Obama's Dogmatic Spending Spree

In her excellent history of the the Great Depression, author Amity Shlaes chronicles Roosevelt's inaugural speech in January 1937 where he claims, "Our progress out of the Depression is obvious" (298). This was FDR's proclamation to the people on the celebration of his re-election (for the second time) as president. Never mind that the unemployment rate now at 15% was on the rise again from the November 1936 low. In fact, the Great Depression would drag on until the mobilization of the war effort in response to the December 7, 1941 Japanese of Pearl Harbor would jumpstart the U.S. economy. The point was then--as it is now--not to let the facts get in the way of ideology. Not ever.

The parallels between the Roosevelt Administration and the Obama Administration are uncanny. Who can forget the Obama Administration's "Recovery Summer" in 2010? From Politico on June 17, 2010: "Vice President Joe Biden today will kick off the Obama administration’s “Recovery Summer,” a six-week-long push designed to highlight the jobs accompanying a surge in stimulus-funded projects to improve highways, parks, drinking water and other public works.

David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, said: “This summer will be the most active Recovery Act season yet, with thousands of highly-visible road, bridge, water and other infrastructure projects breaking ground across the country, giving the American people a first-hand look at the Recovery Act in their own backyards and making it crystal clear what the cost would have been of doing nothing” (Allen).

Despite the claims of recovery, there was not then and is not now a credible supporting fact for claiming so.

Mr. Obama entered office in January of 2009 with an unemployment rate of 7.6%. In February of 2009, with a sense of urgency borrowed from the FDR Great Depression handbook, Obama proposed and Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. $787 Billion in spending. $787 billion in tax-payer dollars. 787 Billion of them had to be spent. Immediately.

Christina Romer, the Administration's first Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers argued that the spending was necessary because the “stimulus program would prevent unemployment from exceeding 8%. In fact, unemployment shot up to 10.1% in October 2009. The unemployment rate in September 2011 was reported at 9.1%, while Romer and Bernstein had predicted that if their “stimulus” plan passed (which, of course, it did), it would be 6.6%" (Forbes, Woodhill).

Using the presidential pulpit to dogmatically (definition: asserting opinion as though it were a fact) claim a particular political result is bad leadership, at best or akin to propaganda, at worst. We expect our presidents to rise above politics in the midst of a national crisis.

Rahm Emanuel, Obama's former Chief of Staff, boldly stated in the early days: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

In other words, everything is political. Even at the expense of the millions of Americans still out of work despite the unprecedented spending of $787 billion of your money and mine.

Complete Self-Confidence--A Weakness

The arrogance of man is such that he is forever seeking to attach his imprimatur to success in order to co-opt that success for his own gain. In capitalism, the effect is competition. In government, the result is tyranny.

From a young age, we encourage our children to "believe in themselves." We cite examples of our heroes who through sheer determination succeeded in the face of unrelenting failure. We recount the perseverance of Thomas Edison and Abraham Lincoln; we celebrate Washington's improbable victory against the British or the rags to riches stories of men and women who have risen from obscurity to wealth through hard work. This is the story of America at her finest placed center stage, integral to our cultural lore, so deeply revered it is embedded in our DNA. We believe in ourselves, we believe in others. That is the essence of being American.

But believing in one's self implies that there is something to believe in. Something fine and good and honorable at the core and if there is good there must also be humility--a self-check against delusion. For, blind belief is dangerous when unchecked as G.K. Chesterton reminds us in his 1908 publication of Orthodoxy. He writes: Shall I tell you where the men are who believe most in themselves? For I can tell you. I know of men who believe in themselves more colossally than Napoleon or Caesar. I know where flames the fixed star of certainty and success. I can guide you to the thrones of the Supermen. The men who really believe in themselves are all in lunatic asylums...Complete self-confidence is not merely a sin; complete self-confidence is a weakness.

Our political leaders would do well to consider Chesterton's words. Our president who believes in the veracity of his unproven and failed economic policies and continues to advocate them in the face of ongoing economic deterioration would do well to consider the facts. To seek guidance from history. To understand that at the core of blind confidence is arrogance. Out president would do well to understand as Chesterton did that "complete self-confidence is a weakness." And, weakness is something the leader of the world's dominant economic power cannot afford to flaunt.

In Search of a Modern Day Hercules

In the mid-1800's the great Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote a series of essays that were published into two volumes. From his essay on Character he first deals with its elusive nature: "...a reserved force which acts directly by presence, and without means. It is conceived of as a certain undemonstrable force, a Familiar or Genius, by whose counsels he cannot impart; which is company for him, so that such men are often solitary..." (Emerson,98). In other words, these men know what they are about.

And we know what they are about--just by looking at them. "..but Hercules did not wait for a contest; he conquered whether he stood, or walked, or sat, or whatever thing he did." (99) So where are these men today? Emasculated or at the very least silenced perhaps by politically correct thinking or more accurately, by the tyranny of political correct thought.

And finally: "The men who carry their points do not need to inquire of their constituents what they should say, but are themselves the country which they represent" (100)

To that I say: Maxine Waters, Anthony Weiner, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid...and sadly President Barack Obama.

Reckless Endangerment--Obama in Action

In his book 10 Books Every Conservative Must Read, Dr. Benjamin Wiker addresses the question of what, exactly, the term conservatism means and begins by pointing out the most important consideration is "what is one trying to conserve?"

To understand the answer to that question, Wiker begins with Aritotle's The Politics. Aristotle believed--as I trust most Americans do--that "political life and morality are natural" versus the notion that "political life and morality are man-made." Aristotle captured, centuries ago, the salient argument that remains front and center in American politics today--from whom do politicians receive their authority?

As Wiker states: "Conservatives tend toward political caution, because they believe man is not infinitely malleable; and they believe that morality is objective and puts limits on what human beings can and should do. (emphasis mine) Liberals tend to believe the reverse: that morality is relative and that man is malleable and can rightfully be subject to political manipulation to some advance some heady notion of the common good to expedite some grand "progressive" project" (14)

But here is where the difference becomes most stark. Conservatives prefer experience. Liberals are just fine espousing some Utopian theory and then muddling along to see if it works never minding about what history or the Constitution say. Think: stimulus, then more stimulus and the promise of future stimulus in the face of deteriorating economic and employment results. Think Nancy Pelosi telling us that "we have to pass the bill to learn what's in it" after the notorious health care railroad vote.

History is written for a reason. To learn from it. As George Santanya famously penned: Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

"Playing doctor" with the world's growth engine is reckless endangerment of an unprecedented kind.

Enjoy your vacation Mr. President.

Fiscal La La Land

The name calling and obfuscation surrounding the debt ceiling debate is remarkable even by Washington standards. The time for politics is past. The entitlement mentality in Washington which has spread throughout the country is not sustainable. It is time for us to know the numbers, the breadth and depth of the problem. Consider the following from a recent Wall Street Journal editorial and take a moment to the let the scope of the spending sink in. (Note also that the emphasis is mine.)

"According to the most recent government data, today some 50.5 million Americans are on Medicaid, 46.5 million are on Medicare, 52 million on Social Security, five million on SSI, 7.5 million on unemployment insurance, and 44.6 million on food stamps and other nutrition programs. Some 24 million get the earned-income tax credit, a cash income supplement."

And the next time one of your liberal friends suggests that we cut defense spending to solve the spending problem, consider this:

"By 2010 such payments to individuals were 66% of the federal budget, up from 28% in 1965. We now spend $2.1 trillion a year on these redistribution programs, and the 75 million baby boomers are only starting to retire." (WSJ)

Finally, to understand the reckless pace of spending, to put it in historical perspective read on.

"Spending as a share of GDP in the last three years is higher than at any time since 1946. In three years the debt has increased by more than $4 trillion thanks to stimulus, cash for clunkers, mortgage modification programs, 99 weeks of jobless benefits, record expansions in Medicaid, and more. The forecast is for $8 trillion to $10 trillion more in red ink through 2021."

All of this before ObamaCare costs hit the books.

Doing Things on His Own

If only President Obama received the same kind of intense media scrutiny George Bush was subject to and all presidents should be held to, his comments today would at least be a part of the national dialogue.

According to Catherine E. Shoichet of CNN, Obama told the National Council of La Raza: "The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting, I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That's not how our democracy functions."

Democratic National Committee Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz stated today: "I commend President Obama for his address at NCLR today." Presumably Ms. Schultz read the president's speech. Presumably she understands the conflict between the Constitution and the president confessing that "the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting."

Presumably as chairwoman of the DNC, Ms. Schultz understands that the president takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and that doing things on his own, while tempting, would be in breach of that oath.

Yikes.

Reckless Endangerment

If the budget/debt ceiling debate doesn't focus voter's on 2012 nothing will. After cramming ObamaCare through Congress using a parliamentary procedure (Reconciliation) meant for routine spending bills not massive entitlement bills; after cajoling and threatening and "rewarding" (we call it something else in the private sector) loyal party members with scads of taxpayer money for pet projects if they voted to support ObamaCare; after listening to Nancy Pelosi so aptly declare: "We have to pass the bill to know what's in it..." if you were still sitting on the sidelines, now is the time to engage in the debate.

Let's set aside the $1.whatever Trillion spending boondoggle that is ObamaCare. Let's focus instead on the question of spending and the sustainability of spending of our federal government.

Fact: in 2011, the US is projected to spend $772.4B on pensions, $874.4B on health care (before the effects of ObamaCare spending kick in in 2014), $417.1B on welfare, $254.5B on interest on the accumulating debt (projected to be in excess of $15 trillion by the end of FY 2011) and $830.9B on defense. Compare the budget in 2011 to the budget in 1961.

Just fifty years ago federal spending on pensions was $12.8B ($760 billion less than we pay each year to retirees in 2011). Health care costs were $1.6B ($872.8 billion less than 2011, and this is before the enormous costs of ObamaCare commence. It should also be noted here that despite exponential growth in health care payments since 1961, our health care system and availability of health care to the poor was so egregiously wanting, that we had to pass Obama's $1 trillion solution to fix it. What we couldn't do with $872 billion surely we can accomplish with $1 trillion more! ) Welfare costs were $3.2B. Our interest payment on debt outstanding was $7.5B and our defense spending totaled $57.0B.

Consider: Since 1961 the federal budget has expanded 3,735%. According to the government's own cost of living calculator. $10.00 in 1961 is worth the equivalent of $75.49 in 2011. In other words, while the average citizen in the United States has experienced a 654% increase in living expenses since 1961, the government has expanded its budget by 3,735%.

And is borrowing over 40 cents for each dollar spent.

This is the debate of 2012. Obama wants tax increases--more of your money--rather than to temper spending. And this is before the effects of the inflationary monetary policies of QE2 etc. seep into the economy and turbo charge consumer prices. The question for each of us: are his policies sustainable, effective, or for that matter, constitutional.

What is the primary purpose of government after all?

To protect her citizens from harm. And that includes reckless economic harm.