Tag: barack obama

Categories
national politics & policies

Lies You Can Believe In

“Folks, whether the American people believe what I just said or not may be the whole election,” former President Bill Clinton intoned at the Democratic National Convention this week. “I just want you to know that I believe it. With all my heart, I believe it.”

Don’t believe it.

Also not worth believing? Clinton’s television ad, for which, you can be sure, every word was chosen carefully, not just ad-libbed (as some of the gray-haired Lothario’s lines from the convention were said to be):

This election, to me, is about which candidate is more likely to return us to full employment. This is a clear choice. The Republican plan is to cut more taxes on upper-income people and go back to deregulation. That’s what got us in trouble in the first place.

President Obama has a plan to rebuild America from the ground-up — investing in innovation, education and job training. It only works if there is a strong middle class, That’s what happened when I was president. We need to keep going with his plan.

Very persuasive . . . until examined.

Is the current economic depression the result of tax cuts and deregulation? No.

The original implosion was in the mortgage bundle markets, and that was fed by Clintonian homeownership policy and the Federal Reserve’s cheap credit. Regulation had increased dramatically under Bush, and the only bit of deregulation worth talking about was the repeal of Glass-Steagall . . . which Clinton himself signed.

The idea that the prosperity of the Clinton years was caused by his “investment” and “education” and “job training” plans is a howler. Clinton’s era was blessed, instead, with

  1. a mostly stable Fed policy;
  2. Republican opposition in the House that forced him to make his most famous policy moves; and
  3. low gas prices.

This latter was the result of the two most astounding policy moves in the years prior to his administration:

  1. The Carter-Reagan deregulation of the oil industry; and
  2. George Herbert Walker Bush’s sending Saudi Arabia and Kuwait the bill for the Persian Gulf War.

Politics, we must remember, is often dominated by expert liars.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers

The Punisher Vote

As bad weather and thousands of good Republicans descend upon Florida, it’s worth keeping perspective: The best (and perhaps only) reason to vote for Mitt Romney is the same as the best/only reason Americans had to vote for Barack Obama in 2008: to punish the party previously in power.

The excesses of united Republican government in the mid-oughts, and the sheer irresponsibility and insider bias in the lame duck Bush years, as the GOP president panicked and turned Wall Street into the largest welfare queen class in America, required punishment.

Americans wanted a change. So they voted, understandably, for the man who promised change.

But what did they get?

Bush had pushed in a new welfare “entitlement” program; so did Obama and the Democrats. Bush had pushed bailouts for the wealthy and the protected; so did Obama and the Democrats. Bush had pushed war and occupation and “nation building”; so did Obama and the Democrats. Bush had presided over deficits and a rising debt; so did Obama and the Democrats.

Turnabout being not merely fair play, but the will of the pendulum to swing back, it seems like voting against Obama is what is in order. It seems almost ineluctable.

But, uh, there’s a problem. Is Romney electable?

Both major parties tend to throw up lackluster candidates when the opposition has an incumbent in the White House. Take three examples: Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, and John Kerry, paragons of pointlessness.

But, this time, a pointless challenger has history endow him with a point: Obama and the Democrats deserve to be punished.

Not much of a platform? True. But it’s something.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies tax policy

Fair is Fair

President Barack Obama is not targeting the country’s 99 percent against the wealthiest 1 percent. In a news conference, yesterday, he instead singled out the top 2 percent.

Even though they account for 46 percent of all income taxes collected, Obama says members of this group don’t pay their “fair share.” Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay just 3 percent of income taxes.

Though the president readily confesses to being in that top two-percent, sadly I’m not. But hey, even if I’m not rich, this country is as much mine as any wealthy person’s. If tax hikes truly are necessary (and this is for the sake of argument — I do not believe they are), shouldn’t I be part of his tax-hike solution to our national deficit and long-term debt?

Even those making less could afford to hand over an extra percent or two of their income for essential government services, eh?

And why leave out the poor? A surcharge of $20 (or $10 or $2.50) a year — even if that’s only removed from their earned income credits or food stamps or welfare payments — would put their “skin in the game.”

We should all be in this together, so why didn’t Obama propose a solution that included sacrifices by everyone?

My guess: It has nothing to do with revenue, everything to do with November’s election.

Obama is asking Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone making less than $250,000 a year. But he seeks a mere one-year extension.

Why?

My guess is that the over-$100,000 cohort is next on his list.

But he needs their votes, first.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
video

Video: Jon Lovitz Clarifies

A few months ago, Jon Lovitz caught Hollywood’s elites off-guard by turning on President Barack Obama on the tax issue. He ranted against the notion that he and others like him don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes. He used, shall we say, “harsh words.” Now, calmed down a bit, and in a different venue, he clarifies:

A section of his original rant, here (contains profanity).

Categories
video

Video: Beyond Hypocrisy

Penn Jillette says that the President’s oh-so-cool chortling over his past drug use has an element of class warfare:

I think he is right. But it is worth noting three things:

1. President Obama does more than “condone” the federal drug war, he has actively upped it, carrying on George W. Bush’s breach of promise not to trump state’s medical marijuana laws.

2. This is not a new phenomenon. Both Clinton and Bush Jr. were guilty of the same offense, if not quite so egregiously.

3. It is possible to agree with Penn without echoing his rather vulgar speech.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Slowest Spending in Decades?

Government tends to grow in spurts, with budgets not decreasing after each spurt. This “ratchet effect” of fast growth then tapering off amounts to a long-term trend: growth.

You’ve probably seen Rex Nutting’s MarketWatch squib, the subject of many a Tweet and Facebook post. Entitled “Obama spending binge never happened,” it begins, “Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.” Nutting reframes the issue as one of the rate of spending growth . . . just as Republican apologists did in the ’80s, even though spending under Ronald Reagan’s first term grew at a whopping 8.7 percent — a bigger rate increase than Obama’s. Nutting entitles his graph comparing administrations’ spending growth rates “Slowest spending in decades,” indicating not how much Obama has been spending over revenue, but year-to-year rates of increase.Barack Obama, Spree Spender

The prez gets a bad rap.

Well, yes and no. The graph should make party-loyal Republicans and Bush admirers cringe with shame. Sure. But Obama and the current Congress are still spending. Hugely. And rapidly — those dollars fly out the door!

Further, by maintaining high annual deficits, Obama has increased the federal debt so that this year it has shot above 100 percent of current Gross Domestic Product, a first for my lifetime.

Obama can be blamed for not doing the decent thing after the horrible six years of united government under the Republicans, he didn’t reduce spending.

In other words, he’s no Warren G. Harding, who presided over a huge contraction of government spending, thereby helping usher in a quick recovery from the post-Great War bust.

We could use a man like Warren Harding again.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall

Don’t Blame Me

Some folks are quick to blame the voters for the mess this country is in. Not me.

In 2008, Americans overwhelmingly opposed the TARP bailouts. Which candidate — Democrat Obama or Republican McCain — represented the majority of us on that central issue?

Neither.

This year, President Obama promises a significant tax increase and more government investment in crony capitalism. Republican nominee Mitt Romney pledges he won’t raise taxes and he’ll reduce at least the growth in spending via Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan.Initiative sign

But who would be surprised were Romney, even given a GOP Congress — especially given a GOP Congress — to fail miserably on his promises?

Voters choose candidates for the right reasons only to see those candidates, from both major parties, jettison their campaign promises, ad nauseam.

We aren’t mind readers. We’re simply not to blame for good-faith decisions in a bad-faith system.

We are to blame, however, for not taking the initiative to change the rottenness in the system.

Yet, how best to get outside this box, to effect real change, to take the initiative?

Why, the initiative, of course!

Twenty-three states have viable processes for citizens to put initiative measures on state ballots. Even in states where no statewide initiative or referendum exists, like Texas and New York, most local jurisdictions have the initiative.

National changes can come from local action.

Increasingly, we must use the initiative not only to change the law, protect freedom, hold government accountable, reform the system, but also to set the political agenda directly from the grass roots.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
U.S. Constitution

Setting the Policy

Vice President Joe Biden got the big headlines over the weekend, with his Meet the Press comments on same-sex marriage. He was quoted everywhere. There was much talk of how this fit (or didn’t fit) with the administration’s official ideology:

I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying one another are entitled to the same exact rights — all the civil rights, all the civil liberties.

But immediately prior to the above, he said this: “I am vice president of the United States of America; the president sets the policy.”Joe Biden on gay marriage ... and the presidency

And that’s where I begin to wonder.

It could be he’s only saying that he’s second banana in the administration (if even that high in the banana tree), and that he can’t speak for the top banana.

But too often, these days, when people talk about the president “setting the policy” or “making decisions” (remember George W. Bush’s self-description as “The Decider”?) they seem to suggest something approaching a dictatorship by the president. What the head man says goes.

That’s what Biden’s statement does more than imply.

According to the Constitution, on the other hand, Congress sets policy. Not the president. The legislative power is concentrated in the House and the Senate.

Biden’s kind of loose talk is an artifact of what’s called the “imperial presidency.” Leadership (and followership) of both parties have pushed it. It has a long history.

I don’t know about you, but it gives me a lot more concern than the idea of two dudes marrying.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers

Veto Washington

When former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson sought the Republican nomination for president, he was unequivocally told “NO” — not by voters, who had little chance to consider his candidacy, but by media outlets refusing to give him a place on their debate stages.

Mr. Johnson didn’t garner enough support in public opinion polls, debate organizers said. But his name didn’t even appear in many of those media-designed polls. Catch-2012.
Gary Johnson, 750 Vetoes as New Mexico Governor
But his campaign continues. He’s in Las Vegas this weekend, seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party. Most observers expect Johnson to become the minor party’s presidential nominee . . . and to wind up on as many as 49 state ballots this fall.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul — who is also still in the race, betting long odds on a brokered Republican convention — polls 17 percent in a hypothetical three-way race with Obama and Romney. Admittedly, Johnson doesn’t have Congressman Paul’s following, but given the commitment of Paul’s supporters to civil liberties, a non-interventionist foreign policy and ending the drug war, they are far more likely to opt for Johnson than Romney . . . or Obama.

Moreover, on the biggest issue facing the country, out-of-control federal spending, Johnson has the best resumé of any candidate. He pledges to submit a balanced budget and to veto any congressional spending that we can’t afford without more borrowing.

Believe him. Johnson issued 750 vetoes in his eight years as New Mexico’s governor — more than the other 49 governors combined.

So, in all likelihood, it’s a choice between Romney or Obama . . . or a guy who would veto Washington.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
political challengers

Reason #6

I think I like Mitt Romney, the man. I have defended some of what he has said. But I doubt I will support him for the presidency — and if he gets elected, I’d likely spend as much time criticizing him as I did George W. Bush and as I do Barack H. Obama.

Shikha Dalmia, at reason.com, offers five reasons why conservatives should root for a Romney defeat. They are:

  1. Romney won’t man up and dismantle the worst element of RomneyC — oops, ObamaCare.
  2. Romney’s hard line against Pentagon cuts means he won’t be able to bargain with Democrats on making any other kind of cuts. Federal spending will increase under Romney.
  3. Romney, the “ultimate Wall Street insider,” will do nothing substantive against crony capitalism.
  4. A Romney win now would preclude a better candidate four years from now.
  5. “Four years of Romneyisms, all of which smack of elitism, will cement the image of the GOP as the out-of-touch party of the rich.”

All good reasons to blanch at supporting Mr. Romney. But I have another reason, a sixth: It’s highly likely that in the next four years we’re going to hit a major crisis that will make the current “recession” look like a weekend vacation. Romney will flub the response, as would nearly any mainstream politician — perhaps any politician. But because Romney pretends to be “for” free markets and such, “free market capitalism” would almost certainly take the blame for the debacle to come, even though its actual parentage will be the government.

I’d rather blame — and have others blame — Obama, who almost personifies government as we now know it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.