Obama’s “Balanced Approach” Unbalanced

Our president must be nuts. 

During his latest spin fest tonight, he explained to the American people that we’ve got to get this debt ceiling raised, and we must do it now, and we must do it his way, or he will take his blocks and go home. 

Okay, I added that last part in. 

But in reality, he has said that the so called “Cut Cap and Balance” bill that passed the House is dead on arrival.  He will not sign a bill that does not include tax increases for the richest Americans and corporations.  And he will not sign a bill that does not extend past the 2012 election. 

Maybe calling the Campainger in Chief has been a mistake.  Maybe I should take to calling him the Ultimatum President.  Or maybe just the Unbalanced President.

Obama has said over and over that he favors a “balanced approach” to solve the debt problem.  Maybe you are unsure exactly what that means. 

It means simply that the people who earn the most in this country should be more than happy to fork over more of their earnings to a government that spends on stupid crap.  If they aren’t more than happy to do so, they are evil, greedy, and unamerican.  He said something tonight that made me scratch my head a little.  Only until it bled and a small portion of my ample brain was exposed to the atmosphere.  He said we don’t want to cut spending on programs that help working families.  Now, my family is a working family, and we don’t get government assistance for anything.  My son is borrowing money to go to school, but I don’t have anything to do with that.  Who, exactly is he talking about?  What “programs” do “working families” take advantage of?  If you are a working family and you are on government assistance of some kind, say, food stamps, exaclty what kind of “work” are you doing?  You are certainly not working in a law firm or teaching calculus to high school kids (Right.  Like goverment schools teach calculus).  You aren’t a professional manager or technician or electrician or engineer.  You may still be a professional.  A professional couch potato.  A moocher.  A leech.  Those are the “working families”  the Campaigner in Chief is talking about.  He’s not talking about a father working two jobs to feed his family.  He’s talking about a single mother in an urban area raising seven illegitimate children on burger flipping money.  Now, what’s the difference between the two?  Maybe these two examples have similar education.  Maybe they live in the same neighborhood.  But one is not interested in accepting government money to do something he can do for himself, if he works hard enough.  The other, simply, is interested in getting that free “Obama money.”  Without a care in the world about where it came from. 

Obama’s balanced approach means that those among us who prepared themselves for life, learned a skill or got a degree and now work in the private sector providing services to the public MUST be content to live on less, while those among us who have made one bad choice after another continue to show up with their hand out.  His approach also means stripping the military down to two jeeps and dinghy, while allowing the pentagon to be used for section 8 housing.  His approach means slowing an already sluggish economy down further by increasing taxes on corporations.  It means increasing “investment” (code word for more spending) in education (padding the teacher’s union’s coffers), and infrastructure (public works projects that will come in over budget and late.) It means “reforming” medicare (rationing care) and “getting healthcare costs under control” (price fixing). 

Now, if there are places to cut wasteful spending, and everybody seems to not only agree that their are but they seem to know where these places are, why not go after that first?  Why not cut spending on stupid crap like sending college students to Africa to photograph ants?  Or cut National Endowment for the Arts funds that allow “artists” to throw poop on a canvas and call it art?  Hey, if we are going to cut depreciation to big oil companies and corporate jet owners, why not cut it for computer manufacturers and Apple?  These big companies make a much larger profit margin than oil companies do.  Why not go after them? 

Does wasteful government spending need to be cut?  Absolutely.  It needs to be cut on the military, on White House staffers, on Congressional staffers, and anywhere else we can do what we need to do while spending less. 

Maybe if we KNEW where all the money was going, we’d be a little more comfortable allowing our tyrannical government confiscate more of our hard-earned cash.  But that will never happen, because if we KNEW where the money was going, we wouldn’t pay any taxes at all.  Why pay to support stupid crap?

I think the Republicans cannot make a deal with the Democrats over the debt ceiling.  President Reagan made a deal with a Democrat Senate and House.  The deal was that he would sign a tax increase if spending were cut three dollars for every dollar taxes went up.  Still waiting for that deal to come to fruition.  You cannot make deals with Democrats.  These guys will hold the entire country hostage to keep their pet programs in place at current spending levels or with the ability to increase spending whenever politicians feel like it’s necessary.  And Republicans aren’t really any better.  Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, member of the “gang of six,”  proposed increasing tax rates on capital gains, taking away tax incentives from private companies to keep deployed reservists on the payroll, and elimination of a portion of the mortgage interest rate deduction.  Sound plan, there, Saxby.  If you think any of these ideas will help reduce the debt long term, you are just as insane as President Obama. 

If these clowns want to raise taxes on ANYONE, they should have to show us why they need the money.  They shouldn’t be allowed to call an increase in spending a cut, which they currently do. 

Maybe it is time for a balanced approach.  Go ahead and raise taxes on the job creators, but balance that with an elimination of the earned income tax credit.  Attack big oil companies and remove their depreciation incentives to buy equipment, and remove their incentive to search for energy sources, but balance that with a decrease in spending on cars and plane rides for congressmen, as well as the first lady.  It’s probably cheaper to charter a private jet than it is to take Air Force One on a shopping spree in Europe. 

That’s balance.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: