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."
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.
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.
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.
I am loathe to pass along most everything I see from an anonymous source on the Internet. However, this morning I make an exception to my longstanding rule. I know a good piece of writing when I see it, and this qualifies. See if you don't agree:
I was in my neighborhood restaurant this morning and was seated behind a group of jubilant individuals celebrating the coming implementation of the health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is what ensued: They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard a young man exclaim, "Isn't Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick."
A young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, "Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market wouldn't work for health care."
Another said, "The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate."
At this, I had more than enough. I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and approached their table. "Please excuse me; may I impose upon you for one moment?"
They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an experiment.
"I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there. Anyone interested?"
They looked at each other in astonishment. "Why would you do something like that?" asked a young man, "There isn't anything for free in this world." They began to laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point.
"I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money whatsoever. Anyone interested?"
In unison, a resounding "Yeah" fills the room.
"Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to who receives this money-free bargain."
I noticed an elderly couple was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes, the old man shaking his head in apparent disgust.
"I tell you what; I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules."
Again, they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their faces.
The perky young woman asked, "What are the rules?"
I smiled and said, "I don't know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you."
They giggled among themselves, the youngest of which said, "What an old coot. He must be crazy to give away his home. Go take your meds, old man."
I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further. "I am serious, this is a legitimate offer."
They gaped at me for a moment.
"I'll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?" boasted the youngest among them.
"Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms then?" I asked.
The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they watched from the privacy of their table. "Oh yeah! Where do I sign up?"
I took a napkin and wrote, "I give this man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this transaction."
I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly scratched out his signature.
"Where are the keys to my new house?" he asked in a mocking tone of voice.
All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited new homeowner.
"Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated to adhere to from this point forward. You may only live in the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind faith. These are my terms. Here are your keys." I reached the keys forward and the young man looked at me dumbfounded.
"Are you out of your mind? Who would ever agree to those ridiculous terms?" the young man appeared irritated.
"You did when you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed to the agreement."
The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain him. I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of people.
"You can shove that stupid deal up your a** old man. I want no part of it!" exclaimed the now infuriated young man.
'You have committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends. You cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short, I am your Master."
At this, the table of celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal.
After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my true intent.
"What I did to you is what this administration and congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn, and you willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only chance of freedom is if your new Master gives it to you. A freedom that is given can also be taken away. Therefore, it is not freedom at all."
With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished young man. "This is the nature of your new health care legislation."
I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation -- and was surprised by applause.
The elderly gentleman, who was clearly entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, "Thank you, Sir. These kids don't understand Liberty ."
He refused to allow me to pay my bill as he said, "You earned this one. It is an honor to pick up the tab."
I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat humbled and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country.
Remember... Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
* * *
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the American Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." Henry Ford
My Twitter timeline is growing more and more libertarian all the time. And, truth be told, so am I. There was a time when I accepted the reality of the two-party tradition in America. Today it is little more than slight distinctions about which party's candidates can convince us they can manage the intricacies of big government better.
Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI)
Sadly, while I still like Paul Ryan a lot, the release of his latest version of the budget features only a slightly lower baseline over the next ten years than the trajectory of the Senate's version, released last week by the Senate's budget chairperson, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA). Give her credit - at least she came up with the first Senate budget in over 1400 days. That said, we have yet to pass a federal budget during the administration of Barack Obama, much less seriously consider balancing one. Finally, last week Barack Obama admitted he has no intention of balancing the budget nor reducing the deficit during his remaining term. At least now we know where he stands, since he no longer is accountable to voters. His budget "proposal" merely calls for more taxes and more spending.
According to Ryan’s version of what he would advocate (these numbers are lifted straight from his proposal) we would reduce federal spending as a percentage of GDP from 22.2 percent this year to 19.1 percent in 2023. That is at least a start in the right direction, but hardly draconian in its import. However, if you believe what the Democrat/progressive/liberal elements tell us, such a brutal meat cleaver reduction in the federal spending projections over the next ten years would inflict almost incomprehensible pain on Americans.
Here's what caught my attention from Ryan's CPAC speech last week: “We don’t see the debt as an excuse to cut with abandon, to shirk our obligations. We see it as an opportunity to reform government, to make it cleaner and more effective. That’s what conservatives stand for.”
But here's the rub. Isn't that exactly what Democrats believe too? Aren't they always proclaiming their efforts are designed to give us more effective and efficient government too?
I studied Ryan’s proposal to see if I could find anything that would forever end the federal government’s involvement in education. We've been talking about that since the days of Reagan who wanted to close the doors on the Department of Education. No sign of that in Ryan's budget. All the federal programs that sponsor job training are still there in the Ryan budget. There is nothing to eliminate the Departments of Energy, Transportation, and all the rest. There are so many bloated federal agencies that could be eliminated presidential candidate Rick Perry stumbled during a debate on his recitation of the list of agencies he would cut and it cost him the nomination. But nowhere in the latest Ryan budget do you find provisions for cutting them out.
There is a plus, however. Ryan's budget calls for ending Obamacare, but that isn't going to happen now as that train left the station and is picking up speed on the implementation rails as it rumbles into an insurance plan near you soon. But even if that were a successful legislative coup (and it won't be) the Ryan budget fails to eliminate the federal government’s involvement in health care. At least Ryan wants to cap higher education subsidies, but that doesn't terminate the federal government’s involvement in education. Well, you get the idea. The core problem is simple: More efficient government isn’t the same as limited government. That's the important Constitutional mandate we have bargained away over the years as both political parties have given us more and more government. Whether the federal government is efficient or effective is a debate I don't even care about. I'm becoming more libertarian because it's the only option left to us.
I'm just old enough to remember when we thought we could believe a two-party political system consisting of Republicans and Democrats representing vastly different values and objectives existed. However, true patriots who value liberty and freedom from tyranny, those who are accurately informed, well researched and historically astute know otherwise. Now I see things much differently. The thin veneer of political differentiation has finally peeled away. By the time George W. Bush and Henry Paulson at the end of the Bush era decided to bail out Wall Street and bankers, the illusion was forever evaporated. Government can only fund solutions with money it collects from taxpayers, and so far there seems to be insufficient angst among voters to stop it from escalating.
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)
Something extraordinary happened a couple of weeks ago on the Senate floor. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) launched a nearly 13-hour filibuster over an issue that barely aroused any interest among Americans, yet it clearly illuminated this rising tide of awareness of the thinly-veiled differences between the establishment powers in both political parties. What stunned me was the reaction by certain members of the Republican party we must not minimize. I happen to like the old Jimmy Stewart movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," only because it's about the little guy who dares to take on the establishment against all odds. Rand Paul's filibuster was a throw-back to earlier times. Here's at least one man (and there are growing numbers) who still recognizes the Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights as the supreme law of the land. I include Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) in that group. John McCain called them "wacko birds." Then he thought better of the comment and apologized. That defiant act of filibuster by one man had much deeper meaning on many more levels than the topic at hand. When "wackos" are people who believe in limited government and liberty, then I choose to stand with the wackos.
Senator Paul asked for a simple response about the potential use of drones on American citizens on American soil from the Attorney General who represents the Executive branch of our government. Attorney General Eric Holder did not respond, so Senator Paul took to the Senate floor and spoke for 13 hours. As painful as it was for the Executive and Judicial branches and their media surrogates to even acknowledge Senator Paul’s persistence, his actions eventually generated a response. A short letter signed by Attorney General Holder was begrudgingly released. The answer was “no.” As remote as the possibility may seem to some, at least this administration is now on the record if that means anything.
Every freedom-loving American should be heralding Senator Rand Paul for what he did. It was evidence that every American who still cares about the rule of law and our God-given rights as enumerated in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights has at least one voice who speaks for them on the Senate floor. One would think that kind of issue would resonate throughout America without regard to political party. But he received nothing but ridicule for what some claimed was a cheap political grandstanding maneuver. I saw it as much more.
I consider myself a Conservative. I used to think I was a "moderate" Conservative. I find I must distinguish what that means to me and what it means to Paul Ryan, however. My loyalty is to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I'm increasingly more interested in like-minded individuals who share that desire above party label. To stand for only a better-managed big government is now bordering on tyrannical and treasonous in my mind.
On the morning of the 9/11 attacks, I watched in horror as the Twin Towers collapsed and the realization we were attacked by foreign enemies slowly sank in that morning. Looking back on the aftermath of that day, I think I supported wholeheartedly, as many Americans did, the passage of legislation that formed even more agencies of the federal government. The Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security are only two examples. Now I believe I was wrong in my initial embrace of those moves. In the subsequent bursting of the bubble of Wall Street excesses with securitized mortgages and other dicey investment vehicles, there came clarity. I have discerned we were then, and still are to an increasing rate, being lied to by elected officials on both sides of the political spectrum. The "BIG LIE" is that we are going to be okay with the status quo they so desperately seem determined to perpetuate.
I've stopped listening to the so-called "Conservative" talk radio pundits and the TV talking heads. Like an old soap opera where you can tune out for months at a time, then tune in for a few minutes, the story lines never change and the themes are repetitive. The search for truth is paramount in these last days. And the truth cannot be found in the political realm.
Jesus Christ laments over Jerusalem
You are either loyal to God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, or you are not. It really won't matter much which political logos you're wearing when the elements melt down in the fervent heat yet to come. What will matter instead is your allegiance to God and our Constitution and Bill of Rights in America. As Christ was rejected of His own in His day, so He is being rejected once again in our day. I surmise He laments over Washington D.C. today as He once did over Jerusalem. The imperial government, the pervasive institution to which we are all being asked to pledge allegiance and to turn for sustenance, has forsaken her birthright. These are values our great nation once represented. There is no political party left, however, to claim the crown of champion for those values. Both parties have been corrupted. As long as I live I will resist any and all attempts by others to impose a godless theocracy upon us. If America fails, there will be no other contender left on earth in the running among the super powers to champion the cause of freedom.
Merely proposing that the federal government borrow and spend less than what is currently projected is certainly better than the alternative of burying our heads in the sand and pretending we are not in a spending and debt crisis. But those who accept Paul Ryan's version of the proposed federal budget cannot be serious if their goal is limited government. We must come to a point where we must find the collective will as free citizens to impose limits all the areas where government has intruded on our rights.
Some people worry what will happen if draconian measures are taken to cut federal spending. Think of the "safety net" suddenly being snatched out from underneath everyone. Think of all the unemployment if federal employment for millions of Americans suddenly terminates. In the garden of Eden, were Adam and Eve firmly clutching their Social Security checks and food stamps? When did we lose sight of working by the sweat of our own brows? There were no promises then, and there are none now. Ryan is defending a mythological fantasy when he says he can ensure the promises their government has made to Americans in the years ahead. What he's really saying is I can do it better than Democrats, when both have moved this country beyond the ability to deliver on those promises without severe cutbacks in the status quo. That's a political agenda politicians don't dare enunciate for fear of losing the next election.
I've heard the list of horribles of what might happen if we take control of our own debt and spending now, but what if we are already at the tipping point where the collapse is imminent anyway? Isn't the path we are on amply demonstrated by now to be unsustainable? Seems to me we must prune back the spending and debt bushes voluntarily now, or the pruning will be imposed at a time not of our own choosing and by circumstances we cannot possibly foresee or control.
I'm happy for the thought and preparation that has gone into Ryan’s latest budget proposal. But it only represents a step toward a slightly cheaper big government in a time when what is needed is a return to limited government we can actually afford.
I was reminded today about an old Yogi Berraism: "Predictions are always uncertain, especially about the future."
When you look back ten years, is there anyone who could have predicted then where we would be as a nation today? So why would anyone in their right mind believe ANYONE living today could possibly predict the future of politics in this country?
That said, I will venture a guess that things as they are today will not remain for much longer politically. The Republicans are still smarting from the election of 2012. There were many surprises. The old methods of analysis of the demographics have faded away, it would seem. Conversely, there were numerous allegations of voter fraud and stealing the election in key battleground states. Whatever the facts may someday reveal, it was a shock to the conservative base to which I belong.
We face some daunting challenges. The country is broke, at least by the traditional definitions of what that means. When we spend more than we take in that used to mean "broke." We have a federal government that is out of control in its spending habits. We can’t afford what they are doing. We now have a government that is doling out benefits across a broad spectrum to half the citizens. Our private industry, once the envy of the world in productivity is now stalled and mostly stagnant compared to China's output. The Republican Party, once the champion of free enterprise, limited government and individual freedom and responsibility lost its way in the darkness of progressivism a long time ago.
Democrats were historically the party of big government. There was hope in the 90s when Bill Clinton declared the end of big government, constrained as he was by the Newt Gingrich revolution in Congress that produced a balanced budget. Now they too have lost their way. Under Barack Obama it appears they would make everyone dependent upon big government. They believe they have discovered the golden ticket to winning elections in perpetuity among voters who like the dole they receive in whatever form it takes.
Sadly, about all we got Republicans to admit in this last election cycle is that they could manage big government better than Democrats. While I at one time believed there was a clear and obvious contrast between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, when it comes to the argument about Big Government versus small government, the argument became a blended mishmash that was nearly indistinguishable, especially in that last debate.
So I've mostly gone silent on the political front since that first week in November. Stunned and still recovering would be the best way to describe my reaction. This country has been without a true political freedom of expression and limited government party for many years.
That reality must change. The upstart "tea party" has received its death warrant from more than a few pundits, most recently from former Senator Bob Bennett, who was soundly thrashed in the Utah nominating convention in 2010, and whose seat is now held by Mike Lee (R-UT). But I have the sense predictions of the spirit it represents may be premature. I hear a lot of rebellion talk brewing under the surface in the Republican Party, at least here in Utah. You can describe "the base" any way you wish. I choose to think the true conservatives, moderates and independents who make up Utah's "base" were aroused in 2008, spoke up in 2010, and still shout, "Stop it! Reduce this out-of-control federal government! Wake up, Washington, and put a lid on the debt, the spending and the deficits that are enslaving our future generations. Reduce the taxes, abandon the regulatory agencies that are throttling down the economic engine of America. Stop it all!"
This ground swell of emotion and political action state by state made a decision to return to the Republican Party in 2010, hoping they would get it right. The grassroots elements of the tea party now seem to be opposed once again to the "establishment wing" of the Republican Party. We saw it play out in the primary elections held in the states during the last cycle. If all the establishment can give us is an argument they can be better managers of a bloated government, then my prediction is an easy one to make - those grassroots people will abandon the Republican Party, both here in Utah and nationally.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)
As an example, I suspect Mike Lee chose the Republican Party only because it was the most expedient vehicle in which to ride at the time. I might be wrong. I didn't discuss it with him personally during his run when he had my unabashed support, but everything he has done since being elected leads me to believe he cannot long endure the status quo I see promoted by the establishment in the party.
So here's my bold prediction, and I've held this view for some time now: The new political reality we will see playing out in the future is no longer going to be Republican versus Democrat. That's been a carefully managed political contrivance of convenience and expediency for way too long. No, instead, it’s going to be lovers of freedom and limited government versus Big Government dependency. We may be running out of time to make a conscious choice about that. Events may compel us into that path whether we like it or not.
Back in the day, Abraham Lincoln left the Whig Party and formed the Republican Party because he and others would not compromise on slavery.
In the future people like me will leave the Republican Party because we will not and cannot compromise on freedom and limited government. Finding candidates who believe in principle over party will be the next challenge.
"So I says to Barack, 'I knew Abe Lincoln, and you ain't no Abe Lincoln'"
It was Abraham Lincoln who once observed, "People are just about as happy as they make up their minds to be." In other words, happiness is a choice. Do you believe it?
During the Reagan-Carter campaign of 1979, somebody came up with something called the "misery index." It's the sum of the inflation and unemployment rates, two nasty statistics when totaled together equate to economic misery. You'll be relieved to know the Obama administration's misery index hasn't reached the highs hit by Jimmy Carter's.
It's hard to believe but I still remember, so I looked it up today to be sure. Carter's yearly average of 20.8 was reached by 1980 and was the all-time modern high. Obama's administration hit a monthly rate of 12.8 in June of this year. Just so you can compare and remember the "good old days," the average misery index over George W. Bush's two terms was only 8.1, and Bill Clinton's administration was even lower at 7.8.
In one of their debates toward the end of the campaign Reagan quipped, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" He closed the deal with the American people, who decided they weren't and handed Reagan the presidency, making Jimmy Carter the poster child for one-term failure.
There are many today who are comparing the Obama administration to the Carter administration and coming up with the obvious similarities. Many of us hope the crowning likeness will be the one-term comparison.
However, nobody in America wins when the president is weak. I had at least hoped for the best a few months after Obama took office, but his steadfast adherence to his flawed Keynesian economic model is killing us. The lurch to the left went beyond traditional Democratic tax and spend philosophy. It went right off the charts into Democratic Socialism. His stimulus spending to the tune of $825 Billion did nothing. You can ignore all the rhetoric about "creating jobs" or "saving jobs." When the August number came in there were zero jobs created, and that hasn't happened in America in a very long time.
Add to it something called the "Public-Private Investment Partnership," nothing more than Obama's version of Bush's TARP, and all that happened was more toxic assets were transferred to the government, which of course translates into the taxpayers - YOU!
Remember how successful "Cash for Clunkers" was? Remember nationalizing the automotive industry to rescue it from bankruptcy? Somebody at Ford should be crowned King of Captialism for refusing the government handout when GM and Chrysler are still owned principally by the taxpayers.
Remember Obamacare? I have hated the idea since it was first introduced, largely because of the staggering costs involved. It reformed little and the cost was extraordinary in a time when America could afford it least. We won't know what its full effect will be until (and if) it takes root. I'm betting the SCOTUS will strike it down as unconstitutional because of the individual mandate. Whatever that eventual outcome, the short-term effect has been businesses by the droves are getting out of the business of providing private healthcare coverage for their employees. If you've loved Medicare and Medicaid, then you're just going to love government-sponsored health insurance exchanges.
Remember the national debt clock? It's still ticking at a more rapid pace now than ever before in our history. It has now exceeded $14 Trillion and will hit $15 Trillion by the end of September (yes, this month). When it happens, don't expect a flurry of headlines, because the story will be tucked away somewhere on page 10 below the fold. It will be the first time since World War II that the debt will exceed the GDP.
Remember the first downgrade on our debt in our history from "AAA" to "AA?" Unless Congress takes substantive steps to change course this fall in the supercommittee, the credit markets will continue to react negatively.
Remember "tax the rich?" He's still thumping that theme as recently as yesterday in his stump speech. I was heartened yesterday to hear a report that thirty-six senators from both parties are now calling upon the super committee to enact sweeping tax reform as part of their work product. Knock on wood. With an approval rating of 12%, Congress had better do SOMETHING, ANYTHING to demonstrate their willingness to do the bidding of the American people who employ them. The polling data is suggesting there are very few who are inclined to send the same members of Congress back in 2012 unless they prove worthy of their hire.
We're running up debt for the next generations of Americans that will prove to be impossible to repay unless the growth engine in our economy is jump-started and begins to hum again.
There are those who say it isn't fair to hold Obama or any POTUS to the same standard as private business measurements for success. Honestly, why not? If he were CEO of America, Inc., no board of directors worth its salt would retain him given his record. Here's a stunner for comparison: This "recovery" has been underway for two and half years and employment has actually dropped by a full percentage point. The only other president in American history to have witnessed negative job growth for a comparable period is Herbert Hoover. I'm certain when Barack Obama took office he wanted to be considered an historic president, but I doubt this is what he had in mind. Nor did any of us.
Despite the clear record, he continues to blame George W. Bush for the mess we're in. I have stated repeatedly it is more complicated than blaming your successsor. Presidents, let me say it once again, DO NOT create jobs. Their policies, however, provide either an environment for job growth or an environment that stifles job growth. So what does this failing president flail away at? The same failed European economic model that won't work, and he keeps doubling down on his bets.
Obama might do well to take a page out of Bill Clinton's playbook. Clinton lost control of both houses of Congress in 1994. But Clinton the pragmatist, wanting to be re-elected, decided a 180-degree turn was in order. He put Al Gore in charge of downsizing the federal government and he worked with Republicans in Congress. Together they passed the North American Free Trade Act, they reformed a badly broken welfare system, and (listen for the drum roll) they enacted and achieved a balanced budget!!!
It's been done before. When correct principles are applied they work.
Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton, and he's certainly proven he's no Abe Lincoln, but he needs to pick a new path and try something dramatically different than giving another speech before a joint session of Congress about all the jobs he's going to create with government debt and deficit spending.
I just hope it's not too late before he becomes another Jimmy Carter.
On the other hand, there are only thirteen and a half months left until the next election. Maybe we'll all just have to be patient.
Utah's freshman Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) makes it clear in this interview why this next election in November 2012 is a national debate with clearly drawn differences in the two philosophies for governing America. One path says government spending and ongoing expansion of the federal government is desirable. The other path suggests to do so would be catastrophic.
Never in my memory has the debate been more clearly defined by President Obama and whichever Republican candidate emerges as the eventual nominee.
If the economy were functioning and growing at an annual rate of around 4%, all the anxiety over government spending and deficit spending goes away because the growth of the economy is a reality that would cure all evils. That's why it is imperative the federal government adopt policies that will grow the economy, and not the debt, not the size of government, and not the deficits.
As Lee points out in his new book The Freedom Agenda, we have reached a point as a nation that we must now consider Constitutional restraints through the Balanced Budget Amendment.
Every time I listen to Senator Lee I ask myself, "Do these ideas rise to the level of extreme or radical?" Call me stupid, but they sound reasonable and immediately actionable. The only question before us as a nation is which path we will choose by electing the candidates who represent the right policies we need to adopt.
In another appearance, Lee reiterates the same points:
Roll up your sleeves, America. It's time to go back to work and stop waiting on the Washington establishment to solve our problems. The failed policies of this administration are numerous. This month's jobs report, released yesterday, confirms idle labor is still sitting on the sidelines with ZERO jobs added to the economy. It's time to put Washington in a debt and spending straight jacket from which it will never again be released. There are two prominent GOP versions of the Balanced Budget Amendment that will be floated to both the House and the Senate, requiring a 2/3 majority to send it to the states for ratification.
In 1995, a BBA failed to win approval in the Senate by only one vote. Imagine where we might be today if only one Senator had voted the other way. We certainly would not be in the debt debacle we are.
It is imperative we change the trajectory we are on as a nation. All that is necessary is that Washington STOP coming up with solutions that don't work, get out of our way, and let US as the sovereign people we are step forward and put an end to elected representatives who are unresponsive to our desires. Here's a thoughtful approach to doing things the right way. Further, there is incontrovertible evidence the regulatory environment under the Obama administration has been stifling.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), the sponsor of two leading GOP versions, makes the case for the necessity of the BBA in a weekly Republican address airing Saturday that an amendment would create jobs by putting Congress on a spending diet. It is clear Americans have finally tuned out this president. What is becoming obvious to even the casual observer is that speech making by this president isn't demonstrating the kind of leadership for which Americans yearn and expect. Obama may be reaching a point where no one cares anymore what he says. His deeds have not matched his rhetoric, and that's record his opponents will increasingly jump on then pile on. When he speaks next week about his plan for creating new jobs, we would be well-advised to look elsewhere for our answers, since nothing he has promised has come to pass. Presidents do not create new jobs. Their policies either enhance or destroy the incentives for those who do. Thus far he has done nothing but paralyze private capital investment into the economy.
Republicans, of course, maintain by ending attempts at Obama-style stimulus spending we can finally put the nation back to work. To get the BBA passed, it will take a bipartisan effort, setting party politics aside and keeping it on the sidelines. We need representatives in Washington who will finally decide to do what is right for America's future, not their own individual interests.
Be patient. If Congress fails to pass the BBA this fall, and the "super committee" fails in its mission to send a serious signal to the rating agencies that we are serious about managing our debt and deficits, then Americans will elect those who will get it done in the next Congress following the 2012 election. We really have no other choice. That's why this next election is so critical to our collective welfare as Americans. We are at a crossroads. We can no longer have it both ways. Decision time is upon us.
“The president’s ‘stimulus’ spending has proven counterproductive,” Goodlatte says. “This fall, both the House and the Senate will vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that would force Congress to spend only what the government takes in… That doesn’t just mean a fiscal house in order: it also means more certainty for the private sector and a better environment for job creation.”
Goodlatte calls on Obama to back a balanced budget amendment in the president's Sept. 8 jobs speech to Congress. However, one should acknowledge this president is tone deaf to anyone who dares to oppose his point of view. Don't expect that tiger to change its stripes in yet another speech filled with empty rhetoric and unrealistic promises involving more government spending.
Why would we give the federal government a free pass on spending and running up unconscionable deficits, when in 49 of the 50 states their individual state constitutions mandate a balanced budget?
Mr. President, Mr. Majority Leader, and Mr. Speaker (and Mr. Chief Justice if it helps):
The noise in Washington this week has been deafening, the heat has been off the charts, the accusations and threats unrestrained, and the rhetoric explosive. And what have we gleaned from it all? So far, nothing. You all saw this coming when the new House was sworn in last January, and what have you done since then? You waited until the self-imposed deadline, and very little leadership among you has been in evidence. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) explains just how simple these issues really are:
There are those who claim the freshmen Republicans in the House are irresponsible with their staunch position on "Cut, Cap and Balance," but to date it is the only piece of pending legislation that has passed, until a second attempt passed narrowly late today. Since then a flurry of proposals (and that's all they are -- proposals) have not been put into actionable legislation. Moody's remains unimpressed, saying nothing they've seen so far will work to appease their pending downgrade of the U.S. Treasury's AAA bond rating. What is pathetic in a crisis of leadership that seems to characterize Democrat control of the Senate and the White House is that we haven't yet seen a plan in writing. The budget submitted by this White House earlier this year was so deficient in specifics it was voted down 97-0, and nothing has come out of the Senate since.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)
I am grateful for the efforts of Utah's congressional delegation who are leading the way in this fight -- specifically Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), Congressman Jason Chaffetz (D-UT) and senior Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Lee is responsible for the content of the House legislation and it was sponsored courageously by Chaffetz where it passed. Cut, Cap and Balance is the responsible approach, the "balanced approach," if you prefer. Unfortunately, when it was sent to the Senate, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), House Majority Leader, decided to kill it on a procedural vote without giving anyone in the "deliberative body" a chance to debate or amend its merits or deficiencies.
Then the House Speaker, John Boehner (R-OH), went to work with Reid, feeling betrayed by a "wiggly" Jell-o-like occupant of the White House, to craft yet another Washington COMPROMISE solution. So far, no success on that path has been reached either. We'll now watch the Senate shred this latest attempt and see if they can come up with anything over the weekend that might have a chance for passage in the House.
In the meantime President Obama remains on the sidelines where he deserves to be as a lame duck and out of the discussions because he was summarily excluded (correctly) by Boehner as an impediment.
Since January, the threat of a downgrade in the U.S. Treasury credit rating for its bonds has been on the table. The rating agencies are looking for a commitment for real cuts in spending amounting to $4 Trillion, not ironically the same amount that has been amassed under the Obama administration in a short two and one-half years. I continue to be baffled why anyone would think borrowing $4 Trillion from principally the Chinese government then blaming George W. Bush for everything, as President Obama did last week without even acknowledging his own complicity might be a factor, is a viable campaign strategy by Obama's advisers. The thought makes reason stare. Then after that he demands that wealthy Americans pay their "fair share" in taxes.
It is my considered belief that Mike Lee is the statesman in all this. I define "statesman" as one who takes a principled stand in the face of popular opinion. However, the American people are lined up behind Lee on this one. A recent CNN poll indicates as many as 74 percent favor the general idea of a BBA without even knowing the specifics. You may disagree, but his influence is having a profound impact for a junior senator from a small state like Utah. Those who doubted his effectiveness as a freshman replacing a seasoned Bob Bennett can rest assured there would have been nothing coming from Bennett by comparison. So, kudos to Mike.
I do not speak for Lee (he is fully capable), but it's important to underscore what he is attempting to accomplish without impugning his motives as some have done. He is not in favor of raising the debt limit if he were making an isolated choice. In this climate currently, however, he is willing to make the necessary compromise now if he can get the Balanced Budget Amendment to change the structure of the government's spending habit to finally come under Constitutional control. Click the link (it's not a new idea). Anything short of a Constitutional amendment allows future Congresses to adjust whatever assumptions are put in place today and to change the law at will. That's what got us into this mess in the first place. I think that position is reasoned and worthy of consideration, especially when it authorizes a mechanism to deal with "emergencies" like wars. There are twenty Democratic Senators who are on the record as favoring the BBA idea.
When 49 states require their legislatures to balance their budgets, can anyone explain to me why expecting the same thing from the federal government is such a bad idea? When did it become "reckless" for government to commit to the taxpayers they would not spend more than they take in? Will those same people explain why deficit spending and unsustainable debt and borrowing is NOT reckless? I await your response. We're at a tipping point in America. The word of the year in politics is "UNSUSTAINABLE." Everybody uses that word. So let's bind Congress in the future to a sustainable and sensible process when it comes to spending priorities. Is that reckless?
I have always maintained since first being introduced to Mike's senate candidacy early in 2010, that he would make an impact on Washington if he could remain true to his beliefs. However, I acknowledge he cannot be effective in isolation, nor that any one man can change everything. That would be a truly audacious undertaking. If I were a betting man, I would wager the August 4th deadline is mythical and has no real merit as a drop dead date for solving the problem. If Americans have a few more weeks of watching these positions revealed for what they are -- mostly lies -- we'll see a public ground swell uniting behind Mike's leadership on the BBA. Why? Because President Obama has already caved on including taxes as part of this compromise. That's a reasonable compromise, and he is to be commended for taking taxes out of the equation. However, the spending cuts proposed by Reid have been exposed for what they are -- illusory rather than real cuts to trim the baseline for this year, particularly when an "assumption" about the end of our involvement in Afghanistan is included -- and REAL, tangible cuts out of this year's budget are what the credit rating agencies are looking for. They are certainly not going to be impressed with a promise to impanel more commissions to study the matters.
Everyone knows what is required, it seems, except the Democratic and Republican establishment leadership, who are taking us down a path of more "blue ribbon commissions" to do the hard work the American people elected their representatives to do. There is a committee of 535 elected representatives already in place -- 100 in the Senate and 435 in the House. They need to step up, write their best proposals, debate them in public rather than cutting deals behind closed doors, take the votes up or down, and be accountable instead of hiding behind procedure. The American people are screaming, "NO MORE GAMES!"
I stand with Senator Lee. We must put on the spending brakes immediately against THIS YEAR's baseline, then plan for the future by passing the BBA out of both houses of Congress, realizing that most of its provisions will take a matter of months, maybe years, to be approved by 3/4 of all the state legislatures before its provisions kick in. However, just the act of passing that legislation will signal Washington's commitment to the world and to our citizens we are taking immediate and realistic steps to curb the spending addiction.
If the individual states disagree with the BBA, then let them have their voice, and let the debates be held state by state until we reach the needed number. A return to states' rights and federalism at that level would be a welcomed change from what we are witnessing on the shores of the Potomac today. Yes, withdrawal from our easy credit addiction will be long and painful, but must be undertaken. Like all addictions, the time to quit is now, not tomorrow. I guarantee you those in Washington who are not willing to find the game changing solutions will be swept out of office in 2012.
There is no doubt when the Constitution was approved it baked in all the spending restraints and separation of powers by design to prevent tyranny from ever gaining power in America as it had in England. But the abuse of Constitutional principles defining those important limitations are only effective if all agree to be bound by its provisions. Sadly, that is not the case today.
Therefore, we must determine right now as a nation what course we will take. Will we at long last try to reclaim the liberties we have ceded as free men and women to an out-of-control tyrannical federal government, or will we wait for nature to take its irrevocable course and watch the ship of state sink beneath our feet? The choice could not be more clear to me. We have given money to this government and it was not enough. The government appears to be ready to confiscate and regulate even more, and we have created that voracious appetite by monetizing our debt and printing gobs of worthless paper. We have done this to ourselves, and we have what we have because of our own greed. Only our collective political will as a people can reverse this addiction and stop it in its tracks.
We can debate the merits of the proposed BBA (there are actually many versions afloat now), if a true debate can be had in today's environment, but this much seems clear -- drastic measures are needed now. If you use a percentage of past spending limits as a measurement, maybe that's not realistic, so let's come up with something else to cap what we spend if you like, but unless the spending cuts and caps are real and permanent, and until someone else comes up with a better idea, let's support Senator Lee's efforts to at least get us to the starting line on the debate as a nation.
The political gamesmanship is pathetic to watch. Only this morning I listened to President Obama suggest Americans need to keep up the pressure on their elected representatives. "Keep Tweeting," he encouraged. Really, Mr. President? That's your solution? Tweeting? Wouldn't it be hysterical if he were reported as a Twitter spammer and they shut down @barackobama?
There are some who are far to the right of Senator Lee. They would argue there is no defensible principled position on which we could possibly stand to consider raising the debt ceiling. They would advocate a complete collapse of the federal government as the only option avialable to prove a point and win the ideological argument for "purity."
I would suggest there might be an alternative.
It's called elections. They are free and vouched safe under the Constitution. We may have to wait for sixteen more months before enough like-minded people can be added to the ranks of those who believe as I do, but I have a feeling it will be worth the wait if it means saving the Republic by peaceful means. I don't love the thought of anarchy in the streets, nor do I relish a complete economic meltdown simply to prove your "pure" ideology is better than mine. America renews itself every two years by design. When it makes an egregious mistake in judgment, America can redeem herself. The pendulum swings back and forth.
While you may argue there is no principled room left to entertain a vote to raise the debt limit, I believe there is. Even Senator Lee recognizes it is irresponsible or naive to stamp his feet and refuse to raise the debt ceiling. His rational, if adamant stance on the BBA, makes sense while compromising on a debt ceiling increase tied to the strong medicine of the BBA later on. That's better than specious commissions to study and recommend spending cuts and caps that cannot bind the collective wills of future Congresses. Lost in the clamor of the ideology sometimes is the simple fact that the current proposed increase in the debt ceiling is only to handle what we've already obligated the government to do. We just need to make a stand that we won't continue our irresponsible spending habits.
Going forward, let's find Constitutional principles to stand on relative to the federal government's proper role in our lives. Then when we reduce the size of government we'll attack the silent elephant in the room in the aftermath -- who's got a plan for putting all the downsized federal government workers back to work in the private sector?
Last night a grandson was watching the President on TV with me. He heard me muttering in amazement at the way the TRILLION dollar numbers just seemed to roll off the lips, but he had no concept of what he was hearing. So he asked, "Grandpa, how much is $15 TRILLION?"
We went to the computer and this is what we found. It kind of helps to visualize it since it's so difficult to grasp it in words alone.
The fact that amazes me is we actually are having an ideological war of words about it between the parties. Doesn't everyone agree that we have to stop the runaway freight train of spending NOW? It should be a no brainer. Today the CBO scored Boehner's plan and discovered it fell short in actual results of the $1 Trillion he was seeking in cuts, so the vote on his bill is going to be delayed until they can come up with more cuts.
At least someone is doing some serious counting, but as you can see from the illustration, that's a lot of counting!
Further evidence that things are seriously broken in the White House. Until this president is retired by the voters in November 2012, the great divide will continue. The evidence could not be more clear in these two dueling news conferences last night:
The result that was most telling to me was the matchup with Ron Paul -- Obama 41%, Paul 37%. I could be satisfied with ANY Republican candidate right now, and apparently the rest of the country is feeling exactly the same.
And oh, by the way, don't underestimate the influence of a man you've never heard of before on the current discussion over taxes and the debt ceiling. Grover Norquist has marshaled members of Congress who have signed his pledge to NEVER raise taxes anytime, anywhere on anybody.
Bohener is not abdicating his duty and his oath of office -- he's merely excluding the president from the discussion and putting him right where he belongs -- on the sidelines -- while Congress takes the leadership role out of his hands..
WASHINGTON, DC (Jul 23)
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement regarding ongoing work on a deficit reduction package:
“As I said last night, over this weekend Congress will forge a responsible path forward. House and Senate leaders will be working to find a bipartisan solution to significantly reduce Washington spending and preserve the full faith and credit of the United States."
On the heels of another announcement of mass layoffs this week (23,000 combined from Cisco, Lockheed Martin and Borders, after 41,432 planned cuts in June, plus 142,000 government jobs lost so far this year), I stumbled over this quote this morning:
Howard Davidowitz
Howard Davidowitz is bipartisan in his criticism, calling the U.S. political system "dysfunctional and deranged."
Still, the restructuring expert is a longtime and vocal critic of President Obama. Today, he said:
"There has never been a situation in my lifetime where a guy increases the debt by 40%, GDP growth is on the way down, Food Stamps are up, millions more are unemployed -- and to accomplish this we spent $4 trillion."
Further evidence we are indeed living in unprecedented times.
WASHINGTON – Following a procedural vote to prevent the “Cut, Cap, and Balance Act” from coming to the Senate floor, Senator Mike Lee released the following statement:
“Today, Majority Leader Harry Reid used procedural tactic to prevent a vote on a bill that is supported by two-thirds of the country. It is shameful, despicable, and an abuse of this chamber. We weren’t even allowed sufficient time to debate the one bill in Congress that would address the country’s most immediate challenges.
“The Democrats have blocked a vote for now, but the fight is not over. I will continue to make sure ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance’ receives a proper up or down vote in the Senate.”
