Views on the News
February 27, 2010
Views
on the News*
President
Barack Obama is the poster child for the “Peter
Principle,” being promoted once too many times to his level of
incompetence. Dr. Laurence J. Peter published his 1969 book
entitled “The
Peter Principle” which described how people are promoted until
they exceed their competence level, like Barack Obama. Other than getting himself elected to
a succession of political offices, he appears to have a very limited range of
abilities and no experience managing any organization to success. This
competence gap explains why in only a single year Obama has morphed from being
a “messiah”
into being a “pariah”
as the President of our country. The
frequency of the apologies and backtracks the President and his cabinet have had
to make demonstrates that they don't seem to think before they speak or act. The President likes to make promises but seems
to have no serious intention to actually deliver on them. Unfortunately Obama has surrounded himself
with similarly incompetent personnel. It's
funny how the media almost always use the word "unexpectedly" whenever they report this country's
state of affairs under the Obama administration. The truth is that there's nothing
unexpected about the continued deterioration of the U.S. economy, the decline
of our global standing as a country, and the impending defeat and
demoralization of our armed forces fighting overseas, to name a few, as long as
Obama and a democratic majority in Congress remain in power. He seems to be immune to feedback, and brags
about his stubbornness and refusal to give up on ObamaCare
in the face of overwhelming public disapproval and the high cost of prolonging
a hopeless endeavor. The Rasmussen
Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that 22% of the nation's voters
Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as
President, while 41% Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19! Based on what we
have seen thus far in 2010 we may very well see a Democrat electoral bloodbath
in November, all because Obama did not know when to stop running for office!
(“President Incompetent” by Ron Ross dated
January 18, 2010 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/president_incompetent_1.html
“What Do You Expect with Obama?” by
Miguel A. Guanipa dated February 24, 2010 published
by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/what_do_you_expect_with_obama.html
)
There
is a fundamental difference between how liberals and conservatives see the role
of government and the role of free market capitalism. Liberals
see government as the answer to problems; conservatives see government as the
problem. Liberals see the need to
oversee and protect from the free market; conservatives see unfettered free
market capitalism as the solution to many problems. Liberals wants to
shape conduct by regulation and force; conservatives by incentive and choice.
Liberals
see people as victims of big business who need government to protect them;
conservatives view people as independent and willing to work hard to achieve
success. Liberals rely on
punishment; conservatives emphasize reward. The
left seeks equal results; the right seeks equal opportunity to succeed. Liberals want to protect citizens and
even companies from the harsh consequences of their own mistakes; the conservatives
want to encourage risk and reward and a direct relationship between actions and
consequences. The left distrusts individuals to make the right choices in spending the
money they themselves have earned; the right acknowledges that private citizens
will sometimes waste their own resources on foolish or wasteful indulgences but
that free individuals remain more reliable than far-away bureaucrats in
spending the money they’ve earned with considerable toil. Leftist ideologues comprising
environmental extremists, progressives, liberals, socialists, and communists
believe that the ends justify the means and that governance may use any means
necessary to achieve predetermined outcomes. The left may talk of imposing governmental
retribution against those who make damaging choices, but instead ends up
punishing precisely those whose success most notably benefits the economy and
the community; the right offers the free
market, with the widest possible discretion for each independent participant,
to expand personal liberty and freedom of action, but also works more
efficiently to generate the growth and prosperity that benefit everyone. Characteristics of the leftist ideology
include a heavily regulated economy and/or government owned industry, equal
outcomes and economic leveling, multiculturalism, moral relativism, and the
perfection of mankind. According to modern conservatism, characteristics
of the conservative ideology include the beliefs that an enduring moral order
exists, that prudent change is necessary but ought to be slow and gradual, that
freedom and property are inextricably linked, the desire to uphold voluntary
community and oppose involuntary collectivism, and belief in the principles of
variety and prescription while recognizing that man is imperfect. These differences are so obvious and cut so
deep that they permeate so many issues that it’s nearly impossible for the two political
viewpoints to find that elusive common ground.
The leftist ideologue fears individual
responsibility; the leftist fears free-market capitalism; the leftist fears a
moral order; the leftist fears absolute truth; and the leftist fears our Constitution
most of all since it documents these attributes as what makes our country
Great!
(“Choice and reward vs. Force and Punishment”
by Michael Medved dated February 17, 2010 published
by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2010/02/17/choice_and_reward_vs_force_and_punishment
“The Left’s Great Motivator” by Scott Strzelczyk dated February 20, 2010 published by American
Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_lefts_great_motivator.html
“Obama’s Nanny Care Insults the American
Spirit” by Michael Barone dated February 25, 2010
published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2010/02/25/obamas_nanny_care_insults_the_american_spirit
)
President
Obama seized on the one-year anniversary of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) as an opportunity to take credit for the belated and
tenuous economic recovery, but the real results show it to be a failure at achieving
any of its stated objectives. The
reality is that the economy always recovered from recessions, long before
anyone imagined that government borrowing could "create jobs." We have
not had to wait nearly two years for signs of recovery, as we did this time. Only
6% of Americans believe the stimulus bill has created jobs, a CBS News/New
York Times poll reported. The
American people seem to think, not unreasonably, that more jobs would have been
created without the stimulus bill than with it.
The "fiscal stimulus"
refers only to a deliberate $862 billion increase in budget deficits. Only 23% ($200 billion) was spent in 2009,
with 47% in 2010 and 30% in later years.
In reality, five programs
accounted for more than 80% of the outlays from ARRA in 2009: Medicaid,
unemployment compensation, Social Security ... grants to state and local governments
... and student aid. In other words,
what was labeled a "stimulus"
bill was actually a stimulus to government transfer payments - cash and
benefits that are primarily rewards for not working,
or at least not working too hard. The
bulk of the stimulus money was given to governors to spend on shoring up their
state budgets. That money went primarily
to employ government workers. The
fraction of stimulus funds that were contracts, not grants, and went to "shovel-ready" projects went, of
course, to short-term construction projects. The American people also seem to understand
that there is a big difference between a permanent private-sector job and a
temporary stimulus job that ends when the project is done. The
“stimulus” extended federally funded unemployment benefits by 53 weeks, and
another bill in November added 20 more, bringing the total up to 99 weeks in
states with high unemployment. These
extensions of emergency unemployment insurance benefits appeared to have raised
the measured unemployment rate, relative to levels recorded in past downturns
by as much as 2 percentage points. It turns out that raising the unemployment rate by a
percentage point or two is the only clearly identifiable effect the stimulus
act had on the jobs market… it succeeded at stimulating unemployment.
(“The Preposterous Stimulus Bill” by Andrew
Cline dated February 18, 2010 published by The American Spectator at http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/18/the-preposterous-stimulus-bill
“The ‘Stimulus’ Actually Raised Unemployment”
by Alan Reynolds dated February 19, 2010 published by Investor’s Business Daily
at http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=521658
)
President
Obama held a healthcare summit that turned out to be a failed publicity stunt,
since Democrats already had plans to force their government takeover of health
care down Americans throats despite the outcome. Obama
stated, “I want to…have a large
meeting, Republicans and Democrats, to go through systematically all the best
ideas that are out there and move it forward.” However the President refused
to start from scratch, and Republicans worst fear was realized when the
half-day event focused on how to improve the existing failed health care plans as
“a Democrat infomercial.” In
desperation Obama released his own 11 page health care reform proposal which was
an amalgam of the House and Senate bills, that were both overwhelmingly
rejected by the American public, but was too high level to be scored by the
CBO, but estimated to cost close to $2.5 trillion over ten years. Obama has a credibility problem since no one
believes that his plan can increase coverage, improve quality of care, lower
cost and be revenue neutral – maybe achieve the first objective and fail
miserably on the other three to ration care, increase cost, and increase
deficit. This week’s CNN poll
shows that only 25% of Americans now support ObamaCare,
while 73% want to scrap it, and either move on (some) or start over (most). Republicans want to reform and improve health
care without destroying its free-enterprise base, while Democrats would be very
happy to see the entire thing absorbed into a government-controlled system, as
half of it has been already through the extension of Medicare, Medicaid and
other government programs. Democrats
insist on a government-controlled, government monopoly market for health care,
while Republicans want a patient-controlled, free market health care system. Before World War II, people paid their own
medical bills, just as they paid their rent or mortgage payment, bought their
own food, and paid for whatever else they wanted. After World War II, the government imposed
wage and price controls. Companies who
wanted to hire and reward good employees were forbidden to offer higher wages,
but they could offer health insurance coverage and call it a business expense
instead of a wage. Today, as a result,
most medical treatments are paid by third parties, employer-funded insurance or
government coverage. It’s time to put
every American citizen on equal footing with access to the same healthcare
coverage opportunities. The money
invested in any healthcare benefit that currently comes to you as part of your
employment would come to you as added income, and you, not the organization,
would own your policy and any tax incentives the government provides. Portability would be ensured because you would
own and control your healthcare plan and choices. Insurers competing across state lines for
your healthcare insurance business would have to include a Plan A - a basic, no
frills major medical coverage to protect you from catastrophic medical problems
and if you wanted more coverage, you could add supplemental plan that fits you. If Obama truly wanted to hear other health care
ideas, why did he spend 2 hours personally defending his plan and allowing
Democrats 3 hours to defend their plans, and restricting Republicans to only 2
hours to present alternatives? Democrat
leadership had already made plans to ignore public disapproval and to ram government-run
health care through the Senate using the “nuclear
option,” despite then Senator Obama and all the Congressional Democrat
leadership rejecting this approach when threatened in 2005 by Republicans. One result of this summit is that the Democrat
arguments may be less persuasive now that the public has heard Republican
arguments on the matter. The more
Americans see Democrats pushing for passage over their clear objections, the
more outraged voters become. Since Democrats were not able to agree on a compromise
between the House and Senate bills, the health care summit was clearly political
theater to create the illusion of momentum that would be used as a cover to ram
this unwanted and unneeded legislation down the throats of the America public.
(“America Needs a Healthcare Recall!” by
Terry Paulson dated February 15, 2010 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/TerryPaulson/2010/02/15/america_needs_a_healthcare_recall!
“Obama puts forward $1 trillion health care
plan” by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar dated February
22, 2010 published by My Way at http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100222/D9E19OD80.html
“Obama, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, & More
Believe Reconciliation is Unconstitutional” dated February 24, 2010
published by Human Events at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35779
“What Didn’t Get Said at the Summit” by
William Tucker dated February 26, 2010 published by The American Spectator at http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/26/what-didnt-get-said-at-the-sum
“Democrats Indicate They’ll
Ram Through Health Care Bill Without Republican Support” by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
and Jennifer Loven dated February 26, 2010 published
by Cybercast News Service at http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/61969
)
Over
time Congress has passed a succession of legislation that has effectively set
future budget / deficit time bombs that may destroy our economic system unless
addressed. The national debt, run
up by Washington but paid for out of IOU's, now exceeds $14 trillion. "Off-the-books" unfunded
liabilities, like Social Security, Medicare and the Bush gift to baby boomers:
the Medicare prescription drug program, now total nearly $108
trillion. Since the US GDP is about $15 trillion, it would take over 8
years of consuming the output of every business and every American to pay off
the national debt. Even then the Congress-created Federal Debt Cancer
would still be growing beyond control. For
Congress, in their nefarious scheming has created not one but dozens of
budget/deficit time bombs. Here are the
Top-10 time bombs now faithfully ticking away:
·
Government
Political Bomb(s) -.We have a Dysfunctional 2-Party System which has been
infiltrated by progressives on both sides who don’t understand real-world
economics.
·
Federal
Budget Deficit Bomb - The government is spending over $1.5 trillion more
than it takes in each year.
·
Cheap
Money Bomb - By holding interest rates near-zero to "stimulate"
the economy, the Fed lowered the cost of government borrowing to 1%, but
interest rates and costs will rise.
·
State
& Local Government Budget Bomb - States are running budget deficits
approaching $200 billion with unfunded pension funds of $500 billion.
·
Unfunded
Corporate Pension Bomb- Corporate pension funds are short $400 billion,
more than the Federal Government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation can
handle.
·
Destruction
of the US Dollar as the World's Foreign Reserve - Once the US dollar is no
longer kept as reserve by foreign nations, GDP will fall by 1%, costing $150
billion per year.
·
Consumer
Debt Bomb - Americans owe $16.7 trillion, mostly for home loans and
credit cards, but people are now saving more and that debt is falling but not
good for GDP.
·
US
Foreign Trade Bomb - The US imports more than $400 billion than it exports,
and our natural energy companies are not allowed to tap into our own mainland
fuel sources.
·
Global
Real Estate Bomb - US commercial real estate is in trouble with $1.7
trillion in IOU's held by the banks, and defaults are now
beginning.
·
Social
Security, Medicare & Obama Health Care programs - Social Security and Medicare, are already on the verge of bankruptcy without any
ObamaCare expansions.
The proposed Accurate
Accounting of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Act would compel the OMB to account
for the losses sustained by these agencies since they were taken over by their
federal regulator. According to the CBO,
the administration’s policy of unlimited support for Fannie and Freddie would
require it to add around $300 billion to this year’s record $1.4 trillion
deficit.
But the “Godzilla”
bomb is lurking: The Plutonium Shadow Banking Derivative Bomb. Remember
AIG went poof trying to pay off a little bitty $150 billion in banking
derivative "guarantees" and now global banking derivatives have
expanded to over $670 trillion. Since the entire
world's GDP is only $50 trillion, if the derivatives bubble ever pops, it will
consume 13 years of all money everywhere!
(“The
Top-10 Budget-Deficit Time Bombs” by Terry Easton dated February 18, 2010
published by Human Events at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35666
“Accounting for Fannie and Freddie” by
Stephen Spruiell dated February 24, 2010 published by
National Review Online at http://article.nationalreview.com/425992/accounting-for-fannie-and-freddie/stephen-spruiell
)
Private
industry and governments around the world have spent trillions of dollars in
the name of saving our planet from manmade global warming and academic
institutions, think tanks and schools have altered their curricula and agenda
to accommodate what was seen as the global warming "consensus," when
mounting evidence suggests that claims of manmade global warming might turn out
to be the greatest hoax in mankind's history.
Senator James Inhofe asked the Obama administration to
investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation”
- the actions of climate scientists revealed by the ClimateGate
files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice
President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify, since his movie
was essentially science fiction with every assertion rebutted. Senator Inhofe is asking the Department of
Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal
actions by the scientists involved, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania
State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA
Goddard Institute for Space Studies. If
proven, these charges could subject the scientists involved to debarment from
federally funded research, and even to criminal penalties. Given all the false claims and evidence
pointing to scientific fraud, it is not wise to continue spending billions of
dollars and enacting economically crippling regulations in the name of fighting
global warming. Companies should resign
from the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a lobbying group of
businesses and radical environmentalists, like BP, Caterpillar, Conoco
Phillips, Marsh, Inc. and Xerox who have already used their common sense and
left. At the
minimum, we must stop the Environmental Protection Agency from going on with
their plans to regulate carbon emissions
(“Climategate Meets the Law: Senator Inhofe to
Ask for DOJ Investigation” by Charlie Martin dated February 23, 2010
published by Pajamas Media at http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/
“Global Warming Update” by Walter E.
Williams dated February 24, 2010 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/02/24/global_warming_update
)
Former
Vice President Dick Cheney has emerged as a leading critic of the Obama
administration’s handling of foreign policy and terrorism in particular. In many respects, Cheney’s vision is
the antithesis of that of Barack Obama. In
contrast to the current occupant of the White House, Cheney firmly believes the
West is engaged in an epic global war against a vicious, Islamist enemy. It is striking for example how the recent
108-page Quadrennial Homeland Security Review omitted the words “Islam”,
“Islamic” or “Islamist”, preferring to use the term “violent extremist”, a
revealing insight into the Obama administration’s refusal to publicly
acknowledge the Islamist nature of the enemy the US is fighting in the form of
al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Dick Cheney
is a refreshingly forceful advocate of American exceptionalism,
and the idea that the United States is a special country with a unique role to
play in shaping history. He also
understands the importance of maintaining and strengthening America’s key
alliances. Unlike Obama, Cheney is a
dedicated supporter of the Anglo-American alliance, and understands the
importance of the Special Relationship as the central bulwark in the defense of
the free world. The President and his
advisers exhibit stunning naiveté about terrorists, since they worry too much
about their rights and not enough about deterring them by whatever means
necessary. Obama being naive about
terrorism is one aspect of his being a typical Democrat soft on defense, a
legacy of the politics of Vietnam, the Cold War and Persian Gulf Wars. Meanwhile Obama has “unleashed” the current VP, Joe Biden, as his spokesman but he has
proven to be ill equipped to defend his own or Obama’s record. After he and Obama opposed the War in Iraq
and voting against the surge, Biden now has the gall to try to spin the victory
in Iraq as one of this administration’s “greatest
achievements!” Dick Cheney has
become an extraordinarily influential game-changer in post-Bush Washington,
emerging as Barack Obama’s leading nemesis on national security. He is a formidable
figure of tremendous principle, an unapologetic and uncompromising patriot who
believes in the greatness of America on the world stage, as well as a
shamelessly old-fashioned political pugilist in a modern age dominated by
carefully choreographed spin.
(“Dick Cheney: Obama’s worst nightmare” by
Nile Gardiner dated February 14, 2010 published by The Telegraph at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100026007/dick-cheney-%E2%80%93-obama%E2%80%99s-worst-nightmare/
“Why the GOP Will Keep Pushing the Idea That
Obama Is Naďve” by Peter Brown dated February 17, 2010 published by The
Wall Street Journal at http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2010/02/17/why-the-gop-will-keep-pushing-the-idea-that-obama-is-naive/
)
The TEA
Parties are a direct and unapologetic reaction to Obama's efforts to remake the
United States of America in his own image – socialist, utopian, globalist,
secular, humanist. The TEA Party
movement sprang up just a year ago with a handful of disparate leaders, few can
even name, as truly a middle-class silent majority reaction. The work of the TEA Party movement is not in
Washington, but deep in the grassroots in all 50 states that has never been
permeated or organized effectively by the conservative movement. There's
more to it than defensiveness and rejection because at its core, the tea party
is a recommitment by tens of millions of Americans to the Constitution of the
United States and the vision of the founders. While elements of the conservative movement
have emphasized the Constitution, the rule of law and the will of the people,
conservatives have traditionally lacked the fiery commitment to that document
that I see among tea partiers. The
basis of the TEA Party movement is anger that Washington, including both
Democrat and Republican politicians, has allowed the Constitution to be
shredded. TEA Partiers put principle
above loyalty to politicians or political parties. The TEA Party is about the Constitution; it's
about the rule of law, not the rule of men. It's about the will of the people; not the
will of the Washington elite. The TEA
Parties have declared their independence from the political parties to
intentionally separate themselves from corrupt and narrow party politics. The TEA Party movement "embraces and
serves people of all races, creeds, religions, and political
affiliations," according to the document.
Wouldn't it be nice if both major political
parties were committed to observing the Constitution; and wouldn't it be nice
if both major political parties actually wrangled over how to empower
individuals and states rather than promoting bigger and more intrusive central
government?
(“The unlimited potential of the tea party”
by Joseph Farah dated February 22, 2010 published by World Net Daily at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=125775
“Tea Party Groups Declare Independence” by David A. Patten dated February 24, 2010 published
by News Max at http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/tea-party-declaration-independence/2010/02/24/id/350788
)
* There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news. I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning. Individual issue updates this week include:
· Budget at http://returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/budget.php
· Employment at http://returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/employment.php
· Judiciary at http://returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/judiciary.php
David Coughlin
Hawthorne, NY