Our shameful lying president

Can this election come to soon?  All of a sudden, Mr. I-Will-Let-The-Bush-Tax-Cuts-Die is calling for renewing them but only for lower and middle income earners. This is the same person who campaigned in 2008 on letting the tax cuts die.  The very same who during the 2010 Congressional elections said he would never renew them, who then suddenly reversed himself and agreed to extend them for two years.  At the time he said that it was foolish to raise taxes during a recession.  Well duh!  But no one asks, so what has changed?

No sooner did he sign the tax cut extender measure (along with Obamacare his sole legislative achievement), he began once again drawing another line in the sand vowing once again never to extend them.  Along comes a disastrous time in his campaign with polls showing Romney closing in on him, that he suddenly reverses himself once more.  Now he says to Congress, let’s skip the drama and just extend them for the folks who need them.  He claims that we cannot afford to “spend billions of dollars on tax cuts for the wealthy”.  Never mind that the money those “wealthy” pay in taxes will come out of the pockets of the wage earners they either lay off or will not hire, but since when does not receiving revenue equal spending?  — A typical socialist tactic!

Every economist knows that the only way to create jobs is to create wealth and wealth can only be created by capital investing in business expansion.  Every economist on television practically screams that what we need from government is to get rid of the uncertainty.  Almost all suggest that he make the Bush tax cuts permanent.  Moreover, he needs to cut the deficit so that inflation fears will be calmed and the Federal Reserve can return to a more normal modus operandi where people will feel safe to invest and save money.  Mr. Obama implicitly lies every time he claims he wants to create jobs.  His policies have been the opposite of what is needed.  Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush, Jr. all found ways to foster a good business environment and each one’s policies led to a decade of prosperity.  Obama has only pushed measures and issued executive orders that create more regulation and a more hostile environment for business.  Obamacare indeed threatens to remove a huge chunk of the business sector altogether robbing us of 15% of the opportunities to expand the GDP and collect tax revenue.

Our dear leader is interested in creating jobs, but only if they are part of the government bureaucracy.  These kind are paid for with tax revenue, but don’t generate profits that could be taxed.  Instead of creating wealth and manufacturing a product that might add to the GDP, they rob the private sector of capital that would create wealth.  And from this expansion of wealth taxed at a business-friendly rate, we could bring in more receipts that could be used to pay for vital government programs or decrease the debt.

Any high school student with a decent government or economics class under his belt knows this, but being a socialist Democrat means never having to acknowledge reality nor having to worry about being called out for your pandering policy and disingenuous statements, i.e., lies.


Let’s End the Filibuster Rule

Upon hearing the Supreme Court’s weird decision on Obamacare, my first thought was that it was finally time to give up the ghost on ever expecting the Supreme Court to descend like a deus ex machina in a Greek tragedy to save us from ourselves.  Ever since Engle v. Vitale in 1961, we constitutionalists have been seeking the holy grail of modern American politics, i.e., appointing enough traditionalists to the high court to right our ship of state and set us once again on the smooth course of federalism that our forefathers created or, at least, tried to create.

Despite the best efforts of presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the Bushes, there seems to be a never-ending supply of 5-4 majorities either to overturn some traditional State power or to uphold the latest audacious power grab by the central government.   As I tweeted last week, we might as well face facts:  the national court invariably comes down in favor of national power.  The notable exceptions merely prove the rule.  It matters not how many national elections conservatives win (9 of the last 15) or how many justices these presidents appoint (11 of the last 15 including 3 chief justices).  No doubt, Governor Romney too will remind the voters of the importance of a conservative president given the ages of Justices Scalia and Kennedy.  Didn’t someone say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

And just listen to the theory that some commenters have concocted this week.  The brilliant Chief Justice Roberts outmaneuvered everyone by upholding as a tax Obamacare’s “shared responsibility penalty”.  Perhaps the mercurial Mr. Roberts knew that the Senate needs just 51 votes instead of 60 to repeal this penalty, uh tax, since in a budget reconciliation the filibuster rule does not apply.  And maybe the chief’s statement that the court wasn’t designed to correct bad policy was a signal to the the voters to demand a repeal of the Act and/or vote for Romney.  Moreover, they clam that the chief justice inoculated himself from criticism next session when he votes to strike down affirmative action and parts of the Voting Rights Act.  Oh yes, the chief justice is crazy, like a fox!  Well, as they say, denial is more than a river in Egypt.

First off, even if Roberts votes the way he should next year, there is no guarantee that Justice Kennedy, the usual swing vote, shall do so.   Second, it makes little difference how the national government adds to its near omnipotence whether it be via the tax power, the commerce clause or the necessary and proper clause.  As for freeing the chief from criticism, since when does the Left (or the Right for that matter) refrain from attacking anyone who stands in their way.  It’s always what have you done for me lately.  And most important, what does this opinion tell us about a so-called constitutionalist who is willing to abandon his philosophy in order to make it less painful when he returns to ruling judiciously?  This reasoning even defies credulity and makes the chief justice look naïve as well as silly.  In the final analysis, Mr. Roberts was simply at pains to uphold Obamacare and willfully violated his professed principles to do it.

Which brings us back to the matter at hand.  It is now clear to all but the hopelessly romantic that absent constitutional reform, we are never going to change this incorrigible Court.  History shows that there are but two practicable ways to amend our constitutional system.  Assuming the preference is to avoid a civil war, that leaves us with a constitutional convention.  And let’s be undeceived — such an eventuality will require something very akin to a revolution.

In the meantime, we must realize that our judicial branch has devolved into a House of Lords, i.e., it either delays or rubber stamps the actions of the central government.  Therefore, it’s time to embrace rather than eschew what the founders called the tyranny of the majority.    Majority rule must prevail in the Senate as it does now in the House of Representatives.  And so the filibuster rule has outlived its usefulness.  Without it, we can begin to rectify today’s more pressing concern:  the cynical belief that once a “progressive” reform has gone into effect, it will be impossible to end or overhaul.  With a simple rule change, we can end this tyranny of the minority.  And the party that wins an election will finally be able to push through its program as well as repeal any laws that stand in the way of its effectiveness.

Of course, the president can still veto legislation.  But when the people do see fit to elect a president and congress of the same party, they will have the opportunity to enact tax reform, entitlement reform, and spending reform as well as to abolish unpopular and unworkable monstrosities like Obamacare.  I admit that this solution is not as good as having the system our founders envisioned, but it at least offers a way out of the quicksand in which we have been mired.  And unlike Chief Justice Roberts’ awkward fashioning of a means to achieve an end, we shan’t need to violate any legal or personal principles.