Recently in Fiscal Policy Category

Prez Obo thinks he has saved us two trillion. How'd he manage that, since there isn't a spending spree he won't applaud? Well, instead of spending a projected amount of $8 trillion he's only going to spend $6 trillion. 

Chart of the year, courtesy of Charles Sykes' Right Wisconsin.

Entitlement spending. And it's corroding the American character--no surprise there--according to Nicholas Eberstadt.

A family of four, for example in our Food Stamp Nation, gets $6700 in money for food, from a link I can no longer find. No wonder people would rather collect than work a second job.

Calling the Democrats' gathering in Charlotte "The Che Convention," Peter Ferrara makes the following points:

Obama's runaway spending spree is so left-wing it makes Franklin Roosevelt look like a Republican. The most Roosevelt ever spent in one year (during peacetime) was 10.7% of GDP, at the height of the Great Depression. Over Obama's four years of office, federal spending has averaged 24.4% of GDP. Since World War II, up until Obama, federal spending actually was fairly stable around 20% of GDP. But Obama and his Che Guevara Democrats have already broken through that consensus, raising federal spending by about one fourth.

Make that libertarian. And notice how the Marxist rhetoric utterly fails the smell test:

CBO reports that in 2009 the top 1% of income earners paid 39% of all federal income taxes, three times their share of income at 13%. That was more than the bottom 95% of income earners combined! In fact, the bottom 60% of income earners, as a group, paid less than 0% of federal income taxes. Instead, as a group, they received net payments from the IRS.

As more than one blogger has noted, Romney's choice of Representative Paul Ryan as his running mate is one that will make Team Obama sweat, particularly in light of the fact that Ryan has been a pitbull in regards to the out-of-control spending perpetrated by Congress since 2007 and the Obama administration in particular since January 2009.

It doesn't help Team Obama that Congress hasn't passed a budget for 1,200 days and counting. And Obama's official term runs 1461 days.

Here's some sobering facts about it:

The last time the Senate passed a budget was on April 29, 2009.
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 11 Aug 2012 at 12:38:57 AM GMT is: $15,920,131,113,709.46
The estimated population of the United States is 313,295,427, so each citizen's share of this debt is $50,815.08
Obama's $3.6 trillion budget proposal was defeated this year in the House of Representatives by a vote of 414-0.
Obama's FY2012 budget was defeated last year in the Senate, by a vote of 97-0.
By 2050, the national debt is set to hit 344 percent of the Gross Domestic Product.
By around Election Day, the total debt of the United States will be $16,394,000,000,000.00 ($16.394 trillion).

The first point brought up overlooks the fact that the budget passed then was a carryover from the end of the Bush administration, due directly to the machinations of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. The majority Democrat House and Senate delayed a vote on a budget they knew George W. Bush would have vetoed. Instead they relied on six months of continuing resolutions to keep the government funded until after Obama's election and inauguration. That is the major reason "Bush's" last budget was $600 billion in the red - it wasn't his budget, but Pelosi and Reid's.

It's also interesting to note that the last attempt to pass Obama's budget died without a single Democrat vote in favor in either the House or the Senate. Is it that they didn't like it any more than their Republican brethren or that they thought it would be easier to hide increasing deficit spending through the use of continuing resolutions? I'd like to believe they thought it was as much of a stinker as the GOP did. I'd like to. Really.

Should Romney and Ryan be elected to office, and with Ryan added to the ticket it seems to be more likely, I think we can expect the budget hammer to fall. No more trillion dollar plus deficits (we hope). No more "Let's tax the s**t out of the job makers!" No more unfunded mandates or multi-billion dollar government giveaways to industries incapable of standing on their own under any circumstances. No more interference in the energy markets. No more "the government knows best how to run the economy and your lives" BS.

Are Romney and Ryan the perfect candidates for the GOP? No, not by any means. But as we have to be reminded constantly, we can't let perfect be the enemy of good enough. Romney and Ryan are good enough.

I just caught a report by ABC's Good Morning America covering the dismal jobs report for June. It was another almost-softball report for Obama, with economics commentator Matthew Dowd stating the American people no longer trust politicians to fix the economy.

The truth, however, is more likely that it is the President they no longer trust.

Throughout our history it has been shown again and again that both Congress and the President have the power to damage the economy, but can usually do little to fix it by any other means than getting out of the way and letting the economy fix itself. Time and again it has been shown that by getting out of the way the economy rights itself, growth returns, and all is right with the world. Then someone in Congress or the President decide that things "aren't quite right" and they start tinkering with one tax, regulation, rule, incentives, subsidies, and law after another, each of them adding burdens that puts more pressure on the economy. In turn the economy slows, falls into recession, and then the Powers-That-Be wonder why this happened, not understanding that they are the ones causing the problems.

This recession, the longest in US history, was fostered by job-killing, finance-twisting, illogical regulations, laws, and "incentives" that short-circuited the usual feedback mechanisms and allowed economic bubbles to be created. Once those bubbles burst, the economy fell and fell fast.

The Powers-That-Be keep ignoring history, keep doing the same thing over and over again, and then wonder why their various 'fixes' for the economy didn't work this time.

It's called insanity.

Another California municipality has collapsed financially, with the city of Stockton filing for bankruptcy under Chapter 9.

This is merely the latest in a series of municipal bankruptcies plaguing the Golden State. Far too many of the municipalities believed the good times would never end and promised things to their citizens and employees based upon that belief. However reality has proved them wrong, the bills have come due, and their coffers are empty.

State finances aren't in any better shape, with a projected $16 billion budget deficit in the offing. Unfortunately, unlike the cities and towns in California, the state cannot declare bankruptcy, meaning the taxpayers (what's left of them) are obligated to pay off the state's deficiencies. But as the state assembly and the governor are learning the hard way, raising taxes any more than they already have will not raise more revenue because the state is already on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve. The last round of tax hikes caused revenues to fall, leaving the state even deeper in debt.

How they believe yet another round of tax hikes will solve their problem makes me wonder if there is anyone sane left in the upper echelons of state government. Unfortunately the answer appears to be 'no'.

Much as cities in California have made mistakes when it comes to their finances, it appears here on the East Coast the city of New York is about to shoot itself in the foot, but in a different fashion.

While New York also has problems with its public employee unions, it's nowhere near the level seen elsewhere. Instead, the City Council is proposing rules that will help drive the last surviving industry out of the city - the financial industry.

For the life of me I can't figure out how making it too difficult and too expensive to remain in New York City is going to help the city's finances. Is it possible the City Council has been infected with the "California disease"? After all, California's state and local level governments have been doing their best to drive businesses out of business or out of state. They have succeeded. That's why California is in the fiscal mess it's in. And now New York City wants to do the same thing?

Yet in the wake of JP Morgan's massive losses last week and the continuing controversy surrounding the Wall Street bailouts, the New York City Council is debating a measure that would require city banks to publicly disclose their efforts at "socially responsible" banking.

--snip--

Many bankers, as well as Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have voiced their opposition to the new plans. The regulations, they say, would add another burdensome layer to the web of regulations that already exist at the federal and state levels. The Council, however, appears unmoved, and support of key council leaders...give it a fighting chance at making it into law.

If it does, its supporters on the Council will hail it as a major victory, but it will be a loss for the city as a whole. The financial industry is the one industry keeping the city alive, yet New York's blue politicians seem unconcerned about the risks of antagonizing their major cash cow.

This is the same attitude held by many politicians in California and we've seen how well that's worked out for them. The City Council doesn't seem to understand that the banks and other financial institutions will have no problem departing the city for greener pastures. As the post linked above states, Fortune 500 companies have been leaving New York for decades. Wall Street firms will have no problems following them to places with better business climates. And with today's telecommunications infrastructure, those greener pastures can be anywhere, even here in New Hampshire.

So says the President in Guy Benson's "Obama's Worst Speech Yet." Lot of links!

The President is probably right, though.

But Guy Benson then asks an important question:

How is it possible that America remains plagued by "crumbling roads and bridges" after we've just spent $825 Billion of borrowed money on a stimulus program ostensibly fashioned to fund and execute precisely those types of "shovel ready projects"? 

I've covered the decline of Detroit more than once, covering the various reasons for its precipitous fall from grace.

It's decline continues as the Democrat policymakers continue their experiment to create a socialist utopia. Too bad it's been failing and in such a spectacular fashion that it's impossible to hide. No amount of dissembling and sleight-of-hand can point observers away from the obvious: Detroit is dying and it's the fault of the Progressives who have been running the city for decades.

They have implemented just about every socialist program, regressive 'redistributionist" tax, and punitive business regulation on their wish list upon the city and its residents and the results are clear to see: Detroit has gone from the richest city in the US (per capita) to the second poorest. (Only Cleveland beat them out for that honor.) Detroit can stand as an example of what the rest of the nation will look like if Obama and the rest of the Progressives get their way. The socialist experiment has failed and no amount of window dressing can change that, no matter how hard the MSM tries.

Now that we've made it past the first of the year, the focus here in New Hampshire turns in two directions: the upcoming Presidential Primaries and annual town/state budgets. Of the two, the primaries are receiving the most attention by both the populace and the media.

With the New Hampshire primaries scheduled for January 10^th, the media attention has been cranked up to "11". The various presidential wannabes have been spending every free moment in the Granite State, minus time in Iowa in preparation for tomorrow's Iowa Caucuses. (The one exception seems to be Jon Huntsman, who sees New Hampshire as the key to his moving forward.) There will be one last 'big' debate amongst the GOP candidates on the 7^th, with national coverage by ABC.

It's going to be intense for the next eight days.

The lesser of the two events, the annual battle of budgeting for the towns also start in earnest. Not that there hasn't been a lot of behind the scenes work on assembling proposed budgets for the various departments and schools.

Here in my small town the town and school budgets have been undergoing a lot of scrutiny by the board of selectmen, school board, and the budget committee. Everyone wants to cut spending, but of course it's always "someone else" who should cut their budgetary requests. It's never a pretty process and at times emotion can get in the way of logic and reason. When a position is cut in one of the town departments, many of us realize it means that someone we know, perhaps a friend, will lose their job. (That's happened to a friend of mine in the planning department. Her full time position - with benefits - was cut to part time. She couldn't justify staying there under those conditions and left for another job.) In some cases open positions have been eliminated for the time being, leaving some departments short staffed. But those are the choices that have to be made in order to keep spending in check when everyone is having a difficult time making ends meet, particularly those on fixed incomes within our town.

Once the various boards and committees have done their thing it will be up to the voters in each town to vote on them, either at town meeting or during the town elections in March. (A few towns hold their town meetings in April or May.) Towns with a board of selectman/town meeting form of government fall in to two categories: traditional town meeting and SB2.

The traditional town meeting is usually held in some time in March, and all registered voters are encouraged to attend. The voters will discuss and vote on all of the articles presented on the town warrant, some covering budgetary items and other with changes in zoning ordinances (assuming a town has any zoning at all). A second town meeting, usually called the school district meeting, deals will warrants pertaining to the towns school expenditures.

SB2 towns do things a little differently, with two different sessions for both the town and school portions of the warrants. The first session deals solely with discussion and amendments to the town and school warrant articles. The second session of each meeting takes place on election day in March, with the voters deciding whether to approve the various warrant articles discussed the previous session.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems, but they seem to work pretty well. In any case, the tax money that will be spent in the upcoming fiscal year is vetted by the very people that will be paying those taxes. (There are a few taxes which the town voters have no control, those being the county and state assessments levied upon them to run county operations and for some education funding, respectively.)

The state will be dealing with some supplemental budget items during the upcoming legislative session (the state runs on a two-year budget cycle). Sometimes adjustments are made if there's an unexpected expenditure needed to deal with unforeseen circumstances. Sometimes it's the other way around, with some line item that was approved but never implemented, meaning there are surplus funds that can go to other purposes to fill shortfalls someplace else. Sometimes the surplus goes towards the state's so-called rainy day fund, a savings account that can be used to fill revenue shortfalls under very specific circumstances.

All we can do is hope they folks in the state capitol don't go on some kind of a mindless spending binge. But then it does help that the GOP holds supermajorities in the state Senate and Executive Council and a majority in the state House.

It is said the truly smart will learn from the harsh lessons of others' failures. I can say that one member of the WP clan is that smart, that being the youngest of the WP sisters. (As she says, she made her own mistakes while growing up that our parents never found out about.)

It would be great if the political class presently ruling the US was as smart as my youngest sister. Unfortunately they are not.

They see the economic meltdown occurring in the Euro-zone, yet refuse to learn the lessons countries like Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain are teaching us, the primary one being that eventually you will run out of other people's money to fund all the wonderful social programs that have been used to bribe the electorate.

Italy is the latest to teeter on the brink of insolvency, and should it go over the edge it is quite likely it will pull the rest of the Euro-zone with it. Greece's default damaged the European economy yet it has only a fraction of the GDP of Italy. Should Italy default Europe will take an additional $2 trillion hit it cannot afford. Is it any wonder Germany is considering abandoning the Euro and going back to the mark? Can anyone deny that this problem has been driving the British public to demand a referendum about whether or not to remain in the EU? At least those two countries see the problem and realize they'll have to bankrupt themselves in a doomed effort to prop up economic policies from Brussels.

But too many of our own politicians at the state and federal level, regardless of party, seem oblivious to the fact that unless we make some drastic changes in how our federal government taxes and spends we will be headed down the same path. Labor leaders ignore the fact that neither businesses or taxpayers are a bottomless source of funds, shortchanging their own members by making promises no one can keep.

Should the US fail to put its financial/economic house in order, and right quick, it will pull the world economy down with it into a depression unlike any we've seen before.

Listening to the plans President Obama has made to address the jobs problem, it is no surprise to anyone that he really doesn't have a plan, or at least not a new one.

If his $878 billion stimulus program had been used to actually address a number of problems within the country, those primarily being our crumbling infrastructure, rather than using it for political patronage, we might not have as much of an economic problem as we presently face. But far too many of us knew very little of that money would be used to stimulate anything but the growth of the federal government.

Will Obama's September 8^th speech try to make a case for spending even more money we don't have to pay for more political patronage? If history is any indication, then the answer is likely yes.

What the president really needs to do (but won't) is to rein in his renegade agency heads (NLRB or EPA, anyone?) who are making sure it's damn difficult for anyone to create jobs...except for government jobs.

What the president needs to do is to get the government out of the way of free enterprise to let it do what it does best - create jobs.

What the president needs to do is fire all his czars and advisers because, quite frankly, they have no idea what they're doing. Most of them are academics with little, if any, real world experience doing things like running businesses or meeting payrolls or dealing with an ever increasing avalanche of government regulations and paperwork that does nothing but cost time and money to deal with yet add little of benefit to anyone except bureaucrats.

What the president needs to do is realize that one of his predecessors, Ronald Reagan, was right when he said to America "Government isn't the solution. Government is the problem."

What the president needs to understand that no one in government, and I mean no one is either smart enough or wise enough to run the American peoples' lives. After all, everyone in government is having a hard enough time running their own lives, let alone those of 300,000,000 other people in this country. Every government that has tried to do so has ultimately failed, resulting in widespread misery. Quite often those governments end with fatal results for members of those governments.

What the president needs to understand that no one in government, and I mean no one, is either smart enough or wise enough to run the American economy. History is littered with plenty of examples to show this is true. Unfortunately the president and many in Congress have ignored this truth, figuring that this time they'll get it right. (They won't.)

All I expect from the president during his speech is more of the same old crap he's taken from the FDR, LBJ, and Karl Marx playbooks, just put in new wrappings and hyped by the Lame Stream Media.

In other words, "There's nothing to see here, folks. Move along!"

One of the things said about blogging is that bloggers shouldn't apologize for not blogging. Normally I would agree with that, but not this time.

It isn't that I haven't had anything to write about (quite the contrary). It isn't that I've lost interest (I haven't). It's merely that life has intruded, leaving me with far less time to write anything worthwhile.

Over the past couple of weeks or so I have been getting home late, usually from some kind of meeting of a town committee or board, though once because I had to make an unexpected trip to the WP In-Laws to pick up BeezleBub and we didn't get back until 10:30PM. At that point I was just too darned tired to do anything but go to bed.

It's been these little things that have contributed to my lack of posting anything inciteful, witty, or outright offensive (at least offensive to the Left). I've resorted to borrowing heavily from humorous e-mails or Facebook postings to make sure this blog stays active. I'm going to have to do that one more time as I had yet another late evening. But at least this is educational in that it makes our nations' fiscal problem a little easier to understand.

Received via e-mail:

Federal Budget 101

The U.S. Congress sets a federal budget every year in the trillions of dollars. Few people know how much money that is so we created a breakdown of federal spending in simple terms. Let's put the 2011 federal budget into perspective:

U.S. income: $2,170,000,000,000

Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000

New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000

National debt: $14,271,000,000,000

Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000 (about 1 percent of the budget)

It helps to think about these numbers in terms that we can relate to. Let's remove eight zeros from these numbers and pretend this is the household budget for the fictitious Jones family.

Total annual income for the Jones family: $21,700

Amount of money the Jones family spent: $38,200  

Amount of new debt added to the credit card: $16,500  

Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710

Amount cut from the budget: $385

So in effect last month Congress, or in this example the Jones family, sat down at the kitchen table and agreed to cut $385 from its annual budget. What family would cut $385 of spending in order to solve $16,500 in deficit spending? 

It is a start, although hardly a solution. 

Now after years of this, the Jones family has $142,710 of debt on its credit card (which is the equivalent of the national debt). 

You would think the Jones family would recognize and address this situation, but it does not. Neither does Congress. 

The root of the debt problem is that the voters typically do not send people to Congress to save money. They are sent there to bring home the bacon to their own home state. 

To effect budget change, we need to change the job description and give Congress new marching orders. 

It is awfully hard (but not impossible) to reverse course and tell the government to stop borrowing money from our children and spending it now. 

In effect, what we have is a reverse mortgage on the country. The problem is that the voters have become addicted to the money. Moreover, the American voters are still in the denial stage, and do not want to face the possibility of going into rehab. 

Yup. I'd say the above pretty much explains it in terms we can all understand.

The irony of this? I received this by way of the very liberal parent of a friend of mine. It's a shame she hasn't been able to integrate this little bit of education into her view.

After all the dire predictions 'they' made about what would happen if Congress didn't raise the debt limit, it turns out they were wrong.

The President got his debt limit increase, but the stock market and at least one financial institution - Standard & Poor's - apparently didn't see it as a solution, and rightfully so. The stock market headed downwards, wiping out a year's worth of gains. Standard & Poor's is still threatening to drop the government's credit rating from AAA to AA or AA+ because of the government's continuing spendthrift ways.

The increase in the debt limit didn't solve the problem we're facing. It merely delayed the inevitable. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee offered an analogy that illustrated the problem perfectly.

Raising the debt limit solves the government's spending problem like raising the maximum legal blood alcohol content will solve the drunk driving problem.

I'd say he nailed it.

Over the past year and a half I've listened to a large number of people disparaging the Tea party movement. Most of them have been card-carrying Democrats (or at least those with the belief they know how to spend my money better than I do). Others have been RINOs or part of the so-called "Establishment" Republicans.

The Tea party has been excoriated in the press, with the New York Times, the Washington Post, and a number of other media organs of the Left leading the way. Washington politicians and other Beltway insiders have derided the Tea party as "hobbits", "terrorists", "Nazis", "racists", "jack-booted thugs", and a whole host of other derogatory labels.

As the volume of hateful rhetoric aimed at the Tea party and its supporters has increased, it has made me and others realize that the groups making these accusations must be really getting nervous. As one commenter to this piece wrote, "If you're getting a lot of [flak], you must be over the target." And so it must be as the Tea party gains supporters throughout the country at a local, state, and national level because they're tired of being ignored by the Coastal elite and the Beltway intellectuals.

My most memorable run in with an unabashed Tea party hater took place at our business when one of our customers went on a rant about "those goddamn Tea partiers wanting to take everything away from us!" There was no way I could not respond, so I asked her where she'd gotten that idea. Apparently she'd read it in the paper, in this case the Boston Globe. (One must remember, the Globe is owned by the NYT and has the same editorial policies as its parent corporation.) I calmly informed her that if her opinion was based solely on what she'd read in the Globe, then she'd been misinformed and lied to. She saw the Tea party as a bunch of religious fundamentalists bent on depriving the poor, doing away with Social Security and Medicare, and undoing decades of civil rights advances. I had to remind her that many of the civil rights advances came from the GOP, not her sainted Democrats. I reminded her the KKK were primarily Southern Democrats, not Republicans. I reminded her it was the Democrats who started us down this path of unsustainable spending going all the way back to FDR. I reminded her that it was LBJ who decided his Great Society was the answer to all of our society's problems, that it had failed miserably, and that it was funded by stealing from the Social Security trust fund.. I reminder her it was the Democrat majorities in Congress going back to 2007 that multiplied the annual deficits to many times that of all of Dubya's deficits combined.

I gave her the URL for the Contract From America website which explains the Tea party platform, none of which deals with social issues she claims the Tea party is involved with. She wasn't interested. Instead she chose willful ignorance and adherence to libelous propaganda from those who do not have her best interests at heart.

Maybe she will care when the country is unable to pay its bills and all of the government support she is 'owed' ends because there's no money left to pay for it all. Maybe she will care when all "the rich" she's constantly complaining about are either driven into bankruptcy or flee with their wealth to friendly climes and no one is left to pay for everything she is owed.

But I'm not holding my breath.

UPDATE:It appears Senator John Kerry has decided to add fuel to the fire by expressing his opinion that the media should not give equal time to those "absolutely absurd notions" voiced by the Tea Party because their opinions "are not factual."

What a putz.

I must admit to being on the edge of Debt Crisis Fatigue after being bombarded by Obama, the Democrats, and the media for months on end about our impending doom if Congress doesn't pass an increase in the already outrageous debt limit.

I might not have nearly as much of a problem with Congress doing so if the Spender-In-Chief were willing to support spending cuts equal to the increase in the limit, but we all know there's no way he'll do that.

In truth, I don't like the idea of raising the debt limit even one penny. History shows us the promises made by Congress to cut spending if only the debt limit is raised have never been kept. All we've ever seen from such promises is more taxes and more spending. The promises made aren't any more real than the old "The check's in the mail" dodge, except that we're talking trillions of dollars, a number that doesn't seem to faze Obama or Congressional Democrats, but scares the bejeezus out of just about everyone else.

It's ironic, considering that many of the same people pushing for increasing the debt limit were vehemently against it the last time the issue came up. The difference this time around? Last time it was a Republican in the White House while this time it's a Democrat, and he's asking for an increase that is far greater than the last one.

Talk about a double standard.

If the President and his Democrat cronies won't control their insatiable appetite for running up the national credit card, particularly if they're not the ones who will have to pay the bill, then it's up to the GOP and the Tea Party to do it form them. Better it be done now than when it will be so painful that it brings the economy down even more than it already is. Obama and the Dems aren't willing to admit that the credit card company (that means us, folks) aren't willing to raise their credit limit until they pay off what they've already charged. Until then it will have to be as so many of we so-called "little people" do under these circumstances - pay cash, or do without.

The national credit card is maxed out and the issuers - We The People - are saying "Enough!"

The ongoing disagreement between Congressional leaders and the President about the debt limit, taxes, and spending is showing the American people more than they wanted to see. To me this means far too many of the Democrats still seem to think we can fix the the deficit problem by spending even more money we don't have and can't pay back even if they make "the rich" pay their "fair share" in taxes, and the President acting like a spoiled and petulant child, placing all the blame for the outcome of his ill-advised and fiscally disastrous policies on the GOP because they don't or won't recognize his genius.

As much as the Democrats and the media try to spin it, the Democrats are about to reap what they've sown, namely a seriously broken financial system and the enmity of a large majority of the American people, particularly those in flyover country.

One commenter to a previously linked WSJ piece has proposed a solution to the spending problem with deep cuts for agencies and programs that manage to do nothing but waste billions of taxpayer dollars and create misery for far too many of the people they say they're helping.

Here we go. A quick way to save a few bucks.

2011 Budget Line items to consider - spending at the federal level, independent of state spending:

$129.8 Billion Education (why is the federal government involved in this?) - Zero out

$495 Billion Welfare (that's charity, right? Is this an enumerated power at the federal level or is it a state power? My take is I didn't see a charity power and Grover Cleveland agreed with me.

Grover Cleveland veto statement when vetoing charity to help Texas farmers:

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."

-zero out.

--snip--

$22.7 billion Fuel and energy (as in Ethanol?) Why does energy need a subsidy, it's suppose to provide the value, not absorb it? - Zero out.

There's plenty more, so I suggest you Read The Whole Thing. While I don't agree with every point brought up, I can live with these proposed cuts as compared to some of those proposed within Congress.

It's gotten to the point where President Obama resembles one of those romantic swains who does not understand that "no" means "no", or in this case "Hell no!"

We have an economy that is still foundering due to job-killing regulations made by rogue bureaucracies, job-killing legislation by Congress, bailouts to commercial and financial institutions that don't deserve them, and a government spending spree that looks more like a teenager running around using daddy's credit card. But the 'teenager' doesn't understand that the credit card has reached its limit. What's worse is that he wants the credit card issuer (i.e. the taxpayers) to pony up even more credit to keep spending money he doesn't have and can never pay back. When he doesn't get his way he throws a tantrum, blaming the over-the-limit credit card he used on those no longer willing to have their pockets picked by an ungrateful and willful child.

Try as he might, I don't think Obama's going to get away with painting the GOP as the cause of the upcoming default on August 2^nd. The Republicans are standing their ground, not willing to give the President a pass by reneging on their campaign promises and raising the debt limit in return for 'future' spending cuts. All one needs to do is look how such promises made by Democrats in the past all fell by the wayside once they got their way to see how foolish trusting them again would be.

On top of that, the President wants to impose an additional $1 trillion in taxes on top of those he's already added to pay for it all. (We all know that theoretical extra revenue will not be used to pay down the debt, but will instead be spent on stupid and foolish things we don't need, want, or can afford.) That's all we need is to have yet another $1 trillion in capital removed from the economy, money that otherwise would be used to expand businesses, create jobs, and expand the tax base. Neither the President or Congressional Democrats see that every action they have taken over the past 4 years has narrowed the tax base, increased uncertainties in the business world which in turn has discouraged investment and hiring, and stretched out a painful recession and the resulting high unemployment/underemployment an additional 2 years with who knows how many more to follow.

What part of "Enough! Not one red cent more!" does the President fail to understand?

All of it, apparently.

As we move closer to 2012, it has become increasingly apparent to those not previously cognizant that President Obama is, to put it in terms everyone can understand, an economic moron. Part of this lack of understanding can be laid at his upbringing and lack of a real-world education.

Between his parents, step parent, grandparents, and his pastor of 20 years, he was fed a continuous diet of anti-Americanism. We have no idea what he really learned in school, particularly at college (his transcripts are sealed). While speaking about bringing people together, his actions have done nothing but divided them. This is particularly true when it comes to economics, where it appears he's pulling his 'fixes' out of the past, with liberal doses of Marxist economic theory blended with the worst of the failed economic policies of FDR and Jimmy Carter. He really doesn't see why his efforts to fix the economy have failed or why his popularity has fallen so precipitously. Could it be because he's in over his head, being so ill-prepared and undereducated in how things really work?

That certainly seems to be the case, particularly in light of his most recent presser where he engaged in "false choices and demagoguery" rather than offering solid proposals. He talks about reaching a compromise with the Republican members of the House, but I get the feeling he's still defining compromise as "Sit down, shut up, and vote the way I tell you to vote." That hasn't worked since the Democrat takeover of the House and Senate back in 2006, and is less likely to work today since the GOP retook the House last fall.

All any of this shows us is that he really doesn't get it, doesn't understand how the economy works, and isn't interested in learning how it works. Instead he wants the economy to bend to his will. Unfortunately he will learn, as did King Canute, that the economy won't listen to him. The more he tries to bend it to his will, the worst it will get and the more those who actually drive the economy will rebel, just as they have to date. All he will do is to motivate even more people to "go Galt", driving more of the economic activity underground and away from the prying eyes of The One Term Wonder.