So, the number one expectation on this list will likely come as a surprise to some. The very first thing that Congress and the President should do at this moment is to get the budget passed. There hasn’t been a real government budget since President Bush left office. Yes, you read that right. President Obama has never had to work within a government budget. This is perhaps the biggest reason why spending is so out of control. There is no budget.

Every person who has ever spent money knows that the instant you lose track of what you’re spending, you lose control. Once you lose control, you get into financial trouble. Any financial adviser will tell you that one of the very first things you should do is to create a budget. In fact, the only way out of this mess is to make a budget.

This issue can’t really be stressed enough, because it really is the first step to getting out of the mess that the President and Congress have gotten the American people into. So, President Obama, quit the campaign trail, get back into Congress, pile the pressure on the Senate Democrats and get an actual budget passed.

In other words, for both Congress and President Obama, DO YOUR JOB.

Second on the list, probably of less importance, but still involving a huge military mistake by someone, is to deal with the spy plane in Iran. Again, this is the President’s job, as listed in the US Constitution as the Commander in Chief. Simply put, the spy plane is a military embarrassment that needs to be dealt with quickly. In fact it is so embarrassing, that it negates any of the past military victories that President Obama has had. Yes, it is even worse than GITMO and that’s saying a lot.

So, President Obama, get your military leaders on the phone, meet them in person, use whatever means at your disposal to get a plan in place to deal with that spy plane. All you are really being asked here is to DO YOUR JOB.

Third on the list is approval of the Keystone project. This project has been in the works for years and is likely President Obama’s only hope for the creation of real jobs (since clearly, all other proposals for job creation have either failed or have been sidelined). Not only is it a step toward energy independence, it is a political feather that can be placed in the Presidential cap. The environmental impact surveys have been done. The time to act is now. So, President Obama, if you want to keep your campaign promise of creating jobs, here’s your best chance for doing so. Delaying this will hurt America’s efforts toward creating energy sources closer to home. Approval of this will fulfill promises made during many, many Presidential speeches.

Since this is getting rather long, these three are the top expectations that should be accomplished before hitting the campaign trail. President Obama, GO DO YOUR JOB and stop the campaign until you get this done. You have plenty of cronies to sing your praises and raise money for you. You need to DO THE JOB you were elected to do.

Congress, the only way you can end the constant disappointment and bring at least some respect back is to do the one thing you are tasked to do by the US Constitution, pass a budget. So, Congress, do some compromising, take the first step to getting America back on a financially smart course, and DO YOUR JOB.

(White House photo)

Clearly, Social Security is one of those political hot topics that set off emotions. People, especially the elderly, don’t want anyone messing with Social Security. What this payroll tax is really labeled on most paychecks is the Social Security tax. The payroll tax terminology is really just political labeling designed to misdirect people from the fact that this tax goes directly into the Social Security fund.

By cutting this tax, you cut the funds going directly toward Social Security. That happens to be the unintended consequence of this particular tax cut. Which means that Social Security can turn “upside down” even faster than it is happening right now. “Upside down” is a political and/or economic slang term, meaning the amount of money going into a program is less than the amount of money being paid out by that program. For a business, it means a red bottom line. For a bank, it means a negative account balance.

In fact, the Social Security administration trustee report  for 2010 states that Social Security is upside down. The last time this was the case was in 1983.

Now, the other side of this coin is that it does give the economy a slight boost. People are getting and spending the money that they see in their paycheck. But this is still only a temporary effect. Because this tax cut cannot be sustained indefinitely. At some point, it will be impossible for the government to pay out Social Security checks with very little money coming in.

The other real problem is that this particular tax was sold as a way to help businesses. But businesses aren’t hiring based on a slight break in the Social Security tax. Businesses have a lot more expenses to weigh when they are going to hire someone. The Social Security tax isn’t even in the top ten of those expenses. So, in reality, zero jobs have been created directly due to this tax.

Then there is the question of how to pay for it. Frankly, I am against both sides on this one. The main reason is that any funds produced to cover the shortfall will wind up in the general budget and will not go back into Social Security. Whether there is a millionaire tax or a pay freeze, the results are exactly the same. There will not be a dime headed back into  Social Security. Unless Congress makes the direction of those funds eminently clear, then it will be the same general free-for-all spending spree that Congress is famous for.

Which means more borrowing to cover up the shortfalls in the Social Security system. Thus, the damage that has been done to the Social Security fund will be compounded. What it really means is that Social Security will not last nearly as long as predicted or indicated. Changes will have to come much, much sooner than even the experts are predicting.

Yes, there should be more money in people’s pockets. Yes, the tax rates should be lowered. However, is this payroll tax cut, AKA social security tax cut, really a good solution to both?

For a President who is so adamant against changing the programs of Social Security and Medicare, he sure is doing a lot to make sure that they do change by necessity. If anything, this discussion is another reason you should be putting away more funds for your retirement. At this rate, it won’t be long before there will be no Social Security at all.

(Photo: USCIS)

The first big one which will raise taxes is the payroll tax cut. While it isn’t technically a spending cut, it will raise taxes. Keeping the payroll tax cut actually has some bipartisan agreement. The problem is not extending the cuts but the bigger question of how to pay for them. That will be the issue of contention that will likely cause this particular tax cut to expire. The proposal currently on the table to pay for the tax cut is a tax increase on millionaires. This additional tax would be a deal breaker for Republicans.

It does present a bit of a quandary. But if you read the bill SR. 1660 where the text of the millionaire tax is located, you will find that there is a loophole for this millionaire tax. The tax is incurred after all deductions have been taken out. This means that if their income after deductions is less than a million, they don’t pay the tax.

In reality, this likely won’t fly with many Democrats either. Many of those in Congress are probably eligible for this particular tax. They aren’t going to be too keen on paying another 5.6%. But in the game of politics, many Democrats will vote for this particular bill because they know that the Republicans will stop its passage. After all, it is all about appearances.

The doctor cut fix for Medicare, as it is commonly called, is very likely to pass. This is a bipartisan point of agreement. There simply isn’t a good outcome if this doesn’t get passed. The major problem of not passing this particular spending cut is that doctors will stop accepting Medicare patients. Already, this is becoming somewhat of an issue because of the compensation factor. The problem will worsen without this “fix.”Again, the major issue of contention will be in how to pay for it. As of yet, this particular issue has not been addressed. But there will likely be some sort of legislation coming through in the next couple of weeks.

The unemployment benefits will soon be running out for quite a few people at the end of this year. This is one piece of legislation that is unlikely to pass. With one big fight already in the works and another one that guarantees more spending, this extension won’t likely pass. But the major reason is that this is a temporary solution for a long-term problem. At some point, unemployment benefits become unsustainable. Do you keep taxing those who are working to support those who aren’t? At what point does it become unfair to both taxpayers and the unemployed? Those are difficult questions to deal with and quite unanswerable.

With three chances to reduce spending at the beginning of next year, Congress isn’t likely to see much savings. The payroll tax is going to be a major fight which will leave very little time for the passage of the other two. The “doctor fix” probably won’t get much attention even though it will still add to the deficit. At the very most, the biggest cut that will stay a cut is the unemployment extension.

Don’t expect much to change on the spending problem that Congress has. Even if all three of these cuts expire, it still won’t fix the major problem.

Democrats, at the moment, are not caving on their demand that the tax reductions introduced by George W. Bush be allowed to expire in 2012, creating extra revenue through a tax-rate increase for high-end earners.

Thus far Republicans have only conceded one tax increase, an elimination of provisions for private jet owners which will provide an estimated 3 billion dollars. Instead, the Republican proposal is packed with spending reductions aimed at civilians employed at the Pentagon and increased fees for those looking to take out a mortgage.

Some might say it is surprising to see Republicans touting the $3 billion dollar revenue the private jet provisions might create, since Orrin Hatch and other Republicans have repeatedly laughed off the idea that a revoking of this provision would generate so much income. But it is a key concession in their proposal.

Many questions remain. Can the committee reach a deal before the Wednesday deadline? Can the deadline be postponed? Will Republicans continue to hold this country hostage to keep a small percentage of the income of America’s top earners? A small percentage they paid only a few years back?

Republicans refer to this tax increase as a job-killer, but we are seeing fewer jobs now then when the tax rate was higher less than a decade ago.

What does it all mean?

If the debt committee fails to reach an agreement to find a way to reduce spending by 1.2 trillion dollars over the next ten years the question arises as to whether or not automatic spending cuts, known as a sequester, will go into play or not. Right now it seems congress has quite a few “outs”along the way.

One thing is clear, cuts will be made. Will Democrats also manage to increase tax revenue? Will they cave in an attempt to compromise with people who have made it abundantly clear they have no interest in compromising?

I think it is fair to say that on both sides of the political equation we are getting to the end of our rope. Occupy Wall Street, a movement which at its grassroots is linked to no specific political party, is just the beginning of a venting process against a system which only aims to stall itself rather than act in our best interests.

(Graphic: White House Office of Public Engagement)

WINNERS:
Barack Obama –
The President had nothing directly to do with the death of Muammar Gaddafi, but it happened under his watch. That’s two major enemies of the United States of America killed in a short period of time, which is all good for the sitting president. He looks stronger on foreign policy and I’m pretty sure the Nobel people can’t take their peace prize back, so it’s wins all around for Obama this week.

Libya –
There aren’t a dozen human beings on this planet from whose death I would take satisfaction, but World-class nutjob Muammar Gaddafi was one of them. Things are looking up for the 6.6 Million citizens of Libya.

Mitt Romney –
Rick Perry came out of the last debate looking like a petulant child. Rick Santorum’s a non-factor. Michele Bachmann’s campaign is in shambles. Newt Gingrich is unelectable. Ron Paul comes across as a fringe nut. Front runner Herman Cain is being assailed from all sides on his 9-9-9 economic plan. Mitt Romney… just is. Once again, Romney proves that slow and steady wins the race.

LOSERS:
Joe Biden –
Last week I praised Vice President Joe Biden (pictured) for upping his game and coming off as likable and charming in his recent uptick of visibility. Then he had to go and ruin it all. In the course of just a few days he suggested that opposition to the President’s Jobs Bill was tantamount to inviting rape, lashed out angrily at reporters, and pined for Republicans to experience rape for themselves. His exact words: “I wish they had some notion of what it was like to be on the other side of a gun, or a 200-pound man standing over you, telling you to submit.” Still not sure what that has to do with the Jobs Bill…

Americans –
We’re not happy. There’s a seldom-discussed measure of general happiness known as the Misery Index. The higher the number, the less happy we are as a nation. Unlike most national indices, this one is really straightforward. Add the inflation rate and unemployment rate together and call it the Misery Index. That number stands today at 13.0, the highest rate since 1983 when Ronald Reagan’s Morning in America was just getting underway. Back then, the economy improved drastically the following year. We can only hope for similar results this time around.

Rick Perry –
A few short months ago Rick Perry was the savior of the Right, the conservative Super Candidate who swooped in to save the Republican Party from a lackluster field of contenders. Now he’s just coming across as an angry George Bush clone with neither the ideas nor the demeanor of a serious candidate. Short on both style and substance, Perry’s once-promising campaign is propped up only by the massive sums of money he has successfully raised.

The Tea Party –
If Occupy Wall Street has accomplished nothing else, it has managed to get itself lumped into the same category with the Tea Party. This is bad news for the Tea Party, which was an actual grass-roots movement with an articulated agenda.

Michele Bachmann –
Michele Bachmann’s campaign has been circling the drain for months. Now her entire New Hampshire campaign staff (all five of them) quit en masse earning her a record third appearance in the Camp Campaign Losers column. They swear it has nothing to do with Bachmann or her chances, just like her top pollster before them and her campaign manager before that. Even if we take them at their collective word, it still isn’t good for the soon-to-be-former GOP candidate.

Congress –
69% of Americans polled by CNN last week said that Congress has “done nothing to address the country’s problems”. Only 28% of respondents gave Congress credit for doing anything at all positive in the last year. Those are bad numbers, even for the perennially unpopular legislature. Although more people blamed the Republicans than the Democrats, it portends badly for incumbents of either party in the next election cycle.

(U.S. Army photo)

The economy is weak. This is just a fact. The unemployment numbers, lack of job growth, and increasing number of foreclosures support this fact. The reason here is that this type of tax increase on the wealthy will prevent them from investing some of that money back into the economy. Instead, they will take that money and invest it overseas in areas of lower taxes. That money will likely never again see American shores. Businesses like General Electric are already doing this. Fewer monetary investments into the United States means less growth which translates to fewer jobs.

The next reason is a slightly more complex one. But it translates to this: it is unfair. It is unfair to discriminate against the wealthy by applying a higher rate of taxes that they have to pay, just like it is unfair to discriminate based on one’s gender or skin color. The tax code is already one of the most discriminatory pieces of legislation ever written. This will just make it that much more so.

Another valid reason is that the tax increases of this nature serve no real purpose. In other words, they aren’t directed specifically to one thing or another. For the government, more money means more waste, more bureaucracy, more everything except the one thing that these tax increases were meant to do — pay down the debt. It is like spending more on your credit cards because your boss gave you a raise instead of paying off your credit card bills with your extra money.

Tax raises also have a tendency to hurt the confidence of investors. Our economy lives and breathes on the confidence of the American people to invest in the country. With confidence comes investment. Investments lead to growth and growth leads to jobs. Tax increases bring this type of confidence down because people lose faith in how the government spends money it can’t print.

Last but not least is that the “predicted” revenue won’t match up to the collected revenue. As the CBO has shown over and over again, the predictions never translate to reality. So the government often thinks that it has more to spend than it really does. Once this idea gets planted, it is impossible to remove. Thus, the borrowing goes up to compensate for the “predicted” revenue. Once again, it circles back exactly to where the trouble began in the first place. Only, the problem itself is still not resolved and the interest rates are still piling up.

Discriminatory tax increases aren’t the answer because they won’t fix the basic problem. Instead, they have the potential to perpetuate the same vicious cycle.

This loss of focus was never more apparent than in Wisconsin when big changes came to the teachers’ unions. It wasn’t the protests or even the fleeing of Democrats that embodied this. It was the blatant disregard for the kids they taught that caused the most damage.

But in reality, the loss of union power began before then. The downward spiral started really plunging as the economy tanked in 2008. It was at this time, there was some really eye-opening information coming out about the unions.

As the unemployment rate skyrocketed, many people were astonished at the attitude of the unions. Their inflexibility at actual compromise was beyond belief. It seemed that they weren’t the least bit interested in saving their own company or preserving the very employees who paid their union dues. Instead of helping their members’  employers and keeping their companies  afloat, they opted for the Federal Government to do the dirty work.

But it wasn’t just the car company unions that have shown a certain measure of inflexibility. There were also the reports about the teacher’s unions in New York, where teachers would sit idle for years while waiting for some convoluted appeal process that no sane individual understood.

Of course, not all the blame can be placed on the unions themselves. The companies and the Federal Government also showed a remarkable lack of foresight in actually signing these insane contracts. While such things as work conditions and safety are certainly valid, it says a lot when a company can’t fire a bad employee because they are bad.

In addition to these contracts, there is another thing that Unions are doing that is diminishing their power base at an astonishing speed. They are spending millions in dues taking sides in politics.

They have forgotten that their employees do not necessarily agree with their political views. They also seem to have forgotten that it takes two sides to pass political legislation. Even in a party dominant government, our Constitution ensures that the minority still has a strong voice.

But their biggest loss of power comes in public opinion. It doesn’t take much to compare the union benefits to an equivalent job in the private sector and see the vast differences. It is in the public union sectors, the ones where taxpayers foot the bill, that the outrage is most evident.

Every time a union chooses benefits over lay-offs, they lose a little more power. Every time the Union does something that defies common sense, they lose a little more. Every time the union refuses to bend, they lose.

The fact is that the unions are responsible for their own demise. It is only when they tune their employees back in that they’ll be able to grasp some of that power back.

So…if we fail to borrow more, or increase our debt—we’re somehow declaring complete inability to pay our debts.  Pardon me, but let’s apply a little Common Sense, as Glenn Beck would say, to this situation:

Suppose you live beyond your means, spending in such a way that you don’t have the funds to cover it all.  Therefore, you borrow—and keep borrowing, as you continue to spend, and spend, and spend….

Now—after a long period of this happening, you tell your family that if something isn’t done, you’ll default, and be unable to cover any future spending—meaning the family’s financial situation will crumble.

Do you really think for a moment that an acceptable solution would be to borrow more?  Do you really think that increasing your debt would increase the creditors’ confidence in you?  Do you really think that, were you to offer this “solution” to your family, they wouldn’t look at you like you’d gone completely insane?

If your answer to the above questions is “No”—and I sincerely hope that it is—then let me ask you this: what would be the most obvious solution to your theoretical family “debt crisis”?

The answer, of course, is to stop spending over your budget—rein in the “urge to splurge”, as it were.  For our country, the obvious solution (which is gaining more and more support among the American people) is a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.  In fact, the House GOP’s “Cut-Cap-and-Balance” bill introduced exactly that—in addition to some nice spending caps and significant budget cuts.  In return, the plan would’ve let President Obama have his debt ceiling increase.  With any luck, it’d have been the last time.

However…Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, in no uncertain terms, that “Cut-Cap-and-Balance” would not see the Senate floor.  And Obama declared he’d never sign it.

House Speaker John Boehner, apparently seeing the writing on the wall, then offered a miniature version of “Cut-Cap-and-Balance”, which would’ve seemingly given Obama and Reid a bit more for their agenda…but would only sustain their bloated government until spring of 2012.  It’s a political maneuver: frankly, the Democrats haven’t helped themselves with that irresponsible refusal of “Cut-Cap-and-Balance”, and were this behavior to be put on display in an election year…

Reid let the new bill in—sort of.  Democrats predictably used the August 2 deadline to their advantage: tweaking Boehner’s bill to better suit them—and shaming the House into agreement.  Obama signed—and the rest is history.

As Reagan would say, there they go again….

Stay tuned next week, for more.

(White House photo by Pete Souza)

Or, Al Franken’s Intellectual Dishonesty, Part MMMCDLXIII

Perhaps the quote which best defines now-Senator Al Franken is a little disclaimer he placed in the intro to his laughably-titled Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.  It goes, “Everything in this book is true.  Either that, or it’s a joke.  If you see something that doesn’t ring true, you’ve probably just missed a hilarious joke, and should blame yourself rather than me.”

Franken’s career as political activist has basically been one “joke” after another.  He’s claimed Bill O’Reilly “lied” about being born in Levittown (he was).  He’s mocked Rush Limbaugh for saying that “75% of all Americans on the minimum wage are teenagers” (actually, Rush said that 75% of jobs earning minimum wage are “teenage entry level”—which the Bureau of Labor Statistics supports).  And of course, don’t forget the “joke” Al pulled on the people of Minnesota, where a significant lead for Norm Colman suspiciously transformed into a lead for Franken, after a series of convenient recounts.  Hilarious.

Now…Franken hasn’t pulled many jokes lately—probably due to Mitch McConnell’s confronting him with a big “This isn’t Saturday Night Live, Al”.  Last week, however…the Joker returned.

When Thomas Minnery, Focus on the Family’s Vice President for Public Policy, testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing concerning the Defense of Marriage Act, Franken accused FOF of misrepresenting an HHS study, which apparently states that “nuclear families” are more beneficial to children than non-nuclear families.  FOF used said study to support its stance in favor of retaining DOMA, reasoning that “nuclear families” implies heterosexual, “mother-father” parents.

After baiting Minnery a bit, Franken “revealed” that the study defines “nuclear” families simply as “two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all the children in the family”.  Franken topped that with: “I frankly don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways.”  (Poor grammar, but, whatever….)

The study’s author later claimed that Franken’s correct; the term “nuclear family” isn’t limited to heterosexual parents.  Naturally, the Left is elated at Al Franken “owning” yet another right-wing “lying liar”—

Hold on a minute.  A simple look at the dictionary changes everything.   Merriam-Websterdefines “nuclear family” as “A family group that consists only of father, mother, and children.”  Sounds pretty heterosexual to me.

Even assuming that the study’s definition is different—that still hardly condemns FOF.  Their only “misread” was in assuming that the study’s author was using the actual, dictionary definition of the term.  Frankly, it begs the question: would HHS have a reason to rewrite terms like that?   Congress should challenge the  study’s author’s trustworthiness, not FOF’s.

While we’re at it…same-sex marriage wasn’t legalized in any part of the U.S. until very recently—too recently for it to have any noticeable effect on children.  Therefore, any damage caused by FOF’s “misread” is minimal, at best.

Honestly…I think McConnell needs to pay Franken another visit.

(Official photo: Al Franken press kit)

The version set forth by Democratic aides: Eric Cantor was owned.  The president was getting ready to wrap things up—and Cantor, shaking in his boots, started “rudely” interrupting the president.  One aide actually said, and I quote, “Obama lit him up. Cantor sat in stunned silence.  It was incredible. If the public saw Obama, he would win in a landslide.”

(Wait a minute: So, was Cantor struck silent by Obama’s brilliance, or was he rudely talking over him?  Ah, well….)

Eric Cantor recounts the events this way: After a long period of deliberation where it became painfully obvious that neither side was going to give any ground, he finally offered a compromise.  Instead of having one big raise of the debt ceiling combine with one big series of spending cuts—why not have a series of bills, each with a relatively small debt ceiling increase and a relatively small series of cuts?  You know…a kind of “we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it” deal—bit by bit, with a scalpel instead of an axe.  That…was what you said you wanted to do, Mr. President, during the 2008 campaign—wasn’t it?  “No axe, where a scalpel will do”?

Of course, as Eric Cantor recounts the events, Obama didn’t like that—not one little bit.  He wanted either tax hikes or less cuts—that, or no debt deal.  The president then started warning Cantor not to call his bluff (he wasn’t), complained that even Ronald Reagan would never sit through such talks (he would—and did), and then declared that he would tell the American people the right way to go.  And finally, Obama stormed out with an “I’ll see you tomorrow.”

The way the aides tell it, Obama was calm and collected, while Cantor was either stunned silent or driven to outbursts—take your pick.  Cantor’s version has it the other way around—he was polite and reasonable, Obama was pushed to the breaking point.  Frankly, we may never know directly which version is right—there were no cameras in the room, as far as we know.  However, let’s recall a previous encounter between the two, during the health-care battle.  Recall that when Cantor and Paul Ryan calmly laid out their case, Obama had an expression on his face that implied mental daggers.  Before that, there was the notorious “I won,” during the stimulus debacle.  I’d say Cantor’s account better fits the pattern.

There’s an old mantra concerning the vast opportunities of the American citizen.  It goes something along the lines of, “Anyone can grow up to be President!”

Our era, however, seems to have deemed that mantra a bit too restrictive.  Nowadays, apparently…you don’t even have to grow up.

(White House photo)