“Obama Money”

Back in October 2009 some people in Detroit and other cities lined up outside government offices because of a rumor that free money was being given out as a result of the Federal stimulus funding approved by Mr. Obama. A now infamous interview with one person in line referred to the money as “Obama money.”

Well, no money was being given away but now, several years later, it is constructive to explore exactly what “Obama money” actually is.

“Obama money” is debt employed to bribe politicians and voters to support Mr. Obama’s statist agenda. Statism is defined as concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government.

The reality of legislation, regulations, and mandates supported by Mr. Obama is clear. Regardless of policy focus (health care, banking, industrial, environmental, whatever) Mr. Obama believes in the power of a centralized Federal apparatus over policy driven and funded at the State level, and over policy based on individuals assuming responsibility for their own behavior.

Money Mr. Obama has sought and approved for “economic stimulus” projects, extended unemployment benefits, subsidies for teachers, police and fire workers, student loan reorganizations, mortgage assistance, cash for clunkers, auto manufacturer bailouts, reductions in employee social security taxes, support for the new Federal bureaucracies supporting Obama Care, new bank oversight, and a new “consumer” agency, and on, and on is all funded by debt.

Federal debt will total over $16,400,000,000,000 by the end of September 2012, $4,000,000,000,000+ more than it was when Mr. Obama took office. While he likes to talk about his spending in the context of “fairness” and “empathy,” Mr. Obama’s only real achievement is a dramatic increase in debt you, your children, and your grand children will have to find a way to pay back long after he is gone.

At the same time he has spent over $1,000,000,000,000 in the name of “fairness” Mr. Obama has failed to address the automatic increases in entitlement programs that have also driven up the debt during his tenure. Total unfunded liabilities related to these entitlement programs is projected to range between $60,000,000,000,000 and $100,000,000,000,000 according to government data, in addition to our $16,400,000,000 in existing debt.

Failure to significantly reduce current government spending and entitlement program liabilities will have extreme fiscal and social consequences, with or without tax increases. While railing on about increasing taxes on the “rich” in the name of “fairness” Mr. Obama has intentionally avoided addressing the realities and consequences of our debt and future unfunded liabilities.

Mr. Obama continues to spend and to ignore our fiscal realities in pursuit of re-election. Is this the behavior of a leader with moral purpose, or of a politician with allegiance to power over principle?

Mr. Obama is solely responsible for this failure of leadership.

Apologies Aplenty

Mr. Obama recently apologized to Afghan President Hamid Karzai over the burning of Korans at a U.S. military base by US soldiers.

Opposition political reaction criticizes the act of making the apology. I don’t think they get it.

Burning a religious text, regardless of the religion, demonstrates contempt and intolerance for those whose moral code and belief system is based on the text. Accordingly, an apology is in order and is appropriate.

What concerns me is that Mr. Obama demonstrates contempt and intolerance for those whose moral code is based in Catholic teachings by mandating that all private health insurance provide free coverage for birth control pills and other contraceptive aids, forcing Catholics to share in the cost of something that violates the teachings of their faith.

Hubris? Conceit? Hypocrisy? What else would you call it? How would you defend this double standard?

Looks like another apology is in order. It also looks like politicians and press could do a better job connecting the dots.

PS – I am not Catholic. I don’t care what you choose to believe so long as you don’t try to impose your belief system (whether religious or political).

Occupy Thyself With Responsibility

November 1, 2011

I had earphones pumping music into my head today while working out. On came a Huey Lewis song that got my attention with this lyric; “Takin’ what their givin’ cuz I’m workin’ for a livin’.”

It seems we have people occupying physical space in various cities instead of occupying themselves with work. I wonder how they pay their cell phone bills, not to mention paying for food, clothing, and shelter.

Some complain that they have college degrees and college loans outstanding but can’t find work, well, at least work commensurate with their expectations. I suggest as someone who has been both an employee and an employer that including your “occupy” this or that experience on your resume does not improve your competitiveness in the job market, for any kind of job.

A job exists, by definition, because people voluntarily want to exchange money they earn from their job for a product or service a person or organization produces. A job, by definition, is a defined set of tasks and responsibilities expected to be performed in exchange for pay and other possible benefits to produce a product or service. To work, by definition, is to accept a job. That is, you need to be Takin’ what their givin’ if you expect to be workin’ for a livin’.

Which brings us to Greece.

The majority political party in the Greek Parliament, at least as I write this, is the Panhellenic Socialist Movement party which has given the Greek people what they wanted but not what they can afford.

Greece is over €300 billion in debt and is in financial difficulties in part because successive Greek governments were found to have consistently and deliberately misreported the country’s official economic statistics to keep within the monetary union guidelines (rather than face the music earlier together with the Greek people). Short form, Greek governments lied to their lenders and now want to hold a referendum to see if the Greek people will agree to austerity measures imposed by the lenders they lied to. The other EU governments, by the way, are asking all private (not government) holders of Greek debt to take a 50% haircut on their principal, along with offering the Greek people more debt in exchange for more austerity measures. (If you are not laughing now you should be.)

Which brings us to responsibility.

The circumstance of the “occupiers” and of the Greek people confirm the reality that any socialist or statist government, democratic or not, will fail to effectively improve the lot of its citizens over the long term.

The “occupy” people need to take any job they can find, or create one for themselves.

The Greek people need to take a full haircut on their debt problems.

We need to stop making excuses and start “Takin’ what their givin’ cuz we’re workin’ for a livin’,” embracing both the risks and rewards of personal liberty and the responsibility that goes with it.

Post Script November 5, 2011: It now seems both Greek and European leaders wish to deny the right of the Greek people to vote on whether or not to accept the loans and austerity measures offered by Euro politicians. Fear of the consequences of a voter rejection is not an excuse to prevent a democratic voice on this most critical of issues for the Greek people. In the words of Hunter S. Thompson, you are either on the bus or off the bus. It is a great disappointment that the Greek people will not get to make this choice.

Also, it now seems the “occupy” people have lost control of their protests in some cities to those prone to violence (see: Oakland, CA). The theme of responsibility (and lack thereof) seems more and more relevant to the reality of what is being reported in the media. It is also of note that the tea party demonstrators waved their signs, voiced their concerns, voted accordingly and went back to work, leaving the sites of their demonstrations clean. (I am not a tea party participant, just being observant.)