A PROGRESSIVE FUTURE

28 11 2012
Authored by William Robert Barber

Notably, the Republican Party after convincingly loosing the last two presidential elections while at the same time suffering declining representation in the Senate, conservatives needed to accept the Chief Justice’s outrageously grievous opinion that effectually sanctioned congress with unequivocally exceptional taxing powers. And in so doing certified ObamaCare as legitimate legislation, belittled the meaningfulness of federalism, and empowered an entitlement society. By invoking executive privilege (Operation Fast & Furious) and outright lying about the incident in Benghazi the president has run roughshod over congressional oversight-and got away with doing so. Despite the national debt, the high unemployment, the excessive government spending, the growing enormity of welfare and entitlement cost, the GOP not only could not replace the president, the party loss seats in the Senate, and although having retained a House majority the GOP have less members as a result of the recent election.

 The GOP presidential loss was particularly embarrassing because it was not obvious to Karl Rove. Imagine that! Now, if the lead-harbinger of the GOP forecasts victory along with the resident geniuses, Gingrich, Trump, and the governors of every swing state. But instead of victory Republican candidates realized ignominious defeat-obviously, there was either no superseding prevalence to vote for Romney, for the Republican agenda, or a combination of both.

 The erroneous predictions by those that are relied upon for accuracy have created a loss of faith not just in the present state of election-result malaise but the-loss-of faith-virus could infect the health of future Republican electorates. Faithfulness is a core-essential to political beliefs.

 Without the appearance of a strong believable Republican leader to reinvigorate the conservative movement apolitical apathy will dominate lending opportunity to the liberal progressive politicians.

 There are those that believe: That the concept of limited government is indefinitely deferred; one might be inclined to suggest that the liberal progressives’ social and political ideology has taken a solid turn to electorate acceptance. That Keynesian economics coupled with governing largeness and regulatory intervention dominates Washington. That capitalism, within a generation, will be solely a historical reference eclipsed by the progressive themes of equalitarianism and socialism. Lastly, what was once an American enterprise founded on the principles of existentialism is soon to be reconfigured so to comply with the rules and regulations of a bureaucratic autocratic-plutocracy masquerading as defenders of the middle-class and disenfranchised.

 Well, all of the preceding could come true if it was not for one absolute. President Obama’s agenda for “change we can believe in,” the progressive economic, social, governing agenda will not result in the private economy’s growth. And without economic growth no amount of regulation, taxation, government stimulus, social justice or wishful rhetoric will put the round into the square.

The progressives are emboldened by their election victory nevertheless winning an election and governing is the difference between night and day. For example: The actual liabilities of the federal government including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees’ future retirement benefits exceeds $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. The unfunded liability of Medicare was $42.8 trillion for Social Security $20.5 trillion.

Now if you have a goal of turning ObamaCare into a single-payer system, espousing guaranteed income, wealth distribution, and social justice, interjecting United Nations governance into U.S. foreign and domestic policies, instituting an open-border immigration strategy, and generally adhering to the whims of unions…then where is the time and energy for governing?

Hmm…well let’s see how their ideological theories lead the nation’s economy to exponential growth. But my bet Obama’s second term is on: “Celebrating loose morality, sustained titillation and a fascination with all things insalubrious.” 





CAREFUL, AMERICA, YOU’RE LOSING IT!

12 11 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

A liberal progressive’s basis of ideological belief is premised on one all-inclusive a-priori covenant of understanding. Although this comprehensive assumption is, in reality, nothing more than an academic thesis, a hypothesis, this covenant of understanding conveniently is also an idea liberated of empirical evidence, logical deduction, and quantitative application. Nevertheless, the progressives faithfully, if not fanatically, trust and accept as truthful that it is government that furnishes the systematic means to permit the entrepreneur to form capital surplus. In supplementary, progressives believe it is the State, its statutes and enforcement monopoly that creates the operating wherewithal for the few to establish financial success. Finally, the progressives boast it is the State apparatus that protects and preserves the entrepreneur’s assets from banditry. In other words, it is the State that originated the entrepreneur’s opportunity. It is the State that persistently nurtures and prudently monitors, in the interest of the entrepreneur, the very utilities required of the financially successful.  And it is the State at every worthy opportunity that promulgates the general thesis of capitalism and its spawn, “the free enterprise system.”

As a consequence the progressive reasoning follows that all wealth is attributed to the State.

What exactly is the State? I say, one definition of the State is:  An entity that lays claim to the monopoly of legitimate physical violence within certain confines. This limit of “certain confines” is proportional to the degree of the State’s unhindered execution of its physical power which in some situations is unlimited.

In the recent election the government of California endorsed a referendum wherein a certain segment of the population was penalized for earning an annual income of over $250,000, $500,000, and $1,000,000. This tax penalty was voted in the affirmative by the many who do not earn as much of an income. Now Governor Brown declared this fair but the very same governor declared that the populous were unfair and discriminatory when the majority voted against gay marriage. Of course with a super-majority in the legislature the governor no longer needs a referendum to secure all the tax dollars the unions desire.

Recently, the City of Chicago decided, since the court affirmed one’s right to bear arms, to excessively tax ammunition as a means to legitimize their authority. I am eager to measure the success of governing by the maxim “winner takes all,” versus the concept of pluralism.

Agitprop was one of the means the Democrats gained success in the recent election. Such displays of acrid disregard for the financially successful (defined as those earning $250,000 plus), the generators of employment, the odd millions of self-employed, and in general those that take capital risk have awakened the heretofore complacent to realize that for the Democrats and their brethren there will never be enough; the progressives are intransigence in their goal of hierarchical imposition upon those that have; they desire a power that is absolute, unconditioned, and henceforth above the law. The liberal progressives identify, monitor, enumerate, and confiscate through taxation the funds required to bank their ideal of fairness.

I now believe, prompted by a sense of self-preservation, amongst those that have more, a once dim percipience is emerging into a glow of distinctive awareness. The heterogeneousness richness of an ethnic America that insisted on an integrated and assimilated society has devolved into a division of participation wherein government sustenance is by some means supported by fewer and fewer worker bees. Noting that instead of cutting spending, government’s reaction is to tax those that have, print money, buy its own debt, and borrow from any and all that will lend. This is not a sustainable fiscal policy; nevertheless, in the interest of maintaining or attaining power, the Democrats divide, distort, malign, disfigure, and build a moral case that it is the responsibility of those that have to give more to those that have less.

I think it is time for those that have more to recognize that the coalescing of those that have less will always vote to take more and more and a little bit more from those who have more — the fiscal policy of those within the Democratic coalesce is unsustainable and their appetite for more is insatiable.   

 





VOX POPULI

8 11 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

 

In the words of Alexis de Tocqueville:  “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” 

 

As never before in American history the warning of De Tocqueville has been realized. This election plainly presented a classic exemplar, the quantitative consequence, of President Obama’s class warfare propaganda.  The ethnic minorities, the have-less, the welfare-dependent, the callow, the obsessive contrarians, the idealistically inclined, and the devoted liberal-progressives…  in essence an assortment of divergent special interest groups coalesced to defeat the candidate with the only viable political-economic alternative to the current economic malaise.

 

The Federal Reserve can and will print all the cash it deems necessary, congress will tax, nevertheless printing monies and increased taxation will not generate a fiscally viable economy. There are some financial-commercial realities that cannot be swept away by promises. Taxes and fees (all taxes and fees) are generated from the profits of commerce. Even those creative municipalities that feed off of total revenue instead of net profits can only successfully collect their monies if the particular private enterprise is profitable. 

 

President Obama’s second term will include the enthusiastic continuance of unions financing Democratic politicians, States with Democratic governors will excessively levy, budgetary problems of federal entitlements rhetorically regurgitated but not resolved, ObamaCare implemented at a price of fiscally disastrous effects and complications, statutorily compliant corruption will proliferate, the concept of central planning and green energy rewarded, as the constitutionally enshrined meaningfulness of federalism retrogrades into a meaningless historical-remnant.   

 

On the international front Russia and China will enthusiastically extend their influence, allies will exhibit anxiety, Iran ecstatic, Israel apprehensive; and Canada is wondering if the pipeline will ever go through.   

 

The president and his disciples will immediately focus on the next election with the ambition of returning the House to Democratic control. They will continue overtly and in Argot to personally demonize the Republican Party and its members. Obama’s Deus ex Machina magic requires his coterie of devotees to control all branches of government. By the midterm election the president must establish the means to execute the progressives’ egalitarian entitlement state and their brand of authoritarian statism.

 

The plenipotentiary ambitions of the Statist contested against those persons of conservative principles and limited government will almost immediately evolve into an indignant balkiness of will. A spectacular reminiscent of a televised Mexican Lucha Libre wherein stories of hair-pulling, spitting, and eye-gouging dominate the news media.

But no matter who does what to whom, socialism, progressivism, authoritarian statism, or a status of egalitarian entitlement will not displace the present economic malaise with the antitheses. Governmental largeness will always fail to deliver fiscal success and abate freedom from the within and the without. Obama and his progressives will, at great cost to Americans, follow the path of the entire socialists and progressives of the past — they will fail to deliver.





AND THE WINNER IS…?

2 11 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

Recently, a liberal leaning friend telephoned to tell me he was voting for Mitt Romney and the entire Republican ticket. My assumption is that if he was to vote for President Obama (as he did in 2008) then I would not be receiving that call; he was obviously looking for additional validation.

I responded to his declaration by explaining that I do not consider myself a Republican; instead, I consider myself a believer of conservative principles. I strongly asserted that because of my conservative principles I could never vote for the president. He said that he understood my perspective and went on to express a deep concern over the current deficit, emphasizing his befuddlement over the details relevant to the deficit but did ‘feel’ that the debt was not sustainable. And without catching his breath, he forcefully declared that he had lost faith in the president’s ability to manage not only the fiscal issues of the nation but also the political animus amongst the elected representatives of congress.

Of course my response was to whole-heartily agree with his analysis. We then asked ourselves: If we’re so right, how in the world of sane judgment is the president tied with Romney in this election?!?

The ultimate answer will be revealed on the morning of November 7; but  there are some speculative possibilities: A significant percentage of the citizenry have little to no interest in the contesting issues; others within the significant percentage have emotionally sided with the concept of government largeness, and/or have bought into the idea of taking from those that have more, after agreeing to pay the government’s intermediary fee – but knowing that they’re pocketing, or should I say appropriating the remainder.

If President Obama should get reelected obviously, clearly, and without a doubt such an outcome would evidence an apodictic negative indictment of the general appeal of the Republican Party. The indictment would include the rebuff of conservative principles and a definitive rejection of limited government as a meaningful alternative to today’s presence of unlimited government. An Obama reelection would be a tremendous victory as well as a ringing endorsement of the political-socioeconomic policy of liberal progressivism.  

It is beyond my comprehension and cognitive capacity as to the reasons any citizen would vote for President Obama considering his pitiful management thus far; but then, surely, this is how conservatives felt about Franklin D. Roosevelt’s second term of office…

Well, we are days away from the final discovery…