Paul Krugman is an Idiot, Part II

In the esteemed, left wing self proclaimed economists column today, Mr. Krug takes cheap political swipes at Rep. Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America's Future, calling him the "flim flam man". We think that sobriquet more properly fits the economist himself for his personal brand of agenda driven, psuedo populist, economic pronouncements, completely devoid of fact, historical evidence, or even common sense.

In today's drivel, Mr. Krug, (I just can't bring myself to add "man" to the equation) returns to the old, dosproven rhetoric that tax cuts reduce revenue to the government, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. For this he relies on the outdated computer models used by the CBO, and the GAO, which only account for static numbers. Meaning that if you reduce taxes by 10%, and you collected $100 this year, it assumes you will only collect $90 next year, when history has shown that every times taxes have been cut across the board, MORE revenue has found it's way into the governments coffers, through the expanded jobs base, more spending, creating more demand for more goods, which has an, OH MY GOD!, DARE I SAY IT... "trickle down effect" creating more and more demand for more varied jobs as it flows.

So here are the numbers Mr. Krug refuses to acknowledge according to the Treasury Dept.; Lets start with the Reagan tax cuts. Those were first implemented in 1982, but did not begin to take effect until late 1983.

In 1983:
Fed. Income tax revenues were: $326 B
Business tax revenue: $14.5 B
Total tax revenue: $600.6 B
BTW Congress SPENT: $808.4 B that year.

In 1984:
Fed. Income tax revenues were: $355.3 B
Business tax revenue: $15.7 B
Total tax revenue: $666.5 B AN INCREASE IN TAX REVENUE OF 11%
BTW Congress SPENT: $851.9 B that year.

In 1985:
Fed. Income tax revenues were: $395.9 B
Business tax revenue: $17.1 B
Total tax revenue: $734.1 B AN INCREASE IN TAX REVENUE OF 10.2%
BTW Congress SPENT: $946.4 B that year.

In 1986:
Fed. Income tax revenues were: $412.1 B
Business tax revenue: $18.6 B
Total tax revenue: $769.2 B AN INCREASE IN TAX REVENUE OF 4.8%
BTW Congress SPENT: $990.4 B that year.

In 1987:
Fed. Income tax revenues were: $476.5 B
Business tax revenue: $17 B
Total tax revenue: $854.4 B AN INCREASE IN TAX REVENUE OF 11.1%
BTW Congress SPENT: $1004.1 B that year.

In 1988:
Fed. Income tax revenues were: $495.7 B
Business tax revenue: $17.4 B
Total tax revenue: $909.3 B AN INCREASE IN TAX REVENUE OF 6.5%
BTW Congress SPENT: $1064.5 B that year.

And the trend continued almost unabated. BTW, ALL of these increases far exceeded any increases in GDP, meaning, Mr. Krug, that Federal income tax revenue AFTER TAX RATE CUTS INCREASE FASTER THAN ECONOMY AS A WHOLE! Resulting in more revenue for the government, which as you can see Congress willingly spent faster than it came in.

The aggregate increase in income tax revenue 1983- 1988 was 179% INCREASE!! comments Mr. Krug??? Also he fails to mention that every budget signed by President Reagan also included promised spending cuts which Congress never could bring themselves to implement. In essence they lied, as usual. The actual historical numbers belie the partisan whining of the NYT's economic advisor, maybe that is why the old grey lady can't turn a profit?

President Obama's High crimes and misdemeanors.

First lets begin with a discussion of what the phrase; "High crimes and misdemeanors" means. This term was used by the Founders to describe conduct considered to be unacceptable in it's chief executive. The "misdemeanors" part did not mean "small crimes", as it does in legal parlance, but "mis demeanors" or bad behaviours. Things that were inherently or morally wrong.

So lets look at Mr. Obama's track record since taking office;

First and foremost, ANY violation of the Constitution is grounds for impeachment, as it is a violation of his oath of office.

1) Bailouts
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to spend the taxpayer’s money. Without the consent of Congress, the President cannot legally spend taxpayer money.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.

Two Presidents had a hand in the auto industry bailout: 1) President G. W. Bush by using TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) money authorized by Congress and 2) President Barack Obama, not using TARP funds, but declaring that he would use monies from somewhere, and do so with the authority and power of the Executive Branch. At the time, CNSNews.com correspondent Fred Lucas asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs where President Obama derived his authority to use taxpayer funds to bail out GM and Chrysler.

President Bush’s use of congressionally approved TARP funds is suspect also, although the money was “legislated” by Congress. The bug in the ointment is that the TARP funds were authorized only for use by the Treasury to purchase “troubled assets” from “financial institutions.” The auto industry does not qualify as a “financial institution.”

Back in October 2008, the CATO Institute looks at the constitutionality of the auto bailouts. After exploring the fact that the government “created this crisis with everything from artificially low interest rates to political pressures for affordable housing, quick loans for bad credit risks, and the subsidization of agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Nevertheless, CATO Institute’s chairman, Robert A. Levy, says, no, the bailout is not constitutional.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to spend taxpayers’ money to buy distressed assets, much less to take an ownership position in private financial institutions. And Con­gress has no constitutional authority to delegate nearly plenary legislative power to the Treasury secretary, an executive branch official.Congress can proceed only from legitimate authority, not from good intentions alone. That means we must find a constitutional pedigree for each proposed law.

Levy then discusses the rationale of using the commerce clause to legitimize the spending, but he clearly decides that any reasoning for this position is a misinterpretation.

Moreover, it is not a commerce clause argument to say that Congress created the mess and, therefore, Congress can do whatever it wants to fix the mess. Legislators’ misdeeds do not ipso facto justify the socialization of private banks, brokers, mortgage companies, and insurance companies-and who knows where it stops.

Even if Congress could defend the bailout as a means of preventing interstate impediments to commerce, that would not legitimize any and all means.

2) Supreme Court

President Obama has expressed his desire to see his Supreme Court nominees embrace “empathy” in their decisions and opinions. Nevermind the the oath that a Justice swears to:

I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

There is no room for empathy when justice is blind and the poor and the rich have equal rights in the sight of the law of the land. While the U.S. Constitution does not provide the oath for a Supreme Court Justice, it does state that others “shall be bound by an oath or affirmation to support this constitution.”

Additionally, if the President keeps his oath of office, he will not require a Justice who uses “empathy” to decide a case, because empathy is unconstitutional and unfit for the U.S. Supreme Court:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Appointing activist Judges to the Supreme Court is an avenue to interpreting the Constitution as a “living, breathing” document…an avenue for a Judge to insert personal opinion, maybe “empathy,” which is unlawful. The only way for the Constitution to take a breath is through an amendment. There is no other way. Outside of amendments, the Constitution is ageless, and it awaits it’s use as a service to all Americans, but not at the whim of an activist Judge.

Interpreting the Constitution as a “living, breathing document without amendments, renders it practically impotent, because it no longer has the power to protect our rights. Eminent domain is an excellent example.

3) The Czars

The appointment of the many “czars” by the Obama administration are unconstitutional. There’s the Car Czar, The Pay Czar, The Great Lakes Czar, a Cyber Czar, a Drug Czar, an Energy Czar, a Health Reform Czar, an Intelligence Czar, and a Tech Czar. The Czar Czar, of course, is Barack Obama. What is Obama’s Cabinet members doing these days? They’ve all been demoted and they know it and there’s not a thing they can do about it.

Here’s the problem with Czars. They report to no one but Barack Obama. They have far reaching powers and Congress cannot stop a single decision they make. What has happened to our egotistic Congress who has been so willingly hypnotised into giving up their grasp on EVERYTHING? Maybe it’s something in the water. So much for checks and balances. Barack Obama reigns.

Even Senator Robert Byrd, the longest-serving senator in history, hates the idea of Czar appointments. It’s dangerous he says. It gives the president too much power.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd, a Democrat, said that the czar system “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances,” Politico reported. Byrd added that oversight of federal agencies is the responsibility of officials approved by the Senate.

As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, or to virtually anyone but the president,” Byrd wrote. “They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.

4) Government ownership in private business

The seizure of ownership of private business is unconstitutional. The government ownership of GM is unconstitutional. We’ve beat this horse to the ground. No need to say more.

5) Redistribution of Wealth

Engineering the redistribution of wealth in the GM stock debacle is unconstitutional. I’m not sure I have the latest figures, but nevertheless, it’s not good for shareholders who I believe end up with 10 percent of their investment or five cents on the dollar. The government gets 50 percent of the stock, about 87 cents on the dollar. The Unions get 40 percent ownership, plus $10 billion in cash – about 76 cents on the dollar. Doesn’t this make you want to throw-up and then find a quiet spot and grieve for our country?

6) Health Care

Obama’s health care plan is unconstitutional. The first thing that comes to mind is his plan to pay for his health care plan by taxing the wealthy to pay for it. Redistribution of wealth is unconstitutional in America. Then there’s the fact that he plans to put private business out of business to achieve his goal, which is simply power over all of us.

In the fall of 2008, Obama told Tom Brokaw that health care “should be a right for every American.” The Constitution says nothing about guaranteeing health care. BUT, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. has introduced H.J. Res. 30 which calls for a Constitutional Amendment to establish “the right of citizens of the U.S. to health care of equal high quality.”

7) Interpreting the Constitution as a “living, breathing” document

The only way to make the Constitution take a breath occasionally is to amend it. The Constitution limits government, and to expand government, that expansion must be appropriate under the document,

That’s my six obviously unconstitutional steps taken by President Obama.

We live among idiots, and I guess, we are idiots because if we had the proper sense of outrage, we would sit on the steps of Congress until all of the above are overturned, or Barack Obama is impeached, whichever comes first.

Where are our Defending Fathers in Congress? They should be on the floor railing about these issues every single day, over and over. Are we…are they, really so willing to devalue our prized Constitution.

From Thomas Paine:
A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government, and a government without a constitution is power without right.’ ‘A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government; and a government is only the creature of a constitution.’

Think about that:

watch for more specifics in part II.

We are NOT racists, We are the PEOPLE!

The NAACP thinks the TEA party- goers are racist. This from an inherently racist organization. Before we discuss this lets define terms;

The FREE ONLINE DICTIONARY defines Racism as "discrimination or prejudice based upon race"

That seems like a general, but good definition. Now I have been to many TEA party events, and have yet to see any display of racism. The TEA parties are motivated by an intense dislike of the President's, and Congress' POLICIES! The signs that the left point to as evidence of racism; the Obama joker poster, are about his failure to live up to his campaign promises, not his race. OH, they say, it is "coded language", well give us TEA partiers the key then because we don't get it!

On the contrary, it is those on the political left who view everything through the prism of race, that are the racists. It is they who are injecting race into the conversation. And this includes the race pimps, who make a career of fostering interracial hatred and distrust, such as, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan. These august gentlemen have the podium, an platform from which they could do enormous good for the American- African people, but they choose instead, to enrich themselves and their friends, shakedown corporations, and build political organizations that benefit themselves while destroying the black community.

The TEA partiers could care less about Obama's race, it is his policies, lack of leadership, indecisiveness, and his petty, partisan political bullying tactics that we protest. Governmental redistribution of wealth has never worked throughout history, we don't need to try it here. We have seen this movie, we know how it ends! Just ask the USSR, China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, etc.

This racial recrimination is dividing the country, Mr. President. You could, if you cared, use your bully pulpit to put an end to this, by simply saying that it is divisive, harmful to all, and untrue. That it is high time for all to move on, do something productive to better the country as a whole.

Mr. President........ The People await your missing leadership.

Paul Krugman is an idiot!

Yes, Mr. Krugman, Keynesian, and Master of the Liberal posterior pucker is at it again, calling for MORE stimulus to follow in the wake of the failure of the first stimulus to stimulate anything other than Public Sector Union payrolls.

Here is the problem, Paul. Government can't stimulate!

Why, you say? Because they OWN nothing! before the government can spend anything, it must take it from the people. Like the Mafia, the government takes it's cut, and passes the balance along to the biggest contributor!

So if the government wants to spend a trillion dollars, it must either; Raise it in taxes, Borrow it, or print it! but all of these options entails the American taxpayer footing the bill, and that bill is an inherent drain on the economy. The reason that government jobs are not economic expansion is simple, those jobs are being paid for by the taxpayer, resulting in a larger budget to cover the new employees. The more government spends, the more it takes, further slowing the economy.

Paul, I know you are supposed to be an economist, but this is simple economics 101, did you miss that class?

R.I.P. American Representative Republic! House Democrats plan the murder

By: Mark Acciard writing for the Freedom Research Institute

Ladies and Gentlemen, to quote F.D.R. THIS is the day that will live in infamy. Later in life you will be able to tell your grandkids what you were doing the day the House Democrats, under the.... um.... leadership? of Nancy Pelosi Murdered the American Experiment.

Now I am sure you are thinking that I am merely engaging in hyperbole, but no, as we speak, or as I write and you read, house dems are considering the "Slaughter Solution". no this is not a low budget horror film, this one has the largest budget ever spent, approximately $2,400,000,000,000.00! This solution is the brainchild of house rules committee chair, Louise Slaughter, and the scam works like this;

The dems, not having enough votes among their own party, and recognizing on some subconscious level that the American people do not want this, are desperately trying to find a way to pass the presidents take over of 1/6 of the U.S. economy, without having to actually record a vote for it! That's right, you heard me, they are going to make a law, without a vote, taking a page out of Joseph Stalin's, Mao Tse Tung's, Fidel Castro's, Benito Mussolini's book. They plan to write a "self- effecting rule". What that means in laymen's terms is a rule that when they vote for it, automatically passes the law, they are afraid to register their vote for. This way when they are questioned by their constituents about voting for this Obamanation they will be able to say, somewhat truthfully, "I didn't vote for Obamacare, I only voted for the rule." Spineless sacks of whale excrement!

Think the press would be upset if some congresscritter passed a "self effecting rule" that overturned Executive Order 10988? That was the Executive Order signed by JFK in 1962 granting collective bargaining rights to public sector unions. What if some Congressman though that as the quality of public education declines largely due to the efforts of various teachers unions, it is imperative that this Executive Order be repealed. You would hear howls of protest form the press, academia, and the Dems, but when it comes to an unconstitutional expansion of governmental authority, the House Dems rallying cry is; "VOTES?, We Don't Need No Stinking Votes!"

more info here

The Last word Congress wants to hear is "Voluntary".

The reason Rep. Paul Ryan is all wrong on saving the country from insolvency, say Democrats, is health care for old people. The Janesville Republican wants to replace Medicare, they say, by merely handing out money.

It's the "privatization" of Medicare, said Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), dismissively. While it sounds generous to give retirees $11,000 to shop from federally approved lists of insurance plans, as congressmen do, "the value of these vouchers would almost surely lag ever further behind," wrote press wingman Paul Krugman of The New York Times, ignoring the reality that such market competition restrains prices.

What's their plan? Remember, Ryan proposed this only for those now under 55. Anyone older gets the old deal: Uncle Sam telling you not to worry, that Medicare will take care of everything. Presumably, Democrats would prefer we all rely on such promises.

Forget for a moment that Medicare's own trustees reported last spring the system would be insolvent in 2017. Forget that this means the real choice is: You want an $11,000 voucher, or do you want crumbs?

Suppose instead that you think Washington somehow will resuscitate Medicare's finances. Then the question is what makes you feel safer: The feds say they'll give retirees a certain sum to spend as they will, or the feds promise to figure out what you need and handle it. Medicare's already promised $38,000,000,000,000 in benefits, so there might be a line.

I'll take the money, thanks. Fewer strings, fewer asterisks.

Medicare is the most unison part of Ryan's "roadmap," a rethinking of how the federal government can avoid welshing on obligations without indenturing your grandkids. Ryan sketches out changes to Social Security and taxes, too. Left or right, one might debate whether the ideas would work, though congressional accountants say they will.

Yet the Democratic establishment has torn into Ryan savagely, declaring his ideas unspeakable even as he preserves their ideals that taxpayers should support retirees and that tax rates should rise as income does.

He proposes that younger workers be allowed the option of diverting a third of their Social Security taxes into accounts managed by the feds. This would be voluntary and would leave two-thirds of one's taxes going into a system that provides young workers with a 0% rate of return.

Congressional Democrats lined up to say this was the "dismantling" of Social Security.

Similarly, Ryan proposes to allow taxpayers the option of paying by a flatter scale, with lower rates but fewer loopholes. This has come under attack as letting rich people get away with something.

Why such vehemence? Well, Ryan is unusually bright, and his plans show promise. It is to Democrats' political advantage to squelch them.

But the real problem for those on the dominant left of the Democratic Party is what you'd think makes Ryan's plans palatable: That they're voluntary. If you think Social Security's a good deal, you'd be able to stay in it, but for "progressives," this choice should never come up. For a century, progressive thought has sought to replace individual choice with collective decision-making.

Continued Here

Education: Too Important for a Government Monopoly

The government-school establishment has said the same thing for decades: Education is too important to leave to the competitive market. If we really want to help our kids, we must focus more resources on the government schools.

But despite this mantra, the focus is on something other than the kids. When The Washington Post asked George Parker, head of the Washington, D.C., teachers union, about the voucher program there, he said: "Parents are voting with their feet. ... As kids continue leaving the system, we will lose teachers. Our very survival depends on having kids in D.C. schools so we'll have teachers to represent."

How revealing is that?

Since 1980, government spending on education, adjusted for inflation, has nearly doubled. But test scores have been flat for decades.

Today we spend a stunning $11,000 a year per student -- more than $200,000 per classroom. It's not working. So when will we permit competition and choice, which works great with everything else? I'll explore those questions on my Fox Business program tomorrow night at 8 and 11 p.m. Eastern time (and again Friday at 10 p.m.).

The people who test students internationally told us that two factors predict a country's educational success: Do the schools have the autonomy to experiment, and do parents have a choice?

Continued here