There’s no doubt that Barack Hussein Obama is a populist politician. In many ways he is the every man . . . proving to the masses that indeed, anyone can become the president of the United States of America.

It is a fanciful dream of every American, that each little citizen child can grow up to become the most powerful leader in the world. It is part of our heritage, that no matter how humble the beginnings, or how disadvantaged due to some quirk of life, in this country it is possible to overcome the hurdles and rise to the very top; and in fact, it is true.

In the case of Barack Obama, he was born a minority baby in Hawaii (although he claimed to be born in Kenya when promoting the first of multiple autobiographies) to mixed-race parents (raised by his grandparents), and was saddled with a Muslim name. Although most of his records have been sealed and whisked away to vaults where the vetting process has been declared DOA, he appears to have done well in school at times, and have finished well at ivy league institutions.

Barack Obama appears to have been a fairly common intercity youth, and describes himself as abusing alcohol, marijuana and cocaine, and leaves room to believe there were additional drugs and related activities in the mix.

Obama was a player as a young adult, and describes his out-of-marriage affairs with women of multiple races, although the fact has been recently reported that the identities of these women were mere creations, composites generated for purposes of the books about himself.

Politically, Barack Obama is a Chicago minority street fighter, fitting well into the Democratic machine — “Vote early, vote often!” He describes himself as a “community organizer,” which in retrospect appears to have included an armband of some sort and included duties like registering the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders to vote. His politics are those of the ’60s campus radical, as are those of his mentors and appointees. He has exchanged treasury dollars for support and votes in the tradition of his party and as promised, has siphoned trillions of them off to promote his social welfare utopian ideals — most of those dollars ending up in the hands of his cronies. Although this “tax, spend, elect” cycle is short-lived per force, concluding when the treasury is emptied, the tactic often plays well to the electorate, in the short term. That run is about over judging from the 60 percent increase in the national debt in just the first 4 years of Obama’s presidency.

The President has often been seen making the television show circuit, demonstrating to his base that he is indeed the man they were told he was just 4 years ago — before he demonstrated a deaf ear to the citizens of the nation, and turned his tenure into a non-stop vacation cruise around the world.

The President’s White House is reported to be a boy’s club, hostile to working women and focused on sports television programming and drinking beer with other cool guys. The proletariat eats this stuff up.

So is Barack Hussein Obama the coolest president we’ve had in the White House? He’s not the player that Kennedy and Clinton were, and he hasn’t put away as much booze as some of the record holders . . . but all in all, it appears safe to say that he is indeed the most common man that has graced the hallowed sanctum of the people’s house.

Publius

President Obama and his associates on the left follow the Keynesian theory of economics, the idea that when economies wane, government deficit spending will reignite the flame. To that end the Obama administration has spent trillions of dollars in 4 years, around 40 percent of which has been borrowed, and on which the country is now paying interest.

The national debt stood at $10 trillion when Barack Obama moved into the Oval Office just four short years ago. That nearly incomprehensible amount represented the unbridled deficit spending of generations of left-leaning presidents and congresses—Democratic and Republican.

Today the national debt stands at $16.6 trillion, more than a 60 percent increase in so short a time. If the congress complies with the President’s demands for increased spending, the national debt will exceed $18 trillion by next year.

What’s the problem, you ask?

When Americans turn off the alarm clock and hustle off to work, the first $1.2 billion they generate every day must be siphoned off of the economy just to pay the current interest on the national debt. That amount grows each day as additional money is borrowed to run the government, and as unpaid interest on the debt compounds.

The federal budget is up to $3.8 trillion a year, with multiple stimulus packages filled with crony payoffs and pork barrel spending wasting additional trillions, without any economic return to the American people. The economy is worsening, with real unemployment and underemployment over 15 percent.

Government leaders should have put the country on a fast-track to pay off the national debt 20 years ago . . . and 10 years ago . . . and 3 years ago. Those on the left boisterously proclaim that the only answer is to raise taxes. We challenge the left to demonstrate to the public when raising taxes has ever improved the economy. In fact, it has never happened. It is when taxes are slashed that money is freed up and businesses invest in new jobs, putting people to work and heating up the economy. President Kennedy proved this, as did Ronald Reagan.

Time after time Keynesian economics has failed. So why do our universities still tout it as the model for our own economy? Why are our government leaders drawing all available dollars, current and future, into the abyss of federal spending? How many jobs were created with the shovel ready projects promised by President Obama as he highjacked nearly $900 billion in the first stimulus package?

Debt creates poverty. Ever family knows this. Those who frequent the check cashing-payday loans establishments have learned the hard way that it is a recipe for financial disaster. So when will our government leaders learn the lesson? We recall well as Jimmy Carter addressed the nation and scratched his head in confusion as he explained that he had implemented all of the university approved, liberal orthodox policies, yet the country appeared to be languishing in a “malaise.” These are people that don’t seem to learn from past mistakes. Debt equals poverty. Perhaps this is why Americans are becoming poorer with every passing day.

Publius

As the propaganda press stirs up the occupying proletariat in our nation, and our streets become filled with couch potatoes demanding their fair share of that which has been earned by others, the insanity and impossibility of the scene serves as ample proof that too much weed indeed dulls the human brain’s ability to reason.

The 99 percent demand that they be supported by the 1 percent. They demand that taxation be applied “fairly.”

Indeed, 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 fact, 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.

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!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, 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.

Publius

Under the British system, a system where the king could do no wrong, and all subjects were essentially his private property, indentured servitude and slavery were common. It is how many young people escaped the class poverty of Europe, by indenturing themselves until the age of 18, or later, then receiving their freedom. Others were indentured to repay family debt. Many of these became successful free citizens under the system, while many never escaped the bonds of servitude. Europeans had developed quite a system of slave trading before the foundations of America, and under the British Empire slaves were tasked with working the vast agricultural holdings of the colonies, including those in the New World.

Most of the founders were very hostile to the system of servitude, and although they existed within it, they sought to extinguish it. When the founders declared our liberty from Great Britain, they did so with the intent of retaining the new nation’s faith and credit. Huge holdings were offered as guarantee of repayment of war loans, including vast agricultural empires, which included the slaves that worked them. The slavery question was hotly debated in the forming nation, and it is the one failing of the founders that they were unable to win the day against slavery—due mainly to the collateralization of debt issue—but could only “kick the can down the road,” as our current government does daily.

The intent of the founders was to phase out slavery, but agricultural interests in the southern states resisted all attempts. Finally, the Republican Party was formed and at the peril of national civil war, its candidate, Abraham Lincoln, ran on the platform that slavery must finally be abolished. Over a half million Americans lost their lives in the ensuing conflict, but the issue was officially, if not finally settled. In fact, hundreds of Republican whites and blacks were murdered in the South even after the Civil War, during “Reconstruction.”

Republicans in the 1950s and 1960s attempted to enforce voting and civil rights to the descendants of African slaves emancipated during the Civil War, but they were blocked by the Democrats and Southern state “Dixiecrats,” who blocked passage while they blocked black students from entering Southern universities. Who were these Democrats who filibustered and voted against civil rights and voting rights for blacks? John F. Kennedy, Al Gore, Sr., Lyndon B. Johnson, George Wallace, and Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, otherwise known as the Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan, to name a few.

It was when “progressives” adopted the charlatan policy that they “adopted” African Americans and other “minorities” as their charges. In the name of the oppressed, the disenfranchised and the downtrodden, most of whom were that way because of the old prejudices of the Southern Democrats or have become that way through the taxation and confiscatory policies of the expanded left leaning US government, “progressives” have created a fatherless and helpless nation of minorities in America. Once all left leaning politicians received the Memo that all things were possible in the name of the downtrodden, those very politicians who had so vehemently opposed voting and civil rights for American minorities suddenly became their “champions.”

The Republican voting and civil rights bills were immediately redubbed Democratic legislation, and were passed, with several new powers being given to the federal government in the deal.  The “Great Society” was born and American blacks instantly went from struggling to get into the middle class to dropping directly into the abyss.  American minorities are well on their way to becoming completely dependent on government handouts, and feel beholden to politicians who keep them on the public dole.

Does every American liberal or moderate set out with these leftist results as their goal? No. They are fooled by their leadership, who have their own secret agenda, as recently lamented by Bob Beckel, Liberal Commentator:

“We liberals made a terrible mistake, going back 30 years ago.  We made a dependent society because we thought we were doing the right thing.  We had things like public housing, and we had welfare payments, and all that bred dependence.”

African-Americans would do well to return their support to those who have their collective well-being and personal liberty at heart.

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 statesmen to serve the American people without offending a few hogs at the trough.

PUBLIUS