One thousand days without a budget, $4 trillion of new debt and counting, 100 rounds of golf, lavish vacations, axing thousands of jobs with the Keystone XL Pipeline in the hopes that it will secure his, and this president wants to lecture us on shared sacrifice and living within our means? No thanks.
Which is why I'll be at the movies. The Academy (elite snobs, really, but who can resist?) announced their ten nominees for Best Picture today and I've only seen two of them. Truthfully, I think Rango should have been up for more than just Best Animated Feature, in which case I could say I've seen three. Either way, you're likely to get a truer version of reality out of Hollywood than Hollywood's Favorite Orator. Besides, the president's lecture, er, speech, will be posted online and you can probably find the entire text on twitter to read during the previews.Why put yourself through the agony of the agitprop, the rehearsed standing Os for "O", and the gushing commentary from tingly-leg types trying to sell four more years of faux recovery? Heck, that could be a new Democratic slogan... Faux More Years! Faux More Years!
Screw the sanctimony. Do yourself a favor and go see a flick! The Left can't complain, because as much as they love Obama, they love it even more when you go to their movies. However, if having a dishonest narcissist whisper sweet nothings in your ear is your cup of tea, and you already divorced Newt, well, by all means don't miss the Statist State of the Union tonight at 8 pm. As one astute blog commenter put it, what's twinkles for "you lie"?
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Tyranny's Friend
The
greatest enemy that exists to freedom is tyranny. Tyranny is above the
law, ignores the law, makes up its own rules, steals power from others, and defends the actions of lawless men. President
Obama has increasingly shown himself to be a lawless man, whether its
failing to enforce laws he doesn't approve of (see DOMA, immigration) or
making up his own rules. We are either a nation of laws or a nation of
men. We can't be both.
The
president's recent appointment of questionable candidates to head
bureaucratic agencies with broad regulatory authority without seeking
the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate is just the latest example
that he is turning us from a nation of laws into a nation of men. This
skirting of the Constitution is not only unprecedented in our history,
but it fits the very type of executive fiat that is almost exclusive to
banana republics.
Liberals, leftists, and apologists for the Democratic Party have tried to downplay the concern by confusing the issue and slyly spinning the president's non-recess "recess appointments" as some ambiguous legal matter open to broad interpretation. It's not. The arguments they have mounted are weak and ill-advised. They are made not out of a desire to defend America's Constitution or the Republic for which it stands, but to defend one single ruler with which they sympathize. President Obama's actions and their successful defense of them could be the downfall of our representative democracy, bringing an end to the checks and balances that keep our government from abusing power.
The left's first inclination is to compare anything President Obama does to George W. Bush, because of course Barack Obama ran on four more years of governing exactly like Bush. But any comparison to President Bush's appointments falls flat. President Bush never made a recess appointment during a pro forma session. In fact, the pro forma sessions were started by Harry Reid to prevent President Bush from making recess appointments. Even Harry Reid won't dispute this.
The left has also attempted to justify Obama's actions by blaming Republicans. The argument goes something like, "well, he tried to do it the right way, but Republicans are too much of obstructionists, so he had to bend the law." Okay, first off, either you have principles or you don't. You don't just have principles when its convenient. Secondly, Democrats used the same tactics to bottle up President Bush's appointments, and yet the conservative leader most vilified and despised by the left in the last 30 years, called everything from "illegitimate" to "Hitler", never felt compelled to make such an overreach.
More importantly, two of the appointments President Obama made to the NLRB were new names that have not had a chance to be interviewed by the U.S. Senate. In other words, their appointments hadn't stalled anywhere.
While recess appointments have been ruled constitutional, that doesn't mean they aren't ripe for abuse. It's true that both President Clinton and Bush made over 100 of them, but none occurred while the U.S. Senate was actually in session (pro forma or not). Further, it has been generally agreed by legal advisors to the last three presidents, including Obama's own Justice Department, that a recess must last longer than three days for a president to enact his recess appointment authority.
Frighteningly, President Obama has thrown all the rules out the window and challenged the Senate's power to approve any presidential appointment at all. Based on this new logic, he could make an appointment while the Senate adjourns to lunch. Not needing any votes of confirmation, one supposes he could even appoint whomever his leftist heart desires to the Supreme Court. Sure, it all sounds like fun and games to clowns like Jon Stewart, but some of us take this kind of fundamental shift in power seriously.
The left has never been a big fan of the Constitution, seeing it as an obstacle to all the Big Government they are sure we deserve, but let's take a look at it anyways. Article 1, Section 2 is very clear:
"He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law."
Since the nation's founding, the U.S. Senate has had the power to reject poorly vetted presidential appointees. Even the great George Washington's nominees faced scrutiny, proving no one is above reproach.
By skirting the U.S. Senate, President Obama has challenged the very core of our system of government, and it was not by accident. If he had acted just one day sooner, the president could have tempered this crisis by at least making an intersession appointment. While still shorter than the usually agreed-upon three day recess, he would have at least had Teddy Roosevelt's precedent from 1908 to stand on, albeit under completely different circumstances. Instead, the president waited to make an intrasession appointment during the shortest of short recesses. There's only one logical reason for this, and that's to permanently seize power from a legislative branch that has repeatedly been a roadblock to much of his socialist-progressive agenda.
If Obama's actions are allowed to stand, it opens the door for him or any future president (should we be so lucky) to appoint whomever he wants to any bureaucratic or judicial position without the consent of any other elected representatives. Congress, the closest government body we have to the voice of the people, will be weakened to a whisper, and the president will be more empowered to act like a monarch or despot. The decisions of 1 man will be greater than the voices of 535 members of Congress, greater than the voices of 50 states, and yes, greater than the people. Tyranny has a friend in the Oval Office and his name is Barack Obama.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Who is Ben Breedlove and Why His Story Matters
In the grand scheme of things, Ben Breedlove's story wouldn't seem to matter much. Two weeks ago, he was just another teen who enjoyed music, hanging out with his friends at the lake, and posting youtube videos. And yet, Ben Breedlove matters a great deal. His life, which ended tragically short on Christmas night, is inspiring millions around the world.
As it turns out, he also goes to my church, which has brought a lot of media attention. It's a large church, and I did not know Ben Breedlove or his family personally. I certainly feel I missed out. But I have a friend who is a youth minister who did know him, as well as my pastor. They now find themselves thrust in the spotlight to tell not just Ben's story, but God's story and the significance it holds for each of us.
If you are not familiar with Ben Breedlove, he has become an internet sensation. Ben passed away at the age of 18 from a heart attack due to a genetic condition which he had lived with most of his life. Before his passing, Ben's heart shut down several times, the latest at school on December 6, 2011. He stopped breathing for three minutes before he was revived. During that time, he witnessed what is clinically called a near-death experience and made a video describing what he saw and felt. The video has gone viral and received almost two million hits.
Ben admits in the video that he didn't want to leave that peaceful place, what could be described as his own personal glimpse into heaven. Then he asks on a notecard, "Do you believe in angels or God?" and answers for himself. "I do." While the theme of the video is "cheating death", Ben could not have known God would call him home a few days later, on Christmas no less. I have little doubt that if Ben could describe his final transcendence to heaven with us, it would be in the most peaceful and beautiful imagery imaginable.
It's a cliche to say the Lord works in mysterious ways, and yet I can find no other words to describe this. Because Ben told his story, because of the video he posted on youtube (which was an afterthought encouraged by a friend), because Ben shared his testimony and challenged our perceptions of life after death, he has become famous. But more importantly, he has impacted countless lives by delivering a message of hope and grace.
The powerful message Ben delivered to us will touch people for a long time to come, far longer than the 18 years Ben spent touching lives here on earth. Ben was gracious enough to allow God to use him for a greater purpose than most of us could suspect.
You can imagine if an ordinary teenage kid had kept these visions to himself. You can imagine if Ben had kept quiet, rather than face possible ridicule and skepticism. You can imagine if he had gone on like nothing happened. The whole world would have missed out on a beautiful message. But Ben didn't, because Ben wasn't ordinary. He aspired to reveal the Christ within him, as C.S. Lewis would say, to share God's love and hope for humanity. He shared his story and it mattered. Just like all of our journeys matter to God.
Ben's story has given me comfort. I have a four year old nephew who has spent the last year going through cancer treatment. He has had brain surgery, radiation, and four doses of chemo, along with stem cell therapy. His cancer may be in remission, but it is too early to tell for sure. The whole year has been a struggle, but we have always focused on the positives. God is good, and even when bad things happen, God uses them to do good in the world.
We hope my nephew is cancer-free. We feel blessed that he hasn't had a seizure (after as many as 40 a day) since the tumor was removed from his brain. But rather than stress and worry about it, we choose to thank God for each precious moment.
Someday those precious moments will be gone for each of us with every loved one we know. Thank you, Ben Breedlove, for reminding us that God has a greater purpose for our lives than we could ever imagine. Sometimes the little things, like sharing our personal journey of faith in a video, turn out to be quite big indeed.
As it turns out, he also goes to my church, which has brought a lot of media attention. It's a large church, and I did not know Ben Breedlove or his family personally. I certainly feel I missed out. But I have a friend who is a youth minister who did know him, as well as my pastor. They now find themselves thrust in the spotlight to tell not just Ben's story, but God's story and the significance it holds for each of us.
If you are not familiar with Ben Breedlove, he has become an internet sensation. Ben passed away at the age of 18 from a heart attack due to a genetic condition which he had lived with most of his life. Before his passing, Ben's heart shut down several times, the latest at school on December 6, 2011. He stopped breathing for three minutes before he was revived. During that time, he witnessed what is clinically called a near-death experience and made a video describing what he saw and felt. The video has gone viral and received almost two million hits.
Ben admits in the video that he didn't want to leave that peaceful place, what could be described as his own personal glimpse into heaven. Then he asks on a notecard, "Do you believe in angels or God?" and answers for himself. "I do." While the theme of the video is "cheating death", Ben could not have known God would call him home a few days later, on Christmas no less. I have little doubt that if Ben could describe his final transcendence to heaven with us, it would be in the most peaceful and beautiful imagery imaginable.
It's a cliche to say the Lord works in mysterious ways, and yet I can find no other words to describe this. Because Ben told his story, because of the video he posted on youtube (which was an afterthought encouraged by a friend), because Ben shared his testimony and challenged our perceptions of life after death, he has become famous. But more importantly, he has impacted countless lives by delivering a message of hope and grace.
The powerful message Ben delivered to us will touch people for a long time to come, far longer than the 18 years Ben spent touching lives here on earth. Ben was gracious enough to allow God to use him for a greater purpose than most of us could suspect.
You can imagine if an ordinary teenage kid had kept these visions to himself. You can imagine if Ben had kept quiet, rather than face possible ridicule and skepticism. You can imagine if he had gone on like nothing happened. The whole world would have missed out on a beautiful message. But Ben didn't, because Ben wasn't ordinary. He aspired to reveal the Christ within him, as C.S. Lewis would say, to share God's love and hope for humanity. He shared his story and it mattered. Just like all of our journeys matter to God.
Ben's story has given me comfort. I have a four year old nephew who has spent the last year going through cancer treatment. He has had brain surgery, radiation, and four doses of chemo, along with stem cell therapy. His cancer may be in remission, but it is too early to tell for sure. The whole year has been a struggle, but we have always focused on the positives. God is good, and even when bad things happen, God uses them to do good in the world.
We hope my nephew is cancer-free. We feel blessed that he hasn't had a seizure (after as many as 40 a day) since the tumor was removed from his brain. But rather than stress and worry about it, we choose to thank God for each precious moment.
Someday those precious moments will be gone for each of us with every loved one we know. Thank you, Ben Breedlove, for reminding us that God has a greater purpose for our lives than we could ever imagine. Sometimes the little things, like sharing our personal journey of faith in a video, turn out to be quite big indeed.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Underestimating Tim Tebow and God's Magical Season for Each of Us
"The only thing I know is I know nothing." -Socrates
Too much of what passes for expert analysis today is just strongly-worded opinion. Take Tim Tebow's success in the NFL, for example. It wasn't supposed to happen. It's still not supposed to be happening. The Denver Broncos are supposed to go back to playing like the 0-4 team that started the season under Kyle Orton. So say the experts as if its scripture, and the minute Denver loses the talking heads in the media will start a celebration of their own that you can bet won't include Tebowing.
Today could be that day. The Broncos are a heavy underdog against the New England Patriots despite playing at home. Many so-called analysts are vested in the outcome. If the Patriots win, they will double down on Tom Brady and highlight every Tebow flub. The chatter that the Denver Broncos are a quarterback away from being a complete team will increase. If the Patriots lose, they will tell us it's only because of their porous defense, even though Tebow will likely cap the game with another come-from-behind drive. The experts, in other words, are only in the business of verifying their own opinions with utter nonsense.
Despite what happens today, conventional wisdom has failed to account for Tim Tebow's 7-1 record as a starter this year. Thus, we can already say with certainty that the conventional wisdom was wrong.
Character counts. It used to count for more. Forty or fifty years ago, the conventional wisdom would have probably predicted success for Tim Tebow. He would have been the exact kind of quarterback coaches wanted. He doesn't turn the ball over. He's tough to bring down. He can turn a busted play into positive yardage. He's a general on the field with strong intangibles. He makes every player on the team better by bringing out the ultimate effort in each of them. These are qualities that more often than not lead to victories.
However, in today's NFL more emphasis has been placed on a quarterback's arm strength, their throwing mechanics, the tightness of the spiral, and the ability to audible. Leadership is way down the list, something I suppose most coaches and scouts think can be taught so long as the quarterback carries the pedigree of a true passer.
In some cases, conventional wisdom has been right. Aaron Rodgers was valued highly by pro scouts and has turned in close to the perfect NFL season. His team is undefeated. But for every Aaron Rodgers, there's a Jeff George, Jamarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith, and David Carr. These guys all had strong arms with good mechanics, they were highly drafted, but none of it translated to success on the football field.
I can't help but think of the talking political heads who make these same type of prognostications when it comes to which candidates can and can't win, which ones will alienate too many voters. Ronald Reagan, we were told, wasn't supposed to win. According to conventional wisdom, Sarah Palin can't either. And yet in the same sentence, these experts tell us the most divisive, partisan, and petty president in our lifetime is the guy with the winnable message. Again, utter nonsense.
Leadership isn't taught and it can't be faked. In their own way, many golden armed quarterbacks who fizzled out in the NFL have shown us that much. Leadership is built on a strong foundation, and it takes a lifetime. When discerning leadership, we would be wise to look at the virtues men have always valued as a strong foundation for success - faith, honesty, perseverance, accountability, humility, and grace under fire. More likely than not, this comes from a believe in something far greater and more meaningful than ourselves. It comes from God.
I can't help but think in discounting the qualities that make Tim Tebow so outstanding, many of us are really underestimating God's glory. Sadly, that means we are underestimating ourselves and the great purpose God has for each of us. Even if its only for one season.
Prediction: Broncos 24, Patriots 23 (but does it really matter?... I'm no expert)
Too much of what passes for expert analysis today is just strongly-worded opinion. Take Tim Tebow's success in the NFL, for example. It wasn't supposed to happen. It's still not supposed to be happening. The Denver Broncos are supposed to go back to playing like the 0-4 team that started the season under Kyle Orton. So say the experts as if its scripture, and the minute Denver loses the talking heads in the media will start a celebration of their own that you can bet won't include Tebowing.
Today could be that day. The Broncos are a heavy underdog against the New England Patriots despite playing at home. Many so-called analysts are vested in the outcome. If the Patriots win, they will double down on Tom Brady and highlight every Tebow flub. The chatter that the Denver Broncos are a quarterback away from being a complete team will increase. If the Patriots lose, they will tell us it's only because of their porous defense, even though Tebow will likely cap the game with another come-from-behind drive. The experts, in other words, are only in the business of verifying their own opinions with utter nonsense.
Despite what happens today, conventional wisdom has failed to account for Tim Tebow's 7-1 record as a starter this year. Thus, we can already say with certainty that the conventional wisdom was wrong.
Character counts. It used to count for more. Forty or fifty years ago, the conventional wisdom would have probably predicted success for Tim Tebow. He would have been the exact kind of quarterback coaches wanted. He doesn't turn the ball over. He's tough to bring down. He can turn a busted play into positive yardage. He's a general on the field with strong intangibles. He makes every player on the team better by bringing out the ultimate effort in each of them. These are qualities that more often than not lead to victories.
However, in today's NFL more emphasis has been placed on a quarterback's arm strength, their throwing mechanics, the tightness of the spiral, and the ability to audible. Leadership is way down the list, something I suppose most coaches and scouts think can be taught so long as the quarterback carries the pedigree of a true passer.
In some cases, conventional wisdom has been right. Aaron Rodgers was valued highly by pro scouts and has turned in close to the perfect NFL season. His team is undefeated. But for every Aaron Rodgers, there's a Jeff George, Jamarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith, and David Carr. These guys all had strong arms with good mechanics, they were highly drafted, but none of it translated to success on the football field.
I can't help but think of the talking political heads who make these same type of prognostications when it comes to which candidates can and can't win, which ones will alienate too many voters. Ronald Reagan, we were told, wasn't supposed to win. According to conventional wisdom, Sarah Palin can't either. And yet in the same sentence, these experts tell us the most divisive, partisan, and petty president in our lifetime is the guy with the winnable message. Again, utter nonsense.
Leadership isn't taught and it can't be faked. In their own way, many golden armed quarterbacks who fizzled out in the NFL have shown us that much. Leadership is built on a strong foundation, and it takes a lifetime. When discerning leadership, we would be wise to look at the virtues men have always valued as a strong foundation for success - faith, honesty, perseverance, accountability, humility, and grace under fire. More likely than not, this comes from a believe in something far greater and more meaningful than ourselves. It comes from God.
I can't help but think in discounting the qualities that make Tim Tebow so outstanding, many of us are really underestimating God's glory. Sadly, that means we are underestimating ourselves and the great purpose God has for each of us. Even if its only for one season.
Prediction: Broncos 24, Patriots 23 (but does it really matter?... I'm no expert)
Monday, December 12, 2011
10 Things I Learned This Week (12/12/11)
I have decided to introduce a new and recurring blog feature: 10 Things I Learned This Week. Hopefully, it will allow me to summarize a few of my tweets into something for my blog readers, assuming some of you may not follow me on twitter. Speaking of, why don't you? Go there now and add me.
What I Learned Over the Past 7 Days:
1. Osawatomie is a Native American word meaning "stumping for votes with class warfare." (in a total coincidence, it also rhymes with Obama's a Commie)
2. $10,000 > $900 billion, at least according to liberals. The former was wagered by Mitt Romney, the latter by the Obama Administration on a failed stimulus (including $530 million of bad bets on Solyndra).
3. Unemployment benefits create more jobs than building a transcontinental pipeline. Based on this lefty logic, more people need to lose their jobs so the economy will rebound.
4. The Cowboys should burn their timeouts early so they don't risk icing their kicker.
5. Unless you are winning the Heisman or under the age of five, you really can't get away with wearing Superman socks.
6. GOP Debates are more boring without Herman Cain. Also, fewer pizzas sold.
7. Obama told 60 Minutes that he's the Captain. I guess that makes the mainstream media Tennille. Love will keep them together.
8. Texas A&M probably should have hired Gary Kubiak when they had the chance 8 years and 3 coaches ago. Congrats to the Houston Texans.
9. Rick Perry has the same barn jacket as Brokeback Mountain. Come to think of it, so do millions of ruggedly handsome American men. Okay, now I'm questioning my sexuality.
10. Pretty sure Dr. Pepper 10 is just regular Dr. Pepper and Diet Dr. Pepper mixed together in the same can.
What I Learned Over the Past 7 Days:
1. Osawatomie is a Native American word meaning "stumping for votes with class warfare." (in a total coincidence, it also rhymes with Obama's a Commie)
2. $10,000 > $900 billion, at least according to liberals. The former was wagered by Mitt Romney, the latter by the Obama Administration on a failed stimulus (including $530 million of bad bets on Solyndra).
3. Unemployment benefits create more jobs than building a transcontinental pipeline. Based on this lefty logic, more people need to lose their jobs so the economy will rebound.
4. The Cowboys should burn their timeouts early so they don't risk icing their kicker.
5. Unless you are winning the Heisman or under the age of five, you really can't get away with wearing Superman socks.
6. GOP Debates are more boring without Herman Cain. Also, fewer pizzas sold.
7. Obama told 60 Minutes that he's the Captain. I guess that makes the mainstream media Tennille. Love will keep them together.
8. Texas A&M probably should have hired Gary Kubiak when they had the chance 8 years and 3 coaches ago. Congrats to the Houston Texans.
9. Rick Perry has the same barn jacket as Brokeback Mountain. Come to think of it, so do millions of ruggedly handsome American men. Okay, now I'm questioning my sexuality.
10. Pretty sure Dr. Pepper 10 is just regular Dr. Pepper and Diet Dr. Pepper mixed together in the same can.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Why Obama Can't Create Jobs (or Money: It's Not Just for Democratic Fundraisers)
Sometimes clarity comes at the strangest hours. Tonight it happened when I fell asleep after enjoying a few libations while watching Anthony Bourdain's entertaining travel + food + booze show on the Travel Channel. If you've ever watched Anthony Bourdain's show before, you know he has a way of speaking plainly and saying exactly what's on his mind. Abrasive? Sure. But that's how the truth rolls sometimes.
Taking a cue from Mr. Bourdain's style of breaking down basic absurdities, I began to dissect President Obama's speech in Kansas the other day, you know the one where he said the economy has gotten too efficient to employ human beings and blamed the internet, ATMs, and technology in general for his three year reign over the worst streak of unemployment since the Great Depression, pining instead for the days of elevator operators, full service gas stations, and switchboards.
The president delivered his words where Teddy Roosevelt gave a famous (and often misunderstood) speech over 100 years ago, but I don't think we were expecting Mr. Obama to also champion the technology from that era. If I didn't know better, I would have sworn Osawatomie was Native American for "Soviet style economic planning." So much for winning the future.
As Pundette eloquently pointed out, Obama basically spent 30 minutes "lamenting that unions aren't strong enough to force buggy whip manufacturers to give raises to their employees." And who doesn't wonder what happened to all those great buggy driving jobs? They must have gone overseas to cheap labor.
If his speech clarified one thing, it's the president's complete failure to understand job creation. Having never worked in the private sector, he has no idea why jobs exist in the first place. Seriously. Someone should ask him - what is the point of employment?
If you listen to Mr. Obama, you are likely to think the purpose of a job is to provide someone with work. It's not. Nor is it to provide someone with benefits or to ensure every family gets to own a house. The point of a job is to make money, usually for someone else, and unless you are self-employed, that usually means a corporation. If the employer can't make a profit as a result of your labor, they won't hire you. If your labor loses them money, you aren't worth employing. And if government regulations make hiring more expensive, fewer jobs are created. It's really that simple.
But when the leader of the free world demonizes profits, when successful businesses are called greedy, when corporations that do most of the hiring are told they are not paying their fair share, when the private sector is told there will be a time to profit later, you end up with a business environment that stinks. Obamanomics discourages job growth and encourages stink. Period. Unless the government is doing all the hiring (and that's called Communism), you need profitable companies to hire productive workers who will increase profitability, allowing for the creation of even more corporations.
Computers, technology, ATMs, machinery, and the internet all increase productivity. They make businesses more productive and hence, more profitable. Therefore, "greedy corporations" can grow and keep hiring. I know, how dare they. Today's progressive, not too far removed from Marxism, will tell you corporations should only exist to serve at the government's whim.
Jobs aren't just for keeping people busy. The fact President Obama fails to grasp this simple economic reality is why we have a failing economy with such an anemic recovery. Mr. Obama can't create jobs, because like most leftists, he's never understood the purpose of work in the first place. He thinks hiring 10,000 people to dig a ditch and handing them all a spoon is the key to full employment. That's how we got a trillion dollars of wasted stimulus.
A president who values employment has to value profit, and Mr. Obama has proven himself incapable. There will be no job recovery until he is out of the White House.
A president who values employment has to value profit, and Mr. Obama has proven himself incapable. There will be no job recovery until he is out of the White House.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Superfreaks and Supercommittees
Question: How many Supercommittees does it take to change a light bulb?
Answer: Who knows? No Supercommittee has ever carried out such a feat.
I made that observation in a tweet back in August, half joking, half prepared to watch the chosen twelve member panel display the ineptness of so-called bipartisan committees. So when the Supercommittee did indeed "fail" last week, it barely registered on my radar. After all, why should the Supercommitte succeed in reaching a debt deal where all of Washington had failed, including the President, Vice-President, Speaker of the House, and two previous commissions?
Democrats, of course, are blaming the Tea Party and uncompromising fiscal conservatives. As E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post writes:
Exactly which tax reforms set to bring in $300 billion are so ill-defined, E.J. Dionne doesn't specify. But let's examine the absurdity of his first statement, that deficits can't be solved without substantial tax increases. Doesn't it seem convenient that this is always the favored argument of the very people who want Big Government?
Imagine a struggling business that does $400,000 in revenue but has $450,000 in annual expenses. Isn't the simplest way to get back in the black to cut $50,000 of expenses? Of course. Elementary, my dear Watson, and why not? The only other alternative, absent more customers, is for the business to raise prices in an effort to raise revenue, but higher prices could actually discourage sales. In many cases, this is exactly how tax increases work - money is maneuvered to avoid the increase, and the net result is a loss of revenue.
If we had a revenue problem and not a spending problem, you would see years of decreasing revenue despite flat or decreasing spending. But revenue over the past few years is only down slightly, while spending has increased almost twofold since 2006. Why do I bring up 2006? That was the year that the federal government brought in the most revenue, four years after the Bush tax cuts took place. The dirty little secret that progressive like E.J. Dionne don't want you to know is that revenue went up, not down, as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Unfortunately, spending has gone up way more during the same period.
The truth of the matter for most Democrats, and for progressives in particular, is they have yet to experience a level of government spending that is too much. Even today's stimulus stacked upon outrageous stimulus is insufficient to meet their wants. Thus, any deficit talk is only about one problem in their mind - not raising enough taxes to cover all the wonderful programs they have plans for. After all, how can a Supercommittee on deficit reduction take their job seriously when the president is out there proposing a half trillion dollar spending increase at the same time?
President Obama has taken three stabs at deficit reduction now, including the appointment of two separate bipartisan commissions, and gotten nowhere. A simpler tax code with lower overall rates and fewer loopholes has been endorsed by key members of two separate commissions. But apparently, the president doesn't like those solutions. And while Obama himself wisely extended the Bush tax cuts last December, signing a bill passed by a Democratic controlled House and Senate, he and his base now want to pretend it's Republicans who are unreasonably adding to the deficit by blocking revenue.
If I didn't know better, I would think the whole thing is a charade to stall meaningful legislative progress so Obama can claim he tried to cut the deficit but was stymied by a no-good, do-nothing Congress. But no leader would dare act against the best interest of the country for a little more political power, would they?
It's super debt, that's for sure. And the more it piles up, the more future generations are on the hook to pay for it while the superfreaks of statism use it as an excuse to strip more wealth and property away from what was once America's enterprising private sector.
Answer: Who knows? No Supercommittee has ever carried out such a feat.
I made that observation in a tweet back in August, half joking, half prepared to watch the chosen twelve member panel display the ineptness of so-called bipartisan committees. So when the Supercommittee did indeed "fail" last week, it barely registered on my radar. After all, why should the Supercommitte succeed in reaching a debt deal where all of Washington had failed, including the President, Vice-President, Speaker of the House, and two previous commissions?
Democrats, of course, are blaming the Tea Party and uncompromising fiscal conservatives. As E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post writes:
"It’s absurd to pretend that we can shrink the deficit over the long term without substantial tax increases... The least we can do under those circumstances is to repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy enacted under President George W. Bush. Yet the only revenue conservatives on the supercommittee put on the table involved $300 billion, most of it from ill-defined tax reforms, in exchange for lower tax rates on the rich and making something like $3.7 trillion worth of tax cuts permanent."
Exactly which tax reforms set to bring in $300 billion are so ill-defined, E.J. Dionne doesn't specify. But let's examine the absurdity of his first statement, that deficits can't be solved without substantial tax increases. Doesn't it seem convenient that this is always the favored argument of the very people who want Big Government?
Imagine a struggling business that does $400,000 in revenue but has $450,000 in annual expenses. Isn't the simplest way to get back in the black to cut $50,000 of expenses? Of course. Elementary, my dear Watson, and why not? The only other alternative, absent more customers, is for the business to raise prices in an effort to raise revenue, but higher prices could actually discourage sales. In many cases, this is exactly how tax increases work - money is maneuvered to avoid the increase, and the net result is a loss of revenue.
If we had a revenue problem and not a spending problem, you would see years of decreasing revenue despite flat or decreasing spending. But revenue over the past few years is only down slightly, while spending has increased almost twofold since 2006. Why do I bring up 2006? That was the year that the federal government brought in the most revenue, four years after the Bush tax cuts took place. The dirty little secret that progressive like E.J. Dionne don't want you to know is that revenue went up, not down, as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Unfortunately, spending has gone up way more during the same period.
The truth of the matter for most Democrats, and for progressives in particular, is they have yet to experience a level of government spending that is too much. Even today's stimulus stacked upon outrageous stimulus is insufficient to meet their wants. Thus, any deficit talk is only about one problem in their mind - not raising enough taxes to cover all the wonderful programs they have plans for. After all, how can a Supercommittee on deficit reduction take their job seriously when the president is out there proposing a half trillion dollar spending increase at the same time?
President Obama has taken three stabs at deficit reduction now, including the appointment of two separate bipartisan commissions, and gotten nowhere. A simpler tax code with lower overall rates and fewer loopholes has been endorsed by key members of two separate commissions. But apparently, the president doesn't like those solutions. And while Obama himself wisely extended the Bush tax cuts last December, signing a bill passed by a Democratic controlled House and Senate, he and his base now want to pretend it's Republicans who are unreasonably adding to the deficit by blocking revenue.
If I didn't know better, I would think the whole thing is a charade to stall meaningful legislative progress so Obama can claim he tried to cut the deficit but was stymied by a no-good, do-nothing Congress. But no leader would dare act against the best interest of the country for a little more political power, would they?
It's super debt, that's for sure. And the more it piles up, the more future generations are on the hook to pay for it while the superfreaks of statism use it as an excuse to strip more wealth and property away from what was once America's enterprising private sector.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Campaign 2012: Empty Words vs. Awkward Silences
In the modern political climate, it seems that the worst offense a candidate can commit is to be rendered speechless. By now, we are all familiar with Rick Perry's unintentional imitation of Colin Firth in The King's Speech during last week's debate in which the Governor spent a half minute stammering over which bureaucracies he would eliminate. And now Herman Cain is on the hot seat, this time not for what he allegedly said to a former female employee, but what he failed to say to an editorial board about Libya and the time it took him to answer their question.
To be sure, it's important for a president to be able to articulate his views and demonstrate a broad knowledge of the issues facing our country. But in the YouTube era where gaffes become instant viral sensations spread like wildfire by social media, are we becoming hypersensitive to these moments of human fallibility? After all, they're nothing new. Just ask Howard Dean.
I have heard a number of Republican donors and strategists say it's over for Perry and Cain, that they don't have what it takes to be president because they fumbled their words. Maybe they're right. Or maybe, just maybe, we have formulated a process for electing our leaders that borders on the absurd. We parade candidates through more goofy debates than a season's worth of Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes, turning game show style questions into game changers while ignoring the substance of their positions. We hang on every word and measure the evening's performance far more than we measure how their policies have or actually will perform.
I have always referred to President Obama as the first American Idol president, an inexperienced half-term senator with a paper-thin resume elected by a generation conditioned to text in their vote for whoever puts on the best show. Experience and achievement don't matter to this crowd. It's all about the moment. Team Obama gave us plenty of those made-for-TV moments during the 2008 campaign. It hasn't translated to a competent presidency or a prosperous four years for America.
Herman Cain and Rick Perry have more executive experience than every other candidate in the field with the exception of Mitt Romney. They have demonstrated leadership and proven results that others only wish they could emulate. But unlike Romney, they haven't mastered the showmanship we demand to be fooled by. We have told our candidates that words matter more than actions or accomplishments. And in the Age of Obama, empty words matter most of all, certainly more than empty silences.
It's a strange way to pick a president, but at least it boosts cable news ratings.
To be sure, it's important for a president to be able to articulate his views and demonstrate a broad knowledge of the issues facing our country. But in the YouTube era where gaffes become instant viral sensations spread like wildfire by social media, are we becoming hypersensitive to these moments of human fallibility? After all, they're nothing new. Just ask Howard Dean.
I have heard a number of Republican donors and strategists say it's over for Perry and Cain, that they don't have what it takes to be president because they fumbled their words. Maybe they're right. Or maybe, just maybe, we have formulated a process for electing our leaders that borders on the absurd. We parade candidates through more goofy debates than a season's worth of Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes, turning game show style questions into game changers while ignoring the substance of their positions. We hang on every word and measure the evening's performance far more than we measure how their policies have or actually will perform.
I have always referred to President Obama as the first American Idol president, an inexperienced half-term senator with a paper-thin resume elected by a generation conditioned to text in their vote for whoever puts on the best show. Experience and achievement don't matter to this crowd. It's all about the moment. Team Obama gave us plenty of those made-for-TV moments during the 2008 campaign. It hasn't translated to a competent presidency or a prosperous four years for America.
Herman Cain and Rick Perry have more executive experience than every other candidate in the field with the exception of Mitt Romney. They have demonstrated leadership and proven results that others only wish they could emulate. But unlike Romney, they haven't mastered the showmanship we demand to be fooled by. We have told our candidates that words matter more than actions or accomplishments. And in the Age of Obama, empty words matter most of all, certainly more than empty silences.
It's a strange way to pick a president, but at least it boosts cable news ratings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)