LiveWire

No, not that fantasy, you degenerates! I was speaking of my political advertisement fantasy. What did you think I meant?

Last week I posted my fantasy political advertisement. And lo and behold, someone has already done something that pretty much conveys the spirit my post.

Our institutions obsess over nonsense such as protecting children from the horrors of tobacco; meanwhile we shackle the next generation with debt to pay for today’s cronies. It’s understandable why Ron Paul should have appeal among a growing segment of young people: Who else is speaking plainly about the cost of the endless payoffs and boondoggles, and about the monstrous bills? The national debt is child abuse, pure and simple.

Obama and the Democrats are working overtime to obfuscate public perception of the obvious. They attempt to shift the narrative from betrayal by politicians to class warfare. Don’t blame Washington for spending and squandering; blame the rich for not paying. Then blame the Republicans for protecting the rich, at the expense of the working folk.

This populist theme has gained significant traction, and is tacitly endorsed by some Republicans. It’s an effective argument, but is it fair? I’ve got a few words to say about that.

First of all, it’s worth noting that Obama could have had his taxes passed during his first two years when he had a big Democrat majority in Congress. He didn’t do it when the wind was at his back. But after the Republicans roared back to power, then he started whining and blaming. Isn’t it obvious that Obama didn’t want those tax hikes; he just wanted a campaign issue?

But voters won’t remember that. And we’ve got to acknowledge the fact that there’s an element of truth mixed in with the Democrat’s muck. Yes, the Republicans have paid off their cronies too. It’s not as if Republicans are blameless and Democrats are all scoundrels. We painfully recall that it was George Bush that broke the budget.

The hurdle that critics of Democrat policies face is the usual double standard. How many times was “Halliburton” used as an example of Republican corruption? We can’t even hear the name “Halliburton” without flinching. Yet Obama proudly issues executive orders that divert money to his donors and cronies (such as labor unions or Solyndra), and this is a good thing. It seems that Democrat cronyism helps people, whereas Republican cronyism is only good for corporations. Halliburon doesn’t have any employees, you know. And if Solyndra took the people’s money and vanished, well, it was at least a noble effort. Solyndra tried to build something good, whereas Halliburton builds, you know, bad stuff.

The Democrats also accuse the Republicans of kowtowing to billionaires. That’s another word that makes us flinch, “billionaire”. But Obama brags about the billionaires on his team. Those are good billionaires. And it matters not that the Warren Buffetts and George Soroses make a mint thanks to being tight with Washington. It’s good that they’re enriched by public policy.

But I’ve somehow gotten distracted again. The foregoing is true, but it’s not the argument we need to make. I mean, in a sane world, we’d make that argument, because it’s valid and important. But the sad reality is that nobody will look at those facts and change their minds. They’re fixated on a seductive illusion, and no power on Earth will unsettle that vision. So we need to say something else.

The argument I make is a straightforward one, and isn’t easily dismissed. My challenge is simply to look at the numbers. Let’s say, for the sake of the discussion, that Obama got the tax hikes he’s been asking for. Never mind the quibbling and negotiating; just give Obama what he wants. What then? Check the projections and you’ll find that, even under the most optimistic scenarios, those taxes might scare up revenue in the range of $30 to $80 billion. Which is chump change when stacked against ongoing trillion-dollar-plus shortfalls.

So Obama has a wonderful campaign issue, but no plan to stop the endless red ink. Obama is kicking the can down the road, not because the evil Republicans are making him, but by choice. He offers nothing beyond a plea that we close our eyes to the coming train wreck and follow him on faith. His private prayer is that he can pump enough borrowed money into the system before November to make his projected vision of recovery seem, for the moment, less like the ravings of a maniac.

(Flashback: In the 1988 vice-presidential debate, Democrat Lloyd Bensen dismissed the strong Reagan economy with the words, “If you let me write $200 billion worth of hot checks every year, I could give you an illusion of prosperity, too.” I agree Reagan deserves criticism for the Federal deficit of his day. But Reagan spent a lot less and helped grow the economy such that we could sustain the debt. Obama has spent trillions and what he got for it is too anemic to even be called an “illusion”.)

Obama’s plan to kick the can down the road to save his job might work. Today they’re telling us the public perception is that the economy has turned the corner. Obamanism has been validated, and Obama will fly to victory for a second term.

Do I need to mention that this business of kicking the can down the road is exactly what candidate Obama pledged not to do in 2008?

If we’re stupid enough to return Obama to office, we deserve the impoverishment that we’re bringing upon ourselves.

We will deserve it. Our children won’t.

Can anyone stop the spending? Will anyone even try?