The past week was very interesting in Presidential politics.  The darlings of the rank and file Republican Party, New Jersey governor Chris Christie and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, have concluded it is not time to run for President. Herman Cain (who was recently labeled a racist by a Democrat strategist on CNN) has become the sweetheart of the white-supremacist, right-wing Tea Party.

The popular press is lauding liberal Democrats for having finally found their own voice in the Occupy Wall Street protests. And Missouri’s Democratic Senator, Claire McCaskill, did not even show up for President Obama’s (who polls below 30% in MO) fundraiser in St. Louis. And a rumor is circulating that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has told Obama he cannot win passage of the jobs bill as proposed and will only take it in pieces to the Senate floor, thus distancing himself from the President.

Does anyone need to know anything else about the 2012 elections?

The problem for decades in Washington has been that lawmakers, Republican and Democrat, have spent their way to political success. Now that there is no more money, nobody knows what to do.  In fact, there is only one Congressman, Darrell Issa (R-CA) who has started (not inherited) a successful company that sold a product and wasn’t just in the service industry, law, accounting, insurance, medicine, banking, you get the idea.  The genesis of American capitalism is an agrarian society taking the risks necessary to make something from nothing and selling it.  He is likely the only one that has made the sacrifices necessary to build something from nothing, and make a profit.  The concept is that without actual profit you can’t spend money.  Everyone else, Democrat and Republican more resembles the Occupy Wall Street group who want to tell everyone where money should be spent, decisions based on personal interests and taxes, not capitalism.  The situation is exacerbated by the contempt and lack of cooperation between the congressional parties, as well as between members of Congress of both parties and the executive.

For some time, the question of when that animosity began has gone unanswered. Certainly there have always been hard-fought ideological battles in the halls of government. But there have also been famous relationships between party leaders, relationships that helped bring these leaders and the country together. When did our modern politics deteriorate so much? Recently a longtime friend and Washington insider suggested that it began with the defeat of the nomination of Judge Robert Bork, the highly respected and superbly qualified candidate, for the Supreme Court. (more…)

Like the recent east coast earthquake, the Budget Control Act of 2011 left Washington shaken and completely confused, the epicenter being the Department of Defense.

While some are saying that the super committee will be able to reach a deal and cut the additional $1.5 trillion (half from defense), others are not so confident there will be any agreement, resulting in automatic caps for the next nine years.  Either way, defense spending will make or break a super committee budget deal.

Truthfully, Congress has a better chance of willfully trimming the budget at the super committee stage because they have more tools to orchestrate a reduction. Even if they deadlock, they’ll push through artificial savings mechanisms, anything to merit a Mission Accomplished banner. Medicare doc fixes are an example of such “solutions”. Though Congress’s intention was to curb Medicare spending, they came up with an unworkable formula that has now resulted in temporary increases and extensions of existing physician reimbursement rates, all in an attempt to circumvent a long-term solution. Applying this to what Congress may do with defense spending, a successful deal may be nothing more than a tacit convention of today’s culture on Capitol Hill, do anything to avoid Armageddon. And some do consider the trigger provision of the bill to be deadly. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta even called it the “doomsday mechanism.”

Under sequestration, or the trigger, defense cuts are still a variable certainty. We simply do not know how bad it is. It all boils down to the language of the bill. Here’s why:

1.The bill does not organize any of its spending requirements against any baseline.

2.Positive numbers (discretionary spending caps) without context forces you to make arbitrary assumptions.

3.No analyst can come up with a number that is reasonable/unreasonable.

The question on everyone’s mind: What on earth do we base these numbers against?

(more…)

To listen to the debates on the deficit and the debt, one would think that wealth emanates from the government. Underlying every argument is the notion that government cuts imply pain and pose a drastic threat to our economy.

But government spending itself is pain because all money spent by the government represents the confiscation of today’s wealth or future wealth, via direct taxation, currency devaluation or debt ad infinitum. By taking current wealth out of private hands, it is allocated not according to a market economy driven by the people but by a political economy in which “investment” yields returns solely for the politicians in the form of votes and favored classes in the form of monetary or regulatory handouts; by devaluation, savers are wiped out and borrowers and spenders are rewarded, a sure-fire way to bankrupt a people, given that economies grow through savings and investment, not consumption; by piling on the debt, the government pushes up interest rates for all of us, leading investment to flow out of the US and crushing corporations and individuals alike.

All government today rests upon a premise that people should be lucky that they get to keep a percentage of the fruits of their labor, with government rightfully conferring benefits on the interests that support it. Which is why it was never intended for government to be in the business of conferring benefits in the first place – and I mean benefits to anyone, be it labor unions, corporations or particular classes of people.

The burden should have always been on the politician to prove to his elector why ANY dollar taken from the individual should be redistributed to someone else. For government’s clearly defined bounds were created to ensure that the usurpation of wealth from private citizens would be minimal, and occur only when it supported a service that all people benefitted equally from, such as our national defense.

(more…)

During President Obama’s first two years in office, we have seen him do nothing but fumble on the world stage.  He often seems to sit back and watch major changes occur – making no effort to be a part of the solution or reassert America’s position in the state of world affairs.

Bruce Thornton, a professor of classics and humanities, joins us to discuss his book, “The Wages of Appeasement: Ancient Athens, Munich, and Obama’s America.”

His ultimate advice for the President?  Listen to what Islamists say, and believe they meant it.  We cannot bribe them–with education, money or democracy–because they will never trade spiritual things for physical things.  Ultimately, he argues that there will be no resolution outside of force.

Thornton also discusses the downfall of the democratic city-states of Ancient Greece, who, because of the “destructive pursuit of short term self-interest,” were unable to unify against a common threat.  Thornton argues that for a democracy to survive it must maintain civic virtue – character that is worthy of freedom.

The topic of appeasement draws some disturbing parallels between Chamberlain and Hitler and many of our modern politicians.  Pacifism and internationalism weren’t just popular movements in the 1930s and 1940s.  Remember, internationalism is defined as the idea that it is possible to create harmony of interest and solve all problems through diplomacy.   Sound familiar?

Watch the full episode here:

(more…)

October 6, 2009

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) today released the following statement after the Senate rejected Coburn amendments that would have forced Congress to shift earmark funds back toward vital operations and maintenance. By a vote of 25 to 73, the Senate rejected an amendment offered by Dr. Coburn that would have restored to the troops $165 million earmarked within the Defense appropriations bill’s maintenance and operations accounts for congressional earmarks.

“In a time of war it is unconscionable for members of Congress to divert funds from vital operations to less-than-vital parochial pork projects. I regret the Senate voted today to protect their pet projects at the expense of our troops,” Dr. Coburn said.

The Pentagon has also expressed concern over the excessive amount of earmarks Congress has requested:

“Every dollar that we are forced to spend on things which we do not need requires us to take money from things which we do need. And the people who lose in that trade-off are our troops and the taxpayers,” said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon spokesman. (more…)