You know I’ve been reading all the opinions being tossed around about that statement by Limbaugh, and I’ve thought about it for a while, and I just can’t find anything wrong with it.
Here’s a confession: I’d be lying out of my 3rd point of contact if I said I wanted him to succeed. That’s because “success” would mean the subversion of everything I find important into something I loathe. It would mean the supplanting of free market and capitalistic economic mechanisms with those designed by government. It would mean sanctioning and approving govenment driven market distortions. It would mean approving government picking economic winners and losers. It would mean agreeing that it is the job of government to provide health care, welfare, and retirement. And on and on we go.
So I’d be absolutely full of it if I said, with a smile, “of course I want Mr. Obama to succeed, he’s our President and no patriotic American wants to see a President fail”.
Well, except those patriotic Americans of the left during the last 8 years.
But you know, that doesn’t count. 8 years of claiming to be “in the darkness”, governed by “a loser” and an “incompetent” who was taking us down the road to “totalitarianism” and who had to be stopped wasn’t at all the same as Rush Limbaugh stating he wants Obama to fail.
That was then, this is now. Then it was patriotic dissent. Now it’s an unspeakable outrage.
Well, let me go on record here, not that it counts for much. It’s nothing personal toward Mr. Obama. He’s a nice enough guy for someone who I think has an agenda which will destroy this country and the institutions which have made us the most prosperous and powerful nation in the world. So it’s not personal. It’s political.
It’s about what he represents politically. It’s about his political agenda. And since he’s the driving force behind his political agenda it’s rather hard to separate the man from the movement, wouldn’t you say? I guess I could be real cagey about it and say, “of course I want to see Mr. Obama succeed, but I want his agenda to fail”.
Makes no sense does it?
Nor does saying, “this has nothing to do with Obama, it’s about the agenda, and I want it to fail”. That’s as false as any other statement which tries to separate Obama from his agenda. And that bears saying again – it’s “his agenda”. If Iraq was “Bush’s war”, this spending monstrosity and the plans that go with it are “Obama’s agenda”, aren’t they?
Well, unsurprisingly, I want that agenda to fail.
If you want to interpret that to mean I want Obama to fail, so be it – that’s up to you.
But don’t even try to pretend that this is something new or unique to the right after the last 8 years. And for the record, I wanted much of Bush’s agenda to fail as well – Medicare Part D, NCLB, etc.
So save your self-righteous hypocrisy about Limbaugh’s desire to see Obama fail for someone who cares. To be perfectly clear, I want to see the Obama agenda to go down in flames too. If that happens to take Obama with it – oh well.
Two major points about the budget plan the Obama administration has out there (from the Heritage Foundation):
Spending: Obama’s budget proposes $1.13 trillion in regular discretionary spending for 2010. This is a full 12% increase over the 2009 spending baseline. On top of this the Obama budget increases entitlement spending by another $700 billion. The proposed post-recession spending level of 22% of GDP has been exceeded only 8 times in the post-war era. And these numbers do not include the spending priorities of the unchecked far left in Congress.
The Chicago Tribune reports today “President Barack Obama will break a campaign pledge against congressional earmarks and sign a budget bill laden with millions in lawmakers’ pet projects … Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, identified almost 8,600 earmarks totaling $7.7 billion.”
Deficits: The Obama budget claims to cut the deficit in half by 2012, but relies on audaciously optimistic economic forecasts that no one believes in. Adding the “stimulus” bill to a realistic budget baseline yields a projected 2010-2017 cumulative budget deficit of $8.4 trillion – 2.5 times the size of President Bush’s deficits over the same 8-year time period. Before the recession, revenues were 18 percent of GDP and spending was 20 percent. After the recession, President Obama would maintain revenues at 19 percent of GDP, and spending at 22 percent. In other words, all new tax revenues would finance new spending, rather than deficit reduction. President Obama’s structural budget deficit would exceed President Bush’s.
So you have, in the time of economic contraction and massive deficit, a 12% increase over the 2009 spending baseline in discretionary spending. 12%. And entitlement increase of $700 billion. In an 8 year time period (should he be re-elected in 2012) Obama plans to add 8.4 trillion to the debt – a full 2.5 times larger than the huge debt George Bush added. This is a phenomenal and eventually crippling level of borrowing and spending. There is no end in sight. Where the Bush administration spent 2% above the revenue, even with an increase in revenue from increased taxation, the Obama administration plans on maintaining a 3% spending gap of revenue/spending.
Untenable, unsustainable and ultimately, utterly destructive to a market economy.
A billion dollars of your tax dollars is on its way to Palestine, 300 million of it earmarked for the Gaza Strip where Hamas still rules:
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday will pledge about $300 million in U.S. humanitarian aid for the war-torn Gaza Strip, plus about $600 million in assistance to the Palestinian Authority, a U.S. official said Sunday.
State Department spokesman Robert A. Wood told reporters traveling with Clinton Sunday that she would announce the donations at an international pledging conference at this Red Sea resort. The conference is seeking money for Gaza and the Palestinian economy.
So thanks to your generosity, Hamas doesn’t have to ante up $300 million to support its own people. Yes, your subsidy will allow them to instead purchase some new munitions and rockets with which to attack Israel.
This is the same Secretary of State who recently was peddling our debt bonds to the Chinese, ostensibly so we could borrow more money to, what, fund Hama’s war on Israel?
Isn’t life ironic?
This is “change” (with the appropriate hat tip to the Obama administration) I can support:
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is sending strong signals that President Obama – who as a candidate said states should be allowed to make their own rules on medical marijuana – will end raids on pot dispensaries in California.
Radley Balko says:
It’ll be interesting to see if this tiny bit of federalism will hold should some states or cities decriminalize or even legalize marijuana entirely.
That’s the true test. While what Holder is saying is encouraging, the proof will be how the feds react to the types of moves Balko notes above. If the states are going to truly be left to make their own rules, that will be the test.
After the federal Drug Enforcement Agency raided a marijuana dispensary at South Lake Tahoe on Jan. 22, two days after Obama’s inauguration, and four others in the Los Angeles area on Feb. 2, White House spokesman Nick Schapiro responded to advocacy groups’ protests by noting that Obama had not yet appointed his drug policy team.
“The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws” and expects his appointees to follow that policy, Schapiro said.
We’ll see if this precedent (and policy) is confined to things like MJ laws or will be extended to such things as school vouchers and the like.
That’s pretty much all that President Obama is left with when it comes to Iraq:
President Obama declared Friday that the United States has now “begun the work of ending this war” in Iraq as he announced the withdrawal of most American forces by the summer of next year while leaving behind as many as 50,000 troops for more limited missions.
Nearly six years after American troops crossed the border into Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein, Mr. Obama said “renewed cause for hope” produced by improved security would allow Americans to begin disentangling militarily and turn the country over to the Iraqis themselves.
“Let me say this as plainly as I can,” the president told thousands of Marines stationed here. “By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.”
Sound a bit like “major combat operations have ended?”. Of course it does. He’s imposing a semantic marker here in an effort to declare he is fulfilling his campaign promise.
Of course, he’s not. In fact, it’s not even close.
Very carefully he’s declared “combat operations” to be complete by that date. In fact they’ve been complete for a while. But he’s not declaring our presence in Iraq is over, which was the crux of his campaign promise.
His word salad hasn’t fooled Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid:
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, who complained Thursday that a 50,000-member residual force was too big, put out a more tempered statement Friday, calling Mr. Obama’s plan “sound and measured,” while adding that he still wants to keep “only those forces necessary for the security of our remaining troops and the Iraqi people.”
A person briefed on the closed-door White House briefing for Congressional leaders said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House speaker, was particularly upset about the residual force. She kicked off the public criticism on Wednesday by saying she did not understand “the justification” for 50,000 troops staying.
The justification, of course, is “reality”, a concept the “reality based community” has difficulty with at times. As with many of the decisions Obama has made, it was an attempt to please everyone all while spinning it as something it isn’t . In this case I’m fine with that.
But let’s call it what it is.
In fact, with the residual force in Iraq through 2011, Mr. Obama has agreed to Mr. Bush’s withdrawal plan while pretending he hasn’t.
A lot of high-fives on the left concerning a portion of the budget dealing with energy. The Center For American Progress, in a post entitled “Energy Budget Is Sunlight After Eight Years of Darkness” says:
The most significant energy proposal in this budget is the inclusion of revenue in 2012 from the auction of all greenhouse gas emission allowances to major polluters under a cap-and-trade system. The budget assumes that this program will raise $646 billion between 2012 and 2019. Some of these funds would create jobs via a $120 billion investment in clean energy technologies over the same period. The auction revenue would pay for a “global warming tax cut” for working families with $526 billion. It would fund Making Work Pay, which provides a refundable income-tax credit for low-income working families. Any remaining funds would go to other families and businesses to offset higher energy prices.
In other words, CAP believes that adding huge additional costs onto the already high cost of producing goods, services and energy will “create jobs” to offset those lost apparently. And the money collected will be redistributed to make things fair.
As so-called members of the “reality based community”, you have to wonder if they’ve ever bothered taking off the rose colored glasses and glanced around the real world.
Alan Wood in Australia asks:
CAN the Senate save Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong from their global warming folly? It can, and it might, if it rejects the Government’s attempts to prematurely lock Australia into a flawed carbon trading scheme. Ask yourself, do you believe that the worst global recession since the Depression, with job losses accelerating, is the time for Australia to introduce a carbon trading scheme that will squeeze growth, jobs and investment? Business certainly doesn’t.
Is there anyone in the Congress who can do the same for Barack Obama? Probably not. Do they understand that the carbon trading schemes in place around the world are literally melting down? Again, probably not.
And jobs? Well right here at home we can learn from the impact of the draconian regulations and resultant costs imposed on industry by such schemes and what that means. California, as usual, provides the case study:
California regulators Thursday adopted the world’s first mandatory measures to control highly potent greenhouse gases emitted by the computer manufacturing industry. “The financial impact is going to be severe,” Gus Ballis, a spokesman for chip maker NEC Electronics America Inc., a subsidiary of NEC Electronics Corp. in Japan, told the board. Ballis warned, “We’re potentially on the chopping block — whether they are going to keep us or pull our production back to Japan.”
The painful loss of 1850 jobs at Pacific Brands in NSW, Victoria and Queensland is more than a byproduct of the global recession. The main reason for shifting to China, chief executive Sue Morphet said on Wednesday, is that manufacturing in Australia “is no longer a competitive advantage” to the company. The Prime Minister owes it to businesses large and small, as well as to Labor’s core constituency, workers, to re-evaluate the impact on employment of his emissions trading scheme, especially in mining, where Australia has such a strong comparative advantage.
The German biofuels industry is facing bankruptcy according to their industry association, despite millions of state-sponsored subsidies in recent years. “It is five to twelve, but few politicians understand,” said the chairman of the Association of German Biofuel Industry (VDB), Kurt Stoffel. “The biodiesel market for trucks has come to a complete halt,” said Stoffel.
Britain said on Thursday it backed the building of new coal plants and would make a decision soon on whether these must have expensive, climate-friendly technologies fitted called carbon capture and storage (CCS). “We will need new fossil fuel plants including coal if we are going to maintain diversity in energy mix and energy security….”,
Yet here we are getting ready to implement a scheme that is already seen to be worsening the economic conditions around the world (and being abandoned by those realing the losses). Unsurprisingly our implementation would most likely occur just as we are beginning to see an end to the recession.
The administration certainly seems to be aware of the cost of such legislation but still plans on pursuing it:
Steven Chu, President Barack Obama’s new Secretary of Energy, told The New York Times earlier this month that reaching agreement on emissions trading legislation would be difficult in the present recession because any scheme to regulate greenhouse gas emissions would probably cause energy prices to rise and drive manufacturing jobs to countries where energy was cheaper.
Yet, with blinders fully in place, and giddy at the prospect of sticking it to evil corporations while redistributing their ill-gotten gains, the left applauds a plan which will cripple our economy for decades to come.
If ever there were budget proposals poised to send us into darkness, it is this plan put forward by the Obama administration.
In the Washington Post, David Broder ends his op-ed with:
When we elected Obama, we didn’t know what a gambler we were getting.
Is he kidding? Certainly for most of the campaign, we didn’t have the fiscal calamity hanging over our heads, but if Broder thinks that anything that has come out of the Obama administration to this point is a surprise or represents a gamble, I have to wonder what he actually expected.
Obama signalled everything he’s been doing and planed to do for two years, for heaven sake. Where was Broder during all of that? This isn’t a “gamble”, it’s an agenda.
Health care? Check. Tax increases on the rich? Check. Education “reform”? Check. Green tech/cap-and-trade? Check. Infrastructure “investment” (the fiscal mess just gave him the appropriate excuse for huge deficit spending)? Check. Gitmo, Iraq and A’stan? Check, check, check.
The fact that the Obama administration is moving on all fronts at once is ambitious, no question, but surprising or a gamble? Well only to those who somehow missed what he was saying and projected onto the “hope and change” mantra what they expected instead.
Seems Broder, and much of the MSM, can raise their hands and nod yes to that.
Eric Holder talked about reviving the assault gun ban. But he’s meeting opposition from unexpected quarters.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will join Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the Obama administration.
Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the Nevada Democrat will preserve his traditional pro-gun rights voting record.
“Senator Reid would oppose an effort (to) reinstate the ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future,” Manley told The Hill in an e-mail late Thursday night.
There’s a pretty political explanation for the opposition.
A) gun bills are always losers for Democrats. It seems that Pelosi and Reid have finally figured out (at least in this case) that it is rather stupid to hand your opposition ammo (no pun intended).
B) unpopular legislation like this wastes time and goodwill. They have a much more ambitious plan to sell us down the river than piddling stuff like this, and they don’t want to be distracted by something that will be virtually ineffective the second it is signed into law (but put the pro-gun lobby front and center for a while).
A number of House Democrats lost their seats after being targeted by the National Rifle Association for voting for the 1994 ban.
And finally, it is a way to make sure the Obama administration knows that it is Congress they must coordinate these things with before they go shooting their mouths off. Eric Holder said, without such coordination, that he planned on trying to reinstate the assault weapons ban. Pelosi and Reid used the opportunity to send a message.
That said, be aware that Holder certainly appears to have an anti-gun agenda, or, at least, so it seems.
Barack Obama is about to submit his first budget to Congress.
Finally, because we’re also suffering from a deficit of trust, I am committed to restoring a sense of honesty and accountability to our budget. – President Barack Obama to a joint session of Congress, Feb 24, 2009
That’s the promise. The reality, as the Washington Post observes, isn’t quite in keeping with the promise:
President Obama’s spending plan is built on the assumption that lawmakers can resolve some hugely contentious issues — and it relies on a few well-worn budget tricks.
The tricks? The usual stuff – calling something what it isn’t and inflating future spending numbers to make the future real numbers appear to be “savings”. For instance:
And though Obama told Congress on Tuesday that his budget team has “already identified $2 trillion in savings” to help tame record budget deficits, about half of those “savings” are actually tax increases, administration officials said. A big chunk of the rest of the savings comes from measuring Obama’s plans against an unrealistic scenario in which the Iraq war continues to suck up $170 billion a year forever.
The tax increases, of course, include an increase in taxes on the top 2%. And further savings are based on pretending that the Bush administration planned on spending $170 billion (seems like a small number when compared to the numbers being thrown around these days, doesn’t it?) beyond 2011 when it planned on pulling the bulk of the troops out of the country.
“It’s a hollow number,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), the senior Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, who recently withdrew as Obama’s nominee to head the Commerce Department. “You’re not getting savings if you’re assuming spending that isn’t actually going to occur.”
What accounts for the other major source of income?
But to pay for it, the president counts on a big infusion of cash from a politically controversial cap-and-trade system, which would force companies to buy allowances to exceed pollution limits.
The promise that energy costs are going to skyrocket seems one promise he’s bent on keeping. That of course will require more spending to offset the consequences (but don’t figure on being in on the subsidy, you probably won’t qualify). And then there’s the redistributionist “spread the wealth” bonus to be realized from cap-and-trade:
Obama also wants to use the money to cover the cost of extending his signature Making Work Pay tax credit, worth up to $800 a year for working families. That credit, which will cost $66 billion next year, was enacted in the stimulus package, but is set to expire at the end of 2010.
Cover the cost is a way of saying, making the program permanent.
Then there’s the deficit promise. Obama has set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by the end of his first term. As observers say, there’s absolutely nothing difficult about reaching that goal:
This year’s budget deficit is bloated by spending on the stimulus package and various financial-sector bailouts, expenses unlikely to be repeated in future years. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently predicted that the deficit could be halved by 2013 merely by winding down the war in Iraq and allowing some of the tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration to expire in 2011, as Obama has proposed. That alone would cut the deficit to $715 billion, according to the CBO.
Notice that final number, folks. That’s “half” of the deficit. In other words he’s going to be running a deficit north of $700 billion dollars and trying to convince you how well he’s done. In fact, all he’ll have done is add several trillions to the debt with several trillions more to come if reelected.
The era of big deficit financed government isn’t just back, it’s back on steroids sitting in a rocket sled pointed at economic hell.
The Washington Post tells us:
President Obama is proposing to begin a vast expansion of the U.S. health-care system by creating a $634 billion reserve fund over the next decade, launching an overhaul that most experts project will ultimately cost at least $1 trillion.
I put those words in bold so you would understand that even the WaPo considers his plan to be “a vast expansion”.
Now, a question for you – when is the last time you remember “experts” who projected anything to do with the cost of a government program coming anywhere close to the ultimate cost? Or overestimating the cost?
So what can we really expect the true “ultimate” cost to be? Well if history is any guide somewhere around 2 to 3 times what they’re “projecting.”
And how will he pay for this? Why the same way Medicare has – by shifting costs to patients with private insurance and letting them pick up the slack:
Obama aims to make a “very substantial down payment” toward universal coverage by trimming tax breaks for the wealthy[tax increases - ed.] and squeezing payments to insurers, hospitals, doctors and drug manufacturers, a senior administration official said yesterday.
Of course, understand that when the cost of your private health insurance benefit goes up because of all the “squeezing” (i.e. cost shifting) going on, your company will either cut benefits, raise your insurance premium or both. And you shouldn’t at all be surprised that if given the option of dropping health care insurance for a government run system or continuing to pay through the nose for a private one, your company takes the first option. That is also part of this plan, although unstated.