President Obama has just created a panel to figure out how to get our debt under control.  Even when he makes a decision, such as this one, it is to pass the buck to someone else to do the heavy lifting.  His attempt to overhaul health care turned into the Harry and Nancy Show.  Obama campaigned and gave speeches while Pelosi and Reid shut out the Republicans and created the bill that could not be passed.  Obama is now trying to put lipstick on that pig, by calling for a bipartisan meeting.  But instead of starting over and getting ideas from everyone, they are basically going to pick over the stinking corpse of the bill that the Democrats could not get passed.  It is obvious that the real objective is to either get some Republicans to sign on or to use the meeting as a club to beat the Republicans as the “party of No.”

Stop Me Before I Spend

This president can’t seem to control himself and he finds that he painted himself into a corner.  If he tries to raise taxes on those who make less than $250,000 per year he will be breaking a major campaign promise.  If he stops spending on his own, he will lose the left which is about the only support he has remaining.  So he calls in Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles to co-chair a committee charged with making the president a tailor made fig leaf, to allow him to cut spending and raise taxes, while shrugging his shoulders and saying, “I can’t go a gainst the excellent advice of this august commission.”

If he wants to cut spending, he can just cut spending.  He doesn’t need a commission to do so.  How about an across the board spending freeze, except for national defense, until the the economy grows enough to balance the budget and not with gimmicks like increasing discretionary spending now 24% and then saying you will freeze that same spending for the next threee years?  How about freezing government hiring?  How about returning $500 billion in unspent stimulus money and $400 billion in repaid TARP money, plus interest, to the Treasury?  Don’t hold your breath.  That would require someone with executive experience who knows how to make a decision, rather than deliberating, like a legislator.  Sarah Palin comes to mind, as does George Bush (I & II), Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan.  These experienced executives knew how to put together a budget and make decisions.  Chris Christie in New Jersey was just sworn in last month as governor and he immediately identified the problem as too much spending and got to work cutting it back.  All that President Obama seems to know how to do is talk. 

If we start advertising now, we may get enough resumes to review to find a replacement by 2012.

Who doesn’t love a freebie?  Who does not get a thrill of good fortune by finding money in the street, no matter how insignificant the amount?  We may not believe in the Tooth Fairy, but many of us believe we have a rich benevolent uncle, Uncle Sam, who is willing to lavish upon us his wealth if only we would ask.  The sad truth is that Uncle Sam is not rich, but penniless and is running a ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff blush.

Health Care for $20

One of the major reasons that health care costs are rising out of control is that no one is minding the store.  While Washington twists itself in knots to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic of health care, we have little to no say in how our health care dollars are spent.  Our health care “insurance” system is not really insurance.  Insurance is meant to protect us from a financial catastrophe.  Going to the doctor for a checkup is not a catastrophe.  Paying a $20 co-pay for that checkup is like finding money on the street.  There is no way anyone can get a physical exam, except by a hooker, for $20.  It is a good idea to get a physical checkup every year?  Yes, then pay the bill and ask what you are paying for and make sure you need it.  You take your car in for service don’t you?  Do you file an insurance claim when you do?  Can you get it done for $20.  Let’s get real.  What we have is called third party payer and when someone else is picking up the tab, do we care what it costs?  Really?  But someone is picking up the tab.  Look in your other pocket, because you are.  If you are generally healthy and you get your annual checkup, your insurance premium (here in New York at least) will probably run around $10,000 per year.  But, hey, you only paid $20 for that physical!  What if you paid the full amount for the physical, say, $500.  What if your insurance premium was cut to $5,000 because you would pay most routine medical costs out of your pocket and what if you could put the $4,500 left over ($10,000 original premium, minus $5,000 current premium, minus $500 cost of checkup), into a tax free account that can be used for future medical expenses or retirement if you don’t use it?  If you are a young person and stay healthy into your mid-40s, you would have accumulated over $90,000 in your medical savings account and you still have catastrophic insurance coverage and the government stays out of the picture.

Retirement for Free

Like many well intentioned Government programs, Social Security, enacted during the Great Depression, seemed like a good idea at the time.  When enacted there was about 15 workers paying in for each recipient drawing out.  Today there are about a little over 3 workers paying in for each beneficiary.  Bernie Madoff would blush at the audacity of it.  On top of that the money that is paid into Social Security can only be “invested” in Treasury Securities so the return is lousy, but safe.  People reacted to Social Security by saving less because the government safety net was there.  Had people been encouraged to save for their own retirement, they would not be leaving their children this legacy of a ticking time bomb.  So today, many young people feel the government’s hand in their pocket when they look at the FICA line on their pay stub, but don’t believe they will ever get a penny back.  Nice concept.

Bring Home the Bacon!

What’s the measure of a good Congressman or Senator?  Bringing home pork for the district, no?  If you are like me, you get flyers every year or several times per year, touting how Congresswoman Jones obtained federal funding for that pier at the amusement park.  With 435 Congressmen you can count on this, for each $1 that your Representative brings home $434 leaves the Treasury for each of the other Congressional districts and probably more, depending on the power and seniority of your Representative.  Guess who’s paying for that Turtle Crossing in Florida?  that bridge to nowhere in Alaska? that airport in Johnstown, PA that no one uses?  That’s right, you are.  What if we decided locally if we really needed a pier at the amusement park, and if we did, pay for it ourselves?  Then we could let the people of Florida decide if they want to build a turtle crossing, the people of Alaska decide if they wanted a bridge to nowhere and the people of Pennsylvania decide if they wanted an airport that no one used.  Then we could cut federal taxes by an equal amount to keep them out of mischief and help us pay for these projects if we really wanted them.

Let’s Get Organized

There was a time in our history where labor unions performed a valuable service.  In those times when many industrial jobs were unskilled or semi-skilled, employers could dismiss someone on a whim and replace them within the hour.  Unions gave those workers some counterbalancing power and fairer treatment.  Today, we have a much more sophisticated economy and workers have more skills and mobility.  Union membership has declined accordingly, in the private sector at least.  Why is union membership still growing in the public sector?  What is different about workers in the public sector that they still need unions?  Are we suggesting that all government workers are unskilled?  Why do teachers need a union?  Are they not skilled such that they could sell their services to the highest bidder?  Why do unions fight merit pay for teachers?  Why are school principals, the de facto CEO of the school and who in New York easily make six figures, unionized?  Do you get an idea why our K-12 public school system is trailing the world in performance?

In Michigan, privately owned small businesses that provided day-care services suddenly discovered that they were part of a union and union dues were being withheld from their government contractual payments.

Ms. Berry owns her own business—yet the Michigan Department of Human Services claims she is a government employee and union member. The agency thus withholds union dues from the child-care subsidies it sends to her on behalf of her low-income clients. Those dues are funneled to a public-employee union that claims to represent her. The situation is crazy—and it’s happening elsewhere in the country.

Ms. Berry, runs “The Berry Patch” a private day care center she operates from her home catering to low income clients.  The money that was once paid to her, now goes to a union that does little for her.  She is “self employed and wants nothing to do with the union.”  Don’t you think we need more of these tactics in America?  Card Check anyone?

Going Postal

And let’s not forget the Postal Service.  As postal rates are again scheduled to increase on January 4, let’s look at this paragon of efficiency, that is actually authorized by the Constitution.  In 2008, the Postal Service lost $3 billion, and the Postmaster General John Potter pulled down $800,000 in compensation including $135,000 in incentive bonuses.  What do we have to pay this guy if he actually breaks even?  Also, let us not forget this is also a very heavily unionized operation.

Don’t Worry, You Won’t Feel a Thing

During World War II, FDR needed to raise more revenue to pay for the war.  Fearing a backlash, his team hit upon the idea of payroll withholding.  Knowing the potential backlash that would result when taxpayers had to write that big check on April 15th, he rightly figured that if he took a little bit each week, he could take a lot more in total.  Statists in Washington have never looked back.  It’s like the tax that was imposed on telephone service to pay for the Spanish American War that is still in place today.  Instead of picking our pockets every week, what do you think most Americans would say about the size of the federal government if they had to write one big check on April 15th?  There would be no tax rebates, because there would be no tax withheld.  Do you think Americans would force Congress to sharpen their pencils and scale back the size of government?

Help is On the Way

Ronald Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help!’”  But perhaps the best example of how far from our founding principles our government has strayed comes from Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut as she spoke during a House End of Year Wrap Up Session:

“This House–we understand, we’re there,” she said.  “You can count on us because we believe that it’s our moral responsibility to make sure that you and your family need our help.” 

I don’t know about you, but I don’t need the House of Representatives making sure I need their help.  I need as little interference as possible from them.  Their meddlesome intrusions in our lives is killing what made this country great.  It is a point we cannot make often enough.

Today Barack Obama received his Nobel Peace Prize in Norway for his accomplishments in the area of …..?  Well, nothing actually.  It was called anticipatory, in other words, he got the prize for what they hoped he would accomplish.  There’s that hope thing again.  I hope he stops burying this country in debt.

TR and Woodrow Wilson

In some puzzling way, President Obama’s acolytes like to make comparisons to two other presidents who won the Nobel Peace prize.  But they actually accomplished something or introduced a concept that eventually prevailed.  In 1905, Teddy Roosevelt successfully negotiated the end of the Russo-Japanese War, and that peace actually stuck.  Woodrow Wilson created the League of Nations which, although it failed survive, it was the forerunner of the United Nations.  Gentlemen, take a bow.  As for President Obama, I guess we’ll have to keep holding our breath and hoping.

Damaged Goods

However noble, the Nobel Peace Prize might have been, it has been reduced to a sad joke.  Let’s look at some past recipients:

• 2007 – Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Al Gore won the Peace prize for his deeply flawed documentary, which by the way two members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have callied for him to return the Oscars he won  for the same film.  He didn’t win the Nobel Prize in Physics or Chemistry.  Meanwhile the IPCC is embroiled in the midst of Climategate. Who lost out to these two?  A woman who smuggled approximately 2,500 Jews, mostly small children, out of the Warsaw ghetto before the Nazi’s could exterminate them.
• 2005 – Mohamed El Baradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) “for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way” .  While investigating Iran El Baradei “opposed the publication of a secret report generated by his own agency, one which indicated Iran was using its civilian program as a cover to make weapons. And why did he oppose publication?” {more}  Do you feel blissfully peaceful now when you ponder Iran?
• 2002 – Jimmy Carter – “for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development”.  Well he must have gotten tired as he mused about how any opposition to President Obama’s policies being racially motivated for the most part.
• 2001 – The United Nations and Kofi Annan – for their work for a better organized and more peaceful world.  It seems they wanted to wait until the UN was nearly irrelevant in world affairs and Kofi Annan’s son was ripping off the UN’s Oil for Food program.  Hmmm, that must have come from the “better organized” part.
• 1994 – Yassir Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin – for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East. How’s that working out?

Notably Absent

So where are the Nobel Peace prizes for Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, for ending the Cold War without firing a shot?  That wasn’t just peaceful that was miraculous.  But then again, they were conservatives and therefore they don’t qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize.

If you live in New York, you will regularly hear the admonition, “If you see something, say something.”  The idea being that the more people who are on the lookout for solitary packages in a crowded railway station, people behaving erratically, and reporting it, the safer we will be.  Makes sense.  Just be careful not to malign any followers of Islam.  What?

In addition to that public service message you also hear other stories in the news.  A Muslim cab driver refuses to pick up a fare because they are carrying a recent purchase from a liquor store.  The cab driver’s religion is against drinking.  At a public university in Minnesota a coffee cart is prohibited from playing Christmas carols, but public funds are used to construct foot baths so that Muslims can properly prepare for prayer.  At an airport, security personnel cannot ask someone in line to step out for a closer search because they already pulled out two other Muslim young men and they didn’t want to be accused of racial profiling.

The Facts, Ma’am, Just the Facts

Joe Friday, where are you when we need you.  The fictional detective was obsessive in sticking to the facts.  Fact: not all Muslims are terrorists.  Fact:  almost all terrorists you see in the news are Muslims.  So if you are on the lookout for terrorists, who should you look at? eighty year old Italian grandmothers or Middle Eastern men between the ages of 20-40?

Fort Hood

People around Major Nidal Malik Hasan, saw something and said something and were basically told…SHUT UP! Apparently diversity is more precious than human life.  Taking extreme care not to offend, trumps taking steps to prevent a massacre.  There appears to have been abundant evidence that Hasan was ticking time bomb and some spoke out about it, but our sensitivities to giving offence have turned reason inside out.

We have a sub-group of a religion who actively advocate killing all non-members, that is, infidels, and we are scared to death of offending them.  Our liberal friends go out of their way to demand we all accommodate them.  We can criticize all religions but theirs; we can have dress codes, but must make allowances for their dress; if their religion allows a parent to kill a child for converting to Christianity, we must not interfere, but if a non-muslim parent neglects to buckle a child into a car seat for a quarter mile journey to the grocery store, bring them up on charges of child neglect.

Jumping to Conclusions

Our Commander-in-Chief cautions us not to rush to judgement by calling this an act of terrorism.  Wasn’t this the same Commander-in-Chief who spoke from the White House calling a certain police department in Cambridge, Massachusetts stupid without a clue about what happened.

Political correctness, multiculturalism, an emasculated fourth estate, President Obama’s worldwide apology tour, strong arming a small Central American country, Honduras, because they followed their constitution and instead calling it a coup, all point to an embarrassing campaign by the left to drag down our country. 

Please don’t try to make us like the rest of the world.  We are greater than that.  If you prefer the way the rest of the world behaves, move there.  Don’t try to make the shining city on the hill, a city run amok. 

It’s simple really. If the world really believed that America is such a terrible place, why do we have an immigration problem?  Why do our universities teem with foreign students?  Why, whenever there is a flare-up in the world, do all eyes turn to the good old USA to see what we are going to do about it?  Where’s Ronald Reagan when you need him?

When Ronald Reagan left office it was more than “Morning in America.”  The Cold War was on its death bed.  The economy was booming, and there was optimism everywhere.  Why?  Because Ronald Reagan didn’t see the government as the solution but part of the problem.

There is a story from World War II where the Germans successfully attacked an airfield wiping out many American planes on the ground.  When they came back to do a reconnaissance check, they saw that all the planes had been replaced.  They knew at that point they could never win the war when the American economy, not just the military was lined up against them.

How did Reagan win the Cold War without firing a shot?  Not by negotiating for more arms reductions, but by building up our military.  He understood that the planned economy of the Soviets could not possibly keep up with the free market American economy.  They were broke and an arms race was not possible to win.

Then and Now

Where are we today?  President Obama and his administration are piling more debt on us than at any time in history.  His is attacking the most productive in our society as the means to pay for all his plans.  How long will they put up with it?  He is trying to expand government to unprecedented size.  Meanwhile the Chinese Communists are instituting free market reforms and buying up our debt.  It is not hard to see at some future date the Chinese Communists doing to us what Reagan did to the Soviets.  The Chinese economy is growing strongly, and the Obama Administration is crippling our ability to respond to a Chinese threat of an arms race, with overwhelming debt.  His focus may look like it’s domestic, but it carries a dangerous national security component.  National security is explicit in the Constitution.  Everything that Obama is reaching for is under the cloudy authorization of “the General Welfare” under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.  We need to get back to the explicit responsibilities of the federal government enumerated in the Constitution and leave everything else to the states and the people as the Tenth Amendment tells us.

Chavez, Castro, et al, were cheering on their protege, Manuel Zalaya to make himself president for life and impose their same style of dictatorship on the people of Honduras.  Zalaya is term limited, but tried to push through a referendum to amend the constitution to lift that restriction.  That is against the law in Honduras.

Zalaya had his minions break into a facility that held the confiscated referendum ballots.  The Honduran Supreme Court declared that he had broken the law, the military captured Zalaya and sent him out of the country.  The cry throughout the region was that this was a coup removing Zalaya, but no one is saying where the Honduran Congress or Supreme Court did not follow their own laws, and show that Zalaya was not violating the same.

To Meddle or Not To Meddle?

The Obama administration was oddly silient when democracy was trying to break out in Iran, but spoke out against the laws being followed in Honduras.  Now as Zalaya plays provocative games on the border, it appears the Obama administration is negotiating with the Honduran military for the return of Zalaya to power:

The communiqué was drafted in Washington after days of talks between mid-level Honduran officers and American Congressional aides.  — NY Times, July 26, 2009

The communique it appears, indicates that the military would not stand in the way of Zalaya’s return.  Is this not meddling?  Left wing forces in the regions are trying to create another dictatorship like Venezuela and Cuba, the laws in Honduras are followed that prevent this, and the Obama administration weighs in on the side of the leftists.

There may not be a coup in Honduras, but we may be backing a socialist revolution.  We have come a long way from Ronald Reagan winning the Cold War and freeing Eastern Europe.

Obama's Sales Pitch for the Stimulus Bill

The latest unemployment numbers are in and you can forgive the fervent Obama supporters for having buyer’s remorse. The main stream media, that he holds in the palm of his hand, is playing down the darkening employment picture, focusing instead on the silver lining that it’s getting worse at a slower rate.  The jobless rate hit the highest level it has been since February 1983, hitting 9.4%.  The good news is that we only lost 345,000 jobs last month.  Here is how the spin-master puts lipstick on this pig, or should I say, pork?

“In these last few months, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has saved or created nearly 150,000 jobs,” Obama said, touting spending on alternative energy, keeping teachers and police officers in work and small businesses. — Las Vegas, May 27, 2009

There is one small problem with this statement as pointed out by Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal

As my former White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto points out on his blog, the Labor Department does not and cannot collect data on “jobs saved.” So the Obama administration is asking that we accept its “clairvoyant ability to estimate,” and the White House press corps has let Mr. Obama’s ludicrous claim go virtually unchallenged.

So if the Labor Department, the keeper of the unemployment statistics, cannot collect data on jobs saved, where does President Obama get his figure that he saved 150,000 jobs?  We can only assume it is an outright fabrication, unless he can tell us otherwise.  Will we start hearing a chant “Obama lied, our future died”? Not likely from the obsequious press.

Buyer’s Remorse

In pressing for his pork filled stimulus package, Obama insisted that it was necessary, it was needed immediately, if not sooner, and if we didn’t do it, it would turn crisis into catastrophe.  I direct your attention to the graph above.  This graph was included in the stimulus package to point out that in the absence of the stimulus package the unemployment rate would rise to 9% by the middle of 2010.  However, get behind the stimulus plan and voila, the unemployment will top out at a mere 8% in the third quarter of 2009 and you get all of this for a mere $787 billion.

As conservatives pointed out at the time this made no sense, since the bulk of the stimulus spending, chock full of pork, would not be spent until 2011 and beyond.  As of today, less than 10% of the money has been spent, and the unemployment rate has past both the peak Obama sold to the American people, as well as what he predicted would happen without the stimulus.

Of course the statists will roll out their tired old argument that it wasn’t enough.  With every government program that fails they always tell us we didn’t spend enough…if we only spent enough…

Look back to February 1983, the last time the unemployment rate was this high, and what we see is Ronald Reagan in charge.  His solution was to cut taxes, cut spending, and reduce the size of government.  Today, President Obama’s plan is just the opposite.  It is to raise taxes on the most productive among us, spend our money like it has never been spent before, grow government without bound, and lay the burden of paying for it on generations to come.  We do know this, Reagan’s plan worked, ushering in the longest peacetime expansion in history.  Are we to believe that doing the exact opposite will also work, or work even better?

The slowing of the job losses and the advance of the stock market foretell that our economy is starting to turn of its own accord, as little of the stimulus has taken effect.  Conservatives said to get out of the way, reduce the tax burden and the economy will recover on its own.  The statists said no, now is the time to advance our agenda and our power grab.  Take advantage of the crisis.

Interest rates are starting to climb as massive government borrowing crowds out private borrowing.  The flooding of dollars into the economy is starting trigger inflation as can be seen in the increase in oil prices.  With Reagan, the best was yet to come, since Obama has chosen the exact opposite path, we can only fear for the future, when his programs take full effect.  As can be seen by the chart above, their plan is already way off course and with the massive inexperience of Obama and his team, how much confidence do you have that they can find their way back?

Obama called for bipartisanship during the campaign. Well here it is. The bipartisan Congressional Budget Office says President Obama’s budget plan is a disaster. But the bumbling, stumbling Obama administration puts their inexperience on full display. Press Secretary Gibbs dismissed the report comparing it to picking Final Four brackets sox years out.

Perhaps, the President should forget Jay Leno and start reading Ronald Reagan’s writings.

Something We Can All Look Forward To

President Obama announces His Budget Plan and the Stock Market Craters

President Obama got his $800 billion stimulus package off the launching pad and now we eagerly await the massive stimulus to come when people start seeing their taxes reduced in April by $8-$16 per week.  Stand back, the crowds could be euphoric and out of control.

With the ink barely dry on that package, President Obama rolls out the next attack on future generations of Americans.  His plan calls for the addition of debt so staggering that it may destroy the U.S. economy.  How long before the additional interest on the national debt starts growing so fast that we cannot pay it, let alone the principal?  In his budget he plans to add half a trillion to the national debt every year, and all of this is with some very rosy forecasts of 5% and 6% GDP growth.  Will someone please tell the rookie, that when you slam the most productive earners with more taxes, they tend to react by producing less.

“The budget that President Obama proposed on Thursday is nothing less than an attempt to end a three-decade era of economic policy dominated by the ideas of Ronald Reagan and his supporters.”

The Reagan policies produced 25 years of unprecedented growth.  So the inexperienced President Obama is going to undo this because…?  The Democrats love to point to the economy during the Clinton years, but you have to look a bit more closely.  During the first two years of the Clinton’s time in office the economy was basically flat.  The economy didn’t really start moving until 1995.  What coincided with that?  Oh, yeah, the Republicans took control of Congress.  Taxes were cut and the economy took off like a rocket.

If you look at the term of George W. Bush, after 9/11 and the recession he inherited, he again cut taxes and the economy took off.  The stock market didn’t start it’s downward spiral until about six months into 2007.  What coincided with that?  Oh, yeah, the Democrats took control of Congress.  Coincidence?  You decide.

So now we have the new president deciding to trash the policies that have successfully grown the economy under Reagan, Clinton, and Bush.  At the same time he is going to saddle future generations with massive debt on top of a looming Social Security and Medicare bill coming due.

I consider myself an optimist, but for the first time in my life I am actually fearful that one man could destroy the U.S. economy in his first 100 days and rush this in under the guise of an emergency, where there is no debate, no time to read what is getting put into law, just slam it in and trust the the most inexperienced president in the last century that it will be all right.  Do you feel better now?

Can We Dump this Canard Over the Side?

More than anything else, the proposals seek to reverse the rapid increase in economic inequality over the last 30 years.

This economic inequality hogwash is dishonesty at it’s peak.  The so-called economic inequality is a sign of the success of the economy.  Think about it, the economy has a floor but not a ceiling.  That is, your income cannot go below zero, but there is no limit to how high it can grow.  So as incomes rise higher and higher, yes, they are going to move further from zero.  This is like saying that air travel is worse today than when the Wright Brothers flew because planes fly higher now than they did in 1903!  So let’s pass a law that says airplanes can’t fly higher than 2,000 feet so we don’t have a great inequality in altitudes.

There is nothing stopping anyone from having that high income if they work hard, use their talents, and succeed.  America is not about punishing the successful.  Many who start out at the bottom move up.  Many who came here as immigrants start at the bottom.  If the Democrats want to improve the numbers, let them control the illegal immigration that is probably inflating the numbers on the bottom.  Let’s stop turning success into failure.  How many people would like to be like Bill Gates?  How many people think America would be better off if we were all like Willy Loman?

The Big Flameout

The Productive Ones Set Sail to More Favorable Tax Climates

Let’s suppose for a moment that the stimulus works and the economy takes off.  With what President Obama has in the works, and the massive taxes that he plans to impose on the top earners, and the carbon taxes he plans to levy on businesses that weill be passed along to the consumers in higher prices (there goes your $8 tax break), and the masive debt he is loading on future generations, the stimulus will soon flameout, and a bigger recession will follow.  This time we won’t able to borrow and spend our way out of it.  Tax cuts won’t matter because there will be no one earning anything to tax.  The wealthy will have packed up and moved to more favorable tax climates and Barack Obama’s historic presidency will have flamed out as well.

New York, like many states, is in the midst of a state budget crisis.  The state is facing a $14 billion budget deficit.  The cause of the problem is pretty clear, too much spending.  State spending has grown far in excess of inflation and population growth.  What provided the wallop is the sharp downturn on Wall Street, which drastically cut revenues to the state.  But the state does not have any reserves to speak of.

We’re All in This Together, Right?

Everyone is being asked to tighten their belts.  The Democrats had previously held the State Assembly and now control both houses of the legislature and the governorship.  Among the strongest supporters of the Democrats in this very blue state are the labor unions.  They wholeheartedly support the spending increases that the Democrats propose every year especially where those increases shower wages and benefits on their members.

So while the Democrats, with no place to hide, are scrambling to close the budget gap why do I see commercial after commercial on television urging me to tell the governor and the legislature to make the necessary cuts elsewhere and not to touch their sacred cow.  The commercials are from the police unions, the teacher unions, the health care worker unions, the university professor unions, the public employee unions, all urging us to rise up and make sure the cuts are not directed at them.

Chutzpah

After years and years of spending increases under both Republicans and Democrats, and year after year of fat labor contracts for these unions because the politicians were too cowardly to confront them or turn down their money and electoral support, we are now in this mess.  But now instead of shouldering their share of the burden, some of which was a result of their greed, they are telling their fellow New Yorkers to take on more of the pain and spare them.  How about a little bipartisanship on behalf of the unions and suck it up and help your fellow New Yorkers carry the load you created.

Where’s Ronald Reagan when you need him?