NAPOLITANO: GOP for Big Government – Washington Times

NAPOLITANO: GOP for Big Government – Washington Times.

Republicans running from punt they set up

By Andrew P. Napolitano

distressDo you know anyone who voted Republican this past election in order to further President Obama’s big government agenda? It is more likely that Republican voters sought to advance a smaller version of the federal government. Assuming this is the case, why are Republican congressional leaders offering to help the president spend us into oblivion?

I suspected that those questions might be asked when Mitt Romney was nominated to oppose Mr. Obama. My view of his campaign then and now has been that he presented a choice to the voters of big government versus bigger government, and bigger government prevailed. Mr. Romney argued during the campaign that he was at a disadvantage because the president had distributed federal tax dollars to persons and groups critical to his re-election. He has since argued that he lost the election because nearly half of Americans — some by chance, some by choice and some by force — are dependent on government for much of their income or subsistence.

His argument sounds harsh, but it’s true. A formerly working, now retired couple in their mid-80s who are receiving monthly payments from the Social Security Administration into which they were forced to make payments while they were working can hardly be considered slackers. They can be considered dupes. All of us who have fallen for the government’s nonsense about it holding our money for our future use have been duped. The government doesn’t hold anyone’s money for him. It spends whatever it collects as soon as it receives it. When its entitlement bills come due, it uses current tax revenue, or it borrows money in order to acquire the cash to make the payments.

The president knows this. Congress knows it. The courts have endorsed it. In endorsing it, the courts have held that the government’s decision to pay entitlements is a political, not a legal, one. Stated differently, the federal government has no legal obligation to pay any money to any Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid applicant. That’s why those who have relied on the political wisdom of politicians, rather than their own prudential judgment, are dupes. Let me rephrase that: Those who have permitted politicians to use the force of law to compel everyone to contribute their hard-earned income to a bankrupt government Ponzi scheme are dupes if they think this can work without end.

When FDR first proposed his Social Security scam, he knew that only force and duplicity would get enough people into the system to generate the cash flow at the entry side of the Ponzi scheme to make it salable to Congress and to the American people. LBJ knew the same was the case for his expansions of Social Security with Medicare and Medicaid. What LBJ probably did not anticipate is that health insurers would largely cease offering products of primary insurance to seniors. Seniors then required the government entitlements into which they had mistakenly believed they were contributing, because the government became the only game in town.

Now that the emperor has no clothes, and we are confronting more and more seniors who have been lulled into this false sense of security, and fewer young workers are even entering the job market, the government’s voracious need for cash is difficult to fulfill. Earlier this year, when members of both parties in Congress recognized this ticking time bomb, they agreed to address it by punting. Now, that punted political football is falling to the earth, and no one wants to catch it. The punt they bequeathed to themselves is a tax increase for everyone and reductions in spending that even they find to be odious. The odor they dislike is the realization, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, that they are running out of other people’s money.

The president was re-elected on promises of more of the same: more borrowing, more spending and new taxes on the rich. The Republicans who got elected did so on promises of lessened spending and no new taxes, to paraphrase George H.W. Bush. The president, who is the most liberal president since Woodrow Wilson, is largely ignorant of economics 101. But his ignorance is consistent with his beliefs that the feds can continue to spend more than they collect and continue to borrow without ever repaying.

The Republicans in the House are largely more conservative than at any time since Wilson left office. One would expect them to understand the intent of the voters who sent them there and thus say no to more taxes, no to more spending and no to more borrowing. Instead, we have Republican leadership in the House that actually proposed raising more revenue by eliminating deductions on income taxes. They somehow claim that they are being faithful to their stated mission of fiscal conservatism by making you pay more money but at the present tax rates. They, too, have failed economics 101.

Any significant movement of wealth from taxpayers to tax consumers will not enhance prosperity; it will crush it, and it will breed dependence on a government that is fiscally out of control. The recipients will no doubt vote to re-elect those who gave them these payments.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is author of “Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2012).

Our Disgraceful President – Derek Hunter – Townhall.com

Our Disgraceful President – Derek Hunter – Townhall.com.

Warren G. Harding was corrupt, as was Richard M. Nixon. Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy were like blind golfers, looking for a hole, any hole, every hole. Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were power-mad narcissists convinced they knew best how everyone else should live. Jimmy Carter was clueless. But as we approach the 100-year anniversary of the first of these men to serve as president, all have been lapped in debasing their office by its current occupant: Barack Obama.

It is understandable President Obama would not want to run on his record. Who would? “Give me four more years so I can make up for the first four” is not the stuff of campaign slogan greatness.

But even that wouldn’t work because, as he told CBS News this week, “The mistake of my first term – couple of years – was thinking this job was just about getting the policy right. And that’s important. But the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times.” In other words, his only flaw is he’s too damn close to perfect.

It’s like someone bragging about being the most humble person on the planet.

The president of the United States thinks he needs to tell us stories to give us “a sense of unity, purpose and optimism…”

This struck me as odd because a.) he’s already told us stories, the story of his life, in – count ‘em – two autobiographies written before he accomplished anything, and b.) he’s made zero effort to bring people together at any point in his presidency.

Putting aside his autobiographies, which should be moved to the fiction section of the bookstore considering the 38 provable falsehoods uncovered in them – remember the uproar when James Frey’s A Million Tiny Pieces turned out to have exaggerations and lies? Obama does it; crickets – the fact this man would feel comfortable enough to speak the word “unity” without laughing is a testament to just how far we’ve fallen as a nation.

Barack Obama has done nothing but try to turn American against American based on income and accomplishment. He’s done nothing but sit silently by, smirking, while his defenders, allies, surrogates and staff have called Americans who disagree with him racists, homophobes, sexists, xenophobes, rednecks, idiots, Uncle Toms and anything else you can call someone when you can’t rebut what they say with facts or accomplishments.

Silence while disgraceful words are spoken on your behalf is just as disgraceful as uttering them yourself, which, of course, makes Barack Obama a disgraceful president.

When his attorney general isn’t dodging subpoenas and being held in contempt by Congress, he’s calling anyone who thinks we should have to present a photo ID to vote a klansman. MSNBC, a network that seems to exist only to parrot the president’s line, unsurprisingly gets praised by the White House. This is unity?

The White House has to use and condone this because the alternative is reality, and reality is not Barack Obama’s friend.

The president decided, against the express language in the law itself, he could unilaterally remove the work requirement from President Clinton’s welfare reform law. There is no precedent or legal justification for this action, but to question it is to be anti-poor.

Putting aside the unconstitutional nature of all this, it remains a mystery how it could be anti-poor to support a law that provably improves the lives of poor Americans, gives them their best shot at autonomy and helps move them get out and stay out of poverty. But the charge gets made, the grenade gets thrown, and the person doing it gets an invite to the next Georgetown cocktail party or White House concert.

The administration of Barack Obama embodies the worst characteristics of the worst Presidents in our history – the abuse of power, the incompetence, the laziness, the bigotry, the disinterest, the dishonesty, the arrogance. The reason he’s still personally popular is the same reason we know the names Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie, Perez Hilton or that TMZ exists – A large portion of our culture now celebrates what it used to shun, cheers that which used to drive people into hiding and rewards existence over accomplishment.

That’s why the media parrots and trumpets attacks on Mitt Romney’s incredibly successful private-sector record but ignores President Obama’s public-sector failures. How people can question what Romney does with his own money but ignore Obama wasting literally trillions of ours is disgraceful. That President Obama would sanction the charge is worse.

Rush Limbaugh is correct when he calls President Obama “President Kardashian.” Only we’re on the receiving end of what Kim Kardashian became famous for. To paraphrase Andy Warhol, in the future we’ll all have our own reality show for 15 minutes. Unfortunately the ratings will suck and it will serve only as a perch from which to watch the economy collapse. We can call it “Disgraceful.”

November could not be more important, and it cannot come quickly enough.

Mr. President, We the People ARE America and your Rein of Terror against US ends in 2012 (via Village of the Banned)

Mr. President, We the People ARE America and your Rein of Terror against US ends in 2012 Dear President Obama, “We The People” have stated resolutely we reject your vision for our country. You claim you have not heard us. “We The People” have assembled across America resisting your efforts to subvert our constitution and undermine our liberty. You claim you have not seen us. … Read More

via Village of the Banned