Now my advice for those who die, (taxman)
Declare the pennies on your eyes. (taxman)
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

And you're working for no one but me.
- The Beatles

The next time you hear a Democratic politician complain about the Bush tax cuts, as Democrats tend to do in about every third or fourth sentence (at this point it's almost like liberal Tourette's Syndrome), think about this:

Accounts Receivable Tax, Building Permit Tax, Capital Gains Tax, CDL License Tax, Cigarette Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Dog License Tax, Federal Income Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA), Fishing License Tax, Food License Tax, Fuel Permit Tax, Gasoline Tax, Hunting License Tax, Inheritance Tax, Inventory Tax, IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax), IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax), Local Income Tax, Liquor Tax, Luxury Tax, Marriage License Tax, Medicare Tax, Property Tax, Real Estate Tax, Service charge taxes, Social Security Tax, Road Usage Tax (Truckers), Sales Taxes, Recreational Vehicle Tax, School Tax, State Income Tax, State Unemployment Tax (SUTA), Telephone Federal Excise Tax, Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax, Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax, Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax, Telephone State and Local Tax, Telephone Usage Charge Tax, Utility Tax, Vehicle License Registration Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, Watercraft Registration Tax, Well Permit Tax, Workers Compensation Tax…and many, many others

Then ask yourself if MORE taxes is really the right way to go. Combined government at all levels already takes over $5 trillion (that's a five followed by TWELVE ZEROES) out of our pockets each year(and some people wonder why the middle class is shrinking and we're going in debt. Hello).

As if all that isn't bad enough, the Democrats propose more tax increases at every turn. Examples since May, 2008 alone are - the Windfall Profits Tax on the oil companies (which was voted down by the Republicans. Thanks GOP), the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Tax (which was voted down by the Republicans. Thanks GOP), and the huge subsidies in the Farm Bill (which the Republicans did NOT vote down. Bad GOP. Bush vetoed it, thanks Bush, but Congress will override his veto).

A president Barack Obama, in addition to ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, lifting the Social Security tax cap, and doubling the capital gains tax, would also like us all to pay a Global Poverty Tax to the United Nations. Obama's huge new spending plans will require taxes to be raised through the roof, so don't be fooled by his misleading rhetoric about a middle class tax cut. The total tax burden trickles down to the middle class and the poor just as sure as the rain falls from the sky. It's the total tax burden that really matters, and Obama would jack it up by another trillion dollars or so. I'm sure you all can afford it, though. It's small change, really. Petty cash, at least to Democrats. Yes we can (take your money).

Or you can vote for John McCain, who promises to scrub every facet of government to reduce spending, who is a hawk against earmarks, and who wants to cut taxes by $300 billion. Your choice. McCain also wants to reduce the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25% in order to stimulate business, create jobs, and lower prices. Barack Obama called that proposal "catering to the wealthiest americans", in a standard bit of Democratic class warfare rhetoric. What Mr. Obama doesn't understand is that it's the total tax burden that counts when it comes to jobs, wages, prices, and business stimulation. It's a fairly simple concept really: the more government takes away from business, the less money business has to grow, hire new people, or pay higher wages. The more government takes from business, the higher the cost of doing business becomes, and the more goods and services from business cost. In fact, the concept is SO simple that it takes a lot of liberal propaganda to get it all mixed up, as Obama has. Don't be fooled.

There is no distinctly American criminal class, except Congress. - Mark Twain

As I was watching our distinguished Senators debate the Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill, which has been amended into the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill, I was wondering why it is that such a group of educated ladies and gentlemen can disagree so profoundly about such an issue. Even more curious is how the disagreement seems to follow so closely along party lines. The disagreement I'm speaking of is not about whether man-made global warming is real or not. Most of the Senators from both sides of the aisle speaking yesterday seemed to agree it is real, with the exception of a couple prehistoric bone-waving Republican heretics who dared question the SCIENCE OF THE CARBON GODS (amen). No, the disagreement I'm speaking of is the disagreement over the remedies for global warming (pardon me, the CARBON GODS inform me I am to use the term "Climate Change" from now on, not "Global Warming". The operative words are "Climate Change". That way, ANY inclement weather AT ALL can be attributed to global warming, er, climate change. My bad). Not only do our educated Senators disagree over the cap-and-trade program, they also disagree over whether the Climate Change bill is the biggest new government bureaucracy since the New Deal, which will raise everyone's energy prices drastically, destroy our economy, and accomplish very little in the way of curbing CO2 emissions (the Republican position) - or whether the Climate Bill will save us from extinction, cost nothing, and create jobs (the Democratic position). Talk about polar opposites (hey, is that a pun ?).

So, who is right ? The title of this post might provide a hint. You'll have to read the link to get all of the info, because there is too much for me to write out here.

Nobody quite knows how much the current Climate Change bill will cost (which is a reason to vote against it right there), but here are some estimates:

A study by Charles River Associates puts the cost (in terms of reduced household spending per year) of S. 2191 at $800 to $1,300 per household by 2015, rising to $1,500 to $2,500 by 2050.[2] Electricity prices could jump by 36 to 65 percent by 2015 and 80 to 125 percent by 2050.[3] No analysis has been done on the impact of S. 2191 on gasoline prices, but an Environmental Protection Agency study of a less stringent cap and trade bill estimates impacts of 26 cents per gallon by 2030 and 68 cents by 2050.[4]

Most independent studies have calculated the costs to be even higher than those estimates.

The Democrats solution to everything is to create a huge new government bureaucracy, impose onerous regulations and restrictions on business and/or society, increase taxes, and increase government spending. I have come to believe it is the liberal Democratic modus operandi to interfere with capitalism and free markets as much as possible in order to later complain that capitalism and free markets don't work (all evidence to the contrary). It's their self-fulfilling prophecy, and it is intentional. They've done it with health care. They've done it with business, jobs, poverty, education, retirement. They've used it to destroy the middle class. They use their philosophy to get as many Americans as possible dependent on the government, which in turn forces those Americans to vote for Democrats to maintain the free flow from the government teat. It's a clever and insidious strategy, and the bigger our government grows, the more irresistible that strategy becomes. You aren't supposed to notice that such a strategy ends with the death of liberty. I actually heard Barbara Boxer (D-CA) say on the Senate floor yesterday that if the Climate Change Bill she's co-sponsoring drives up the cost of energy, that's okay, because then we can just increase the HEAP entitlement program to help people pay their higher energy bills. That is dastardly, folks.

Nevertheless, the cause of diminishing CO2 emissions (if you believe they must be diminished) may be one case where some measure of government interference is unavoidable, but we must exercise extreme vigilance with the system we impose. The considerations of energy, environment, and economy must all be carefully balanced. The current Congressional majority wants to do SOMETHING about climate change just so they can say they did something, but what they are proposing IS a boondoggle. It's a huge tax and regulatory bureaucratic nightmare that will send the prices of gasoline and electricity soaring at a time we can least afford it. The current bill will probably be voted down, but the issue isn't going away. Regardless of which Democrat wins the presidency in november, Obama or McCain, expect the Climate Change bill to return with a vengeance next year, because both Obama and McCain favor cap-and-trade (Bob Dole, will you please send McCain a nasty e-mail ?). We the people had better keep a close eye on Congress and get involved, or we'll soon be looking back on today as the good old days of low energy prices. I don't think anyone wants that.

Major kudos to USA Today. An American newspaper has finally told the truth about the real economic crisis facing our country, which is the growth of entitlements, mainly with Medicare and that Ponzi scheme hidden income tax ripoff fake trust fund brought to you by the Democratic Party, Social Security (SS). Read the USA today article here.

As a side note about SS, Barack Obama took to using a little "politics of fear" (if I may borrow an Obaman rhetorical device) to falsely scare senior citizens into thinking John McCain was going to take away their SS. (link) Real classsy move from Obama the "new kind of post-partisan politician" (guffaw). Nobody has EVER suggested taking SS away from seniors. Nobody. Certainly not John McCain. To paraphrase some more Obama-style patter - Barack Obama's appalling attacks are the type of divisive, dishonest, and hypocritical partisan rhetoric that has characterized politics for far too long. It's the politics of the past, and the American people are tired of it. Americans want real change they can believe in, not more fearmongering, not more of the same old down and dirty intransigent politics so typical of the Washington D.C. inside power players - There. How did you like my Obama impersonation ? You know, it's really easy to talk like that. I think I'll form an exploratory committee to make a run for the Senate, Libertarian Party, I guess. The GOP has ticked me off, so they're out. They had their chance, and the Democrats are just flat out wrong about almost everything, so they'd be far worse. Thinking the Republican mess will be fixed by the Democrats is like thinking you can set your hair on fire and then put it out with gasoline.

Which leads me back to my intended subject. The entitlement liability, which constitutes the REAL federal deficit. It's over $500,000 PER HOUSEHOLD right now. Forget the credit crisis. Forget the mortgage crisis. Forget the Iraq war. This is the REAL crisis. I don't know about you, but $500,000 sounds like a chunk of change to me. Before long, we could be talking about real money. And every year we don't get a handle on this problem, the problem grows by a couple TRILLION dollars. If you want the "politics of fear", well, here's something to fear:

Taxpayers are on the hook for a record $57.3 trillion in federal liabilities to cover the lifetime benefits of everyone eligible for Medicare, Social Security and other government programs, a USA TODAY analysis found. That's nearly $500,000 per household.

When obligations of state and local governments are added, the total rises to $61.7 trillion, or $531,472 per household. That is more than four times what Americans owe in personal debt such as mortgages.

The $2.5 trillion in federal liabilities dwarfs the $162 billion the government officially announced as last year's deficit, down from $248 billion a year earlier.

"We're running deficits in the trillions of dollars, not the hundreds of billions of dollars we're being told," says Sheila Weinberg, chief executive of the Institute for Truth in Accounting of Chicago.

The Medicare liability alone increased by $1.2 trillion in 2007, but it doesn't appear in our deficit numbers anywhere. We still have to pay for it. The total Medicare UNFUNDED liability is $30.4 trillion.

Now let's talk about some politics we really should fear (if you aren't scared already). Suppose Barack Obama becomes president and the Democrats seize a larger Congressional majority in november. Both are likely possibilities. That would give the Dems almost unfettered power. The Dems would immediately start implementing BRAND NEW HUGE ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS to add to the enormous entitlement debt tsunami headed our way already. Massive increases in taxes would have to follow, which is another really bad idea when our economy is already slowing and shaky. Add it all together, and the Democrats will create an environment for the PERFECT ECONOMIC STORM (all to help us, of course). Imagine what each American household will be on the hook for then.

You want the truth ? There's the truth. Our politicians can't handle the truth, which is why they hide behind distortions and outright lies. I'm willing to bet you haven't heard any of these numbers being talked about during the presidential campaign (which has been going on for over a year), and I guaran-darn-tee you haven't heard a Democrat mention them probably ever in your lifetime.

I BEG ALL YOU VOTERS TO PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE REASONS I JUST MENTIONED. THE OUTCOME COULD SWAMP THE FINANCIAL VIABILITY OF YOUR CHILDREN FOR TWO DECADES OR MORE.

So liberals, since you are actually in favor of all these entitlements that will bankrupt the country, I beg you to exhibit a little of that alleged liberal compassion and send at least $531,000 to me, Da King. I'm one of those little guys you love to "help". Thank you very much. I knew I could count on you. God bless, er, I mean, dos vedanya.

Isn't it sad to see the President Of The United States begging Saudi Arabia to pump more oil ? And then being turned down ? It didn't have to be this way.

Isn't it sad that the war funding bill has to be kicked around like a political football by Congress ? The Democrats attempted to add all sorts of non-war related domestic items to the bill, the Republicans revolted and sat out the vote, and the end result was, the war funding bill was voted down. The troops appreciate your non-support, you sorry politicians.

Isn't it sad that every bill that comes before Congress seems to go over budget and is full of all kinds of unnecessary earmarks to inflate the cost, as was seen in the Farm Bill that Congress sent to Bush's desk ?

Isn't it sad that we've spent a billion dollars on this presidential election race, and we haven't even reached the general election phase yet ? There are still 5 1/2 months until november. This election seems like it's gone on forever. There has to be a better and more cost effective way, not to mention one which doesn't disenfranchise millions of voters in Florida and Michigan.

Isn't it sad how Barack Obama thinks any political opinion that differs from his own is "divisive" and "the politics of fear" ? What an ego. Bush told the Israeli Knesset that he disagreed with those who would negotiate with terrorists and radicals, and Obama went into what John McCain termed "hysterical diatribe" mode to denounce Bush's words. Why is it that Obama's endless attacks against the Bush administration AREN'T "divisive", but Bush says one thing (that wasn't even directed toward Obama) and you'd think the world just collapsed ? Here's just one of many overblown comments from the Obama campaign yesterday:

“Obviously, this is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil,” Obama Communications Director Robert Gibbs told CNN’s John Roberts.

Ludicrous political theater. It makes Bush's comments sound equivalent to, say, Pearl Harbor. By the way, during his hissy fit, Obama repeated his schizoid foreign policy of NOT negotiating with Hamas because they are a terrorist group, but YES to negotiating with Iran, a state sponsor of terrorist groups Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iraqi insurgency, and a designated terrorist group themselves (Iranian Revolutionary Guard). Is anyone ever going to call Obama on any of his nonsensical and contradictory rhetoric ? It seems not. He's historic, after all.

Speaking of Obama, here's another in a growing number of very sad quotes from him: "We need to stand up to the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together and pass the farm bill immediately". Uh, stand up to WHAT special interests ? The Farm bill by it's nature is a bundle of money thrown at special interests in the form of subsidies. Here are only a few of the special interests being catered to in the Farm bill, courtesy of Jacob Sullum of Townhall.com:

"…tax breaks for racehorse owners, "marketing aid" for fruit and vegetable growers, research funding for organic farmers, enhanced price supports for domestic sugar producers, increased subsidies for dairy farmers, a $170-million earmark for the salmon industry, and billions of dollars in automatic payments and "permanent disaster assistance" for corn, wheat, cotton, rice and soybean growers. Take that, special interests!"

To be accurate, Obama would have to say passing the Farm bill required a bipartisan CAVING IN to special interests (which Congress did, as usual, and it was bipartisan, just as Obama requested). Is anybody really listening to the words coming out of Obama's mouth ? It seems not. The more I hear Obama talk, the less sense he makes.

And the very saddest thing of all on the political front yesterday also involved Obama's words, when Obama criticized the Bush administration for promoting democracy in Palestine and Iraq. I assume this means democracy would no longer be an important part of american foreign policy during an Obama presidency. That would be a major foreign policy reversal. Yeah, who needs liberty and open government ? Bah, humbug. Like I asked before, is anybody listening to the words coming out of Obama's mouth ? Obama said "words count". I couldn't agree more, and Obama's words are scary, not to mention, dare I say, divisive.

President George W. Bush says the economic stimulus checks will help you peons (formerly known as 'americans', formerly know as 'free').

And he's right, they will.

For maybe a month or so.

Then we are right back where we started, only worse off and deeper in debt. It isn't just Bush doing this type of thing either. The Democrats love the stimulus checks and are asking for yet more freebie government interventions (that aren't free) for the public, before the impact of the first round is even measured. Yes sir, it's an election year, and pandering season is open. Let's shoot everything responsible in sight.

The stimulus checks are NOT paid for. We don't seem to pay for much of anything since GWB became president (or for the vast majority of the last 45 years either). We are the most irresponsible generation (or two) in the history of this country. We have overturned the wishes of the founding fathers, abandoned sanity, decided to give ourselves anything and everything that we want (self-absorbed punks that we are), and the consequences to future generations be damned. It's all about us. ME. ME. ME…We WANT universal health care for FREE, darn it, so we are GOING TO HAVE IT, no matter what economic destruction it wreaks on our children, no matter what it's actual effect on health care or our economy will be…No matter what. It's really all about getting SOMEBODY ELSE TO PAY FOR OUR NEEDS (those 'rich' people are the favored imaginary cash cows). It's really all about stealing someone else's money. It's really all about THEFT. We are not righteous. We are not responsible. We are not worth jack squat. WE……stink. We are criminals. We vote for the biggest criminal on the ballot. We vote for whoever promises to steal the most from our brothers and sisters. We consciously work toward the destruction of all that made this country great, and we have the nerve to call it 'fair'.

What the stimulus checks really tell you is that government has been stealing far too much of your money for far too long. End of story. We've all known that for years and years, really. You'd have to be nearly retarded not to know it. When the government steals half your money, it's really not a surprise that you are SHORT OF MONEY, is it ???? I mean, HELLO ??? When we have the second highest corporate income tax rates in the world, it's really not surprising that business tries to relocate elsewhere, is it ? HELLO ? We actually have one political party (guess who ?) in this country that TREATS THE BUSINESS SECTOR AS THE ENEMY !!! Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm almost completely certain that BUSINESS IS WHERE OUR JOBS AND OUR WEALTH COMES FROM !!! HELLO ??? Providing an environment that is unfriendly to business is about the stupidest thing we can possibly do. No wonder China makes everything, and our economy now depends on how much we spend at the mall. I'm sure this will be mentioned in the future book "The Rise And Fall Of The American Empire'.

We have a Social Security Trust Fund that is neither a Trust Fund nor provides Security. It might keep you in cat food when you get old, but it's actually nothing more than a hidden tax, PERIOD. They take all the money that is not paid out to current retirees and they immediately SPEND IT. They SPEND your so-called Trust Fund, and YOU LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT !!! If you are a brain-dead Democrat, you even TOUT THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS RIPPING YOU OFF AS A GREAT FREAKING SUCCESS. How damn DUMB can you be ? You actually celebrate getting screwed. The Social Security RIP-OFF is used as an example of great progressive policy by the dumber-than-a-rock Democrats. Are you kidding me ? That's like holding Enron up as an example of how to do business. &**#$$!!@! Sure, tell me another one, like how Stalin was a great humanitarian.

Then, we have one entire political party who complains about tax cuts (any guesses which one that is ? It begins with a 'Dem' and ends with an 'ocrat'). HOW IN THE HECK DO YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT A TAX CUT ???? I hate to break it to you big government types, but taxes are nothing more than a NECESSARY EVIL. The more money the govenrment takes away from us, the WORSE OFF WE ARE. Have we raised entire generations who don't understand basic economics ? Have we brainwashed entire generations to the point that they can't add and subtract ? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Every time you hear a Democrat complain about taxes being cut, slap him or throw cold water in his face to snap him out of it (if the Dem is a woman, you can't slap her, so just rip a dollar bill in half and ask her which is more, the whole dollar or just the half).

Then along came the Compassionate Conservatives (liberals with an 'R' next their names). These people belong in a special circle of hell, because they destroyed Conservatism, and along with it the Republican party. Somebody must explain to me how GWB started a huge new Medicare Drug program when our country was already $7 trillion in debt, and how the current $11 trillion in debt after 7 1/2 years of that 'Conservative' president is actually conservative, because I don't get it. And every single Democrat who agrees with that last sentence can kiss my everlovin' backside, because YOUR party is A HUNDRED TIMES WORSE !!! Your party never met any government spending it didn't like. Government spending is what got us where we are. YOUR party is the reason taxes are so high to being with. YOUR party is the one that actually DESTROYED THE MIDDLE CLASS in this country for the most part. And you keep on promoting those same destructive policies, all the while pretending that YOU are the compassionate ones. In 1960, it wasn't hard to be middle class in this country. Your taxes, regulations, spending, and politically correct stupidity have destroyed all of that, so please stop talking. You are not the solution, you are the problem. All the liberal politicians are running around wringing their hands and wondering how to bring the middle class back (like I heard Obama doing yesterday on his free hour long political ad on Meet The Press). Obama is looking for a government solution to the destruction of the middle class that was caused by the government in the first place. It was caused by liberal policy, Mr. Obama, so guess what ? The anwer is NOT more liberal policy.

I'd love to be able to tell you to vote for this candidate or that candidate and we will suddenly start going down the right path, but I don't believe that. I don't like any of the three presidential candidates who are left. It comes down to picking the lesser of the three evils, as usual. Yippee. I would have told you to vote for Ron Paul had it not been for his insistence on throwing the middle east into immediate chaos with irresponsible foreign policy. Other than that, Paul could have reversed the rudder on this ship of fools. Instead, we have nothing good coming on the horizon. Just more of the same old, same old that brought us to where we are today. Too bad for us. Keep shopping, america (that was Bush's advice post 9/11, if you remember). It's increasingly becoming a house of cards, and you keep voting for more.

When I heard the Senate passed S.2636, The Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008, by a vote of 84-12, I immediately wanted to know who the 12 Senators were who voted against it. Those might be 12 Senators I could support. Those might be 12 Senators interested in doing the right thing, as opposed to the pandering election year thing that actually makes the problem worse. Those 12 Senators might actually be, gasp, fiscally responsible, a notion that almost seems quaint in these days of mutually assured fiscal destruction (spend, spend, spend, borrow, borrow, borrow, tax, tax, tax, prop up the economic house of cards for another day, the future be damned, this Titanic is a really nice ship, what's that sticking out of the water up ahead ? Aw, who cares, I'm too fat and lazy to bother turning the wheel, I'm sure it will all be fine, ooh, did we hit something ?).

It came as no shock to me that all 12 of the Senators who voted 'Nay' on S.2636 were Republicans. Every single Democrat Senator voted for the taxpayer funded boondoggle, except for Obama and Hillary, who didn't vote. Here are the S.2636 'Nay' voters. Kudos to them:

Barrasso (R-WY) Bunning (R-KY) Coburn (R-OK) Corker (R-TN) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Enzi (R-WY) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Inhofe (R-OK) Kyl (R-AZ) Warner (R-VA)

It also came as no shock to me that the fiscally conservative position of these 12 Republicans is the minority position within their own party, a party that gives lip service to fiscal conservatism, but in reality has morphed into something else entirely, especially during these last 7 years (FYI - Senator John McCain supports S.2636, even though he didn't cast a vote. He has given it verbal support, contradicting statements he made against an unwise mortgage bailout only a couple weeks earlier). This bodes very poorly for our future. When Republicans aren't interested in fiscal responsibility, we're in big trouble, because the big spending socialist Democrat foxes sure aren't going to guard the fiscal hen house.

One of the 12 'Nay' voters on S.2636 was Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY). Here are a few of his comments on the Foreclosure bill:

“This is an unusually bad bill, and I have opposed it from the start. The course it has followed almost guarantees that it will be filled with the worst kind of gimmickry. And it is. The Senate may be the world’s greatest deliberative body, but this bill is anything but the product of deliberation. It is a jumble of disjointed ideas, unlikely to solve the crisis at hand, and it’s unpopular.

“It turns out that the American people don’t like the idea of bailing out banks and their neighbors who gambled on home prices. The voters understand what is going on in Washington, better than we do.

“Another provision that deserves far more scrutiny is the $4 billion in community development block grants that will be allocated to state and local governments to buy foreclosed properties. To begin with, this program is very poorly managed. The Wall Street Journal called it among the worst-run programs in Washington, and there is a lot of competition for that title…

Let’s not have any illusions. This extraordinarily unwise grant of taxpayer money is really just a bailout for banks in disguise. It goes to states, but the ultimate beneficiaries will be banks that made risky loans. Instead of selling foreclosed properties on the open market, these banks will have the luxury of selling to local officials with whom they may already have a relationship. These officials will be buying properties not with their own funds, but with ‘O.P.M.’ O.P.M. stands for ‘other people’s money.’ And, in this case, the O.P.M. comes from you and me, the American taxpayer, and millions of unborn Americans that we are saddling with even more debt.

Another provision that could benefit from more thoughtful deliberation is the $100 million of spending on counseling. … We also don’t know all that much about the non-profit groups that will get the money. Are some of these groups funded mostly by credit card companies? If so, they will have a clear conflict of interest. Maybe they will actually advise people to abandon their homes to foreclosure in order to pay credit card debt. That would make the foreclosure situation worse, not better.”

But Mr. Bunning, if Congress actually considered the effects of the bill before they voted on it, they might not get it passed in time to pat themselves on the back for the fall elections. What's important is that Congress DID something, even if it's the wrong thing. That's how they get votes. That's how demagoguery works.

The mortgage crisis can only be resolved by a revaluation of housing prices, which is what this temporary housing problem would have brought about had it been left to run it's course. It is counterproductive in the long run for the government to move in and try to keep property values artificially inflated. Free market capitalism doesn't mean that the market will go up, up, up forever. Sometimes it needs to go down too. Pushing huge new costs onto the taxpayers is NOT the answer here.

As for John McCain, Senator Obama has been going around saying it took McCain three tries to get the correct housing crisis response. I say McCain had it right the first two times, and abandoned the right thing the third time, when he caved and started pandering like the rest. The government (actually the taxpayers) shouldn't be in business of bailing out banks and homeowners who made unwise economic decisions. All this bill accomplishes is to move the Titanic a little closer to the iceberg.

When I heard that the Comptroller General and head of the Government Accounting Office (GAO), David Walker, has resigned, I had to write about it. Walker was one of my favorite guys in government, probably due to the fact that he's not a politician. He was the chief accountant for the federal government. He's beholden to no political party. Walker was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1998, and continued serving through the Bush administration until now.

Because David Walker is not a politician, he doesn't engage in political spin. Instead, he has the refreshing habit of telling the plain, unvarnished truth. You can hear him tell some of the truth on Glenn Beck's show here. Please watch the video before you read the rest of this column.

The unspun truth about the state of the federal government's finances is pretty disturbing, and paints a pretty grim picture of america's future, which is why politicians like to cover it up. The politicians who cover it up the most are those politicians who intend to pursue the same irresponsible fiscal policies that led us this far off the rails. You can tell these politicians by their lingo. They tell you they want to raise taxes and increase government spending dramatically, although they use code words to disguise those facts. For instance, they'll talk about "investing" in this or that government program. They think you are too stupid to realize that means raising taxes and increasing government spending. If you elect these politicians, you prove them right. You ARE too stupid. When the government gives you "free stuff", it isn't free at all. YOU pay for it.

What David Walker knows is that unrestrained government spending and the expansion of entitlements is going to bankrupt this country. That is the bottom line, and that is what the pro-big government pols don't want you to know. This is an enormous issue, and we have two presidential candidates in the Democratic party who not only don't want to acknowledge it, they want to ADD MULTIPLE NEW ENORMOUS ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS TO THE ALREADY STAGGERING COMING ENTITLEMENT TSUNAMI. Our financial house is on fire and they want to throw more wood on the blaze. This is irresponsibility on an unprecedented level (okay, maybe not unprecedented. Bush's liberal spending spree threw wood on that fire too). I'm not sure if the Republican presidential candidate understands the enormity of the fire either, but at least he's not chopping up more kindling to throw on.

As David Walker points out, every year we don't act drives us $2-3 trillion deeper in the hole, which already stands at $56 trillion. Do you see any politicians talking about it ? Facing it ? Or do you see politicians promising people the moon instead ? That type of feel-good politics does every one of us a disservice, but the disservice it does to us is nothing compared to what it will do to our children. These chuckleheaded pols actually call you selfish if you resist all this entitlement expansion, and they have over half the country brainwashed into thinking the same way. That takes some real chutzpah, because what is truly selfish is burdening future generations with the tab for OUR spendthrift ways. We want to ride the gravy train and let our sons and daughters pay for it. What could be more selfish than that ?

Reuter's reports that David Walker has resigned to head up the newly formed Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Walker said, "As Comptroller General of the United States and head of the GAO, there are real limitations on what I can do and say in connection with key public policy issues, especially issues that directly relate to GAO's client — the Congress. My new position will provide me with the ability and resources to more aggressively address a range of current and emerging challenges facing our country."

I look forward to hearing from him. Somebody in this country has to start dealing with reality, unless we are ready to forfeit the american dream and all start wearing Che t-shirts instead. I'm not even close to ready for that. How about you ?

Last thursday's Democratic debate on CNN between Hillary and Obama is being called the 'nice debate'. That's nice. Obviously, we don't want candidates arguing during a debate about who the next leader of the world's lone superpower will be. We should be nice. Have a nice day. Make love, not war. You can find a transcript of the nice debate here if you're interested.

I'd like to focus on some of Barack Obama's policy. In his opening statement, Obama said the following:

"And at this moment, the question is: How do we take the country in a new direction? How do we get past the divisions that have prevented us from solving these problems year after year after year?

I don't think the choice is between black and white or it's about gender or religion. I don't think it's about young or old. I think what is at stake right now is whether we are looking backwards or we are looking forwards. I think it is the past versus the future".

Fair enough, Mr. Obama. This election IS definitely about the future, not the past. It's about where we go from here as a nation, and who will lead us in the right direction. It's not about the 90's, and it's not about what Bush did. Bush isn't running. Please tell Hillary. She doesn't seem to know. She utters the phrase 'the failed policies of the Bush administration' in response to practically every question.

So, where does Obama want to take this country ? How DO we get past our divisions ?

Well, as it turns out, it's as easy as pie. We all just have to become uber-liberals and turn everything over to our government Big Brother. See, once we all become uber-liberals, then voila, no more division (no more affluent society or freedom either, but that's a small price to pay, isn't it ?).

Got a problem with health care ? Obama has a government Big Brother solution:

"Let's take health care… set up a government plan that would allow people who otherwise don't have health insurance because of a preexisting condition, like my mother had, or at least what the insurance said was a preexisting condition, let them get health insurance…What they're struggling with is they can't afford the health care. And so I emphasize reducing costs. My belief is that if we make it affordable, if we provide subsidies to those who can't afford it, they will buy it… I want to lower premiums by about an average of $2,500 per family per year, because people right now cannot afford it".

Terrific, but…won't it cost a ton of money to subsidize health care for all those people ? How are you going to reduce costs to offset that hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending you just proposed ?

Here's the answer - Tax increases, expanded government control of business, and nonsense. Now that I think about it, those things are pretty much ALWAYS the answer for liberal Democrats.

"…but they [the drug companies] are making outsized profits on the backs of senior citizens who need those prescription drugs. And that is an argument that the American people have to be involved with, otherwise we're not going to get any plan through.

So I've already said a sizeable portion of my health care plan will be paid for because we emphasize savings. We invest in prevention. So that as I said before, the chronically ill that account for 20 percent — or the 20 percent of chronically ill patients that account for 80 percent of the costs, that they're getting better treatment. We are actually paying for a dietitian for people to lose weight as opposed to paying for the $30,000 foot amputation. That will save us money. We can conservatively save $100 billion to $150 billion a year under my plan. That pays for part of it. Part of it is paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top one percent".

Let me deal with the nonsense first. Obama's "prevention" isn't going to save one dime. Unless he has discovered the key to immortality, all humans are going to get sick and die eventually. He can't change that. The additional preventive health care that Obama advocates will only INCREASE medical costs over the long haul. The truth is, the longer people live, the more medical costs they will generate. We'd only save money if we told everybody to start smoking three packs of cigarettes and drink a quart of Jack Daniels every day, so they'd die off early. It's not a fun fact, but it's a fact nonetheless.

So, all Obama is really telling you is that he wants to control what the drug companies and other "special interests" connected to the health care industry charge, and he's also telling you he wants to raise taxes (only on the rich, of course). And here I thought this country was based upon freedom and capitalism. Apparently, not in Obama's futureworld. For a guy who talks about the future, Obama sounds like he wants to return to the year 1848. That's when The Communist Manifesto was written by Marx and Engels. They didn't care much for freedom or capitalism either. The Manifesto suggested a course of action for a proletarian (working class) revolution to overthrow the bourgeois social order and to eventually bring about a classless and stateless society. Sound familiar ?

It isn't only health care where Obama advocates increased federal spending. It's virtually across the board, just like Hillary. What really gets me PO'ed about this is - the liberal Democrats are using the Republicans to justify all this extreme new spending, AND THEY ARE GETTING AWAY WITH IT DUE TO THE REPUBLICANS OWN FAILURE ! Listen to the first words out of Obama's mouth following this question:

MCMANUS: Senator Obama, one other thing both of your health insurance proposals have in common is they would cost billions of dollars in new spending and both of you have proposed raising taxes on a lot on Americans to pay for that and for other proposals.

Well, now, you know what's going to happen this fall in the general election campaign. The Republicans are going to call you "tax-and-spend" liberal Democrats, and that's a charge that's been effective in the past.

How are you going to counter that charge?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, I don't think the Republicans are going to be in a real strong position to argue fiscal responsibility, when they have added $4 trillion or $5 trillion…

(APPLAUSE)

… worth of national debt. I am happy to have that argument.

I guess this election isn't about the future anymore to Obama, because he's going back to the past to say 'it doesn't matter how much money the Democrats spend in the future, because the Republicans abdicated fiscal responsibility'. It's the equivalent of going from the frying pan into the fire. There is no actual connection between what the Republicans did and what the Democrats will do. The issue is, WHO WILL RESTORE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE FUTURE. From everything I've seen, you can rank them in the following order, from the most fiscally responsible to the least: Romney, McCain, Hillary, Obama. The two Republicans are close to each other, and the two Democrats are close to each other. The big difference is, the Democrats are advocating enormous spending increases, and the Republicans are advocating controlling federal spending, yet the Democrats are seen as having the most credibility in this area, due to the Bush years. Pretty insane, if you ask me. Remember, Bush isn't running, and the election is about the future, not the past. Obama said so, and I agree completely. That's why you shouldn't elect Barack Obama.

Courtesy of the Patriot Post.

Can I get an amen here ? Don't we also call the following person a "thief" ?:

“A liberal is a man who will give away everything he doesn’t own.” —Frank Dane

Democrats finally admit that tax cuts work (welcome to the light, Dems):

“We’re so used to Democrats pushing tax hikes as the answer to all of America’s problems that we were taken aback to find the following words buried in Pelosi’s release on the stimulus deal: ‘Economists estimate that each dollar of broad tax cuts leads to $1.26 in economic growth.’ Gee, that sort of sounds familiar. It’s almost, though not quite, like what the much-reviled supply-side economists have been saying for, oh, 30 years or so. Pelosi, and other Democrats now suddenly touting tax cuts, may be on to something. We might demur on the notion that all tax cuts must be ‘broad’ to be effective. Evidence really lies more strongly with giving tax cuts to those who would start new businesses or expand old ones. But it’s refreshing to hear a Democrat admit the obvious—that tax cuts work. It’s no secret that high tax rates act as a deadweight on the economy by creating absolute losses from which no one gains. Martin Feldstein, head of the National Bureau of Economic Research, estimates that a $1 tax hike costs the economy 76 cents in output. That explains why the economy jumps each time there’s a tax cut.” —Investor’s Business Daily

Lots of bipartisan guilt to go around here:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” —H.L. Mencken

I find the following comment very "stimulating":

“Washington, D.C. is a place where delusions go to thrive. That explains why Congress and the president are now agreed on remedies that will not work, expending money they do not have, to fix a problem that may not exist.” —Steve Chapman

Constitution ? You mean that g-d piece of paper ?

“Every candidate who repeats the misleading nonsense that ‘47 million in America have no health care,’ ought to be challenged with hard truth. The number is grossly inflated by including millions who are here illegally and millions of others who have the means to pay for health care insurance but refuse to adjust their budget and lifestyle. And don’t expect any media type to question where in the Constitution Congress derives any authority to dispense health care.” —Janet LaRue

Same as it ever was:

“Some Democratic and Republican presidential hopefuls are preaching economic doom and gloom, disappearing middle class, and failing health care industry. What’s their solution? The short answer is give them more control over our lives.” —Walter Williams

Economic dunce cap wearer:

“How do we stimulate the economy to prevent or shorten a recession? One way would be to repeal the Bush tax cuts two years early, in 2009.” —Len Burman, director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, writing in The New York Times

They sure ain't conservatives, honey:

“Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and Barack Obama are not raging liberals.” —former CNN anchor Catherine Crier

This one's for you, Reverend, and your delusion that Chris Matthews is somehow a Republican shil:

“He’s come from a white family and a black family, and he’s married to a black woman, and they’re cool people. They are really cool. They are Jack and Jackie Kennedy when you see them together. They are cool. And they’re great-looking, and they’re cool and they’re young, and they’re—everything seems to be great… [I]f you’re in [a room] with Obama, you feel the spirit. Moving.” —MSNBC’s Chris Matthews

Der-da-der-der-durp:

“I don’t pay much attention to polls.” —Hillary Clinton, who in the next breath claimed that polls also show her ahead in “most of the Super Tuesday states.”

If only he would heed his own advice:

“I think it’s time for [Bill Clinton] to just be quiet. I think it’s time for him to stop. As one of the most outspoken people in America, there’s a time to shut up, and I think that time has come.” —professional race hustler Al Sharpton

Be careful what you ask for:

“Everyone seems to be campaigning as the candidate of change, but what does that mean exactly? Wouldn’t a depression be a change? How about basing our economy on Communism instead of Capitalism?” —John Hawkins

Lib vs Lib (and really funny):

“It’s down to Obama vs. Clinton, and it’s getting nasty. They hate each other, with the kind of passionate hatred that you see only between two people who hold essentially the same positions on everything. Edwards is still running, but at this point they don’t even bother to put a microphone on him for the debates. He just waves his arms to indicate how he’s going to take on the big corporations.” —Dave Barry

It's time again to vote for the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) Porker of the Year.

The public outcry over the tens of billions of taxpayer dollars thrown at special-interest, pork-barrel projects reached a fever pitch in 2007. But who truly stood out as the worst custodian of your hard-earned money last year? Cast your vote for CAGW’s 2007 Porker of the Year!

Chosen by CAGW staff from among the 2007 Porkers of the Month, the nominees are:

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), for "airdropping" a $3 million earmark for the First Tee golf program into the fiscal 2008 Department of Defense Appropriations Act conference report.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), for thwarting three amendments to the Farm Bill that would have provided modest reform.

Rep. John "Jack" Murtha (D-Pa.), for throwing a temper tantrum and threatening his colleagues over a challenge to a $23 million pet project he inserted into the Fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act and for purposefully putting up roadblocks and barriers to hinder earmark accountability and reform.

Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), for proposing a "temporary" 5-cent increase in the gas tax in the wake of the Minnesota bridge collapse to raise $25 billion within three years for a new bridge trust fund.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), for an $11 million Health Resources and Services Administration earmark for his alma mater, the University of Alabama.

Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), for defending earmarks and pledging to continue his state's disproportionate harvest of federal tax dollars and for earmarking $10 million for an unnecessary county road project in Florida which was rejected by local politicians.

Cast your vote today and help CAGW decide who will receive the “dishonor” of being named 2007 Porker of the Year!