Isn’t It Ironic

 

It’s like rain on your wedding day

It’s a free ride, when you’ve already paid

It’s the good advice that you just didn’t take

Who would’ve thought . . . it figures

        —Alanis Morissette, Ironic

 

WARNING: THIS PIECE HAS STRONG LANGUAGE; PARENTAL DISCRETION IS ADVISED

i∙ron∙ic  (ī ränˊik) adj.  1 meaning the contrary of what is expressed  2 using irony 3 opposite to what is or might be expected  Also i∙ronˊi∙cal—i∙ronˊi∙cal∙ly adv.

Just some quick observations today (in no particular order) for your consideration about the often curious positions the Federal government and the Progressive Left that runs it take these days.  I’m sorry, I haven’t linked to everything . . . time’s a bit short, I’m not getting along with my new laptop, and most of this is relatively undisputed common knowledge, even if not loudly reported in the media.

The Obama administration gave up five Taliban generals to spring an alleged Army deserter imprisoned in Afghanistan (actually Pakistan, but who’s counting?).  And so dire was Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl’s medical condition, there was no time to consult with Congress as required by federal law (thus justifying Obama’s unilateral enactment of an “urgent need” exception to the legislation passed by Congress).  Somehow just six weeks later he’s healthy enough to return to active duty.  Yet that same administration hasn’t lifted a finger to free a Marine rotting in a Mexican jail for making a wrong turn.

A photo I.D. is required to see the U.S. Treasury building, a facility each of us owns.   But the Left in Congress screams RACISM and the Department of Justice files a lawsuit any time a State has the audacity to require that same I.D. simply to ensure that people showing up to vote are in fact who they say they are . . .

. . . Yet it drops charges against New Black Panthers caught on tape intimidating voters at a polling place.

I’m just sayin’ . . .

That same Department of Justice—which reports to the President—also sues States to prevent them from enforcing existing federal border laws.  They say that’s an exclusive job for the federal government, and none of the states’ business.  But then when the feds fail to discharge that responsibility—and indeed the administration adopts a policy of almost total tolerance—the President comes asking the States for their help to house the all-too-predictable flood of illegals.

Speaking of the border crisis, the Progressive Left sees in it a grand and indeed holy humanitarian opportunity to serve God’s children.  Yes, that does tug at the heartstrings, doesn’t it?  Until you remember that these same people crying over Guatemalan and Salvadoran 19 year old “children” who are very much alive, have said absolutely nothing about the 50 million American babies lawfully killed in the U.S. since 1972 by conspiracies between their mothers, their mothers’ doctors, and the Progressive Left other than to complain that State statutes restricting the practice to the first six months of pregnancy are somehow a “war on women.”

While we’re at it, um, Your Holiness, I’ll wait here while you have a chat with Archbishop Cordileone (Archdiocese of San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) home diocese) about the ramifications of a parishioner publicly advocating a position so emphatically not consistent with the Church’s most fundamental moral tenet, because I know the Church is concerned about the sanctity of human life and wants those taking the sacraments to be “in communion” with the Church . . .

. . . I’m still waiting . . .

Yeah, still waiting . . . I mean, I think they still teach about Henry VIII being excommunicated over a divorce,don’t they, and he hadn’t even killed anybody, at least not at that point . . .

Shall I just move on, since the Church has no credibility any more on this issue when the second most public and powerful female on the planet consistently claims to be Catholic yet consistently declares herself  against human life and there is exactly zero reaction from the Church of which she laughably claims to be a part? . . .

OK

The Obama administration’s spy and security apparatus is tapping your phones, watching your email and internet traffic, and sending drones to shove GPS tracer chips up your backside while you sleep (okay, I mostly made the last one up—I hope).  Yet it has spent the last six years avoiding any substantive engagement with the press, and has fought tooth and nail to provide any information to Congress or to the American people about what it’s doing.

While it was shielding—or destroying—documents and stonewalling Congress, the administration also put up a fence to keep veterans and everyone else from accessing monuments on the National Mall.  And it maintains a fence patrolled by armed K-9 units to keep U.S. citizens away from the White House.  By the way, both facilities are owned by the American people, the very people being kept out.  Yet the Obama administration specially opened the National Mall for a pro-illegal-immigration rally, and steadfastly refuses to fully deploy a fence to help secure the Southern border. This, despite the 95% decrease in illegal border crossings in San Diego (recognized even by NPR) once the fence there was complete.

Obama and the Left crammed through Congress a sweeping takeover of some 1/6 of the economy with the passage of FUBARCare.  They passed that monstrosity over the loud objections of a significant majority of Americans in part on the promise that its requirement that people purchase a product whether they like it or not was not a tax.  Then having jammed it down the American peoples’ throats, they then defended the supposed constitutionality of that legislation before the Supreme Court on the basis that it was in fact . . . a tax.

The Obama administration funneled billions of dollars of taxpayer money to campaign donors via bad “loans” to dubious “green energy” startups like Solyndra, yielding little except sophomorish “aw shucks” jokes that “shovel-ready” wasn’t as shovel-ready as they thought.  Meanwhile it used the IRS—you know, the agency that collects that tax money in the first place—as a political weapon against Conservative groups.

And then lied about it.  And then covered it up.

The administration screams bloody murder that law-abiding citizens—presumably that’s you—need to be deprived of their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.  But that same administration shipped huge numbers of military grade guns—guns you are in fact already prohibited from owning in the U.S.—to the chronically homicidal Mexican drug cartels, resulting in hundreds of dead Mexicans and at least two dead Americans.

And then lied about it.  And then covered it up.

While it was busy arming Mexican drug lords with one hand, the administration with the other was deploying armed federal agents to “monitor” peaceful Tea Party rallies.   Yet when the “occupy” demonstrations spent weeks disrupting commerce, vandalizing private property, crapping on police cars, trafficking in illegal and dangerous drugs, and committing rapes, the administration and Progressive Left did, well, nothing—except cheer them on. 

Speaking of rape and cheering them on, the Progressive-controlled Democrat Party has been pushing the mantra of the Right’s “war on women” for several years.  Yet the keynote speaker at their 2012 national convention was serial cheater and sexual abuser Bill Clinton.

Are you kidding me? You’re going to accuse me of waging a war on women just because I don’t want to pay for your abortion, and you’re going to invite Bill-I-seduced-a-20-year-old-intern-to-blow-me-in-the-oval-office-and-then-I-ruin-her-life-on-national-TV-Clinton to headline your convention?

I don’t normally use this language in this space—In my private life, those who know me know better, so sue me—but there’s really no other way to put it: your government-of-the-people-by-the-people’s reaction to you is: fuck you.

That’s your federal government these days in the hands of the Progressive Left, where everything is doublespeak, and who wins and who loses has everything to do with who you are.  And have you noticed who’s always on the losing end, even if it means flipping prior logic on its head?

Isn’t it ironic? Yeah, I really do think.

Advertisements

Carry That Weight

“This is Bob.  Bob had bitch tits.”
—Ed Norton Jr. as The Narrator in Fight Club 
I’m going to step away from the political today.  OK, well mostly.
Those of you who are regular readers of this space know that I don’t make it a habit of agreeing with Michelle Obama.  And unlike her I’m not going to suggest that what I’m going to talk about today is something that needs a government solution.  But she’s right about one thing:
We’re fat.  

Really.  Freaking.  Fat.
I spent last week on vacation with the family in San Antonio, watching sea lion and killer whale shows at Sea World, riding roller coasters ‘till we puked at Six Flags Fiesta Texas, and slip-slidin’ away at the Aquatica waterpark.  And while we had a really good time, I have to tell you the consistent and lasting impression I had was that, on the whole, we are shockingly, colossally, carnival-side-show overweight.  Over those four days, I saw more cottage cheese thighs (and calves, and waists, and arms . . . ), man-boobs, belly rolls, triple chins, underarm flaps, and solar eclipse-inducing asses than I’ve ever seen in my life.
It was, well, gross.
What was really startling, however, was how consistent and across-the-board this observation went.  Yes, there were the occasional gym rats.  But my very unscientific guess was that seven in ten were visibly overweight.  Of those seven, five were what anyone would call downright fat.  Three were objectively and catastrophically obese.  At any given time, from where I was standing I could count at least a dozen people who could have passed for Jabba the Hut without prosthetics.  Mr. Creosote had nothing on this crowd, Brother.  Even among the three in ten I would call reasonably healthy, most—myself included—were carting around an ample spare tire around the midsection.
While you statistics majors may challenge whether I had a representative cross-section and a sufficient sample size (I will say in this regard we waded through tens of thousands of people), this was no isolated snapshot.  It was the same every day, whether walking around downtown, touring the Alamo, or at any one of three different parks.  And the phenomenon knew no demographic boundaries.  I saw it in the old and the young.  Black, white, Asian, and Hispanic.  Male and female.  I mean, it was across the board. 
Saddest—and most inexcuseable—was how consistently I saw it in children.  I saw one young man sitting on a bench who might have been eleven years old, plus or minus.  He had his shirt off, because he’d been in the pool.  Sitting there, slump-shouldered, he had by my count five separate folds in his flesh above the belt: one near his armpits above his breasts, his breasts themselves, and then three different belly folds.  This was not an abberational observation.  It was typical of what I saw.  Kid after kid looked like the love child of the Bibendum (look it up) and Aunt Jemima.
We didn’t used to be like this.  Look at photos from the Civil War and World War I—you almost never see fat people, and never the seriously obese.  The average adult male fighting for the U.S. in World War II was 5’8”, and weighed 155 lbs.  I saw plenty of children last week who were pushing that weight.  We’re not getting soft—we’re flat mushy.
What happened to us?
The short answer is we consume too much and move too little, but that doesn’t really tell the full story.  The conveniences and abundance of our modern America have separated most of us from what it actually takes to produce food.  Our grocery store shelves are packed with pre-fabricated processed foods—just add water and nuke it, and you’re good to go; never mind what’s in it or where it came from.  Our streets are lined with fat-laden fast food chains.  Our TVs bombard us with programming like the Travel Channel’s Man vs. Food, in which the obese host travels from town to town gorging himself on ridiculously portioned—frankly downright shamefully wasteful—foods like 50 pound hamburgers.  There’s never a thought given to what it took to generate that burger, how many multiples of people that could have fed, or the cost of the waste if it gets thrown out.  That it would have even occurred to anyone to make that thing in the first place, much less create a TV show out of watching some fat guy try to eat it, speaks volumes about where we are now.
This is dangerous.  God bless our men and women in uniform, but the AVF won’t be nearly enough to defend us if it really came down to a serious war of conquest against us.  If we had to resort to a mass callup to defend ourselves, and if what I saw last week was any indication of the pool from which we’ll have to draw to do it, we’re in trouble.  I don’t care how much whoop-ass you think is in that can you’re going to open on those Chinamen, Jethro; if you can’t catch them, it’s not gonna matter much.
You think we have a problem with our healthcare system?  Well, don’t look at the insurance companies, and don’t talk to me about coverage for pre-existing conditions or illegal aliens.  How much are we spending, and how many resources are we unnecessarily tying up or downright wasting because of the basic lack of conditioning of huge swaths of our population in this country?  I submit this is a good place to start.
Look, I don’t expect everyone to be shredded like a Navy SEAL.  And I don’t believe in strict numbers like the Body Mass Index that try to dictate a weight for a given height.  I’m less concerned about the number on the scale than about what that number’s made of.  But here are some clues, based on my observations last week, that can tell you if the weight you’re carrying—and, more importantly, what that weight is comprised of—is too much for your individual body:
1.        If you can hide your finger underneath the flesh on your torso (women’s breasts excepted), you’re too fat.  And guys, don’t tell me those are your pecs.  The Rock has pecs.  You don’t.  His pecs don’t have a fold underneath.  Yours do.  Those aren’t pecs, they’re breasts.
2.         If your nipples or navel face the ground, you’re too fat.  I’ll cut some slack to those who are a little older—gravity does take its toll over time.  But for most of us, those things that we started life with facing forward should still more or less point that direction.
3.        If you need a brassiere to support the flesh on your ribs below your armpits, you’re too fat.  That’s just gross.
4.         If your navel is substantially further from your spine than your nipples are, you’re too fat.  We’re not supposed to be shaped like pears.

5.       If your arms at your sides point anywhere other than down, you’re too fat.  Self-explanatory.

6.        If you have to go sideways through any opening designed for normal adults to pass through going forward, you’re too fat.
7.        Guys, if you have to lift anything out of the way other than the seat in order to pee, you’re too fat.
8.         Ladies, one roll for your breasts is fine.  Two is too many.  Three is, well . . . you get the idea.
9.         You should have a chin, not a neck attached to your lip.
10.       You should have only one chin.

Let’s all put down the Haagen-Dazs and the TV remote, and try to move around a little more than we have been.

Before it’s too late.


**********************************

EDITOR’S NOTE:  Changes in the demands on my time may reduce the frequency in posts over the coming weeks, but I will continue to post as time permits and the news cycle feeds my muse.

Hazardous Duty

“You talk about vengeance?  Is vengeance going to bring your son back to you, or my boy to me?  I forego the vengeance of my son.  But I have selfish reasons.  My youngest son was forced to leave this country because of this Solozzo business.  All right.  And I have to make arrangements to bring him back safely, cleared of all these false charges.  But I am a superstitious man.  And if some unlucky accident should befall him, if he should get shot in the head by a police officer, or if he should hang himself in his jail cell, or if he is struck by a bolt of lightning, then I am going to blame some of the people in this room.  And then I do not forgive.”
—Marlon Brando as Don Vito Corleone in The Godfather
I was aware when I began Chasing Jefferson nearly a year ago that I was taking a risk by speaking out.  I was reminded of that yesterday in a piece Michelle Malkin ran about the persistent personal attacks and persecution levied by some of the more fanatical on the Left against conservative bloggers who dare tell the truth.  She has called for a show of solidarity from the blogosphere on the Right, and while I have another piece planned for tomorrow so I can’t make her call for Friday, I’ll pre-emptively do that today with this link to her piece.
These are some of the bigger writers on the Right, so they draw more attention.  But it could happen to any of us, because this is how the Left operates: silence opposition by any means necessary.  We see that with the push to reinstitute the “fairness doctrine” to get Rush, Hannity, and Levin knocked off the air.  We see that with the bullying schoolteacher in North Carolina threatening her student with jail time for criticizing Obama.  And we see it with the personal attacks against conservative bloggers.  They count on intimidation to shut us up.  

I don’t have any sponsors, and I don’t run ads.  I don’t make a nickel off of this space.  But the Internet is open to all, and there is no telling when something I post here might attract the ire of the wrong person at the wrong time.  I am not afraid of that, and I fully intend to keep on doing what I do as my small part to try to inform, educate, and pull on the oars to try to save what’s left of this Republic.
I may not do this forever, but I won’t close this site without saying something.  If this site disappears or permanently ceases activity without some word from me, ask questions, because that alone will tell you something’s not right.

Speak up and speak out.  Only if we’re silent can they win.
  

Random Musings

Half of what I say is meaningless
But I say it just to reach you, Julia
—The Beatles, Julia
I gave some thought to exploring the introduction of “Julia” on President Obama’s campaign website, which illustrates for all to see his cradle-to-grave vision of the role of government.  But by the time I saw it, it had already been beat to death in all the usual places.  Besides, I think John Lennon covered it quite nicely.
So instead, let me offer a few quick thoughts on a number of other matters, in no particular order.
Cinco de Mayo
Over the weekend, it seems the President attempted to celebrate Cinco de Mayo at the White House.  I’m not going to begrudge anyone who wants to take an opportunity to drink a beer or five.  But the political slicing and dicing is really tiresome.  Why does every conceivable subgroup have to be isolated and called out in an official White House capacity, in what is either a ridiculous display of political pandering, or an absurd extension of political correctness?  What’s funny is I guarantee you Obama and his people saw this as an opportunity to reach out to Hispanic voters, assuming—incorrectly—that it’s the celebration of Mexican Independence Day, rather than an invention of U.S. beer importers based on a minor Mexican victory at the Battle of Puebla that isn’t even celebrated within Mexico itself.
French Elections
Somewhere in Manhattan, Paul Krugman is getting that tingly feeling up his leg.  The French, in their infinite wisdom, voted out incumbent President Nicolas Sarkosy in favor of Socialist Francois Hollande.  Apparently learning absolutely nothing from the situations in Greece (and Italy, and Spain, and . . . ), the French have opted to step away from the “austerity” of not spending money they don’t have, and towards a marked increase in government-funded “stimulus.”  I guess they weren’t circling the drain fast enough for their taste, and felt it necessary to pour in a huge vat of Liquid Plumber to help suck them right on down into the sewer.  How is it they can’t see that it’s decades of government promises to give out free stuff paid for with borrowed money that got most of Europe into its current mess in the first place?  Where is that money going to come from this time?  I’m not going to loan it to them.  The Chinese might, but they’re going to expect to be paid back—where is that money going to come from?
As what will soon be the last really viable economy—and only voices of economic reason—left in a Eurozone that just can’t kick the spending habit, I would think Germany would want to get out while it can.  But as the rest of Europe succumbs to their dependency, I don’t think they can let Germany go quietly.  I wonder if Angela Merkel is warming up the Luftwaffe yet. 
Destination America
In yet another spectacular demonstration of “green” failure in the real world, Discovery Networks is canceling their “Green Planet” network started not four years ago.  Who knew that there simply was no viable market for an endless supply of environmental propaganda, er, programming?  Once again, the free market attempts to teach the Left the lesson that you can’t just build it and they will come—they have to already be there asking for it before you build it.
What I find really interesting, however, is they’re replacing Green Planet with something they’re calling “Destination America.”  Supposedly this new channel will be offering programming about travel, food, and culture aimed at “middle America.”  Hot dogs, apple pie, Mom, and Chevrolet, right?
Well, take a look at the new network’s logo:


Look familiar?


Mere coincidence?  Or is Discovery launching a stealth version of a 24-hour Obama channel?
Joe Biden
God bless him, Joe Biden just doesn’t get it.  He is completely oblivious to the fact that the only thing keeping him on the existing Democratic ticket is his being the Vice President provides the single best security measure President Obama has.  Over the weekend Biden was already laying groundwork for his own White House run in 2016.  Funnier, he told reporters—in fairness it’s unclear whether Biden was serious, but with him it’s hard to tell—he would be running with Hillary Clinton.
Out on the diplomatic trail, my guess is Ms. Rodham laughed her ass off when she got wind of that one.  (A) She’s said repeatedly she’s not going to run for office again.   (B)  She’ll be 69 years old in 2016—not prohibitively old to run for what Biden presumably (and more than a little presumptively) assumes would be Vice President, but it’s pushing it.  (C)  Most importantly, she’s far too smart, and the Clintons have been at this too long, to go anywhere near Joe Biden if she were to decide to run.
Take this to the bank, Joe:  If Hillary is in the 2016 race, it will be against you, not with you.
Ron Paul
My morning commute really hasn’t been the same for the last six months, as Mike Church turned his morning show on Sirius/XM into a non-stop campaign ad for Ron Paul.  King Dude does a 3 hour show on Patriot 125 every morning from 5-8 Central.  And no matter what time of morning I catch him, he literally doesn’t go more than about 60 seconds without mentioning Paul by name. 
Every.  Single.  Minute.
Every.  Single.  Day.
I understand the devotion to the ideas a certain candidate espouses.  And I get standing on principle.  But I would have thought at some point a certain pragmatic reality would set in.  Paul and his supporters have fought the good fight, but in the end he was never going to be the Republican nominee—he just wasn’t.  While he had some good things to say on some issues, there were too many areas where he dropped off the planet into Kookland.  I agree that Governor Romney isn’t an ideal standard-bearer for those of us of a conservative mindset.  But he’s what we have, and viewed next to the alternative in Obama, there is only one rational course of action.
Yet there Church was this morning, continuing to pimp for Paul.  Why?  The only thing a continuing Paul campaign accomplishes at this point is hinder Romney’s ability to defeat Obama.  This is really scary about Paul and his cadre of devotees—they’re so blinded that they’re willing to take the whole ship down if they can’t get 100% of their way.

Obama And Action On Jobs

With the coming of the Second World War, many eyes in imprisoned Europe turned hopefully, or desperately, toward the freedom of the Americas.  Lisbon became the great embarkation point. But not everybody could get to Lisbon directly, and so a tortuous, roundabout refugee trail sprang up: Paris to Marseilles, across the Mediterranean to Oran, then by train, or auto, or foot across the rim of Africa, to Casablanca in French Morocco.  Here, the fortunate ones through money, or influence, or luck, might obtain exit visas and scurry to Lisbon; and from Lisbon, to the New World.  But the others wait in Casablanca . . . and wait . . . and wait . . . and wait . . .
—Opening narration, Casablanca
You should pass it right away.

We are given to understand that the President thinks there is some urgency behind the need to take action to create jobs.  And you know the campaign pitch that’s coming:  It’s the Tea Party Republicans holding everything up.  Obama can’t run on his record, so he’s going to have to run on the straw man of what his record “would have been” but for the stonewalling from the do-nothing Right.

Can’t these people say “yes” to anything?
But where has this urgency been during the 28 months since May 2009 when—despite assurances that Stimulus I would guarantee unemployment stayed below 8%—unemployment first passed 9%, cresting at 10.1% in October of that year; a time, by the way, at which the Democrats held the White House and overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress?  They could have passed anything they wanted, and there would have been nothing the Tea Party or anyone else could have done to stop it.  But instead of acting on jobs, they chose to use that time and their effective supermajority—curiously always behind closed doors, in the middle of the night, and at the last minute—to ram through Obamacare and attempt to ram through Cap-and-Trade.
Where was that urgency in April of this year, when after a temporary dip to 8.8, unemployment shot back above 9%, yet there was no plan from Obama?
Where was that urgency in June when Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said the Democrats “own the economy,” and unemployment was at its 2011 high of 9.2%, yet there was no plan from Obama?
Where was that urgency during the entire month of August—a month during which the economy generated zero net jobs—while the President was so busy on the golf course he couldn’t be bothered to send a draft of his “jobs plan” for Congress to review in advance of his petulant and, frankly, childish tongue-lashing?
Where is that urgency now as Harry Reid and the Democrat-controlled Senate sit on the proposal it took Obama 966 days in office to publish because even he and the Leftists in Congress can’t get behind it?
Obama and the Left continue to dream about the hypothetical jobs of the green future—or at least funneling hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars to their billionaire friends (see Solyndra).  But they can’t manage to grasp that there’s a very real need for very real jobs right now.  And there is action that can be taken right now that will allow private industry to create jobs without costing a single taxpayer cent. 
Case in point:  The Keystone Pipeline.
As I discussed in a post last month, the Keystone XL Pipeline extension is a proposed project to extend the existing Keystone Pipeline from oil-rich sands in Canada to refineries in Texas.  This project would significantly increase the volume of available crude, and create thousands of construction, transportation, and refining jobs, all without federal “stimulus” money.  It’s been held up in bureaucratic red tape due to alleged environmental concerns—recall that Daryl Hannah, one of the great minds of our time, was arrested at a protest outside the White House (one wonders how she got there from her off-the-grid Colorado bungalow; betcha dollars-to-donuts it involved flying in one of those private jets the Left so hate)—and was awaiting a revised State Department report on the potential environmental impact.  The State Department issued its final report August 26, stating that the project would have “no significant impacts” to the environment if proper practices were followed.  All the project needs is Obama’s go-ahead.  Yet now a month later, while we’ve heard endless browbeating from Obama about the need to act now on jobs, he has done absolutely nothing on this project; a project that actually is “shovel ready,” actually will create jobs, and actually will not cost U.S. taxpayers. 
It is worth noting that one of the environmentalists’ core objections isn’t with the pipeline itself, but with the fact that it is transporting oil developed from so-called “tar sands” that represent a huge boost in reserves.  In a report published two Sundays ago in the Houston Chronicle, it appears that Chinese firms are spending billions to gobble up large segments of these Canadian sands, and will surely develop them regardless of whether Keystone XL gets built.  The only question is whether we will participate.  At a time when the White House and Congressional Left are so concerned about ceding industries to the Chinese, this seems like a no-brainer.  “Green” energy may ultimately prove to be the industry of the future, but oil and natural gas are in indisputable fact the industry of right now.  News reports continually say that his approval is “expected by the end of 2011,” but if the need to act on jobs is so urgent, and this project actually does create jobs, why not act now?
The answer is Keystone is part of Obama’s continuing political war on the oil industry.  The American Petroleum Institute—yes, it’s an oil industry lobby group, but its proposals have been echoed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—has suggested that programs to increase leasing and open drilling areas in places like the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska could create between a half-million and a million jobs, and would do so not only without costing the taxpayer, but would generate billions in revenue through additional royalties and lease rentals as well as additional excise and other taxes.  But Obama—who can’t stop lecturing on the need to stop playing politics and take action—can’t bring himself to go along with these, either. 
The truth is Obama isn’t the least bit interested in creating jobs.  He’s interested in creating the illusion of action, while punishing those the Left perceives as their enemies, and redistributing what wealth is left in this country.  It is more politically expedient to him to pander to the environmental zealots and anti-industry wackos in his base by holding up projects like Keystone, preventing domestic drilling, and pursuing industry-specific tax increases, than it is for him to take action that will actually create jobs in the real world.  So vast reserves continue to go untapped, and thousands who could be employed continue to sit idle.
At least everyone comes to Rick’s.

Obama’s Interesting Math: Increasing Spending to Reduce Debt

“I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.”
—J. Wellington Wimpy
President Obama is not yet providing any details—one suspects because two and a half years into his presidency he still doesn’t have any—but he is sketching some general outlines of job and debt proposals he expects to unload on us in September.  In an interview yesterday Obama said:
“I think that we’ve got to take a longer term view — how do we deal with our deficit and debt in a long-term way? If we get that under control, we can actually pay for some additional job programs in the here and now.”
Well, Mr. President, you had me, then you lost me.  Best I can tell, what he wants to propose is that we cut the budget deficit and debt—notice, he didn’t say “cut spending”—in the future, and spend more on jobs programs now.
Do these people listen to themselves?
I will deal with “job creation” in tomorrow’s post, but let’s just consider the broad concept the President is expected to push.  This is an administration that already jammed through a health care bill the CBO is estimating will cost over $1 trillion, and fought for passage of a “stimulus” package costing an additional nearly $800 billion.  Now he’s going to press for additional as-yet undefined spending now, all while somehow getting the deficit and debt “under control” tomorrow.  How, exactly, is that going to work?
Let’s assume for a second you can actually do both.  Obama is missing the fundamental point those urging a reduction in the debt and deficit are making.  The idea isn’t a kind of zero-sum proposal where you cut back here so you can spend there and the total remains about the same.  The idea, of course, is to reduce the total amount of spending. 
The larger problem is you can’t both add spending today and curtail debt and budget deficits tomorrow.  Obama’s failure to come to grips with this fundamental truth highlights the fact that he has no managerial or budgeting skills or experience.  I suppose that’s no surprise from a President who has never had a job or run a business or otherwise ever in his life had to handle money or be responsible for a budget. 
Let me try to lay this out for you, Mr. President.
You are already spending a trillion dollars a year more than you take in.  You already owe $14.5 trillion in debt—every child born in the U.S. today starts his life $47,000 in the hole.  What this means, Mr. President, is you already don’t have any savings to pay down debt.  Every additional dollar you spend is a dollar you don’t have, meaning it’s inherently deficit spending, and it is inherently adding to the already unmanageable debt.  That’s what the CBOyour own Treasury Secretary, the Federal Reserve, and most economists mean when they refer to the current fiscal situation as being  “unsustainable.”  You are already in a situation that cannot carry on forever.  Under these circumstances, you can’t both spend on jobs today and reduce the debt and deficit tomorrow.  It’s mathematically impossible.  Let me reduce it to numbers you can handle, Mr. President.  Assume you owe the bank $145.  You have a salary of $26, but your annual budget has you spending $37.  Every year you spend $11 more than you make, which means every year you are adding to that $145 you already owe the bank.  If you increase that $37 even just a little bit to, say, $38, you have increased the amount by which your spending exceeds your income.  That’s your “deficit.”  That increase also means you have less money to pay off what you owe–in fact, you now owe more than you did when you started.  Neither the deficit nor the debt are cured tomorrow when you increase spending today; they both get worse.  That’s how math works on this planet.

Even my six year old follows this.

That the President can’t get his mind around this concept tells us he’s either willfully ignorant or worse.  You can’t correct a debt problem by continuing to spend.  The only way to correct a debt  problem is to stop spending and start using the resulting savings to pay down what you owe.  Yet even as we’ve maxed out the credit cards, Obama wants to continue the spending spree while making only minimum payments, and somehow he thinks that while doing that the debt and deficit will get under control.
I find myself returning again and again to Daniel Hannan’s tongue-lashing of Gordon Brown“The truth, [Mr. President], is that you have run out of our money.”  And don’t give me this “I inherited it from Bush” crap.  I don’t really care who started it or whose fault it is, this is the fact of our situation today.  One of the great lessons golf teaches—I’d expect you to know this one, Mr. President, assuming you play by the rules . . . oh, who am I kidding?—is you have to play the ball where it lies, regardless of how it got there.  We have to deal with our situation as we find it.
Somehow, I don’t expect that Obama is going to learn this lesson any time soon.