Your bill: $546,668 government debt per household

According to an analysis by USA Today, American taxpayers “are on the hook for an extra $55,000 a household to cover rising federal commitments made just in the past year for retirement benefits, the national debt and other government promises.” Federal obligations now stand at a record $546,668 per household, quadruple what the average U.S. household owes for all mortgages, car loans, credit cards and other debt combined.

This debt is composed of medicare obligations, social security, Federal borrowing, civil service retirement obligations, military pensions, and miscellaneous other debts. And, we are not through adding to this debt load. With national health care in the works and continueing massive government spending, the debt burden will only grow. More and more tax receipts will have to go just to pay the interest on the debt.

Does anyone really think that we can grow the economy sufficiently to pay off this debt? Government borrowing will freeze out private investment and with anti-growth policies like cap and trade being anticipated and with greater government involvement in the economy, I do not look for vigorous economic growth to pull us out of this hole. We are much like a household that is borrowing on the credit card to pay the electric bill and each month we must borrow more just to keep the lights on. The difference is that in a household, eventually the credit card will max out. Unlike a household, government can print money. The only way we can pay our debts is with cheaper dollars. Does anyone doubt that massive inflation is not in our future?

Top Stories

Is Obama following the George W Bush foreign policy?

While I have been extremely disappointed in Obama's economic policies, I have, so far, been pleased by much of his management of foreign affairs. Candidate Obama never presented himself as the most pacifist and isolationist of the Democratic field of candidates. He was much more centrist than Dennis Kucinich or Bill Richardson, yet he was very critical of the Bush administration’s foreign policy and promised a change. We have seen some real change and some superficial change and much of the same.

Some Republicans have criticized Obama’s recent making nice with Hugo Chavez. I don't. Reagan made nice with Gorbachev. Nixon made nice with Mao. FDR made nice with Joseph Stalin. There is nothing wrong with being diplomatic and friendly with your enemies. It may be beneficial to be on a first name basis with the bastards. Sometimes if is even necessary to ally ourselves with the most ruthless and despicable of people, as was the case in World War II. I am not so sure that Hitler was a lot worse than Joseph Stalin, but Germany was a threat and Russia was our ally and FDR had to make nice with Joseph Stalin. While Chavez may be irritating tin-horn dictator, he is hardly a Mao or Stalin.

Obama has also been criticized for changing our policy toward Cuba. Again, I think he is pursuing the correct policy and that our isolation of Cuba has been a mistake. I am glad to see us move toward normalization with that nation.

I am pleased that we are escalating the war in Afghanistan. I think Bush made a big mistake in going to go to war in Iraq and failing to pursue victory in Afghanistan. We cannot allow the Taliban to reestablish their rule in that country. I am pleased that we are pressuring and prevailing in persuading Pakistan to take a more aggressive role in suppressing the Taliban in that country. I am pleased that Obama has only tweaked the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and seems committed to exiting that conflict in an orderly fashion that will preserve the peace and stability and leave behind a sizable American presence. .

In the war on terror, which we no long call the “War on Terror,” Obama is essentially continuing the Bush policies. While Obama uses less bellicose language and does not have the cowboy swagger that irritated so many, there is very little to distinguish Obama from Bush. He sounds more moderate but his policies are the same. It was Teddy Roosevelt who said “talk softly and carry a big stick.” I am not displeased with the more moderate tone. I have mixed feelings about the continuation of some of Bush policies.

When Bush was president and prominent national conservatives formed the American Freedom Agenda, I cheered. I was concerned that the Federal Government was amassing unchecked power. I did not approve of the government claiming the authority for warrantless searches of Internet communications. I do not approve of torture. I did not approve of special rendition. I thought George W. Bush was exceeding his constitutional authority.

Many of the same policies that were continued or initiated by Bush are being continued under Obama. Special rendition is a policy that started in peace time under Bill Clinton. It is the practice of kidnapping suspected enemies and turning them over to other countries where they can be tortured. We are speaking of real torture not a gray area that may or may not constitute torture. By letting a third country do the dirty work we can claim to have clean hands and not have engaged in torture ourselves. George Bush expanded the rendition policy and Obama has not ended the practice.
.
One Obama proposal that should concern all civil libertarians is the Cyber-security Act of 2009, which is essentially the same as Bush’s Total Information Awareness but under a new name. It would grant the government authority to monitor and mine Internet traffic for patterns that indicate links to terrorist activity. My concern is that such authority will be misused. This seems to violate the constitutions prohibition against an unreasonalble search. The same people that were outraged about Total Awareness are very quite about Cyber Security.

Obama was very critical of the bush administration policy regarding prisoners held at Guantanamo. I do not think the issue of what to do with irregular forces captured on the field of battle is an easy riddle to solve, however I do not think that we should hold indefinitely people who may be innocent. Recently, when the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that non-Afghan detainees at the US Bagram Prison in Afghanistan, captured outside Afghanistan, had the same due process rights that the Supreme Court last year gave to prisoners at Guantánamo, the Obama administration argued they did not. Bagram is a less high profile prison than Guantanamo but the issue regarding Bagram is exactly the same as Guantanamo and the position of the Obama administration is exactly the same as the position of the Bush administration.

In a recent article in the Washington Post, columnist Charles Krathamer pointed out that on policy after policy the Obama administration is continuing the policy of the Bush administration. “The latest flip-flop,” writes Krathamer. “is the restoration of military tribunals. During the 2008 campaign, Obama denounced them repeatedly, calling them an ‘enormous failure.’ Obama suspended them upon his swearing in. Now they're back.”

I admit I am conflicted. On the one hand, Obama’s policies seem to vindicate the policies of George W. Bush. I could conclude that George W. Bush was right all along and when faced with the enormous responsibility of keeping this country safe, that Obama came to a realization that the only prudent course to follow was that that was set by his predecessor. When one does not have the responsibility for our country’s security it is easy to snipe from the sidelines. Obama put aside partisanship and campaign promises and did the right thing.

On the other hand, I could conclude that Obama is an opportunist who did a complete flip-flop. He would say anything to get elected but he is a power hungry opportunist who cannot turn down the occasion to amass more power. I don’t know which view is correct.

What I cannot understand is how civil libertarians and pacifist of the left, who loathed George W. Bush, are letting Obama get by with continuing the same policies they professed to hate. If these policies were wrong when enacted by George W. Bush, are they still not wrong?

Top Stories

Obama in Bush Clothing

By Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, Friday, May 22, 2009

[Excerpt] Within 125 days, Obama has adopted with only minor modifications huge swaths of the entire, allegedly lawless Bush program.

The latest flip-flop is the restoration of military tribunals.

[Excerpt] Observers of all political stripes are stunned by how much of the Bush national security agenda is being adopted by this new Democratic government. Victor Davis Hanson (National Review) offers a partial list: "The Patriot Act, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator drone attacks, Iraq (i.e., slowing the withdrawal), Afghanistan (i.e., the surge) -- and now Guantanamo." [Full Article]

Comment

While I have been extreamly disappointed in Obama's economic policy I have been pleasantly surprised so far by his management of foreign affairs. Some Republicans have criticised his making nice with Hugo Chavez. I don't. Reagan made nice with Gorbachav. Nixon made nice with Mao. FDR made nice with the world's number one tyrant Joseph Stalin. There is nothing wrong with being diplomatic and friendly with your enemies. Sometimes nations even have to have dispicable allies as was the case of FDR and Joseph Stalin. Obama has also been criticized for changing our policy toward Cuba. Again, I think he is pursueing the correct policy and that our isolation of Cuba has been a mistake.

Where I am most pleased with what Obama is doing in the field of foreigh affaris is in the War on Terror, although we no longer use that term "War on Terror." While Obama uses less and does not have the comboy swagger that iratated so many of the effete liberal intellegencia he is essentially continuing all of the Bush policies. Since Obama is pursueing so many other policies that please the left, such as the destruction of the

Top Stories

Obama Man Can

Top Stories

Memorial Day

Pause to remember those who paid the ultimate sacrifice so we can be free.

Top Stories

More fuel efficient cars may increase global warming.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 required new car fleets to average 35 mpg by 2020; President Obama’s new rules tightens that standard by just a little and requires fleets to average 35.5 mpg by 2016.
While the federal government is pushing for more fuel efficient cars they are assuming that this will reduce fuel use and reduce auto emissions. There is an assumption that an X% increase in fuel efficiency will result in a corresponding X% reduction in auto emissions and fuel consumption. That is simply faulty logic. It does not take into account the way people really behave. From 1977 to 2001, the number of miles driven every year by Americans rose by 151%. More fuel efficient cars make driving cheaper, so people will do more of it. We can expect an increase in the rate of increase with stable gas prices and increases fuel efficiency.

More fuel efficient cars may mean we become even more mobile. Extended families can be scattered and still see each other frequently. More fuel efficient cars may mean that people who live in the country won’t think twice about jumping in the car go to the store ten miles away to rent a movie or buy a carton of drinks. There will be less need for thoughtful planning to combine trips With driving costing less you can take a Sunday afternoon drive just for pleasure. With greater fuel efficiency people may find that moving further away from urban centers is more attractive than moving closer in. College students away from home my go home more often with more fuel efficient cars. The family can take that summer vacation to the beach or even a further away beach with more fuel efficient cars. With more fuel efficient cars people will be less likely to use mass transit.

Fuel efficient cars, in the absence of higher fuel prices, will make consumption of fuel and driving more miles, more attractive. More fuel efficient cars will put more cars on the road driven more miles contributing to road wear and tear, urban sprawl, and more auto emissions.

Driving more miles needs to be made less desirable not more desirable. There must be an economic incentive to drive less. Greater fuel efficiency without an increase in the price of fuel provides an incentive to drive more.

Top Stories

Greed's Saving Graces

When in a provocative mood I have proclaimed to liberals that greed is a virtue. When I make such a statement, you can see their face turn red with anger and almost see the steam come out of their ears. How can one say such a thing? How can greed be a virtue? Greed is one of the seven deadly sins. Greed is a desire for excessive wealth. Greed is the inappropriate desire for excessive wealth. Greed is an excessive desire to acquire or possess more wealth than what one needs or deserves. Greedy people commit immoral acts to take advantage of others. Greedy people raise the price of gas in the summer. Greedy people price gouge. The payday lender is greedy. Big corporations are greedy. The ticket scalper is greedy.

Maybe “greed” is an unnecessarily provocative word. But “self-interest” or the “profit-motive” is a virtue. I accept that we need morality to moderate “greed”, but even without morality in a free market, greed is moderated. I would contend that the profit motive or self-interest or “greed” feeds, clothes, houses, and heals more people than generosity and sharing and caring could ever do. While we should condemn unfair practices, failure to honor contracts, deception, and cheating, the desire to obtain excessive wealth is a not to be condemned. If all of the greedy sold all of their worldly processions and gave the money to the poor, we would have a lot more poor and the poor would starve.

In this article George Will examines greed and argues that when markets are allowed to operate, greed generates its own punishment.

George Will: Greed's Saving Graces

Townhall.com - [excerpt] Greed, we are agreed, is bad. It also is strange. It has long been included among the Seven Deadly Sins, which suggests that it is a universal and perennial facet of the human fabric. But the quantity of it, at least in America, responds to political cycles.

Top Stories

Bobbie Patray, the stary-eyed high priestess of the Christian Right

In today’s issue of the Nashville Scene, columnist Jeff Woods reported on a bill that just passed the state legislature, which would allow parents to have access to their child’s medical records. Predictably, he thought it was a terrible development. (link)

What got my attention was this passage from his article: “As Bobbie Patray, the glassy eyed high priestess of the state's Christian Right, watched with approval from the front row.”

I know Bobbie Patray. I do not know her well but have been to several meetings and functions with her and have a speaking acquaintance. I think Ms Patray is an attractive women. I don't know what makes her a "high priestist" instead of just a lobbyist. I have never noticed her to be “glassy eyed.” I am not even sure what Woods means by that. Anyway, should that not be hyphenated as “glassy-eyed?”

Bobbie Patray is the Tennessee lobbyist for Eagle Forum. I generally agree with the positions taken by Eagle Forum. I especially find myself in agreement on economic and constitutional issue. I generally support Eagle Forum on their social agenda. I oppose gay marriage and abortion but admit that I don’t have a lot of passion around those issues. Some of Eagle Forum’s moral positions make me a little uncomfortable however. They sometime come across as a little too narrow-minded and moralistic for my taste. I am afraid they would want to stamp out strip clubs, ban smut, and close bars.

.

I very much parted ways with Eagle Forum over the issue of selling wine in grocery stores. I am 100% in favor and think our liquor, wine, and beer laws are an embarrassment and often make Tennessee look like a state of backwoods hicks the way we are often portrayed. Basically however, I just want the convenience of being able to buy a bottle of wine when I grocery shop. I do not appreciate the religious right and liquor industry from not allowing that to happen.
.

Anyhow, I thought it was unnecessary to refer to Ms Patray as “glassy eyed.” I remember how the libs were outraged that Limbaugh talked about Hillary’s fat ankles. I also think it was out of line. It was not Hillary’s ankles that turned me off but her ideas. I generally think it is in poor taste to start attacking your opponent’s physical attributes in political discourse. In this case it simply leaves me baffled to understand what it is about Ms Patray’s eyes that make them “glassy.” They look normal to me, but maybe I missed something. Jeff, could you explain that?

I wanted to find a picture of Jeff Woods so I could see if he was perhaps “bug-eyed” or maybe “doe-eyed” or maybe “four-eyed” or maybe he is also "glassy-eyed." I could not find a picture, and it is just as well; I would not want to sink to his juvenile level to retaliate.

Top Stories

More Pelosi 'toons.

Top Stories

The Nancy Pelosi Cartoons

Top Stories

The Obama Card

Top Stories

Cap and Trade: The Maxman-Markey Pay to Play

The Heritage Foundation, Wednesday, May 20, 2009

When Congress passed its last major energy legislation in 2005, a minor provision was added late in the legislative process that created a $1-per-gallon tax credit for “renewable diesel” fuel created through “thermal depolymerization.” The measure was included to benefit a single firm that produced boiler fuel from turkey waste, but in 2007 the Internal Revenue Service ruled that the tax credit also applied to other livestock waste. This led corporate giants ConocoPhillips and Tyson Foods to form a joint venture that turned chicken, cow, and pig fat into diesel fuel.
But just as ethanol mandates drove up the price of food, diverting Tyson’s animal fat into the energy market drove up the costs of manufacturing soap. So the soap lobby fought back and earlier this year Congress cut the thermal depolymerization tax credit in half. This made the Conoco/Tyson venture unprofitable, which they have since discontinued.

What does this have to do with the Waxman-Markey cap and trade legislation currently being debated in Congress? Everything. In order to win enough votes to pass cap and trade, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) has given the corporate members of the United States Climate Action Partnership (which includes both private and government-controlled firms like General Electric, Duke energy, Chrysler, and General Motors) a front-row seat in writing the legislation. The motives of these major corporations are simple: if they cooperate with big government in drafting the legislation, they can cut deals to protect their bottom line. If they don’t play ball, then big government will just tilt the regulatory scheme in their competitors favor.

As the New York Times reports, this is exactly what is happening in the House now:

Cap and trade, by contrast, is almost perfectly designed for the buying and
selling of political support through the granting of valuable emissions permits
to favor specific industries and even specific Congressional districts. That is
precisely what is taking place now in the House Energy and Commerce Committee,
which has used such concessions to patch together a Democratic majority to pass
a far-reaching bill to regulate carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade
plan.

The Center for Public Integrity released a study today showing that lobbying on the Waxman-Markey bill has been dominated by just 10 major lobbying firms. And yesterday the United States Climate Action Partnership released a statement in support of Waxman-Markey explaining:

As USCAP has indicated, there are several key linked issues that must fit
together to ensure a climate protection program is environmentally effective,
economically sustainable and fair. In some instances, that does not occur in
this legislation. … Individual USCAP members will continue to work with Congress
to address these matters in a satisfactory manner.

Oh, we’re sure they will.

Comment: Unless all credits are sold, cap and trade is an ineffective sham and is nothing but a bazaar for buying and selling of political favors where congress picks winners and losers. I think we need to address global warming, but the proposed cap and trade bill will not achieve its objectives and will institutionalize the worse of government corruption.

Top Stories