its worst.

            Obama was not satisfied with just blaming the previous administration or conducting class warfare on the rich. That was to be expected. But after wasting half his speech praising the benefits of cooperation by trotting out a litany of worn-out platitudes, he attacked Ryan's proposal for reforming Medicare  by predicting drastic consequences for seniors. But he deliberately omitted mentioning that the reforms would not take effect until 2022 and would therefore not affect anyone now 55 years old or over. Mendacity takes many forms.

            When Obama said that we should all be ready to sacrifice, he targeted only the rich. He did not mention that the top 1% of wage earners already pay 40% of income taxes, that the top 5% pay 60%, and the bottom 50% pay only 3%,  with most of them paying nothing. Worse, he said that for him to get a $200,000 tax credit, thirty-three poor people would have to pay $6,000 each to make up for it. How can anybody let him get away with such a despicable lie? That was class warfare at its most outrageous.

            Obama said his proposal would cut the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 12 years. Half of that would come from reduced costs, a trillion would come from reduced interest on the debt, and another trillion from tax reform (read tax increases on the rich). Ignoring for the moment the total absence of specifics in his plan for reducing costs and the negative effects raising taxes would have on our struggling economy, how can Obama's plan possibly reduce interest on the debt?

            I must be missing something. Let's do the math. Maintaining an annual deficit at the current rate of $1.3 trillion a year (with Obamacare kicking in, projections are much higher),  would result in adding  $15.6 trillion to the national debt over the next 12 years. If Obama's plan reduces the debt by cutting $2 trillion in costs and raising $1 trillion in taxes, that still leaves $12.6 trillion to be added to the debt over that period. How in the world would that reduce interest on the debt by a trillion dollars? The Chinese must be laughing their heads off at Obama's math.

            I came across a quote recently that says, in part, "The danger to America is not Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency... The Republic can survive a Barack Obama who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

            I disagree. Obama is no fool. He is a clever liar who takes us all for fools. I prefer the quote, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

GE Payback

            Events are moving so fast these days, it's hard to keep up. Comments made by pundits in the media might be appropriate one day, but are forgotten the next because the situation has changed so drastically. Yet, certain images remain etched in our brains. Pictures of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, for instance. Or the riots in the Middle East. Or President Obama looking at me straight in the eye (no teleprompter needed for this) on March 29 and lying about how and why he exercised his leadership by taking us to war in Libya.

            Closer to home, another image is a recurrent visitor from my memory cells. It is the picture of President Obama welcoming GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt to his team as the new President of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.       

            Why does this image refuse to go away?

            In 2008, GE contributed over $3 million to political campaigns, most of it to Democrats, and a large chunk to candidate Obama. In 2009, the administration directed $80 billion in TARP funds to GE on the flimsy grounds that GE happened to own two banks in Utah.

            In 2010, GE contributed over $2 million to political campaigns, again with most of it going to Democrats. In January, President Obama made Immelt part of his administration.

            This couldn't possibly be political payback.....Could it?

            Special treatment you say? How about this: In 2010 GE made over $5 billion in profits; and in 2010 GE paid $0, yes ZERO dollars, in corporate taxes.

            How did GE manage to get all this special treatment? Political contributions buy lots of legislation that favors special interests. That we know. But there's another thing called lobbying. In 2010 GE spent over $39 million on lobbying. That's correct: over $39,000,000. Not confining its lobbying efforts to Washington, D.C., GE came up with over $1 million to defeat just one issue, a California ballot initiative to eliminate tax loopholes for major corporations. You just have to admire GE's concern for its stockholders!

            So I have this image that just won't go away: President Obama shaking hands with the man he put in charge of this country's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Great move. Jeffrey Immelt can sure show us how to be competitive.

            Maybe the president could put Immelt in charge of the IRS. No, wait. That job belongs to a guy who didn't pay his taxes.

Abdication

            ABDICATION: The relinquishing of power or responsibility.

            The most famous abdication in modern history was that of King Edward VIII of England in 1936. He gave up the throne to marry Wallace Simpson, a twice-divorced American socialite.

            The most recent abdication is going on right now. It is the abdication of presidential leadership by Barack Obama.

            When the country cries out for salvation from its intolerable 14 trillion dollars of debt, the president leads by paying lip service to the need to cut spending while proposing more spending, which he calls "investments." He wouldn't want to offend anyone who might vote for him, now, would he?.

            While all agree that entitlements must be reformed, beginning with Social Security, Obama refuses to put forth any proposals. He prefers to let Republicans come up with a plan so he can claim that they are throwing grandma out on the street. That's good strategy for his reelection, you see.

            With union goons inciting demonstrations outside state capitols, the president has all but forgotten his call for civility. We don't need to be reminded that he is one of them and that they are his biggest supporters. Let's not jeopardize the flow of union dues to Democrat party coffers.

            With rebels in Libya crying out for help in the form of a No-Fly Zone, our leader agrees that Qaddhafi must go, but that the United States cannot lead any military effort to oust him. With the crisis worsening and the rebels about to snuffed out, the president prefers to go out and play golf. After all, no one can deny him a little recreation after the exertions of fundraising.

            With prices at the pump rising daily as the result of the turmoil in the Middle East, the president still preaches windmills and solar energy instead of permitting the extraction of oil and gas from our enormous reserves. Protecting one caribou in the frozen tundra of Alaska is much more important than fighting extortion by OPEC. We can all agree on that.

            When pictures of the unimaginable tragedy in Japan appeared hourly on our TV screens, Obama came on to tell America that his heart was broken. Days passed without another word until he went on the air to sketch out his NCAA March Madness picks. What's more important than the spirit of American competiveness?

            After all this hard work, our leader scheduled a vacation to Rio de Janeiro with his family. At the taxpayers' expense, of course. Leadership is exhausting, as we all know.

            This is presidential cynicism at its worse. It is crass dereliction of duty. It is the shameful abdication of Obama's responsibilities as a world leader.

            Abdication. What a legacy!

Dissimulator in Chief

             When you hear a reporter preface his question with the phrase "With all due respect," it usually indicates he disagrees with the person he is interviewing. It is often a courteous way of saying, "I think you're lying."

            Had I been called upon to ask a question at President Obama's press conference on March 11, I would have started with it.

            The president's statements on the efforts of his administration to boost domestic oil production were a masterpiece of dissimulation, if not outright lies.

            How can he boast of having issued 35 new drilling permits, while Ken Salazar, his Energy Czar, is in Contempt of Court for refusing to issue them?

            How can he suggest that taking steps to gather data on drilling off the mid and south Atlantic is in any way a positive step, when we all know he has taken these areas off the table?

            How can he say that his administration is looking at the potential of Alaska, when we all know what that potential is, and that he has always been opposed to drilling there?

            How can he blame the lack of production on undeveloped leases, when his EPA and Energy departments keep coming up with reasons to block exploration and drilling at every turn?

            How can he take credit for oil production being at a higher level now than it was in 2003, when this increase in production is the result of policies of the previous administration, not his?

            And why did he not mention that current US oil production is only 50% of what it was in the 70s, even though we are sitting on oil reserves greater than the reserves of all the Middle Eastern countries put together?

            Oh, but the president is in favor of windmills, solar shingles, and giving $7,500 subsidies to buyers of electric cars that nobody wants.

            With all due respect, Mr. President, your energy policy stinks.