America, You Asked For It!

Political News and Commentary from the Right

Obamanomics taking a terrible toll

Obamanomics. Spend. Spend. Spend. And spend some more. Then remove any hint of personal accountability for those who acted irresponsibly. Make unemployment benefits permanent. Pay people to trade in good, working used cars for cars they can’t afford, then scrap the good, working used cars. Bailout failed companies with government funds, allowing them to continue operating under the policies that made them fail in the first place. Force banks and mortgage houses to renegotiate with customers who bought more home than they could afford. Push for a tax on carbon emissions that will push costs higher for business and industry, who will pass those costs on to consumers. Spend $1 trillion to put us on a path to government-run health care that will cost us more, treat us less, and make sure we die younger.

There’s more, but you get the picture.

So what’s it done for us?

The infamous $875 billion stimulus that President Obama promised would quickly revive the economy, save us from reaching the unthinkable 8% unemployment level did neither. Our economy continues to languish while prices for essential goods skyrocket and unemployment hovers closer to 10% than the 8% level we were promised would never be reached if the President’s spending spree were approved.

Last week, the day before the government released their December unemployment numbers, Gallup released results from its unemployment survey. According to the private polling firm, 9.6% of Americans in the labor market could not find work. The next day, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its official report putting the number at 9.4%. I’d guess the real number to split the two, but they are both a far cry from the President’s promised 8% cap if let him spend like a drunken sailor back in February 2009.

Because the Gallup unemployment measure is not seasonally adjusted, it tends to more accurately reflect what is actually taking place in the U.S. job market — and may not agree with the government’s estimate that is seasonally adjusted. Further, Gallup’s data tend to be more up-to-date than the government’s because Gallup polls on the unemployment situation continuously. Combined, seasonal adjustments and timing differences likely explain much of the disparity between Gallup’s measures of underemployment and unemployment, compared with those reported by others.

Perhaps even more damning though, is the broader underemployment index which includes the unemployed counted above and those who are employed part-time but want full-time jobs. Gallup tagged this number at 19% for December, up from 17.2% at the end of November. That’s almost 1 in 5 American workers who want a full-time job and can’t find one. And it’s increasing at an alarming rate!

The President’s inability to stimulate the economy and jump start job creation is having detrimental effects on other parts of the economy as well.

One of the most often mentioned planks in Obama’s 2008 Presidential platform was to help holders of upside-down mortgages hold onto their homes. While the massive influx of government cash into programs such as Obama’s Making Home Affordable did forestall foreclosure for some, the programs turned out to be little more than a bandaid on a gaping wound, unable to stop the bleeding for good.

Home values continue to plummet and have now crashed worse than during the Great Depression. From 1928 to 1933, home prices fell by 25.9%. It was reported just this month that homes are now worth 26% less than in 2006. So Obama’s great spending spree didn’t buoy the value of most families’ single largest investment, nor did it stop the wave of foreclosures. Experts are now anticipating 1 million homes to be foreclosed on this year!

Obamanomics…the idea that excessive government spending can generate growth and produce wealth…is a farce.

The federal reserve has for a long time held short term interest rates near zero in an effort to ignite the engine of the US economy. Late last year, the Federal Reserve began to buy $600 billion in US treasuries, a sort of second stimulus plan, or throwing good money after bad in the opinion of many. As Obama’s stimulus and bailouts sprang to life in early 2009, Dick Morris reported the money supply in the US had increased by 271% in just 5 months, a situation he predicted would eventually result in hyperinflation. Morris’ claims drew criticism claiming his arguments were baseless, his facts wrong and based on partisan ideology. But this week we saw reports of skyrocketing food and energy prices.

Everyone who goes to the grocery store, pays an electric bill, or fills their tank with gas already knew this, but the government numbers on inflation intentionally exclude food and energy prices. Convenient for an administration that is intentionally saddling energy companies and food producers with crippling costs to confront new federal regulation. The Obama administration tactics are intended to force the costs of traditional food and energy up high enough to make prices of his preferred green energy and “healthy” foods products competitive. He is intentionally forcing up the prices of goods and services Americans buy in an attempt to get them to buy products produced by his political friends and supporters.

As oil prices close in on $100 per barrel, and a gallon of gas surges over 3 dollars, the President shrugs his shoulders and leaves Americans to just deal with it. Obama stands by his executive order to halt offshore drilling, decreasing the oil supply and helping drive prices up. It’s okay with our President if we pay more. He doesn’t want us burning oil or driving as much anyway.

Rising prices and Americans having to tighten our belts may not be the worst thing either. The United States was warned that its AAA credit rating is in danger by two major credit rating agencies. Moody’s warned, “that the U.S. will need to reverse the expansion of its debt if it hopes to keep its ‘AAA’ rating.” While Standard & Poor said, “the firm couldn’t rule out lowering the outlook for the U.S. rating in the future.” Loss of the AAA rating would reduce demand for US treasuries, which will result in higher financing costs to fund government operations.

What this all boils down to is that nothing Obama has done has really helped anything at all. Some of his programs have kicked the problems down the road a few months, which was likely the intent all the time. But the scope of his Socialist programs, pushed as if by a bulldozer through the Democrat-dominated Congress that was voted out in November of last year, have inflicted more damage on our economic system than he and his Socialist czars thought probable.

Rather than fix what was wrong, his overspending, crippling regulations, and interference with the free market have done more to restrain the economy than they have to fix it.

The national debt topped $14,000,000,000,000 (that’s FOURTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS) in recent days, a 40% increase in the two years Obama has been in office. You, I, and our children will bear the burden of his big-government ideals that have been forced on us these past two years.

We’ve had enough Hope & Change, it’s time to change it back…while it might still be possible.

Tags: Obama, Economy, Dick Morris, Money Supply, Inflation, Spending, Stimulus, Regulations, National Debt, Free Market, Bailouts, Obamanomics, Fourteen Trillion Dollars, Standard & Poor, Moody’s, AAA Rating

To share or post to your site, please include the following line
Hat Tip: America, You Asked For It!

Free: Subscribe by email

January 14, 2011 Posted by | Economy | Leave a comment

Americans, you now owe $14 TRILLION

That’s right, today the national debt clock hit the unbelievable, indigestible, unsustainable $14 TRILLION mark! And it’s still rising! In case you don’t know, that’s $14,000,000,000,000.00

It won’t take long for that number to reach the $14.3 Trillion “Debt Ceiling,” raised by Democrats in Congress and President Obama early last year to satisfy–temporarily–their unquenchable thirst to spend our money!

The debt continued to rise under George W. Bush, but has skyrocketed under Obama. Since taking office, the amount you, I, and every other American owes has increased 40%! That’s a 40% increase in only two years! Thanks to CBS (You won’t hear that very often here!) for the following graphic that shows the unbelievable increase in US government red ink.

Now they want even more! Democrats are demanding Republicans in Congress raise the debt ceiling, but Republicans have promised to draw a line in the sand–saying they will not vote to raise it unless a plan is put in place to “significantly reduce federal spending and unfunded government liabilities on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare,” according to the CBS article.

Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, calls the Republican demands for real spending cuts, “playing chicken with the debt ceiling.” Goolsbee accurately points out that failure to raise the debt ceiling will cause the US government to default on its obligations–if it continues to spend more money than it takes in.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN), a Tea Party Republican, staunchly opposes raising the ceiling. “Instead of raising the debt ceiling and giving ourselves an excuse to delay the inevitable, let’s start working on solutions,” she said in a November press release following last year’s mid-term election. She calls on Congress to “tighten the country’s purse strings as we work to put our country back on track.” Bachman says “cuts have to be made” because our children’s future is at stake. “We aren’t going to find financial stability by allowing ourselves to fall further down the rabbit hole,” the Congresswoman points out.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is not ruling out an increase, but promised to block it unless meaningful spending cuts are tied to any increase, according to the Daily Caller. Coburn says he has a list of $350 billion in spending cuts that he wants to see before he will vote for a debt ceiling increase. Coburn called $350 billion “a good starting point,” but also stated he believes it is possible to cut enough that raising the debt ceiling won’t be necessary.

‘The American people think the budget ought to be balanced, even taking hard choices, even with some personal sacrifice on their part,” Coburn said. “So I don’t think it’s impossible for us to cut enough government spending with which we don’t have to raise the debt limit. I think we can do that.”

One thing is certain. We cannot afford to keep doing business as usual. It’s time to cut government spending!

Tags: Economy, National Debt, Debt Ceiling, Tom Coburn, Austan Woolsey, Michele Bachman, Government Spending, Obama, Democrats, Republicans

To share or post to your site, please include the following line
Hat Tip: America, You Asked For It!

Free: Subscribe by email

January 4, 2011 Posted by | Economy | 1 Comment

Foreclosures Up Again, Another Obama Failure

Home foreclosures jump…in spite of all of Barack Obama’s efforts to help homeowners stay in their homes.

Since he took office, Obama has been on something akin to a crusade to keep floundering homeowners in their houses and off the streets. Blaming banks and mortgage brokers for borrowers’ irresponsibility, the President and his big-government, anti-personal-responsibility pals in Congress implemented several programs to allow borrowers who couldn’t make their payments to keep the homes they couldn’t afford. But today we learn that foreclosures spiked yet again in the 3rd quarter of this year.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development‘s (HUD) website promises “Help for the Unemployed”, help for “Homeowners Like You”, and “Help for the Hardest Hit.” The site also offers visitors the opportunity to “Learn About Making Home Affordable.”

Learn About Making Home Affordable

The Obama Administration’s Making Home Affordable Program includes opportunities to modify or refinance your mortgage to make your monthly payments more affordable. It also includes the Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program for homeowners who are interested in a short sale or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure.

On his 2008 presidential campaign website,, Obama promised help for “millions of homeowners who played by the rules can’t meet their mortgage payments and face foreclosure…” The idea that everyone facing foreclosure is some sort of victim in a corrupt system relieves the irresponsible of any personal responsibility.

Though many did play by the rules, the rules involved risks that too many failed to account for. Obama played the victim card for homeowners in trouble and refuses to acknowledge that any investment involves risk that must be accounted for by any responsible investor. Borrowers who bought homes with payments they couldn’t afford were betting the soaring prices would continue and rapid appreciation would cover their deficits. If someone borrowed several hundred thousand dollars and bought shares of a skyrocketing stock, then the stock suddenly crashed, would that investor be labeled a “victim”? The parallels are obvious.

Obama and his henchmen perpetrated this fraud on the American people, promising to right these “wrongs” and claimed their plan “provides direct relief to help America’s homeowners pay their mortgages, stay in their homes, and avoid painful tax increases while protecting taxpayers and not rewarding the bad behavior and bad actors [mortgage brokers and banks] who got us into this mess.” But today’s news proves his naivete.

The simple fact is, while some may have been swindled and actually defrauded when they bought their homes, the vast majority of those who find themselves in trouble are in that position because they made irresponsible decisions. All the President’s programs to help these “victims” of the economic downturn only enabled them to continue to live in houses they couldn’t afford. Failing to address the borrowers’ irresponsibility did nothing to change the behavior that put them in danger of losing their home in the first place.

Last quarter’s foreclosure provide the proof that another of Obama’s victim-making programs has failed ro accomplish its stated goals.

Tags: Obama, Making Home Affordable, HUD, Foreclosure, Mortgage

To share or post to your site, please include the following line
Hat Tip: America, You Asked For It!

Free: Subscribe by email

December 30, 2010 Posted by | Economy | Leave a comment

Proof that prolonged benefits prolong unemployment

That’s the headline that caught my eye on Drudge this morning. I clicked through to the USA Today article almost expecting some new Democrat way of counting that would spin the high rate of Americans without jobs to favor Obama. Instead, the change is no big deal and doesn’t impact the way the unemployed are counted or how the rate is calculated. The change is nothing more than giving interviewers a new box to check off to track the elevated rate of protracted unemployment since Obamanomics burst onto the scene.

Apparently, so many people are staying unemployed for so long, the old forms just aren’t cutting it anymore. Before Obama, Democrat degenerates in Congress, and the RINOs who have joined forces to turn unemployment benefits into a permanent entitlement, folks could only collect a check for a limited time after losing their job. At that point, like it or not, they had to find another job and rejoin the ranks of productive citizens. When that was the case, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) only saw the need to ask respondents if they’d been unemployed for “99 weeks or over.”

But times have changed. Obama, Democrats, and RINOs, on a quest to ever expand the dependent class among the American citizenry, have virtually established the unemployment insurance program as a permanent entitlement. The result, as real conservative commentators, bloggers, and politicians predicted, has been an ever-increasing rate of the terminally unemployed. BLS cites an “unprecedented rise” in long-term unemployment as the reason it will add an option on its form for respondents to admit to being unemployed for “260 weeks or over.”

The chart above shows a doubling of the percentage of long-term unemployed since Obama took office. When Obama forced his big-government agenda on the American people against their will, he pompously proclaimed it would rejuvenate the ailing economy and result in a lower unemployment rate. Though he continues to claim the economy is recovering, this latest change from BLS gives evidence of the real results of his Socialist policies.

The BLS form change offers proof positive that prolonging unemployment benefits prolongs unemployment.

Tags: Economy, Unemployment, Jobs, Compromise, Tax Cuts, RINO, Democrat, Obama, Socialism, Obamanomics

To share or post to your site, please include the following line
Hat Tip: America, You Asked For It!

Free: Subscribe by email

December 28, 2010 Posted by | Economy | 1 Comment

Now 3 years of welfare…er…unemployment benefits?

Today on Facebook I complained in my status about the GOP caving to President Obama on the newest 13 month extension of unemployment benefits in order to get him to agree to a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts. One of my Facebook friends took issue with the thread (others who commented on the thread pretty much agreed with me) and in a private message told me she didn’t think anyone who has a job has a right to comment on the need for unemployment benefits. The following is my response:

We’re certainly going to disagree on this, but I respect your opinion. I just think it’s wrong.

I’m glad your daughter found a job, and I’m sorry your nephew hasn’t. But that doesn’t mean it’s the government’s job to step in and support him or his fellows. (She explained that her daughter spent a year looking and that her nephew and 350 of his union comrades are unable to find work.)

Unemployment benefits were meant to be temporary to allow for a smoother transition between jobs. In the beginning, I believe it was for 13 weeks. The idea was that if in 13 weeks you couldn’t find work to sustain your previous lifestyle, it would then be time to adjust that lifestyle downward to a more affordable one.

I can say that I’ve been unemployed for only 2 weeks in my adult life, and never drew a penny of unemployment insurance. Not because I couldn’t have drawn unemployment at times, but because I took ANY job that was available so I wouldn’t have to. At one time, immediately following that two weeks (which ended when I was able to walk on my broken leg), I took the first job offered me, a minimum wage position as an unarmed security guard. Because of the low wages, I moved into a one bedroom trailer that cost me less than $100/mo, ate pork & beans and bologna, had no airconditioning, and only a second hand black and white television for entertainment.

Having adjusted my lifestyle downward to that level, I believe I am qualified to comment on the extension of unemployment benefits. Because, in my opinion, they keep people from making those necessary adjustments to live within their means. And I’m sorry if we disagree, but your nephew is not living within his means if it takes a government check to subsidize him.

In the years since my bologna and beans existence I’ve served in the Marine Corps, worked as an independent truck-driver, raised chickens and cattle, and now have finally positioned myself to work as a high school teacher. Again, the fact that I’ve done so many jobs that most will never consider taking makes me feel I’ve earned the right to comment on those who sit back and take a government check rather than adjust their lifestyle to a position they CAN find.

The worst part of it all, is what long term unemployment does to the psyche of the recipient. In essence, it makes him little more than the equivalent of a medieval serf at the mercy of the nobleman on whose land he resided. He loses hope of ever finding meaningful work, loses the feeling of satisfaction that comes after a productive day’s work, and loses the incentive to learn and/or try new things.

These arguments are not meant to insult you. Like I said, I respect your opinion. But I do emphatically claim the right to comment on the extension because I have served in faraway desolate lands, I have spent countless hours away from home pushing a truck and trailer up and down the highway, I have breathed in enough chicken dust and wallowed in enough chicken crap to kill lesser men, I’ve been kicked in the head and everywhere else by 1000+ pound cows and bulls, I’ve worked in the cold rain on holidays when others were celebrating with their families, and now I work with high school kids every day.

I’m not complaining about any of it. The Lord has blessed me and I’ve survived it all and kept forging ahead because He gave me the strength, determination, and will to NOT accept handouts when other avenues were available. But in all of these jobs I’ve had, I’ve heard others say “Oh, I could never do that.” The reality is, they didn’t WANT to do that. You do what you have to do, not always what you WANT to do.

Because I’ve never taken a check, I’ve learned to do new things that many have told me they can’t do. Again, until your back’s against the wall, you don’t know what you’re capable of learning. A hungry belly can provide excellent motivation to learn new skills and take new risks. No reward comes without risk, and when your skills are no longer in demand it’s time to learn new ones.

To sum all of this up, I’ll say what I say to my students whenever they tell me they CAN’T do something. I tell them, “Quit telling me what you CAN’T do, and tell me what you CAN do.”

In respectful disagreement,


I didn’t even address the number of people I’ve heard describe how they work under the table so they can continue to draw unemployment, or the people I know who rationalize not taking a job that pays $100 more a week than their unemployment because they’d “only be making $2.50/hr” in a 40 hour week. Anyone who doesn’t believe benefit extensions extend unemployment is stumbling around with blinders on, refusing to see those who exploit the system.

These are the reasons I’m opposed to lifetime unemployment benefits, and make no mistake about it, that’s where we’re headed–LIFETIME unemployment benefits. So for all you RINOs and liberals who disagree, you can believe I’m wrong, but don’t ever try to tell me I haven’t earned the right to comment on the matter.

My Facebook friend deleted me after she sent the message, but that’s okay. She has a right to her opinion, and I most certainly have a right to mine!

Tags: Unemployment, Obama, GOP, Republicans, Conservatism, RINO, Compromise, Extension, Economy, Recession

If you share or post to your site, please include the following line:
Hat Tip: America, You Asked For It!

Free: Subscribe by email

December 7, 2010 Posted by | Conservatism, Economy | 1 Comment

Compromise: An equation for failure

As 2010 winds down, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts loom and long-term unemployment benefits have expired for millions of workers who have come to rely on unemployment benefits as more of a permanent welfare system than temporary unemployment relief. Democrats in Congress want the tax cuts to expire and the unemployment benefits to be extended. Republicans want the tax cuts to become permanent and any extension of unemployment benefits to be offset by spending cuts. A compromise that would temporarily extend the tax cuts and extend the unemployment benefits is in the works.

Such a compromise is an equation for failure. As demonstrated in the recent elections, the American voters now recognize Obamanomics is not the answer. Republicans have the upper hand after their sweeping victories last month. The American people essentially demanded the extension of the tax cuts at the ballot box. But Republicans seem incapable of voicing a true conservative position on the unemployment issue–Democrats’ transition of the unemployment insurance program from temporary assistance to permanent welfare keeps people unemployed!

Last week the Labor Department released November unemployment figures. Incredibly, for the month retailers stock up on new hires to handle the surge of shoppers in the Christmas season, the unemployment rate climbed from 9.6% to 9.8%. Late last month, the Federal Reserve Board predicted high unemployment through the end of 2012. They expect the rate to fall to 9% by the end of next year and remain above 8% at least until the end of 2012. The simple fact is…


The unemployment insurance program began as a temporary benefit to minimize disruptions as a worker transitions from one job to the next. In most states, unemployed workers initially qualify for 26 weeks of unemployment benefits. That gives a worker 6 months to find a job–hopefully one on par with the one previously held. But the system is designed so that, if a laid-off worker can’t find a similar job in that 6 months, he’ll have to take a lesser job after the benefits expire. He may be required to move to a smaller home, drive a lesser car, and start buying off-brand groceries, but he’ll have to find a job.

But Democrats want unemployed workers to keep getting their checks and remain dependent on the US government. Democrats want people grabbing at their skirts, begging for the scraps Congress drops from its table. The last thing Democrats want is for those people to be forced out of the house, off the couch, and into a job…any job! That would mean the people would become independent, they would stop identifying themselves as victims and begin to grasp the reality that their future lies in their hands. They would seize opportunity instead of wondering what taking advantage would mean for their check.

And Republicans aren’t making the case that extending unemployment benefits is a bad deal. It’s almost as if they are afraid to make the conservative argument, even in light of the sweeping victory in last month’s elections.

Starting in July 2008, Congress has already extended unemployment benefits 4 times during this recession. Laid-off workers currently qualify for up to 99 weeks–almost 2 years–of unemployment checks if they don’t find a job. Each of those extensions came from a Congress dominated by a heavy Democrat majority, but President Bush did sign the first couple of extensions.

But now, after their historic victory, the GOP is offering to cave to Democrats on the next unemployment extension. They have offered to compromise. If Democrats agree to the Bush tax cut extension, Republicans will support the extension of unemployment benefits.

Sorry, there are times when compromise is not a bad thing. But when the compromise means keeping Americans on the dole, continuing to make them dependents of the federal government, damping their will to become independent, keeping them counter-productive in society, encouraging them to view themselves as victims, and keeping the unemployment rate high via government subsidy, this compromise is wrong.

To further extend the unemployment benefits (in one bill to three years) only works to keep people unemployed, extending high unemployment rates. The proposed compromise is an equation for failure.

Tags: Unemployment, Democrats, Republicans, Compromise, Tax Cuts, Taxes, Bush Tax Cuts, Economy

If you share or post to your site, please include the following line:
Hat Tip: America, You Asked For It!

Free: Subscribe by email

December 5, 2010 Posted by | Economy | 2 Comments

White House to push ACORN pet project

Critics warn plan will ‘sneak socialism’ into U.S., cause major economic loss

by Aaron Klein at World Net Daily

The White House is considering a new policy that would give an advantage in bids for billions in government contracts to companies that pay workers “living wages” and offer generous benefits.

WND has learned the “living wage” campaign has long been pushed by the radical Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, and was largely initiated on a local level in the 1990s with the help of a socialist party of which evidence suggests Barack Obama was a member.

Critics warn a living wage advantage for more than $500 billion in government contracts could harm small companies, with case studies showing cities that enacted similar policies in the 1990s faced major financial losses. Business groups who oppose the plan say also it would increase government procurement costs.

The Associated Press obtained documents outlining the White House plan. The documents reportedly show the government would examine the wages and benefits – such as health insurance, retirement benefits and paid leave – a firm pays its employees as a factor in the process of awarding government contracts. Another factor would be whether a contract bidder is a repeat violator of labor and employment laws.

A Labor Department compliance office would compile a score on contract bidders based on the criteria and then determine which companies would get government contracts.

Writing about a similar policy that was being considered in Chicago in 2003, Steven Malanga of the City Journal stated the movement “sneaks socialism into cities.”


March 1, 2010 Posted by | Economy, Socialism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama Policies Put Record Number of Americans on Gov’t Dole

by Patrice Hill at

The so-called “Great Recession” has left Americans depending on the government dole like never before.

Without record levels of welfare, unemployment and other government benefits as well as tax cuts last year, the income of U.S. households would have plunged by an astonishing $723 billion — more than four times the record $167 billion drop reported last month by the Commerce Department.

Moreover, for the first time since the Great Depression, Americans took more aid from the government than they paid in taxes.

The figures show the devastating results of the massive job losses last year and indicate that the economic recovery that began last summer is tenuous and has a long way to go before many Americans resume life as normal, analysts said.

Economic growth typically depends on consumer spending, which is fed by wages, rents, interest and other forms of income. But the tentative revival of consumer spending in the second half of last year appears to have been fed largely by an extraordinary flood of government spending, as growth in other kinds of income has disappeared.

“Governmental support was critical in keeping the economy, particularly consumer spending, from completely collapsing during the crisis,” said Harm Bandholz, an economist at Unicredit Markets. He said he is concerned that so much of the economic rebound is a result of government spending rather than a revival of private income and jobs. That situation is unsustainable, he said, because the government has had to borrow massively to prop up the economy and cannot continue that binge for long.


March 1, 2010 Posted by | Economy | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

I’ve Got Your Deficit Commission Right Here!

by Joseph C. Phillips at

Even as a bloodbath looms in the November distance, the Obama administration continues to push healthcare because they know that Americans love their entitlements like winos love wine. They are betting the farm that once that fiery warmth begins running through the National body we will not only love national health care, but will fight to defend it. We will also be too glassy eyed to notice that we have suddenly signed away our liberty, becoming slaves to those that serve us. But I digress.

Like wine, entitlements cost money. Sadly the more addicted we become the less money we have to spend on more important and often essential things. The wino lacks food, housing and clothing; the entitlement addict lacks employment, savings and luxury.

Consider that today our national debt stands at roughly $12 trillion or roughly 70% of our gross domestic product or GDP. But wait. We have promised today’s workers Social Security and Medicare benefits totaling another $41 trillion. Toss in another trillion for miscellaneous expenses, and suddenly our debt skyrockets to $54 trillion. In layman’s terms it means in order to pay our future obligations we would need $54 trillion dollars invested today. How much of that money does this nation have sitting around? Zip! Zero! Zilch!


February 22, 2010 Posted by | Economy | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tea Party Power to Solve the Debt Problem

by Larry Kudlow at

The New York Times ran a front-page story this week called “Party Gridlock in Washington Feeds New Fear of a Debt Crisis.” As usual, they got it wrong. Instead, the headline should have read, “After Scott Brown’s Astonishing Senate Win in Massachusetts, New Political Gridlock in Washington Could Spell the End of the Liberal Crack-Up We Have Witnessed over the Past Year.”

In fact, gridlock in Washington is good, since it will stop the assault of big government until the end of the year when Congress could be overturned by independents, tea partiers, Republicans, and probably some Democrats as well. Just take a look at the high spirits at the CPAC convention, where tea partiers are reinvigorating conservatives and Republicans.

So let’s take this momentum forward by using it to drain any remaining power from the extravagant spending-and-borrowing assault in Democratic Washington. And let’s especially use this tea-party power to stop Democratic plans for another round of broad-based tax increases.

Take, for example, Obama’s new deficit commission. It’s a bad idea. This commission is a fig leaf to cover up President Obama’s out-of-control budget. It’s a Trojan horse for tax hikes, especially a VAT that would engulf the middle class with up to a 15 percent tax rate on the sale of goods and services. Obama is getting ready to move his lips on the pledge not to raise middle-class taxes. Congressional Republicans must not let him do this.

Here’s the real problem: The Obama budget would take federal spending as a fraction of the economy to 25 percent, roughly a $1 trillion additional spending increase in the out-years. Publicly held federal debt would climb about $18.5 trillion by 2020, more than double what Mr. Obama inherited, rising to almost 80 percent of the economy.

Rather than tax hikes, I say stop the spending. Outside of defense and entitlements, why not roll back the discretionary budget to 2008?


February 20, 2010 Posted by | Economy | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment