No Patience Left for Obamanomics

Just days after a dismal job creation report showed that only 54,000 jobs were created in May (up to half of which were at McDonalds), President Obama said in a recent radio address that we all need to be patient with the economic recovery. While I can understand why he would want us to do so, I’m afraid I’m simply not up to the task. It would be easier of course, if I had some reason to believe his policies stood a chance of making things better, but that simply is not the case. During the 2008 presidential election, many conservatives warned that his proposals would lead to job losses, massive debt, high inflation, higher energy prices, and higher taxes. Sadly the majority of American voters failed to heed our warnings, and we are now all suffering the inevitable effects of Obamanomics.

Although this is a classic “see-I-told-you-so” moment, there is no joy in making such a pronouncement. While it is usually gratifying to see your predictions proven to be accurate, the fact is that millions of Americans are suffering because he proved us right. In this case, it would feel better if the current economic boom forced me to eat crow.

Patience on our part would certainly help Obama’s chances at re-election, but it will do nothing to help the chances of an economic recovery. The policies he has put into place were destined to create the kind of economic mess we are currently experiencing. Since he has shown absolutely no inclination to admit that his policies are wrong, nor do I expect that he ever will. That being the case, patience will do nothing more than give him time (he hopes for another four years) to drive the economy even deeper into the hole. Indeed, one has to wonder how bad things would be now if not for the 2010 election.

For many years it has been too easy to play the ‘ignorance is bliss’ game with presidential politics. It has always amazed me how so many people take pride in not paying attention to the political world. It is if they think ignoring one of their most solemn responsibilities somehow makes them better than the rest of us. Freedom comes at a very high cost, and those of us who are blessed enough to be free have a duty to protect it.

I remember hearing a lady make the statement that she was going to vote for Bill Clinton for President because he was better looking than Bush, “…and we need a good looking man in the White House”. The sad truth is that she was very serious, and those around her agreed. Such immature, shallow thinking is not uncommon.

Another think I hear people say is that they “vote for the man, not for the party”. On the surface this sounds good and noble; but in the end you get the party when you get the ‘man’. It does take some effort to understand what ‘the man’ stands for, and how that relates to the party with which he chooses to associate himself, but that effort is well worth it. It the ‘man’ has chosen to affiliate himself with a party that wants to raise taxes and take away your freedom, it is reasonable to believe the ‘man’ shares the same goals.

The 2012 election will be one of the most important in modern history. The outcome may well determine whether our country continues to exist as a free nation, or if it will slide into European style socialism. We cannot afford to ignore what is going on around us and choose the leader of the free world based on his looks, oratory skills, or other immaterial standards. We must be familiar with the issues and find out where the candidates stand. As Horace Mann said, “A different world cannot be built by indifferent people”. In order to preserve freedom, we have to care about freedom. If we do not, I am afraid we will learn that Ronald Reagan was right when he said “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction”.

Irresponsibility 101

Harold Camping was a regular feature on the news in the weeks leading up to the not-quite-so end of the world, soundly ridiculed by nearly everyone who took the time to comment on his predictions. His predictions however, were no more wrong than the dire predictions of economic doom that were supposed to occur if Congress failed to raise the debt ceiling. Just as the world didn’t come to an end on May 21st, neither did the world economy collapse on May 16^th.  Nearly a month after the dreaded debt ceiling was reached, the world is still spinning, the sun continues to rise in the east, and Anthony Weiner’s lack of common sense and decency are interesting enough to capture the headlines.

According to Mrs. Geigthner’s little boy Timmy, who is Secretary of the Treasury because he is the only living human being smart enough to save our economy from those eeeeeevil capitalists, not raising the Congressional credit card limit would be “deeply irresponsible”. Why do I get the feeling Rod Serling about to make an appearance? For those of you too young to remember, Rod Serling was the host of a TV show called The Twilight Zone that ended in 1964, when the national debt was ‘just’ $264 Billion.

Let’s take a look at the phrase “deeply irresponsible” which Little Timmy, along with the rest of the carefully scripted Democrat spending machine is so fond of using. According to the dictionary, in this context the phrase would mean “not showing due care for the consequences of one's actions or attitudes, of a grave or extreme nature”. Such an interesting phrase, loaded with meaning. I’m afraid however, that Little Timmy and the Democrats (sounds like a good name for a 50s rock band, doesn’t it?) are using the right phrase but have applied it incorrectly.

If, as they say, failure to once again raise the debt limit is irresponsible, then how irresponsible is it to repeatedly raise the debt limit while continuing to charge (no pun intended) full speed ahead at the brand new debt limit? How irresponsible is it to put the nation in a position where it is in danger of defaulting on its obligations while continuing to spend uncontrollably? How irresponsible is it to act as though the debt ceiling was a goal rather than a barrier? Perhaps Little Timmy and Co. should look up the word “limit”. Oh wait, since I have my dictionary close at hand; let me help them with that: “the point, edge, or line beyond which something cannot or may not proceed”.

I recognize the fact that most people in Congress have a mental block with the concept of limits when applied to spending, but for the sake of the country they are going to have to learn to use the two words in the same sentence. The responsible thing to do would be to get rid of the wasteful and often unconstitutional spending that has been going on, and leave the debt in place. Rather than watching each new debt limit rapidly approach, we should be watching it fade into the distance.

Taking former House Speaker Pelosi’s personal jet away from her was a step in the right directions, and there are many others that we take. For instance, we could choose to NOT use our military in the effort to protect the Al Qaeda fighters from the Libyan military. We can choose to tell Greece we won’t use our own red ink to supplement theirs, and we can encourage our Congressmen to actually look at the spending bills they vote for and not vote for those that throw money down the toilet. Many in Congress want us to believe that they are being careful with our money, but it is a simple task to find plenty of evidence to the contrary. Rush Limbaugh recently mentioned www.dirtyspendingsecrets.com, a website devoted to exposing some of the most egregious examples of irresponsible spending. There, you can find interesting facts about how your grandchildren’s money is being spent. Perhaps, it might have been more responsible for Rep. Weiner to have spend his time visiting that site rather than posting the end of his political career on Twitter.