balance (5)

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a sprawling economic report, and it underscored how dire our looming economic forecast looks. If we can somehow avoid falling off the fiscal cliff and deflect Taxmageddon, thereby averting a wave of scheduled tax hikes as the "Bush Tax Rates" expire, we can hopefully stay stagnated as we are today. Keep in mind that this is an overly optimistic forecast and a best-case scenario for the U.S. economy next year. This means the BEST we can hope for if Americans give Barack Obama another four years is 8 percent unemployment, and economic growth of 1.7 percent--That is as good as it gets.

Whether one likes to admit it or not, the deficit has hovered near $1 trillion for each year of the Obama presidency, meaning that Obama did not satisfy his 2009 promise to halve the deficit by the end of his first term. Obama said this about his budget, "We built this budget around the idea that our country has always done best when everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share and everyone plays by the same rules." The only rules the Obama administration are imposing are Marxist ones attempting to spread the wealth around. It is worth examining what the President’s budget proposes for the next four fiscal years.

Yes, the national debt will surpass $20 trillion by 2016.

  • Under the President’s budget policies, federal debt will increase to $25.4 trillion by the end of 2022, an increase of $10.6 trillion (72 percent).
  • Federal debt at the end of the current fiscal year will stand at $16.2 trillion—$6.2 trillion above where it was 4 years earlier.
  • In the last 4 years, the debt increased by more than it did in the previous 17 years.
  • The $1.8 trillion in tax hikes in the President’s budget finance $1.4 trillion in spending above projected growth, not deficit reduction.
  • Debt will remain permanently elevated above 100 percent of GDP — a level of debt that economists believe results in weaker growth and millions of lost jobs.

The CBO report goes on to summarize that if we continue or increase our current tax and spending policies our economic outlook would only improve in the short run but would boost deficits and debt significantly and would place the budget on a path that is ultimately unsustainable. The Senate has done nothing to remedy this situation. The president has done nothing. Remember, President Obama's budget was embarrassingly rejected by the Democrat controlled Senate 99-0 and in the House it failed to garnish one stinking vote where it failed 414-0. Watch Stu Burguiere explain what he calls “the deficit blame game” while he compares President Obama’s deficit to the total deficit of former President George W. Bush, who Obama routinely blames for all of his administration’s shortcomings. (Well, that and tsunami's, headwinds from Europe, ATM's, and even on-line travel sites)

Obama knows that his economic policies are conducive of neither liberty as traditionally conceived by Americans nor prosperity. He is many things, but he is not incompetent. His policy flows from his vast knowledge and exposure to both Keynesian economics and neo-Marxian philosophy. The problem is that most Americans did not realize what Barack Obama meant when he envisioned a "fundamental transformation" for our country. Obama's idea is unlike the image most Americans have acquired an affection for and even more unlike the America which our ancestors called  home. The philosopher Ronald Dworkin said and Obama would agree that "a more equal society" -- a society where the resources of which are equally "distributed" -- is better than the contrary, even if its citizens prefer inequality. What this means is nothing short of the death of America as it is currently constituted. While the president genuinely believes that his plans are what's best for the country, his policy prescriptions are indeed ultimately destructive. Barack Obama blames everyone but himself, DO NOT FORGET THAT THE DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED BOTH THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE FOR THE FIRST HALF OF HIS TERM, and Obama got passed every piece of legislation he desired. Under such leadership, American incomes declined more in the three-year expansion that started in June 2009 than during the longest recession since the Great Depression, according an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data by Sentier Research LLC. The research firm’s Gordon Green, who previously directed work on the Census Bureau’s income and poverty statistics program, “Almost every group is worse off than it was three years ago, and some groups had very large declines in income, we’re in an unprecedented period of economic stagnation.”

Read more…

Ol’ Rajjpuut says it’s not a question of “IF,” but rather “WHEN” the U.S. Supreme Court calls Obamacare unconstitutional and sends it back to congress for a do-over. Right now ten states, led by Virginia which is suing on two separate fronts, have filed suit against the federal government for Obamacare miscues. At the same time a total of at least 38 states other than Virginia are seeking to pass recommended model state legislation so that they can have their ducks in order to challenge the federal government against Obamacare.

One weakness, Rajjpuut sees, is that some of the states are talking about Commerce Act challenges rather than direct Constitutional challenges or challenging on both issues. This is a major mistake. The court has always been reluctant to screw around with the Constitution but might very well jump at a chance to modify the Commerce Act.
Since bankruptcy of all 50 states is at stake, Rajjpuut suggests every bullet be fired and instantaneous reloading take place.

As it stands the provisions of Obamacare that force individual states to take over a much augmented Medicaid and a very much augmented state role in paying for Medicaid are almost certain to bankrupt all 50 of the states with the possible exception of Texas (which has special doctor-friendly and insurance-friendly laws in place) by 2020 or 2022 at the latest. This much you already know if you’re a loyal reader of Rajjpuut’s Folly here or at TownHall.com . . . Listening to Fox News the other night was quite enlightening . . . .

The United States is not some single monlithic entity called “America” but rather a federal system of government with the national government holding some important dominion over 50 semi-autonomous states. The Bill of Rights of the Constitution is sort of like a protective armor designed to negate much of the potentially most objectionable power grabs that the national government (acting upon the states and upon the individual citizens) might attempt. Perhaps the least appreciated and little understood of all the Bill of Rights’ ten amendments is the 10th and last amendment which limits the power of the national government just to assume powers willy-nilly a la Obama and his czars and Obamacare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_Amendment

The 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The main reason the states will have a powerful case arguing against the provisions of Obamacare that will bankrupt them is that like so much of what Barak Obama has done his so-called “reforms” under Obamacare are merely commandeering the state legislature’s role in every one of the 50 states for federal purposes which always in the past the Supreme Court has labeled “unconstitutional.” In a nutshell the key question is this: “Should the U.S. Government be allowed to pass laws and programs and force the states to pay for them?” If you wanted a stronger form of the question, “Can the federal government be allowed to pass laws, then force the states to pay for them and bankrupt the states?”

This question about the U.S. Congress regulating state governments has been asked many times and always the answer has been a resounding, “NO!” In Obamacare, as the law now exists, Congress has told the states to modify their health care regulation; they must surrender some areas of health care regulations; and they must spend state taxpayer money in the exact manner that the U.S. Congress is telling them to spend it. The U.S. Congress is removing all self-determination and discretion from the state governments in the health care arena.

According to Fox News senior judicial analyst and former New Jersey Superior Judge and author of the book “Lies the Government Told You,” Andrew P. Napolitano, the longstanding precedent of state regulation of the health care industry and healthcare insurance makes the new sweeping federal legislation “all the more problematic” continuing to say, “Barak Obama is one of the worst presidents in terms of obedience to constitutional limitations. I believe we are run by a one-party system in this country called the ‘big-government party.' " The judge went on to delineate a Republican branch that likes war and deficits and assaulting civil liberties. There is a Democratic branceh that likes welfare and taxes and deficits and assaulting commercial liberties. " President Obama stands squarely with the most leftist portion of the Democratic branch.”
Many people today, believe that the differences between today's ordinary American citizens and their government is much larger than the 18th Century differences between Great Britain and the colonists . . . which is another way of saying what the judge has emphasized here. And the reasons for this? In Rajjpuut's view, the communistic leanings of Barak Obama added to the already entrenched view of the Congress that they constitute a privileged special interest group not beholden to the ordinary voter -- this has made the electorate feel that our country's traditions are being struck down in the name of more power for the politicians.

Napolitano is also no lover of FDR, for the same reasons he criticizes Obama. But he would surprise virtually everyone by saying that when it comes to “constitutional fidelity” the least loyal to the provisions of the constitution was Abraham Lincoln. “He waged war on about half the country, without authority for that in the Constitution, a war that killed 700,000 people if civilians are included. Obama is already close to Lincoln and has surpassed FDR in stepping on the Constitution. Ol’ Rajjpuut has known plenty of southerners who blanched at the term the “Civil War” and preferred to call it “The War of Northern Aggression" as they had been taught in their schools” but from a N.J. judge that’s gotta be a surprise . . . .

Back to Obamacare, the judge continues: “the states have had a role in health care delivery for 233 years, a big role since about 1920, and a huge role since Medicaid was passed in 1965, there is no precedent for the federal government to just move in there. I predict that the U.S. Supreme Court will invalidate major portions of the law the president just signed.” However, according to Napolitano, the bad news is that many of the laws provisions will not be "challengable" until 2014 when they’d go into effect. In any case, the Judge says it takes the average court case four years to pass through the system to reach the Supreme Court. “You’re talking abut 2018 which is eight years from now.

Rajjpuut, of course sees a cleaner, better world and has a better way, the thing to do is for 38 states (the 3/4 necessary for citizen creation of a new amendment to the Constitution) to pass an amendment repealing Obamacare and all its provision, eliminating all the 159 new federal bureaucracies created by the law, and unhiring all 1,650 new IRS agents required by the law. This is the single most magic action awaiting the TEA Party's commitment. There has never before been an Amendment created for the Constitution, this is the TEA Party's divine purpose if ever there was one!

Other points raised by the Judge include . . . .

The federal government lacks constitutional authority to order citizens to purchase healthcare insurance or fine them for not doing so.

The sweetheart deals still in the Obamacare law are definitely unconstitutional. The Gatorade exception, Louisiana Purchase and others “create a very unique and tricky constitutional problem (they violate the equal protection clauses and equal process clauses) because they treat some citizens differently from others” based upon the state they’re living in “so these benefits or bribes whatever you call them” force people in other states "to pay for the benefits of states that pay less.”

The U.S. Constitution created the federal government and it was “not created to right every wrong, but rather to operate only in the seventeen specific, discrete areas where the Constitution empowered it to act.”

One of the more objectionable parts of the law was that a takeover of the student college loan industry was added into the bill so that students taking out loans could partially fund Obamacare. Included in the law was an exception so that a congressional member’s bank (he partially owns it, Rajjpuut believes) could still stay in the student loan business.

Exempting union members from so-called “Cadillac taxes” on expensive health care insurance policies while imposing a direct tax on other citizens is “outright discrimination” and unconstitutional.

“This health care legislation will prove that the UNlimited government folks are WRONG in a very direct and in-your-face way.”

A group very much in tune with Judge Napolitano is the recently-emerged TEA^^^ Party (acronym: Taxed Enough Already) which buys his arguments 100% and seeks to find fiscal-conservatives to back this November. One strong reason for the great distress of TEA Party members: Obama's budget initiatives carried into the future have been shown by the Congressional Budget Office to increase the National Debt to Gross Domestic Product ratio from an alarmingly high 53% to an incredible 90+%. The last nation to embark willingly on such a plan was Japan in the late 80's and early 90's. Today Japan, once thought of as an economic super power, faces a debt/GDP ratio of 192% and her glory days are far behind her.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

^^^http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2010/most_say_tea_party_has_better_understanding_of_issues_than_congress

Voters across the nation feel closer to the Tea Party movement than they do to Congress according to the latest Rasmussen poll. 52% of U.S. voters believe the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress while only 30% believe that those in Congress have a better understanding of those key issues. 47% think that their own political views are closer to those of the average Tea Party member than to the views of the average member of Congress. On this point, 26% feel closer to Congress. 46% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is more ethical than the average member of Congress. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say that the average member of Congress is more ethical. There is a wide divide between the tiny Political Class and Mainstream Americans on these questions. Seventy-five percent (75%) of those in the Political Class say that members of Congress are better informed on the issues. Among Mainstream Americans, 68% have the opposite view, and only 16% believe Congress is better informed. By a 62% to 12% margin, Mainstream Americans say the Tea Party is closer to their views. By a 90% to one percent (1%) margin, the Political Class feels closer to Congress.

http://rajjpuutsfolly.blogtownhall.com/2010/03/27/cbo_analysis_by_2020,_obama_budget_will_bankrupt__nation.thtml

http://rajjpuutsfolly.blogtownhall.com/2010/03/26/high_time_for_tea_party__major_parties_to_enact.thtml

http://rajjpuutsfolly.blogtownhall.com/2010/03/26/41_of_dems_say_republicans_should_challenge_obamacare_law_and_63_of_americans_agree_in_cbs_poll.thtml

Read more…