There was a time when presidents flew Air Force One to places like Santa Barbara, Midland, and Kennebunkport, or used Marine One to visit Camp David or reach San Clemente. Based upon the stupefying budget numbers finally dribbled out to the public last week, however, it would appear that Mr. Obama was never vacationing in Hawaii but instead diverting his flights to Narnia and relying on accountants from the Land of Oz. Raw numbers and empirical data can be nettlesome and pesky, can’t they? When examined in unvarnished form it doesn’t take long to separate the snake oil salesman from the sermonizer, and in the case of this administration it speaks of a deliberate and systematic pattern of prevarication. The only question remaining to be answered is the motivation for outright lying.
Two weeks ago it was suggested that a budget be adopted with yet trillions more in overruns, last week it was revealed that Obamacare would cost over twice as much as originally planned, and this week the Buffett Rule was shown to be nothing more than a half-baked ruse concocted by a sitting president and a man who has made a fortune balancing tenuously on a tightrope over an ethics chasm. William Daley likely vacated his position as Chief of Staff because he felt himself morphing into Nurse Ratched.
According to Mr. Obama’s idée fixe, greater taxation of the rich is written in the Bible, and a fully warranted and deserving penalty to be inflicted for success in the private sector as well as a panacea which will help resolve the country’s deficit, and who should ride to his defense but a wealthy, elderly man who conspires to promulgate this lie for the purpose of heightening class warfare and envy. Here is a real inconvenient truth:
It has been determined the Buffett rule would raise $31 Billion in additional taxes over the next ten years against a $15 Trillion deficit.
That is the equivalent of having a $75,000.00 mortgage and trumpeting the contribution of a penny as a step toward satisfying repayment, and if one wishes to examine the suggestion that an additional $3.1 Billion taxes for the coming year will magically reduce the projected $2.3 Trillion of overspending, the numbers are worse. It would be the equivalent of dedicating one cent toward a debt of $184,000.00.
Those are not misprints, nor the result of fuzzy math. The question which must be raised, therefore, is what would prompt a president to perform like a barking seal and denigrate high income earners as a pox on our country every time he sees a microphone? The answer, unfortunately, is that he does so as an intentional gross misrepresentation or else he is unimaginably dense, neither of which is heartening. It seems less surprising now that this was the same man who picked Joe Biden as a running mate, a vice president who compares his boss to Superman and who believes erasing Osama Bin Laden with a Navy SEAL Team was of greater military strategic significance than D-Day.
A president whose beliefs were not rooted in the Manifesto’s concept of rationed health care would have announced an eight year plan to examine all aspects of the medical industry commencing with exhaustive studies throughout his first term. He would have framed the first four years in the context of exploring options that he intended to weigh and ultimately consider as a proposal near the end of his second term, and in lieu of re-election at least have provided a base from which his successor could continue to look for manners in which health care might be improved. He would not have resorted to creating assurances out of thin air, would not have needed the use of bribery and threats in order to pass haphazard legislation, and would not have needed to hawk it like a product at a carnival if his intentions were forthright. In reality it was an unabashed power-grab from the beginning and what he saw as a critical first step toward curtailing personal liberties and consolidating all power with the State.
Mr. Obama’s next step, of course, is to commandeer the financial industry, nationalizing yet another huge sector of our economy. A strong case can be made on behalf of the government intervening to solidify wobbling institutions, but the problem with the type of financial assistance extended was that it had enough vigorish and contingencies attached to it to make a loan shark smile. The public relations side of the argument is that successful and decisive action was taken, but the backroom analysis is that while stabilized temporarily, the resulting makeover came with restrictive regulations that will hamper growth, creativity, and profits, making the rather predictable next bailout a Statist’s opportunity to deliver the coup de grace.
Last week the administration tried to transform a pouting 33 year old former Goldman Sachs employee into a cause célèbre for all that was wrong with financial institution practices, a contrivance that came with a high degree of predictability. Outside of being a rather mediocre talent, it’s difficult to say what prompted young Mr. Smith to savage his employer in an op-ed piece and even more puzzling why someone would print it. What a headline: 33 Year Old Disappointed in Low Career Trajectory; Blames Employer. Given his enormous depth and wide range of experience…………………I was unable to discern any profundities in Mr. Smith’s screed, so perhaps there are more deep-seeded manifestations of angst.
Maybe when the market crashed in 1987 the news affected his parents and ruined his 8th birthday party, or more likely, the bursting of the market bubble of 2001 affected the tech stocks in his trust fund and took all the fun out of a toga party he and his frat house were hosting. If paparazzi snap a picture of him having dinner with Sandra Fluke any time soon, we’ll know for sure it was a set up all the way.