If You Knew Then What You Know Now. . .

Coach Jerry Sloan

I watched more than a few post-game shows with Jerry Sloan, the legendary coach of the Utah Jazz. When he would get questions like what could the team have done better in that game just completed, his classic response was, "You can't play this game backward. We're getting ready for the next one."

When asked once what he needed to do to beat a certain team after losing badly to them that night, he answered wryly, "Score more points than they do." 

Recently, former Florida Governor, and probable presidential contender, Jeb Bush, younger brother of George W., was asked a dumb question. "Knowing what you know now, would you have gone to war in Iraq?"

Politics aside, and the media's tendency to ask "gotcha" questions in general, I'll bet everyone out there would be a lot smarter then if they knew what they know today.

I'm now 50 years removed from my high school graduation. A lot of water has passed under the bridge to my future I built back in 1965. Were there some bricks in that bridge that I would love to go back and reconstruct today, knowing what I know now? Of course.

Bush was criticized for his bungled answer to that hypothetical. I'm not here to defend Jeb Bush, only to point out what a stupid question it really is.

Knowing what Americans now know about the real Barack Hussein Obama, would we (if we could) go back and ask for a re-do on two presidential elections? TWO?

Knowing what we know now, is there anyone who would have allowed Muhammed Atta and his band of "freedom fighters" (or is it "terrorists"?) to fly hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001?

Knowing what we know now, would George Washington have ever taken on the might of the British Army and Navy?

Knowing what we know now, would anyone have allowed the door to the presidential box at Ford's Theatre to have gone unguarded that night on April 14, 1865, when Lincoln attended?

These are a few examples of decision making. When Presidents and their advisers make decisions, they have enormous consequences that are felt for generations yet to come. They cannot be reversed. We may boldly fly "Mission Accomplished" banners, only to learn our euphoria was premature and ill-advised.

America continues its interminable war against terror. The body count continues to rise. Leaders of the new ISIS (rhymes with "crisis") phenomenon in the Middle East are routinely hunted down and surgically removed in the name of homeland security lest their poisonous tentacles infiltrate America's borders. However, on a larger scale, the fall of Ramadi to ISIS begs the question, "Is there really an American strategy at this juncture?" Nothing changes in the trajectory of nations, it seems, except heightened threats of instability and the potential for nuclear proliferation. Robert Gates, former Defense Secretary under Obama, flatly stated, "There is no strategy in Iraq."

And, oh by the way, those were all existential threats 50 years ago in the "idyllic" times of my youth. We practiced hiding under our desks, and neighbors were building bomb shelters. The protests of the Sixties had all the familiar earmarks of those we witness today. The Vietnam War was the social springboard for anti-war protests, flower children, free love, and psychedelic drugs like LSD and marijuana.

All that seems tame indeed when today we are dealing with Islamic extremists among whom murder is common practice, legalization of marijuana, the infiltration of illegal aliens pouring through our porous borders and flaunting our laws, and those who have advocated "gay marriage" (in quotes because there really is no other way to express that oxymoron in my lexicon) seemingly on the brink of victory in all 50 states pending a POTUS decision that is weeks away. Even conservative Utah Governor Gary Herbert said this week he's keeping "an open mind" about legalizing medical marijuana in Utah.

Some call it "progress" under a "progressive" political agenda. Neanderthal Man that I am, I just call it sin. I know we live in a secular world, surrounded by human secularists on all fronts, but I'm still clinging to my guns and my Bible. I am such a cultural dullard, I guess.

I wonder if some dull-witted reporter in some future day will ask a presidential candidate, "Knowing what you know today, would you vote in favor of gay marriage?" When we put in place a broad and sweeping declaration for marriage equality, when there is nothing "equal" about it, we must imagine there will be consequences.

When we make personal decisions, they may not be as far-reaching in global politics, but in each case those decisions can only be made on the basis of what is known at the time. Imagine what a different life it would be for each of us if we could make a decision where we know the outcome at decision time plus X years out into the future! I know many who would crave that kind of certainty.

There are very real issues that face our country today. The media does not serve the electorate well when they engage in such stupid parlor games with questions like "If you knew today what you didn't know then, would you have decided differently?"

I was thinking back on what my mindset was seven years ago in 2008, then 2010, then 2012, then 2014, when the political pot was boiling with what I thought were massive issues requiring immediate attention. Now, seven years removed from the heat of the battle for the White House in 2008, little has changed on immigration, the massive federal debt, the lack of a balanced budget, not to mention an executive branch usurping constitutional authority reserved to the legislative and the judiciary branches. In fact, much of that troubling agenda I thought about then has only gotten worse.

I was tempted to believe that when the House returned to GOP control there was hope for a brighter future. Then in 2014, the Senate was returned to Republicans as well. Even more cause for hope! But what has happened instead is I have grown older and more weary of the familiar rhetoric. I am heartened with the announcement that we will at least have a federal budget prepared and submitted to the Senate for consideration this year. But the rhetoric is all too familiar, and the results all too predictable.

It seems there are many who are willing to engage in one of life’s favorite fantasies, daydreaming about living one’s life over knowing what one knows now. If it's an idle speculation indulged in on occasions like your 50-year high school graduation, it's harmless enough I suppose. But I would advise against spending too much time on it. You can't have your yesterdays today and make them into something you wish they had been. But you can repent and move forward.

I teach and counsel young people today. I say essentially these same things to them. I counsel them to live well in their youth, to put the building blocks of a sure foundation in place in their lives today while they aren't even thinking about their future too much. Then, as I do now, they can look back without regrets (some, maybe, but not too many). I always treasure the counsel of Mark Twain, who noted: "Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life." So I counsel my young friends to surround themselves with those three to prepare them for old age lived serenely.

My takeaway from Jerry Sloan is the bit of advice I pass along today - don't live your life in reverse, going backward to revisit what happened yesterday. If you learned from your past, and hopefully we have all done that, take the lessons learned and move forward. Life must always be lived into the future.

That's where true hope and happiness reside, as we look forward to our next great adventure, not backward on past events.

Congressman Allen West - Truth about Medicare

One of my all-time favorite politicians is Representative Allen West from Florida. He's in a battleground state, and getting the truth out about such an important issue to Floridians (many retirees) as Medicare reform is critical to his campaign. He's a plain-spoken truth teller. This appeared on his Facebook page this morning.

Congressman Allen West (R-FL)

Stop the Lies! The real truth about Medicare...please read:
by Congressman Allen West on Monday, September 10, 2012 at 7:23am
·
Let’s get right to the point, there has been an enormous amount of fear-mongering and scare tactics emanating from President Barack Obama and the liberal left on the issue of Medicare.

We have a responsibility to our seniors and we shall keep it. We shall also ensure we preserve and protect not just Medicare but also the commitment to future generations of Americans, our children and grandchildren, not to bankrupt their hopes and dreams.

The Fiscal Year 2012 Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees report on Medicare and Social Security has these programs respectively going “belly up” in 2024 and 2033. That is unacceptable to me and should be to everyone.

Medicare as we know is doomed to fail and collapse unless courageous men and women take action -- doing nothing but complaining and demonizing is the folly of incompetents. Lying to the American people and our seniors is unacceptable.

Here is the truth. As per a report issued by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) in July of this year, there are $716 billon of cuts to Medicare as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in Fiscal Year 2013-2022.

These cuts to Medicare cannot be disputed and show that President Obama and the Democrats see Medicare as a “slush fund” to pay for their massive government expansion into the healthcare industry, creating 159 new government agencies and bureaucracies and further exacerbating the demise of this vital program.

These cuts include $517 billion to Part A (Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund) and $247 billion to Part B (Supplemental Medicare Insurance Trust Fund) as follows:
- $294 billion payment cuts to hospitals
- $156 billion cuts to Medicare Advantage affecting 25% of seniors nationwide
- $39 billion cuts to skilled nursing
- $17 billion cuts to hospice care
- $66 billion cuts to home healthcare
- $33 billion cuts to other providers
- $11 billion cuts resulting from the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB, 15-member panel of unelected government bureaucrats making Medicare price control decisions).

The plan I voted for that passed in the United States House of Representatives is something completely opposite to this horrific plan. First of all, it actually spends more on Medicare in the next 10 years.

The House of Representatives-passed budget -- and remember the Democrat-controlled the United States Senate has not passed a budget in over 1200 days -- would repeal the IPAB which is empowered to cut Medicare in ways that would jeopardize seniors’ access to care.

The House of Representatives-passed budget saves Medicare for current and future seniors.  In other words, there is no change for anyone 55 years of age and older.

 For those younger, when they become eligible, Medicare will provide a premium-support payment and a list of guaranteed coverage options -- including a traditional fee-for-service option -– from which recipients can choose a plan that best suits THEIR needs.

Understand that currently on average Americans are paying $110,000-$115,000 into Medicare but receive closer to $300,000 in benefits…not to mention the widespread fraud which must be tackled.

This option-based program reforms Medicare and would be determined by a competitive bidding process which doesn’t take a brain surgeon to understand will help drive down price and improve the quality of care for our future seniors.

As well, premium support, competitive bidding, and more assistance for lower income seniors, or those with greater healthcare needs ensures guaranteed affordability.

These are not talking points, but truth, objective assessment and analysis.

The question is very simple, whom shall you trust in the debate about Medicare, and the larger debate about how best to get our nation back on track?

The people who stated, “we must pass the bill in order to know what is in the bill?”

The people who said the healthcare bill will only cost the American taxpayer $940 billion only to find out that it now costs closer to $1.7 TRILLION?

The people who told you the individual mandate was not a tax, only to find out that the only way Obamacare can be declared constitutional is for the individual mandate deemed to be a tax? And as a result you have a healthcare law that entails 20 new taxes and funding for 16,000 new IRS agents.

Are you really going to trust the ideas of the President of the United States who said he would cut the deficit in half in his first term, only to have four straight years of trillion-dollar-plus deficits (the previous high was $468 billion)? The fellow who has added more debt, over $5 trillion in less than four years…more than the previous 42 Presidents combined?

Are you really going to trust the recommended approach of a fellow who said that if his trillion-dollar stimulus were passed, unemployment would never go above 8%... and that at this time it would be 5.6%?

Are you really going to trust the policies of the fellow who presented a budget that raises $1.9 trillion in new taxes in order to increase the size of the Federal Government by 53% and the budget never, ever, balances?

Lastly, are you going to trust that the affable gent who stated if he could not turn this around would have a one-term presidency -- but now demands a second term -- will stick to his word?

I have provided you the truth, now make your decision…whose ideas will you trust to protect, preserve, and honor the commitment of Medicare?

Paul Ryan - there's an app for that

Mitt Romney announces Paul Ryan as his running mate in November

I returned from three days out of range in the high Uintas to learn about the Congressman Paul Ryan (R-MI) pick as Mitt Romney's running mate. So much for my high-tech app on my iPhone and all the good that did me. . . It's obvious Rupert Murdoch liked the choice a lot (and he doesn't tweet much either).

I actually like this choice a lot too. My first impressions - it signals to the world that Mitt Romney is really serious about budgets and entitlement reform. There's another oh, by the way, fact that interests me - this is the first ever Mormon/Catholic pairing of two presidential election running mates in history. Ryan is only the second Catholic GOP candidate to make it to the national ticket.

In sports a lot is said about "chemistry." You've heard it again and again during the Olympics. There's no question that there's chemistry between Ryan and Romney. It's evident when they campaign together. They share a number of things in common. Despite the twenty-plus year gap in their ages, they are both data hunters. They love numbers -- Mitt Romney from his experience in business and working with economies as both a governor and a businessman, and Paul Ryan from his lifetime in studying the budget and the economy and particularly how the legislative process and our federal budget gets put together.

I've heard Paul Ryan tell the stories about when he was in high school and other kids were doing what most teenagers do, he was reading the federal budget for fun. Seriously, you can't make this up - that's who the guy IS at his core. And one of the things Mitt Romney finds particularly appealing is, Ryan is a very articulate, glib, enthusiastic guy. He can take really complex economic and budget issues and make them understandable in clear, concise language that voters can understand. He explanations don't get lost in the kind of legislative speak that you often get on Capitol Hill. And frankly, he's able to put a little more salsa sauce into it than Romney does.

This pick clearly brings this debate right where it should be focused now between the left and right. The remaining months will be about THE BUDGET finally. It will become the Romney agenda as supported by Ryan with all of his principles. That debate will be a more substantive one than a lot of the back-biting and name-calling that we've seen in the past few weeks.

Romney has sometimes been knocked as the "stiff." Paul Ryan will become the Energizer Bunny. In the last  seven terms in Congress, he rocketed to the top of Republican politics. He has become the youngest chairman of the House Budget Committee ever. He has left an indelible mark on the Republican party with the Ryan budget and his bold proposals for Medicare reforms, etc. All have really energized conservatives and Republicans. And likewise, it's also angered and energized a lot of liberals and Democrats, who are as violently opposed to it as Republicans and conservatives are enthusiastically for it. This election is now set for the precise trajectory I would have hoped for months ago. The choices could not be more clear cut.

Historically, and by Constitutional dictum, all spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Under the Nancy Pelosi Democrat-controlled House during Obama's first two years, no budget was presented for consideration in the House. When the BHO budget was submitted it was laughed out of contention unanimously by both parties.

In 2010, when control of the House switched to the Republicans under Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), the budget chairman in the House was named and he actually presented a serious budget that called for major reforms of entitlement programs, real spending cuts, and a plan to reduce and eventually eliminate deficit spending in a reasonable amount of time. For two consecutive years the Ryan Plan, as it came be called, was passed in the House and stalled in the the Democrat-controlled Senate.

All of which means this country has been operating without a budget in place for four years. The consequences are becoming obvious - deficit spending and debt has risen dramatically with no end in sight.

The creeping progressive agenda is something Paul Ryan deeply knew and cared about, and was actually opposing vigorously, for years in the Congress.

Click here for the complete transcript of an interview with Glenn Beck in 2010, where Paul Ryan says the following:

"Where we raise our family, 35 miles from Madison, I grew up hearing about this stuff. This stuff came from these German intellectuals to Madison ‑ University of Wisconsin - and sort of out there from the beginning of the last century. So this is something we are familiar with where I come from. It never sat right with me. And as I grew up, I learned more about the founders and reading the Austrians and others that this is really a cancer because it basically takes the notion that our rights come from God and nature and turns it on its head and says, no, no, no, no, no, they come from government, and we here in government are here to give you your rights and therefore ration, redistribute and regulate your rights. It’s a complete affront of the whole idea of this country and that is to me what we as conservatives, or classical liberals if you want to get technical."

And there you have it folks - a capsule summary any thinking American can digest to invigorate and focus this campaign on where it is headed into November 6th. If you want to know what really makes a man like Paul Ryan tick, here it is fleshed out a bit more from the same interview:

"They are leading us to a social welfare state, cradle‑to‑grave society where they create a culture of dependency on the government, not on oneself. It is meant to replace the American idea. And the reason I’m doing a lot of these speeches ‑‑ the reason I’m talking about Hegel and Faber and Bismarck, you know, and what those people stood for and what they did and said and all their disciples, you know, in America is because I really believe we’ve got to have a debate and a political realignment fast because we will win the debate now. We are a center‑right country. But if they succeed in moving us faster down the tipping point where more Americans are dependent on the government than upon themselves, where a debt crisis sparked money entitlement explosion brings us to, you know, a really tough fiscal situation, then down the road we may not win that referendum and so that is why I’m trying to, you know, do what I can from my position in congress to sound the alarm bells on what this agenda really means, what this philosophy’s all about and how we need to have a referendum in America in real elections to untangle this mess they created and prevent us from reaching this tipping point where we are a social welfare state, cradle‑to‑grave society, dependent on the government that lulls us into lies of complicity and dependency versus the America idea of, you know, making the most of your life, equal opportunity, equal natural rights. You know, those are the things that got us where we are and that’s why I put this roadmap plan out there. I introduced it three years ago. I put a new version out in January. You can go to my website, Americanroadmap.org. It is a very specific economic and fiscal plan. It’s a piece of legislation that says there is an alternative to this progressivist vision for America. There is a way to reapply and reclaim the founding principles in America and still get America back and make this century another American Century appeared that’s why I’ve been, you know, speaking from the hilltop. It’s not popular and it’s ‑‑ and for my party, we can’t afford to screw up again. But we’ve got to get people to stop being worried or afraid of taking on this debate and that’s what I’m simply trying to do."

So if I am right in my assessment, we will actually have two men atop the ticket of the GOP this year who are serious about taking on the tough problems we face as a nation and doing something to correct the illegitimate course we have been pursuing this past four years.

There is only one way Romney and Ryan can lose this debate, and that is if the other side - the BHO/Joe Biden ticket - refuses to debate the case on its merits. There is one thing a radical left-wing extremist ideologue can't stand, and it's the one thing both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are really, really good at:

MATH!

From Here to Where?

The good news first:  The 112th Congress was sworn in last week.  Control of the House of Representatives swung predictably into the hands of the conservatives, the "tea party movement" largely receiving most of the credit.  For me, back in March 2010, it all started here first on Utah caucus night.  In the land of Oz (see above), one now hopes at least the brakes have been applied to the dream wishing debt financing for bigger government solutions regardless of the cost.

The Senate remains in control of the Democrats, as does the White House.  The stock market has taken off on a rising trajectory since November, anticipating and relishing the thoughts of gridlock once again. The financial markets love gridlock only because it signals something better than the unpredictability we have witnessed for the last two years.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

The 112th Congress began its first session by reading the Constitution on the floor of the House.  Many guffawed at the idea.  By the time it was over, most had left the chamber.  You can call it mere symbolism if you wish, but at least the new leadership is signalling a belief that the inspired document is more than merely a good idea.  It's really the document determining how we are to be governed as a free people.  Orrin Hatch (R-UT) opined this way.

For far too long this country has been polarized into two discernible and seemingly divisive camps.  However, there has been a private and all-too-easy accommodation between the two factions.  Publicly they excoriate one another.  On the right conservatives have advocated self-determination and small government, tax reductions and less regulation.  The left has routinely done everything within its power to form a framework of big government and high taxation to buy delicious wealth redistribution benefits for the 9 - 5 working folks.  The two sides have always had to compromise to some degree to get a little of what each has wanted.

You may not like it, but neither has been able to get everything each wanted, so compromise has been the basis of the accommodation each has made for the other.

We are now left with a "hybrid" bastard child government in many ways.  The right has been unsuccessful in creating free markets for individually-owned businesses as they once envisioned while holding at bay the creeping welfare state, and the left has failed to fully implement a Western European-style socialist government they seem to love so much.  I never dreamed we would ever revisit those socialist ideals, but the last two years have proven they are not dead yet.

Both sides publicly hold their noses, pandering to their respective political base of believers.  The left has compromised on tax cuts, while the right has voted for increased government involvement.  It's nothing more than political kabuki theater at its best.  The compromise strategy has worked brilliantly to perpetuate the perceived value of a long-standing member of Congress for his constituency when he can get himself in a position to "bring home the bacon."  As she exited as Speaker of the House last week, Nancy Pelosi was still blaming everything on George W. Bush -- she apparently believes the Democrats lost control of the House in the November mid-term election because of the bad economy they inherited from Bush.  So far, so good.  Blame the other guys and continue to compromise to get a little bit of what you want.

Turns out, she has little to complain about -- she got EVERYTHING she wanted.  One could make the case her success as Speaker is unprecedented based upon the number of bills passed.

But the future from here is uncertain and unpredictable.  The old ways of getting things done are likely to implode.  Here are some thoughts about why:

Bob Bennett

Here in Utah last year Bob Bennett was soundly and unceremoniously tossed.  He remains a canary in the mine shaft as a harbinger of things to come.  The other long-standing compromiser from Utah, Orrin Hatch, is trying to avoid the harsh judgment of his 36-year Senate career by his constituents in 2012.  I predict he will not be able to survive if the current mood persists, though he is making a valiant last-ditch stand to lengthen out his stay (he would be 84 years old at the end of his next term if re-elected, and would become the oldest Senator ever elected in Utah).  That's tall timber to have to chop.  Bennett couldn't do it and Hatch has  already served longer than any of the twelve U.S. Senators from Utah.  Originally, he ran against Frank Moss, calling him a "career politician."  There will be many willing newcomers anxious to remind Hatch the roles are now reversed and it's time for him to step aside.  I wish Hatch would just voluntarily retire, knowing it will never happen.

Both Hatch and Bennett are emblematic of the frustration voters feel, knowing in our heart of hearts as we do that each was part of the problem -- the "great compromise" between the parties happened on their watch and they enabled it as two old political hands can and must do from a small state.  They went along to get along and survive until the next election.  Business as usual in Washington D. C. has given us the worst case scenario.  What's the worst scenario?  High taxes, bankrupt government, out-of-control spending, and costly entitlement programs as far as the eye can see.  They can say they opposed it all and point to "those other guys" to assuage their base in Utah, but the record says otherwise.

We have a bloated federal government.  There are 2,748,978 federal civilian employees.  Most of them work for the executive branch, and the government is easily the largest employer in America today.  Not exactly what the founders favoring limited government had in mind.

While both sides will say they are committed to a government that only spends what it takes in, there are increasing numbers of voters who do not accept the statements of their elected officials any longer.  Frustration over election year rhetoric not translating into constructive solutions thereafter is at an all-time high.  It's likely the reason Hatch and other incumbents will be added to the rolls of the unemployed in 2012.

Once again this year, attempts will be made to put forward a "balanced budget amendment" if such a thing can even be accurately defined (it failed by one vote in the Senate a few years ago), but perhaps a new beginning can emerge this year.  It remains to be seen.  I remain optimistic.

Ask either side who's responsible for the current deficit and finger pointing from each is all you'll get.  They have been partners in this Ponzi scheme crime of the century in profligate spending, then handing the bill to future generations.  "Pay as you go" government is nothing more than a wink and a nod in Washington.  That's what has got to change, Americans are increasingly saying to themselves.  Both sides created it with their tendency to compromise with each other.  Both sides must accept accountability for their actions.  The voters will be certain they do.

The liberals on the left contend (correctly) that conservative tax cuts contribute to the deficit.  Conservatives on the right assert (correctly) that unrestrained government growth has pushed us into the sprawling ocean of red ink.  Remember when Bill Clinton said, once the deficit reached zero by cooperating with the Republican-controlled Congress, that the era of big government was over?  Uh, yeah, that didn't happen.

The numbers do not lie.  There was a budget surplus for four years during the late 1990s -- unrestricted good budget news broke out, each side claiming credit for that outcome.  Except for those four anomalous years the federal deficit has fluctuated between 1.5 percent to 6 percent of GDP.  Relative to the size of the American economy, historically the largest in the world, that size of a deficit was not enough to give much angst to the green eye-shade people who watch such things.

But something dramatic (I am understating) happened in the 2009 and 2010 federal budgets.  I've been watching, trying to learn, and coming to some sobering realizations.  In those two years the deficit rocketed up to 10 percent of GDP.  Blame whomever you will for profligate spending -- both sides point at each other -- the simple fact is tax receipts plummeted into the basement during those two years.  Linked to reduced revenues flowing into the Treasury, we learned there were $288 billion in tax cuts paired with $500 billion in additional "stimulus" spending.  That doesn't include a $1 Trillion price tag for health care reform that's been added to the fiscal witch's brew.

I believe our reality points to the end of the ying/yang political compromises we have heretofore witnessed.  The left and the right are going to be compelled to change their ways, not because they really want to but because the voters will demand it.  The days of a Teddy Kennedy and an Orrin Hatch making nice to spend more money for social programs must and will come to a screeching halt.  The only question is will there be enough political will among the members of Congress to bring it about.  Will Americans demand the change of direction with their power at the voting booth?

The three biggest segments of the government's spending today involve defense, Social Security and Medicare.  When my father attempted to explain Medicare to his local Rotary Club in a prepared speech when it was first introduced in 1966, as part of the "Great Society" envisioned by President Lyndon B. Johnson, he used language much like what we are hearing today in connection with Obamacare.  Dad's words, "We just don't know what this is going to do to us, only time will tell."

Well, all these years later we are now beginning to understand just how costly medical care has become.  In 1966, Medicare was 16 percent of the annual federal budget.  In ten years (2020) the projection is that number will explode to 40 percent as baby boomers like me continue to flood the system, Obamacare notwithstanding.

Left unchecked, the actuarial assumptions for these socially engineered government "safety nets" for an aging population with fewer worker bees in the hive than ever before are not promising.  Socialism fails to deliver on its promises, because society just can't have it both ways -- the "good life" without somebody paying the bill ultimately.  One would think Europe's experiments with socialism could have taught us that lesson.

As other budget items necessarily get pushed aside to continue to maintain the "big three," the room for compromise will erode exponentially only because it must and there will be few options.  It might be years yet in coming (we always defer the day of reckoning as long as we can), but come it will.  The choices will be simpler -- either raise taxes to sustain social entitlements or lower taxes and reduce the entitlements.  The level of taxation where we finally settle relative to benefits extended will be interesting to observe.

Necessity being slowly forced upon us will dictate the new direction.  That's why the historically great "compromisers" who fathered the current situation like Bennett and Hatch must give way to new members of Congress from both sides who become steeled in their resolve to find a new path together to preserve the Republic through greater fiscal discipline.  The good ol' boy network must be dismantled, the seniority system scrapped, and Constitutionally-directed thinking about smaller government re-enthroned.

I believe the same God who inspired the Constitution inspired tithing and self-reliance.  Adam and Eve were not clutching their Social Security cards as they set about to survive in the lone and dreary world by the sweat of their brow.  Neither were your ancestors when they first set foot upon this protected and preserved continent.  Believing somehow that big government will deliver its solutions in our old age is exactly what our forefathers warned us about, and that premise is foolishness.  We are seeing the realities of big government "solutions" every day.  Despite efforts to impact the number by the government, unemployment rates are dropping slightly (now at 9.4 percent nationwide) only because people are dropping out in their job searches.  Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is predicting employment will not return to "normal" for another five years.  Those facts should tell you all you need to know about government interventions in recessions.

I'll be watching in the years ahead as one of many who has lived to witness this inevitable train wreck as a baby boomer.  What interests me is how the government benefits I have been promised by a government now unable to deliver as promised will be perpetuated.  It cannot, can it?  Will we step up and responsibly put our government house in order and shoulder the generational debt we have incurred to spare our children the burden it will impose upon them?  Or will we go on raising the debt limit indefinitely, confident America is big enough to pay its obligations forever?

Whatever course we take as a country, political rhetoric from either side blaming the other cannot and will not stand forever.  It must be supplanted by the political will of Americans imposing their will upon their elected representatives to carefully and judiciously dismantle the fiscal house of cards before it falls precipitously on its own.

The big dream of a Government providing a cradle to grave existence without individual toil and accountability is a myth as fanciful as the Emperor's New Clothes.

Those days are over.