The economic sky is falling, but not because of puny, across-the-board decreases in previously scheduled spending increases* set to be imposed on March 1st.
Conservatives and Republicans that opposed the economic policies of President Barack Obama enacted into law by his Democrat Congress in 2009-10 aren't Chicken Littles either, since their warnings that the Stimulus, Dodd-Frank, and Obamacare wouldn't produce a recovery worthy of the name proved true. Falling acorns were never a reliable indicator of the relative future position of the Earth's atmosphere. That higher taxes and increasingly oppressive regulations on doing business results in less business, jobs and wealth creation has been proven time and time again, most recently in dramatic fashion in America by Democrats in the 1930s and 1970s, when nary a Bush nor ATM was available to blame.
Yet, Democrats' appetite for ever more taxes, spending and regulation is never sated. Ever. One will search in vain for ANY fiscal year, at least since LBJ was sworn in with the widowed former First Lady by his side, when his party in Congress or the White House didn't advocate spending more than their Republican counterparts, accompanied by the argument that the GOP lacked compassion for the poor and "working people." Even during the Clinton boom years of the late 90s, when Bill and Newt were reforming welfare and balancing budgets, Democrats in Congress regularly charged the GOP with "coming for your children" (and variations thereof impugning the motives of Republicans) via alleged draconian "cuts" that were never more than mere decreases in scheduled increases.
Sound familiar? It should, as the President, in between golf vacations with Tiger Woods and Oscar presentation coaching sessions with Michelle, has issued lists of horrible consequences allegedly unavoidable due to the impending sequester cuts* (see above) totaling less than 2.3% of this year's budget and less than .05% of GDP. It appears that Republican leaders have the votes to pass yet another replacement for sequestration, this time ceding "transfer authority" to the Chief Executive that would empower the President to choose how to allocate authorized spending. Strangely though, President Obama has never asked for such authority to avoid the alleged list of sequester-required horribles except to demand that taxes once again be raised on the "rich."
To the contrary, given the mothballing of the second aircraft carrier that has patrolled the Persian Gulf since soon after the 1979 Islamist revolution in Iran, furloughs mailed to civilian Pentagon employees and the release of inmates awaiting deportation hearings; one might conclude that the President relishes the spectacle of human sequestration pain for use as a political weapon against the GOP more than he desires to prevent further economic suffering.
But what else is new? Since he saved us from a Great Depression aka "the abyss" with TARP soon after his 2009 Inauguration (I know, President Bush and the Democrat Congress paid the ransom required by Wall Street to end the liquidity crisis brought about by the bursting of the sub-prime housing bubble in 2008, but let us indulge Barack's delusions just now for the purpose of this analysis), I have lost count of the number of times he has vowed to "re-focus" on the economy in between fundamentally transforming America.
In between inaugurations, we were told that Obama averted a "crisis" and the threat of a Great Depression; only to have him allege the existence of continuing crises so severe that his proposed legislation had to be passed before the ink was dry so that more impending doom could be avoided. Meanwhile, the actual real crises of unemployment still higher than when he took office, anemic economic growth or worse (GDP fell in fourth quarter of 2012), exploding national debt and burgeoning welfare, disability and food stamp rolls, all go un-addressed. One is almost compelled to conclude that America's re-elected President is satisfied with the "new normal" his policies have wrought; save for the continued availability of sub-$4/gallon gasoline, children not being indoctrinated in federally funded government schools before kindergarten and coal-fired power plants (except for the one that heats the White House).
Finally, we are continually warned that the failure of the Republican House to raise taxes to avoid the sequester will "push us" into a recession. Correct me if I'm wrong, but was a sequester imposed before the last three months of 2012? Is "Bush" another name for the "sequester" that delivered the Great Recession in all but its technical name over the last four years? Yes, the sky is falling on more victims everyday as millions whom the fallen sky has already crushed look on; and will continue to fall, sequester or no sequester, as long as President Obama pursues a "reform" agenda unaffected by poor economic activity. After, all there is no shortage yet of the ink and paper or plastic required to distribute more and more food stamps.
Of course, when (not if) GDP contracts for two consecutive quarters, thus establishing the existence of a conventionally-defined "recession"; Obama will always be able blame it on whatever latest demand of his has been rejected by the GOP. Hopefully, the voters that held Obama and the Democrats blameless last November will be better informed when next they choose who will represent them in Washington, D.C.
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Editor of Hillbilly Politics
Atlanta Law & Politics columnist at Examiner.com
Front page columnist for Liberty Unyielding and Western Free Press