Posts Tagged ‘government spending’

Democrats’ War On Poverty Has Been A War On America That Has Done NOTHING To Help The Poor

May 10, 2012

One of my favorite programs is the Wall Street Journal’s “Journal Editorial Report” which appears on Fox NewsThis segment helps you understand why:

When we come back, Paul Ryan takes on the religious left after 90 Georgetown professors attack his budget proposal as going against Catholic social teaching. Would Jesus Christ really have favored big government?
 
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
 
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PAUL RYAN, R-WISC., CHAIRMAN, HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE: Since we meet here today at America’s first Catholic university, I feel it is important to discuss how, as a Catholic in public life, my own personal thinking on these issues has been guided by my understanding of the church’s social teaching. Simply put, I don’t believe the preferential option for the poor means a preferential option for big government.

 (END VIDEO CLIP)
 
GIGOT: That was the House budget committee chairman, Paul Ryan, last week delivering an address at Georgetown University. The Wisconsin Republican has come under fire from some Catholics on the left who claimed the blue print goes against the church’s social teaching. Ninety Georgetown faculty and administrators sent a letter to Ryan in advance of the appearance that read, in part, “We would be remiss in our duty to you and our students if we did not challenge your continuing misuse of Catholic teaching to defend a budget that decimates food programs for struggling families, radically weakens protections for the elderly and sick, and gives more tax breaks to the wealthiest few.”
 
Joining the panel this week, Wall Street Journal columnist and deputy editor, Dan Henninger, and columnist, Mary Anastasia O’Grady.
 
Dan, we’ll put it on the table, we are all Catholics here, grew up with Catholic social teaching.
 
DAN HENNINGER, COLUMNIST & DEPUTY EDITOR: Right.
 
GIGOT: To my mind, the news is not so much Jesuits or Georgetown faculty by conservatives. That is an old story. The news is that Ryan is willing to mix it up in return. Why is the debate important?
 
HENNINGER: The debate is important for — I tell you, Paul, it is important for reasons that both Ryan’s critics and Paul Ryan cite, both that letter and his talk said the same thing. One in six Americans are in poverty. Now, the Great Society started in 1965, creating programs to address poverty.
 
GIGOT: Lyndon Johnson.
 
HENNINGER: Lyndon Johnson.
 
GIGOT: Expansion of government.
 
HENNINGER: 50 years later, one in six Americans are in poverty? After spending trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars. Now Ryan is saying, first, we need accountability over why that has happened. Second, the three main programs — two main programs were created then, Medicare and Medicaid, adding in Social Security, the three major entitlements, the costs are so large that they drain money away from other programs for the poor.
 
GIGOT: Right.
 
HENNINGER: And Paul Ryan is saying we have to look at this and start making some decisions about where that is going. And that’s what he’s asking his critics to come and talk to him about.
 
GIGOT: This is what the late Senator, a Democrat, and a Catholic, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, used to make the case to me that — he said, Democrats should reform entitlements for seniors and Medicare and Social Security because, as Dan said, they are growing a huge wedge in the federal government. They will soak up, if trends continue, almost all the spending there is, the money there is, and there would be no money left for child care, for example, or education, or transportation, much less defense — good liberal purposes.
 
MARY ANASTASIA O’GRADY: But, Paul, why are you talking about facts?
 
(LAUGHTER)
 
Facts are not what the left has used to grow the government to what it is right now.
 
GIGOT: That’s one my big flaws.
 
(LAUGHTER)
 
O’GRADY: Really, you have to stop that.
 
Paul Ryan is freaking these guys out because he is taking their language and using it against them. He talks about how government dissolves the common good of society, how it dishonors the dignity of the human person. They think they own that language. And they think that language justifies big government. And he is saying, no, what you have done with this big government has actually undermined the things that Catholic teaching is supposed to be about. And that is why they are upset about it. If Paul Ryan, God forbid, gets the morale high ground, which they think they own, they will have to go back to the facts. And the facts will not support their position.
 
GIGOT: Important point, a lot of Republicans and conservatives tend to shrink, at least in my experience, from moral arguments. Look at my failing here, brining — talking practical points in fact.
 
(LAUGHTER)
 
But if — so you leave them a monopoly on the moral rhetoric, which is very power of in politics, on the left. Ryan is saying, I will meet you on that same battlefield.
 
HENNINGER: Well, he has created a phrase, which is the immorality of debt. And, in fact, Pope Benedict himself apparently said that if you live with debt that begins do impede the government’s ability to provide basic services, then you are living in untrue — Benedict is obviously talking about Europe.
 
GIGOT: Right.

HENNINGER: And Europe has had a tremendous commitment to social justice and social programs, and now we see Europe as a case study in struggling with trying to pay for commitments that simply they can no longer afford. And that is the issue that Paul Ryan is trying to raise. And he now is putting it in moral terms. And there is a moral issue there. And I think he deserve a good-faith answer.
 
GIGOT: If you look at Europe, one thing that we can see is when you have a debt crisis, and you finally have to do something about it, who suffers the most and first? It isn’t the Georgetown faculty. 

(LAUGHTER)
 
It is the poor, who have their budgets and spending cut?

This is precisely the kind of moral argument that I have been advocating for on this blog.  Here’s an example:

So let’s read the Bible and see what it says.

First there’s that little passage in 1 Samuel that warns about the danger of a socialist king who would seize what rightly belonged to the people if they wickedly chose big government instead of trusting in God (as I previously have pointed out):

The story of abusive big government is not a recent one. The prophet Samuel describes it in the Old Testament:

But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles. — 1 Samuel 8:19-20

Who are we really rejecting?
God said to Samuel:
“…it is not you they have rejected, Samuel, but they have rejected me as their king.” — 1 Samuel 8:7

Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.” — 1 Samuel 8:10-18

The tenth of everything that God warned the people the king would take was on top of the tenth that belonged to God. Which is to say that the king would double their taxes in addition to treating the people like they belonged to him. Of course, that tyrant king was only seizing an additional tenth of his people’s wealth; imagine today, where in the highest-taxed states (which are all Democrat states, fwiw), some Americans are forced to pay more than half of their income in taxes. A mere extra tenth would be like a blessing to them.

It doesn’t sound as if the king whom we are told again and again – ”he will take” – is a good thing. Except on Al Sharpton’s and demonic Democrats warped and evil account of the passage.

Then there’s Jesus, who contrasted what the government confiscated with what belonged to God:

“Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?” Caesar’s,” they replied. He said to them, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” — Luke 20:24-25

Notice that what belongs to God isn’t also described as belonging to Caesar. What Jesus is MOST DEFINITELY NOT SAYING here is that giving unto Caesar is in any way, shape or form tantamount to giving to God. Unless, that is, you are a Democrat (i.e., a demonic bureaucrat), in which case worshipping the State is identical to worshipping God.

When Democrats want to let Obama take more of what belongs to us, they are giving their god his due, not the God of the Bible.

As you could see by examining the links, I took part of that argument from a previous article titled, “Obama’s Government As God Believes It Owns Everything The People Earn.”

So when liberals demand the expansion of government they are not being “pro-God”; they are being ANTI-God.  And it also turns out to be the case that they are tragically anti-poor, too.

In another article, I wrote the following to document how Democrats have undermined charity in favor of socialism – while being anything butcharitable” in their own lives – while hurting the people they claimed they were helping:

I once quoted Burton Folsom in his great book “New Deal Or Raw Deal?” It’s time to quote that passage again:

Throughout American history, right from the start, charity had been a state and local function. Civic leaders, local clergy, and private citizens, evaluated the legitimacy of people’s need in their communities or counties; churches and other organizations could then provide food, shelter, and clothing to help victims of fires or women abandoned by drunken husbands. Most Americans believed that the face-to-face encounters of givers and receivers of charity benefited both groups. It created just the right amount of uplift and relief, and discouraged laziness and a poor work ethic.

The Founders saw all relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for the government in providing charity. James Madison, in defending the Constitution, observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” In other words, if relief, and other areas, were made functions of the federal government, the process would become politicized and politicians and deadbeats could conspire to trade votes for food” (New Deal or Raw Deal, page 76-77).

Prior to FDR, the American people took care of their OWN, family by family, town by town, county by county, state by state. They had NEVER had welfare, and in fact found the very concept of welfare distasteful. And I’m going to tell you right now that they were better, stronger people than we are as a result of that moral superiority and that faith in THE PEOPLE and not the GOVERNMENT.

Barack Obama – who gave virtually NOTHING to charity when giving would have demonstrated the character he proved he DIDN’T have – doesn’t trust the American people, or much care about them, for that matter. He doesn’t want to help people; he wants to grow the size of government. He wants only to make the state bigger and bigger and more and more powerful and controlling. Obama is angry because he doesn’t believe people should have the right to decide for themselves how much of their own money they “need”; HE wants to make that decision for them and then impose it on them so he can seize their money and redistribute it to people who will vote for him and for his party.

Whenever a Democrat calls for more taxes, understand that what they are really saying is that they believe that the government is too small and needs to become larger. And whenever they call for more taxes for the sake of helping people, what they are really saying is that you are a bad and immoral person who can’t and shouldn’t be trusted to help people in need and that it is better to take your money away from you and put it into the coffers of a big government socialist redistributionist agency which will piss it away on boondoggle programs that benefit the politically connected far more than they do the poor. And the fact that even as Barack Obama and the overwhelming Democrat majority that had dictatorial control of both branches of Congress made government bigger than it has ever been and yet blacks are now worse off than they’ve been for generations and women are being set way back is the icing on the cake of the proof of that fact. Liberals hurt the people they cynically and falsely claim to be helping – and then demagogically use the misery that they themselves created to accumulate even more power for themselves and their failed agenda.

A lot of Americans like Social Security.  But they wouldn’t if they knew the facts about it the massive debt it has compiled and the alternatives to it – proposed by Democrats, for that matter – that would have been demonstrated to have been FAR better.

Obama’s policies have sent real inflation (things like food and gasoline) skyrocketing.  And who does that hurt more: the rich or the poor???  Let me assure you that it’s not rich people who are being forced to choose between putting gas in their cars so they can make it to work or buying food for their families.

Obama and his Democrat lackeys rammed minimum wage hikes through.  Conservatives said it would severely hurt teen employment.  And the documented reality is that it has massively hurt young workers EXACTLY AS CONSERVATIVES PREDICTED.

It is no surprise that the economy is in the worst condition since the LAST TIME we let a socialist run it.

Just as it is absolutely no surprise that poverty is the highest it has been in at least 52 years – and frankly in HISTORY – under this failed president whose only ability is the ability to lie and slander and demagogue.

Obama Socialist Plans To ‘Make Government Cool Again’ Hits Slight Snag In Wake Of One Giant Pathetic Scandal After Another

April 23, 2012

Obama in 2008 telling us about the utopia he’s going to create for an America suddenly embracing the mantra “We Are All Socialists Now” to go along with “Yes we can!”

September 11, 2008
Obama plans to ‘make government cool again’
Ben Smith

Barack Obama addressed the wide distaste for government — and the fact that he and John McCain are running against Washington — at the forum on national service at Columbia University.

“Our campaign from the beginning has been about changing government,” he said, recalling some great accomplishments of American government: Civil rights legislation, the interstate highway system, and the National Park system.

Obama would, he said, “transform Washington” and “make government cool again.”

Obama also had some praise for small-town mayors — like, not so long ago, Sarah Palin — who, he said have “some of the toughest jobs in the country. We yak [in the Senate] but they…fill potholes and trim trees and make sure the garbage” is picked up.

Why was had there been such a “wide distaste for government”???  Because government taste like bovine fecal matter in giant quantities shoved down your throat.  And then you’re forced to pay for the meal at about a hundred times the price that the private sector would have charged for the dining privilege.  In a nutshell.

And, hey, Obama, boy have you ever changed government: you’ve made it bigger and more expensive and more “distasteful” than it has EVER BEEN IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC.  You set out to “fundamentally transform America,” and you’ve done it.  Good job.  Pat yourself on the back.  Smoke a cigarette.  Your work destroying America is nearly done.

The GSA scandal gives us more than massive waste and fraud; it gives us pictures and videos of big government union workers putting on clown suits and flipping off the taxpayers.  The Secret Service proves that even the most trusted workers in government have totally broken down under the Obama Culture.  And we’re supposed to want to “make government cool again” so we can force the American people to pay for more of the same???

Under Obama, “In Nothing We Trust.”  Under Obama, we’re looking at a scandal of massive green boondoggles of which Solyndra is just the tiny tip of a giant iceberg.  Under Obama, we’re watching the GSA scandal openly mock the taxpayers more and more.  Under Obama, we’re looking at pure evil with the Fast and Furious scandal in which Obama put weapons in the hands of drug cartel murderers and let them murder American citizens with them.  Under Obama, we’ve had example after example of the breakdown of the US military over which Obama is commander-in-chief.  And there are more of them coming out every day now, aren’t there?  Under Obama, things are getting beyond wicked.

But Obama wants more and more and more and bigger and bigger and bigger government that will seize and confiscate more and more and more of the smaller and smaller minority of Americans who actually pay any federal income taxes and pay for this ungodly monster.  Federal workers being paid more than $150,000 a year have DOUBLED under Obama.  And there’s plenty more where that came from.

Obama has massively increased the size of government even as he has gutted military spending:

I just got through writing about just a tiny fraction of all the Obama scandals that are going on right now.  The man is a firehose of pure evil and America is now flooded.

Actual Video Evidence Of Democrats Sucking The Life Out of American Private Sector And U.S. Economy

August 27, 2011

Well, okay, I may have slightly exaggerated about the “actual video evidence” part.  It’s really more akin to a great analogy.

Liberals love analogies, because with an analogy, you don’t necessarily need things like “facts” that can otherwise get in the way of good rhetoric.  It used to be that Bush drove the economy into a ditch.  But now that it is obvious that the better analogy is that Obama drove the economy off a cliff, they don’t use that one so much any more.

But the NASA video of a black hole devouring a star that wandered into the black hole’s gravitational orbit really is a darn good analogy for what the Democrats’ big government approach has done to the private sector and the U.S. economy as a whole.  In both cases, the life gets sucked out of something that was doing fine on its own before it ran into a gigantic life-sucking black hole.

An excellent Real Clear Markets article written back in November of 2009 explained how the stimulus turned a bad economy into a godawful terrible economy by “sucking capital out of the private sector and destroying jobs.”  There’s your giant sucking black hole.

Here we are, $862 billion – actually $3.27 TRILLION – sucked out of our economy later, and where ARE we?

WE’RE IN A GIANT BLACK HOLE OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING SOCIALISM, THAT’S WHERE!

Government spending does NOT stimulate economic growth.  Liberals have a fundamentally flawed view of economics; they falsely believe that government spending provides a “multiplier effect” in which they get back far more than they put it.  The truth is the EXACT OPPOSITE according to the International Monetary Fund:

And that’s why you’ve got ANOTHER graph showing labor force participation at a 28-year low as more and more Americans simply give up and drop out of the workforce altogether.

We’re in a black hole.

And we’re not getting out of this hole until we break free from Barack Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s gravitation suck field of doom.

Obama Confronts Tea Party About Big Government Spending With Hollow Rhetoric

September 24, 2010

The New York Simes ran a story titled, “Obama Offers Advice, and a Challenge, to Tea Partiers.”

At the CNBC town-hall-style meeting, President Obama offered a little advice for members of the Tea Party movement who argue that the federal government has grown too big and powerful.

The president said that sentiment was rooted in history, and called it a “noble tradition of being healthily skeptical of government. That’s in our DNA. … That’s a good thing.”

But he critiqued the Tea Party candidates, saying they were failing to identify actual cuts in government services that they were willing to accept to force such changes in spending.

Their message is, he said: “We’re going to control government spending. We’re going to propose $4 trillion in additional tax cuts and somehow magically this is all going to work.”

Mr. Obama said he had the following question for Tea Party candidates: Would you cut veterans benefits? Would you cut resources for Social Security and Medicare? What taxes are you willing to see go up?

“The challenge for the Tea Party movement is to identify what exactly would you do,” he said.

Two things wrong with Obama’s “challenge”:

1) I thought we had a president.  I guess we don’t, which is why Democrats have to keep blaming Bush for everything.  I mean, isn’t Obama sort of responsible for his massive deficits?  Shouldn’t maybe Obama take a look at his spending, rather than demanding that his critics fix all the problems he’s supposed to be fixing?

Maybe Obama should just resign from office, so someone else can deal with the disaster, since he clearly has no ideas as to what to do.

2) Obama asks, “Would you cut veterans benefits? Would you cut resources for Social Security and Medicare? What taxes are you willing to see go up?”  As if people are blaming him for enacting veterans benefits, Social Security, and Medicare.  That’s just the kind of empty, sounds-smart-if-you’re-really-stupid rhetoric I’ve come to expect from my demagogue-in-chief.

How about if Obama had asked, “Would you cut my $3.27 trillion stimulus porker? Would you cut resources for my ObamaCare boondoggle (see also here)?  Which one of MY out-of-control spending packages would you like to cut?”

And, of course, the answer, in terms of the Tea Party movement “identifying what exactly would you do,” would be to say:

“WE’D START OUT BY UNDOING EVERYTHING YOU DID, AND THEN CONTINUE BY DOING EVERYTHING THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF YOU!!!”

If Obama were halfway honest, rather than the disingenuous liar he has proven himself to be, he’d ask about what we would do about HIS socialist welfare spending, rather than FDR’s and LBJ’s.

For the record:

In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

For the record:

[F]rom the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the debt held by the public will grow by $3.3 trillion. In 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years.

Mr. Obama’s spending plan approved by Congress last February calls for doubling the national debt in five years and nearly tripling it in 10.

For the record:

President Barack Obama is poised to increase the U.S. debt to a level that exceeds the value of the nation’s annual economic output, a step toward what Bill Gross called a “debt super cycle.”

The CHART OF THE DAY tracks U.S. gross domestic product and the government’s total debt, which rose past $13 trillion for the first time this month. The amount owed will surpass GDP in 2012, based on forecasts by the International Monetary Fund. […]

Gross, who runs the world’s largest mutual fund at Pacific Investment Management Co. in Newport Beach, California, said in his June outlook report that “the debt super cycle trend” suggests U.S. economic growth won’t be enough to support the borrowings “if real interest rates were ever to go up instead of down.”

For the record:

Serious consequences associated with deficit spending have long seemed like far-off problems, but they are now likely to hit the country with considerable force within the next several years.

One is servicing the debt itself. Most people don’t pay much attention to the interest payments the federal government makes every year. They haven’t had to. Debt service has been manageable, thanks to low interest rates and consistent economic growth.

But, according to the Congressional Budget Office, annual debt payments — currently about $200 billion — are set to skyrocket. CBO estimates that interest payments on the federal debt will total $916 billion by the year 2020.

“Interest rates are going to rise and at the same time, we’re going to have a substantial increase in the size of the debt,” says Roberton Williams, a senior fellow with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. “We’ll be paying five times as much in dollar terms by 2020 than we did last year.”

Think of what our lives will be like as we have to pay off the equivalent of Obama’s massive 2009 stimulus plans every single year.

And Obama weasels out of his overwhelming role of imploding our country by pointing to policies that were enacted generations ago?  He tacitly argues that any support for Social Security and Medicare means that people somehow MUST therefore support his asinine stimulus and his ObamaCare boondoggle?

3) When Obama says, “What taxes are you willing to see go up?” he is relying on a fundamental fallacy of liberal progressivism, namely that ever higher tax rates collect ever higher tax revenue.  I debunked this error of thinking in an article entitled, “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues.”

At the ultimate level, the progressive myth clearly breaks down: just make the income tax rate 100% on everyone, and see how long it takes for everybody in the country to quit their jobs.  To put it in a nutshell, when the income and capital tax rate is kept low (certainly not at zero, but low), there is more incentive for people to work, and invest, and risk their time and their capital, with the result that the economy grows.  And then the tax revenues actually increase, because taxes are collected from a much larger base.

And more people have jobs, too.

Fortunately, one gets the point that the American people are either not even bothering to listen to Obama anymore, or else they’ve finally seen through his nonsense.  Even DEMOCRATS are tuning Obama out in droves now.

Shocking Obama Spending Digging America Into Great Depression

April 29, 2009

We are beginning to learn that $12.8 trillion doesn’t last very long when it is being spent by corrupt politicians and idiot bureaucrats.  It doesn’t seem to matter how much Obama has already spent or committed; he just has to keep spending more and more and more.

WASHINGTON – The Treasury Department said Monday it will need to borrow $361 billion in the current April-June quarter, a record amount for that period.

It’s the third straight quarter the government’s borrowing needs have set records for those periods.

Treasury also estimated it will need to borrow $515 billion in the July-September quarter, down slightly from the $530 billion borrowed during the year-ago period. The all-time high of $569 billion was set in the October-December period.

The huge borrowing needs reflect the soaring costs of the $700 billion financial rescue program and the recession, which is nearing a record as the longest in the post World War II period.

The slump has cut sharply into tax revenue and boosted government spending for benefit programs such as unemployment insurance and food stamps.

The administration is projecting the federal deficit for the entire budget year ending Sept. 30, will total a record $1.75 trillion. A deficit at that level would nearly quadruple the previous record of $454.8 billion set last year.

To cover the government’s heavy borrowing needs, Congress in February boosted the limit for the national debt to $12.1 trillion as part of the legislation that enacted President Barack Obama‘s $787 billion economic stimulus program. The national debt now stands at $11.1 trillion.

Not the first time we’ve seen insane spending, as a 1934 Chicago Tribune cartoon would illustrate:

cartoon_chicago-tribune_1934

But FDR never dreamed of the MEGO numbers (“My Eyes Glaze Over”) that we are facing today.

What is it those little notes on the out-of-control wagon say?

“Depleting the resources of the soundest government in the world.”

“Spend! Spend! Spend – Under the guise of recovery.  Bust the government – blame the capitalists for the failure – junk the Constitution and decree a dictatorship. “

And the figure of Stalin says, “How red the sunrise is getting,” to denote the communist mindset that such levels of government spending and control over the economy entails.

Which is EXACTLY the Obama mindset today – right down to the “Young Punkies from Colombia and Harvard” Brain Trust.  And even the Russians and the Chinese have been urging us to stop this insane government spending binge.

The Tribune cartoon was drawn in 1934.  The Great Depression – in testament to the folly the artist was pointing out – would continue to drag on for years afterward.  FDR’s “solutions” didn’t solve the crisis; they prolonged the suffering.

Michael Boskin described the radical extent of the Obama socialist spending in The Wall Street Journal (the newspaper people are actually willing to buy):

It’s hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president’s policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis.

The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents — John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance — President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter’s higher taxes and Mr. Clinton’s draconian defense drawdown.

Mr. Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.

The argument that we need either massive government spending as a bulwark against a depression during periods of grave economic distress presents an entirely false dilemma. Reagan proved that positively, and FDR – who substantially prolonged the Great Depression with failed policies (and see here and here for more) – proved it negatively.

Many liberals stubbornly cling to the thesis that FDR’s policies brought America out of the Great Depression. And they can cite a boatload of leftist historians who have come to precisely that conclusion.

But I would submit that anyone taking that position must refute Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s VERY OWN TREASURY SECRETARY.

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong… somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” – Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 9, 1939

The unemployment rate for April of 1939 – the full month before Morgenthau spoke these words before the House Ways and Means Committee – was at 20.7% And while other nations had similarly gone through severe economic depressions during the 1930s, they recovered in less than half the time of the U.S. under FDR. “In most countries of the world recovery from the Great Depression began between late 1931 and early 1933.” But the American depression dragged on and on.

We are spending FAR TOO MUCH MONEY, and we’re spending it on the wrong things.  We are repeating the worst mistakes of the Great Depression, and are very likely doomed to repeat the consequences of our failure to learn the lessons of history.

Michael Boskin speaks of Obama’s shocking abandonment of defense spending.  I shall say this:

The fact of the matter is that ignoring defense spending was a hallmark of FDR, too.  In spite of the growing and building threat of both the Nazis and the Japanese Imperialists for YEARS, FDR spent massively on virtually everything BUT defense spending.  Which is why we were so woefully unprepared for hostilities following the Pearl Harbor sneak attack that inexcusably caught us completely off guard.

Getting back to Reagan, one is forced to only imagine how many American lives would have been saved if we’d had a Reagan rather than a socialist-spending FDR serving as President; and we’d gone into World War II with the mightiest military machine in the world rather than with the 2nd rate joke we were forced to begin with.

And thanks to Obama’s massive defense cuts one may be forced to wonder about how many lives we could have saved all over again as he slashes our military rather

In many ways, FDR and BHO are images of one another.  Both men were skilled politicians with great oratorical skills (providing Obama has a teleprompter, anyway).  Both men had never had a single success of their own in business.  And both had the completely wrong idea of what was wrong with the national economy, and what needed to be done to get it back on track.

The one difference is this: FDR foolishly caused America to REMAIN in the Great Depression by zealously pursuing failed policies; BHO will foolishly force America INTO the next Great Depression by zealously pursuing the SAME failed policies that never worked for FDR.