THE TRUTH OF IT

22 10 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

The methodology of achieving dynamic governmental growth sponsored and applied by this country’s congresses and executive leadership, particularly after the Civil War and on to the early progressive era of 1900 could not have linked nor anticipated the fiscal calamity of 2008-2012 to its progressive political indoctrination and implementation. During this “golden age of progressive thought” there were no concerns amongst the populous that the federal government was exceeding its constitutional mandate, no one was worried that the feds would spend excessively more than the tax revenue provided, nor did anyone note the disproportional erosion of individual liberty and freedom as the power of the federal government exponentially grew upon acquiring the right to tax its citizenry.  

Indeed the discussions amongst the years 1910-1913 that led to the 16th amendment were considered (by the progressives & a large percentage of the population) the appropriate fiscal vehicle; the fair and equitable pecuniary means for which to extend the federal government’s income. This federal need for income was explained as “funds necessary to enact those certain (promised by the elected) programs, departments, and agencies that would benefit the average American”. No one anticipated that the right to tax individual Americans would convolute into the multitude of corrupted influences that would result in empowering the federal government into a jurisprudentially approved presence of omnipotent coercive dominance on every individual American not only in America but on every American throughout the world.  

In order for our federal government to arrive at its present berth of enigmatic bureaucratic complexities, wherein laws are nothing less than vague and confounding perplexities where a congress full of disingenuous representatives are so caught up in the interest of projecting their own rancorous ideological persuasion that the business of the nation is set aside as a collateral eventual. Therefore the business of governing is delegated to retained attorneys, unelected staff, and ideological acolytes who, aside from direct obedience to orders, imply their own selections and expressions of rightfulness into the rules and regulations of legislative enactments. It is therefore understood that inherent to the congressional process which includes the passing of legislation no one understands, is the handing off of endorsed laws of the land to an unelected public employee union protected officialdom of civil servants.  

The willingness of the elected, often with the blessings of their constituency, to accept a heavily leveraged debt on future tax revenue requires decades of not simply imprudent legislation or the simple disregard of the sagacious in favor of expedited contrivance. Nor is this nation’s fiscal disposition the fault of political connivance for some special interest, oh no, the corruption is much deeper and broader in scope than that simplistic an answer.  

Most disconcertingly the fault that forms the basis for this nation’s present fiscal disposition lies within the quality of its national leaders. It is the leadership — or should I enunciate the lack of leadership — that has eroded conventional American values. Leaders, instead of accepting the realities of truthful disclosure (to the people as well as to themselves) have fabricated a surrealistic response to national problems in hopes of retaining or attaining elected office and to facilitate those allied brethren who would benefit from such political tomfoolery.

A significant portion of the populous has purposefully (documented by willful actions) abandoned direct responsibility for their actions in favor of governmental sureties of sustaining guarantees. They have discarded traditional virtues for the convenience of the now. An increasing portion of the electorate has been convinced to morally forsaken outcomes, consequences, and the eventual finality of reality by applying the reassuring habitual of amoral stupefaction.    

No greater example of such non-leadership is the Obama-Bidden administration… the only responsibility they agree to accept is the responsibility of governing for the next four years. Do we conservatives, moderates, and even fair-minded liberals really want four more years of the Obama-Bidden brand of leadership? I think NOT.

The government can easily hide, rearrange, and disfigure data and statistics; the government can print money and tax every American for anything it wishes. The president can lie to the American people; he can coach the Secretary of State and the head of national intelligence to fault themselves for the distortions of facts in Libya… But this president cannot fool all the people all of the time. The evidence of all my contentions and assertions will be vindicated or not upon election night…

Advertisements




THE OBAMA BELIEVABILITY CRISIS

19 09 2011

Authored by William R. Barber

President Obama’s most recent rendition or brand of progressive socialism intended for injection into the American system of governess is not gaining popularity amongst the electorate. Specifically, he needs to convince the so called “swayable ideologically pliable independents” to accept this half-a-stimulus as the solution to this country’s economic malaise. In order to gain such acceptance he will need to enhance his present economic jobs policy with Republican principles. But he just cannot force his left hand to grasp that notion into affirmation.

I believe Obama is in the throes of a self-made dilemma; no matter which direction he turns the effect will have the same result.

Nevertheless and respectful of his failures as president, in relationship to the 2012 elections, the Republicans must get through the primary without drawing more blood from the faithful. Accusations delivered by fellow conservatives that bring into play social or religious issues, only arsenals, bullets, and grenades to the Obama camp; if such collateral to the central issues of tax reform, national GDP growth, cutting the deficit, and substantially reducing government spending does not take center stage the Republican candidate that will NOT decisively trounce Obama.

There is a strong conservative principled wind building up in this nation state; the young, the old, the naïve, and the hip, all are sobering up. All are recognizing this nation’s fiscal fix as a huge issue, a monstrous problem that must be firmly addressed. Everyone but the dire hearted progressives believe that government action is not the answer when the question is how to stimulate jobs and provide prudent fiscal responsibility. Indeed, Ronald Regan’s “government is the problem” has resonated anew as a validated political truth.

The Democrats’ policy mantras since FDR have always been the repetitive: tax and spend, overwhelm private enterprise with administrative-bureaucratic nonsense, regulate-regulate, at every opportunity scoff the very people that are financially successful, and scurrilously attack private corporations for making too much money as if such was a moral crime.

Lenin would be very pleased to hear the president’s bombastic endorsement and day-to-day critic of America’s obvious and prevalent unfairness. In the mind of the liberal progressive, Obama being the hero-protagonist, America has by purposeful neglect (turning a blind eye) and a willful tax-policy of enriching the rich enacted a tiered inequitable playing field that results in the enabling of social injustice. The Obama domestic doctrine is founded on class warfare and in the name of enabling fairness and social justice he wages this war with weapons of income redistribution schemes and in effect pro-union affirmative action.

Interestingly, according to Obama it is not the American people that are to blame for all of these detriments to society; factually, Obama suggests, even the Republican Party is only in part responsible. The blame for America’s societal disregard is squared directly on the Tea Party activists. Progressives want to believe that these Tea Party provocateurs of social injustice have signed a secret alliance with the far-right and neo-fascists ideologues. The mission of this hypothetical alliance is to rid the country of all welfare programs, social security, Medicare, government designed fiscal safety nets, and unions. The motivation of this alliance is racist in scope, Christian evangelistic exclusive, and xenophobic in character.

Well, I left out some blame set aside for former President Bush; of course Obama does realize that without Bush and the Arizona Senator there would be no Obama presidency.

I wonder how Obama’s and Biden’s investment in green energy is doing???





I WILL TAX THE RICH VOTE FOR ME

25 04 2011

Authored by William Robert Barber

So, according to Obama, if we increase the tax to those that earn $250,000 or more a year the deficit will notably abate. Of course Obama is not explicit in this presumption he only implies that taxing the rich “a little more” will notably abate the deficit. On-its-merits this Obama tax-a-little-more proposal is contentious and the conservatives do have a viable alternative. Just as one looks both ways when crossing the street, in the interest of prudence, contemplation is reasonable. Certainly, to endorse such a proposition, simply on the presumptive scaffold that taxing the rich will notably abate the deficit, requires more methodologically applied scrutiny than Obama’s campaign motivated rhetorical declarations.

Obama acts as if there was no viable counter-argument. Is it that the conservative’s emphasis on excessive government spending is actually on target?

I have noticed that whether the economy is good or bad, federal and state governments, waste taxpayer monies. With purposeful intent (motivated by trying to win office or to stay in office) politicians broaden old entitlements and at every opportunity creates new ones. The elected, mostly, Democratic pay explicit homage to unions; just take a peek at state pension obligations; I do believe that spending is the true basis of our deficit? Or is the Obama tax-the-rich proposal more an appeal to those who pay no federal income taxes to vote the status quo. Possibly this tax the rich scheme is nothing less than an offer to purchase votes in the upcoming 2012 election rather than a genuine proposal to decrease the deficit? Imagine a politician acting to better the odds of winning an election as a reason to act?

But then, one must appreciate that for Obama and his confederates within the progressive league, their real intention has nominal to do with deficit abatement and a great deal to do with servicing their agenda of social-justice. Indeed, once this tax-the-rich plan is implemented and thereafter (years later) analyzed for effectiveness even if the legislation had no effect on the deficit. The progressive ideal of fairness will have triumphed. And most importantly for Obama a progressive ideal has been in-placed.

The marketing of progressive persuasion is purposefully premised on invoking class-struggle onto the talking-points of electoral persuasion; the idea is to tie their political aspirations into an alignment with moral righteousness. After all (the Obama progressives deceptively preach) the poor and disenfranchised have no power; as Obama has pointed out they have no lobbyist to express their frustrations. It is therefore the obligation of Obama and his progressives to represent their interest. Now where have we heard this plea for the poor people before? Lenin comes to mind.

I do find it interesting that political leaders never advocate for the rich and the privileged although all of these leaders are rich and privileged. Inclusive to these pleas for those who have less every political leader throughout the 1900 hundreds up to the present have declared that the poor are poorer and the middle class is economically stymied. Naturally, what follows is the popular declaration that they will rectify this injustice as a matter of policy. This rectifying of injustice has been a politically enriched constant of Republican as well as Democratic leaders for a very long-time. Has no political party or political leader made progress in this endeavor to rectify this supposed clear injustice? Or is this rectifying of mostly economic injustice simply a popular campaign issue?

Obviously, withstanding whether this issue is real or imaginary, the politicians love the issue so much both political parties have used it. Of course Obama and his progressives have a particular infinity for the concept of the rich getting richer and the poor poorer. Without it they would have no social injustice to rectify. Hmm… that could drastically change their political crusade to emancipate the downtrodden from under the thumb of the rich and powerful.

Over the years I have heard the adage: We always get the government we deserve. I now believe this adage to be a truism. The forces of bonne chance aligned with the failures of President Bush’s administration, Secretary Paulson’s response to the financial crisis, the Bush endorsement to fund the car companies, as well as, their unions. And bingo President Obama was voted into power. The anemically pathetic campaign of the senator from Arizona also made a significant contribution to Obama’s victory.

Well, respective of the serendipitous outcome of the community organizer’s 2008 election, by November of 2011 the voters will truly understand the meaningfulness of what a vote for Obama means. If he wins this time, big government, ObamaCare, and most likely another liberal Supreme Court justice appointment is a definite. Conservatives will lose big time; we just cannot let that happen…





WHAT ARE THESE DEMOCRATS DOING?

23 02 2011

Authored by William Robert Barber

I really want to pick on these Democratic politicians who just cannot get it into their brain housing group that they are on the losing end of a very material issue.

The issue of material concern consists of two separates that have a symbiotic connection: The first is the excessive cost of governing; the other are the public employee unions and their utility of collective bargaining as such pertains to satisfying the requirements of a balanced budget.

The gross federal & state taxable revenue has recently taken a negative downturn; the result of which has been an unrestricted exposé, a pictorially delivered rendering as to the bona fide cost of governing for all to review. The sequence of such a review is the immediate conjecture that the day-to-day, year-to-year cost of governing exceeds tax and fee income. The audit deduction deduces the fact that union expenditures in the form of salaries, benefits, and pensions are not only unsustainable but illogical. The lawful utility of collective bargaining by unions has handicapped negotiating by local and state governments to the point where unions have actually usurped the meaningfulness of elections. They limited the sensible ability of state/local government to lower operational cost to a nonoperational degree. Unions have had the effect of disenfranchising the duly elected from the implementation of prudent governing willfulness. They have purposefully intervened in the affairs of governing to such an extent, impairment is a discussed recourse.

The camouflaging or concealment of governmental liabilities has been hidden from first sight by politicians of both parties rather efficiently. That is until the Obama administration’s insatiable spending appetite forced a second look. Reality is that it was Obama and his socialist tendencies coupled with his progressive political beliefs that provided the most significant contribution to the conservative cause of limited government. It is not to say that President Bush and his republican majority did not try to throw taxpayer funds into the fire of the outrageous and stupid; but, unlike Obama, Bush failed to incite the conservative base. President Obama did manage to agitate the public; of course, the outrage was prompted by trillions of (investments?) spending dollars into governmental silliness.

The single goal of leadership is to be right; President Obama and his acolytes were wrong on way too many policies. It was Obama’s team that predicated unemployment would not pass the 8% mark as a precondition to passing the stimulus bill.

For decades, federal, state, and county public employee unions have bullied, cajoled, and negatively impacted their (fellow citizen) employers; they have challenged the ‘right to work’ environment and lost the contest. In the election of 2008 they elected Obama and a whole host of liberal progressives; they captured an overwhelming majority in the legislative branch of government. Nevertheless, by 2010 they lost the House of Representatives to the conservatives; they were befuddled and regressed into the explanation that unemployment numbers were simply too high as the reasoning of their shellacking.

Well, unemployment numbers were and are high because their policies do not work. Now they are doubling up on endorsing public employee unions; even Obama traversed into the fray with his concern that public employee unions are being illegitimately assaulted by Governor Walker.

Here is the fact: Democrats are lost in the desert of “once upon a time.” They are searching for the progressive promised land. But not only is Obama not Moses; he is caught between the purgatory of supporting business and limiting the growth of government, a workable policy or advocating a liberal progressive agenda that he knows will not create jobs nor raise taxable revenue. If he wants a political future he must swing to the right… but he just can’t do it.





BUSH HAS PERSEVERED

12 12 2010

Authored by William Robert Barber

We have most recently have been presented with a bipartisan legislative deal: the Obama-McConnell compromise. The liberal progressives are furious, the Republican leadership proud, Jim DeMint disappointed, and Charles Krauthammer appreciative for the column fodder.

As if a protagonist starring in a role written, directed, and produced by his own hand, Obama was in belligerent form when televising his success with the opposition. Calling his compromise partners “hostage takers” while scurrilously denigrating his liberal progressive base by labeling them “purist” ideologues.

Obama and his confederates acknowledge that compromise does mean and fits in as a descriptive of a big fat concession. It is a conciliation with their bête noir; a transparent conceding of many, once fervently held, beliefs. Pelosi and company recognizing compromise implies that the two years of stimuli and regulatory revamping has been an economic failure.

The recent federal and state elections, as pointed out by the President, were a shellacking, a definitive rebuke by the American electorate for the Democratic Party. And as Obama once loudly pronounced, elections do have consequences. A few of those consequences (for the Obama accolades) are eating their own words and affirming the compromise. The fare for such an affirmation with the Republicans is agitation for/by the left wing of the Democratic Party; to paraphrase, Obama has in effect suggested to his 2012 reelection staff, to let them “left-wing purists” bark at the moon.

The compromise, as I interpret, does mean a continuance of the Bush tax abatement and for those who die between now and 2012, the government is entitled to less of your wealth or quite possibly none at all. Despite these perfectly sensible affirmations, the American people are spending more money and supporting the everlasting unemployment cash for not working program. The federal government is teaching its citizens to enjoy more dependence on the government. This new entitlement is simply and only enacted to buy votes for the 2012 election. Regretfully, this buying of votes applies to both parties.

Interestingly, Obama now believes this deal with the Republicans will positively stir the economy and create jobs… hmm, he’s a few billion dollars late with this revelation.





THE MID-TERM ELECTION

5 11 2010

Authored by William Robert Barber

The election was almost all it could be…

Thank goodness for the American people, the constitution, and the very-much-alive practicing ethos of Americanism! This election resulted in the clear revitalization of conservative ideals. The political party closest to conservative values is, as of January 2011, in control of the House of Representatives.

Hosannas! The Obama incumbents were thrown out… Now what?

So far, the Republicans have suggested retrograding spending back to the 2008 budget level. They have insisted on the Bush Tax cuts to stay in place. Repealing or retarding ObamaCare, taking another look at the recently passed legislation on financial services reform, and holding investigative hearings on various Democratic Party actions. Obviously, any actions by the congress to stop, retard, or diminish the legislative enactments of the last two years of liberal progressivism is a good thing. Nevertheless, the culprit extraordinaire is federal government spending. Suggesting that the 2008 federal budget was sufficient of a spending cut is just way too timid a suggestion.

The lead dog in that lineup of federal excesses is entitlements. If the Republicans play politics with this issue, if they talk out of the side of their mouth, if they lie or try to hide the issue in any manner, a dynamic third political party will emerge. I do believe that a majority of Americans wants the federal government, well any government, to operate within their budget.

There is a glossary of descriptive words that embodies the meaningfulness of fiscal conservatism: Good sense, rationality, sensibility, reasonableness, and prudence; these words all apply to governing. If these words are exempted from the application of governing, a general malaise will result. I believe such exemption has been the case of the Obama administration and brethren of progressive ideologues.

It is not that I think the Republicans or Democrats of old have not practiced the exemption of these essential operational descriptive(s). Oh no — but the Obama progressives have purposefully over-filled the cup. Their policy of left-wing excessiveness, coupled with damning the people’s thought on the matter, is the fuel that spiked the recent electoral rout. The legislative action of this congress’ liberal progressives in striving to apply the contrary, the direct antithesis of my glossary of descriptive words, are the act of finality that shattered the glass.

There are some immediate benefits heading in the conservative direction. One of the most outstanding benefits is that certainty is sure to replace vagueness, indecision, and doubt. Withstanding, the political positioning and posturing by both parties, for the 2012 elections every member of congress (because of the recent election results) understands that the American people want the spending significantly reduced and no tax increases. The American people want economic growth – not more entitlements. They want freedom and liberty – not more governmental intrusion into the lives of America’s individuals or its institutions. No more legislative movements to the political or economic left… enough of that nonsense — let’s get real and straighten out this nation’s problems!





RANDOM THOUGHTS…

2 09 2010

Authored by William Robert Barber

THE AFGHAN CONFLICT

When I hear pundits, reporters, and journalists speak of the never-ending war in Afghanistan, I am a bit puzzled by the meaningfulness of their apparent frustration. Hasn’t this nation of ours, even before its independence, been steadfastly engaged in violent conflict? If Jamestown of 1619 was the beginning of our nation’s English dominated heritage, hence a reasonable starting point to mark the first violent conflict between 1619 and 2010, how many wars, lethal conflicts, police actions, battles, insurrections, civil uprisings, and violent engagement has this nation of ours participated in? So, if we have been in Afghanistan for these many years, the length of this particular engagement should not be of particular concern. With time as its witness, history has proven that if it wasn’t Afghanistan, it would simply be in a different geography and name.

History has documented, not only for America, that armed conflict is a constant. The only variables are intensity and geography. The issue of concern, for pundits, reporters, and journalists cannot be the length but the reason.

SUMMERS, GEITHNER, ROMER – THE OBAMA ECONOMIC TEAMS

On August 3 of this year, Geithner soberly communicated that the $862 billion government stimulus was still rolling out, business investment was booming, and the economy was poised for sustainable growth. Really! The treasury secretary along with the Obama economic team actually believes their lying eyes. The economic team endorsed a Keynesian economic application to this recession. In essence, the Keynesian approach plus the Obama twist is to print more money and give said printed money away to unionist friends. Of course the Obama twist includes a giveaway to union projects, empathetic political affiliates — and by no means leaves out in the cold their overweight pension impaired bureaucracies.

According to WSJ’s Review & Outlook, Geithner suggested that “government spending can stimulate growth by triggering private demand”, that “tax rates are irrelevant to investment decisions”, that “waves of new regulations can be absorbed by business with little impact on costs or hiring”, and that “politicians can assail capitalists without having any effect on the movement of capital.” Hmm…

President Bush and his economic team, headed by Secretary Paulson, also strutted unabashed in the same economic direction albeit, timidly, with much less of the taxpayers’ cash. Nevertheless, the financial implication was exactly the same waste of money / add on to the federal deficit. Culpable in all of these spend-more policies of Bush & Obama is congress and the aggressive yea votes of both political parties; amazingly, the spending continues as if rain is not wet.

A majority of elected representatives, for a very long time to the present, from one election to another, have successfully navigated thru the self-created shoals and reefs of what they say to get elected versus what they do once in office. The experience indicates that a politician’s loyalty to ideology, political party, and getting reelected trumps representing the common prudent interest of their constituents.

THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY

The time maybe close at hand to form an independent political party; this formation is still out there in the distant future. Presently, we have a choice between the Republican and the Democratic Party; of the two, I choose the Republican. But I swear, if they screw this up like they did the last time…