Taxes to Rise on Most American Workers
Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called it “a happy start to a new year.” That probably tells you all you need to know about the fiscal cliff deal that passed the House.
The bill—which President Obama has promised to sign, though he took off for Hawaii again after the vote—has a 10 to 1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts. This is the President’s version of a “balanced” approach.
In addition to tax increases on Americans making more than $250,000 a year, the bipartisan deal will actually raise taxes on the vast majority of American workers. How? The payroll tax “holiday” has ended. The Wall Street Journal calculates that the “typical U.S. family earning $50,000 a year” will lose “an annual income boost of $1,000.”
Meanwhile, the higher tax rates will hit small businesses and investors—which is grim news for a country in need of new jobs.
“It is the small businesses that employ the most workers who will pay the higher rates,” explains Heritage’s Curtis Dubay. “These tax hikes on investment will further dampen investment and result in even less job creation. This is more bad news for the 12 million unemployed Americans.”
While the President touted a “balance” of tax hikes and spending cuts, the truth is that the bill increases government spending by about $330 billion.
Though Congress and the President have known for two years that they would have to do something about all the expiring tax rates, they waited until after the deadline had passed. This resulted in lawmaking for which “irresponsible” is not a strong enough word.
The Senate voted without knowing the cost of the bill—the Congressional Budget Office had not even had time to go through it.
The legislation passed both chambers of Congress within a 24-hour period on a holiday, which meant that Members of Congress—much less the American people—did not have time to find out what was in the 157-page bill.
Business Insider notes that all of the new tax rates are “‘permanent,’ meaning that Congress would have to agree to change them. This is a big deal. Almost every fiscal agreement reached by Congress since the Bush tax cuts of 2001 has been scheduled to phase out at a future date.”
After all the damage this deal has done, Congress isn’t through yet. Well, this Congress is—the outgoing lawmakers make their exit on Thursday, and the new Congress will be coming in. It will face the real consequences of the across-the-board budget cuts to defense known as sequestration, which this deal postponed for two months.
It will also face the U.S. debt limit. President Obama said last night that he is in no mood to get into another debt limit fight—even though that is inevitable.
“While I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether they will pay the bills they’ve already racked up,” Obama said.
But that debate is coming. This time, rather than grandstanding, Obama must deliver on his promise of a "balanced approach," now that he has locked in his class warfare tax hikes. That means reforms to rein in entitlement spending in particular. The $650 billion fiscal cliff distracted from the $48 trillion looming fiscal crisis—the long-term funding obligations of Social Security and Medicare.
Without spending cuts and real entitlement reforms, that fiscal iceberg remains dead ahead.
Just a reminder: We’re still $16+ trillion in debt
The fiscal cliff deal didn’t actually change that, nor the direction or rate of increase, either … except possibly to make it worse, on paper at least. Politico’s Glenn Thrush and Reid Epstein remind everyone that while Barack Obama and the Democrats celebrate a win over Republicans on raising taxes on high-end earners, the problem of deficits and the national debt won’t be solved by tax hikes:President Barack Obama won’t be able to enjoy much of a victory lap from his win over congressional Republicans on the fiscal cliff fight.
There are about 16.4 trillion reasons why.
The staggering national debt — up about 60 percent from the $10 trillion Obama inherited when he took office in January 2009 — is the single biggest blemish on Obama’s record, even if the rapid descent into red began under President George W. Bush.
Obama was able to splinter his deeply divided Republican opponents over the issue of tax cuts for the wealthy. But a similar fate might await the president and his Democratic allies if he brokers a deal with the GOP that requires massive spending and entitlement cuts.
During the cliff talks, Obama was purposely opaque about what cuts he’d ultimately accept, saying only that Republican resistance to a one-shot grand bargain meant he needed to make a deal in pieces — taxes first, spending second.
That tactic delayed but didn’t eliminate a looming day of reckoning on spending and entitlements that will come within 60 days thanks to the convergence of the debt ceiling deadline and the new deadline for keeping automatic cuts from kicking in.Republicans wanted to trade the tax hikes for entitlement reform. They didn’t get that, but they did hang onto the debt limit as a bargaining chip. With most of the Bush tax rates permanently enshrined in law, the GOP no longer has to play defense on deficit reduction, backed up against an anti-tax-hike pledge. They can now argue that the country needs to stop borrowing from China in order to pay for its current obligations and creating debt that will extend to four generations into the future.
Democrats have a short window to navigate on this debate — and not just because of the debt limit. They argued all throughout 2012 (and really since 2008) that the fiscal problems of the federal government could be solved by demanding higher taxes from the wealthy. Well, now they have those tax hikes, and it won’t take very long for everyone to figure out that the problem not only didn’t get solved, it didn’t even get dented. Without nearly concurrent and significant entitlement reforms, the outcome will expose the irrationality of the tax hikes on which they have based their entire domestic political approach.
This time, Obama will need to demand some concessions from his own ranks in order to show real progress on deficit control. Can he get it — and can he get it in time to keep from having the “fairness” argument from being exposed as irrelevant to the true drivers of the massive current and future federal deficits?
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/03/just-a-reminder-were-still-16-trillion-in-debt/
After Tax Hike, Obama Still Thinks Rich Need to Pay More
It apparently wasn't enough to raise taxes on 77 percent of Americans with the fiscal cliff deal signed into law by auto-pen late last night by President Obama. In a video put out by the White House, President Obama dishonestly explained what the fiscal cliff means and then proceeded to say some Americans still need to "pay their fair share." Obama said there is more he wants to do to reduce our debt in a "balanced way," because after all, the $41 in tax hikes per $1 in spending cuts apparently wasn't enough irresponsibility for him. He gloated over the American tax system becoming more progressive after making tax hikes on the rich permanent."I’m willing to do more, as long as we do it in a balanced way that doesn't put all the burden on seniors or students or middle class burdens but also asks the wealthiest Americans to contribute and pay their fair share.”http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/01/03/after-tax-hike-obama-still-thinks-rich-need-to-pay-more-n1478184
Cliff Deal Only Whets Obama's Appetite For More Taxes
Taxes: Anyone who thinks the fiscal cliff deal will end President Obama's soak-the-rich campaign isn't paying attention. Even before the ink had dried on his $620 billion tax hike, Obama was talking up his desire for more.Obama hinted at this on Sunday on "Meet the Press," when he told David Gregory that "you are not only going to cut your way to prosperity" and that "one of the fallacies" was that "deficit reduction is only a matter of cutting programs."
But as the fiscal cliff agreement looked increasingly likely, Obama started talking more specifically about additional tax hikes. On Monday, he told a White House rally that "revenues have to be part of the equation in turning off the sequester."
Translation: If Republicans want to prevent devastating defense cuts from automatically kicking in two months from now, they'll have to choke down another round of tax hikes.
And he made it clear any future deficit cuts will have to include still more new taxes. "If Republicans think that I will finish the job of deficit reduction through spending cuts alone," he said, "then they've got another thing coming."
Then, after the agreement had been signed on Tuesday, he talked about how "cutting spending has to go hand-in-hand with further reforms to our tax code" that take more money from "the wealthiest corporations and individuals."
So, after getting a deal that includes only tax hikes and no spending cuts, Obama will demand that any future spending cuts come with still more new taxes.
On policy grounds, it makes no sense.
The long-term deficit problem is entirely caused by out-of-control spending, not inadequate taxes. Revenues will soon exceed the post-World War II average of 18%, while spending is on track to reach historic highs.
And as the fiscal cliff deal shows, there aren't enough rich people to finance Obama's expansive spending ambitions. Even if revenues do come in as expected — which is highly unlikely — the $620 billion will trim projected deficits by just 7%.
Even that's being far too generous since the fiscal cliff deal also boosts federal spending by more than $332 billion, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis. In other words, more than half the tax hikes will go to increased spending.
Politically, Obama also may find it harder to get any new tax hikes through Congress. He's already boosted them twice on the so-called rich (the first was a $500 billion hike to pay for ObamaCare).
And he's lost his best political leverage — the threat that taxes on the middle class would go up if he didn't get his way — as soon as he agreed to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.
Even Democrats might be less enthusiastic about future tax hikes that will, by definition, have to reach further down the income scale, hitting an increasing number of their well-heeled urban constituents.
At the moment, none of that seems to matter to Obama, whose unquenchable thirst for higher taxes has finally been exposed.
Report: Glenn Beck Tried to Buy Current TV, Al Gore went with Al-Jazeera
Al-Jazeera wasn't the only media company with its sights set on former Vice President Al Gore's little-watched Current TV.
Glenn Beck's Blaze Media approached the struggling cable news network last year, the Wall Street Journal reports
,
but was rebuffed because "the legacy of who the network goes to is
important to us and we are sensitive to networks not aligned with our
point of view."Instead, Gore went with the Emir of Qatar-funded Arab news channel Al-Jazeera.
Al-Jazeera has been criticized for having a pro-Islamist bent, and accused of working with members of Al Qaeda. One of its journalists was arrested in Israel in 2011 on suspicion of being an agent of the Palestinian group Hamas. Dave Marash, a former "Nightline" reporter who worked for Al-Jazeera in Washington, said he left the network in 2008 in part because he sensed an anti-American bias there.
The network is subsidized by the ruling family of oil rich Qatar, which some critics have said smacks of hypocrisy, given Gore's beliefs that global warming is due in large part to mankind's reliance on fossil fuels.
Gore won the Oscar in 2006 for his documentary film about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth."
Gore netted $100 million with his 20 percent stake in Current TV when it was sold for a reported $500 million on Wednesday.
Al-Jazeera plans to euthanize the seven-year-old network and turn it into Al-Jazeera America by adding five to 10 new U.S. bureaus beyond the five it has now. More than half of its content will be U.S. news, and the network will have its headquarters in New York, according to a rep.
Is Al Gore philosophically aligned with an anti-American news network?
GLENN: I have sold homes to people I do not like. I don’t care. I don’t care. So here’s the thing. That’s not what happened. That’s not what happened. He didn’t sell to the highest bidder. We were not allowed to the table. He didn’t sell to the highest bidder. He looked for, who do I ideologically align with.PAT: And that is Al‑Jazeera. That is amazing.
GLENN: The vice president of the United States of America tells you that he is more ideologically aligned with Al‑Jazeera than an American broadcaster who believes in America, just doesn’t believe in what he does, believes that America is a good place, that America is ‑‑ has a bright future ahead of it if we just do the right thing, a guy who believes that global warming is nonsense. But being responsible with our planet is a good thing. Finding new ways to pioneer energy is a good thing. He finds ‑‑ Mr. Global warming finds that less connectible than a foreign government that makes all of its money through oil and gas reserves. That’s amazing.
http://current.com/community/94008954_is-al-gore-philosophically-aligned-with-an-anti-american-news-network.htm
A Lesson on Presidential Power
It comes a shock to discover that liberal Hollywood
has provided a powerful response to the expanded presidential power
sought by Barack Obama and other progressives. Steven Spielberg has
produced a cinematic powerhouse, Lincoln, in which our 16th
President utters an intriguing soliloquy: Lincoln expresses his doubts
about the legality of the Emancipation Proclamation as it pertains to
the freedom of slaves in the Border States and whether it can endure
after the cessation of hostilities. He goes on to explain that this is
the rationale for pursuing the Thirteenth Amendment despite the
political costs. He seeks to use Constitutional means to achieve a
political end, not to circumvent our founding document. More
surprisingly, this portrayal is based upon liberal historian Doris Kearns Goodwin's 2005 book, Team of Rivals
Lincoln's admonition to Republican supporters, radical and conservative, comes with an acknowledgement of the severe limits placed upon him during peacetime. His power during war, though limited, was expanded to include suspension of "habeas corpus". In the Proclamation, he argued that slaves were property that could be taken under war powers. Once peace returned, that argument would itself be used to continue the institution by Southern states. Lincoln intended to end that 'peculiar institution" after the loss of over 600,000 American lives.
His means of obtaining lasting change would not be presidential fiat through executive orders, but by legal means without resort to the courts. He would seek a vote in the House of 2/3 majority for passage of an amendment to our Constitution. The Senate passed the resolution during his lifetime, but the ratification by ¾ of the states would come after his death. Our founders had provided a method of correcting or modernizing this contractual document. It is an American approach to correcting serious defects within our Union as opposed to extra-constitutional methods. It is shocking that this message is being delivered by a progressive Hollywood director.
As the administration prepares for the next term, it would be wise to heed this message: there are limits to presidential power. Lincoln used his mandate to carry out a Constitutional program, while Obama utilizes bureaucratic orders to promulgate ends that he cannot secure through the political process. The EPA is directed to extend its reach to limit the use of carbon fuel sources. The Health and Human Services secretary forces religious institutions (though not Churches) to offer contraceptives, including the 'day after pill". The Labor Relations Board rules against Boeing when it tries to establish a factory in a right to work state. These actions threaten to thwart the public will.
Politics is not clean: deals are made and prices must be paid. The passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 included many payoffs to secure votes. Lincoln himself secured House votes through offers of federal employment for defeated Democrats in exchange for support of the Thirteenth Amendment. This is how politics works. Our founders were well aware of this and so they limited the possible scope of such conspiracies.
As Daniel Day Lewis, in the role of Lincoln, rises to proclaim that as president he was "clothed in immense power", it becomes evident that this power must be used to accomplish a political victory through Constitutional means. Since 1900 and the progressive era, few presidents have been willing to risk political capital for such worthy causes and have chosen to use easier methods such as agency rule making.
Reconstruction might have proceeded with easier terms had Booth's bullet not been fatal. Lincoln might have been a steadier leader than the Radical Republicans who managed the nation afterwards. In his second inaugural address he offered "malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." Despite efforts to bring an earlier end to the Civil War by meeting with a Confederate delegation in February 1965, Lincoln would not relent on ending slavery. Lincoln was willing to avoid personal punishment for Confederate leaders.
The fiscal cliff negotiations have demonstrated a lack of transparency. As the Senate leadership and the White House reach agreement, it would be wise to recognize that this is the method of President Obama. Delays in working out a compromise led to last minute arm-twisting by Democrats to avoid the fiscal cliff. Obama often cites Lincoln, but will he follow his approach to managing our country or only his style?
The executive has the power to enforce the laws enacted by Congress. This does not mean the power to rewrite them through bureaucratic authority. Our Constitution was written by wiser men than now lead our nation. The framers placed limits upon the immense Presidential power that Lincoln used to wage civil war. Yet, Lincoln managed the war and redirected the domestic political scene. President Obama would benefit from understanding the limits to political power our framers intended. Rather than remake America, he might remake his administration and restore Constitutional democracy. He may be remembered as one who exercised imperial powers counter to the will of the people, as if they were his subjects.
Lincoln's admonition to Republican supporters, radical and conservative, comes with an acknowledgement of the severe limits placed upon him during peacetime. His power during war, though limited, was expanded to include suspension of "habeas corpus". In the Proclamation, he argued that slaves were property that could be taken under war powers. Once peace returned, that argument would itself be used to continue the institution by Southern states. Lincoln intended to end that 'peculiar institution" after the loss of over 600,000 American lives.
His means of obtaining lasting change would not be presidential fiat through executive orders, but by legal means without resort to the courts. He would seek a vote in the House of 2/3 majority for passage of an amendment to our Constitution. The Senate passed the resolution during his lifetime, but the ratification by ¾ of the states would come after his death. Our founders had provided a method of correcting or modernizing this contractual document. It is an American approach to correcting serious defects within our Union as opposed to extra-constitutional methods. It is shocking that this message is being delivered by a progressive Hollywood director.
As the administration prepares for the next term, it would be wise to heed this message: there are limits to presidential power. Lincoln used his mandate to carry out a Constitutional program, while Obama utilizes bureaucratic orders to promulgate ends that he cannot secure through the political process. The EPA is directed to extend its reach to limit the use of carbon fuel sources. The Health and Human Services secretary forces religious institutions (though not Churches) to offer contraceptives, including the 'day after pill". The Labor Relations Board rules against Boeing when it tries to establish a factory in a right to work state. These actions threaten to thwart the public will.
Politics is not clean: deals are made and prices must be paid. The passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 included many payoffs to secure votes. Lincoln himself secured House votes through offers of federal employment for defeated Democrats in exchange for support of the Thirteenth Amendment. This is how politics works. Our founders were well aware of this and so they limited the possible scope of such conspiracies.
As Daniel Day Lewis, in the role of Lincoln, rises to proclaim that as president he was "clothed in immense power", it becomes evident that this power must be used to accomplish a political victory through Constitutional means. Since 1900 and the progressive era, few presidents have been willing to risk political capital for such worthy causes and have chosen to use easier methods such as agency rule making.
Reconstruction might have proceeded with easier terms had Booth's bullet not been fatal. Lincoln might have been a steadier leader than the Radical Republicans who managed the nation afterwards. In his second inaugural address he offered "malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." Despite efforts to bring an earlier end to the Civil War by meeting with a Confederate delegation in February 1965, Lincoln would not relent on ending slavery. Lincoln was willing to avoid personal punishment for Confederate leaders.
The fiscal cliff negotiations have demonstrated a lack of transparency. As the Senate leadership and the White House reach agreement, it would be wise to recognize that this is the method of President Obama. Delays in working out a compromise led to last minute arm-twisting by Democrats to avoid the fiscal cliff. Obama often cites Lincoln, but will he follow his approach to managing our country or only his style?
The executive has the power to enforce the laws enacted by Congress. This does not mean the power to rewrite them through bureaucratic authority. Our Constitution was written by wiser men than now lead our nation. The framers placed limits upon the immense Presidential power that Lincoln used to wage civil war. Yet, Lincoln managed the war and redirected the domestic political scene. President Obama would benefit from understanding the limits to political power our framers intended. Rather than remake America, he might remake his administration and restore Constitutional democracy. He may be remembered as one who exercised imperial powers counter to the will of the people, as if they were his subjects.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/a_lesson_on_presidential_power.html
Gun Control Proposal: ‘I Am Not Your Subject. I Am the Man Who Keeps You Free’
One U.S. Marine was more than a little displeased with California Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s draconian gun control proposal, which includes an assault weapons ban and provisions on handguns and even “grandfathered weapons.”The letter, written by U.S. Marine Joshua Boston, was titled “No ma’am” and was first posted on CNN iReport on Dec. 27. The letter has since gone viral and has been shared extensively on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, as it seemingly has resonated with a segment of the American population.
Read Boston’s entire “No ma’am” letter below and then share it with others:
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you.
Respectfully Submitted,http://www.theblaze.com/stories/marines-scathing-response-to-sen-feinsteins-gun-control-proposal-i-am-not-your-subject-i-am-the-man-who-keeps-you-free
Joshua Boston Cpl,
United States Marine Corps
2004-2012
FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year than Rifles
According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.
However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.
Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.
And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.
For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.
While the FBI makes is clear that some of the "murder by rifle" numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle.
Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.
The bottom line: A rifle ban is as illogical as it is unconstitutional. We face far greater danger from individuals armed with carpenters' tools and a caveman's stick.
And it seems fairly obvious that if more people had a gun, less people would be inclined to try to hit them in the head with a hammer.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles
How does “The Why?” tell you everything you need to know?
Glenn Beck said that everything he would be doing evolves from the idea of “The Why”.What is “the why”? It’s the heart of every business, organization, and institution. While most businesses will have a “what” and a “how”, the ones that have a “why” that people identify with are the ones that are truly successful. He compared Apple and Dell as an example. While Dell will tell you in their ads that they sell computers (The What) and how those computers have great processors (The How), they don’t ever tell you “The Why”. Apple, on the other hand, uses their advertising to showcase how their products will allow them to connect with family members in ways that were previously impossible.
For Glenn, “The Why” for him and TheBlaze is simple: Liberty- Self Empowerment, God Faith, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit Of Happiness. Those are the things that motivate him to do what I do, and those values are in the DNA of everything he does. And because those values are shared by the audience, he’s been able to forge such a strong relationship with them. It also separates from other authors like Stephen King or other cable news hosts like Anderson Cooper.
“It is ‘The Why’ that divides us,” Glenn said.
Glenn said that looking for “the why” can also be used to find solutions to the problems facing America.
Using Sandy Hook as an example, he explained that the media was blaming guns, but guns are really just “the how” the shooter was able to carry out his plans. No one is seriosuly looking for “the why” when looking for answers. People are calling for more gun control, but aren’t looking to fix an American culture that glorifies violence and is riddled with broken families.
If you want to find solutions, you need to look beyond “the how” and “the what” and start looking for the deeper meaning – “the why”.
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/01/02/how-does-the-why-tell-you-everything-you-need-to-know/
PK's NOTE: This is AMAZING. Read it. All of it.
The America of 2013
Americans
take great umbrage whenever they, as a society, are portrayed by the
residents of other nations as self-centered, avaricious and
overbearing. While an egregious exaggeration in the past, is it an
accurate description now? Who are the American people today and what
sort of country is the United States in 2013?
How does one describe a society wherein a majority of the people, and their elected leaders, have embraced the following mindset?
Assuming other nations would still be willing to buy American bonds and the dollar has not been replaced as the world's reserve currency, the expected level of government spending over the next four years will result in the national debt exceeding $21.5 Trillion (nearly 40% of the projected world debt in 2017). Interest costs, as the end-product of having to raise rates to attract lenders, will absorb nearly 60% of the total income taxes collected in 2017.
However, at some point before this scenario fully plays out, the rest of the world will no longer tolerate and subsidize a nation unwilling to change its profligate and self-centered ways. The financial collapse of the United States would not only have a devastating impact on the standard of living for the average American but for the vast majority of people around the globe.
How can a nation with any sense of decency allow this scenario to play out? None of this is a mystery to the politicians, academics, the media, Wall Street, major corporations and a substantial portion of the electorate. While there may be a considerable percentage of the population that could be categorized as "low-information" voters, this does not excuse the actions and attitudes of these people or the balance of the citizenry. The United States, and possibly the global economy, is being taken apart by the avarice and narcissism of its elites and the selfishness and ignorance of far too large a percentage of its inhabitants.
The vast majority of politicians, while paying lip service to fiscal restraint, are primarily concerned with re-election and continuing the standard of living, ego-gratification and wealth accumulation that comes with elected office. They have thus abandoned their moral and fiscal duty by pandering to the bulk of the American people who have been willingly indoctrinated to believe that by the mere circumstance of living in the United States one is entitled to and guaranteed a "decent" livelihood regardless of the cost to future generations.
The leaders, as well as a preponderance of the rank and file, within the public sector unions, are focused not only on siphoning as much money as possible from the treasuries of the states and federal government, but also impacting, through compulsory union dues, the election of politicians who will acquiesce to their never-ending demands. This modus operandi also extends to the private sector unions who are increasingly turning to government and the elected officials they also financially support to strong-arm their demands upon employers -- which will compel many to choose either bankruptcy or offshore relocation.
The bankers on Wall Street, in order to protect their annual seven figure incomes, have become willing tools for the governing class in Washington D.C. either as: 1) foils in the propagation of class warfare; 2) well compensated accessories to the creation of money by the Federal Reserve; or, 3) intermediaries for massive political donations. All the while knowing that the government has designated their entities as "too big to fail" thus shifting any potential risk to the American taxpayers.
Additionally, far too many major corporations and well-heeled investors have turned their eyes to the government as the source of loans and guarantees for a myriad of investment schemes and projects. In the search for not only money but favorable regulatory treatment, they, in return, willingly contribute to the election of those who will not only continue these policies but will make certain there are few or no consequences for failure. That the ultimate objective of these politicians is to make certain the private sector is under the thumb of government bureaucrats seems immaterial to these so-called capitalists.
In the world of academia, the primary objective is no longer to educate but to make certain there is no end to the ever-increasing income stream that flows into the pockets of the institutions and individuals. If that means saddling students with unconscionable debts or demanding unlimited subsidies from the government then so be it.
The mainstream media has abdicated its responsibility to be a neutral chronicler of the abuse of power. In order to sustain their individual lifestyles and gain access as well as bask in the glow of the ever-growing power structure in Washington, they have become the propaganda arm of big government.
The entertainment industry, in their determination to promote an unfettered lifestyle, has for many decades advanced the notion that there are no limits to personal behavior. Further, since decency, honor and integrity are passé, the entertainment complex can justify grossing untold billions from the glorification of ever-increasing violence and depravity. All the while financially supporting those in the political class who claim to be in sympathy in these matters but who, in reality, are more dedicated to the concept of an all-powerful central government -- a government which will eventually turn on these same supporters.
Regardless of the reason or circumstance, a majority of the people of this nation have been conditioned to believe the federal and/or state governments will always be able to ride to the rescue in any situation. The fact of the matter is: this nation cannot weather a severe financial crisis as it has squandered its ability to do so.
The United States in 2012 re-elected a man, Barack Obama, who is self-centered, unprincipled, and arrogant. From the perspective of the rest of the world, this is increasingly the image of the United States in 2013. While a substantial portion of the American populace do not subscribe to or live their lives this way, a majority does. For far too many, they do not care about what happens to their country, their progeny or other people around the globe.
The United States is rapidly becoming the egregious caricature first used in the 1950's and 60's -- the Ugly American.
How does one describe a society wherein a majority of the people, and their elected leaders, have embraced the following mindset?
- a) The United States can commit to unlimited government spending as the long-term future of the nation is immaterial and will take care of itself.
- b) Based on 66 years of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity, the good times will never end and America will under no circumstance experience massive national adversity as there is a bottomless pit of money to be siphoned from an equally bottomless pit of wealth.
- c) Since the dollar is the international reserve currency, the United States, in order to cover its massive budget deficits, can arbitrarily create trillions of dollars out of thin air regardless of any consequence for the nation or the global economy.
- d) There are no limits to personal behavior and the arcane concepts of decency, honor and integrity are from a bygone era.
Assuming other nations would still be willing to buy American bonds and the dollar has not been replaced as the world's reserve currency, the expected level of government spending over the next four years will result in the national debt exceeding $21.5 Trillion (nearly 40% of the projected world debt in 2017). Interest costs, as the end-product of having to raise rates to attract lenders, will absorb nearly 60% of the total income taxes collected in 2017.
However, at some point before this scenario fully plays out, the rest of the world will no longer tolerate and subsidize a nation unwilling to change its profligate and self-centered ways. The financial collapse of the United States would not only have a devastating impact on the standard of living for the average American but for the vast majority of people around the globe.
How can a nation with any sense of decency allow this scenario to play out? None of this is a mystery to the politicians, academics, the media, Wall Street, major corporations and a substantial portion of the electorate. While there may be a considerable percentage of the population that could be categorized as "low-information" voters, this does not excuse the actions and attitudes of these people or the balance of the citizenry. The United States, and possibly the global economy, is being taken apart by the avarice and narcissism of its elites and the selfishness and ignorance of far too large a percentage of its inhabitants.
The vast majority of politicians, while paying lip service to fiscal restraint, are primarily concerned with re-election and continuing the standard of living, ego-gratification and wealth accumulation that comes with elected office. They have thus abandoned their moral and fiscal duty by pandering to the bulk of the American people who have been willingly indoctrinated to believe that by the mere circumstance of living in the United States one is entitled to and guaranteed a "decent" livelihood regardless of the cost to future generations.
The leaders, as well as a preponderance of the rank and file, within the public sector unions, are focused not only on siphoning as much money as possible from the treasuries of the states and federal government, but also impacting, through compulsory union dues, the election of politicians who will acquiesce to their never-ending demands. This modus operandi also extends to the private sector unions who are increasingly turning to government and the elected officials they also financially support to strong-arm their demands upon employers -- which will compel many to choose either bankruptcy or offshore relocation.
The bankers on Wall Street, in order to protect their annual seven figure incomes, have become willing tools for the governing class in Washington D.C. either as: 1) foils in the propagation of class warfare; 2) well compensated accessories to the creation of money by the Federal Reserve; or, 3) intermediaries for massive political donations. All the while knowing that the government has designated their entities as "too big to fail" thus shifting any potential risk to the American taxpayers.
Additionally, far too many major corporations and well-heeled investors have turned their eyes to the government as the source of loans and guarantees for a myriad of investment schemes and projects. In the search for not only money but favorable regulatory treatment, they, in return, willingly contribute to the election of those who will not only continue these policies but will make certain there are few or no consequences for failure. That the ultimate objective of these politicians is to make certain the private sector is under the thumb of government bureaucrats seems immaterial to these so-called capitalists.
In the world of academia, the primary objective is no longer to educate but to make certain there is no end to the ever-increasing income stream that flows into the pockets of the institutions and individuals. If that means saddling students with unconscionable debts or demanding unlimited subsidies from the government then so be it.
The mainstream media has abdicated its responsibility to be a neutral chronicler of the abuse of power. In order to sustain their individual lifestyles and gain access as well as bask in the glow of the ever-growing power structure in Washington, they have become the propaganda arm of big government.
The entertainment industry, in their determination to promote an unfettered lifestyle, has for many decades advanced the notion that there are no limits to personal behavior. Further, since decency, honor and integrity are passé, the entertainment complex can justify grossing untold billions from the glorification of ever-increasing violence and depravity. All the while financially supporting those in the political class who claim to be in sympathy in these matters but who, in reality, are more dedicated to the concept of an all-powerful central government -- a government which will eventually turn on these same supporters.
Regardless of the reason or circumstance, a majority of the people of this nation have been conditioned to believe the federal and/or state governments will always be able to ride to the rescue in any situation. The fact of the matter is: this nation cannot weather a severe financial crisis as it has squandered its ability to do so.
The United States in 2012 re-elected a man, Barack Obama, who is self-centered, unprincipled, and arrogant. From the perspective of the rest of the world, this is increasingly the image of the United States in 2013. While a substantial portion of the American populace do not subscribe to or live their lives this way, a majority does. For far too many, they do not care about what happens to their country, their progeny or other people around the globe.
The United States is rapidly becoming the egregious caricature first used in the 1950's and 60's -- the Ugly American.
No comments:
Post a Comment