Are We Learning More Than What Some Might Want Us To Understand?
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
It is very apparent that the Obama Administration believes it has the greatest opportunity to sway the outcome of events to their agenda when they are able to create the nexus of a crisis. (Can you count how many of them we've had since he moved into the White House?) It’s the way the current debt ceiling limit issue has simmered and has been brought to a boil with the clock ticking down on predicted disaster if the Republicans don’t fall into line and approve tax increases.
With the heated rhetoric and counter points, you start hearing things come out that maybe cooler heads would have preferred to keep quiet about – or at least carefully construct the message to be presented.
Listening to a radio interview with U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, the dots were brilliantly connected in response to the comment that President Obama made about not being able to guarantee the Social Security checks being mailed out in early August. (Without even getting into the way in which the Democrats play the fear-mongering game of scaring those drawing Social Security payments) – Rubio noted that Social Security is supposedly not connected to the debt issue.
We’ve been assured by leaders such as Senator Harry Reid that Social Security is safe and solvent. Some have talked about a “lock box” which payments made for Social Security purposes are soundly preserved for payment when necessary.
If that were the case – why wouldn’t the U.S. Government be able to make payments to Social Security recipients, regardless of whether further debt can be incurred? If there is linkage between the government being able to borrow more and the capability of making payments for Social Security – what does that really say about the safety and solvency of Social Security?
It’s also been interesting to watch as high-ranking Democrats attack the proper position taken by the Republicans of not being willing to increase tax burdens as a way of addressing the $14.3 Trillion debt hole that our nation’s leaders (of both parties) have spent us into. These attacks make the normal class warfare spin, suggesting that those who earn or who have earned a certain level of money, should be required to pay more of their fair share.
Those spoken of in this game of blame the taxpayer for Washington, D.C.’s over-spending are already paying the bulk of the tax load which elected officials can’t responsibly spend now. We're suppose to accept the idea that confiscating more of the resources of this targeted group will somehow make it more likely that fiscal stewardship will become the norm for the federal government’s mode of operations?
There’s good reason why the polls are coming in with a public split over the issues of raising the ability for government spend-a-oholics to spend even more of our country’s future away – or clamping down with tough spending restrictions. Increasing taxes doesn’t take care of any of the fundamental problems that have us on the brink we face.
When looking into what the Democratic plan might be for the current dilemma I came across this insight of the budget proposal (pulled from a Washington Post article) President Obama's presented for the upcoming fiscal year…
The fear we need to concentrate on really does come down to whether we want those who have been in power and driven us this far into debt to keep racking up such impressive results!
It is very apparent that the Obama Administration believes it has the greatest opportunity to sway the outcome of events to their agenda when they are able to create the nexus of a crisis. (Can you count how many of them we've had since he moved into the White House?) It’s the way the current debt ceiling limit issue has simmered and has been brought to a boil with the clock ticking down on predicted disaster if the Republicans don’t fall into line and approve tax increases.
With the heated rhetoric and counter points, you start hearing things come out that maybe cooler heads would have preferred to keep quiet about – or at least carefully construct the message to be presented.
Listening to a radio interview with U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, the dots were brilliantly connected in response to the comment that President Obama made about not being able to guarantee the Social Security checks being mailed out in early August. (Without even getting into the way in which the Democrats play the fear-mongering game of scaring those drawing Social Security payments) – Rubio noted that Social Security is supposedly not connected to the debt issue.
We’ve been assured by leaders such as Senator Harry Reid that Social Security is safe and solvent. Some have talked about a “lock box” which payments made for Social Security purposes are soundly preserved for payment when necessary.
If that were the case – why wouldn’t the U.S. Government be able to make payments to Social Security recipients, regardless of whether further debt can be incurred? If there is linkage between the government being able to borrow more and the capability of making payments for Social Security – what does that really say about the safety and solvency of Social Security?
It’s also been interesting to watch as high-ranking Democrats attack the proper position taken by the Republicans of not being willing to increase tax burdens as a way of addressing the $14.3 Trillion debt hole that our nation’s leaders (of both parties) have spent us into. These attacks make the normal class warfare spin, suggesting that those who earn or who have earned a certain level of money, should be required to pay more of their fair share.
Those spoken of in this game of blame the taxpayer for Washington, D.C.’s over-spending are already paying the bulk of the tax load which elected officials can’t responsibly spend now. We're suppose to accept the idea that confiscating more of the resources of this targeted group will somehow make it more likely that fiscal stewardship will become the norm for the federal government’s mode of operations?
There’s good reason why the polls are coming in with a public split over the issues of raising the ability for government spend-a-oholics to spend even more of our country’s future away – or clamping down with tough spending restrictions. Increasing taxes doesn’t take care of any of the fundamental problems that have us on the brink we face.
When looking into what the Democratic plan might be for the current dilemma I came across this insight of the budget proposal (pulled from a Washington Post article) President Obama's presented for the upcoming fiscal year…
"The budget request Obama submitted to Congress in February would have required about $9.5 trillion in fresh borrowing by 2021. Under his current proposal, the debt would continue to rise, by roughly $5 trillion over the next 10 years. It would stabilize, however, as a share of the overall economy and eventually begin to fall by that measure."Obama’s proposal in the form of his budget, is based on increasing borrowing by $9.5 Trillion. With tax hikes as the way to fix things we still go $5 Trillion deeper into debt… And he wants us to eat our peas?
The fear we need to concentrate on really does come down to whether we want those who have been in power and driven us this far into debt to keep racking up such impressive results!
Posted by Doug Busselman at 7/12/2011 3:29 PM 
Categories: Government
Tags: Federal Budget Congress Debt Ceiling Limit
Categories: Government
Tags: Federal Budget Congress Debt Ceiling Limit
Comments