By Douglas V. Gibbs
Liberals are in a constant state of denial. They believe their liberal policies will be successful, and believe that whatever their agenda says on paper, that must be the truth. Then, when their failed policies are applied, and the opposite happens and tragedy strikes, they are confused, and so they start making things up, lying, and blaming their opposition with false accusations.
As statists, they even get to the point of trying to silence any dissent, as did progressive President Woodrow Wilson with the Sedition Act of 1918, and the statist Federalists with their Sedition Act of 1798.
Recently, Senator John Kerry even went so far as to say that the media needs to make sure the Tea Party does not get equal time. Kerry wants the media to censor the Tea Party's views that are "absurd" or "not factual"... referring to those who argued for not raising the debt ceiling.
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said last April, in response to the Republican Party's accusation that liberal government spending policies will place America's credit rating at risk, that there was no risk the U.S. will lose its top credit rating.
Geithner even took to the airwaves of financial news networks to push back against a report by Standard & Poor's that lowered its outlook on U.S. debt to "negative," reflecting political uncertainty over whether lawmakers will begin to take action to reduce the size of the federal debt.
In fact, Geithner at that time practically made it a guarantee, when he said, "There is no chance that the U.S. will lose its top credit rating."
After all, based on their skewed view of economics based on the failed theory of Keynesian economics, it all looked good on paper.
"No risk of that, no risk," Geithner said on the Fox Business Network.
"Washington is a hard place to read. And it's hard for people to look past the political rhetoric and try to understand whether the leadership of Washington is going to take the tough steps necessary to get ahead of this problem," the Treasury secretary explained. "I think the prospects for a bipartisan agreement are better than they've been in a long period of time. Of course, we have to turn that into action."
To help alleviate pressure, Geithner said he would prefer Congress authorize a substantial increase in the debt ceiling, though the secretary said the administration would defer to Congress in making the ultimate determination.
"If it were up to me, knowing that you want the world to know that our commitment to meet our obligation will never be in question, you would do it for as long as possible," he said. "Important to recognize that even under Paul Ryan's budget plan, you'd have to raise the debt limit by probably $2 trillion over the next 18 months to get through this, roughly the same amount as in the president's framework."
The administration trotted Geithner out shortly after the S&P report rattled markets and drove Republican criticism of the White House over the Obama administration's deficit-reduction plans.
Notice how even then, the liberal mantra was that everything would be okay if we would just raise the debt ceiling - meaning, give them the ability to increase government spending even more.
They don't get it. It's the spending that is the problem. A "real" cut in spending, which would have taken place if the debt ceiling had not been raised, is what was needed to stave off the risk to our credit rating.
The cuts they are proposing in the new budget deal are not cuts at all. They are simply promises to spend less than they plan in the future, but the future still is expected to experience a rise in spending.
In other words, "We'll spend much, much more, but we may trim some of the much, much more a tad. But, since it is going to be in the hands of a future Congress, we can't guarantee even that will happen."
Oh, they are planning some cuts to make it look like they are trying to control spending (but really so they can spend it somewhere else).
My neighbor is in the Marine Corps, and he told me that they are looking to drop retirement down to 25% of base pay for 20 years (from 50%, which is already ridiculously low in my opinion), and down to 50% for thirty years. They also plan to reduce the time you have to make E-7 by 2 years, as well as the time you have to make E-6. If you don't accomplish those rate increases within the prescribed time, out you go.
Meanwhile, the government continues to spend outrageous amounts on pensions and cadillac health coverage for federal employees. . . especially those that are unionized.
The GOP believes that if there should be cuts, we have a couple places to go. There is the ridiculous spending we send to places like China to ensure their prostitutes are properly hydrated, or South Africa to make sure the men in the not-so-civilized areas of the country are washing their genitals after sex.
The other place we could go to reduce spending is entitlement reform.
The liberal left calls entitlement reform cold-hearted, when in reality it is the liberal policy of increasing entitlements that is truly cold-hearted. It is immoral to make people slaves of the state, and essentially, to keep them poor.
The spending by the Democrats is unsatisfactory, and unsustainable. Heartless, or not, to continue dumping money into programs that essentially encourage people not to fend for themselves, is impossible. We don't have the money. Besides, these kinds of programs, you know, helping the poor as the Democrats claim they are doing, is not the role of the government. That is what charities are for.
ObamaCare is yet another entitlement, that, if put into place, would take away choice - and less choice means less liberty.
But that is what all entitlement programs do. At the federal level the government just does not have that kind of constitutional authority, and it is unsustainable.
If a State wants to implement entitlement programs, without federal funding, the State has ever constitutional right to do so - though I don't recommend it.
In the 2004 election George W. Bush insisted he would address Social Security. There is no lock-box for those funds, because the federal government saw all that Social Security money, got greedy, and spent it. What people have been putting into Social Security all their lives has been spent. Today's Social Security checks are being paid out of what people are paying in today.
The system is already running on deficits, but the situation will be completely unsustainable within the next decade. We need reform sooner, rather than later. Begin reforming entitlements now, or we will be forced into austerity measures tomorrow.
That's the sad fact.
Liberals have criticized the austerity measures in Europe, saying the measures didn't do anything to help those economies.
Those economies are past the point of no return.
Besides, austerity measures aren't some political strategy. Those countries were forced to implement austerity measures because they simply can't afford to pump money into the entitlement programs anymore.
Reform them now, or lose them later.
Like Geithner saying there was no risk of the U.S. losing its top credit rating, last year Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid insisted that there was no crisis in Social Security. He claims his opponents are demagoguing the issue, or are crazy.
That's an old trick the Soviet Union used to use, and that Nazi Germany used. Declare your opponents crazy, so that nobody will be willing to listen to them.
Liberals can't debate the issues, so they have to destroy their opposition instead. This is because they know that their policies can't be supported in a debate.
But the liberals actually believe their policies are worth a dang because they look good on paper, and then the leftists are later stunned when what they expect to happen doesn't.
Back when Bush tried to reform Social Security, the Democrats went into attack mode, and accused Bush of trying to take away benefits from retirees through partial privatization, which would have allowed workers to control their own investment funds — and keep the money out of the hands of Congress, and ultimately would have began changing the direction of that program.
Social Security is doomed on its current path. A slow reform towards privatization will save the program in the long run.
Social Security reform damaged Bush in his second term, just as it damaged Reagan when he tried to tackle Social Security reform - because some people actually believe the Democrats when they start with their crying and whining and accusations.
Now, such reforms may be possible, because the public is more informed: thanks to the collapse of the housing bubble, high unemployment, the obvious failure of huge Keynesian stimulus spending to correct the economic downturn, and things like us losing our credit rating despite Geithner's promise we wouldn't.
The public has reached an unprecedented level of consensus about reducing federal spending. The public realizes steps must be taken, and the statist policies of the Marxist liberal left is actually worsening the situation. That is why the majority of the public was opposed to raising the debt ceiling that now allows the Treasury to sell more debt to finance federal operations.
If we fail to address this spending issue, if we fail to put into place real spending cuts, the United States will be in serious jeopardy of an economic collapse. Voters clearly recognize the possibility. And now, the public expects Congress to do something about it.
The budget bill, however, does not seriously attempt serious budget reductions as promised. It addresses future spending, but still allows that spending to increase.
Entitlement reform has to be part of any serious reform, especially if conservatives want to avoid deep cuts in defense spending, which as I stated earlier, are already being proposed.
Problem is, these jerks in Washington don't think it's a spending problem. They think they just aren't squeezing enough money out of us. I guarantee that an increase in taxes, and I mean taxes that will affect everyone except those sucking off the government, are in the future. In fact, Reid is already talking about tax increases, as is Obama, and the rest of the Democrats.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
'No risk' the US will lose its top credit rating, says Treasury's Geithner - The Hill
John Kerry -- Media should not give equal time to Tea Party - Patriot Action Network
MSNBC pulls out favorite Soviet/KGB trick: Declare your opponents insane - Net Right Daily
World leaders confer on debt crises this weekend - Yahoo Finance
Reid: S&P downgrade backs Dems' call for more revenue - The Hill
President Obama's downgrade blues - Star Tribune
Obama: Unneeded Income Belongs TO The Government - Patriot Action Network
What Spending Should We Cut? - Political Pistachio
No comments:
Post a Comment