I Love This Guy

[scottw]

The State of Our Union Is Broke

By Mark Steyn

January 28, 2012 4:00 A.M.

Had I been asked to deliver the State of the Union address, it would not have delayed your dinner plans:

“The State of our Union is broke, heading for bankrupt, and total collapse shortly thereafter. Thank you and goodnight! You’ve been a terrific crowd!”

I gather that Americans prefer something a little more upbeat, so one would not begrudge a speechwriter fluffing it up by holding out at least the possibility of some change of fortune, however remote. Instead, President Obama assured us at great length that nothing is going to change, not now, not never. Indeed the Union’s state — its unprecedented world-record brokeness — was not even mentioned. If, as I was, you happened to be stuck at Gate 27 at one of the many U.S. airports laboring under the misapprehension that pumping CNN at you all evening long somehow adds to the gaiety of flight delays, you would have watched an address that gave no indication its speaker was even aware that the parlous state of our finances is an existential threat not only to the nation but to global stability. The message was, oh, sure, unemployment’s still a little higher than it should be, and student loans are kind of expensive, and the housing market’s pretty flat, but it’s nothing that a little government “investment” in green jobs and rural broadband and retraining programs can’t fix. In other words, more of the unaffordable same.

The president certainly had facts and figures at his disposal. He boasted that his regulatory reforms “will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years.” Wow. Ten billion smackeroos! That’s some savings — and in a mere half a decade! Why, it’s equivalent to what the government of the United States borrows every 53 hours. So by midnight on Thursday Obama had already re-borrowed all those hard-fought savings from 2017. “In the last 22 months,” said the president, “businesses have created more than three million jobs.” Impressive. But 125,000 new foreign workers arrive every month (officially). So we would have to have created 2,750,000 jobs in that period just to stand still.

Fortunately, most of the items in Obama’s interminable speech will never happen, any more than the federally funded bicycling helmets or whatever fancies found their way onto Bill Clinton’s extravagant shopping lists in the Nineties. At the time, the excuse for Clinton’s mountain of legislative molehills was that all the great battles had been won, and, in the absence of a menacing Russian bear, what else did a president have to focus on except criminalizing toilet tanks over 1.6 gallons. President Obama does not enjoy the same dispensation, and any historians stumbling upon a surviving DVD while sifting through the ruins of our civilization will marvel at how his accumulation of delusional trivialities was apparently taken seriously by the assembled political class.

An honest leader would feel he owed it to the citizenry to impress upon them one central truth — that we can’t have any new programs because we’ve spent all the money. It’s gone. The cupboard is bare. What’s Obama’s plan to restock it? “Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary,” the president told us. “Asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.”

But why stop there? Americans need affordable health care and affordable master’s degrees in Climate Change and Social Justice Studies, so why not take everything that Warren Buffett’s got? After all, if you confiscated the total wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it would come to $1.5 trillion.

Which is just a wee bit less than the federal shortfall in just one year of Obama-sized budgets. 2011 deficit: $1.56 trillion. But maybe for 2012 a whole new Forbes 400 of Saudi princes and Russian oligarchs will emigrate to the Hamptons and Malibu and keep the whole class-warfare thing going for a couple more years.

The so-called “Buffett Rule” is indicative not so much of “common sense” as of the ever widening gap between the Brobdingnagian problem and the Lilliputian solutions proposed by our leaders. Obama can sacrifice the virgin daughters of every American millionaire on the altar of government spending and the debt gods will barely notice so much as to give a perfunctory belch of acknowledgement. The president’s first term has added $5 trillion to the debt — a degree of catastrophe unique to us. In an Obama budget, the entire cost of the Greek government would barely rate a line-item. Debt-to-GDP and other comparative measures are less relevant than the hard-dollar numbers: It’s not just that American government has outspent America’s ability to fund it, but that it’s outspending the planet’s.

Who gets this? Not enough of us — which is exactly how Obama likes it. His only “big idea” — that it should be illegal (by national fiat) to drop out of school before your 18th birthday — betrays his core belief: that more is better, as long as it’s government-mandated, government-regulated, government-staffed — and funded by you, or Warren Buffett, or the Chinese Politburo, or whoever’s left out there.

What of his likely rivals this November? Those of us who have lived in once-great decaying polities recognize the types. Jim Callaghan, prime minister at 10 Downing Street in the Seventies, told a friend of mine that he saw his job as managing Britain’s decline as gracefully as possible. The United Kingdom certainly declined on his watch, though not terribly gracefully. In last Monday’s debate, Newt Gingrich revived the line and accused by implication Mitt Romney of having no higher ambition than to “manage the decline.” Running on platitudinous generalities, Mitt certainly betrays little sense that he grasps the scale of the crisis. After a fiery assault by Rick Santorum on Romney’s support for an individual mandate in health care, Mitt sneered back at Rick that “it wasn’t worth getting angry over.” Which may be a foretaste of the energy he would bring to any attempted course correction in Washington.

Newt, meanwhile, has committed himself to a lunar colony by the end of his second term, and, while pandering to an audience on Florida’s “Space Coast,” added that, as soon as there were 13,000 American settlers on the moon, they could apply for statehood. Ah, the old frontier spirit: I hear Laura Ingalls Wilder is already working on Little House in the Crater.

Maybe Newt’s on to something. Except for the statehood part. One day, when America gets the old foreclosure notice in the mail, wouldn’t it be nice to close up the entire joint, put the keys in an envelope, slide it under the door of the First National Bank of Shanghai, and jet off on Newt’s Starship Government-Sponsored Enterprise?

There are times for dreaming big dreams, and there are times to wake up. This country will not be going to the moon, any more than the British or French do. Because, in decline, the horizons shrivel. The only thing that’s going to be on the moon is the debt ceiling. Before we can make any more giant leaps for mankind, we have to make one small, dull, prosaic, earthbound step here at home — and stop. Stop the massive expansion of micro-regulatory government, and then reverse it. Obama has vowed to press on. If Romney and Gingrich can’t get serious about it, he’ll get his way.

— Mark Steyn

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

The State of Our Union Is Broke

By Mark Steyn



An honest leader would feel he owed it to the citizenry to impress upon them one central truth — that we can’t have any new programs because we’ve spent all the money. It’s gone. The cupboard is bare.

— Mark Steyn

Ya, a smart one would say that too, but he still thinks he's dealing
with a " bunch of gun loving Bible clinging" nin com poops that he
can continue to snow with his Socialist BS.

[JohnnyD]

When the nation stops pointing the blame at one person, or one party, we'll all realized that every politician in Washington in the same just with a different letter at the end of their name. When we as a nation realize that they are all the same, we'll realize that radical change is required. While companies have the money to lobby politicians in office and the Good Ol' Boys already in office press their strength on the newer officials, it is us the voters who have to vote them into office.

The top 30 companies spent more money on lobbying Washington and paying off officials than they did in taxes. We need to remove lobbying and the ability for corporations to pay off our legislatures, vote out all of the Good Ol' Boys and only then might we have a chance of getting our country back.

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The top 30 companies spent more money on lobbying Washington and paying off officials than they did in taxes. We need to remove lobbying and the ability for corporations to pay off our legislatures, vote out all of the Good Ol' Boys and only then might we have a chance of getting our country back.

Very True.

[Raven]

very sad

[justplugit]

I am with you JD, on politicians/lobbies.
Only way to avoid it is to set a limit on the total campaign dollars allowed
and pay for it with taxpayer $. After all they are suppose to be representing us
the taxpayer.

The thing that bothers me the most is the current administration
taking us down the Socilaistic road. It doesn't work.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I am with you JD, on politicians/lobbies.
Only way to avoid it is to set a limit on the total campaign dollars allowed
and pay for it with taxpayer $. After all they are suppose to be representing us
the taxpayer.

The thing that bothers me the most is the current administration
taking us down the Socilaistic road. It doesn't work.

Can you specify what you consider "Socilaistic?"

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Can you specify what you consider "Socilaistic?"

To put it in my layman's terms, it's redistribution of wealth, punishing success,
a large welfare system and a large government involved in people's lives.

The old share and share alike.

"It works great till you run out of other people's money."

[Tagger]

It disgust me Newt and Mitt arguing over who got the most of our Fanny Mae bail out money .. Working shmucks lose thier houses ,,these guys cash in .. legal yes , is it moral ..

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by justplugit

To put it in my layman's terms, it's redistribution of wealth, punishing success,
a large welfare system and a large government involved in people's lives.

The old share and share alike.

"It works great till you run out of other people's money."

Nothing specific, though? I mean, how is it different than it was under Reagan or Bush or Bush ii or Clinton? Welfare reform happened over 15 years ago; that hasn't changed. The tax rates are lower than under Reagan. I don't mean generalized conservative talking points. What specifically?

[zimmy]

40% ss and medicare, 20% defense, 6% interest on debt. That leaves 1/3 of the budget is everything else. Adding 30 million people to the rolls... many of those people already cost huge amounts of money at the ER and in the overall cost of health care. Having uninsured is not cheap. Currently 83 million people are covered by gov. health insurance. 30 million more won't be directly added. Many will be able to get private insurance due to the changes the bill institutes. This is from the cbo, not a liberal organization: 143 billion decrease in the budget deficit over a decade. Some of that is from tax rates going to Clinton levels. I know, it is unfair in your opinion. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc...dReconProp.pdf

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I know, it is unfair in your opinion.

What I consider fair or unfair doesn't matter.
What does matter is what kind of country will be left to
my kids and Grandkids.
If this administration continues on it's Socialistic path and spending,
there won't be anything left, certainly not the American Dream.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by justplugit

What I consider fair or unfair doesn't matter.
What does matter is what kind of country will be left to
my kids and Grandkids.
If this administration continues on it's Socialistic path and spending,
there won't be anything left, certainly not the American Dream.

Pretty scary stuff.

Oh yeah, you might want to read what Karl posted and digest it if you are concerned about the reality of the situation.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Oh yeah, you might want to read what Karl posted and digest it if you are concerned about the reality of the situation.

Thanks for your Lib elietist thinking that I need to read more,
but having lived through 18 administrations, I'll go by the reality of my own experiences.

Oh, and just to make it "fair"" I'll give you the last word.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Thanks for your Lib elietist thinking that I need to read more,
but having lived through 18 administrations, I'll go by the reality of my own experiences.

Oh, and just to make it "fair"" I'll give you the last word.

It isn't elitist. I was referring to your own statement that you didn't have time to read and digest what Karl posted. It is specific data that shows what the actuality of those 18 administrations were as opposed to a perception. My problem is that many people are angry based on perception as opposed to the actuality of situations. At least be angry based on facts rather than perception.

[Karl F]

U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress

interesting read as well

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Karl F

U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress

interesting read as well

LOL Karl, by the time I read and tried to digest all that info I'd be an old man with grey wiskers,
Oh that's right, I am an old man with grey wiskers.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Karl F

U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress interesting read as well

Perhaps no one has offered a meaning for your article because it is too difficult to find one. That Bloch selected a few sets of data from the many that might be relevant to whatever he is trying to show makes it impossible to come to any real conclusion, other than one that he might be trying to arrive at by selective choice of data.

The top marginal rate of taxation as a raw figure is meaningless since at the time that it was 90% those in that bracket were paying less due to exemptions and loopholes than they paid after Reagan's reform even though the top rate was lower. So the 90% figure is irrelevant for any analysis.

The use of Democrat and Republican as any consistent parameter of measurement or comparison supposes that the parties were consistently the same ideologically or politically throughout the time period he selected. Were the Bush Republicans the same party as the those in that 10 year period between 1910-20 that spent a low percentage of GDP and actually saw the National debt drop every year? Hardly. The Republicans of today are more like the Kennedy era Democrats. And what does that say about the evolution of the Democrat party if it is far to the left of the JFK era?

Nor does he factor spending as a ratio of GDP. That also has gone up consistently in his selected time period with no consistent differentiation between the ideologically and politically evolving parties. Astoundingly, the era he chose saw a dramatic rise in spending as a ratio of GDP from about 8% to over 40%.

Nor does he mention or factor in the influence of the" fourth branch" of modern U.S. government--the administrative agencies. Amazingly, the era he chose is almost precisely the Progressive era in American political history. It is during this progressive era that that fourth branch of government was created and has grown into the most prolific policy and legislating branch of the Federal Government. It is specifically this era that has seen the kind of government spending that he tries to analyze. And it is during this progressive era, which his chart shows, that the National debt consistently rose regardless of party in power.

The previous segment of American history from 1791 to about 1930 was the Constitutional era in which the Federal Government was constrained by Constitutional bounds. The late 19th century saw an influx of political administrative theories enter American academic study in political science. American Universities previously did not have such advanced studies since administrative agencies had not become a significant factor in American governance. Europe was where the progressive minded studied the subject and where they were influenced by the efficient administrative theories and systems in Germany and France. Woodrow Wilson was one of those students as well as Frank Goodnow, both of whom became leading scholars and proponents in the U.S. of the administrative system of govenance. The problem, in this country, with such a system, is the Constitution. It does not allow for the delegation of legislative power to unelected agencies. Goodnow viewed reverance for Constitutional law as "superstitious" and an obstacle to genuine political and administrative reform. A main problem, among others, is that the Constitution declared that an individual's rights are "unalienable." They cannot be taken away by government, which made it difficult for government to be in charge of private property. The Progressives believed, in contrast to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, that rights are not conferred by a creator, but by society. And they are determined by legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency rather than natural right, determines the sphere of individual freedom.

The Progressives were in absolute and open opposition to natural law and social compact theory which they claimed had no historical justification and the focus on individual liberty "retarded development" and expansion of government. They believed in "historical progress" and that we had historically arrived at a time when the fears of oppressive government that created the Constitution were no longer relevant, and that we could depend on administration of patriotic, objective, neutral, politically disinterested experts in their field of competence to administer the will of the people. So the idea of "consent of the governed" must be replaced by deference to the expertise of administration. Goodnow felt that politics is "polluted"and full of "bias" whereas administration is about the "truth." So the Constitutional separation of powers was an obstruction. That separation rested on three tenets:

1. The principle of non-delegation--Congress cannot delegate its legislative power. That power must be exercised soley by Congress.
2. Each branch of government is responsible for its power and cannot usurp the power of another.
3. The executive branch has the responsibility of administration.

Goodnow proposed, instead of the tripartite separation of legislative, executive, and judicial, a dual separation between politics and administration--politics would discover the needs of society, but expert technocrats would be appointed to manage in unbiased fashion those needs. Thus, the adminstrative function would be the relevant one and would even, by dint of its managerial power, craft regulations, codes, laws. He professed that the Court should also be adminstrative, not just umpires, but involved, through "interpretation" in making law. The latter 19th century to about 1930, was the seminal period of the progressive movement but remained mostly theoretical because the SCOTUS had not yet become what the progressive academia was developing in the schools of law. But a major step was taken with the 16th ammendment and its Federal grant of power to collect income tax.

While the Constitutional era prevailed the national debt was not the problem it is today. There were brief periods within budgets in the 1830's that the Federal Government was in fiscal surplus not merely as an expression of annual budget but that of its total debt. The lows of $33.7 thousand in 1835 and $37.5 thousand in 1837 were the deficits of those years. The Constitutional limitation on Central power, and its effect of power contradicting power, and placing legislation strictly in the hands of elected legislators, not only restricted the Government's ability to spend, it made it physically impossible to pump out reams of law. Of course, today, through the Federal bureaucracy we can easily add 40,000 pages to the Federal Register annually

The Great Depression was the opportunity for the Progressives to translate their theory of administrative government into actual practice. The movement had been openly espousing its theories of a "living" Constitution, and its dismissal of the original one as wholly inadequate for the times. Wilson had already written in 1885 that the nation had to move from constitutional to administrative questions, and Goodnow had written that "the great problems of modern public law are almost exclusively administrative in character." So FDR, with the nation in "crisis" was allowed to shift from those pesky Constitutional questions to the creation of unconstitutional agencies that have since grown in number to the hundreds and have gone even beyond the scope of being a "partner" with politics, but actual spheres of government possessing legislative, executive, and judicial power--Madison's definition of tyranny. And the universities had provided a host of scholars, lawyers, and eventual judges that embraced the progressive view of an outdated Constitution that, in Goodnow's words is "worse than useless." They were available for Roosevelt to pack his Court with willing accomplices, and they couched their decisions in legal language that pretended to "interpret" the Constitution, but knew they were stretching and outright contradicting the original language and intent in order to allow the massive progressive "reforms."

The Court has since abandoned the principle of non-delegation that was the main tenet of separation of powers, thus vitiating the other two tenets, and has thus allowed the expansion of Federal power beyond all original intention through its myriad of independent regulatory agencies. And the Court has become, as Goodnow wished, not merely an umpire, but a legislator. All this in the name of a more "efficient" administration of the "will of the people" for their own good. What has been eliminated, for efficiency, is that slow legislative process of debate among differing legislators elected by differing constituencies. Somehow, "the will of the people" is known by a few, select, "experts" administering through executive agencies, and they are free to impose that will back on the people who have no say, who are not asked for the consent of the governed. Elena Kagan, one of Obama's Supreme Court appointees, came from the school of administrative law, and she posited in a Harvard Law Review article that "We live today in an era of presidential administration."

It is ironic that progressive ideology will say that force in foreign relations is not necessary, it is even counter productive--that it is better, even the only way, to use diplomacy, to negotiate, to lead by example, but, when dealing with ones own citizens, it is more "efficient" to administrate from the center rather than deliberate amongst the differing representatives of the people.

Would not this fourth uncontrolled, unelected, administrative branch which creates the bulk of laws and regulations and which is so little discussed, and which has facilitated the shift of both parties to the progressive left, have a role in that massive Federal debt and those huge annual deficits--regardless of which "party" is in power?

[Karl F]

don't worry zimmy, JPI's response was just a typical cave dwelling bible thumping extreme right wing racist answer when given something to read..it hurts their little heads

JPI


Dave.... have the boys read it to ya!

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Karl F

don't worry zimmy, JPI's response was just a typical cave dwelling bible thumping extreme right wing racist answer when given something to read..it hurts their little heads

JPI


Dave.... have the boys read it to ya!

LOL Karl, not a bad idea, but my comprehension doesn't go above
"The 3 Little Pigs."