The Fiscal Cake!
You heard me right and I am not misquoting the latest Washington buzzword “fiscal cliff”. I really do mean the fiscal cake.
You see, when I was just a lad my Mom would say to me “you can’t have your cake and eat it too”. I would say to myself (in those days saying it to her would have meant an unscheduled dental visit to fix a loose tooth or two, if you know what I mean!) So I would say to myself “what the heck is she talking about, these old people are losing it and fast!”
But now some 35 years or so later, I want to say to the American people, “don’t be fooled by the election rhetoric, you can’t have your cake and eat it too”. And just like I queried the sanity of my Mom, you are probably wondering “what the heck is this crazy guy talking about”.
Well here is the “rubber meets the road” fact about the American economy: You can’t reduce the deficit without raising taxes and/or major spending cuts. So when Romney says to you “we will cut the deficit and we will not increase taxes”, I say “you can’t have your cake and eat it too”.
And this brings me to the fiscal cliff. In 2013 the Bush tax cuts are set to expire and an automatic $1 trillion in spending cuts is set to kick in. So we are facing the possibility of higher taxes and less government services. Paying more for less. It is not a pretty picture.
Now if Congress comes up with a sensible debt reduction plan the higher taxes and trillion dollar spending cuts will not kick in. At least that’s the plan.
But here is a question for the “geniuses” who came up with that plan: “what other sensible way can Congress reduce the debt that does not require more revenue, i.e. taxes, and/or less spending, i.e. spending cuts? So in effect, the fiscal cliff can only be avoided by a fiscal cliff.
So America, the choice is clear: either we eat the cake and don’t have it or we don’t eat the cake and have it. Complicated? OK, well let me put it this way: If we want to cut the deficit and “balance” the budget we are going to need more revenue, which means higher taxes and/or cut spending which would mean less government services.
Or we can say “to heck with the deficit and balancing the budget” and we can keep taxes low and maintain a reasonably unchanged level of government services.
Any candidate, Obama or Romney, who tells you otherwise is trying to eat the fiscal cake and have it too.
And according to my Mom, you just can’t do that! I trust my Mom more than I trust Obama or Romney.
When it comes to common sense, cakes and fiscal responsibility, Who do you Trust?
Or these Moms?
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the fiscal cliff while reducing the deficit would create an economic slowdown by shrinking GDP by approximately 0.50% and increasing unemployment to 9%. This spells RECESSION.
My next blog we will look at whether there is another option that can avoid this fiscal cliff induced recession.
Congressional Budget Office budget and economic projections for 2012 through 2022.
First of all, to say the GOP lost because of the changing electoral demographics is euphemistically to say that the reason Obama won was because minorities voted for him because he was a minority. Are minorities that short sighted that they would vote for a president simply on ethnicity or color with no regard for the substantive issues of the president’s campaign? I say that to make the statement that Obama won, or the GOP lost, is because of changing demographics is an utterly racist statement.
The reason, the real reason the GOP lost was because their campaign, instead of presenting America with a viable alternative to a weakened opponent, they decided to focus on garbage like birth certificates, characterizing Obama as a welfare president and garbage like proposing a 5 trillion dollar tax cut with no clear concise strategy for paying for it.
Don’t feed me the garbage about demographics, Mr. GOP.
Instead of running a campaign that was as dirty and toxic as a garbage dump, next time try running a clean campaign focused on facts and reality. Then it wouldn’t matter what the demographics are and minorities would not blindly vote for a candidate based on skin color or race.
Do you know why politicians say the most “uninformed” or “intentionally misleading” things?
Because of America’s gullibility. Until America starts demanding truth and accuracy politicians will feed us a never ending diet of garbage, unvetted claims and intentional misrepresentations.
For example, Obama gave a speech in West Virginia this week and got a huge applause when he said that America has the best education system in the world. Oh yeah Mr. President?
Well Obama’s alma mater, Harvard University conducted a study which found that students in Latvia, Chile and Brazil are making gains in academics three times faster than American students. In fact America is seventh in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science.
So I get the President wanting to highlight American exceptionalism but no matter what formula you use, you won’t find American exceptionalism in the American education system. The facts just don’t add up!
Back in the day folks would cook over an open flame using copper kettles and iron pots. They would scrub and polish the copper kettles after using them but the pots did not receive as much attention or care. So over time the pots would get blackened from the soot.
Word on the street is that one day the iron pot met this fine looking shiny copper kettle somewhere in Washington DC, some say it was in Congress or maybe in the Senate. In its overly partisan haste to criticize the copper kettle, the pot pontificated on how black the copper kettle was and how unfit it was for office considering all the soot that had accumulated on the copper kettle.
What Romney, (uh the pot) did not realize that what he was actually seeing was a reflection of himself in the shiny copper kettle.
The moral of this story is that pots should not go around accusing kettles of not knowing how to create jobs in America when the pot, as governor of Massachusetts, had a state economy that was 47th in job creation at a time when the national economy was significantly more robust than it is today.
So as Romney stomps the campaign trail today blasting Obama for the poor jobs report, and make no mistake it is poor, he should take a moment to ask himself this question:
“Why would America believe that I can create more jobs than Obama during a time of unprecedented economic shrinkage when during a robust economy I could not create jobs in my state as Governor”?
The current conflict in Syria where thousands of citizens are being killed has been addressed and continues to be addressed through a philanthropic response. In addition to the horrific genocide of “somewhere between 10,000 and 19,000 Syrians” over the last year there is the issue of close to “half million Syrians are now refugees in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan.” (RTT News, 2012).
Philanthropic organizations and individuals from the Sunni Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have been at the forefront of the philanthropic response. The Saudi equivalent of the Red Cross; the Saudi Red Crescent; has stepped in as a conduit for donations of food and supplies from Saudi citizens to refugees in Lebanon and Jordan.
But not only have Saudi citizens and philanthropic organizations come to the aid of the refugees, members of government and political leaders have stepped up to the plate. The Saudi deputy premier and defense minister, Crown Prince Salman, donated $2.6 million dollars to a fund for the refugees on the heels of an earlier $5.3 million donation by King Abdullah. To date the fund has close to $500 million dollars to support those who have been displaced by the tragic genocide in Syria. (RTT News, 2012)
As America is embroiled in a downright nasty presidential campaign which is anything but “presidential” here is a question for those two men aspiring to be leaders of the American people: “how large a check are they, Romney or Obama, willing to write for those Americans recently displaced by Isaac? Romney’s image would get a much needed facelift with a sizable public donation to victims of Isaac.
Instead of spending BILLIONS on nasty deceptive and shameful political ads maybe both campaigns should take a page from the Saudi leaders and spend that money where it counts. In fact, I have a feeling that if a candidate would spend HALF as much on philanthropic initiatives as they do on the lies that pass for campaign ads that they would get TWICE as much a boost in their poll numbers.
Just try it: I dare either Romney or Obama to take a page from King Abdullah and Crown Prince Salman.
Staff Writer. (2012, July 24). Saudi King Launches Syrian Fundraising Drive, Donates $5.33 Mln. RTT News. Retrieved from http://www.rttnews.com/1928950/saudi-king-launches-syrian-fundraising-drive-donates-5-33-mln.aspx?type=gn&Node=B1
Here is a crazy idea. Why not have both Mitt & Barack be Presidents. We have co-captains, co-MVPs co- everything, why not co-Presidents. If they both want the best for America, why not take the one step that will show that America’s interests are more important to them than winning the Presidency. Are they willing to put egos aside and work together for the good of America?
The truth is neither Romney’s nor Obama’s policies are the cure for what ails America. They both have policies and proposals that make sense for Main Street and they both have their fair share of boneheaded poorly vetted propaganda proposals that cater to the underbelly of American partisan politics.
So how about it America; an Obama-Romney ticket?
The American system of politics is brutally flawed in that it is an incubator for partisanship. Economic platforms are not judged based on merit but they are judged based on which party proposed it. So for Democrats, any proposal from a Republican is automatically flawed and to Republicans any proposal offered by a Democrat is intrinsically worthless.
Why not get rid of the party system and get the best and brightest of America and create a non-partisan working body that gets things done. Of course there has to be proper vetting and stringent guidelines to ensure that the will of the people is not slighted in any manner but I can’t imagine any system more toxic than the current state of politics in America today.
So anyone for an Obama-Romney ticket?
So what you need to know about this picture is that it represents the worst of what is wrong with the American legal system: shark like unscrupulous attorneys and the lax Judges who let them perpetrate their farce on American citizens.
And yes, I know these are not shark pictures, they are actually killer whales, Orcinus orca whales to be more scientifically correct. But who let the sharks out had a better ring to it! You wouldn’t read this article if it was titled “who let the Orcinus orca whales out?” would you?
Everyone I know has a righteous indignation towards deadbeat Dads who neglect their financial responsibilities to the children they fathered into this world. There is no place in my heart for those men who try to beat the system and not pay their fair share of their children’s’ upkeep.
That there exist in our society men; (if they could be called men at all), who engage in such atrocious “deadbeatness” is an undeniable and sad reality of life in America.
But that is no reason to lump all non-custodial Dads into this pathetic category of human beings. And our legal system actual fosters this insanity. Take this case in Decatur GA where a non-custodial Dad, whom the Court had accused of dodging his financial responsibility to pay his child support. Sounds like a deadbeat Dad, right?
But look a little closer and what you would find is an unscrupulous, shark who failed to provide the correct mailing address where the Dad was to mail his child support payments to.
In spite of the Dad’s continuous attempts over five months to the attorney and the Court to provide the right address the attorney and the Court failed to provide the correct address to the “deadbeat Dad”. The attorney then persuades the Mother to take the Dad to court for failure to pay child support.
And the Judge, in spite of undeniable proof of the Dad’s attempts to contact the attorney for correct address, and the Dad’s returned envelopes showing where Dad’s payments were returned because of incorrect address, and the Dad’s numerous calls and letters to the Court asking for a correct address; the Judge signs an order holding the Dad in contempt for failure to pay his child support. Then the Judge orders the Dad to pay the attorney’s fees for “having to come to court to enforce collection of child support”.
But wait, there is more! The attorney made gross errors in computing the amount of the child support and the amount he computed for child support was almost $100 per month less than it should have been.
This “deadbeat” Dad discovered the error and promptly asked the court to adjust the child support upward. And the attorney did what? He took legal action against the Dad to deny the Dad’s request to increase the child support.
And you thought that his interest was to ensure that the mother received the accurate amount of financial support so that the child’s financial affairs could be handled. Well guess again, not only did this attorney ask the Judge to deny the increase, but he also asked the Judge to force the Dad to his attorney’s fees for having to file action to deny an increase in child support for his client.
If this sounds crazy, well it is not; it really happened and is all verifiable with court records at the DeKalb Superior Court.
This incredible saga underscores the need for a more stringent oversight of attorneys who fit the description, at least in my book, of “deadbeat attorneys”.
So yes, let’s get tough legislation and enforcement against deadbeat Dads but let us also get rid of deadbeat attorneys and lax Judges who let them perpetrate this travesty against the good Dads of America.
I’m sure you have heard the cliché, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”. You may not be a farmhand but you probably know that a goose is a duck like creature and a gander is a male goose. Male geese or ganders are leaders of the flock of geese.
The logic behind this cliché is that if a rule or requirement applies to the “little people” or subordinates, it is just as applicable or binding on leadership.
Well, in case you missed it, Mitt Romney is no gander. His goose, i.e. Paul Ryan deemed it appropriate and reasonable to provide to Mr. Romney “several years of tax returns” as part of Romney’s vetting of Ryan as a VP candidate. So Ryan, like most Americans, believes it is reasonable and appropriate that for such a high profile position as VP he should submit “several years’ tax returns” to his prospective boss, Mitt Romney.
An article posted on a CNN Political Ticker on August 12, reported that Ryan “gave Mitt Romney’s vice presidential vetting team “several years” of personal income tax returns…”
Well good for Mr. Ryan. So what about Romney, his prospective boss? Well if Mr. Romney was a gander, which clearly he is not, the adage that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander would apply and Romney would recognize the need to submit “several years of tax returns” to his prospective boss, i.e. the American people.
And that is the problem with Romney: he is neither goose nor gander. In fact he seems so disconnected from the little people (that would be you!!) that one wonders whether he even recognizes what the big deal about his tax returns is.
The big deal is not what’s on Romney’s returns or whether Romney used sophisticated tax strategies to minimize his taxes, America pretty much already knows he did. The big deal is the process of full disclosure and doing the American thing! If it is good for the goose, it should be good for the gander.
Acosta, J. (2012, August 12). CNN Political Ticker.
Sounds unbelievable? It shouldn’t considering the inadvertent and sometimes intentional bias in America’s educational and judicial systems.
An unfortunate collaboration between these to pillars of American society has created this egregious career path that many minorities are all but forced into.