Following 4 years of economic, social and political failure by President Obama, Americans doubled down and asked him to give them more of the same.

Historically, this election could not have happened. Any president who kept the country at an average of 9% unemployment during his first term was doomed to be turned out by the electorate. A president who increased the cumulative national debt by 60% in just one term would be unelectable. Any president who presided over tens of millions entering into poverty would have been sent packing.

So why did Americans re-elect the man who is arguably the worst president in US history?  The answer is a frightening one.

Like much of Europe, Americans’ loyalty has been purchased with their own dollars, many of which are being borrowed and must be repaid by our children, and their children, and their children.

It appears that America has reached that tipping point where bribing voters with their own dollars to keep a person and party in power is the norm. What MUST follow is a scene of rapid economic and political decline, like Romans who were placated by the emperors with the carnage of the Colosseum, sitting indolently, distracted by the games, while the empire crumbles around them.

The handouts will soon run out, and you will find yourselves in the streets–first, demanding what the government can no longer provide, then rioting, then starving.

Congratulations America. You’ve just made yourself into Greece.

PUBLIUS

Reprinted from NEWSWEEK, Aug 19, 2012 1:00 AM EDT

Community Organizer Barack Hussein Obama released his first book about himself in 1995, titled Dreams from My Father, as publicity to launch his Senatorial campaign. The book has only recently received any scrutiny, and reveals a very disturbing ideology and series of life choices in the form of socialist associations and heavy drug use of the would-be leader.

Obama’s second book about himself, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, was then written and released by Senator Barack Hussein Obama, as publicity to launch his presidential campaign. The reader quickly learns that Obama’s version of the American Dream is much different than that of the average American.

The promises made to the American people in Obama’s campaigns turn out to bear no resemblance to his actions in office: There would be no rise in taxes for anyone under $250,000 per year, Obamacare would not raise the cost of health care and those who preferred their own plan would not lose it. Also, Gitmo would be closed and the wars in the middle east would be turned off like a spigot. Or here’s a good one . . . his administration would be the most transparent of any, and the partisan rhetoric would end. Even now, Obama is stumping on the promise that he will reach out across the aisle and work with republicans if re-elected. How about this one—Obama would cut the federal deficit in half!? He actually doubled it!

In fact, of all of the promises made by candidate Obama, Pulitzer Prize winning Politifact.com of the Tampa Bay Times demonstrates that he has reneged on two-thirds.

No doubt, many of the broken campaign promises were leftist pipe-dreams and would be devastating to the country, and with thankful hearts we recognize that President Obama got a taste of reality on several fronts once he took office, and began to see the world from a more realistic viewpoint, carrying on many of the policies of the Bush administration, notwithstanding the venomous denunciation of those policies by Obama and the left beforehand.

The fact remains, however, that Obama is an ideologue, and his political thinking is much different than that of most American’s, and completely the opposite of the founders of our nation.

Notwithstanding his adoption of some less radical paths once in office, Obama has still been guilty of ignoring the will of the American people on several issues, and has comported himself more like a ruler in many regards, than a public servant—as he was elected to be.

The administration has refused to accept responsibility for its many failures and shortcomings, and has stonewalled congressional attempts to get at the heart of corruption and unlawful activities in Eric Holder’s Department of Justice as well as other agencies under the administration. The way the president and his entire administration ignored the pleas for help from our ambassador in Benghazi, then watched live video feed of their 7 hour massacre by known al Qaeda activists, then lied to the American people for more than 2 weeks to convince them that Obama had personally killed off al Qaeda is only the latest episode in the president’s arrogance and disrespect of the American people.

As a result of 4 years of autocratic rule, Obama’s loss of personal likeability in the polls and Mitt Romney’s emergence as a likeable, competent business genius has rendered the 2012 election up for grabs.

The misinformation and corruption of Obama’s 4 year presidency is crumbling around him as the Greek columns that ushered in his presidency have turned to sand and tens of millions of victims have suffered horrifically at the hands of his leftist policies. Poverty levels have skyrocketed and 23,000,000 Americans are looking for work, all while promised economic expansion resulting from gargantuan spending bills have failed to produce a single net job.

Democratic attempts to paint GOP challenger Mitt Romney as a greedy, uncaring man out of touch with common Americans melted before the flames of reality during the RNC and first presidential debate, and Obama’s significant leads among women and other groups have disappeared. Within the past few weeks polls have swung in Romney’s favor, and much of America finds itself on its knees in prayer for a change of leadership on Tuesday. The choice between socialism and capitalism has never been clearer in a presidential election, and we can only add our voices to those offering up prayers for Mitt Romney today that America will return to its traditional path of personal liberty and the prosperity that attends it.

You may recall President Obama’s famous interview with Matt Lauer on “Today” on February 1, 2009 (we’ve inserted the video below), just after taking office as he asked the congress for his first economic stimulus package—nearly $900 billion.

Lauer: At some point will you say ‘Wait a minute. We’ve spent this amount of money; we’re not seeing the results. We’ve got to change course dramatically.’

Obama: Look, I’m at the start of my administration. One nice thing I find about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. I’ve got four years. A year from now people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years then there’s going to be a one term proposition.

A one term proposition indeed. Let it be so.

PUBLIUS

In last night’s second presidential debate, hosted at Hofstra University in New York, the candidates came out swinging. It was clear that President Obama’s handlers had taken him to the woodshed over his first debate performance, notwithstanding his own assessment of the debate–that he had won it handily–and he was prepared to engage Mitt Romney aggressively.

Indeed, the candidates sparred over issues on the economy, entitlements, energy, and foreign policy, with Obama claiming that his first term has been a resounding success, and Romney tearing the president’s performance apart and laying out his own plan to add 12,000,000 jobs in his first term. The debate was animated, and the candidates relentless in their resolve to hold their ground . . . looking as though they were ready to take it out to the parking lot on a few occasions.

Obama was tireless in his efforts to convince viewers that he has turned in a stellar performance in his first term, and that he deserves their nod for a second. Romney turned and spoke to the audience, saying, “I think you know better. I think you know that these last four years haven’t been so good as the president just described and that you don’t feel like you’re confident that the next four years are going to be much better either. I can tell you that if you were to elect President Obama, you know what you’re going to get. You’re going to get a repeat of the last four years. We just can’t afford four more years like the last four years.”

At an especially contentious point near the close of the debate an audience member asked Obama about the administration’s failure to provide the requested security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. “Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?”

After glossing the question over with a dose of the Administration’s convoluted double-speak, Romney laid bare the Administration’s vacillation and cover-up of the terrorist attack that murdered our diplomats in Benghazi.

Obama fired back indignantly, “The suggestion that anybody in my team … would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do.” Of course, that is exactly what Obama and his administration do, but he made the claim with a straight face. Obama then claimed that he had designated the assault a terrorist attack from the beginning, calling it that the following day in a Rose Garden press conference.

Romney bristled at the remark, reminding the public that Obama and his people had claimed repeatedly for the next 14 days that the assault was a “spontaneous demonstration” spawned by the existence of a YouTube video. Moderator Candy Crowley (CNN) was quick to interrupt, waiving some papers she had picked up, saying, “It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror.”

Obama asked her to repeat it, and she dutifully complied. “He — he did call it an act of terror.” Romney seemed confused by the assertion, based on weeks of Administration obfuscation, and said he wanted to get the claim into the record.

After the debate Crowley was forced to recant her assertion, based on the actual presidential transcript of Obama’s Rose Garden statement, which makes it clear that Obama was doing his best to include the word “terror” without actually saying the incident was a terror attack. After mentioning 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan, the president had stated, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” He then moved on to the Libya attack, not calling it a terrorist attack, and sent out Administration officials for the following 2 weeks with the story about a “spontaneous demonstration” turned violent. Certainly, no news agencies reported during that time that the president had claimed the assault was a terrorist attack.

In fact, the Administration’s position has been that Obama is personally responsible for wiping out al-Qaeda, having dispatched Osama Bin Laden with his own bare hands, and that his policies have brought peace to the Middle East and the friendship of Muslims everywhere. The reality is much different, of course, but it is that narrative which drove the Administration’s efforts to cover up the terrorist attack on on our diplomats in Benghazi.

Overall, the debate was a feisty display of unmitigated testosterone . . . and the presidential candidates were a little testy too. Crowley did the same thing that moderators in the first two debates did–cover for the Democrat, interrupt and cut off the Republican, and ensure that the Dem gets more speaking time; over 3 minutes more in this debate.

Although there appears to be a general consensus that Dems will believe that Obama won the debate and GOP will believe Romney won, political pollster Frank Luntz conducted a focus group in Nevada, a swing state, during the debate, made up of undecideds, most of whom voted for Obama 4 years ago. The conclusion of this focus group was that although Obama turned in a good performance, it was nothing more than empty rhetoric, too little too late, and that another 4 years of his policies would be toxic to our nation. In contrast, they nearly unanimously agreed that Romney is a seasoned businessman who understands the economy and how to create jobs, and that it is time to put him into the White House. That cannot be good news for an administration hopeful that Romney’s momentum would be slowed if the president performed well.

PUBLIUS

The vice presidential debate between VP Joe Biden and GOP challenger Paul Ryan was anticipated by liberals as the party’s opportunity for payback following the spanking their fearless leader took in the first presidential debate last week at the hands of Mitt Romney. Feeling that Obama had simply failed to put in the necessary time to adequately prepare for the debate, Joe Biden was removed from the campaign trail and sequestered in debate rehearsal for nearly a week.

The VP debate was moderated by ABC News political correspondent and Obama cronie, Martha Raddatz. If one were to read a sterilized transcript of the debate, he would come away with the impression that each candidate expressed his party’s view on the issues presented by Radditz, and that there was no reason to think that bias or chicanery played a major role in the debate.

For those of us who watched the debate on television, however, that’s not how the evening went. In fact, Radditz ran interference for Biden all evening, tossing him underhanded pitches and assisting him to make clarifications, while interrupting and cutting off Paul Ryan a total of 82 times while he attempted to make his points, and allowing Biden to do the same more than 30 times. Overall, Biden was afforded a minute and a half more talking time than Ryan.

During the entire debate Biden laughed, smirked, scoffed, grunted, snorted and chuckled during Ryan’s speaking time in an animated and exaggerated display. The behavior was not only unbecoming the office of the Vice President, but would have been considered reason for being kicked off even a high school debate team. One must wonder why the VP and his debate coaching team made a conscious decision to have him carry on in such a disturbing and unprofessional manner, especially when they well knew that the broadcast would provide a split screen view to the 54 million viewers.

Although one could argue that each candidate adequately delivered his ticket’s respective message, conservative and leftist, the debate will go down in history as one of the most bizarre displays of strange behavior by a sitting vice president, bordering on drunken and obnoxious.

PUBLIUS

We observed a brief exchange in social media between a liberal and conservative, based on a quote posted by the liberal: “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

The implication is the same always proffered by the left–that government wastes its revenues on defense spending at the expense of social programs, and should reduce spending on defense and increase spending on social programs.

The argument, on its surface, is one that causes the good hearted to stop and reflect. Certainly, we all want to assist those in dire circumstances, and as a society we have made a social pact to protect those who have fallen from a secure position in life. We seek to lift up the weak, and to champion the oppressed.

But is it true that we spend more on defense than on social uplift?

As we look at the question, we must first ask ourselves, what is the role of government? For instance, is it the duty of the San Francisco city government to provide aircraft carriers in the Pacific Ocean? We all know it is not. But why is it not? Because different levels of government have different duties to their citizens. With all levels of government working together to provide for the needs of their citizens, so the theory goes, all needs are covered.

So, starting at the top, what is the duty of the federal government to its citizens? The constitution mandates that the federal government be delegated certain duties by the states and their citizens, duties, like national military defense, that cannot be provided by state or local governments very well. Those duties, and powers to fulfill them, are limited by the constitution. These limited powers enable it to provide for the common defense, free the flow of commerce, coin money, establish weights and measures, provide for immigration, bankruptcies, postal services, patents and copyrights, declare wars, establish a Navy and Army, and to establish duties, imposts and excises to pay for the national government’s activities. That’s it.

So if the federal government has no constitutional delegation to provide schools, hospitals or firefighters, how do we get those? We get them from state and local governments. In fact, at the state and local level we find almost all “social uplift” programs. Do states, counties and cities have to provide social uplift programs? No. Do they choose to? Yes.

So how much money do all levels of government spend each year to pay for all levels of government and the services they provide? Here is what we will be spending in the next year:

Federal Gross Spending $3.8 trillion
Intergovernmental $-0.7 trillion
State Direct Spending $1.6 trillion
Local Direct Spending $1.7 trillion
Total Spending $6.4 trillion

Armed with this information we can now make some simple comparisons.  For instance–How much is the defense budget? It is $830 billion, or $0.83 trillion. As anyone can see, defense is only 14% of total spending. But how does defense spending stack up to educational spending? In this same time frame we will spend approximately the same amount on each (see our article of June 11, 2012, NEA Report Card: F).

So if America spends around 14% of its annual taxes on defense, and a like amount on education, where does the remaining 72% go? It goes to healthcare ($1.1 trillion), welfare ($0.8 trillion), public employee pensions ($1.1 trillion), etc.

Those on the left have created a myth of government spending that they share among themselves that says that most taxes go to defense spending (which actually pays for the employment of millions of Americans), and social programs get the leftover crumbs. In fact, it is not true at all–it is quite the opposite.

All of those $ trillions are up for grabs to an array of government employee unions, special interests, and administration cronies and contributors, and are funding all manner of social and anti-social programs and movements. This is why Mitt Romney, noting that the federal government borrows 40% of its budget every year (to be paid by a future generation), indicated in the first presidential debate that government spending must be pared back to essentials until the economy returns to full employment.

With all of those fingers in the $6.4 trillion pie (which does not include unfunded obligations), it may be a little difficult for a Romney-Ryan administration to serve the American people without offending a few hogs at the trough.

PUBLIUS

In the first of three presidential debates held Wednesday evening GOP challenger Mitt Romney won a decisive victory over the incumbent, Barack Hussein Obama. Obama’s performance was lackluster, to say the least, while Romney appeared energetic, friendly, and in command.

Obama began his opening statement informing the audience that America should not look at the past, implying we should ignore his record, but to the future. For the entire 90 minutes Obama explained why the federal government should be expanded along with Americans’ tax burden.

Romney’s opening statement echoed the recent statement made by Vice President Joe Biden, that Obama’s first term policies have “buried the middle class,”and he laid out his 5 Point plan for reversing America’s current economic calamity.

Romney was on the offensive all evening delivering blow after blow to the President’s record and devastating economic policies, and the President stammered and stuttered while trying to explain why Americans should entrust him with the presidency for another 4 years.

Obama repeatedly attempted to simply recite campaign rhetoric and democratic party talking points about his own record and the proposed economic fixes proffered by Romney, but Romney just as often set the record straight in an authoritative and convincing manner, in what appeared to be a humiliating challenge to the president’s heretofore unchallenged “facts.” At one point Romney chided Obama that because he had 5 sons, he was used to people telling him untruths and simply repeating them in an attempt to persuade him of their veracity, but that the technique was wasted in the presidential race, because although Obama was entitled to a private plane and house as president, he was not entitled to “private facts.”

Romney clearly got in some of the best lines of the evening, describing Obama’s economic policy as “trickle down government.” When Obama accused Romney of being the defender of big oil company tax breaks, Romney retorted that most of the $2.8 billion tax breaks go to small and middle sized oil exploration companies, not big oil, and that the amount is a mere pittance compared with the $90 billion that Obama palmed for his cronies in the wind and solar industries–an amount that equals 50 years of oil tax breaks. Romney quoted a friend who recently observed that Obama doesn’t just pick winners and losers in meting out government billions to green companies, he just picks losers, referring to the recent insolvency of many of the recipients, being run by big contributors to the president’s campaign.

Romney further chastised Obama’s assertion that his plan is to “invest” in 100,000 new teachers to boost America’s failing education system, when the $90 billion he had wasted on “green energy” projects would have hired 2 million teachers.

Obama appeared perturbed for most of the whipping, staring off at moderator Jim Lehrer or smirking and tensing his jaw as he looked down at his own notes. Romney looked presidential as he explained free-market economics to a befuddled Obama.

The exhibition was a resounding victory for Mitt Romney, and signs of a re-energized base were apparent as preliminary polls reflected the victory. Democrats were trying to spin the outcome in a favorable light, but the Internet and Twitter reflected that democratic supporters were very disappointed by the president’s inability to explain or defend his first 4 years in office, or to make a case for a repeat performance.

PUBLIUS

We hear so much these days of “fairness.” Indeed, liberals have been beating the drums hard that it is time for the “rich” to start paying their “fair share.”

In reality, 47 percent of the country pays no federal income taxes whatsoever, and the top 25 percent of earners pay 87 percent of the total burden. The top 1 percent pay 36% of all federal income taxes, while the top 5 percent pay 58%!

In truth, this distribution scheme is unfair, but it is not those who now bear a significantly higher portion of the burden who should be made to shoulder even more of the load.

Presidents Kennedy and Reagan both understood that to stimulate economic growth and bring more money into government’s coffers, it is necessary to LOWER taxes on those who shoulder the burdens, and free up the economy.

In his annual budget message to Congress, President Kennedy explained the reasoning behind lowering tax rates:

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased — not a reduced — flow of revenues to the federal government.”

This is exactly what Mitt Romney plans to do to stimulate economic growth and to balance the federal budget–combined with numerous other things, like making the nation energy independent.

There is a story that I heard years ago about the fairness of the distribution of tax burdens that I think will be instructive. It’s precise origin is unknown as far as I know, but I would like to give proper credit if I could find the person who developed it.

Suppose that every day ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

That is how our tax system really works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction — and it is they who stimulate the economy when we leave their earned income in their hands to spend in the economy. As that money passes through many hands, the wealth is distributed naturally, and it is taxed each time it changes hands.

But tax these too much, as we have, and attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier, as we now see in the case of many French, German and American citizens whose wealth has been threatened to the point of removing it from their native countries’ borders.

PUBLIUS