Note to White House: Have the President read his predecessors:
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. - George Washington
Avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen which we ourselves ought to bear
It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it. - George Washington
Ninety-nine percent of the failures come from people who have the habit of making excuses. - George Washington
That some achieve great success, is proof to all that others can achieve it as well. - Abraham Lincoln
I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men's rights. - Abraham Lincoln
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. - Abraham Lincoln
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. - Abraham Lincoln
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. - Abraham Lincoln
Obama Administration Taking Credit for Iraq?
On the Feb. 10 edition of CNN's Larry King Live, Vice President Joe Biden had this astonishing thing to say:
I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration.Let's be very clear about this: Senators Joe Biden and Barack Obama OPPOSED the surge counterinsurgency strategy from the get-go. What exactly has Obama done, other than operate within the general framework set up by the Bush Administration? The latter developed and implemented an effective counterinsurgency strategy which has largely stabilized Iraq, not Obama. They negotiated an exit schedule, not Obama. For Iraq to be an Obama "achievement" means that Obama did something proactively and materially significant. Is this the true meaning of the "audacity of hope"? That Obama hopes that citizens forget that he opposed the very strategy that has made a difference and now wants to claim the fruits of that strategy as his own?
Obama's opposition to the liberation of Iraq from the start was a principal talking point during the race for the Democratic nomination, but he made only one visit to Iraq before clinching the nomination (a 2006 trip when he announced the impossibility of a military resolution) and his contacts with General Petraeus were minimal and focused on withdrawal conditions.
In fact, Bush and McCain led a very unpopular fight with a coalition of fellow Republicans and centrist Democrats (because Democrats were in control of both houses of Congress) to get funding for surge operations, over the active opposition of all Democratic Presidential candidates, including Obama and Clinton. Bush also negotiated the existing withdrawal framework.
Any unbiased review would show that Obama and his fellow progressives fought against implementation of an ultimately successful military operation and were in a state of denial for months after casualties dramatically decreased, instead shifting to unresolved political issues in Iraq. Obama, to his credit, has worked within the Bush framework, but he failed to support the politically difficult part of the surge, especially during an initial uptick in American casualties. As for Biden, he wanted to break Iraq into three mini-states, a solution that even Iraqis themselves rejected.
I have my own criticisms of Bush, particularly on the decision to invade (given his campaign vow not to nation-build like Clinton) and post-invasion administrative failures, undermanned troop levels for the occupation and the failure to change management of the war sooner. However, once the decision was made, I think you had a moral obligation to stabilize the situation. I give Bush credit for pulling the plug on a strategy that wasn't working in late 2006, and I think that the Democrats, given their electoral gains in 2006, overplayed their hand. For them to co-opt something they never supported is shameful.
Filibusters and the "Party of 'No'"
The Democrats have asserted that the GOP is unprecedented in its exercise of the filibuster and hence are "obstructionists". Now SERIOUSLY, let's think about this: why would the Republicans react with nearly unanimous votes consistently on bills if they were sound, good policy? We already have the answer to that when Majority Leader Reid had to make political deals to keep more centrist Democrats to override the filibuster on advancing the health care bill, when not a single substantive GOP policy idea made it into bills, with routine party line votes swatting down Republican amendments? Not to mention Reid's decision to take over a compromise jobs bill, strip it of Democratic concessions, and then rig the process so only Democrats could offer subsequent amendments?
The hypocrisy is palpable. I saw one conservative blogger quote Nobel Prize columnist Paul "Mr. Enron Consultant" Krugman in 2005 screaming against a proposed change in Senate rules threatened by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, due to Democrats' unprecedented use of the filibuster to consistently prevent a floor vote on well-qualified judicial nominees, and now screaming against the filibuster as it impedes ramming progressive bills down the nation's throat.
However, since the Democrats need 67 votes to change Senate rules, there is no way that the 41 Republicans will agree to its last remaining instrument to force the Democrats to negotiate, to stop the imposition of an almost irreversible, predominantly ideological tax, spend, and regulate agenda.
Pay-As-You-Go? Don't Get Me Started...
It is absolutely remarkable to me that the same Democratic Party, which rammed through the first trillion dollar-plus deficit in American history, almost tripling the previous record, with an anticipated string of future trillion dollar deficits, is looking to lock in its steep spending increases for 2009.
On paper it sounds great: you can only pay for new legislation programs by finding other areas to cut. But keep in mind in the mindset of DC, a cut often translates into little more than cutting the expected INCREASE in another area.
Why would Republicans or other fiscal conservatives object? Well, three primary reasons immediately come into mind. First of all, as Rep. Mike Pence (IN-R) pointed out, the Democrats have a heavily nuanced version of PAYGO:
The American people looking in ought not to be deceived by the promises of fiscal discipline known as ‘PAYGO.' And the truth is, the bill before us today is 58 pages long and 32 of those pages are all the programs that are exempted from the PAYGO requirements. Forty percent of federal spending is exempted from the fiscal discipline fix that we're being told is encompassed in PAYGO.Second, it's a back door approach to tax increases:
The truth is, PAYGO really means here in Washington: you pay [higher taxes] and they go on spending.What makes Pence believe that the Democrats are setting the inevitable stage for tax increases?
Since Democrats took control of Congress in January, 2007, the national debt had increased by $3.96 trillion, a 42 percent increase in three years. To keep up with this spending binge, Congress has increased the debt limit five times over the last 19 months. Three times since the current administration took office one year ago. And the statutory debt increase that comes before us today, $1.9 trillion, is the largest one-time debt increase in U.S. history [larger than the entire GDP of almost every country in the world. It's larger than the GDP of Canada, Russia, Spain, or Brazil. And it's larger than the GDP of Australia and Poland combined.].Third, it's the wrong criterion, because it's relative and operates at the margins of the budget. There is no natural incentive to consider, for example, the deployment of destructive technologies which might raise worker productivity, allowing for radical downsizing of the federal work force, or streamlining government operations into smaller, administratively flatter, more manageable areas, eliminating manpower redundancies, superfluous government facilities, etc. When we are looking at federal expenditures amounting to 40-odd percent of GDP, which is historically high, it's not enough to simply balance out expenditures. What we need is to set a goal of reducing the percentage of federal expenditures relative to the GDP to historical norms and to live within our means. If families and state/local governments have to live within their budget, so must the federal government. If that means reducing our federal workforce, shutting down offices, reducing morally-hazardous government subsidies, scaling back our international obligations, so be it.
Don't get me wrong--PAYGO is an improvement over what happened last year. But as a matter of actual fiscal discipline, it is a paper tiger, and Republicans must expose the political spin and lip service of the progressive national Democrat leadership for what it is: window-dressing, not the fundamental fiscal reform that the American people deserve and expect.
Political Cartoon
Michael Ramirez of IBD tweaks the facts not only do Obama and his Democratic crony legislators cynically bash Bush for his deficits (e.g., criticize an unfunded mandate for Medicare prescription drugs, but fail to promote they pushed for a much more expensive alternative program), but they fail to adequately justify their own record-setting deficits.
Musical Interlude: Country Female Vocalists
Loretta Lynn, "Coal Miner's Daughter"
Tammy Wynette, "Stand By Your Man"
Anne Murray, "Danny's Song"
