THE SIX PROBLEMS WITH MODERN PROGRESSIVE / SOCIALISM

Normally, I try to avoid the comments section of any blog / article I read, but I make an exception for Zero Hedge. This little gem is one of the reasons why. Rick Santelli beating down that idiot Freidman was an added bonus.

from Zero Hedge:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/rick-santelli-tells-arch-globalization-advocate-friedman-he-idiot 

The Six Problems With Modern Progressive/Socialism

1) You really didn't learn everything you needed to know in kindergarten:  Progressive/Socialists love to think of themselves as sophisticated, nuanced intellectuals, but the truth is they have a kindergartner's view of the world.  If it has been defined as "nice" to people they like, they're for it.  If it has been defined as "mean" to people they like, they're against it -- and that is about as deep as it gets.  Unfortunately, that lack of adult perspective isn't so cute in political leaders who are making life and death decisions that may still have ramifications fifty years from now.

2) "Progressive/Socialists hate religion because politics is a religion substitute for Progressive/Socialists and they can't stand the competition." -- Ann Coulter:  Somewhat ironically, given the hostile relationship that has developed between the Left and Christianity, Progressive/Socialist beliefs have more in common with religious doctrine than a political agenda.  There is no significant debate on the Left about the aims of their agenda -- and the only "sins" believers can commit against their religion are no longer being politically useful, deviating from doctrine, or worst of all, cooperating with conservatives in some fashion.  No matter how much evidence piles up that big government doesn't work, that welfare destroys families, and that socialism doesn't bring prosperity, it makes no impact on Progressive/Socialists because their dogma is based on faith, not logic.

3) "It is not human nature we should accuse but the despicable conventions that pervert it." -- Denis Diderot:  There is no dream more eternal in the Progressive/Socialist heart than completely remaking human nature.  If we could all just care about the person across the world as much as we do our families, we could live in a utopia! Unfortunately, in practice, human nature tends to be quite a bit more difficult to subvert than in the Progressive/Socialist imagination.  That's why, despite more than 5,000 years of human civilization, very little progress has been made in this area - but, oh, the Left is still trying.  One day, if they just spend enough money on the right government programs, all the wars will end and everyone will be living in identical million dollar mansions while we spend our days humming tunes from the latest Woodstock Tribute Album.

4) "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we practice to deceive." -- Sir Walter Scott: Like freaky religious cults, Progressive/Socialists have become adept at hiding their more abhorrent views from the public until it's too late.  It's common to see Progressive/Socialists adamantly deny that they hold a position over and over again only to completely switch sides the moment they have one more vote than they need to pass legislation. Whether it's lying about their opponents or what they believe, honesty is certainly not considered to be the best policy on the Left.

5) "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye." -- Matthew 7:3-5: Despite the fact that Progressive/Socialists love few things better than to cry "hypocrisy," there is a rather bizarre disconnect between what modern Progressive/Socialists seem to believe about themselves and how they behave. Progressive/Socialists believe that they're compassionate, but only with other people's money. They tie themselves in knots trying to come up with valid reasons why terrorists hate the United States, but they never give a moment's thought to whether the people who dislike them might have a point.  They pat themselves on the back for helping minorities, but never stop to consider that Progressive/Socialist policies have done more damage to black Americans in the last fifty years than the KKK could have done in a millennium.  Somehow, stunning hypocrisies of this sort, which are too numerous to recount, never seem to be bother anyone on the Left.

6) "Trust yourself. You know more than you think you do." -- Benjamin Spock:  It's great to have a healthy self-image, but there's not much to be said for thinking you're smarter than the collective wisdom and traditions passed down through human history just because you happen to read the Daily Kos.  Unbecoming arrogance of this sort permeates modern Progressive/Socialism.  The most grave of decisions are undertaken by the modern Left without the slightest regard for the potential consequences.  Past disasters created by similar bouts of whimsical thinking, of which there are many, are treated as acts of God untethered from mere human decision making and prompt no self reflection whatsoever.  That's because to the modern Progressive/Socialist, the real world results of their policies are secondary in importance to the amount of positive self-esteem generated by supporting that policy.

In summary, GROW UP!

Chicago Values.....

Chicago values suck. At least those that Rahm-bo seems to embrace. A cesspool of corruption continues it's proud, storied history.

Monty Pelerin's World » Chicago Values:

'via Blog this'


Allen West and Rick Santelli on CNBC:

Allen West On Chick-Fil-A

Here is another demonstration of why West should be the next POTUS. Unfortunately, in the current system / environment, we are left with a party too dumb to even want to include him as VP on the ticket. Maybe he would overshadow the #1. from PJ Media: The PJ Tatler » Allen West Doesn’t Always School CAIR Apologists, But When He Does…:

"Allen West Doesn’t Always School CAIR Apologists, But When He Does…" The cuddly-named CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing case. It’s executive director, Nezar Hamze, tried to trap Rep. Allen West at a recent public meeting. That, as you’ll see in the video, was a mistake. Exit question: Is the Romney campaign sure that a “boring white guy” is really the way to go on the veep pick? h/t MRCTV

'via Blog this'

Inflation Actually Near 10% Using Older Measure - Yahoo! Finance

YoY Changes in Price Index Categories (+/- 5%)

Interesting that the things going up the strongest are those that we buy routinely, while those we purchase irregularly are going down.

Goes to Santelli's argument. (once again a TKO over Lies-man, this is not even a contest of intellectual equals anymore).

The match was stopped when Santelli counter-punched Liesman with this line about CPI and PPI.

"it's called factual avoidance. it's called how do we get to where we want to be by tinkering with the numbers."

"Factual avoidance", I love it. It's like when someone says you're being disingenuous because they don't want to call you a LIAR. Reminds me of the old accountants joke that ends "What's 2 + 2? Whatever you want it to be."



These exchanges would actually be comedic if, as we've seen over the course of the last few years, the implications didn't end up being so tragic.

More truth from John Williams and Shadow Government Statistics, echoing you what you're lying eyes already told you.
---



Inflation Actually Near 10% Using Older Measure - Yahoo! Finance:

"After former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker was appointed in 1979, the consumer price index surged into the double digits, causing the now revered Fed Chief to double the benchmark interest rate in order to break the back of inflation. Using the methodology in place at that time puts the CPI back near those levels.

Inflation, using the reporting methodologies in place before 1980, hit an annual rate of 9.6 percent in February, according to the Shadow Government Statistics newsletter.

Since 1980, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has changed the way it calculates the CPI in order to account for the substitution of products, improvements in quality (i.e. iPad 2 costing the same as original iPad) and other things. Backing out more methods implemented in 1990 by the BLS still puts inflation at a 5.5 percent rate and getting worse, according to the calculations by the newsletter's web site, Shadowstats.com."

The Revolution of "NO" - Another Santelli Classic - NO MORE MONEY, NO MORE TINKERING

Hat tip to zerohedge.com for this oldy, but goody

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/rick-santelli-goes-nuts-top-3-rant-protesting-what-else-endless-subsidies-and-fed-meddling

Rick gets wound up based on earlier disclosure by Bill Gross that if the government guarantee of the GSEs were removed, he would only participate in the mortgage market if there was 30% down payments by first time homebuyers (oh, and, tee hee, guess who will be present and providing "eye of the monopolist beholder" advice at next Tuesday's panel). As Rick summarizes: "the people holding, the Treasury or institutions, are locked up in this place where the subsidies can't come out; extrication is going to be difficult much less getting out of the way of anything they may do in the future." Yet what sets Rick off is the debate over why the Fed should not let housing crash to its fair value bottom, instead of artificially pushing rates lower and lower, which benefits nobody except those serial refinanciers who hope to lock in a 30 Year at 0.001%. The screamfest begins at 5:40.

And yet, our fearless leaders seem to think the answer is Mo' Money, Mo' Money, Mo' Money and EVER MORE TINKERING...so much to be angry about, so little time.

HERE'S BEN AND HIS HELICOPTER DURING THE FIRST QE FLIGHT - ANOTHER FAILED POLICY (TINKERING)

Maybe before he takes the old Helicopter out for his "QE2 Voyage" Bernake can take a page from Notorius B.I.G. who rapped in Mo Money Mo Problems "I don't know what they want from me, It's like the more money we come across, The more problems we see"

DANG, WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT?

Isn't it clear to all that this government and Federal Reserve tinkering via failed and misguided economic and fiscal policies has given us the equivalent of a "Frankenstein Economy". It looks like it's alive and has all the features and characteristics of a real, functioning economy, but the reality is it's not.

Some of these cats in Washington must have been huge fans of Dr. Frankenstein.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021884/quotes

Memorable quotes for Frankenstein (1931)

Victor Moritz: You're crazy!
Henry Frankenstein: Crazy, am I? We'll see whether I'm crazy or not.

Henry Frankenstein: Look! It's moving. It's alive. It's alive... It's alive, it's moving, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, IT'S ALIVE!
Victor Moritz: Henry - In the name of God!
Henry Frankenstein: Oh, in the name of God! Now I know what it feels like to be God!

Henry Frankenstein: The brain you stole, Fritz. Think of it. The brain of a dead man waiting to live again in a body I made with my own hands!

Dr. Henry Frankenstein: The neck's broken. The brain is useless. We must find another brain.

Dr. Henry Frankenstein: You're quite sure you want to come in?... Very well.
[Locks door and pockets key]
Dr. Henry Frankenstein: Forgive me, but I'm forced to take unusual precautions.

Henry Frankenstein: Dangerous? Poor old Waldman. Have you never wanted to do anything that was dangerous? Where should we be if no one tried to find out what lies beyond? Have your never wanted to look beyond the clouds and the stars, or to know what causes the trees to bud? And what changes the darkness into light? But if you talk like that, people call you crazy. Well, if I could discover just one of these things, what eternity is, for example, I wouldn't care if they did think I was crazy.

Doctor Waldman: You have created a monster, and it will destroy you!

[first lines]
Dr. Henry Frankenstein: Down! Down, you fool!

Baron Frankenstein: [lastlines]
[Raises a glass of wine to offer a toast]
Baron Frankenstein: Well, as I said before, here I say again, Here's... Here's to a son... to the House of Frankenstein.
Maid: Indeed, Sir. You too, Sir.

THE ORIGINAL FRANKENSTEIN (1931)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein_(1931_film)

The film begins with Edward Van Sloan stepping from behind a curtain and delivering a "friendly warning" before the opening credits:

We are about to unfold the story of Frankenstein, a man of science who sought to create a man after his own image without reckoning upon God. It is one of the strangest tales ever told. It deals with the two great mysteries of creation – life and death. I think it will thrill you. It may shock you. It might even – horrify you. So if any of you feel that you do not care to subject your nerves to such a strain, now's your chance to – uh, well, we warned you.

THE MODERN DAY - ECONOMIC FRANKENSTEIN - THE GOOD DOCTOR HIMSELF

AND HIS MAGNIFICENT CREATION

THE BUBBLE MAN:

Santelli and Baseball Crank - That's the Ticket!!

I propose a presidential ticket of Rick Santelli and Baseball Crank with Ron Paul as the next Federal Reserve Chairman. That would end the need for an audit of the Fed that nobody seems to want. Who's with me on this?

Three guys who are generally portrayed as kooks, loons, cranks or crack-pots by the criminally inept MSM, but I would bet that if we had heeded some of their words of advice from the past, we would not be in the economic or political predicament that we are in today. I speak specifically about Ron Paul-- who was portrayed unfairly by the MSM in the last presidential beauty pageant--CNBC commentator Rick Santelli and the writer of one of my favorite blogs Baseball Crank. Baseball Crank is a nom de plume, although his real identity is not much of a secret.

AGAIN I ASK, WHEN DO WE GET TO THIS POINT?


Some of my favorite hits from the past and present from these artists.

RICK SANTELLI - STOP SPENDING!! STOP SPENDING!! STOP SPENDING!!
JUNE 28, 2010 - SANTELLI VS. LIESMAN - THE STOP SPENDING RANT!!!




RON PAUL - END THE FED
FEB 27, 2008 - RON PAUL SCHOOLS BEN BERNANKE



AGAINST THE BAILOUT
SEP 27, 2008 - BEWARE THE SNAKE OIL SALESMAN OF THE BAILOUT




AGAINST THE FED
OCT 24, 2008 - ON GOVERNMENT (IN)EFFICIENCY




AGAINST THE STIMULUS
THE ORIGINAL RANT - FEB 19, 2009 - THE GENESIS OF THE TEA PARTY



Here is Mr. Santelli unplugged, for more than a 30 second sound byte of screaming that CNBC allows and encourages. What he says makes a lot more sense this way.

FROM KINGWORLDNEWS.COM
http://www.kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2010/7/3_Rick_Santelli_files/Rick%20Santelli%207:3:2010.mp3


---
Along with much the same argument and some cool data tables to back them up is Baseball Crank. I posted the entry in it's entirety because it is so good and so important to understand. You can either read it all here or on his site, but read it and understand it you should. If I violated any fair use provisions I am quite certain that being an attorney Mr. Crank will let me know. Happy reading and understanding.


from the blog Baseball Crank

POLITICS: Deficits Are A Symptom. The Problem Is Spending.
JULY 15, 2010

http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2010/07/politics_defici_2.php

The Obama Administration has been in something of a quandary lately as to whether to primarily emphasize its plans to spend more taxpayer money as "stimulus" or to paint itself as fighting against deficits. The former has the advantage of looking like the White House is doing - or trying against GOP opposition to do - something about the economy and its still-listless rates of growth and job recovery; the latter has the advantage of allaying voter fears that the Democrats have been doing too much and digging us into a fiscal hole, as well as offering at least the possibility of bipartisanship or faux bipartisanship that helps (whether Republicans accept or reject Obama's offers) blur the lines between the parties on deficits and spending. Remember that the one thing Obama has sought from Day One of his stimulus strategy, and has largely failed at, is to avoid presenting a clear contrast between the two parties on spending and the size of government, that being an argument he cannot win.

With a deficit commission working on proposals that will be delivered after the fall election, some liberal pundits/activists like Ezra Klein of the Washington Post and Matthew Yglesias of ThinkProgress are trying to keep both options open by arguing that conservatives are somehow hypocritical for complaining about massive deficits under Obama and the Democratic Congress while promoting tax cuts to help with the lack of economic growth. But read their work and notice, as with Obama, what's missing: they talk only about deficits, not about spending - you will search Klein's column in vain for any indication that anyone should care how obese government gets, as long as it's feasting on current tax revenues instead of on deficit financing. And naturally, when and if Obama tries to do something about the deficit, he too will view it mainly as a revenue problem, not a problem with spending and the size of government. Indeed, history shows that even Beltway Republicans have tended to fall into the trap of assuming that the problem is mainly one of raising revenue, or at least that any deal to fix the deficit can only attract Democratic support if it includes Democrats' beloved tax hikes.

This is going about the question all wrong. Would you rather have a federal government that spends 15 cents of every dollar earned in this country, while taxing 12 and making up the difference by issuing debt - or a federal government that takes in and spends 30 cents of every dollar? I'd much prefer the former. The Democrats don't want to have that conversation at all.

Either way the spending is financed, the amount spent by government is a portion of the economy that cannot produce meaningful growth. Yes, wise government can play a role in a better growth environment, and yes, at times the government produces a little growth on its own, e.g., government scientists invent things that can help the economy grow. But by and large, a dollar invested in the public sector is a dollar that will never bear more than a dollar in fruit, and next year the government comes looking for another dollar, while a dollar left in the private sector can grow and be used later in either private or public hands. (In Biblical terms, the dollar in the public sector is like the servant who buried his master's money in the back yard) All of the growth we take for granted as producing increasing wealth over time comes from the portion of the economy that is not consumed by government. So, using our oversimplified example, which obviously excludes the state and local public sector, you have one economy in which 70 cents of every dollar goes back to the private sector to grow, and one in which 85 cents does. Which economy do you think will have more money after a couple of generations of this? Even at a paltry private-sector growth rate of 2% per year, the first economy has produced $1.59 at the end of three years for every dollar, and the second has produced $2.27. As I said, this is a vast oversimplification, but there's simply no way for the first economy to grow faster unless you believe - contrary to the most fundamental tenets of economics and history - that the public sector can produce economic growth at a rate comparable to the private sector.


Moreover, within reason, running a modest deficit can make sense, for reasons somewhat analogous to why a corporation issues bonds as well as stock to raise capital, or why even well-off families (especially under the present tax code) may take out a mortgage: sometimes, debt is cost-effective. As long as it is a safe bet to repay its debts, the US federal government can borrow funds more cheaply than any other entity on earth, and while debt requires us to pay interest, which means mandated spending, if the money not taxed is growing in the private sector at a faster rate than the interest rate paid by the government, then deficit spending makes sense for the same reason why you might buy stocks instead of paying down your mortgage - the rate of return is better. Also, the federal government should never run a surplus, since if the government is collecting, say, 20% in taxes and spending 18%, it's the 20% figure that represents the bite taken out of the private sector. So, the target for revenue should always aim for a little below spending.

But the fact that deficits can make economic sense under the right conditions does not mean that all deficits do - the bigger the debt, the more interest is paid on it (thus, more spending), and the higher rates must be paid (because too-large debt makes bond markets worry about credit risk); and the higher proportion of government spending that's financed by deficits, the worse are your odds that the money left in private hands will grow faster than the interest rate. At some point, deficit financing becomes a very bad bet. And of course, there are situations where the government may need to run a surplus if it needs to use the difference to pay down enough debt to get back to its usual position of running a manageable deficit, a strategy used in the past after the federal government took on excessive debts in a short stretch to fight wars.

So, why are conservatives up in arms now over deficits? Two reasons. One - which the Democrats seem determined to ignore - is that public concern about deficits is often linked to concern about spending and the size of government. Huge deficits can be a major symptom of overspending. But they're the symptom, not the disease. I have a chart below the fold showing federal revenue, spending, deficits, debt and interest as a percentage of GDP, as well as deficits and interest as a percentage of spending (the Def% and Int % columns) and partisan control of the White House, House and Senate from 1947 through 2011.

Until the 2006 elections, we hadn't been over spending 21% of GDP since the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress, and hadn't been over spending 23.5% of GDP in the postwar period. But the first year of the new Democratic Congress took us to 20.7%, then 24.7%, with spending projected to crack 25% for 2010 and 2011 for the first time, as the deficit - never above 6% before, below 4% since 1993 and often below 2% during the era of GOP control of Congress - soars to 9.9% in 2009 and projected 10.6% in 2010. This is simply more spending than the economy can bear, and the deficit is a symptom of that problem.

And two, we're in a situation now where the proportion of deficit spending is itself out of hand. Check the Def% column in the chart - in fiscal years 2009 and (projected) 2010, we're paying for over 40% of government spending by issuing debt, while it had topped out at 18.1% during the years the GOP controlled Congress and 25.5% as the postwar high. It's not at all unreasonable to be unconcerned when you're borrowing 10% or 15% of your budget - when you're borrowing 40%, you're living beyond your means. And anybody who thinks you can fix that by collecting a quarter of GDP in federal taxes is insane.

Spending has to come down. That's the only way to fix the deficit problem and the growth problem.

Here's the chart:

Yr Rev Spend Defc Def% Debt Int Int% WH H S
1947 16.5 14.8 1.7 11.49 110.3 1.8 12.16 D D D
1948 16.2 11.6 4.6 39.66 98.4 1.7 14.66 D R R
1949 14.5 14.3 0.2 1.40 93.2 1.7 11.89 D R R
1950 14.4 15.6 -1.1 -7.05 94.1 1.8 11.54 D D D
1951 16.1 14.2 1.9 13.38 79.6 1.5 10.56 D D D
1952 19 19.4 -0.4 -2.06 74.3 1.3 6.70 D D D
1953 18.7 20.4 -1.7 -8.33 71.3 1.4 6.86 D D D
1954 18.5 18.8 -0.3 -1.60 71.8 1.3 6.91 R R R
1955 16.6 17.3 -0.8 -4.62 69.5 1.2 6.94 R R R
1956 17.5 16.5 0.9 5.45 63.8 1.2 7.27 R D D
1957 17.8 17 0.8 4.71 60.5 1.2 7.06 R D D
1958 17.3 17.9 -0.6 -3.35 60.7 1.2 6.70 R D D
1959 16.1 18.7 -2.6 -13.90 58.5 1.2 6.42 R D D
1960 17.9 17.8 0.1 0.56 56.1 1.3 7.30 R D D
1961 17.8 18.4 -0.6 -3.26 55.1 1.3 7.07 R D D
1962 17.6 18.8 -1.3 -6.91 53.4 1.2 6.38 D D D
1963 17.8 18.6 -0.8 -4.30 51.8 1.3 6.99 D D D
1964 17.6 18.5 -0.9 -4.86 49.4 1.3 7.03 D D D
1965 17 17.2 -0.2 -1.16 46.9 1.3 7.56 D D D
1966 17.4 17.9 -0.5 -2.79 43.6 1.2 6.70 D D D
1967 18.3 19.4 -1.1 -5.67 41.9 1.3 6.70 D D D
1968 17.7 20.6 -2.9 -14.08 42.5 1.3 6.31 D D D
1969 19.7 19.4 0.3 1.55 38.6 1.3 6.70 D D D
1970 19 19.3 -0.3 -1.55 37.6 1.4 7.25 R D D
1971 17.3 19.5 -2.1 -10.77 37.8 1.4 7.18 R D D
1972 17.6 19.6 -2 -10.20 37 1.3 6.63 R D D
1973 17.7 18.8 -1.1 -5.85 35.7 1.3 6.91 R D D
1974 18.3 18.7 -0.4 -2.14 33.6 1.5 8.02 R D D
1975 17.9 21.3 -3.4 -15.96 34.7 1.5 7.04 R D D
1976 17.2 21.4 -4.2 -19.63 36.2 1.5 7.01 R D D
TQ76 17.8 21 -3.2 -15.24 35.2 1.5 7.14 R D D
1977 18 20.7 -2.7 -13.04 35.8 1.5 7.25 R D D
1978 18 20.7 -2.7 -13.04 35 1.6 7.73 D D D
1979 18.5 20.2 -1.6 -7.92 33.2 1.7 8.42 D D D
1980 19 21.7 -2.7 -12.44 33.3 1.9 8.76 D D D
1981 19.6 22.2 -2.6 -11.71 32.6 2.3 10.36 D D D
1982 19.1 23.1 -4 -17.32 35.2 2.6 11.26 R D R
1983 17.5 23.5 -6 -25.53 39.9 2.6 11.06 R D R
1984 17.4 22.2 -4.8 -21.62 40.7 2.9 13.06 R D R
1985 17.7 22.9 -5.1 -22.27 43.9 3.1 13.54 R D R
1986 17.4 22.4 -5 -22.32 48.1 3.1 13.84 R D R
1987 18.4 21.6 -3.2 -14.81 50.5 3 13.89 R D R
1988 18.2 21.3 -3.1 -14.55 51.9 3 14.08 R D D
1989 18.4 21.2 -2.8 -13.21 53.1 3.1 14.62 R D D
1990 18 21.8 -3.9 -17.89 55.9 3.2 14.68 R D D
1991 17.8 22.3 -4.5 -20.18 60.6 3.3 14.80 R D D
1992 17.5 22.1 -4.7 -21.27 64.1 3.2 14.48 R D D
1993 17.6 21.4 -3.9 -18.22 66.2 3 14.02 R D D
1994 18.1 21 -2.9 -13.81 66.7 2.9 13.81 D D D
1995 18.5 20.7 -2.2 -10.63 67.2 3.2 15.46 D D D
1996 18.9 20.3 -1.4 -6.90 67.3 3.1 15.27 D R R
1997 19.3 19.6 -0.3 -1.53 65.6 3 15.31 D R R
1998 20 19.2 0.8 4.17 63.5 2.8 14.58 D R R
1999 20 18.7 1.4 7.49 61.4 2.5 13.37 D R R
2000 20.9 18.4 2.4 13.04 58 2.3 12.50 D R R
2001 19.8 18.5 1.3 7.03 57.4 2 10.81 D R R
2002 17.9 19.4 -1.5 -7.73 59.7 1.6 8.25 R R D
2003 16.5 20 -3.5 -17.50 62.5 1.4 7.00 R R D
2004 16.4 19.9 -3.6 -18.09 64 1.4 7.04 R R R
2005 17.6 20.2 -2.6 -12.87 64.6 1.5 7.43 R R R
2006 18.5 20.4 -1.9 -9.31 64.9 1.7 8.33 R R R
2007 18.8 20 -1.2 -6.00 65.5 1.7 8.50 R R R
2008 17.5 20.7 -3.2 -15.46 69.2 1.8 8.70 R D D
2009 14.8 24.7 -9.9 -40.08 83.4 1.3 5.26 R D D
2010* 14.8 25.4 -10.6 -41.73 94.3 1.3 5.12 D D D
2011* 16.8 25.1 -8.3 -33.07 99 1.6 6.37 D D D

Sources here, here and here, from the master budget-history site which has now been moved to the White House website. House/Senate historical partisan breakdowns here and here, including this note on fiscal years:

The Federal fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on the subsequent September 30. It is designated by the year in which it ends; for example, fiscal year 2007 began on October 1, 2006, and ended on September 30, 2007. Prior to fiscal year 1977 the Federal fiscal years began on July 1 and ended on June 30. In calendar year 1976 the July-September period was a separate accounting period (known as the transition quarter or TQ) to bridge the period required to shift to the new fiscal year.

As with the prior iteration of this chart, I use 1947 as a starting point, as it's the first year after full demobilization from World War II; the war budgets were colossal - in Fiscal Year 1943, the deficit was over 30% of GDP. And before the New Deal, federal spending was generally less than 10% of GDP. The OMB site has projections beyond 2011, but since we don't even have a 2011 budget yet, much less the Congress that will vote on the 2012 budget, the projections further out than that are useless even if you assume that the federal budget forecasters have perfect clairvoyance about the state of the economy two or more years out (hint: I don't).

The State of the Union - Morally Corrupt and Bankrupt as usual - NO CHANGE

In case you are scoring at home, we now have two Obama State of the Union addresses and two times the President has been openly called a liar during the speech. Last year by a Congressman regarding whether or not illegal immigrants would be included in health care and this year by Supreme Court Justice Alito, who reportedly mouthed the words "that's not true" and shook his head at this comment by the Prez.

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

Really??? After the last election was bought and paid for (in your favor) by George Soros, we are all of a sudden concerned about foreign entities bankrolling elections? Sounds like closing the barn door after you've scooped up an election.

UPDATE: from Politifact.com

We found Obama was exaggerating the impact of the Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance when he said it would "open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign companies – to spend without limit in our elections." We rated that Barely True.

A lot of flowery rhetoric in the speech and little or no results to show for it. The good news is that least this year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was able to resist the urge to hurl her panties at the President.

And I was glad to not hear much if any about stimulus or jobs saved or created. Just about how much worse it would be if Obama weren't around to provide comedic relief. If we really needed a Comedian in Chief, my guess is Arsenio Hall might have been available. WTF!! We already have Stuart Smalley in the Sentate, which is proof positive that some of us just don't give a flying Wallenda anymore.

Somebody is clearly lying in DC. I just hope the ass-clowns don't bring down this country before we find out who. Interesting that right after the SCOTUS remark the Prez seemed to indicate that earmarks are now OK, as long as Congressman post them on their websites. WTF!!!

I thought part of the CHANGE was anti-earmark, pro campaign reform. Maybe he meant state of perpetual change. Hard to keep up with ALL these finger-pointing, no-results, no-change LIARS.

I heard someone (maybe Rick Santelli) recently propose that some Congressmen should have to testify for their roles in the economic process and possibly face jail terms for their malfeasance. Might be worth a try. Kudos to Rick, whose Tea Party rant I believe was the genesis of the Scott Brown election in Massachusetts. Maybe the times they are a' changing, just not soon enough.

Anyway, back to the issue that got the Supremes inserted into the speech.

Let's review, we pass a bill that is struck down by the Court as unconstitutional, so the solution is to send the same rascals back to the drawing board and try to figure out another way t circumvent the Constitution of the United States. SOUNDS REASONABLE.

At the heart of the issue is the courts recent ruling in Citizens United v. FEC that has ruled certain provisions of the incumbent-shielding McCain-Feingold (so-called) campaign reform law UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Apparently, the court sees this as more of a First Amendment free speech issue than a campaign reform issue and I agree.

These advocacy groups represent citizens--they are by definition an association of citizens--and in many ways they represent our interests better that our elected representatives.

Any day that the Supreme Court takes time to protect and expand the First Amendment free speech rights of Americans is a good day in AMerica.

Remember the judges / umpires analogy? The same play is viewed differently depending on what side of the field you are standing on.

from Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy regarding the ruling:

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

------
from Newt Gingrich regarding the Supreme Court ruling:

Citizens United v. FEC is one more piece of evidence that the model of bureaucratic campaign finance reform – of government restricting the freedom of Americans to criticize politicians rather than maximizing our freedom to question our leadership – was wrong.

The Founders understood the importance of the unfettered right of citizens to complain about their government. They recognized the danger of politicians controlling or censoring the debate about themselves. That's why they wrote in the First Amendment to the Constitution that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."

These words and this right have been stunningly perverted by laws like McCain-Feingold, which was explicitly a case of Congress making a law abridging our freedom of speech – of incumbent politicians attempting to censor the people's discussion of whether they should remain in office.

---------
It is interesting that while all this is swirling around Washington that the NFL, the Super Bowl and Tim Tebow will become a part of the issue.

Tim wants to tell both his and his mother's story.

from sportsillustrated.com


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/01/16/tebow.super.bowl.ap/index.html

Tebow will appear in Super Bowl commercial for Christian group

Tim Tebow will appear in a 30-second commercial during the Super Bowl

The ad is likely to be an anti-abortion message chronicling Tebow's birth

And some want to prevent him from having the right to tell it.

from foxnews.com

College football phenom Tim Tebow is about to become one of the biggest stars of Super Bowl XLIV — and he's not even playing in the game.

Tebow, the Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback for the University of Florida, and his mother Pam will appear in a pro-life commercial that tells the story of his risky birth 22 years ago -- an ad that critics suggest could lead to anti-abortion violence, even though none of them have seen it.

The 30-second spot, paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's turbulent pregnancy in 1987:

It's a happy story with an inspirational ending, but pro-choice critics say Focus on the Family should not be allowed to air the commercial because it advocates on behalf of a divisive issue and threatens to "throw women under the bus."

"This organization is extremely intolerant and divisive and pushing an un-American agenda," said Jehmu Greene, director of the Women's Media Center, which is coordinating a campaign to force CBS to pull the ad before it airs on Feb. 7.

"Abortion is very controversial, and the anti-abortion vitriol has resulted in escalated violence against reproductive health providers and their patients," Greene said. "We've seen that clearly with the murder of Dr. George Tiller," the late-term abortion provider who was gunned down in his Kansas church in May 2009.

Next month may mark the first time NOW has had to tackle a Heisman winner. The group typically tracks Super Bowl ads for signs of sexism, not for religious or political content.

I could see if the ad was in some way advocating violence against pro-choice forces, then maybe advocate to suppress it. But isn't it a bit of a stretch to imply that simply telling this story would lead to any violence?

Bad enough that abortion itself, especially how it is currently practiced, is not construed as a horrific act of violence, but I digress.

I fail to see how recounting this remarkable story of love, faith and courage would lead to violence. I guess I must be missing the linkage.

I come down on the side of free speech every time. Unless someone yells fire in a crowded theater. I just don't see that here.

RICK SANTELLI'S CHICAGO TEA PARTY - ALL ABOARD

Rick Santelli hit the nail on the head with this analysis of the Administration's foreclosure mitigation plans.

A Chicago Tea Party in July. I'M THERE. They should throw some of these idiot politicians in Lake Michigan instead of tea though.

Santelli is a straight shooter who doesn't sugarcoat it.

We the people, are subsidizing the banks, the auto companies and now the morons who got in over their heads to own a home and should have remained renters.

This isn't T-Ball people, we keep score and there are winners and losers in life.

This middle class that Obama/Biden seemed so concerned about during the campaign is getting no relief from any of these packages and will instead be asked to pay the bill.

People are getting fed up with bailing out all these losers. It's way past time that Washington gets their finger on the true pulse of the American public.

Where have you gone John Galt?