A Cowardly Proposal

President Obama submitted his budget proposal on Monday.  This budget lays out the president's priorities and represents his vision for America.  As a sidenote, it shows that Obama is a coward and a colossal liar.

In 2009, the president made it clear that spending on a large stimulus was needed to end the recession and begin a recovery.  In 2010, his top priority was passing health care reform, which he argued was key to lowering costs.  In 2011, he came to realize that our booming deficits were an issue and pushed for a balanced program of tax increases and spending cuts.

But today, we can honestly say that President Obama is quite simply full of it.  In 2012, he proposes raising taxes well beyond anything ever discussed in the last 30 years and the final result is a larger deficit that last year.  Despite his words to the contrary, this budget makes it clear that raising taxes is not about fairness or lowering the deficit, it is only about spending more money; and spending it on his special interests, not America's interests.

This budget raises the tax deduction for buying an electric vehicle from $7,500 to $10,000.  This deduction has little effect on sales and the average income of those who purchase these $40,000+ cars is $177,000.  At the same time, the President would kill a Washington DC scholarship program for poor children that, by all marks, is succeeding. 

So the president who once said that he only cared about what works, has decided that putting more money into a failed effort for the rich is more important than a successful program for poor children.

When Obama took office he said that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.  Instead he doubled it.  If passed this budget would raise revenue from 15.4% of GDP to 20.1%, far above the post-WWII average of 18% and yet he spends even more, raising the projected deficit to $1.39 trillion.

The president has said that we need to temporarily spend more to fight this current crisis, yet his budget lays out a ten year plan that never spends less than 22% of GDP and is nearly 23% in 2022.  Given that spending was as low as 18% under Clinton, there is no way to call such a spending spree temporary.

The tax increases he proposes are unrealistic.  Dividend income would rise from it's current 15% to 39.6%.  The president has spent much time talking about the so-called Buffett rule that would tax the wealthy at a 30% minimum, but that is found nowhere here.  Why?  Because for Obama, 30% wasn't really enough.  With certain phaseouts on deductions, the actual tax rate for the wealthy will now be nearly 45%.  Is there a better way to kill economic activity than this?

Remember when Bill Clinton talked about the peace dividend from the end of the Cold War?  That peace dividend under Speaker Gringich went a long way toward balancing our budget.  President Obama's budget would make deep cuts in our defense budget, but this peace dividend would be transferred into more green boondoggles and high-speed rail projects. 

So what we have is a budget that would raise taxes beyond the thinkable, cut defense and still lose more money than before.  President Obama's budget claims to cut spending and lower the deficit but it doesn't.  He claims that this is a vision for an America built to last, but it isn't.  President Obama has talked a big game about being responsible and remaining true to our American values, but this budget makes that a lie; and the president is a coward for not having the temerity to level with the American people and tell them the truth.

Visions of America

After speechifying VP Joe Biden into a restful sleep on Wednesday, President Obama began what Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard has dubbed Obama's Orwellian Deficit Reduction Tour to "Discuss his Vision for Bringing Down our Deficit Based on Shared Responsibility and Shared Prosperity".  This plan, of course is a plan that looks pretty much like his big spending 2012 budget proposal, except with more tax increases added in.   Obama proposes to appoint a commission to tackle future deficit reductions, despite having already had a deficit commission whose recommendations the President has chosen to ignore.

What the President refuses to acknowledge publicly is that raising taxes on the rich cannot close the deficit.  While he seeks to raise tax rates for those making $250,000 per year, if we took everyone who makes at least $100,000 per year and taxed them at 100%, that would only add $1.5 trillion in revenue.  Our current year deficit is $1.6 trillion.  So either he knows that the deficit cannot be taxed away on the rich & he fully intends to raise taxes on the middle class too or he just doesn't really care about the deficit & is in campaign mode.

Note the scalpel

 

Where Two Paths Diverge...

Here is the truth about the future: We are living on borrowed money and borrowed time. These deficits hike interest rates, clobber exports, stunt investment, kill jobs, undermine growth, cheat our kids, and shrink our future. 

- Walter Mondale, Democratic Presidential nominee, July 19, 1984 Democratic National Convention

Today, President Obama acknowledged reality.  Just two months ago, he submitted a 10 year budget that said and did nothing to lower our deficit in the near term.  Unusual as it is for a President to scrap his own plan, Obama was forced to present a new plan due to the reasoned response to Paul Ryan's The Path to Prosperity and it's acceptance as a serious proposal.  His choice was to either allow the Republicans to direct the narrative or attempt to offer a competing vision on how to accomplish the same goals.

 

Despite acknowledging reality today, the President chose to offer a 12 year plan that will do little other than make it seem he is doing something.  Talk of commissions, defense cuts and future year triggers means that he has no intention of changing his current spending plans.  Instead, he offered numerous tax increases as his planned "spending cuts".  His new approach sounds like his old approach and brings to mind another failed liberal politician.  

“If Dukakis is elected, he would act next year as he acted last week: trim here and there, but then take a frequent flyer to the last resort [new taxes]. He would accelerate rather than break the spending urge in Congress.”

- William Safire
New York Times
6/29/88

Americans have come to the realization that the status quo is not sustainable.  In Ryan's plan, the Republicans have offered a real plan that will seek to balance the budget over the long term by overhauling our taxcode to make it fairer and making changes to Medicare and Medicaid now in order to make these programs sustainable.  In responding to the Republicans 2012 budget proposal, Obama has chosen to champion a course that would make Michael Dukakis proud by pledging to tax our way to prosperity. 

For all the faults with the President's plan, the greatest is that he attempts to hijack the narrative with a falsehood.  The only real spending cuts he offers are tax increases.  As I'm sure many of you have heard, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.  In using an Orwellian nomenclature of calling a tax increase, a "spending cut", Obama seeks to confuse the issue.

In the 1990's a combination of events led to a few years of budget surpluses.  Following the fall of the Soviet Union, National Defense was downsized to cash in on the Peace Dividend.  After being elected, Bill Clinton raised taxes on an expanding economy and then two years later, a Republican congress began reigning in discretionary spending.  Looking at the chart, we can see spending increased back to 20% of GDP following 9/11 and was held there until Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats regained control of Congress.  From there, spending took an immediate upswing.  Under Obama, this spending has been made worse.

Deficits are expected to increase in a recession as revenues decrease, which did happen in 2008.  But by shifting our spending baseline in such an extreme way, Obama has accelerated our impending demise.  The truth is that with or without our current increases in discretionary spending, our spending will soon drive us into a hole that threatens to swallow us.

The President's response to raise taxes while leaving entitlements untouched will only delay by a few years the inevitable.  Soon our entire revenue stream will be spent on entitlements.

Raising tax revenues from the historic level of 18% of GDP will only offer us, at best, a temporary respite.  Of course, raising tax rates has no guarantee of increasing revenue.   As Larry Kudlow writes at National Review,

Of course, the president’s formula of estimating higher revenues to lower the deficit is completely wrong. The reality is that higher tax rates will slow the economy, inhibit new start-up companies, penalize investors, and may very well lose revenues and increase the deficit.

It is questionable what raising tax rates will do to our economy.  What is not questionable is what will happen to our debt if we do not address the real source of our future troubles.

No amount of tax increases will ever be able to manage debt of this size.  Any plan that does not seek to alter or amend Medicare spending is not a serious plan.  Today, our entitlement spending is 58% of our spending.  Add in interest payments and we're now over 75%.  National defense and discretionary spending are left with only 1/4 of our budget.  In the past, our defense spending was close to half of all spending.  Today it sits at 20% and the President looks to cut if further.

 

While he presents us with cuts from a declining slice of the pie, he makes no offer to deal with the programs that will soon make up the entire pie.  What happens then?  Imagine a government shutdown that never ends.

As I have tried to make clear, we cannot ignore the real driver of our budget deficit.  It's the huge twinkie in the room.  Last week's budget showdown over spending cuts in our non-defense discretionary spending is chump change compared to the real issue - entitlements.

That's a big twinkie and it will continue to grow no matter how high taxes are raised. 

In 2008, a very liberal Senator Barack Obama ran as a centrist, promising to cut the budget, not raise taxes on the middle class and be pragmatic and do what works.  Now, when his leadership has been challenged to a large degree by Rep. Ryan, a very liberal President Obama showed us his true colors - tax and spend.  His proposal will soak the rich while cutting defense in order to keep spending more on "investments".

40 years ago, Medicare, Medicaid & Social Security spending was 4% of GDP.  Today it is 10%.  In another 40 years, it is projected to be at 18% - the historical average for tax revenues.  At that point, we have no other money left for defense, interest payments or running the government.  Then, or even sooner, those programs, along with a whole host of other government spending will be cut or eliminated - unless we make changes now.

In choosing to confront Ryan's Path to Prosperity, the President, instead chose to offer up a European vision for a Path to Austerity.  As the two paths diverge, the choice is clear.

Budget Nonsense & Hyperbole

As of 9:35 AM CST today, we still have no budget deal and are heading toward a government shutdown tomorrow night.  In an effort to head off a shutdown, the Republican house has proposed another Continuing Resolution similar to what has been done to keep the government funded up to this point.  This stop-gap bill also includes a measure that will fully fund the military for the rest of the year.  This would prevent any potential shutdown from affecting our soldier's pay or harming our military actions around the world.

For Senate majority leader, Harry Reid  (D-NV), every moment not spent sleeping or in negotiations is being used to make the most strangely ironic claims.  In a speech on the Senate floor yesterday, Reid said,

Now we learn that House Republicans are going to make another excuse, create another diversion, and avoid another tough choice. Instead of solving the crisis the way we should, instead of saying yes, they say in fact what they are going to do is pass what they will call another short-term stop-gap measure. They will say it is short term, but what that really means is it’s a shortcut, a short cut around doing our jobs. Instead of solving problems, they are stalling; they are procrastinating. That’s not just bad policy, it’s a fantasy. We all heard the president of the United States say yesterday that he won’t accept anything short of a full solution, and why should he? We’re six months into the fiscal year now.

Perhaps it should be brought to Sen. Reid's attention that his party controlled the House, Senate & Presidency last year when they chose to avoid solving problems, they stalled and they procrastinated. 

Finally..."The Path to Prosperity"

Paul Ryan has released his 2012 budget proposal:  The Path to Prosperity.  It is perhaps, the boldest budget plan ever offered.  As the editors at National Review put it,

Paul Ryan’s budget proposal for next year is the most ambitious conservative initiative since — well, actually, since ever.

Our current budget deficit will be $1.6 trillion this year.  The total national deficit is $14 trillion.  A few months back, President Obama proposed a budget that will never break even over a ten year period and will ultimately end with spending levels at 40% of GDP.

Ryan's budget proposal will cut spending $6.2 trillion compared to Obama's budget.  It will cut spending back to the historical average of 20% of GDP.  His plan will completely pay off the national debt by 2050.  And he will do this without raising taxes.

I wish this graph was lying about our current path.  I wish that everyone understood how perilous our future is.  But wishing doesn't make it so.  Our current path is not just unsustainable, but implies a total disaster awaits us.

Casual Friday Edition

Welcome to today's Casual Friday Edition of Sam's Taste of Chaos.  We had a lot happening this past week as the battle on American Idol began to heat up.  So let's jump right in to the Chaos.

>>     Newsweek polled 1000 average American citizens and gave them the U.S. Citizenship test.  The good new - 62% passed.  The bad news - 38% failed.  The worse news - realizing that nearly 40% of Americans aren't qualified to be Americans.  I'm not sure whether to laugh, cry or crawl under my bed and hide.

Newsweek's website has 20 questions from the 100 possible that are used for the U.S. Citizenship test.  (10 are chosen at random & test-takers must correctly answer 6 to pass).  Take the test and put your score in the comments section (if you dare).  [I did get 20/20, but #17 was a guess.]

Here are a few examples:

When was the Declaration of Independence adopted?

July 4, 1776.

Correct: 67%
Incorrect: 33%

What happened at the Constitutional Convention?

The Constitution was written, or the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.

Correct: 35%
Incorrect: 65%

We elect a U.S. senator for how many years?

Six.

Correct: 39%
Incorrect: 61%

How about now?  Are you laughing, crying or ready to hide under the bed?

>>     For the second time in the past 18 months the White House has been caught making a $2 trillion error in its 10 year budget.  But when your budget is out of control, these type of errors will happen.  A couple different issues are at play in this most recent issue.

The CBO corrects them for $300 billion from obvious mistatements from the Obamacare legislation, another $328 in funding that has never been passed by Congress and the rest in unrealistic projections on future revenues.  As the CBO report states, "...10 years from now, CBO sees a $1.2 trillion deficit that’s almost $400 billion above White House projections."

As Ed Morrissey at Hotair.com put it,

The findings in this puncture two myths perpetrated by Barack Obama.  First, ObamaCare is not “deficit neutral” in the first ten years, let alone constitutes a savings over the decade.  That was true even before the “doctor fix,” but the suspension of reductions in payments that came later sends ObamaCare well into red ink.  Next, the White House is inflating future revenue projections in order to protect its plans for expanded federal spending.  The difference in this case comes to $400 billion in year 10 of the projections, a difference that almost equals the worst total budget deficit under George W. Bush.

I thought the original budget was bad enough - not one year had a budget deficit under $600 billion.  I'm not the only one who thinks his math is fuzzy.

>>     I'm sure some of you are still upset with my stance in support of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.  Christian Schneider has a terrific article on why Gov. Walker tackled the public union issue as he did.  Concessions on pay alone won't fix the problem.

For instance, statewide average teacher salaries increased 6% per year in the 16 years before the Hortonville strike. In the 16 years after the strike, the increase is pegged at 7% annually. Not a big difference, for sure.

But salaries are only a part of the picture. Consider that in the 16 years prior to Hortonville [teacher strike], average state per-pupil spending increased 6.7% per year. Post-strike, it jumped to 9.6% per year in the 16 years following the Hortonville clash. [50% per year increase]

Today, K-12 education funding dwarfs the next-highest state spending program by a measure of 4-to-1. In 2011, Wisconsin spent $5.3 billion on public school aids, compared to $1.3 billion on Medical Assistance.

If those numbers don't make the case, then this graph will.  Notice how the spending curve change coincides with the Wisconsin teacher strikes in the early 1970's.

>>     While we are on the topic of government employees, I can only hope that you, as a taxpayer, are completely satisfied with the job performance of 99.94% of all Federal employees.  Why do I say that?  Because 0.06% of all Federal employees received a poor performance evaluation and were denied a step increase in pay according the most recent data from 2009.

Only 737 out of more than 1.2 million GS employees — or one in every 1,698 — were denied a regularly scheduled step increase and accompanying raise in 2009 because of poor performance...

That equates to a 0.06 percent denial rate, which is far lower than any estimates given of how many poor performers exist in the work force. OPM estimated in 1999 that poor performers make up approximately 3.7 percent of the federal work force. A 2000 survey by the Merit Systems Protection Board found that 14.3 percent of federal employees were judged by co-workers to be performing below reasonably expected levels.

"These step increases are tied to performance," Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said at a March 9 hearing on federal pay.

Well, I for one am glad to know that we have such high performing employees working for the Federal government.  Not sure how those $2 trillion errors keep happening with such good employees, but maybe that's caused by the elected and appointed leaders who can't seem to audit their own bookkeeping much less handle the Federal government's.

>>     A few quick hits on our efforts is Libya.  Here is the Senator Barack Obama in an interview with the Boston Globe during his run for the Presidency. 

In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.

First, rather than berate the man, let me say that, flip-flop or not, I appreciate his position now more than before.  But his new stance does raise some questions.  John Hawkins writing at TownHall wants to know why the left's response to our intervention in Libya has been so wildly different than it was to Iraq.  Right now, we need to support our troops and the war effort, but there should be a discussion to follow afterwards about this.

Second, Marc Thiessen raises another important issue in his article at the Washington Post.  Marc writes,

The U.N. Security Council’s stated objective is “the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence.” This is entirely incompatible with President Obama’s stated objective of getting Moammar Gaddafi “to step down from power and leave.” If the violence ends, Gaddafi will not leave. To the contrary, if military intervention succeeds in achieving the United Nations’ goal of forcing a cease-fire on the warring parties, it will lock in the status quo on the ground.

What does this mean?  If the United States of America wishes to remove Gaddafi by force with anything other than air power, we can't.  And if Gaddafi stops fighting, we're done.  In signing on to the resolution, we have signed away our choice in the matter - unless you believe President Obama will defy a UN resolution.  Perhaps even worse, it ties our hands in aiding the rebels.

Once a cease-fire is in place, the terms set by the Security Council will have been met, and military action by either side would violate international law. This means that if the rebels attempt to remove Gaddafi by force, they could be the ones violating the mandate of the United Nations. The U.N. resolution could end up protecting Gaddafi and guaranteeing the survival of his regime.

The resolution also reaffirms the U.N. arms embargo, which most of the world interprets as barring the transfer of arms to both government and rebel forces.

Whether it's a rookie mistake or part of the plan remains to be seen.

NUTS

>  Hugo Cavez is as big a nut as they make.  Here he is explaining what may have happened to life on Mars. [h/t HOTAIR]

"I have always said, heard, that it would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet," Chavez said in speech to mark World Water Day.

"Careful! Here on planet Earth where hundreds of years ago or less there were great forests, now there are deserts. Where there were rivers, there are deserts," Chavez said, sipping from a glass of water.

For the record, here is the truth on our forest lands in America,

About 30 percent of the 2.3 billion acres of land area (745 million acres) in the U.S. is forest today as compared to about one-half in 1630 (1.0 billion acres). Some 300 million acres of forest land have been converted to other uses since 1630, predominantly because of agricultural uses in the East.

The forest resources of the U.S. have continued improving in general condition and quality, as measured by increased average size and volume of trees. This trend has been evident since the 1960s and before. The total forestland acreage has remained stable since 1900.

Two significant changes have helped stabilize our forestland.  One, Teddy Roosevelt began the modern Conservation movement and two, we moved away from using wood as an energy source.  What replaced it?  Coal and oil.  Who has a lot of oil?  Venezuela.  You'd think the President of Venezuela might know about this oil stuff...

>>  War by committee.  Apparently France believes the Libyan war should be fought under the direction of a steering committee.

France objected to NATO being in command of the war operations on a day-to-day basis and has now proposed a new "political steering committee," made up of foreign ministers from the United States, European, and Arab states, to oversee the war.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé announced on Tuesday that the British are in agreement with the proposal but the French government has not said anything about the position of the Obama administration.

If you've ever worked with a steering committee, God help you in getting anything accomplished quickly.  I can only hope that we are not on board with this idea.

>>  President Obama ran off to Brazil to create jobs back here at home.  Which makes this a little hard to swallow.  From Reuters, [h/t Gateway Pundit]

The United States seeks to be “a strategic energy partner” to Brazil, which recently discovered major new offshore oil reserves. Obama said the United States wants to be one of Brazil’s “best customers” when the oil starts flowing.

In addition, we will loan Brazil money to get the drilling started.  On a side note, thousands of American oil workers are still out of work waiting for the Obama administration to allow the Gulf rigs to operate. 

As Big Government put it, "To be fair, President Obama is in favor of drilling…but just not in the United States."  Sad, but true.

>>  Anthony Wiener, New York Representative, can often be seen on Fox, CNN, MSNBC yapping away like, well a little dog.  Here he is taking two sides on Obamacare in two different stories.  Here, he says,

"If lightning strikes, and it turns out that as many of us believe, the Supreme Court turns out to be a third political branch of government and they strike down the mandate -- big deal,"

"The solution, if the mandate is struck down, is not that the bill falls like the house of cards ... the solution is going to be offering something everyone agrees is constitutional and that's the public option in the exchange."

As he contemplates running for mayor of New York City, he has a different take,

"If you have better ideas that can accomplish the same thing, go for it,’” said Weiner. “I’m in the process now of trying to see if we can take [President Barack Obama] up on it in the city of New York, … and I’m taking a look at all of the money we spend in Medicaid and Medicare and maybe New York City can come up with a better plan."

Funny how these legislators do one thing in Congress, but it's suddenly all different out in the real world.  Let's not forget that the entire state of Maine has received a waiver from core provisions of Obamacare, so it should be a cinch to waiver NYC.

Mitt Romney has suggested giving a waiver to all 50 states.  Wouldn't it be easier to just repeal the stupid thing?

>>  NBC's Andrea Mitchell took up the task of defining the Obama Doctrine since the White House won't.  Here is Allahpundits view at Hotair.

it’s simple as can be. If (1) there’s a preventable humanitarian crisis looming and (2) the benefits of intervention outweigh the costs and (3) there’s international support for intervening, then “go for it.” Question: What if (1) and (2) are satisfied but not (3)? Just … let ‘em die, then?

This seems to leave a fairly large hole in the logic.  My local police department, sheriff's department and the Missouri State Highway Patrol may find working together on a big bust to be beneficial, but they don't need each other's approval to stop a crime in progress.  Neither should the United States of America.

Use the United Nations for whatever good we can, but we should never allow them to hold the leash on our military.

Well, that's my time.  You've been great.  I'll leave you with this last image of the new Wonder Woman for TV.  Please add your thoughts on the redesigned heroine's costume.

God Bless.

Casual Friday Edition

I got into hot water a couple weeks back when I suggested on Facebook that Stormtroopers could wear their Khaki armor and loafers on Casual Friday.  Yoda in particular, seemed to take offense at the thought.  I tried to give voice to the notion that even clones are people too.  But to some, they are simply cattle to be herded.  Please add your own thoughts in the comment section on this important issue.

>>     I wrote a post, Tell Them About the Twinkie, to highlight that arguing over non-defense discretionary spending is only a tiny battle in a much bigger war on spending.  Jeffrey Anderson at the Weekly Standard blog tells us that mandatory spending has now swallowed the entire Federal Revenue,

We have now gotten to the point — as I noted yesterday — where if national defense, interstate highways, national parks, homeland security, and all other discretionary programs somehow became absolutely free, we’d still have a budget deficit. The White House Office of Management and Budget projects that in the current fiscal year (2011), mandatory spending alone will exceed all federal receipts. So even if we didn’t spend a single cent on discretionary programs, we still wouldn’t be able to balance our budget this year — let alone pay off any of the $14 trillion in debt that we have already accumulated.

Speaker of the House John Boehner has said that he thinks people just don't understand the issue.  “People in Washington assume that Americans understand how big the problem is,” he said. “But most Americans don’t have a clue.”  Cutting a few billion in foreign aid or increasing taxes cannot fix this problem.  Only adjusting the future of entitlement programs can.

Representative Paul Ryan is the point man in the House on tackling this problem.  Ryan told Mike Huckabee on Fox News. “If we do it now, we do it on our terms, meaning we don’t change anything for people in and near retirement. But if we wait, if we keep delaying and kicking the can down the road, then it will look like Europe — bitter austerity. Cuts will happen to current seniors, and that’s what we want to avoid.”

Delaying action is no longer an option.  Well, technically it is an option, but only if you consider retiring with no savings an option.

>>     Over at NRO, Conrad Black covers a lot of ground in his article, On Libya, the US Is a Pitiful Giant.  He compares the heroic Japanese response in their current fight for survival to the horrid response in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.  Flaws at the national, state and local level in New Orleans to be sure, but Americans do not come out to well in the comparison.

Black then goes on to blister President Obama's weak response in Libya.

As for Libya, there is room for legitimate debate over what to do there, but I cannot believe that there is a single conscient American who has followed these matters who is not appalled by the grotesquerie of American policy fumbling that has stalked, wreathed, and bedeviled this issue. The president, draped in what is becoming infamous sanctimony, said, of Qaddafi, “He has lost all legitimacy and he must go. . . . The best revolutions are organic. . . . We are not sure.” Weeks pass, thousands are massacred, and the White House has no standing to assess the legitimacy of foreign governments under challenge and portentously to asseverate moral imperatives, and then waffle over the course cried out for by the majority of Libyans and urged by the European Union and the Arab League, representing the entire adjoining regions. This president (of the United States) famously said in Prague in 2009, “Words must mean something” in reference to arms control, which he has pursued in regard to the United States but not to Iran or North Korea. He was correct; they must, when uttered by the holder of his great office, but they don’t, at this sadly disappointing time, in arms control or the assistance of the forces of oppressed legitimacy.

I remember past Presidents agreeing with my father when he told me never to say anything I didn't intend to back up.

"If you're gonna talk the talk, then you better walk the walk"

"Speak softly and carry a big stick"

All over the mid-east people are dying for the cause of liberty, while we continue to talk....to witness....to watch....to do nothing. 

>>     I'm still holding out caution on Japan's nuclear crisis until all the fact are in.  By their design, even a total meltdown should be able to be contained.  A large issue is the lack of water and the particles in the available water.  Clean de-mineralized water will not react with the fuel and thus any steam would carry little radiation.  But saltwater and other impurities in the improvised cooling water will react and release larger quantities of radiation in the steam that is released.  Meltdown or not, the containing vessel should keep the fuel from being directly released into the atmosphere, which is what happened at Chernobyl.  But as I said, I await the facts before making a call on this situation.

>>     Waiting on those facts doesn't mean I can't share a couple of tidbits.

First, it has been noted by a researcher working for the World Health Organization, that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself with regards to radiation.  Gateway Pundit has the story.

a top expert on radiation says that fear of radiation is a bigger health threat than radiation itself.  Technorati.com reported:

A top expert on radiation, doing studies for the World Health Organization, reports that fear of radiation exposure has caused more health problems than the radiation itself. Other experts on psychological effects of radiation agree. In addition to the fear of the effects of the radiation, survivors are stigmatized by their society, increasing stress and feelings of isolation. This stigmatization can interfere with the survivors getting proper health care, jobs, and economic stability. Others turn away from them, fearing that association with those who have been exposed to radiation can be “catching.” Experts who have studied these impacts at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima, say that the fear and stigmatization causes so much stress in the people affected that, overall, the stress is more damaging to health than the radiation itself.

Someone needs to forward this to Shepard Smith on FOX who has been fear-mongering all week.

The other side of the issue is brought to us by Newsbusters,

The dangers of nuclear power, while serious, need to be put in perspective. To that end, here's an interesting fact you won't be hearing from the mainstream press: wind energy has killed more Americans than nuclear energy.

You read that right. According to the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, there were 35 fatalities associated with wind turbines in the United States from 1970 through 2010. Nuclear energy, by contrast, did not kill a single American in that time.

The meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 did not kill or injure anyone, since the power plant's cement containment apparatus did its job - the safety measures put in place were effective. Apparently the safety measures associated with wind energy are not adequate to prevent loss of life.

As I already have stated, this has absolutely nothing to do with the crisis in Japan.  I just found both bits of information interesting.

>>     The House of Representatives voted to defund NPR today.  It has no chance of passing the Senate, so NPR is safe.  But why?  I ask the same question of PBS - why?  What need is there for the government to fund a TV and radio network in America?  Funding the Voice of America abroad I can understand.  Our nation should have a global agenda that will be furthered by a variety of mediums.  But domestically, do we want our federal government promoting an agenda through the media?

I know, I know....NPR and PBS are independent voices that do not receive their orders from the government.  That's fine and I accept that.  So tell me again why we fund them.  What purpose do they serve our government and the taxpayers if they do not take their orders from them?  If they provided a service that no one else in the marketplace wished to provide, this would be more acceptable.  But unlike say the Water Department, NPR and PBS have dozens of competitors doing pretty much exactly what they are doing.

If the Water Department in your town shut down tomorrow, there would be reprecussions to the taxpayers. that would be felt immediately.  But if NPR and PBS had really been defunded today, would you notice if you weren't told.  NPR and PBS are quality products that will not have any trouble finding the funds to continue to operate.  In fact, they might be surprised at just how well they flourish when they are finally dumped into the private sector. 

If Big Bird and Kermit can profit at the toy store and the movie theaters; on DVDs and CDS, I don't think there is any need to put them on the endangered list when they no longer receive my tax dollars.  Now shows like the Delicious Dish may be another matter....

>>     It's time for March Madness.  Sadly, my Mizzou Tigers bowed out about halfway through the second half Thursday night.  I did call the Richmond and Gonzaga upsets, but I had the wrong #13 seed - I picked Princeton over Kentucky.  Morehouse State's upset over Louisville will hurt through the weekend as I had the Cardinals making it to the Sweet 16.

Perhaps I would have made the right selection if I had more time to ponder my choices.  I was off work Monday and Tuesday, but I had a pretty full plate at the house.  I still had a few tax returns to file for some family and friends.  I installed a new gas oven for the beautiful Dawn.  I spent many hours poring over several years of healthcare data and preparing a presentation.  I cooked dinner one night, while my wife did the other.  Somewhere in there I filed the financial aid application for my soon to be collegiate student and prepared some bills for payments.

Suffice it to say, that it wasn't until late on Wednesday before I had any real opportunity to put some thought into my bracket selections before heading off for my job on the overnight shift.  When I arrived home Thursday morning, I quickly jumped on the computer to enter my picks into ESPN's bracket challenge before heading to bed for a few hours sleep before the first games began.

Busy as that may sound, I would gladly follow my routine over and over rather than be in the unenviable position that our President finds himself.  The crisis in Japan, the critical situation in Libya as the UN debated taking military action, the still developing movements in other mid-east nations, the war in Afghanistan, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, global terrorism, the budget battles in Congress along with the still weak economy and raging unemployment would seem to be overwhelming.

Yet, apparently Obama not only had enough time to spend on his bracket - which I can understand (everyone needs a break) - but he had time to go out of his way and record a spot for the networks to cover his picks and analysis.  Look, I can easily see the importance of symbolic sports gestures - throwing out the first pitch at Major League games, phone calls and White House visits for champions.  But surely in the middle of all that is happening at the moment, there is something else the President of the United States should be doing.  After all, this is the man who felt it necessary to fly across the Atlantic to lobby for Chicago's Olympic bid.  Isn't there somewhere else he should be right now?  The UN just approved military action in Libya, but it may be too late for that rebellion.  Maybe Obama could have sped the UN process up in person rather than taping a fluff piece.  Playing golf while the world falls apart just doesn't make for a good picture.  (Or does it?)

I don't really know.  I just know how powerless I feel as I view world events and the one person on earth who has more power at his disposal to affect them, seems distracted. 

Last week Obama said that it would be easier to be President of China because the world doesn't hang on his every word.  Years ago, when the Soviet Union still stood as a world power, President Reagan wanted his every word to be heard - from the halls of the Kremlin to the smallest cells of their gulags.  With his words, he sought to strike fear in the despot and bring hope to the oppressed.  Sadly, this is sorely missing from Obama.

The President needs to stop talking.  He needs to say something and he needs to mean what he says.

NUTS

*  Harry Reid, rejected making any changes to Social Security when questioned by Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC.  "Two decades from now, I'm willing to take a look at it," said Reid, 71, in an interview to air Wednesday evening on MSNBC. "But I'm not willing to take a look at it right now."  [h/t The Hill.com]

*  Former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi apparently has had a memory lapse of the past several years as she proclaims that "Democrats have long fought for fiscal responsibility...".  For the record, I would take issue with that statement from a member of either party that has been in office over the past decade.  Ed Morrissey at HOTAIR attempts to remind Mrs. Pelosi,

Not only did Democrats under her Speakership raise discretionary spending 18% in three years, not only did she pass a Pay-Go law and then fail to adhere to it even once, Pelosi became the first Speaker since Watergate to fail to pass a budget resolution for a fiscal year.  In 2010, despite having a 77-seat majority in the House, a Senate which her party held by 18 seats, and a Democrat in the White House, Pelosi failed — or refused — to pass a budget for FY2011.  Instead, she pushed continuing resolutions in order to hide spending until after the midterms, and failed even then to pass a budget.

*  Donald Trump made news during his recent Good Morning America appearance as the Daily Caller recounts,

On Thursday’s “Good Morning America,” Donald Trump questioned whether or not President Obama was born in the United States, and pushed back on the notion that others who question President Obama’s birthplace are idiots.

Regarding questions surrounding Obama’s birth, Trump said:

Everybody that even gives any hint of being a birther…they label them as an idiot.  Let me tell you, I’m a really smart guy.  I was a really good student at the best school in the country.  The reason I have a little doubt — just a little — is because he grew up and nobody knew him.  …Nobody knows who he is until later in his life.  It’s very strange. The whole thing is very strange.

Can we kill two birds with this one?  If not for the entertainment value, I would be happy to be rid of The Donald and I would very much like to be rid of the whole birther issue.  Can this be like matter and anti-matter where both are annhilated as they come into contact?  It's just a question.

*  The largest story not being reported by the mainstream press remains the death threats made against Republicans in Wisconsin.  Read Lee Stranahan's story at the Huffington Post.  Given the press' accusations that the Tea Party people are dangerous and violent extremists,

Ignoring the story of these threats is deeply, fundamentally wrong. It's bad, biased journalism that will lead to no possible good outcome and progressives should be leading the charge against it.

*  In today's edition, I have two bits questioning President Obama's efforts and abilities, so I guess I can be included in the nuts section.  It's just exasperating to see such a failure of leadership.  But don't take my word for it.  This is what is being reported by Joshua Hersh at The Atlantic,

Fed up with a president “who can’t make his mind up” as Libyan rebels are on the brink of defeat, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is looking to the exits. 

At the tail end of her mission to bolster the Libyan opposition, which has suffered days of losses to Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, Clinton announced that she’s done with Obama after 2012 — even if he wins again.

“Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

He went on, “If you take a look at what’s on her plate as compared with what’s on the plates of previous Secretary of States — there’s more going on now at this particular moment, and it’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”

I'm not often inclined to agree with Secretary Clinton.  If this means I'm nuts, so be it.

Please do your part.  Give a hoot, don't pollute.  Be informed before you argue.  Spend more time listening than talking (two ears, one mouth).  Kids eat free on Tuesday.

God Bless.

Tell Them About the Twinkie

I love Washington DC math.  I'm already a math geek as it is, but when you throw in a certain amount of creativity, math can really be a lot of fun.  I just wish there was a tangible use for Washington math in the real world.  Balancing my household budget would be a piece of cake.  If only...

This week, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified before a House subcommittee.  She was questioned on an obvious budgetary fudge of double counting money saved from cuts to Medicare Advantage.  During questioning Rep. John Shimkus (R) asked her,

What’s the $500 billion in cuts for? Preserving Medicare or funding the health-care law?

Sebelius’ reply? “Both.”

By the sheer force of her will power, Secretary Sebelius is able to take $500 billion in cuts and double that into $1 trillion.  Her talents are being wasted in HHS.  Surely the ability to double money on a whim could be used more productively in other areas.

Surreal is this Blindman's Budget

Yesterday I attempted to explain the basics of budgeting.  As I'm sure you know, the Federal Budget process is far removed from those basics.  In order to show you just how far off we are, here is a little chart from budget data found on the White House website (Office of Management & Budget).

Only a blind-man could look at this chart and fail to see that something must be done.  But Obama's new budget fails to notice reality.  Instead his proposed budget is a surreal venture that seeks to march onward listening to the beat of a drum that only the President can hear.  Talk of any higher spending needed to fix the economy now falls on deaf ears (Krugman), yet on he marches.

Budgeting 101

Often in politics, we hear references made about the dinner table of average homes.  My dinner table is currently awash in bills, receipts and tax forms as I attempt to finish out 2010.  This past year we closed down my wife's floral shop, so the paperwork is a bit heavy.  As I close out one year, my mind looks ahead to the challenges to come financially for us in the next.  We need to buy a new stove, our eldest daughter will be graduating from high school in a few months and will be moving on to college in the fall, dental bills are due to arrive soon and of course the unexpected emergency has yet to announce itself.

President Obama presented his budget today.  By his numbers, he will lower the deficit by 1.1 trillion over 10 years from the current baseline.  Two thirds of that is spending cuts with the other third from tax increases.  I wish I could be excited.  On the other side, House Republicans have found 100 billion to cut from next year's budget.  That's a good start, but still far short of what is needed.

I was taught budgeting at an early age.  It was simple.  Make 3 columns; in the first is what you have to spend.  In the second is what you need & in the third is what you want.  Prioritize each item in the second and third column.  Start paying off the second column.  If you have any money left, then you can move to the third column.  If you don't have enough money for the second column, you need to either find a way to increase the first column, whether by getting a second job or working some overtime or find a way to change your needs.


To avoid arguments over economic theory, we will allow that for our nation, to increase the first column will involve tax increases.  What to tax and how much to tax may affect how much additional revenue, if any might be brought in, but that is an argument for another day.  Increasing the first column though, isn't necessarily a must if you are spending well into the third column.   Our real national problem is that we have no idea which spending belongs in column 2 and which belongs in column 3.  I'm fine with sacrificing more of my money that I was going to spend on my wants, if I could feel like the government would spend it on what was really needed.  But we have no way of knowing that today.

The Federal government's ability to levy and collect taxes is tied to its ability to do what is necessary for it to carry out the tasks assigned to it by the Constitution and by Congress.  But do we even consider this anymore.  Instead today, our own wants and desires are being put on hold so that the government can fund the wants and desires of someone else.  My children might feel oppressed if we shut off the cable TV so we can pay our bills, but they're really not.  Yet is it fair to them, if our money (taxes) goes to others who then use it to buy cable TV.

The Federal Budget can seem very complex when we lose sight of the basics.  As both sides, Democrat and Republican work together to assemble a budget, I wish they could do it at the dinner table just like myself and countless others; with stacks of envelopes, receipts and unpaid bills cluttering the table.  Even better though, think of us and who the money belongs to before spending it foolishly for us.  Sure we might spend it foolishly, too.  But sometimes we just need to buy a new stove so we can cook for our own dinner table.