Thinking in Print - Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print - Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print - Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print - Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print - Cogito Ergo Blogito
Tuesday night, Barack Obama spoke to a waiting country and a wondering world. Found in his words are a myriad reasons to reject what he stands for. The election is over and Obama is President. Some say the healing must now begin and we must unite behind Barack. Obama himself appealed “…to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn — I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.”
I say, Obama will be the President; but he will never be my President. Obama wants what he is unwilling to give. To get the job, Obama divided us. Now on the job, he yearns for unity’s strength. But leopards don’t change their spots. As he ran, so will he govern. I will not be a party to that.
When Obama “wonders if the dream of our founders is alive”, I remember what those Founders wrote. They were “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Obama believes some men are more equal than others. When advocating for nonexisent rights or for granting more rights to some than to me, he will be the President, but not my President.
When Obama says he wants to “… renew this nation’s promise … to restore prosperity … to reclaim the American Dream …”; when he speaks of “remaking this nation” I must ask, when was the promise broken and by whom; who stole our prosperity; who moved the American Dream out of reach of everyday Americans and who pulled down our nation that it needs to be remade? For a century, it has been the ideological allies of Barack Obama who have done so. When raising our taxes, curtailing our liberty, weakening the defense of our country and bankrupting our businesses and Economy - Obama will be the President, but not my President.
When Obama says his Presidency was launched in “the living rooms of Concord” and financed “by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give … to this cause” I marvel at his deception. When he enters the Oval Office it will complete a journey begun in the living room of William Ayers’ and which traveled a path financed by thousands of people Obama will not identify, many of whom are not even Americans. He will enter the office of the President, but not my President.
When Obama says “… the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime …” and references our military and families worried about tomorrow, I recoil in horror from the cavalier exploitation of those about whom he is ignorant. My son is in the military he will command and I have four more children at home to care for. When he sends my son into harm’s way but threatens not to support him while there; when he takes money for which I labor and which I need to support my family to give to families he decides need it more he will be the President, but not my President.
When Obama calls for “a new spirit of patriotism”, I struggle to find something wrong with the old one. When Obama gives away our sovereignty and national interests to our enemies and those who would weaken us he will be the President, but not my President.
When Obama calls for us to “look after not only ourselves, but each other” and to believe “that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers” I marvel at his hypocrisy. Under the old spirit of “service and responsibility” he would replace, Americans were the most generous and industrious people on earth. When Obama decides who it is I must sacrifice for and brings suffering to Main Street via higher taxes for the Wall Street Bailout he will be the President, but not my President.
Obama’s words are empty. His promise is hollow. His dreams are nightmares. To be my President, he must deny everything he confesses to believe in. He must repudiate his stated policies. He must realize the paradise he seeks is found in the principles and promises of others. As the President, he may invoke the imagery of Lincoln, King and Kennedy but his appeal to their memory defiles their legacy.
He says he will be my President. But he will not because he cannot. To expect me to believe otherwise insults me. And that, too, is something my President would not do.
Robert Romano at Americans for Limited Government has an excellent piece on the effectiveness of Obama’s proposed tax plans. You’ve been bombarded with TV ads telling you Obama will cut taxes - even more than McCain. It’s only necessary (and fair) to raise taxes on the top 5% of earners to generate enough Government revenue to effectively “spread the wealth around.” The question, ‘The $5 Trillion Question’, is, will it work? Let’s see Bob’s take on the issue …
THE $5 TRILLION QUESTION -by Robert Romano,
Editor ALG News Bureau
Americans for Limited Government
A lot of attention has been placed in recent days to Barack Obama’s plans to raise taxes on the top 5 percent of wage earners. The Illinois Senator assures the American people that he, as President, will not raise taxes on everybody else—just those at the tippy-top of the income spectrum.
Let’s simply consider the claim that, somehow, only the top 5 percent are going to have their taxes raised. As my favorite arithmetic teacher would say, “Let’s do the math.”
The federal budget for Fiscal Year 2008 wound up being $2.98 trillion, with a deficit of $454 billion. For the sake of argument, let’s add to that the $850 billion bailout package that Congress enacted on October 3rd. After all, it was conveniently passed just three days after the annual deficit was calculated.
Again, hypothetically, let’s also assume that the Treasury makes no money back on the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Then the total budget for the year would jump to $3.93 trillion, with a deficit of $1.3 trillion.
Let’s also assume that, for the sake of argument, the budget does not shrink next year. After all, the federal government did just acquire about $5 trillion in risk from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It stands to reason that in these troubling times, some of those debts are going to go sour, and there will be more bailouts next year. So, let’s assume the same amount just to keep things simple.
Now, methodology aside, Senator Obama is proposing approximately $1 trillion in new federal spending. You know, all those new welfare entitlement programs. Whammo. The budget then jumps to $4.93 trillion—nearly a whopping $5 trillion!
So here’s the $5 trillion question: Where does the Senator think he’s going to get the money to pay for all of that new spending?
I don’t remember first hearing the term “9/11 Conservatives” to describe those with post 9/11 epiphanies. Realizing Liberal degradation of the US was destroying it in people’s minds, 9/11 Conservatives abandoned the Left in droves. I do remember I didn’t need the term explained to me. Its meaning was instantly grasped. The concept has been applied to different specifics over the years but it’s still clear. A big enough event can break through indifference, and even opposition, forcing us to deal with it and its consequences. Given that, perhaps it’s possible to learn something from attacks on other American institutions.
Free Market Capitalism is clearly under attack in the wake of recent financial woes. Listening to Democrats, and more than a few Republicans, Capitalism and Free Markets produced those problems. They were so bad, Government had to put Socialist bandages on Capitalist wounds. The Truth is otherwise. An objective evaluation show Government Market meddling and Watergate style Government cover-ups behind the current financial ravaging. The same is true of the subsequent bailout.
People are not as stupid as the Left needs them to be. Citizens will see Big Government, not Free Markets, caused the problem. They’ll understand the Government’s solution, as in 1929, made the situation far worse than it would have been had it let the Market work. They’ll recognize a prime Government weakness is needing to be seen doing something, even something bad! And they’ll realize one can’t eliminate Bear Markets if one also wants Bull Markets. Uninterrupted growth is unrealistic. There will be Market corrections and they are healthy. Public understanding of Governmental responsibility for the problem as evidenced by the bailout, the Community Reinvestment Act and more will ultimately push more people towards fiscal conservatism than towards centrally planned Socialism. Call them CRA FisCons.
Equally large is the assault on the sanctity of the voting process. We have peaceful transitions of power due to public confidence in the electoral process. While there have been many charges of vote fraud over the years, in the last decade, Democrats have stepped up efforts to destroy confidence in the system in order to acquire legislative power. In 2000 Al Gore retracted his concession, forcing the Florida recount nightmare on the country. Eight years later I still see “Bush was selected, not elected!” bumper stickers. The Left refused to accept a certified vote because it showed them losing. This obsession fueled efforts to ensure it never happens again, even if they need to cheat.
Reliance on and allegiance to ACORN will ultimately cost them. The Democratic Party and individual Democrats should denounce ACORN. They should demand investigations to produce confidence in the process. They should vote to end public funding accounting for 40% of ACORN’s budget and advise private donors putting up the other 60% to cut ACORN off. Democrats should call for trials and harsh sentences for those convicted of manipulating the voting process to disenfranchise others. But they don’t and they won’t. ACORN is doing exactly what Democrats want them to do. They want distrust of the process in the public mind.
Once again, Americans are not that stupid. The Left cannot spin ACORN as part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy or even the Right in general. ACORN is clearly both intentionally engaged in vote fraud and an obvious Democratic tool. As Americans grasp this truth, look for ACORN Republicans to make themselves known.
Finally, it never ceases to amaze how Democrats spin relationships. GWB was in the oil business so he must be a shill for Big Oil. Dick Cheney served on Haliburton’s board so the GOP must be funneling no-bid contracts their way. Yes, some Government decisions benefit Big Oil. Yes, Haliburton gets some Government contracts. But are these events in the natural course of business or is the GOP linked to them in nefarious ways? No evidence exists that it is anything other than the simple natural course of things.
Democratic relationships and connections are, however, demonstrably contaminated. Bill Clinton had more than a little baggage heading into the White House. There were bimbo eruptions; Whitewater and his wife’s part time day-trading job; questions about misuse and abuse of state troopers under his authority and more. This was all known before Clinton was elected. It either didn’t matter to Democrats or it didn’t get enough press to make a difference before election day. After the election, even more misdeeds came to light and it got worse. 16 years later, it’s happening again.
Well before election day, Barack Obama’s association with terrorists, foreign and domestic, is being revealed more clearly. Obama’s connection to ACORN and its crimes is being reported more widely. His support for Socialist regulation is becoming more widely known. The questions about Obama have been answered. He’s a known quantity. If demonstrable past performance is an indicator, Barack Obama will damage this country in ways my worst nightmares can’t foresee. Fraternizing with our enemies, championing destructive economic plans and ignoring illegal acts for personal benefit combine to make Barack Obama more than dagerous to our country. He could destroy it altogether.
Obama dismisses these truths. He even paints them as positive. I’m not in bed with terrorists! But what’s wrong with talking to people? I didn’t push ACORN’s radical agenda, I was a community organizer trying to involve more people in the political process! I’m not a Socialist! But shouldn’t everyone be able to own in a house? Can’t a nation as great as America make that happen?
For Bill Clinton to be right, scores of people had to be branded as liars. Democrats took up that challenge. For Barack Obama to be the President Democrats claim he’ll be, thousands must deny they saw what they saw and heard what they heard during the campaign. Thousands more must suffer from Obama policies as disastrous tomorrow as they were in a thousand yesterdays. No matter, Democrats still rally behind him.
However, sooner or later, just as 9/11 moved folks from Liberal to Conservative, the CRA will move folks from Socialism to Free Markets, ACORN will move folks from Democrats to Republicans. Like Jimmy Carter gave the country Ronald Reagan, an Obama presidency will illustrate the lie and curse that is Liberalism and reveal the Truth and the blessing, howevermuch discomfort it produces at times, that is Conservatism. The Left may argue things like Individual Liberty, Free Markets, Conservatism and the like aren’t perfect. I agree. But they are also far superior to any other option available.
Remember this when you step into that booth over the next few weeks. There’s no need to wait until 2012 to show you’ve made the move from Left to Right.
Now that our Representatives in DC are done abasing themselves before political logic at the altar of “Being seen doing something, no matter how destructive, is better than being seen doing nothing!”, let’s take a look at what just happened.
Stripped to essentials, you and I are being forced to buy something the current owners don’t want and which destroyed individuals and companies which owned even some of it. Government believes the magic pixie bailout dust which will ensure success is assuming responsibility for all of it.
Wall Street holds a bag full of bad mortgages. So bad, owning them has already destroyed companies with even a mix of good and bad ones. Government is going to buy just the bad ones! But Government has no money with which to purchase mortgages, good or bad, that doesn’t come from taxpayers. Your Government is buying, in your name and with your money, mortgages the mortgage experts know are bad, don’t want and wish they had never made.
Government believes it will perform better than the Market. 337legislators with nothing at stake but re-election feel better qualified to risk taxpayer’s money and future than the 200,000,000 taxpayers either opposed to or unsure of the plan. By what measure are they more qualified? By virtue of being able to ignore the people and impose their will on them. But being powerful doesn’t make one right.
There are some great ideas for Private Sector involvement. That few investors are clamoring to be let in on the action is telling. However, if profiting from bad mortgages was the sure thing Government needs it to be to garner public support, we wouldn’t need the Bailout. The Private Sector would be lined up to do it. That they’re not undermines the Government’s contention this is a low cost, no cost, or even profit making venture.
Interestingly, the Bailout isn’t about the Housing Market at all. It’s about the Credit Market. Holding bad mortgages is a threat to financial health. In today’s volatile market, even the hint of weakness spells disaster. No one knows how much in bad mortgages anyone else is holding so no one is extending credit. The borrower may be destroyed in mere hours by a loose word or a breeze on their house of cards. The Government solution is to buy up all the bad mortgages. Freed from worry about risk, lenders will begin extending credit again. This is exactly the solution the Market would have imposed had it been allowed to with some differences in implementation.
The Market would not make taxpayers responsible for the sins of others. It would have relaxed tension in the Credit Market by making those responsible for bad lending decisions endure the consequences. This would dump bad loans on the market at a low price for investors to see as good investments which they then begin buying. As the Market cleansed itself confidence between surviving lenders, demonstrating unquestionable financial soundness by virtue of their survival, would increase and the Credit Market would loosen. This is essentially identical to Government’s plan while taking a little longer. Government is underscoring the soundness of Market principles without being willing to permit Market processes.
By far the worst result of the Bailout is deeper Government intrusion into the Private Sector. The crisis was not a failure of the Market. The Market expects there will be downturns, corrections or cutbacks at times. No one likes them, but only certain forms of Government abandon responsible behavior to avoid them.
We used to have wise and responsible Government; limited and small, it taxed little and meddled less. That allowed a Free Market in a truly Private Sector to transform a wilderness into the world’s richest economy in mere decades. The inertia of that Economy carried us forward despite the low speed, high drag baggage of Woodrow Wilson’s Socialism, FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society.
But even that powerful engine is not immune to the braking action of constant friction. Today Government spends hundreds of billions monthly in unconstitutional entitlements. Crying that a minority will fail in their quest for success, it impedes the majority’s quest, ignorant that a single success does more than a single failure can wipe out. Left alone, we would provide far more for the least of us than the pittance Government doles out for votes. But that garners no power for Government.
Barack Obama and Democrats have already told us what they intend if elected. They plan even more Government regulation and control, weakening even further the economic engine that is Capitalism. They won’t be satisfied until the engine stops altogether.
I’m not convinced we’ve reached the point of no return in our rush to self destruction at the hands of Socialists and Central Planners. But neither am I convinced we have not. The bailout is a huge step in that direction. Granting Democrats control of all 3 branches of Government would be another. And I’m not sure Americans and the GOP is up to the challenge of stopping it. For now, work like it all depends on you and pray like it all depends on God. In the final tally, it does.
My friend, Jon Henke, has posted up a great video from the National Republican Congressional Committee. In a post brilliant in it’s brevity and simplicity, Jon merely posts this video:
Unfortunately, there were far too many Republicans who voted for this abomination. As my friend notes, We’re All Homeowners Now. Good luck getting any benefit out of that mortgage you own, though. It’s yours to pay for and someone else’s to enjoy.
Thank you Democrats. To those Republicans who voted “Yea”, nice to know that Smaller Government, Lower Tax platform you all are so well known for is so personally inspiring to you.
Hat tip to Eric Odom for the news that Politivity.com has just released another great video (embedded below) exposing the Democratic corruption, neglect and destruction wrought on the Housing Market and now, the broader American financial market, via their deception, manipulation and mismanagement of the Market in general and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in particular. The Truth seems to be gaining some traction. This is not a Free Market, deregulation, Republican problem. It’s a selfish, personal enrichment, bait and switch, deceptive Democratic Party problem. And Barack Obama is in it up to his neck.
In addition to noting the now familiar players Barney Frank, Franklin Raines and Tony Rezko, the video introduces us to two more top Obama advisors who got millions to serve the public and failed miserably to do so. Valerie Jarrett, CEO of Habitat Co. and Allison Davis, a former law firm associate of Obama, failed so poorly to provide good housing options with the money they received to do precisely that, that many of the housing units they oversaw were declared uninhabitable.
But they did manage to donate and raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Obama and his political campaigns. They did manage to do quite well for themselves at the expense of the people they were supposed to serve. And Democrats like to point to heartless, corporate, Right Wingers as the culprits in taking advantage of the less fortunate and less powerful; enriching themselves at the expense of the little guy. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle!
Hopefully, in the few days left before the election, the general public will be broadly educated as to the character and intentions of the people the Democratic Party is backing for office. If entrusted with political and legislative authority, these men and women will assume, not without reason, they are free to continue their deceptive and manipulative ways. The irony is that the folks most hurt by this will be the ones least able to fend them off and the very ones these powerless citizens believe have their interests at heart.
One of the more memorable phrases from recent political history is “DOA”. A politician announced, during a recent session of Congress, there was no need to even bother sending the bill over for a vote because it was “DOA”, Dead on Arrival. The phrase immediately made its way into the modern political lexicon as even a cursory Google search reveals.
Congress generally knows when a bill is destined to fail due to internal opposition. For instance, the GOP understood on the front end that Democrats would abandon all pretense of constitutional integrity to prevent even a vote on several judicial nominees a few years ago. The President’s nominees were DOA. DOA legislation becomes more interesting, however, when the pressure to kill the bill comes, not from the opposition Party, but from the American people.
The Dubai Ports deal, The Immigration Reform Bill and even Harriet Meiers nomination to the Supreme Court were all killed by “We the People”; not Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell. Thankfully, when their best revival efforts failed, Congressional Doctors bowed to the inevitable, pulled the plug and let the bills die with dignity.
Like E.F. Hutton, when the People speak, Congress usually listens. Which makes the Congressional response to the Bailout Package even more puzzling. Public opposition is running at near 80%! Americans may disagree on what needs doing, but they are clearly and almost unanimously agreed a Bailout isn’t the solution. It seemed as if Congress listened. Despite arm twisting and a surprising level of Congressional support for a Bailout, in a vote that was too close, the Bailout was defeated and the patient flatlined. But if you thought that was the end of the matter, you’d be wrong!
It appears Congress, whether moved by arrogance, hubris or another inexplicable motive has chosen not to listen to the people. Worse, it appears they may be abandoning Constitutional restrictions to do. Unwilling to permit the $700 billion monster they created to solve the problem remain dead, Congress is trying to raise it from the dead like the fictional Frankenstein.
The straight up or down vote failed and there isn’t enough electricity to resurrect the monster in that fashion. So they are trying another well known and highly effective tactic from the Congressional medical bag to revive the patient, attach the dead bill to a live bill that everyone likes and use the life force from the popular bill to revive the chances of the dead one.
Quinn Hillyer over at The American Spectator Blog is reporting that the Senate is trying to do exactly this! Quinn also notes such a tactic is unconstitutional as bills such as the Bailout need to originate in the House and not the Senate. Hopefully, should such a legislative abomination be presented in the Senate, it will be defeated. Should it be passed, I echo Quinn’s hope that even more House members will vote against this bill than did against the last one.
I’m not sure what it is going to take for Congress to get the message that America doesn’t want a Bailout solution. Congress can propose a different fix or they can let the Market correct itself. But the Bailout idea has been called as DOA and it needs to be left alone. For good measure, I encourage each of you to call or write your Congressmen and add a “Do Not Resuscitate!” note to the patient’s chart. The wishes of the family, the People, must be honored in this matter.
That having been said, it is possible to feel confident with a high degree of certainty how the Market will behave given proven historical and Economic models. For instance, raising taxes lowers tax revenue while lowering them raises revenue. This is consistently true across time and governments. It’s the reality behind Republican efforts to lower taxes. This cannot be disputed from an Economic standpoint so Democrats and others use the “Republicans just want to give more money back to their rich donor friends!” argument instead. This Democratic sleight of hand has the interesting dual nature of being totally true - the rich will get their taxes lowered - and totally false - those same rich will spend and invest more and so will end up paying more taxes on their increased consumption! Thus Democratic posturing and blustering in opposition to tax cuts and how to pay for them are, both on their face and at their base, without merit.
The same can be said of the current Market instability. Certainly the Market is currently volatile. But to claim the Economy is tanking or that the “biggest one day drop in points ever” means we’re all doomed is premature, to say the least. You would be a bit shaky, too, if you had planned on a $700 billion cash infusion with which to operate on Monday morning and found out Monday afternoon the loan man wasn’t going to cometh. The same thing happens on a personal level when someone’s home financing falls through at the last minute (although there obviously hasn’t been enough of that going on of late). As those with leveler heads have assured, the Market is cautiously coming back a bit this morning. No doubt it will continue to do so although there may be more dips and fits and starts along the way.
From the guy who gave us last week’s viral video “Burning Down the House” (1Million+ views), comes another great piece of YouTube goodness. Democrats in the House, many of whom are playing major roles currently in both defending the Democrat’s involvement in the implosion of the housing market and blaming the GOP and the Free Market for the financial woes, are simply shown here talking about how wonderful Freddie and Fannie are. This at a time when the GOP was calling for investigation, oversight and change at the agencies. These people have no shame!
I’m sorry but the play on words is just too much to resist. In any event, The Business and Media Institute outs Barney and his lover, whom he sometimes referred to as his “spouse”, who was a player at Fannie Mae. The relationship with Herb Moses evidently lasted over a decade. While over now, according to the article the two remain friends.
Given Frank’s vocal and stalwart defense of Fannie and Freddie, one naturally wonders what sort of quid pro quo, pillow talk or other form of undue influence Frank may have exercised while serving on the House Banking Committee for the entire 10 years of their relationship.
