Your Turn

I saw a really good cartoon last week, from Sack.

There's just one problem with the cartoon — The Republicans already had (and took) their turn. They already gave President Barack Obama a big tax increase. And that was just a few weeks ago! Guess that wasn't enough for Obama. (It never is or will be.)

He's Sure We're Gullible

President Barack Obama evidently thinks the American public is stupid, or at least very gullible. President Obama gives us a whole laundry list of bad things he says will happen if the sequester he proposed is allowed to take effect. But, as Mona Charen notes,

Even if these “draconian cuts” are implemented, the federal government will spend more this year than it did last year.

That's just another way of saying these "draconian cuts" aren't even cuts — they're just minor reductions in the rate of growth of government spending.

And then there's this:

In 2007, the government was 40 percent smaller than it is today. Were poor people sleeping under bridges? Were the elderly starving? Were planes grounded? Was food unsafe to eat?

I think I agree with this assessment:

The president’s doom-saying is so absurd that a mature country would hoot him off the stage. As it is, the housebroken media credulously report his obviously partisan scare-mongering as fact.

Mark Steyn makes a similar point in saying

Can you pierce the mists of time and go back all the way to the year 2007? Back then, federal spending was 40 percent lower than it is today. In a mere half-decade, has all that 40 percent gravy become so indispensable to the general welfare that not even a teensy-weensy sliver of it can be cut?

It may very well be that, as a number of observers have suggested, President Obama is really worried the sequester brings none of his dire predictions to pass. Then what would he scare us with?

The Sequester & etc.

The sequester is a huge problem — at least according to President Obama. But it's just another manufactured crisis. It's like this:

And the root cause of this problem is this:

This, too:

Heaven help us all!

Thoughts on the Sequester

I find it really interesting! The Obama White House came up with the idea of sequestration — reportedly by Tresury Secretary Designate Jack Lew and with the explicit approval of President Barack Obama. But now that it looks like his idea will go into effect, President Obama is attacking it as the worst idea ever. Fascinating!

Let's look a little more closely at President Obama's idea. A couple of key things stand out.

1. The first is IT IS NOT A CUT! — it's just a small reduction in the projected increase in the budget. Even with the sequestration, federal spending this year will still be higher than last year — just by not as much as automatically projected.
2. The second is that the sequestration amounts to just a SMALL PERCENTAGE CUT in the PROJECTED INCREASE in federal spending. IT IS NOT AN ACTUAL CUT IN SPENDING.

In other words, it really looks like the White House hype doesn't match the reality.

And then there are the issues of how the sequester's "cuts" are laid out. This, too, is in a couple of parts.

1. As the Obama White House designed it, 50% of the cuts are taken from defense — which is less than 20% of the federal budget. That's a much bigger cut, in relative terms, than the cut to the rest of the budget. And ...
2. The sequester does not specify where those cuts are to be taken. That specification is entirely up to the Executive Branch — the officials of the Obama Administration.

In other words, when President Obama tells us about all the terrible things that will result from the sequester, every single one of those things ie entirely up to him. He will choose where the cuts will be taken. If national parks are closed, it's because Obama chose to close them. If FBI agents are furloughed, it's because Obama chose to furlough them. If teachers are laid off, it's because Obama chose to lay them off. No one else has the authority to make those choices — only President Barack Obama.

So the one person doing all the fear-mongering — for his own purposes — is the one person responsible for whatever damage will be done.

This is what we need to keep in mind throughout the coming weeks and months. And to us all I say buena suerte.

UPDATE: Here's another view of the sequester's impact.

All You Gotta Do ...

... just add eight more zeroes.

If it's nuts in one case, it's nuts in the other.

Obamas Party While the Economy Burns

It's not just Barack. And don't expect to see this in the major press in this country — they're still supporting and covering for Obama. But here's another tidbit about the Obamas priorities, and their version of "shared sacrifice".

The Daily Mail is carrying White House reports the Obamas have spent more than $10 million on vacations in the past year. The article ties the vacation spending to "vacation junkie" Michelle Obama because of the several vacation trips she took without her husband, as well as the vacation trips she took with him (like the current vacation on Martha's Vineyard). The White House source says "It's disgusting. Michelle is taking advantage of her privileged position."

It has long appeared that both Barack and Michelle are taking full advantage of their positions to get anything they can get. You might say they're just in it for the perks.

It appears the only U.S. press coverage of this story is in the National Enquirer. (Just like the John Edwards stories? This one, just as an example? For a long while, the Enquirer was the only publication covering that story. Is the National Enquirer becoming mainstream?)

It is increasingly clear we can't rely on the major media to keep us informed, except where it fits their agenda.

Obama Parties While the Economy Burns

U.S. President Barack Obama didn't let Thursday's disaster in the financial markets disturb his party scheduled for that night. After all, one must keep one's priorities straight, mustn't one? His one concession was keeping the White House party, attended by celebrity supporters and Democrat party leaders, off the official schedule so it wouldn't be quite such an up-front deliberate slap in the country's face. It seems to me that action demonstrates a knowledge of guilt. But that guilt didn't stop the partying, or even slow it down.

The partying for the extended celebration of Obama's birthday continued. One subsequent celebration included former chief of staff (now Chicago mayor) Rahm Emmanuel.

While that was going on, apparently, Standard and Poor's downgraded the U.S. government's credit rating. The reasons given for the downgrade are, in part,

• The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.
• More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
• Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon.
• The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.

It sounds like Standard and Poor's is saying the same thing I have been saying: Our problem is that government spending has exploded and is out of control. What we have to do is rein in spending.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama received a birthday greeting for his fiftieth birthday.

Happy 50th Birthday Mr. President! While surprises are for birthdays, it is no surprise to the American people that your failed economic policies — from TARP to your health care bill — have resulted in disaster for our economy. Since taking office, unemployment has remained at or near 9 percent for 28 months, America has added $3.4 trillion in debt in 29 months — the equivalent of about $4 billion per day — we have an anemic housing market with record foreclosures, and an average price of nearly $4 for a gallon of gas. Even your budget did not receive one single vote in the United States Senate — and the icing on the cake — a stock market slide of nearly 800 points in the last 5 days.

While it may be hard to hear the American people’s frustration over the pop of the champagne corks and R&B bands at your $30,000/person birthday party, the citizens of this nation are suffering under your failed leadership. The best present you can give the American people will be for you and your failed economic policies to be defeated in November of 2012.

                  — Allen West (R-FL)

Why is it that what keeps running through my mind is "Nero fiddled while Rome burned"?

The Progressive Budget — Dangerous to the Nation

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says the Democrats will not propose a budget for fiscal year 2012. Indeed, he says it would be "foolish" for Democrats to do so.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Democrats' left wing, believes differently — and has proposed their answer to the budget proposed by Representative Paul Ryan. As Barron's notes

It claims to balance the budget in 10 years . . . . But it does so entirely with tax increases.

HUGE tax increases. (That does seem to be the usual Progressive answer to virtually everything.)

Barron's also says

We are always amazed by people who believe that spending cuts depress the economy while tax increases have no harmful effect.

I agree with them. That view strikes me as a sort of deliberate stupidity.

More on this issue later.