Don't Do Big Things!

There are more than a quarter million people working at the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce. Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security combined nearly pass the half-million mark. And at a moment of grave fiscal peril, we continue to spend half the planet's money on defense, with Obama et al expecting thunderous applause for snipping out "tens of billions" from future defense spending growth. We continue to arrest 800,000-plus people a year for smoking or trading a plant that makes you want to eat Pop Tarts. --Matt Welch, Reason 

My reaction to President Obama's statement in the State of the Union Address that "we do big things," is that doing big things like bailing out GM and Chrysler, "stimulating" the economy to the tune of $900 billion, massively increasing the federal bureaucracy, passing a bloated health-care law, and spending uselessly on "green" energy, increased our national debt to $14 trillion and is threatening to turn the U.S. into a third-world country in the near future.

Obama seems oblivious to the danger. His puny suggestion to freeze $400 million of discretionary spending over the next five years while spending trillions for big things like building high-speed rail, repairing the infrastructure, and funding green energy research and development would be amusing if it were not so irresponsible.

Get it through your heads, Obama and Congress: We cannot spend our way to a sound economy! We must keep taxes at a level that allows our businesses to compete so they will create jobs. We must spend not one penny more than we raise in taxes. We must dismantle large parts of the bloated federal government. We must reign in spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlement programs and wean Americans off big socialist government. To the folks who will scream and whine about these "musts:" Our government cannot sustain this spending, and when it comes crashing down as in Greece, the measures that will be taken then will be worse than if we stop this insanity now.

Get this socialist moron Obama and his running dogs in Congress--and that doesn't mean just Democrats--out of office ASAP!

Make Them All Squirm

The media reports today that the conservative Supreme Court Justices—Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and swing-voter Kennedy—may not show up at the State of the Union Address tomorrow night. One cable news organization speculates that none of the justices may attend. Only Justice Alito has stated that he will not attend, although Justices Scalia and Thomas usually do not appear.

The reasons are that they think that they should give the appearance of impartiality by refraining from standing and applauding during the speech as others in the chamber do, but, of course, that makes it seem as if they are showing partiality; that, in the event, they see the address as having degenerated into a pep rally for the president and his party (no matter what party the president represents); and because they do not want to hear the president insult the court as Obama did last year in referring to the court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.  (Applause.)  I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.  (Applause.)  They should be decided by the American people.  And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

Well, get the hell over it. Those in all branches of the government should be accountable, and if they have to face a little embarrassment, so be it. The fact is, we in the U.S. would do better to in some way emulate the Brits, whose prime minister, as a Minister of the Crown, must face the House of Commons for a half-hour each week in Questions to the Prime Minister (PMQs), and lie to the MPs as best he or she can (the PM is an MP).

Just as cabinet members must testify before Congress when called, it would not violate the separation of powers to require the president to face the House of Representatives for a half hour each week and answer questions; it would be informative to the people as well as the House members. After all, from time to time presidents call the leaders of the House and the Senate to the White House for "discussions." Why let the president get away with only one visit to Congress every year?

As for the Supremes visiting the House chamber for the State of the Union Address, it should be protocol for them to sit on their hands and not cheer and applaud during the speech. As long as everyone is aware of the protocol, it gives the justices the appearance of impartiality. But in any event they should be present, even if their faces are reddened occasionally.

A Few Thoughts about the 2012 Presidential Election

To begin with, despite all the speculation in the media whether Barack Obama will win a second term, it’s just too early to tell now.

As of this week, Obama’s approval rating is above 50%, but that fluctuates from week to week, event to event. In a 2003 USA today story by Richard Benedetto, “History of Approval Ratings on Bush’s side for reelection,” Frank Newport, editor of the Gallup Poll, reportedly said that the approval rating in March or April of election year is a more reliable predictor.

He points out that every incumbent president since Roosevelt who was at 50% approval or higher in April of his election year went on to win…The last two presidents who lost their bids for re-election, Carter and the elder Bush, were both at 39% approval in April of the election year.

Even though, as Benedetto reported, a good approval rating at the end of a president’s third year in office is a fairly good predictor, it’s not without exception.

With the exception of Jimmy Carter, every president since Franklin Roosevelt who ended his third year in office with job approval above 50% won the re-election he sought. Presidential job-approval polling began with Roosevelt.

Richard Nixon, who was at 50% at the end of his third year, also won. Carter was at 54% when the year ended.

We mustn’t forget that the opposition must be taken into account, too. What the Republicans do in the next two years, and how the voters react will play a large part.

However, the most important aspect of the opposition to Obama’s reelection will be who runs against him. As of right now, the likely Republican nomination contenders appear weak. Sarah Palin will find it difficult for voters to take her seriously after all the gaffes she had made. Mitt Romney does not have the personal appeal to beat Obama. Newt Gingrich has too much baggage. Mike Huckabee doesn’t have the drive or the base to win. Ron Paul, who really is a libertarian, has the best ideas, but Americans either consider him too extreme or too risky. There are several other potential candidates for the Republican nomination who are not well known among voters, including Paul Ryan who appears solid and is being hyped up in the media, and Bobby Jindal, who has great ideas.

But Obama has an ace in the hole that previous candidates and presidents haven’t possessed: A solid block of black voters (supported by a majority of Hispanic voters) who will vote for Obama regardless of his approval rating, unless they just don’t vote at all.

Even if one of the Republican candidates emerges as a strong nominee (and that’s quite doubtful), it will be very difficult to beat Obama unless he loses the support of a great majority of independent voters.

To end with, despite all the speculation in the media whether Barack Obama will win a second term, it’s just too early to tell now.

Yes, Virginia,…

there is a Santa Claus, aka the U.S. Congress, which last night enacted a law extending the Bush tax cuts, and adding over $200 billion in Christmas presents to Americans. Of course, eventually, Americans will have to pay for those presents.

Is the Pistol Cocked?

Has the Republican Party in this lame-duck session of Congress cocked the gun that it will use to shoot off its foot in the new session?

Do I, like Dalrymple, misunderstand what just happened? Did the Republicans cut a deal with Obama to extend the Bush tax cuts in a bill that includes $246 billion in new spending? Are these the same Republicans who campaign on cutting spending and limiting the size and power of government? The same Republicans who say they are willing to work with the opposition, but not to the extent of compromising their “core” principles?

Okay, extending the Bush tax cuts I can see—Republicans have been saying all along that they would do that. And raising the exemption for estate tax while setting the rate at 35% is something somewhat in line with what they’ve said all along, never mind that it’s not quite eliminating the estate tax, something many Republicans have advocated.

But extension of the unemployment benefits for 13 months, a Social Security tax break, extension of individual tax credits and a plethora of business tax breaks, all add up to new spending because there is no provision for spending cuts to offset any of that.

Is Obama smarter than we think? By agreeing to the “compromise” bill, could he be setting the Republicans up for the 2012 campaign when he will argue that the Republicans agreed to their own stimulus bill, so why are they criticizing his?

As I wrote in a previous post, Republican control of Congress is unlikely to do anything to stop the rampant expansion of federal power and the loss of Americans’ liberties? That is why a drastic, fundamental change in government through constitutional amendments is needed.

Meanwhile, will the Republican Party fire that cocked pistol at its foot in January, and suffer in 2012 the same fate as the Democratic Party in 2010? It's a better-than-even chance, I think.

Dalrymple Should Read This

Dalrymple should read Jedediah Bila's piece, "The Left's Unjust 'Justice'" in Human Events, an excerpt of which follows:

When it comes to economic injustice, why is it that the Left is blind to the injustice of about 47% of Americans not paying federal income taxes for 2009, as was projectedin April by the Tax Policy Center? Why do leftists not consider it unjust that in 2007, the top 1% of taxpayers paid over 40% of federal income taxes, a greater share than that paid by the bottom 95% of taxpayers combined?

Perhaps because it’s not really about justice at all. It’s about condoning theft in the name of socialist-style “equality;” an equality that would disincentivize workers, undermine prosperity, and—to borrow a phrasefrom Barack Obama—lead to “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Really, Dalrymple, read the piece!

Dalrymple Learns about Politics and Economics

“Uh, sir, do you have a minute?"

“Sure, Dalrymple, what can I help you with?”

“Sir, I don’t fully understand some things we are working on. Like why we want to raise taxes on folks making $250,000 and over.”

“Dalrymple, you don’t understand economics, but I’ll explain. First of all, those people are despicable. They clearly don’t deserve to make that much, and they make it by stepping on the backs of the middle class. Don’t you just burn when someone you know buys a big yacht, a big SUV, or vacations in the Caribbean or the Greek Isles? You know they don’t deserve it! They’re so bad, they probably should be killed, but we can’t condone that, of course. We can severely punish them by making them pay high income tax.”

“But, sir, don’t many of those people own small businesses that employ people and circulate money in the economy? If they have to pay higher taxes, won’t that hurt those businesses and result in layoffs or reduced hiring?”

“Dalrymple, of course that’s what they’ll tell you, but really, they just don’t want to pay their fair share. And we need the money, Dalrymple.”

“I can understand that, sir. We want to pay down the nearly $14 trillion debt, right?"

“Dalrymple, Dalrymple. You don’t understand the first thing about economics, do you? Look, what good will it do for the middle class if we pay the debt down? What’s more important is that we have all that additional tax money from the fat cats so we can enact more social programs that benefit the middle class.”

“But, sir, don’t programs like that really benefit the lower class rather than the middle class?"

“Yes, Dalrymple, but we call the beneficiaries ‘middle class.’ And don’t say, ‘lower class.’ That’s offensive.”

“I don’t understand, sir.”

“The middle class is the biggest social and economic class, so we have to make them think that we’re working to help them, because they have the most votes, you see. It will not do to have the middle class think that we’re just trying to help the working class.”

“Okay, back to the tax on the rich, sir. You said they don’t want to pay their fair share—but is it fair to raise taxes on one income group and not all?”

“Oh, Dalrymple, you still don’t get it. They make much more, so they should pay much more—it’s that simple.”

“But because they make much more, wouldn’t they pay much more even if they were taxed at the same rate as everyone else?"

“Yes, Dalrymple, but not enough for us to do our good work! Just to pay the interest on the social programs takes a great deal of money. When you add Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, TARP, other mandatory expenses and interest, why that’s 65% of the federal budget![1] We may even have to raise taxes for the middle class to pay for all that.”

“I thought you said we were trying to help the middle class?”

“No, Dalrymple, I said that we want the middle class to think that we’re trying to help them. You see the difference, don’t you?”

“Well, yes, but…”

“One word, Dalrymple: votes. They have the votes. That’s what it’s all about.”

“Uh, I see. But wouldn’t taxing the rich at the same rate as everyone be fair? Wouldn’t those small businesses then be able to expand and create more economic wealth that would raise government revenue? If the rich are able to spend their money to help stimulate the economy wouldn’t that achieve what we want?”

“Dalrymple, you’re so naïve. If we don’t take their money from them, they certainly won’t spend it on social programs for the poor. That’s why we have to take their money away from them, so we can spend it where it’s needed, you see.”

“If they spend it and stimulate the economy, and spend it to expand business and hire more people, then wouldn’t there be fewer poor people?"

“Of course, Dalrymple. But we don’t want that, do we. Getting votes means pitting the poor and middle class against the rich. If more poor people get jobs and move into the middle class, and more middle-class people make more money and become rich, then where is our political base? Your thinking is just wrong-headed, Dalrymple.”

“Sir, you and your colleagues here make much more than $250,000, so you want to pay more tax?"

“No, we’ll be exempt, Dalrymple. After all, we are the ones who deserve to be rich, because we do so much good for everyone. Without us to impose order on this regrettable capitalist economic system we have, who knows what might happen?”

“Oh, sorry, sir. This is all very complicated, and I didn’t see your side of it before.”

“I’m happy to set you straight, Dalrymple. What are the other things you’re concerned about?"

“Maybe I’d better just leave them for another time, sir, and absorb what you explained to me. By the way, what do you want me to buy for you to give to your wife for Christmas?”

“Dalrymple, don’t use that word—it could offend some people. Just say ‘holidays.”

---

[1] White House Office of Management and Budget, 2009 national budget.