THE UNHINGED PRESIDENT

Chris Wallace and Charles Krauthammer have joined George Will as my least favored media talking heads. There are several others—like Bernie Goldberg, often seen on Bill O’Reilly’s Factor show, that belong on a growing list of people who want us to believe they are SHOCKED! – SHOCKED! - at Trump’s post-election behavior. It’s as though they believed a magic switch would be thrown and Trump would begin behaving exactly as all politicians (particularly Presidents) have done for at least the past twenty-four years. More illustrative of the Potomac intelligentsia is their pronouncement of doom upon this administration because (Gasp!) they don’t follow the accepted protocol in their handling of ANYTHING. Obviously, Trump hasn’t a clue.

Does it take more than a little hubris to assume that a man who has amassed a multi-billion dollar fortune, has managed to establish and prove up many highly successful and lucrative businesses, and has also defeated the best and brightest presidential candidates that either party could array against him—this man is somehow so stupid that he doesn’t know how to deal with obstacles, many of them manufactured, that the secularists place in his path?

A Change.org petition being circulated by mental health professionals asserts President Trump is ‘unfit to serve’! 24,000 signatures have been garnered thus far.

To the mental health professionals and those of the enlightened media who have informed us President Trump is ‘unhinged’, is it fair to ask what evidence you would cite to illustrate your point? If it is his behaviors that you deem irrational, perhaps you could provide us with a definition of ‘rational’, and tell us whether that definition is applicable to all members of the human race? For instance, is it rational for a man in his late 50s or 60s to throw a chair across the floor of a crowded gymnasium? I cannot see Dean Smith, Roy Williams, or Bill Self doing anything so rash, but a highly successful college basketball coach named Bobby Knight did exactly that—and remained a winning coach for several years thereafter! Rational behavior? If that behavior accomplishes the goal that you are seeking, perhaps it is not so irrational for you. You would not expect a Caspar Milquetoast to smash a 250-pound hulking bully in the mouth with his fist; that would be the epitome of irrational behavior. But for Arnold Schwarzenegger to take such action might be a more sensible, even ‘rational’ response to provocation.

I don’t like Donald Trump; haven’t liked him since he first announced his candidacy. He is crude, rude, and perfectly willing to destroy the reputation and career of an opponent to obtain his ends. I truly believe that Dale Carnegie, author of the book, How to Win Friends and Influence People, might well have wanted to punch him in the nose.

Anyone who expected Donald Trump to behave exactly as each—indeed, ANY—of the past Presidents has to be smoking some of that funny tobacco. Donald Trump is not George Bush. There are even fewer similarities between Trump and Barack Obama. Trump is Trump. For good or ill, he is going to do things in the ways that have proved, I think you would agree, fairly successful for him in the past. To do otherwise would be foolish, don’t you think? Why exchange the thoroughbred you have ridden to stunning victories, for the old grey mare proven time and again to be slow afoot, often finishing last?

If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears the beat of a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.
--Henry David Thoreau: Walden

 Some of the actions he will take during his presidency are going to be applauded by many who are looking for change in America. Some of the things he does will cause many to wince in fear and disgust. But if you are surprised that he is who he is, then you have definitely not been paying attention.

Trump was not elected to win the approval of the media and politicians. He was chosen because he promised to bring a little sanity back to politics; to do things that are in the best interests of America, for a change; to repeal and replace Obamacare, to restore some American pride, to rebuild our faltering military, to solve the immigration problems, to cut taxes and to restore jobs. Everything the immediate past president did accomplished the exact opposite of those ends. America wanted a change. It is as simple as that. Perhaps the media and politicians of both parties will be the last to comprehend that message.

Criticize him if you must. He is NEVER going to be the kinder, gentler president you want him to be. He is always going to be egocentric, thin-skinned, and tone deaf. Maddeningly so, perhaps. But as long as he is making a bonafide effort to restore American leadership, pride and a sense of moral responsibility, anyone who is a genuine conservative should stop and think before giving the secularists too much assistance in trying to destroy our President.

By the way, where are the Democrat opposite numbers of John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Marco Rubio, and Susan Collins? The only Democrat Senator to EVER oppose Obama in any way was Joe Manchin of West Virginia—and that was muted opposition to Obama’s stance on coal. Are the secularists convictions more strongly held than those of conservatives? Interesting . . . 

OBAMA'S 2013 BUDGET IS AMERICA'S GREEK TRAGEDY

If we recall those cheesy Greek columns that were the backdrop for the DNC convention at Denver’s Invesco Field stadium in August 2008 we may have initially thought those pillars to simply represent the DNC's pitiful hero worship of some mysterious, unknown, small time Chicago politico named Barack Hussein Obama as their party’s candidate for President of the United States. Little did anyone realize that this garish Greek metaphor was a foreshadowing of the grand plan for the progressive/socialist’s “Apollo” to deliberately destroy America’s economic hegemony and replace it to resemble Greece’s financial decay.

President Obama’s Greek recipe for America’s financial demise is undeniably laden with poisonous ingredients (deficit spending, mounting debt, and class warfare tax threats), but at least the manner in which he “stirs the sauce” has one saving grace; it’s predictable. During his tenure as President his 2010, 2011 and 2012 fiscal year budgets had a consistent theme to dismantle America’s economic fabric. Those three budgets were systematic plans to spend in excess of revenues and balloon America’s national debt instead of fostering economic growth.

Now, in the face of a national debt crisis wherein the national debt exceeds GDP and a downgrading of America’s global credit rating, President Obama continues that theme with his 2013 fiscal year budget. In baseball vernacular he’s four-for-four. To support this notion The Wall Street Journal deftly summarized President Obama’s annual budget proposals from 2010-2013 that illustrate his uncanny resolve year in and year out to bankrupt America:

• Four years of spending of more than 24% of GDP, the four highest spending years since 1946. In the current fiscal year of 2012, despite talk of austerity, Mr. Obama predicts spending will increase by $193 billion to $3.8 trillion, or 24.3% of GDP.
• Another deficit of $1.327 trillion in 2012, also an increase from 2011, and making four years in a row with deficits above $1.29 trillion.
• Revenues are at historic lows because of the mediocre recovery. The White House budget office estimates that for the fourth year in a row tax revenues won't reach 16% of GDP. The last time they were below 16% for any year was 1950.

Also according to the WSJ all of the above has added an astonishing $5 trillion in debt  during President Obama’s first presidential term. National debt held by the public will approximate 74.2% in 2012 and keep rising to 77.4% next year (see below chart 1). Economists believe that when debt to GDP reaches 90% the economic damage begins to risk--think Greece.

Chart1: The public portion of the national debt is now approaching 80% of GDP. Economists believe that when public debt-to-GDP ratios reach 90% the economic damage begins to rise.

Holistically the Obama 2013 budget is fundamentally just a cut and paste from his previous three spending spree budgets freshened up with some new and improved class warfare tax hikes and updated with his perennial smoke and mirror accounting and spending gimmicks. A topside review of President Obama’s latest schematic for bankrupting America comes courtesy of the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, with the committee’s overarching comment that “President Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget increases spending every year, proposes the largest tax increase in history, burdens the country with more debt, and never balances the budget”. The following are the RPC’s highlights:

Spending, Spending and more Spending

• President Obama’s 2013 budget spends $3.8 trillion, runs a deficit of nearly $1 trillion.
• The 2013 budget includes total ten year spending of $47 trillion, $11 trillion of it borrowed.
• Proposed fiscal year 2013 spending is 23.3% of GDP. In FY 2022, well after the White House says the economy should have recovered, spending is 22.8% of GDP, far higher than the country’s 40-year average of 20.6% of GDP.

Deficits, Deficits and more Deficits

• President Obama’s budget can barely bring the deficit below $1 trillion; the fiscal year 2013 budget deficit is projected to be $901 billion.
• At the end of President Obama’s 10-year budget window in FY 2022, there is still a deficit of $704 billion.

Debt, Debt and more Debt

• President Obama’s budget calls for $11.2 trillion in additional gross debt from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2022.
• Under the President’s budget Gross National Debt will total $26 trillion in fiscal year 2022 under this budget, and annual interest costs on the debt will be $850 billion.

Class Warfare Taxes, Taxes and more Taxes

• The Obama budget raises taxes by nearly $1.9 trillion from 2013 to 2022, the largest tax increase in U.S. history.
• President Obama raises taxes on people making more than $200,000 or couples making over $250,000. The two new tax brackets for those making over these amounts would be 36% and 39.6%.
• The President’s budget reinstates the limitation on itemized deductions for high-income earners; provisions could add 2% or more to a taxpayer’s rate.
• Limits the value of itemized deductions for high earners to 28%.
• For upper-income taxpayers, capital gains would be taxed at 20%. The current rate is 15%.
• The estate tax would be reinstated at 2009 levels.
• President Obama calls for his favorite class warfare tax known as the "Buffett Rule", but does not include an actual proposal for how to implement it.

Additionally any of the President’s future deficit reductions are basically accounting shell games. They are Budget Control Act cuts already in place and $848 billion in discredited phantom “savings” from the wind-down of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, in a word, President Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget has no actual deficit reduction measures.

When it comes to managing the greatest threat to America’s economic system, and the cause for Greece’s economic downfall, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security entitlements, President Obama has again kicked the can down the road. According to the Heritage Foundation “by the middle of this century, these three programs and ObamaCare will consume about 18 percent of GDP, soaking up all the historical average of federal tax revenue”.

Critics of the Obama budget are not limited to the RPC or conservative think tanks. Dana Milbank, hardly a card-carrying conservative, reviewed the President’s 2013 fiscal year budget and made the following rebuke,

“The White House’s budget for fiscal 2013 begins with a broken promise, adds some phony policy assumptions, throws in a few rosy forecasts and omits all kinds of painful decisions. Even then, the proposal would add $1 trillion more to the national debt than Obama contemplated a few months ago — and it is a non-starter on Capitol Hill, where even Senate Democrats have no plans to take it up.”

Another Obama budget, another blueprint for bankrupting America and another display of cowardice and inability on the part of President Obama to display any semblance of leadership to present a serious plan for reinstating America’s solvency. Predictable? Yes. As will be the American version of a Greek tragedy unless true leadership is installed in America’s Oval office.

Obama Makes A Good Decision - Whodda Thunk It?

Could it be that we are going to see President Obama actually turn a corner and make decisions that are based on sound logic and are good for this nation? I am not going to hold my breath for a long term change in direction, but Obama has actually made a decision based on how it will impact the majority of the nation, and not just his progressive or union pals.

Obama overruled the Environmental Protection Agency – and the unanimous opinion of its independent panel of scientific advisers – and directed administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposed regulation to reduce concentrations of ground-level ozone, smog’s main ingredient. The decision rests in on reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for businesses at a time rampant uncertainty about an unsteady economy. (Source: Yahoo News)

With the growth in the economy and in job creation at nearly zero, Obama had to do something that would, at the very least, not create further drag on the economy. This is sort of a reversal for him. In the past he has made what were clear to nearly everyone really poor economic decisions: QE 1 & 2, the stimulus, and Obama care, none of which have been a boost to job or economic growth. It almost seemed like he was making these decisions for precisely that: taking down the American economy so he could rebuild it in his socialist image.

As I said, I am not going to hold my breath. His greenies are already howling, and he will have to do something to appease that crowd. Maybe lock up another million acres on western land from any sort of development.