Romney has a bazooka in his front pocket... but an empty wallet in has back pocket

Its been a rather hot item this week. People have been picking apart Mitt Romney's latest budget proposal and it isnt pretty. The lates offering (or borrowing might fit better) of a Romney proposed budget would actually result in equal or larger deficits then we already have under the current administration. I find that odd, considering Romney has said recently that it is: "immoral to pass burdens on the next generation like that" meaning deficits and in turn the national debt.

This is the same Mittens who also said how he "can’t wait to get my hands on Washington". I had to ask myself; get your hands on it for what? Clearly, by his own admission in his proposed budget, he would actually increase the deficit not shrink it, let alone not balance the budget. 

Romney's proposed budget got me thinking... is he seriously supposed to be the candidate with business experience? You can't argue with the wealth he built up. Hell, paying only 13% of your income in taxes can have that effect on a multimillionaire, no? You can't argue with his education background or the fact that he saved the Olympics, so why is it he has a problem balancing a budget?

Surely, he had to do so in his business dealings, haggle with budgets. We know he had to do so as governor, so why is trimming the existing deficit so hard to do, let alone balance our nations budget? The short answer? He wants to appeal to everyone. That why he is flip-flop Mitt. Period.

With that said, I want to focus on one particular part of Romney's budget and that is defense. Mittens recently said he would not only not cut defense, he would commission a bump from building "nine per year to fifteen" new ships for the Navy as well as new aircraft for the Air Force. Apparently, Mittens was feeling the love from the USS Yorktown and maybe a little patriotic and nostalgic in the World War sense, because he then dropped this bomb saying (as you can see below) he would "add at least 100,000 troops to the boots on the ground capability".

The problem with that is first of all, we are not entering a world war. So where could we use this 100k influx? Iraq? We just withdrew (but lest not mention the 15K people left behind to defend the city-like embassy) our combat troops. Afghanistan? It was said two years ago that Al-Qaeda is 75-100 strong in country. That was out of the mouth of then CIA director and now Department of Defense chairman Leon Panetta. I'm guessing Panetta has no advantage of actually underselling our enemy now does he.

 These are also the same terrorists who are "on our side" in the uprising that is taking place in Syria. Hmmm, we are going to be supplying and siding up with terrorists to defeat a nation that we do not like today, but will tomorrow in efforts to stop the terrorists that we now all of a sudden hate who once used to help us.... stop me if I am wrong, but have we not seen this movie before; in Afghanistan no less, circa 1979? Oh, never-mind, this movie is titled the "forever war" (thanks Clearwater) thus we never know how it ends and the perpetual boogy man? He just keeps a comin', he just gets a new face (and accent) every now and then, ala Herbert West.

So, why do we need 100,000 additional troops for? To invade Iran? To combat terrorism? Doesn't seem plausible. Seems like using a sledgehammer to swat flies. I would assume the troop levels we have now are more than enough to defend our nation but Mitt doesn't agree:

 “We all recognize that America needs to economize, but I don’t believe that we can economize on securing our nation and protecting our citizens and ensuring that the world remains safe and free for us and for our children,” 

 In fact, if you compare our spending on defense to the rest of the world as I pointed out in an earlier article this year; it's not even close in how much we outspend the rest of the top 17 nations who spend the most on defense combined.

National defense spending has increased 38% since 2001. This idea that we are going to spend more on defense and drastically increase its scope and sheer size, leads me to the answer to my original question. So why do we need 100,000 additional troops for? And the answer is quite obvious. Just look at Romney's quote when he says:

 "ensuring that the world remains safe and free for us"

There it is. And that is the shared mentality from most of Washington not just Romney. Kind of reminds me of the newest Navy slogan "A global force for good". The problem with that? The word "Good" is awfully ambiguous. How "good" are we, if you're an innocent bystander whose lost their life or a loved one(s) in Iraq or Afghanistan. Is that "good" worth a son who was put into a battle field without even a deceleration of war from Congress?

"Good", just like the words "safe" and "free" in Romney's quote are equally indistinct. I thought we already were pretty safe. Apparently, Romney does not agree and that is why he is touting a pretty substantial face lift for the DOD. The phrase "free for us"? How can the world be free for us? Chew on that one, I know i still am.

Which leads me to my final point. Romney is proposing not only an agenda that is completely out of whack compared to what the rest of the world is spending on defense, it is also an agenda that is mathematically infeasible in an environment where we should be embracing austerity measures to live within our means. Here is a recent quote from of all people, Valdimir Putin, on the past, current and future US foreign policy outlook:

"the United States, have developed a peculiar interpretation of security that is different from ours. The Americans have become obsessed with the idea of becoming absolutely invulnerable. This utopian concept is unfeasible both technologically and geopolitically, but it is the root of the problem. By definition, absolute invulnerability for one country would in theory require absolute vulnerability for all others" 

I know some of you out there are thinking "why do we care what the future President of Russia has to say about us" and I understand that sentiment; however, it's awfully sobering to have the Russians more in line with reality than a hopeful for the Presidency of the United States. To be fair, Romney is not alone on the campaign trail in this insanity, and it clear the Oval office shares this paranoia as well.

With that, I leave you with a quote, that in today's Republican Party would be considered a Liberal stance on foreign policy. From the same man who shed the initial light on the Congressional Military Industrial Complex (how apropos), former President, Dwight D. Eisenhower:

  

"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security"

Dumb and Dumber: Yes im talking about Congress and the Executive branch.

Remember the movie Dumb & Dumber? When Lloyd and Harry "found" a suitcase with a few million dollars and they spent it on anything and everything and then replaced each item they bought with a piece of paper... an IOU?

Now, Harry and Lloyd have no money, they, like our government, are broke losers (I was referring to the movie actors as losers but this will play here as well). How do you suppose they pay it back? They would borrow it? But from whom? What if they borrowed from the people that now hold the IOU's, you know, the people whom they "borrowed from" initially? Lets keep this scenario for an exercise later, bare with me until then.  

With the stroke of a pen, President Obama extended the payroll tax cut this past Wednesday, putting between $20-$2000 dollars back into the pockets of working Americans each week. While I firmly believe cutting taxes is always a good measure, I have to question this particular measure, as how to pay for it; just doesn’t make sense.

It was the same logic of George Bush Jr who cut taxes, slashing revenue and dramatically expanded government. Sure, it’s more money back in peoples pocket but it’s going to be much more expensive down the road in the form of interest payments on the accumulation of budget deficits that end up making the public debt liability in the national debt.

When you cut taxes, it has to come from somewhere. So, anytime you cut taxes and do not make cuts in existing programs or services to pay for them its not really a tax cut, it’s a loan at interest with dollars that are becoming worthless by the day. To call it a tax cut, while already in a 1.3 Trillion projected hole without cutting a single thing from even the deficit, further expanding the budget deficit is counterintuitive if not just flat out a lie. Unlike the Bush and the Republican favored (and flawed theory) of supply side economics, coupled with increase spending, the means to pay for this tax cut comes right out of the coffers of… Social Security.

I find that interesting because when Obama was running for President he was singing a different tune and  from then senator Obama's website:

"Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century" 

The reason we had a surplus in Social Security was a payroll tax raise (the opposite of what’s going on here with Obama’s tax cut) by Ronald Regan. I’m not a big fan of “the Gipper” like so many are, that call themselves a fiscal conservative (because he wasn’t one). However, he knew baby boomers where going to retire and need to collect from a diminished population numeric wise; thus a surplus was needed. He then, proceeded to raid it in 1987 as did George Bush Sr following him and lest not forget Bill Clinton. Hell, this goes back to LBJ in the sixties if you want to see who is culpable for raiding social security.

According to the Social Security Administration, as of 2010, Social Security should have had a 2.6 Trillion dollar surplus, but I find that odd? How can the federal government put into its budget each year a bill for Social Security when the FICA tax is already being removed from your paycheck to pay for Social Security? Is this not the essence of double taxation? So, where is this surplus? It’s been raided and spent and replaced with IOU’s (bonds) with things like wars in Afghanistan/Iraq and other toys that politicians want - but don’t want to pay for… like this tax cut. In other words, it's a gigantic slush fund used by politicians to keep their feet from the fire.  

(Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.)

In 2005 George W even had the chutzpah to admit it... while raiding it !!!  

“There is no trust fund, just IOUs that I saw firsthand that future generations will pay—will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs.” 

It’s rather humorous to me that this is the only measure where you will find bi-partisan support in such a partisan political scheme that is Washington these days. Its also why I write my blog, to show this type of fraudulent partisan logic, as if there was really a difference on the important issues. Why the bi-partisan support? Because its politically expedient for both parties.

The Democrats can say they are helping out Joe-six pack with more money in his pocket, while the Republicans can hold up their oath to Grover Norquist. The best part of this tax cut is it comes out of an existing program that so many people & elected leaders from both “sides” rail on for not being solvent. We have heard about the entitlement tsunami that is coming… I wonder why?

Now, both parties can appease to their constituents so that they can be reelected; totally disregarding what the cost/benefit factor is. The "rich" (anyone over 110K), who won’t collect social security anyway, can get some of their money back. Joe-six pack can break even now, to make up for the rising gas prices and other commodities and maybe even save spend a few dollars (literally a few) at Wal-Mart buying Chinese trinkets or Snuggies (never mind, they are via China as well). It’s a win-win. I guess.

But don’t tell that to Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

“I never thought I would have to see the day when a Democratic president of the United States and a Democratic vice president would agree to put Social Security in this kind of jeopardy. Never did I ever imagine a Democratic president would be the beginning of the unraveling of Social Security.”

Now think back to the beginning with the movie exercise. We, are the person that the suitcase belongs to. Harry and Lloyd are your local congressman and President and Senator... not only do they borrow the money, but they do so at interest or whats called the coupon, through bonds (IOU's). How can we have an outlay (and subsequent budget deficit and then subsequent accumulating national debt) for social security in the budget each year with FICA coming out of our checks to pay for it?

Because of this budget deficit you will also incur a bill that will be an interest payment on the principal of the national debt, which again, is an accumulation of every budget deficit in our history. This is simply because you are spending more then you're collecting in revenue. So, unlike Harry and Lloyd, we are not just going to borrow from the suitcase owner to payback the IOU's we replaced the initial money with. No, the government takes it one step further and promises to pay back those IOU's with future obligations, ie taxes and the circular logic continues. This will go on forever if drastic measures are not taken to stop this, but without strict terms limits, I cant see that happening. After-all, intergovernmental debt doesn't have to be paid back, right? In the words of Lloyd Christmas:

Its as good as money sir, those are IOU's... go ahead and count it, every cent is accounted for. 

The Vest wants to spend to offset spending - but dont call him a liberal

Santorum has and will always be a big government "compassionate" conservative and his record clearly shows that. He will never shrink government. Because Santorum thinks that government should be involved within every aspect of our lives. Not only the handling of our taxes and defense of our contracts and borders but he also favors ADDED government power in the business of defense and regulation of morality.

Anytime the government gets involved or makes any move its costs the tax payer. Government as we know creates nothing, all they can do is tax & spend (borrow & spend is more like it). So, with Santorum getting heat this week in an add put out by Ron Paul, in which it calls the former Pennsylvania Senator a "Fake" Conservative, he had to come out and show he wasnt fake and that he was genuine; as his clear rise in the polls would indicate.

Could there be a better time for the Vest to continue to prove his conservative credentials then the last debate of the primary season last night in Arizona? I dont think so, and CNN clearly understood what was going on as it didn't take long for John King of CNN to fire a 85mph fastball - belt high for Dr Paul. Within minutes, King asked Dr Paul why his ad this week was calling Santorum "fake"? Ron Paul simply said:

 "Because he's a fake".

The good congressman then went on a bit of a rant, on how exactly he thought the Vest was fake and then Santorum's rebuttal was bunch of fluff and rankings from all sorts of conservative organizations supposedly ranking Santorum as some type of fiscal hawk (sic).  It was a little later in the debate where Santorum outed himself. Here is the text:

SANTORUM: As Congressman Paul knows, I opposed Title X funding. I've always opposed Title X funding, but it's included in a large appropriation bill that includes a whole host of other things, including...


(BOOING)


... the funding for the National Institutes of Health, the funding for Health and Human Services and a whole bunch of other departments. It's a multi-billion-dollar bill.


What I did, because Title X was always pushed through, I did something that no one else did. Congressman Paul didn't. I said, well, if you're going to have Title X funding, then we're going to create something called Title XX, which is going to provide funding for abstinence-based programs, so at least we'll have an opportunity to provide programs that actually work in -- in keeping children from being sexually active instead of facilitating children from being sexually active. And I pushed Title XX to -- to accomplish that goal.


So while, yes, I -- I admit I voted for large appropriation bills and there were things in there I didn't like, things in there I did, but when it came to this issue, I proactively stepped forward and said that we need to do something at least to counterbalance it, A; B, I would say that I've always been very public that, as president of the United States, I will defund Planned Parenthood; I will not sign any appropriation bill that funds Planned Parenthood.

Here, you have someone who is self described as "the most fiscally conservative senator in the Congress in the -- in the 12 years that I was there", who was also rated "high" in ratings from both the National Taxpayers Union as well as Citizens Against Government Waste actually admitting he was in favor of creating new spending. Not only did he help pass legislation worth billions that he (allegedly) didn't like, he trumps that, with actually admitting to adding more spending for new programs to counter the spending of existing programs he doesn't like. My heads hurts just typing that. Lets try this....

Santorum doesn't like Title X (planned parenthood) but he passes it anyway as a rider on another bill worth billions he does like but because he isn't satisfied with the spending of Title X, he creates (spends) Title XX to satisfy his quest for divine mortality be offsetting Title X.

Nope, this still makes no sense and that is the point. It cant make sense because my logical fiscal conservative brain doesnt compute that as fiscally conservative. That my friends is the antithesis of a fiscal conservative. How does spending new money to offset already spent money create anything but more debt and bigger government? It doesn't. And again... that is the point. That is the very definition of a big government whore... thats what Santorum is, and the Tea Party will line up to support him?

Lesser of two evils come November? I cant see it.

 

Is there a difference between Romney and Obama? I have been critical of both Mr Romney and President Obama for various reasons but both being so different in terms of background, surly they cant be that similar, right? When the subject comes up of differentiating between the two I find myself scratching my head. The same head scratching can be said for those folks who ask me my support for either two, and when I reveal my support of Ron Paul regardless if he’s third party or not, it’s often met with the same rebuttal: “it’s a waste of a vote, its better to pick the lesser of two evils”. However, I just can’t seem to grasp the difference between the two men as far as policy is concerned.  

  

Sure, Romney has the business experience, that is unquestionable a difference and he has balanced the budget as Governor in Massachusetts. Both of those are very big props for Romney in my book… but other than that, I looked and I can’t find a difference between the eventual nominee for the Republicans (Mittens) and the incumbent, President Obama (at least not in the pivotal positions).

- Obama has maintained the foreign policy of an empire, just as Romney would do (although Romney said he would actually increase spending on defense) not to mention he chastised the President for pulling out of Iraq. No savings there.    

- Obama has continued to support even more of an assault on our personal liberty’s extending the Patriot Act and signing NDAA, wouldn’t you know it - Romney supports both. Liberty trampled on again.

- Obama passed Universal Healthcare as did Romney. Romney even is proud of his healthcare bill, (‘I’m very proud of my health-care plan and think it should be a model for other states to adopt’) or at least he was before he was against it again.

What do we have left? Taxes. Yes, taxes, death and Mittens oh boy! This is the same guy who didn’t release his taxes because he didn’t wantto show he paid at or under the 15 percentile reserved for Capital gains (between 13.9-15%) on over 40 Million dollars of income. That would show he is using loopholes (although legal) just like many of our corporations do.

Romney said recently that Obama passed 19 tax increases under his terms as POTUS. Most people on the right would believe that to be true, he is said to be the most polarizing president in our history isn’t he? Although the validity to those tax hikes in question has been shaky and even a few of the 19 suspected raises have been actually proved false, Mitt continues his assault. For the record, the Obama tax increases were minimal in nominal terms considering (the large deficit) and directed at very specific small targets; not wide wielding swaths of people and demographics as Romney would have you believe.

The truth of the matter is Obama has cut taxes too. He did so in his 700+ Billion dollar stimulus (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) he then cut taxes in the ‘December 2010 tax deal’ that extended the Bush tax cuts. Those tax cuts were worth $654 Billion and if you factor in the 250+ Billion from the ARRA cuts in his 2009 Stimulus act, we are talking 900 Billion in Tax cuts through his administration. I think its safe to say he has cut more taxes than he has increased taxes by a large sum.

Look at the revenue or receipts our government is pulling in. If we were seeing tax increases, wouldn’t we also being seeing soaring revenue? We aren’t. We are in a massive economic quagmire and tax cuts will not get us out of it. And if we continue to cut taxes and keep the budget as is or increase it, we will only cause even more damage down the road. And that seems like the message from Newt, Obama or Mitt.  

While I agree with the Republican field running for the oval office about the over-regulation that we are seeing under this administration; it’s not what ails us either. What we have is a political atmosphere where nobody wants to make the touch decision and cut major aspects off our budget or raise taxes to pay for the bills we have. Obama or Romney will never do it; they lack the thick skin and willingness to lead by example despite the consequences. responsible debt is one thing, what these kooks are proposing is simply not feasible long term. 

Romney has no plan to cut government just spend an equal amount or more and lower taxes for the richest Americans. Obama seems to have no plan at all and while he lowered taxes he increased regulation and didn't do anything to make cuts. Gingrich? He thinks we can save 500 Billion annually on modernization, he’s also the same guy who said Fannie and Freddie hired him as a historian... not a lobbyist. He won’t be the nominee but it further drives home the point. The 900 lb gorilla in the room remains Keynesian economics. Until we face the reality of the magnitude that beast has in terms of influence and destruction we will be here every four years with the same logical outcome: vote for a Paul (Ron or Rand).