Is it Good for America – Dwight Eisenhower and Debt Stars

I may sound like I’m beating a dead horse here at the Left Coast Rebel. As is for the course of our country under the Obamanation, day in and day out I am confronted with sabotages thrust forth from Washington that I believe threaten our very well being. Be that this is the case, I’m going to keep beating this poor creature. An op-ed still fresh on my mind here from Investor’s Business Daily, whip in hand, flogging begins….

The duo of Ernest S. Christian and Gary A. Robbins put together the piece, Christian is the executive director CSTR.org, Robbins is the chief economist. Browsing their site here, I find the group to be a stalwart defender of freedom from excessive taxation, guided by the ethos of President Eisenhower – “I have one yardstick by which I measure everything…Is it good for America?” Note the organization’s symbol at left.

A simple, noble concept….Is is good for America?

So many citizens today have simply forgotten this, jettisoned to keep their own little corner. Take political parties for instance. The Bush administration and both houses of Congress held the keys to power for six consecutive years since the 2000 election. Did America experience a massive curtailing of entitlement spending, increased liberties, a back to the basics constitutional Renaissance ? Not quite. Eager to please and hungry for power and Party, Bush and Republican members of Congress slowly morphed into everything that conservatives in the grass-roots hate so much about the system. They built power for The Party, not for the ideals that got them elected. Spending boomed to levels not seen since LBJ. In the middle of this electoral stint, Reagan was buried, and forgotten. My own GOP congressman was indicted, then sentenced to life in prison on corruption and money laundering. They failed the concept….Is it good for America?

Noble concepts forgotten by the GOP, a new administration has taken the helm. Flanked by powerful majorities at either side, just as the GOP in 2000 to 2006, the American public, corralled and fear-stricken clung to bromides of ‘hope, change.’ So the emboldened administration and a uniform House and Senate have set forth an agenda, some of which is completed. I have italicized points that are directly related to the Obamanation. From the article

  • American families over the last year lost 8% of their net worth, buried under a mountain of mortgages, and debts. If the president has his way, they will face a 100% increase in public debt, from 8 trillion to 17.3 trillion in 2019.

  • Even without the Obama surge in debt — and taxes to pay it off — taxpayers face the prospect of 60% to 70% income-tax rates in the future to pay for $48 trillion in unfunded liabilities under existing entitlement programs. Now the president plans to burden the economy’s limited taxpaying capacity with a universal health care entitlement.

  • (Reader, this is government efficiency, highlighted) – Paying off Obama’s 10-year string of deficits that add up to $9.3 trillion with income tax increases of $9.3 trillion over 10 years would cost the private sector $23 trillion to $37 trillion, it costs the private-sector economy $4 ($1 of tax and nearly $3 of economic damage) to provide the government with $1 to spend.

And the net result of the Obamanation’s policies? From the close of the article -(Congress and Obamanation)…. “a borrowing spree that puts America in the same unsustainable position as an overstretched boomer with too much debt and too little income and whose only option is to refinance at higher costs just to pay the interest.”

Simply put, the most concise piece I have come across that destroys ever vestige of the progressive agenda. Are you comfortable with the thought of our national debt doubling? Do you think that it is sane to create yet another entitlement program when the failed promises of Social Security and Medicare are already going to bankrupt us in the future? Is this not suicide for an ostensibly free society to knowingly add an entitlement program to the list when your children will already be burdened by 60+% tax schemes, essentially robbing their livelihood piggy-bank, smashing it to pieces? Do you think it wise for a leader to call for more taxation and largess as the solution to every problem in the US? Do you really believe that there are enough rich people to finance all of this and that everyone won’t eventually be bludgeoned? Do you want to fork over $4 so that $1 reaches the end goal? Could you run your household and your family in that manner of efficiency? Do you think anything being proposed in Washington today stands to the test of…..Is it good for America?

If you do, then just simply rest on your laurels and watch your freedoms evaporate….after all, why bother? If you don’t however, I’ll see you at the July 4 Tea Parties and at the 2010 Voter Taxpayer Revolt. Until then, I’ll keep beating this dead horse – day in, day out…..


blackandgoldfan said…

I'm planning on taking my kids to the local July 4 tea party. They may not understand what all the fuss is about now, but they will. I also want them to learn to fight for what this great nation was founded on.

conservative generation said…

Great post, as usual. Common sense has left the left. They know that debt is doubling, but are so sure Obama's going to only hit the rich they don't realize that logically taxes would need to double as well. We are all in it together. Great article too.

RightKlik said…

I love the Debt Star. Classic.

Opus #6 said…

Debt Star = cool!

The Law said…

I see where you're coming from, and it is an important argument to be made. Let's take a look at a couple of crisis and play a game of counterfactual history here.

Banks – When AIG, Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns, et.al tanked, the survivors were all in"too big to fail" states. I think we can all agree on that. The argument for the bailout out was we needed to keep this businesses solvent because their failure would mean that credit would completely lock up. What is the alternative? If we let the free market rules apply and AIG died, what are some possible results?

GM – The argument here is that the company has been in the red for a decade and the bank crisis dealt the death blow. We bailed them out and took part ownership to keep them solvent. Part of the deal was to give the UAW thier pensions at the expense of the bondholder. The desired result is to keep GM alive so that it can regain full control again, with the hopes of increasing its stock to the point where everybody gets their money back and then some. Let us again apply the free market rule, and assume we let the die the way they were supposed to. It seems likely that they woulve had to file for chapter 7 bankruptcy, because they are on the verge of doing that now (well at least Chrysler is). what would be the benefit of liquidating their assests?

blackandgoldfan said…

The Law: If I'm reading correctly, you are saying that we HAD to rack up massive debt to keep the banks and GM afloat.

The banking bubble burst because Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, and their minions put the Community Redevelopment Act (I think that was the program) on steroids. This forced banks to make loans to people who were iffy on their ability to pay back the loan. All done in the name of compassion, equality, and fairness. The inevitable happened, and we were well on our way to the mess we're in now. The free market would've allowed two things: for banks to use smart business practices in giving loans and for someone willing to take the risk to open a business to give loans to those who normally wouldn't qualify, thus opening the door for capitalism to work.

In regards to GM, the best thing that could've happened would've been to let them file Chapter 11 and reorganize. Should that have failed, the free market would've allowed for a buyer to come in and buy the assets to make it a profitable business once again. Government sticking their weinies in the soup is going to give us cars that are unsafe and that no one will want.

I'm by no means an economist, but government bailout makes no common sense. In the end, we're all going to pay.

Pamela D. Hart said…

Rebel: Thank you for a great post! Keep up the good word. I know it's tough, but you are doing a great job and you are appreciated.

Black & Gold: I agree with you on the GM bailout. The government take over is a guise because they WANT control of this car company. It fits their agenda for smart, green cars which they are going to ram down our throats. GM should've been allowed to file Chpt 11. All this goes against the free market system, which of course, Obama hates, so it's in sync for him. We are doomed.

KrisEveland said…

I want a Debt Star! Good article. I'm ashamed that the repubs. allowed this to happen by not sticking to the principles that got them elected.

The Law said…

I hear ya. Actually, many of the reasons how we got in this mess from the conservative/libertarian perspective makes a lot of sense. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but there is much middle ground to be had.

But your response blackandgold is in the past tense. Bill Clinton was a decade ago. Given the fact everything *did* collapse, if not the bailouts for the banks, AIG, and GM, what should have been the course of action? You did address this in your response regarding GM. And, I do in fact agree with you in many ways. The only caveat was GM *asked* for the bailout money. They could've been like Ford and say hell naw, because the government has intimated all along that it was going to play a part in its resturcturing and Ford wanted nothing to do with it. And they won… with two of their biggest American competitors committing corporate Seppuku, they are the only "trustworthy" American brand left, and have even *increased* sales.

blackandgoldfan said…

Law: Yes, Bill Clinton was a decade ago, but what he and Barney Frank did by government force set the stage for today's disaster. And along the way, some members of Congress tried to alert everyone about the distress of Fannie and Freddie to no avail.

While I'm not really into economics (truth is: they bore me), I don't have a pat answer as to the course of action that should've been taken once the banking system started collapsing. I do think it would be safe to say to let the free market work and keep government out of it.

Left Coast Rebel said…

Thanks for the comments everyone!

Blackandgold – I agree that a lot of the housing mess and economic calamity lays at the feet of the Community Reinvestment Act, there are many other pieces to the puzzle as well.

Cons Generation – I agree!

Opus, RightK – It is cool, sattire is always great to make a point, prety, funny pictures always help!

Pamela – thanks for the compliment and thanks for reading!

Kris – I am ashamed of it too, my side needs to first admit the mistakes they made to better the country now!

The Law – I'm going to dedicate a separate response to yours….

Ananda girl said…

I'm sorry I missed this post yesterday! What a good one… keep pushing. People are unhappy with this insanity. We're listening and learning. Like blackandgoldfan, I plan on taking my boys so they can see our rights in action and learn to speak up.

Left Coast Rebel said…

The Law – I drive a Ford btw, and you are right, I think that a lot of americans will refuse to buy GM. Now I'll get the banks and GM, starting with a main theme.

1) – My overarching point from my article is that government spending at this point in our new admin is simply unnaceptable. We simply cannot afford everything that they are proposing and frankly, the public never gave them the initiative to change our culture and affairs as they are radically pushing for. Voters wanted the mess in the economy fixed, they didn't want the whole enchilada of the liberal/progressive agenda. It is at the peril of the nation and the liberal cause that they are pushing too far, too fast, with an increase in debt and eventual taxation levels that will destroy our prosperity. It's really as simple as that. When you look past the platitudes and rhetoric it comes down to…is it good for america?
And I would say with every shred of econnomic history, that what Obama and Congress is doing is destructive.

2) The banks and AIG. Now this is a tough one and I can see your points on government involvement. It is defensible to think that they needed to be propped up. However, I don't think that they should have been nationalized. Nationalization is inherently corruptive and destructive, cronies are put in place and the business then becomes a permanent government entity. I have read great opinions on the fact that AIG should have been split up, separate moving parts of the company auctioned off, all done in the marketplace. This seems to me as the best way to have gone. Some government involvement, but not an all-out nationalization/bailout, etc.

GM – Very simple here. Bush should have let them fall into chapter 11, no favoritism, cronyism, etc would have taken place. It would have been too bad that the unions would have lost their pensions, etc, but nationalizing GM, and subsidizing the unions with my tax dollars is much worse than a painful free market alternative. Mark my words, you will see what a disaster this is going to turn out to be. I know that you are honest enough to accept the possibilyt of such.

blackandgoldfan said…

Very well put, LCR. Law, I am glad you were able to so intelligently state your case in a respectful manner. There are those out there who would've just ranted, raved, and called us conservatives names. I respect you for not being that type of person.

blackandgoldfan said…

I forgot something!!

Law: I posted yesterday on my blog about government cronyism and how some members of Congress (both parties) are trying to get their share of the stimulus money. The post is titled "What Campaign Finance Reform???" I'd love to have you over (or anyone else).


Take care!

Carl Wicklander said…


I think part of our problem is having the "too big to fail" mentality about anything. The truth is, nothing in life is too big to fail. Everything can fail. Certainly the failure of the banks would have been dreadful for untold numbers of people. But what if all the propping up doesn't save institutions that are too big to survive and only postpones their failure to a later date that proves to be more destructive? To quote Andrew Jackson who allowed the Second Bank of the United States to expire:

"You tell me that if I take the deposits from the Bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin!"

Carl Wicklander said…

black and gold fan,

If you're interested in learning about economics without getting bogged down in minutiae, might I suggest either "Meltdown" by Tom Woods or "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. Both books are designed for general consumption. Something to think about.

The Law said…

Carl, I think you're right, in that anything can indeed fail, but I think it is also important to recognize our part in the global economy (like our 99.9% involvement!). If our system grinded to a screeching halt, we could recover in time… we did before, but we'd be taking A LOT of countries down with us, some of which who lack the manpower and innovative capital to recover.

So I think if I were president, the bailout would have been necessary to to keep the businesses from 100% collapsing, but after they stabilzed (which has already semed to happen) then I'd do as you say, look into breaking up these large companies into smaller parts, and selling their assests so they are more manageble, solvent, and do not need to exsist in order to secure our financial security.

I think the lack of trust in corporations is causing the government to take on way too much, and this is becoming a bigger problem everyday. Thus the government is diverting from issues that I think is more within its purview like education and healthcare.

Also, please check out my last post at my blog http://thelcomment.blogspot.com/ Curious to see what you think about my ideas on too big too fail. I think it is a perspectives that many liberals would go for, but I think it attempts to achieve more middle ground.

The Law said…

Blackandgold, thanks for the kind words! I'd like to think of this blogging community here of a microcosm of America at its finest. We have people from the left and right who fully agree or don't agree at all on many issues, yet we have civilzed discourse and even hammer out a solution or two! If only our elected officials could do the same…

And I will check out your post in just a little while!

Post a Comment