The False Mothers of the Debt Debate



Tough Choices

Americans have not been as divided as they are today since perhaps the early 1860's. Then, the Civil War was ramping up into the bloodiest period of turmoil in our nation's history, and the war brought the worst imaginable scenario to fruition through much of the decade.



It was all brought about by deep divisions in the ideologies of the denizens of the North and the South. Today, those tactical lines are drawn -- for all intents and purposes -- around our major urban centers, pitting the encircled cities against the rest of the nation which gradually is receding from them.

Geographically, the battle maps drawn give little prospect of victory to the tiny enclaves that seem vastly outnumbered and surrounded by the sea of red on an electoral version. That being said, this is a ballot-box war, and so while the weaponry is equal, the forces are also balanced in numbers, and territory means nothing. In terms of classical warfare, circa early 20th century, it is tantamount to one side occupying an entire country while trying in vain to defeat a few well placed sniper nests with thousands of marksmen in each.

Barack Obama is currently trying to get the debt ceiling raised so that he can continue to borrow more money from China and build his base for 2012. The talks taking place now are a perfect example of the bitter fight Americans are having over the state of the U.S. economy, which is sinking like the Titanic. Colloquially  speaking, Obama's position -- as well as many on the Democrats' side -- is to rearrange the deck furniture on that grand ship as it sinks into the sea.

Just as a few stewards may have tried calm passengers who might have witnessed the insanity, so today are members of the media and congressional perpetrators trying to either blame the patrons for the tragedy or similarly sully the builder, keeping the captain guiltless.

Americans spoke loudly and clearly in the 2010 elections, stating in no uncertain terms that they were fed up with reckless spending, wanton borrowing and repressive taxation, yet the message seems lost on all Democrats and astonishingly, even some Republicans. Would that these Republicans had the courage and the wisdom of King Solomon.

King Solomon had before him an infant and two women claiming to be the mother. So bitter was their argument that King Solomon offered this solution: he had his guard draw his sword, and told the women that in order to be fair (a favorite word of today's progressives), his guard would cut the baby in half so that they may each have part of the child. The false mother agreed, but the real mother was horrified and, not wishing harm to come to her son, pleaded for Solomon to give the child to the false mother. Solomon knew at once who the real mother was and awarded her the child.

McConnell Ready to Fold?

King Solomon not only made a wise decision, but a courageous one. It took a leap of faith in the real mother to be willing to make the tough choice for the good of the child for whom she had come to fight. Republicans in the debt ceiling battle ostensibly want to do what is right for the country and the economic health thereof, but apparently lack the political courage to risk losing their seats.

Just as the life of the baby was on the line, so is the life of America, yet of paramount concern to these politicians is whether or not they can get re-elected in 2012. You may refer to all of them from here on as "the false mothers".

Sphere: Related Content

'Tis the Season for Some Reason

Let the Race Begin

Noting the fact that presidential campaigns seem to begin earlier and earlier each cycle, the silly season is once again upon us and it is starting out to be one of the silliest yet. With Michele Bachmann's announcement that she will run, Obama's people and local Democratic parties are already dusting off a tired mantra in an attempt to obfuscate their way back to the White House.

After Michele Bachmann formally announced her candidacy, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt had this to offer:

"[Bachmann] voted for a budget plan that would extend tax cuts for the richest Americans on the backs of seniors and the middle class while ending Medicare as we know it. Congresswoman Bachmann introduced legislation to repeal Wall Street oversight -- risking a repeat of the financial crisis -- and while she voted to preserve subsidies for oil and gas companies she opposes making the investments necessary to enhance America's competitiveness and create the jobs of the future"

There is so much wrong with every assessment made by Mr. LaBolt that reflects the Goebbels-like methods of the left in this country today. They have seized upon the notion that if they lie boldly and often, the lie will become the accepted truth.

His first point is the attack on "the wealthy", and the notion that they got that way by virtue of stealing from the poor, combined with the equally asinine idea that tax breaks are somehow a "gift" from the government. I'm sure that many of you would not consider a carjacker's sudden change of heart as a gift. He didn't give you your car, he simply decided not to steal it. Why is that concept so hard to understand for a liberal when the same principle is applied to taxation?

Mr. LaBolt also infers that Wall Street -- and a lack of interference by the government --  was the reason for the financial crisis we faced in 2008. As we should all be aware, the "benevolence" of the Democrats -- through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the insistence that poor people own homes knowing that eventually they would default on the mortgages -- is what caused the problems we now face.

Finally, Mr. LaBolt demonizes the oil and gas industries as some form of welfare recipient black hole, sucking money away from ordinary, poor and suffering people. The truth of the matter is this, however; if the government received the same amount of taxes and staple products from actual welfare recipients, this countries economy would be in far better shape.


Let's be clear; Wall Street didn't cause the financial crisis, the reasons for which we will explore shortly. For the time being, let's examine another fallacy of the left. The Iowa Democratic Party also issued a statement regarding Ms. Bachmann, in which they bludgeon another deceased equine. They claim that a President Bachmann would lead us back to "the flawed economic policies that cost us millions of jobs and almost sent us into a second Great Depression", and repeat the drumbeat that this economy is actually improving.

Unemployment Rates Since Bush 

Barack Obama himself keeps blaming his predecessor for the sad state of our nation, but history indicates otherwise. As indicated in the graph, unemployment was edging downward for most of George W. Bush's administration, and only began to rise when the Democrats regained control of Congress in 2006. To further complicate the Democrat talking points of today, then-President Bush had been beseeching Congress for years to act on the impending crisis that Fannie and Freddie were about to inflict. Congress not only ignored the president's pleas, but firmly declared that there was no problem with those now failed institutions.

As far back as April of 2001, President Bush sounded the alarm over Fannie and Freddie:

The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

Bush would remind Congress many more times throughout his administration that those two institutions were headed for trouble, and that they would take a lot of others with them. Barney Frank (D-MA) would have none of it, and refused to increase oversight on them. By the end of Bush's second term, the damage was done, and it was all too easy to lay the blame at his feet, and Barack Obama, the Democrats and the media continue to do so.

Since 2003, Barney Frank has been adamant that there were no problems with either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Strange then, that as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee in 2010, Frank began to say that Fannie and Freddie need to be abolished. Perhaps it's because he knows they have a problem, only this time it will affect his parties president.

From Heritage.org

Another problem caused the auto industry to suffer. That problem would be the unions and their staggering legacy costs to auto companies. From Heritage.org, the chart shows the average hourly labor costs of the Big Three Detroit auto makers compared with the rest of the private sector. The figures include benefits to current as well as retired employees. For a company to support former employees while paying current ones is simply unsustainable.

So as the campaign season begins to rev up, let's all remember what is causing the misery. It is the policies of the Democrats, and we must remind the electorate loudly, repeatedly and firmly. The Democrats must not be permitted to perpetrate the lie that they will eventually make things right if given enough time.

Sphere: Related Content

Kids, Start Looking for Refrigerator Boxes

Our Future?

We're being told that Social Security is going broke. We're being told that Medicare is going broke. And we're being told that the engine of economic growth in the United States -- the "wealthy segment" -- needs to "pony up" a bit more in order for our survival.

Economists, to a large degree (Paul Krugman notwithstanding), agree that the best use of the money from the wealthy is in the private sector. When those alleged barons are able to keep more of what they earn, they invest in new ventures which create jobs for those under them. During Reagan's administration, it was referred to as the trickle-down economy.

George H.W. Bush, in the campaign of 1980, ridiculed his rival, Ronald Reagan, for what the candidate Bush called "voodoo economics", but when he was defeated and ultimately Reagan's vice president, he changed his tune. Seeing Reagan's policies become so successful had that effect. Reagan thought it best for government to get out of the way and let the American people do what we do best; succeed and prosper.

It's no accident that the American poverty level is head and shoulders above the actual poverty of the third world. Certainly there are very few people in America who actually suffer but for the most part, our "poor" experience the inconvenience of basic cable and slow internet speeds. Never mind that they have multiple television sets, laptop computers and several vehicles. Bad things do happen to people every day, but some can be avoided quite easily.

Imagine the following scenario:

Mom, with a solemn-looking Dad at her side: "Kids, Daddy and I want you to start looking for large boxes, like refrigerators come in when someone lucky gets a new one". 


Sally: "Why Mom?" 


Mom: "Well honey, by this time next year, we will be living in some of those under the bridge on Maple Street". 


Billy (horrified): "What? But you and Dad both have jobs and seem to make a lot of money!"


Dad:  "We do, Billy, but we give so much to the Johnson's down the street, the Smith's across from us, and the nice folks around the corner, that we're going to be unable to pay our mortgage or utilities in a year".

While the above may sound ludicrous to the sensible, consider that it is precisely what our federal government is telling us. As our social "safety nets" are slowing sinking below the figurative waves -- and as the rolls of the "needy" continue to grow -- our leaders declare the answer is to seize more money from the haves to hand to the have-nots, including foreign countries who may need help, but not to the detriment of our own citizens.

Drowning in Debt

Consider this, however; while our own seniors are seeing the realities of precariousness and destitution rush at them from the horizon, our tax dollars are being spent on propping up young, able people who have been conditioned to rely on hand-outs for their sustenance. But it gets worse...much worse.

This country hands out roughly $20 billion annually to foreign nations in aid. Yes, Israel and Egypt are the largest beneficiaries of that aid, but we also aid Pakistan, Bosnia and Russia, to name a few. We also give nearly $100 million to Gaza and the West Bank. Why? Well, that money is given as a token of "balance" to Israeli aid from the U.S.

It may not sound like much in the total budget, but if you were in danger of losing your home to the bank, would you be handing out twenties to your neighbors? Likewise, would you be buying two hundred dollar Nikes for your kids, or fifty dollar Keds?

I still believe that most people in this country would rather be productive and, as a result, self-sufficient rather than wards of the State. And I still believe that trickle-down economics work well. The misnomer lies in the pejorative "trickle", which is designed to sow the seeds of envy among the classes. The question remains...would you be happier working for a wage as the beneficiary of a wealthy man's investment, or laying about in squalor waiting for the mailman to bring your welfare check?

All the rich owe us is a modicum of gratitude for our labors in making their investments profitable. We owe them a debt of gratitude for providing our livelihoods.

That being said, if our government has its way, we'll be living side by side in refrigerator boxes under the overpass, while the inhabitants of Gaza, et al, swim in the Mediterranean buoyed by wads of U.S. dollars snatched from the drowning Americans.

Sphere: Related Content

The Guitar Has No Strings

When our eyes are no longer our most trusted instruments, when we rely upon others to tell us a truth contrary to that which we plainly see, we are a lost people. 

Sooner or later there must come a time when even the least educated amongst us must realize when we are being duped. It is certainly an admirable trait to defer to experts in particular fields, but such reliance cannot be accepted automatically simply because of ones credentials, and especially when they are clearly lying. 

Paul Krugman is a columnist for the New York Times, writing on political issues based heavily on the economic aspects thereof. He has been awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. He is also Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University as well as Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics. Very smart guy, that Krugman; some would say infallible. Some, but not all...

On October 10th, Krugman wrote a piece in the New York Times Opinion Pages titled Hey, Small Spender, in which he makes the incredible claim that the federal government has not expanded the size of the government under Barack Obama, nor has it increased spending. His opening two paragraphs (emphasis mine): 

Here’s the narrative you hear everywhere: President Obama has presided over a huge expansion of government, but unemployment has remained high. And this proves that government spending can’t create jobs. 

Here’s what you need to know: The whole story is a myth. There never was a big expansion of government spending. In fact, that has been the key problem with economic policy in the Obama years: we never had the kind of fiscal expansion that might have created the millions of jobs we need.

Krugman goes on to complain that there hasn't been enough spending, blaming a campaign of disinformation for what he perceives as a fallacious claim that the country is spending too much. Fortunately, someone better equipped than I to counter Krugman's absurd claims has noticed and responded.

Charles Blahous wrote yesterday a blistering rebuttal to Krugman's piece, laying the culpability for disinformation squarely where it belongs; on the Left. Blahous was recently confirmed by the U.S. Senate to be one of two trustees of the Social Security and Medicare Programs. In his article on Economics21, he provides some very interesting government charts which show that Krugman is using his expertise for nefarious intent. Below is one such chart:

The chart is from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Do you doubt that government spending has soared under Obama and the Democrats? Can Krugman be taken seriously based solely on his work to attain the status of uber-expert in economics? Sadly, too many urban elites - who live in ritzy areas of big cities and wave the Times like a badge - have an unassailable claim of intellectualism when debating in public. Think about it...who would you believe in an argument? The person quoting the New York Times, or the person quoting Sanity Sentinel? 

As a guitar player, I would assert on this page that a guitar has strings. I've felt them and heard them, every time I play, albeit poorly. But if Les Paul, a legend of guitar and a designer of the instrument suddenly declared that the strings are a figment of a musician's imagination, how would I, a layman, dare to contradict him? Of course I'd be right, but if no one believes me, I might as well be wrong. 

It is pretty much the same here. Krugman, a recognized economic genius, goes off the deep end and tells us we know nothing of what we see, and we're expected to accept that? Not me, and I suspect, not you either. 

*Special Hat Tip to Karl Rove for his earlier tweet. 

Sphere: Related Content