Does he really think we are that dumb?

In the President's recent address he made the following statement:

"But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program – but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts – tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.

To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our national checkbook, consider this: in the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years."

That’s right, according to the President, it is the fact that we cut taxes [an act that has historically ended up generating greater than expected revenue for the federal government—something completely being overlooked by a President who believes that taxes should be raised “for purposes of fairness” rather than for increased revenue] rather than the fact that we have (and he has continued to) increased spending to unprecedented levels that has caused us to have trouble with the economy.

He even goes on to blur the facts a bit more by mentioning how deficits would be lower if we had funded two specific projects while seeming oblivious to the fact that deficits mean that we are still SPENDING MORE MONEY THAN WE HAVE!

Spending is the problem. Until the federal government accepts this and begins to spend less, we will continue to dig ourselves into a deeper financial hole.

Presidential waivering...

As a result of the recent discussions about the Constitutionality of the recently passed “Affordable Healthcare Act” here in the US, I have begun to think more about this situation.

I have little doubt that the recent ruling finding the Healthcare law to be unconstitutional [and thus void in its entirety] will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court for a final decision. But, this is not what I want to focus on here. My recent thoughts have tended towards the disturbing trend of granting wavers.

According to the Health and Human Services website, “as of early February, a total of 915 one-year waivers have been granted.”

The question that no one seems to be asking here is just where in the Constitution is the power to arbitrarily grant a reprieve from following laws given to the President? It would seem that, if this power were conferred on the President of the United States, the founders of the country missed the boat when it comes to the separation of powers. How can an executive who is supposed to be beholden to the same laws as you or I hold the power to remove from others the mandate to follow those laws?

Further, why is anyone in the Congress sitting back and allowing this injustice to occur? Do they not see that if this President has the right to issue more than 900 wavers allowing groups to ignore this particular law, the next president can take it upon himself to do the same thing? [Or, is it perhaps more likely that they simply do not care?]

The slope gets pretty slippery when one realizes that ANY President could take this tack; deciding that he is going to issue a waiver to the FBI allowing them to ignore laws against illegal search and seizure or to the FCC allowing them the freedom to abridge the speech of anyone the President decides may not be helping his current agenda. The United States is, and should always remain, a country of laws. Allowing anyone the power to decide to ignore those laws is a terrible risk to take and a total abnegation of the responsibility of those in Congress to uphold the Constitution.

Ultimately one must wonder whether, if there are no challenges to this practice, how the left would take it if a more conservative occupant enters the oval office after the 2012 elections and issues wavers to everyone in the country who did not get them from this current President. Somehow I think the silence on this issue would be broken right away.

"Let them eat.....nothing..."

Starvation is a better alternative than unregulated food distribution. Do you find this idea as asinine as I do? If so, than you too are at odds with the government of Houston Texas that recently stopped a grassroots operation led by Bobby Herring and his wife Bethany that fed between 60-120 homeless people per night.

The article is located here: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7381016.html

According to Health and Human Services Department spokesperson Kathy Barton, starvation would be preferable to unregulated food distribution [in this case also done without a permit] because “poor people are the most vulnerable to food borne illness and also are the least likely to have access to healthcare.”

In typical government fashion, this mandate ignores the real world results of ending this distribution; apparently not taking into consideration the fact that these 60 to 120 hungry people per night will not be able to simply decide to stop eating entirely and may end up consuming far less healthy options that could be scavenged from back alleys or dumpsters in the area.

This is just the sort of power play that proves that government, at all levels, believes that they are [and should remain] the sole arbiter of all assistance of any sort in this world; that they do not care about the results of their actions, only about their ability to control all aspects of our lives. That we have now seen legislated out of business a charitable effort and watched starvation be put in its place shows just how far down the wrong path this country has gone.

The question is whether we will ever get the nerve to turn around and head back in the right direction.

The NYT and the rich world of ignorance...

On January 4, 2011, in an editorial on the Opinion Pages of the New York Times, readers are treated to something that we rarely get to experience: a full-out display of ignorance and fundamental misinterpretation of how the world works.

In the editorial “Pomp and Little Circumstance,” readers are told that reading the Constitution on the house floor is a “presumptuous and self-righteous act” rather than a message to everyone that those we have elected to create laws should be familiar with those rules that constrain them. The writer goes on to pathetically attempt to bring race into the question by stating [with an implied nod and wink to those who, like him, incorrectly believe that the Constitution specifies race in Article1, Section2, Paragraph3 of the Constitution] “Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person.” One must wonder whether it is commonplace for this author to thinks solely of African –Americans in terms of slavery.

Next, the reader is treated to this bit of tripe: “There is a similar air of vacuous fundamentalism in requiring that every bill cite the Constitutional power given to Congress to enact it” and that “it is the judiciary that ultimately decides when a law in unconstitutional, not the transitory occupant of the speaker’s chair.”

It is interesting here to see how the thought process of the writer [and I use this term very loosely here] works. For this writer, it would appear that we would only be living in a perfect world if those representatives we have elected to create federal laws were as ignorant as he of the constraints that are imposed on them by the Constitution and to make any law they desire in hopes that, if they overstep their bounds, the Supreme Court will be there to make things right.

This belief, in addition to being odiously simplistic, is akin to telling your teenagers to drive as fast as she wants and as wildly as she wants when she gets her driver’s license because the Police are there to determine if she is doing anything wrong; it is akin to having a pharmacist give you the key to the pharmacy and telling you to take drugs until you feel better and that a doctor will determine if you have done things correctly after you are through.

This belief is so irrational that it borders on the insane.

It is of little wonder that the circulation of the New York Times is down nearly 10% from 2009 to 2010. With giants of the mind such as the author of this editorial, I have little doubt that they will be able to increase this percentage in 2011….

Dashing through the.....press room?

Because I have been away from the computer for a while during the Christmas break, I haven’t had the chance to comment on the bizarre press conference given by President Obama and Clinton on December 10^th.

You may remember that the President stated that his “number one priority… [was] making sure that the middle class families don’t see their tax rates go up January 1.” I actually posted an article about this a short time ago questioning exactly how true this statement was. Thanks to President Obama’s press conference on December 10^th, I think we are now able to see that nothing short of eggnog would keep the President from achieving his number one goal.

That’s right, while he clearly can be distracted by the promise of shiny tinsel and cookies shaped like little acorns, he cannot be kept from running to a former President to do some of the heavy lifting for him while he runs off with the wife to lift a few glasses of champagne.

We now have to wonder what other wonderful things might be possible in this country if President Obama spent more time at parties while others did his job.

Nobody likes ignoring the Constitution; but...well…..

In an interview on the FOX News Network last month, former TSA Director Mo McGowan made the following statement:

"Nobody likes having their 4th amendment violated going through a security line, but the truth of the matter is, uh, we're going to have to do it."

That’s right folks; the former TSA director believes that, in the 4^Th Amendment, when the Constitution states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”, it is just kidding. What we the unwashed masses fail to understand, in McGowan’s view, is that there is apparently hidden here the fact that, if they decide to, the government has the power to ignore the meaning of this amendment and simply do whatever they want. [This massive power is perhaps found in an ultra secret portion of the Constitution that we have just never been shown before.]

Inherent in his own words here is the implication that the Constitution is simply a pie in the sky fantasy that not only can, but should be ignored whenever some bureaucrat such as Mo here decides that he wants to do so. The Constitution is the fantasy to McGowan, the the ability to ignore what the Constitution says is “the truth”.

That anyone can state such an odious comment with a straight face and not understand the implications for its precedent is astonishing. If those who are actually in charge of implementing processes such as these believe that they are not violating the rights of those who are subjected to them, it is a much different thing than having someone implement them in full awareness that they are violating them. The former would be an idiot; the latter would be a criminal.

How is it not a crime for a government body to willfully violate the rights of the citizens as enumerated in the Constitution? How can the Congress hear statements proving this willful disregard of the rights of the citizens they are elected to represent and not take immediate action? How can the President of the country, whose oath of office requires that he intercede in such matters to “protect and defend the Constitution”, not intervene?

Do they not care? Do we as a people no longer care?

We must remember that allowing the government to remove a right [ANY RIGHT] means that ALL of the rights that remain are merely privileges to be allowed only at Government discretion. Allowing rights to be taken away makes the idea of rights the fantasy.

Why are they allowed to get away with it?

Consider this: If I were to tell you that, because I had to change my plans to add on new room to my home this year, it would actually be smaller next year, you would most likely laugh at me. If I were to tell you that, because I decided to continue buying my kids a Happy Meal during our weekly visit to McDonalds rather than move them up to an adult meal, I had actually reduced their food intake, you would probably wonder about my ability to reason. If I was to then tell you that, because I decided against expanding my cable package to include the Showtime movie pack, that I am actually reducing my service, you would most likely begin to wonder about my grasp of reality. If I then went on to explain that deciding to extend the current tax rates/policies in this country would be a tax cut, you might think [rather than questioning my sanity] that I was simply restating the beliefs of any number of liberal politicians or commentators speaking on the issue today.

I call this to your attention because recently I have heard many on the left argue against an extension of the current tax rate/policy in this country by calling it a tax cut for the wealthy. In their argument, an extension of what exists today will somehow be giving new money to those people they have defined as wealthy.

For those who hear this argument, accepting their premise makes accepting their argument all the more understandable. The problem here, as I have shown above, is that the premise is fundamentally flawed.

What is happening here is that the left [in this case] is framing the argument to try to pull attention away from the facts of the situation:

Fact: Keeping the current tax rate neither raises or lowers taxes

Fact: Allowing the current tax rate to go up raises taxes.

Fact: Lowering the current tax rate would lower taxes.

These facts cannot be argued [this uncontestability is actually the defining feature of what constitutes a fact.] Because this is the case, however, [and because those on the left understand that “We are against continuing the current tax rates because it neither lowers or raises taxes on the wealthy in this country” is a losing argument] it is clear that the left have decided to ignore those pesky little things called facts and simply argue fantasy.

This decision to argue fantasy, however, is nothing new. In the past I have heard politicians claim that the only way to know what is in the bill is to pass it [while any first grader would know that reading the bill and discussing it is another, and in this case better, way.] I have heard the President state that Comprehensive Healthcare Reform would actually lower our deficit [even though it would add millions of people to the rolls of a taxpayer funded program.] I continue to hear that the only way we can reduce the deficit by raising taxes [even though deficits are ongoing decisions that can be stopped tomorrow by deciding to only pass budgets are balanced.] These positions are clearly flawed but are all the more palatable for those who hear them because the arguments are framed to argue fantasy in an attempt to make each of them more believable.

The answer for those who are actually looking for a return to reason is to break down these frames in a very public way. Remind those who hear these flawed arguments of the obvious. Hold a press conference with a three year old child, show them a copy of the healthcare reform bill, and ask them how you could know what is written into it. [I guarantee the child will say to read it.] Hold a press conference with a dog and give it a piece of bacon. Watch the dog eat the bacon. Next put a bowl of bacon in front of the dog and watch it eat all of the bacon. Explain that without restraint, the dog will most likely continue to eat all of the bacon you give it while wanting more the same way that Congress will continue to spend all of the tax you give it while still wanting more.

Honesty dictates that we should never let those who have decided to ignore facts for fantasy get away with doing so.