Oh! Obama

(Thanks to Oh! Susanna, by Stephen Foster)

Verse 1:
He come from old Chicago, but before that who knows where?
He attended Harvard, so he says, but no one knows him there.

Verse 2:
He’s got a thing for millionaires; he thinks they’re pretty low.
If they would cough up their fair share we’d be rolling in the dough.

Refrain:
Oh! Obama, now don’t You count on me.
Even though I’m in Cook County I’ll be voting for Romney.

Verse 3:
He likes his gov’ment nice and big: the Founders’ worstest fears.
If You think it can’t grow bigger, well, just give him four more years.

Verse 4:
He’s an expert on the Constitution, a professor, so I’m told.
But when he’s in the White House it doesn’t seem to hold.

Refrain:
Oh! Obama, now don’t You count on me.
Even though I’m in Cook County I’ll be voting for Romney.

Verse 5:
When You took office didn’t You say that things would soon be great?
But everyone can see the country’s worse than in ’08.

Verse 6:
I hope You had a good four years, I know that might sound strange,
But when I cast my vote I will be hoping for a change.

Refrain:
Oh! Obama, now don’t You count on me.
Even though I’m in Cook County I’ll be voting for Romney.

The Private Sector's Doing Just Fine

Yesterday on national television President Obama announced that "The private sector is doing fine." This wonderful news has come as a great relief to the millions of middle and lower class families facing unemployment, collapsing home values, increased taxes, a stagnant stock market, and crushing national debt. Later in the day, President Obama offered a clarification of his statement in the form of a this stirring ballad, just in time for the annual Country Music Television Music Awards:

-Barry O and the Good News Band-

The private sector's doing just fine.
It was ruined by George Bush but it's much better since '09.
The middle class is feasting on caviar and wine,
'cuz the private sector's doing just fine.

The private sector's strong, as you know,
even if investor confidence is low.
Those bankers are the problem and they really need to go.
I'd love to get my hands on their dough.

Some claim that unemployment's too high.
That's only 'cuz we're lacking jobs and now I'll tell you why.
Republicans would rather that those jobless folk just die,
so I sit here in the White House and cry.

I've got re-election on my mind,
but the economic indicators indicate a bind.
So I'll simply say that things are getting better all the time, that's why
the private sector's doin' fine.

Yes, that Mormon fellow's causing my pearly whites to grind,
but the private sector's doing just fine.
We could use more public spending, let's increase my credit line,
but the private sector's doing just fine.


(All rights reserved.)

Busting out the economy -since 1934

 

1934 Cartoon from Chicago Tribune

"What's past is prologue." -William Shakespeare

Got Hope? The change will cost us another $1.9 trillion

Democrats propose $1.9T increase in debt limit -Yahoo! News

"WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats on Wednesday proposed allowing the federal government to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion to pay its bills, a record increase that would permit the national debt to reach $14.3 trillion.

The unpopular legislation is needed to allow the federal government to issue bonds to fund programs and prevent a first-time default on obligations. It promises to be a challenging debate for Democrats, who, as the party in power, hold the responsibility for passing the legislation."

The Democrats' insatiable appetite for spending exceeds even the Republicans of the previous administration, who became intoxicated with the vision of a federal government as a limitless source of cash and solution to every problem.

But the Republicans apparently were Small Potatoes compared with the current Democrat administration, whose desire to control and consume All Things reminds me of a python preparing to swallow a goat.

Caritas Internationalis clamors for climate control?

Caritas charges Japan, Russia attempting to subvert climate talks -Catholic Culture

Caritas Internationalis-- the consortium of Catholic relief agencies-- has charged that Japan, Russia, and other wealthy nations are attempting to subvert climate negotiations in Copenhagen by sidelining the controversial Kyoto Protocol. Referring to poorer nations' "fear that rich countries are trying to kill the strongest legal climate agreement we have," an Irish Caritas representative said, "As heads of state come to Copenhagen in this second week, it's up to rich countries to get the talks back on track by re-committing to the Kyoto Protocol."

"Abandoning the Kyoto Protocol would be a step back for all countries, but especially for the world’s poorest. For them the negotiations are a matter of survival," added a Caritas representative from Scotland. "Vulnerable communities across the world need a fair, ambitious and binding climate agreement, of which the Kyoto Protocol is an essential element."

Caritas is pushing for the Kyoto Protocol? How will the world's poor be better off if the world's largest wealth-producing economies are strangled to death? Who, then, will provide the goods, services, and consumer markets that developing nations need in order to develop and prosper?

Cash for Clunkers: spreading debt and chaos the socialist way

Cash for Clunkers Ends Monday

The Cash for Clunkers program... let us count its many wonderful benefits:

• All taxpayers are compelled to shoulder the cost of subsidizing the purchase of new cars for a few taxpayers. That's called, "spreading the wealth", and our president likes to do that.
  
• The "clunkers" are cars that were being used; they were working. They had some value. But now they will be destroyed, discarded not because they are worthless, but because the law requires it. Destroying private property and replacing it with federally funded property: our president likes that too.
  
• Car dealers benefit from this program -at least if they actually ever receive the promised rebates. Yet, other businesses and industries do not enjoy these benefits. Mr. President, how is it fair to use tax money to selectively benefit only certain sectors of the market?
  
• We are supposed to believe that the program benefits the environment and will save energy. Yet will energy actually be saved? How much energy was used to manufacture the new cars that will be sold to people who otherwise were not prepared to purchase a new car? How much energy is wasted in the premature destruction of the functioning "clunkers".
  
• Many citizens using this program perhaps would not have purchased a car at this time had the program not been in place. Why? Because for many, buying a new car is a big expense, and they had not judged it wise to make such a purchase at the time. Does a $3500 or $4500 reduction in the upfront cost of the car mean that it's no longer expensive to buy that new car? Of course not. So, many buyers will have been wooed by the program to make an expensive purchase at a time when things financially are pretty tough for many people.
  

Like many government programs, Cash for Clunkers does benefit a few... but at a high cost born by the many. The program produces not a net benefit, but a net loss. The total costs to individuals and businesses outweighs the total benefits.

And this is the curse of most every government program which meddles with the economy in order to "improve" it.

To each according to his need -Karl Marx gets religion

To Each According to Need - Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good

"The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need." (Acts 4:32-35)

The Acts of the Apostles describe the Christ-like spirit of the first days of the Church. Acts 4:32-35 accounts for how the community provided for the material shortcomings of its members. How marvelous this scripture is to set side-by-side with the resentment of the tea partiers...

It's notable that the title, "To Each According to Need", while taken from Scripture, has also been used by others to justify coercive government programs which confiscate private property supposedly for the "common good".

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." -Karl Marx

These programs view citizens not as virtuous and generous individuals ready to voluntarily assist others, but as greedy "haves" from whom revenue must be squeezed to support the "have-nots".


The author acknowledges,

"It would be mistaken to read the text's argument for possessions "in common" as in some way equivalent to our contemporary notions of political ideas such as socialism."

Very true. Yet the author does not seem to let this fact enter his thinking when he directs his contempt toward "a pathetic and mean-spirited outpouring of resentment" by thousands of citizens at the recent "Tea Parties". Their offense? Many attended to demonstrate their opposition to super-sized government programs that perpetuate poverty and dependence, depleting the resources of the many while failing to effectively meet the needs of the few they claim to benefit. How dare they oppose ever-increasing deficit spending for social programs that are based on the false and unchristian premise that private property should be managed not by its owners, but by the state, and must be forcibly redistributed by politicians! How mean-spirited to insist on one's right to act as responsible stewards of the fruits of one's own labor!

As government spending increases and our taxes increase, this right of private ownership of property is increasingly denied. And as government takes a larger and larger portion of our income, we gradually lose the ability to support families, and provide help to those causes and individuals that conscience and discretion show to be most in need of our help. Can government do this better than the individual? Should government be permitted to usurp this responsibility?

The early Christians willingly donated money to the Church, which used it to assist the poor according to prudent Christian principles. Why do some Catholics now argue that this responsibility to care for the poor should be fulfilled primarily by the state? Why should the biblical model of voluntary alms for the poor, administered by the Church according to right moral criteria, be overturned in favor of morally flawed, wasteful government programs that depend on coercive taxation instead of willing generosity?

U.S. bishops push comprehensive healthcare plan for illegal aliens

US bishops back comprehensive health coverage for illegal immigrants - Catholic World News

The American Catholic bishops have apparently thrown their support behind a proposal to offer comprehensive health care to illegal immigrants.

In a May 20 letter to members of the US House of Representatives, Bishop William Murphy-- writing in his capacity as chairman of the Domestic Justice and Human Development committee for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)-- argues that the federal government should ensure 'comprehensive and affordable health care for every person living in the United States.' Bishop Murphy writes that individuals' access to comprehensive coverage should not depend on 'where they live or where they come from.' -CWNews.com

How does Bishop Murphy and the bishops at the USCCB suggest that the nation pay the staggering cost of such a plan? Predictably no answer is provided, because for statists the answer to funding every new program is taken for granted and is always the same: "the government". If You press for a more specific answer, it becomes, make "the rich" pay for it. And who are the rich? Well, anyone who has any money left after taxes are deducted.

Why does this bloated bureaucracy of bishops -does the USCCB itself pay any taxes?- why does this episcopal committee of little (if any) authority lobby Congress to support yet another gigantic federal program at a time when the entire nation is sinking under the weight of an unsupportable debt? Do they wish to destroy us, or have they simply given themselves totally to the gospel of socialism?

The bishops hail this socialist dream of universal healthcare as if it were the Great Commission handed down by Jesus... as if Jesus Himself announced that individuals should be compelled by Caesar beyond the limits of their generosity... as if He wanted on earth the State -not the Church- to be the first and best help of the poor, and to accomplish by policy, taxation, and bureaucracy what the Church has failed to do through leadership, generosity, and resourcefulness.

But Jesus didn't teach such things, and I'm quite sure that lots of Catholics won't agree that the bishops' proposal is the only way -or even a good way- to help the poor and advance the reign of Christ. Thoughtful Catholics realize that the poor are better served in a society that is prosperous and productive, rather than in one crushed by grinding debt and paralyzed by suffocating taxation. And we recall that while there are moral absolutes that must always be respected, political solutions to real problems are matters of opinion and debate.

Faithful Catholics desire their bishops to preach unambiguously the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to apply it with wisdom to the questions and circumstances of modern life.

What we don't want is for our bishops to: be used as pawns by those seeking to manipulate public opinion; promote reckless and economically disastrous government programs; confuse the Gospel of Christ with the gospel of socialism.

If bishops promote a political agenda that many Catholics consider doubtful, harmful, or even opposed to authentic Christian principles, we believers may begin to reconsider whether these bishops deserve our continued financial support or our energetic and vocal opposition.

Talking points for President Bush's State of the Union Address

President Bush, here are the points You need to make tonight:

The most basic function of a just government is the protection of basic human rights. Elective abortion denies these basic rights to our nation's posterity. Mr. President, deliver a bold, passionate moral argument to inspire and motivate the decent citizens of this country to bar elective abortions in all but the most extreme cases. C'mon, George, this is Your last term. Show us some guts.

Our national borders need to be protected. Terrorists are trying to destroy this country, and our borders are not secure. No more illegal immigration. Use the military if necessary to secure the borders. Revise immigration laws where needed. Enforce them aggressively.

End the war in Iraq by escalating the war. Escalate the intensity of military force to crush the terrorists in Iraq. Then declare victory and pull out.

Recover the passion for limited government. Drop harebrained, expensive, and unnecessary programs such as the manned mission to Mars. Cut taxes while slashing federal spending on notoriously wasteful programs such as welfare and education. Let the states and private charities fill the gap.

Kill Iran's program to develop nuclear weapons. With or without the cooperation of Euorpe. President Ahmadinejad appears to be a psycopath on par with Adolf Hitler. Stop him. If necessary, use force to prevent his creating international havoc, or else we will all pay dearly.

Contain North Korea. Neutralize its nuclear program. Isolate and neutralize its murderous dictator Kim Jong Il.

We are vulnerable to hostile foreign sources of energy. Open the Arctic National Wildlike Refuge and other natural resouces to resposible drilling for oil and gas. Encourage coal production and expand nuclear power generation.

Isolate and neutralize Hamas. Not a dime to the terrorists.

More to come, if I get a few minutes...