Ronald Reagan was right when he said: "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
The next stage of out-of-control government spending started when George W. Bush bailed out Wall Street with $700 billion (new debt No. 1). But Congress didn't learn from that failure, and apparently, neither did Barack Obama. So the newly elected president pushed for the next stimulus bill (debt No. 2), this one for $787 billion. 
But that wasn't enough, either, so the recent $410 billion omnibus spending bill (with 9,000 earmarks -- 60 percent originating with Democrats and 40 percent with Republicans) is being railroaded through Congress to keep government moving until September (debt No. 3).
And then Obama informed us last week that another $634 billion is required for a down payment on universal health care. Before there's a plan, there's already a payment (debt No. 4).
If that isn't enough, Obama is asking for a roughly $3.6 trillion budget for 2010 despite the fact that the White House projects a 2009 budget shortfall of $1.5 trillion -- triple the $455 billion in 2008. (That's debt No. 5.)
And all of that doesn't include other stimuli on the horizon, as Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, noted when he called the mammoth $787 billion spending bill "stimulus No. 1." (That's debt No. 6, debt No. 7, debt No. 8, etc.)
All of these wild expenditures would be a little more bearable if we saw any signs of economic recovery. But how has all this alleged stimulus stabilized and grown the economy and the market? As our government has bailed out, the Dow Jones industrial average has dropped. It's dropped about 2,000 points since Obama took office, roughly 200 points after every major speech he has made.
So the big question is: How has Obama gotten away with racking up more expenses in his first 30 days in office than all the presidents combined since the founding of our republic did in theirs?
Bernard Goldberg's "A Slobbering Love Affair" is a great book about the media's blind bias and infatuation with Obama, but Obama's hypnotic effects permeate every stratum of society, from political corridors to public schools. Why? Because he's young, hip, cool, liberal and charismatic -- and that's what sells today in America. Objectiveness and criticism fly right out the window with the mere mention of his name or any discussion of his excessive spending plans.
On "Good Morning America" last Thursday, two of ABC's financial experts graded Obama's excessive borrowing and fiscal performance a B, while guest financial expert Dave Ramsey rated it an F. Despite the two B grades, one of ABC's financial experts quipped that one of the biggest problems with Obama's bailouts is that there is no real form of government accountability over the money pouring out of Washington. Yet she maintained her B grade for Obama's stewardship plan. Why?
Here's an even better example: As Obama addressed Congress last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led the way in spontaneous emotive applause for her political hero. Pop-up Pelosi was bouncing up and down like Tigger on steroids, forcing Vice President Joe Biden to rise slowly every time she jumped up, and Biden had to try to hide his frustration with her. Pelosi's eyes and facial expressions seemed almost giddy as she gazed at Obama like a teenager infatuated with the popular high-school jock.
As I watched this obsessive congressional circus, I asked myself, "Is this the type of objective bipartisan leadership we want running our government, leading our nation, and spending our money?"
Continued... |