Alexander's Column

The Fiscal Bluff

The Jackass Caucus's 'Grecian Formula' for Economic Collapse

By Mark Alexander · Dec. 6, 2012
“The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife.” –Thomas Jefferson (1821)

Have you heard about this “fiscal cliff” thing – I mean have you heard ENOUGH about it?

Well, for 16 months I have dutifully avoided devoting any time and bandwidth to the tax increases and budget cuts scheduled for January 2, 2013, if Barack Hussein Obama fails to sign pre-emptive legislation. However, now that the dust has settled on Obama’s landslide 50.9 percent re-election and the status-quo reseating of Republican House and Democrat Senate majorities, it’s time to put Obama’s Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) “deal” into proper Patriot perspective.

In August of 2011, Obama signed this agreement into law in order to get a debt ceiling increase of $2.1 trillion. That in turn allowed him to borrow more money from the Red Chinese to fund his runaway socialist entitlement programs and bloated “stimulus spending” boondoggles – and, moreover, it allowed him to avoid default and another downgrade of U.S. credit.

In return for more spending ability, Obama agreed to caps on discretionary spending growth to “save” $950 billion over 10 years. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refer to those caps as “cuts.” He also agreed to establish a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (a.k.a. “super committee”) to implement another $1.5 trillion in “savings.” If, however, the super committee didn’t come to an agreement by November of 2011, Obama’s suggested sequestration trigger – automatic cuts to the budget of $1.2 trillion over the next decade – would commence on January 2, 2013. (To view mandatory versus discretionary spending, click here.)

Republicans passed the BCA hoping to slow down Obama’s “Grecian Formula” economic plan – his second-term strategy to break the back of free enterprise, crushing it under the weight of mounting taxes, regulations and debt, and ultimately, “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” into a collectivist state under the irrevocable dominance of his Socialist Democrat Party.

In his first term, Obama made significant progress toward that transformation. Much of his massive deficit spending was allocated for increased government employment. When Obama took office, federal, state and local government jobs were 33 percent of all employment. Government jobs now constitute 39 percent of all employment, and Obama wants to grow that number to more than 50 percent with additional “stimulus spending,” irrevocably socializing the American economy.

That dramatic and “fortuitous” drop in unemployment to 7.8 percent in September, which helped get Obama reelected, ticked down to 7.7 percent for November, but – I say BUT – it turns out that 73 percent of civilian jobs created in the past five months, are government jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Free enterprise, one of the foundational pillars of Liberty, is the nemesis of Obama’s transformational plan, as implicit in his “you didn’t build that” condemnation of entrepreneurship and his ridiculous assertion that “The private sector is doing fine,” but we need more spending to create “public sector” jobs.

Though the super committee arrived at no agreement on budget cuts to stave off sequestration in January, the Republican House recently passed an extension of the Bush tax cuts, again. (It’s the potential expiration of those cuts that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warned would constitute a “massive fiscal cliff.”)

However, Obama is holding the Bush tax cut extensions hostage, calling his class warfare “tax the rich” rhetoric “a balanced, responsible approach to deficit reduction” and using it as a smoke screen to obfuscate his real agenda – avoiding the third rail of American politics, “entitlement reforms,” and any substantive spending reductions.

What Obama did not say about his tax plans, former Democratic National Committee chief, “Screamin'” Howard Dean, said for him this week: “[T]he truth is everybody needs to pay more taxes, not just the rich. [W]e’re not going to get out of this deficit problem unless we raise taxes across the board, to go back to what Bill Clinton had and his taxes.”

Heeding the advice of his former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, Obama will not allow this fiscal crisis to “go to waste,” assuring Republicans he will use his Leftmedia soap box to blame House Republicans for the consequences of sequestration, especially expiration of tax cuts for all Americans. However, that case might be difficult to make given that Dean, who chaired the DNC for Obama’s election (‘05-'09), has called for a return to the Clinton tax rates.

The Democrats insist that if Republicans don’t concede to Obama’s demand to raise taxes on higher incomes (meaning Obama will not sign the House-passed tax extension for all Americans), that retiring all tax bracket to the high Clinton rates and the sequestration budget cuts may put the economy back into recession. But it is Obama who has to contend with those consequences because the bill is in his court.

Sidebar: As for the Demos’ assertion that the economy is no longer in recession, I suggest they take that up with the 23 million unemployed or underemployed Americans, those who have simply given up looking for work, and the tens of millions more who are working, but haven’t received pay increases in years to keep up with inflation.

Most Americans who aren’t among those enslaved on ObamaNation Plantations understand how budgets work, and for a good illustration of what would happen if families handled finances like Obama, Click Here.

So what are Obama’s positions on debt and taxation?

You already know that Obama is a disingenuous socialist charlatan, whose constituencies overlook his colossal character flaws in return for redistributed wealth. They like it when he gives them other people’s money, but in the inimitable words of former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, “Socialist governments … always run out of other people’s money. They then start to nationalize everything.”

On the record, regarding the bloating national debt, in 2006 then-Senator Obama wagged that Clintonesque finger at President Bush, declaring: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

Obama was against raising the debt ceiling and “shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren” before he was for it.

In 2008, then-candidate Obama criticized Bush for adding $4 trillion to the national debt, which most Republicans and Democrats did in an effort to avoid collapse of the U.S. banking system. Obama insisted, “The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents – number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back – $30,000 for every man, woman and child. … That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

Obama was against “taking out a credit card from the Bank of China” before he was for it.

Obama would later conclude, “This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy,” and “interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans – a debt tax that Washington doesn’t want to talk about.”

Indeed it is.

Now that Obama has added $5 trillion to our national debt in his first term, and is now bidding to double that, one might fairly deduce, “That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

On raising taxes, in 2009 Obama declared, “The last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession, because that would just suck up, take more demand out of the economy and put businesses in a further hole. … You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.”

Obama was against “raising taxes in the middle of a recession” before he was for it.

On limiting deductions like charitable giving to raise revenues, he insisted, “There’s very little evidence that this has a significant impact on charitable giving. I’ll tell you what has a significant impact on charitable giving, is a financial crisis and an economy that’s contracting. And so the most important thing that I can do for charitable giving is to fix the economy, to get banks lending again, to get businesses opening their doors again, to get people back to work again.”

Obama was for “limiting charitable giving” deductions before he was against it.

So what is Obama’s latest proposal?

He doubled his original $800 billion tax increase – mostly on the “two percent,” which recently doubled from the “one percent of wealthiest Americans” he used to reference. That $1.6 trillion is on top of the $1 trillion ObamaCare tax hike already on the way for all Americans. Most of Obama’s targeted “two percent” are not the rich and famous, but small business entrepreneurs operating S-Corps – like The Patriot Post – which employ 55 percent of all working Americans. (Did I mention that free enterprise is the nemesis of Obama’s “transformational plan”?)

On top of his double-down on taxes, Obama is proposing more stimulus spending, and the real non-starter – he wants to delay further talk of cuts until sometime in the future.

What a deal! He offered a fiscal bluff to avoid the fiscal cliff, but claims he is “not playing those games anymore.”

Obama’s bluff is so absurd that Harry Reid will not allow a Senate vote on it – worried that anyone on the Left will pay a political price for supporting such nonsense.

Speaker John Boehner’s response: “You can’t be serious,” which is precisely what I said of Boehner’s counteroffer, minus a redacted modifier for the word “serious.”

Of course, now that Boehner responded by offering major limitations on deductions (tantamount to a massive tax increase without calling it that), Obama has declined, saying, “If you eliminated charitable deductions, that means every … not-for-profit agency across the country would suddenly find themselves on the verge of collapse.”

There is no negotiation here. This is the behavior of a dictatorial narcissist, not a statesman. As a friend in the Senate said to me privately just before the election, “Every meeting I have had with Obama, his approach is ‘my way or highway.’”

Indeed, as I wrote in “The Right Road Forward” after the presidential election, “I can assure you that Obama will proceed as if he won every vote in America, not the razor-thin majority that reseated him.”

So where do we go from here?

Let’s start with a few words from Ronald Reagan: “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem. … Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. 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. If it stops moving, subsidize it. … The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.”

Republicans are considering a “Doomsday Plan” of some sort if talks fail. That’s probably a euphemism for capitulation. Unfortunately, House and Senate Republicans are not led by the large class of “Tea Party” conservatives that arrived in 2010. They are still under the leadership of two men who have clearly contracted chronic cases of Potomac Fever after years of drinking Beltway Kool-Aid – Sen. Mitch McConnell and Speaker John Boehner. There are Republicans in the Senate who have a spine, and Republicans in the House who are sober.

Here is my recommended doomsday plan.

The House has attempted in good faith to negotiate with Obama, much as a servant negotiates with his master, and with as much success. Thus, fire the House bill to extend the Bush tax cuts at Obama’s fiscal bluff, put it in overdrive and set it on cruise control, then leave town.

Only Obama can sign legislation into law, or decline to do the same. If he fails to sign the tax extensions for all Americans, he will ultimately be responsible for the consequences.

Of course I think BO is playing to win either way, and frankly wants to go over the cliff. Then he will get military cut backs he could never get otherwise, and put his class warfare rhetoric in high gear, blaming Republicans for the tax increase on everyone, and framing the 2014 congressional elections on reducing taxes for the middle class. If the sequester and tax increases do result in a deeper economic recession, Obama can go after additional “stimulus” for his state and local public service union constituency, and do it under an emergency declaration for raising the debt ceiling.

The Jackass Caucus

In the process he will continue to add debt to the current $16 trillion, and the couple trillion dollars in cuts to growth over 10 years, which is now on the table, isn’t going to heal that fiscal hemorrhage.

Moreover – pay attention class – the real debt problem is not the $16 trillion, it’s “off-book liabilities” such as publicly issued Treasury debt, government employee pensions and retirement benefits, and unfunded liabilities including Medicare and Social Security. That debt now exceeds $86.8 trillion, or more than five times GDP.

That is the debt which the Romney-Ryan ticket proposed to address, and would be addressing right now if Romney’s Republican handlers had fully engaged grassroots Americans.

To that end, the ever-erudite Charles Krauthammer advised, “Republicans must stop acting like supplicants. If Obama so loves those Clinton rates, Republicans should say: Then go over the cliff and have them all. If you want a Grand Bargain, then deal. Otherwise, strap on your parachute, Mr. President. We’ll ride down together.”

Likewise, Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel conclude, “Congress should leap off anyway. At a full run. Face first. Yes, it’s a scary prospect. But not as scary as the alternatives.”

Newt Gingrich, who has a bit of experience as a real House Leader, advised, “House Republicans [need to] get a grip. They are the majority. They’re not the minority. They don’t need to cave in to Obama; they don’t need to form a ‘Surrender Caucus.’ So my number one bit of advice to the congressional Republicans is simple: Back out of all of this negotiating with Obama. The president is overwhelmingly dominant in the news media. [If] you start setting up the definition of success [as] finding an agreement with Obama, you just gave Obama the ability to say to you, ‘Not good enough.’”

Obama will also have to deal with the consequences of cuts.

The Department of Defense is targeted for 49.5 percent of total cuts next year – though the DoD budget amounts to only 17 percent of spending. Ironically, defense spending is actually authorized by our Constitution, whereas entitlement spending and most other discretionary spending has no basis in Rule of Law.

As for the probability that the economy will sink deeper into recession, on Obama’s watch, we already have “record spending on welfare” – households considered impoverished have grown to one in six and there are 48 million food stamp recipients, which is up 50 percent since Obama took office in 2009. Median household income declined by $4,520 (8.2 percent) during his first term, and that’s the real “Obama tax.” And ObamaCare taxes and regulations are about to kick in.

Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell, your response to this crisis should not be determined by media polls or campaign calculations, it must be determined solely on “your solemn oath” to uphold our Constitution and the “Rule of Law” it enshrines. Short of restoring the integrity of our Constitution by way of abiding with its limitations on the central government, we are no longer a constitutional republic. It is time Republicans conduct yourselves like Patriots and represent the best interests of your countrymen.

Boehner and McConnell, put the right offer on the table, round up your majority and leave town on an alternate route to the Obama freeway. C.S. Lewis wrote, “The safest road to Hell is the gradual one – the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.” Obama’s road “Forward” is most assuredly a highway to Hell.

References and Resources:

If you want to earn your Ph.D. in Fiscal Cliffhanging, you can learn more from our colleagues at Heritage Foundation.

Another of my colleagues, economist Thomas Sowell, in his “Fiscal Cliff Notes,” separates fact from fiction. On Obama’s faux rhetoric about the need for tax increases, he notes that as was the case when Ronald Reagan reduced tax rates, “tax revenues went up – not down – after tax rates were cut during the Bush administration, and the budget deficit declined, year after year, after the cut in tax rates.” Obama, of course, keeps blaming these tax reductions for his runaways deficits and debt. (Indeed, this is the confusion of Obama’s own Council of Economic Advisers.)

See the U.S. Debt Clock.

View all comments


Gerry Hazzard in New Jersey said:

I have been paying into Social Security my entire working life. I don't consider it an entitlement. I consider it something I own. For folks who have not put into it it is an entitlement. Perhaps it could be "fixed" by excluding from entitlement those who themselves or whose spuses have not contributed?

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 12:50 PM

MNIce in Minnesota replied:

Unfortunately, there is no legal obligation on the part of the Federal government to give you any Social Security payments. The Supreme Court long ago ruled that FICA taxes are "irretrievably mingled" with other Treasury revenues, and there is no account in your name with money waiting for your retirement. That money was spent the instant it reached Washington. It went to buy the votes of welfare recipients, highway users, university administrators and their constituents, government grantees and contractors, labor unions, etc.

The Supreme Court also observed that continuing Social Security payments is at the discretion of Congress - Congress can change the amount or eliminate payments at any time. Democrat politicians use this fact to scare retired voters into toeing the line and preventing any serious attempts to reform the system - they always claim any attempt to free the people from the shackles of government-controlled retirement will result in present payments being cut off.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 2:51 PM

enemaofthestatistquo in Monroe, GA replied:

heads will roll, literally.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 7:10 PM

BKlipfel in Northwest Arkansas replied:

In truth, even had congress NOT raided the social security fund, you would not be entitled to the money you paid in. Under the the original social security act, the money YOU paid in is used to pay the people that retired BEFORE you. Even had congress NEVER touched this money, your benefits depend on the next YOUNGER generation paying into the system. The game was rigged from the very start.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 11:50 PM

BKlipfel in Northwest Arkansas replied:

Sorry, the above reply linked to the wrong comment. Ain't technology wunnerful?

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Robert J. Butcher in Homewood Il replied:

If you collect Social Security for more than 4 years as I have then it is no longer yours but your children's that you are receiving. If you don't believe me check with any actuary.

Monday, December 10, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Al C in Las Vegas, Nevada said:

Barack H. Obama was neither selected for nor did he accept his current position to enhance the stability ,morality or beauty of this wonderful nation. What does he really care about the "fiscal cliff" or any other consequence? He, his wife and his crew of czars lowered the bar ,but got what they wanted and will live "happily ever after"

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Greg Johnson in Beaver, PA said:

I have paid into Social Security for 40+ years, Social Security is NOT an entitlement. I am a staunch Republican and Patriot, but the GOP needs to back away from Social Security cuts or there will be an overwhelming victory by the Democrats in both houses in 2014.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 1:02 PM

WP in Omaha, NE replied:

Actually Social Security is not owed to you whether you choose to believe that or not. I believe there was a Supreme Court decision that essentially says the government owes you nothing for all the money you have sent into SS. Let's face it though; did you really think there was going to be any other outcome when dealing with the Devil... er... Federal Government?

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM

enemaofthestatistquo in Monroe, GA replied:

heads will roll, literally.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Nelson Whipple in Charlotte, NC replied:

Evidently you are a believer in the LIE of the liberals that Republicans wish to cut your SS payments. Not so,. SS requires a fix for the years ahead or it will disappear altogerther.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 4:48 PM

BKlipfel in Northwest Arkansas replied:

In truth, even had congress NOT raided the social security fund, you would not be entitled to the money you paid in. Under the the original social security act, the money YOU paid in is used to pay the people that retired BEFORE you. Even had congress NEVER touched this money, your benefits depend on the next YOUNGER generation paying into the system. The game was rigged from the very start.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 11:52 PM

Daryn in New York City replied:

Social Security is most certainly an entitlement paid for by kids working now who will find an empty pot when they finally reach retirement age. No matter how much you had confiscated from your salary over the years for that "fund", it doesn't exist; it was spent long ago. And even if it wasn't, you didn't pay in nearly the amount that you get back. I paid in all my life and I'd give it up in a second IF I could be guaranteed that all entitlements will be abolished. I want to live in a free country.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 4:00 PM

David Roberts in Tomball said:

As Pat Buchanan said, the house should simply pass a bill to extend the Bush tax cuts and send it to the Senate. It will then fall on Reid and the genius to pass it or not. The monkey is then squarely on their backs. Or, more aptly, they are the monkeys............

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Henry in Illinois replied:

Very well put Mr.David Roberts as per your quote of Pat Buchanan's statement(s). But the only problem is that little Johney Boehner does NOT have the courage to do that because like the rest of the RINOS in the House and the Senate are worried MORE about their re-election than what is good for America. And until we change the Republican leadership, there will be no change.With all the power that the Republicans in the House possess, to me shows that they are either incompetent or afraid of the "community organizer" for fear of being called racist.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 2:23 PM

American Rifleman in McKeesport,PA.15132 said:

According to the 2012 general election results,my opinion,and those of your readers,have little affect on those twits still waiting for free ice cream.
The bamer backers never read your excelant journals.So my opinion,is like preaching to the choir.
We need to work on that cow. Forget ice cream.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 1:08 PM

G K in Carlsbad said:

Both Parties are tap dancing all around the “fiscal cliff” trying to maneuver blame for the inevitable economic train wreck on the other Party. Why can’t they be realistic? No matter what “compromise” is finally made, the “train wreck” will happen and each Party and their media shills will blame the other Party. That’s the way it always works. So I suggest Congress simply do the right thing: Don’t raise taxes – just close loopholes and trim spending.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Travis Moore in TX said:

Great article. Unfortunately an accurate depiction of the current state of affairs in our country.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 1:11 PM

American Rifleman in McKeesport,PA.15132 said:

Again,showing all those pretty grafs,are only viewed by the fiscal conservatives,who subscribe to The Patriot Post,U.S.
We need to work on that farm,that raises that cow.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Jerry O'Donnell in East Syracuse said:

STOP Obama's spending. Pass a budget with necessary spending and cuts only to avoid default. DO Not fund Obama Carde.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 1:13 PM

William Fritz in Naples, Florida said:

Although I am a staunch conservative, I believe the Republicans should submit a plan to keep the Bush tax cuts on all earned income under $250,000 at 35%, and have an increase of 1% more for earned income over $250k and under $500k, then 2% over $500k to $750k, then 3% from 750k to $1 million, and 4% for over $1 million, for a max of 39%. Also, for capital gains, use a similar scale, keeping the 15% for up to $250k, then adding as above up to max of 19%. This would give the dems what they want, taxing the "rich", and still keep the lower income earners at the present rates. Then the dems would not have the ability to say "you Republicans are just for the rich", and the so-called rich should be happy to pay the small increments shown above. This is a "real" compromise, not a fake one.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Jerry O'Donnell in East Syracuse replied:

The problem with your solution is that the rich don't have earned income. Most of their income is in the form of Interest & dividends. If you tax interest & dividends heavily you hurt too many retired people who live on Social securioty plus interesrt & dividends

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 2:51 PM

greg d in colorado said:

Im all for taxing the crap out of the rich--tax them hard. I also think a flat tax rate on the rest is fair. Dont touch my medicare or social security Iv worked hard for that entitlements my ass !!

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 1:19 PM

MNIce in Minnesota replied:

You, sir, are part of the problem. You are what Rush Limbaugh calls a "low-information voter." First, the rich are already taxed very hard. 70% of federal tax revenue comes from the top 10% of the earners. You do not understand the role of concentrated wealth in a free economy. It takes concentrated wealth to start, buy or expand a business. Many people depend on the wealthy for employment. For example, landscaping and lawn care small businesses provide their services primarily to wealthy landlords and owners of large residential properties. If you tax the wealth away, those smaller jobs go away with it.

Nor will it help the government significantly. If you put a 100% tax on every penny earned over $250,000, the government would only have enough to run for eight more days. But the loss of the ability to invest in private enterprise would cost the government many times that amount in revenue within a year.

I am sorry you lost so much of your hard-earned money to the Federal government. Had you been able to invest it yourself in the private capital market at a mere 3% average annual rate of return (a bit over half what any decent mutual fund gets), you would have plenty of funds for a comfortable annuity plus a sizable reserve for medical expenses. But no, the government had to take it so your vote can be held hostage to their miserly payouts. Don't force your children and grandchildren into the same scam.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 3:05 PM

NK in Sacramento replied:

Come now all, we've decided to finance the worlds wars and rebuilding of the defeated until we are the needy and they are the producers..Stop defense growth with their $1000.00 hammers and contractor buddies(I mean campaign contributors). Stop paying milicias to do our bidding.We all know this government is so bloated that we can't even afford to hire a gardner. Believe me the rich will still need the gardners for their golf courses

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Robert J. Butcher in Homewood Il replied:

Well put, I would only like to add that if you don't want to fix medicare and social security then you MUST hate your children and grandchildren and I don't so if I have to sacrifice a little now for their sake so be it.

Monday, December 10, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Julie L in Vista replied:

I am all for " The rich" also "your employer" laying your ignorant ass off! Replace the vengeance crowd with honest and hard-working Republicans! I bet business would boom!

Friday, December 7, 2012 at 4:48 AM

Charles A Berridge in OCEANSIDE said:

About 20 years ago, I wrote to the RNC chair, that there was no difference between Dem. and Repub. behavior and effective policy. I got an empty meaningless response. The RNC is a gutless entity, witness Boehner's peformance before and since the election. It almost literally sickens me when I listen to the still empty and meaningless rhetoric coming out of the Republican leadership in the Congress. All of the commentary offered by the Patriot Post makes sense, as does much of that offered by conservative radio hosts, but none of it has any effect on where it matters, i.e., the Congress and the Presidency. I think we are rapidly descending into the abyss.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 1:19 PM

NK in Sacramento replied:

off with their heads

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Mac G. in Rocky Mount, NC said:

It indeed makes me sad that most of the people who voted for Obama's re-election have no concept of how more revenue is generated by lowering, not raising tax rates. We are in the fight of our lives, and we must win if our nation is to survive.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Gerald Smith in Evansville, IN said:

I think Obama is shy a few cards of a full deck like all the megalomaniacs who have come before him. He is willing to destroy everything for his marxist ideology even though it has been tried many times and failed each time. I once heard Ed Asner say that communism hasn't succeeded because it's never been given a fair chance. The mindset of these people is both loony and dangerous. There are now 150 million Americans on some form of entitlement and growing every day per Obama's plan. With that in mind it is small wonder that he won the election. The Grand Experiement as one of the Founding Fathers called our republic might be over.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 1:24 PM

enemaofthestatistquo in Monroe, GA replied:

What is ironic about Ed Asner's comment is that Free Enterprise Capitalism has never truly been tried without impediments, regulations, you know given a "fair chance". But in the Western democracies during th1700's until today, even bound and shackled like Hannibal Lecter being transported- tied hand and foot and muzzled- the world uncluding those 3rd world countries under dictatorial rule have felt the positive effects of the Free Markets of Capitalism, higher standards of living, better medical care, increased lifespans, less famine, actual fabricated housing, etc. etc. But Forward over the cliff we go.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Jim - Agoura in California said:

Mr. Alexander,
I have sent the following message to both GOP leaders in Congress, Mr. McConnell and Mr. Boehner:
I am sure that you know the relationship of Federal tax rate increases and Federal revenues.

It is time for the Republican party to stand up to the Admin lies about "tax the rich" to solve our problems.

Please publish this editorial by Thomas Sowell to all members of Congress and to the media that might print it::

Also, here is a link to an editorial by Dr. Walter E. Williams that clearly indicts Congress regarding uncontrolled spending:

Please use your position and influence to make this information and associated challenges known at the top levels of the Republican party and the nation as a whole. You owe us this effort.

Thank you,
The USA needs a grassroots call to ALL members of Congress to STOP the spending AND educate the people about the inverse relationship of taxation by Washington and Federal revenue.

If the real issue is Federal revenue, the "public servants" that work for us need to do the right things to benefit us all.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 1:24 PM

NK in Sacramento replied:

Hear! Hear! you are the man..I can't afford to pay for three government employees, and a secretary and limo driver

Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 7:54 PM