Obama's Corporate Welfare Has a Socialist Price-tag

Will Malven
3/30/2009

In the good money after bad category: the Obama Administration has chosen to tell General Motors "enough is enough" and instead of granting them another $30 Billion in loans, will only support them with enough money to last them another 60 days to get their house in order. I guess we should be grateful for small favors.

This move comes on the heels of the initial $25 Billion they and Chrysler were given in January and February.

In this deal Chrysler gets an additional $6 Billion to allow them to complete their merger with Italian automotive giant FIAT.

Here's part of the story as reported by the New York Post with a link to the story:

TODAY'S TARGET: DETROIT
WHITE HOUSE GETS TOUGH

By PAUL THARP
Last updated: 3:32 am
March 30, 2009

The White House is playing serious hardball for the first time with its recovery cash.

The Obama administration auto task force today rejected the turnaround plans of General Motors and Chrysler and warned both could be put through bankruptcy to slash debts.

The announcement by the White House auto panel headed by former investment banker Steve Rattner marked a stunning reversal for management at both automakers and for GM investors and creditors who had bet on a softer line.

Judging from the rate at which GM burned through the initial $17.4 Billion they were given back in January, the taxpayer will be tapped for another $10-12 Billion over that 60 days. For those of you keeping score the total in taxpayer money given to these two dinosaurs is $41 Billion.

That's a heck of a lot of money spent by your government to prop up two corporations "too large to fail." Of course that isn't taking into consideration what we will be asked to provide to GM once they have finished their "restructuring." You can bet taxpayers will be tapped for another $10-20 Billion once GM has completed its restructuring.

As I stated in a previous editorial, one of the hazards of this great economic system we enjoy is that a business succeeds or fails based on its ability to make a profit. In our capitalist system, no corporation should be considered "too large to fail." If these two automobile manufacturers had been allowed to fail back in January, the American taxpayer would have been saved that wasted $41+ Billion.

That's a pretty high price for the taxpayer to pay for a sop to the United Auto Workers Union. Added to the money (roughly $180 Billion) given to AIG because they too were "too big to fail," the taxpayers have been soaked for almost a quarter of a Trillion dollars...just to prop up three corporations.

For the Obama Administration, this is a coup. They get a stake in running these large "private" corporations, which is precisely what they wanted. This is the death of capitalism by a thousand cuts.

Creeping socialism is still socialism.

The myth, largely promulgated by those on the Left, is that life can be lived without suffering if only we will let the government run everything. This myth leads those unaware to make a deal with a devil. In exchange for this mythical state of no suffering, all we need to do is surrender more and more of our freedom.

This socio-economic model is the antithesis of the model left to us by our Founding Fathers and which built this great nation. It is also a lie. Socialism isn't an economic model which eliminates suffering; it is a model which forces all to endure equal misery.

Unlike capitalist model in which each succeeds or fails in proportion to their abilities and the effort they put forth, socialism places the burdens of those unwilling to work on the backs of those who seek to better their lives. It penalizes initiative and acts as a disincentive for hard work. In other words, the chaff is thrown in with the wheat and all are made to consume the resulting product.

These corporations should have been allowed to fail. The argument that too many jobs would be lost was a straw man argument. When corporations fail, others spring up to take their places. Those with superior business models can then step in and provide employment to those who lost their jobs.

The law also provides bankruptcy protections for those corporations that choose to restructure, so GM and Chrysler could have-should have-declared bankruptcy, restructured and come out leaner and meaner, with a business model that would have lead them to success.

It was the disproportionate power the unions wield over the Democrat Party and politicians of both parties in the manufacturing states of the "rust belt" that prevented our economy from functioning as it should have, but it is the American taxpayer who was forced to pay for this folly.
You can expect more corporations facing financial difficulties to crawl into Washington DC on the hands and knees begging for taxpayer alms as a result of these actions. It seems corporate executives are as averse to pain as are Liberals.

So much for the myth of Corporate Republicans. The executives of these companies largely voted for Democrats because they knew they could count on them to prevent their companies from failing...at least until they could get their fortunes secured.

Well GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner has now been forced into retirement for his efforts and the taxpayer is on the hook for his failures. I'm certain he's crying all the way to the bank.

Think of this; had GM and the unions simply sucked it up and gone through bankruptcy back in January, they would be well on their way towards finishing restructuring and making a profit by now and the American taxpayers would be $40 Billion better off.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Scripted President Continues on Script-Hides Teleprompter

Will Malven
3/25/2009

Well, it appears that the Empty Suit in Chief is sensitive to his critics...when they laugh at his dependence on Teleprompters...so last night he chose (or his handlers chose) to ditch the traditional left and right glass Teleprompters for a 42 inch monitor located behind the press corps. Abracadabra, "Look ma, no Teleprompters; my isn't he a brilliant President?"

Here's a portion of Breitbart's report, follow the link for the entire article:

Analysis: Teleprompter telegraphs Obama caution

Mar 24 09:07 PM US/Eastern
By RON FOURNIER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - What kind of politician brings a teleprompter to a news conference?
A careful one.

President Barack Obama took no chances in his second prime-time news conference, reading a prepared statement in which he took both sides of the AIG bonus brouhaha and asked an anxious nation for its patience.

"There are no quick fixes," he said, "and there are no silver bullets."

It's an interesting dichotomy: Obama came before the nation to sell one of the most expensive and politically risky agendas ever offered by a U.S. president, but his language was heavy with caution. A hard-willed plan given a soft sell.

Served up opportunities to lead with his heart, Obama was cerebral. Cool and calming in a time of white-hot public anger.

The television cameras failed to pick up the big screen scrolling his speech at the back of the room. I wonder how many Obamabots he fooled by this ruse. Of course anyone who knows anything about using Teleprompters can tell when a speaker is using one as his eyes, just like the President's last night, never leave the camera...ever.

The only difference between last night's performance and the Presidents last abysmal "press conference" was his attempt to deceive the audience by hiding his crutch. If anything this performance was even worse than his first at least it was even more boring. Heck, Helen Thomas, "the lion of the White House press corps" had fallen asleep within the first few minutes.

As to the scripting, reporters were notified ahead of time upon whom he would call; is it any stretch to assume there was a quid pro quo and that he knew what would be asked?

Even knowing the questions ahead of time can't help this President. He spoke interminably (only thirteen questions in forty-five minutes) about nothing. His answers were as unspecific as they were long.

Say what you will about President Bush and his malapropisms and made up words, at least he could speak extemporaneously. Bush could also speak in a way to which the common man could relate; Obama's responses are stilted, clumsy and largely vacuous.

The closest I can come to describing this press conference is that it was a continuation of his Presidential campaign. In fact I would say that his entire Presidency so far has been one long continuation of his campaign to attain office.

Are you surprised? Stung by the criticism during the 2008 campaign that he lacked any managerial experience, unlike his opponents, his response was to point to his campaign for the presidency;

"Well, you know, my understanding is that, uh, Governor Palin’s town of Wasilly [sic] has, uh, 50 employees, uh, uh, we’ve got 2500, uh, in this campaign.

I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. Uh, uh, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. Uh, so I think that, uh, our ability to manage large systems, uh, and to, uh, execute, uh, I think has been made clear over the last couple of years..." [Courtesy of Michelle Malkin's HotAir.com]

With such impeccable credentials testifying to his managerial capabilities, why would anyone be surprised by his clearly demonstrated (at least so far) incompetence.

In what was probably the only unscripted moment of the entire dreary appearance, President Obama demonstrated his (typical of Liberals) intolerance towards those who question him, when he responded to a question from one reporter as to why he took so long to show any outrage at the AIG bonus folderol. His response was quite pointed:

"It took a couple of days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak"

Translation; "First we had to do some internal polling to determine exactly what reaction would resonate with the public, then someone had to write it down so I could read it to you."

Well at least that would have been honest.

I keep hearing those in the press...even some of them on the Right say how intelligent this man is. I have yet to have seen any sign of that "great intellect." To the contrary, what I see is a man with no understanding of our economy, our culture, or our Constitution failing miserably and attempting to blame that failure on the private sector and the former administration.

This whole White House crew has been stumbling and bumbling from one issue to the next with no clear direction beyond getting their laundry list of Liberal agenda items passed and "devil take the economy." As sorry as President Bush's handling of our economy was over the last year or two of his administration, his failures can't hold a candle to what this Idiot in Chief is doing.

President Obama and his handlers are spending us into oblivion at such a precipitous rate, that he has spent more in his first 90 days more than President Bush spent throughout his entire two terms in office. President Obama is going to double the national debt-the debt which has been built up over the entire history of our nation-in his first (and hopefully only) four years.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

EPA: "CO2 a Public Danger" Everyone Stop Breathing

Will Malven
3/24/2009

You know the dogmatism of Liberals never ceases to amaze me. Once they glom onto some myth, no matter how absurd, they will never let go of that belief.

Global Warming...now relabeled "Global Climate Change" to hedge their bets...has had considerable cache with the Left and their cheerleading mainstream media and thus among the general public, but unlike the ideologues on the Left, the general public is perfectly willing to abandon a bad idea or discard bad information once it becomes apparent that they have been mislead.

The idea that CO2 has caused and continues to cause catastrophic global warming is just such a bad idea. To many, it was absurd from the outset, but as it gained popularity in the halls of academia and it became apparent that any adoption of the tenets of the Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmists would pose a very real threat to the American economy and our way of life, it merited a close examination simply to determine whether all of the hysterics surrounding the idea were based on good science rather than professorial career boosting.

The jury is now in and what initially seemed an absurd concept has now proven to be so. As we witness global warming on a solar system wide scale and now a constant decline in global temperatures since the height of the global warming scare in 1995, it has now become readily apparent to any with an objective eye that what we see as global warming is not a man made phenomenon, but a consequence of natural variations in the intensity and activity of our sun in concert with variations in our orbital path around the sun and around the galaxy, as well as the precession of our planet's axis of rotation.

As all of these facts begin to become manifest, we still have those on the Left...those die-hard "man is evil" Liberals...who refuse to abandon what has become a tenet of faith for them. Enter the EPA. If ever there was a group of hide-bound Liberals, a cabal of conspiracy kooks, it is the EPA. So now these true believers have issued their latest "brilliant" observation...CO2, the natural by-product of our breathing, the gas which is the engine of photo-synthesis from which all life is nourished...is now a "pollutant."

I'm not making this up people; they have actually issued a statement to that effect:

EPA Raises Heat on Emissions Debate

By IAN TALLEY

WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency has sent the White House a proposed finding that carbon dioxide is a danger to public health, a step that could trigger a clampdown on emissions of greenhouse gases across a wide swath of the economy.

If approved by the White House Office of Management and Budget, the endangerment finding could clear the way for the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to control emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases believed to contribute to climate change. In effect, the government would treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant. The EPA submitted the proposed rule to the White House on Friday, according to federal records published Monday.

Such a finding would raise pressure on Congress to enact a system that caps greenhouse gases -- which trap the sun's heat in the earth's atmosphere -- and creates a market for businesses to buy and sell the right to emit them, as President Barack Obama has proposed.

If carbon dioxide is a "pollutant," and all people and animals generate carbon dioxide when they breathe-specifically when the exhale-then doesn't that instantly brand all human beings as polluters and make them subject to a "breathing tax?"

With Liberals in charge, one can only wonder how long it will be before the EPA moves to place a tax on your breathing. After all, the idea of taxing livestock based on the amount of methane gas they generate has already been floated. How long do you think it will be before this bunch of idiot socialists become fixated on a breathing tax.

You think I am exaggerating and I don't blame you...except for this little item from the TimesOnLine:

UK population must fall to 30m, says Porritt

Jonathan Leake and Brendan Montague
March 22, 2009

JONATHON PORRITT, one of Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society.

Porritt’s call will come at this week’s annual conference of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), of which he is patron.

The trust will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30m if the country wants to feed itself sustainably.

Porritt said: “Population growth, plus economic growth, is putting the world under terrible pressure.

“Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact.”

You see, I am not exaggerating, they are already suggesting that there are too many people on the planet. This is nothing new; this is just another iteration of the Malthusian Myth.

They hate human beings...they hate you, they hate me-they especially hate me because I question them-they hate everyone. They even hate all domestic animals. Their vision of a perfect Earth doesn't include human beings...except maybe for a small elite colony (which of course would include themselves, being environmentally aware as they are).

So prepare for it folks, they are going to find a means of taxing us for the air we breathe. First comes the "cap and trade" carbon tax, which is going to be a massive tax increase on each consumer both directly in the cost of gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil and indirectly in those costs associated with manufacturing (using fossil fuels), transporting goods (fuel cost offsets), farming our foods (costs of fertilizer, pesticides, and operating farm equipment.

Once they have taxed us for every iota of carbon we consume, they will get around to taxing breathing...after all every time you breathe out you are polluting the atmosphere...don't blame me, it's the EPA and those on the Left who think you are a polluter. Does anyone else recall that old Beatles song "Taxman"

Let me tell you
How it will be.
There's one for you,
Nineteen for me,

'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

Should five percent
Appear too small,
Be thankful I don't
Take it all.

'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

If you drive a car,
I'll tax the street.
If you drive to city,
I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold,
I'll tax the heat.
If you take a walk,
I'll tax your feet.

Taxman!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF testimony on new local option transportation taxes

This afternoon, the Senate Committee on Transportation & Homeland Security is conducting a public hearing on two Senate bills – SB 855 by Sen. John Carona and SB 942 by Sen. Jeff Wentworth – which would establish several new locally imposed taxes and fees to fund transportation projects.

While Carona's original bill was limited to the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, the committee substitute laid out today includes the Austin and San Antonio metropolitan areas.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation submitted written testimony summarizing our objections to these measures, including several negative changes in the SB 855 committee substitute. You can read the testimony by clicking the headline link.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

CORRUPTION! Obama Received $101 Thousand from AIG

Will Malven
3/18/2009

Well at least we can now understand why the executives at AIG felt free to give that $160 Million in "earned" bonuses to themselves. They bought them by giving the campaigns of President Obama and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd large donations.

Christopher Dodd (D-CT) (you may remember him as the Senator who wrote “the Dodd Amendment” which provides an exception for

"contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009”

thus providing an exemption for the AIG bonuses Senator Dodd and President Obama are now complaining so loudly about) received $103,000 in campaign donations from AIG.

Perhaps this explains why Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail while AIG has received that $160 Billion (so far) in tax-payer money to prop it up.

It turns out that those campaign contributions were a wise business decision. Those executives personally received a 1600:1 return on their $101 Thousand investment in President Obama and the corporation a 16,000,000:1 return on investment. That's right; AIG received $16 Million for every dollar they contributed to Obama's 2008 campaign. That's better than hitting the Exacta at the Kentucky Derby. Bookies and gamblers would kill to hit those odds...especially if they were assured of winning as the executives at AIG were.

So now we know that the outrage we are seeing from President Obama and Senator Dodd is nothing but an act; a transparent attempt to convince voters that they are "Shocked. Shocked I say," to discover that AIG executives are receiving those bonuses. Not even the great Claude Rains could manage the level of false outrage we are now seeing acted out by the Empty Suit in Chief and his Comrade in Corruption, Senator Dodd.

I guess, unlike the real Messiah, this false messiah of the Democrat Party was unable to resist temptation.

Change? Change you can believe in? This looks like the same old venal Democrat Party of old and their titular head is as corrupt as any Democrat in history.

Even though we already know who is responsible, Senator Dodd is giving it his best "old college try" to act as though he is the offended party by commenting:

“I can't point a finger at someone who was responsible for putting those dates in. I can tell you this much, when my language left the senate, it did not include it. When it came back, it did.”

Umm...Senator Dodd (or is that "Dodgy?") what's that old saying about when you point your finger at someone, the other three are pointing back at you? You signed off on the amendment so either you knew about it and are corrupt, or you didn't yet signed off on the amendment and are incompetent. Either way, you don't belong in the Senate.

Since you have a long history of questionable financial dealings, my money is on "you knew about it" and you thought you could get away with it...and with the press carrying Democrat Party water for you, you would have if one of we bloggers hadn't stumbled across these financial disclosures on Opensecrets.org.

All of this feigned outrage from Dodd and Obama is simply a nauseating display of crocodile tears. Their only regret is that they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar and are now searching desperately for someone to blame.

It would be nice if both Dodd and Obama were to acknowledge their corruption and then have the decency to step down from office out of shame, but as they are Liberals...and therefore sociopaths...they feel no shame, only feigned moral outrage and real personal outrage at being caught.

Well all you who voted for Barack Obama, I hope you are pleased with the results you are getting from your gullibility in voting for a nebulous concept, "Change," rather than substance.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF COMMENTARY: Correct call to reject federal UI strings

By James Quintero

The sharp increase in the number of Texans losing their jobs has many wondering whether Gov. Rick Perry made a correct choice to reject the $555 million in unemployment insurance (UI) assistance offered by the federal government.

On the surface, bringing home an extra half-billion dollars for Texans who've lost their jobs through no fault of their own seems like a no-brainer. But peel away the veneer of "free money" and you see flawed public policy.

To draw down these one-time funds, Texas would be forced to make permanent changes in its unemployment eligibility system.

For the first $185 million, Texas would have to allow the use of an "alternative base period" for unemployment eligibility. Under current law, Texas reviews an applicant’s last four calendar quarters of wages to determine if the applicant worked enough to be eligible. The Obama Administration wants states to provide a bypass, allowing applicants to qualify if their wages would have been sufficient in the last one quarter.

The Texas Workforce Commission's cost estimate of this change: $212.4 million over five years.

That's not all. The rest of the money would hinge on the adoption of at least two of the following four benefit expansions:

* Allowing benefits to people seeking part-time work, not just full-time employment.

* Providing an allowance of at least $15 per week for each dependent living in a recipient’s household.

* Extending unemployment benefits past the current 26-week limit for persons enrolled in a state-approved job training program.

* Granting immediate eligibility for people who have quit their job for "compelling family reasons" or to move with a spouse.

The five-year cost of these individual changes ranges from $23.1 million to more than $1.4 billion.

Despite efforts from several legislators to craft legislation that automatically end those provisions as soon as they perceive the federal money to have been spent, the stimulus legislation makes clear that dog won’t hunt. The U.S. Secretary of Labor is directed to "disregard any State law provisions which are not then currently in effect as permanent law or which are subject to discontinuation."

Although many of the details are still being debated in Washington, this paragraph has many governors of both parties concerned about losing state autonomy and being shackled with higher costs imposed at Washington’s decree. The fallacy promoted by advocates of these eligibility changes is that the federal funds will "pay" for several years of the expanded benefits. In fact, those dollars will be used immediately to partially shore up the UI trust fund, and employers will foot the cost of the expanded benefits from Day One.

There are better options to address the projected trust fund deficit that control the level of taxes paid by Texas employers and preserve Texas' ability to manage our unemployment system as we see fit.

The federal government has a separate program that provides zero-interest loans to states that need help covering short-term UI trust fund deficits.

Additionally, the Texas Legislature in 2003 authorized the Texas Workforce Commission to issue bonds to cover such deficits. TWC has accessed this provision before – borrowing funds at a super-low interest rate thanks to the state’s strong credit rating, paying them off early, and saving Texas employers $270 million.

Both of these would address the short-term issue of shoring up our UI trust fund and continuing to pay benefits to jobless workers in a way that maintains a more predictable tax burden on Texas employers.

It is beyond dispute that people are losing their jobs, families are struggling financially and emotionally, and many well-intentioned legislators want to help.

But legislators must keep in mind that every additional dollar that Texas employers have to pay for people who aren't working is one less dollar available for job creation and economic recovery. And ultimately, the best way to help people who have lost their jobs is to foster an economy that creates jobs.

James Quintero is a fiscal policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Obama, Gibbs: Attack the Messenger Not the Message

Will Malven
3/17/2009

The White House continues the long established Liberal tradition of attacking critics of their tragic and dangerous policies (usually with personal attacks) rather than answering their criticisms. Such behavior is the most certain sign that criticism has been effective and damaging to the target of that criticism.

In this case the messenger was former Vice President Dick Cheney, the venue was John King's program "State of the Union" on CNN and the message was that President Obama's policies are dangerous for America and the world. Judging from the comments of Presidential Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, Vice President Cheney hit the target squarely.

The former vice president leveled a devastating attack on the policies of the Obama Administration and the unnecessary risk for all Americans they pose. The decision to close Guantanamo even before having decided what to do with the terrorist inmates and the decision to negotiate with terrorist nations and their surrogates bespeaks of the dangerous naivete of Liberals.

Democrats seem incapable of grasping the simple fact that enemies of freedom, like these terrorists, do not negotiate in good faith, will never keep their word, and are not interested in coexisting peacefully with United States. By returning to the policies of the Clinton Administration, characterizing terrorism as a criminal enterprise rather than a military matter, President Obama places every American citizen in greater danger.

Rather than respond to Vice president Cheney's criticism, the simpleton Gibbs attempted to ridicule Cheney by alluding to his lack of popularity. I have never understood this conflation of popularity with veracity. It runs as a constant theme coming from the Democrats, “Look at the polls. I guess that proves how wrong you are.” Polls prove nothing except the wisdom of the old adage “You can fool some of the people all of the time…”

As William Penn (founder of the state of Pennsylvania) once stated:

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it and wrong is wrong even if everyone is for it."

I suppose that Democrats have a greater degree of trust in public opinion than I. I don't believe that popularity equates to wise policy. "Populist" policies can be wildly popular with voters, but they rarely achieve their goals, and are usually bad policy.

Well here is a portion of Reuters report on the White House attack against Mr. Cheney:

White House ridicules Cheney over criticism of Obama

Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:10pm EDT

By Matt Spetalnick
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration issued a scathing response on Monday to criticism from former Vice President Dick Cheney, calling him part of a "Republican cabal" and saying his economic advice should be ignored.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs used his daily briefing to ridicule Cheney, who said in a CNN interview that President Barack Obama's revamped policies on terrorism suspects would make the United States more vulnerable to attack.

"I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy so they trotted out the next most popular member of the Republican cabal," Gibbs said in a sarcastic tone, referring to the conservative radio talk-show host whom Obama's fellow Democrats have depicted as the new leader of the Republicans.

It is sad that our national press corps has devolved from their traditional adversarial position as guarantor of our government's honesty into a pitiful pack of cheerleaders and advocates for a White House as devoid of talent as any in history. Even sadder, Gibbs and his defenders probably believe that the above comment was a clever response...note how clever...he even managed to bring Rush Limbaugh into the conversation...isn't that clever...my how clever.

Now "Gibby" why don't you answer the criticism? What's that? I'm sorry, I didn't quite get that. Hmmm...dead silence; yeah that's what I thought.

Personal attacks of the sort that Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made against the former Vice President used to be met with skepticism and difficult questions rather than the silence or even enthusiastic acceptance that we see today.

If the national press corps cared as much for the nation as they do in currying favor with this new President in hopes that they will be invited to the next Wednesday Night Bacchanalia, they would have thrown Robert Gibbs's sad attempt at ridicule back into his face.

I know I sound like a broken record, but this administration continues, both through their words and their actions, to give the appearance of a ship with the decks awash.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

President Obama's Deceit: Pass the Spending Bills-No More Emergency

Will Malven
3/13/2009

Isn't President Obama amazing? He can eliminate an "economic crisis" by fiat alone. Two weeks ago all we could hear from the White House was how severe the economic crisis was. We were even told that we were on the precipice of a "catastrophe" approaching that of the Great Depression. Suddenly today, we are told everything has been overblown. "Things" (meaning the economy):

"...are not as bad as we think they are now."

It appears that President Obama has suddenly decided that the "tracking poll" called the Dow Jones Industrial Average is more indicative of the state of our economy than he believed last week.

This is the height of hypocrisy, or proves the height of his ignorance about the economy. President Obama has spent the entirety of his short stay in office talking down the economy as no president in history has.

On February 18 in Phoenix our Empty Suit in Chief used the word crisis twenty four times in a single speech...and they accused President Bush of fear-mongering.

Now that he has gotten his socialist agenda passed through congress-his $1.2 Trillion "stimulus bill," his $3.55 Trillion 2010 budget, and most recently the $410 Billion pork laden spending bill-the "crisis" is over. Now President Obama is "highly optimistic" about our economic future.

Today, the man who compared the stock market to an opinion poll is suddenly touting the over 9% gain the Dow has experienced in the last 3 days. I guess now that it's going his way, the Dow will become a major indicator of our economic outlook rather than:

...sort of like a tracking poll in politics. "You know, it bobs up and down day to day. And if you spend all your time worrying about that, then you're probably going to get the long-term strategy wrong."

Apparently he has realized that his aggressive socialist agenda will be tougher to sell to the American people if they believe that times are difficult and spending by the government should be focused on moving the economy towards a recovery rather than taking on a new ambitious and extremely expensive agenda of socializing the healthcare industry, providing a new entitlement of college education for all youth, and taxing the heck out of energy to promote a "green economy."

So suddenly yesterday he "discovered" that things aren't that bad. Nevermind that he is going to double the national debt and mortgage our children's future, everything is rosy.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Don't worry, be happy. Everything is rosy now that President Obama has gotten his big spending agenda through congress...that is until the bill comes due.

Obama is talking up the economy because he needs to rebuild the confidence he took from our citizens. He needs to do this if he is going to continue his pursuit of his socialist agenda.

He needs the people to be optimistic about the economy so that they will not be as vocal in their opposition to his new carbon tax-euphemistically called "Cap and Trade." He will continue to remind them that he "gave a tax break to 95% of our citizens as he takes it back through this tax as well as the increase in taxes which will result when he allows the tax breaks put in by President Bush to expire.

So today he will say to us "Happy, happy, joy, joy; all is well." Meanwhile, he and his wunderkind staff have yet to have addressed the most pressing problems facing our economy. He and his Treasury Secretary have yet to have demonstrated any ability to address the banking crisis and the lack of liquidity in our banking system. The reason is simple; they haven't a clue as to what they are doing and never have.

Just a further revelation that President Obama and his staff are way out of their depth.

Their combination of grand promises and completely inept behavior reminds me of nothing so much as watching Bullwinkle Moose every week:

"Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat."

My reaction is similar to Rocky's:

"Again? That trick never works."

Hey President Obama...that trick never works.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Foundation praises Gov. Perry’s decision to decline stimulus funds

Taking federal unemployment insurance money would mean higher taxes on Texas employers

AUSTIN – The Texas Public Policy Foundation praised Gov. Rick Perry’s announcement today that he would formally reject the $555 million offered by the federal government in exchange for Texas loosening its eligibility requirements and increasing payments for unemployment benefits.

“Legislators must keep in mind that every additional dollar that Texas employers have to pay for people who aren't working is one less dollar available for job creation and economic recovery,” said Talmadge Heflin, Director of the Foundation’s Center for Fiscal Policy. “We are glad that Gov. Perry has chosen to keep our state’s focus on those goals, as they are the best path forward for the people of Texas.”

Heflin debunked the popular misconception that the federal funds would cover the cost of these changes for the next several years.

“Employers will likely see an increase in their unemployment taxes even if we were to accept these funds to shore up our unemployment trust fund balance,” Heflin said. “The issue is whether Texas employers should continue to pay these higher unemployment taxes long after our economy has recovered. We agree with Gov. Perry that they should not.”

According to estimates presented Monday by the Texas Workforce Commission, the five-year cost to Texas employers of changing the alternative base period – the pre-requisite for receiving any of the federal unemployment insurance funds – would be more than $212 million. The five-year cost to Texas employers of imposing the other federally mandated changes range from $23 million for the “quit-to-move” and “quit-for-family-reasons” eligibility expansion to $1.43 billion for the dependent allowance benefits.

The Honorable Talmadge Heflin is Director of the Center for Fiscal Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. Heflin served 11 terms in the Texas House of Representatives and chaired the House Appropriations Committee in 2003, leading the Texas Legislature’s successful efforts to close a $10 billion budget deficit without a tax increase.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. More information can be found on the Foundation’s website, www.TexasPolicy.com.

– 30 –

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF COMMENTARY: Embrace student evaluations of faculty

By Brooke Leslie Rollins

Why do state universities exist and who do they serve? Or to be blunt: Who is the university’s customer?

Is it the students – and their parents – who pay tuition? What about the taxpayers who subsidize these schools? Or even the employers who hire graduates? Good arguments can be made for why each of these is, at least in some sense, a customer. But most Texans would agree that one idea that makes no sense is for the tenured faculty to be the sole judge of its own performance.

Yet last weekend on these pages, Professor Robert Zaretsky of the University of Houston argued that tenured professors should judge themselves, writing: “Until now, at UH as elsewhere, peers have been the professor’s customers: professors try to establish one another’s professional merit. Promotion and tenure committees, stretching from the departmental to university level, provide a system of checks and balances that register the worth of a professor’s ‘deliverables,’ based on research, service and, yes, teaching.”

Say what? Students choose whether or not to attend the University of Houston. Students pay the tuition and often carry huge student loan burdens years after leaving UH. Students must live with whether or not their UH degree prepares them for a successful career and citizenship.

Professor Zaretsky wants us to believe that UH’s customers are the tenured faculty, not the students? Only in the ivory tower would someone think that employees should be paid to serve each other – at the expense of taxpayers, parents, and students.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation has proposed a voluntary bonus system to reward all university teachers: tenured, tenure-track, and part-time teachers. Bonuses are based on one simple question asked of students: "On a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (great), how would you rate this class and teacher?”

Three main reasons this makes sense:

First, most students in Texas universities are taught by non-tenured or non-tenure track faculty. It is unfair for tenured faculty members to be paid exorbitant salaries to teach a small number of students each year and not reward lower paid, part-time faculty and barely-paid teaching assistants for excellent teaching.

Secondly, very few tenured faculty members have ever observed a colleague’s class. Therefore, the only way one tenured professor could assess another’s teaching would be based on hallway gossip or academic research credentials – neither a good measure of teaching effectiveness.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it is learning that matters in the end, not teaching. By default, students – who often are the only other people in a classroom – are the only ones who can judge whether or not a teacher has succeeded.

Many tenured professors might accept a bonus based on student evaluation if it were “adjusted” by a faculty committee based on the difficulty of the subject or some other subjective measure. This is just another way to rig the contest.

Who says Freshman Biology or Accounting 101 have to be boring? They are only boring because of ill-designed curriculum and unenthusiastic teachers. The “adjustment” that needs to be made is to reward the teachers who care enough to inspire students to learn these subjects.

Should General Motors refuse to let customers judge their automobiles because "it's difficult to build a car that is both attractive and reliable?" Does this mean the United Auto Workers should be allowed to tamper with J.D. Power’s satisfaction ratings before they are published? Nonsense.

Still another group might argue that all this concern about teaching is misdirected; that instead we should focus on creating more Tier One research universities in Texas. But arcane academic research, published to further a tenured faculty member’s prestige, is a poor substitute for a well-trained mind or a graduate who can find a fulfilling and high-paying job.

The only people who could possibly fear a bonus system based on student satisfaction are those who fear being held accountable by the customers who pay their salaries. That’s exactly why we need such a system in the first place.

Brooke Leslie Rollins is President of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF COMMENTARY: Transportation taxes will drive jobs away

By Justin Keener

Texans are beginning to feel the pain of the national recession and a cooling state economy. The Federal Reserve recently updated its forecast and said Texas could lose nearly 300,000 jobs this year with an unemployment rate upwards of 8 percent.

Perfect time for a massive tax increase? Sadly, several of our state legislators seem to think so.

Texas has a great story and stands as a model for other states. Through smart governance and fiscal restraint, our state leaders created an environment that allowed Texas to become America’s leading job creator last year.

Last fall, the Texas Public Policy Foundation commissioned internationally renowned economist Dr. Arthur Laffer to identify which factors contributed to Texas’ economic dominance over other states. His finding: states that pursue pro-growth economic policies – low taxes, appropriate regulations, and disciplined spending – experience higher income and population growth, lower unemployment, and rising housing values.

Texas’ fiscal prudence since 2003 has proven to be our deliverance from the financial ruin faced by states such as California and Kansas. Texas will not be firewalled from this economic crisis, but our job losses should be modest by comparison.

Despite our anemic economic condition, some believe we should make it even more expensive for people to drive to work, businesses to deliver their goods to market, or parents to drive to the grocery store.

Senate Bill 217, by Sen. John Carona of Dallas, would increase gas taxes statewide. From a single legislative vote this spring, the gas tax rate could rise up to 5 percent every year, based upon the rate of highway construction inflation. If Texans think they have a problem with runaway home appraisals and property taxes, they should ponder what will happen with a gas tax that is also placed on auto-pilot.

Since even with this increase North Texas residents apparently won’t be paying enough taxes, Senate Bill 855 by Sen. Carona and House Bill 9 by Rep. Vicki Truitt of Southlake create further tax and fee increases for anyone living in or moving to the Metroplex.

One bizarre provision in this bill could subject anyone moving into the region with a $250 fee, laying out the “go away” mat for any business or family interested in moving to the Metroplex.

Other provisions of these bills would authorize a $60 vehicle registration fee, a $1 hourly parking fee, a $15 vehicle emissions fee, and a doubling of the driver’s license fee from $24 to $48. Even worse is the Metroplex-only gas tax, up to 10 cents per gallon, which would also rise each year with the rate of inflation. Local voter approval provides little consolation since there will likely be massive amounts of money pumped into a campaign to pass these initiatives.

Advocates falsely claim these are user fees. But if these were user fees, then the new rail system would be paid for by its riders, just like a toll road relies on tolls from its drivers. Registering a vehicle and possessing a drivers license has no correlation to the amount one drives, if one drives at all.

Most importantly, these proposals conceal from taxpayers the reality that the legislature already diverts more than $1 billion from highway funding to pay for non-transportation purposes from narcotics enforcement to Medicaid programs. These new tax schemes would subject taxpayers to the same political smoke and mirror routine, compounded by the fact that it would reward fiscal mismanagement by sending huge sums of money to two agencies – TxDOT and DART – who each admitted billion-dollar accounting mistakes.

Many Texans’ jobs already hang delicately in the balance, and a complex and colossal tax increase of this magnitude could seal their fate. Instead of a tax-first posture, our legislature should instead exhaust all other options, such as ending transportation funding diversions and identifying cost savings, and relying on true user fees such as tolls and train fares, before forcing Texans – current and prospective – to dig further into their wallets.

Justin Keener is vice president of policy and communications for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF Lone Star Lessons: March 9-13

"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.

Time to raise transportation taxes?
Indexing the gasoline tax
The Metroplex tax package - part 1
The Metroplex tax package - part 2
Stimulus funds and toll roads

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Amateur Hour at the White House and State

Will Malven
3/09/2009

Man was I ever wrong about what to expect from an Obama administration. Not even the Jimmy Carter administration was this amateurish and President Bill Clinton was not half as inattentive to the business of running the country as this neophyte narcissist and his team of tax evaders have proven to be.

Obama's Gaffes Start to Pile Up

by Donald Lambro

As the stock market plunged below the Dow's 7,000 mark -- a loss of 1,500 points since his inauguration -- Obama casually dismissed the sharp drop in equity values, comparing it to the ups and downs of a poll.

The stock market "is sort of like a tracking poll in politics," he told news reporters. "You know, it bobs up and down day to day. And if you spend all your time worrying about that, then you're probably going to get the long-term strategy wrong."

"A tracking poll?" The Dow Jones Industrial Average is just a tracking poll? That really is a disturbing statement.

This guy is overseeing a 20% drop in stock market values and he compares it to watching tracking polls. This is people's life savings being devastated and to him, with his Leftist agenda, it's like watching tracking polls. The man is clueless.

He is so busy making sure that federal financing is available for embryonic stem cell research, that the terrorists being held at Guantanamo have the same civil rights as American citizens, and that he keeps his campaign promises to his Leftists supporters that he hasn't had time even to figure out what to do with the problem of bank solvency.

This truly is Nero fiddling while Rome burns. I guess he's too busy picking fights with Rush Limbaugh and holding his Wednesday night parties to be concerned with actually attending to the business of running the nation's government.

Meanwhile, his Secretary of State is busy stumbling around the world making gaffs.

Tongue-Tied Clinton Gets Warm Reception at EU

A veteran politician, Clinton compared the complex European political environment to that of the two-party U.S. system, before adding:

"I have never understood multiparty democracy.

"It is hard enough with two parties to come to any resolution, and I say this very respectfully, because I feel the same way about our own democracy, which has been around a lot longer than European democracy."

The remark provoked much headshaking in the parliament of a bloc that likes to trace back its democratic tradition thousands of years to the days of classical Greece.

One working lunch later with EU leaders, Clinton raised more eyebrows when she referred to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who stood beside her, as "High Representative Solano."

She also dubbed European Commission External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner as "Benito."

So much for the great abilities of Hillary "I don't recall Senator" Clinton. These gaffs come about due to carelessness. These people spent endless hours insulting President Bush and making fun of his ability to speak, but compared to the Bush White House, these folks are rank amateurs.

Insulting the Prime Minister of Great Britain with cheap, poorly thought out gifts and a complete lack of any diplomatic grace is not going to "restore America's reputation;" it's going to destroy it.

Now we are told that poor Barack is just so "tired" that he was unable to give Prime Minister Brown the attention he deserved. Can you imagine what the mainstream media would have said if President Bush had made the same excuse.

Barack Obama 'too tired' to give proper welcome to Gordon Brown

Barack Obama's offhand approach to Gordon Brown's Washington visit last week came about because the president was facing exhaustion over America's economic crisis and is unable to focus on foreign affairs, the Sunday Telegraph has been told.

By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 10:03PM GMT 07 Mar 2009

Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been "overwhelmed" by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.

British officials, meanwhile, admit that the White House and US State Department staff were utterly bemused by complaints that the Prime Minister should have been granted full-blown press conference and a formal dinner, as has been customary. They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister.

But Washington figures with access to Mr Obama's inner circle explained the slight by saying that those high up in the administration have had little time to deal with international matters, let alone the diplomatic niceties of the special relationship.

How could this messiah of the Left not be familiar with "the expectations that surround a major visit" by any head of state? This is not lack of knowledge; this is lack of interest; as revealed later by a member of the Obama Administration [same article]:

The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key.

The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."

That is the crux of the matter right there. "You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world" Our closest ally is "nothing special." Well I guess living in a cloistered Leftist community and being coached and mentored by the likes of Bill Ayres could bring you to such a conclusion.

Did you know that the gift of 25 DVD's that President Obama gave to Prime Minister Gordon Brown cannot even be watched by him because they are in the wrong format for Britain...I'm not kidding. How thoughtless can you get?

How much more insulting can one be than to send an aide down to the White House gift shop to obtain gifts for a visiting dignitary? What a vulgar display of contempt for our sister nation. Obama is just another Marxist prol; a child playing make believe who suddenly finds himself in the deep end of the pool trying to keep his head above water while the adults all laugh at him.

The man and his entire team are just clueless, narcissistic, classless idiots. A little common courtesy would have instructed these rubes to behave better than this, but narcissists have little time for courtesy. They are too busy spending time telling the world "Look at me. Am I not wonderful? Are you not awed by our very existence?"

It's ludicrous even to compare this crew of amateurs to the Bush Administration. President Bush had to deal with the most devastating attack on our nation in history and the commensurate economic impact. President Bush had no real warning of the impending catastrophe, President Obama knew coming in that the economy was under duress. He had months to prepare, but now we are told that he is "tired." Poor baby.

These continued gaffs do not bode well for our future.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

US Marines Meet Bush vs. US Marines Meet Obama

Will Malven
3/06/2009

This requires no comment beyond...Bwaahaahaahaahaahaa!


These men and women, who sacrifice so much and risk so much for our nation, understand the difference between a real leader and an empty suit poseur.

These stills speak as loudly...they come courtesy of "IrishPennant" at freerepublic.com


Look at the stunned looks on their faces. Notice the open hostility. These troops see right through this fake.

They see right through this poseur.

Compare the enthusiasm and joy these marines display for President Bush to the above misery.

I already miss President George W. Bush. He was a better, classier man than President Barack H. Obama could even dream of being.

How the heck can the American people be so stupid as to have elected a walking talking joke as President of the United States?

God Bless Our Troops!!!!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

President Obama: Like I Said...Scripted

Will Malven
3/05/2009

One of the most notable things about this "great orator" President continues to be the degree to which he is so tightly scripted. It's been less than a month since I first commented on this phenomenon.

We all remember the ten town hall meetings which never occurred because then Candidate Obama withdrew from his verbal commitment to attend them with Candidate John McCain. It is notable that since his dismal performance in the Saddleback Civil Forum on Presidency which Pastor Rick Warren hosted, Obama never has made another unscripted appearance.

What's that? Oh, the debates...come on...you don't really call those "unscripted." The only surprising thing that occurred during the so-called "Televised Debates" was that I didn't fall asleep while watching them. They are so tightly scripted and the subject matter is so constricted that calling them debates is a stretch of historic proportions.

No. This newly minted President is absolutely incapable of standing toe to toe with anyone more knowledgeable than a fifth grader without his notes. His first-and only-press conference was appalling. I've never seen a President hold a press conference in which he had a pre-drawn up list of reporters from which he solicited presumably pre-screened questions.

Now even Politico is commenting on Obama's addiction to TelePrompters:

Obama's safety net: the TelePrompter

By CAROL E. LEE
3/5/09 3:22 PM EST

President Barack Obama doesn’t go anywhere without his TelePrompter.

The textbook-sized panes of glass holding the president’s prepared remarks follow him wherever he speaks.

Resting on top of a tall, narrow pole, they flank his podium during speeches in the White House’s stately parlors. They stood next to him on the floor of a manufacturing plant in Indiana as he pitched his economic stimulus plan. They traveled to the Department of Transportation this week and were in the Capitol Rotunda last month when he paid tribute to Abraham Lincoln in six-minute prepared remarks.

Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter is unusual — not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small.

After the teleprompter malfunctioned a few times last summer and Obama delivered some less-than-soaring speeches, reports surfaced that he was training to wean himself off of the device while on vacation in Hawaii. But no such luck.

The guy is a robot puppet. He is only capable of parroting what his speech writers put before him. We were told that his inauguration speech was going to be epic. We were told that he took what his speech writers gave him and toiled for two days making changes which would set the world on fire. We were told...essentially to expect a reincarnation of Honest Abe Lincoln. What we got was Honest to God boring platitudes and trite promises.

This President is limited in intellect, limited in ability, limited in accomplishments, and hopefully limited to one term. His election was the result of the greatest con-job ever pulled on the American people by a bunch of political operatives.

Did you notice the rude way in which he has treated our greatest historical allies, the British? First he unceremoniously tossed the bust of Sir Winston Churchill which the British Prime Minister Tony Blair loaned to President Bush as a sign of solidarity after the attacks of 9/11 out of the Oval Office and back into the Briton's faces. From the Daily Telegraph:

Barack Obama sends bust of Winston Churchill on its way back to Britain

Barack Obama has sent Sir Winston Churchill packing and pulse rates soaring among anxious British diplomats.

By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 5:41PM GMT 14 Feb 2009

A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government's art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.

The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush's tenure.

But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks."

What a great way to show respect to the closest, best ally America has, "dissing" their greatest hero of the 20th Century. Ah but that's not all, this week Prime Minister Gordon Brown came for a formal visit only to be treated like America's red-headed step-child. Again from the Daily Telegraph:

President Barack Obama just plain rude to Britain. Don't call us in future.

Iain Martin
Mar 4, 2009 at 09:41:53

Why couldn't President Obama have put on more of a show for his British guests? He looked like he simply couldn't be bothered.

Number 10 may be content that they just about got away with the visit to the Oval Office yesterday, as Andrew Porter reports from Washington.

But on this side of the Atlantic the whole business looked pretty demeaning. The morning papers and TV last night featured plenty of comment focused on the White House's very odd and, frankly, exceptionally rude treatment of a British PM. Squeezing in a meeting, denying him a full press conference with flags etc. The British press corps, left outside for an hour in the cold, can take it and their privations are of limited concern to the public.

But Obama's merely warmish words (one of our closest allies, said with little sincerity or passion) left a bitter taste with this Atlanticist. Especially after his team had made Number 10 beg for a mini press conference and then not even offered the PM lunch.

It is almost unprecedented for a President to receive any head of state without holding a side-by-side press conference. It is rude behavior beyond belief to treat the P.M. of Britain in this dismissive manner. Even worse; although Mr. Obama was unable to offer Prime Minister Brown a formal lunch, he was able to manage his weekly Wednesday night bash-Mr. Brown was not invited.

The official explanation for not holding a joint press conference was that it was snowing outside. Well that explains it. I mean it's not like there are 100+ rooms available in the White House.

But now I think we have hit upon the truth in this Politico article. President Obama didn't hold a press conference with Prime Minister Gordon Brown because he is incapable of dealing with the unscripted nature of such a conference.

The Obama Administration may control a majority of the domestic press, but he has little hold on the foreign press who would also have been present. He was afraid to hold the press conference!

He is incompetent, unprepared, and dangerous; just as I and many other Conservatives have been saying for months. The man has no business sitting in the "big chair." He's not deep enough, knowledgeable enough, or intelligent enough to be President.

Compared to President Bush, Obama is as shallow as a foot bath.

Now I think we have the full story about the snub of Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Rush's Challenge Engenders Panic Among Liberal Bloggers

Well, I came across this pile of wishful thinking at the Houston Chronicle Blogs section. It appears that "eljeffebob" thinks that targeting Rush is a clever move by President Obama's hit team, Paul Begala (I am ashamed that he comes from Texas), James Carville (equally embarrassed-but not surprised-that he comes from Louisiana), and Rahm "The Ballet Dancer" Emanuel.

Here's a portion of his blog (I promised him I'd link to it-since he was gratious enough not to publish my comment-I'll remedy that here):

The Successful Branding of the GOP with Limbaugh

Gimme Some Truth Politics, Current Things, and Rock & Roll
Posted 3/5/2009 7:00 AM CST

This week has ended up being all Rush, all the time. It's been entertaining for those of us on the progressive side of the spectrum, but the prominence of this issue illustrates something much more important than just going after a talk radio host. It demonstrates the ability of the Democrats to do to the Republicans what the Republicans have done for years to Democrats. That deed is the successful framing and branding of an issue by the Democrats to drive home a point.

After years of being a minority on Capitol Hill, the GOP developed a very targeted strategy to take back majorities in the 2 houses and the White House. It was driven early on by party operatives and included several key tactics: One of those was certainly controlling the voting booth; strong efforts were successfully undertaken in key states to win statewide office, including downticket offices like State Secretary. Generally the State Secretary controls voting machine distribution, polling place location, budgets, and rules. Getting Republicans into those jobs would certainly advantage the GOP, and that proved tragically true.

Second, and very important, was framing issues in two to three word sound bites that got their message across. Included in that was branding enemies with labels. Examples of this was labeling John Kerry a "flip flopper" and "traitor" when, in fact, he was a war hero and leader in the Senate. The terms "partial birth abortion", "culture of death", "death tax", "sanctuary city" are all examples of framing very complex and difficult issues in two word phrases that even a simpleton would understand. That's why you see a secretary who makes probably $20,000 a year holding a sign up at a Republican rally that says "Obama's not going to spread my wealth around." That's how you get people to vote against their own interests.

Well, I'm time constrained right now so I'll just post my original comments and leave it at that. I may come back and add some more later...he presents such a target rich subject...

********Begin Comment*******

...Just as it did during the Clinton Administration, this tactic of targeting Rush will come back to haunt those of you in the Party of George Soros.

Only a Liberal...excuse me..."Progressive," lacking any comprehension of how capitalism works, would make the bizarre comment that a "a secretary who makes probably $20,000 a year...[is voting] against [her] own interests."

The Liberal's...excuse me..."Progressive's" paradigm for our economy offers only limitations and dependence. That secretary understands simple economic concepts that "Progressives" seem incapable of understanding. Lower taxes and a free market offer greater opportunity for her and her compatriots. Conservative economic principles create better jobs and more abundant opportunities for advancement.

Where "Progressives" see a $20,000/year secretary, Conservatives see a woman with the potential and capability to rise as far as she wishes, limited only by her abilities. Liberals, like you, would lock her into her $20,000/year job and then make her dependent upon the largess of an oppressive and intrusive government.

The truth is, Bob, that secretary sees things far more clearly than you, understands things better than you, and is probably a lot smarter than you...most Conservatives are. After all, if "even a simpleton" can understand, the truths Conservatives stating why can't you?

Rush's response to this long planned attack by Democrat operatives Begala, Carville and Emanuel was brilliant and judging by the hysterics and hyperventilation it has caused within the ranks of Liberals, it is working.

President Obama would be so far out of his depths (well, he already is that) in a face to face with Rush that he would never dare to accept Rush's offer. What really gets to you is, you know that's true. You fear what would be revealed if the Empty Suit in Chief accepted Rush's invitation.

The man can't tie his shoes without some advisor telling him how. Debate? He can't even hold a press conference without a script.

..."Progressive." Heh, heh, heh, as always with you Liberals, it all about labels, not substance.

Sorry to rain on your little fantasy (not really),

Will Malven

********End Comment********

Well Bob finally did publish one of my comments which picked up on an accusation he made against one of his other critical commentors who cited the Rasmussen poll showing a decline in President Obama's popularity. Eljefebob accused him of cherry picking polls. My comment also picked up on a later response in which he spouted a list of what have now become for Liberals like eljefebob boilerplate quotations. One is unsourced and can only be anecdotally confirmed and it is claimed to have occurred back in the 70's when Rush was working on a top 40's radio station as Jeff Christie. I list them here, but with the disclaimer that they all are taken out of context.

Stan - Rush is a racist, xenophobe, sexist, drug addict. Here are just a few juicy quotes:

“The NAACP should have riot rehearsals”

“Take that bone out of your nose and call me back”

“If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people - I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs, let the kinds of jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do - let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work”

“Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.”

“Did you know that the White House drug test is multiple choice?” (This as he violated federal drug statutes himself)

“Women were doing quite well in this country before feminism came along”

You know Liberals are notorious for their complete lack of any sense of humor, so when confronted by obvious satire, they are mystified and can only comprehend it as dead serious commentary. Also, of course, the have never personally listened to Rush for any real period of time, so they are even more clueless as to when he is being serious and when he is playing around. Instead, they choose to be offended and then run off in a display of false indignance with an air of "holier than thou," as though they had never uttered any off color or offensive remarks.

Anyway, here is the comment he actually had the guts to let stand:

Cherry picking Bob?

Cherry picking comments (I knew you wouldn't have the guts to use mine...you probably don't have the guts to use this one either), cherry picking ANECDOTAL quotations without sourcing (even Snopes was reduced to conjecture on that "bone out of your nose" "quote") and quotations taken out of context to bolster you claim of racism.

Sad, but not unexpected from a Liberal like you...oh sorry, I keep forgetting..."Progressive." Envy and hatred are a sad way to exist, Bob. Of course most of the "Progressives" I know are full of envy and hatred.

It's okay about my first post Bob, I'll post it on my blog along with a link to your sad, bitter, greatly flawed commentary...no charge! ;)

Now I am heartbroken to tell you that my dear friend eljefebob...sorry, I'm getting choked up here...my dear friend eljfebob accused me of lying here on my webpage. Eljefe...I'm so hurt by your accusation, you being such a paragon of honesty.

Here was his response to my second (and only published) comment:

cotswold - I didn't post your first comment because it was an advertisement for your blog. I went to your blog, and when I hit the third lie on the front page, I decided you weren't a very reliable source for "conservative" thought, just another hate slinger like newsbusters, newsmax, and the other trash out on the net. Post what you want on your blog. Your choice.

I'm just not going to give you a forum here. At least for free advertising.

Now fair enough, I did include in my signature the URL address for this website and it is his perogative not to allow that, but when it happens to me, I usually just edit the comment to remove the offending line, then repost it with the original time stamp and a comment as to why it has been edited...I even leave the edit in place.

Then again, I don't fear what my commentors say. Oh, I also make it a point of courtesy to be careful to get the commentors nome de guerre correct..."cotswold," indeed...it's catswold, a feline play on words I chose in honor of my late cat, Charlie.

So ignoring my pain, I responded to his accusation with another comment. I fear this one too fell victim to the coward's ahem...editor's axe...so I (lacking the foresight to save it) will have to paraphrase it to the best of my memory:

Lying eljefebob? You know a lot about lying don't you eljefebob?

As in lying by using unsourced quotations and taking quotations out of context and implying that they confer some information about the person being quoted. I shouldn't be surprised, Liberals...I mean "Progressives" know all about lying. The truth is a weakness of the bourgeoisie, eh eljefebob?

Even so if every quotation you have attributed to Rush was true, they don't come close to the things that your Progressive friends have said about former President Bush. Bush is a Nazi...sound familiar eljefebob? Bush is Hitler...sound familiar eljefebob? Bush is a murderer...sound familiar elejefebob. "Bush lied, people died"...sound familiar eljefebob.

These are just a small sample of the disgusting, hateful things your fellow "Progressives" heaped on former President Bush.

Yes, you Liberals know a lot about "lies."

Not surprisingly, this comment was labled as "filled with abusive language." Again not surprisingly he did post a response to my comment, ambiguously addressed though it was:

All,

One of my very critical readers (I didn't post his comment due to his abusive language) has accused me of lying about what Limbaugh really says. Here's a good mashup from Olbermann last night using Rush's OWN words. I mean on tape and everything. It's pretty entertaining, if not disgusting. Sorry for the commercial in the beginning, it's on MSNBC's website.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677#29518606

Of course the "Olberfuher" page it takes you to is a rehash of Rush taken out of context as people like this Liberal thug are want to do as they attempt through dishonesty to make the points they are unable to make using facts.

Hey eljefebob, get a clue. Taking a person's words out of context is lying about what they said, just as lying by ommission is still lying. Liberals are such sociopaths.

This joker eljefebob calls Rush "a racist, xenophobe, sexist, drug addict" while expressing his personal outrage at what he alleges Rush has said. If I'm not mistaken (and I'm not) this is what you call hypocrisy.

It's the same sort of calumny to which former President Bush was subjected by these same self-righteous punks. I don't know if "eljefebob" ever called President Bush any of these names, but I would be willing to bet he has, yet here he is in all his elitist outrage lobbing ad hominems at a man who is smarter, more knowledgeable, more successful and I suspect a heck of a lot more ethical than he.

Rush counts among his close friends, a large number of African American atheletes, and Black Conservatives...apparently they don't consider him a "racist." It ain't about race, it's about political philosophy.

He has a huge following of female listeners who love him...apparently they don't consider him a sexist.

If it is legitimate to call Rush a "drug addict" because he had a bout of addiction with prescribed pain pills for which he sought treatment and therapy and is now in recovery by all accounts, I guess it is fair game to call our current President a drug addict for his admitted use of crack and other drugs. I'm sorry eljefebob, I don't recall your calling President Obama a "drug addict."

Yep folks, my new "friend" is another one of those Liberals hypocrites with selective recall and selective ethical standards. He can't stand to be called down with facts and he loves to take the words of others out of context.

I have to the best of my ability attempted to accurately recount what has occurred today on his "Progressive" blog...he in return has chosen to accused me of "lying," mischaracterize my comments, and proved unwilling to publish them when they might be a little too embarrassing to him.

Sad to say, I fear we're not destined to be friends eljefebob. I fear you are just too much of a hidebound, kneejerk, Liberal ass to be considered a friend. Alas!

I do however just love hanging curve balls and he provided a beauty in his original article:

"...framing very complex and difficult issues in two word phrases that even a simpleton would understand."

Evidently even a simpleton can understand what eljefebob can't.

OHH...IT'S A LONG FLY BALL OUT TO RIGHT CENTER...IT'S GOING...IT'S GOING...IT'S A HOMERUN!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Texas PolicyCast: New taxes on the fast track

Texans are beginning to feel the pain of the national recession and a cooling state economy. The Federal Reserve recently updated its forecast and said Texas could lose nearly 300,000 jobs this year, with an unemployment rate upwards of 8 percent. Perfect time for a massive tax increase? Sadly, several of our state legislators seem to think so. We look at the push for new regional transportation taxes with Justin Keener, vice president of policy and communications at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF COMMENTARY: No margin for error

By The Honorable Talmadge Heflin

Just how much money should Texas businesses pay under the newly revised franchise tax? That is the question many legislators are trying to answer and one that will soon be up for serious debate.

Calls for re-examining the revised franchise tax (a/k/a the margin tax) have been growing in number as the economy retracts and more Texans lose their jobs. But the economic decline is only part of the reason people are taking a second look at the new business tax.

According to the Comptroller’s latest revenue estimate, the margin tax collected $4.5 billion from Texans after only its first full year – a whopping 46 percent increase over the amount collected from the old tax the year before – making it the second costliest tax in the state.

And while an increase in business taxes was expected to some degree, the higher taxes were supposed to be offset by lower property taxes. While school district property taxes did decline by $2.3 billion from 2005 to 2007, according to the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association, Texans’ total property tax bills still increased by $1.7 billion – making for higher taxes on two fronts.

Making matters even worse is that all businesses with at least $300,000 in total revenue are subject to the margin tax, whether or not a business made money. Since the tax is based on gross receipts rather than profitability, many businesses above the $300,000 threshold that were unable to turn a profit have been forced to make an impossible choice: close up shop, or take out a loan to pay their tax bill and hope that their business improves.

Hit with a gigantic first year tax increase, continually rising property taxes, and an added “do-or-die” pressure, it’s no surprise that many Texas businesses are crying foul.

Fortunately, a number of lawmakers from both sides of the political aisle seem to have taken notice of the issue and have made it a top priority this session. Among some of the more promising proposals that have been filed:

* Four legislators have filed identical bills that would exempt businesses with $1 million or less in total revenues from the margin tax. Presently, only businesses with $300,000 or less in total revenue are exempt.

* Another proposal would amend the constitution to require a three-fourths super-majority vote from each house to increase the margin tax rate any further.

* The boldest proposal would move the business tax exemption threshold from $300,000 to $600,000 starting in 2010; $1 million in 2011; and repeal the tax altogether in 2014.

Reforming the margin tax is the first major step the Legislature can take to help businesses and consumers weather the ongoing economic storm, but it is only the first step.

Beyond lowering taxes, the Legislature needs to tighten its belt and rein in spending. Remember, if legislators can’t keep budget growth in check today, then taxes will have to be raised tomorrow.

As the margin tax debate grows to a climax over the next three months, you can be sure that businesses everywhere are watching closely – not because businesses are greedy or don’t want to pay their fair share. They are watching because their very livelihoods depend on it. They are watching because for them, there is no margin for error.

The Honorable Talmadge Heflin is Director of the Center for Fiscal Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. He is a former Chairman of the Texas House Appropriations Committee.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Compromising Conservative Principles is not the Key to a Republican Victory

Will Malven
3/05/2009

“For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” Mathew 16:26

There is a disturbing talk coming from some Republicans and Conservatives that the party needs to soften its message in order to broaden its appeal to moderate voters. When individuals like the newly elected chairman of the Republican Party, Michael Steele or National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman John Cornyn start telling Republicans that we need to invite more moderate Republicans to run in moderate states so that we can win more seats, it is “gut check” time for Republicans.

Is it their goal solely to win more elections at any cost or is it to win while maintaining our core beliefs? If winning is the only criterion for success, then I am well rid of my Republican Party membership. If becoming more Moderate is the strategy which the Republican Leadership finds most attractive for the future, then they can count their Conservative base out. it is precisely the wrong strategy and it is the strategy with lost us the last election. Republicans cannot out Liberal the Party of George Soros.

Republicans have already been down that road. The 2008 Republican Presidential Nominee was a moderate. John McCain, for all his blather declaring himself to be a Conservative, was at heart and of record a moderate. President Bush, contrary to the clamoring of the Liberal illuminati, was very much the same. The whole concept of “Compassionate Conservatism” was a construct designed to allow a man of essentially moderate political leanings to appeal to the base of the Republican Party while appeasing the Left-wing media by adopting their narrative as to what Conservatism was.

George Bush was a Moderate. He held Moderate views (many Conservatives would say Liberals views) on spending, border control and enforcement, education, global warming, campaign finance reform, and Medicare. He held Conservative views on the right to life, the right to keep and bear arms, taxation, national security, and the manner in which judges and justices should interpret the Constitution of the United States.

As a result of his “moderate” views, we wound up with the greatest increase in governmental spending since the Johnson Administration, national borders which remain uncontrolled and an influx of illegal aliens unabated throughout his eight years, Ted Kennedy’s “No Child Left Behind” education policy which resulted in teachers “teaching to the test,” Russ Feingold’s campaign finance law (instituted at the insistence of Democrats primarily) which apparently only Republican co-sponsor McCain was willing to follow, and a $700 Billion Medicare reform/expansion in benefits. We also got TARP.

While those initiatives resulting from his Conservatism gave us greater security, excellent Circuit Court Judges, excellent Supreme Court Justices, lowered taxes…if only temporarily…and pro-life policies on Federally funded abortion and fetal stem-cell research.

Like I said, he was a moderate.

For his efforts at making nice with Democrats and Liberals, he was attacked relentlessly and scurrilously by people who only know hatred of all things Conservative. Among those attacking him so viciously were Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and pretty much all of the mainstream media.

He had films fantasizing about his assassination and books calling for it. He was compared to and even labeled “Hitler” and Nazi by those who have no concept of what either term truly means. He was called a murderer, a drunk, stupid, lazy, a puppet, and a failure by people who occupy positions in government (including our Congress) which one might expect would preclude the use of such language, if only for decorum’s sake, if not out of simple civility.

His response to those who treated him with such disrespect was always respectful. President Bush never lowered himself or his office to the level of his detractors.

So, to those “Conservatives” and Republicans out there who are calling for more moderation in our political views I say, “Been there, done that.”

I would recommend to those Conservatives and Republicans who are considering moderating their views to accommodate what they perceive as a more Liberal electorate to consider the quotation with which I opened this editorial.

How does compromising one’s core principles and values for political expediency get us closer to the nation for which we allegedly have been fighting since Marxism in the guise of Socialism and Communism first reared its ugly head? How does compromising on ones principles get us to a Supreme Court which respects our Constitution rather than attempts to rewrite it?

The key to winning back the people is not in compromising one’s principles, but in adhering to those principles and educating the voters as to what those principles represent. Our hopes lie not in becoming a pale imitation of the Democrats and Liberals, but in offering an attractive alternative to them. The key to winning back Congress and the Presidency does not lie in currying favor with a hostile and leftwards biased press which will never support Constitutional principles, as our Founding Fathers laid them out.

We will win when we adhere to our principles; by not spending like drunken sailors, as was done for six of President Bush’s eight years in office, by defending genuine family values, by offering the voters a return to the freedom, liberty, opportunity our forefathers bequeathed to us in the Constitution.

Conservatives should be unapologetic in their support of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Right to Life of an unborn child, the Preservation of Marriage, the Sanctity of Private Property, the Right of an individual to work in his chosen field without being forced to join a union, the right to keep what one earns, and the belief in a small non-invasive government which serves the people rather than seeks to rule them.

In short Conservatives and Republican should espouse and fight for the principles of our Constitution and should call down any who oppose that aim as enemies of all citizens and betrayers of our national trust.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

White House v. Limbaugh Part 2

Will Malven
3/03/2009

The sheer hubris of Liberals is sometimes astonishing even to me and I have been talking about it for some considerable time folks.

Yesterday White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs actually made the following statement in responding to Rush Limbaugh's expanded explanation of why he hopes Obama's plan for the economy fails:

"I can only imagine what might have been said a few years ago if somebody might have said that on the other side relating to what was going on in this country or our endeavors overseas."

Is this idiot trying to be funny? I can only imagine what might have been accomplished if everybody in the Democrat Party might not "have said that on the other side relating to what was going on in this country or our endeavors overseas."

Democrats and Liberals were almost unanimous in their efforts to make the war in Iraq a failure. They pretty much unanimously voiced their wish for our failure in Iraq and the worked tirelessly towards that goal in their press, their protests and their propaganda.

The Party of George Soros, the unapologetic Nazi sympathizer who made $Millions off of the disaster of 9/11, attempted to sabotage our efforts in Iraq solely for political gain.

Well here is The Hill's article:

White House fires back at Rush Limbaugh

By Sam Youngman
Posted: 03/02/09 03:56 PM [ET]

The Speaker of the House won't mention his name, but the White House has shown a willingness to invoke the name of radio host Rush Limbaugh whenever challenged.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) won't comment on anything the hero of conservatives has to say — and he has a lot to say — but the White House on Monday was only too happy to respond to Limbaugh's repeated assertion over the weekend that he hopes President Obama's presidency fails.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, who last month blasted CNBC host Rick Santelli from the podium in the briefing room, challenged reporters on Monday to ask Republicans if they agree with Limbaugh's desire.

Let me give you a clue Robert. Yes we do. If success means that Obama manages to institute his fundamental restructuring of our entire socio-economic system to parallel the demonstrably failed systems in Europe, then the answer is a resounding "Yes!"

President Obama and his Democrats in Congress believe in the State, we believe in the private sector. We believe in free markets, low taxes, and entrepreneurial ingenuity. We believe that the more the State is involved in the economy, the slower it grows, the less productive it becomes, and the less freedom enjoyed by all citizens.

Limbaugh is correct. Success for President Obama, unless he radically changes his agenda, means failure for all Americans.

Success for President Obama's plan means a state run "one-size-fits-all" health care system which limits choice, rations available treatments, cuts payments to doctors (lessening their incentive to take patients) and endangers the exceptional quality of healthcare available in America today...but it only sets those limits on average citizens.

The rich elitist in our government-the millionaires in Congress, Hollywood and yes Wall Street-will still be able to go outside of the system and get private healthcare.

Success for President Obama's plan means an education system in which the teachers unions, not the parents and students dictate what and how your children will be taught.

Success for President Obama's plan means massive taxes on success, the redistribution of wealth from those who achieve to those who don't, and the sort of shared lives of quiet desperation that so predominated the Eastern European nations throughout the Cold War.

Success for President Obama's plan means Americans living constricted lives paying higher prices for oil, gas and coal and the energy generated by them, higher prices on all products manufactured using petroleum products, and higher prices for all consumables-like food-produced by machines using energy...all courtesy of a "carbon-tax" intended to promote a political agenda against "global climate change;" a fantastical concept that is less about preventing climate change than it is about controlling our lives.

There is no aspiration in the Socialism of President Obama's plan for America, only survival. Why work hard to achieve success when the government is going to penalize you through higher taxes? Why innovate when the fruits of your efforts will be redistributed to those who lack initiative?

So Mr. Gibbs, considering the destructive nature of President Obama's agenda to our life style, our economy, and our freedoms, the answer to your question is a resounding "YES!" I agree with Rush Limbaugh. I want President Barack Obama's agenda to fail.

His failure is the only hope there is for America. It is the only means of preserving this "Greatest of Nations" as it was left to us by the men who fought for it, died for it and created it by writing our Constitution.

I don't wish to live in a carbon copy of those European states which have languished in the doldrums of a failed socialist system for the past forty years. Our ancestors left Europe to escape the backwards thinking authoritarian states to build a nation founded in personal liberty and responsibility...why on Earth would I wish to return to the fold now?

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

The Obama Budget: Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue

Will Malven
3/02/2009

President Obama Friday released his budget plan and what a plan it is. If you like big government (and I do mean BIG) and high taxes, then this is a budget you will love.

This $3.55 trillion behemoth will leave America $1.75 trillion in the hole. That’s right folks, the very people who blasted President Bush for his deficits, which until 2008 were decreasing at a rate exceeding CBO estimates every year from 2004 through 2007, are now going to triple the largest deficit of the Bush Administration. In fact President Obama in his first year as President, with his Democrat buddies in charge of Congress, is going to come within $250 Billion of equaling the total of all deficits built up during the Bush Administration ($2.013 Trillion)…in his first year.

Of course these numbers only hold true if the predictions contained within the budget (pulled directly from Never-Never Land) are accurate. Most Presidential budgets are pure fiction, but this baby is fantasy.

Remember those $2 Trillion in savings that President Obama in his State of the Union Address claimed to have found already? Those were not “savings” in any real sense of the word, they were tax increases ($1 Trillion) and projected savings from not maintaining current troop levels in Iraq for the next ten years. Talk about fantasy; no one in either party has suggested leaving the troops in Iraq for the next ten years-at current levels.

President Bush had already begun laying the ground work for reducing our military foot print in Iraq a year before he left office. All current projections were that our troops would be out in the next 3 years, at most.

If this is the sort of “honesty and transparency” we can expect from the Obama Administration, we are in for a long, difficult haul. It is a cliché to say that America faces budget deficits “as far as the eye can see,” this President, in his first budget proposal gives America a new phrase, “budget deficits as far as the mind can imagine.”

President Obama’s economic growth predictions fall somewhere in between absurd and outright laughable; a growth of 3% by the end of 2009? Projected growth of 5-6% annual in 2010 and 2011? I fear President Obama and his entire budget staff have gone back to the ‘crack’ pipe. Man this guy is the Master of Mendacity; the Prince of Prevaricators; the Lord of Lies, the Duke of Deception…got it?

President Obama is looking more and more as though he lacks the knowledge and even the intellect to deal with running the government; he intends to raise taxes in the middle of a recession.

Let me repeat that – He intends to raise taxes in the middle of a grave recession. This is not simply counter-productive; it is profoundly and utterly stupid. It is the exact opposite of what virtually all economists and businessmen say you should do. There is no better recipe for destroying what’s left of our economy than to raise $1 Trillion in taxes while the economy is already plummeting towards a deep depression and it is precisely the wrong thing to do…unless that is your intent.

It becomes more and more probable and believable that President Obama is attempting to send our economy into a deep depression, intentionally. The fact is, I have long believed and even included it in my blogger profile that Liberals wish to dismantle our free market (capitalist) economic system in order to institute their own ideal of a Marxist Utopia. With the actions which have recently been taken by Democrats in Congress and this new budget, government will control almost half of the American economy.

I fear for our economy both in the near and far future. This sort of “doubling down” (actually tripling down as the new budget will triple our national debt within ten years) on the principles of Keynesian economics is a gamble which is destined to fail and will saddle future generations with an untenable burden of debt.

If government spending would solve any budgetary problems, we would not be in the situation in which we find ourselves after the eight profligate years of the Bush Administration. Under President Bush the government spent more recklessly than at any time since the Johnson Administration, yet here we are, facing a recession of historical proportions.

Yet, if President Bush was profligate in spending tax-payer dollars, this new Obama administration is proposing a spending spree which will destroy the American economy. Spending tax-payer dollars at this level can have but two results, neither of them good for the American citizens, a depression similar to that experienced under Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt, or rampant, uncontrolled inflation as the government is forced to print fiat money to cover the spending programs.

How do I know this, because we’ve been down this road before, under President Jimmy Carter. The Carter Administration left us with interest rates at 21.5% (the prime rate, add a few percent for what loans cost), unemployment at 10%, and inflation at 13.5%. Democrats quickly and glibly point out that, as Harold Ford stated yesterday on Meet the Press, if Obama is wrong, then Democrats will pay the price in 2012 and Republicans will be elected. The problem with that thinking is that it will be too late. The national debt will have been tripled and the economy crippled, possibly to the extent that it becomes virtually impossible to recover.

Perhaps that is the fundamental difference between Conservatives and Liberals (and Democrats as well), we don’t look at this through political eyes. We aren’t worried about this spending because we might not get into power; we worry because the actions currently being taken may damage America beyond recovery, regardless of who is in charge. It is for that reason that we took President Bush to task when he made poor decisions…decisions inconsistent with beliefs…and it is for that reason that we now take aim at the Democrats now writing this disastrous policy.

Frankly, I don’t care which party gets in power and remains there, as long as the policies they pursue are consistent with the intent and design of our forefathers. The problem is that this current administration seems intent on fundamentally restructuring our nation’s economic system to more closely resemble the failed European socialist model, not solving our problems.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below