“We need a government that lives within its means.”
Therefore, President Obama is forging ahead with recommended cuts of nearly $6.7 billion out of our $3.7 trillion budget, currently projecting a $1.6 trillion deficit. Here’s a pie chart that illustrates:
Having trouble seeing the proposed cuts? Click on Doug Ross’ graph to embiggen it. The chart, that is, not the proposed cuts.
Meanwhile, in their Seattle condo, Cody and Skyler discuss the potential implications of President Obama’s Weakly Address about“living within our means.”
Accounting is really quite simple. Rule #1: Revenues minus expenses equals your profit or loss. In government the “expenses” are referred to as expenditures and since government isn’t in business to make a profit (at least not in the conventional sense) the bottom line becomes either a surplus (good) or a deficit (bad).
While there are some differences between business accounting and government accounting, the essentials are the same. Revenue is recorded only once, because you can only spend it once (heh). And expenditures, obviously, are counted only once as well. So simple a caveman could do it.
If you knowingly misrepresent revenues and/or expenditures, that’s fraud. You could go to jail. Unless you’re in Congress, or a senior Administration official. In those cases, and those cases alone, all rules are waived.
After he signed the short-term bill yesterday, President Obama said in a statement, “I’m calling on Democratic and Republican leaders of Congress to begin meeting immediately with the Vice President, my Chief of Staff, and Budget Director so we can find common ground on a budget that makes sure we are living within our means.”
Hey, cut the guy some slack: he didn’t have any administrative, budgetary or leadership experience when he got here; he’s still learning how to ruin run the country. Besides, he just got the memo on the deficit last week. Well OK, maybe he got it before then, but no one had time to read it to him. And even when they did, it was an extraordinary amount of data to process, and he wasn’t perfectly clear on exactly what a deficit was. He thought it looked pretty robust.
The roads are slippery and the drivers are drunk. What could go wrong?
His focus is on our MIA energy policy, and he’s pulling no punches:
The Obama administration is repeating the mistakes of President Jimmy Carter’s failed energy policies, which marred his term and stigmatized the 1970s. They are leading us straight into another national energy disaster.
While there’s little to disagree with in Forbes’ opinion piece, it’s really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Obama repeating Carter’s mistakes. It inspired me to update my 2009 Welcome Back Carter flatsimile video to capture some of the new similarities that have cropped up between JC an BO since then.
But still, there’s much more. Carter, like Obama, faced a drastic erosion of the value of the US dollar and a persistent trade deficit, much of it a result of US dependence on foreign oil – a situation that his administration did nothing to correct.
Obama’s deficit is a bit more complex. There’s the continuing dependence on foreign oil, a foreign trade policy favoring foreign countries, and - the elephant in the Capital Rotunda – runaway federal spending. And just like Carter’s, the Obama administration is doing nothing to rectify any of them. It’s almost as if he’s following Carter’s spent entrails on purpose.
Here are a few of the other uncanny similarities between these two presidents that I couldn’t squeeze into my video:
ENERGY POLICY (NOT)
In mid-1979 Carter advanced his long-term energy program. He proposed a limit on imported oil, gradual price decontrol on domestically produced oil, a stringent program of conservation, and development of alternative sources of energy such as solar, nuclear, and geothermal power, oil and gas from shale and coal, and synthetic fuels.
Obama favors much of this policy, although for different reasons: Jimmy Carter didn’t yet know about globull warming when he put his policy together. He therefore didn’t know about the damage that oil, shale gas, and coal would inflict on the planet. So naturally they’re not included in Obama’s list of domestic fuel sources. Neither is nuclear: too scary. So that leaves solar, geothermal, that new-fangled concept – wind… and mice on treadmills.
BUILDING A DEFICIT
Carter began his administration with a $27.7 billion deficit, 4 years later, it had grown a whopping 113%, to $59 billion. Obama’s 2011 deficit is forecast to hit $1.5 trillion. That’s trillion, my man. And still growing. Match point, Obama.
GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACIES
Jimmy Carter, in his wisdom, created the departments of education and energy; Obama has found additional uses for both departments, including getting out the vote, WTF (winning the future) and shutting down the oil industry.
APPEASING THE HAVE-NOTS BY GIVING THEM STUFF
Carter, in a misguided attempt to soften America’s stance towards third world dictators, determined it was necessary to remove America’s “colonial outpost” in Panama and hence gave the strategic and economically important Panama Canal - built and paid for by American taxpayers - away.
Obama has softened America’s stance towards everyone. And it appears that he wants to give Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and parts of California back to Mexico.
NATIONAL HEALTH CARE
Carter fought for a National Health Insurance, but, alas, did not find support for it in Congress.
Obama fought for National Health Insurance, “found” support for it in Congress, but, alas, not so much amongst the American people.
UNFORTUNATE FAMILY MEMBERS
Both Carter and Obama had radical-liberal mothers, and embarrassing brothers.
Stanley Ann Dunham in her “art” days.
AUTO BAILOUTS
Both Carter (1979) and Obama (2009) bailed Chrysler out. While they rebounded in less than 3 years last time around, this time they’re owned by an Italian bicycle company.
UNEMPLOYMENT
Both presidents have resided over awesome unemployment rates. It’s a little hard to compare unemployment rates under Carter to prior presidents, as his administration was the first to remove the “chronically unemployed” from the reported numbers. And even with that little trick, the official rate leveled out around 7.5% at the end of his administration. Obama’s had that number beat 6 months in. And we don’t even know what bureaucratic tricks have been applied to keep unemployment below 10%.
INFLATION
Carter’s presidency presided over chronically high inflation, with the national rate hitting 13.6% in 1980, the year he lost to Reagan. With the unemployment rate also running high, Carter bested the “misery index” that he had mocked his opponent, Jerry Ford, about in 1976. It stood at 13.5% when he beat Ford, and rose in each subsequent year, settling at 20.8% when he lost his bid for re-election.
Thus far, Obama’s been lucky. Inflation hasn’t spiked along with unemployment to create the kind of stagflation that generates a really high misery index. But with corn still being subsidized to make ethanol (an inherently less efficient fuel), look for everything related to corn to continue to inch up: meat, eggs and any food that uses corn syrup as a sweetener. Likewise, with our insanely missing-in-action energy policy, combined with continuing bans on all types of domestic drilling, and unstable supply and prices from the Middle East (not to mention the new carbon standards that the EPA has deemed to impose on businesses) look for the price of EVERYTHING to go up. There are few commodities or services that don’t have energy costs embedded in their price.
ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS
The three Mile Island nuclear accident occurred on Carter’s watch. The partial core meltdown (completely contained, with no resulting deaths or injuries) followed by media panic and environmentalist histrionics resulted in the de facto shuttering of the nuclear power plant industry in the U.S.. There has not been one newly commissioned nuclear plant since. In fact, 120 plants on the drawing board at the time were cancelled. Of the 104 plants operating today (or in the case of Watts Bar, still being constructed) none were commissioned after 1974. We are decades behind other industrial countries in every aspect of nuclear power. The power source once touted as “too cheap to meter” is now too expensive for a utility to even propose to the Public Service Commission.
The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill occurred on Obama’s watch, and it appears that he intends to follow Carter’s lead by doing his best to shut down the oil industry too. We’ll all be off-grid soon. As I said before, it’s almost uncanny.
So there you have it. Still not a comprehensive list of all the similarities between these two candidates for “worst U.S. President, ever.” For example I didn’t mention that Chris Matthews was a speech writer in the Carter Administration, did I? And now, 30 years later, here he is - still a mouthpiece for the Administration. Only now, he actually gives the speeches for the President; nightly on Ms.NBC.
Chris Matthews reads the SOTU from TOTUS for POTUS
And while Carter had Zbigniev Brzezinski as his National Security Advisor to guide him on all critical international issues,
Jimmy Carter with Zbigniev, back in the day
Obama has his daughter, Mika Brzezinski, carrying water every day on Morning Joe.
When you’re back is up against the wall, who ya gonna call? The ACLU?
"Bring Bush! Make a no fly zone, bomb the planes," shouted soldier-turned-rebel Nasr Ali, referring to a no-fly zone imposed on Iraq in 1991 by then U.S. President George Bush.
Apparently Amnesty International wasn’t on their speed-dial either.
Since it’s Wednesday, it’s “Shut Up and Sing” day. I just deemed it so.
In a new weekly event named in honor of Laura Ingraham’s book of the same title I’m issuing an appeal to celebrities like Sean Penn, Janeane Garofalo and Sheryl Crow who feel compelled to share their wondrous knowledge of global warming, economics and the dangers of genetically modified seeds with their adoring fans.(Or in the case of Tom Cruise, his vast knowledge of Psychiatry and psycho-tropic drugs, derived from his years of study at the school of Scientology.) Please; all I’m asking is that you stick to whatever shtick you know well enough to get paid for.
I’m awarding the inaugural honorarium to Charles Ferguson, director of “Inside Job” the movie that won the Oscar for “best documentary”the other night. It’s about Wall Street’s avarice and misdeeds. **yawn**
Here are the opening remarks of Mr. Ferguson’s acceptance speech:
"Forgive me, I must start by pointing out that three years after our horrific financial crisis caused by financial fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail, and that's wrong,"
Yes, that’s true. Not a one of them is in jail. A lot of them are working in the Obama administration. One of them just retired from the Senate as a result of his involvement in the Countrywide mortgage scandal (Chris Dodd) and another one just got re-elected to the House of Representatives (Barney Frank) despite his major involvement in the Fannie and Freddie failure. And another one of them practically bankrolled the entire Obama candidacy (George Soros).
Others in the liberal media contend that "almost everything that the White House has done has been haunted by the personnel and the money of Goldman….” And even the World Socialist Web Site has complained about Obama’s Wall Street ties.
So, no, Charles. Not in jail. Perhaps because, even stipulating to the fact that many people did many things that many consider unethical, they may not have done anything illegal. You can’t prosecute people simply for acting in ways that you or I consider unethical. Not yet anyway.
As is often the case when technology and innovation get ahead of the curve, legal constraints lag behind. in these situations, there will always be people working in the shadowy margins. Their actions may have been unwise, speculative, greedy – and by most decent standards - unethical. But unwise, speculative, greedy and unethical are not currently illegal. Of course, there’s always RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organiztions Act). It can be used “to indict a ham sandwich,” but I digress.
Ferguson, who holds a doctorate in Political Science from M.I.T. made his fortune by developing the first visual webpage software which was subsequently sold to Microsoft and incorporated into its Word program. After that, Ferguson got into movie making. I’m betting that, like most everybody else, he lost a goodly portion of his net worth in the ‘08 financial meltdown. But losing money in the market - even combined with his PhD and his contribution to Microsoft’s Word - doesn’t make him an expert in finance, financial markets and complex systems.
With respect to Charles’ Shut Up and Sing tag: I’m not sure what his basic talent/skill is any more. He used to be a software designer, but since cashing out of that business he’s made two political, but uninformed, documentaries. I can’t comment on his first movie No End in Sight which is about the “quagmire” in Iraq. I haven’t seen it, but it was released about the same time it became apparent that the surge was working.
So while he may have an ability to make movies, I’m not sure documentaries is his genre,although the standards for “documentaries” do seem to be a bit wobbly. What I can tell you for certain is his basic documentary skills do NOT include analyzing the breakdown of financial markets. When your logic can be picked apart and ridiculed by the New York Post’s movie critic, you’re skating on thin ice my man.
I’d be willing to bet that his research for the documentary was similar to that of the Democratic members of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Committee. Which is to say, no stone was left unturned in search of facts that supported their initial assumptions, but boulders that marked the spots where pesky facts that wandered off storyline were gingerly walked around. I suppose if that technique is good enough for science - which it apparently is these days - it’s good enough for movies and Congressional commissions.
If you watch Inside Job, do so with the knowledge that it is biased, slanted and uninformed. Although it is slightly better than Matt Taibbi’s Rolling Stone take down of Goldman Sachs: an even less informed “analysis” that the Left has been quoting since it was published last Spring as though its author actually knew something about financial markets. (See Megan McCardle’s disassembly of Taibbi’s piece rather than reading the original. You’ll learn a lot more. While she doesn’t “get” Sarah Palin, she clearly “gets” Matt Taibbi.
I’m clear on what the “shut-up” part of this guy’s tag refers to. I’m just not clear on what the “sing” portion of the talent competition entails for Chuck at this point. I guess we could always use a new Microsoft software program that actually worked.
PS. And oh, by the way: “reliable sources” are now alleging that the entire financial crash may have been due to: Financial Terrorism. Something to think about. I mean, in the grander scheme of things.
![ANN_DUNHAM_OBAMA_SOETERO_NUDE_2_thumb[1]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMBHZ8ujdB9F6Gj25FBl5T2mSHblXF4c96BFXzjgqx4s7vzWXQAi98NoRrrqvXWfTH7Clv5yQs2TiQxru3zFPDLZ5KJXehVyMpj4nZ-guO5SQNtH3n1SAhOqKEfZnlqQ5-h1pEsWsbp0Ac/s1600-h/ANN_DUNHAM_OBAMA_SOETERO_NUDE_2_thumb%5B1%5D%5B3%5D.jpg "ANN_DUNHAM_OBAMA_SOETERO_NUDE_2_thumb[1]")
