Obama's Fuzzy Math

[MeeMie]

Obama's Fuzzy Math

A trillion here, a trillion there . . .


In his press conference last Tuesday, Barack Obama said that America must reject the "borrow and spend" policies of the past in favor of a strategy of "save and invest." Sounds good.

So why is Obama proposing to borrow and spend more than any president in the history of the republic?

Already in the first 45 days of his administration, the federal government has authorized more debt spending than Ronald Reagan did in eight years in office.

Then last week the Democrats' own Congressional Budget Office found that the ten-year deficits of the Obama plan will be about $2.3 trillion higher than the $6.97 trillion the White House is projecting. This is the policy of the party that was swept back into power in 2006 and 2008 promising a return to an era of fiscal responsibility.

Welcome to the Obama doctrine.

It is built on the high stakes economic gamble that the public and the bond markets will tolerate trillions of dollars of borrowing to pay for massive expansions in government spending on popular income transfer programs. The corollary to this doctrine is that the left will create a political imperative to jack up tax rates to pay for higher spending commitments made today.

But the news on the red ink front is much worse than the president or even the CBO's budget report suggests.

If all of Obama's "transformational" policy objectives--from global warming taxes to universal health care to doubling the Department of Energy's budget--are enacted, the debt is likely to increase from about 40 percent of GDP today to close to 100 percent of GDP by 2018. The ten-year debt is likely to be at least $6 trillion higher--or more than one-half trillion of higher deficits a year from now until forever--than the Obama budget projects.

These are uncharted levels of debt for the United States--though not for such high-flying nations as Argentina, Bolivia, and Mexico. This hemorrhaging of U.S. government debt will be happening at precisely the time when, in a rational world, the government would be running surpluses, in anticipation of the retirement of some 80 million baby boomers who will soon collect multiple trillions of dollars of government benefits from Medicare and Social Security.

There are three ways that the Obama administration is understating the spending and debt levels embedded in the president's budget policies.

First, Obama uses highly optimistic assumptions on how fast the economy is going to grow and how many jobs are going to be created over the next five years. I've worked in a presidential budget office before. Believe me: If you manipulate the economic assumptions on unemployment and GDP growth, you can make the budget deficit in the future be whatever you want it to be. You can even, as Obama claims to do, magically cut a deficit in half without cutting a single program. From 2010-13, the head of the OMB, Peter Orszag, predicts that the U.S. economy will grow at a 4 percent annual pace, when the blue chip-economic forecast is closer to 2.7 percent. Of the 51 blue chip-economic forecasters, the OMB's forecast is more optimistic than all but two.

Liberals used to lampoon Ronald Reagan's budgets for relying on a "rosy economic scenario," but even the Gipper's sunny optimism never led to economic predictions that departed so radically from independent forecasts. It turns out that about 75 percent of the celebrated halving of the deficit that Obama claims in his budget is purely a result of an irrationally exuberant economic model that almost no one believes is very likely. The Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee recalculated the OMB budget deficit assuming the average blue chip-economic forecast. It found that the Obama deficit will be $2.2 trillion higher over ten years.

Next is the hard-to-swallow assumption in the budget that all of the new spending in the $800 billion democratic "stimulus" bill that Obama signed in February will expire after 2011. We are supposed to believe that Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, Henry Waxman, and Ted Kennedy are going to allow spending for programs to fall off a cliff two years from now. Not likely. When Ryan asked the Congressional Budget Office what happens if the spending for about two dozen of the most politically popular programs is continued, not cancelled, the CBO reported back that the deficit and federal outlays would be $3.27 trillion higher over the next ten years.

Finally, there is the crown jewel of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid domestic agenda: universal health care.

This is at the top of the "to do" list of the Obama administration and is unlikely to get pulled back or postponed, as the president made clear in his press conference. Obama has not been specific about what plan he favors or about how much a national health care system will cost, but his budget allocates a $634 billion "placeholder" for that purpose. The consensus opinion, though, is that the lowest possible cost of universal health care is $1.2 trillion, with many estimating closer to $1.5 trillion. So team Obama is off by roughly $600 billion over ten years to cover all of America's uninsured. Obama says he will find ways to reduce health care costs at the same time, and I wish him well, but this is a promise that every president since Jimmy Carter has made and failed to keep.

Incidentally, almost all analysts also believe that the Obama price tag for his global warming program is too low for what he is planning. Jason Furman, the deputy director of the president's National Economic Council, says the cost is likely to be "two to three times higher" than the $646 billion estimate in the president's budget. Most independent analyses agree with Furman's figure. But we will leave this out of our calculations for now, because the debt and spending numbers are ruinous enough without them.

Here are the unhappy totals: the debt is $6 trillion higher from 2010 to 2019 than Obama's forecast. In no single year over the next decade, even when counting the Social Security trust fund surpluses, does the budget deficit fall below $800 billion. The interest on the national debt rises to $850 billion a year by the middle of the next decade, which will be the largest single expenditure item in the budget--eight times more than we now spend on education and four times more than we spend on homeland security. Federal spending remains well over 25 percent of GDP and in some years creeps closer to 28 percent of GDP under the Obama budget, which ironically enough is entitled "A New Era of Responsibility."

We are closing in on stagnant Western European levels of government intrusion into the economy. That economic model, by the way, which the left in the United States openly wants to emulate, has created half the jobs that the United States has over the past two decades and generated half the growth rates. Is it any wonder that the Chinese want an extra guarantee on U.S. Treasury debt and say it might be time for a new reserve currency?

I have never been a fear monger when it comes to deficits and debt. If the economy grows faster than the debt, as occurred in the 1980s and 1990s then the nation's burden of financing government borrowing becomes smaller over time. Incurring debt is legitimate, moreover, if the borrowing is paying for future prosperity. The 1980s deficits were probably one of the highest-return investments in American history. We bought a victory over the Evil Empire in the Cold War and borrowed to finance reductions in tax rates that launched America's greatest ever period of wealth and prosperity: 1982-2007. The national debt grew by about $6 trillion while U.S. net wealth grew by $40 trillion. A pretty good trade.

This debt we are now incurring is paying for windmills, unemployment benefits, new cars for federal employees, weatherizing homes, high-speed trains to nowhere, and the like. It buys almost nothing of long-term economic benefit. Most of the money that has been borrowed since September 2008 has been used to bail out irresponsible borrowers, failed financial institutions and car companies, and for expansions of welfare programs. The three biggest areas of government expenditure increases sought by the Obama budget are education, energy, and health care. Any unbiased assessment of the return on investment--to use an Obama term--for these programs would find dismally low payoffs for taxpayers. Government programs are the only things in the world that when they yield failing results, we reward them with more money.

Some five years ago Tom -Daschle and many other leading liberals cursed George W. Bush as "the most fiscally irresponsible president in history." He may have been.

But he isn't anymore.

Stephen Moore is senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal

 

[Ham Murabi]

Obama's Fuzzy Math

A trillion here, a trillion there . . .


In his press conference last Tuesday, Barack Obama said that America must reject the "borrow and spend" policies of the past in favor of a strategy of "save and invest." Sounds good.

So why is Obama proposing to borrow and spend more than any president in the history of the republic?

[/I]

Obama is the master of doublespeak.
Just watch. When he says "the last thing we want to do," what he really means is "this is what we're going to do."

 

[The_Trouvere]

Whenever I read something like this, I wonder where the Republicans were when Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt, and when George W. Bush doubled it.

According to John Maynard Keynes, the government should borrow money when the economy is shrinking, and pay off the debts when the economy is growing. Beginning with Ronald Reagan the Republicans have argued that cutting taxes is always a good idea. When they cut taxes and the economy grew, they did not raise taxes to pay off the debt. They said, that the growth of the economy proved that tax cuts work, and that taxes should be cut even more.

 

[MeeMie]

Bold claims of stimulus jobs can't be measured

If space exploration were conducted like the job forecasts under the government's new stimulus law, man surely would have missed the moon. But this isn't rocket science.

No promise from President Barack Obama is more important to the wounded economy than his vow to save or create some 3.5 million jobs in two years. In support of that bottom line, the government even tells states how many jobs they can expect to see from the spending and tax cuts.

But precise trajectories are impossible to plot and even approximations can be wildly off, as the authors of these forecasts acknowledge, usually more readily than the policymakers who use them to promote the plan.

Flip through the stacks of economic analyses underpinning the stimulus plan and you find a lot of throat-clearing qualifications and angst:

- "Very uncertain."

- "Difficult to distinguish among alternative estimates."

- "We confess to considerable uncertainty."

- "Subject to substantial margins of error."

In other words, who really knows?


Economic modeling may prove to be a haywire navigational device in this crisis.
"Large fiscal stimulus is rarely attempted," Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, told lawmakers. "For those reasons, some economists remain skeptical that there will be any significant effects, while others expect very large ones." Zero to nirvana? Even for economists, who routinely differ among themselves, that's a range beyond the norm.

The disconnect between theory and real life became evident when Obama pitched his plan at a Caterpillar factory before its passage and held out hope the federal stimulus money would let the heavy equipment maker rehire some of the thousands being let go. Caterpillar last week announced 2,400 more layoffs.

By necessity, stimulus projections were put together in ways that bear little resemblance to a family's budget. Assumptions are piled atop assumptions, rules of thumb, historical experience, theory and more than a little hope. A family budget is a set of building blocks of income and expenses, simple addition from the bottom up.

The stimulus projections are top down, a matter of economic multipliers and complex division infused with things that may or may not happen.The government estimated how much the spending and tax cuts might grow the economy. Then that effect was translated into projected job growth overall. Then that theoretical pie was divided into chunks to show what each state and sector of the economy might get out of it.

All of this without knowing, for example, how exactly states will spend money they get from Washington. Or how money going directly to a bridge or manufacturer will support other jobs in the communities.
Among the assumptions used in White House and congressional forecasting:

- Every one-point gain in the gross domestic product will translate into 1 million jobs.

- For every two jobs directly created by the stimulus spending, a third job will be indirectly created. The 2-to-1 ratio is rough and varies considerably by sector.

- For each dollar states receive from Washington, they will decide to use 60 cents to avoid spending cuts, 30 cents to avoid tax increases and 10 cents to reduce drawdowns of their rainy day funds.

- A tax cut has only one-quarter of the value of a spending increase of the same size, in terms of expanding the economy.

- Every dollar spent on unemployment benefits is worth $1.63 of quick economic expansion. Food stamps boost the economy even more.


The overarching goal — and promise — of saving or creating 3.5 million jobs is built on vagaries such as these.

Job creation is counted in different ways, but none that can isolate the stimulus package from the multitude of forces shaping the economy. And there's no reliable way to measure how many jobs the stimulus will stop from disappearing. Companies don't report layoffs avoided by federal aid.

Instead, forecasters estimated how low the economy might have sunk without the stimulus, and how high that would drive unemployment up. The idea is to have about 3.5 million more people working than might have been the case if the government had done nothing.

Economists on Obama's team projected that the stimulus will mean an unemployment rate nearly two points lower at the end of next year than it would have been absent the plan.

Far below the theoretical, in the grounded world of road repairs, health technology projects and all the other contracts made possible by the federal spending, actual jobs will be created. Those building blocks of employment will be tracked. But under White House guidance to federal departments, they are not to be reported. The reasoning: They are "likely to be inconsistent with macroeconomic estimates."
"Uniform reporting requirements for estimates of job creation will be specified at a later time," said a February memo from the White House Office Management and Budget.

By the end of Obama's term, the true effects of the stimulus might best be measured family by family, in the way famously posed by Ronald Reagan days before the election that brought him to office:

"It might be well if you ask yourself: Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer

 

[MeeMie]

Estimate of Mass. stimulus jobs uncertain at best

BOSTON (AP) - State officials overseeing the federal economic stimulus program in Massachusetts say they have no idea how the White House came up with one key pledge—the promise to save or create 79,000 jobs in the state.

They say they're not even sure how to measure saved jobs—and fear the jobs figure sets an unrealistic yardstick against which the success or failure of the program will be measured.

"The federal estimate of 79,000, we really don't know what's behind that, we just plain don't," Jeffrey Simon, Director of Infrastructure Investment in Massachusetts, told The Associated Press.

"I'm not saying it's not 79,000, but I just don't have any way of knowing that," he said.

Simon and his counterparts overseeing the distribution of stimulus funds in Massachusetts said concerns about the state jobs numbers were raised at a meeting earlier this month in Washington between state and federal leaders.

Massachusetts Undersecretary of Administration and Finance Jay Gonzalez also attended the Washington meeting and said other states complained that issuing job estimates undercut the administration's vow of transparency because it was unclear where the estimates came from.

Gonzalez said he was asked at one point how he might come up with a jobs estimate and pointed federal officials to a state task force report, but cautioned them the estimate was very rough and came with "qualifications all over it."

He said he was surprised when the state was presented with the estimate of 79,000.

"We have no idea where that number came from and now we're going to be measured against it," Gonzalez told the AP. "They haven't even decided yet how they are going to require that we measure new and retained jobs."

Job creation has been a key selling point of the $787 billion federal stimulus package. The Obama administration said they stimulus package will save or create 3.5 million nationwide.

Critics say the numbers are fuzzy, particularly when it comes to saved jobs.

In a one-page explanation on the federal stimulus Web site, the administration said it arrived at the state numbers by using an average of three different methods of estimating job growth. Despite all the calculations, the administration concedes "state jobs estimates are inherently more speculative than overall estimates."

For those working at the state level to get the federal dollars flowing as quickly as possible, the job estimates are proving to be something of a distraction.

"We've got our hands full understanding what the bill does, let alone trying to figure out how many jobs," said Simon.


By STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press Writer

 

[Donkeepuncher]

Such a big problem for americans to fix. My brain hurts...

 

[MeeMie]

Whenever I read something like this, I wonder where the Republicans were when Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt, and when George W. Bush doubled it.

You keep ignoring the actual facts:

"Already in the first 45 days of his administration, the federal government has authorized more debt spending than Ronald Reagan did in eight years in office."


Not to mention the fact that President Bush's budget included wartime defense spending and protection against further terrorist attacks after 9-11.


Hey! But don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions.

 

[The_Trouvere]

You keep ignoring the actual facts:

"Already in the first 45 days of his administration, the federal government has authorized more debt spending than Ronald Reagan did in eight years in office."

Not to mention the fact that President Bush's budget included wartime defense spending and protection against further terrorist attacks after 9-11.

Hey! But don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions.

It remains the case that Republicans favored deficit spending as long as they were doing it. This deprives them of moral authority on this issue.

There is plenty of money in this economy. The government needs to take it from those who have it, and use it to buy votes for the Democrats. In 1944 the top tax rate was 94%.

 

[MeeMie]

There is plenty of money in this economy. The government needs to take it from those who have it

If your thinking is not a perfect justification to "Go John Galt", there never was one.


Why kill yourself working if you're going to give it all away to people who don't work as hard? Or won't.

If we all "Go John Galt", they'll just continue to lower the bar to take from all taxpayers.

And then many more Americans will be angry, not just the 5% making over 250,000 who are labeled as evil. When more people are hit with higher taxes for the socialistic liberal agenda, then maybe they will start to wonder why they voted for this guy, or at least they will share in the responsibility for their decision.


We’re going further and further down the socialist rabbit hole, and taxpayers who are net contributors to the federal government - instead of the 60% of taxpayers who receive more in government services than they put in - are going John Galt.

http://pursuingholiness.com/wp-conte...opaystaxes.gif

Gas lines, unemployment, inflation, problems with terrorists… we have all this and more to look forward to, right down to the guy in the Oval Office lecturing us that we can’t keep our homes at the temperature we like. At least Carter had the decency to put on a sweater and give the appearance of suffering right along with the rest of us. President Obama can’t even do that. His energy czar talks about the 'smart grid' limiting electricity to residential homes while Obama grows orchids in the White House.

These things are going to happen eventually anyway because the 40% cannot carry the rest of the country, nor should a moral society expect us to do so. My goal is to not extend the misery; but to hasten the inevitable crash so we can recover quickly. I’m not hoping for economic failure. I’m experiencing economic failure, and I’m hoping to return to economic success.

As the natural consequences of Obama's disastrous polices - foreign policy based on magical thinking, energy policy designed to increase costs and cause shortages, economic policy that has already stolen big chunks out of people’s retirement funds by sending the stock market on end - the country is going to suffer for years to come. To the extent necessary to cause people to re-think their attitudes and comprehend the results of their entitlement mentality, "Going John Galt" may accelerate the end result to facilitate the future recovery.

By "Going John Galt" - reducing my income to the point that I no longer subsidize anyone else via government imposed wealth transfers - I hope to hasten the inevitable collapse.

Tax avoidance is legal, per the Supreme court, tax evasion (many in this administration's and congress' crime) is not.

Anyone may structure their affairs to minimize taxes (avoidance), deliberately misreporting (evasion) is unlawful.

"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands." - Learned Hand

Taxpayers who are in the $250,000+ bracket are cutting back on their productivity. As they should - where does society get the right to enslave these people? The faster the 40% opts out, the sooner the collapse, and the sooner we can correct the situation.

It’s time to stop enabling the entitlement mentality.

It’s time to "Go John Galt"

 

[The_Trouvere]

If your thinking is not a perfect justification to "Go John Galt", there never was one.

Why kill yourself working if you're going to give it all away to people who don't work as hard? Or won't.

If we all "Go John Galt", they'll just continue to lower the bar to take from all taxpayers...

It’s time to stop enabling the entitlement mentality.

It’s time to "Go John Galt"

MeeMie,

I am impressed! You actually seem to have written this by yourself. I wonder, however, if you can read Atlas Shrugged without moving your lips.

In this video there is mention of someone who says the talented people should take your advice. Then it turns out he is looking for a job:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/221335/march-11-2009/the-word---rand-illusion

 

[MeeMie]

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/221335/march-11-2009/the-word---rand-illusion

Colbert ... you can't be serious.

Next thing we know, you'll be using Olberman and Matthews as references.

 

[MeeMie]

quoting Dr Helen

For those of you who have never read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, the basic theme is that John Galt and his allies take actions that include withdrawing their talents, “stopping the motor of the world,” and leading the “strikers” (those who refuse to be exploited) against the “looters” (the exploiters, backed by the government).

Perhaps the partisan politics we are dealing with now is really just a struggle between those of us who believe in productivity, personal responsibility, and keeping government interference to a minimum, and those who believe in the socialistic policies of taking from others, using the government as a watchdog, and rewarding those who overspend, underwork, or are just plain unproductive.

Obama talks about taking from those who are productive and redistributing to those who are not — or who are not as successful. If success and productivity is to be punished, why bother? Perhaps it is time for those of us who make the money and pay the taxes to take it easy, live on less, and let the looters of the world find their own way.

What are some ways to “go John Galt” (legally, of course) — that is, should productive people cut back on what they need, make less money, and take it easy so that the government is starved for funds, or is there some other way of making a statement?


Lots of good ideas here:

Larry J said...
It's an attractive notion and does happen to a degree but I can see certain limitations to its effectiveness. Those who want to put government at the center of everything will never accept the idea of the government having to get by on less money.

If productive people cut back, the politicians will find other ways to extract extra revenues such as a "one time" tax on retirement savings (an idea that has been floated at least once). You actually saved for your retirement (401K, IRA, etc)? Well, the government needs money to buy votes and you have money, so they'll take it. If, as looks all too likely at the moment, Obama and the Democrats win big in 3 weeks, they'll control both the presidency and Congress. There will be little to stop them from going on the biggest wealth grab in our country's history.

My wife used to work for a gifted and successful oral surgeon. This man was very good at what he did. However, each year, he'd take off for several months. He figured any additional income would be so disproportionately taxed that it simply wasn't worth it to earn more. Under Obama, I expect to see a lot more people follow his example. They'll either find ways to shelter their income or reduce their income so they don't have to pay so much in taxes.


tomcal said...
I'm still here, waiting like a spider for asset valuations to drop to reasonable levels. And as I wait, I feel like John Galt - I have cut the operations of my business to a minimum because any investment just didn’t seem to be worth the risk. My operating income is down 70% since last year, but guess what? - I don’t seem to have that much less to spend once my tax savings are factored in. I should qualify that by saying that I am spending a lot less money these days, but I already have so much junk that I don't need, that I able to entertain myself by pulling out my old toys.

I am playing a lot of golf, going on a lot of camping and rock-climbing trips with my kids and family, participating long range rifle competitions, continually and honing my forearms skills, and reading a lot. Of course I'm watching the financial and real estate markets like a hawk - or maybe I should say a vulture - but that is just what I do, it doesn't seem like work. I feel a lot less stressed and enjoying myself more than ever, especially the time with my kids (both are seniors with whom I have developed a closeness that never would have happened without this recession. In fact, by spending time with the kids, I have been able to instill a sense of frugality in them that is saving me thousands.

I realize that not everyone has the resources to do what I am doing, and I don't have the resources to do it forever, but I believe I have enough to weather this storm; and it is amazing how much less you need when you really decide to scale down.

About 8 months ago, I started noticing things that reminded me of the world painted by Rand in "Atlas Shrugged". Small things like fewer cars on the freeways, more cars with bald tires, more cars on the side of the road with mechanical problems or just out of gas, started to catch my attention. It also seemed to me that there was just less energy and vibrancy in the streets, stores, restaurants, and that there was a general feeling of malaise when I was out around town. So I pulled out my copy of “Atlas” and re-read it. After overcoming the initial period of depression that it brings on, I said to myself, “Self, you should withdraw, just like John Galt”. So I laid some people off, put some long-term projects on hold, thereby reducing my legal, accounting, engineering, architectural, travel, and other consulting expenses, and started living the lifestyle described above.

You can’t wind everything down overnight, it takes time, and I am not finished. In the process, I have talked a few of my small-businessman friends into doing the same thing; and now of course many more are being forced to cut back, although maybe not as cheerfully as I am. I could go on for hours about the multiplier effects on the economy of my decision to back off, but let’s just say that they have pulled hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax revenue from the public trough; and that’s just me.

Like Galt, I feel that what I am doing will benefit everyone in the long run. The outrageous consumption habits of the American people, to a great degree encouraged by the example of the outrageous spending habits of the U.S. Government, have to stop. There is simply no way that we can spend our way into prosperity over the long term, although many still feel that we can.

This recession is exactly what we need to bring some reality back into the picture. We have raised a generation, maybe two generations, of selfish, whining crybabies – both in and out of Government – whose primary business is trying to take money from others without providing any meaningful long term service to society. They need to be brought to their knees and shown the facts of life. As everyone starts to get it, as cities and hopefully even states go bankrupt, they will be forced to re-think just what is important. When the public sector gets it, to the point that many public sector employees and retirees see their benefits dramatically cut; when it is longer be possible for a 20-year civil servant to retire at 90% of his salary, and those that already have retired have their dole funds cut off by public sector bankruptcies, I will reach nirvana.

The sooner we reach that point, the better. When we do, I will get back in the game with gusto, knowing that for the first time in my life I am operating from a solid base.


fboness said...
People will see things getting worse. That is the lesson of FDR and the confiscatory taxes he got on high earners. High earners opted out of servitude and the people who would have gained employment from the cascading effects of the high earners continued to live in a depression.



Rick "Doc" MacDonald said...
Look at the records of your government representatives - they control the purse strings. If they are voting for spending; vote against them. If they are voting for nanny state legislation and against individual responsibility, and individual property rights; then vote against them. I think you get the point.

Those who voted for or who support(ed) in anyway, bills or laws such as McCain/Feingold; Sarbanes/Oxley; McCain/Kennedy; The Fairness Doctrine; No Child Left Behind; etc., should be sent packing. Anyone who stands against replacing public education with a private educational system or home schooling (and immediate reduction in school based taxes at all levels) should be voted out.

We have the right to free speech, and we have the right to raise our children to be independent of mind and strong of body. Good citizens have the obligation to exercise whatever rights they have or should expect to lose those rights. Speak, damn it! Stop sniveling and whining and do something. Organize, express your passion and take action.

Take back control over your child's education. The teachers are in place to serve the children; not the damn teacher unions or some whacked leftist agenda, or to carry the chalice of altruism for religion. If the teachers don’t like their lot; let them quit or let’s fire them for non-performance.

Social education is the responsibility of parents - education in the basics of language, mathematics, science, history, and philosophy is the education we expect our children to obtain from teachers. Topics beyond those are the domain of parents, period.

We do not send them to school to be indoctrinated into the blind acceptance of multicultural, multi-linguistic, socio-economic, or socio-sexual bullshit. These topics are the responsibility of parents, libraries or universities. Barak Obama is embarrassed that many Americans can’t speak Spanish. My question is, “Why should they?” Spanish is not the language of economics, science, mathematics or anything else of global significance. The one language that is, is ENGLISH. For those of you who think forcing children to sit through bilingual education, ask yourself why English is more important than Spanish. If everyone in America spoke Spanish, for now, English would still be the common language of business, economics, science and most other major areas of interests to developed and developing nations. It’s not by accident and for you religionists out there, it’s not by God. It’s the result of the greatest society of free thinkers and free men. It’s the result of a plan drawn up, not by a God, but by inspired men born in the Age of Enlightenment who refused to accept any facet of governance lingering from the Dark Ages of Monarchies and Religious oppression.

If one wants to send a signal that we aren't going to tolerate the socialist agenda any longer, work to pull your kids out of every elementary and secondary public school for a month...or even an entire school year. Vote to repeal all budgeted spending on schools in each town across the country, or vote to recall selectmen, city counselor, school committee members, etc. and replace them with people who will comply with the will of the people.

If all politics are local, then local politics is the place to begin. Branch out with each success…demand more from all levels of governance in terms of them keeping out of the way and sticking to the things that should be their concern – national defense, individual security and adjudicating justice through laws consistent with the spirit and intent of that U.S. Constitution.

It should be remembered that the Constitution was constructed to limit the power of government over the people. It was not constructed to limit the power of the individual over their representatives. Any law or court decision that gives government more power over individuals than the other way round is a bad law or a bad decision and requires immediate abolition.

Establishing Fannie Mae was bad law. It was made better by moving Fannie into the private sector with government oversight, but only a little better. The improvement was still bad law, but it was the people of the United States who stood by while the bill was proposed, voted on and approved and made into law with the President’s signature. Fannie Mae was established and its charter changed without a challenge. Not voting is an action as is any form of inaction. That should not be overlooked.

For now, anyone associated with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd and Christopher Cox should be voted out and kept away from any investigational body. Everyone who accepted a campaign contribution from either of these entities should have already resigned, but can and should be voted out or recalled. We don't need anyone like a Jamie Garelick sitting on a board and essentially exonerating himself of blame or fault as she did by serving on the 911 Commission.

Those truly concerned with justice should have voted responsibly in the recent presidential election. In 2010, demand that members of the new Congress appoint a special prosecutor, and that the investigation be transparent. They must ensure that in the end, all evidence will be laid bare for the public to see and evaluate on its own. In the end, it is the people of this nation who will decide if the nation becomes socialist or remains a haven of liberty and individual property rights. It’s said that Judas sold Jesus for 30 pieces of silver; how much is freedom worth?

Spend as little money as possible and send a message to banks, businesses and brokerage houses that you expect them to act ethically or to wither and die. Anyone and everyone who voted for this absurd bailout should be voted out of office. Anyone who opposes a transparent and complete investigation of misdeeds that created this economic chaos ought to be voted out until we get answers.

It's too easy to speak in theory and come up with suggestions than it is to take action. If now is not the right time to take action, then, when will it be the right time? How much time is left before it becomes too late to stand up and act? How many people have to succumb to the evils of altruistic slavery before an "underground railroad" of sorts gets fired up and roars into action to fight for freedom?

 

[The_Trouvere]

Lots of good ideas here:

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2008/10/going-john-galt.html

When are you going to come up with your own ideas?

 

[MeeMie]

Michael said...
Yes, you can "Go Galt" in some ways, by withdrawing your wealth from the governmental and societal parasites in whatever legal ways you can: control your spending patterns, alter the hours you work or how you are paid, etc. But stay within legal limits so you don't go to jail. Damn, we don't need good people in jail.

And remember that one aspect of "Going John Galt" is fighting for rights, reason, objectivity and reality. Staying true to those concepts (and to man's life qua rational animal) is the reason he went on strike; and the reason he gave a long speech to the country -- his own "Declaration of Independence." If you withdraw without standing up for a rational philosophy, you are not "Going John Galt," you are merely giving up.

We can still, like Galt, broadcast rational ideas far and wide.

We can still make a difference.

So write your Congressmen, write your local news media, speak out -- and don't let anyone try to put the blame for a social or moral ill on reason and capitalism, when the fault is irrationality and socialism.






Obama's reference is that we should, instead, be more like Europe. A continent where they can't even agree on monetary policy from one nation to the next, but call themselves a "union". It's like one person eating fillet mignon and another having a hamburger and both stating that they are brothers of the cow. The description and the reality are utter nonsense.

 

[MeeMie]

Pete said...
I sold my business.

I sold several properties, two of them to my children at a significant "loss." (Ka-Ching!)

I'm raising a great deal of my own food and taken to raising sheep and poultry. All for personal consumption, not sale.

I live in a rural area, so while Andy and bob and charlie might buy some sheep to be raised by me, Andy is buying swine, Bob is buying beef, etc.

Canning. Freezing.

Buying bulk.

I'm doing computer and electrical work. Bob is doing carpentry. Andy is doing plumbing. The whole "Pool your talents" routine.

Hunting.

Burning wood this winter as much as possible. Well water. Electric power from solar and wind.

Joining a gas co-op.

Screw you, Barack and Blue America. Have fun widdit. I ain't playing for the next few years.

Oh - and I plan to give YOUR president (Because he sure ain't mine) the same chance and respect you gave George Bush for the last 8 years.

 

[koalabear]

Pete said...
I sold my business.

I sold several properties, two of them to my children at a significant "loss." (Ka-Ching!)

I'm raising a great deal of my own food and taken to raising sheep and poultry. All for personal consumption, not sale.

I live in a rural area, so while Andy and bob and charlie might buy some sheep to be raised by me, Andy is buying swine, Bob is buying beef, etc.

Canning. Freezing.

Buying bulk.

I'm doing computer and electrical work. Bob is doing carpentry. Andy is doing plumbing. The whole "Pool your talents" routine.

Hunting.

Burning wood this winter as much as possible. Well water. Electric power from solar and wind.

Joining a gas co-op.

Screw you, Barack and Blue America. Have fun widdit. I ain't playing for the next few years.

Oh - and I plan to give YOUR president (Because he sure ain't mine) the same chance and respect you gave George Bush for the last 8 years.

Check out the Food Modernization Act in the latest bill. You may not be able to have you own garden and buy from farmers. Too many toxins, is the excuse. You will only be able to buy from the Corporate Farms.

 

[MeeMie]

GaltLives said...

In business I can lower my salary and either leave it in the business or pay it out in dividends (no FICA taxes). Buy gold instead of stocks and CDs. Drop all subscriptions to MSM. Buy antiques, used guns, etc. instead of new products.

How could an extreme leftist who didn't even grow up in America, and doesn't know how many states we have, become President? It's insane!




JD said...
Every day makes me more convinced that America deserves this liberal prick.
Sadly, this man couldn’t get approve for a simple security clearance. Seriously, thanks mostly to the spineless liberals across this country this man is in the White House. The fact that the general public has let this happen just proves how far left this country has gone. How much more information do we need to prove this man is dangerous. The age of stupidity is here.




GawainsGhost said...
On the subject of going John Galt, last year I sold two commercial buildings and my taxes quadrupled. I had to write a check to the IRS that was the equivalent of my entire salary as a first-year teacher twenty years ago. That hurt. And needless to say, I haven't sold any more commercial buildings.

This is the problem with a progressive tax system. The more you earn, the more you pay. At some point, it becomes counterproductive to earn more, since the government is only going to take more and leave you with less.

This is not the time to remove yourself but to exert yourself. We need fundamental change at all levels in this country, and if we do not demand and implement it, these United States are going down the toilet bowl of history.




PatCA
We can "go Galt" in a symbolic and educational way. Most people under 40 have never been taught the values of self-reliance and the dangers of socialism, so why not show them?

We can borrow from the left's use of political theater. How about flash mobs to illustrate the folly of government nannyism? At a certain time and day, hundreds of briefcase wielding professionals show up at the steps of Congress, silently burn their mortgages, and then morph into hippies?

 

[MeeMie]

ExNavyDoc said...
Thank God I am not alone in thinking along these lines.

I am a medical professional in a relatively under-staffed specialty. I have said that if Obama and crew are elected and raise the marginal rates to 60-70% or higher, I will simply go part-time.

The final straw was the last debate, when the One proclaimed that health care is a "right". Screw him and his minions. Let them try to provide this "right" to the masses, when those who produce it by their labor and intellect refuse to do so.



Ardsgaine said...
The looters can always enslave men, and eke out a living by exploiting their labor. What they cannot do is force men to use their minds. John Galt as a slave working in a grain field yields no greater benefit to his master than any other warm body. It is John Galt as productive genius and entrepreneur that the mixed economy desperately needs in order to prevent its collapse. It needs the continually increasing productivity that his genius provides to keep the economy on its feet. Its like a constant blood transfusion into a vampire's victim. Increasing productivity is not accomplished through muscle-power though. It is our minds that the looters depend on. Without that, dollars are just so much litter, and gold is just a yellow rock. And the mind is something that can never be forced. It can only be given voluntarily. They can't put a gun to the head of a genius and say, "Invent something!" In fact, the more they introduce force into economic relations, the more the mind is driven out. It is nearing the point where our minds won't have to go on strike, because they have been fired. How many of you already go to work and feel like you have to check your brain at the door?

So you don't have to stop earning money, just keep going to work, do what you are asked to do, and no more. Unless something happens to change our political course, the collapse will take care of itself.

 

[phrodeau]

This hemorrhaging of U.S. government debt will be happening at precisely the time when, in a rational world, the government would be running surpluses, in anticipation of the retirement of some 80 million baby boomers who will soon collect multiple trillions of dollars of government benefits from Medicare and Social Security.

Surpluses? Not with your team in charge.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Check out the Food Modernization Act in the latest bill. You may not be able to have you own garden and buy from farmers. Too many toxins, is the excuse. You will only be able to buy from the Corporate Farms.

You need to actually read the Bill instead of listening to propaganda. There are no provisions to stop private gardening or organic farming.

The Bill requires those who sell food they grow to have food handler licenses and be inspected regularly. Small direct to consumer farmers will have to be inspected and store food in the same way commercial produce vendors have to.

On noes..

 

[MeeMie]

MICKLARR said...
A little over two years ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars,taking cruises,vacations
overseas, living large!...



But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right.

In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
; 3) Unemployment is up to 5.5%(a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION
DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) as I write, THE DOW20is probing another low~~
$2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT
PORTFOLIOS!

YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT!....

REMEMBER PRESIDENT BUSH HAD NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.


NOW OBAMA, THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT, CLAIMS HE IS
GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!!

JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO THEY THINK YOU CAN STAND?



Start by voting the bums out in 2010. Let's show them a change we can believe in.

 

[koalabear]

You need to actually read the Bill instead of listening to propaganda. There are no provisions to stop private gardening or organic farming.

The Bill requires those who sell food they grow to have food handler licenses and be inspected regularly. Small direct to consumer farmers will have to be inspected and store food in the same way commercial produce vendors have to.

On noes..

Read it again. It buries the seller in paperwork, plus the buyer has to fill out paperwork. and get those eyes fixed....

 

[phrodeau]

2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;

Now that's some fuzzy math right there.

 

[MeeMie]

kona said...
I read Atlas at 19 and it made perfect sense to me. Today, I am 38, earning nearly $200K per year -- and the conversation at our dinner table last week floored me.

As my husband graduates with his master's and enters the workforce in January, we actually talked about "aiming low" -- more than $50K a year and it all goes to the government...never thought I would see the day when this conversation was had in our home!

We've both had a jobs since age of 13, put ourselves through undergrad, and grad school with school loan debt around $120K. We live cheap, in a 400 square foot apartment (can't afford a house in Southern Cal, so I guess we're among the good guys), drive pickup trucks, contribute max to the 401K and believed all along we were doing the right things & making responsible choices. But we find ourselves without the tax shelter of a home or children, writing very large checks to teh IRS and FTB each year(half our earnings), so that it can help the guy down the street? Who bought what he couldn't afford? We're paying for this. And now we sit in our tiny apartment, paying our bills on time, and considering "aiming low..." to stay below the Obama threshold. Talk about devastating.

 

[MeeMie]

MICKLARR said...
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

We are well on our way to that dictatorship as the "new Progressive/Communist Party" (Moveon: We own the Democrat Party and expect something for our money") has made it their mission to destroy the economy for the sake of an election. See, any we all thought they were a "do nothing congress" when in fact they have fulfilled their goals.

The sub prime crisis, brought to you by Fannie Mae and the very corrupt thieves like: Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, Barney Frank, Barack Obama, Maxine Watters, Nancy "let 'em eat cake" Pelosi, John Kerry and Harry Reid ...just to name of few, should be hauled out in handcuffs and prosecuted.