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!

What a relief. Where there was pain, there will now be only gain (so they say), as our House Of Representatives, in a rare show of bipartisanship, passed an economic stimulus package today.

It seems like all the pols are at least semi-happy over this package. Bush likes the plan because he says it is about the right size, approximately $150 billion. Republicans like the plan because it gives a tax rebate to taxpayers, $600 to single filers, up to $1200 for families. Democrats like the plan because it gives income tax rebates to people who don't even pay income taxes, in the amount of $300 (not sure how you can call that a "tax rebate". Might as well just call it what it is, a handout, a one-time entitlement program). The proposal still has to pass through the Senate, where several Democrats are promising to add to it's size, but it looks like this package will indeed be passed. Y'all can expect your checks around june or so, just in time to buy that new above ground swimming pool you've had your eye on.

Now, I'm all for taxpayers getting some of their hard earned money back, since the government has been stealing far too much of it for far too long, not to mention robbing you blind on your Social Security "Trust Fund" (wink, wink), but I have to ask whether or not this middle class targeted tax rebate is really going to stimulate the economy. I don't think so, at least not for more than one fiscal quarter of 2008. What the government wants us to do with our newly found rebate money is to go to the mall and immediately spend it like good little consumer-bots, thus pumping up some short term economic numbers, so we will avoid negative growth, aka, a recession. If you're wondering how this deals with our underlying economic problems, i.e. the subprime mortgage crisis, the falling dollar valuation, the massive federal debt, the offshoring of jobs, rising prices, or the credit card crunch, well, I don't know what to tell you. I'm wondering too. It's true that the fed just slashed the interest rate by 3/4 percent. That should help some. There is also a provision in the economic stimulus package to expand the ceiling for FHA loans, allowing more subprime loan holders to refinance. That should help a little. However, it seems to me that all the underlying economic problems are still right where they were before, maybe even a little bit worse. I didn't see $150 billion in spending cuts to offset the cost of this package, so the deficit gets bigger. The tax rebates weren't aimed at the investment class, so I don't see tons of new jobs and new revenue being created here to potentially offset the cost, or even come close to offsetting the cost. I didn't see any slashing of our highest in the world corporate tax rates to make our businesses more competitive (the Dems would NEVER allow anything this sensible). I didn't see any slashing of the capital gains double taxation rate to encourage investment (the Dems would NEVER allow anything this sensible either). I didn't see anything like that, which would REALLY encourage new businesses and new jobs to come to america, that would really make us more competitive in the global economy. I didn't see anything that would address the real reason for most of our economic problems, out of control government spending, that has every man, woman, and child in the country responsible for over $30,000 of government debt, or, counting all the future unfunded liabilities of the federal government, has each family on the hook for about $440,000 over the next few decades. Nope, nothing about all that. I didn't see anything really conducive to long term growth. I just see a shot of temporary painkiller to mask the symptoms of the illness, and very little to deal with the root causes.

So, take your shot of novacaine america, and try not to worry about what happens when the novocaine wears off, and that cavity you had becomes a full blown abscess. We'll let someone else worry about that…namely, your children.

There is one silver lining to this for conservatives - Democrats are now on record admitting that lowering taxes stimulates the economy. Don't forget this conservatives, and don't forget this america. Ever. It's the inviolable rule that reveals the fallacy of nearly all liberal policy.

I'm sure you all remember Nancy Pelosi saying she was going to clean up the "culture of corruption" in Congress when the Democrats took control in 2006. Nancy was referring to the culture of corruption in the outgoing Republican Congress, of course. It was a big campaign issue for the Democrats, and it worked. The evil Republicans were cast out of the temple, and the Democrats, the party of all that is good and holy, the party of light, regained control. Hallelujah, brothers and sisters. A great weight was lifted from the backs of the people, and the shadow removed from the sun. No longer would government be beholden to special interests. Pelosi was going to oversee the "most ethical Congress in history".

Sure. I hope none of you were dumb enough to believe that nonsense for even one second.

You should have known Pelosi was being less than forthright about cleaning up corruption right off the bat, when, about 10 minutes after the 2006 election results were in, she endorsed pork king and unindicted Abscam co-conspirator John Murtha for House Majority Leader. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. Murtha didn't get that job, but still ended up as the chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, where he became, drumroll please, THE NUMBER ONE HOUSE PORKER FOR 2007. Murtha procured $162 million in pork for his congressional district, surpassing all other House members. Go Johnny. It gets better. Murtha secured earmarks in the defense budget for 26 beneficiaries, and every single one of them contributed to his campaign, giving a total of $413,250. Murtha provides the best government that money can buy. He's like a fast food restaurant. You pay your money at one window and pickup your order at the next one.

Here's Andrew Koneschusky, a Murtha spokesman, 'answering' a question about Murtha's ethical problems back in 2006: "We are focused on the future. We are focused on electing the best candidate to lead our party and deliver the change the American people want, and that is Jack Murtha. We are looking forward, not backward". Thanks, Andrew. Excellent non-response.

Murtha was focused on the future alright. He was focused on YOUR money. Like a laser beam. Providing the "change the American people want". There's that CHANGE word again. The same word that is the key for the upcoming elections. What a coincidence. Sound familiar ? Maybe this CHANGE they are speaking of is what you'll have left in your pockets after the Democrats get done with you. National health care, national day care, etc, etc. Spending to the left of me. Spending to the right of me. A thousand points of fright.

And the most frightening thing of all is, THE DEMOCRATS ARE PROBABLY GOING TO WIN IN 2008, and be free to tax and spend us into oblivion, unfettered !!! Pass the Alka Seltzer. The Republican frontrunner is John McCain, for god's sake ! He's barely even a Republican, though he's playing one on television now. Egads. Even I might vote for Obama. What a sorry state. Say it isn't so. Where have you gone, Ronnie ? A nation turns it's lonely eyes to y…alas, too late.

But I'm getting off the topic, which is John Murtha and the NEW culture of corruption. I liked him better in the role of the crotchety old anti-war loon who wanted to redeploy our troops to Okinawa. At least he was good for a laugh then.

Here's House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi's summation of the performance of the Democrat led Congress in 2007, according to The Washington Post:

"the Democratic-led House is listening to the American people and providing the New Direction the people voted for in November. The House has passed a wide range of measures to make America safer, restore the American dream and restore accountability. We are proud of the progress made this session and recognize that more needs to be done."

In addition, Pelosi claims:

"the House has had a remarkable level of achievement over the first year, passing 130 key measures — with nearly 70 percent passing with significant bipartisan support."

As David Broder notes in his WaPo article, Pelosi counts as "bipartisan" any vote that had 50 or more Republicans vote for it. There are 202 Republicans currently in the House. If 152 vote against Democratic legislation and 50 vote for it, that's bipartisan support to San Fran Nan. No wonder she's a politician. Such dishonesty doesn't work in most other professions. For instance, I doubt Exxon would launch a huge ad campaign touting $3.00 per gallon gasoline as costing only $1.00 per gallon. People would see through that rather easily.

They see through Pelosi as well. RealClearPolitics has a poll that averages the results of all recent polling. The current Congress gets an approval rating of 25%, and a disapproval rating of 63.5%. By contrast, President Bush gets a 35.4% approval rating.

This Hot Air video, called Pelosi's Promises, could explain some of the gap between Pelosi's rosy assessment and the people's perception of reality. Did the new Democratic Congress accomplish Pelosi's election night 2006 promises ? Did they 1) Restore civility and bipartisanship ? Were they 2) The most ethical Congress in history ? Did they 3) Work with the president on Iraq ? Have you stopped laughing yet ? I don't think I'm being partisan when I say they didn't even come close (not that they ever intended to).

To me, it feels like the Dems spent the whole year investigating Republicans for anything and everything, while ignoring or promoting obvious corruption within their own ranks (Jefferson, Hastings, Murtha, etc). I do have to take issue with the Hot Air video on one thing though. Creating a new cafeteria menu was not the biggest accomplishment of Congress. That's probably only in fourth or fifth place in the annus horribilis of Democratic accomplishment. This Congress also raised the minimum wage by a buck (good news for teenagers who need a couple extra bucks on saturday night), mandated increased car mileage standards (this one I like), and put through a one-year fix for the Alternative Minimum Tax (violating their own PAYGO promise in the process). Looking at the accomplishments of this Congress, I think the people would have been better served if our illustrious representatives had all taken 11-month vacations and just went along with the Bush budget (with no pay, of course. That would have been a case of Congress actually saving us some dough). Then, at least we wouldn't have had a situation like the one with the last minute december Omnibus bill, where the minority party had less than 24 hours to read massive spending legislation that contained 12,000 pork items that passed with no oversight and no discussion. The alternative was to defund the troops in the field. Yeah, great. What was that you said about bipartisanship and ethics, Mrs. Pelosi ? Now we know what Pelosi meant when she said the Dems were going to "… make America safer, restore the American dream, and restore accountability". That translates to lose the war, raise taxes and spending, and be more corrupt than ever. Pretty much what I thought from the beginning.

And then there was Nan's trip to Syria.

Great. Just great. Anybody got any Advil ?

Hillary Clinton loves us, and she is going to take care of us. All us ignorant wretches out here in the sticks just have to be smart enough to make her the president. Thank goodness. Our problems are nearly over.

In a holiday television campaign ad, found here on YouTube, Hillary is seen wrapping her Christmas presents for America (but, of course, the word "Christmas" is never used and no Christian symbols are seen. We must be politically correct. Wouldn't want to offend an atheist or a Wiccan). These holiday "gifts" are marked "Universal Health Care", "Universal Pre-K", "Middle Class Tax Cuts", "Alternative Energy", and "Bring Troops Home". These are the things that the Great And Powerful Clinton is going to "give" to America. Isn't that just wonderful ? Elect Hillary and all this will be yours, America. I'm getting a little misty just thinking about the beneficence of our Once And Future Queen, aren't you ?

The great thing about gifts is that you don't have to pay for them. They are free. Somebody else pays, but you don't have to worry about that, right ? Hillary certainly doesn't want you to worry about that, because not only is she going to "give" you things like Universal Health Care and Universal Pre-School, she's also going to "give" you a tax cut at the same time ! Wow. This is one smart fem-bot, this Clinton 2.0. Evidently, Hillary's enormous new government programs won't cost anything at all. Very impressive. Dare I say miraculous ? She must be some kind of sorceress or something.

Now, in compliance with the Truth In Pandering Act (that should exist, but unfortunately doesn't), it must be pointed out that Hillary isn't a sorceress or a witch (insert own joke here). It must be pointed out that Hillary's enormous new government programs would cost hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars, and somebody does have to pay for them. In the world of liberal Democrats, the payers are always the same: the evil rich and the evil corporations. These two entities, who are actually viewed as one and the same by the Hillary Clintons of the world, are the bottomless well that is always tapped to pay for anything and everything that liberals can dream up to "help" us. What is never supposed to be mentioned is who REALLY pays when business and the wealthy are hit with regressive levels of taxation: ALL OF US. Whether it's through higher prices, lower wages, or fewer jobs, we all pay for those so-called painless "gifts" from the government. In the liberal system of class warfare justice, you are supposed to work hard to achieve the american dream, and once you do become successful, the government takes everything away from you, so everyone will be "equal". How liberals think that will motivate people to achieve anything is unexplained. How liberals do not see that as theft is also unexplained. If equality of outcome can be achieved by sitting at home on your couch, a whole lot more people are going to choose the path of least resistance, the path that requires no effort. An inevitable decaying of society is the result of such socialist thinking. I don't know how many times socialism must fail before liberals realize how flawed the concept is, but I know they haven't realized it yet. They still think that socialism just hasn't been done right yet, even though socialism has a 150 year record of failure and repression. Liberals must call themselves "progressives" because they have to move forward to try to escape the past.

The other aspect of these "universal" government programs is that they remove your freedom of choice. In the private sector, there is a choice of health insurance programs. There is a choice of day-care centers. Well, there WOULD be a real choice of health insurance programs, except the government has already taken control of half the health care industry and has mandated so much to the insurance companies and employers that real choice is already a fantasy. You can't really pick the health insurance coverage you want, because the government has made the decisions for you already. That's one of the reasons why the cost of health insurance is astronomical, all the mandated coverage. Naturally, the liberal solution to government fouling up the health care industry is for government to take over the whole health care industry (and thereby foul it up the rest of the way).

And in Hillary's current half step toward socialized medicine, when she says she's going to "give" you "Universal Health Care", she means she's going to force you to buy health care insurance, even if you don't want to. Some present. That's like your best friend buying you a new Lexus for Christmas. The only catch is that YOU have to make the car payments. Thanks for nothing, buddy.

So Hillary, thanks for all your good intentions, but please don't give me anything for Christmas this year, or any year.

I can't afford it.

I woke up this morning determined to write something good about the Democrats, since it has been pointed out to me that I'm pretty critical of the Jackas..er, Donkey party. I even had a couple things in mind for which to compliment the Dems.

But then I read about the Senate passing the $555 billion Omnibus bill, with it's 9,000 pork projects and $28 billion in new spending above and beyond Bush's requested budget, and that instantly killed my desire to compliment the Blue state team. See, the Democrat game plan all along has been to push through a bunch of new spending as a kind of quid pro quo blackmail in return for the Dems agreeing to fund the troops in Iraq. That makes me want to puke. I wrote about it last week. Sadly, the blackmail worked, as many Senate Republicans happily agreed to betray conservative principles in order to secure the 11th hour troop funding. What kind of politicians use troop funding during wartime as a bargaining chip ? That's about as low and unpatriotic as it gets, and the Democrats do it on an ongoing basis. That's why the previous 11 appropriations bills stalled and this last minute Omnibus bill is being pushed through at year end.

To make matters worse, some of the Republicans are apparently so relieved to get the troop funding passed that they have lost their minds. Listen to this:

"Even those of us who have disagreed on this war have always agreed on one thing: Troops in the field will not be left without the resources they need," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

SAY WHAT ?!?!?!? Is Mitch McConnell drunk ? That sounds like something Ted Kennedy would be saying, it's so patently false. Many Democrats have been trying to stop troop funding all year long. They just couldn't succeed, because Republicans and the Blue Dogs effectively blocked them.

Other conservatives speak the truth:

"Congress refuses to rein in its wasteful spending or curb its corruption," said Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz

That's the central problem with Congress in a nutshell, Mr. Shadegg. This should be engraved in giant letters on the outside of the Capitol building. I'd like to multiply Shadegg by a hundred in the Senate, and Mike Pence by 400 in the House, to replace the pandering blowhard seat-fillers we have taking up space there now. (Oh, and to that person to whom I said I'd try to cut down on the name-calling, 'pandering blowhard seat-fillers' is the toned down version of what I really wanted to say about our distinguished ladies and gentlemen in Congress.

So, we have an extra $28 billion in new spending for the Democrats to brag about (we helped people !) and blame Bush for (Bush raised the deficit !) all at the same time, the taxpayers get screwed, the Dems abandon more of their 2006 campaign promises, and business proceeds as corruptly as usual in Washington D.C. Zippity-frickin'-do-dah. Has anybody noticed that the Democrats try to increase taxes and spending at every single turn ? They did it with the energy bill, this Omnibus bill, S-CHIP, AMT, etc. Every single time without fail. That's why they are the enemy of all that's fair and good.

Oh, I almost forgot, I said I was going to compliment the Dems, didn't I ? It's a difficult task, alright, but I'll do it anyway. Two things:

First, during a fundraiser back in october, ex-prez Bill Clinton told some 9/11 Truther conspiracy nuts to "shut up", and said "how dare you" in response to their moronic claims that 9/11 was an inside job by our government. Kudos to Bill. It's nice to know that Kos-manian fever hasn't taken over all the Democrats (yet).

Second, fuel efficiency standard mandates were increased 40% in the latest energy bill. I generally don't favor government intervention in business, but this one is actually a matter of national security. That's when I DO favor government intervention (as in wiretapping, tracking, interrogating, and imprisoning Al Qaeda members, for which the Dems call Bush a criminal. Duh). National security is why we have a federal government (not national redistribution of funds). Golf clap for the Democrats on this one element of the energy bill, though I'll have more to say on the entire energy bill in a later column. I'm worried about the effects of the massive ethanol increase, and the bill fell way short on new domestic oil exploration and other alternative energy sources.

There, you see. I can say good things about the Democrats. It's just that the Dems don't do very many good things for me to write about. Usually, they are aiding the enemy, throwing around taxpayer money, trying to lose the war, and things like that. Nothing to like there.

How can a political party in america get away with the unthinkable proposition of withholding funding for american troops in the field, or in return for said funding, try to cut a deal to increase spending in other areas against the presidient's wishes, when the federal government is already running a deficit, owes a huge federal debt, and Congress appears to be fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax this year by not offsetting the lost tax revenue ? How can that same political party then have the gall to complain about the federal deficit, call themselves fiscally responsible, or utter the phrase 'we support the troops' ?

Answer - Call yourselves DEMOCRATS. In the world of Democrats, there is no such thing as responsibility. You just let your pet media cover up for you. Try to find an honest MSM story about this.

The Democrats are attempting to blackmail Bush and Republicans into 'buying' Democratic support for troop funding by going along with $30 billion in additional spending on the Omnibus bill, which includes 11,932 earmarks. Bush has threatened to veto the inflated bill, and Democrats know they don't have the votes to override a presidential veto if the Republicans stand united against them. Democrats are upset that Republicans won't "compromise" (translation: accept the Democrats terms of blackmail). If Bush and the Republicans do cave to the Dems, guess who the Dems will hold responsible for the larger resulting federal deficit next year ? If you said 'Bush !', you win a cigar. See how that works ? Cute, isn't it ? Democrats would get to behave irresponsibly and blame Bush all at the same time. It's a win-win, except for the taxpayers, of course, who don't matter anyway.

Speaking of those 11,932 earmarks, what happened to all that talk about "draining the swamp" of pork that the incoming Democratic congress was going to address ? I guess we should throw that on the rising scrap pile of broken Democratic 2006 campaign promises, just like PAYGO was scuttled in the Senate last week. You won't hear much about that from the MSM either.

House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis) has offered a compromise plan which would eliminate all the earmarks (which is basically a stunt, because Dems will NEVER agree to it, and some Repubs won't either), and the Dems are said to be announcing another compromise today which will only require an $11 billion bribe increase in federal spending. In a truly unfortunate choice of words, Obey said this about the impasse:

I'm tired of debating table scraps, and it's clear to me that the White House does not intend to compromise; they intend to sit back like Buddha and keep expecting us to compromise with ourselves. I'm done with navel-gazing," Obey said. "I'm not going to sit here and enable them to chisel domestic money down, down, down, down, so you wind up getting $5 billion bucks in return for $50 [billion] or $90 [billion] or whatever the hell it is they want for the war."

Table scraps ? $30 billion is table scraps ? Not to me, Mr. Obey. Remember last week, when Bill Clinton was talking about how he resented not being asked to sacrifice for the war effort ? Well, now you are seeing what Democrats do when asked to sacrifice a little for the war effort. The only possible thing Democrats consider as 'sacrifice' is huge tax increases. Those they are fine with. Reigning in spending in anathema to Democrats. When they are asked to do any belt tightening, Democrats respond like this, as Harry Reid's spokesman Jim Manley did when talking about the current Omibus bill impasse:

"When Americans wonder why there are fewer police on their street, fewer agents on our borders and fewer teachers in their children's classrooms, the answer will be painfully clear: The president and Bush Republicans are unreasonable and unwilling to negotiate in good faith".

This is why holding spending down is so difficult. Anytime it is attempted, Democrats act like you are slapping the food out of people's hands. Btw, without the $30 billion increase (or the $11 billion increase under the compromise plan), funding would continue at CURRENT LEVELS. This wouldn't require police or teachers to be fired, and Tiny Tim wouldn't have to give up his crutches either.

My message to Republicans is - Please, for once, have some nerve and stick to your principles. Abandoning them is what got you into trouble in the first place. You will NEVER be successful trying to pander like the Democrats, so why try.

The Senate, in an 88-5 vote, passed a one year temporary fix for the Alternative Minimum Tax, resulting in a $50 billion tax cut, since it was not offset by spending cuts or other tax increases, as the Democrat PAYGO rules were suspended. PAYGO, passed by the incoming 2006 Democratic congress, mandates that tax cuts or spending increases are paid for so as not to add more to the federal deficit. Under PAYGO, either $50 billion of spending cuts or $50 billion in other tax increases would have had to be made to offset the 'cost' of the AMT fix.

Okay, so what was the point of PAYGO if, when they need to implement it, Congress just says 'ah, never mind' ? Answer - no point at all. Now, nobody is for tax cuts and shrinking the federal government more than I am, but firstly, I'm for fiscal conservatism. Driving up the debt is NOT fiscal conservatism. The Associated Press article states the situation this way:

The Senate bill, passed 88-5, provides a one-year fix for the alternative minimum tax but without matching the cost of the tax relief with new tax revenues. Without the fix, an estimated 25 million people would be subject to the higher AMT tax, up from 4 million in 2006.

The Senate vote puts it at odds with the House, where Democratic leaders, under a principle of not adding to the national debt, demanded that the AMT fix be paid for. Last month, the House passed legislation matching the AMT fix and other tax cuts with about $80 billion in new tax revenues.

Notice that the AP only talks about raising taxes elsewhere to offset the AMT. Apparently, cutting spending to pay for the AMT fix doesn't occur to them. Not that they are part of the liberal media or anything. Gosh no. Notice also that the Democratic-led House wanted to add $80 billion in tax increases to offset $50 billion in tax reductions, thus running through a large tax increase, which is what the Republicans feared the Democrats would use PAYGO for in the first place, endless tax increases. When was the last time Democrats ever cut spending, besides never ?

But Republicans aren't getting any nods of approval here either. Listen to this most decidedly non-fiscally conservative statement about the AMT and PAYGO from a GOP guy:

The Finance Committee's top Republican, Charles Grassley of Iowa, said it was time for Democrats to abandon their "PayGo obsession," referring to the "pay-as-you-go" principle that tax cuts or spending increases should be paid for so as not to add to the federal deficit. With the "clean" AMT bill, "the Senate Democratic leadership seems to realize that the AMT should not be offset," he said.

Say what ? Democrat's "obsession" with PAYGO ? You mean the obsession to balance the budget ? I think that's an obsession of which we need a whole lot more. With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats ? I'd like to tell Mr. Grassley that the only thing WORSE than the Democrats tax and spend policies is a policy of reduce taxes but still spend. Mathematics tells us that. You'd think a US Senator on the Finance Committee would be able to do math, but I guess not. Maybe Senators should have to pass a test to qualify for their positions.

Judging from the bipartisan support of this Senate bill, fiscal responsibility still doesn't mean much in the halls of Congress. Pay as you go is a sham. Subtract it from the meager list of accomplishments of this Congress. We have one party who will increase taxes and spending forever, and a 2nd party who says one thing and does another.

A pox on you both.

The Akron Beacon Journal printed an editorial by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman in the sunday newspaper. The column was called Obama, played for a sucker like many in the Beltway. I've always been confused by Krugman, one reason being that he is a professor of Economics at Princeton University, but nothing he writes about economics ever makes any economic sense. You'd think even liberal Economists would be able to add and subtract, but not Krugman. His latest column is a case in point.

Krugman takes the position that Social Security isn't going broke, and he cites as his sole proof the contention that our country's financial health will be determined by the growth of health care costs……….???????? I'm not kidding, that's what he said. Here's the relevant passage:

…But the “everyone” who knows that Social Security is doomed doesn’t include anyone who actually understands the numbers. In fact, the whole Beltway obsession with the fiscal burden of an aging population is misguided.

As Peter Orszag, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, put it in a recent article co-authored with senior analyst Philip Ellis: “The long-term fiscal condition of the United States has been largely misdiagnosed. Despite all the attention paid to demographic challenges, such as the coming retirement of the baby-boom generation, our country’s financial health will in fact be determined primarily by the growth rate of per capita health care costs.”

How has conventional wisdom gotten this so wrong? Well, in large part it’s the result of decades of scare-mongering about Social Security’s future from conservative ideologues, whose ultimate goal is to undermine the program

If that doesn't make any sense to you, you're not alone. I had to read that part of Krugman's column like three times to make sure I read it correctly, because the growth rate of health care costs doesn't have one single thing to do with the solvency or insolvency of Social Security, but Krugman pretends he just settled the whole issue with that fatuous statement, and then he just moves on to how the Republicans misled everybody about Social Security the whole time. It is so astoundingly illogical that I think Krugman is misleading us intentionally and hoping we are too dumb to notice. He HAS to be. HE TEACHES ECONOMICS AT PRINCETON, for crying out loud. He HAS to know that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. He has to know it's going broke. He HAS TO KNOW ! Either that, or he cannot add or subtract and ended up as a Princeton professor anyway. I don't know what Krugman's students at Princeton are learning, but it sure isn't economics. They are probably learning Anti-Conservatism 101.

Krugman says Social Security is a small problem, way down the list of american problems. Never mind that your SS payroll taxes are put into the general fund and immediately spent. Never mind that there is no SS Trust Fund. It doesn't exist. It never did. Never mind that it is nothing but IOU's, a claim on future taxpayers. Never mind that in about 10 years, SS will be paying out more than it takes in. Never mind that such a ponzi scheme would be highly illegal if a private industry tried it (Enron DID). I wrote a previous column about Social Security that you can find here. Paul Krugman says never mind, it's all just Republicans trying to scare you. AND HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE A ECONOMIST !?!?!?!? In a pig's eye, he is ! If Paul Krugman is an Economist and can still write utter nonsense like this, then I'm Elvis Presley, and I'm — All Shook Up.

The country is $9 trillion in debt, a tribute to the federal government's boundless capacity to spend our hard-earned taxpayer dollars. Thanks a bunch, politicians. Can you imagine raking in $3 trillion every year and still needing MORE to make ends meet ? That's exactly the federal government's story. Hard to fathom that. Some of us blame it on the Democrats (rightfully), and others blame it on the Republicans (rightfully). We can blame it on anyone we like, but that doesn't change our situation one iota. If we don't do something about this $9 trillion, pretty soon we could be talking about REAL money (rimshot).

The president is finally beginning to show some small signs of becoming a conservative, after spending money like a drunken sailor for the first 6 years. Way too little, way too late, George. The leading Democratic presidential candidates are all proposing tons of NEW government spending at the same time they excoriate Bush for his spending, making the Democratic claim to the mantle of fiscal responsibility nothing but a pathetic punch line. Call me crazy, but when the Iraq war finally does wind down, and it will, then perhaps the sensible thing to do would be to restore some measure of fiscal responsibility to the country, before we are all trading in our dollars for yuans.

But I guess fiscal responsibility doesn't sell as well to potential voters as "free health care for everyone !", or "free government day care !", or "Social Security problem ? What Social Security problem ?". We don't have serious statesmen anymore. We have cheap panderers, almost literally offering a "dollar for your vote". Don't we as citizens have a civic duty to demand something more than free goodies from our politicians ? Have we abandoned all sense of responsibility to future generations ? We've gone from the greatest generation to the me-me-me generation.

When it comes to dealing with the real problem, which is government SPENDING, you might as well save your breath rather than talk to most Democrats, because to them, when you say "reduce spending", they think you said "kill the poor", and it doesn't matter if 'the poor' make $80K per year. It is virtually impossible to have any kind of legitimate policy discussion with people like that. What is truly frightening is that the Republicans mucked things up so badly that those same left-leaning simpletons will probably expand their power in 2008. That's why I called this column 'from the frying pan into the fire'. If any of you truly believes that the Democrats have any fiscal plans OTHER than increasing spending and raising taxes, then you need to stop smoking that stuff, it is rotting your brain.

That piddly $9 trillion doesn't even seem to be a campaign issue, because I don't hear any of our presidential wannabees talking about it, which makes me wonder if we even have any true conservatives on the Republican side of the candidate roster, you know, the kind that would be horrified by that much debt. It seems like the political battle on the fiscal front these days is between the social statist Democrats and the security statist Republicans. The only guy who would actually try to cut government spending is probably Ron Paul, and he has about as much chance of being elected president as I do, and I wouldn't want him any way, because he'd ruin the progress that has been made in Iraq. It's too late to turn back now on that score. We have to see it through, even though that too is going to cost us big.

What we need is for one candidate to step forward and outline a positive vision and course to restore fiscal sanity to this country, before it's too late. This country is so great that we can turn it all around on a dime if we choose to, but we have to start choosing responsibility instead of gratification. The idea was to leave our children a better country, remember ? We won't do that by saddling them with insurmountable debt, and don't forget this either: the enormous tsunami of debt hasn't even arrived yet, but it's coming, via Social Security and Medicare when the baby boomers retire. Time to wake up, america.