How Long can it all be Republicans fault??

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

Won't Get Fooled Again, The Who , Who's Next(1971)

Every president will blame the past one, either directly or indirectly (using media commentators or spokesmen.) And many times it is valid to do that. Most Americans agreed that G.W. Bush could not be (entirely) responsible for the successful Sept 11, 2001 attacks or the 2001 market crash. Much of what he had to work with his first nine months was left over from the Clinton administration. But liberals (progressives) to this day still say that the "September 11, 2001 attacks were on Bush's Watch" after only nine months in office and that Bush was left a booming economy by Clinton. Yet they also claim that this is not yet Obama's economy even now in October 2009, unless there is good news. Good news is always the Obama economy.

Well like it or not Obama inherited a huge mess. I know last December 2008 Rush-bo was claiming the stock market was crashing because Obama was elected. You may or may not believe that, but it really couldn't sell, especially after the Bush TARP speech last fall tanked the market. You may think the economy crash of late 2008 was all democrats fault, CRA, etc. Again, that couldn't possibly sell. Sadly the great Republican experiment 2001-2006 was not the happy story we were hoping to tell the next generations. Obama was left with many free passes from President Bush, the previous congresses and most of all Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve and he is copying those passes for future use. He will use them as long as he can; and in three years 2012 democrats will still be blaming Bush for anything that is bad. The Democrats failed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 should seriously be hurting Obama much more than it is; and republicans need to keep pounding Democrats on it, and pound even more on the deficit and our destroyed future. How about the failed cash for clunkers program?? (Edmunds: Cash for Clunkers cost taxpayers $24k per car, not $4k )( Edmunds Inc) But even that will take time. Each month Obama owns a little more of every bit of the bad news. You can't make the hour-glass sand of public opinion run as fast you would like. Republicans had many years in power.

Obama is much more masterful at politics than republicans ever were. Note how in spite of the fact that republicans are completely out of power, and democrats have the 60 vote Senate majority (something republicans never had), that Obama is still making ‘republicans’ the issue on his failures to get bills passed. Republicans ‘just say no’. They ‘don't have a plan’ , they ‘want Obama to fail’. All of this SHOULD be considered completely irrelevant now. But Democrats are keeping republicans negatives high with this strategy. Do you remember Bush keeping attention on democrats obstruction in 2005 when democrats destroyed the Social Security reform by claiming republicans wanted to kill seniors?? Of course not! GWB was lame at fighting democrats politically after 2004 mostly playing defense. On the other side the Obama administration's War of FOX News makes no sense at all except maybe a strategy to keep the liberal base on their side. (FOXNews.com, October 18, 2009 White House Escalates War on Fox News)

According to Obama and democrats, any job created is Obama’s Economic Recovery package and any job that is lost is Bush's (GWBs) recession. That's how the 650,000 jobs were created or saved by the Obama stimulus, (below) all while we lost 3.6M jobs since stimulus package was passed. (White House: 3.6 Million Jobs Lost is “Quite Positive”), but those are Bushes job losses in this bad Bush economy.

"Politico.com announced on Oct. 30 that White House officials planned a Friday afternoon announcement for the same day claiming "at least 1 million jobs" had been saved or created....Other news outlets, including NPR and CNN, focused on a lower White House claim the same day saying that "more than 650,000 jobs have been saved or created" under the stimulus." at : Politico Says White House 'Under Pressure' Will Announce 1 Million Jobs 'Saved'

Why only claim only 1 Million jobs were saved or created?? How about claiming that 4 million were saved or created by the ‘Obama economy' while the ‘Bush economy’ lost 7 million jobs (still the net lost of 3 million jobs) at exactly the same time in 2009? Obama is still the hero in this narrative and he gets to extend our unemployment benefits too raising payroll taxes, just what we need with increasing unemployment. ( Payroll paradox : Our view: Why raise unemployment taxes now? The law offers no choice: Baltimore Sun) . And the federal minimum wage increased, democrats give everyone a raise too at the same time. That was actually a GW Bush/Pelosi bill raising the minimum raise while we have steep unemployment under Obama. Ironic, Huh??

How Long can it all be Republicans fault?? The answer will be that : "It will always be republicans fault." No matter how bad things get, unemployment, deficits, inflation, health care rationing or prices under democrats. We will be told that "Things would have been even worse without Obama. We tried free markets and capitalism and it failed under republicans, now we will try socialism (never tried before apparently) and so far it is working fine."

But if Democrats start losing elections, like next Tuesday November 3, 2009, then we will have a sign that the voters are turning again. But still...

Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

Glenn Beck on this week of White House War on Fox News Channel

A great week for Glenn Beck show and FNC. Not so great for the Obama attack machine and democrats.

Clip 1 : Glenn Beck Clips 10-23-09 Seg1- GREAT! Running America the Chicago Way, Mafia & Baseball Bats

Welcome to the Glenn Beck program. Tonight here are the question we are going to talk about : Chicago type lessons and are they being applied ? And who is going to whacked, and why ?....

It's the Chicago way. If you don't know what that is let me play you a scene from the movie 'The Untouchables.' (Plays clip of Sean Connery and Kevin Costner talking about crushing the enemy.) What is that Barrack Obama promised on the campaign trail? 'A new kind of politics'? Well America didn't think the 'new' politics would be worse than the old politics. But here's what the new politics is: If you don't agree with the administration (Glenn waves a baseball bat threateningly) and you want to stand in the way of reform... No longer is it a gentlemen disagreement that can be debated. Oh no, no, no, you are going to play ball or get a beat down.

Some of the people that found out this week , Chamber of Commerce found out first hand. The White House didn't have a problem with the Chamber of Commerce ,when they were on board for the bailouts, the takeover of GM and the stimulus. 'You want to play ball, you know what I mean??' He even whispered sweet 'I love small businesses' in their ears. (Plays a clip of Obama praising small businesses) .... America cant live without them, he loves them. He loves the Chamber who represents three million businesses, 95% are small businesses. But when the Chamber comes out against the disastrous climate Cap and Trade bill, And then they got the gall to come out against universal health care. Well the president got out his baseball bat. (Waves the bat threateningly and plays a clip of Obama attacking the Chamber.) I thought he loves small businesses. Well he does, until they stop playing for the team....and the Chamber has money. That's bad.

And what do they know about health care? We will ask the doctors. ...
Entire clip at :




Direct link:Running America the Chicago Way, Mafia & Baseball Bats

or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gCIzC-vXKM


Clip 2 :Glenn Beck Clips 10-20-09 Seg1- Much of the American Media are Lapdogs Rather Than Watch Dogs

Welcome to the Glenn Beck program. Tonight the press and your freedom of speech is under attack on every front. The press is supposed to be a watchdog of freedom. Today we finally found one, ABCs Jake Tapper asked the crucial question today. 'Hey we noticed you treat FOX pretty poorly here'. We are going to give you the White House response coming up in just a second.... Thank you Jake Tapper for actually calling them out. Is anyone challenging the pathetic nature of these attacks? Does anyone see this as a bad thing for our Republic? Has a single one of these watchdogs..., and when I say watchdogs I mean that's what their supposed to be. Here's the press watchdog: 'ruff, ruff, ruff' .(Glenns is holding a little puppy dog). She's shivering she's so afraid of Obama. This is our press now so scared of Obama. Wouldn't it be better to have a really scary watchdog watching the government?? Entire clip at :




Direct link:Much of the American Media are Lapdogs Rather Than Watch Dogs

or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQnEVri3NTM

Clip 3 :Glenn Beck Clips 10-22-09 Seg1- Poll: 1st Time More People Disagree with Obama Than Agree

The Mao hotline is here so the White House can call in anytime. They haven't yet which is suspicious. You know I was thinking maybe its inconvenient for them to watch TV and do their work at the same time, and then I saw this clip from another network. Watch this (shows a Clip of Meeka on MSNBC show 'The Morning Joe' where she says: "The White House just did email us and say that the interaction with ABC Jake Tapper was not heated and I would say that they are making comments about Fox News in a very calm understated manner and we are the ones at MSNBC freaking out about it") Wait a minute. The White House is emailing a show no one watches and they can't call us. Maybe they could fax us if their phone lines are tied up with MSNBC. ....

Entire clip at :




Direct link:Poll: 1st Time More People Disagree with Obama Than Agree

or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgCVO3ZdVoQ

Clip 4 : Glenn Beck Clips 10-21-09 Seg1- Tactics the Admin Uses to Attack People and Organizations

The White House has our phone number. They haven't used it yet which makes me think they are issuing a smear campaign. You can call me any time and correct any of the mistakes you say we make. I would love to hear what they are. The Mao hotline. They haven't called yet so I thought maybe the phones are down so I brought carrier pigeons. You can call me or send carrier pigeons with all our mistakes so we can correct them...

I am going to expose two things that the white house does to totally control the debate...Here on these trees I listed three things : 1) Wrong thinking, 2) danger and 3) profit. They are the same three things that progressives use to discredit opponents on every single issue. Wrong thinking, danger and profit. They continually use this argument on everything. It doesn't matter what they are talking about. They disparage any dissent by saying those involved it's just wrong thinking saying: 'they are not smart enough, its the politics of the past'. Then you have the second one :'They are a danger, it's bad danger'. Then you have a third category: 'Those that are against it are against it for profit'. Meanwhile their (the progressives) goals are always right, their methods are always healthy, their motivation pure, enlightened and for the betterment of human kind and mother earth. Don't question them. Its these people (Wrong thinking, danger and profit) you have to worry about....

(Then Glenn Beck plays a number of democrat video clips as examples and show how each theme is an example democrat theme of Wrong thinking, danger and profit. Examples shown in clip : 1) Obama and oil company profits, 2) Hillary Clinton and oil company profits,3)Congressman Alan Grayson on how republicans want you to die, 4) Bill Maher on health insurance profits, 5) Obama on those opposing his health reform.) ....

Entire clip at :




Direct link:Tactics the Admin Uses to Attack People and Organizations

or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QnXw7nqaO4

Obama's vision of Competition (and other Obama-care dreams)

Pelosi July 17, 2009:"We have the support of the doctors (AMA), the nurses and the American people"

This past week Nancy Pelosi's House of Representatives has made public their draft of comprehensive health care plan, a.k.a. Obama-care. President Obama is doing campaign events and (scripted) town hall meetings promoting the any day now democrat success in passing a Obama-care bill. The Democratic National Committee is running campaign ads targeting wavering moderate-conservative Senate democrats to gin up pressure for them to fall in line and vote 'yes'. Obama and the democratic leadership are promoting a sense of urgency as they did with the Stimulus bill. Republicans are once again cut out of negotiations leaving democrats alone to get their members to fall in line behind another massively expensive bill , again similar to the Economic Recovery (Stimulus) (Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act of 2009) bill.

What are the crisis arguments that Obama is using to once again get the public to rally behind him again?

Obama July 1, 2009 : "Unless we act, within a decade, one out of every $5 we earn will be spent on health care. And for those who rightly worry about deficits, the amount our government spends on Medicare and Medicaid will eventually grow larger than what our government spends today on everything else combined -- everything else combined."





Obama : " In the last nine years, premiums have risen three times faster than wages for the average family. I don't need to tell you this because you've seen it in your own lives. Even if you've got health insurance -- and 46 million people don't -- if you've got health insurance, you have seen your costs double. They've gone up three times faster than wages. If we do nothing, then those costs are just going to keep on going higher and higher."

They are "If we don't do anything now Medicaid and Medicare will grow larger than all the government spending today". "More and more people will lose their health insurance". "Small Companies will not be able to compete with those overseas" . Notice these are all negative-negative prediction arguments. If we don't pass this plan then these bad things will happen. Does this sound familiar? "If we don't pass TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) immediate the stock market will crash and the country will go into recession" and " If we don't pass this stimulus (economic recovery ) plan unemployment will exceed 8%" . The country sheepishly went along with those two bills and the negative predictions came true anyway, with trillions of dollar of debt and a takeover of the economy by the federal government. Notice we were promised few if any positive results from these massive government interventions into the economy that could be used as a measure of success. In both cases we were promised doom if we didn't fall in line. In both cases we were told that the failure of these bills was because things must have been worse before the bills than they thought, but both were a success. This makes it difficult to be optimistic about another expensive crisis bill.

Obama : "In recent years, over one-third of small businesses have reduced benefits and many have dropped coverage altogether since the early '90s -- not because small business owners don't want to provide benefits to their workers, but they just simply can't afford it; they don't have the money. If we don't act, that means that more people are going to lose coverage and more people are going to lose their jobs because those businesses are not going to be competitive."


Obama and democrats do promise some positive results on Obama-care. That we (who are we?) will pay less in health care insurance costs (as will the country as a whole) , we will get to keep our own health insurance if we are happy with it, and it will help bring the deficit under control. Unfortunately the specific details of the current democrat's draft bill's contradict all of these Obama's talking points. It looks like it will cost more, run up even bigger deficits and joblessness and will make it difficult to keep your doctor and health insurance plan. One example is that the abortion will be in the required minimum set of benefit your health insurance must provide to avoid the 8% payroll tax. The other is the current CBO (Congressional Budget Office)estimate of how much the current democrat plans will cost. Lastly is that the taxes to pay for it will fall on small businesses, as will the 8 % payroll taxes killing off any small business private sector jobs.


Obama :"I also strongly believe that one of the options in the exchange should be a public option, in order for us to create some competition for the private insurers to keep them honest. If they are in fact giving good service and providing high-quality coverage, then that's where people will want to go."


Being a (Peter) Schiff-ist free-marketeer I have to comment on a line Obama repeats over and over that "We need a public option to compete with the private health insurance companies to keep them honest". He says that if private insurance companies really offer a good deal that makes us happy then we will reject the public option. Yet what does he mean by compete? He means that the government will apply a number of mandates and regulations to what is already the most regulated private industry in America. He will require that the private insurance companies must accept already sick customers and provide a set of minimum set of benefits such as abortion. On the other side those on the public option will have the government impose the same price controls on doctors as medicare and medicaid. That will create a even bigger pool for the insurers to that will force the doctors to cost shift to those on private plans while forcing businesses to shift to the public plan. This is why the left is sure that the public plan will lead to a single payer system while Obama sells it as competition (an anti-socialist term.)

Bernie Sandors on FNC to Megan Kelly July 17, 2009: “ We have to do something or costs will destroy this country”, “We are spending MORE than any other country on health care and getting the least” ,”Only those rich fat cats on Wall Street who got big bonuses will have to pay to insure us all”


Let me propose a public option alternative to Obama-care to truly 'compete' with private insurance :
1) Obama care should get no tax money to support it. It needs to survive on it's insurance premiums alone like the private insurance he plans to compete with. That means no tax increases, especially not on job producers. The uninsured can be treated free on all the 'cost savings' and 'efficiency' of the publicly run government Obama-care option ,as can those already ill. Heck, healthy Obama supporters will sign up in droves to cost share with all the drug addicts and homosexuals that already have aids, right?
2) Private Health Insurance Companies should be given the freedom to offer insurance across state lines and not be required to provide a minimum set of benefits set by state law. Those minimum benefits will now be provided by Obama-care and will not be needed by private companies as with those that are all ready sick. Let the young and healthy be allowed to buy insurance at a price that is related to their risk and desired coverage using the private companies if they desire. Let private health insurance be like auto-insurance, based on risk.
3) Make everyone be required to have health insurance that covers emergency rooms. This mandate is required simply because both parties demand that anyone requiring emergency service be treated without payment (yet if you have assets or significant taxable income and don't pay they can destroy your credit rating, but otherwise it is free.) The mandate for this emergency room service takes care of the claim of Obama that we need to give free health care covering abortions because we pay for it anyway when the uninsured walk in an emergency room. I understand this is anti-libertarian but so is the current laws that drive up our taxes now.
4) The President, Vice President and Congress must give up their current government funded health care plans and either pay cash or be covered by the Obama-care government option as long as they are in office.

I know these ideas would never be passed by either party used to give-aways and were made to simply show that Obama-care claim of a government option to promote competition is complete political non-sense. Obama is going to tax your employer to pay for a government option to compete with the private insurance your employer gives you? Plus add costly mandates on that insurance?

Lastly. this is the first big political battle that counts. There was no chance to stop the stimulus politically. But this could be Obama's Stalingrad, he cant withdraw, he cant hold his supply lines as liberals in MSM are already talking about democrats proposal being a disaster likely to fail, at least without a re-write. This week MSNBC Hardball host Chris Mathews said it was mistake for democrats to go alone on the stimulus bill and should scrap the current health care bills and go bi-partition. MSNBC Ed Schulz rants daily about weak kneed democrats wavering on the government option and demands they cut republicans out completely and fall in line on a government option, as a way to get to single payer (Canadian/England care.) This is finally our moment to stop the Obama-revolution as Conservative Senator DeMint implied recently. Let's not blow it.

Moore's Sicko, England's Voter Revolution, and our Roadmap to Insolvency

Micheal Moore's Movie Sicko is playing on Showtime and the people's (the poor's) revolution he called for looks like the USA with Obama and Pelosi. I think it is a good reference for conservatives for the coming Health care reform battle as well as a warning for our possible future as a nation. In addition Moore's tour though Europe interviewing people that are extremely happy with the great free public services that their government provides while they all live rich lifestyles is Classic entertainment. Apparently there is no waiting with socialized medicine, in Europe they are treated immediately. The entire movie Sicko can be seen free here Sicko at Google.

Given the insolvency of Great Britain with the USA following there is a interview in the movie you should be familiar with. The scene starts with Narrator Michael Moore asking former Britain's Parliament member Tony Benn when the idea came that every citizen should have the right to free health care. He says "It all began with democracy. Before we had the vote all the power was in the hands of rich people. If you had money you had health care, education you could take care of yourself when you were old. Democracy gave the poor the vote and moved power from the market place to the polling place, from the wallet to the ballot. What we said is we had massive unemployment in the 1930s but not during the war (WWII) and If you can have full employment by killing Germans, why cant you have full employment by building schools, building hospitals, recruiting nurse, recruiting teachers? If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people."



Moore then talks about how the British pulled together after WWII devastation by providing free health care for everyone making a reference to America's pulling together after 9/11. More Tony Benn gems:"I think democracy is the most revolutionary thing in the world far more than socialist ideas because if you have power you use it to meet the needs of you and your community.”and "This idea of choice that Capitalists talk about all the time. Choice depends on the freedom to choose and if you are shackled with debt you don’t have the freedom to choose. People in debt become hopeless and hopeless people don’t vote. They always say that that everyone should vote but I think that if the poor in Britain or the United States turned out and voted for people that represented their interests there would be a real democratic revolution.” Moore also goes to France where he points out that the French government is terrified of the people who will demand their services and their four day week and march and protest for it.


The entire clip of Tony Benn is here:
Youtubelink :Sicko (Michael Moore) - Tony Benn


So Tony (and Moore) tells us that Britain pulled together after WWII and gave themselves free health care. He also says the people rose up and demanded government services on the basis that a country that could afford war with Germany can afford free health care and other free services. But we know England couldn't afford WWII. WWII destroyed the great British Empire and they lost their colonies as a result. Moore seems to be implying that WWII, Afghanistan and Iraq were all wars of choice and we can just choose free government services instead of War. England's war with Germany was not a luxury. In fact the further breaking of the government with new rights to free services made sure that Britain could never again fight a WWII by keeping it in a continuous bankrupt condition.

James Dale Davidson wrote a book in 1994 called The Great Reckoning: Protect Yourself in the Coming Depression that explained how Britain was THE world military and economy power for centuries but lost it's empire due to multiple wars and welfare spending that bankrupting the country. He pointed out how historically spending on war leads to more demands on the government for increased welfare spending which results in the end of the World Power. The United States took England's place as the military and economic world leader after WWII. Now in 2009, 60 years after England got their Moore revolution and the people demanded free health care from the government; the country is insolvent. Here's two articles about Britain's success in Micheal Moore's revolution: Budget 2009: Britain's debt will not be under control until 2032 and Britain: Brown’s fiscal stimulus no longer an option for G20 summit . To end this thought watch our favorite British Parliament member speech on British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's fiscal disaster and Moore's dream come true:

Daniel Hannan MEP: The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government("You have run out of our money"):




Youtubelink :Daniel Hannan MEP: The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government

Nancy Pelosi : “The CIA misled the Bush Administration (on torture and WMDs) just like with me”

At today’s House leadership press conference Speaker Nancy Pelosi was once again ambushed with questions about her CIA briefings on Enhanced interrogation Techniques. Today she stunned reporters when she said that the Bush White House was misled by the CIA on WMDs. She stated, “Former President George W Bush was misled into thinking Saddam had WMDs just like we were both misled on the CIA policy on torture. We need an investigation to find out if the CIA tortured prisoners to force them to say Iraq was producing WMDs to deceive the former White House into going to war.“ The House Speaker implied that the CIA conspired to trick both the President and the congress into invading Iraq. Reporters were in shock when the speaker defended the honor of the ex-president, “President Bush is an honorable man who only had the nation's best interest at heart and he was deceived on WMDs just as I was on the CIA torture policy. I will introduce a bill in congress to defund the CIA so this can never happen again.”

Pelosi also spoke on Valerie Plane/Joe Wilson scandal, “It is obvious that the Wilson/Plane scandal was all about classified leaks to hurt the President and his staff just like what is going on now with my investigation into CIA torture. We need an immediate investigation into both Plane’s and Wilson’s classified leaks relating to the production of WMDs in Iraq. In addition I call on President Obama to give a full pardon to Scooter Libby who was a victim of CIA leaks and lies just like I am. National Security trumps politics We are all Americans first. "

Was Keynes a modern Republican?

Supply Side Economics versus Republican Keynesian Economics
Remember the term Supply Side Economics? It seems so long ago in 1993 when Clinton got elected and invisible Republicans were replaced by real conservatives (in the minority.) We heard about the market, and capitalism and capital and how federal deficits were bankrupting our children. After years of controlling the congress, Republicans finally got the White House and a slowing economy and then September 11, 2001 happened. The economy slowed dramatically after the attack and three things were done to generate a major recovery :1) Bush finally got a number of different tax cuts through a (barely) Republican Majority Congress, 2) Greenspan Federal Reserve Bank created a huge amount of money for low interest rates loans and to help fund the government spending, and 3) there was a increase in huge government spending much of which was defense and War. There was also deregulation that allowed foreign investors to buy bundled home loans. This provided a huge economic Keynesian stimulus that could not help but get the economy moving. Add massive legal and illegal immigration to fuel both ends of a housing boom. But none of this could last because it was all borrowed and printed money, both private and public foreign borrowing.

Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves?
One of the supply side theories repeated on talk radio and is that tax cuts pay for themselves. This was first proposed by Reagan and then Rush repeated it in his book. It has never been proved because whenever federal taxes were cut (under Reagan and GWB) both social and military deficit spending went up increasing both tax revenues and deficits. The reason why this "pay for itself" theory seems to make sense is that taxing something will in general decrease the demand for it, like with higher prices. But what about the fact that tax cuts always go along with spending increases, huge spending increases mostly for political reasons? And what about that fact that government spending increases tax revenue, but not NET tax revenue (taxes minus spending.)


Bush Tax cuts Saved the Economy?
Now we are left with Obama who is increasing spending, borrowing money, passing tax credits (for many that pay no income taxes ) and Federal reserve Chair Bernke creating Trillions of $$$ to supposedly cure the economy. Something seems strangely familiar about the path we are on. We are told on talk radio that the Bush tax cuts alone saved the economy back in 2003 and paid for themselves through increased tax revenue. But again, the federal debt went up every year, with deficits exploding 2008 (the burst housing bubble is another topic.) Not only that but back in 2002 to 2005 Greenspan/Federal Reserve created a huge amount of NEW money for economic stimulus: loans and government borrowing. Talk radio never talks about that increase in money supply because it weakens the "Bush Tax Cuts saved us" narrative. In fact is the Federal Reserve that had to start contracting that money supply in 2007 and 2008 to control inflation, and that triggered the inevitable housing bust. The narrative of temporary growth and economy crash is not what anyone wants to take credit for.


'Tax Cuts paying for Themselves' disconnects Voters from Costs of Government
Instead of 'tax cuts paying for themselves' let me propose another theory: 'Tax cuts paying for themselves theory' disconnected the voter from the spending. So the voter can ask for more and more spending without worrying about paying for it. We invaded Iraq and republicans paid less. We gave free drugs to seniors and democrats paid less. We hired school teachers and the single Mom's paid less. So where was the limitation on spending going to come from? Talk radio has ideas on that : 1) We need to teach the public that social spending/borrowing is unconstitutional but military spending/borrowing is constitutional and 2) All that matters is the debt to GDP ratio. The political problem with pitch (#1) is when you rebuild a school in Iraq and then a voter wants his school rebuilt too, he will not appreciate it if you try to tell him his kids school project is not constitutional. The other problem is the supreme court is not likely to rule this way again in our lifetime. The debt to GDP ratio argument (#2) causes a problem when the GDP becomes comprised of mostly debt and consumption (and government spending.)

Repealing Keynesian Tax Cuts Hurts the Economy and Tax Revenues?
So how about making the voters pay for increases in government services and military spending so there will be a limit on government growth? I certainly see why the elected don't want this, but we are taught (and I mean taught) by talk radio that ANY tax increases will decrease tax revenue. Really? All tax increases? Always? What about the worker who got removed from the income tax rolls under the GWB tax cuts? (This was politically popular.) Is his paying no income taxes now creating more revenue than before when they paid taxes? Is that a supply side tax cut? He is most likely consuming that additional income. If he had to pay that tax again to pay for the increased government, how would that raise less money in tax revenue? Now Obama just gave him a tax credit, extra money he did not originally pay in federal taxes, except maybe payroll taxes. He will either spend that borrowed money or pay off bills too. Is that supply side? Will that pay for itself too? Democrats have co-opted republican language and claim their tax credit will jump start the economy and raise tax revenues, eventually. In both cases the taxpayers, at least those taxpayers, pay less taxes and revenue is less. This disconnects them from the cost of government so they want more. In fact this guy still feels entitled to social Security Benefits.

Tax Revenue increasing with government Spending and Debt
Now let's look at the tax/revenue question again. GWB cut taxes but increased government workers. So the government hires a worker, he pays new income taxes and tax revenues go up. He also cut the income taxes which reduced that tax revenue a bit. But the government is still in debt for his salary minus the taxes he pays. Where did that money go? Into the economy! Where is it now? It is consumed! He bought a couple houses and cars and TV sets. Did that grow the economy? Temporarily but now only the debt is left. Another case is federal funding of education. A public school hires a teacher with federal money. She pays federal taxes which increases tax revenue. A single Mom was happy too with Bush because her kids school got a new teacher. The teacher was happy with Bush because she got a job (until Ted Kennedy told her No Child Left Behind was underfunded.) The single Mom was also happy because Bush gave her a tax credit, the single Mom tax credit. That's money the government borrowed to give to her for having kids, and she spent it hopefully on the kids(and the child support too.) Did this tax credit "pay for itself" ?? Would there be less tax revenues if the government took it back by raising both their taxes? Ironically all that money is borrowed and those two Bush voters are unhappy with him now and voted for Obama. So now we have debt. I am not saying tax increases are are good or tax cuts are bad, here, just that Keynesian tax cuts do not pay for themselves. They are when combined with spending 'consuming today, to hell with tomorrow'. These Keynesian tax cuts and credits are passed for political reasons..

Conclusions:
In conclusion the theory that 'tax cuts pay for themselves' just leads to increased spending and increased debt. It removes any limitations in spending. It disconnects spending from the costs of spending. Republicans moved from Supply Side economics to Keynesian economics for political reasons, they were in charge (ala Jack Kemp rest his soul.) Unfortunately the passing of productive supply side tax cuts (not the Keynesian one's above) themselves creates pressure for more spending, as democrats yell and scream and call for "priorities" and how the rich are getting away with murder. This is not to argue against tax cuts themselves as long as spending is being cut at the same time, a VERY difficult task. But I finish with a conclusion that will irk conservatives that have grown up on talk radio. " Government spending is redistribution even if it comes with tax cuts". In fact, those that get the tax cuts are likely to be demanding the "government do more" just like those that don't. In this case, is it still their money? (Rhetorical question) The economy is so socialised by BOTH parties, everyone demands something. Republicans claim they earned Social Security for example. So maybe we need to limit government by not claiming it is free.

Reflections of a (very unhappy) former Bush-Bot in Obama-land

Yes, I admit it. I am a former Bush-bot. I believed we had something special with GWB in the 2000 Republican primary and was encouraged by Rush who I listened to every day since 1992. GWB was elected president after a close election with Gore in 2000. A few months later the September 11, 2001 attack and Bush response made him looked like a hero to almost everyone in the country, even black democrats. He reacted strongly and immediately in a way that Bill Clinton could only dream of. Even on the economy he seemed to take bold divisive action insisting on real tax cuts he had to fight to get congress to make. Yet somehow we end up here in 2009 with Obama as president, Pelosi as speaker and the public supporting anything Obama wants to do including socialism. We also had to put up with two painful years of GWB cutting deals with democrats, putting fellow republicans in a lose lose situation. The economy is in shambles and I am questioning my former mentors Hannity/Levin who I trusted so much. The final straw for me was when they told us to go door to door and tell neighbors to vote for McCain (Rush did NOT do this.)

I believed in GWB and I listened to Hannity and Levin. But the collapse of the economy, selection of McCain and two election losses told me that these talk radio hosts were wrong. The hero they held up as saviour of the economy and our country was a fake. My awakening took place during the painful period between November 2006 and November 2008 ending with John McCain being promoted urgently by talk show hosts Levin and Hannity. It was like I was freed from a cult. It was the GWB(so called real conservative) cult. To be fair to Rush he was close to the Bush family, defended GWB from 2000 to 2006 but he became discouraged with GWB in 2007 and Rush always stayed realistic on McCain never promoting him as our saviour, in fact warning us about the danger of having him as president.



I have concluded that the Iraq invasion and reconstruction unpopularity poisoned public opinion for Bush and created a negative theme (stirred by democrats) for everything that went wrong during Bush second term. The Bush tax cuts along with Iraq reconstruction, and Democrat talking points together, increased a huge demand in this country for "Where's mine??" . This is because Bush and Cheney sold the country the idea that government is free. Tax cuts will pay for additional spending and Iraq reconstruction will be paid for by Iraqi oil. This is all after the 1990s where the former republican congress (Dick Armey, John Kasich ) with Clinton taught us that we have to live within our means.


After Sept 11,2001 GWB/Cheney (and talk radio) told us we could fight two wars, rebuild Iraq , create homeland security and increase social spending(talk radio complained about this part) and still have our tax cuts, because it would help the economy. Bush took credit for a housing boom, minority home ownership and a fast recovering economy after Sept 11,2001. Yet long after he had lost most public support because of Iraq, the economy crashed between 2007 and 2008 GWB got the blame. It didnt help as he begged the democrat congress for a blank check for 700B to bailout the banks that he claimed was needed to avoid a great depression. The federal Reserve loose monetary policy had much of the responsibility for the post Sept-11 boom and bust. The problem is that the Bush brain-washers had already took credit for the boom and then later (when it was too late) tried to pass blame for the bust.




Let's look at some of the myths spread by my former cult 'The Bush bots': One of the most popular that is repeated over and over by followers was that direct taxation is redistribution but debt created by increased spending with tax cuts is ‘economic growth’. This is not exactly how it is sold but the way it always seem to be. The Republican (Keynesian) argument is that the tax cuts created economic growth that increased tax revenues that paid for the additional republican/so called conservative spending, conservative spending like the generally unpopular rebuilding Iraq after no WMDs were found. But why do the deficits always go up when taxes are cut with that increased spending? Because of the additional unconstitutional democrat spending like medicare prescription drugs. But what about when that unconstitutional spending was passed by a republican congress/president? Well that is because they were not ‘acting’ as conservatives. (other excuses are that GWB is a good man taking bad advice, or Bush did it because democrats wanted him to so it is their fault.) If only the congress and president acted ‘conservative’, cut taxes, invaded and rebuilt Iraq and told the public to take their social spending and shove it, there would be no debt, and republicans would be overwhelming elected. This supposedly is our path to victory. And what about the Bush tax cuts that took voters completely off the tax rolls? Did they pay for Iraq and other spending too?

Some of the diamonds in this mine of brilliant ideas are : 1) direct taxation to pay for spending is redistribution but republican/so called conservative spending/borrowing is economic growth because it pays for itself, 2) democratic (ie unconstitutional) debt even when passed by republicans is redistribution and Marxism, or worse. 3) big GWB debt/socialism is OK because GWB is a good man who means well and kept us safe, but the bigger Obama debt/socialism is bad because he is evil. Notice that ALL tax cuts supposedly pay for themselves. The democrats have co-opted this Keynesian argument.



If you still believe these myths then look how Pelosi and Obama co-opted all these talking points, now she says "government spending pays for itself by stimulating economy , and 95% of you get a tax cut further stimulating economy paid by rich", all co-opted from republicans.

Let's look at the great Bush economy that is referenced by the Bush-bots. The GDP to Debt ratio is supposed to justify the Bush/republican deficits. Government calculated GDP Gross_domestic_productis defined as GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports). The consumption and gross investment includes private debt to foreigners such as the bundled home loans, which is now being repayed by the bailouts. So the more risky debt and government spending, the more GDP (and tax revenues) and the better the government debt to GDP ratio looked. Both the private and public debt and government spending increased tax revenues creating another illusion. Once the paper card twin towers of debt collapsed the government ends up (like it or not) picking it all up. So now you have little GDP and lots of public debt.

Why do both political parties bail out the banks? Because their only hope is more private foreign investments/loans to start it over again. There is no other plan and tax cuts are no magic cure either, obviously they would be much better than spending, which will NEVER happen. Neither party has a cure, it’s all politics and both parties want their own power over us.

Our GWB economic boom (as far as republicans take credit for it) was made of two components: 1) public debt, 2) private debt(housing and consumer), both to foreigners. Its like running up all your wife's credit cards for gifts for her, and vacations for both of you (like on Judge Judy), then getting more credit cards under her name to use the ‘checks’ to pay the minimum payment on the other cards, and then telling her you have given her prosperity and good times. The initial credit card rates were 0% APR, cheap money/debt. Then came the crash. What happened? The credit card companies raised your interest rates and cut off some of the cash checks you used to make the minimum payment. As you didn't make some of the credit cards minimum payments the others withdrew your wife's credit.

So now we have Obama/Pelosi and a Republicans party that stands for nothing. We have Hannity and Levin that told us how good the Bush economy was, until it crashed and then claimed they knew all along that they knew it was Carter, Clinton and Barney Franks policies that killed economy. We have Obama expanding the Bush disastrous big government socialist debt based Bush policies. We have Levin calling Obama a Stalinist and calling Bush "a good man who tried to do the right thing but took bad advice"(like supporting RINO Sen Arlen Spector against conservative Pat Toomey in the 2004 Senate primary. Democrats are running us off a cliff but are trusted to do the right thing because Republicans are associated with everything bad. This view cannot be changed overnight by calling Obama a Marxist or Stalinist like my former mentors do (Rush doesn't do this). My big question is, "What would republicans do with power if the country ever trusts them again?".