Send this to everyone you know.

Contributed by Mike Walker, Colonel USMC (retired)

All,

In Toronto this weekend, the United States stood alone in arguing for expanding national debt in order to continue governmental stimulus spending.  The other seven world economic powers politely declined to continue down that dangerous road.   One thing we need to credit our G-8 friends for is that they had the character and honesty to warn us that our national debt is a serious problem.  It is the next global economic bubble waiting to burst.

Some see this is chance to humble the United States and knock it off its pedestal for when the bubble bursts, the United States will be in real economic trouble.  Some say the other world powers are positioning themselves by minimizing their debt so as to exploit the situation when the US debt bubble bursts.  In either case, the United States needs to get its debt house in order now, before it is too late.

One odd voice in G-20 did support the increasing of US debt to expand government influence in the economy:  Argentina.  We should certainly look to Argentina in trying to understand the balance between the government and the private sector in creating economic prosperity but we should most certainly not be listening to the current Argentine government under President Cristina Kirchner.

In 1910 Argentina was one of the ten richest countries in the world.  The question then was, who would be most prosperous country in the Americas, Argentina or the United States?

One century later, the answer is in, the United States now has a nominal per capita GDP of $46,381 and is ranked 6th in the world.  Argentina now has a nominal per capita GDP of $7,732 and has fallen to 62^nd in the world.

Why?  In a nutshell, while Argentina embraced a state-centered economy where the government was made the engine for growth and prosperity, the United States adopted a private-sector economic model where free enterprise became the engine for growth and prosperity.  All that is threatened by our national debt.

Either we master our governmental debt or forces beyond anyone's control will have their way.  We must not go the way of Argentina.  The future is now.

Regards,

Mike

What kind of military leader, I'm referring to our "commander-in-chief", would give away the game by setting a concrete date to withdraw our troops? A pandering and short sighted one for sure. If you think that he has problems with the military now, wait until we get closer to the end of 2010 and the first half of 2011...

The obvious adult thing would be to untie the military commander's hands and let them prosecute the war to its conclusion.... does anyone remember Vietnam? Or how Iraq would have gone without the "surge", which Obama panned. Our leaders must be resolute, sure of themselves, their team and their mission.

Update: Looks like General Petraeus has begun changing the rules for engagement...

Now a word from Mike Reagan...

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who until today was the leader of U.S, and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has resigned in the wake of derogatory comments made by the general and his staff during an interview with Rolling Stone magazine.

One can only guess at this point why the general chose to publicly disclose his feelings on an array of topics in an on-the-record capacity to a journalist associated with this particular magazine, not one generally associated with thought-provoking foreign policy pieces. The president chose wisely in quickly replacing Gen. McChrystal with someone with impeccable credentials and a record of accomplishing military objectives that at first glance may seem to be unobtainable.

You may remember this man as Gen. David Petraeus, the former commander of forces in Iraq who crafted, implemented and led the famous surge that ultimately saved countless American and Iraqi lives. Interestingly, this is the same David Petraeus who faced the wrath of the uber-progressive MoveOn.org during that same timeframe. MoveOn launched a controversial ad entitled "Petraeus Betray Us," which drew the wrath of a majority of Americans who felt it wholly inappropriate to attack a United States general who was in the field leading American personnel into battle. At the time, 72 sitting United States senators agreed.

On September 20, 2007, Senator John Cornyn of Texas (R) offered Senate Amendment 2934, which set out to: "express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces." The measure passed overwhelmingly with 72 "yeas" to 25 "nays" and 3 not voting.

It will not surprise many of you to see the likes of Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer or Harry Reid voting against a measure that supported the leader of our armed forces engaged in battle in favor of a progressive grassroots organization. But what should concern many of us is that then-Sen. Obama decided to seek political refuge by not casting a vote. Then-Sen. Joe Biden did the same.

Gen. McChrystal, despite his proud military record, exercised extremely poor judgment in allowing such dismissing comments about the Obama administration to be aired in a public forum. The president's choice to replace him is an understandable decision.

Less understandable is how President Obama can demand a respect he has been inconsistent in offering to others. In 2007, he was unwilling to stand up to the liberal elements of his party in defense of Gen. Petraeus. As he now calls on that same general to rescue him from the political firestorm flowing today and continue the surge in Afghanistan, I express only the greatest admiration for the honor and integrity of David Petraeus.

The war in Afghanistan stands at a crucial point as more American forces pour into the region. While I have nothing but confidence in Gen. Petraeus, the resignation of Gen. McChrystal is an unfortunate loss, and one symptomatic of the tension between the civilian and military dimensions of this effort. As President Obama and Gen. Petraeus move foward in this conflict, I hope the president will begin to take proactive steps to reconcile this divide, listen to the counsel of generals in the field, and increase coordination between all aspects of the fight in Afghanistan. That country, and ours, can afford no less.

---

Mike Reagan, the elder son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is spokesperson for The Reagan PAC (www.thereaganpac.com) and chairman and president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation (www.reaganlegacyfoundation.org). Look for Mike's books and other information at www.Reagan.com. E-mail comments to Reagan@caglecartoons.com.

Read this and pass along. California used to be the wealthiest state. Now California has become a beggar. States like Texas, though they are having to be careful with their budget, fair much better than we in California do and Texas have no state income tax. If they don't have the money, they don't spend it! 

From Mike Walker.

All,

There is talk in Washington about sending even more billions of dollars to California to bail out its government and its employees, ideally teachers, police, and fire fighters.

So why be against that?  Those groups are as quintessentially American as mom, apple pie, and the American flag.  But we all need to be against it because it is the right thing to do as things now stand in Sacramento.  Here is why:

California’s elected officials have done very little to put their financial house in order over the last decade and what they have done is not working.  In the last four months, the elected representatives in Sacramento have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to fix their budget hole.  They substituted responsible governance with inaction based on a wish.  They did little more than hope that there would be a taxation windfall to make the $19 billion deficit problem go away.  That fantasy dissolved into thin air in May.

They were faced with a crisis and they sat on their hands.  Thanks to their failure to act we are now in as bad a hole as we have ever been.  Their new solution?  Lobbying Washington for more American taxpayer dollars.   The federal deficit is growing dangerously large yet the “pols” in Sacramento are spending their time asking for handouts and rearranging their deck chairs on the Titanic.

Do not do it.  No more federal bailouts for California’s government.  Make California take ownership of its problems.  Do not reward this type of malfeasance by pouring ever more American taxpayer dollars down the California government sinkhole.

Is California’s government really a giant financial sinkhole?  You bet. 

Let us look at the facts.  The huge federal stimulus program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) has already committed $55 billion to California, some $13.2 billion of that in direct aid to the California government.  Clearly, the US taxpayer has made a major effort to financially buy time for California’s elected representatives to “fix” state government.  Sacramento has wasted that American sacrifice.

How big is the sinkhole and how useless was ARRA in getting California’s governmental house in order?  Here are the deficit projections for California’s government by the non-partisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) after the federal stimulus monies were sent:

Fiscal year

2009-10           -$26 Billion (covered by cuts, deferrals, borrowing, and ARRA bailout)

2010-11           -$19 Billion deficit

2011-12           -$21 Billion deficit

2012-13           -$23 Billion deficit

2013-14           -$20 Billion deficit

2014-15           -$18 Billion deficit

Why did the ARRA stimulus fail to get the economy going in California and why should the American taxpayer refuse to throw billions of good dollars after bad into the California government sinkhole?  Because ARRA was designed to address a national crisis and California’s government, the chief winner in ARRA funding here, was fiscally dysfunction before, during, and it now appears, will remain fiscally dysfunctional long after the recession in the rest of the country is over.

To get a taste of how futile it is to feed the California government “beast” with US taxpayer dollars, here is trip down memory lane:

Fiscal year

2001-02           California wipes out a $7 Billion reserve and goes $3.4 Billion into the red

2002-03           -$14 Billion deficit is faced; California ends up -$4.5 Billion in the red

2003-04           Sate borrows $10.7 Billion to cover deficits, asks for US taxpayer help.

In November 2006, the LAO was predicting the following government spending deficits for California:

Fiscal year

2006-07           -$4.6 Billion deficit

2007-08           -$2.8 Billion deficit

Remember, all that happened before the Wall Street financial meltdown in late 2007.  This is nothing new for the California government.  It was broken then.  It is broke now.  It will remain broken in the future.  It was economic nonsense to think that funding California’s dysfunctional government would help California’s private sector pull the State out of the recession.  Sadly, we have the double-digit unemployment rate to prove that foolishness.

If Washington really wants to help California, skip the Sacramento sinkhole and give the money to small businesses (up to 2,000 employees or so).  They will put people to work and they will then pay more in taxes year after year which in turn helps teachers, police, and firemen on an ongoing basis.  That is the win-win solution.  That is what will really help California and our Nation.

Mike

Too Big or too Small

John Hinderacker, Powerline

A lot of people are having fun with the idea of Barack Obama's postmodern presidency. Mark Steyn suggests that Obama may be the first president for whom the office just isn't good enough:

Many Americans are beginning to pick up the strange vibe that for Barack Obama, governing America is "an interesting sociological experiment", too. He would doubtless agree that the United States is "the place on Earth that, if I needed one, I would call home." But he doesn't, not really: It is hard to imagine Obama wandering along to watch a Memorial Day or Fourth of July parade until the job required him to. That's not to say he's un-American or anti-American, but merely that he's beyond all that. Way beyond. He's the first president to give off the pronounced whiff that he's condescending to the job - that it's really too small for him, and he's just killing time until something more commensurate with his stature comes along.

And so the Gulf spill was an irritation, but he dutifully went through the motions of flying in to be photographed looking presidentially concerned. As he wearily explained to Matt Lauer, "I was meeting with fishermen down there, standing in the rain, talking..." Good grief, what more do you people want? Alas, he's not a good enough actor to fake it.

I almost choked on my coffee while reading this. It is a fact, we all know it intuitively, Barry knows that he is destined for so much more, maybe Commissar of the Northern Hemisphere. The Germans have an old saying used to describe a person who once was riding high and then is reduced to a meager situation, the person is then "baking small loaves." How will Barry  respond in the near future when he has lost  his political capital and is further marginalized? Bobzhuman...